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.
Ok sure. I'll agree to stop arguing with you if you agree to the following:
1) The 3-shot series was safe, effective, and 'worth-it' for every group for which it was approved.
2) The 3 shot series provides at least equivalent immunity to infection (I think it provides much better, but I'll compromise in these peace talks)
3) 300k+ Americans died who could have been saved by the vaccine.
I really don’t know why I’m still playing, I really don’t, as I’ll ask again, why are you still talking? You’re trying to litigate 2021 all over again. Here’s how I will answer this:
1.) The 3-shot series was effective for every group for which it was approved. “Worth it” is more subjective, as I would say it was very worth it for the most risky groups but probably not worth it for people like myself and the least risky cohorts. A net positive, sure, but that’s really meaningless.
Safe? Sorry brother, I will never get there. I’ve seen two many serious cardiac injuries and a couple deaths right in the wake of the three-shot series. My buddy is real, his condition is serious and real. The data you cling to is very incomplete in my opinion and experience. The jury is still very much out there too. Agree to disagree. No amount of gesticulating by you will get an agreement from me. You can waste your time trying.
2.) I would agree the three shot series provides equivalent immunity to infection. Probably better if we’re talking short-lived antibodies, which wane, and worse if we’re talking cell-mediated immunity, which is longer lasting. I’ll accept equivalent, but I would say natural immunity, especially with Delta AND subsequent strains is at least as equivalent as the three shot series and probably better. I really believe every subsequent booster shot is, eventually, self defeating and negative efficacy is a thing and we’ve witnessed that. But, for the sake of this argument, we are talking about three shots versus natural infection, so, yes, I’ll accept equivalent, though maybe unnecessary for many people.
3.) Yeah, I’ll buy your 300,000 number and say it’s probably greater. The vast majority of these were very, very high risk people though and absolutely should’ve been vaccinated. But I think a great many more people could’ve been saved from death or even severe illness with some rudimentary protocols implemented by the likes of a Dr. Richard Urso, which is why that 300,000 number is so disingenuous. Urso, like so many, was readily dismissed as a quack, a dissident, a grifter, when he could’ve helped so, so many people.
So, there you go. What does any of this have to do with 2024 and FLIRT, lol. You, like so many in public health, have alienated so, so many people and so unnecessarily too. The lack of humility, the contempt, the narcissism, and the need to relitigate incessantly, exacerbated by media simpletons, really did society a disservice.
Ok, we almost had a meeting of the minds. The biggest sticking point is going to be on safety and you're objectively wrong.
But anyway, that was my attempt at compromise. Consider the leaflets dropped.
My rhetorical B-1 Lancer just got a fresh coat of anti-flash white. Time to paint a few more needles on the side.
I really don’t know why I’m still playing, I really don’t, as I’ll ask again, why are you still talking? You’re trying to litigate 2021 all over again. Here’s how I will answer this:
1.) The 3-shot series was effective for every group for which it was approved. “Worth it” is more subjective, as I would say it was very worth it for the most risky groups but probably not worth it for people like myself and the least risky cohorts. A net positive, sure, but that’s really meaningless.
Safe? Sorry brother, I will never get there. I’ve seen two many serious cardiac injuries and a couple deaths right in the wake of the three-shot series. My buddy is real, his condition is serious and real. The data you cling to is very incomplete in my opinion and experience. The jury is still very much out there too. Agree to disagree. No amount of gesticulating by you will get an agreement from me. You can waste your time trying.
2.) I would agree the three shot series provides equivalent immunity to infection. Probably better if we’re talking short-lived antibodies, which wane, and worse if we’re talking cell-mediated immunity, which is longer lasting. I’ll accept equivalent, but I would say natural immunity, especially with Delta AND subsequent strains is at least as equivalent as the three shot series and probably better. I really believe every subsequent booster shot is, eventually, self defeating and negative efficacy is a thing and we’ve witnessed that. But, for the sake of this argument, we are talking about three shots versus natural infection, so, yes, I’ll accept equivalent, though maybe unnecessary for many people.
3.) Yeah, I’ll buy your 300,000 number and say it’s probably greater. The vast majority of these were very, very high risk people though and absolutely should’ve been vaccinated. But I think a great many more people could’ve been saved from death or even severe illness with some rudimentary protocols implemented by the likes of a Dr. Richard Urso, which is why that 300,000 number is so disingenuous. Urso, like so many, was readily dismissed as a quack, a dissident, a grifter, when he could’ve helped so, so many people.
So, there you go. What does any of this have to do with 2024 and FLIRT, lol. You, like so many in public health, have alienated so, so many people and so unnecessarily too. The lack of humility, the contempt, the narcissism, and the need to relitigate incessantly, exacerbated by media simpletons, really did society a disservice.
