Sapper Redux said:
Are judges now issued medical degrees with their robes?
Of course not; but they certainly rely expert evaluations and objective data to come to conclusions... the jab doesn't prevent the spread; it's not a 'vaccine'. Clear cut.
Get the Vax
71,594 Views |
709 Replies |
Last: 2 mo ago by The Hefty Lefty
Of course not; but they certainly rely expert evaluations and objective data to come to conclusions... the jab doesn't prevent the spread; it's not a 'vaccine'. Clear cut.
I think the above line is what got everyone's attention.Quote:
Addressing the merits, the panel held that the district court misapplied the Supreme Court's decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in concluding that the Policy survived rational basis review. Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to preventing the spread of smallpox. Here, however, plaintiffs allege that the vaccine does not effectively prevent spread but only mitigates symptoms for the recipient and therefore is akin to a medical treatment, not a "traditional" vaccine. Taking plaintiffs' allegations as true at this stage of litigation, plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively "prevent the spread" of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobson does not apply.
The argument is that the mRNA vaccine is for personal protection only and not for the benefit of the larger community and is therefore not related to the Jacobson Small Pox decision cited in earlier arguments
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf
People are citing the case for the proposition that the 9th Circuit found that the Covid vax isn't a vaccine. The 9th Circuit has made no findings and reached no conclusions, other than that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled their case to survive a motion to dismiss.Windy City Ag said:I think the above line is what got everyone's attention.Quote:
Addressing the merits, the panel held that the district court misapplied the Supreme Court's decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in concluding that the Policy survived rational basis review. Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to preventing the spread of smallpox. Here, however, plaintiffs allege that the vaccine does not effectively prevent spread but only mitigates symptoms for the recipient and therefore is akin to a medical treatment, not a "traditional" vaccine. Taking plaintiffs' allegations as true at this stage of litigation, plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively "prevent the spread" of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobson does not apply.
The argument is that the mRNA vaccine is for personal protection only and not for the benefit of the larger community and is therefore not related to the Jacobson Small Pox decision cited in earlier arguments
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/07/22-55908.pdf
Yeah . . . . the court clearly states that " Taking plaintiffs' allegations as true at this stage of litigation,"
Jabin
Joined:
Mar 4, 2021
Posts:
4,177
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:
Are judges now issued medical degrees with their robes?
LOL!!
No, medical degrees are only given to actual doctors AND moderators of youtube, facebook, tiktok and instagram.
Then those genius moderators remove actual doctors from the platform when those doctors talk about how ivermectin works against covid or the covid vaccine is harming people.
The irony of the above post is monumental.
Wow! This is amazing. Dr. David Martin said that the 9th Circuit Court ruling opens the door to lawsuits. Let's hope this becomes the new trend. 🔥 pic.twitter.com/bMTRii5ee1
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) June 18, 2024
I believe an actual Covid vaccine was developed and used in poorer countries because it did not require refrigeration. But my understanding is that Pfizer used its political influence to stop it from being widely marketed in the U.S.
Similar to how Pfizer had 200 lobbyists working in D,C. against zero for natural immunity.
I'm so glad Sweden had the guts to tell WHO "NO" - that provided data that is now better understood.
Similar to how Pfizer had 200 lobbyists working in D,C. against zero for natural immunity.
I'm so glad Sweden had the guts to tell WHO "NO" - that provided data that is now better understood.
Surely those doctors have strong research to back up their claims and not poorly/fraudulently designed studies that are little more than embarrassing ploys for attention. Surely.snowdog90 said:Sapper Redux said:
Are judges now issued medical degrees with their robes?
LOL!!
No, medical degrees are only given to actual doctors AND moderators of youtube, facebook, tiktok and instagram.
Then those genius moderators remove actual doctors from the platform when those doctors talk about how ivermectin works against covid or the covid vaccine is harming people.
The irony of the above post is monumental.
yeah its in the paper that defended six feet and masks
Old Army has gone to hell.
