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.
Calling this fraud is a huge stretch. Seems like sloppy statistics at worst. But it's easy to assume malicious intent when someone holds an opposing point of view....
There have been many studies on vaccine safety during pregnancy. Here's a meta-analysis:
The fact that you say there is a 'glaringly obvious' signal for birth defects suggests there's some motivated reasoning here.
The data was fabricated on the number related to pregnancy loss. It wasn't statistical errors, but a number that was just made up for data that didn't exist and couldn't possibly exist. I think it was deliberate fabrication as I don't see how so many CDC and FDA authors would accidently make up a number for pregnancy loss. But whether it is deliberate or incompetence, it is clear that these authors need to be removed from the CDC and FDA (or at least reassigned) in order to regain any trust. It was a really bad look for the lead author to keep the position of running the CDC's response to COVID. Obviously, all of the sources of data used by the CDC need to be made public in an anonymized fashion to regain trust rather than people forcing them to do so in court.
As far as the "glaringly obvious" signal for birth defects, it is very simple. One of the common symptoms listed in this study was shown by another CDC researcher in a 2017 paper to increase the risk factor of a certain type of birth defect. The CDC refused to even send out an alert for pregnant women.
The meta analysis includes databases that are hidden from the public and other scientists. The larger one by Kharbanda includes data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) database -- which is one that has yet to be released. "V-Safe" database data (for example) has to be released starting 2/15/2024 by a recent court order. As far as I know, VSD data is still hidden. The VSD data was used by the CDC to underestimate anaphylactic reactions by 50-100 times. We only got a more accurate estimate of these types of reactions to certain COVID vaccine drugs when independent research was conducted. So, anything that comes from hidden VSD data is not going to be trusted by many people until the actual data is released.
It all comes down to trust issues with the CDC and there are so many things with fabricating data, avoiding to provide alerts to people when the data and potential danger is known (and not just for birth defects), hiding anonymized data from scientists and the public, etc.
The meta analysis doesn't include conclusions from only private data. Feel free to dismiss whatever study you want, they all show no evidence of pregnancy risks.
Do you have any evidence for actual increased pregnancy risks? Not "this side effect is associate with increased risk under this entirely different model of disease/treatment."
I'll note the CDC (and other US agencies) have routinely issued alerts when the data support it. J&J clotting, myocarditis in rare cases, etc.
I suspect you don't trust the CDC because you think the vaccine is secretly harmful. Nothing short of them admitting as much would change your mind.
If he had a family history of heart disease, then no problem. He was a ticking time bomb.
However, if he didn't then we have another "coincidence" as the vaxxsheeptards like to say.
In any event, he died waaaaay too young. Just sad.
The Warriors have cancelled a 2nd game (Dallas). That seems unusual. I mean, cancel 1 game, sure. But at some point, the show must go on. I wonder what people in the organization are saying.
Steve Kerr is a victim of medical quackery from several botched back surgeries.
The first thing I thought of when cases of myocarditis started coming in during 2021 was the incidence of pre clinical myocarditis is likely to be many times higher than myocarditis. It took independent researchers to start to look into that sort situation. No one knows what the long-term effect of the damage from these conditions would be (after 10-50 years).
Also, the LNP, spike, contamination in the mRNA drugs, etc. is distributed throughout the body, so it's anyone's guess what the long-term effects are outside the heart area.
The first thing I thought of when cases of myocarditis started coming in during 2021 was the incidence of pre clinical myocarditis is likely to be many times higher than myocarditis. It took independent researchers to start to look into that sort situation. No one knows what the long-term effect of the damage from these conditions would be (after 10-50 years).
Also, the LNP, spike, contamination in the mRNA drugs, etc. is distributed throughout the body, so it's anyone's guess what the long-term effects are outside the heart area.
Incidence and severity of myocarditis from COVID infection are many times higher than from vaccination.
Vaccination is also protective of severe myocarditis from infection.
This has been measured, and discussed since early 2021.
Also included in today’s lecture was an overview of the FDA’s review process. Man do they really make these drug manufacturers go above and beyond to prove safety and efficacy.
