Zobel said:

---

Happy birthday, and have a nice afternoon. But leaving the pivotal question unanswered here after arbitrarily disqualifying everyone else's evidence is pretty telling.

---

C'mon man. That sucks on a bunch of levels. Vax discussions will never change my high opinion of you.

Awesome. Can you share them?

Zobel said:

---

Awesome. Can you share them?

---

Have them on psoriatic biologics. I am not an ID guy.
And done my friend.

I have a high opinion of you too. This discussion isn't personal at all. For me this is an academic exercise. If I'm going to have an opinion on something I want it to be the absolute best. If I can't have a solid opinion I want to know how far out the error bars need to be.

Being completely open - in my opinion the best available evidence points to the vaccine risk ratio being positive. Papers are still being published finding this. I don't find the argument that bias prevents us from making any good analysis plausible at all. I don't look at this routinely any more because I got bored with my priors being confirmed over and over again. Until I see some contrary evidence that causes me to update my prior on this topic, I'm going to say with pretty high certainty the vaccines are a net good.

But I am always open to new evidence.

Zobel said:

---

Yeah, they have side effects. All medicine has side effects.

Covid has some risk of death, but it's low. Thats not the right question to ask about a vaccine, though.

At some point the whole world can't be biased and compromised. You aren't presenting evidence at all here. Or even arguing against evidence.

It's not just the CDC and NIH or whoever else. Cochrane, many meta analyses, systematic reviews. When you are faced with a mountain of evidence, hand waving it away is irresponsible.

If the best available evidence says x, you need to present why that is not the right answer. Not just say everyone but me is biased. Everyone is biased. That's why we double blind studies and do meta analyses in the first place!

---

Well, what a miracle? You admit the covid vaccines have caused adverse events and death. Wow...

So, a couple of questionss...

1. Why is the covid vaccine the only medicine in modern history that didn't have to disclose to the public that their were side effects?

2. Why are the vaccine makers immune from lawsuit even when their vaccine kills someone?

3. Why did Pfizer want to hide their test results for 75 years?

Advil causes adverse events and deaths.

1. Why is the covid vaccine the only medicine in modern history that didn't have to disclose to the public that there were side effects?
This isn't true.

2. Why are the vaccine makers immune from lawsuit even when their vaccine kills someone?
Because otherwise we wouldn't have vaccines. Same reason the US Government provides insurance backstops to nuclear power plants.

3. Why did Pfizer want to hide their test results for 75 years?
They didn't. You have misunderstood the objection raised by the FDA in redacting the study.

Zobel said:

---

Advil causes adverse events and deaths.

1. Why is the covid vaccine the only medicine in modern history that didn't have to disclose to the public that there were side effects?
This isn't true.

2. Why are the vaccine makers immune from lawsuit even when their vaccine kills someone?
Because otherwise we wouldn't have vaccines. Same reason the US Government provides insurance backstops to nuclear power plants.

3. Why did Pfizer want to hide their test results for 75 years?
They didn't. You have misunderstood the objection raised by the FDA in redacting the study.

---

Bull**** on number 1. All over tv, "make sure to get your vaccine", never a qualifier saying, "it may cause blood clots, myocarditis, pericarditis, neurological disorders, citokine storms, brain fog, body aches for weeks, strokes... oh, and it could kill your ass dead."

Bull**** on the other 2, but 1 is the most bull*****

I suspect the entity you need to take that up with is the FDA and their rules on commercial advertising. But commercials don't prove your point one way or another. There is public risk disclosure for the vaccine both when it was under EUa and after approval.

You seem upset. You ok?

Zobel said:

---

I suspect the entity you need to take that up with is the FDA and their rules on commercial advertising. But commercials don't prove your point one way or another. There is public risk disclosure for the vaccine both when it was under EUa and after approval.

You seem upset. You ok?

---

I'm fine, listening to this awesome Aggie baseball game. I'm just amazed you can keep running interference and lying for that poison vaccine.

No other medication can advertise on tv without disclosing side effects. And even then they can be sued if their product hurts people.

This garbage was first sold as "get the vaccine and you won't get sick".

A more honest statement would have been "get the vaccine, you will still probably get covid, and the vaccine itself could kill you or cause you life-changing harm, but we're pfizer and we want your money (that the government is taking from you to give to us), and if you die, tough luck."

Like I said, I suspect the difference is in the FDA's commercial rules and who is running the spot.

I'm not a liar, and I think you oughta apologize.

I realize you've been all in on COVID and the vaccines from the beginning. I've purposefully not interacted with you on any of this because you're just going to double down and it's less than productive. So this will be my only response to you on this topic.

Quote:

---

this is painful, fractally wrong. there's no cynical limitation. it is an open access passive surveillance tool. no one was sitting around saying - hey we could have a better way to do this, but let's build a crappy tool instead. it is working as intended, but the indicator for a problem is not volume of reports into VAERS.

