NEED HELP. My partner wants the vaccine and is breastfeeding our 3 week old baby

[Peatful]

Yes it would be good to find reliable data to back up my claim that shedding is a very real risk. Why do people not believe it when even Pfizer discussed this in their own documents.

View attachment 25912
Also I found this baby photo, her baby had a big rash after mother had phizer vax and was breastfeeding

Look at that poor baby.
I have seen worse out there.
Aborted babies in last term, etc.

The reason I suggested this- are several actually....
But I had a very effective exchange with a relative whom was being socially, vocationally, and relationally pressured into getting vaxxed.

They were truly confused. Buying the fear porn and propaganda.

So I retaliated with my own reality porn or truth porn- some visual propaganda; and it worked.

Non emotional evidence.

 

[Peatness]

Yes it would be good to find reliable data to back up my claim that shedding is a very real risk. Why do people not believe it when even Pfizer discussed this in their own documents.
g

Not sure why there is so much denial about this. I have personal experience of it. No one can ever convince me that it is safe to have close contact with someone who has had these injections, at least in the short term.

 

[Ben.]

Not sure why there is so much denial about this. I have personal experience of it. No one can ever convince me that it is safe to have close contact with someone who has had these injections, at least in the short term.

Short term? As in shortly after the jab?

 

[Peatness]

Short term? As in shortly after the jab?

I should imagine giving it at least a month. There isn't enough data to say for certain.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Didn’t Pfizer express concerns about this in the first phase of the clinical trial?

Nope. That's a rumor that seems to be started by Jim Stone, because he didn't even read (or understand) the Pfizer document he linked to.

He made an assumption that the term "Study Intervention" somehow meant "Vaccinated Person." But if you look in the Pfizer document he linked to, it very clearly defines "Study Intervention" as the vaccine itself, or the placebo.

It makes perfect sense in running any clinical trial that would you want to keep track of accidental needle sticks and direct contact with the substance being studied (like if you broke a vial and directly touched the substance).

Although while Pfizer didn't have any concerns about this theoretical possibility of "shedding," they did indeed have concerns about what might happen if a woman were pregnant or breastfeeding. Literally ANY drug company wants to eliminate that potential risk, so they rarely (if ever) use pregnant or breastfeeding women in their trials.

 

[Peatness]

But if you look in the Pfizer document he linked to, it very clearly defines "Study Intervention" as the vaccine itself, or the placebo.

This is such weak argument. Anyway, based on my personal experience I would not knowingly risk it again. No one can convince otherwise

 

[tankasnowgod]

Yes it would be good to find reliable data to back up my claim that shedding is a very real risk. Why do people not believe it when even Pfizer discussed this in their own documents.

Because Pfizer never discussed the issue of "shedding" in their documents. It's very clear you didn't read the document you claim to.

But again, what you are referring to is not a theoretical "shedding" issue. You should be concerned about the potential transfer/side effects of drugs on breast milk, and the breastfeeding infant. This IS something that Pfizer (and every other company running trials) is concerned about.

If you really want to use Pfizer's documents to identify the risk for infecting breastmilk, stop talking about this mythical and unproven "shedding," and instead quote page 67 of the Pfizer document on Breastfeeding-

https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2020/11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020_Pfizer_BioNTech.pdf

Page 45 gives the definition of "Study Intervention."

 

[tankasnowgod]

This is such weak argument. Anyway, based on my personal experience I would not knowingly risk it again. No one can convince otherwise

Then point to the page in the document where Pfizer talks about "Shedding." I will wait for you to cite your source (I'm guessing you can't).

Without that, you only have your own anecdotal evidence.

 

[ddjd]

Because Pfizer never discussed the issue of "shedding" in their documents. It's very clear you didn't read the document you claim to.

But again, what you are referring to is not a theoretical "shedding" issue. You should be concerned about the potential transfer/side effects of drugs on breast milk, and the breastfeeding infant. This IS something that Pfizer (and every other company running trials) is concerned about.

If you really want to use Pfizer's documents to identify the risk for infecting breastmilk, stop talking about this mythical and unproven "shedding," and instead quote page 67 of the Pfizer document on Breastfeeding-

https://media.tghn.org/medialibrary/2020/11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020_Pfizer_BioNTech.pdf

Page 45 gives the definition of "Study Intervention."

 

[jnklheimer]

i got pretty noticeable endotoxin type reaction after my family members got vaccinated, and i hadnt eaten any irritating foods around that time. anyways, your wife sounds like a dumbass for wanting to risk the baby so she can protect herself from a flu with a 99%+ survival rate

 

[tankasnowgod]

View attachment 25929

Correct. Absolutely NOTHING about "shedding." EVERYTHING to do with transfers of bodily fluid (or direct contact with the vaccine itself)

Anyway, this would be the section I would suggest using, if you wish to convince your girlfriend to delay any vaccination until after she is done breastfeeding.

