You should avoid Maplethorp. He still has his Mueller and Steele dolls.
I just finished watching "Died Suddenly"
36,879 Views |
438 Replies |
Last: 10 mo ago by DOG XO 84
Zobel said:
Politicians lie. Nevertheless it does provide protection against infection. Not perfect protection, and it wanes over time, and with variants.
It is a shot. It's also a vaccine. The flu shot is also a vaccine - look at that link from 2017. Like I said in my post.
Except that it's not effective at preventing transmission. Not against the Alpha variant or Delta or Omicron or the ones that continue to come. In countries with rapid and high vaccination rates in 2021, such as Israel, the number of COVID infections not only increased but increased at accelerating rates among th vaccinated. How can you explain infection rates accelerating among a highly vaccinated population with strict social distancing and aggressive testing if the vaccines have any positive effect on reducing transmission. To say "it's not perfect" understates the truth which is that the vaccinated are more likely to catch COVID rather that less likely i.e. Antibody Dependent Enhancement.
The risk of ADE was known and discussed prior to the EUA for the COVID vaccines abd they approved it anyway without comparing the placebo group to the vaccine test group.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32908214/
CDC actually unblinded the trials after six months and vaccinated the control group to ensure that it was impossible to examine differences in outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Quote:
Pfizer claimed in their confidential document that up to 28th Feb 2021, they had received 138 cases reporting 317 potentially relevant events indicative of Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease. Of these 71 were medically significant resulting in 8 disabilities, 13 were life-threatening events, and 38 of the 138 people died.
Of the 317 relevant events reported by 138 people, 135 were labelled as 'drug ineffective', 53 were labelled as dyspnoea (struggling to breathe), 23 were labelled as Covid-19 pneumonia, 8 were labelled as respiratory failure, and 7 were labelled as seizure.
Pfizer also admitted that 75 of the 101 subjects with confirmed Covid-19 following vaccination, had severe disease resulting in hospitalisation, disability, life-threatening consequences or death.
How can I explain it? Multiple ways:
- the efficacy drops over time
- the way we're measuring cases is by PCR positive and the vaccine doesn't prevent that nearly as well as it does symptomatic and severe illness
- efficacy is worse against new variants
I haven't seen anything from any actual paper - other than speculation from McCoullough and the like - about ADE.
This is an interesting topic. Halting a trial including unblinding is relatively common when one treatment arm is clearly superior - or ineffective - for ethical reasons. At some point when people on one side of a trail are being hospitalized and the other side isn't you begin to fail the do no harm test.
On the other hand, you do lose follow-up data. The other thing to consider is that you may lose it anyway if people request to be unblinded and drop out of the trial to get the shot once the vaccine is publicly available.
There is a good paper here to read about some of both sides.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776787
- the efficacy drops over time
- the way we're measuring cases is by PCR positive and the vaccine doesn't prevent that nearly as well as it does symptomatic and severe illness
- efficacy is worse against new variants
I haven't seen anything from any actual paper - other than speculation from McCoullough and the like - about ADE.
Quote:
CDC actually unblinded the trials after six months and vaccinated the control group to ensure that it was impossible to examine differences in outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
This is an interesting topic. Halting a trial including unblinding is relatively common when one treatment arm is clearly superior - or ineffective - for ethical reasons. At some point when people on one side of a trail are being hospitalized and the other side isn't you begin to fail the do no harm test.
On the other hand, you do lose follow-up data. The other thing to consider is that you may lose it anyway if people request to be unblinded and drop out of the trial to get the shot once the vaccine is publicly available.
There is a good paper here to read about some of both sides.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776787
All 6 of my coworkers were vaccinated and I was the lone unvaccinated. I was the last one to contract Covid. They also masked longer than I did. A couple of them have now had Covid multiple times.
This is my own anecdotal evidence, but many share similar stories.
Your 'vaccine' does not stop transmission. And there is growing evidence that getting vaccinated will make you more vulnerable to future transmissions.
The only benefit that appears to be real at this point is that it decreases the severity for the vulnerable population.
