Vaccine Redux - Vax up and go to Class

37,804 Views | 1320 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by bearister
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

More information on mRNA vaccine safety. In a large Israeli study recently submitted to the NEJM, they show that other than a small risk of myocarditis (which is 4x higher in people infected with COVID), the safety profile is quite strong, and even seems to have benefits beyond just COVID risk reduction. Importantly, they found that the majority of the adverse events under study (eg the unverified events submitted to VAERS which disingenuous anti-vaxxers had been relying on for months to try to pretend like the vaccines were unsafe), were not linked to the Pfizer vaccine.

From News-Medical:

Quote:

A deep look into a nationwide mass vaccination setting in Israel revealed that the BNT162b2 (PfizerBioNTech) vaccine is not linked with an elevated risk of a majority of the adverse events under study, with the exception of myocarditis. However, even that potentially severe adverse event is much more pervasive following the infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), found a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

...
In short, the study has shown that vaccination was strongly associated with an increased risk of myocarditis (2.7 events per 100,000 persons), as well as lymphadenopathy (which occurred relatively frequent with 78.5 events per 100,000 persons), herpes zoster infection (which can translate to an increased risk of Bell's palsy) and appendicitis.

On the other hand, SARS-CoV-2 infection was linked to a substantially elevated risk of myocarditis (11 events per 100,000 persons), alongside the risk of pericarditis, arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, deep-vein thrombosis, myocardial infarction, thrombocytopenia, and intracranial hemorrhage.

The study has also shown that the risk of myocarditis is basically increased by a factor of three following vaccination. Furthermore, among the 21 persons with myocarditis in the group that received the vaccine, the median age was 25 years and there was a substantial male predominance.

Certain unexpected effects were also observed, as PfizerBioNTech vaccine appears to offers a degree of protection against conditions such as intracranial hemorrhage and anemia, possibly by halting SARS-CoV-2 infection, which is a known risk factor for such events.






Lipstick on a Pig:
Intro/Conclusion: "the BNT162b2 (PfizerBioNTech) vaccine is not linked with an elevated risk of a majority of the adverse events under study, with the exception of myocarditis."

Support: "In short, the study has shown that vaccination was strongly associated with an increased risk of myocarditis (2.7 events per 100,000 persons), as well as lymphadenopathy (which occurred relatively frequent with 78.5 events per 100,000 persons), herpes zoster infection (which can translate to an increased risk of Bell's palsy) and appendicitis..." and being infected with Covid 19 is worse.

My conclusion: the vaccines have poor safety profiles but Covid is much more dangerous and there is a good chance you will eventually get it. So, get vaccinated. We are still testing in under 16, but we have transitioned dissenters out of the FDA so it should be approved soon. There are no other options but mRNA and the JnJ DNA vaccine which enters the nucleus, but the CDC tweets that it doesn't. Therefore, it is Covid or these new vaccine techs. Be vaccinated with them or risk Covid, which is worse.

... Edited to add that the risk of myocarditis in young teenagers is around 1/5,000. This is only acceptable in the absence of other alternatives and the purpose is to prevent the youths from getting ill (vs spreading infection). These vaccines will not prevent infection due to variants and waning humoral immunity.
I think it would be helpful if you were honest about myocarditis. It's a scary sounding heart problem that resolves perfectly within a week or two in the vast majority of cases. It only very rarely results in anything serious. There is no indication that myocarditis cases are more severe when connected to mRNA vaccines. If the risk of fatal myocarditis or even long-term disability from myocarditis was 1/5,000 that would be a completely different thing but it's not.

Also, there's no way to study this, but there is also no reason to believe that a person who suffers from myocarditis from the vaccine wouldn't have also had myocarditis (or worse) from COVID itself. Given the high risk of myocarditis from COVID, I think that's a reasonable concern. Bottom line, if you are concerned with myocarditis, you are less likely to get it from the vaccine than from COVID and if you don't get the vaccine you are far more likely to get COVID.
I wish you would be honest or at least have better reading comprehension. Nobody ever said that the 1/5000 figure was for fatal myocarditis. If that were true, people would be dropping dead left and right. It is for people who had symptoms, went to the doctor or hospital, and were diagnosed with myocarditis, which is serious. The study indicates that most people with vaccine caused myocarditis are not hospitalized for more than three days.

Also, "Bottom line, if you are concerned with myocarditis, you are less likely to get it from the vaccine than from COVID." Your statement might not be true for teenagers and younger. The spike protein appears to be what is causing myocarditis. Successfully fighting off exposure to the virus is safer than being injected with the Spike Protein.

Finally,THE VACCINE is safer than covid 19. Yes, that is certainly true. Howeverm the only reason we have THE VACCINE is because other vaccine development was delayed and then scuttled once mrna was found effective.
What is your estimate for how many young people are dying of myocarditis caused by the vaccine?

Why do you believe that young people are less likely to get myocarditis from COVID than the vaccine?

Myocarditis is serious and scary but it's typically treatable and typically fully resolves within days or weeks. Thousands of Americans get it every year, and unfortunately it can be fatal for some people, particularly if unnoticed or untreated. The best way to reduce your child's risk of myocarditis is to protect them from COVID.


Probably a handful of young people in the USA have died from vaccine caused myocarditis. Young people may naturally fight off covid 19 without getting severe illness. Obviously, the risk of severe illness (including myocarditis) with covid 19 is greater than such risks with mRNA vaccines. Yes, the best way of protecting your child from myocarditis is protecting them from covid. However, that does not mean the best way of protecting your child from myocarditis is a myocarditis causing vaccine.
Obviously most young people will fight off COVID without getting severe illness. No one has ever said otherwise.

Most young people have no reason to fear myocarditis on connection with mRNA vaccines either. It's extremely rare, far more rare than negative outcomes from COVID. According to the study referenced here, males aged 12 to 17 are almost 7x as likely to suffer from myocarditis from COVID than the vaccine. Obviously the two groups are mutually exclusive, but I don't see any reason to believe that there is a lot of overlap between the two groups.



6x likely to get myocarditis IF INFECTED WITH COVID 19 then to get it from mRNA vaccination FOLLOWING DOSE 2. Not at all the same as your misleading interpretation of the study.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

More information on mRNA vaccine safety. In a large Israeli study recently submitted to the NEJM, they show that other than a small risk of myocarditis (which is 4x higher in people infected with COVID), the safety profile is quite strong, and even seems to have benefits beyond just COVID risk reduction. Importantly, they found that the majority of the adverse events under study (eg the unverified events submitted to VAERS which disingenuous anti-vaxxers had been relying on for months to try to pretend like the vaccines were unsafe), were not linked to the Pfizer vaccine.

From News-Medical:

Quote:

A deep look into a nationwide mass vaccination setting in Israel revealed that the BNT162b2 (PfizerBioNTech) vaccine is not linked with an elevated risk of a majority of the adverse events under study, with the exception of myocarditis. However, even that potentially severe adverse event is much more pervasive following the infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), found a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

...
In short, the study has shown that vaccination was strongly associated with an increased risk of myocarditis (2.7 events per 100,000 persons), as well as lymphadenopathy (which occurred relatively frequent with 78.5 events per 100,000 persons), herpes zoster infection (which can translate to an increased risk of Bell's palsy) and appendicitis.

On the other hand, SARS-CoV-2 infection was linked to a substantially elevated risk of myocarditis (11 events per 100,000 persons), alongside the risk of pericarditis, arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, deep-vein thrombosis, myocardial infarction, thrombocytopenia, and intracranial hemorrhage.