You really are desperate for the vaccines to be dangerous.
I really don’t know why I’m still playing, I really don’t, as I’ll ask again, why are you still talking? You’re trying to litigate 2021 all over again. Here’s how I will answer this:
1.) The 3-shot series was effective for every group for which it was approved. “Worth it” is more subjective, as I would say it was very worth it for the most risky groups but probably not worth it for people like myself and the least risky cohorts. A net positive, sure, but that’s really meaningless.
Safe? Sorry brother, I will never get there. I’ve seen two many serious cardiac injuries and a couple deaths right in the wake of the three-shot series. My buddy is real, his condition is serious and real. The data you cling to is very incomplete in my opinion and experience. The jury is still very much out there too. Agree to disagree. No amount of gesticulating by you will get an agreement from me. You can waste your time trying.
2.) I would agree the three shot series provides equivalent immunity to infection. Probably better if we’re talking short-lived antibodies, which wane, and worse if we’re talking cell-mediated immunity, which is longer lasting. I’ll accept equivalent, but I would say natural immunity, especially with Delta AND subsequent strains is at least as equivalent as the three shot series and probably better. I really believe every subsequent booster shot is, eventually, self defeating and negative efficacy is a thing and we’ve witnessed that. But, for the sake of this argument, we are talking about three shots versus natural infection, so, yes, I’ll accept equivalent, though maybe unnecessary for many people.
3.) Yeah, I’ll buy your 300,000 number and say it’s probably greater. The vast majority of these were very, very high risk people though and absolutely should’ve been vaccinated. But I think a great many more people could’ve been saved from death or even severe illness with some rudimentary protocols implemented by the likes of a Dr. Richard Urso, which is why that 300,000 number is so disingenuous. Urso, like so many, was readily dismissed as a quack, a dissident, a grifter, when he could’ve helped so, so many people.
So, there you go. What does any of this have to do with 2024 and FLIRT, lol. You, like so many in public health, have alienated so, so many people and so unnecessarily too. The lack of humility, the contempt, the narcissism, and the need to relitigate incessantly, exacerbated by media simpletons, really did society a disservice.
The biggest sticking point is going to be on safety and you're objectively wrong.
I really don’t know why I’m still playing, I really don’t, as I’ll ask again, why are you still talking? You’re trying to litigate 2021 all over again. Here’s how I will answer this:
1.) The 3-shot series was effective for every group for which it was approved. “Worth it” is more subjective, as I would say it was very worth it for the most risky groups but probably not worth it for people like myself and the least risky cohorts. A net positive, sure, but that’s really meaningless.
Safe? Sorry brother, I will never get there. I’ve seen two many serious cardiac injuries and a couple deaths right in the wake of the three-shot series. My buddy is real, his condition is serious and real. The data you cling to is very incomplete in my opinion and experience. The jury is still very much out there too. Agree to disagree. No amount of gesticulating by you will get an agreement from me. You can waste your time trying.
2.) I would agree the three shot series provides equivalent immunity to infection. Probably better if we’re talking short-lived antibodies, which wane, and worse if we’re talking cell-mediated immunity, which is longer lasting. I’ll accept equivalent, but I would say natural immunity, especially with Delta AND subsequent strains is at least as equivalent as the three shot series and probably better. I really believe every subsequent booster shot is, eventually, self defeating and negative efficacy is a thing and we’ve witnessed that. But, for the sake of this argument, we are talking about three shots versus natural infection, so, yes, I’ll accept equivalent, though maybe unnecessary for many people.
3.) Yeah, I’ll buy your 300,000 number and say it’s probably greater. The vast majority of these were very, very high risk people though and absolutely should’ve been vaccinated. But I think a great many more people could’ve been saved from death or even severe illness with some rudimentary protocols implemented by the likes of a Dr. Richard Urso, which is why that 300,000 number is so disingenuous. Urso, like so many, was readily dismissed as a quack, a dissident, a grifter, when he could’ve helped so, so many people.
So, there you go. What does any of this have to do with 2024 and FLIRT, lol. You, like so many in public health, have alienated so, so many people and so unnecessarily too. The lack of humility, the contempt, the narcissism, and the need to relitigate incessantly, exacerbated by media simpletons, really did society a disservice.
Ok, we almost had a meeting of the minds. The biggest sticking point is going to be on safety and you're objectively wrong.
But anyway, that was my attempt at compromise. Consider the leaflets dropped.
My rhetorical B-1 Lancer just got a fresh coat of anti-flash white. Time to paint a few more needles on the side.