My kid was diagnosed with Covid when my wife and I had it, and she was completely asymptomatic. Why would I even consider giving my child a rushed 'vaccine' when the risk/benefit is not in her favor?
This is my own anecdotal evidence, but many share similar stories.
Your 'vaccine' does not stop transmission. And there is growing evidence that getting vaccinated will make you more vulnerable to future transmissions.
The only benefit that appears to be real at this point is that it decreases the severity for the vulnerable population.
My kid was diagnosed with Covid when my wife and I had it, and she was completely asymptomatic. Why would I even consider giving my child a rushed 'vaccine' when the risk/benefit is not in her favor?
I guess medical ethics is cool again.Quote:
This is an interesting topic. Halting a trial including unblinding is relatively common when one treatment arm is clearly superior - or ineffective - for ethical reasons. At some point when people on one side of a trail are being hospitalized and the other side isn't you begin to fail the do no harm test.
Because it wasn't there for awhile.
Quote:
Your 'vaccine' does not stop transmission.
If you were going to test such a thing, how would you do it? Not a gotcha, I'm just curious.
Quote:
The only benefit that appears to be real at this point is that it decreases the severity for the vulnerable population.
That's the only benefit for any vaccine thta doesn't provide sterilizing immunity (and many don't).
Quote:
My kid was diagnosed with Covid when my wife and I had it, and she was completely asymptomatic.
That's part of the issue with how cases were tracked. I understand why they did it - to prevent spread before symptoms - but it also put a huge burden on people and really fouled up messaging.
If your kid was never sick, it doesn't matter that they had a detectable infection - they had no disease or illness. That would never have shown up as a case in a trial. Hep B vaccine for example doesn't prevent infection or spread, it prevents disease.
Except that it has not been marketed this way. There should have been honesty about risk/benefit for all age groups. The benefit for young children to be vaccinated does not outweigh the risks. If you don't believe that, then you are unwilling to look at concessions by doctors and many in the medical community. Many were forced to be vaccinated or risk losing their livelihood/careers. NFL players and the military are two examples.Zobel said:Quote:
Your 'vaccine' does not stop transmission.
If you were going to test such a thing, how would you do it? Not a gotcha, I'm just curious.Quote:
The only benefit that appears to be real at this point is that it decreases the severity for the vulnerable population.
That's the only benefit for any vaccine thta doesn't provide sterilizing immunity (and many don't).Quote:
My kid was diagnosed with Covid when my wife and I had it, and she was completely asymptomatic.
That's part of the issue with how cases were tracked. I understand why they did it - to prevent spread before symptoms - but it also put a huge burden on people and really fouled up messaging.
If your kid was never sick, it doesn't matter that they had a detectable infection - they had no disease or illness. That would never have shown up as a case in a trial. Hep B vaccine for example doesn't prevent infection or spread, it prevents disease.
We were also lied to about natural immunity, and those concessions are now coming to light even though there were doctors and experts in the field stating this a year ago and being ignored or sometimes disciplined.
At this point, more and more people are learning that they were grossly misled by our president/government, Fauci, our the MSM.
My own doctor prescribed me both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine without solicitation. I don't know if it helped my wife and I with recovery, but we took it at the instruction of our doctor. I met many others with similar stories about their doctors. Spohn hospital was prescribing Ivermectin to patients in Corpus Christi last year when the FDA was tweeting out jokes about horse paste.
Quote:
the efficacy drops over time
It didn't slow or stop transmission against any variant at the time the jabs were given. It wasn't as if there was ever a period when vaccines caused a drop in transmission in any country for any variant. The alpha variant was burning out by the time the vaccines.
Israel had a lower infection rate before they began vaccinating and it went steadily up.
You can say this as many times as you like but it doesn't make it true.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl4292
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl4292
Yeah man, I agree that the public messaging sucked. It's deja vu with this argument. If you were paying attention, you would have known sterilizing immunity was unlikely years ago. But the messaging did suck. Lesson? Don't trust media or politicians. They're inept and sometimes actively dishonest.
