• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Covid Vaccine

Confluence said:
You do not seem to understand that the expert who wrote the piece based his/her judgement on "evaluation" and then did not do that. They just -- like you -- rejected the study whole cloth because the unvaccinated kids needs less doctors visits.

Do you not understand that the writer used the conclusion of the study : that unvaccinated kids are healthier, in his poorly constructed circular argument to discredit the study?

You are being wilfully blind, open your mind
Click to expand...
You’re willfully ignoring all of the flaws in the methodology. You also don’t seem to understand the peer review process and the fact that it’s not my or this guy’s personal opinion…there are factual reasons many “studies” are rejected by the process and not published. There are numerous other articles explaining why this study is invalid. Not going to waste my time posting all of them.
 

DETROIT – Henry Ford Health, a nationally recognized academic medical center and research institution, has issued a cease-and-desist letter to the makers of an upcoming “documentary” that falsely and dangerously claims the health system suppressed a draft of a research paper because of its results. The health system also condemns the purposeful twisting of information and the spread of disinformation happening on the topic, which poses a direct threat to public health.

There are many factors that determine whether a research paper should be submitted for consideration by scientific journals or otherwise shared with the public. In this case, a 2020 draft of a paper that aimed to compare health outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children was immediately shelved upon the first internal peer review because of serious issues with its data and methodology. Those flaws included:

  • The unvaccinated patient sample was vastly different than the vaccinated sample, with more males, more white children, less prematurity and less respiratory distress at birth.
  • The unvaccinated sample was very small in comparison to the vaccinated sample.
  • The amount of time measuring occurrence of disease was much shorter for the unvaccinated children. One quarter were observed only through six months of age, and 75% were only observed up until age 3, which is before doctors can confidently diagnose chronic pediatric diseases.
  • The draft compared multiple vaccines vs. no vaccines, instead of a specific vaccine vs. no vaccines.No consideration was given to the number of vaccines or the duration of time between vaccines and the occurrence of disease.
  • Vaccine guidance has changed over time, but that was not taken into consideration.
The draft was never considered for submission to journals because it did not remotely come close to meeting the rigorous scientific standards the system demands—the same standards journals have, too. Claims that Henry Ford Health kept or suppressed the results from the public due to political reasons are patently false, defamatory and troubling; it’s important the public receives the truth, as this may lead to families making health decisions based on unfounded and incorrect assumptions.

Henry Ford Health was unaware this rejected and unvalidated draft from the early COVID era had somehow been shared or was being discussed, and the health system was never given an opportunity to weigh in on the topic. In addition, because the draft was shared without the system’s knowledge, there’s reason to believe it’s been altered from its original form and made to appear finalized, which it was not.

In addition, this flawed paper is now also being falsely connected to a long-term, NIH-funded research cohort at Henry Ford Health. The disinformation being presented on social media is dangerous, as it aims to sow doubt in the legitimacy of the ongoing research. The health system urges anyone who comes across content regarding this discredited draft to recognize it’s being weaponized.

Henry Ford Health believes in research that’s driven by irrefutable data and methodology and will never compromise those standards.
 

DETROIT—Henry Ford Health condemns the spread of dangerous disinformation connected to a “documentary” that falsely claims our nationally recognized academic medical center and research institute suppressed a draft of a research study because of its results.

The purposeful twisting of information in the “documentary” poses a direct public threat. We implore anyone who comes across these myths to read the facts below.

MYTH #1: “The study proves vaccinated children are 2.5x more likely to develop chronic health conditions than unvaccinated children.”

FACT: This draft did not prove anything. The very first internal review revealed serious flaws in the data and methodology, and the paper was abandoned. Anyone who conducts public health research would agree that comparing vastly different sample sizes over different time periods with inconsistent demographic foundations is problematic.

MYTH #2: “The study wasn’t published due to political reasons – or because of its results.”

