This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
You can't compare the two, scientifically. We don't know how Covid developed, so we don't know how it's impacting the body, or what it might do long-term.
The vaccines were developed in a stringent scientific setting using established practices. Where Covid is an unknown entity, the development process of the vaccines, and the development of previous vaccines and medications that informed that process, give us data and certainty over the short- and long-term effects of vaccines that we can't have about the disease itself.
To argue that there's an equivalency in uncertainty is misleading, faulty logic.
Let's look at this phrase... "the development process of the vaccines"
What has been the development process of mRNA vaccines? A lot of what I found was technical, but the article below gives a pretty good summary. Here are some key points from this article and others that I found.
mRNA vaccines were developed, but not used, for Ebola. The mRNA vaccines for Covid are the first widespread use of mRNA vaccines. There have been no long term studies for safety. (The Pfizer clinical trial looked at subjects for a median time of only two months. It has been unblinded so there can be no long term followup.) The safety studies for mRNA vaccines has been done in rats and mice (see below). The problem with mouse studies is that mice aren't human. Life expectancy is 18-24 months so long-term problems aren't seen and these studies typically only last a few months.
Bottom line: We have no long term data on humans on the safety of mRNA vaccines. They look promising, but the bottom line is that this is the biggest role of the dice in the history of preventive medicine.
Willingly getting COVID over taking the vaccine is a far bigger roll of the dice. We actually have evidence that COVID infection is long term harmful to a substantial portion of the people it affects. Far more than a few/million that the vaccine harms.
We’ve been over the long term effects debate countless times. There are effectively zero instances of treatments showing minimal short term toxicity and then magically being really toxic years later.
Second, the post approval surveillance of the mRNA vaccines has been outstanding. The CDC caught extremely rare myocarditis cases only a few weeks after widespread dosing began. And you think they are missing hundreds of sudden heart deaths? It doesnt make any sense. Why did the CDC make a big fuss about mild myocarditis cases but Is turning a blind eye to deaths? And they sit on approving the vaccine for under 5s because they don’t think the data supports it. these are not things that an institution lying about vaccine safety does.
Let's look at this phrase... "the development process of the vaccines"
What has been the development process of mRNA vaccines? A lot of what I found was technical, but the article below gives a pretty good summary. Here are some key points from this article and others that I found.
mRNA vaccines were developed, but not used, for Ebola. The mRNA vaccines for Covid are the first widespread use of mRNA vaccines. There have been no long term studies for safety. (The Pfizer clinical trial looked at subjects for a median time of only two months. It has been unblinded so there can be no long term followup.) The safety studies for mRNA vaccines has been done in rats and mice (see below). The problem with mouse studies is that mice aren't human. Life expectancy is 18-24 months so long-term problems aren't seen and these studies typically only last a few months.
Bottom line: We have no long term data on humans on the safety of mRNA vaccines. They look promising, but the bottom line is that this is the biggest role of the dice in the history of preventive medicine.
Willingly getting COVID over taking the vaccine is a far bigger roll of the dice. We actually have evidence that COVID infection is long term harmful to a substantial portion of the people it affects. Far more than a few/million that the vaccine harms.
Willingly getting COVID over taking the vaccine is a far bigger roll of the dice. We actually have evidence that COVID infection is long term harmful to a substantial portion of the people it affects. Far more than a few/million that the vaccine harms.
Do you think that it is possible that there are some age groups in which the cost/benefit - ratio of getting possibly ill vs. getting vaccinated can tilt towards the direction that it actually makes no sense to get vaccinated?
For example, either the "far bigger roll of the dice" of a bad outcome is reduced with vaccination from ~0.003 % to 0.001 % or the benefit of the vaccine could even be negative / possible negative (a low risk of death from covid but a very low, but possible risk of myocarditis or other vax-related illness)?
Do you think that it is possible that there are some age groups in which the cost/benefit - ratio of getting possibly ill vs. getting vaccinated can tilt towards the direction that it actually makes no sense to get vaccinated?
For example, either the "far bigger roll of the dice" of a bad outcome is reduced with vaccination from ~0.003 % to 0.001 % or the benefit of the vaccine could even be negative / possible negative (a low risk of death from covid but a very low, but possible risk of myocarditis or other vax-related illness)?
why is "death" the only negative COVID outcome?
COVID can cause CVD issues, long term immunological issues, post-viral fatigue, lung issues, etc.
