Covid Vaccine

[Tim Steelersfan]

An increase in miscarriage reports to VAERS because tens of millions of people were all vaccinated in a very short period of time! That's a massive increase in numbers of vaccinations over that time period! Obviously VAERS reports of ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING are going to massively increase too. This is how the misinformation masters twist things.

Misinformation would involve drawing a conclusion. I'm not. I'm also not encouraging pregnant women to not get the jab. Or to get the jab. Floggy is.

If you have read through the thread, it began with IC mentioning that an employee where he is got the jab and lost her baby. Probably coincidence, of course.

Confluence (not me) pointed out "I hope that she has good legal representation, and can take action against her employer, the state, etc.....because she cannot sue the Covid flu shot company. As more details come available on the Covid flu concoctions that are called vaccines, it seems like negative effects are far different than any of the unfinished clinical trials would indicate."

Floggy replied to him posting an article from NBC saying the CDC recommends that pregnant women get the jab, that 160 pregnant women had died of Covid.

That's what led to this. His draconian, everyone must get the jab fear porn approach sharing an article showing just 160 pregnant women died.

And here is my same, old stance - humans need to weigh and assess risks personally. To be given the right to do so. And this is the data I would weigh:

• Just 160 pregnant women died from Covid. 9 per month. Not even, it's rounded up. Pregnant women face an incredibly, off the charts, not even noticeable chance of death from Covid.
• Conversely, there has been an increase in reports of miscarriages after taking the vaccines. Higher than prior years. Also, just in the hundreds, and a very small number.

Point: There is infinitesimally small risk being pregnant and not getting jabbed, and there is infinitesimally small risk of being pregnant, getting the jab, and losing your baby.

Pointing out the miscarriage data is a counter argument to the fear porn being sown about pregnant women and needing to get jabbed. Either approach (jab or no jab) comes with ridiculously SMALL risk.

Show the data that miscarriage is more common in vaccinated people than in unvaccinated ones. You can't because it doesn't exist.

Correct. But we do have smoke. Is there fire? VAERS data mapped since 1990. Now a spike. Why? Coincidence, of course.

Your theory is they are just purposely keeping it from us. Yet they have informed us of other adverse events that ARE slightly more common in vaccinated people than unvaccinated ones. How do you explain this? Do they just have it in for pregnant women? Devious population control?

I swore I would not keep beating this "VAERS reports are not data" drum because it's futile. But when you attempt to convince pregnant women not to get vaccinated that is irresponsible and dangerous.

You are anti VAERS. You also think I believe, or others believe, these reports are causally linked. I do not. They are "suspicious reports" nothing more. But an increase in suspicious reports is important. Example:

In 1990, suspicious death reports were filed for the flu vaccine, for diptheria vaccines, etc.
In 1995, suspicious death reports were filed for the flu vaccine, for diptheria vaccines, etc.
In 2000, suspicious death reports were filed for the flu vaccine, for diptheria vaccines, etc.
In 2005, suspicious death reports were filed for the flu vaccine, for diptheria vaccines, etc.
In 2021, suspicious death reports were filed for all vaccines and skyrocketed.

Why have suspicious reports for vaccine related deaths spiked like this this year? Is this spike not worth investigating? All coincidence? Misinformation?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Right. Hospitalization, ICU admission, preterm birth, no biggie.

His article, the article that Floggy posted as evidence that all pregnant women should get the vax was based on 160 women dying. That was the headline.

Are there adverse reactions to having Covid? Yes.
Are there adverse reactions to having the Vax? Yes.

Do we have enough data at this point with regards to Covid adverse long term effects and Vax long term effects to do a compare?

not yet.

 

[oneforthebus]

I am not anti-VAERS, and I've gone over the flaws with using it as safety data ad nauseum, but I'll give it one more college try. No, it's not just purely coincidental.

Why are VAERS data way up over previous years? Because
A) Huge number of vaccines concentrated in a very short time frame
B) Very high profile global pandemic vs. routine vaccines for run of the mill diseases that have been around for years
C) Newness of the vaccines and their experimental nature, hence more motivation for medical professionals to seek out and report
D) The highly controversial and politically charged nature of the debate along with professional spreaders of misinformation
E) Heightened awareness that VAERS is even a thing due to social media

VAERS data should be and IS used as investigational tool, to examine patterns or things that happen outside their normal rate of occurrence. VAERS reports have not been verified to even be true reports, let alone causally linked to vaccines.

As far as you not drawing conclusions you continue to use VAERS data to claim that these vaccines are wildly more dangerous than others and that is an errant conclusion to draw. "Where there's smoke there's fire" is not data either.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Miscarriages after eating turkey are gonna be way up in late November and early December. It doesn't mean turkey causes miscarriages, it means a whole lot more people ate turkey than normally do.

