Official Covid Vaccine thread

Harambe wrote:

twoggle wrote:

I support looking at the numbers prior to various drugs and vaccination drugs being available. If there are numbers only for deaths prior to the drugs being available, then that is all we have to look at. I also support looking at each condition separately. As an example: Since the death rate for measles in the U.S. went down from 13.2/100k to 0.2/100k prior to the vaccine drugs, I support looking for independent information as to whether the vaccine drug eliminated the 0.2/100k deaths or whether it was just a continuation of the downtrend cause by other improvements.

There are three common ingredients in vaccine drugs that can have neurotoxic effects. I would support independent research into the long-term effects (if any) on these ingredients (when combined in one shot and then subsequently given in many shots over several years). There is no reason not to provide such information for vaccine drugs or any drug for that matter.

P.S., if the definition of one or more of the common childhood illness changed at some point, that would be an important piece of information to consider (obviously).

There are not just numbers for deaths. There are numbers for cases for eg. Measles as I posted. Of course those don't show what you want so it's frustrating.

Anyways the deaths/100k has only fallen at least 200x since the introduction of the vaccine (0.2 to under 0.001).

Link:ourworldindata.org/grapher/measles-cas...

Harambe wrote:

Sub-9 fella wrote:

Now we are talking about polio? Can't we just stick to HIV and tetanus instead of moving the goalposts yet again?

Pretty much everyone is inoculated versus tetanus in infancy. It's not even remotely the same thing. Tetanus is pretty deadly if not vaccinated against and left untreated, quite unlike Covid in most age and risk categories.

Link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_di...

The absolute risk of tetanus is quite low. I thought that's what we cared about? Oh no - only when it helps your case.

We shouldn't vaccinate against some diseases because of how 'scary' they are. We should do it based on the risk vs. rewards. And both COVID and tetanus pass that exceptionally. See: data posted on this thread for years. The vaccine works to prevent hospitalization in children:

Link:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9...

Hot take: protecting children from going to the hospital is good.

Harambe wrote:

twoggle wrote:

I support looking at the numbers prior to various drugs and vaccination drugs being available. If there are numbers only for deaths prior to the drugs being available, then that is all we have to look at. I also support looking at each condition separately. As an example: Since the death rate for measles in the U.S. went down from 13.2/100k to 0.2/100k prior to the vaccine drugs, I support looking for independent information as to whether the vaccine drug eliminated the 0.2/100k deaths or whether it was just a continuation of the downtrend cause by other improvements.

There are three common ingredients in vaccine drugs that can have neurotoxic effects. I would support independent research into the long-term effects (if any) on these ingredients (when combined in one shot and then subsequently given in many shots over several years). There is no reason not to provide such information for vaccine drugs or any drug for that matter.

P.S., if the definition of one or more of the common childhood illness changed at some point, that would be an important piece of information to consider (obviously).

There are not just numbers for deaths. There are numbers for cases for eg. Measles as I posted. Of course those don't show what you want so it's frustrating.

Anyways the deaths/100k has only fallen at least 200x since the introduction of the vaccine (0.2 to under 0.001).

Link:ourworldindata.org/grapher/measles-cas...

Harambe wrote:

twoggle wrote:

As I pointed out, the death rate went down drastically from 13.2/100k to 0.2/100k prior to the vaccine drugs. I am open to looking at independent information on all of the possible reasons why the death rate continued down since the early 1960s. Just a bunch of hand-waving about vaccine drugs is not evidence. The study I pointed to in a previous post does consider various reasons the death rate may have went down including drugs being a possibility.

Did you ignore my link?

Since 1960 the death rate has dropped an additional 200-1000x.

The vaccine is proven to prevent cases and therefore deaths. It is the primary cause of the additional 200 fold decrease in deaths since it was approved.

Edit: here's a gigantic Cochrane review showing 96% efficacy against measles cases. This provides an extremely parsimonious explanation for the concordant decrease in deaths

Link:www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.10...

twoggle wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Did you ignore my link?

Since 1960 the death rate has dropped an additional 200-1000x.

The vaccine is proven to prevent cases and therefore deaths. It is the primary cause of the additional 200 fold decrease in deaths since it was approved.