The study has also shown that the risk of myocarditis is basically increased by a factor of three following vaccination. Furthermore, among the 21 persons with myocarditis in the group that received the vaccine, the median age was 25 years and there was a substantial male predominance.

Certain unexpected effects were also observed, as PfizerBioNTech vaccine appears to offers a degree of protection against conditions such as intracranial hemorrhage and anemia, possibly by halting SARS-CoV-2 infection, which is a known risk factor for such events.






Lipstick on a Pig:
Intro/Conclusion: "the BNT162b2 (PfizerBioNTech) vaccine is not linked with an elevated risk of a majority of the adverse events under study, with the exception of myocarditis."

Support: "In short, the study has shown that vaccination was strongly associated with an increased risk of myocarditis (2.7 events per 100,000 persons), as well as lymphadenopathy (which occurred relatively frequent with 78.5 events per 100,000 persons), herpes zoster infection (which can translate to an increased risk of Bell's palsy) and appendicitis..." and being infected with Covid 19 is worse.

My conclusion: the vaccines have poor safety profiles but Covid is much more dangerous and there is a good chance you will eventually get it. So, get vaccinated. We are still testing in under 16, but we have transitioned dissenters out of the FDA so it should be approved soon. There are no other options but mRNA and the JnJ DNA vaccine which enters the nucleus, but the CDC tweets that it doesn't. Therefore, it is Covid or these new vaccine techs. Be vaccinated with them or risk Covid, which is worse.

... Edited to add that the risk of myocarditis in young teenagers is around 1/5,000. This is only acceptable in the absence of other alternatives and the purpose is to prevent the youths from getting ill (vs spreading infection). These vaccines will not prevent infection due to variants and waning humoral immunity.
I think it would be helpful if you were honest about myocarditis. It's a scary sounding heart problem that resolves perfectly within a week or two in the vast majority of cases. It only very rarely results in anything serious. There is no indication that myocarditis cases are more severe when connected to mRNA vaccines. If the risk of fatal myocarditis or even long-term disability from myocarditis was 1/5,000 that would be a completely different thing but it's not.

Also, there's no way to study this, but there is also no reason to believe that a person who suffers from myocarditis from the vaccine wouldn't have also had myocarditis (or worse) from COVID itself. Given the high risk of myocarditis from COVID, I think that's a reasonable concern. Bottom line, if you are concerned with myocarditis, you are less likely to get it from the vaccine than from COVID and if you don't get the vaccine you are far more likely to get COVID.


Not true. Studies have myocarditis in young teens at around 1/5000. If you vaccinate all, then you should have around 1/5000. Young teens are not currently having myocarditis at a rate of 1/5000 in the unvaccinated population and unlikely (but not impossible) to occur in the future.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Imagine being so misled as to call people who take vaccines sheep but poisoning yourself with livestock medicine that literally is for sheep? Like, has a sheep on the bottle? Actually, you don't have to imagine it at all - people like Zippergate and Minot advocate for this poison. And poison control is being overrun with idiots ODing on sheep meds - calls are up over 550% in Texas.



baa baa baaaaa


Just to clarify, have I, Zippergate, or Minot actually advocated for people to take Ivermectin for sheep? Seems like a misleading accusation.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Cool, so what exactly is your complaint? You pretend to be some rational mRNA skeptic but you leave no stone unturned in criticizing vaccine suppliers. Now you want us to dig into supplier contracts?

This is such a petty crusade of yours at this point.


Why is it a petty crusade? As I have stated many times in this thread, BP is dictating public policy. This contract is an example of it. The lower prices are offset by language incredibly favorable to the supplier. This contract is designed to lock poorer countries in with no reasonable ability to breach, and to lock out competition. Desperate countries were put in a position months ago to wait for their Pfizer vaccine and to make sure, when they finally get it, that their people will want it because the doses have been bought and paid for with no hope for a refund. Feel free to go back and read my posts because you clearly couldn't tie this to what I have been saying this entire time.

This sounds like . . . capitalism.


Yes, it does. Bought and paid for advantages stifling competition leading to one-sided contracts and incredible profits. Hiring Dr. Gottlieb from his role as FDA Commissioner onto the Pfizer Board was a beautiful move.
I think your problem is more with the fact that Pfizer and other companies want to make profits on their products (capitalism) and not so much that anything untoward is actually happening with these vaccines. I'm not sure we can wait for a full reworking of our global economic system before we can start to effectively fight COVID-19.


You are being too charitable . He will take any criticism of the vaccines and spread it here. He has exactly 1 goal in mind and it is to discredit the vaccines by any means necessary.

Let's not pretend like he cares what terms France agreed to.


This is simply not true. For example, I have never agree with any of the bogus sentiment that the vaccines are a government conspiracy to microchip people. I stick to facts and data.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wow oski is unhinged. Nothing I've said is misinformation or a lie. People are taking veterinary ivermectin. There is no question that it's happening.

You've also shown a complete inability to read or you are being disingenuous when you interpret my statements around myocarditis. Obviously I was discussing the risk of myocarditis for kids with Covid. And for what it's worth, given that COVID is likely to be endemic, the attack rate for unvaccinated is likely to be quite high. Your interpretation of my statements around the 1/5000 risk is illustrative of your break from reality. The vast majority of myocarditis cases resolve quickly and fully. Study after study has shown this to be the case. You are fixated by the small myocarditis risk from mRNA vaccines because it's the easiest thing you can harp on for your anti vax agenda. It's also why you are completely ignoring the risk of myocarditis for reaching people infected with COVID.

Obviously oski is once again letting his emotions and contrarian / conspiracy orientation get the better of him and I encourage people to continue to ignore him and listen to their doctors and public health officials. Oski is neither.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

sycasey said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

philbert said:

bearister said:

philbert said:

bearister said:

philbert said:

Big C said:


It takes a special kind of thread nowadays to get moved from Growls to Off Topic! Congrats to all who've worked so hard on this!
it was long overdue

tRumpist by chance?


Nope. Just tired of the back and forth that wasn't convincing anyone of anything. At this point, everyone is entrenched in their positions.


But one of the positions is based on politics, not science. False equivalence.
Did it change the hearts and minds of any of the anti-vax/anti-science crowd? I see the same folks posting the same stuff over and over in this thread. No one seems to have changed their position.

There's a much more informative thread on the Insider board, btw.


Highlighting how mRNA vaccines have 30x higher death rate per vaccination than flu vaccines (or any other vaccine that is licensed for use) is not anti-vax.


Where is your evidence for this claim? You've made a number of unsupported claims for months now. You can pretend that your continuous crying wolf isn't anti-vax but the pattern is indistinguishable. You apply a heavy dose of skepticism to any pro mRNA data or discussion and absolutely no such concern with respect to any negative reports, anecdotes or rumors.

So tell us, where is there proof that mRNA vaccines have killed 30x the flu? How many Americans have mRNA vaccines killed?


It is from VAERS, the national vaccine safety monitoring system. I have said this before.

Which has already been demonstrated as an unreliable metric.


Just proof of how disingenuous oski is being. VAERS does not report vaccine caused deaths and he knows it. He may pretend not to be an anti-vaxxer but continues to propagate known disinformation in the hopes that people won't call him out for it.

He wants people to think mRNA causes 30x the deaths of the flu vaccine but in reality he uses a source that isn't intended to be used to conclude that even one person died from the vaccine.

As far as I can tell, oski hasn't provided evidence of a single death from mRNA.


Btw, I still think mRNA covid vaccines cause 30x the death rate of licensed flu vaccines.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

So you don't think it's possible that more "traditional" vaccines just aren't as effective against a virus like COVID-19?