---

As I said, if I wanted to be cynical, I could point out that the "nations early warning system" (definition per the CDC) is designed so that even even when it's working, people like you can dismiss it. And we will just have to agree to disagree. When suddenly the "nations early warning system" is suddenly being overwhelmed with reports...a reasonable person would look at that and be concerned.

Quote:

---

begging the question and failure of basic logic. we don't know testing was insufficient (in fact there was a much larger sample size in the trials than normal). "the science is newer" does not follow that VAERS reports go up or even that problems increase. and medical establishment can lie all they want, does not change the number of entries into VAERS.

---

Failure of basic logic? No. They are perfectly reasonable assumptions.

We know the average time for a vaccine trials is 5-10 years. Nobody disputes this fact
We know that MRNA technology for vaccines was only in the trial period prior to widespread use in humans for COVID 19. Nobody disputes this fact.
We know the claims made by our medical establishment were false. Nobody disputes this fact.

So we have a new vaccine technology that was rushed through vaccine trials. Our "medical leadership" was either willfully aware and lied (fauci did) or unaware and lied to about the efficacy of these vaccines.

So again, that VAERS reports are up should not be a surprise to anybody using reason, especially given all the major side effects that we all know these things had. The more surprising thing is that, given these are not offering any material protection at this point, there hasn't been a pause to figure out what is going on with them.

Zobel said:

---

Like I said, I suspect the difference is in the FDA's commercial rules and who is running the spot.

I'm not a liar, and I think you oughta apologize.

---

I'll think about it. Honestly, I will think about apologizing.

But I bet i could go back in history and find where you denied that anyone got hurt or died from covid. That's why I was so surprised when you finally admitted it above. You've been pushing these vaccines as damn near perfect medicine since you started posting about them.

And they are so obviously flawed. We as the public were so obviously lied to by the Pharma companies that have probably made $100 billion+ from these unsafe, ineffective trash vaccines.

I think people like you should apologize for pushing a horrible vaccine that has killed people and maimed them for life (one of them is Ellis Wyatt, a Texags poster who was forced to get vaxed or lose his job). I think you should apologize for "misleading" people about ivermectin.

You obviously will probably never apologize for those things, even though, to me, it is blatantly obvious how wrong you are.

I mean, on this thread, you're arguing with a practicing doctor about the vaccine because he's seen things and heard things that don't make sense about the vaccine. He's not saying what you want, so he has to be wrong, in your mind.

If you're not lying, you're incredibly arrogant. If this is true, I apologize for calling you a liar.

And back when I first relayed my covid encounter, it was people like you who downplayed my experience as meaningless, because "ivermectin is a placebo". I'll admit, that made me upset.

You see, I watched Pierre Kory testify that ivermectin cured covid, so I went and got 5 tubes of it at Tractor Supply.

Covid hit me HARD. I felt terrible, and was really worried. Covid kills people, I never doubted this. Imagine, just imagine how incredible it felt for me to wake up about 12 hours after feeling sick, 11 hours after taking ivermectin, and feeling so much better.

It was an amazing feeling to be fearing possible death, then taking ivermectin, then feeling so much better.

Now, imagine me wanting to share the great news with everybody how ivermectin could help them, and being greeted by people like you saying, "it doesn't work, it's a placebo, do you have worms?"

That was not fun. Nothing explains me getting better so fast other than ivermectin, unless you want to argue that it was acetaminophen that did it. Yet, you refuse to listen and won't even accept my experience as possible that ivermectin is effective, despite the fact that my story is not unique.

You'll scream "anecdotal". Yes, anecdotal. I lived it. Hundreds of thousands of the same anecdote tell a story, though. How you and others continue to arrogantly reject all those stories is amazing to me.

So yes, I'll never forget the debacle that covid and the vaccines caused and I will always lump you in with that debacle. Take that however you want. I wish you no harm, I just don't want to relive what we all went through. And if we don't acknowledge all the lies we were all told during covid, they'll just tell those lies again.

I'll be honest I'm not gonna read all that. Happy to have a discussion but I don't have much patience for being insulted or reading rants.

You go find whatever it is you think you'll find. Good luck.

Quote:

---

As I said, if I wanted to be cynical, I could point out that the "nations early warning system" (definition per the CDC) is designed so that even even when it's working, people like you can dismiss it. And we will just have to agree to disagree. When suddenly the "nations early warning system" is suddenly being overwhelmed with reports...a reasonable person would look at that and be concerned.