FACT: The draft wasn’t submitted for publication or shared with the public because the data and analyses were flawed, and it’s irresponsible to share scientifically flawed studies with the public.

MYTH #3: “The study was hidden from the public.”

FACT: Reputable academic medical research institutions like Henry Ford Health subject research papers to stringent, internal, and scientific scrutiny that often points out issues with data, methodology or other flaws. It’s rare that a paper makes it to the scientific journal submission phase, and even rarer that papers get published. This wasn’t hidden; it was simply rejected for scientific lapses.

MYTH #4: “This is the ‘most important vaccine study ever.’”

FACT: Dr. Jake Scott, an infectious disease physician from Stanford who testified on Capitol Hill, wrote “…this flawed analysis reveals how thoroughly political theater has replaced scientific literacy in our public discourse.” The first internal reviewers determined the paper wasn’t scientifically sound—and it never made it past draft status.

MYTH #5: “The ‘documentary’ proves the health system is withholding the study.”

FACT: The film proved nothing except that we have rigorous scientific standards in place for a reason: to ensure the only studies we submit for publication come from research rooted in sound, infallible data that have passed our stringent review processes. We do not bend to pressure from those with special interests and will never compromise the standards that have helped make us a world-renowned academic medical research institution. Read more on our perspective in this Detroit Free Press article.
 
oneforthebus said:
What “handlers”? You seriously think scientists, doctors and pharmaceutical researchers are “handlers”, but anti-vax advocacy groups are honest and pure?
Click to expand...
my reference was not directed at you. more at the flogtard who laps up everything without any question.

i dont believe that doctors (or even dokkturs) genuinely intended to deceive anyone regarding the ClotShot, I do believe that they (like the rest of us) were not given ALL the information on the vaccine that was not a vaccine.
 
Hypocycloids said:
Are you saying that drug companies keep secret the side effects that a drug may cause?

That would contradict every drug commercial I’ve seen.

Click to expand...

No I don't think it's a secret at all. If it was a secret everyone would be two damn scared to say anything to anyone. I am saying they know what the they are doing, I am saying that I believe they make these drugs with chemicals that they know cause added side effects and maybe with a little more work they could get rid of some of the side effects if they really wanted to, but it's not cost effective I am also saying they don't want cures for the average everyday American they want to keep you on these meds.


Look at mental health medications. what is one of the main side effect? SUICIDE. you can't make this **** up.
 
Last edited:
oneforthebus said:
a

Medications have side effects, I acknowledged that numerous times. Sometimes more medications are required to counteract side effects. All medical treatments are a balance of risk vs. benefit. I've acknowledged that numerous times.

So you know people who work for pharmaceutical companies and admit they PURPOSELY create useless medications to cause side effects in order to sell more medications? Are you friends with these people? They seem like terrible people. I would certainly alert law enforcement and the media if someone told me that.

You really believe all or most people involved in medical research and pharmacology are complicit in this plot of hiding cures for horrible life threatening illnesses in order to make money? No one is willing to blow the whistle and say "Hey! We can actually cure this but we'd lose a lot of money if we do! We like money so much we're willing to let people suffer and die! Including moms, dads, babies, little children, even people in our own families! We don't care! We're just that greedy and evil!"

Not one single person involved is willing to tell people the "truth".

That's what you believe? Ok. You can believe what you want. I don't believe that. You can say I'm talking down to people. I'm just saying what I believe and what evidence shows. You don't have to agree.
Click to expand...
OFTB. I try and look at things from different angles and looking at our health care, **** just doesn't add up. every drug on the market has side effects, yet conviently enough there is a pill for that.

Why after so much time and so much money being spent do we not have a cure for anything? why with all the technology we have are any women still dying from breast cancer. why do we not automattically do the extra steps in yearly blood test to look for cancer markers or markers for heart failure? the simple answer is cost. I believe we have people that are geniuses that probably have come up with cures for things but it will never be released to the public for two reasons. money and population control.

