This thread could be a textbook example. Go read this, watch that, construct a refutation, and come back later when I will give you more tasks. Oh, and keep an open mind. You do have an open mind, don’t you?
In a sense it is a compliment to this site that it is deemed worthy of attack. People here must seem particularly dangerous to TPTB.
I figure if we just ignore them, they will have spent a lot of time for nothing.
5 Likes
I see how it may have come off that way, so let me clarify what I was thinking.
I’ve seen lots of people share evidence that vaccines are safe and effective. Chris has made it a point to challenge that data harshly. Great, we’re all after the truth, and most people don’t dig into things in that much detail. However, in this video as well as recent ones that I’ve caught it’s seemed that Chris has been happy to point out anything that suggests IVM is effective, without offering any real analysis whatsoever. (For example, see the plot he tossed in at the end of his censored video, with just some sarcastic remarks.) As others who have carefully examined some of this evidence have pointed out flaws, this leaves me skeptical that there’s anything there, but if Chris has turned his usual critical eye to these claims and provided his careful analysis then that would be more persuasive.
I’ll add that I initially (#9) didn’t ask anyone to provide evidence; I merely suggested that Chris’s decision matrix without evidence (the conditions he suggested) was meaningless. It was others who asserted that Chris had covered this, and I merely asked them where.
2 Likes
You’re correct that individuals should be allowed to make their own decisions and take their own risks. However, that’s different from saying that society should recommend those same decisions and risks to everyone. If IVM works then we should be using it, but if it’s ineffective then there are absolutely societal negatives to formally recommending it, for example:
- People may see less reason to get vaccines. (Yes, you may consider this a positive, but to those who think vaccines are safe and effective this is a negative.)
- People may hoard IVM, reducing supply for those who can/need to make use of it for other purposes.
- It may reduce research into other possible treatments.
- It may make people less afraid of COVID, causing them to drop or fight other mitigations.
- It may erode the public's faith in future medicines that are recommended against various ailments.
2 Likes
Oh, “safe and effective”, that’s an interesting topic. Have you looked into issues with the extent of VAERS under-reporting? Its a very interesting topic. One I didn’t know about before COVID.
I could send you a paper. Most people aren’t so interested - they just use “Science” (CNN) talking points to justify decisions they’ve already made - but you’re smart and capable enough that you might actually be able to see what the data are really saying.
Interested?
3 Likes
Phred,
You wrote:
Go read this, watch that, construct a refutation, and come back later when I will give you more tasks. Oh, and keep an open mind. You do have an open mind, don't you?I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so I can't comment on whether there was an attempt to "hijack" the thread or not. But I have seen situations where that has happened. And it happens in just the way you mention. The idea is to simply tie one up with endless requests for more and more information. When that information is provided, links are offered to articles from sites with low credibility (CNN, Newsweek, Business Insider) and then you are supposed to refute them. And it goes on and on. Sometimes, with endless nuanced re-arguments of the same point. This causes two problems. One, it exhausts the people genuinely interested in finding out what is really going on and diverts them from the task of exploration. Two, and more importantly, new members who come to this site looking for answers are exposed to MSM articles which are often little more than carefully constructed propaganda. Thus, thread hijacking is a two pronged attack meant to suppress legitimate inquiry into matters of concern and to reiterate propaganda points. As this site becomes increasingly popular I expect this to happen more and more often. I also expect other types of sophisticated disinformation attacks. These are the times we live in. For myself, I generally don't get into the "refutation trap" since I don't come here for ego-boosting argumentation. I come here since I have concluded that the MSM is deliberately lying. It is obvious to me at this point. And I have come here to find out what is really going on. So if someone posts a CNN or similar article, I will neither read it nor waste time attempting to refute it. Because that is not the reason I come here. I come here to find out what is really going on - not to read or be involved with more propaganda. For new members, I would suggest the following. If you have started to doubt the credibility of the MSM, then do what I did. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. At that point you can decide what threads to ignore and what threads deserve close scrutiny.
