31 Reasons To Reject The Jab

[Clete]

No. No goal posts have been moved, all that's happened is that you tried to butt into a dialogue between 2 posters and didn't bother to read the context of the exchange or for that matter the actual quote of mine that you cited !



No it didn't remotely imply or talk about vaccines in general. Here's the quote that YOU cited in your response:

"The on-going claim that the "vaccines" saved X number of lives is and always will be subjective. It's impossible to know and the powers that be will of course seek to exaggerate this as much as possible. I refer you back to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trial papers. Just do the math from the numbers involved and it's astounding what the results were in terms of what actual change members of the placebo group and vaccine group had of catching Covid in the first place and what abysmally tiny difference the "vaccines" made in those trials. If you want I can put up the paper references here and show you the numbers."

I already highlighted the word "vaccines" in quotes is deliberate because the Covid treatments are not vaccines, without the quotes then you'd have a case but the quotes are there for that specific purpose. The paragraph talks about the Pfizer and Moderna vacine trial papers and talks about the placebo and vaccinated groups in that Covid vaccine trial.




So now you're making personal opinions on a specific vaccine / pathogen, that of Measles, something that hitherto hasn't been mentioned in my dialogue but by all means if you think you know something regarding this particular pathogen and this particular set of vaccines then I'm certainly game to talk about it. I wonder for example whether you are aware of:

1. How many cases of Measles there actually are per year ?
2. How many deaths are caused by those cases?
3. How many children are harmed by Measles vaccines each year?
4. How severe the harms are of those vaccinated cases?
5. How effective or not the Measles vaccines are at preventing the disease?
6. Whether or not being vaccinated still results in the vaxxed kids passing Measles on to others?

I would guess you haven't the foggiest clue of any of the above and are just spouting casual rhetoric.

These are however the kind of things one needs to know to determine whether or not giving your child a Measles shot is worth the risk.

So it goes for every individual vaccine. All the info is needed to make an informed decision.

We are all responsible for our own health

Thread is all still right here for the entire world to read, SoT. I responded to your verbatim quote and you double down with this stupidity about needing to know details before deciding whether or not the Measles vaccine is worth "the risk" of giving your child one of the most trusted and well proven vaccines in the history of vaccines, immediately after which you say, "So it goes for EVERY individual vaccine.", further implying a distrust of vaccines in general. As I stated - stupidity on parade. Why not just give your child some "white stone"?

You really need to remember that you can't move the goal posts and reinvent your entire position at will here because everything you've said is right there for everyone to read.

Incidentally, Measles was considered eradicated in the US in 2000 but because of morons like yourself as well as those who perpetuate the evidence free claim that vaccines cause autism, the number of Measles cases in 2024 is the highest since 2019. Way to go!

 

[JudgeRightly]

ToS

*SoT

 

[SwordOfTruth]

you double down with this stupidity about needing to know details before deciding whether or not the Measles vaccine is worth "the risk" of giving your child one of the most trusted and well proven vaccines in the history of vaccines

As I thought and instinctively knew, you have no detailed knowledge of what you are talking about and are merely speaking in general platitudes.
There is ALWAYS risk with any vaccine or medical intervention and that risk must be weighed up against an individuals person circumstance. It's not a difficult concept to take on board. The numbers and data involved in any decision are paramount. If you want to personally operate on a blanket trust basis for yourself and your loved ones then by all means have at it. Some of us are more serious about looking at the available data and making more informed decisions.

immediately after which you say, "So it goes for EVERY individual vaccine.", further implying a distrust of vaccines in general.

Another attempt to twist words and create a false platform for yourself to argue on. My statement "so it goes for every individual vaccine" very clearly pertained to the need to investigate every vaccine on an individual basis as (again as clearly stated) every vaccine has :

- different efficacy levels
- different side effects
- different ingredients
- different contraindications

and so on

To blindly accept any and all vaccines and just take them with no research would be an exercise in stupidity. For example on the most basic level a child or person may be allergic to one or more ingredients in the vaccine. Common sense then dictates that you should at the very least read the vaccine insert paper to determine the list of ingredients.

