Covid is fake wrote:
1. Covid has never been isolated. It does not exist.
Um...what? It was isolated in January of 2020. That's how we mapped it's genome and how we do molecular analysis to determine what strain you're infected with.
0
0
-
-
Covidiocy wrote:
What do the “resident scientists” of letsrun have to say?
00 -
Covidiocy wrote:
Covidiocy wrote:
What do the “resident scientists” of letsrun have to say?
One of the hardest things I do as part of my job is to take research that took months or years and boil it down to a 20 minute presentation, let alone a 140 character tweet. It's even harder when you know that the press is going to take one or two lines of your presentation and turn it into a news article.
If the point that this person was trying to make was "There's more to the story" then I'd 100% agree with him. I think that his claim that these are exaggerations or lies is an exaggeration or lie in the other direction. At worst, they're over-simplifications.
For example, the first claim that he takes issue with is that vaccine plus infection provides greater immunity than infection alone. We know that this is true in adults. Study after study has confirmed this. It provides stronger immunity, longer lasting immunity, and the breadth of immunity against variants is higher. We have no reason to believe that this would not also be true in children. Further, for children who have been infected (which is over 75% of kids), infection induced immunity is less than that in adults. This makes sense, because immune response is often correlated to severity of infection. Children are often less sick than adults, so their immune response is less. Vaccination will likely bolster this.
The second claim I really don't get...The claim that is being challenged is that the pediatric vaccine protects against serious illness. It does. He's correct that the sample size is less than the adult vaccine, but it's certainly enough to make those claims.
The third claim is largely the same. It does prevent symptomatic illness and hospitalization. For both the 2nd and 3rd claims, there's a reason that the research papers are more than two sentences long. There's a lot of factors that determine how severe illness is and whether hospitalization is required, but all of the evidence shows that vaccination reduces risk.
I can keep going claim by claim, but it's all the same. He's merely pointing out that 2 years of research can't be easily boiled down to a headline.
Here's the thing about vaccine approvals compared to other drugs: The standard for vaccine approval is much, much higher than most other drugs. That's why it took so long for this approval to come. For any drug to be approved, clinical trials have to show that the benefits outweigh the risks. By how much the benefits have to outweigh the risks depends on the disease being treated.
For example, if you have a drug that is going to be given to folks with painful, terminal cancer, the bar for approval might simply be that it makes the patient slightly more comfortable. They're in pain, they're going to die soon, there's little risk of doing additional harm.
For non-terminal disease, the bar is a little higher. Staying with cancer, we all know that the side effects of chemo and radiation can be terrible. However, if the benefit is that there is a chance of eliminating the cancer and putting the patient in remission, the benefit will likely be determined to outweigh those risks. Even if a treatment can simply extend the life of a terminal case, that is often determined to be worth it.
Vaccines are different. By definition, we're usually giving vaccines to people who are not sick with the disease that we're trying to prevent. We cannot say for certain that any individual will get COVID, or measles, or whatever. We can calculate the risk that they will get it, and based on an individual's health, we can calculate any additional risk of severe disease. This is why we really push the flu shot in the elderly or folks with other risk factors because the vaccine is more protective for them. The risk of severe disease from flu is higher, so the potential benefit is higher. It's the same for COVID. It's very clear that for those with certain risk factors for severe disease that the vaccine is hugely beneficial. That benefit was less clear for children. Children are much less likely than older adults to have symptomatic illness at all, let alone severe illness that requires hospitalization. The data is also still a little murky on the prevalence of long-COVID in kids. Because of this, in order to get approval for the vaccine, you have to show either a very strong efficacy of the vaccine, or that it is extremely safe. In this case, we've done both. It just took a longer time because there were fewer cases in kids, the trials were smaller, and we needed to be extra sure about safety.
30 -
Glad I resisted the coercion.
30 -
The only thing that people are going to have lasting effects from is the vaccine. Just like McSweyn. He was one of my favorite runners to watch, and they poisoned him.
10 -
EpiRunner wrote:
Covidiocy wrote:
What do the “resident scientists” of letsrun have to say?