Sapper Redux said:Surely those doctors have strong research to back up their claims and not poorly/fraudulently designed studies that are little more than embarrassing ploys for attention. Surely.snowdog90 said:Sapper Redux said:
Are judges now issued medical degrees with their robes?
LOL!!
No, medical degrees are only given to actual doctors AND moderators of youtube, facebook, tiktok and instagram.
Then those genius moderators remove actual doctors from the platform when those doctors talk about how ivermectin works against covid or the covid vaccine is harming people.
The irony of the above post is monumental.
Firstly, your posts are laughable. You insinuate that, of course it's okay that platform moderators ban doctors from their platforms, even though they have no medical knowledge at all.
Secondly, OF COURSE the doctors prescribing ivermectin had research and studies to back up their claims. That's why they were saying "ivermectin works". None of those studies were peer-reviewed because there was no time for peer-review in the middle of a pandemic. These doctors were actively treating covid patients and seeing great results with ivermectin and they were trying to let the world know about it.
But that went against the plan. Pfizer and Moderna and all their investors had to make billions in profits, so ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and any other generic drug that might help against covid had to be destroyed so that the "vaccines" could be mandated. And the doctors trying to save lives using these cheap drugs also had to be destroyed.
So they banned even the mention of ivermectin, which is maybe the safest medicine in history. By contrast, Fauci okayed the use of Remdesivir for covid patients. There were NO STUDIES showing that Remdesivir worked against covid, but Remdesivir costs about $3000 a dose. So they were fine with prescribing Remdesivir with no research and the result was that thousands of people died of renal failure after taking Remdesivir.
Again, I got a severe case of covid. I took ivermectin, the paste you get at Tractor Supply. I was 90% better within 12 hours. Imagine that, it worked exactly like the doctors said it would.
The fact that you still defend all of this even after knowing how much we were lied to tells me a lot about you.
Here's Dr. Pierre Kory citing some of the research that was ignored and silenced by our government and people like you.
At some point you have to stick with the larger research model that does not always work but in general has been a great thing for the progress of humanity.
Ivermectin has failed to show efficacy in study after study after study. It is not a conspiracy, it just something that doesn't work they way you hope.
And that is why Dr. Kory lost his license with the ABIM and had research papers retracted due to false data.
Ivermectin has failed to show efficacy in study after study after study. It is not a conspiracy, it just something that doesn't work they way you hope.
And that is why Dr. Kory lost his license with the ABIM and had research papers retracted due to false data.
One Ivermectin backer died from the side effects of taking it and there are plenty of side effects from standard doseage. so I am not sure it is the safest medicine in history.Quote:
So they banned even the mention of ivermectin, which is maybe the safest medicine in history.
Quote:
the jab doesn't prevent the spread
narrator: it did
My understanding is that the Covid that came out of China has mutated
to where shots are rarely needed any longer - the virus is weak now???
to where shots are rarely needed any longer - the virus is weak now???
Zobel said:Quote:
the jab doesn't prevent the spread
narrator: it did
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-30992100768-4/fulltext
Quote:
The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others, resulting in a "pandemic of the unvaccinated". Yet, the demonstration of COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients, requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA. Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. A recent investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of an outbreak of COVID-19 in a prison in Texas showed the equal presence of infectious virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Similarly, researchers in California observed no major differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx, even in those with proven asymptomatic infection. Thus, the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered, and that vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated populations.
This is a correspondence letter, not a study.
the existence of breakthrough infections doesn't demonstrate that vaccines do not reduce transmission.
It also doesn't follow that viral presence in PCR test corresponds to infectiousness.
At any rate we need to read the guys letter at face value. His argument is not that we shouldn't vaccinate people, but that we shouldn't stop doing all the other mitigating efforts because we have vaccinated people.
Kudos for trying to go to the literature and being data driven. Let's keep going in that vein.
When we look at studies that examine this question we find in fact that the vaccines do, in fact, reduce transmission. Here are some I linked earlier.
The indirect effect of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination on healthcare workers' unvaccinated household members
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28825-4
Indirect Protection by Reducing Transmission: Ending the Pandemic With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccination
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/9/2/ofab259/6278371
This one has a really nice table for total infection risk. Table 1.
