Vaccine thread

[Duodenum]

8 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

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

Probably whatever is judged by the moderator group.

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, Xanlet said:

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

 

"See Xanlet" 

[DSVII]

Quote

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

There has been a lot more data and studies over a longer sample period (only 2 months in your study 1 which was July 2021 and August 2021, how many variants and waves have happened since) and in later years from those two reports to suggest the opposite conclusion from yours. Vaccination does decrease viral load, especially if you are fully vaccinated and boosted. With how many variants popped up from Delta to Omnicron, the benefits of being fully vaccinated and boosted become more apparent.

 

1.) COVID-19: Vaccination greatly reduces infectious viral load, study finds

Since the beginning of the pandemic, samples taken at the HUG screening centre have been kept for research purposes, with the authorisation of the persons concerned. "We were able to reanalyze samples from previous waves of the disease," explains Benjamin Meyer, a researcher at the Centre for Vaccinology in the Department of Pathology and Immunology at UNIGE Faculty of Medicine. "We measured the infectious viral load of 3 cohorts of patients during the first 5 symptomatic days to compare the viral load caused by the original virus (118 samples, spring 2020), the Delta variant (293 samples, fall 2021) and the Omicron variant sublineage BA.1 (154 samples, winter 2022), as well as, for the last two cohorts, whether a significant difference could be detected in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals."

 

Overall, the infectious viral load for the Delta cohort was significantly higher than that of the cohort with the original virus. However, people infected by Delta who received two doses of mRNA vaccine had a significantly lower infectious viral load than unvaccinated people. "For the Omicron cohort, contrary to what can be assumed given its rapid spread, the infectious viral load was overall lower than that of the Delta cohort," says Isabella Eckerle. In contrast, only people who were boosted (that is, having received three doses of the vaccine) had their viral load decreased; people who received two doses only had no benefit in this regard compared to unvaccinated people. "This is immunologically consistent: many vaccines require 3 doses spaced several months apart to induce a sustained immune response, such as that against Hepatitis B virus," explains Isabella Eckerle.

 

1.) Vaccine effectiveness in symptom and viral load mitigation in COVID-19 breakthrough infections in South Korea

Two hundred seventy-four participants with known vaccination status contributed optional nasal swabs for viral load measurement: median age, 46 years; median (interquartile range) BMI 31.2 (27.4–36.4) kg/m2. Overall, 159 (58%) were women, and 217 (80%) were White. The mean relative log10 viral load for those vaccinated <6 months from the date of enrollment was 0.11 (95% CI, –0.48 to 0.71), which was significantly lower than the unvaccinated group (P = .01). Those vaccinated ≥6 months before enrollment did not differ from the unvaccinated with respect to viral load (mean, 0.99; 95% CI, –0.41 to 2.40; P = .85). The vaccinated group had fewer moderate/severe symptoms of subjective fever, chills, myalgias, nausea, and diarrhea (all P < .05).

 

2.) Vaccination reduces viral load and accelerates viral clearance in SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant-infected patients

In this retrospective study, 31 patients did not receive any vaccine (non-vaccination, NV), 21 patients received 1-dose of inactivated vaccine (one-dose vaccination, OV), and 60 patients received at least 2-dose inactivated vaccine (two-dose vaccination, TV). The baseline data, clinical outcomes and vaccination information were collected and analyzed.

 

Patients in the OV group were younger than those in the other two groups (p = 0.001), but there was no significant difference in any of the other baseline data among the three groups. The TV group showed higher IgG antibody levels and cycle threshold values of SARS-CoV-2 than the NV and OV groups (p < 0.01), and time to peak viral load was shorter in the TV group (3.5 ± 2.3 d) than in the NV (4.8 ± 2.8 d) and OV groups (4.8 ± 2.9 d, p = 0.03). The patients in the TV group (18%) showed a higher recovery rate without drug therapy (p < 0.001). Viral clearance time and hospital stay were significantly shorter in the TV group than in the NV and OV groups (p < 0.01), and there were no significant differences in these parameters between the OV and NV groups, but IgG values were higher in the OV group (p = 0.025). No severe complications occurred in this study.