I don't believe that neutralizing antibodies are the best plan of attack against a coronavirus. I don't want to get an annual mRNA shot as antibodies wane and the vaccines develop resistance every six months or so. If mRNA was safer, I would be more willing.

T cells are more universal. Inovio had a MERS Coronavirus vaccine that was advanced into phase 2 in Asia (and now middle east where MERS still is prevalent) but was shunned by Fauci due to his belief that neutralizing antibodies will solve covid. Inovio's B & T Cell data was excellent but the FDA put a hold on their phase 3 and then the DOD pulled their funding due to the impossibilities of conducting a phase 3 trial with the existence of the EUA vaccines (after heavy FDA delays). Inovio was the second vaccine to start a phase 1 but was left high and dry by Slaoui's OWS. South Korea is advancing a version of Inovio's vaccine made by Geneone. South Korea is also ordering mRNA vaccines. China is also supporting Inovio's vaccine. FDA has put Inovio on clinical hold for a year due to concerns about their ability to scale their vaccine delivery device. FDA approved Moderna's and JnJ's covid vaccine production facilities without ever seeing them.
I am an expert in this area with no conflicts of interest.

mRNA vaccines stimulate both B cell and T cell responses because they cause cells in our body to produce the SARS-CoV2 spike protein. B cells then produce neutralizing antibodies active against the spike protein, protecting us from infection by the virus. In contrast to what is sometimes reported in the news, B cell immunity doesn't necessarily ever wane. What happens is that amount of antibodies circulating in the blood stream declines over time because they live about 180 days on average in the blood. But fear not! Memory B cells stand by post-vaccine or post-infection, primed to mount a rapid and robust antibody response even after the original antibody "titer" in the blood stream drops, so that protective neutralizing antibody production ramps up quickly and protection is in fact still in place. More great news about mRNA vaccines is that the spike protein encoded by these vaccines also elicits a robust T cell response, which is extremely good news because even if the virus mutates to a form that the neutralizing antibodies don't recognize as well, it is much harder for a mutant virus to evade the robust T cell response stimulated by the mRNA vaccine. However, should a variant emerge that evades immunity, mRNA vaccines are by far the best bet to keep us safe because they can be modified for booster shots against the variant much faster than any other type of vaccine.


I pretty much agree with what is here although DNA seems like a safer alternative for booster shots. While many peer reviewed articles later touted the importance of B & T, the media, administration, Fauci, Pfizer and Moderna boasted about mRNA antibodies from within 30 days of vaccination. Do you think mRNA vaccines are the best boosters? Do you think there are safer alternatives for children? Does Novavax stimulat b and t cell response? Btw, the studies indicated pfizer was superior to Moderna in b and t cell response. Do you agree?
I'm not sure that I understand your comment. In general, it would be in my opinion a rather bad idea to introduce DNA into a person because, unlike mRNA, it can recombine into the DNA of the person, causing mutations in the person's DNA. Mutations are not good for us and can among other things cause cancer. Perhaps you are referring to the adenovirus vector used in the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. Adenoviruses are DNA viruses. In this class of vaccines the viral DNA is introduced into a person's body when they are vaccinated and directs the person's cells to make mRNAs, which then make the spike protein. In effect, it is adding one more "upstream" step to the mRNA vaccines because the DNA has to direct the body to synthesize the mRNA which then directs the body to make the spike protein. The people who have developed the adenovirus vaccines assert that they are safe and don't integrate into our DNA, but I personally am much more comfortable getting an mRNA vaccine than an Adenovirus DNA vaccine. I hope that helps.


I was referring to DNA vaccines that do not enter cells through adenoviruses. Specifically, vaccines by Inovio, Zydus Cadilla, and Geneone. There has been no evidence of genome integration with DNA vaccines. Genome integration is something pushed by mRNA advocates as DNA is a competing tech because it has the same rapid response capabilities as mrna and is easier to manufacture. Pure DNA does not have the side effects of the adenovirus vaccines, and I believe it is because they are not injected with 5 billion adenovirus particles (monkey virus for AZN, human cold virus for JnJ). JnJ is a large dose.

Given your answer, is it safe to say that you fear the potential but never seen future side of DNA vaccines (genome integration) more than the currently seen and unseen side effects of mRNA vaccines? Given that the P1 and P2 trial data of these DNA vaccines have much better (by leaps and bounds) safety data than mRNA vaccines, do you attribute that to smaller sample size or other factors?
DNA vaccines have not proved effective in humans, possibly because DNA not only has to get into cells like mRNAs, but also into the cell's nucleus. I've not seen any credible evidence that there are safety issues with mRNA vaccines and, unlike DNA vaccines, they've been used on millions of people. The extraordinarily rare hyper immune response to mRNA vaccines is quite possibly something those rare individuals would have had to other forms of vaccines. At this point, one thing we can feel confident about is the extremely good safety profile of mRNA vaccines.


You obviously don't feel the need to directly answer my questions, so we will have to agree to disagree on most things. I acknowledge that non-adenovirus based DNA vaccines have not been tested in millions but they don't have the grade 2 and 3 severe events that mRNA vaccines had in trials. I cannot subscribe to DNA vaccines being ineffective, given JnJ recipients currently have vax cards. I understand you conclusion on safety as it is the prevailing opinion of the medical community, albeit said rather strongly. I don't see that changing with no alternative, safe effective vaccines.


Oski003 goes down on a called Strike 3. But he is now arguing with the referee saying the last pitch should have been called a Ball. But he is willing to agree to disagree.


Lemmings.

Are you familiar with the apocryphal tale of lemmings? I mean, it's not true, but you are referencing the myth that they follow a crowd to their mass suicide. In this case, there is precisely one group of people who appear to be in a death cult and are willingly subjecting themselves to an increased risk of death. It's the group that you are supporting and encouraging.

Like many disingenuous political leaders in the death cult, you are fully vaccinated but encouraging other people to forego vaccination. Thousands of people per week are dying in the US of COVID right now, virtually all of whom are unvaccinated. Those are the lemmings, not the people, like you, who avail themselves of safe and effective vaccines while convincing everyone else of how dangerous they are and propagating conspiracy theories.




I have not encouraged a single person to forego vaccination.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

CDC just posted information on myocarditis (and related conditions) and the good news is that, based on their review, the risks are quite low.

I won't cut and paste everything but do please read the link if you are interested in this and have questions about the data.

For the TL;DR, the CDC found 323 reported cases out of approximately 30 million eligible vaccine recipients (persons aged 12-29). Of those 323, almost all were hospitalized but the clinical courses were considered mild, 95% have been discharged and not a single person died. This is consistent with the reporting I've seen the last few months which says that young people typically fully recover from myocarditis.

Here's the raw disclosure (emphasis mine) regarding the review of the reports of myocarditis:
Quote:

As of June 11, 2021, approximately 296 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines had been administered in the United States, with 52 million administered to persons aged 1229 years; of these, 30 million were first and 22 million were second doses.

