Vaccine Redux - Vax up and go to Class

175,698 Views | 3037 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by bearister
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


You are not a woman. Wait, as a Democrat, who am I to judge? What exactly is a woman, anyway?!?.

Simply defined, a woman is someone who is looking forward to watching the Academy Awards this evening.

A husband is someone who will watch it to preserve family harmony.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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?
Biden said, "Do it. No meeting required."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-authorizes-second-covid-19-booster-shot-for-older-adults-11648564824

Kathy Griffin knows what's up. She is ready to slap somebody!

Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
35 cases at one hospital in Seattle. Best estimate is 370 cases per million in this age group, 70% with serious, permanent heart damage. Their risk from Covid? De minimis. Great risk reward there from your gene therapy which the CDC admits does not prevent transmission. Yeah, yeah nothing to see here. The vaccine is safe, blah blah blah. You'd feel differently if your 16-year-old boy wasn't already gene therapied. Well, a sane person would.

And before you dismiss the source, this is reporting on a peer-reviewed study and multiple cardiologists are quoted.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/heart-damage-teens-after-second-pfizer-shot/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=fd444cd1-9029-49de-a934-77e1862648ce
------------------------------------------
Heart Damage Found in Teens Months After Second Pfizer Shot, Study Shows

A new peer-reviewed study shows more than two-thirds of adolescents with COVID-19 vaccine-related myopericarditis had persistent heart abnormalities months after their initial diagnosis, raising concerns for potential long-term effects.
The findings, published March 25 in the Journal of Pediatrics, challenge the position of U.S. health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which claim heart inflammation associated with the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines is "mild."
Researchers at Seattle Children's Hospital reviewed cases of patients younger than 18 years old who presented to the hospital with chest pain and an elevated serum troponin level between April 1, 2021, and Jan. 7, 2022, within one week of receiving a second dose of Pfizer's vaccine.
While 35 patients fit the criteria, 19 were excluded for various reasons. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the remaining 16 patients was performed three to eight months after they were first examined. The MRIs showed 11 had persistent late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), although levels were lower than in previous months.
According to the study, "The presence of LGE is an indicator of cardiac injury and fibrosis and has been strongly associated with worse prognosis in patients with classical acute myocarditis."
In a meta-analysis of eight studies, LGE was found to be a predictor of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, cardiac transplant, rehospitalization, recurrent acute myocarditis and requirement for mechanical circulatory support.

-------------------------------------------
Heart Damage Found in Teens Months After Second Pfizer Shot, Study Shows

"A new peer-reviewed study shows more than two-thirds of adolescents with COVID-19 vaccine-related myopericarditis had persistent heart abnormalities months after their initial diagnosis, raising concerns for potential long-term effects.
The findings, published March 25 in the Journal of Pediatrics, challenge the position of U.S. health agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which claim heart inflammation associated with the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines is "mild."
Researchers at Seattle Children's Hospital reviewed cases of patients younger than 18 years old who presented to the hospital with chest pain and an elevated serum troponin level between April 1, 2021, and Jan. 7, 2022, within one week of receiving a second dose of Pfizer's vaccine.
While 35 patients fit the criteria, 19 were excluded for various reasons. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the remaining 16 patients was performed three to eight months after they were first examined. The MRIs showed 11 had persistent late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), although levels were lower than in previous months.
According to the study, "The presence of LGE is an indicator of cardiac injury and fibrosis and has been strongly associated with worse prognosis in patients with classical acute myocarditis."
In a meta-analysis of eight studies, LGE was found to be a predictor of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, cardiac transplant, rehospitalization, recurrent acute myocarditis and requirement for mechanical circulatory support."

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zippergate said:

35 cases at one hospital in Seattle. Best estimate is 370 cases per million in this age group, 70% with serious, permanent heart damage. Their risk from Covid? De minimis. Great risk reward there from your gene therapy which the CDC admits does not prevent transmission. Yeah, yeah nothing to see here. The vaccine is safe, blah blah blah. You'd feel differently if your 16-year-old boy wasn't already gene therapied. Well, a sane person would.

And before you dismiss the source, this is reporting on a peer-reviewed study and multiple cardiologists are quoted.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/heart-damage-teens-after-second-pfizer-shot/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=fd444cd1-9029-49de-a934-77e1862648ce
------------------------------------------


Here is a link to the study. People can read it. It's not as alarmist as the well-known anti-vaxxer site you linked (Children's Health Defense) makes it out to be.

There are certainly concerns raised by the study, but it's premature to say "70% with serious, permanent heart damage." That is extremely misleading and disingenuous but not surprising coming from the sources (including Zippgergate who has repeatedly spread misinformation).

This is I think the most relevant portion of the findings:
Quote:

In a cohort of adolescents with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-related myopericarditis, a large portion have persistent LGE abnormalities, raising concerns for potential longer-term effects. Despite these persistent abnormalities, all patients had rapid clinical improvement and normalization of echocardiographic measures of systolic function. For patients with short acute illness, no dysfunction demonstrated by echocardiogram at presentation and resolution of symptoms at follow up, return to sports was guided by normalization of CMR alone. In patients with persistent CMR abnormalities we performed exercise stress testing prior to sports clearance per myocarditis recommendations. We plan to repeat CMR at 1 year post-vaccine for our cohort to assess for resolution or continued CMR changes.

LGE abnormalities a few months after myopericarditis is concerning as noted above but the study doesn't call that "serious, permanent heart damage."

Zipperhate only has like 45 posts on this site and most are laughably bad takes on COVID. He used to pretend that Ivermectin was a useful COVID therapeutic including citing ZeroHedge numerous times lol. He also believes COVID is man-made and that the VACCINES aren't effective. Skepticism of his COVID posts is obviously warranted.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


I'm pretty sure the only reason my modest house in the Bay Area is worth a small fortune is Joe Biden's inflation.
You cant be serious.
Zippergate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not a doctor but neither are you, so I find it fascinating that you can dismiss these findings so cavalierly. Here is the result of a meta-study of over 1,000 patients with LGE:

"Results: Eight articles including 1319 patients (mean age, 38.8 12.9 years) were included in the meta-analysis. The study showed that positive LGE was strongly associated with an increased risk of combined outcome (pooled OR, 5.85; 95% CI, 2.88 to 11.86; p < 0.001) and of MACE (pooled OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 2.18 to 9.59; p < 0.001). Additionally, in a subgroup analysis with mean ejection fraction (EF) point of 50%, the pooled ORs for the combined outcome were 6.46 for left ventricular EF (LVEF) > 50% and 7.90 for LVEF 50%, and the pooled ORs for MACE were 9.03 and 3.45, respectively. After 3 years of follow-up, the worse outcomes occurred mainly in patients with positive LGE."

What is a "combined outcome" you say? What is "MACE"? Here's how they define it:

"Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as the combination of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart transplantation, appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock, rehospitalisation following a cardiac event and recurrent acute myocarditis. Combined outcome was defined as the combination of all adverse events."

BTW, heart tissue has very limited regenerative capability.

And you're sure this is transitory and harmless. Great, vaxx YOUR kids. See, that's what this thread was originally about--whether mandates for children and adolescents are appropriate. That was before you and others moved the goalposts and tried to make this an argument about vaccines in general. The sane among us have repeatedly pointed to some problems:
- We didn't have much data on children. The data that we did have did NOT show the necessary benefit to merit vaxxing all the kids.
- Maddie Garay. GOOGLE THE NAME.
- The data on adults is highly concerning given that the VAERS system which is used to track vaccine injury warned of numerous cardiac and neurological problems. If you don't believe the VAERS system, then why does it exist? How exactly are vaccine injuries monitored if not by VAERS?
- Children are at very low risk of the virus. This has been known from very early on in the pandemic.
- We have no long term safety data on this experimental gene therapy. Vaccines always take several years to reach market for this very reason.
- The trials were compromised and highly questionable. So we don't believe whistleblowers now? And why are all these adverse events like myocarditis much more prevalent than they appeared in the clinical trials?
- We have known for quite a while that the Covid gene therapies do no prevent transmission. Therefore, the only reason to vaxx an individual is if it provides benefit to that individual.
- We know that natural immunity even going back to SARS-COV I is broad spectrum and long-lasting and therefore likely superior to gene-therapy induced immunity. Despite these obvious facts, Fauci and his Pharma Industrial Complex insist that everyone, regardless of infection status must be jabbed. That is an unscientific position.

Based on these reasons, I didn't want my boys gene therapied and I still don't want them gene therapied. Our family all had Covid in January and recovered quickly (in my case, possibly as a result of the Ivermectin I took). MY TEENAGE BOYS HAVE NO NEED FOR THE COVID GENE THERAPIES. So why do authoritarians like you continue to dismiss the science, ignore the mounting evidence and insist that they get it?????

As for Ivermectin, I think we can ignore the horses asses at the FDA who tweeted the snarky warning to people not to take the horse drug. Ivermectin has been given to 4 billion people and is on WHO's list of essential medicines (for humans, of course). Only a fool would be influenced by that absurdity. Ivermectin is safer than Tylenol, has multiple multiple anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties and has been shown to inhibit the SAR Covid II virus in vitro. These are facts that no serious person disputes. And NO ONE of any merit to my knowledge has said that Ivermectin doesn't work for Covid. What some have said is that without large clinical trials the evidence for the use of Ivermectin for Covid is inconclusive. Why are they saying that? Here's the backstory...

(BTW, I quote Tess Lawrie's study a long time ago and you dismissed it because she rated the quality of the evidence as "moderate certainty." Read what she says to Dr. Hill. Based on her quotes, it's obvious "modest certainty" does not mean what you think it means.)

"Dr. Tess Lawrie, a consultant for the World Health Organization (WHO), led a 2020 study that showed patients treated with Ivermectin experience a 75% reduction in mortality, hospitalization, and a positive overall clinical picture.

Subsequently, the WHO commissioned Dr. Andrew Hill to do a meta-study of the dozens of new studies from around the world suggesting that Ivermectin could be a remarkably safe and effective treatment for COVID-19. On January 18, 2021, Dr. Hill initially published a manuscript detailing his research and findings on the internet. He also concluded that Ivermectin was an effective treatment for Covid-19. After sharing his pre-published paper on the internet, the paper was edited and revised for publication."


https://rairfoundation.com/deadly-cover-up-who-buried-the-research-proving-ivermectin-saves-covid-patients-lives/

Lawrie was very troubled by Hill's reversal and called him via zoom. The call was recorded and posted to the internet and a transcript appears in RFK Jr's book on Fauci. Here's an account of that call with actual quotes, verifiable by listening to the recording.