Here's the thing about vaccine approvals compared to other drugs: The standard for vaccine approval is much, much higher than most other drugs. That's why it took so long for this approval to come. For any drug to be approved, clinical trials have to show that the benefits outweigh the risks. By how much the benefits have to outweigh the risks depends on the disease being treated.
Vaccines are different. By definition, we're usually giving vaccines to people who are not sick with the disease that we're trying to prevent. We cannot say for certain that any individual will get COVID, or measles, or whatever. We can calculate the risk that they will get it, and based on an individual's health, we can calculate any additional risk of severe disease. This is why we really push the flu shot in the elderly or folks with other risk factors because the vaccine is more protective for them. The risk of severe disease from flu is higher, so the potential benefit is higher. It's the same for COVID. It's very clear that for those with certain risk factors for severe disease that the vaccine is hugely beneficial. That benefit was less clear for children. Children are much less likely than older adults to have symptomatic illness at all, let alone severe illness that requires hospitalization. The data is also still a little murky on the prevalence of long-COVID in kids. Because of this, in order to get approval for the vaccine, you have to show either a very strong efficacy of the vaccine, or that it is extremely safe. In this case, we've done both. It just took a longer time because there were fewer cases in kids, the trials were smaller, and we needed to be extra sure about safety.
You and I both know this. What he is really saying is we didn’t have a statistically meaningful trial with an accurate control group to justify giving these vaccines to young kids. He’s saying they are disingenuously extrapolating, which “they” are.
You are also making my point. We know who the high risk groups are. We know who the low risk groups are. The mRNA spike factories are still experimental, IN VIVO, if we are calling them vaccines. They are not traditional vaccines. The mRNA is encased in a lipid nanoparticle, which allows it to traverse the entire body to sensitive organs, even into the brain, and it can produce spike antigens for up to eight weeks. Antigens that can quite possibly outcompete innate immunity in addition to causing problems themselves.
There is a reason that 40% of rural physicians will not recommend giving this vaccine to kids. That’s an extremely high number of MDs. There is a reason the FDA lost two very prolific scientists during the vetting process. Dissent is ok and is science. This is how we do science. Silencing dissent is politics.
We have all kinds of very anomalous events occurring, SADS in adults, hepatitis in young children. Of course “they” are trying to write off SADS, varicella and EBV reactivation, GBS, etc to natural causes or a lack of genetic fitness. They are trying to link this new hepatitis to a previous or dormant Covid infection, but how do we know it’s not because lipid nanoparticles are leaking through breastmilk? How do we know it’s not because very young children’s immune systems are not being trained properly because they were masked for so long? How do we know some of these adenoviral vectors as part of the non-mRNA vaccines didn’t recombine w traditional adenovirus? We don’t know any of this because we are not looking. It’s intellectually more “robust” and accepted to just cast this aside as conspiracy theory. The Bieber’s are interesting, both his sudden “Ramsay Hunt” syndrome and her stroke and PFO surgery. Easy to say that’s congenital, right?
The point is that while some people should get vaccinated, not everyone should. Natural immunity cultivated by multiple exposures, mitigated by therapeutic treatments in some cases, is a way to endemicity. It’s still early innings to speak to the safety, especially, and efficacy of the vaccines. They surely don’t prevent infection or transmission, which is impossible anyway. At best, we can say they mitigate worst outcomes in already high-risk groups. At worst we can say they are doing damage and forcing evolutionary pressure on the virus, particularly in immunocompromised hosts. People are justified in being skeptical. A very good, far left friend who is vaccinated and boosted just told me he won’t let his teen children get any more vaccines. A massive paradigm shift for him.
20 -
best to not get Covid at all bros
01 -
Bill Gates, Anthony Fraudchi and the big pharmaceutical companies are laughing long time.
00 -
The actual truth though wrote:
The only thing that people are going to have lasting effects from is the vaccine. Just like McSweyn. He was one of my favorite runners to watch, and they poisoned him.
Filip Ingebrigsten too.
It's a shame.
