Coronavirus COVID-19

[kalm]

She didn't say she can't spread the virus after being vaccinated. His concern was that he perceived the vaccine as being developed over a short time frame. As Fauci tried to get him to understand, the technology behind it was developed over a long time frame. Also, there is nothing wrong with appeal to authority in this case. The overwhelming consensus among people qualified to opine on the subject is that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are safe and effective.

The issue is that you don't have the science backing to make such claims. You use it as a blanket excuse and usually don't understand what you are talking about. I've exposed you multiple times on this topic. Posting fact checks that don't pertain to the topic or just lack of knowledge in general.

Fake science!

[SeattleGriz]

The issue is that you don't have the science backing to make such claims. You use it as a blanket excuse and usually don't understand what you are talking about. I've exposed you multiple times on this topic. Posting fact checks that don't pertain to the topic or just lack of knowledge in general.

Fake science!

[JohnStOnge]

I don't know how hard it is to convince Americans of that but you need to ask yourself why you can't convince the overwhelming majority of people in scientific disciplines related to the topic of it. The consensus of virologists, epidemiologists, and molecular biologists is that what you apparently want to convince people of is not true.

Because they get their funding from NIH. Pretty easy to spot what's going on. You ever work in a lab that gets government funding for research. I have and if you don't toe the line, good luck getting more funding.

See the exact same thing with climate change.

No, it's because they are looking at what the data suggest instead of going with conspiracy theories like ''It's because they get money from the government and have to toe the line.''

[JohnStOnge]

She didn't say she can't spread the virus after being vaccinated. His concern was that he perceived the vaccine as being developed over a short time frame. As Fauci tried to get him to understand, the technology behind it was developed over a long time frame. Also, there is nothing wrong with appeal to authority in this case. The overwhelming consensus among people qualified to opine on the subject is that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are safe and effective.

The issue is that you don't have the science backing to make such claims. You use it as a blanket excuse and usually don't understand what you are talking about. I've exposed you multiple times on this topic. Posting fact checks that don't pertain to the topic or just lack of knowledge in general.

if what you are talking about is my claim that the vaccines are safe and effective the science does back that. The initial clinical trials showed them to be safe and effective over the short term. Since then, there have been extensive monitoring for evidence of adverse effects as well as numerous observational studies confirming effectiveness. Not as effective as it was at first. But there is no question that getting vaccinated and staying up to date on vaccination reduces the risk of getting COVID-19 to some extent and reduces the risk of severe consequences by a greater and very substantial extent. And there is no question that they are safe.

The overwhelming consensus among people qualified to opine on the subject is consistent with what i think and not with what you think. I will leave it to others to decide upon whether, given that, they should take you seriously.

[SeattleGriz]

The issue is that you don't have the science backing to make such claims. You use it as a blanket excuse and usually don't understand what you are talking about. I've exposed you multiple times on this topic. Posting fact checks that don't pertain to the topic or just lack of knowledge in general.

if what you are talking about is my claim that the vaccines are safe and effective the science does back that. The initial clinical trials showed them to be safe and effective over the short term. Since then, there have been extensive monitoring for evidence of adverse effects as well as numerous observational studies confirming effectiveness. Not as effective as it was at first. But there is no question that getting vaccinated and staying up to date on vaccination reduces the risk of getting COVID-19 to some extent and reduces the risk of severe consequences by a greater and very substantial extent. And there is no question that they are safe.

The overwhelming consensus among people qualified to opine on the subject is consistent with what i think and not with what you think. I will leave it to others to decide upon whether, given that, they should take you seriously.

Isn't that the same consensus that said if you got vaccinated, you could not be infected? Then it was you won't spread, won't get ill, won't go to the hospital, won't die. Stays put, is gone quickly and doesn't cause a whole ton of other things we said it wouldn't do.

Great consensus you got there. Sound qualified to opine.

I'll stick with my belief the shot should have not been mandatory. Outside of that, I didn't have any problems with isolation, although we did it pretty heavily in the Pac NW.

[SeattleGriz]

Because they get their funding from NIH. Pretty easy to spot what's going on. You ever work in a lab that gets government funding for research. I have and if you don't toe the line, good luck getting more funding.

See the exact same thing with climate change.

No, it's because they are looking at what the data suggest instead of going with conspiracy theories like ''It's because they get money from the government and have to toe the line.''

Bro. Conspiracy theories are whispered, not called out in broad daylight.

[BDKJMU]

[JohnStOnge]

if what you are talking about is my claim that the vaccines are safe and effective the science does back that. The initial clinical trials showed them to be safe and effective over the short term. Since then, there have been extensive monitoring for evidence of adverse effects as well as numerous observational studies confirming effectiveness. Not as effective as it was at first. But there is no question that getting vaccinated and staying up to date on vaccination reduces the risk of getting COVID-19 to some extent and reduces the risk of severe consequences by a greater and very substantial extent. And there is no question that they are safe.