11 Likes
davefairtex,
You wrote:
Oh, "safe and effective", that's an interesting topic. Have you looked into issues with the extent of VAERS under-reporting? Its a very interesting topic. One I didn't know about before COVID.That is the topic which most interests me at this point. Just how safe (or dangerous) are the vaccines? I have already come to conclusions about Ivermectin, the extent of the danger of Covid 19 and other things. The thing I am unclear about is just how safe (or dangerous) are the vaccines. I am also puzzled (and worried) by the "official" responses, which do not appear to make any sense. These issues, more and more, are the focus of my attention.
3 Likes
Oh, "safe and effective", that's an interesting topic. Have you looked into issues with the extent of VAERS under-reporting? Its a very interesting topic. One I didn't know about before COVID. I could send you a paper. Most people aren't so interested - they just use "Science" (CNN) talking points to justify decisions they've already made - but you're smart and capable enough that you might actually be able to see what the data are really saying. Interested?
Actually yes, though the trick would be showing that past trends apply to these COVID vaccines for which so many are carefully watching for side effects. Most comments on these topics have estimated under-reporting of relatively minor events after previous vaccines (for which people go in with a huge bias toward assuming safety, hence are less likely to report anything that isn't particularly serious) and then try to extrapolate that ratio to deaths that occur after the COVID vaccine. The situations hardly seem comparable to me.
2 Likes
To those who feel that I’ve hijacked this thread by asking an endless serious of questions, I’ll assert that I only asked one precise question, motivated by others’ claims. I had suggested that Chris’s decision matrix was meaningless in the absence of evidence of efficacy (despite his own quotes). The common response was that Chris had carefully considered such evidence. Given Chris’s propensity to consider all aspects of data – or at least more aspects than most others – I thought such discussion would be valuable to see, so I simply asked “Where?” That precise question went unanswered; instead my personal ability to research was insulted, even as I was repeatedly informed that the search facilities on this site are rather lacking. Fortunately, Chris joined in and provided some pointers, so that’s what I’ll check out later today.
2 Likes
Gnomes are a peculiar species. When one attempts to feed them a diet rich in fruits and nutrients they often refuse to eat, even over a period of time. Absent of their chosen nourishment they usually move on to more agreeable cookeries.
6 Likes
Big Blue Wrote: Is it risky for this community have such confident support for ivermectin's effectiveness against COVID19 when the co-discoverer of the drug isn't standing in support of it himself?This was an errant conclusion you have drawn. He clearly said he stood neither for nor against it. He didn't have the background to say one way or the other. That's a typical stance for an academic researcher. You reframed it as him being in the negative only indicating a possible bias. Please don't put words in the mouth of a good professor - he just told you he doesn't like that.
10 Likes
12 Likes
Most comments on these topics have estimated under-reporting of relatively minor events after previous vaccines (for which people go in with a huge bias toward assuming safety, hence are less likely to report anything that isn't particularly serious) and then try to extrapolate that ratio to deaths that occur after the COVID vaccine. The situations hardly seem comparable to me.Heh. Glad you've got an open mind, and you haven't already pre-determined the answer. :) In spite of that, I do think you are bright and intellectually honest enough to consider the evidence, in spite of the decision you've already made that the shot is safe-and-effective. I sincerely appreciate you being willing to hear me out. The event we're looking at is anaphylaxis. It is not a minor event - it requires a medical intervention for the person to survive. It is a really obvious event, and it happens within 0-120 minutes post injection. So the question is, how often does anaphylaxis happen with the COVID19 vaccines? The CDC says, on its website:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination is rare and has occurred in approximately 2 to 5 people per million vaccinated in the United States. Severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, can occur after any vaccination. If this occurs, vaccination providers can effectively and immediately treat the reaction. Learn more about COVID-19 vaccines and allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.Well that's reassuring. 2-in-a-million really is no big deal. But then there's this. A hospital (Mass General Brigham) vaxxed a bunch of employees. And then surveyed each one of them post-injection (#1) to see what happened. Instead of relying on THEM to file a report, they proactively asked everyone at the hospital what happened.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777417Of 64 900 employees who received their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 25 929 (40%) received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and 38 971 (60%) received the Moderna vaccine. At least 1 symptom survey was completed by 52 805 (81%).Acute allergic reactions were reported by 1365 employees overall (2.10% [95% CI, 1.99%-2.22%]), more frequently with the Moderna vaccine compared with Pfizer-BioNTech (2.20% [95% CI, 2.06%-2.35%] vs 1.95% [95% CI, 1.79%-2.13%]; P = .03) (Table 1). Anaphylaxis was confirmed in 16 employees (0.025% [95% CI, 0.014%-0.040%]): 7 cases from the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (0.027% [95% CI, 0.011%-0.056%]) and 9 cases from the Moderna vaccine (0.023% [95% CI, 0.011%-0.044%]) (P = .76).Individuals with anaphylaxis were a mean age of 41 (SD, 13) years, and 15 (94%) were female (Table 2); 10 (63%) had an allergy history and 5 (31%) had an anaphylaxis history. Mean time to anaphylaxis onset was 17 (SD, 28; range, 1-120) minutes. One patient was admitted to intensive care, 9 (56%) received intramuscular epinephrine, and all recovered. Three employees, with prior anaphylaxis history, did not seek care.