So I personally take a medication called Entresto the side effects are too numerous to list. that said they recently came out with a generic so my insurance company immediately kicked me over to that. I asked my dr. and my pharmacist what the differance was. both told me there was zero differance, if that were the case than why is the generic pill twice the size and a differant color, why am I now after being switched from name brand to generic starting to have some those side effects? Now I am on two more prescriptions to counter act the side effects of the generic I am on.

Why is it I was told by two differeant cardiologyst that even though I am no longer in heart failure I need to stay on all these meds for "preventitive care" I had zero heart problems before the jab but now I'm sentenced to a life time of medications after the jab.

Now I know this is a different topic, but even though my DR. has tried to put me back on the name brand where I had no side effects, the insurance company keeps denying the request because its cheaper for them to put me on two cheaper meds than it was for them to keep me on the name brand.

Four years ago I took one pill a day which was a low dose blood pressure pill. here I am today taking eight pills in the morning and six at night, two of which are to combat the side effects of some of the medications i am now on.

Marijuana has a ton of medical benifits yet our federal government a quite a few states refuse to legalize it and pharma companies spend millions lobbing against it. Why? if people could grow their own pain meds the govenmet and pharma would lose a **** ton of money.

And there is nothing to blow the whistle on. like was pointed out to me earlier. they know about the side effects they put them in every add on TV. the sad part is some of the side effects seem worse than the diease.

Maybe it's just as simple as it's a race to see who can be first to market with the new pill or shot.
 
Last edited:
warriors42 said:
OFTB. I try and look at things from different angles and looking at our health care, **** just doesn't add up. every drug on the market has side effects, yet conviently enough there is a pill for that.

Why after so much time and so much money being spent do we not have a cure for anything? why with all the technology we have are any women still dying from breast cancer. why do we not automattically do the extra steps in yearly blood test to look for cancer markers or markers for heart failure? the simple answer is cost. I believe we have people that are geniuses that probably have come up with cures for things but it will never be released to the public for two reasons. money and population control.

So I personally take a medication called Entresto the side effects are too numerous to list. that said they recently came out with a generic so my insurance company immediately kicked me over to that. I asked my dr. and my pharmacist what the differance was. both told me there was zero differance, if that were the case than why is the generic pill twice the size and a differant color, why am I now after being switched from name brand to generic starting to have some those side effects? Now I am on two more prescriptions to counter act the side effects of the generic I am on.

Why is it I was told by two differeant cardiologyst that even though I am no longer in heart failure I need to stay on all these meds for "preventitive care" I had zero heart problems before the jab but now I'm sentenced to a life time of medications after the jab.

Now I know this is a different topic, but even though my DR. has tried to put me back on the name brand where I had no side effects, the insurance company keeps denying the request because its cheaper for them to put me on two cheaper meds than it was for them to keep me on the name brand.

Four years ago I took one pill a day which was a low dose blood pressure pill. here I am today taking eight pills in the morning and six at night, two of which are to combat the side effects of some of the medications i am now on.

Marijuana has a ton of medical benifits yet our federal government a quite a few states refuse to legalize it and pharma companies spend millions lobbing against it. Why? if people could grow their own pain meds the govenmet and pharma would lose a **** ton of money.

And there is nothing to blow the whistle on. like was pointed out to me earlier. they know about the side effects they put them in every add on TV. the sad part is some of the side effects seem worse than the diease.
Click to expand...
There's a lot here and I'm not a doctor or a pharmacologist. I don't know if the covid vax caused your heart problem, and I'm sorry you're having these problems regardless. I've already acknowledged there are known rare adverse effects, myocarditis is one. I don't discount the possibility. My only point is serious side effects are rare. That's no comfort to anyone who experienced them, i realize that.