The overwhelming consensus among people qualified to opine on the subject is consistent with what i think and not with what you think. I will leave it to others to decide upon whether, given that, they should take you seriously.

Isn't that the same consensus that said if you got vaccinated, you could not be infected? Then it was you won't spread, won't get ill, won't go to the hospital, won't die. Stays put, is gone quickly and doesn't cause a whole ton of other things we said it wouldn't do.

Great consensus you got there. Sound qualified to opine.

I'll stick with my belief the shot should have not been mandatory. Outside of that, I didn't have any problems with isolation, although we did it pretty heavily in the Pac NW.

There was never a consensus that vaccination meant you could not be infected, couldn't spread it, could not get ill, couldn't go to the hospital, and couldn't die if you got vaccinated. The consensus was that vaccination would reduce the risk of those things. And it has done that.

Also, everyone understood that there was a possibility that protection could wane so that boosters would be needed and that new variants more resistant to the vaccines could emerge. Those things were stated at the beginning.

It was also stated that we might reduce the risk of emergence of new variants by getting a high vaccination rate quickly. That was never tested because we did not get a high vaccination rate quickly. We didn't get a high vaccination rate slowly either. Even today, only about 69% of the US population received the initial two does series of mRNA vaccine at some point and only about 17% are up to date with respect to current vaccine recommendations.

[JohnStOnge]

No, it's because they are looking at what the data suggest instead of going with conspiracy theories like ''It's because they get money from the government and have to toe the line.''

Bro. Conspiracy theories are whispered, not called out in broad daylight.

That is pretty obviously not true.

[SeattleGriz]

Isn't that the same consensus that said if you got vaccinated, you could not be infected? Then it was you won't spread, won't get ill, won't go to the hospital, won't die. Stays put, is gone quickly and doesn't cause a whole ton of other things we said it wouldn't do.

Great consensus you got there. Sound qualified to opine.

I'll stick with my belief the shot should have not been mandatory. Outside of that, I didn't have any problems with isolation, although we did it pretty heavily in the Pac NW.

There was never a consensus that vaccination meant you could not be infected, couldn't spread it, could not get ill, couldn't go to the hospital, and couldn't die if you got vaccinated. The consensus was that vaccination would reduce the risk of those things. And it has done that.

Also, everyone understood that there was a possibility that protection could wane so that boosters would be needed and that new variants more resistant to the vaccines could emerge. Those things were stated at the beginning.

It was also stated that we might reduce the risk of emergence of new variants by getting a high vaccination rate quickly. That was never tested because we did not get a high vaccination rate quickly. We didn't get a high vaccination rate slowly either. Even today, only about 69% of the US population received the initial two does series of mRNA vaccine at some point and only about 17% are up to date with respect to current vaccine recommendations.

Love the rewriting of history.

Dude. You've been wrong the whole time and you've got to resort to qualifiers. Your consensus sucks.

[SeattleGriz]

Bro. Conspiracy theories are whispered, not called out in broad daylight.

That is pretty obviously not true.

You need to expand your news sources. Pretty well covered that buddies of Fauci came out as pro leak, only to change their opinions to pro nature after talking to Fauci and then receive ridiculous amounts of funding for research.

Still can't believe you don't know the US farmed out a good portion of this work because we had problems with leaks. AND we operate at a higher level of safety, but still had our outbreaks. I don't give a shit where the work is done, but don't try and tell me we didn't farm this shit out, and those that waded in this research and money are actually innocent. Shit leaks in the US, it sure as hell leaked in China.

[Gil Dobie]

Immunity from having covid is about 3 months. My wife got covid the second time, 3 months after her first bout. 2nd time was worse, lasted a month. The vaccine immunity is about the same, 3-4 months. That is why they offer boosters. This is just oersonal experience, but any one that says covid immunity from having covid is better than the vax, I'm not listening to.

Your experience illustrates why it isn‘t a vaccine. What other vaccine out there can you get 4, 5, 6 shots and still get a few months later what you‘re supposedly getting vaccinated from? None that I‘m aware of.

The Covid shot is more akin to the flu shot. The flu shot MIGHT keep you from getting the flu for a few months, or if you get it, it MIGHT keep you from getting it as bad. Certainly won‘t stop you from spreading it.

My wife didn't have the vax before the second bout with covid, and the symptoms were much worse, and it lasted longer.

[JohnStOnge]

There was never a consensus that vaccination meant you could not be infected, couldn't spread it, could not get ill, couldn't go to the hospital, and couldn't die if you got vaccinated. The consensus was that vaccination would reduce the risk of those things. And it has done that.

Also, everyone understood that there was a possibility that protection could wane so that boosters would be needed and that new variants more resistant to the vaccines could emerge. Those things were stated at the beginning.