Within the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) (4), the national vaccine safety passive monitoring system, 1,226 reports of myocarditis after mRNA vaccination were received during December 29, 2020June 11, 2021. Among persons with reported myocarditis after mRNA vaccination, the median age was 26 years (range = 1294 years), with median symptom onset interval of 3 days after vaccination (range = 0179). Among 1,194 reports for which patient age was known, 687 were among persons aged <30 years and 507 were among persons aged 30 years; of 1,212 with sex reported, 923 were male, and 289 were female. Among 1,094 patients with number of vaccine doses received reported, 76% occurred after receipt of dose 2 of mRNA vaccine; cases were reported after both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. Informed by early reports, CDC prioritized rapid review of myocarditis in persons aged <30 years reported during May 1June 11, 2021; the 484 patient records in this subset were evaluated by physicians at CDC, and several reports were also reviewed with Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project investigators, including cardiologists. At the time of this report, 323 of these 484 cases were determined to meet criteria in CDC's case definitions for myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis by provider interview or medical record review (Table 1). The median age of the 323 patients meeting CDC's case definitions was 19 years (range = 1229 years); 291 were male, and 32 were female. The median interval from vaccination to symptom onset was 2 days (range = 040 days); 92% of patients experienced onset of symptoms within 7 days of vaccination. Of the 323 persons meeting CDC's case definitions, 309 (96%) were hospitalized. Acute clinical courses were generally mild; among 304 hospitalized patients with known clinical outcomes, 95% had been discharged at time of review, and none had died. Treatment data in VAERS are preliminary and incomplete; however, many patients have experienced resolution of symptoms with conservative treatment, such as receipt of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Follow-up is ongoing to identify and understand longer-term outcomes after myocarditis occurring after COVID-19 vaccination.
CDC analysis of relative benefit of vaccine risk relative to COVID:
Quote:

The benefits (prevention of COVID-19 disease and associated hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths) outweighed the risks (expected myocarditis cases after vaccination) in all populations for which vaccination has been recommended. However, the balance of benefits and risks varied by age and sex because cases of myocarditis were primarily identified among males aged <30 years, and the risks of poor outcomes related to COVID-19 increase with age. Per million second doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered to males aged 1229 years, 11,000 COVID-19 cases, 560 hospitalizations, 138 ICU admissions, and six deaths due to COVID-19 could be prevented, compared with 3947 expected myocarditis cases after COVID-19 vaccination (Table 2). Among males aged 30 years, 15,300 COVID-19 cases, 4,598 hospitalizations, 1,242 ICU admissions, and 700 deaths could be prevented, compared with three to four expected myocarditis cases after COVID-19 vaccination. This analysis did not include the potential benefit of preventing post-COVID-19 conditions, such as prolonged symptoms and MIS-C (6,7).




I love the use of all were hospitalized but generally mild here. Not your fault though as you were just repeating something you agreed with.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski believes nothing the CDC or any other public health official says but 100% of every unverified local news report.

Seems legit.


False.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Sigh. More misleading information by oski. Malones first sentence isn't incorrect but there is no scientific basis to connect what he is saying to the safety of MRNA vaccines. This has been debunked numerous times and no one has shared a peer reviewed study establishing the cytotoxicity in relation to vaccines.


https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/

Editor in Chief of NEJM ran Moderna's trial so not sure how likely we will get a peer reviewed article saying their vaccine is dangerous, especially in light of the risk/benefit analysis that favors mRNA vax over not having a vax at all. Mainstream studies that acknowledge the danger of the spike protein make sure to add pro vaccine commentary.
Sure, more conspiracy theories. We've delivered ~300m doses of MRNA vaccines to date in the US. Why aren't the bodies piling up? Why aren't the hospitals full of vaccinated people suffering organ failure?

99% of those hospitalized and dying are unvaccinated. COVID is on the rise again in a few states where people are susceptible to the sort of anti-vaxxer misinformation that people like you enjoy dissembling.

You should have enough scientific knowledge to know that you are weaponizing misinformation and purposefully wielding it against the ignorant and that it's doing them harm.


About 7,000 post vaccine deaths as of last week, according to VAERS. I don't go by amount of doses. I go by amount fully vaccinated because I don't water down and mislead. About 1 in 25,000 people died post vaccination. Is that real enough for you? To be fair, 620,000 people in the USA have died of covid.


LOL more dissembling. I encourage people to go straight to the source if they have any questions about VAERS reports and how to interpret them in relation to COVID vaccines. Approximately 8,000 people die every single day in the US of things having nothing to do with COVID. Given that more than half the country has been vaccinated, that's more than 4k vaccinated people dying per day.

It's getting harder and harder to be a "just asking questions" anti-vaxxer like oski. With each passing day they have become more and more desperate to mislead people and you're seeing that play out in this thread.

I look forward to oski soon claiming that I'm on the take from big pharma or Fauci as he finds it more and more difficult to combat the actual efficacy and safety data.



You aren't on BP take but you certainly blindly trust them. You are implying here that side effects and deaths post vaccine are automatically added to VAERS. That couldn't be further from the truth. Someone, such as a medical professional, needs to actually report them. This explains why certain hospitals report more post vax myocarditis than others. It also explains why myocarditis is now being reported more often (doctors are now connecting the dots when before causation was overlooked).

48.4% of Americans over the age of 18 got the flu shot. Only About 200 deaths were reported in VAERS. The difference between 200 deaths and 7,000 deaths is huge.



VAERS is full of fake reports and you know it. It's not limited to doctors and there have been lots of stories of VAERS spam. But you don't question anything that helps you spread anti vax misinformation.

The abuse of VAERS has been shameful.


There is no evidence of abuse of VAERS outside of a small percentage of bogus reports yet you purport like it is just rampant fraud. You downgrade the governments side effect reporting system because it suits your agenda. You ignore the side effect trial data because it correlates with the incredible amount of side effects reported in VAERS.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Sigh. More misleading information by oski. Malones first sentence isn't incorrect but there is no scientific basis to connect what he is saying to the safety of MRNA vaccines. This has been debunked numerous times and no one has shared a peer reviewed study establishing the cytotoxicity in relation to vaccines.


Btw, I still believe the spike protein is cytotoxic. I also believe it is still currently the best to use for a vaccine due to it being immunogenic. Of course, you are so sure it is not cytotoxic.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

I have no idea why you keep talking about ivermectin. If there are studies showing it to be effective in the treatment of COVID, that would be a nice addition to the existing therapeutics.

If you are suggesting that people should avoid vaccination and rely on an untested therapeutic, then I hope no one listens to you because that is dangerous advice. If you want to go get COVID and treat it with ivermectin, knock yourself out. Oxford is studying it right now and I assume that we will know within a few months whether it's a safe and effective therapeutic, like dexamethasone, or whether it's snake oil, like HCQ. The fact that you are willing to recommend an untested, unproven off-label use indicates that you think COVID-19 is something to be reckoned with, so I appreciate that aspect.


I agree with this post. You went off the rails on ivermectin later.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

Increase in infections in Israel despite mass vaccinations. Indoor mask rules reinstated. Half of those sick had been vaccinated by Pfizer.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccinated-people-account-for-half-of-new-covid-19-delta-cases-in-israeli-outbreak-11624624326


The vaccines are only 95% effective against the original strain of COVID. They are reportedly effective against the D1 variant. But I have not seen any reports whether that effectiveness is 95% or less.

In any event, we can expect that some number of the vaccinated will be included among those infected during a spike.
The larger the absolute number of vaccinated, the larger will be the absolute number of vaccinated who will be infected during a spike.

That fact is not a criticism of the vaccines. It is merely a mathematical conclusion.


It is logical to criticize the vaccine for a design that loses significant effectiveness against variants. It is also logical to factor in Delta effectiveness in risk/reward mRNA vaccine analysis, especially since the Delta variant will be the dominant US variant by the fall.
1. I said that i did not know whether the vaccine had the same effectiveness against the D1 Variant as it did against the original strain, my comments were that even assuming 95% effectiveness, we should expect that some percentage of vaccinated individuals would be infected by COVID. if you know the effectiveness of the current vaccine against the D1 Variant, please enlighten us.