 

3.) Infectious viral load in unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals infected with ancestral, Delta or Omicron SARS-CoV-2

To determine vaccination’s association with virus shedding, we compared genome copies and infectious VLs in unvaccinated (n = 127) and vaccinated (n = 104) patients infected with Delta for 5 DPOS. Overall, RNA genome copies were significantly lower in vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients (2.8-fold, 0.44 log10, P = 0.0002, t-value = 3.7942, df = 197.07, Cohen's d = 0.51). The decrease in infectious VL was even more pronounced in vaccinated patients (4.78-fold, 0.68 log10, P < 0.0001, t-value = 3.9903, df = 214.85, Cohen's d = 0.53) (Fig. 3a). The kinetics of RNA genome copies were largely similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients until 3 DPOS, with a faster decline for vaccinated patients starting at 4 DPOS (Fig. 3b). In contrast, infectious VLs were substantially lower in vaccinated patients at all DPOS, with the biggest effect at 3–5 DPOS (Fig. 3c). 

 

4.) Viral loads of Delta-variant SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections after vaccination and booster with BNT162b2

Our results show that the vaccine is initially effective in reducing viral loads of Delta BTIs, with a magnitude of ten-fold (95% CI, 4–30) (average over the first 2 months after vaccination), consistent with its initial effectiveness against pre-Delta variants4,5. However, this viral load reduction effectiveness declines with time after vaccination, significantly decreasing at 3 months after vaccination and effectively vanishing after about 6 months. As the Delta variant surfaced when a large fraction of the vaccinated population was already past the initial 2-month post-vaccination period, the population-wide average effect of the vaccine on Delta viral loads is negligible, consistent with and explaining reports14,15 of no difference in Ct between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with Delta. Consistently, we found that a booster shot is associated with a regained viral load reduction even during a Delta-dominated surge, suggesting restored vaccine-associated mitigation of transmissibility.

 

Quote

(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

As for your first study:
https://rrid.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/cf16g7zy/release/1

 

The authors report a cross-sectional assessment of SARS-CoV-2 PCR cycle threshold values among positive cases over two months of routine testing at two sites in California, stratifying by site, vaccination status, and presence of symptoms. Healthy Yolo Together is a free testing program for asymptomatic people over age 2 in the City of Davis and Yolo County and utilized a saliva-based assay. Unidos en Salud provides free community-based testing in San Francisco for asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals via anterior-nasal swabs. The HYT saliva testing assessed N1 and N2, and UeS detected N and E genes. They found no significant different in CT values between vaccinated and unvaccinated or symptomatic and asymptomatic groups infected with the delta variant.

 

This is a well-reported study and consistent with other analyses using similarly collected data of CT values among people infected with delta. While at first glance these findings might suggest transmission potential is the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with delta infection (e.g., this is how the Provincetown MMWR has been interpreted by many), there are several very important limitations to keep in mind that preclude any strong conclusions about infectiousness or transmission potential. Importantly, studies with stronger designs support the opposite conclusion. I suggest including the following issues to the manuscript as additional context for an otherwise well-done analysis.

 

1. Sampling strategy – CT values are highly variable based on the timing of collection, both in terms of the individual infected (peaking over a period of about 24 hours) and the overall epidemic (routinely collected specimens will have lower CT values during rising epidemics, higher CT values during falling epidemics; e.g. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiab367). This makes studies without a systematic sampling strategy (i.e., patients self-presenting for testing) challenging to interpret and vulnerable to biases based on the timing of the sample relative to both infection onset and the overall epidemic. We are also not told the timing relative to symptom onset for the symptomatic positives, which would be useful if available. The authors cite the REACT-1 study in the UK, which uses a more robust systematic random sampling strategy and found that vaccinated individuals with infection have higher CT values than those who have not had the vaccine. By nature of the study design, this is a more reliable assessment of the difference in CT values between these groups.