You may or may not remember that I have a friend who was deadset against masking and vaccines, a perfectly healthy 58 year old 4.0 tennis player, who died of covid. Another unvaxxed friend with comorbid conditions who also died of covid. Again, it's risk vs. benefit. There is data showing reductions in serious illness and death. But given the rather weak efficacy of the vaccine I don't know exactly where that benefit vs. risk on it lands. My sense is for high risk people it's worth it, for young healthy people probably not. While you may wish you hadn't gotten the vaccine, my friends' families probably wish they had.

What we are debating here is intent. Yes, drug companies want to make money. They also want drugs that are safe and effective. While no drug is 100% free of side effects, they want a strong benefit vs. risk profile. Ultimately no illness and no person are exactly the same and medical interventions are going to affect different people in different ways. We can't throw away the good because it's not perfect. The alternative to medical intervention is we just let a whole bunch of people die or become seriously disabled from preventable or treatable disease.

Insurance is a whole other ball of wax, it's is a totally ****** up system. We're in the limbo between government-run and private health insurance, and it's the worst of both worlds.
 
oneforthebus said:
It really boggles the mind that some people actually believe there's a huge segment of people who grow up, go to high school, go to college, (really, really smart people), get a PHD or an MD, all with no intention of finding effective treatments or cures for illnesses, but just to fulfill their desire to keep people sick so they can pump them full of useless drugs and vaccines to make money. Oh, and they don't care at all if they harm or kill people.

Y'all really believe this?
Click to expand...
The problem is that most doctors treat symptoms rather than the cause. Blood pressure is high? There’s a pill to bring that down. Does it treat the root cause of the high blood pressure? High cholesterol? Same. There’s more money in prolonging death than curing the disease.
 
Sarge said:
The problem is that most doctors treat symptoms rather than the cause. Blood pressure is high? There’s a pill to bring that down. Does it treat the root cause of the high blood pressure? High cholesterol? Same. There’s more money in prolonging death than curing the disease.
Click to expand...
Many people aren’t willing or able to do what they need to do to reduce high blood pressure and cholesterol…exercise, reduce sodium and saturated fat, eat lots of fruits and veggies, stay at a healthy weight..it’s not as though doctors don’t advise people to do these things. It’s that people can’t or won’t do them. Some things like cholesterol and blood pressure can also be genetic or just aging related. It would be great if there were cures for them, maybe there will be one day. I don’t agree with the idea that medical science isn’t interested in finding cures. It’s just not that simple when the causes are multiple and complex.
 
oneforthebus said:
I will say there certainly are good reasons to jab newborns with a Hep B shot.... 1) Hep B tests on pregnant mothers can produce false negatives. Hep B is not always detectable during its incubation period. 2) 90% of newborns who contract Hep B will live the rest of their lives with chronic liver disease often ending in liver failure and death 3) Many people are carriers of Hep B without ever showing symptoms or being diagnosed. A baby or small child can contract it from contact with blood or saliva from their parents, relatives, daycare providers etc. which isn't the most likely method of transmission but certainly not impossible. 4) Within 10 years of Hep B being recommended at birth, Hep B infections in children were reduced by 68%. 16000-25000 children/ year were diagnosed with Hep B prior to vaccination. You must be really excited to start seeing those numbers rise back up. 5) Young children often show no symptoms when infected but can infect other people. 6) The Hep B vaccine is safe. There is no good reason not to inject a newborn with it.
Click to expand...
good news on Hep B:


fwiw, paracetamol/acetaminophen damages more livers than hep B
 
Confluence said:
good news on Hep B:


fwiw, paracetamol/acetaminophen damages more livers than hep B
Click to expand...
That is good news. Are you suggesting it's now ok to let babies get Hep B when it's safely and easily preventable because there's a new pharmaceutical that has been shown to cure some adults?

I wouldn't be surprised if that's true (acetaminophen), thanks to routine vaccination Hep B is much less common than it use to be.


