Thread by @LT3000Lyall

This is an interesting (short) analysis by a Canadian doctor that is worth 8min of your time. I don't know if it's right, but it is a seemingly cogent argument that can't be easily dismissed and demands a robust rebuttal (thread).

bitchute.com/video/mZHA2u71…

The said doctor was concerned after seeing a number of his community patients experience serious side effects. He decided to undertake D-Dimer tests, which is a test to detect blood clots, and found evidence of recent blood clotting in more than 60% of his vaccinated patients.

His argument is that 75% of the mRNA spike proteins are - contrary to design/claims - going intravenous, and ultimately end up attaching to the linings of tiny capillaries (small blood vessels), following which they are attacked by platelets, resulting in blood clots.

In the majority of cases the symptoms/consequences of this may not be detectable in immediate disease. However, this dynamic causes permanent damage to said capillaries, particularly in the brain and heart, and the body is not able to repair this damage.

This would explain the relatively high prevalence of cardiac and neurological side effects being reported. In addition, he argues that the damage is *cumulative*. This would explain why we see more adverse reactions post the second dose, and in patients that have had covid before

This is seriously concerning, and as noted, demands investigation & rebuttal. Covid itself is dangerous, and covid vaccines are effective in protecting against it. But no vaccine that causes unexpected and detectable blood clots in 60% of those receiving it can be called *safe*.

Stories like the below are, fortunately, still fairly rare. However, it would be consistent with the Canadian doctor's analysis. When the vaccine failed to protect against covid, the impact combined with vaccine capillary damage may have caused strokes.

https://twitter.com/RebeccaWeisser/status/1417300060803534872

Also worth observing is that the said doctor, when he raised concerns about high instances of serious side effects in his patients to Canadian health authorities, he was threatened with the loss of his license.

He nevertheless decided to speak up. However, you can rest assured that if people's jobs are on the line, for every one doctor willing to speak up, there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, that have had the same experience and are unwilling to risk their jobs.

If he is right about cumulative and permanent capillary damage, regular booster shots will be an absolute disaster for public health, as would a doomsday scenario of covid evolving to be vaccine resistant, if reinfection compounds the capillary damage caused by the vaccines.

I'm not a doctor and I don't know what's right. But we deserve to have much better information and assurances about the risks than are currently available, including credible and rigorous rebuttal of these concerns, which are currently lacking.

We are relying purely on the trial data which demonstrated efficacy and sufficient short term safety. But we have absolutely no information on the long term effects, and the mRNA vaccines were *never* supposed to go intravenously, and yet there is a lot of evidence they are.

We have no idea what the consequences of this will be, because it hasn't been tested and we don't have any long term track record. Clinical trials are great, but they are *not a 100% guarantee against a major blunder*. Things do get missed. Approved treatments do get recalled.

What I would like to see is far less religious/ideological commitment to vaccines, and a far more open, transparent, and rigorous dialogue, as well as data collection, on the real world evidence that we are seeing. It is being suppressed, not collected, analyzed and discussed.

In our effort to overcome *vaccine hesitancy* by all means (compulsion and censorship), driven by our (understandable) desire to defeat covid, we are increasing the risk of catastrophic mistakes being made.

Also worth emphasizing: *this doctor was not anti vax*. He recommended and gave the vaccine to his patients. His views have been informed by his direct experience and investigations, including the data from the D-Dimer tests. We need to stop this *pro vax*/*anti vax* bollocks.

What we should all be for is *pro evidence*, and pro figuring out what is most likely to be true. Vaccines are not all the same. The diseases they treat are different; the mechanisms of action are different; the safety data is different; and the risk/rewards are different.

Anyone who claims categorically they are *pro vax* or *anti vax* is demonstrating that they don't understand the difference between between them; don't have any nuanced understanding of how they work; and that they are unwilling to change their view in response to new evidence.

I have been pro all vaccines my whole life as I never had any reason to doubt them, and I was pro covid vaccines until a few weeks ago. Now I am more circumspect/undecided *wrt CV19 vaccines only*. Notable is my personal & financial interests actually align w being *pro vaccine*.

I recently moved to Singapore. My girlfriend lives in Indonesia and I haven't seen her in 18mths. Most of my friends & family live outside of Singapore. I want nothing more than this damn pandemic to be over so I can travel again. An end to pandemic would be great for business.

I have absolutely no personal interest/stake in anything other than the vaccines working as promised and ending the pandemic. I want that just as much as anyone. But my best assessment of truth is independent of my own self interest - it's a discipline I've long cultivated.