In RCTs it shows 61%, 55.7%, 65.5% reduction in all infections (as opposed to symptomatic infections)
In Observational studies it shows 62% to 91% reduction in infections. Sample sizes as high as 373,403.
Their conclusion begins:
So the vaccines reduce transmission when looking at infection (ie PCR positive test) as well as symptomatic illness.
the existence of breakthrough infections doesn't demonstrate that vaccines do not reduce transmission.
It also doesn't follow that viral presence in PCR test corresponds to infectiousness.
At any rate we need to read the guys letter at face value. His argument is not that we shouldn't vaccinate people, but that we shouldn't stop doing all the other mitigating efforts because we have vaccinated people.
Kudos for trying to go to the literature and being data driven. Let's keep going in that vein.
When we look at studies that examine this question we find in fact that the vaccines do, in fact, reduce transmission. Here are some I linked earlier.
The indirect effect of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination on healthcare workers' unvaccinated household members
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28825-4
Quote:
Here, we show that mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infections not only among vaccinated individuals but also among unvaccinated adult household members in a real-world setting.
Indirect Protection by Reducing Transmission: Ending the Pandemic With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccination
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/9/2/ofab259/6278371
This one has a really nice table for total infection risk. Table 1.
In RCTs it shows 61%, 55.7%, 65.5% reduction in all infections (as opposed to symptomatic infections)
In Observational studies it shows 62% to 91% reduction in infections. Sample sizes as high as 373,403.
Their conclusion begins:
Quote:
In sum, the data we have reviewed provide compelling evidence that SARS-CoV-2 vaccination results in a substantial reduction in transmission risk, although the exact magnitude of overall transmission reduction is yet to be fully characterized. As a result, the vaccines have much greater potential to decrease population morbidity and mortality than they would in a situation where they only prevented symptomatic disease.
So the vaccines reduce transmission when looking at infection (ie PCR positive test) as well as symptomatic illness.
Zobel said:
the existence of breakthrough infections doesn't demonstrate that vaccines do not reduce transmission.
I didn't say reduce; I said prevent.
The effectiveness of stopping transmission was decent against alpha; but declined significantly against delta and omicron variants. The vaccine was NOT effective at preventing transmission. You changed the goal posts in 2 replies.
There is no doubt that the MRNA shot did reduce Covid infections when it first came out, no doubt that the constant requests for people who had already had the shot to take boosters were due to the virus mutating, and (in my opinion) no doubt that Covid is now less a threat than flu...but I'm not a medical pro so am more like asking than stating facts.
If we're grading it on a strict binary scale then yes, it gets a zero, along with every other vaccine ever made.
Meanwhile back in reality it reduces infections by 60-90%. Why does that not meet your criterion?
For reference that range straddles the effectiveness of condoms at preventing pregnancy. Are you willing to say condoms don't prevent pregnancies?
Meanwhile back in reality it reduces infections by 60-90%. Why does that not meet your criterion?
For reference that range straddles the effectiveness of condoms at preventing pregnancy. Are you willing to say condoms don't prevent pregnancies?
Zobel said:
If we're grading it on a strict binary scale then yes, it gets a zero, along with every other vaccine ever made.
Meanwhile back in reality it reduces infections by 60-90%. Why does that not meet your criterion?
For reference that range straddles the effectiveness of condoms at preventing pregnancy. Are you willing to say condoms don't prevent pregnancies?
Condoms are 97-98% effective "when used properly".
And there are true vaccines that can effectively eliminate transmission from d viruses. This shot is underwhelming.
SpreadsheetAg said:
Condoms are 97-98% effective "when used properly".
And there are true vaccines that can effectively eliminate transmission from d viruses. This shot is underwhelming.
Ok - some studies have found with huge sample sizes, like n=300,000, that the vaccine reduced infection by 91%. No doubt this number varies over time based on prevalent strain vs vaccine version. If I had to out a number on efficacy based on the papers the total is probably around 70% efficacy at reducing infections and higher than that at reducing symptomatic illness.