Jan 2021
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccines-need-not-completely-stop-covid-transmission-to-curb-the-pandemic1/?amp=true
Sept 2021
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/sterilizing-immunity-myth-covid-19-vaccines/620023/
Jan 2021
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccines-need-not-completely-stop-covid-transmission-to-curb-the-pandemic1/?amp=true
Quote:
Influenza may provide the best blueprint of what to expect going forward. The most common flu vaccine - the inactivated virus - is not "truly sterilizing because it doesn't generate local immune response in the respiratory tract," Crowcroft says. This fact, coupled with low immunization rates (often shy of 50 percent among adults) and the influenza virus's ability to infect and move between multiple species, enables it to constantly change in ways that make it hard for our immune system to recognize. Still, depending on the year, flu vaccines have been shown to reduce hospitalizations among older adults by an estimated 40 percent and intensive care admissions of all adults by as much as 82 percent.
Research on seasonal coronaviruses suggests that SARS-CoV-2 could similarly evolve to evade our immune systems and vaccination efforts, though probably at a slower pace. And data remain mixed on the relationship between symptoms, viral load and infectiousness. But ample precedent points to vaccines driving successful containment of infectious diseases even when they do not provide perfectly sterilizing immunity.
Sept 2021
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/sterilizing-immunity-myth-covid-19-vaccines/620023/
Oh, you found year old studies that say what you want them to say.Zobel said:
You can say this as many times as you like but it doesn't make it true.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl4292
Amazing that nearly everyone I know who has been vaccinated has had Covid after getting their shot.
Oh, you arbitrarily dismissed massive studies because inconvenient. That's just an impasse.
There's no way you read those with any kind of detail in 5 mins or less.
Getting infected after getting a COVID shot doesn't disprove that vaccines slow transmission.
There's no way you read those with any kind of detail in 5 mins or less.
Getting infected after getting a COVID shot doesn't disprove that vaccines slow transmission.
Well I don't trust the media or politicians. And this entire pandemic has created more distrust for most of the population. When the lead expert (Fauci) is providing the narrative, people are supposed to be able to trust him. Now even the pro vaccine crowd like you are saying not to trust them. Guess you're a conspiracy theorist as well.
Great, now your mistrust is actively preventing you from differentiating between good and bad data. Global uniform mistrust is a bad approach.
I don't trust anyone - I do have some confidence in research. Maybe not any particular study, but research in general.
I don't trust anyone - I do have some confidence in research. Maybe not any particular study, but research in general.
As we've learned over the last two-plus years, you can find research for both sides of this argument. And research can obviously be skewed to a narrative, regardless of the side you are on. We also know that many of these research institutions are relying on government funding, and as you've already stated, our government hasn't exactly been forthcoming with the truth. They aren't going to bite the hand that feed them.Zobel said:
Oh, you arbitrarily dismissed massive studies because inconvenient. That's just an impasse.
Getting infected after getting a COVID shot doesn't disprove that vaccines slow transmission.
Yes, I'm going to go with the real-world experiences that I have encountered as a public school teacher who is in contact with a large population of people who have presented their vaccination status as well as others I know who present similar experiences. I know, anecdotal. But I trust what I've seen more than what I'm being told with all the misinformation out there.
How do we honestly know what data is good and what is bad when it's being funded by governments with obvious agendas?Zobel said:
Great, now your mistrust is actively preventing you from differentiating between good and bad data. Global uniform mistrust is a bad approach.
I don't trust anyone - I do have some confidence in research. Maybe not any particular study, but research in general.
You can find people on both sides of any argument. How does this differ from the ongoing social media debate about the flatness of the earth? What direct real world experiences inform you that the world is not, in fact, flat?
You could start by :
- finding and reading the papers cited in media
- reading third party analysis of those papers
- noting public stances or bias of authors
- reserving judgment until you get multiple data points
- expecting or demanding reputable sources (peer reviewed papers, major journals)
- not having binary positions on complex topics
If you do that, you'll be a long way ahead.