Its hard to miss anaphylaxis. No treatment = maybe you die. And it happens almost immediately post-injection. So that's 16 / 52,805 cases of first-dose anaphylaxis. Or 302 / 1,000,000. Vs the CDC, which saw 2-5 / 1,000,000 cases of anaphylaxis.
So what's the undercount rate from CDC? 302/2 - 302/5. Or about 60-151:1.
Turns out, surveys uncover a lot more incidents than relying on people to self-report.
Who knew?
So given how easy it was to spot anaphylaxis - the undercount ratio should be the absolute lowest, given what you said - everyone is eager to report every little flutter - and even with that "over-monitoring" in place, VAERS still managed to undercount this really obvious - and life-threatening event (if untreated) - at a rate of at least 60:1.
So multiply all those serious VAERS events - minimum - by 60.
How many deaths reported to VAERS? How many COVID deaths in the US?
Is the vaccine actually safe?
We can do effective next.
12 Likes
Hi Joshua,
Yes, I do think that you hijacked this whole thread. Apart from that: your reasoning is very formal, which I like a lot. However, in absence of full knowledge, which is the case here imo, the standard “pyramid of proof” is a slow, and therefore bad risk mitigation approach. I consider the matrix that Chris presented as a risk mitigation strategy. Yes indeed, there are many confounders, but, as long as the cost/benefit is strongly in favor of benefits, then this approach buys ourselves time.
ivermectin and some other substanbces mentionded do have a proven safety record (low cost), but observational studies, and “small” studies higher up the “evidence” ladder, do suggest a strong positive signal. Whether this is causal or just correlation is something that really needs to be determined in a full blown scientific approach indeed.
With respect to the vaxxes. These things are “new” in terms of mass roll-out. Although I think that this technology is brilliant, there are unknown risks, which is mentioned in the EUA documents (I did read the European version, everybody can download them. The fact sheets are woefully lacking). There are actually many studies that suggest that there “might” be long term issues (see for example the one mentioned at the end of this blogpost: https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/08/13/mit-harvard-study-suggests-mrna-vaccine-might-permanently-alter-dna-after-all/). Additionally, both VAERS, and EUDRAVIGILENCE show an extreme amount of side effects, and we know that these are underreported.
Furthermore, Corona viruses are notorious, not because they very deadly, in general they are not, but they can mutate rather easily under evolutionary pressure. Vaccinating during pandemics is actually quite iffy. In the Netherlands, where I live, they rather kill the whole flock of, say chickens, than to vaccinate them, as it has been known within the veterinary world that vaccination during a pandemic drives the creation of mutant strains.
All in all, imo a risk management approach is needed to minimize the impact of this pandemic, and to buy us time.
Btw, I think that you will be hard pressed to find many people here who are anti-vaccines. Plus, I bet ye that there are many people here who are actually in awe of the mrna technology.
Grts, Dave
4 Likes
Most comments on these topics have estimated under-reporting of relatively minor events after previous vaccines (for which people go in with a huge bias toward assuming safety, hence are less likely to report anything that isn't particularly serious) and then try to extrapolate that ratio to deaths that occur after the COVID vaccine.Boy that seems like alot of mental gymnastics to bring you to the conclusion you want. Im not saying right or wrong, but when I find myself getting too convoluted in my logic I sometimes have to stop and ask myself what Im really trying to accomplish.