But don't move the goalposts. They either prevent or they don't prevent. Even when used properly condoms don't prevent all pregnancies.
These aren't gotcha questions - there should be a reasonable line where we say, yeah this works. And it shouldn't be binary. I don't have an issue saying condoms work even though mentally I know there is an asterisk there and they are not perfect.
Similarly the vaccines do prevent transmission, probably not as well as condoms prevent pregnancies. Again, 60-90% reduction.
What does "effectively prevent" transmission mean? What percentage? And what vaccine does that for infections? - not symptomatic illness mind you, infections.
Windy City Ag said:One Ivermectin backer died from the side effects of taking it and there are plenty of side effects from standard doseage. so I am not sure it is the safest medicine in history.Quote:
So they banned even the mention of ivermectin, which is maybe the safest medicine in history.
Link?
Ivermectin is safer than aspirin. It is an OTC drug in many countries. I don't believe your story about somebody dying from taking it.
You and all Ivermectin naysayers will never be able to explain this...
Why was ivermectin, which is incredibly safe, demonized by the very people that made tons of money from a vaccine that didn't work and actually killed people when at the same time, they were giving Remdesivir, a terribly expensive drug that didn't work and actually killed people?
They weren't concerned about safety, OBVIOUSLY. They hurt and killed people with a garbage vaccine and Remdesivir. They made lots of money though, which is why they demonized ivermectin. Safety had nothing to do with it.
The action taken both for and against remdesivir worked in exactly the same mechanisms as the actions taken for and against ivermectin. The only difference is that when strong evidence came out against remdesivir after early promising results no doctor managed to build a conspiracy theory cult of personality around it and everyone moved on with their lives.
At some point it's fitting that you're arguing about ivermectin on a religion forum because at this point it is a faith movement, not science.
At some point it's fitting that you're arguing about ivermectin on a religion forum because at this point it is a faith movement, not science.
https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/coronavirus-2-deaths-linked-ivermectin-new-mexico-officials-say/5SZ55BRSFRDGTLJZ7ODKGZP6XI/
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/04/1034217306/ivermectin-overdose-exposure-cases-poison-control-centers
The Ivermectin backer was Danny Lemoi. He is atypical in that he had been fighting Lyme's disease. He died due to heart inflammation that presented after he started ivermectin. Heartv complications are the primary side effect of this drug.
https://www.unmc.edu/healthsecurity/transmission/2023/03/14/an-ivermectin-influencer-died-now-his-followers-are-worried-about-their-own-severe-symptoms/
Now these folks could have been taking abnormal doses but there are clearly data points showing it is not 100% safe.
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/04/1034217306/ivermectin-overdose-exposure-cases-poison-control-centers
The Ivermectin backer was Danny Lemoi. He is atypical in that he had been fighting Lyme's disease. He died due to heart inflammation that presented after he started ivermectin. Heartv complications are the primary side effect of this drug.
https://www.unmc.edu/healthsecurity/transmission/2023/03/14/an-ivermectin-influencer-died-now-his-followers-are-worried-about-their-own-severe-symptoms/
Now these folks could have been taking abnormal doses but there are clearly data points showing it is not 100% safe.
Zobel said:
The action taken both for and against remdesivir worked in exactly the same mechanisms as the actions taken for and against ivermectin. The only difference is that when strong evidence came out against remdesivir after early promising results no doctor managed to build a conspiracy theory cult of personality around it and everyone moved on with their lives.
At some point it's fitting that you're arguing about ivermectin on a religion forum because at this point it is a faith movement, not science.
Holy ****, you're one to talk. You worship your worthless vaccine to this day and it never worked.
How many people did ivermectin kill?
How many people did remdesivir kill?
Why was remdesivir allowed, even pushed, with no research available showing its efficacy?
Why was ivermectin demonized from day 1, even before their were "studies" that said it didn't work?
I don't need faith to know that ivermectin works. I got covid. I felt horrible - it's as sick as I've ever felt. I took ivermectin and acetaminophen. 12 hours later, I felt MUCH better.