COVID-19 has destroyed countless lives, but it also created about 500 new billionaires like Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel and BioNTech co-founder Uğur Şahin. Thanks to the pandemic economy, US billionaires saw their wealth surge 62 percent, or $1.8 trillion. “In contrast,” writes McSwane, “the entire relief package Congress passed to keep poor and middle-income Americans from poverty, totaled just a little more, about $2.2 trillion.”
How is this information not causing a huge storm? I'm sure if the stats were fake GB News would be in huge trouble. Why are people not taking any notice? If these Government stats are correct and they
Immunity generating omicron subvarients circulating widely in the United StatesCDC datahttps://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailydeathsOmicron BA...
It's interesting how some people on this thread (who were probably conservatives long before COVID) seem to know so many individuals suffering from vaccine injuries, and yet there are others on this thread (who were probably liberals long before COVID) claim to not know a single person who was negatively affected by the vaccine.
Is it confirmation bias? Are people being disingenuous? Is it a political conspiracy that only affects one half of the political spectrum?
It's interesting how some people on this thread (who were probably conservatives long before COVID) seem to know so many individuals suffering from vaccine injuries, and yet there are others on this thread (who were probably liberals long before COVID) claim to not know a single person who was negatively affected by the vaccine.
Is it confirmation bias? Are people being disingenuous? Is it a political conspiracy that only affects one half of the political spectrum?
I’ve voted left and right of center and have been vaccinated and could care less about any of this. Everything is a conspiracy. Two men in a board room figuring out how to sell Pepsi products in Nigeria is a conspiracy by the very definition. Try and find something that makes you happy. Go run, plant a garden, smoke some weed. STOP CARING SO MUCH!
Here is one of the more bizarre conclusions to come out of a half-baked propaganda "study". Imagine if this were 12 months ago and you were scheduled to receive your first dose of mRNA goop and you read this:
While remaining unvaccinated against COVID-19 is often framed as a personal choice, those who spurn the vaccines raise the risk of infection for those around them, a new study suggests.
It's interesting how some people on this thread (who were probably conservatives long before COVID) seem to know so many individuals suffering from vaccine injuries, and yet there are others on this thread (who were probably liberals long before COVID) claim to not know a single person who was negatively affected by the vaccine.
Is it confirmation bias? Are people being disingenuous? Is it a political conspiracy that only affects one half of the political spectrum?
Yes, confirmation bias, as many blame vaccine side effects on "long covid" or simply any covid. Also, look at how 'vaccinated' and 'unvaccinated' are operationally defined, look at the period of days before an individual is considered one or the other.
One need only look at the DMED stats to know the clotshot is causing bad damage. There have been dramatic rate increases in 2021 vs. the 5 year average. The DoD's official response is that it was a magical 5 year glitch that only affected the events related to the clot shot, which HAPPEN to coincide with the events from VAERS.
However, unlike VAERS, this database cannot be dismissed using hand-waving arguments. DMED is not a self-reported database where reporting rates are unknown. It is a fully reported database where all the reports are from healthcare providers. So if the vaccines are safe, the DMED data is hard to explain. You can’t pin the rise in events in 2021 on COVID since total hospital event rates declined in 2020 (relative to 2019) in both the original and corrected results. The DoD now claims the 2016-2020 data was wrong and issued corrected values. It's a total coverup and anybody with a brain can see that.
It's interesting how some people on this thread (who were probably conservatives long before COVID) seem to know so many individuals suffering from vaccine injuries, and yet there are others on this thread (who were probably liberals long before COVID) claim to not know a single person who was negatively affected by the vaccine.
Is it confirmation bias? Are people being disingenuous? Is it a political conspiracy that only affects one half of the political spectrum?
Yes, confirmation bias, as many blame vaccine side effects on "long covid" or simply any covid. Also, look at how 'vaccinated' and 'unvaccinated' are operationally defined, look at the period of days before an individual is considered one or the other.
One need only look at the DMED stats to know the clotshot is causing bad damage. There have been dramatic rate increases in 2021 vs. the 5 year average. The DoD's official response is that it was a magical 5 year glitch that only affected the events related to the clot shot, which HAPPEN to coincide with the events from VAERS.
However, unlike VAERS, this database cannot be dismissed using hand-waving arguments. DMED is not a self-reported database where reporting rates are unknown. It is a fully reported database where all the reports are from healthcare providers. So if the vaccines are safe, the DMED data is hard to explain. You can’t pin the rise in events in 2021 on COVID since total hospital event rates declined in 2020 (relative to 2019) in both the original and corrected results. The DoD now claims the 2016-2020 data was wrong and issued corrected values. It's a total coverup and anybody with a brain can see that.