- finding and reading the papers cited in media
- reading third party analysis of those papers
- noting public stances or bias of authors
- reserving judgment until you get multiple data points
- expecting or demanding reputable sources (peer reviewed papers, major journals)
- not having binary positions on complex topics
If you do that, you'll be a long way ahead.
you can't be serious.Zobel said:
You can find people on both sides of any argument. How does this differ from the ongoing social media debate about the flatness of the earth? What direct real world experiences inform you that the world is not, in fact, flat?
Alright. I'm off to bed. It's been fun.
I'm completely serious.
/////
As we've learned over the years, you can find research for both sides of this argument. And research can obviously be skewed to a narrative, regardless of the side you are on. We also know that many of these research institutions are relying on government funding, and as you've already stated, our government hasn't exactly been forthcoming with the truth. They aren't going to bite the hand that feed them.
Yes, I'm going to go with the real-world experiences that I have encountered as well as others I know who present similar experiences. I know, anecdotal. But I trust what I've seen more than what I'm being told with all the misinformation out there.
////
Literally the form of the flat earth argument.
/////
As we've learned over the years, you can find research for both sides of this argument. And research can obviously be skewed to a narrative, regardless of the side you are on. We also know that many of these research institutions are relying on government funding, and as you've already stated, our government hasn't exactly been forthcoming with the truth. They aren't going to bite the hand that feed them.
Yes, I'm going to go with the real-world experiences that I have encountered as well as others I know who present similar experiences. I know, anecdotal. But I trust what I've seen more than what I'm being told with all the misinformation out there.
////
Literally the form of the flat earth argument.
aggierogue said:
All 6 of my coworkers were vaccinated and I was the lone unvaccinated. I was the last one to contract Covid. They also masked longer than I did. A couple of them have now had Covid multiple times.
This is my own anecdotal evidence, but many share similar stories.
Your 'vaccine' does not stop transmission. And there is growing evidence that getting vaccinated will make you more vulnerable to future transmissions.
The only benefit that appears to be real at this point is that it decreases the severity for the vulnerable population.
My kid was diagnosed with Covid when my wife and I had it, and she was completely asymptomatic. Why would I even consider giving my child a rushed 'vaccine' when the risk/benefit is not in her favor?
This thread is so dumb.
I'm vaxed and boosted once. I still haven't had it. My anecdote is the mirror of yours and worthless. Many share my same story - and still not objective and worthless.
We haven't vaccinated my 4 year old. She was a day care kid since 6 months old. Multiple quarantine periods for someone popping positive. She never did (tested 20+ times). She's had sniffles - probably did get it at some point. The risk profile for her is extremely minimal.
My wife is an NP and early Covid sucked ass. People died left and right. This forum / nation needs a tin foil purge.
Zobel said:
You can say this as many times as you like but it doesn't make it true.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl4292
The NEJM study is basing its claim of reduction in transmission to a retrospective analysis of contact tracing (cell phone tracking) for whther infection occurred in 661,315 people who had contact with 374,115 index patients. However, only 26% (173,460) of those contacts with index patients even took a PCR test. The study just ignores the fact that the don't know anything about the other 74% of people who came in contact with index patients.
The study didn't even address that the time between the first jab and when the theorized protective effect of antibodies begins is ~70 days. By their methods, a contact with an index patient counts even if they got the jab the day prior. These claims are weak and meaningless because they know nothing about the 74% of contacts that never got a PCR.
Speaking of the PCR, the study states that 23% of the observed reduction in transmission can be attributed to widely varying cycles thresholds (Ct), between 15-40, used in the PCRs. The number of false positives when the Ct>30 is estimated to be over 90%.
It's bssed on crap data with analysis of meaningless comparisons of unvaxxed/partially vaxxed/fully vaxxed index patients to unvaxxed/partially vaxxed/fully vaxxed contacts.
Meanwhile (Jan-Aug 2021) in the entire popularion if England, vaccinated people are catching COVID at a higher rate than the rate of infections were in the preceding six months before vaccination began. At the population level there is no evident effect of these vaccines preventing infection at any period of time.