Both have been damaged by the jab and as yet have not been able to get back to where they were in their fitness.
It's criminal that this drug is being pushed onto people
00 -
mound up wrote:
best to not get Covid at all bros
Best not to get the jab at all
10 -
Because of this, in order to get approval for the vaccine, you have to show either a very strong efficacy of the vaccine, or that it is extremely safe. In this case, we've done both.
Actually neither.
The jab does not prevent infection.
The jab has cause more adverse events than all vaccines put together over the past 30 years.
10 -
06/23/22
•COVID › NEWS
Pfizer, Moderna COVID Vaccines May Increase Risk of Infection, Study ShowsA peer-reviewed study in the New England Journal of Medicine shows two doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine yield negative protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, while previous infection without vaccination offers about 50% immunity.
10 -
#93
This post was removed.
-
Please keep this thread on topic. It is not about vaccination. There is another thread for COVID vaccine discussion.
20 -
Covidiocy wrote:
EpiRunner wrote:
Here's the thing about vaccine approvals compared to other drugs: The standard for vaccine approval is much, much higher than most other drugs. That's why it took so long for this approval to come. For any drug to be approved, clinical trials have to show that the benefits outweigh the risks. By how much the benefits have to outweigh the risks depends on the disease being treated.
Vaccines are different. By definition, we're usually giving vaccines to people who are not sick with the disease that we're trying to prevent. We cannot say for certain that any individual will get COVID, or measles, or whatever. We can calculate the risk that they will get it, and based on an individual's health, we can calculate any additional risk of severe disease. This is why we really push the flu shot in the elderly or folks with other risk factors because the vaccine is more protective for them. The risk of severe disease from flu is higher, so the potential benefit is higher. It's the same for COVID. It's very clear that for those with certain risk factors for severe disease that the vaccine is hugely beneficial. That benefit was less clear for children. Children are much less likely than older adults to have symptomatic illness at all, let alone severe illness that requires hospitalization. The data is also still a little murky on the prevalence of long-COVID in kids. Because of this, in order to get approval for the vaccine, you have to show either a very strong efficacy of the vaccine, or that it is extremely safe. In this case, we've done both. It just took a longer time because there were fewer cases in kids, the trials were smaller, and we needed to be extra sure about safety.
You and I both know this. What he is really saying is we didn’t have a statistically meaningful trial with an accurate control group to justify giving these vaccines to young kids. He’s saying they are disingenuously extrapolating, which “they” are.
You are also making my point. We know who the high risk groups are. We know who the low risk groups are. The mRNA spike factories are still experimental, IN VIVO, if we are calling them vaccines. They are not traditional vaccines. The mRNA is encased in a lipid nanoparticle, which allows it to traverse the entire body to sensitive organs, even into the brain, and it can produce spike antigens for up to eight weeks. Antigens that can quite possibly outcompete innate immunity in addition to causing problems themselves.
There is a reason that 40% of rural physicians will not recommend giving this vaccine to kids. That’s an extremely high number of MDs. There is a reason the FDA lost two very prolific scientists during the vetting process. Dissent is ok and is science. This is how we do science. Silencing dissent is politics.
We have all kinds of very anomalous events occurring, SADS in adults, hepatitis in young children. Of course “they” are trying to write off SADS, varicella and EBV reactivation, GBS, etc to natural causes or a lack of genetic fitness. They are trying to link this new hepatitis to a previous or dormant Covid infection, but how do we know it’s not because lipid nanoparticles are leaking through breastmilk? How do we know it’s not because very young children’s immune systems are not being trained properly because they were masked for so long? How do we know some of these adenoviral vectors as part of the non-mRNA vaccines didn’t recombine w traditional adenovirus? We don’t know any of this because we are not looking. It’s intellectually more “robust” and accepted to just cast this aside as conspiracy theory. The Bieber’s are interesting, both his sudden “Ramsay Hunt” syndrome and her stroke and PFO surgery. Easy to say that’s congenital, right?