I thank God for the nurse practitioner who told me about ivermectin. I had never even heard of it. She said the paste was fine, wouldn't hurt me, just use my weight to take the correct amount. So when I got covid, I already had ivermectin, took it immediately, felt better in hours.
Sadly, that nurse practitioner, who was very healthy, ended up taking your vaccine months later. Within a week of taking the vaccine, her sitting heart rate went up to 187. So she went to the ER and now has a cardiologist.
The vaccine killed MANY people.
Remdesivir killed MANY people.
Ivermectin killed NO people.
look, I'm glad you've found solace in your faith. far be it from me to try to talk you out of it.
you don't care about evidence, you ignore when people answer your questions. all you want to do is proselytize and tell people about the good things ivermectin has done for you. that's faith, and there's no reasoning with it.
you don't care about evidence, you ignore when people answer your questions. all you want to do is proselytize and tell people about the good things ivermectin has done for you. that's faith, and there's no reasoning with it.
Pot meet kettle
tu quoque is ad hominem. you should do better.
I have answered every single one of your questions, you've answered none of mine.
I've provided evidence, including several meta analysis with extremely large sample sizes.
One side is using evidence and establishing falsifiable premises. But it isn't the ivermectin side, unfortunately.
Can you please answer my questions above?
What does "effectively prevent" transmission mean? What percentage? And what vaccine does that for infections? - not symptomatic illness mind you, infections.
I have answered every single one of your questions, you've answered none of mine.
I've provided evidence, including several meta analysis with extremely large sample sizes.
One side is using evidence and establishing falsifiable premises. But it isn't the ivermectin side, unfortunately.
Can you please answer my questions above?
What does "effectively prevent" transmission mean? What percentage? And what vaccine does that for infections? - not symptomatic illness mind you, infections.
You've done nothing of the sort. Enjoy your proselytizing.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. What question haven't I answered amigo?
Zobel said:
look, I'm glad you've found solace in your faith. far be it from me to try to talk you out of it.
you don't care about evidence, you ignore when people answer your questions. all you want to do is proselytize and tell people about the good things ivermectin has done for you. that's faith, and there's no reasoning with it.
Do you even hear yourself when you spout this bull*****
Faith has nothing to do with it. Faith is believing something with no real evidence..
I have EVIDENCE!! I got covid. I took ivermectin. I got better in HOURS. That is not faith, that is evidence. Your condescension is not knowledge, it's just stupid and smarmy.
My experience is not unique. Millions of people took ivermectin for covid, and you want to ignore all the incredibly positive results of all those people because they're not "peer-reviewed". Many people on Texags have reported my experience EXACTLY. They got covid. They took ivermectin. They were better in hours.
And you dismiss all those experiences as somehow based on faith. NO!! It's based on FACT. They beat covid with ivermectin.
People like you changed the definition of vaccine. Are you now trying to change the definition of faith?
You and your ilk will forever ignore the below.
The vaccine killed MANY people.
Remdesivir killed MANY people.
Ivermectin killed NO people.
My friend we've already talked about this. The plural of anecdote is not evidence.
Zobel said:
My friend we've already talked about this. The plural of anecdote is not evidence.
Something that happened is evidence of something happening. It is not faith. It is evidence. I got covid, I took ivermectin, I got better. You don't want to call it evidence, and you don't like it because it doesn't fit your narrative, but it is most definitely evidence.
Are we changing the definition of evidence now, too?
The vaccine killed MANY people.
Remdesivir killed MANY people.
Ivermectin killed NO people.
You ascribing your recovery to Ivermectin is not evidence. That's an assumption you're making with nothing to support it besides your belief. That's why the "plural of anecdote isn't data." As for the idea that "ivermectin killed no people," if taking it meant people did not get proper medical treatment in a timely fashion, then it likely did result in people's deaths.
Featured Stories
See All
66:03
7h ago
6.0k
Players to Watch: No. 15 Texas A&M at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
54:59
10h ago
1.1k
37:53
7h ago
787
Reed Report: Chatting with D-Kirk, recapping A&M's 4-0 home stand
by Luke Evangelist
10:56
14h ago
2.9k