Vaccine thread

[RupertKBD]

Gotta say, I know Sharpie took UncleBen out....but I just can't get over someone citing the House Oversight Committee as a source.....

 

That's James Comer and Gym Jordan, FFS....

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, RupertKBD said:

Gotta say, I know Sharpie took UncleBen out....but I just can't get over someone citing the House Oversight Committee as a source.....

 

That's James Comer and Gym Jordan, FFS....

 

Yah well, you're just brainwashed dude.

[RupertKBD]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

Yah well, you're just brainwashed dude.

[kilgore]

4 hours ago, RupertKBD said:

 

 

To be fair, these days you never know if someone is being sarcastic or not. 

 

There's a whole new flat Earth movement ffs.

[Bob Long]

47 minutes ago, kilgore said:

There's a whole new flat Earth movement ffs.

 

this one is funny. You can prove it's wrong with a watch, a sunny day and two sticks. 

[RupertKBD]

51 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

this one is funny. You can prove it's wrong with a watch, a sunny day and two sticks. 

 

[The Lock]

On 6/20/2024 at 3:40 PM, UncleBen said:

Just like information on injuries and deaths from the jab are changing from its 100 % safe to its not ..we agree 

 

No one's ever said it's 100% safe.

 

I've literally been saying in this very thread, even during Covid, that vaccines were never meant to stop the spread of Covid. They were meant to SLOW the spread of Covid. Yet, most anti-vaxxers and/or people who were against he lockdown have been fixated on words that were never really said to begin with.

 

If the "information's changing" idea helps to make you understand then great... but this stuff's been known for decades.

 

You can also accidently kneel on an infected spec of dust and almost lose your leg like what happened to my dad. Doesn't even need to be a needle. At least you know needles are sanitized (hopefully).

Edited June 22 by The Lock

[Ghostsof1915]

On 6/20/2024 at 7:25 PM, Warhippy said:

I blame this person, and if you'll scuse me I have 3 playboy editions to scroll back on and peruse while shaking my head in disgust

 

She ain't pretty she just looks that way....

[DSVII]

21 hours ago, Xanlet said:

Again, when it comes to hospitalization and death, those at risk are 60 years of age and older, with 80+ having an EXTREME increase in risk, as this chart shows from the same source you postedNotice that in the unvaccinated category, 12 - 59 it is essentially a flat line at near 0 deaths and very few hospitalizations. Notice the line for 18 - 39 of unvaccinated cases (which skyrockets in unvaccinated but is actually higher in fully vacinated), yet the line does not budge off of near zero deaths and has the tiniest uptick in hospitalizations. This reinforced my point that the vaccines pose almost no benefit at all to those under 60 years of age. It's important to separate the data here, as the benefit is drastically more pronounced among 80+ category for vaccinated and unvaccinated in that age group, but for other age groups, vaccination has essentially no impact on death and very little on hospitalization.

 

A few things to note:

 

• By that point, unvaccinated folks were benefiting from the fact that the majority of the country already had the first shot. People are not operating in a vacuum by July over two thirds of the country had received their first jab, and if you segment the population 12 years and older, that number is 76%, with 31% of that age group being fully vaccinated. If the unvaccinated folks got infected but didn't have to be hospitalized, more likely than not, they contracted a weaker version of the virus from someone already vaccinated just by sheer numbers and probability. Remember, the point of the vaccine was to prevent the most severe outcomes AND to make the virus less potent if it does spread, the vaccine never 100% guaranteed no spread of infection or being infected.

• You need to look at how the hospitalization rates for those in the youth group simply vanish with the vaccine. There is no line. And when you are observing a graph that is scaled like that with a huge outlier in there (the 80+ group) your eye is not an effective method of testing, gotta look at the hard numbers. Even then you can see there is a line for the hospitalization rates for the youth group and no lines for the fully vaccinated groups.

 

• We also need to look at what constitutes a serious adverse effect. It has been very charitable towards your viewpoint to even equate a hospitalization with a serious adverse event. But in reality they won't be equal.

 

• And again, you are ignoring the societal benefit of not overloading the hospital system at a time when it was already short staffed. That 'blip' in the youth still extrapolates to several thousand youth (eye test without data, ~4-5k hospitalized) taking up a bed and resource that they otherwise could have avoided using if they had been vaccinated in time.