The point is that while some people should get vaccinated, not everyone should. Natural immunity cultivated by multiple exposures, mitigated by therapeutic treatments in some cases, is a way to endemicity. It’s still early innings to speak to the safety, especially, and efficacy of the vaccines. They surely don’t prevent infection or transmission, which is impossible anyway. At best, we can say they mitigate worst outcomes in already high-risk groups. At worst we can say they are doing damage and forcing evolutionary pressure on the virus, particularly in immunocompromised hosts. People are justified in being skeptical. A very good, far left friend who is vaccinated and boosted just told me he won’t let his teen children get any more vaccines. A massive paradigm shift for him.
Covidiocy wrote:
You and I both know this. What he is really saying is we didn’t have a statistically meaningful trial with an accurate control group to justify giving these vaccines to young kids. He’s saying they are disingenuously extrapolating, which “they” are.No, "they" are not. They're using the best available information. If there were evidence to the contrary, it would be one thing, but there isn't.
Covidiocy wrote:
The mRNA is encased in a lipid nanoparticle, which allows it to traverse the entire body to sensitive organs, even into the brain,No...studies show that the vast majority of vaccine material stays local. This was one of the concerns during early research into mRNA vaccines, pre-covid. It was shown to be a non-issue in several studies. Without that information, mRNA vaccines may not have ever been produced.
Covidiocy wrote:
and it can produce spike antigens for up to eight weeksNo...they only produce spike proteins for a few days. The proteins may last a couple weeks, but they're not still being produced.
Covidiocy wrote:
Antigens that can quite possibly outcompete innate immunity in addition to causing problems themselves.This just doesn't make sense. Antigens don't compete with "innate immunity" any more than my dog competes with your lymphatic system.
Covidiocy wrote:
There is a reason that 40% of rural physicians will not recommend giving this vaccine to kids. That’s an extremely high number of MDs.You have a source on that? Even if it were true, I think it's a little disingenuous to call any percentage of rural physicians "an extremely high number" because 100% of rural physicians make up only 9% of total physicians. 40% of rural physicians would make up less than 4% of total physicians. I don't think that's "extremely high" do you?
Covidiocy wrote:
They are trying to link this new hepatitis to a previous or dormant Covid infection, but how do we know it’s not because lipid nanoparticles are leaking through breastmilk?No one is making that link...what does breast milk have to do with it? The hepatitis cases aren't in infants. Further, the hepatitis outbreaks are geographically linked, suggesting infection. If it were caused by vaccination, they'd be geographically dispersed. Lastly, there don't seem to be more cases in vaccinated kids than there are in unvaccinated ones.
Covidiocy wrote:
The Bieber’s are interesting, both his sudden “Ramsay Hunt” syndrome and her stroke and PFO surgery. Easy to say that’s congenital, right?Could you please explain why that is interesting? She had PFO which may have contributed to her stroke. Are you suggesting that the vaccination put a hole in her heart? She's one person, are you going to make an epidemiological determination based on one person? I'd love to see the math. Ramsey Hunt is caused by the varicella zoster virus. I have no idea if JB had his tears cultured or not, but if it were caused by the vaccine we'd probably have more than one case to talk about, eh?
Covidiocy wrote:
The point is that while some people should get vaccinated, not everyone should. Natural immunity cultivated by multiple exposures, mitigated by therapeutic treatments in some cases, is a way to endemicity. It’s still early innings to speak to the safety, especially, and efficacy of the vaccines. They surely don’t prevent infection or transmission, which is impossible anyway. At best, we can say they mitigate worst outcomes in already high-risk groups.Show me your math then.
Covidiocy wrote:
A very good, far left friend who is vaccinated and boosted just told me he won’t let his teen children get any more vaccines. A massive paradigm shift for him.While I understand why you'd include this statement, as someone who works for an academic medical center with literally hundreds of scientists and physicians who directly study vaccines and thousands of scientists and physicians who indirectly study them, absolutely all possible political views are represented by the very people who bring you vaccines. I assure you, that it is not a political thing. I know that it has been politicized by the media, but there are conservatives working on this stuff just as hard as the liberals.