If you read the WSJ article I posted about Israel and breakthrough covid from Delta strain, you would be enlightened. Nvax is 96% against original strain and 55% against South African strain. Moderna was offered a large grant to test effectiveness against South Africa strain and rejected it. They have only shown immunogenicity against SA strain in a lab, and it is significantly less than 95%, despite the biased setting. I doubt effectiveness against Delta strain is in the 90s.

2. You say, "It is logical to criticize the vaccine for a design that loses significant effectiveness against variants." However you ignore that the current vaccine is more or less effective against many of the Variants being experienced in the world. So obviously, some effort was made to make a more broadly effective vaccine.

I never said no effort was made to make a more broadly effective vaccine. Your logic here does not cut the mustard.

3, You also say, "It is also logical to factor in Delta effectiveness in risk/reward mRNA vaccine analysis, especially since the Delta variant will be the dominant US variant by the fall." Unless you know Marty McFly and have access to his time machine, it appears more than a little unfair to criticize the vaccine developers for failing to foresee the evolution of the D1 Variant and with that foresight understand how that Variant operates and how to develop an appropriate defense. These vaccines were developed very quickly but they weren't developed overnight.

Again, your logic does not cut the mustard. I am not criticizing spike protein vaccine scientists. I am criticizing the actual vaccine. I am criticizing the FDA/OWS/NIH/politics for having only three vaccines available, all spike protein based off the original variant, one of which was halted in trials for the same condition it was halted after EUA and European countries won't touch it with a ten foot pool.

Perhaps your criticism is better focused on the individuals who are resisting vaccination. It is a well known fact that the Variants arise from mutations that increase the longer the original strain of Covid spreads through the host population. The more people there are that contract Covid (or one of the Variants), the more mutations there will be. one good way to fight further mutations is to "Get the **** shot."

Fine. Let's force vaccination on everyone in the U.S. and close the border for five years. I am being a bit facetious here. In reality, if we could kill it by vaccinating everyone around the same time, it would be great. Perhaps, we should ship Pfizer and Moderna to Mexico, so their adults could get vaccinated.

However, what we really need are SAFE VACCINES that give protection against severe disease that we will likely boost annually, like a flu shot. Btw, vaccine survival causes variants as well.





Yes we need safe vaccines. But let's not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Let's not forget that the original strain of COVID was killing thousands of people in the US each week.
CDC reports that the US weekly provisional death rate was 25,759 the week of 1-9-21 and 25,283 the week of 1-16-21.
With good reason the manufacturers were pushing hard to develop their vaccines and then get them into the public AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. Every week of delay meant 25,000+ more dead in the US.
(FYI the US provisional death rate was 1,330 the week of 6-12-21 and 611 the week of 6-12-21.

I for one am very happy that the manufacturers did not delay their vaccines until it would defeat every possible variant (even if that were possible).

Repeating my earlier analogy. I was much more afraid of the lion that I knew was downstairs in my house. Than I was of the lion that might be in the backyard of the house across the street.



A stopgap vaccine is better than no vaccine. Hopefully, the US is supporting other vaccine techs and just being quiet about it.

In one interview in the past month or so. Dr. Fauci said he thought that people in the US would probably have to receive updated booster shots to deal with the new variants periodically (annually?). In
Much the same way we receive an annual flu shot to deal with the new strain of flu.
Despite anti-vaxxer alarmism to the contrary, there have been indications that the MRNA protection will be quite durable and possibly permanent.

Here's a paper in Nature and related NYT reporting.

From the NYT article:
Quote:

The vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna set off a persistent immune reaction in the body that may protect against the coronavirus for years, scientists reported on Monday.

The findings add to growing evidence that most people immunized with the mRNA vaccines may not need boosters, so long as the virus and its variants do not evolve much beyond their current forms which is not guaranteed. People who recovered from Covid-19 before being vaccinated may not need boosters even if the virus does make a significant transformation.

"It's a good sign for how durable our immunity is from this vaccine," said Ali Ellebedy, an immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis who led the study, which was published in the journal Nature.

The study did not consider the coronavirus vaccine made by Johnson & Johnson, but Dr. Ellebedy said he expected the immune response to be less durable than that produced by mRNA vaccines.

Dr. Ellebedy and his colleagues reported last month that in people who survived Covid-19, immune cells that recognize the virus lie quiescent in the bone marrow for at least eight months after infection. A study by another team indicated that so-called memory B cells continue to mature and strengthen for at least a year after infection.

Based on those findings, researchers suggested that immunity might last for years, possibly a lifetime, in people who were infected with the coronavirus and later vaccinated. But it was unclear whether vaccination alone might have a similarly long-lasting effect.
Obviously I don't have any scientific basis to speculate as to how things will turn out but at this point, the news has been quite positive regarding the effectiveness of the MRNA vaccines relative to J&J and other options.





I know you really wanted to believe these vaccines were durable because you have selective comprehension, however, you were proven dead wrong about a week later. You were just wrong here and there was so much evidence at this time that boosters were going to be needed.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Someone is triggered but hasn't posted any misinformation and lies attributable to me.

He has posted information with appropriate cautionary language and sourcing and has shown an inability to understand how honest and cautious communication works. He frequently assumes certain facts which are still in dispute.

There is still a lot of developing information and data. If you want to say I'm guilty of not editorializing enough and predicting how things will develop, umm sure, I will gladly accept that criticism and wouldn't change a thing.
Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Roy Kent said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Ivermectin is recommended by the CDC to be given by the physicians for preventative treatment of all refugees for intestinal parasites (not covid).

https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/guidelines/overseas-guidelines.html


That's not particularly relevant to what's happening now. The idiots eating horse paste believe you need much higher doses and can't get prescriptions.

Look at Oklahoma - ERs are filling up with IVM overdoses.

https://www.insider.com/oklahomas-emergency-rooms-are-clogged-with-people-overdosing-on-ivermectin-2021-9

Quote:


A doctor in rural Oklahoma said the number of people overdosing on the deworming medication ivermectin meant for livestock was so high that emergency rooms were filled to the brim.

The situation is so dire that people with gunshot wounds have to wait their turn to get treatment, Dr. Jason McElyea, an ER physician affiliated with hospitals in Sallisaw, told NBC affiliate KFOR.

McElyea said the hospitals he worked at became overwhelmed after people started taking ivermectin, believing unverified claims that it's an effective COVID-19 treatment.

"The ERs are so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated," McElyea said.


LOL. That story was a fabrication and you bought it lock, stock, and barrel.


Damn, I should have read this thread more carefully. I think it was in this discussion where I shared this same issue, as a concern about journalistic integrity. Yes, it was here, now a page back:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/101590/replies/1908899

It seems these fabricated stories are still out there, Tweets about them, not corrected, removed or flagged as mis/disinformation. This "ends justify the means" messaging mentality is highly destructive, IMO. Sadly, such occurrences are not rare. There should be outrage, but most often, after some noise, silence prevails. Everyone in my circle often doesn't trust the news until, if they can make time, research a specific topic themselves. All too often we find shenanigans and shady tactics employed, if not outright lies. For those on Twitter, DrewHolden360 has a very solid record of calling-out these instances. Not sure if anyone researches and chronicles this BS better than him:



As noted in the earlier post linked above, there is very serious lack of trust in our media. Also, over time, with our government: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust-in-government-1958-2021/

Yet, it's our government officials, the media, telling us what to do, what's in our best interest, supposedly. With such a credibility problem, and seemingly no desire to address it, many will unfortunately not know who or what to believe.
Sig test...
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal89 said:

Roy Kent said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Ivermectin is recommended by the CDC to be given by the physicians for preventative treatment of all refugees for intestinal parasites (not covid).

https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/guidelines/overseas-guidelines.html


That's not particularly relevant to what's happening now. The idiots eating horse paste believe you need much higher doses and can't get prescriptions.