I'm curious. IF there was a noticeable increase in miscarriages in November and December, would it be worthy investigating why, regardless the theory? You know, if miscarriages didn't normally occur at that level? Or just ignore it?

 

[oneforthebus]

I'm curious. IF there was a noticeable increase in miscarriages in November and December, would it be worthy investigating why, regardless the theory? You know, if miscarriages didn't normally occur at that level? Or just ignore it?

Of course it would be worthy of investigating. And if you find out that the the risk of miscarriage is higher in people who ate turkey than in people who didn't, that would be a reason to suspect turkey is the culprit. We have several studies now that show no increased risk of miscarriage from vaccines.

 

[Steeltime]

D) The highly controversial and politically charged nature of the debate along with professional spreaders of misinformation

At least Tibilo found work.

Hey, how are those Russia hoax, Trump belongs to Russian mob, Trump going to be indicted as a tax cheat, Capital police demand January 6 commission, Hunter laptop Russian disinformation issues going, Tibilo?

 

[oneforthebus]

I'm curious. IF there was a noticeable increase in miscarriages in November and December, would it be worthy investigating why, regardless the theory? You know, if miscarriages didn't normally occur at that level? Or just ignore it?

And by the way, I didn't day a noticeable increase in people who had miscarriages. I said a noticeable increase in people who had miscarriages after eating turkey. Totally different things. If 5 million pregnant women get a vaccine within a few months, the number of "miscarriages after getting a vaccine" is obviously going to go up. Mathematically it has to.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Why are VAERS data way up over previous years? Because
A) Huge number of vaccines concentrated in a very short time frame
B) Very high profile global pandemic vs. routine vaccines for run of the mill diseases that have been around for years
C) Newness of the vaccines and their experimental nature, hence more motivation for medical professionals to seek out and report
D) The highly controversial and politically charged nature of the debate along with professional spreaders of misinformation
E) Heightened awareness that VAERS is even a thing due to social media

You do realize that each of these is your theory, guesswork, and rationalization on your part, correct? You are rationalizing why we see these increases and attempting to normalize them as no big deal. Not one thing you listed is data or substantiated.

No different than someone skeptical of these vaccines concocting theories and rationalizing the adverse events data they see.

VAERS data should be and IS used as investigational tool, to examine patterns or things that happen outside their normal rate of occurrence. VAERS reports have not been verified to even be true reports, let alone causally linked to vaccines.

Yes we know. Let me try this again, because you're not hearing or understanding me. No one here, at least certainly not me, believes each report is causally linked. The reports in 1990 weren't causally linked either to adverse events at the time.

It is a reporting system for "suspicious" events. Nothing more.

We have more...far more...suspicious events reported this year, than in the history of VAERS, by thousands of percents.

As far as you not drawing conclusions you continue to use VAERS data to claim that these vaccines are wildly more dangerous than others and that is an errant conclusion to draw. "Where there's smoke there's fire" is not data either.

To suggest. To suggest they are. On the face of it, to me...they appear to be more dangerous. Where there is smoke there is fire is indeed not data. But I wouldn't run into a house where smoke was pouring out of the windows either. I'd be cautious. As all of us should be with this smoke.

 

[oneforthebus]

You do realize that each of these is your theory, guesswork, and rationalization on your part, correct? You are rationalizing why we see these increases and attempting to normalize them as no big deal. Not one thing you listed is data or substantiated.

I'm not going to keep going down any farther down this road. It's not data, no. It's logic. Lots more vaccines, lots more publicity, lots more controversy, lots more motivation for reporting, is going to equal lots more VAERS reports. VAERS reports are not ignored as irrelevant as you seem to think they are, Neither should they be treated as safety data, because they aren't.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

And by the way, I didn't day a noticeable increase in people who had miscarriages. I said a noticeable increase in people who had miscarriages after eating turkey. Totally different things.

I know what you said. Specifically "Miscarriages after eating turkey are gonna be way up in late November and early December"

If miscarriages are "up" (your word), you're hinting at a rise in miscarriages overall, no? Or did you intend some other meaning?

If there is no rise in overall miscarriages, carry on. If there is a rise in overall miscarriages, look into it.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I'm not going to keep going down any farther down this road. It's not data, no. It's logic. Lots more vaccines, lots more publicity, lots more controversy, lots more motivation for reporting, is going to equal lots more VAERS reports. VAERS reports are not ignored as irrelevant as you seem to think they are, Neither should they be treated as safety data, because they aren't.

Correct. Likewise, I'm trying, as is everyone, to put logic around things that appear abnormal.

I don't think VAERS data is ignored. It is investigated. However, I do believe they aren't fully "reported" and shared with the public as they should be. Two wholly different things.