You really need to remember that you can't move the goal posts and reinvent your entire position at will here because everything you've said is right there for everyone to read.

I'm glad it is all there to be read because it's all very plain to see and read and understand and no goal posts have been moved at any point. It is you that needs to remember that all YOUR attempts to redefine the goal posts and steer a discussion towards your suited directions is all there to be seen and read and no matter how many times you try and pull that sleight of hand, it's not going to work.

 

[Clete]

As I thought and instinctively knew, you have no detailed knowledge of what you are talking about and are merely speaking in general platitudes.
There is ALWAYS risk with any vaccine or medical intervention and that risk must be weighed up against an individuals person circumstance. It's not a difficult concept to take on board. The numbers and data involved in any decision are paramount. If you want to personally operate on a blanket trust basis for yourself and your loved ones then by all means have at it. Some of us are more serious about looking at the available data and making more informed decisions.



Another attempt to twist words and create a false platform for yourself to argue on. My statement "so it goes for every individual vaccine" very clearly pertained to the need to investigate every vaccine on an individual basis as (again as clearly stated) every vaccine has :

- different efficacy levels
- different side effects
- different ingredients
- different contraindications

and so on

To blindly accept any and all vaccines and just take them with no research would be an exercise in stupidity. For example on the most basic level a child or person may be allergic to one or more ingredients in the vaccine. Common sense then dictates that you should at the very least read the vaccine insert paper to determine the list of ingredients.




I'm glad it is all there to be read because it's all very plain to see and read and understand and no goal posts have been moved at any point. It is you that needs to remember that all YOUR attempts to redefine the goal posts and steer a discussion towards your suited directions is all there to be seen and read and no matter how many times you try and pull that sleight of hand, it's not going to work.

There is exactly zero need to investigate every vaccine on a individual basis and not doing so has nothing to do with "blindly accepting any and all vaccines and just taking the with no research", which you claim would be stupidity. What's stupidity is suspecting or implying or by any means giving the impression to others that this research hasn't already been done for very nearly every vaccine you want to name. Investigating some new medication, whether it be a vaccine or something else, makes sense if it's brand new or if something has happened that gives one a substantial reason to want to look into it, but most vaccines have been around for decades and their safety and effectiveness is so well established that it's difficult to even put into words the level a paranoia and stupidity it takes to decide that "investigating every vaccine on an individual basis" is at all necessary.

Further, such an investigation is hardly even possible to do beyond what someone can find with a Google search which is about as far as you can get from a thorough investigation into the "efficacy, side effects, ingredients and contraindications" of any medication or treatment in existence. What you'd find on the free internet is mostly what the medical establishment wants you to find and maybe what the conspiracy theory nut jobs like yourself put out without hardly anything inbetween. If someone wanted to read the scientific studies that were performed, they'd have to pay for a subscription to whatever journal published the scientific paper. Assuming someone knew which studies to even look for and which journal to subscribe to then they'd just as likely as not be unable to understand what they were reading anyway because such studies are written by scientists for scientists and most lay people would have a rather steep learning curve just figuring out how to properly understand the information contained in whatever study they happen to find.

In short, your thinking makes some sense for some new medications in some situations*, whether vaccines or otherwise, but the way you speak implies a distrust of all vaccines, whether that is your intention or not, which is as irresponsible and stupid as augmenting the treatment of a medical condition with "white stone" powder.



* Like when big corporations come up with something in a six month period of time to to inject people with after being told by every government on the planet that they'll will buy hundreds of billions of dollars worth of whatever it is they come up with.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

Further, such an investigation is hardly even possible to do beyond what someone can find with a Google search which is about as far as you can get from a thorough investigation into the "efficacy, side effects, ingredients and contraindications" of any medication or treatment in existence. What you'd find on the free internet is mostly what the medical establishment wants you to find

Nonsense!