The first thing I thought of when cases of myocarditis started coming in during 2021 was the incidence of pre clinical myocarditis is likely to be many times higher than myocarditis. It took independent researchers to start to look into that sort situation. No one knows what the long-term effect of the damage from these conditions would be (after 10-50 years).
Also, the LNP, spike, contamination in the mRNA drugs, etc. is distributed throughout the body, so it's anyone's guess what the long-term effects are outside the heart area.
Incidence and severity of myocarditis from COVID infection are many times higher than from vaccination.
Vaccination is also protective of severe myocarditis from infection.
This has been measured, and discussed since early 2021.
The CDC loved the study you linked to (e.g., slideshow from August 30, 2021). But they didn't realize that they (CDC) misinterpreted the data and results. The research did not compared an entire vaccinated group to an entire, matched unvaccinated group. Instead, results were shown for a vaccinated group that clearly showed an increase in adverse effects such as myocarditis. They also showed results for a small subset of the unvaccinated group -- those with confirmed COVID infections. That is why that small subset showed a higher risk of adverse effects. The researchers even warned against comparing the groups: "The effects of vaccination and of SARS-CoV-2 infection were estimated with different cohorts. Thus, they should be treated as separate sets of results rather than directly compared."
An example of how using correct matched groups can completely change the results can be found, for example, here:
The CDC loved the study you linked to (e.g., slideshow from August 30, 2021). But they didn't realize that they (CDC) misinterpreted the data and results. The research did not compared an entire vaccinated group to an entire, matched unvaccinated group. Instead, results were shown for a vaccinated group that clearly showed an increase in adverse effects such as myocarditis. They also showed results for a small subset of the unvaccinated group -- those with confirmed COVID infections. That is why that small subset showed a higher risk of adverse effects. The researchers even warned against comparing the groups: "The effects of vaccination and of SARS-CoV-2 infection were estimated with different cohorts. Thus, they should be treated as separate sets of results rather than directly compared."
An example of how using correct matched groups can completely change the results can be found, for example, here:
The CDC loved the study you linked to (e.g., slideshow from August 30, 2021). But they didn't realize that they (CDC) misinterpreted the data and results. The research did not compared an entire vaccinated group to an entire, matched unvaccinated group. Instead, results were shown for a vaccinated group that clearly showed an increase in adverse effects such as myocarditis. They also showed results for a small subset of the unvaccinated group -- those with confirmed COVID infections. That is why that small subset showed a higher risk of adverse effects. The researchers even warned against comparing the groups: "The effects of vaccination and of SARS-CoV-2 infection were estimated with different cohorts. Thus, they should be treated as separate sets of results rather than directly compared."
An example of how using correct matched groups can completely change the results can be found, for example, here:
I am sure the compositional differences in cohorts like: 4 year average age difference, and 54% vs 48% female between the vaccination and infection groups was responsible for the risk ratio difference of 18.3 vs 3.2 for infection vs vaccination.
They said "use care" in comparing the results not... "discard the clear and massive difference in effect sizes because it, annoyingly, disproves dogmatic priors" ... but that seems to be your M.O.
A common thread in COVID-deniers/anti-vaxxers is that if you can find a weakness in a study or analyses, you can ignore it. Everything has weaknesses! It's why people repeat things, use different methods, weigh evidence vs assumptions, and most of try and get lots of evidence!
That's what's missing from anti-vax (vax sketpical) people... most all of their claims are hypothetical with no evidence, so all their time is spent trying to attack evidence that supports the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It's a losing battle.
The CDC loved the study you linked to (e.g., slideshow from August 30, 2021). But they didn't realize that they (CDC) misinterpreted the data and results. The research did not compared an entire vaccinated group to an entire, matched unvaccinated group. Instead, results were shown for a vaccinated group that clearly showed an increase in adverse effects such as myocarditis. They also showed results for a small subset of the unvaccinated group -- those with confirmed COVID infections. That is why that small subset showed a higher risk of adverse effects. The researchers even warned against comparing the groups: "The effects of vaccination and of SARS-CoV-2 infection were estimated with different cohorts. Thus, they should be treated as separate sets of results rather than directly compared."