It was also stated that we might reduce the risk of emergence of new variants by getting a high vaccination rate quickly. That was never tested because we did not get a high vaccination rate quickly. We didn't get a high vaccination rate slowly either. Even today, only about 69% of the US population received the initial two does series of mRNA vaccine at some point and only about 17% are up to date with respect to current vaccine recommendations.

Love the rewriting of history.

Dude. You've been wrong the whole time and you've got to resort to qualifiers. Your consensus sucks.

I am not the one re-writing history. Your entire view on this matter is based on a series of false premises. Like, for example, saying it was ever the case that the consensus was that getting a vaccination meant you couldn't get infected, etc. That's just objectively false.

it is not qualifying. Even in the original clinical trials with the early variants some people who received the vaccine got COVID-19. The scientific community always understood that vaccination does not eliminate any possibility of you getting the disease.

[UNI88]

Love the rewriting of history.

Dude. You've been wrong the whole time and you've got to resort to qualifiers. Your consensus sucks.

I am not the one re-writing history. Your entire view on this matter is based on a series of false premises. Like, for example, saying it was ever the case that the consensus was that getting a vaccination meant you couldn't get infected, etc. That's just objectively false.

it is not qualifying. Even in the original clinical trials with the early variants some people who received the vaccine got COVID-19. The scientific community always understood that vaccination does not eliminate any possibility of you getting the disease.

Maybe that's what they were saying behind the scenes but that isn't what I remember our political leaders, including Fauxi, telling us in the early days of the vaccines.

[SeattleGriz]

Love the rewriting of history.

Dude. You've been wrong the whole time and you've got to resort to qualifiers. Your consensus sucks.

I am not the one re-writing history. Your entire view on this matter is based on a series of false premises. Like, for example, saying it was ever the case that the consensus was that getting a vaccination meant you couldn't get infected, etc. That's just objectively false.

it is not qualifying. Even in the original clinical trials with the early variants some people who received the vaccine got COVID-19. The scientific community always understood that vaccination does not eliminate any possibility of you getting the disease.

Well, that's quite the stance shift from "if only everyone submitted to my ideas, we'd all be finished with COVID".

You're dangerous. Please stay out of the medical community.

[BDKJMU]

Love the rewriting of history.

Dude. You've been wrong the whole time and you've got to resort to qualifiers. Your consensus sucks.

I am not the one re-writing history. Your entire view on this matter is based on a series of false premises. Like, for example, saying it was ever the case that the consensus was that getting a vaccination meant you couldn't get infected, etc. That's just objectively false.

it is not qualifying. Even in the original clinical trials with the early variants some people who received the vaccine got COVID-19. The scientific community always understood that vaccination does not eliminate any possibility of you getting the disease.

Except for Walensky, Fauci, Biden, Maddow, wtc..

[SeattleGriz]

I am not the one re-writing history. Your entire view on this matter is based on a series of false premises. Like, for example, saying it was ever the case that the consensus was that getting a vaccination meant you couldn't get infected, etc. That's just objectively false.

it is not qualifying. Even in the original clinical trials with the early variants some people who received the vaccine got COVID-19. The scientific community always understood that vaccination does not eliminate any possibility of you getting the disease.

Except for Walensky, Fauci, Biden, Maddow, wtc..

He's switched jerseys already. He on Team Common Sense now. He was never for draconian measures.

[Gil Dobie]

Anyone quoting Fauci, is quoting a government figurehead or cheerleader, not a person that knew crap about a vaccine.

[UNI88]

Anyone quoting Fauxi, is quoting a government figurehead or cheerleader, not a person that knew crap.

FYP Gil


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Except for Walensky, Fauci, Biden, Maddow, wtc..

He's switched jerseys already. He on Team Common Sense now. He was never for draconian measures.

Common sense killed more people than it should have.

[UNI88]

Florida surgeon general altered key findings in study on Covid-19 vaccine safety

Researchers with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and University of Florida, who viewed Ladapo’s edits on the study and have followed the issue closely, criticized the surgeon general for making the changes. One said it appears Ladapo altered the study out of political — not scientific — concerns.

“I think it’s a lie,” Matt Hitchings, an assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, said of Ladapo’s assertion that the Covid-19 vaccine causes cardiac death in young men. “To say this — based on what we’ve seen, and how this analysis was made — it’s a lie.”

The newly released draft of the eight-page study, provided by the Florida Department of Health, indicates that it initially stated that there was no significant risk associated with the Covid-19 vaccines for young men. But “Dr. L’s Edits,” as the document is titled, reveal that Ladapo replaced that language to say that men between 18 and 39 years old are at high risk of heart illness from two Covid vaccines that use mRNA technology.

A lying MAGAt manipulating the information to fit the narrative he wanted to present makes it harder to criticize the lockdown proponents who manipulated information. Why couldn't he leave it alone and let the data speak for itself?