Look at Oklahoma - ERs are filling up with IVM overdoses.

https://www.insider.com/oklahomas-emergency-rooms-are-clogged-with-people-overdosing-on-ivermectin-2021-9

Quote:


A doctor in rural Oklahoma said the number of people overdosing on the deworming medication ivermectin meant for livestock was so high that emergency rooms were filled to the brim.

The situation is so dire that people with gunshot wounds have to wait their turn to get treatment, Dr. Jason McElyea, an ER physician affiliated with hospitals in Sallisaw, told NBC affiliate KFOR.

McElyea said the hospitals he worked at became overwhelmed after people started taking ivermectin, believing unverified claims that it's an effective COVID-19 treatment.

"The ERs are so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated," McElyea said.


LOL. That story was a fabrication and you bought it lock, stock, and barrel.


Damn, I should have read this thread more carefully. I think it was in this discussion where I shared this same issue, as a concern about journalistic integrity. Yes, it was here, now a page back:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/101590/replies/1908899

It seems these fabricated stories are still out there, Tweets about them, not corrected, removed or flagged as mis/disinformation. This "ends justify the means" messaging mentality is highly destructive, IMO. Sadly, such occurrences are not rare. There should be outrage, but most often, after some noise, silence prevails. Everyone in my circle often doesn't trust the news until, if they can make time, research a specific topic themselves. All too often we find shenanigans and shady tactics employed, if not outright lies. For those on Twitter, DrewHolden360 has a very solid record of calling-out these instances. Not sure if anyone researches and chronicles this BS better than him:



As noted in the earlier post linked above, there is very serious lack of trust in our media. Also, over time, with our government: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust-in-government-1958-2021/

Yet, it's our government officials, the media, telling us what to do, what's in our best interest, supposedly. With such a credibility problem, and seemingly no desire to address it, many will unfortunately not know who or what to believe.

It's almost as if some foreign power or adversary was trying to destabilize our society and our government.

Nah.

Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

Cal89 said:

Roy Kent said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Ivermectin is recommended by the CDC to be given by the physicians for preventative treatment of all refugees for intestinal parasites (not covid).

https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/guidelines/overseas-guidelines.html


That's not particularly relevant to what's happening now. The idiots eating horse paste believe you need much higher doses and can't get prescriptions.

Look at Oklahoma - ERs are filling up with IVM overdoses.

https://www.insider.com/oklahomas-emergency-rooms-are-clogged-with-people-overdosing-on-ivermectin-2021-9

Quote:


A doctor in rural Oklahoma said the number of people overdosing on the deworming medication ivermectin meant for livestock was so high that emergency rooms were filled to the brim.

The situation is so dire that people with gunshot wounds have to wait their turn to get treatment, Dr. Jason McElyea, an ER physician affiliated with hospitals in Sallisaw, told NBC affiliate KFOR.

McElyea said the hospitals he worked at became overwhelmed after people started taking ivermectin, believing unverified claims that it's an effective COVID-19 treatment.

"The ERs are so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated," McElyea said.


LOL. That story was a fabrication and you bought it lock, stock, and barrel.


Damn, I should have read this thread more carefully. I think it was in this discussion where I shared this same issue, as a concern about journalistic integrity. Yes, it was here, now a page back:

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/101590/replies/1908899

It seems these fabricated stories are still out there, Tweets about them, not corrected, removed or flagged as mis/disinformation. This "ends justify the means" messaging mentality is highly destructive, IMO. Sadly, such occurrences are not rare. There should be outrage, but most often, after some noise, silence prevails. Everyone in my circle often doesn't trust the news until, if they can make time, research a specific topic themselves. All too often we find shenanigans and shady tactics employed, if not outright lies. For those on Twitter, DrewHolden360 has a very solid record of calling-out these instances. Not sure if anyone researches and chronicles this BS better than him:



As noted in the earlier post linked above, there is very serious lack of trust in our media. Also, over time, with our government: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust-in-government-1958-2021/

Yet, it's our government officials, the media, telling us what to do, what's in our best interest, supposedly. With such a credibility problem, and seemingly no desire to address it, many will unfortunately not know who or what to believe.

It's almost as if some foreign power or adversary was trying to destabilize our society and our government.

Nah.


There's actually plenty of folks with supporting data who feel that way, but that would be a different thread...
Sig test...
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The U.S. should have helped with this. It is not too late.

https://www.statnews.com/2021/09/07/cepi-warns-of-major-hurdle-to-developing-new-covid-19-vaccines-boosters/
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
" 85% of Democrats, 66% of independents and 32% of Republicans support mask mandates for students and staff."


59% of parents support school mask mandates - Axios


https://www.axios.com/poll-republicans-school-mask-mandates-0b7b68ed-ee96-41c6-b0c9-8d83cb99b3e0.html
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Children should mask up while indoors at school. This also supports vaccination for school age kids.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/we-are-in-a-bad-situation-covid-19-hospitalizations-among-sc-children-are-rising-pediatricians-say/ar-AAOcvD3?li=BBnbfcL
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Howard Stern ROASTS Dead Anti-Vax Radio Hosts, Wants Mandate


https://www.mediaite.com/radio/howard-stern-roasts-anti-vax-radio-hosts-who-died-says-make-vaccine-mandatory-fck-them-fck-their-freedom/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Meanwhile, Joe Rogan says he's doing better after catching Covid but he's still a little "hoarse".
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?



"The U.S. is averaging 1,500 deaths a day for the first time since March, Axios health care editor Tina Reed writes.

Daily death totals have more than quintupled since the start of August, The New York Times calculates.
What we're watching: Cases and hospitalizations among kids.

Kids now make up more than a quarter (26.9%) of new weekly COVID cases nationwide, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics." Axios
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?


I'm not sure if they would vote for Biden again. The Democrats are turning out to be real vaxxholes.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
New study says boosters aren't needed for the general public yet. This puts 003 in a difficult position of having to both blame Biden and big pharma for recommending boosters prematurely to goose profits and blame the mRNA vaccines for being ineffective without a booster. He's been playing both sides for a while so will be interesting to see which anti-vax path takes prominence.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

New study says boosters aren't needed for the general public yet. This puts 003 in a difficult position of having to both blame Biden and big pharma for recommending boosters prematurely to goose profits and blame the mRNA vaccines for being ineffective without a booster. He's been playing both sides for a while so will be interesting to see which anti-vax path takes prominence.


I am not anti vax, I am anti mRNA covid vax with the caveat that people should get it because it is effective and the only thing available against a deadly disease.

The two HEAD FDA scientists were pushed out because they advocate most of the US population not get boosters because pfizer and Moderna are still 90% effective against severe disease for the non vulnerable population. They have more of a global view that the world needs the mRNA vaccines more than healthy Americans need boosters.

However, for the same reason that mRNA was pushed ahead despite its side effects, the US desires covid vaccines to prevent infection because they are still trying to eradicate covid in the united states at least to the extent that even the smaller threat of severe disease is eliminated further. These vaccines given every 5 months can reduce infections significantly. At what cost? Pfizer and Moderna/NIH see dollar signs because they can charge double in the USA what they charge in the third world. Pfizers 4 million spent lobbying in q1 will pay off. Plus, they don't have to pay for more cold chain.