Here's the paper on the Pfizer mRNA Covid "vaccine" in the New England Journal Of Medicine.

Was very easy to find

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

This paper contained some very key paragraphs for me such as these (my bold):

"Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy for this vaccine will occur, but it cannot be in the context of maintaining a placebo group for the planned follow-up period of 2 years after the second dose. These data do not address whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection; a serologic end point that can detect a history of infection regardless of whether symptoms were present (SARS-CoV-2 N-binding antibody) will be reported later. Furthermore, given the high vaccine efficacy and the low number of vaccine breakthrough cases, potential establishment of a correlate of protection has not been feasible at the time of this report."

So it told me that in fact the "vaccine" testing was on-going and would continue for 2 years.
It told me that they didn't know if the vaccine prevents asymptomatic infection.


"This report does not address the prevention of Covid-19 in other populations, such as younger adolescents, children, and pregnant women"

The above told us that the testing hadn't addressed the younger popualtion or pregnant women and yet governments were telling people to get their kids vaccinated.


"Safety and immune response data from this trial after immunization of adolescents 12 to 15 years of age will be reported subsequently,
and additional studies are planned to evaluate BNT162b2 in pregnant women, children younger than 12 years, and those in special risk
groups, such as immunocompromised persons"

The above told me that SAFETY DATA for 12-15yr olds would be reported later so no-one could possibly make any kind of informed decision about child vaccination at that time. It said additional studies were planned for pregnant women, kids less than 12yrs and those in special groups, yet governments were just imploring just about everyone to take the jabs.


I've already highlighted how easy it is to go look at the prestigious Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews which are used by medical establishments all over the world and very much used by the UK NHS. It told me all I needed to know about the Flu vaccines at that time:

Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults

www.cochrane.org

"Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case"


Useful information is out there a-plenty and it's really easy to find.

 

[way 2 go]

☕️ WAITING FOR GODOT ☙ Saturday, June 22, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS ​

The Supremes still hoarding top decisions; shocking engine fire epidemic; extreme weather mini-roundup; chemtrail scientist calls for geoengineering limits; jab study shatters infant schedule; more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com




Speaking of ridiculous ideas, this week the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research sprayed a truth weapon into big pharma’s rosy skies, in the form of a new study by Children’s Health Defense researchers (Robert Kennedy’s outfit) titled, “Adverse Outcomes Are Increased with Exposure to Added Combinations of Infant Vaccines.” Not just a little increase in adverse outcomes. A lot.


It’s critical to first understand that vaccine makers are not required to test for interactions with other vaccines, or test for problems associated with combined simultaneous injections of multiple vaccines. So, this study did the work that neither pharma nor the FDA have ever done, but should have, using easily available information.

Well, the information is easily available, that is, if you can find a cooperative government somewhere. In this case, the researchers did find a cooperative government willing to share its priceless Medicaid data: Florida. I do not know what led to Florida cooperating with Children’s Health Defense researchers, but I suspect our terrific Surgeon General Joe Ladapo was involved.

Using decades of data from Florida’s Medicaid database, the CHD researchers evaluated adverse events arising among 1.5 million combinations of six vaccines injected into infants between July 1, 1991, and May 31, 2011.

Let’s start with the study’s awful but deplorably predictable conclusion: “Chiefly, the greater the number of vaccines in the combination yields an exponentially greater number of disease diagnoses.”

In English: the more vaccines they gave infants at the same time, the worse the infants did.

Among other wretched findings, the researchers observed that infants who got six early vaccines were three thousand percent more likely to be diagnosed with "other diseases of the trachea and bronchus" within 30 days after vaccination, compared to infants who only got the three basic vaccines (DTaP+IPV+HIB).

The researchers tracked three categories of enhanced risk: developmental problems, additional infections, and respiratory complications.