In a zoom conversation between Dr. Tess Lawrie, nicknamed the "Conscience of Medicine," and Dr. Andrew Hill, then the most influential Ivermectin advocate in the world, Dr. Hill chose dollars over human lives.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/dr-tess-lawrie-the-conscience-of-medicine/article_ff673eca-ac2d-11eb-adaa-ab952b1d2661.html

Hill's parent institution, the University of Liverpool, had just received a 40 million dollar donation from UNITAID four days before Hill's Ivermectin paper was published, and Dr. Hill's conclusion was changed 180 degrees from his position just a few weeks earlier.
Andrew Hill admitted that his sponsors (UNITAID) pressured him to alter his conclusion. Hill explained, "I think I'm in a very sensitive position here."
Dr. Lawrie called Hill out. She stated, "Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they're in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine."
Lawrie criticized Hill, "This is what I don't get, you know, because you're not a clinician. You're not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80%. So 80 percent of those people who are dying today don't need to die because there's Ivermectin."
Hill responded that the NIH would not agree to recommend IVM.
Dr. Tess Lawrie fired back, "Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby...This is bad research. So at this point, I am really, really worried about you."
Hill answered, "Okay. Yeah. I mean, it's a difficult situation."
Lawrie responded, "No, you might be in a difficult situation. I'm not because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth...How can you deliberately try and mess up...you know? So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily - up to you? What is the timeline you've allowed for this, then?"
Andrew Hill reacted, "Well, I think...I think that it goes to WHO and the NIH, and the FDA, and the EMEA. And they've got to decide when they think enough is enough."
Dr. Lawrie pointed out the obvious, "You'd rather...risk loads of people's lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying...
I'm a doctor, and I'm going to save as many lives as I can. And I'm going to do that through getting the message [out] on Ivermectin...Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do."
Dr. Lawrie demanded to know the identity of the unknown UNITAID author who changed Dr. Hill's conclusions, the person whose influence was to cause so many preventable deaths.
"So who is it in UNITAID, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?"
Hill answered, "Well, it's just the people there. I don't..."
Dr. Lawrie pressed Hill, "Could you please give me a name of someone in UNITAID I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?
Dr. Hill evaded, "Oh, I'll have to think about who to, to offer you with a name...But I mean this is very difficult because I'm, you know, I've got this role where I'm supposed to produce this paper and we're in a very difficult, delicate balance...Yeah, it's a very strong lobby..."
The conversation concludes with Dr. Hill promising to do everything in his power to get Ivermectin approved if she could give him six more weeks.
Dr. Lawrie, "So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for?"
Dr. Hill, "From my side. Okay...I think end of February, we will be there in six weeks."
Dr. Tess Lawrie, "How many people die every day?"
Dr. Andrew Hill, "Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day."
Dr. Tess Lawrie, "Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks...Because at this rate, all other countries are getting Ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby."
Dr. Andrew Hill, "My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum..."
Dr. Tess Lawrie, The Conscience of Medicine, concluded with this, "You're not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, 'I can see this prevents deaths. So I'm not going to support this conclusion anymore, and I'm going to tell the truth.'"

Finally, Dr. Lawrie added, "Well, you're not going to get it approved the way you've written that conclusion. You've actually shot yourself in the foot, and you've shot us all in the foot. All of...everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it...I don't know how you sleep at night, honestly."
The fact that Dr. Andrew Hill allowed another person to change his paper's conclusion has been known for more than six months and was published in the book, Ivermectin for the World.
"However, he [Dr. Andrew Hill] was reigned in before more damage [to the vaccine lobby] was done:

[ol]
  • He was invited to the NIH, along with Dr. Marik, probably to give the appearance of propriety.
  • He was given a gag order and told not to speak to any more press until The WHO made an official decision on Ivermectin. It turned out that this decision would go against the drug despite Dr. Hill's findings.
  • Dr. Hill's conclusion would be changed by someone else, and the rest is history."
  • [/ol]https://www.amazon.com/Ivermectin-World-Justus-R-Hope/dp/1737415909
    What was not known, until the transcript of the zoom conference between Dr. Hill and Dr. Lawrie was leaked, were the specifics of the quid pro quo. It turns out that the height of the COVID-19 Winter surge, when about 15,000 people per day were dying, was precisely the same time as the zoom conference, held on January 18, 2021. Moreover, it was days after Andrew Hill's University of Liverpool took the $40 million payoff.

    https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/ivermectin-and-the-price-of-life/article_3e1a2e14-5c70-11ec-b6f4-2b146e98a0b5.html

    All you have is an appeal to authority, that of the WHO, CDC, FDA, etc. Under normal circumstances, that would be sufficient to dismiss the Ivermectin controversy as conspiracy theory. However, EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF HARD EVIDENCE points in the other direction. As the MIC runs foreign policy, so does the Pharma Industrial Complex run health policy. But you've got your political blinders on and only see what you want to see. I find it hilarious that you criticize me for citing articles from ZH. As if the NYT and your news sources are more credible. ROFL at your NYT which parroted the Hunter Biden Russia disinformation story and then quietly backtracked from it 1 1/2 years later when it didn't matter anymore. CIA director William Casey once said, "We'll Know Our Disinformation Program Is Complete When Everything the American Public Believes Is False." Congrats, you proved him right.





    Unit2Sucks
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    You really dispelled my concerns, thank you. How much Ivermectin are you on right now?
    Unit2Sucks
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Just a reminder about ZeroHedge which is Zipperhate's favorite source of information. After years of criticism far and wide that ZH is a Russian propaganda site, they published a series of articles written by a sanctioned Kremlin linked foundation that takes direction from Russia's security service.




    More hilariously, we don't need to just rely on the US or the accusations to evaluate ZH's credibility. The series of articles in question criticized the US for claiming that Russia was gearing up to attack and invade Ukraine.

    Quote:

    Recent articles listed as authored by the foundation and published by Zero Hedge include those with the headlines: "NATO Sliding Towards War Against Russia In Ukraine," "Americans Need A Conspiracy Theory They Can All Agree On" and "Theater Of Absurd... Pentagon Demands Russia Explain Troops On Russian Soil."

    Doesn't exactly speak well for ZH's prescience.

    But their misinformation isn't just limited to Kremlin directed propaganda, they also are a terrible source of news on science and particularly the pandemic.

    Quote:

    The website was an early amplifier of conspiracy theories and misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. An Associated Press investigation determined the site played a pivotal role in advancing the unproven theory that China engineered the virus as a bioweapon. It's also posted articles touting natural immunity to COVID-19 and unproven treatments.

    Zero Hedge was also cited in a recent report by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue that examined how far-right extremists are harnessing COVID-19 misinformation to expand their reach. Twitter briefly suspended Zero Hedge's account in 2020 but reinstated it a few months later, saying it "made an error in our enforcement action in this case."

    The U.S. moving to name the website could inform some people who come across its content online, Schafer said.

    "My guess is that most of the people who are loyal Zero Hedge followers naturally are inclined to mistrust the U.S. government anyway," he said, "and so this announcement is probably not going to undermine most of Zero Hedge's core support."
    Meanwhile, Zipperhate tells us not to appeal to authority but that we should listen to Dr Robert Malone as an authority on mRNA and a bunch of other discredited people because of jobs they used to have. Zipperhate has communicated to us quite clearly who he is.
    BearForce2
    How long do you want to ignore this user?


    How is she still employed?
    Zippergate
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Because I cite a ZH article means that I automatically subscribe to every opinion expressed on that site. Brilliant logic there, Aristotle. I cite information backed by credible scientists and doctors. Why don't you address the data being presented for a change? Why won't you engage with the arguments being made? Simple. You're too lazy to actually investigate them and you blindly trust your news sources because they agree with your world view. Factcheckers are totally trustworthy and don't have an agenda. Yeah right.

    I find it fascinating that people of your ilk are so obsessed with Putin when we have a much bigger tyrant, a literal healthcare Czar who lies for profit (ever see a list of his royalties?) and power who has done untold damage to the health of Americans and people all over the world and you fawn over him like a teenage girl at Beetles concert. Read about what Fauci did with the AIDS "epidemic" in Africa to see what true evil looks like. You won't of course. Facts aren't your style and you won't get any social credit points for doing so.


    For the record, I denounce the Russia invasion and think Putin is a dangerous tyrant while at the same time agreeing with Keenan, Kissinger, Mearsheimer et al that this crisis was completely predictable, preventable and brought on by the provocative policies of our government and NATO.

    Everyone in my family is fully vaccinated (excluding your wondrous gene therapies, of course) so contrary to your repeated claims, I am not anti-vaccine. Btw, my gene therapied brother-in-law who never smoked a day in his life was just diagnosed with aggressive stage IV lung cancer of the type common to smokers. Was it the vaccine? Who knows. What we can say is that all-cause mortality spiked after vaccine rollout and again after the boosters and some are seeing a connection. Wouldn't it be nice to go back to the clinical trials and do a long-term analysis. Not possible. They vaxxed most of the people in the control arm so we'll never know. How convenient for them.

    I don't hate anyone except the for the people in positions of power who put others in harms way for personal gain. If that makes me a hater, so be it.

    Unit2Sucks
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Zippergate said:

    Btw, my gene therapied brother-in-law who never smoked a day in his life was just diagnosed with aggressive stage IV lung cancer of the type common to smokers. Was it the vaccine? Who knows.
    This is the type of well-considered conclusion you draw and why I will continue to disregard your ridiculous ramblings. You might as well ask whether your brother in law caught cancer from you reading ZeroHedge. Anything's possible right?
    Big C
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    DiabloWags said:

    Big C said:


    I'm pretty sure the only reason my modest house in the Bay Area is worth a small fortune is Joe Biden's inflation.
    You cant be serious.


    I can be serious from time to time, but this time I was being sarcastic. Obviously, my house in the Bay Area is worth a lot because the area is thriving economically and a lot of people have a lot of money, plus there aren't enough houses (located centrally) to go around.
    oski003
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Unit2Sucks said:

    Zippergate said:

    Btw, my gene therapied brother-in-law who never smoked a day in his life was just diagnosed with aggressive stage IV lung cancer of the type common to smokers. Was it the vaccine? Who knows.
    This is the type of well-considered conclusion you draw and why I will continue to disregard your ridiculous ramblings. You might as well ask whether your brother in law caught cancer from you reading ZeroHedge. Anything's possible right?