---

this is ridiculous. no one is dismissing anything. VAERS works - it detected the myocarditis problem. the idea that there's some insidious effort to create a fake warning system that can be disregarded at will is absurd, especially considering that it actually has a demonstrated history of working.

it was never "overwhelmed" with reports. there was in increase in reports. the people who monitor that system did what they do, and analyzed for safety signals. again, the raw number of reports in and of itself means nothing. everything from sore arm to died in a car accident the next day to silly things like "gained spiderman powers" goes in. you have to do analysis to get anything out.

i told you two real, significant reasons total number of reports went up. the EUA required mandatory reporting for a period after vaccination for ANYTHING that could possibly be a vaccine related event (e.g., death or hospitalization). so right away you have a significant source of data input for this vaccine which wasn't present on any previous one. the second is that there was a great deal of public discussion about VAERS, which means people who got this vaccine were more likely to make a report - even of something minor - than previous vaccines.

Quote:

---

We know the average time for a vaccine trials is 5-10 years. Nobody disputes this fact
We know that MRNA technology for vaccines was only in the trial period prior to widespread use in humans for COVID 19. Nobody disputes this fact.
We know the claims made by our medical establishment were false. Nobody disputes this fact.

---

this is a different set of claims than what you said before.

the average time for a vaccine trial being 5-10 years does not demonstrate that testing was insufficient.
MRNA's relative time in trial does not demonstrate that testing was insufficient.

and again, claims by medical establishment being false doesn't mean VAERS reporting "should be higher".

these are just as much failures of basic logic as before.

Quote:

---

that VAERS reports are up should not be a surprise to anybody using reason, especially given all the major side effects that we all know these things had

---

this is circular logic. how do you know they had side effects? because vaers reports are up. why are vaers reports up? because they have side effects. does not follow.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

No offense to any of yall, but it's really frustrating when a basic tool of my trade becomes so vehemently political that it's hard to have an intelligent conversation about it. Even with other medical professionals. I'm just trying to imagine everyone having these deep, visceral, emotional responses to lisinopril or colonoscopies.

Everything in medicine has a use, and everything in medicine causes harm. The whole point of being a doctor is figuring out when the benefits will probably outweight the harms. The situation is also fluid, and the risks/benefits of the matter change from month to month on anything undergoing intensive research, like HIV, cancer, or COVID. COVID vaccine = GOOD, or COVID vaccine = BAD is smooth brain thinking, just like everything else infected with the politics mind virus. The COVID vaccine was fantastically useful at one point, and it's barely useful at all now. The COVID vaccine prevented probably 100,000 deaths. It also probably caused a lot of myocarditis and thromboembolism. There are no unadultered goods in medicine, not even the "conventional vaccines". We deal in poisons and wounds. But when we use the right poison or the right wound in the right situation, we can do things that would have seemed miraculous at any other time in human history. But every poison and every wound has a potential to go wrong, and that's just the price of doing business.

---

Exactly. You said it much better than me.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

No offense to any of yall, but it's really frustrating when a basic tool of my trade becomes so vehemently political that it's hard to have an intelligent conversation about it. Even with other medical professionals. I'm just trying to imagine everyone having these deep, visceral, emotional responses to lisinopril or colonoscopies.

Everything in medicine has a use, and everything in medicine causes harm. The whole point of being a doctor is figuring out when the benefits will probably outweight the harms. The situation is also fluid, and the risks/benefits of the matter change from month to month on anything undergoing intensive research, like HIV, cancer, or COVID. COVID vaccine = GOOD, or COVID vaccine = BAD is smooth brain thinking, just like everything else infected with the politics mind virus. The COVID vaccine was fantastically useful at one point, and it's barely useful at all now. The COVID vaccine prevented probably 100,000 deaths. It also probably caused a lot of myocarditis and thromboembolism. There are no unadultered goods in medicine, not even the "conventional vaccines". We deal in poisons and wounds. But when we use the right poison or the right wound in the right situation, we can do things that would have seemed miraculous at any other time in human history. But every poison and every wound has a potential to go wrong, and that's just the price of doing business.

---

EOT

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

No offense to any of yall, but it's really frustrating when a basic tool of my trade becomes so vehemently political that it's hard to have an intelligent conversation about it. Even with other medical professionals. I'm just trying to imagine everyone having these deep, visceral, emotional responses to lisinopril or colonoscopies.

Everything in medicine has a use, and everything in medicine causes harm. The whole point of being a doctor is figuring out when the benefits will probably outweight the harms. The situation is also fluid, and the risks/benefits of the matter change from month to month on anything undergoing intensive research, like HIV, cancer, or COVID. COVID vaccine = GOOD, or COVID vaccine = BAD is smooth brain thinking, just like everything else infected with the politics mind virus. The COVID vaccine was fantastically useful at one point, and it's barely useful at all now. The COVID vaccine prevented probably 100,000 deaths. It also probably caused a lot of myocarditis and thromboembolism. There are no unadultered goods in medicine, not even the "conventional vaccines". We deal in poisons and wounds. But when we use the right poison or the right wound in the right situation, we can do things that would have seemed miraculous at any other time in human history. But every poison and every wound has a potential to go wrong, and that's just the price of doing business.