Yeah, except I’m not wrong. Whatevs. I’ve actually never not represented the position I just stated, so it’s not like some epiphany or mind-blowing breakthrough (lol).
Your little buddy is so desperately trying to cling to your coattails with the continued snarkiness and trollism. We will just pretend he’s not you and cast him to the side for the moment, since absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing pisses him off more than being ignored. Maybe he should get a Delorean and blast back to 2020!
But, believe me, if we want continued snarkiness and trollism, those are easy shoes to fill. Easy button.
Ok, we almost had a meeting of the minds. The biggest sticking point is going to be on safety and you're objectively wrong.
But anyway, that was my attempt at compromise. Consider the leaflets dropped.
My rhetorical B-1 Lancer just got a fresh coat of anti-flash white. Time to paint a few more needles on the side.
Yeah, except I’m not wrong. Whatevs. I’ve actually never not represented the position I just stated, so it’s not like some epiphany or mind-blowing breakthrough (lol).
Your little buddy is so desperately trying to cling to your coattails with the continued snarkiness and trollism. We will just pretend he’s not you and cast him to the side for the moment, since absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing pisses him off more than being ignored. Maybe he should get a Delorean and blast back to 2020!
But, believe me, if we want continued snarkiness and trollism, those are easy shoes to fill. Easy button.
"I'm not wrong but I don't and will never have evidence to support it"
Ok, we almost had a meeting of the minds. The biggest sticking point is going to be on safety and you're objectively wrong.
But anyway, that was my attempt at compromise. Consider the leaflets dropped.
My rhetorical B-1 Lancer just got a fresh coat of anti-flash white. Time to paint a few more needles on the side.
Yeah, except I’m not wrong. Whatevs. I’ve actually never not represented the position I just stated, so it’s not like some epiphany or mind-blowing breakthrough (lol).
Your little buddy is so desperately trying to cling to your coattails with the continued snarkiness and trollism. We will just pretend he’s not you and cast him to the side for the moment, since absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing pisses him off more than being ignored. Maybe he should get a Delorean and blast back to 2020!
But, believe me, if we want continued snarkiness and trollism, those are easy shoes to fill. Easy button.
Only arguments against safety are anecdotes. You're free to believe what you want but your position is not supported by the evidence.
Yeah, except I’m not wrong. Whatevs. I’ve actually never not represented the position I just stated, so it’s not like some epiphany or mind-blowing breakthrough (lol).
Your little buddy is so desperately trying to cling to your coattails with the continued snarkiness and trollism. We will just pretend he’s not you and cast him to the side for the moment, since absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing pisses him off more than being ignored. Maybe he should get a Delorean and blast back to 2020!
But, believe me, if we want continued snarkiness and trollism, those are easy shoes to fill. Easy button.
Only arguments against safety are anecdotes. You're free to believe what you want but your position is not supported by the evidence.
Yeah, except I’m not wrong. Whatevs. I’ve actually never not represented the position I just stated, so it’s not like some epiphany or mind-blowing breakthrough (lol).
Your little buddy is so desperately trying to cling to your coattails with the continued snarkiness and trollism. We will just pretend he’s not you and cast him to the side for the moment, since absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing pisses him off more than being ignored. Maybe he should get a Delorean and blast back to 2020!
But, believe me, if we want continued snarkiness and trollism, those are easy shoes to fill. Easy button.
Only arguments against safety are anecdotes. You're free to believe what you want but your position is not supported by the evidence.
Because the evidence (data) is sh*t and incomplete. Garbage in, garbage out.
From that FDA link I provided earlier, here's how they defined "high risk" for those who were recommended a booster. Remember, this was the original, third shot booster. The FDA, itself, defined who needed more than two (or a natural infection). In other words, the vast majority of folks didn't NEED a third. Kind of funny.
"Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to allow for use of a single booster dose, to be administered at least six months after completion of the primary series in:
individuals 65 years of age and older; individuals 18 through 64 years of age at high risk of severe COVID-19; and individuals 18 through 64 years of age whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 puts them at high risk of serious complications of COVID-19 including severe COVID-19.
Today’s authorization applies only to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine."
From that FDA link I provided earlier, here's how they defined "high risk" for those who were recommended a booster. Remember, this was the original, third shot booster. The FDA, itself, defined who needed more than two (or a natural infection). In other words, the vast majority of folks didn't NEED a third. Kind of funny.
"Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to allow for use of a single booster dose, to be administered at least six months after completion of the primary series in:
individuals 65 years of age and older; individuals 18 through 64 years of age at high risk of severe COVID-19; and individuals 18 through 64 years of age whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 puts them at high risk of serious complications of COVID-19 including severe COVID-19.