    He didn't state a conclusion. Actually, your conclusion that he stated a conclusion is why people should disregard your biased ramblings.
    Unit2Sucks
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    Zippergate said:

    Btw, my gene therapied brother-in-law who never smoked a day in his life was just diagnosed with aggressive stage IV lung cancer of the type common to smokers. Was it the vaccine? Who knows.
    This is the type of well-considered conclusion you draw and why I will continue to disregard your ridiculous ramblings. You might as well ask whether your brother in law caught cancer from you reading ZeroHedge. Anything's possible right?


    He didn't state a conclusion. Actually, your conclusion that he stated a conclusion is why people should disregard your biased ramblings.
    No, he's "just asking questions." Perhaps Novavax bribed you to post anti-mRNA propaganda in support of their vaccine efforts. Who knows. I'm just asking questions.
    oski003
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    Zippergate said:

    Btw, my gene therapied brother-in-law who never smoked a day in his life was just diagnosed with aggressive stage IV lung cancer of the type common to smokers. Was it the vaccine? Who knows.
    This is the type of well-considered conclusion you draw and why I will continue to disregard your ridiculous ramblings. You might as well ask whether your brother in law caught cancer from you reading ZeroHedge. Anything's possible right?


    He didn't state a conclusion. Actually, your conclusion that he stated a conclusion is why people should disregard your biased ramblings.
    No, he's "just asking questions." Perhaps Novavax bribed you to post anti-mRNA propaganda in support of their vaccine efforts. Who knows. I'm just asking questions.


    Do you wonder if Novavax pays me for posting arguments disfavoring mRNA vaccines and big pharma?
    Unit2Sucks
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    Zippergate said:

    Btw, my gene therapied brother-in-law who never smoked a day in his life was just diagnosed with aggressive stage IV lung cancer of the type common to smokers. Was it the vaccine? Who knows.
    This is the type of well-considered conclusion you draw and why I will continue to disregard your ridiculous ramblings. You might as well ask whether your brother in law caught cancer from you reading ZeroHedge. Anything's possible right?


    He didn't state a conclusion. Actually, your conclusion that he stated a conclusion is why people should disregard your biased ramblings.
    No, he's "just asking questions." Perhaps Novavax bribed you to post anti-mRNA propaganda in support of their vaccine efforts. Who knows. I'm just asking questions.


    Do you wonder if Novavax pays me for posting arguments disfavoring mRNA vaccines and big pharma?
    Perhaps Novavax implanted a mind control device under your skin that makes you constantly post dangerous misinformation on vaccines. I'm not stating a conclusion, just asking questions here. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the communist party? What do you know about JFK's assassination? Again, I'm just asking questions here so I'm immune to criticism.
    oski003
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    Zippergate said:

    Btw, my gene therapied brother-in-law who never smoked a day in his life was just diagnosed with aggressive stage IV lung cancer of the type common to smokers. Was it the vaccine? Who knows.
    This is the type of well-considered conclusion you draw and why I will continue to disregard your ridiculous ramblings. You might as well ask whether your brother in law caught cancer from you reading ZeroHedge. Anything's possible right?


    He didn't state a conclusion. Actually, your conclusion that he stated a conclusion is why people should disregard your biased ramblings.
    No, he's "just asking questions." Perhaps Novavax bribed you to post anti-mRNA propaganda in support of their vaccine efforts. Who knows. I'm just asking questions.


    Do you wonder if Novavax pays me for posting arguments disfavoring mRNA vaccines and big pharma?
    Perhaps Novavax implanted a mind control device under your skin that makes you constantly post dangerous misinformation on vaccines. I'm not stating a conclusion, just asking questions here. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the communist party? What do you know about JFK's assassination? Again, I'm just asking questions here so I'm immune to criticism.


    Do you actually think Novavax implanted a mind control device under my skin that makes me post vaccine information? Do you think I was or is a member of the Communist party? I don't really have time to post everything I know of JFK's assassination, most of which I learned via school, movies, and the other mainstream media. You aren't immune to criticism. You are a snarky narrow-minded tool who doesn't consider others' viewpoints and dismisses information contrary to your own, often without reading it.
    Unit2Sucks
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    Zippergate said:

    Btw, my gene therapied brother-in-law who never smoked a day in his life was just diagnosed with aggressive stage IV lung cancer of the type common to smokers. Was it the vaccine? Who knows.
    This is the type of well-considered conclusion you draw and why I will continue to disregard your ridiculous ramblings. You might as well ask whether your brother in law caught cancer from you reading ZeroHedge. Anything's possible right?


    He didn't state a conclusion. Actually, your conclusion that he stated a conclusion is why people should disregard your biased ramblings.
    No, he's "just asking questions." Perhaps Novavax bribed you to post anti-mRNA propaganda in support of their vaccine efforts. Who knows. I'm just asking questions.


    Do you wonder if Novavax pays me for posting arguments disfavoring mRNA vaccines and big pharma?
    Perhaps Novavax implanted a mind control device under your skin that makes you constantly post dangerous misinformation on vaccines. I'm not stating a conclusion, just asking questions here. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the communist party? What do you know about JFK's assassination? Again, I'm just asking questions here so I'm immune to criticism.


    Do you actually think Novavax implanted a mind control device under my skin that makes me post vaccine information? Do you think I was or is a member of the Communist party? I don't really have time to post everything I know of JFK's assassination, most of which I learned via school, movies, and the other mainstream media. You aren't immune to criticism. You are a snarky narrow-minded tool who doesn't consider others' viewpoints and dismisses information contrary to your own, often without reading it.
    I didn't state a conclusion. Actually, your conclusion that I stated a conclusion is why people should disregard your biased ramblings.

    I consider other people's viewpoints but this notion that any disingenuous person posting misinformation should be accorded the same level of credibility as people posting in good faith is part of the rot that is going on in our society. Why should we pretend like Mike Lindell is a credible source of information on election security? Why should we pretend that Rudy G is the person to listen to about corruption? Why should we pretend that Trump and his family are authorities on anything?

    Assessing the credibility of sources is critical to negotiating the modern world. In fact, education advocates are starting to push to teach children how to assess bias, accuracy and reliability in online sources. If more people, including Zipperhate and you, were able to see past the obvious COVID misinformation online, we may have been able to save hundreds of thousands of lives in the US alone. Instead we have a bunch of morons who genuinely believe that Ivermectin is a better tool to protect us from COVID than vaccines. You might not believe that but Zipperhate, who is thisclose to you from a misinformation standpoint, certainly does. Oops, apologies for stating a conclusion. Rephrased, do you think that Zipperhate genuinely believes that Ivermectin offers more protection from severe COVID outcomes than vaccines?

    But please continue to criticize me. It definitely hurts my feelings and makes me look bad. All of your months of painstaking misinformation has made you the most credible source on vaccines at BI. You should be proud. Ooops, there's another conclusion. Should you be proud of your attempts to sow doubt on vaccine safety and efficacy which leads morons to believe an anti-parasitic is the best way to prevent and treat COVID?
    Zippergate
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    You're worried about misinformation? Oh, that's rich.
    Were you worried about misinformation when Fauci was telling the public to wear worthless cloth masks while privately admitting in emails now public thanks to the FOIA that they do nothing?
    Were you worried about disinformation when Fauci dismissed any talk of Covid being a man-made virus released from a lab developed with illegal funding from his organization?
    Were you worried about misinformation when the health authorities stated with certainty that the vaccines prevent transmission when it was not possible to know that at the time and we now know it was simply untrue?
    Were you worried about disinformation when the FDA labeled Ivermectin horse dewormer?
    Were you worried about disinformation when Merck, the developer of Ivermectin, which is on WHO's list of essential medicines, has been given to 4 billion people and save millions from unnecessary suffering, warned about the safety of Ivermectin, one of the safest drugs ever developed, while at the same time preparing to launch a patent-protected competing drug?
    Were you worried about disinformation when it was decided to allow Pfizer to release documentation of its gene therapy clinical trials over a 75 year period?
    Were you worried about misinformation when health authorities completely disregarded their own system for detecting vaccine injury, VAERS, and made no effort to investigate the tens of thousands of entries into that system?
    Were you worried about disinformation when they actually changed the dictionary definition of terms like "vaccine" to suit their purposes?
    Were you worried about misinformation when Saint Cuomo was killing seniors by sending Covid-infected patients back to care facilities leading to thousands of deaths and later covering this up?
    Were you worried about misinformation when the HRC campaign was howling about Russia interference while at the same time illegally using campaign funds to fund a bogus dossier on Trump?
    Were you worried about misinformation when 51 intelligence experts called the Hunter Biden laptop Russian disinformation or that the MSM covered up that story a month before the election even though we now know the laptop was indeed genuine, the expert opinion was a lie admitted to by the some of signatories and by the NYT?
    Were you worried about misinformation when the MSM sounded the alarm on right wing extremism based on the Whitmer kidnapping plot when the whole thing was financed and planned by the FBI and more than half of the participants were FBI informants?
    Were you worried about misinformation when the Biden administration and MSM lie claiming multiple police deaths on January 6th when in fact there were none?
    etc etc

    I doubt it. Being gaslit is your specialty.
    Big C
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    Zippergate said:

    Btw, my gene therapied brother-in-law who never smoked a day in his life was just diagnosed with aggressive stage IV lung cancer of the type common to smokers. Was it the vaccine? Who knows.
    This is the type of well-considered conclusion you draw and why I will continue to disregard your ridiculous ramblings. You might as well ask whether your brother in law caught cancer from you reading ZeroHedge. Anything's possible right?


    He didn't state a conclusion. Actually, your conclusion that he stated a conclusion is why people should disregard your biased ramblings.
    No, he's "just asking questions." Perhaps Novavax bribed you to post anti-mRNA propaganda in support of their vaccine efforts. Who knows. I'm just asking questions.


    Do you wonder if Novavax pays me for posting arguments disfavoring mRNA vaccines and big pharma?
    Perhaps Novavax implanted a mind control device under your skin that makes you constantly post dangerous misinformation on vaccines. I'm not stating a conclusion, just asking questions here. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the communist party? What do you know about JFK's assassination? Again, I'm just asking questions here so I'm immune to criticism.


    Do you actually think Novavax implanted a mind control device under my skin that makes me post vaccine information? Do you think I was or is a member of the Communist party? I don't really have time to post everything I know of JFK's assassination, most of which I learned via school, movies, and the other mainstream media. You aren't immune to criticism. You are a snarky narrow-minded tool who doesn't consider others' viewpoints and dismisses information contrary to your own, often without reading it.

    I think it's fair to just ask the questions, right?. You always have the choice of answering them, or, if they hit a little too close to home, avoiding them. Wow, I had heard so many theories about the JFK assassination, but this latest really makes sense, when you stop and think about it. Can you tell us who was on the grassy knoll? If not, what are you trying to hide?