All of this for a poorly tested unsafe vaccine approved under an EUA (to this very day) to treat a disease with a <1% mortality and that 1% mortality are almost entirely near or above median life expectancy or have multiple co-morbidity risk factors.
The vaccines always were worthless. Evidence accumulates daily to support the opinion that they were actually very harmful.
Good chat bud. Have a great week.
Good for you RangerRick. This is part of the problem. You guys have been telling us we've been wearing tin foil hats for two years now. All the while your Lord Fauci has lied over and over again.RangerRick9211 said:aggierogue said:
All 6 of my coworkers were vaccinated and I was the lone unvaccinated. I was the last one to contract Covid. They also masked longer than I did. A couple of them have now had Covid multiple times.
This is my own anecdotal evidence, but many share similar stories.
Your 'vaccine' does not stop transmission. And there is growing evidence that getting vaccinated will make you more vulnerable to future transmissions.
The only benefit that appears to be real at this point is that it decreases the severity for the vulnerable population.
My kid was diagnosed with Covid when my wife and I had it, and she was completely asymptomatic. Why would I even consider giving my child a rushed 'vaccine' when the risk/benefit is not in her favor?
This thread is so dumb.
I'm vaxed and boosted once. I still haven't had it. My anecdote is the mirror of yours and worthless. Many share my same story - and still not objective and worthless.
We haven't vaccinated my 4 year old. She was a day care kid since 6 months old. Multiple quarantine periods for someone popping positive. She never did (tested 20+ times). She's had sniffles - probably did get it at some point. The risk profile for her is extremely minimal.
My wife is an NP and early Covid sucked ass. People died left and right. This forum / nation needs a tin foil purge.
I'm still waiting on the studies where subjects are given follow up EKGs after vaccination. Such methodology would avoid the problems with self-reporting (underreporting) and asymptomatic myocarditis.
Oh, the studies exist and the results are not good for mRNA apologists.
Oh, the studies exist and the results are not good for mRNA apologists.
Actually, it's not.RangerRick9211 said:aggierogue said:
All 6 of my coworkers were vaccinated and I was the lone unvaccinated. I was the last one to contract Covid. They also masked longer than I did. A couple of them have now had Covid multiple times.
This is my own anecdotal evidence, but many share similar stories.
Your 'vaccine' does not stop transmission. And there is growing evidence that getting vaccinated will make you more vulnerable to future transmissions.
The only benefit that appears to be real at this point is that it decreases the severity for the vulnerable population.
My kid was diagnosed with Covid when my wife and I had it, and she was completely asymptomatic. Why would I even consider giving my child a rushed 'vaccine' when the risk/benefit is not in her favor?
This thread is so dumb.
I'm vaxed and boosted once. I still haven't had it. My anecdote is the mirror of yours and worthless. Many share my same story - and still not objective and worthless.
We haven't vaccinated my 4 year old. She was a day care kid since 6 months old. Multiple quarantine periods for someone popping positive. She never did (tested 20+ times). She's had sniffles - probably did get it at some point. The risk profile for her is extremely minimal.
My wife is an NP and early Covid sucked ass. People died left and right. This forum / nation needs a tin foil purge.
It's frustrating, but not dumb.
You've got two posters presenting their research with fairly decent opinions. It's the some folks choose to learn in a very political world.
Hate is how progressives sustain themselves. Without hate, introspection begins to slip into the progressive's consciousness, threatening the progressive with the truth: that their ideas and opinions are illogical, hypocritical, dangerous, and asinine.
This is backed by data.
This is backed by data.
LOL...why? Poor thing.RangerRick9211 said:aggierogue said:
All 6 of my coworkers were vaccinated and I was the lone unvaccinated. I was the last one to contract Covid. They also masked longer than I did. A couple of them have now had Covid multiple times.
This is my own anecdotal evidence, but many share similar stories.
Your 'vaccine' does not stop transmission. And there is growing evidence that getting vaccinated will make you more vulnerable to future transmissions.