Between 1993 and 2000, the proportion of very young children immunized against HBV rose from 16 percent to 90 percent. Since the 1991 recommendation took effect, the universal HBV birth dose has prevented over 500,000 childhood infections and prevented an estimated 90,100 childhood deaths. Between 1991 and 2019, HBV infection among children and adolescents dropped 99%, preventing tens of thousands of cases of cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death. The evidence shows that now the annual rate of infection is extremely low: fewer than 1,000 US children and adolescents become infected and fewer than 20 infants are infected at birth.

Alcohol probably damages more livers too. Yet no anti-vaxxers are screaming for Tylenol or alcohol to be discontinued. Only harmless Hep B vaccines.
 
oneforthebus said:
Many people aren’t willing or able to do what they need to do to reduce high blood pressure and cholesterol…exercise, reduce sodium and saturated fat, eat lots of fruits and veggies, stay at a healthy weight..it’s not as though doctors don’t advise people to do these things. It’s that people can’t or won’t do them. Some things like cholesterol and blood pressure can also be genetic or just aging related. It would be great if there were cures for them, maybe there will be one day. I don’t agree with the idea that medical science isn’t interested in finding cures. It’s just not that simple when the causes are multiple and complex.
Click to expand...
Yep, preventative medicine should always be the first choice. If your provider doesn't mention that then it's time to find a new physician.
 
oneforthebus said:
Many people aren’t willing or able to do what they need to do to reduce high blood pressure and cholesterol…exercise, reduce sodium and saturated fat, eat lots of fruits and veggies, stay at a healthy weight..it’s not as though doctors don’t advise people to do these things. It’s that people can’t or won’t do them. Some things like cholesterol and blood pressure can also be genetic or just aging related. It would be great if there were cures for them, maybe there will be one day. I don’t agree with the idea that medical science isn’t interested in finding cures. It’s just not that simple when the causes are multiple and complex.
Click to expand...

Just an anecdotal reply. 4 or 5 years ago (I've written here a bit about this before), I was pretty damned overweight for my height/size. 5'10", 225. Post covid, lots of reasons, lack of exercise, not taking care of myself. Hadn't seen doctors in many years (white lab coat disease). Needed a colonoscopy. Pre-op visit, blood pressure was like 185 over something. Granted, I was nervous as hell just being in a doc's office, but still. Damn. Saw my ex-wife's PCP the next week. Doc said "you need to lose weight" gave me some tips. Blood pressure was still high. So was cholesterol after blood work.

I took his advice (and was scared too) and began exercising every day and severely changed my diet. So much so that I lost 40lbs in 59 days (down to 185, my college weight), cholesterol was 100% in check at that point too. I've been exercising regularly since, and moderated my diet heavily. Everything remained in check, save for blood pressure.

While it's much lower, I still live every day in the low range of hypertension. On pills for the rest of my life. It's hereditary, passed down from my dad and his dad (and probably his). Doc's like "it's in your bloodline, you've lost a ton of weight, you eat better, but it's just how it is."

I avoided having to be on a statin, but to your point some conditions cannot be treated. I did what many humans weren't willing to do and listened to my doc, did the exercise, changed the diet. Just wasn't going to be enough.

So in this case, I'm thankful for these drugs.
 
oneforthebus said:
I don’t agree with the idea that medical science isn’t interested in finding cures. It’s just not that simple when the causes are multiple and complex.
Click to expand...
Oh bullshit. They don’t make money off of curing diseases. They make money off of feeding people pills that control symptoms but do nothing to address underlying causes, prolonging death. Money is all our medical industry is interested in.

You could have stopped at “people aren’t willing.” That’s the whole problem. Don’t try to feed me “not able.” People know what it takes to avoid these conditions. Ozempic is a perfect example. “I’m 60 pounds overweight but I just can’t possibly eat right and exercise. I NEED this medicine.” It’s just easier to be lazy and avoid it and take pills or shots.
 