    I'm not implying anything, just asking the questions. I just might go see what VAERS says about this . . .
    oski003
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Big C said:

    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    Zippergate said:

    Btw, my gene therapied brother-in-law who never smoked a day in his life was just diagnosed with aggressive stage IV lung cancer of the type common to smokers. Was it the vaccine? Who knows.
    This is the type of well-considered conclusion you draw and why I will continue to disregard your ridiculous ramblings. You might as well ask whether your brother in law caught cancer from you reading ZeroHedge. Anything's possible right?


    He didn't state a conclusion. Actually, your conclusion that he stated a conclusion is why people should disregard your biased ramblings.
    No, he's "just asking questions." Perhaps Novavax bribed you to post anti-mRNA propaganda in support of their vaccine efforts. Who knows. I'm just asking questions.


    Do you wonder if Novavax pays me for posting arguments disfavoring mRNA vaccines and big pharma?
    Perhaps Novavax implanted a mind control device under your skin that makes you constantly post dangerous misinformation on vaccines. I'm not stating a conclusion, just asking questions here. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the communist party? What do you know about JFK's assassination? Again, I'm just asking questions here so I'm immune to criticism.


    Do you actually think Novavax implanted a mind control device under my skin that makes me post vaccine information? Do you think I was or is a member of the Communist party? I don't really have time to post everything I know of JFK's assassination, most of which I learned via school, movies, and the other mainstream media. You aren't immune to criticism. You are a snarky narrow-minded tool who doesn't consider others' viewpoints and dismisses information contrary to your own, often without reading it.

    I think it's fair to just ask the questions, right?. You always have the choice of answering them, or, if they hit a little too close to home, avoiding them. Wow, I had heard so many theories about the JFK assassination, but this latest really makes sense, when you stop and think about it. Can you tell us who was on the grassy knoll? If not, what are you trying to hide?

    I'm not implying anything, just asking the questions. I just might go see what VAERS says about this . . .


    I don't know off-hand who was on the grassy knoll and am not trying to hide anything regarding jfk. VAERS has nothing to do with JFK. drawing purposeful ridiculous parallels of legitimate questions to mRNA covid vaccines and illegitimate questions related to anything under the sun doesn't further your point. Rather, it only shows how hellbent you are in pushing your viewpoint and ignoring contrary information.
    BearForce2
    How long do you want to ignore this user?


    Translation: Unit2sucks, get vaccinated before we start charging you for it.
    Unit2Sucks
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Zippergate said:

    You're worried about misinformation? Oh, that's rich.
    Were you worried about misinformation when Fauci was telling the public to wear worthless cloth masks while privately admitting in emails now public thanks to the FOIA that they do nothing?
    Were you worried about disinformation when Fauci dismissed any talk of Covid being a man-made virus released from a lab developed with illegal funding from his organization?
    Were you worried about misinformation when the health authorities stated with certainty that the vaccines prevent transmission when it was not possible to know that at the time and we now know it was simply untrue?
    Were you worried about disinformation when the FDA labeled Ivermectin horse dewormer?
    Were you worried about disinformation when Merck, the developer of Ivermectin, which is on WHO's list of essential medicines, has been given to 4 billion people and save millions from unnecessary suffering, warned about the safety of Ivermectin, one of the safest drugs ever developed, while at the same time preparing to launch a patent-protected competing drug?
    Were you worried about disinformation when it was decided to allow Pfizer to release documentation of its gene therapy clinical trials over a 75 year period?
    Were you worried about misinformation when health authorities completely disregarded their own system for detecting vaccine injury, VAERS, and made no effort to investigate the tens of thousands of entries into that system?
    Were you worried about disinformation when they actually changed the dictionary definition of terms like "vaccine" to suit their purposes?
    Were you worried about misinformation when Saint Cuomo was killing seniors by sending Covid-infected patients back to care facilities leading to thousands of deaths and later covering this up?
    Were you worried about misinformation when the HRC campaign was howling about Russia interference while at the same time illegally using campaign funds to fund a bogus dossier on Trump?
    Were you worried about misinformation when 51 intelligence experts called the Hunter Biden laptop Russian disinformation or that the MSM covered up that story a month before the election even though we now know the laptop was indeed genuine, the expert opinion was a lie admitted to by the some of signatories and by the NYT?
    Were you worried about misinformation when the MSM sounded the alarm on right wing extremism based on the Whitmer kidnapping plot when the whole thing was financed and planned by the FBI and more than half of the participants were FBI informants?
    Were you worried about misinformation when the Biden administration and MSM lie claiming multiple police deaths on January 6th when in fact there were none?
    etc etc

    I doubt it. Being gaslit is your specialty.

    Just wanted to quote this for posterity. This is a mix of outright false information and crazy (Ivermectin, gene therapy nonsense), things that have been widely acknowledged (Cuomo - who I have criticized multiple times), twisting of facts (Hunter's laptop, 1/6 police deaths) and a bunch of other garbage.

    If you are trying to come off as a dispassionate unbiased observer, you have massively failed to do so.

    The fact that you still think Ivermectin (which, despite your failure to acknowledge it, is a fantastic anti-parasitic aka "dewormer") is more effective than COVID vaccines tells us everything we need to know about your judgment. Even the most anti-mRNA vaccine person in this thread (with hundreds of posts to that effect) acknowledges that Ivermectin is unhelpful for COVID. I do think in places where parasites are an issue that Ivermectin can be helpful in reducing the parasitic load that can confound someone also suffering from COVID but otherwise I haven't seen anything indicating that it's something that should be part of a clinical course. I have seen lots of fraudulent studies which you seem to think are legit and which are supported by the garbage websites that you rely on like ZeroHedge and desert review.

    But please do go on about how everyone else is gaslit.
    oski003
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Unit2Sucks said:

    Zippergate said:

    You're worried about misinformation? Oh, that's rich.
    Were you worried about misinformation when Fauci was telling the public to wear worthless cloth masks while privately admitting in emails now public thanks to the FOIA that they do nothing?
    Were you worried about disinformation when Fauci dismissed any talk of Covid being a man-made virus released from a lab developed with illegal funding from his organization?
    Were you worried about misinformation when the health authorities stated with certainty that the vaccines prevent transmission when it was not possible to know that at the time and we now know it was simply untrue?
    Were you worried about disinformation when the FDA labeled Ivermectin horse dewormer?
    Were you worried about disinformation when Merck, the developer of Ivermectin, which is on WHO's list of essential medicines, has been given to 4 billion people and save millions from unnecessary suffering, warned about the safety of Ivermectin, one of the safest drugs ever developed, while at the same time preparing to launch a patent-protected competing drug?
    Were you worried about disinformation when it was decided to allow Pfizer to release documentation of its gene therapy clinical trials over a 75 year period?
    Were you worried about misinformation when health authorities completely disregarded their own system for detecting vaccine injury, VAERS, and made no effort to investigate the tens of thousands of entries into that system?
    Were you worried about disinformation when they actually changed the dictionary definition of terms like "vaccine" to suit their purposes?
    Were you worried about misinformation when Saint Cuomo was killing seniors by sending Covid-infected patients back to care facilities leading to thousands of deaths and later covering this up?
    Were you worried about misinformation when the HRC campaign was howling about Russia interference while at the same time illegally using campaign funds to fund a bogus dossier on Trump?
    Were you worried about misinformation when 51 intelligence experts called the Hunter Biden laptop Russian disinformation or that the MSM covered up that story a month before the election even though we now know the laptop was indeed genuine, the expert opinion was a lie admitted to by the some of signatories and by the NYT?
    Were you worried about misinformation when the MSM sounded the alarm on right wing extremism based on the Whitmer kidnapping plot when the whole thing was financed and planned by the FBI and more than half of the participants were FBI informants?
    Were you worried about misinformation when the Biden administration and MSM lie claiming multiple police deaths on January 6th when in fact there were none?
    etc etc

    I doubt it. Being gaslit is your specialty.

    Just wanted to quote this for posterity. This is a mix of outright false information and crazy (Ivermectin, gene therapy nonsense), things that have been widely acknowledged (Cuomo - who I have criticized multiple times), twisting of facts (Hunter's laptop, 1/6 police deaths) and a bunch of other garbage.

    If you are trying to come off as a dispassionate unbiased observer, you have massively failed to do so.

    The fact that you still think Ivermectin (which, despite your failure to acknowledge it, is a fantastic anti-parasitic aka "dewormer") is more effective than COVID vaccines tells us everything we need to know about your judgment. Even the most anti-mRNA vaccine person in this thread (with hundreds of posts to that effect) acknowledges that Ivermectin is unhelpful for COVID. I do think in places where parasites are an issue that Ivermectin can be helpful in reducing the parasitic load that can confound someone also suffering from COVID but otherwise I haven't seen anything indicating that it's something that should be part of a clinical course. I have seen lots of fraudulent studies which you seem to think are legit and which are supported by the garbage websites that you rely on like ZeroHedge and desert review.

    But please do go on about how everyone else is gaslit.


    For the record, my belief that ivermectin is ineffective against covid has nothing to do with my beliefs that mRNA and adenovirus vaccines should not be the only vaccines available to Americans. Apples and Oranges.
    Zippergate
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    So you're totally okay with the Pfizer vaccine which showed 6 more deaths in the treatment group than the control group and had a whistleblower describe numerous, serious problems with the trials. You're totally okay with the FDA ignoring the safety signals provided the VAERS system. You're okay with vaxxing adolescents where the rate of myocarditis is between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 10000 even according to Pfizer's own documents. You're okay with the fact that the Pfizer vaccine is still being given under EUA so that Pfizer has immunity from liability. If you say it's approved, please tell me who has received Comirnaty, the approved version?

    You're okay, I assume, with Remdesivir, the killer drug that causes kidney and other organ failure in around a quarter of the patients who receive it and showed a slightly negative benefit in most of the clinical trials.

    But you're not okay with Ivermectin which has 60+ clinical trials which show dramatic benefit. Thousands of doctors have claimed to have saved lives with it. They literally risk their medical licenses to proscribe it. But no, we're supposed to believe that these doctors who actually treat Covid patients, not desk jockeys in Washington who hand out OPM (government grants) and watch their PFE stock on their computers all day, are risking their careers for an off-patent drug that offers no kickbacks from Big Pharma. RRRIIIGHT. We're supposed to pretend that it's not used in countries all over the world such as India, Mexico, Peru, Bulgaria--places that have had much better Covid outcomes than Fauci's USA despite much lower access to quality health care. Is the benefit 75%? Maybe not. Even if it is only 25%, that would still save thousands of lives.