[SeattleGriz]

Florida surgeon general altered key findings in study on Covid-19 vaccine safety

Researchers with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and University of Florida, who viewed Ladapo’s edits on the study and have followed the issue closely, criticized the surgeon general for making the changes. One said it appears Ladapo altered the study out of political — not scientific — concerns.

“I think it’s a lie,” Matt Hitchings, an assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida, said of Ladapo’s assertion that the Covid-19 vaccine causes cardiac death in young men. “To say this — based on what we’ve seen, and how this analysis was made — it’s a lie.”

The newly released draft of the eight-page study, provided by the Florida Department of Health, indicates that it initially stated that there was no significant risk associated with the Covid-19 vaccines for young men. But “Dr. L’s Edits,” as the document is titled, reveal that Ladapo replaced that language to say that men between 18 and 39 years old are at high risk of heart illness from two Covid vaccines that use mRNA technology.

A lying MAGAt manipulating the information to fit the narrative he wanted to present makes it harder to criticize the lockdown proponents who manipulated information. Why couldn't he leave it alone and let the data speak for itself?

Because the powers that be "diluted" the findings of myocarditis by including everyone in their analysis instead of breaking it down by reasonable age groups.

To put it another way. If you took the establishments word, they'd have said they see no safety signal for myocarditis because they took ALL the cases spread over 12-80 years of age. When you stratify the risks, it really jumps out from the 18-39 year age group.

Lapado's analysis is in line with many European countries. Notice the person they quote says, "I think it's a lie". Well. Is it a lie or not? Should be easy to match up doses with age with diagnosed myocarditis.

[UNI88]

Florida surgeon general altered key findings in study on Covid-19 vaccine safety

A lying MAGAt manipulating the information to fit the narrative he wanted to present makes it harder to criticize the lockdown proponents who manipulated information. Why couldn't he leave it alone and let the data speak for itself?

Because the powers that be "diluted" the findings of myocarditis by including everyone in their analysis instead of breaking it down by reasonable age groups.

To put it another way. If you took the establishments word, they'd have said they see no safety signal for myocarditis because they took ALL the cases spread over 12-80 years of age. When you stratify the risks, it really jumps out from the 18-39 year age group.

Lapado's analysis is in line with many European countries. Notice the person they quote says, "I think it's a lie". Well. Is it a lie or not? Should be easy to match up doses with age with diagnosed myocarditis.

A scientist shouldn't unilaterally change a report on research, it reeks of dishonesty and manipulation. He or she should send it back with questions and ask the researchers to clarify, provide more data, etc. Instead he played the same game the lockdown people did. He's no better than they are.

[SeattleGriz]

Because the powers that be "diluted" the findings of myocarditis by including everyone in their analysis instead of breaking it down by reasonable age groups.

To put it another way. If you took the establishments word, they'd have said they see no safety signal for myocarditis because they took ALL the cases spread over 12-80 years of age. When you stratify the risks, it really jumps out from the 18-39 year age group.

Lapado's analysis is in line with many European countries. Notice the person they quote says, "I think it's a lie". Well. Is it a lie or not? Should be easy to match up doses with age with diagnosed myocarditis.

A scientist shouldn't unilaterally change a report on research, it reeks of dishonesty and manipulation. He or she should send it back with questions and ask the researchers to clarify, provide more data, etc. Instead he played the same game the lockdown people did. He's no better than they are.

That is part of the process. His edits were even titled Dr L's edits as the article states.

Do you notice how the article won't specifically list what as "taken out" and even refers to it as "stuff".

Their just pissed because he showed they were rigging the report. That's like when StOnge says "the author never said that", but it's plain as day in the data. Of course they didn't say that, they had a drug to promote.

If we want to get nitpicky, you can damn well bet chemistries were not run before and after to measure heart inflammation. That's on the original authors. Shit study in which the obfuscated heart damage data

[UNI88]

A scientist shouldn't unilaterally change a report on research, it reeks of dishonesty and manipulation. He or she should send it back with questions and ask the researchers to clarify, provide more data, etc. Instead he played the same game the lockdown people did. He's no better than they are.

That is part of the process. His edits were even titled Dr L's edits as the article states.

Do you notice how the article won't specifically list what as "taken out" and even refers to it as "stuff".

Their just pissed because he showed they were rigging the report. That's like when StOnge says "the author never said that", but it's plain as day in the data. Of course they didn't say that, they had a drug to promote.

If we want to get nitpicky, you can damn well bet chemistries were not run before and after to measure heart inflammation. That's on the original authors. Shit study in which the obfuscated heart damage data

If it was a shit study then proper response was to not publish it, not to unilaterally change it without data from that study to backup the changes.

You're covering for this clown just like JSO covers for the lockdown clowns.