Edit: here's a gigantic Cochrane review showing 96% efficacy against measles cases. This provides an extremely parsimonious explanation for the concordant decrease in deaths

Link:www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.10...

Once again, the death rate went down from 13.2/100k to 0.2/100k from 1900 to the early 1960s. The trend was down significantly and we can't possibly know what the death rate would be in 2024 had we continued without a vaccine drug. It may be down where it is not or maybe not.

I think the vaccines could be credited with a reduction of the last 0.2/100k deaths with two caveats: 1) we had been reducing measles deaths by 13/100k in 60 years and may have reduced by another 0.2/100k in 60 more years; and 2) we don't have any long-term research on the effects of the neurotoxic ingredients given to the infants in the vaccine drugs.

Both of the articles I posted and will re-post below did not claim that the vaccine drugs had no effects. Just because one can show that the overwhelming majority of death from measles was eliminated prior to vaccine drugs does not mean I am saying these drugs have no effects whatsoever. But a thorough reading of the articles I posted shows that I agree that there is some effect.

Link:www.milbank.org/wp-content/uploads/mq/...

Link:www.stat.cmu.edu/~kass/EHKidsc.pdf

2600 bro wrote:

twoggle wrote:

Once again, the death rate went down from 13.2/100k to 0.2/100k from 1900 to the early 1960s. The trend was down significantly and we can't possibly know what the death rate would be in 2024 had we continued without a vaccine drug. It may be down where it is not or maybe not.

I think the vaccines could be credited with a reduction of the last 0.2/100k deaths with two caveats: 1) we had been reducing measles deaths by 13/100k in 60 years and may have reduced by another 0.2/100k in 60 more years; and 2) we don't have any long-term research on the effects of the neurotoxic ingredients given to the infants in the vaccine drugs.

Both of the articles I posted and will re-post below did not claim that the vaccine drugs had no effects. Just because one can show that the overwhelming majority of death from measles was eliminated prior to vaccine drugs does not mean I am saying these drugs have no effects whatsoever. But a thorough reading of the articles I posted shows that I agree that there is some effect.

Link:www.milbank.org/wp-content/uploads/mq/...

Link:www.stat.cmu.edu/~kass/EHKidsc.pdf

Do the measles vaccines prevent infection?

There are RCTs that show this - over long periods. Do you believe that it's natural to assume that since infections are prevented, then measles deaths are too? Or is there a magical mechanism of death I am missing?

If your only take is hand-wringing "well we dont know if the deaths would've happened or not," and opinion pieces from 50 years ago that claim "maybe the trends will continue" and make predictions like "over 50 mortality is not and will not decline more!"... maybe you have less to stand on than you think.

2600 bro wrote:

twoggle wrote:

Once again, the death rate went down from 13.2/100k to 0.2/100k from 1900 to the early 1960s. The trend was down significantly and we can't possibly know what the death rate would be in 2024 had we continued without a vaccine drug. It may be down where it is not or maybe not.

I think the vaccines could be credited with a reduction of the last 0.2/100k deaths with two caveats: 1) we had been reducing measles deaths by 13/100k in 60 years and may have reduced by another 0.2/100k in 60 more years; and 2) we don't have any long-term research on the effects of the neurotoxic ingredients given to the infants in the vaccine drugs.

Both of the articles I posted and will re-post below did not claim that the vaccine drugs had no effects. Just because one can show that the overwhelming majority of death from measles was eliminated prior to vaccine drugs does not mean I am saying these drugs have no effects whatsoever. But a thorough reading of the articles I posted shows that I agree that there is some effect.

Link:www.milbank.org/wp-content/uploads/mq/...

Link:www.stat.cmu.edu/~kass/EHKidsc.pdf

Do the measles vaccines prevent infection?

There are RCTs that show this - over long periods. Do you believe that it's natural to assume that since infections are prevented, then measles deaths are too? Or is there a magical mechanism of death I am missing?

If your only take is hand-wringing "well we dont know if the deaths would've happened or not," and opinion pieces from 50 years ago that claim "maybe the trends will continue" and make predictions like "over 50 mortality is not and will not decline more!"... maybe you have less to stand on than you think.