An example of how using correct matched groups can completely change the results can be found, for example, here:
I am sure the compositional differences in cohorts like: 4 year average age difference, and 54% vs 48% female between the vaccination and infection groups was responsible for the risk ratio difference of 18.3 vs 3.2 for infection vs vaccination.
They said "use care" in comparing the results not... "discard the clear and massive difference in effect sizes because it, annoyingly, disproves dogmatic priors" ... but that seems to be your M.O.
A common thread in COVID-deniers/anti-vaxxers is that if you can find a weakness in a study or analyses, you can ignore it. Everything has weaknesses! It's why people repeat things, use different methods, weigh evidence vs assumptions, and most of try and get lots of evidence!
That's what's missing from anti-vax (vax sketpical) people... most all of their claims are hypothetical with no evidence, so all their time is spent trying to attack evidence that supports the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It's a losing battle.
Actually, the major weakness is that they weren’t comparing an entire vaccinated group to an entire unvaccinated group. That is why even the authors warned against a comparison.
You might like the comparison despite the warning of the authors, but I’m just happy to be one of countless sharing honest scientific information so that adults can make their own decision on their long-tern health.
I’ve gotten more than 4 COVID vaccines at this point. When should I expect to drop over? It’s been awhile……
It would partly depend on whether you got shot up with some of the more placebo-like batches or the more dangerous batches as seen in this Danish study:
Then you’ll want to wait a number of years to see what develops. A few years is nothing when talking about long-term effects — especially since the short clinical trials didn’t even look at the contaminated shots that were/are given to the public.
Twoggle is owning this thread at this point. 2600bro is doing his best to twist that data to fit his bias, but Twoggle has thwarted his efforts at every turn. Time to send out the bat signal, 2600bro. This one is obviously over your pay grade. Lol
Retired (mostly), so more of a traveler and hopeful runner coming back from injuries. Lots of proven independent and active doctors and scientists on Twitter/X and substack that I could recommend.
Then you’ll want to wait a number of years to see what develops. A few years is nothing when talking about long-term effects — especially since the short clinical trials didn’t even look at the contaminated shots that were/are given to the public.
That just about sums it all up.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Twoggle is owning this thread at this point. 2600bro is doing his best to twist that data to fit his bias, but Twoggle has thwarted his efforts at every turn. Time to send out the bat signal, 2600bro. This one is obviously over your pay grade. Lol
Does a snarky validating comment from an unregistered poster enhance or detract from his argument?
I am sure the compositional differences in cohorts like: 4 year average age difference, and 54% vs 48% female between the vaccination and infection groups was responsible for the risk ratio difference of 18.3 vs 3.2 for infection vs vaccination.
They said "use care" in comparing the results not... "discard the clear and massive difference in effect sizes because it, annoyingly, disproves dogmatic priors" ... but that seems to be your M.O.
A common thread in COVID-deniers/anti-vaxxers is that if you can find a weakness in a study or analyses, you can ignore it. Everything has weaknesses! It's why people repeat things, use different methods, weigh evidence vs assumptions, and most of try and get lots of evidence!
That's what's missing from anti-vax (vax sketpical) people... most all of their claims are hypothetical with no evidence, so all their time is spent trying to attack evidence that supports the safety and efficacy of vaccines. It's a losing battle.
Actually, the major weakness is that they weren’t comparing an entire vaccinated group to an entire unvaccinated group. That is why even the authors warned against a comparison.
You might like the comparison despite the warning of the authors, but I’m just happy to be one of countless sharing honest scientific information so that adults can make their own decision on their long-tern health.
Again, the authors warning did not say "don't interpret these results" it said use care... maybe for effect sizes that were quite close!
That's reasonable, every study has limitations. For MC the effects were so wildly different it's a stretch claim its solely a subgroup/compositional/matching artifact. You have all the cohort data - you seem to be implying the data is 0% valid, what's your evidence for that. I am saying it is ~85% valid.