The only benefit that appears to be real at this point is that it decreases the severity for the vulnerable population.
My kid was diagnosed with Covid when my wife and I had it, and she was completely asymptomatic. Why would I even consider giving my child a rushed 'vaccine' when the risk/benefit is not in her favor?
This thread is so dumb.
I'm vaxed and boosted once. I still haven't had it. My anecdote is the mirror of yours and worthless. Many share my same story - and still not objective and worthless.
We haven't vaccinated my 4 year old. She was a day care kid since 6 months old. Multiple quarantine periods for someone popping positive. She never did (tested 20+ times). She's had sniffles - probably did get it at some point. The risk profile for her is extremely minimal.
My wife is an NP and early Covid sucked ass. People died left and right. This forum / nation needs a tin foil purge.
Here is a good one. Funded by the AMA. Makes the statement 96% of doctors fully vaccinated.aggierogue said:How do we honestly know what data is good and what is bad when it's being funded by governments with obvious agendas?Zobel said:
Great, now your mistrust is actively preventing you from differentiating between good and bad data. Global uniform mistrust is a bad approach.
I don't trust anyone - I do have some confidence in research. Maybe not any particular study, but research in general.
https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-survey-shows-over-96-doctors-fully-vaccinated-against-covid-19
However if you click on the survey link (suspect most won't) you find that there were only 301 doctors surveyed. A quick search says about 1,013,616 practicing physicians in the usa. That represents only .03% of all physicians and the methodology statement says survey presented to them through their WebMD Physician Panel and likely ripe with bias.
https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2021-06/physician-vaccination-study-topline-report.pdf
“You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
A TAMU study found a similar result. 94.8% vaccination rate among doctors. N=763.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22003024?via%3Dihub
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22003024?via%3Dihub
I'd be curious what the rate would be if we hadn't coerced so many into compliance. I work for a large hospital system that made it very difficult to get an exemption.
In 2007, Tegaserod was removed from the market due to FDA concerns about possible adverse cardiovascular effects. An analysis of data collected on over 18,000 patients demonstrated adverse cardiovascular events in 13 of 11,614 patients treated with tegaserod (a rate of 0.11%).
It recent Troponin-based testing reveals more frequent cardiovascular events for mRNA injections, will it be removed from the market? Pfizer suspects there is a problem.
It recent Troponin-based testing reveals more frequent cardiovascular events for mRNA injections, will it be removed from the market? Pfizer suspects there is a problem.
Big Pharma has long known of potential Covid-19 vaccine side effects...They just didn't want to say so publicly.
— Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) January 9, 2023
In 2021 @Pfizer scientist Chris Croce told our journalist that they were already testing for links between their vaccine and myocarditis...
What did @Pfizer find? pic.twitter.com/CTNNHT6pFu
The side effects were heart attack, stroke, and unstable angina. If the rates were comparable, you'd have had 24+ cases in the phase 3 trials alone.
On the other hand the troponin levels you're talking about - from your doc - are subclinical, with nonspecific symptoms, and self resolving.
Do you think that is a good comparison?
On the other hand the troponin levels you're talking about - from your doc - are subclinical, with nonspecific symptoms, and self resolving.
Do you think that is a good comparison?
I had a feeling that the next line of defense would be "So what's a little myocarditis? You have to break a few eggs to make omelettes."Zobel said:
The side effects were heart attack, stroke, and unstable angina. If the rates were comparable, you'd have had 24+ cases in the phase 3 trials alone.
On the other hand the troponin levels you're talking about - from your doc - are subclinical, with nonspecific symptoms, and self resolving.
Do you think that is a good comparison?
Are you talking about the Pfizer phase III that claimed the vaccine had 95% efficacy?Zobel said:
The side effects were heart attack, stroke, and unstable angina. If the rates were comparable, you'd have had 24+ cases in the phase 3 trials alone.
On the other hand the troponin levels you're talking about - from your doc - are subclinical, with nonspecific symptoms, and self resolving.
Do you think that is a good comparison?