Last edited:
Sarge said:
Oh bullshit. They don’t make money off of curing diseases. They make money off of feeding people pills that control symptoms but do nothing to address underlying causes, prolonging death. Money is all our medical industry is interested in.

You could have stopped at “people aren’t willing.” That’s the whole problem. Don’t try to feed me “not able.” People know what it takes to avoid these conditions. Ozempic is a perfect example. “I’m 60 pounds overweight but I just can’t possibly eat right and exercise. I NEED this medicine.” It’s just easier to be lazy and avoid it and take pills or shots.
Click to expand...
So, if people aren’t willing to exercise and lose weight, we should just let them die? I’m just really confused about what your proposed solution would be? Forced diet and exercise camps? It’s not like the keys to good health are being kept a secret. It’s not like doctors don’t urge people to exercise and eat right. Are you suggesting people who don’t do these things aren’t worthy of any life prolonging treatments?

Do you know how many illnesses and diseases have been eliminated or greatly reduced by medical advancements? Smallpox, polio, diphtheria, tuberculosis, malaria…measles til the recent anti-vax caused resurgence. Cancer survival rates doubled. Flu mortality reduced by 50%. Pneumonia mortality reduced by 2/3.

They sure are doing a really bad job of keeping us sick if that’s their goal.
 
fedderone said:
And the vaccines are NOT 100% effective for COVID/Flu/Pneumonia.
And these three illnesses listed above are NOT the global wrecker you make them out to be, as shown in the statistics.
Humans on the planet have far greater things to fear than COVID/flu/pneumonia.
Click to expand...
Yep, I fear too many birthdays more than Covid etc.
 
Last edited:
Troglodyte said:
Why not make up some fake conversation to try to prove your point. “Don’t wear a seatbelt because you’re more likely to die from something other than a car accident” Just pointless and stupid.
Click to expand...
How many people have suffered adverse side effects from wearing a seatbelt?
 
oneforthebus said:
It reduced the incidence of serious illness and death. It did not prevent transmission and its immune protection waned rapidly. Not the most effective vaccine for sure, not entirely useless, but not the murderous poison some people claim. I know that’s not sexy but it’s what the data shows.

Lots of supposed benefits overstated for sure. Lots of supposed harms overstated too. Set science back a good ways.
Click to expand...
I don't know about setting science back, but the overstatement of benefits and the effective forcing of the Covid vaccine onto people (through economic and social consequences of not being vaccinated), has certainly been a major factor in questioning of long-established vaccines (polio, diptheria, measles etc) moving from the extreme fringes of society to a more mainstream position.
 
warriors42 said:
with the technology we have today we should be curing damn near everything not treating it. you have the majority of adult Americans on multiple drug pressure meds because they can't find a cure for something that affects 70% of the adult population, then every time you turn around they move the goal post on whats normal so they can put more people on ******* pills.
Click to expand...
Pretty hard for science to find a cure for something that is predominantly the result of societal, environmental, lifestyle and psychological issues. I think the cure for a lot of people's blood pressure issues would be lifestyle change (I'd suggest leaving this board would probably be a lifestyle change that would reduce the blood pressure of some participants:D), but people just aren't willing to change their lifestyle to manage their blood pressure. I'm also not sure how science can cure stress and anxiety which is also a major factor in blood pressure issues.
 
Last edited:
oneforthebus said:
Probably like .00000001 percent but because of them we’ll declare seatbelts unsafe and ignore the 45% reduction in crash deaths.
Click to expand...
That wasn't quite my point. I was questioning Trog's analogy of the Covid vaccine and seatbelts. As you point out, virtually no-one suffers adverse side effects to wearing a seatbelt, whereas the Covid vaccine has real (and in some cases serious) side effects for some people, albeit a small number of people, but still more statistically relevant than the numbers who suffer adverse side effects from wearing a seatbelt. Trog's likening of reservations and questions about the Covid vaccine to wanting abolition of mandatory seatbelt wearing is ludicrous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top