---

Sounds good, but it's bull*****

This vaccine was created through politics.

In order to allow the Emergency Use Authorization of a relatively untested vaccine using a technology that had not been successful in any other vaccine yet, all other possible treatment paths had to be stopped or restricted. The "rulebook" was thrown out the window. A charitable explanation would be that this was necessary because the virus was so deadly that all of humanity was at risk. What we've learned since then is that it was a massive money-grab.

I am OK with medicine being profitable; that is the only way to ensure no stagnation in medical developments. This Covid garbage, however was way beyond simple profit.

"no unadulterated goods" may be true, but the level of crap that was allowed, and the vilification of any contrarian viewpoints was, in my opinion, criminal.

Vaccines may be a "basic tool of your trade", but in this case, this vaccine, was politicized from the very start and was more a financial and control tool than a medical tool.

It not only caused physical and financial harm, it caused broad societal harm. There are family relationships throughout the country which may never recover.

I'm sorry that this vaccine damaged your industry, but that wasn't the only thing it damaged.

Zobel said:

---

Agree with this as well. The dumbest thing about COVID treatments is that any of them became political at all.

---

It was happening before this, but once they mandated an unnecessary (for most people) vaccine, there was no going back.

"Not needed" is kind of difficult to grapple with. No vaccine is "needed" strictly is it? They all work off of some kind of risk pivot, both at a societal and an individual level.

RAB91 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

last two posts perfect examples. taking for granted that the vaccines were bad and the whole thing was cynical, political, etc. to the point that there is really no avenue for discussion.

the path both of y'all are going down has nothing to do with the merits of the vaccines.

---

No offense, but your post made a bad assumption from the start. I don't think the original vaccine was bad. I just think it wasn't needed for 95-98% of the population and because of that should never have been mandated. I had some relatives who fell in the higher risk category (age or prior conditions), and was good with them getting it. So again, not anti-vax, just anti-mandate.

---

Kinda like trying to reason with a brick wall isn't it?

Zobel said:

---

"Not needed" is kind of difficult to grapple with. No vaccine is "needed" strictly is it? They all work off of some kind of risk pivot, both at a societal and an individual level.

---

Sounds like a confidence level…

RAB91 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

last two posts perfect examples. taking for granted that the vaccines were bad and the whole thing was cynical, political, etc. to the point that there is really no avenue for discussion.

the path both of y'all are going down has nothing to do with the merits of the vaccines.

---

No offense, but your post made a bad assumption from the start. I don't think the original vaccine was bad. I just think it wasn't needed for 95-98% of the population and because of that should never have been mandated. I had some relatives who fell in the higher risk category (age or prior conditions), and was good with them getting it. So again, not anti-vax, just anti-mandate.

---

Do you understand that vaccine immunity often requires community uptake to be truly effective? And that the Covid infection itself is more likely to cause myocarditis, etc, than the vaccine in otherwise healthy people?

Zobel said:

---

• the COVID vaccines are amazing pieces of technology and are safer and more effective than other vaccines in regular use today (~90% confidence)
• public messaging during COVID was awful (100% confidence)
• the CDC had one job and largely bungled it (100% confidence)
• the FDA moves way too slowly most of the time but maybe at the right speed for COVID (~70% confidence)
• mandating vaccines has a political history in the united states up to and including a supreme court decision (100% confidence)
• ...but i disagreed with mandates (~90% confidence) particularly the weaponization of the OSHA general duty clause (200% confidence)
• lockdowns also have precedent, and were mostly following decades old plans that were generally though to be the best approach (100% confidence)
• lockdowns probably had a small positive epidemic related impact (~60% confidence)
• ...but they probably were not worth the economic impact, particularly beyond the first few weeks/months (~85% confidence)
• most of what people think they know about political football topics like ivermectin, HCQ, and the mRNA vaccines is really low quality junk gathered up from social media (100% confidence)
• ...but that's mostly not their fault because the messaging by public agencies made this infinitely worse, and it takes a lot of time and effort to "see behind" media and find, read, and understand the actual studies (100% confidence)

---

Quote:

---

means that the push of the vaccines was NOT health related.

---

I learned early on that the decisions coming out of the CDC were not health related when they didn't take the ONE opportunity in the past 50 years to get Americans to lose weight. They knew Covid affected the obese more than the healthy and could have scared Americans into losing weight in addition to the masks, 6 ft. separation, work from home, and the slew of other "solutions" they came up with. Yet they didn't.

Huh? Weight loss is far more complicated than just scaring people enough to diet. Even if that worked, the pace of weight loss would make no difference to mortality outcomes given the rate of the spread of Covid.