    Btw, have you even looked at the TOGETHER trial? How many of the participants in the control group observed the protocols? I'll help you out since I know you're lazy. The answer is about a third. If two-thirds of the control group were NOT following the protocols but included in the study, is this really a double-blinded study? Why did they instruct the participants to take the drug on an empty stomach when it is well-known that you're supposed to take Ivermectin with a meal to help absorption? Why do none of the numbers in the subgroups add up? Why did they use a lower than recommended dose and only for 3 days? Why were patients who were symptomatic for up to 10 days included when it is well-known that Ivermectin works best when it is given early? There are countless problems with this trial because it was SET UP TO FAIL. If Ivermectin (or anything else for that matter) is effective for Covid, then they can't mandate unapproved vaccines. They've been biased against therapeutics from the beginning. So why should we trust any of these clowns when we have recorded audio of the scientist chosen by WHO to write the meta-analysis on record talk favorably about Ivermectin, write an analysis showing a large benefit, only to find that the conclusion of his paper, written surreptitiously by a UNITAID exec reach the opposite conclusion (proven via forensic analysis of the electronic document)?

    I have zero hope that you will consider anything I write. You never have. You insulted me and falsely and pejoratively labeled me an anti-vaxxer from the beginning. You won't consider any of the my sources, all by doctors and scientists, simply because I bring them to you. But your authorities? Skepticism vanishes. CDC, good. FDA, good. No industry capture, no conflicts of interest (because your tiny bubble of sources won't point them out to you). NYT, good (despite pushing the Russia hoax, lying about J6, etc. How about being consistent? How about applying those shrew powers of skepticism to your own cherished sources for a change? But you've been informed. And someday the truth will come out and you will have to look at yourself in the mirror and come to grips with the fact that you have been completely brainwashed by corrupt, self-serving people like Fauci and the thousands who goosestep behind him for personal gain.

    Finally, please explain how I twist the facts of the J6 police deaths? How many were there? I want a number. If the number is more than zero, give me names. If the number is zero, why do Democrats in the Biden administration, partisan hacks at the DOJ, sychopant liars at the NYT, CNN, MSNBC etc continue to repeat the lie that there were police (plural) deaths on Jan 6? Who's twisting the facts?

    What about the Hunter Biden laptop story was twisting the facts? Was the the laptop not genuine? Then the NYT and CIA operative who signed his name to the letter calling it Russia disinformation (a lie) was lying. Do you not find it concerning that 50 intelligence officials would lie about something so newsworthy and important a month before the election? If it's okay to lie, what else is it okay to lie about? Do you it's okay for Big Tech to shut down a story just because it doesn't like the political implications of it?

    In case you didn't notice, this country is collapsing all around us. There are many reasons but one of the important is that we've lost our ability to discern truth and hold our leaders accountable for being untruthful.


    Unit2Sucks
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Zippergate said:

    So you're totally okay with the Pfizer vaccine which showed 6 more deaths in the treatment group than the control group and had a whistleblower describe numerous, serious problems with the trials. You're totally okay with the FDA ignoring the safety signals provided the VAERS system. You're okay with vaxxing adolescents where the rate of myocarditis is between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 10000 even according to Pfizer's own documents. You're okay with the fact that the Pfizer vaccine is still being given under EUA so that Pfizer has immunity from liability. If you say it's approved, please tell me who has received Comirnaty, the approved version?

    You're okay, I assume, with Remdesivir, the killer drug that causes kidney and other organ failure in around a quarter of the patients who receive it and showed a slightly negative benefit in most of the clinical trials.

    But you're not okay with Ivermectin which has 60+ clinical trials which show dramatic benefit. Thousands of doctors have claimed to have saved lives with it. They literally risk their medical licenses to proscribe it. But no, we're supposed to believe that these doctors who actually treat Covid patients, not desk jockeys in Washington who hand out OPM (government grants) and watch their PFE stock on their computers all day, are risking their careers for an off-patent drug that offers no kickbacks from Big Pharma. RRRIIIGHT. We're supposed to pretend that it's not used in countries all over the world such as India, Mexico, Peru, Bulgaria--places that have had much better Covid outcomes than Fauci's USA despite much lower access to quality health care. Is the benefit 75%? Maybe not. Even if it is only 25%, that would still save thousands of lives.

    Btw, have you even looked at the TOGETHER trial? How many of the participants in the control group observed the protocols? I'll help you out since I know you're lazy. The answer is about a third. If two-thirds of the control group were NOT following the protocols but included in the study, is this really a double-blinded study? Why did they instruct the participants to take the drug on an empty stomach when it is well-known that you're supposed to take Ivermectin with a meal to help absorption? Why do none of the numbers in the subgroups add up? Why did they use a lower than recommended dose and only for 3 days? Why were patients who were symptomatic for up to 10 days included when it is well-known that Ivermectin works best when it is given early? There are countless problems with this trial because it was SET UP TO FAIL. If Ivermectin (or anything else for that matter) is effective for Covid, then they can't mandate unapproved vaccines. They've been biased against therapeutics from the beginning. So why should we trust any of these clowns when we have recorded audio of the scientist chosen by WHO to write the meta-analysis on record talk favorably about Ivermectin, write an analysis showing a large benefit, only to find that the conclusion of his paper, written surreptitiously by a UNITAID exec reach the opposite conclusion (proven via forensic analysis of the electronic document)?

    I have zero hope that you will consider anything I write. You never have. You insulted me and falsely and pejoratively labeled me an anti-vaxxer from the beginning. You won't consider any of the my sources, all by doctors and scientists, simply because I bring them to you. But your authorities? Skepticism vanishes. CDC, good. FDA, good. No industry capture, no conflicts of interest (because your tiny bubble of sources won't point them out to you). NYT, good (despite pushing the Russia hoax, lying about J6, etc. How about being consistent? How about applying those shrew powers of skepticism to your own cherished sources for a change? But you've been informed. And someday the truth will come out and you will have to look at yourself in the mirror and come to grips with the fact that you have been completely brainwashed by corrupt, self-serving people like Fauci and the thousands who goosestep behind him for personal gain.

    Finally, please explain how I twist the facts of the J6 police deaths? How many were there? I want a number. If the number is more than zero, give me names. If the number is zero, why do Democrats in the Biden administration, partisan hacks at the DOJ, sychopant liars at the NYT, CNN, MSNBC etc continue to repeat the lie that there were police (plural) deaths on Jan 6? Who's twisting the facts?

    What about the Hunter Biden laptop story was twisting the facts? Was the the laptop not genuine? Then the NYT and CIA operative who signed his name to the letter calling it Russia disinformation (a lie) was lying. Do you not find it concerning that 50 intelligence officials would lie about something so newsworthy and important a month before the election? If it's okay to lie, what else is it okay to lie about? Do you it's okay for Big Tech to shut down a story just because it doesn't like the political implications of it?

    In case you didn't notice, this country is collapsing all around us. There are many reasons but one of the important is that we've lost our ability to discern truth and hold our leaders accountable for being untruthful.
    Yeah, this is just a wall of crazy. Don't you find it odd that out of all the whack jobs on BI, you are literally the only person left who believes Ivermectin works? Despite all of the proven fraud from the studies that you people used to say proved it worked, despite all of the new legitimate studies proving it doesn't do anything (other than deworm, which it's great at), you won't find a single person here who supports it. Don't you find that odd? Do you think all of these people are coopted by Pfizer? You don't trust the New England Journal of Medicine or JAMA Internal Medicine but you do trust Zerohedge and some fraudsters in Egypt? That makes sense to you?

    What makes you different?
    oski003
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    FDA Shuts Out Its Own Experts in Authorizing Another Vaccine Booster

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-shuts-out-its-own-experts-in-authorizing-another-booster-covid-vaccine-pandemic-science-11649016728?st=h5e27vjd8luvoi7&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

    The Food and Drug Administration last week authorized Americans 50 and over to get a fourth Covid vaccine dose. Some of the FDA's own experts disagree with the decision, but the agency simply ignored them. It will convene its advisory committee this Wednesday to discuss future vaccine needs. That's like having lawyers present arguments to a judge who's already issued a verdict.

    Eric Rubin, editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, sits on the advisory committee. He told CNN last month that he hadn't seen enough data to determine whether anyone needs a fourth dose whose immune system isn't seriously deficient.

    Another committee member, Cody Meissner, agrees. Dr. Meissner, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Tufts Children's Hospital, told me last week that the fourth dose is "an unanswered scientific question for people with a normal immune system."

    A third member of the committee, Paul Offit of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, told the Atlantic that he advised his 20-something son to forgo the third shot, which the FDA recommends for everyone 12 and over.

    At the crux of the broad opposition to second boosters is the recognition of B- and T-cells, which public-health officials have long ignored. They talk only about antibody levels, which tend to decline in the months after vaccination. B- and T-cells, activated by the primary vaccine series or an infection (and augmented by a single booster in older patients), are highly and durably effective at preventing serious illness from Covid. An additional vaccine dose induces a fleeting high in antibody levels, offering only mild and short-lived protection against infection.

    Two top FDA officials quit the agency in September complaining of undue pressure to authorize boosters. Marion Gruber, former director of the Office of Vaccine Research and Review, and her deputy, Philip Krause, later wrote about the lack of data to support a broad booster authorization.

    Hours after the FDA authorized the fourth dose, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave its formal approval to the movealso without convening its external vaccine experts. Director Rochelle Walensky asserted that the additional doses are safe. But the jury is still out on vaccine-related complications. One of the most common reported adverse events is tinnitus, or ringing in the ears. Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic Vaccine Research Group, developed a severe case while driving home after his second vaccine dose. He told MedPage Today he believes tens of thousands of people may be affected in the U.S. and he thinks more research is needed.

    But neither the CDC nor the National Institutes of Health has made a priority of studying vaccine complications. The CDC isn't even transparent about its investigations into young people who have died after Covid vaccination. A Seattle Children's Hospitals study published in the Journal of Pediatrics March 25 found that 69% of children who presented with myocarditis after the vaccine had late gadolinium enhancement, a related abnormality, in an MRI three to eight months later.

    Instead of investigating these complications further, health agencies rely on messy and incomplete data from their clunky website called Vaers, or Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, where some patients report their own possible vaccination complications. When citizens inquire about vaccine complication rates, public-health officials point to the significant limitations of their own method of tracking them.