The highest developmental risk was for "failure to thrive," which six-shot infants were +366% more likely to experience. The highest infections risk (of many) was for leukocytosis (high white blood cell count). Infants who got the HepB-Rota vaccine on top of the three basic ones were a whopping ten thousand times more likely to have leukocytosis. And under respiratory problems, infants who got all three extra vaccines were also three thousand times more likely to be diagnosed with "other diseases of the trachea and bronchus" within 30 days after the jabs.

This is all very interesting, but don’t jump to conclusions. Remember what they always tell us: correlation isn’t causation. All those extra sicknesses could have caused the vaccinations. It could go either way. You never know.

You’d have to be a pretty sick person to help pharma hide this kind of information. But it’s been hidden for a long time. The data is all right there, in the state insurance databases. They have the records when doctors submit claims for the initial vaccinations. They also have the records when doctors later submit claims for treating the same patients’ adverse events.

But patient-level data has always been guarded — for “privacy” — more diligently than the gold bullion in Fort Knox.

In a sane world, this study would blow the lid right off the infant vaccine business. Scientists would spring into action, trying to recreate these results in the other forty-nine states. But this is not a sane world; this is 2024 Clown World.

So, this study represents more progress, another scientific nail driven into the vaccine industrial complex’s mouldy coffin. But it shows that the dam is leaking badly. Big pharma’s vaccine dam could break any minute now.

Finally, this study could not have been done, much less published, four years ago. It’s serious progress.

 

[Iconoblast]

I appreciate your views Icon. Much however is reliant on data and sadly the data is either kept from the public, or deliberately confounded such that direct conclusions can not be drawn or is purposely not collected at all. The entire world has seen Excess Death numbers rise alarmingly since the roll-out of the "vaccines" but no government seems interested in investigating the root cause of this (for imo very obvious reasons). In the UK the gov't has now chosen a different way to calculate Excess Deaths which has lead to the numbers suddenly dropping. Faced with this kind of shenanigans what hope does the public have? Watch the great Dr John Campbell report this here:

The on-going claim that the "vaccines" saved X number of lives is and always will be subjective. It's impossible to know and the powers that be will of course seek to exaggerate this as much as possible. I refer you back to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trial papers. Just do the math from the numbers involved and it's astounding what the results were in terms of what actual change members of the placebo group and vaccine group had of catching Covid in the first place and what abysmally tiny difference the "vaccines" made in those trials. If you want I can put up the paper references here and show you the numbers.

Yes I would like to take a look at those numbers please and thank you, if it’s not too much trouble. Dying of, not “catching”—The gold standard should be all-cause mortality. The other extremes being undefined febrile illness and subjective, anonymously reported vaccine adverse events.

There’s an interesting, frustrating publication bias where if you find a big problem or a big solution or something new, you will get published. The academic world is very competitive. People would loooove to blow up big Pharma and love to blow each other up, love to be the hero and make a name for themselves. This is a good thing, a meritocratic and capitalist concept. One such person is Dr. Eric Topol who put a screeching halt to one of the COX – 2 inhibitors after he apparently got too rich and bored torturing cardiology fellows at Cleveland Clinic. I’m personally not a fan, but his impact on cardiology and healthcare in general remains huge. Anyway, you find no harm from the vaccines, you won’t get published. Association is not causation and lack of evidence for does not = evidence against.

Excess deaths later in COVID’s timeline were largely from alcoholism mental health problems and delayed cancer care, not from Covid or its vaccines. A LOT of effort was made to distinguish a Covid death from a non-Covid death. I realize this remains controversial.


Data mean everything. All else is guesswork. 10,000 people need to take a long-term baby aspirin to help seven of them, while harming four. A hedge against fatal heart attack. Should I flush my relatively cheap and safe aspirin down the toilet based on the above numbers?

There’s a pretty high level of sophistication in this thread. Good thing, as vaccines are complex Prudent to ask do we know how our antilock brakes work and what liabilities and experiments the car company undertook? The fallibility of the software? Nope. How many would disable their antilock brakes if they could?