 

•  The data from the site we both linked also said most adverse events were reported in the age 40-49 group. From the 11,702 number you cited, about 567 belonged to ages 0-17, scroll right on the table. So less than 5% of serious adverse effects relate to the very young from the vaccine.  From these two facts, we can infer that the youth group you are claiming aren't benefiting from the vaccine also have a similar lower rate of incidence than average just from how statistical curves work. charts. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/ 
• You can't claim to be saying it's not beneficial for youth while citing a 11,702 number that includes every age group

 

 

Top row is January 2024 cumulative, bottom row is November 2021.

• For the 12-17 age group, I see 66,535 unvaccinated cases versus ~150 serious adverse events  + 25,422 vaccinated cases in the same time span. We don't have the raw numbers on hospitalizations because that graph is not helpful but the fact that a line exists on that chart with that scale is magnitudes larger than the zero you see for the vaccinated youth group.

 

Quote

Also, the true number of adverse events is unknown. The vaccines have been linked to damage of the heart muscle, which is a condition which may remain subclinical (unknown to the person themselves) but may pose problems later in their life. Also, it seems many practitioners have been hesitant to attribute adverse reactions to the vaccine, which adds another variable of which we can't really know the effect.

 

The report we're both citing states that adverse events may not necessarily be correlated to the vaccine.  

 

Quote

n regard to your point on surgery, I would definitely advocate that everyone avoid unnecessary surgery for the exact reason that every surgery has a significant risk of catastrophe. Remember, the vaccine has been relentlessly pushed on all Canadians regardless of risk profile or age group or anything, and pushed for Canadians to get it multiple times in perpetuity (I believe the guidelines still say for all Canadians to continue to get injections every 6 months) which increases the risk of adverse event with every jab.

 

I believe someone pointed out to you that if you don't have an adverse event from the first jab, your tolerance to the vaccine and the likeliness of an adverse event exponentially decreases. That's basic immunization.

 

 

Quote

It's also interesting to note the very limited time frame for the above graph, as it is June 19, 2021 to January 1, 2022, about a 6 month period where vaccines were likely at their most effective, since after that, most individuals would have encountered the virus itself and gained natural immunity, making the difference between being unvaccinated with natural immunity and being vaccinated much less of a difference.

 

Based on the available evidence, it does not appear favorable for younger age groups to take these vaccines.

 

Your conclusion is polluted by the fact that individuals at that point most likely encountered the virus from a vaccinated person with a lower viral load.  Most of society was vaccinated at the time and even though unvaccinated individuals didn't participate, they still reaped the benefits of those who chose to vaccinate.

 

 

 

Anyways, i think that's all the time i'll spend on this. It isn't worth it.

Edited June 22 by DSVII

[Bob Long]

I wish people who don't want to take the shot, can simply not take it, and stfu. This endless "debate" (for lack of a better term, it's not a true debate) is a circle. 

 

If we do have another pandemic sooner than later, we know what these folks are and we know not to waste any time or energy on them. 

[DSVII]

35 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

I wish people who don't want to take the shot, can simply not take it, and stfu. This endless "debate" (for lack of a better term, it's not a true debate) is a circle. 

 

If we do have another pandemic sooner than later, we know what these folks are and we know not to waste any time or energy on them. 

 

If they don't take the shot and comply with the restrictions, sure, have at it, had a few friends who did this because they knew their personal choice may bleed onto other folk's lives.

 

The unfortunate reality is that if someone doesn't vaccinate and infects someone elderly or vulnerable because they want to go about their day, people can die. And that effect is so divorced from an individuals actions it's impossible for almost anyone to contemplate, let alone take accountability for.

 

 

[Warhippy]

2 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

She ain't pretty she just looks that way....

I'd take her swimming to find out

[Xanlet]

1 hour ago, DSVII said:

 

Your conclusion is polluted by the fact that individuals at that point most likely encountered the virus from a vaccinated person with a lower viral load.  Most of society was vaccinated at the time and even though unvaccinated individuals didn't participate, they still reaped the benefits of those who chose to vaccinate.

 

 

 

Anyways, i think that's all the time i'll spend on this. It isn't worth it.

This is far from proven. In fact, evidence suggests the viral load is similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated people, as I have outlined in this thread but will reference again here:

 

(1."In our study, mean viral loads as measured by Ct value were similar for large numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the Delta variant surge, regardless of symptom status, at two distinct California testing sites."  "There were no statistically significant differences in mean Ct values of vaccinated vs unvaccinated samples in either HYT (vaccinated 25.5 vs unvaccinated 25.4; P = .80) (Figure 1A) or UeS (vaccinated 23.1, unvaccinated 23.4; P = .54)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8992250/#CIT0012

 

(2."We observed no significant effect of vaccine status alone on Ct value, nor when controlling for vaccine product or sex"

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v7.full-text

 

Quote

I believe someone pointed out to you that if you don't have an adverse event from the first jab, your tolerance to the vaccine and the likeliness of an adverse event exponentially decreases. That's basic immunization.