    While the FDA has approved fourth doses quickly and with little supporting data, it's also been sitting for months on ample data supporting two new Covid vaccines. Novavax and Covaxin use traditional vaccine technology, in contrast with the mRNA shots from Pfizer and Moderna. Covaxin, developed by Bharat Biotech and Ocugen, could yield broader protection against variants, and both shots could overcome some Americans' hesitancy about a novel technology. But the FDA hasn't acted on Novavax's Jan. 31 application for emergency use, and it rejected Covaxin twice, once for adults and once for children. Both have been approved by the World Health Organization and other countries. "We don't need another vaccine," Anthony Fauci, President Biden's chief medical adviser, told India's News Nation in December. "We have enough vaccines."

    Trust in public health is at an all-time low. When agencies bypass their own experts, it only reinforces the perception that health policy is driven by groupthink and politics.
    Unit2Sucks
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    oski003 said:

    FDA Shuts Out Its Own Experts in Authorizing Another Vaccine Booster

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-shuts-out-its-own-experts-in-authorizing-another-booster-covid-vaccine-pandemic-science-11649016728?st=h5e27vjd8luvoi7&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink


    Same Marty Makary who wrote this op ed last year?

    Quote:

    We'll Have Herd Immunity by April

    Covid cases have dropped 77% in six weeks. Experts should level with the public about the good news.

    Amid the dire Covid warnings, one crucial fact has been largely ignored: Cases are down 77% over the past six weeks. If a medication slashed cases by 77%, we'd call it a miracle pill. Why is the number of cases plummeting much faster than experts predicted?

    In large part because natural immunity from prior infection is far more common than can be measured by testing. Testing has been capturing only from 10% to 25% of infections, depending on when during the pandemic someone got the virus. Applying a time-weighted case capture average of 1 in 6.5 to the cumulative 28 million confirmed cases would mean about 55% of Americans have natural immunity.

    ...
    In my own conversations with medical experts, I have noticed that they too often dismiss natural immunity, arguing that we don't have data. The data certainly doesn't fit the classic randomized-controlled-trial model of the old-guard medical establishment. There's no control group. But the observational data is compelling.
    ...

    But the consistent and rapid decline in daily cases since Jan. 8 can be explained only by natural immunity. Behavior didn't suddenly improve over the holidays; Americans traveled more over Christmas than they had since March. Vaccines also don't explain the steep decline in January. Vaccination rates were low and they take weeks to kick in.

    My prediction that Covid-19 will be mostly gone by April is based on laboratory data, mathematical data, published literature and conversations with experts. But it's also based on direct observation of how hard testing has been to get, especially for the poor. If you live in a wealthy community where worried people are vigilant about getting tested, you might think that most infections are captured by testing. But if you have seen the many barriers to testing for low-income Americans, you might think that very few infections have been captured at testing centers. Keep in mind that most infections are asymptomatic, which still triggers natural immunity.

    Many experts, along with politicians and journalists, are afraid to talk about herd immunity. The term has political overtones because some suggested the U.S. simply let Covid rip to achieve herd immunity. That was a reckless idea. But herd immunity is the inevitable result of viral spread and vaccination. When the chain of virus transmission has been broken in multiple places, it's harder for it to spreadand that includes the new strains.

    ...
    Some medical experts privately agreed with my prediction that there may be very little Covid-19 by April but suggested that I not to talk publicly about herd immunity because people might become complacent and fail to take precautions or might decline the vaccine. But scientists shouldn't try to manipulate the
    public by hiding the truth.
    Really stuck the landing on that one. Can you imagine if COVID didn't disappear by April of last year? Would have been a really bad year right?

    He also specifically called out how Manaus had herd immunity.

    Quote:

    Herd immunity has been well-documented in the Brazilian city of Manaus, where researchers in the Lancet reported the prevalence of prior Covid-19 infection to be 76%, resulting in a significant slowing of the infection.

    A few months later, Manaus was devastated by COVID again.

    Quote:

    But after a peak in late April, Manaus seemed to have gotten past the worst of the pandemic. Some scientists thought that the drop meant Manaus had gained herd immunity.

    ...
    Now three studies offer a sobering history of P.1's meteoric rise in the Amazonian city of Manaus. It most likely arose there in November and then fueled a record-breaking spike of coronavirus cases. It came to dominate the city partly because of an increased contagiousness, the research found.
    ...
    To reduce the risks of P.1 outbreaks and reinfections, Dr. Faria said it was important to double down on every measure we have to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Masks and social distancing can work against P.1. And vaccination can help drive down its transmission and protect those who do get infected from severe disease.

    "The ultimate message is that you need to step up all the vaccination efforts as soon as possible," he said. "You need to be one step ahead of the virus."

    Maybe Makary should learn from his past mistakes and recognize that we are in a continuously evolving landscape and that as a surgical oncologist he may not be the best person to be making definitive suggestions on public health policy.
    oski003
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    FDA Shuts Out Its Own Experts in Authorizing Another Vaccine Booster

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-shuts-out-its-own-experts-in-authorizing-another-booster-covid-vaccine-pandemic-science-11649016728?st=h5e27vjd8luvoi7&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink


    Same Marty Makary who wrote this op ed last year?

    Quote:

    We'll Have Herd Immunity by April

    Covid cases have dropped 77% in six weeks. Experts should level with the public about the good news.

    Amid the dire Covid warnings, one crucial fact has been largely ignored: Cases are down 77% over the past six weeks. If a medication slashed cases by 77%, we'd call it a miracle pill. Why is the number of cases plummeting much faster than experts predicted?

    In large part because natural immunity from prior infection is far more common than can be measured by testing. Testing has been capturing only from 10% to 25% of infections, depending on when during the pandemic someone got the virus. Applying a time-weighted case capture average of 1 in 6.5 to the cumulative 28 million confirmed cases would mean about 55% of Americans have natural immunity.

    ...
    In my own conversations with medical experts, I have noticed that they too often dismiss natural immunity, arguing that we don't have data. The data certainly doesn't fit the classic randomized-controlled-trial model of the old-guard medical establishment. There's no control group. But the observational data is compelling.
    ...

    But the consistent and rapid decline in daily cases since Jan. 8 can be explained only by natural immunity. Behavior didn't suddenly improve over the holidays; Americans traveled more over Christmas than they had since March. Vaccines also don't explain the steep decline in January. Vaccination rates were low and they take weeks to kick in.

    My prediction that Covid-19 will be mostly gone by April is based on laboratory data, mathematical data, published literature and conversations with experts. But it's also based on direct observation of how hard testing has been to get, especially for the poor. If you live in a wealthy community where worried people are vigilant about getting tested, you might think that most infections are captured by testing. But if you have seen the many barriers to testing for low-income Americans, you might think that very few infections have been captured at testing centers. Keep in mind that most infections are asymptomatic, which still triggers natural immunity.

    Many experts, along with politicians and journalists, are afraid to talk about herd immunity. The term has political overtones because some suggested the U.S. simply let Covid rip to achieve herd immunity. That was a reckless idea. But herd immunity is the inevitable result of viral spread and vaccination. When the chain of virus transmission has been broken in multiple places, it's harder for it to spreadand that includes the new strains.

    ...
    Some medical experts privately agreed with my prediction that there may be very little Covid-19 by April but suggested that I not to talk publicly about herd immunity because people might become complacent and fail to take precautions or might decline the vaccine. But scientists shouldn't try to manipulate the
    public by hiding the truth.
    Really stuck the landing on that one. Can you imagine if COVID didn't disappear by April of last year? Would have been a really bad year right?

    He also specifically called out how Manaus had herd immunity.

    Quote:

    Herd immunity has been well-documented in the Brazilian city of Manaus, where researchers in the Lancet reported the prevalence of prior Covid-19 infection to be 76%, resulting in a significant slowing of the infection.

    A few months later, Manaus was devastated by COVID again.

    Quote:

    But after a peak in late April, Manaus seemed to have gotten past the worst of the pandemic. Some scientists thought that the drop meant Manaus had gained herd immunity.

    ...
    Now three studies offer a sobering history of P.1's meteoric rise in the Amazonian city of Manaus. It most likely arose there in November and then fueled a record-breaking spike of coronavirus cases. It came to dominate the city partly because of an increased contagiousness, the research found.
    ...
    To reduce the risks of P.1 outbreaks and reinfections, Dr. Faria said it was important to double down on every measure we have to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Masks and social distancing can work against P.1. And vaccination can help drive down its transmission and protect those who do get infected from severe disease.

    "The ultimate message is that you need to step up all the vaccination efforts as soon as possible," he said. "You need to be one step ahead of the virus."

    Maybe Makary should learn from his past mistakes and recognize that we are in a continuously evolving landscape and that as a surgical oncologist he may not be the best person to be making definitive suggestions on public health policy.



    You are correct that covid is an evolving landscape. That helps explain why you defend Fauci and the CDC who have been wrong dozens of times. That doesn't make Makary's WSJ writing above incorrect.

    Further, here is what Makary said.

    Mandating vaccines for "every living, walking American" is, as of now, not well-supported by science.

    The vaccines are so good at protecting against death from COVID-19 that those who are immune can feel good about living life without having to worry about becoming severely ill. Vaccines downgrade the infection to a mild seasonal virus one we must learn to live with for years to come.

    Those who choose not to get vaccinated are making a poor health decision at their own individual risk. They pose no public health threat to those already immune.

    The notion that we have to vaccinate every living, walking American and eventually every newborn in order to control the pandemic is based on the false assumption that the risk of dying from COVID-19 is equally distributed in the population. It's not. We have always known that it's very hard for the virus to hurt someone who is young and healthy. And that's still the case.

    Also: Some people already have 'natural immunity' that is, immunity from prior COVID infection. During every month of this pandemic, I've had debates with other public researchers about the effectiveness and durability of natural immunity. I've been told that natural immunity could fall off a cliff, rendering people susceptible to infection. But here we are now, over a year and a half into the clinical experience of observing patients who were infected, and natural immunity is effective and going strong. And that's because with natural immunity, the body develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus, not just a spike protein constructed from a vaccine. Requiring the vaccine in people who are already immune with natural immunity has no scientific support.

    ... He sounds fairly reasonable here. You unfairly paint him as an unqualified nut-job because he is against vaccine mandates and wants the scientific community to recognize natural immunity.
    Unit2Sucks
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    FDA Shuts Out Its Own Experts in Authorizing Another Vaccine Booster

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-shuts-out-its-own-experts-in-authorizing-another-booster-covid-vaccine-pandemic-science-11649016728?st=h5e27vjd8luvoi7&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink


    Same Marty Makary who wrote this op ed last year?

    Quote:

    We'll Have Herd Immunity by April

    Covid cases have dropped 77% in six weeks. Experts should level with the public about the good news.

