Commentary from Jeff Childers 'Coffee & Covid'

'MedPage Today ran a startling story last week headlined, “Moderna Booster Vaccine Singled Out for Chronic Hives.”

“Chronic” means it doesn’t go away for a long time.

The subheadline explained that it’s not just Moderna, either: “Chronic spontaneous urticaria more frequent when compared with Pfizer's mRNA vaccine.” So, it ALSO happens with Pfizer, just more OFTEN with Moderna, which is just what we’d expect given the higher payload of mRNA in the Moderna shots.
The article cites a Swiss study, where the researchers found that, in patients who developed new-onset chronic spontaneous urticaria, between 81% and 90% of them had recently been jabbed.

The study authors did find a big difference between the two shots. The painful and difficult skin condition arose following boosters in about 2.1 per 100,000 doses of Pfizer’s vaccine, which shot up to 43.9 per 100,000 doses of Moderna’s product.

That’s about one case for each 2,300 Moderna doses.

Try to follow me here. Somebody needs to take all these studies, like the Canadian study showing myocarditis developing in one out of 5,000 doses, and the numbers on new tinnitus cases, plus new Ramsay Hunt cases, stiff-person syndrome, Guillain-Barre, and the rest, and add them all together. I think what we are going to find is that the chance of having SOME kind of serious side effect gets pretty high indeed.
That’s why the CDC is fighting so hard to ignore new adverse events.

I know what the jab-defenders will say about this. They screech, “it’s just an allergic reaction!” Uh huh. So … why is it CHRONIC when the mRNA is supposed to disappear quickly? And, WHAT are people allergic to, exactly? I’d also love to know if they could find jab-spike in the blisters.

Reading the study, I noted with great interest that the mandatory pro-jab language required to get your study published is getting significantly watered-down. These researchers got their study approved for publication with this tepid language:

These data should not discourage patients from being vaccinated. However, guidelines defining the eligibility and dosing for upcoming mRNA-based boosters are needed for patients with CSU after an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine.
It’s no warning, but that language has come a long way from “the vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective.”
And, even these kinds of lukewarm platitudes are unintentionally hilarious. Why SHOULDN’T these data discourage patients from being vaccinated with the mRNA shots? The data sure discourages ME, not least because it is yet another totally-unexpected, baffling side-effect of the “one hundred percent safe and effective vaccines” that are, at this late hour, obviously neither “one hundred percent safe” nor effective at what they were originally intended to do. Which was to end the pandemic, in case you’ve forgotten that part.

Here is a totally insane idea. Don’t cancel me, I’m just ASKING. I’m only a lawyer, not a government regulator angling for an easy, highly-paid job in big pharma. But … should we maybe stop and figure out WHY the jabs are causing chronic, painful skin conditions before we jab anybody else?

Look, I realize that “the science” says we don’t NEED to know why these things happen, because the CDC already said the jabs are one hundred percent safe and effective. Maybe they could explain it to me like I’m five, if they have time between cutting Pfizer public service announcements.'