 

2. Cross-sectional design – In a somewhat related issue, the cross-sectional study design offers only a snapshot of the CT value, which as above is highly dynamic over time. The Chia et al study cited by the authors offers a helpful counterexample from Singapore, where CT values were assessed over a 4-week period and, while CT values were initially similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with infection (no systematic sampling strategy for the initial testing), there was a much more rapid rise in the CT values (drop in viral loads) among those who had been vaccinated.

 

3. Cycle thresholds are not equivalent to infectious virus or transmissibility, especially with vaccination – The first issue to highlight here is that multiple studies have now shown that when comparing equivalent CT values between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, there is a lower likelihood of being able to culture virus from vaccinated people.  Second, contact tracing transmission studies in the delta era have found reduced transmission risk with delta despite similar CT values at diagnosis (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.12.21261991 and https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260).

 

 

Quote

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)

 

Again, let's not forget the big picture here. Covid causes myocarditis at a higher rate than the vaccine, so you are focusing on the adverse effect of the vaccine instead of the overwhelmingly negative effect of the virus. In general, the rate of myocarditis among people with covid is far higher than that associated with the vaccine, and the rate of myocarditis among those infected is halved if they have been vaccinated. Color me very skeptical that your proposed unvaccinated herd immunity would result in less deaths, hospitalizations and myocartitis.

 

Even the studies that do identify a potential higher risk in myocarditis still state the vaccines are effective in preventing severe illnesses, hospitalisations and deaths, and that further research is needed to accurately identify the rates of the myocarditis linked to the vaccines with the intent to identify those more at risk and fully inform them when vaccinating. The intent of the research was never to discredit the usage of vaccines.

 

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-poses-higher-risk-for-myocarditis-than-vaccines

 

"We found that across this large dataset, the entire COVID-19-vaccinated population of England during an important 12-month period of the pandemic when the COVID-19 vaccines first became available, the risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination was quite small compared to the risk of myocarditis after COVID-19 infection," the study's lead author, Martina Patone, said in a news release. She is a statistician at the University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences in England.

 

"This analysis provides important information that may help guide public health vaccine campaigns, particularly since COVID-19 vaccination has expanded in many parts of the world to include children as young as 6 months old," Patone said.

 

In the new study, researchers analyzed records from England's National Immunization database for nearly 43 million people 13 or older who had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine between Dec. 1, 2020 and Dec. 15, 2021. More than 21 million had received three doses of the vaccine – the initial two-shot regimen plus a booster. Nearly 6 million tested positive for COVID-19 either before or after receiving a vaccine. During the one-year study period, 2,861 people – or 0.007% – were hospitalized or died with myocarditis

 

The analysis showed people infected with COVID-19 before receiving a vaccine were 11 times more at risk for developing myocarditis within 28 days of testing positive for the virus. But that risk was cut in half if a person was infected after receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

 

The risk for myocarditis increased after receiving the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, and after a first, second and booster dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. But the risk of myocarditis associated with the vaccine was lower than the risk associated with COVID-19 infection before or after vaccination – with one exception. Men under 40 who received a second dose of the Moderna vaccine had a higher risk of myocarditis following vaccination. The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines are available in the U.S.

 

"It is important for the public to understand that myocarditis is rare, and the risk of developing myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccine is also rare," co-author Nicholas Mills said in the release. Mills is a professor and the Butler British Heart Foundation Chair of Cardiology at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. "This risk should be balanced against the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines in preventing severe COVID-19 infection. It is also crucial to understand who is at a higher risk for myocarditis and which vaccine type is associated with increased myocarditis risk."

 

"These findings are valuable to help inform recommendations on the type of COVID-19 vaccines available for younger people and may also help shape public health policy and strategy for COVID-19 vaccine boosters," study co-author Julia Hippisley-Cox said in the release. She is a professor of clinical epidemiology and general practice at the University of Oxford.