    Amid the dire Covid warnings, one crucial fact has been largely ignored: Cases are down 77% over the past six weeks. If a medication slashed cases by 77%, we'd call it a miracle pill. Why is the number of cases plummeting much faster than experts predicted?

    In large part because natural immunity from prior infection is far more common than can be measured by testing. Testing has been capturing only from 10% to 25% of infections, depending on when during the pandemic someone got the virus. Applying a time-weighted case capture average of 1 in 6.5 to the cumulative 28 million confirmed cases would mean about 55% of Americans have natural immunity.

    ...
    In my own conversations with medical experts, I have noticed that they too often dismiss natural immunity, arguing that we don't have data. The data certainly doesn't fit the classic randomized-controlled-trial model of the old-guard medical establishment. There's no control group. But the observational data is compelling.
    ...

    But the consistent and rapid decline in daily cases since Jan. 8 can be explained only by natural immunity. Behavior didn't suddenly improve over the holidays; Americans traveled more over Christmas than they had since March. Vaccines also don't explain the steep decline in January. Vaccination rates were low and they take weeks to kick in.

    My prediction that Covid-19 will be mostly gone by April is based on laboratory data, mathematical data, published literature and conversations with experts. But it's also based on direct observation of how hard testing has been to get, especially for the poor. If you live in a wealthy community where worried people are vigilant about getting tested, you might think that most infections are captured by testing. But if you have seen the many barriers to testing for low-income Americans, you might think that very few infections have been captured at testing centers. Keep in mind that most infections are asymptomatic, which still triggers natural immunity.

    Many experts, along with politicians and journalists, are afraid to talk about herd immunity. The term has political overtones because some suggested the U.S. simply let Covid rip to achieve herd immunity. That was a reckless idea. But herd immunity is the inevitable result of viral spread and vaccination. When the chain of virus transmission has been broken in multiple places, it's harder for it to spreadand that includes the new strains.

    ...
    Some medical experts privately agreed with my prediction that there may be very little Covid-19 by April but suggested that I not to talk publicly about herd immunity because people might become complacent and fail to take precautions or might decline the vaccine. But scientists shouldn't try to manipulate the
    public by hiding the truth.
    Really stuck the landing on that one. Can you imagine if COVID didn't disappear by April of last year? Would have been a really bad year right?

    He also specifically called out how Manaus had herd immunity.

    Quote:

    Herd immunity has been well-documented in the Brazilian city of Manaus, where researchers in the Lancet reported the prevalence of prior Covid-19 infection to be 76%, resulting in a significant slowing of the infection.

    A few months later, Manaus was devastated by COVID again.

    Quote:

    But after a peak in late April, Manaus seemed to have gotten past the worst of the pandemic. Some scientists thought that the drop meant Manaus had gained herd immunity.

    ...
    Now three studies offer a sobering history of P.1's meteoric rise in the Amazonian city of Manaus. It most likely arose there in November and then fueled a record-breaking spike of coronavirus cases. It came to dominate the city partly because of an increased contagiousness, the research found.
    ...
    To reduce the risks of P.1 outbreaks and reinfections, Dr. Faria said it was important to double down on every measure we have to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Masks and social distancing can work against P.1. And vaccination can help drive down its transmission and protect those who do get infected from severe disease.

    "The ultimate message is that you need to step up all the vaccination efforts as soon as possible," he said. "You need to be one step ahead of the virus."

    Maybe Makary should learn from his past mistakes and recognize that we are in a continuously evolving landscape and that as a surgical oncologist he may not be the best person to be making definitive suggestions on public health policy.



    ... He sounds fairly reasonable here. You unfairly paint him as an unqualified nut-job because he is against vaccine mandates and wants the scientific community to recognize natural immunity.



    False. This is just your agenda shining through. I haven't painted him as a nut job but just one of many doctors who is stepping outside his primary field to advocate a certain worldview on how we should treat COVID. He is trying to come across as an authority but he's not. He's just a doctor with an opinion that the WSJ and others have given a platform to, for whatever reason.

    As I showed above, he's been wildly wrong before. Last year you would have said his position was "reasonable " but in hindsight it was laughably bad.

    My point is that I don't see much of any reason to rate his opinion. He doesn't have the credentials or experience to warrant a platform on par with infectious disease experts or epidemiologists. Just as I'm sure he would take the opinions of epidemiologists with a grain of salt when discussing surgical oncology I would do the same here, particularly given his track record.
    bearister
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    They can use this human pin cushion in a PSA to assuage the fears of people afraid of getting initial shots or boosters:

    German man suspected of having 90 Covid jabs to sell vaccination cards


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/03/german-man-suspected-of-taking-90-covid-jabs-to-sell-vaccination-cards?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
    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:

    oski003 said:

    FDA Shuts Out Its Own Experts in Authorizing Another Vaccine Booster

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-shuts-out-its-own-experts-in-authorizing-another-booster-covid-vaccine-pandemic-science-11649016728?st=h5e27vjd8luvoi7&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink


    Same Marty Makary who wrote this op ed last year?

    Quote:

    We'll Have Herd Immunity by April

    Covid cases have dropped 77% in six weeks. Experts should level with the public about the good news.

    Amid the dire Covid warnings, one crucial fact has been largely ignored: Cases are down 77% over the past six weeks. If a medication slashed cases by 77%, we'd call it a miracle pill. Why is the number of cases plummeting much faster than experts predicted?

    In large part because natural immunity from prior infection is far more common than can be measured by testing. Testing has been capturing only from 10% to 25% of infections, depending on when during the pandemic someone got the virus. Applying a time-weighted case capture average of 1 in 6.5 to the cumulative 28 million confirmed cases would mean about 55% of Americans have natural immunity.

    ...
    In my own conversations with medical experts, I have noticed that they too often dismiss natural immunity, arguing that we don't have data. The data certainly doesn't fit the classic randomized-controlled-trial model of the old-guard medical establishment. There's no control group. But the observational data is compelling.
    ...

    But the consistent and rapid decline in daily cases since Jan. 8 can be explained only by natural immunity. Behavior didn't suddenly improve over the holidays; Americans traveled more over Christmas than they had since March. Vaccines also don't explain the steep decline in January. Vaccination rates were low and they take weeks to kick in.

    My prediction that Covid-19 will be mostly gone by April is based on laboratory data, mathematical data, published literature and conversations with experts. But it's also based on direct observation of how hard testing has been to get, especially for the poor. If you live in a wealthy community where worried people are vigilant about getting tested, you might think that most infections are captured by testing. But if you have seen the many barriers to testing for low-income Americans, you might think that very few infections have been captured at testing centers. Keep in mind that most infections are asymptomatic, which still triggers natural immunity.

    Many experts, along with politicians and journalists, are afraid to talk about herd immunity. The term has political overtones because some suggested the U.S. simply let Covid rip to achieve herd immunity. That was a reckless idea. But herd immunity is the inevitable result of viral spread and vaccination. When the chain of virus transmission has been broken in multiple places, it's harder for it to spreadand that includes the new strains.

    ...
    Some medical experts privately agreed with my prediction that there may be very little Covid-19 by April but suggested that I not to talk publicly about herd immunity because people might become complacent and fail to take precautions or might decline the vaccine. But scientists shouldn't try to manipulate the
    public by hiding the truth.
    Really stuck the landing on that one. Can you imagine if COVID didn't disappear by April of last year? Would have been a really bad year right?

    He also specifically called out how Manaus had herd immunity.

    Quote:

    Herd immunity has been well-documented in the Brazilian city of Manaus, where researchers in the Lancet reported the prevalence of prior Covid-19 infection to be 76%, resulting in a significant slowing of the infection.

    A few months later, Manaus was devastated by COVID again.

    Quote:

    But after a peak in late April, Manaus seemed to have gotten past the worst of the pandemic. Some scientists thought that the drop meant Manaus had gained herd immunity.

    ...
    Now three studies offer a sobering history of P.1's meteoric rise in the Amazonian city of Manaus. It most likely arose there in November and then fueled a record-breaking spike of coronavirus cases. It came to dominate the city partly because of an increased contagiousness, the research found.
    ...
    To reduce the risks of P.1 outbreaks and reinfections, Dr. Faria said it was important to double down on every measure we have to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Masks and social distancing can work against P.1. And vaccination can help drive down its transmission and protect those who do get infected from severe disease.

    "The ultimate message is that you need to step up all the vaccination efforts as soon as possible," he said. "You need to be one step ahead of the virus."

    Maybe Makary should learn from his past mistakes and recognize that we are in a continuously evolving landscape and that as a surgical oncologist he may not be the best person to be making definitive suggestions on public health policy.



    ... He sounds fairly reasonable here. You unfairly paint him as an unqualified nut-job because he is against vaccine mandates and wants the scientific community to recognize natural immunity.



    False. This is just your agenda shining through. I haven't painted him as a nut job but just one of many doctors who is stepping outside his primary field to advocate a certain worldview on how we should treat COVID. He is trying to come across as an authority but he's not. He's just a doctor with an opinion that the WSJ and others have given a platform to, for whatever reason.

    As I showed above, he's been wildly wrong before. Last year you would have said his position was "reasonable " but in hindsight it was laughably bad.

    My point is that I don't see much of any reason to rate his opinion. He doesn't have the credentials or experience to warrant a platform on par with infectious disease experts or epidemiologists. Just as I'm sure he would take the opinions of epidemiologists with a grain of salt when discussing surgical oncology I would do the same here, particularly given his track record.


    Here is his bio from Johns Hopkins, since your tactic here is to finger him as a mere oncologist.

    "Dr. Marty Makary is a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University. He writes for The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal and is the author of two New York Times bestselling books, Unaccountable and The Price We Pay. Dr. Makary served in leadership at the World Health Organization Patient Safety Program and has been elected to the National Academy of Medicine.

    Clinically, Dr. Makary is the chief of Islet Transplant Surgery at Johns Hopkins. He is the recipient of the Nobility in Science Award from the National Pancreas Foundation and has been a visiting professor at over 25 medical schools. He has published over 250 peer-reviewed scientific articles and has served as on several editorial boards.

    Dr. Makary is the recipient of the 2020 Business Book of the Year Award by the Association of Business Journalists for his most recent book, The Price We Pay. It has been described by Don Berwick as "a deep dive into the real issues driving up the price of health care" and by Steve Forbes as "A must-read for every American".

    Dr. Makary serves as a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and a professor, by courtesy, at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. His current research focuses on the underlying causes of disease, public policy, health care costs, and relationship-based medicine."