2 Likes
That’s my point exactly:
Campbell is not in SUPPORT of the efficacy of ivermectin again COVID.
He is not AGAINST it, either.
Thus, I have not taken a stand in support of, or against, the efficacy of ivermectin against COVID-19.”In sum, he is NOT taking a public stance on the matter. So, why isn't he confident in judging its effiveness against the virus?
I am a biologist with no claim to expertise in the clinical evaluation of drugs against viral infections.Clearly, the co-discoverer of this drug doesn't feel he has enough expertise/evidence to make a clear call. And we know for certain he doesn't want to be seen as supporting the claim that ivermectin works against COVID, as evidenced by his public refutation of said claim falsely attributed to him on social media (linked to in my previous comment) As it remains unanswered, I ask my question again: Is it risky for THIS community to have so much confidence/certainty in ivermectin's effectiveness against COVID when the Nobel prize-winning discoverer of the drug (who presumably knows more about ivermectin than nearly any person on Earth) does not?
2 Likes
davefairtex,
Good analysis.
This is the type of thing that in which I am interested. This is also the type of thing of which most citizens are completely unaware.
I was at a college football tailgate party yesterday. The participants were graduates of major universities. A couple of them discussed the vaccines and how they had “protected themselves” by immediately getting the vaccines. They believed that there were no risks involved with the vaccines at all. They believed that because everyone in the mainstream uses the mantra “safe and effective” without regards to the reality of the adverse events - one of which you mention.
I went to the game with my brother in law who has a masters degree in electrical engineering from a top university. It had not occurred to him that the problems he developed after getting the vaccine might be related to the vaccine itself.
I, myself, don’t know if those problems were caused by the vaccine or not. But just by looking at VAERS and at the European data one can see that there are problems which are not being disclosed in the media.
Just how serious these problems are - I don’t know. But I come here with the hopes of finding out.
11 Likes
BigBlue! I can’t help but notice you joined in 2011, and you’ve posted just three comments to date. All three in the last few days! What’s up with that?
Ivermectin just that big of a concern for you?
4 Likes
Hai BigBlue,
I’m not sure whom you mean with “this community”, there are nearlys many opinions and views as members.
wrt to the biologist not wanting to be a part in this whole “yes-no” game, this is how I interpret his statement: that is his prerogative. But actually, I do not know his motivation, so my interpretation is just that, my interpretation. Likewise, your interpretation is, by lack of the same missing information about his motivation, your interpretation. There is one difference however, I believe, and please correct me if I’m wrong: you implicitly use an “argumentum ab auctoritate”.
What is a defining element of this “loose sand community”, I think, is that “data” trumps authorities opinions…
Grts, Dave
2 Likes
I don’t know myself what the actual issues are.
Just my sense: “auto-antibody” issues seem likely, since you’ve got spikes coming out of various cell types, which get the immune system all excited about those cells being “bad” - I mean, no clue what happens long term with that particular bit of training, right? Auto-immune = the body attacks itself. Because there were spikes coming out of formerly-normal cells, training the body to think those cells were somehow “bad” seems as though there might be some unintended consequences from that. Maybe?
In a functioning society, we’d track this stuff, we’d only vax the high-risk people, we’d survey everyone who got the shot like they did at Mass General Brigham (rather than relying on self-reporting, like VAERS does), we’d track “new health events” (and/or resurgent health events) and chart them against last year’s background rate to see if anything untoward was happening.
That’s if we had organizations that cared about health. Rather than FDA/CDC, which appear to be functioning as vax marketing organizations.
I mean - Mass General Brigham has shown us how to do it. Do we imagine CDC doesn’t know? Of course it does. And yet - for some reason - we must rely on under-reported VAERS.
And the vax companies have no liability for the product that President Grandpa is mandating that our children must take.
How it started:
“Take the shot to save Grandma!”
Last week:
“Take the shot to save your life!!”
How its going:
“Take the shot or lose your freaking job!”
13 Likes
davefairtex,
You wrote:
In a functioning society, we'd track this stuff ..That is the problem. We don't live in a functioning society. And the lack of investigation into these issues is a significant fact in and of itself.
10 Likes