 

Quote

 

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.

 

Consider me skeptical of your interpretation of 'completely baseless'. We have been observing data at the macro level and there really isn't any to support your case unless you find a country that has completely neglected to implement a vaccination program that did better than a vaccinated country. There aren't any control groups we can point to and we've seen the devastation of how fully unvaccinated populations fare with diseases even in the 20th century that have killed at least 50 million because they couldn't make a vaccine in time (Spanish Flu), historically, we've also seen the usage of vaccines completely eliminate diseases like polio and small pox. 

 

Quote

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

 

 

And to recap: More studies, with stronger sampling, designs and methodology than the ones you cite have pointed otherwise, the vaccine slows the spread of the virus by decreasing viral loads, especially in fully vaccinated and boosted individuals, drastically decreases your chance of hospitalization, and saved countless lives. 

 

 

Note: eh, I was in a good mood after that Panthers cup win 

 

Edited June 26 by DSVII

[Sapper]

 CBC News has a story about the HPV vaccine and a BC case

 

 tik Tok videos  used in attempt to indoctrinate a child and the judge specifically mentions it..... Systemic in the anti vax movement is the reliance on tikky tokky videos as evidence and news stories about law suits as evidence based logic. Nearly all the law suits are frivolous and intentionally slanted with sensationalized false claims for overall impact 

 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/hpv-vaccine-court-decision-bc-1.7246738

 

Edited June 26 by Sapper

[the destroyer of worlds]

30 minutes ago, Sapper said:

 CBC News has a story about the HPV vaccine and a BC case

 

 tik Tok videos  used in attempt to indoctrinate a child and the judge specifically mentions it..... Systemic in the anti vax movement is the reliance on tikky tokky videos as evidence and news stories about law suits as evidence based logic. Nearly all the law suits are frivolous and intentionally slanted with sensationalized false claims for overall impact 

 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/hpv-vaccine-court-decision-bc-1.7246738

 

HPV has been linked to cancer in adulthood.  Actual real world data is demonstrably showing that childhood/teenage vaccinations for HPV is dramatically reducing rates of cancer as the first kids to receive the vaccine are reaching their 20's.  It is early days with regards to being definitive, but the early results should be more than enough for a reasonable person to arrive at this conclusion.  Get your kids vaccinated, it will save their lives.

[Xanlet]

Quote

1.) Vaccine effectiveness in symptom and viral load mitigation in COVID-19 breakthrough infections in South Korea

 

I am genuinely curious whether you read these papers or not. Because this paper states:  "Furthermore, previous studies have reported higher Ct values of RdRp, E, and N genes in vaccinated COVID-19 patients compared to those in unvaccinated patients, which is similar to the results of the present study [22, 23]. However, in these previous studies, potential confounders were not considered when comparing Ct values according to the vaccination status. In contrast, we compared the least square mean of Ct values after adjusting for age, sex, infection route, comorbidity, and nationality. Therefore, a less biased comparison of Ct values according to vaccination status was available in our study. In addition, we found that the vaccine was effective in preventing the highest viral load (Ct <15) in age groups younger than 40 years. However, in contrast to our findings, another study was reported that vaccination had no association with lower viral load [24]. Therefore, additional research is needed to establish the relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and viral load."

 

This is how they arrive at the conclusion you reference, even though the data is as follows: "Additionally, higher Ct values for the RdRp gene were observed in the fully vaccinated group compared to those in the unvaccinated and partially vaccinated groups (p<0.01)." and "In post-hoc analysis, we found that the mean Ct value of RdRp gene in unvaccinated group was significantly lower than that in partially vaccinated group and fully vaccinate group."