 

[oneforthebus]

I know what you said. Specifically "Miscarriages after eating turkey are gonna be way up in late November and early December"

If miscarriages are "up" (your word), you're hinting at a rise in miscarriages overall, no? Or did you intend some other meaning?

If there is no rise in overall miscarriages, carry on. If there is a rise in overall miscarriages, look into it.

"Miscarriages after eating turkey" will be more frequent in late November early December than "miscarriages after eating turkey" in other months because so many more people eat turkey. Your chart doesn't show that miscarriages were up in general. It just shows that as numbers of vaccines increased, numbers of "miscarriages after getting a vaccine" increased. Which makes perfect sense because miscarriages are common. The more pregnant women who get vaccines, the more "miscarriages after getting a vaccine" there will be. If all pregnant women were vaccinated, every single miscarriage would be a "miscarriage after a vaccine". Which again wouldn't mean the vaccines caused them. The important number is whether miscarriage is more likely in vaccinated women than unvaccinated women. Several studies show that not to be the case.

 

[Tibs]

Tim, for your reading pleasure. Stay safe, man!

Those who've had COVID but didn't get vaccinated afterwards may not be as immune as earlier thought.

Your *bulletproof* opinion of natural immunity seems to be on thin ice.

The durability of immunity against reinfection by SARS-CoV-2: a comparative evolutionary study
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/...5247(21)00219-6/fulltext#.YVyd2UbFgYI.twitter

Reports of eventual reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 are mounting, but they have not reached proportions within well surveilled cohorts that would enable a quantitative epidemiological study. As a pioneering estimate, our findings are consistent with the mounting reports of eventual reinfection by SARS-CoV-2, and indicate that reinfection after natural recovery from COVID-19 will become increasingly common as the pandemic progresses.

 

[Badcat]

Miscarriages after eating turkey are gonna be way up in late November and early December. It doesn't mean turkey causes miscarriages, it means a whole lot more people ate turkey than normally do.

...your point is only valid if pregnant women continue to die from eating Turkey in Jan, Feb, March, etc. Of course the numbers would be lower based on the decreased volume consumed in those months, but the conclusion can still be drawn.

 

[Superman]

Uh, that’s not my job, why do you think it is? If someone doesn’t get the vaccine, for whatever reason, that’s a shame.

FlipFlog, that is your opinion. Argue for people getting the vaccine all you want to. Don't make it political, which is your modus operandi.

The fact that you have to have facts shoved into your corneas for you to acknowledge them shows your lack of critical thinking ability. Which is why you get so much **** here. That, and your ability to flip on every fact presented.

 

[Troglodyte]

Yet he will ignore dozens of studies on natural immunity.

Much like you ignore the fact that your own son’s natural immunity failed him.

 

[Superman]

Tim, for your reading pleasure. Stay safe, man!

Those who've had COVID but didn't get vaccinated afterwards may not be as immune as earlier thought.

Your *bulletproof* opinion of natural immunity seems to be on thin ice.

The durability of immunity against reinfection by SARS-CoV-2: a comparative evolutionary study
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/...5247(21)00219-6/fulltext#.YVyd2UbFgYI.twitter

there's simply no way you read that.

 

[Superman]

Much like you ignore the fact that your own son’s natural immunity failed him.

YeT pEpUz WhOo GeTs ThA sHoT cAnT gEt ThE WoOfLoO

oh about that

 

[Tibs]

there's simply no way you read that.

Don't project your own illiteracy onto others. It's not nice.

 

[Superman]

Don't project your own illiteracy onto others. It's not nice.

if you read that, you wouldnt have shared it.

 

[oneforthebus]

Tim, for your reading pleasure. Stay safe, man!

Those who've had COVID but didn't get vaccinated afterwards may not be as immune as earlier thought.

Your *bulletproof* opinion of natural immunity seems to be on thin ice.

The durability of immunity against reinfection by SARS-CoV-2: a comparative evolutionary study
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/...5247(21)00219-6/fulltext#.YVyd2UbFgYI.twitter

On my skimming of it it appears that's a complex study using other related coronaviruses to try and estimate the longevity of natural immunity to this one. it shows immunity from reinfection could last anywhere from 3 to 63 months, with a median of 16 months.

What it doesn't do is compare the longevity of immunity from infection to the longevity of immunity from vaccination (which we now know seems to wane fairly quickly). It also doesn't tell us whether or for how long natural immunity protects us from severe illness or death if we do get reinfected, like the vaccines appear to do.

 

[Tibs]

if you read that, you wouldnt have shared it.

Here, try this on for size. Don't want you to cramp your brain trying to figure it out.