The DMED database only applies to a very small segment of society.
More importantly, the Department of Defense has acknowledged that what appeared to be a dramatic increase in certain medical diagnoses in 2021 relative to the prior 5 years was based on incorrect data:
"Lisa Lawrence, a spokesperson for the Department of Defense (DoD) told Reuters via email that the increase for 2021 was a result of incorrect data for the years 2016 to 2020."
Your conclusion ("One need only look at the DMED stats to know the clotshot is causing bad damage") seems to be an example of "garbage in, garbage out".
It's interesting how some people on this thread (who were probably conservatives long before COVID) seem to know so many individuals suffering from vaccine injuries, and yet there are others on this thread (who were probably liberals long before COVID) claim to not know a single person who was negatively affected by the vaccine.
Is it confirmation bias? Are people being disingenuous? Is it a political conspiracy that only affects one half of the political spectrum?
Yes, confirmation bias, as many blame vaccine side effects on "long covid" or simply any covid. Also, look at how 'vaccinated' and 'unvaccinated' are operationally defined, look at the period of days before an individual is considered one or the other.
One need only look at the DMED stats to know the clotshot is causing bad damage. There have been dramatic rate increases in 2021 vs. the 5 year average. The DoD's official response is that it was a magical 5 year glitch that only affected the events related to the clot shot, which HAPPEN to coincide with the events from VAERS.
However, unlike VAERS, this database cannot be dismissed using hand-waving arguments. DMED is not a self-reported database where reporting rates are unknown. It is a fully reported database where all the reports are from healthcare providers. So if the vaccines are safe, the DMED data is hard to explain. You can’t pin the rise in events in 2021 on COVID since total hospital event rates declined in 2020 (relative to 2019) in both the original and corrected results. The DoD now claims the 2016-2020 data was wrong and issued corrected values. It's a total coverup and anybody with a brain can see that.
OK, I didn't actually read to the end of your post, but I see that you acknowledge that the DoD did disclose that the data for 2016-2020 is wrong. Your dismissal of this as a DoD "cover-up" is the lazy way out - when you can't make a reasonable argument based on facts, just claim that it's a cover-up, or fake news, or a lie foisted upon us by the "MSM" or the "establishment".
Seriously, why would the DoD lie about this?
Some of the claimed rises in certain conditions were “completely implausible from a biologic standpoint” according to oncologist and editor of the blog Science-Based Medicine, Dr David Gorski. The data claimed to show the incidence of testicular cancer had risen by 395%, the incidence of oesophageal cancer had risen by 894% and the incidence of breast cancer had risen 487%. Dr Gorski wrote: “Cancer is the culmination of a process that, in general, takes years, from the initial insult that resulted in cellular transformation to the development of a cancerous tumor detectable by symptoms, physical exam, or screening tests. “Even if there had been a spike in these cancers from roughly four- to ten-fold in just one year (for an overall increase in total cancer diagnoses from 36,050 to 114,645 from 2020 to 2021), it could not possibly have been due to [...] COVID-19 vaccines.”
The data has been cited by some to suggest Covid-19 vaccines are behind what are unrealistically large rises in the incidence of various diseases in the US military.
It's interesting how some people on this thread (who were probably conservatives long before COVID) seem to know so many individuals suffering from vaccine injuries, and yet there are others on this thread (who were probably liberals long before COVID) claim to not know a single person who was negatively affected by the vaccine.
Is it confirmation bias? Are people being disingenuous? Is it a political conspiracy that only affects one half of the political spectrum?
I’ve voted left and right of center and have been vaccinated and could care less about any of this. Everything is a conspiracy. Two men in a board room figuring out how to sell Pepsi products in Nigeria is a conspiracy by the very definition. Try and find something that makes you happy. Go run, plant a garden, smoke some weed. STOP CARING SO MUCH!
I appreciate what you are trying to do but the bots in this thread and the people arguing with them seem to be plenty happy. Can't say I agree though.
Do you think that it is possible that there are some age groups in which the cost/benefit - ratio of getting possibly ill vs. getting vaccinated can tilt towards the direction that it actually makes no sense to get vaccinated?
For example, either the "far bigger roll of the dice" of a bad outcome is reduced with vaccination from ~0.003 % to 0.001 % or the benefit of the vaccine could even be negative / possible negative (a low risk of death from covid but a very low, but possible risk of myocarditis or other vax-related illness)?
Of course it's possible for a medical intervention to be net harmful.
There is zero evidence this is the case for any age groups with the COVID vaccine. Glad I could clear that up.