 

In other words, they found higher viral loads in fully vaccinated people, but they didn't like that, do they changed how they calculated the data to come up with a different result (choosing the "least square mean" and adjusting for other characteristics rather than simply presenting the total data. Doing this introduces the authors biases into the dataset). Also note the awkward and forced wording of "we found that the vaccine was effective in preventing the highest viral load (Ct <15) in age groups younger than 40 years." Basically they had to go looking for an outlier to focus on rather than taking the data as a whole which would be more accurate and less prone to error and bias. In short, they found HIGHER Ct values in vaccinated people, but to form their conclusions, they shuffled the data until it showed what they wanted.

 

Quote

 

2.) Vaccination reduces viral load and accelerates viral clearance in SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant-infected patients

 

This one was conducted in China and funded by the CPP which leads to some hilarity such as the following direct quote from the paper: "The TV group showed a similar incubation period of SARS-CoV-2 as the NV and OV groups. However, the cycle threshold value of SARS-CoV-2 was higher in the TV group (32.4 ± 5.1) than in the NV (28.4 ± 5.7) and OV groups (29.4 ± 5.4, p < 0.01), and time to peak viral load were shorter in the TV group (3.5 ± 2.3 d) than in the NV (4.8 ± 2.8 d) and OV groups (4.8 ± 2.9 d, p = 0.03, Figure 2)." Followed by this graph (note the caption under the graph)

"The TV (two vaccinated) group showed the lower viral load and shorter time to peak than NV (no vaccine) and OV (one vaccine) groups (p<0.05)"

 

Whoopsie! Just a teeny tiny little fib there! The Two Vaccine group (red triangles) very clearly cluster higher up the Ct value scale, and they even acknowledge that when setting out the raw data earlier! The cycle threshold is higher among the two vaccinated but the peak time is shorter, but when they went to caption the graph, they just state that it is both shorter and lower! Wonder how that little error found its way in there! I hope we can all at least find a little mirth in a CCP funded paper trying to tell you that the above chart has the red triangles lower than either the the black dots or the green squares. There might be an amusing reference to whether you see 4 or 5 lights here, but let's just assume this is a small typo by the authors.

 

In any case, this paper showed that vaccinated people have higher Ct values than unvaccinated people when you actually look at the data.

 

Quote

3.) Infectious viral load in unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals infected with ancestral, Delta or Omicron SARS-CoV-2

 

 

Interesting to note that all of the findings in this paper were within the margin of error, and that for Omicron, fully vaccinated people were actually a tiny bit higher, and boosted a bit lower than unvaccinated people:

Quote

Our results show that the vaccine is initially effective in reducing viral loads of Delta BTIs, with a magnitude of ten-fold (95% CI, 4–30) (average over the first 2 months after vaccination), consistent with its initial effectiveness against pre-Delta variants^4,5. However, this viral load reduction effectiveness declines with time after vaccination, significantly decreasing at 3 months after vaccination and effectively vanishing after about 6 months. As the Delta variant surfaced when a large fraction of the vaccinated population was already past the initial 2-month post-vaccination period, the population-wide average effect of the vaccine on Delta viral loads is negligible, consistent with and explaining reports^14,15 of no difference in Ct between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with Delta.

 

What more is there to say than that this paper states that the amount of viral load reduction is so slight and short lived that it "is negligible" in a population wide average?

 

Quote

We have been observing data at the macro level and there really isn't any to support your case unless you find a country that has completely neglected to implement a vaccination program that did better than a vaccinated country. There aren't any control groups we can point to and we've seen the devastation of how fully unvaccinated populations fare with diseases even in the 20th century that have killed at least 50 million because they couldn't make a vaccine in time (Spanish Flu), historically, we've also seen the usage of vaccines completely eliminate diseases like polio and small pox.

 

Again, reference this paper: "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/

 

If the vaccine prevented or slowed infection spread, then highly vaccinated areas should have fewer cases than lowly vaccinated areas, yet the data shows NO DIFFERENCE. You do not need control groups to assess macro data, either the effect is correlated to the supposed cause, or it is not. In this matter, there is no correlation in the macro data to suggest vaccination lowers case rates.