    You are welcome to address what he actually wrote in WSJ instead of attacking his ability to comment on the fourth shot.
    Unit2Sucks
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    FDA Shuts Out Its Own Experts in Authorizing Another Vaccine Booster

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-shuts-out-its-own-experts-in-authorizing-another-booster-covid-vaccine-pandemic-science-11649016728?st=h5e27vjd8luvoi7&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink


    Same Marty Makary who wrote this op ed last year?

    Quote:

    We'll Have Herd Immunity by April

    Covid cases have dropped 77% in six weeks. Experts should level with the public about the good news.

    Amid the dire Covid warnings, one crucial fact has been largely ignored: Cases are down 77% over the past six weeks. If a medication slashed cases by 77%, we'd call it a miracle pill. Why is the number of cases plummeting much faster than experts predicted?

    In large part because natural immunity from prior infection is far more common than can be measured by testing. Testing has been capturing only from 10% to 25% of infections, depending on when during the pandemic someone got the virus. Applying a time-weighted case capture average of 1 in 6.5 to the cumulative 28 million confirmed cases would mean about 55% of Americans have natural immunity.

    ...
    In my own conversations with medical experts, I have noticed that they too often dismiss natural immunity, arguing that we don't have data. The data certainly doesn't fit the classic randomized-controlled-trial model of the old-guard medical establishment. There's no control group. But the observational data is compelling.
    ...

    But the consistent and rapid decline in daily cases since Jan. 8 can be explained only by natural immunity. Behavior didn't suddenly improve over the holidays; Americans traveled more over Christmas than they had since March. Vaccines also don't explain the steep decline in January. Vaccination rates were low and they take weeks to kick in.

    My prediction that Covid-19 will be mostly gone by April is based on laboratory data, mathematical data, published literature and conversations with experts. But it's also based on direct observation of how hard testing has been to get, especially for the poor. If you live in a wealthy community where worried people are vigilant about getting tested, you might think that most infections are captured by testing. But if you have seen the many barriers to testing for low-income Americans, you might think that very few infections have been captured at testing centers. Keep in mind that most infections are asymptomatic, which still triggers natural immunity.

    Many experts, along with politicians and journalists, are afraid to talk about herd immunity. The term has political overtones because some suggested the U.S. simply let Covid rip to achieve herd immunity. That was a reckless idea. But herd immunity is the inevitable result of viral spread and vaccination. When the chain of virus transmission has been broken in multiple places, it's harder for it to spreadand that includes the new strains.

    ...
    Some medical experts privately agreed with my prediction that there may be very little Covid-19 by April but suggested that I not to talk publicly about herd immunity because people might become complacent and fail to take precautions or might decline the vaccine. But scientists shouldn't try to manipulate the
    public by hiding the truth.
    Really stuck the landing on that one. Can you imagine if COVID didn't disappear by April of last year? Would have been a really bad year right?

    He also specifically called out how Manaus had herd immunity.

    Quote:

    Herd immunity has been well-documented in the Brazilian city of Manaus, where researchers in the Lancet reported the prevalence of prior Covid-19 infection to be 76%, resulting in a significant slowing of the infection.

    A few months later, Manaus was devastated by COVID again.

    Quote:

    But after a peak in late April, Manaus seemed to have gotten past the worst of the pandemic. Some scientists thought that the drop meant Manaus had gained herd immunity.

    ...
    Now three studies offer a sobering history of P.1's meteoric rise in the Amazonian city of Manaus. It most likely arose there in November and then fueled a record-breaking spike of coronavirus cases. It came to dominate the city partly because of an increased contagiousness, the research found.
    ...
    To reduce the risks of P.1 outbreaks and reinfections, Dr. Faria said it was important to double down on every measure we have to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Masks and social distancing can work against P.1. And vaccination can help drive down its transmission and protect those who do get infected from severe disease.

    "The ultimate message is that you need to step up all the vaccination efforts as soon as possible," he said. "You need to be one step ahead of the virus."

    Maybe Makary should learn from his past mistakes and recognize that we are in a continuously evolving landscape and that as a surgical oncologist he may not be the best person to be making definitive suggestions on public health policy.



    ... He sounds fairly reasonable here. You unfairly paint him as an unqualified nut-job because he is against vaccine mandates and wants the scientific community to recognize natural immunity.



    False. This is just your agenda shining through. I haven't painted him as a nut job but just one of many doctors who is stepping outside his primary field to advocate a certain worldview on how we should treat COVID. He is trying to come across as an authority but he's not. He's just a doctor with an opinion that the WSJ and others have given a platform to, for whatever reason.

    As I showed above, he's been wildly wrong before. Last year you would have said his position was "reasonable " but in hindsight it was laughably bad.

    My point is that I don't see much of any reason to rate his opinion. He doesn't have the credentials or experience to warrant a platform on par with infectious disease experts or epidemiologists. Just as I'm sure he would take the opinions of epidemiologists with a grain of salt when discussing surgical oncology I would do the same here, particularly given his track record.


    You are welcome to address what he actually wrote in WSJ instead of attacking his ability to comment on the fourth shot.
    It's an off topic discussion board on a Cal sports website that you constantly fill with anti-vax misinformation regardless of source. I'm going to continue to feel free to respond however I desire including by pointing out where you've sourced an op-ed from a person with a history of poor takes on COVID.
    oski003
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    Unit2Sucks said:

    oski003 said:

    FDA Shuts Out Its Own Experts in Authorizing Another Vaccine Booster

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-shuts-out-its-own-experts-in-authorizing-another-booster-covid-vaccine-pandemic-science-11649016728?st=h5e27vjd8luvoi7&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink


    Same Marty Makary who wrote this op ed last year?

    Quote:

    We'll Have Herd Immunity by April

    Covid cases have dropped 77% in six weeks. Experts should level with the public about the good news.

    Amid the dire Covid warnings, one crucial fact has been largely ignored: Cases are down 77% over the past six weeks. If a medication slashed cases by 77%, we'd call it a miracle pill. Why is the number of cases plummeting much faster than experts predicted?

    In large part because natural immunity from prior infection is far more common than can be measured by testing. Testing has been capturing only from 10% to 25% of infections, depending on when during the pandemic someone got the virus. Applying a time-weighted case capture average of 1 in 6.5 to the cumulative 28 million confirmed cases would mean about 55% of Americans have natural immunity.

    ...
    In my own conversations with medical experts, I have noticed that they too often dismiss natural immunity, arguing that we don't have data. The data certainly doesn't fit the classic randomized-controlled-trial model of the old-guard medical establishment. There's no control group. But the observational data is compelling.
    ...

    But the consistent and rapid decline in daily cases since Jan. 8 can be explained only by natural immunity. Behavior didn't suddenly improve over the holidays; Americans traveled more over Christmas than they had since March. Vaccines also don't explain the steep decline in January. Vaccination rates were low and they take weeks to kick in.

    My prediction that Covid-19 will be mostly gone by April is based on laboratory data, mathematical data, published literature and conversations with experts. But it's also based on direct observation of how hard testing has been to get, especially for the poor. If you live in a wealthy community where worried people are vigilant about getting tested, you might think that most infections are captured by testing. But if you have seen the many barriers to testing for low-income Americans, you might think that very few infections have been captured at testing centers. Keep in mind that most infections are asymptomatic, which still triggers natural immunity.

    Many experts, along with politicians and journalists, are afraid to talk about herd immunity. The term has political overtones because some suggested the U.S. simply let Covid rip to achieve herd immunity. That was a reckless idea. But herd immunity is the inevitable result of viral spread and vaccination. When the chain of virus transmission has been broken in multiple places, it's harder for it to spreadand that includes the new strains.

    ...
    Some medical experts privately agreed with my prediction that there may be very little Covid-19 by April but suggested that I not to talk publicly about herd immunity because people might become complacent and fail to take precautions or might decline the vaccine. But scientists shouldn't try to manipulate the
    public by hiding the truth.
    Really stuck the landing on that one. Can you imagine if COVID didn't disappear by April of last year? Would have been a really bad year right?

    He also specifically called out how Manaus had herd immunity.

    Quote:

    Herd immunity has been well-documented in the Brazilian city of Manaus, where researchers in the Lancet reported the prevalence of prior Covid-19 infection to be 76%, resulting in a significant slowing of the infection.

    A few months later, Manaus was devastated by COVID again.

    Quote:

    But after a peak in late April, Manaus seemed to have gotten past the worst of the pandemic. Some scientists thought that the drop meant Manaus had gained herd immunity.

    ...
    Now three studies offer a sobering history of P.1's meteoric rise in the Amazonian city of Manaus. It most likely arose there in November and then fueled a record-breaking spike of coronavirus cases. It came to dominate the city partly because of an increased contagiousness, the research found.
    ...
    To reduce the risks of P.1 outbreaks and reinfections, Dr. Faria said it was important to double down on every measure we have to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Masks and social distancing can work against P.1. And vaccination can help drive down its transmission and protect those who do get infected from severe disease.

    "The ultimate message is that you need to step up all the vaccination efforts as soon as possible," he said. "You need to be one step ahead of the virus."

    Maybe Makary should learn from his past mistakes and recognize that we are in a continuously evolving landscape and that as a surgical oncologist he may not be the best person to be making definitive suggestions on public health policy.



    ... He sounds fairly reasonable here. You unfairly paint him as an unqualified nut-job because he is against vaccine mandates and wants the scientific community to recognize natural immunity.



    False. This is just your agenda shining through. I haven't painted him as a nut job but just one of many doctors who is stepping outside his primary field to advocate a certain worldview on how we should treat COVID. He is trying to come across as an authority but he's not. He's just a doctor with an opinion that the WSJ and others have given a platform to, for whatever reason.

    As I showed above, he's been wildly wrong before. Last year you would have said his position was "reasonable " but in hindsight it was laughably bad.

    My point is that I don't see much of any reason to rate his opinion. He doesn't have the credentials or experience to warrant a platform on par with infectious disease experts or epidemiologists. Just as I'm sure he would take the opinions of epidemiologists with a grain of salt when discussing surgical oncology I would do the same here, particularly given his track record.


    You are welcome to address what he actually wrote in WSJ instead of attacking his ability to comment on the fourth shot.
    It's an off topic discussion board on a Cal sports website that you constantly fill with anti-vax misinformation regardless of source. I'm going to continue to feel free to respond however I desire including by pointing out where you've sourced an op-ed from a person with a history of poor takes on COVID.


    I took the time to rebut your criticisms of the source. In turn, you disparage the two other "sources:" me and this board. Thanks for the chuckle. Don't change Unit2, not that you are capable of doing so.

    Two questions:
    1) is the spike protein toxic?
    2) has pfizers mRNA vaccine cause any Americans to die? A few months ago you asked me to prove it caused a single death.
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.