I have always advocated for the US to allow non cold chain safer vaccines that also prevent severe disease. However, the mRNA vaccines worked and prevented development of other vaccines, with the exception of global giant JnJ.

This is 100% consistent with what is happening and your conclusions are entirely misguided based on your preconceived beliefs and angelical need to promote these vaccines.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

New study says boosters aren't needed for the general public yet. This puts 003 in a difficult position of having to both blame Biden and big pharma for recommending boosters prematurely to goose profits and blame the mRNA vaccines for being ineffective without a booster. He's been playing both sides for a while so will be interesting to see which anti-vax path takes prominence.


I am not anti vax, I am anti mRNA covid vax with the caveat that people should get it because it is effective and the only thing available against a deadly disease.

The two HEAD FDA scientists were pushed out because they advocate most of the US population not get boosters because pfizer and Moderna are still 90% effective against severe disease for the non vulnerable population. They have more of a global view that the world needs the mRNA vaccines more than healthy Americans need boosters.

However, for the same reason that mRNA was pushed ahead despite its side effects, the US desires covid vaccines to prevent infection because they are still trying to eradicate covid in the united states at least to the extent that even the smaller threat of severe disease is eliminated further. These vaccines given every 5 months can reduce infections significantly. At what cost? Pfizer and Moderna/NIH see dollar signs because they can charge double in the USA what they charge in the third world. Pfizers 4 million spent lobbying in q1 will pay off. Plus, they don't have to pay for more cold chain.

I have always advocated for the US to allow non cold chain safer vaccines that also prevent severe disease. However, the mRNA vaccines worked and prevented development of other vaccines, with the exception of global giant JnJ.

This is 100% consistent with what is happening and your conclusions are entirely misguided based on your preconceived beliefs and angelical need to promote these vaccines.
But you also keep saying that mRNA requires boosters already. Are you saying that's not the case?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

New study says boosters aren't needed for the general public yet. This puts 003 in a difficult position of having to both blame Biden and big pharma for recommending boosters prematurely to goose profits and blame the mRNA vaccines for being ineffective without a booster. He's been playing both sides for a while so will be interesting to see which anti-vax path takes prominence.


I am not anti vax, I am anti mRNA covid vax with the caveat that people should get it because it is effective and the only thing available against a deadly disease.

The two HEAD FDA scientists were pushed out because they advocate most of the US population not get boosters because pfizer and Moderna are still 90% effective against severe disease for the non vulnerable population. They have more of a global view that the world needs the mRNA vaccines more than healthy Americans need boosters.

However, for the same reason that mRNA was pushed ahead despite its side effects, the US desires covid vaccines to prevent infection because they are still trying to eradicate covid in the united states at least to the extent that even the smaller threat of severe disease is eliminated further. These vaccines given every 5 months can reduce infections significantly. At what cost? Pfizer and Moderna/NIH see dollar signs because they can charge double in the USA what they charge in the third world. Pfizers 4 million spent lobbying in q1 will pay off. Plus, they don't have to pay for more cold chain.

I have always advocated for the US to allow non cold chain safer vaccines that also prevent severe disease. However, the mRNA vaccines worked and prevented development of other vaccines, with the exception of global giant JnJ.

This is 100% consistent with what is happening and your conclusions are entirely misguided based on your preconceived beliefs and angelical need to promote these vaccines.
But you also keep saying that mRNA requires boosters already. Are you saying that's not the case?


The ideal solutions are 1) a durable vaccine or 2) a safe boostable vaccine. mRNA is neither. However, protection against severe disease for the non-immunocompromised lasts at least 9 months. Put another way, mRNA covid vax is very effective at controlling covid for 5 months. After 5 months, it is only very effective at preventing hospitalizations, which is important.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here's What the Next Six Months of the Pandemic Will Bring


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-09-12/6-month-covid-outlook-2021
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

New study says boosters aren't needed for the general public yet. This puts 003 in a difficult position of having to both blame Biden and big pharma for recommending boosters prematurely to goose profits and blame the mRNA vaccines for being ineffective without a booster. He's been playing both sides for a while so will be interesting to see which anti-vax path takes prominence.


I am not anti vax, I am anti mRNA covid vax with the caveat that people should get it because it is effective and the only thing available against a deadly disease.

The two HEAD FDA scientists were pushed out because they advocate most of the US population not get boosters because pfizer and Moderna are still 90% effective against severe disease for the non vulnerable population. They have more of a global view that the world needs the mRNA vaccines more than healthy Americans need boosters.

However, for the same reason that mRNA was pushed ahead despite its side effects, the US desires covid vaccines to prevent infection because they are still trying to eradicate covid in the united states at least to the extent that even the smaller threat of severe disease is eliminated further. These vaccines given every 5 months can reduce infections significantly. At what cost? Pfizer and Moderna/NIH see dollar signs because they can charge double in the USA what they charge in the third world. Pfizers 4 million spent lobbying in q1 will pay off. Plus, they don't have to pay for more cold chain.

I have always advocated for the US to allow non cold chain safer vaccines that also prevent severe disease. However, the mRNA vaccines worked and prevented development of other vaccines, with the exception of global giant JnJ.

This is 100% consistent with what is happening and your conclusions are entirely misguided based on your preconceived beliefs and angelical need to promote these vaccines.
But you also keep saying that mRNA requires boosters already. Are you saying that's not the case?


"Although the benefits of primary COVID-19 vaccination clearly outweigh the risks, there could be risks if boosters are widely introduced too soon, or too frequently, especially with vaccines that can have immune-mediated side-effects (such as myocarditis, which is more common after the second dose of some mRNA vaccines,3 or Guillain-Barre syndrome, which has been associated with adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines4). If unnecessary boosting causes significant adverse reactions, there could be implications for vaccine acceptance that go beyond COVID-19 vaccines. Thus, widespread boosting should be undertaken only if there is clear evidence that it is appropriate."
"Current evidence does not, therefore, appear to show a need for boosting in the general population, in which efficacy against severe disease remains high. Even if humoral immunity appears to wane, reductions in neutralising antibody titre do not necessarily predict reductions in vaccine efficacy over time, and reductions in vaccine efficacy against mild disease do not necessarily predict reductions in the (typically higher) efficacy against severe disease."
"Although vaccines are less effective against asymptomatic disease or against transmission than against severe disease, even in populations with fairly high vaccination rates the unvaccinated are still the major drivers of transmission and are themselves at the highest risk of serious disease.16"
"The effectiveness of boosting against the main variants now circulating and against even newer variants could be greater and longer lived if the booster vaccine antigen is devised to match the main circulating variants.6 There is an opportunity now to study variant-based boosters before there is widespread need for them. A similar strategy is used for influenza vaccines, for which each annual vaccine is based on the most current data about circulating strains, increasing the likelihood that the vaccine will remain effective even if there is further strain evolution."

Source: Lancet, PUB 09.13.21
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02046-8/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR3xLKZP3KdrK0S6uwPss1E7ozj79CYYl4knEYH6KDdWudScHsCKV-l4H3Q
Big Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"The two HEAD FDA scientists were pushed out because they advocate most of the US population not get boosters because pfizer and Moderna are still 90% effective against severe disease for the non vulnerable population. They have more of a global view that the world needs the mRNA vaccines more than healthy Americans need boosters."

If true, it's good that they retired as that is not their call to make; perhaps they can get a job with WHO which fits their philosophies better.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big Dog said:

"The two HEAD FDA scientists were pushed out because they advocate most of the US population not get boosters because pfizer and Moderna are still 90% effective against severe disease for the non vulnerable population. They have more of a global view that the world needs the mRNA vaccines more than healthy Americans need boosters."