I premised thoughts on experience, insider information and a little personal agony. ( Not lay interpretations of public documents or theories about hidden data.) Here I come to a hard wall as my center for disease control contact is not answering my emails.

Speaking of Africa, denizens of that continent were angry not to be prioritized in terms of vaccine distribution. While they may not have an infrastructure to calculate excess deaths with the precision of the western world, they weren’t happy watching each other die of Covid. Same thing happened with HIV medications, which were initially rejected by naysayers. Racism and greed might ironically be protective of minorities. Do their Covid outcomes bear this out?

Data. There’s almost no hard data in the original post, all due respect to Jefferson. I agree with much of it. And there’s a reason David Letterman didn’t do a top 31.

 

[Halster]

The thing about vaccines is that people trust them without questioning them. There are many proven safe and effective, but health really demands that you look deeper into the data.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but skepticism can prompt us to think more carefully about healthcare choices. People have reasons, whether valid or not, to want to know details about each vaccine before deciding for themselves or their kids. Who would think that knowledge is indeed power!

 

[SwordOfTruth]

Excess deaths later in COVID’s timeline were largely from alcoholism mental health problems and delayed cancer care, not from Covid or its vaccines.

Sorry but that's patently speculative opinion not remotely fact. Though correllation does not immediately equate to causation there are stagering amounts of correllation with the roll-out of the "vaccines" and the sudden and appalling rise in excess deaths. The numbers are so bad that under any other circumstances ANY government in the world would be instigating immediate and far reaching investigations as to the source of the deaths, it would be deemed a national emergency, and yet no government has been remotely interested in performing any investigation and the reason is again patently obvious. If they've all been complicit in the worst crime against humanity (which I believe they have) then they will of course do everything to protect themselves from subsequent prosecution. If the "vaccines" are a primary cause of the deaths then the deaths are going to continue and thus Pharma and their useful idiots will have to concoct some other bogus excuse for those deaths. Will they blame Monkey Pox, Bird Flu or some new pathogen? Time will tell. I predict the deaths in 2025 will be suddenly attributed to some new pathogen which will again be used to declare a state of emergency and once again yet another (cough) "vaccine" will be forced as the, not cure, but way to alleviate the situation. There is just too much money involved in this entire business model for it not to be repeated endlessly. Only by bringing those responsible to justice will it ever stop.

A LOT of effort was made to distinguish a Covid death from a non-Covid death. I realize this remains controversial.

Yes ironic that wasn't it During the pandemic the public were outraged by the government's appalling skulduggery in trying to inflate Covid death numbers by labelling any and all deaths as a Covid Death. In the UK medical doctors, coroners were instructed that they were allowed to label deaths as Covid Deaths even if no Covid test had been performed on the deceased! It was deemed enough that if the deceased had exhibited any symptoms of Covid before death then they were a Covid Death which was patently ridiculous. You might have an ordinary cold, a bit of a sniffle but the symptoms are so similar to Covid that you would be deemed a Covid Death. It was imo totally fraudulent and appalling

So how utterly double-faced was it when AFTER the pandemic and in the face of countless new excess deaths coinciding with the roll-out of the "vaccines" that the powers that be suddenly didn't want these to be labelled as vaccine deaths and instead everyone now needs to find any and all other causes for those deaths.

Remember at the time, if you died within X number of days of having Covid then it was deemed a Covid death, but if you died within X number of days of having a "vaccine" shot that wasn't likewise a Vaccine Death. Hmmm.

In short, when it suited their narrative a death was a Covid Death. When it doesn't suit the narrative a subsequent post-vaccine death mustn't be a vaccine death it must be something else. It's appalling.

Data mean everything. All else is guesswork.

Yep which is why your claim that all the excess deaths were mental health and alcohol is bogus. You don't have the data to know what the causes are because the prime culprits of the causes have not been investigated and quantified nor will they ever be.

10,000 people need to take a long-term baby aspirin to help seven of them, while harming four. A hedge against fatal heart attack. Should I flush my relatively cheap and safe aspirin down the toilet based on the above numbers?