 

In conclusion, the papers you linked recognize their flaws and limitations, and even the effect they wish to show is slight and within the margin or error (and in some cases the reverse of what they want to show!).

 

Edited June 27 by Xanlet

[Bob Long]

This thread is a good reminder that being relentless in your opinion can often be associated with deliberately trying to mislead. 

 

 

[The Arrogant Worms]

[Whorvat]

On 6/27/2024 at 7:58 AM, Bob Long said:

This thread is a good reminder that being relentless in your opinion can often be associated with deliberately trying to mislead. 

 

 

This thread also highlights the many of you with your heads still stuck in the sand

 

Is why a good majority of people with opposite opinions than yours have been avoiding this thread. Its a literal echo chamber of covid vax pumpers

 

Hopefully ya'll got your 8th booster, would hate to see the alternative

[Bob Long]

Just now, Whorvat said:

This thread also highlights the many of you with your heads still stuck in the sand

 

Is why a good majority of people with opposite opinions than yours have been avoiding this thread. Its a literal echo chamber of covid vax pumpers

 

Hopefully ya'll got your 8th booster, would hate to see the alternative

 

I'll be happy to get it.

 

Honestly just take a breath and think about your position for a moment. Do you really think the anti-vax crowd is the best group for you to place your faith in for your healthcare decisions? 

 

I mean look at the folks leading the anti-vax charge. Would you trust them for any other area of your healthcare? would you use alt-heart meds? alt cancer meds? would you follow them down that road?

 

Your freedom buddies have put a bug in your ear, I doubt you'd trust them for any other area of your health. 

 

[The Arrogant Worms]

9 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

I'll be happy to get it.

 

Honestly just take a breath and think about your position for a moment. Do you really think the anti-vax crowd is the best group for you to place your faith in for your healthcare decisions? 

 

I mean look at the folks leading the anti-vax charge. Would you trust them for any other area of your healthcare? would you use alt-heart meds? alt cancer meds? would you follow them down that road?

 

Your freedom buddies have put a bug in your ear, I doubt you'd trust them for any other area of your health. 

 

I believe he/she is just a troll.

[Bob Long]

52 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

I believe he/she is just a troll.

 

Careful, saying "he/she" might get you reported. 

[Warhippy]

81 total posts and every single one of them is a launched attack against people they don't agree with in the same 3-4 threads.

 

Gee....

[Whorvat]

9 hours ago, Warhippy said:

81 total posts and every single one of them is a launched attack against people they don't agree with in the same 3-4 threads.

 

Gee....

'A launched attack'. Probably feels that way when any outside voices make it into your echo chamber circle jerk, understandable. That is such a victim mentality perspective to take.

 

On topic, and in response to Bob Long, I'm in the medical industry, have been a long time. Its where I realized that being a doctor is purely, 100% a business first and foremost. Vast majority of doctors are not in it for helping people, rather the financial gains that come with. Have witnessed this first hand on so many occasions over the past 13 years, where a physician will tailor their 'care' around what their pharmaceutical rep will supply them with. 

 

It has nothing to do with freedom anything. The only reason to go to a physician, IMO, is if you have a broken bone, need stitches, or know that a specific medication is what you need for your daily, even then I'd be skeptical about what sort of kick backs they're getting for prescribing said medication. Outside of that, I would not trust any doctor to be looking out for my well being.

 

This is my experience with interacting with over 15,000 physicians in the past 13 years

 

 

[4petesake]

51 minutes ago, Whorvat said:

'A launched attack'. Probably feels that way when any outside voices make it into your echo chamber circle jerk, understandable. That is such a victim mentality perspective to take.

 

On topic, and in response to Bob Long, I'm in the medical industry, have been a long time. Its where I realized that being a doctor is purely, 100% a business first and foremost. Vast majority of doctors are not in it for helping people, rather the financial gains that come with. Have witnessed this first hand on so many occasions over the past 13 years, where a physician will tailor their 'care' around what their pharmaceutical rep will supply them with. 