 

There are a number of different adverse events and many of them will have a risk each time a person takes the jab. For one, it has not been the common practice in North America to aspirate the needle during injection, which means each time a person injects you, there is a slight chance they inject into a blood vessel which will cause problems (aspiration is to pull back the plunger slightly to see if blood can be drawn, which indicates the needle is resting in a blood vessel and should be removed and injected in another place in the arm). Next, it has been observed that the spike protein is systemically distributed after vaccination, and that it potentially causes harm in some people (this is the conjectured mechanism for myocarditis). Thus, each time you are injected, and new spike protein is produced, you have another chance that it accumulates in the myocardium and causes damage. This graph shows that myocarditis in those under 40 is higher after a second dose than a first: (as a side note, this graph also shows that, in those under 40, two doses of Moderna were associated with higher rates of myocarditis than contracing the virus itself)

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0

 

 

The vaccine companies themselves never tested the vaccine for third party benefit, they never tested it on how it effects transmission. Every claim I have heard about it's third party benefits seem completely baseless. In fact, if you just observe case data at a macro level and compare it to vaccine levels, there is no correlation at all in levels of case growth and levels of vaccination, suggesting the vaccines have no impace on spread at all.

 

"Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/

 

So to recap: vaccination levels have no impact on case growth, and appear to have no impact on viral load when infected.

 

[the destroyer of worlds]

In other words

 

 

 

[The Arrogant Worms]

5 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

She ain't pretty she just looks that way....

 

[Ghostsof1915]

1 hour ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

 

God I feel old.

[Ghostsof1915]

… We made a date to go for a drink
I wore my jeans and she wore a mink.

 

… She said "Take me home, there won't be no fuss"
I said "Sure you got some change for the bus"
Watching her leave I heard the bartender say
"She ain't pretty she just looks that way"

[RupertKBD]

19 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

God I feel old.

 

Tell me about it....

 

When I was playing the clubs back in the 80's, there was a place in Saskatoon called the Capri....the members of the Northern Pikes would hang out in the entryway of the club and watch the bands. They couldn't actually come in, because they were underage.....

 

I think at that point they had an EP out, or were just in the process of releasing it....

[AatuD2]

On 6/21/2024 at 12:39 PM, RupertKBD said:

Gotta say, I know Sharpie took UncleBen out....but I just can't get over someone citing the House Oversight Committee as a source.....

 

That's James Comer and Gym Jordan, FFS....

 

 

 

 

You are listening to a doctor here who worked at the Department of Pathology from Stanford and has spent his whole life working in the field.  

 

As he says, chances of this virus originating in nature with these particular traits is about 1 in a billion. 

[Bob Long]

34 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

 

 

 

 

You are listening to a doctor here who worked at the Department of Pathology from Stanford and has spent his whole life working in the field.  

 

As he says, chances of this virus originating in nature with these particular traits is about 1 in a billion. 

 

Honest question: how many physicians agree with him? 

 

 

[Duodenum]

3 hours ago, AatuD2 said:

 

 

 

 

You are listening to a doctor here who worked at the Department of Pathology from Stanford and has spent his whole life working in the field.  

 

As he says, chances of this virus originating in nature with these particular traits is about 1 in a billion. 

 

Can you explain why you put your trust in Dr. Quay and the other miniscule amount of scientists that go against the predominant nature theory? 

 

Why not just go look at the hundreds of (peer-reviewed) papers on why the nature evolution theory is widely considered the most likely? 

 

[RupertKBD]

11 hours ago, Duodenum said:

 

Can you explain why you put your trust in Dr. Quay and the other miniscule amount of scientists that go against the predominant nature theory? 

 

Why not just go look at the hundreds of (peer-reviewed) papers on why the nature evolution theory is widely considered the most likely? 

 

 

I think we all know the answer to that....

 

However, in spite of what Dr Quay thinks, it doesn't change the fact that the House Oversight Committee is just about the worst possible source you could cite. I suppose Alex Jones, or RFK Jr might be in the ballpark, but that's about it.

[Sharpshooter]

Misinformation proffered as ‘truth’ by any Member will result in Moderation. 
 

 

[The Arrogant Worms]

[Xanlet]

3 hours ago, Sharpshooter said:

Misinformation proffered as ‘truth’ by any Member will result in Moderation. 
 

 

Please state the criteria for which something is judged as "misinformation"