10 -
EpiRunner wrote:
Covidiocy wrote:
You and I both know this. What he is really saying is we didn’t have a statistically meaningful trial with an accurate control group to justify giving these vaccines to young kids. He’s saying they are disingenuously extrapolating, which “they” are.
You are also making my point. We know who the high risk groups are. We know who the low risk groups are. The mRNA spike factories are still experimental, IN VIVO, if we are calling them vaccines. They are not traditional vaccines. The mRNA is encased in a lipid nanoparticle, which allows it to traverse the entire body to sensitive organs, even into the brain, and it can produce spike antigens for up to eight weeks. Antigens that can quite possibly outcompete innate immunity in addition to causing problems themselves.
There is a reason that 40% of rural physicians will not recommend giving this vaccine to kids. That’s an extremely high number of MDs. There is a reason the FDA lost two very prolific scientists during the vetting process. Dissent is ok and is science. This is how we do science. Silencing dissent is politics.
We have all kinds of very anomalous events occurring, SADS in adults, hepatitis in young children. Of course “they” are trying to write off SADS, varicella and EBV reactivation, GBS, etc to natural causes or a lack of genetic fitness. They are trying to link this new hepatitis to a previous or dormant Covid infection, but how do we know it’s not because lipid nanoparticles are leaking through breastmilk? How do we know it’s not because very young children’s immune systems are not being trained properly because they were masked for so long? How do we know some of these adenoviral vectors as part of the non-mRNA vaccines didn’t recombine w traditional adenovirus? We don’t know any of this because we are not looking. It’s intellectually more “robust” and accepted to just cast this aside as conspiracy theory. The Bieber’s are interesting, both his sudden “Ramsay Hunt” syndrome and her stroke and PFO surgery. Easy to say that’s congenital, right?
The point is that while some people should get vaccinated, not everyone should. Natural immunity cultivated by multiple exposures, mitigated by therapeutic treatments in some cases, is a way to endemicity. It’s still early innings to speak to the safety, especially, and efficacy of the vaccines. They surely don’t prevent infection or transmission, which is impossible anyway. At best, we can say they mitigate worst outcomes in already high-risk groups. At worst we can say they are doing damage and forcing evolutionary pressure on the virus, particularly in immunocompromised hosts. People are justified in being skeptical. A very good, far left friend who is vaccinated and boosted just told me he won’t let his teen children get any more vaccines. A massive paradigm shift for him.
Covidiocy wrote:
You and I both know this. What he is really saying is we didn’t have a statistically meaningful trial with an accurate control group to justify giving these vaccines to young kids. He’s saying they are disingenuously extrapolating, which “they” are.No, "they" are not. They're using the best available information. If there were evidence to the contrary, it would be one thing, but there isn't.
Covidiocy wrote:
The mRNA is encased in a lipid nanoparticle, which allows it to traverse the entire body to sensitive organs, even into the brain,No...studies show that the vast majority of vaccine material stays local. This was one of the concerns during early research into mRNA vaccines, pre-covid. It was shown to be a non-issue in several studies. Without that information, mRNA vaccines may not have ever been produced.
Covidiocy wrote:
and it can produce spike antigens for up to eight weeksNo...they only produce spike proteins for a few days. The proteins may last a couple weeks, but they're not still being produced.
Covidiocy wrote:
Antigens that can quite possibly outcompete innate immunity in addition to causing problems themselves.This just doesn't make sense. Antigens don't compete with "innate immunity" any more than my dog competes with your lymphatic system.
Covidiocy wrote:
There is a reason that 40% of rural physicians will not recommend giving this vaccine to kids. That’s an extremely high number of MDs.You have a source on that? Even if it were true, I think it's a little disingenuous to call any percentage of rural physicians "an extremely high number" because 100% of rural physicians make up only 9% of total physicians. 40% of rural physicians would make up less than 4% of total physicians. I don't think that's "extremely high" do you?