Well I certainly would. Those odds are ridiculous. And you need to be consistent in your life risk mitigations too if you're going to try and defend that one. If you set out in your car on a trip somewhere you have a 1 in 400 chance of being involved in an incident. If you're going to worry about a 7 in 10,000 risk then you should equally worry about a 1 in 400 risk, more so. So tell us all, do you refrain from going out in cars? No, didnt think so!

Similarly, you have to inject 71 people with a tradition Flu vaccine in order to prevent just ONE case of Flu. Since all vaccines produce some level of adverse side effect, some of them very serious, then that also has to be thrown into the equation. Add to that the fact that the SCIENCE states clearly that repeated flu jabs adversely impact the already very low effectiveness of the vaccines then I can't see that there is any case whatsoever to continue selling Flu shots at all. It's just a very profitable business model offered to the ignorant masses who can't be bothered to do their research imo.

There’s a pretty high level of sophistication in this thread. Good thing, as vaccines are complex Prudent to ask do we know how our antilock brakes work and what liabilities and experiments the car company undertook? The fallibility of the software? Nope. How many would disable their antilock brakes if they could?

I would certainly disable at least one of the safety features of my current car if I could, but sadly it's not a menu option for the user. I'm not even sure if my garage would be able to do it in the diagnostics suite. We should always be prepared to drill down in to the detail of all aspects of life and make changes as needed.

I premised thoughts on experience, insider information and a little personal agony. ( Not lay interpretations of public documents or theories about hidden data.)

I think it's a bit insulting to label people's research as "lay interpretations" TBH. You don't have to be a medical scientist for example to look at the numbers of people involved in the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccine trials. That's simple maths. For example here's the data for the Moderna vaccine trial paper which provides the numbers below:

There were 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group).

In the placebo group only 185 people out of 15,210 were confirmed with symptomatic Covid-19 illness which is just 1.2%

So 98.8% of people in the placebo group didn't get Covid illness anyway despite not being vaccinated. Those are great odds imo.


In the vaccinated group 11 people out of 15,210 had Covid illness which is 0.07%

The difference between the placebo and vaccinated group was therefore 1.13%

This is simple maths. The figures show the stark difference between a "relative difference" and an "absolute difference".

That difference WAS NOT communicated to the public. Had the public realised how tiny a difference there was between the placebo and vaccinated group I believe millions if not billions would have refused the shots.

The paper also went on to talk about side effects:

"Solicited systemic adverse events occurred more often in the mRNA-1273 group than in the placebo group after both the first dose (54.9%, vs. 42.2%) and the second dose (79.4%, vs. 36.5%). "

"The severity of the solicited systemic events increased after the second dose in the mRNA-1273 group, with an increase in proportions of grade 2 events (from 16.5% after the first dose to 38.1% after the second dose) and grade 3 events (from 2.9% to 15.8%). "

Again was this communicated to the public? No I don't believe it was. Appalling stuff.

If you want to call this "lay interpretation" then I think you're working towards a particular narrative for whatever reason. For myself, I'm very comfortable looking at those figures and seeing the appallingly low difference between vax and placebo groups.

Speaking of Africa, denizens of that continent were angry not to be prioritized in terms of vaccine distribution.

And yet Tanzania flatly refused the vaccines saying:

""We are not yet satisfied that those vaccines have been clinically proven safe”, Health Minister Dorothy Gwajima told the news conference"

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00362-7/fulltext

Data. There’s almost no hard data in the original post, all due respect to Jefferson. I agree with much of it. And there’s a reason David Letterman didn’t do a top 31.

By this you mean that Jefferson didn't include citations to the data in the OP, not that such data does not exist for it surely does exist and it exists in spades. I wholeheartedly agree with Jefferson in that OP. There has been an utterly appalling onslaught of deliberate scare-mongering, witholding of important information, inhuman coercion, vilification of truth sayers, manipulation of science all resulting in irreversible damage to the vaccine industry, to governments and to the medical industry as a whole. In many ways, though the cost in human life is disastrous and unforgiveable, the good things that emerges is that millions of people have now woken up from their induced slumber and are realising that their former blanket trust now needs to be replaced with diligent research on just about every medical decision.

 

[Iconoblast]

Punching below the belt a little there. I’ll give you a pass since I am new and you are deeply invested in your views. At this point, it is 99% likely any contradictory data I produce is going to be “suspect” and you’ve made up your mind. In words, the science is settled. I’m awaiting new information and wondering what mankind has learned from the past five years. See my paragraph about the super flu. See my portfolio on the rise with pharmaceutical stocks. Just kidding I don’t own any.

I am forced to say “lay interpretation” because I don’t know your credentials and I’m not offering mine. I didn’t look under your profile, maybe they are listed there. But this isn’t Facebook and I don’t care. I can tell you that I’m not a pharmaceutical executive. They would use better grammar and be a lot nicer.

In healthcare, and in life, you aren’t going to get a black-and-white “take this pill and you’ll be 100% cured with no side effects.” And you know this, yet you apply a very high standard to both personal and epidemiological. There is no lack of data that baby aspirin saves lives. Do you reject this data?

I’m not pushing any particular narrative. What a confused narrative it would be! Data and experience are difficult to reconcile.

 

[Clete]

Punching below the belt a little there. I’ll give you a pass since I am new and you are deeply invested in your views. At this point, it is 99% likely any contradictory data I produce is going to be “suspect” and you’ve made up your mind. In words, the science is settled. I’m awaiting new information and wondering what mankind has learned from the past five years. See my paragraph about the super flu. See my portfolio on the rise with pharmaceutical stocks. Just kidding I don’t own any.

I am forced to say “lay interpretation” because I don’t know your credentials and I’m not offering mine. I didn’t look under your profile, maybe they are listed there. But this isn’t Facebook and I don’t care. I can tell you that I’m not a pharmaceutical executive. They would use better grammar and be a lot nicer.

In healthcare, and in life, you aren’t going to get a black-and-white “take this pill and you’ll be 100% cured with no side effects.” And you know this, yet you apply a very high standard to both personal and epidemiological. There is no lack of data that baby aspirin saves lives. Do you reject this data?

I’m not pushing any particular narrative. What a confused narrative it would be! Data and experience are difficult to reconcile.

But wait! SwordofTruth says that all the information we could ever want is freely available and easy to find on the internet!
Doesn't that mean I can be a pharmaceutical expert on any drug or treatment I want to learn about in an afternoon?
Are you trying to tell me that it's more complicated than doing a Google search and finding two or three websites to read?

 

[SwordOfTruth]

There is no lack of data that baby aspirin saves lives. Do you reject this data?

I've never had cause to go and research Aspirin so can't comment on it. As stated elsewhere, I research vaccines and medical treatments on an individual basis as and when there is a need to do so.

I am forced to say “lay interpretation” because I don’t know your credentials and I’m not offering mine. I didn’t look under your profile, maybe they are listed there.

I think the point I was trying to make above was that you don't need any credentials to read and understand a great deal of the medical literature out there. Most of it is fairly plain and quite often there's a section that specifically explains things for ordinary people. Don't you think that statements like:

"Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case"

are pretty self-explanatory?

How can anyone read that and not conclude that flu shots are pretty much useless profiteering snake oil?

In healthcare, and in life, you aren’t going to get a black-and-white “take this pill and you’ll be 100% cured with no side effects.”

Indeed. On that topic, can you remember or think what is the last medical product, drug, vax or treatment that was actually a complete cure for something? I'm struggling to think of one.

 

[way 2 go]

Indeed. On that topic, can you remember or think what is the last medical product, drug, vax or treatment that was actually a complete cure for something? I'm struggling to think of one.

ivermectin

prevents and treats river blindness

 

[ok doser]

ivermectin

prevents and treats river blindness

And deworms horses!