If true, it's good that they retired as that is not their call to make; perhaps they can get a job with WHO which fits their philosophies better.
There's also some reasonable disagreement that vaccine supply is actually finite in the way they describe. Some would say it can easily stretch to meet demand, and the issue is more about who pays for it. Wealthy countries could buy boosters for themselves AND subsidize doses for poorer countries; it's not necessarily either/or.

Logistics are also an issue in poorer nations. Sending vaccines is one thing, administrating them something else.
Big Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Big Dog said:

"The two HEAD FDA scientists were pushed out because they advocate most of the US population not get boosters because pfizer and Moderna are still 90% effective against severe disease for the non vulnerable population. They have more of a global view that the world needs the mRNA vaccines more than healthy Americans need boosters."

If true, it's good that they retired as that is not their call to make; perhaps they can get a job with WHO which fits their philosophies better.
There's also some reasonable disagreement that vaccine supply is actually finite in the way they describe. Some would say it can easily stretch to meet demand, and the issue is more about who pays for it. Wealthy countries could buy boosters for themselves AND subsidize doses for poorer countries; it's not necessarily either/or.

Logistics are also an issue in poorer nations. Sending vaccines is one thing, administrating them something else.
Absolutely, not to mention the 500 mill doses that the US has already pledged and at the millions that WHO has not yet figured out how to dispense. But I ignored those issues bcos two top FDA officials had to be aware of them and prefer the globalism. And scientifically, they are not wrong: the faster the world gets vaxed, the fewer chances for variants to develop. So it is definitely in the best interests of the Developed nations to help the developing nations. But as you note, we can do both. Protect the vulnerable in the US (60+?, immunocompromised) and 'donate' (i.e, paid by US taxpayers) vaccines to WHO.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

New study says boosters aren't needed for the general public yet. This puts 003 in a difficult position of having to both blame Biden and big pharma for recommending boosters prematurely to goose profits and blame the mRNA vaccines for being ineffective without a booster. He's been playing both sides for a while so will be interesting to see which anti-vax path takes prominence.


I am not anti vax, I am anti mRNA covid vax with the caveat that people should get it because it is effective and the only thing available against a deadly disease.

The two HEAD FDA scientists were pushed out because they advocate most of the US population not get boosters because pfizer and Moderna are still 90% effective against severe disease for the non vulnerable population. They have more of a global view that the world needs the mRNA vaccines more than healthy Americans need boosters.

However, for the same reason that mRNA was pushed ahead despite its side effects, the US desires covid vaccines to prevent infection because they are still trying to eradicate covid in the united states at least to the extent that even the smaller threat of severe disease is eliminated further. These vaccines given every 5 months can reduce infections significantly. At what cost? Pfizer and Moderna/NIH see dollar signs because they can charge double in the USA what they charge in the third world. Pfizers 4 million spent lobbying in q1 will pay off. Plus, they don't have to pay for more cold chain.

I have always advocated for the US to allow non cold chain safer vaccines that also prevent severe disease. However, the mRNA vaccines worked and prevented development of other vaccines, with the exception of global giant JnJ.

This is 100% consistent with what is happening and your conclusions are entirely misguided based on your preconceived beliefs and angelical need to promote these vaccines.
But you also keep saying that mRNA requires boosters already. Are you saying that's not the case?


Also, the head FDA scientists who resigned under protest also are frustrated by the lack of actual scientific trials for boosters. I think only 300 people total have been in a Pfizer booster trial, and they didn't establish a comparative control group. Of those 300, one had a heart attack two weeks post vax (Pfizer said unrelated) and 15 had enlarged lymph nodes. While the boosters may be relatively safe, the scientists protested a lack of evidence that they actually were, along with lack of a proven need.

FYI, this is a foreign publication. No national outlet in the US will report this stuff:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9993515/amp/Show-jumper-22-suffered-extremely-rare-reaction-Moderna-vaccine-never-ride-again.html?__twitter_impression=true

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9991347/amp/Ex-girlfriend-model-Kris-Smith-suffers-rare-heart-condition-getting-Pfizer-Covid-shot.html

On the other hand, US outlets posts headlines blaming the unvaccinated when the vaccinated succumb to covid 19.

Headline: woman dies from covid after visiting state with low vaccination rate.

"Candace Cay (Kruger) Ayers, 66, of Springfield, passed away on September 3, 2021, at St. John's Hospital in Springfield, IL. She was preceded in death by more than 4,531,799 others infected with Covid-19. She was vaccinated but was infected by others who chose not to be. The cost was her life."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/15/us/illinois-family-vaccine-obit/index.html

It is your fault, you red state mofos!

Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

New study says boosters aren't needed for the general public yet. This puts 003 in a difficult position of having to both blame Biden and big pharma for recommending boosters prematurely to goose profits and blame the mRNA vaccines for being ineffective without a booster. He's been playing both sides for a while so will be interesting to see which anti-vax path takes prominence.


I am not anti vax, I am anti mRNA covid vax with the caveat that people should get it because it is effective and the only thing available against a deadly disease.

The two HEAD FDA scientists were pushed out because they advocate most of the US population not get boosters because pfizer and Moderna are still 90% effective against severe disease for the non vulnerable population. They have more of a global view that the world needs the mRNA vaccines more than healthy Americans need boosters.

However, for the same reason that mRNA was pushed ahead despite its side effects, the US desires covid vaccines to prevent infection because they are still trying to eradicate covid in the united states at least to the extent that even the smaller threat of severe disease is eliminated further. These vaccines given every 5 months can reduce infections significantly. At what cost? Pfizer and Moderna/NIH see dollar signs because they can charge double in the USA what they charge in the third world. Pfizers 4 million spent lobbying in q1 will pay off. Plus, they don't have to pay for more cold chain.

I have always advocated for the US to allow non cold chain safer vaccines that also prevent severe disease. However, the mRNA vaccines worked and prevented development of other vaccines, with the exception of global giant JnJ.

This is 100% consistent with what is happening and your conclusions are entirely misguided based on your preconceived beliefs and angelical need to promote these vaccines.
But you also keep saying that mRNA requires boosters already. Are you saying that's not the case?


Also, the head FDA scientists who resigned under protest also are frustrated by the lack of actual scientific trials for boosters. I think only 300 people total have been in a Pfizer booster trial, and they didn't establish a comparative control group. Of those 300, one had a heart attack two weeks post vax (Pfizer said unrelated) and 15 had enlarged lymph nodes. While the boosters may be relatively safe, the scientists protested a lack of evidence that they actually were, along with lack of a proven need.

FYI, this is a foreign publication. No national outlet in the US will report this stuff:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9993515/amp/Show-jumper-22-suffered-extremely-rare-reaction-Moderna-vaccine-never-ride-again.html?__twitter_impression=true

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9991347/amp/Ex-girlfriend-model-Kris-Smith-suffers-rare-heart-condition-getting-Pfizer-Covid-shot.html

On the other hand, US outlets posts headlines blaming the unvaccinated when the vaccinated succumb to covid 19.

Headline: woman dies from covid after visiting state with low vaccination rate.

"Candace Cay (Kruger) Ayers, 66, of Springfield, passed away on September 3, 2021, at St. John's Hospital in Springfield, IL. She was preceded in death by more than 4,531,799 others infected with Covid-19. She was vaccinated but was infected by others who chose not to be. The cost was her life."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/15/us/illinois-family-vaccine-obit/index.html

It is your fault, you red state mofos!


Why would the Pfizer vaccine be any more or less dangerous as a booster than it is as an initial vaccination?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.