Covidiocy wrote:
They are trying to link this new hepatitis to a previous or dormant Covid infection, but how do we know it’s not because lipid nanoparticles are leaking through breastmilk?No one is making that link...what does breast milk have to do with it? The hepatitis cases aren't in infants. Further, the hepatitis outbreaks are geographically linked, suggesting infection. If it were caused by vaccination, they'd be geographically dispersed. Lastly, there don't seem to be more cases in vaccinated kids than there are in unvaccinated ones.
Covidiocy wrote:
The Bieber’s are interesting, both his sudden “Ramsay Hunt” syndrome and her stroke and PFO surgery. Easy to say that’s congenital, right?Could you please explain why that is interesting? She had PFO which may have contributed to her stroke. Are you suggesting that the vaccination put a hole in her heart? She's one person, are you going to make an epidemiological determination based on one person? I'd love to see the math. Ramsey Hunt is caused by the varicella zoster virus. I have no idea if JB had his tears cultured or not, but if it were caused by the vaccine we'd probably have more than one case to talk about, eh?
Covidiocy wrote:
The point is that while some people should get vaccinated, not everyone should. Natural immunity cultivated by multiple exposures, mitigated by therapeutic treatments in some cases, is a way to endemicity. It’s still early innings to speak to the safety, especially, and efficacy of the vaccines. They surely don’t prevent infection or transmission, which is impossible anyway. At best, we can say they mitigate worst outcomes in already high-risk groups.Show me your math then.
Covidiocy wrote:
A very good, far left friend who is vaccinated and boosted just told me he won’t let his teen children get any more vaccines. A massive paradigm shift for him.While I understand why you'd include this statement, as someone who works for an academic medical center with literally hundreds of scientists and physicians who directly study vaccines and thousands of scientists and physicians who indirectly study them, absolutely all possible political views are represented by the very people who bring you vaccines. I assure you, that it is not a political thing. I know that it has been politicized by the media, but there are conservatives working on this stuff just as hard as the liberals.
Someone (we won't mention who, Covidiocy) just got his ass handed to him.
But he will persist. The conspiracy types always persist.
10 -
Real Obvi wrote:
Someone (we won't mention who, Covidiocy) just got his ass handed to him.But he will persist. The conspiracy types always persist.
Hardly a conspiracy theorist. Just a healthy skeptic. I misspoke when I said antigen instead of antibody, but I stand by the rest. EpiRunner’s “studies show” is a tired old argument I’ve been pointing to continually on here because you can only find what you are funded to find and actually looking for, not what you are not looking for.
The ultimate point I was trying to make was that the approval of the vaccination for small children was based on sparse, flimsy, and disingenuous data, but so much of this is. As I said, early innings. You keep getting your kids boosters though and trust that the EpiRunners of the world are utterly and completely correct in asserting the safety and efficacy of this vaccine.
Start here. Oh, wait, it’s Faux News. Nevermind the Johns Hopkins-trained doc who penned it. Read it and rebut it yourself you parroting dolt. I bet you can’t.
00 -
Covidiocy wrote:
Real Obvi wrote:
But he will persist. The conspiracy types always persist.
The ultimate point I was trying to make was that the approval of the vaccination for small children was based on sparse, flimsy, and disingenuous data, but so much of this is. As I said, early innings. You keep getting your kids boosters though and trust that the EpiRunners of the world are utterly and completely correct in asserting the safety and efficacy of this vaccine.
"Ok everything I said was BS since I called out... but here... let me pivot to more random speculation."
"It 'feels' correct to my twisted, partisan, brain, so therefore I will get triggered if you don't agree!"
10 -
Covidiocy wrote:
because you can only find what you are funded to find and actually looking for, not what you are not looking for.Tell me you're not a scientist without telling my you're not a scientist.
10 -
Covidiocy wrote:
Hardly a conspiracy theorist. Just a healthy skeptic. I misspoke when I said antigen instead of antibody, but I stand by the rest.
Changing the word to antibody doesn't make any more sense than antigen. That would mean that you were trying to say "...it can produce spike antigens for up to eight weeks. Antibodies that can quite possibly outcompete innate immunity..."
10
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun