Vaccine theory

[coffee_rules]

10 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

I take it with a big bag of salt that he has any on field expertise. color me skeptical. even if he works in that field, lot of medical field experts are paid by the same elites. This guy gave an article from sciencemag.org and I quickly found out that it is funded by the rockerfeller foundation. Do you know of another field known as science writers. Basically these are not scientists but just write articles about science.

Science papers are authentic, published in journals, agree websites are not great for information. Lancet used to be one of the top medical journals now have opinion pieces that puts NDTV to shame. Even more fake are journalists who cover Medicine/Medical fields -  Vidya Krishnan boasts are with fake covid data from websites as authentic science , inferior journalist

Edited August 5, 2021 by coffee_rules

[Jimmy Cliff]

4 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

Have you considered the possibility that their data could actually be crap?  This is why we approach every situation case-by-case and not view them through specific lenses.  In the case of ivermectin, my needle moved in the positive direction when I read the meta-review and saw that there was a real chance that it is helpful.  But now, it has come out that one of the studies used in the meta-review has serious fraud issues.  There was no way for anyone to know that until someone dug deeper.  Now, I am still hopeful that ivermectin is effective, but dialing back my expectations.  This is how science works - push/pull, tug-of-war, data come in, they are vetted, and finally the preponderance of evidence points in a specific direction. 

 

To play the David/Goliath card every time David's data are shot down is disingenuous.    

 

To me, an example of crap data is what Fauci and Baric pulled out of their asses last year to promote Remdesivir as a standard of care/game changer. Now this is not a case where there were promising results in trials but it failed to deliver in real life. It was clear pretty early on that it was largely useless. Have you considered the possibility that their decision to push this expensive drug was based on financial incentives and not based on Science?

 

 

With regards to Ivermectin, there are still multiple studies that have shown good results in terms of reducing mortality as well as prophylaxis. Still, if there are people who no longer want to use it based on one study being withdrawn, they are free to do so . Unlike certain zealots, I am not asking for Gestapo to knock on their doors or them to be stopped from participating in the society based on their refusal to opt for a pharmaceutical product. 

 

I am all for looking at everything on a case-by-case basis but that should also include vaccines. Let's look at each and every vaccine on a case by case basis instead of having a silly premise where one is declared an anti-vaxxer just for raising safety concerns against one set of vaccines where some of them are using a technology that has never ever been used on humans. Now that truly is disingenuous.

Edited August 5, 2021 by Jimmy Cliff

[Real McCoy]

6 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Science papers are authentic, published in journals, agree websites are not great for information. Even more fake are journalists who cover Medicine/Medical fields -  Vidya Krishnan boasts are with fake covid data from websites as authentic science , inferior journalist

You're discussing minor things here. I'm saying look which organization funds the research and if its funded by globalist scumbags, you don't even have to read it. We are all doing our jobs. This meaningless point of reading articles is not my cup of tea. If the required RR is 12, you won't be looking into batting technique will ya.

[BacktoCricaddict]

14 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

To me, an example of crap data is what Fauci and Baric pulled out of their asses last year to promote Remdesivir as a standard of care/game changer. Now this is not a case where there were promising results in trials but it failed to deliver in real life. It was clear pretty early on that it was largely useless. Have you considered the possibility that their decision to push this expensive drug was based on financial incentives and not based on Science?

Absolutely agree 100% about Remdisivir.  I have been as critical about the push for Remdisivir (e.g., below).

 

In the same vein, I was the one to start a thread criticizing the bad decision to approve the new Alzheimer's drug.  The posts are there.  

 

I have posted in favor of Ivermectin, but only after some decent level of evidence had started to accumulate, especially the meta-analysis.  But when there is doubt, I post about that too.  The needle moves based on new data points.  Yes, there are studies, but they are not statistically as well-powered as one would like to see (small sample sizes in some, no proper controls in others).  The meta-analysis moved the needle quite a bit, but if it is based majorly on a fraudulent study, it must be called out.  At this point, IM is definitely better than HCQ and probably on the same level as remdesivir (and much cheaper)!  My needle will settle when more data are available.  

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict

[BacktoCricaddict]

This is an excellent article about the anti-vaccine sentiment and why it exists. Excerpt:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/08/04/vaccine-mandates-disempowerment/

First, government and medical institutions must hold mainstream medicine to higher standards of transparency and ethics to increase trust in the system. Scientists, physicians and companies that participate in research fraud should face more severe penalties. Allowing the Sackler family to escape jail after its role in the opioid epidemic is outrageous and burns institutional credibility, as do recently revealed “back channel” dealings between pharmaceutical executives and the Food and Drug Administration over the controversial Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm.  Second, we need outreach and education that are properly timed with what we know about reactance. The government and public health officials should focus on education and outreach not only during a crisis, when reactance is high and outreach will be suspect, but before, when people will be more open and less likely to feel manipulated. 

 

And lastly, we must reject sloganeering around science that distorts how it works. Those “science is real” bumper stickers are no better than “do your own research.” Both misrepresent the scientific process. Science is real implies that doubting the scientific status quo is necessarily delusional. That transforms uncertainty into blasphemy, pushing people to seek validation elsewhere.

[MechEng]

@BacktoCricaddict vaccination may prevent a person dying from covid, but it does not prevent a person from getting covid with bad symptoms.

 

You can read my post in US house eviction thread as to why I say this and I am a fit young person.

[Jimmy Cliff]

1 hour ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Absolutely agree 100% about Remdisivir.  I have been as critical about the push for Remdisivir (e.g., below).

 

In the same vein, I was the one to start a thread criticizing the bad decision to approve the new Alzheimer's drug.  The posts are there.  

 

I have posted in favor of Ivermectin, but only after some decent level of evidence had started to accumulate, especially the meta-analysis.  But when there is doubt, I post about that too.  The needle moves based on new data points.  Yes, there are studies, but they are not statistically as well-powered as one would like to see (small sample sizes in some, no proper controls in others).  The meta-analysis moved the needle quite a bit, but if it is based majorly on a fraudulent study, it must be called out.  At this point, IM is definitely better than HCQ and probably on the same level as remdesivir (and much cheaper)!  My needle will settle when more data are available.  

 

 

Well I have no idea how one could put Ivermectin on the same level as Remdesivir as Ivermectin has actually saved lives to some extent. With Remdesivir, the good results have been relatively rare. One of them being this :

 

 

Just as your needle moves based on data points with regards to new information regarding Ivermectin, surely it should move wrt these vaccines now that we know they could cause blood clots, myocarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell's palsy and so on. The latest adverse event to drop yesterday was this:

 

 

 

And these are just some of the known adverse reactions till now within a few months of the rollout. Are we sure there are no more problems waiting in the wings? Especially since these vaccines are NOT going to be one off affairs with boosters being needed every 4-6 months? With VAERS being broken in the US and AEFI being an even bigger joke in India, are we really able to make a proper cost\benefit analysis wrt these vaccines when most of the adverse reactions post vaccination are brushed aside as coincidences or blamed on comorbidities or not acknowledged at all.

 

Even if one ignores the problem of post vaccine adverse events, the idea that mass vaccination with leaky vaccines leading to deadlier immune escape variants is now being reported by the mainstream press who are quoting Govt. documents:

 

 

 

This is from a country that has double vaccinated more than 70% of it's adult population. Ideally they should be close to putting the pandemic behind them. How did we get to a situation where a doomsday variant killing 1 out of 3 is now a "realistic possibility"?   

 

[MechEng]

@Jimmy Cliff regarding your last para in the post above, my mamaji is 62 years old and got covid in mid June after both vaccine doses. Luckily he got a hospital bed at that time and has now recovered well.

 

Which is why I felt that Biden's decision of unmasking all who have been given both doses of vaccine is a self sabotaging one.

[Jimmy Cliff]

6 minutes ago, MechEng said:

@Jimmy Cliff regarding your last para in the post above, my mamaji is 62 years old and got covid in mid June after both vaccine doses. Luckily he got a hospital bed at that time and has now recovered well.

 

Which is why I felt that Biden's decision of unmasking all who have been given both doses of vaccine is a self sabotaging one.

 

Good to know your mamaji recovered well. I remember asking here why the Swiss Cheese Model was being abandoned back then. All it took was a couple of months to go back to mask mandates. Oh well.

[MechEng]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

Good to know your mamaji recovered well. I remember asking here why the Swiss Cheese Model was being abandoned back then. All it took was a couple of months to go back to mask mandates. Oh well.

 

Americans take their freedom too seriously and hate being told what to do, at least this has been my observation. Biden just gave in to this American norm and removed mask mandates.

[Jimmy Cliff]

2 minutes ago, MechEng said:

 

Americans take their freedom too seriously and hate being told what to do, at least this has been my observation. Biden just gave in to this American norm and removed mask mandates.

 

In hindsight, I think it was most probably a tactic to make more people take the jab. It certainly seemed to be promoted that way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

Well I have no idea how one could put Ivermectin on the same level as Remdesivir as Ivermectin has actually saved lives to some extent. With Remdesivir, the good results have been relatively rare. One of them being this :

 

 

Just as your needle moves based on data points with regards to new information regarding Ivermectin, surely it should move wrt these vaccines now that we know they could cause blood clots, myocarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell's palsy and so on. The latest adverse event to drop yesterday was this:

 

 

 

And these are just some of the known adverse reactions till now within a few months of the rollout. Are we sure there are no more problems waiting in the wings? Especially since these vaccines are NOT going to be one off affairs with boosters being needed every 4-6 months? With VAERS being broken in the US and AEFI being an even bigger joke in India, are we really able to make a proper cost\benefit analysis wrt these vaccines when most of the adverse reactions post vaccination are brushed aside as coincidences or blamed on comorbidities or not acknowledged at all.

 

Even if one ignores the problem of post vaccine adverse events, the idea that mass vaccination with leaky vaccines leading to deadlier immune escape variants is now being reported by the mainstream press who are quoting Govt. documents:

 

 

 

This is from a country that has double vaccinated more than 70% of it's adult population. Ideally they should be close to putting the pandemic behind them. How did we get to a situation where a doomsday variant killing 1 out of 3 is now a "realistic possibility"?   

 

(1) Even now, Covid 19 vaccine benefits far outweigh rare risks.  To specifically answer why I am not talking about the rare vaccine downsides - ab aapka kaam bhi main karoon kya ;-)?  

 

(2) WRT to the last paragraph, if you read the whole article, it is saying that less dangerous variants are realistically possible.  It's just evolution at work and it's the same thing that happens with every infectious agent/organism.  We just don't know yet and must be prepared for every eventuality until we learn to keep transmission low enough to slow the spread down to where variant occurrence will be stamped out.    

 

(3) As far the UK data - it is clear that it is the unvaccinated that are being hit the most by Delta and are transmitting it more.  

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 hour ago, MechEng said:

@BacktoCricaddict vaccination may prevent a person dying from covid, but it does not prevent a person from getting covid with bad symptoms.

 

You can read my post in US house eviction thread as to why I say this and I am a fit young person.

Bhai, no one claimed 100% prevention of hospitalization or death.  But, unvaccinateds are 8x more likely to get infected and 25x more likely to get hospitalized or pass away from Covid.  

[Jimmy Cliff]

7 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

(1) Even now, Covid 19 vaccine benefits far outweigh rare risks. At this time, no one can deny that - from a Covid spread perspective - the benefits far outweigh the risks.  To specifically answer why I am not talking about vaccine downsides - ab aapka kaam bhi main karoon kya ;-)?

 

That's the thing isn't it. Are these risks rare or rarely acknowledged? It would be easier to take a final call on this if each and every adverse event post vaccination was properly documented. After all, it's possible for someone to die for reasons other than Covid. Is there a robust system in place where we are tracking all such events post vaccination? I don't think so. In fact, AEFI reporting is pretty much a farce in India as this article shows.

 

 

 

Moreover, we live in bizzaro times where if a 90 year old with a dozen pre-existing ailments passes away within a certain time post a positive PCR Test, it is considered a Covid death whereas a reasonably healthy 50 year old passing away due to a cardiac arrest post vaccination is likely to be considered a coincidence. How do we know if the short term safety data for these vaccines is not an extension of this idea with many such events going unreported?  

 

Here is a survey done in India by IANS that states "only" 6% reported serious side effects post vaccination. This might be an acceptable risk for some people, maybe not for others.

 

 

 

Only 6% reported major side-effects, sickness after Covid vax

[Jimmy Cliff]

44 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Bhai, no one claimed 100% prevention of hospitalization or death.  But, unvaccinateds are 8x more likely to get infected and 25x more likely to get hospitalized or pass away from Covid.  

 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Moreover, we live in bizzaro times where if a 90 year old with a dozen pre-existing ailments passes away within a certain time post a positive PCR Test, it is considered a Covid death

That should not be classified a Covid death, unless Covid-related symptoms were reported.  

[BacktoCricaddict]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

 

 

 

On Feb 28, 2021, that is what the data said, no?  Plus, this:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/31/health/fully-vaccinated-people-breakthrough-hospitalization-death/index.html

 

More than 99.99% of people fully vaccinated against Covid-19 have not had a breakthrough case resulting in hospitalization or death.

 

The CDC reported 6,587 Covid-19 breakthrough cases as of July 26, including 6,239 hospitalizations and 1,263 deaths. At that time, more than 163 million people in the United States were fully vaccinated against Covid-19.

Divide those severe breakthrough cases by the total fully vaccinated population for the result: less than 0.004% of fully vaccinated people had a breakthrough case that led to hospitalization and less than 0.001% of fully vaccinated people died from a breakthrough Covid-19 case.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope 99.99% is good enough.  

[Jimmy Cliff]

5 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

That should not be classified a Covid death, unless Covid-related symptoms were reported.  

 

 

 

“There are other countries, that if you have a pre-existing condition, and let’s say the virus called you to go to the ICU (intensive care unit) and then have a heart or kidney problem,” she explained. “Some countries are recording that as a kidney issue, or a heart issue, and not a COVID-19 death.”

 

In the U.S., Dr. Birx suggested, “we’re still recording it” as a COVID-19 death.

[Jimmy Cliff]

2 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

On Feb 28, 2021, that is what the data said, no?  Plus, this:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/31/health/fully-vaccinated-people-breakthrough-hospitalization-death/index.html

 

More than 99.99% of people fully vaccinated against Covid-19 have not had a breakthrough case resulting in hospitalization or death.

 

The CDC reported 6,587 Covid-19 breakthrough cases as of July 26, including 6,239 hospitalizations and 1,263 deaths. At that time, more than 163 million people in the United States were fully vaccinated against Covid-19.

Divide those severe breakthrough cases by the total fully vaccinated population for the result: less than 0.004% of fully vaccinated people had a breakthrough case that led to hospitalization and less than 0.001% of fully vaccinated people died from a breakthrough Covid-19 case.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope 99.99% is good enough.  

 

If they haven't had any other adverse reaction post vaccination that led to hospitalization/death unrelated to Covid, then it is very good. Additionally, if this data is truly accurate, this means the vaccinated have virtually 0% risk from the unvaccinated. So vaccines passports are pointless then. Agree?

[BacktoCricaddict]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

If they haven't had any other adverse reaction post vaccination that led to hospitalization/death unrelated to Covid, then it is very good. Additionally, if this data is truly accurate, this means the vaccinated have virtually 0% risk from the unvaccinated. So vaccines passports are pointless then. Agree?

I tend to agree, but have a question before I answer that convincingly:  

 

I approach this from the point of view of vulnerable unvaccinateds.  They are at a higher risk of contracting the infection from other unvaccinateds than from vaccinateds (I think the risk is at least 2x).  So, if I am an immunocompromised individual who cannot get a vaccine, shouldn't I be more wary of the unvaccinated than the vaccinated?  How does this get sorted out?