 

[SwordOfTruth]

ivermectin

prevents and treats river blindness

Discovered in 1975. So if that's the last thing we can remember being a real cure for anything that's near 50 years have passed and everything since is no longer a cure but just a symptom treatment. No real money in cures is there!

 

[way 2 go]

Discovered in 1975. So if that's the last thing we can remember being a real cure for anything that's near 50 years have passed and everything since is no longer a cure but just a symptom treatment.

sad

No real money in cures is there!

not as much money in cures

 

[way 2 go]

The Real Anthony Fauci , free to watch for 10 days
part1

x.com

x.com

part2

x.com

x.com

 

[Iconoblast]

But wait! SwordofTruth says that all the information we could ever want is freely available and easy to find on the internet!
Doesn't that mean I can be a pharmaceutical expert on any drug or treatment I want to learn about in an afternoon?
Are you trying to tell me that it's more complicated than doing a Google search and finding two or three websites to read?

Haha yes. Sword spent a lot more than an afternoon. I Respect the effort, just don’t agree with the conclusions. If you look for hate on line you can find it. Same for vaccine successes. Some “experts” were politically compromised or guessed wrong. Some lay people had no idea what they were doing, and a few (thousand) of them died needlessly. It isn’t a good feeling watching an unvaxxed man under age 50 drown on a ventilator. Fortunately it was uncommon. As has been emphasized 65 times in this thread.

 

[Iconoblast]

I've never had cause to go and research Aspirin so can't comment on it. As stated elsewhere, I research vaccines and medical treatments on an individual basis as and when there is a need to do so.



I think the point I was trying to make above was that you don't need any credentials to read and understand a great deal of the medical literature out there. Most of it is fairly plain and quite often there's a section that specifically explains things for ordinary people. Don't you think that statements like:

"Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case"

are pretty self-explanatory?

How can anyone read that and not conclude that flu shots are pretty much useless profiteering snake oil?




Indeed. On that topic, can you remember or think what is the last medical product, drug, vax or treatment that was actually a complete cure for something? I'm struggling to think of one.

Disagree on the snake oil. Have to weigh the cost and side effects versus benefit of large scale vaccination efforts in a way that includes high risk populations. So if 71,000,000 people are vaccinated we can estimate one million cases of flu prevented. If 10 percent of those are high risk and 10 percent of those would have died, we saved 10,000 lives. Not a bad day at the office.

Further, how would the researcher know if the effort prevented transmission to a high risk person, or prevented asymptomatic cases, which would then go from very low to zero chance of death? And ?benefit for more than one season. Should healthcare workers get vaxxed or would that just add to their occupational risk, and to heck with their immunocompromised close contacts?

Good point on the cure question. It’s not in the healthcare provider’s vocabulary. Hasn’t been for decades, the more honest ones. They just try to give the human body every advantage. oh I just thought of one—the modern radiation and chemotherapy can melt away rectal tumors that would’ve required a colostomy in years past.

….I got giardia and took flagyl. Yeast infection, fluconazole? Some transplant patients are able to completely wean off immune suppression 20 years later. Kidney for example. Tylenol for my headache. There must be others. You aren’t gonna get smallpox unless it’s Weaponized and youre significantly younger than me.

So…True, hard to think of many. Some of the above are self limited processes, and antibiotic side effects can be ugly.

You are right IMO

 

[Iconoblast]

I feel leaders and policy makers deserve the OP measure of contempt, and a “you have to do better”. Messaging not in words, but in terms of publishing, funding, voting, and yes, civil and criminal penalties.

Many boots on the ground COVID healthcare providers on the other hand are Bible believing Christians and see themselves as God’s tools. They know their limitations all too well. Just have to dive in. Decide. Act. Reassure. Risk. If Something is worth doing, it is worth doing well, with one’s whole heart. Whatever your hands find to do, Work is worship. They are very proud of their successes and haunted by their failures. Pray for them.