 

[Tiffany]

It may not be helpful, but I take this stance. If someone dies because I didn't do something risky, I have little guilt. If they die because I do, I'm guilty for eternity.

Are you abstaining from the jab or do you just want the infant to be spared until he's older? If you are abstaining, you must have many reasons. Perhaps convince the partner to listen to and read your sources. You might turn her onto the No Agenda podcast if nothing else. They take clips from news and other sources around the world and dissect them in attempts to get at the truth. They have recently address how VAERS has gone offline and when it came online again the numbers of 0vid-19 reactions were much much lower. VAERS has the right to deny the credibility of a suspected reaction but I don't think they should be removing the reports.

I have been following alternative healers and teachers for many years. I was in the veterinary field as a nurse/technician. I gave it up after my vet told me my foster puppy was most likely struggling because of her puppy vaccines. Prior to this, I wondered why all my vaccinated patients were dying (or nearly so) of parvo virus. There were all sorts of excuses given, the main one being the pet "didn't have enough vaccines". The new me would beg to differ. It didn't take a genius to see that the kittens and puppies growing up on the streets would very often thrive but when we'd scoop them up and vaccinate them, they often became sickly. I don't think I've met a single vaccinated dog over the age of 2 that doesn't have chronic illness. I cannot say there is a connection, but I cannot say there isn't. Since every "vaccine-preventable" disease has effective treatments, I prefer not to vaccinate my pets except as mandated by law. Refer back to my first line. Good Luck.

 

[Peatness]

Then point to the page in the document where Pfizer talks about "Shedding." I will wait for you to cite your source (I'm guessing you can't).

Without that, you only have your own anecdotal evidence.

If the issue is the discrepancy in the word ‘shedding’ as opposed to ‘transmission’ then we are simply arguing semantics. I think skin to skin contact poses a risk of ‘transfer’ of something. I personally experienced this. As I have already said, nothing can convince me otherwise, at the moment.

View attachment 25929

Thank you

 

[Hugh Johnson]

This is such weak argument. Anyway, based on my personal experience I would not knowingly risk it again. No one can convince otherwise

Would you be willing to share some details on your personal experience?

 

[LA]

Very sad. I hope she has a change of heart.

A forum member took the time to copy an article about why not to get the vax and posted it here:

Should you get vaccinated?

I always get vaccinated. I have been fully vaccinated with the Moderna COVID vaccine. However, based on what I now know about the vaccine side effects, current COVID rates, and the success rate of early treatment protocols, the answer I would give today to anyone asking me for advice as to...

raypeatforum.com

He made it easier for more people to read. My husband gave the link to someone who read it and then decided not to get the vax. He told him that the original article (in the link at the bottom of the forum-thread link above) was too "wonky-looking" and he was glad to read it in an easier format.
Best wishes for you, your child, your wife and the safety of your family!

 

[LucyL]

Correct. Absolutely NOTHING about "shedding." EVERYTHING to do with transfers of bodily fluid (or direct contact with the vaccine itself)

Anyway, this would be the section I would suggest using, if you wish to convince your girlfriend to delay any vaccination until after she is done breastfeeding.

This is the section that sparked the shedding concerns. "Receiving" is not inhalation or skin contact.

• A male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.

 

[ddjd]

This is the section that sparked the shedding concerns. "Receiving" is not inhalation or skin contact.

• A male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.

View attachment 25948

No the relevant sections that sparked the shedding concerns are those two big paragraphs highlighted in BLUE! Have you not read those?

Here it is for you again

@Pina is absolutely right. @tankasnowgod is squabbling about a simple matter of wording....

 

[scrubolio]

sometimes you can’t directly appeal to someone with logic. talk about how she really feels, what she is afraid of, what’s the worst outcome she’s conjuring up, etc and agree that they would all be bad scenarios. once she’s in a receptive state of mind and ONLY when she is, can you appeal logically.

 

[tankasnowgod]

If the issue is the discrepancy in the word ‘shedding’ as opposed to ‘transmission’ then we are simply arguing semantics. I think skin to skin contact poses a risk of ‘transfer’ of something. I personally experienced this. As I have already said, nothing can convince me otherwise, at the moment.

Well, I don't believe skin to skin contact transmits anything in regards to these vaccines, so it's pretty clear it's not just semantics. I don't think there is any plausible mechanism of action for this, nor anything in the Pfizer document that would suggest this.

 

[tankasnowgod]

No the relevant sections that sparked the shedding concerns are those two big paragraphs highlighted in BLUE! Have you not read those?

Here it is for you again
View attachment 25951

@Pina is absolutely right. @tankasnowgod is squabbling about a simple matter of wording....

As described above, it's not just a matter of wording. I don't think skin to skin contact with someone who is "vaccinated" transmits anything in regards to the vaccine.

As far as the paragraphs you highlighted, I think it's clear they were talking about direct contact with the vaccine. Eg, a vial breaks and spills on a nurses hand and she reports she is pregnant. Or, a vial breaks on the floor, and she inhales it while cleaning it up.