 

It has nothing to do with freedom anything. The only reason to go to a physician, IMO, is if you have a broken bone, need stitches, or know that a specific medication is what you need for your daily, even then I'd be skeptical about what sort of kick backs they're getting for prescribing said medication. Outside of that, I would not trust any doctor to be looking out for my well being.

 

This is my experience with interacting with over 15,000 physicians in the past 13 years

 

 

 

So you’re saying that doctors by and large are like the rest of society in that they like/need to make money. That doesn’t mean they’ll set aside their ethics, though some will because they’re human…and some humans do that.

[Whorvat]

13 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

 

So you’re saying that doctors by and large are like the rest of society in that they like/need to make money. That doesn’t mean they’ll set aside their ethics, though some will because they’re human…and some humans do that.

I think theres a misperception that physicians are generally looking out for your well being, first and foremost.

 

What I'm saying is, the large majority are so consumed by maximizing every dollar they can squeeze from a practice, that they'll sacrifice care and whatever else along the way to do so. They'll also tailor the care to whatever their pharmaceutical reps would like them to.

[Johngould21]

1 hour ago, Whorvat said:

I think theres a misperception that physicians are generally looking out for your well being, first and foremost.

 

What I'm saying is, the large majority are so consumed by maximizing every dollar they can squeeze from a practice, that they'll sacrifice care and whatever else along the way to do so. They'll also tailor the care to whatever their pharmaceutical reps would like them to.

I like a good conspiracy like the rest of us, but you, my friend, and the others in your little circle take it to a new level. 15,000 doctors??? Come on! There's no way in gods little acre that you've interacted with that many physicians.

Edited July 3 by Johngould21

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, Whorvat said:

I think theres a misperception that physicians are generally looking out for your well being, first and foremost.

 

What I'm saying is, the large majority are so consumed by maximizing every dollar they can squeeze from a practice, that they'll sacrifice care and whatever else along the way to do so. They'll also tailor the care to whatever their pharmaceutical reps would like them to.

 

Dude you need to check out convoy prepping dot com for your healthcare needs, those guys got your back.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

1 hour ago, Johngould21 said:

I like a good conspiracy like the rest of us, but you, my friend, and the others in your little circle take it to a new level. 15,000 doctors??? Come on! There's no way in gods little acre that you've interacted with that many physicians.

 

I mean, technically it's possible - for example, if you're in the hospitality industry, such as an event planner coordinating a medical professional conference (or the guy serving hors d'oeuvres at the conference), or if you're in the service industry, such as the medical clinic waste cleaning contractor who services the province of Ontario... 

[Johngould21]

1 hour ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

I mean, technically it's possible - for example, if you're in the hospitality industry, such as an event planner coordinating a medical professional conference (or the guy serving hors d'oeuvres at the conference), or if you're in the service industry, such as the medical clinic waste cleaning contractor who services the province of Ontario... 

Or the guy handing out masks at those events.....but, he/they wouldn't be there so there's that.

[Canuck You]

Haven't tested yet but got hit with something mean..sore throat , phlem , nasal congestion..headache. 

 

Where da whisky!?!?!

[bolt]

Hmm I wonder why they lost their credibility.

[Bob Long]

51 minutes ago, bolt said:

Hmm I wonder why they lost their credibility.

 

Are you on some kind of list? Honest to god, the shit you post 

[bolt]

13 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

Are you on some kind of list? Honest to god, the shit you post 

A list for what? You don't think the FDA promoting unhealthy food in the middle of the pandemic is questionable?  You don't think things like that hurt credibility and trust?

Edited July 11 by bolt

[King Heffy]

3 minutes ago, bolt said:

A list for what? You don't think the FDA promoting unhealthy food in the middle of the pandemic is questionable?  You don't think things like that hurt credibility and trust?

No, I don't think something that is clearly a joke hurts credibility and trust.  I forgot that the antivax community is too stupid to understand this though.