Today’s authorization applies only to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine."
From that FDA link I provided earlier, here's how they defined "high risk" for those who were recommended a booster. Remember, this was the original, third shot booster. The FDA, itself, defined who needed more than two (or a natural infection). In other words, the vast majority of folks didn't NEED a third. Kind of funny.
"Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to allow for use of a single booster dose, to be administered at least six months after completion of the primary series in:
individuals 65 years of age and older; individuals 18 through 64 years of age at high risk of severe COVID-19; and individuals 18 through 64 years of age whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 puts them at high risk of serious complications of COVID-19 including severe COVID-19.
Today’s authorization applies only to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine."
No, this is why they originally rolled it out to to ensure that the highest risk people received the shot first. The expanded it to everyone later.
From that FDA link I provided earlier, here's how they defined "high risk" for those who were recommended a booster. Remember, this was the original, third shot booster. The FDA, itself, defined who needed more than two (or a natural infection). In other words, the vast majority of folks didn't NEED a third. Kind of funny.
"Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to allow for use of a single booster dose, to be administered at least six months after completion of the primary series in:
individuals 65 years of age and older; individuals 18 through 64 years of age at high risk of severe COVID-19; and individuals 18 through 64 years of age whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 puts them at high risk of serious complications of COVID-19 including severe COVID-19.
Today’s authorization applies only to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine."
Did you know that today the CDC recommends a single dose of updated mRNA vaccine in unvaccinated people 12 and older?
From that FDA link I provided earlier, here's how they defined "high risk" for those who were recommended a booster. Remember, this was the original, third shot booster. The FDA, itself, defined who needed more than two (or a natural infection). In other words, the vast majority of folks didn't NEED a third. Kind of funny.
"Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to allow for use of a single booster dose, to be administered at least six months after completion of the primary series in:
individuals 65 years of age and older; individuals 18 through 64 years of age at high risk of severe COVID-19; and individuals 18 through 64 years of age whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 puts them at high risk of serious complications of COVID-19 including severe COVID-19.
Today’s authorization applies only to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine."
No, this is why they originally rolled it out to to ensure that the highest risk people received the shot first. The expanded it to everyone later.
Yeah, this I know. I’m simply saying that the FDA themselves defined who characterized high risk, since we keeping going in circles about who was and wasn’t high risk as far as vaccine eligibility. Remember, we can’t define it🙄. Pretty simple.
Had a non-high risk person achieved convalescence, especially during this period of Covid, then the boost was unnecessary, if a “net positive.” Do the CDC’s current recommendations indicate that it’s a “net positive?”
No, this is why they originally rolled it out to to ensure that the highest risk people received the shot first. The expanded it to everyone later.
Yeah, this I know. I’m simply saying that the FDA themselves defined who characterized high risk, since we keeping going in circles about who was and wasn’t high risk as far as vaccine eligibility. Remember, we can’t define it🙄. Pretty simple.
Had a non-high risk person achieved convalescence, especially during this period of Covid, then the boost was unnecessary, if a “net positive.” Do the CDC’s current recommendations indicate that it’s a “net positive?”
Not true! Hybrid immunity from a booster showed significant improvements against later strains to make boosting even after infection worthwhile.
Yeah, this I know. I’m simply saying that the FDA themselves defined who characterized high risk, since we keeping going in circles about who was and wasn’t high risk as far as vaccine eligibility. Remember, we can’t define it🙄. Pretty simple.
Had a non-high risk person achieved convalescence, especially during this period of Covid, then the boost was unnecessary, if a “net positive.” Do the CDC’s current recommendations indicate that it’s a “net positive?”
Not true! Hybrid immunity from a booster showed significant improvements against later strains to make boosting even after infection worthwhile.
Later strains that were inconsequential in non-high risk people. Like Omicron which ended the pandemic. But, hey, as long as we can say it was a “net positive.” That’s the most important criterion.
No, this is why they originally rolled it out to to ensure that the highest risk people received the shot first. The expanded it to everyone later.
Yeah, this I know. I’m simply saying that the FDA themselves defined who characterized high risk, since we keeping going in circles about who was and wasn’t high risk as far as vaccine eligibility. Remember, we can’t define it🙄. Pretty simple.
Had a non-high risk person achieved convalescence, especially during this period of Covid, then the boost was unnecessary, if a “net positive.” Do the CDC’s current recommendations indicate that it’s a “net positive?”
Ah of course. "High-risk" means people age 18 to 64 who are at high risk of severe COVID-19 or people over 65!