Unvaccinated people at higher COVID-19 reinfection: Study

A recent story published in in the journal The Lancet Microbe sheds light on the uncertainty about how long immunity lasts after someone who is unvaccinated is infected with SARS-CoV-2.

www.timesnownews.com

New York: Immunity gained after natural infection is short-lived and remaining unvaccinated can increase the risk of getting re-infected with Covid-19, suggests a study published in the journal The Lancet Microbe. Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been much uncertainty about how long immunity lasts after someone who is unvaccinated is infected with SARS-CoV-2.

"Re-infection can reasonably happen in three months or less," said lead author Jeffrey Townsend, Professor of Biostatistics at the Yale School of Public Health.

"Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated. Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections," Townsend added.

The team analysed known re-infection and immunological data from the close viral relatives of SARS-CoV-2 that cause "common colds" -- along with immunological data from SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. Leveraging evolutionary principles, the team was able to model the risk of Covid-19 re-infection over time. Re-infections can and have happened, even shortly after recovery. And they will become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new SARS-CoV-2 variants arise.

"We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of re-infection through time," said Alex Dornburg, Assistant Professor of bioinformatics and genomics at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

"As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus. Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become re-infected in the near future," he added.

The team's data-driven model reveals striking similarities to the re-infection risks over time between SARS-CoV-2 and endemic coronaviruses.

"Just like common colds, from one year to the next you may get re-infected with the same virus. The difference is that, during its emergence in this pandemic, Covid-19 has proven to be much more deadly," Townsend said.

"Due to the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to evolve and re-infect, it, too, is likely to transition from pandemic to an endemic disease," added Dornburg.

 

[Superman]

@Troglodyte

another example of someone from the black community resisting the mandated shot you so openly pine for...

Sage Steele Apologizes For What She Said On Jay Cutler's Podcast, ESPN Disciplines Her

Read “Sage Steele Apologizes For What She Said On Jay Cutler's Podcast, ESPN Disciplines Her ” and other NFL articles from Total Pro Sports.

www.totalprosports.com

 

[Superman]

Here, try this on for size. Don't want you to cramp your brain trying to figure it out.

Unvaccinated people at higher COVID-19 reinfection: Study

A recent story published in in the journal The Lancet Microbe sheds light on the uncertainty about how long immunity lasts after someone who is unvaccinated is infected with SARS-CoV-2.

www.timesnownews.com

New York: Immunity gained after natural infection is short-lived and remaining unvaccinated can increase the risk of getting re-infected with Covid-19, suggests a study published in the journal The Lancet Microbe. Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been much uncertainty about how long immunity lasts after someone who is unvaccinated is infected with SARS-CoV-2.

"Re-infection can reasonably happen in three months or less," said lead author Jeffrey Townsend, Professor of Biostatistics at the Yale School of Public Health.

"Therefore, those who have been naturally infected should get vaccinated. Previous infection alone can offer very little long-term protection against subsequent infections," Townsend added.

The team analysed known re-infection and immunological data from the close viral relatives of SARS-CoV-2 that cause "common colds" -- along with immunological data from SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. Leveraging evolutionary principles, the team was able to model the risk of Covid-19 re-infection over time. Re-infections can and have happened, even shortly after recovery. And they will become increasingly common as immunity wanes and new SARS-CoV-2 variants arise.

"We tend to think about immunity as being immune or not immune. Our study cautions that we instead should be more focused on the risk of re-infection through time," said Alex Dornburg, Assistant Professor of bioinformatics and genomics at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

"As new variants arise, previous immune responses become less effective at combating the virus. Those who were naturally infected early in the pandemic are increasingly likely to become re-infected in the near future," he added.

The team's data-driven model reveals striking similarities to the re-infection risks over time between SARS-CoV-2 and endemic coronaviruses.

"Just like common colds, from one year to the next you may get re-infected with the same virus. The difference is that, during its emergence in this pandemic, Covid-19 has proven to be much more deadly," Townsend said.

"Due to the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to evolve and re-infect, it, too, is likely to transition from pandemic to an endemic disease," added Dornburg.

i've never said that wouldnt happen.

YOUR SIDE is saying that with the shot that you cannot get the WooFloo.
Yet "breakthrough cases" are happening
so y'all then attack those with natural immunity saying "y'all be gets it two"
when no one has said that it can't happen

though if i am going to be getting the WooFloo over and over, please tell me why i should get a shot, which you've shown really doesnt do much good depending on your age and medical history.

Sure, if I was 300+ pounds and had gut hanging over my belt i'd opt to get the jabby jab, but it should also be pointed out that someone in that condition is likely not exactly health conscious.

 

[Confluence]

An increase in miscarriage reports to VAERS because tens of millions of people were all vaccinated in a very short period of time! That's a massive increase in numbers of vaccinations over that time period! Obviously VAERS reports of ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING are going to massively increase too. This is how the misinformation masters twist things. Show the data that miscarriage is more common in vaccinated people than in unvaccinated ones. You can't because it doesn't exist. Your theory is they are just purposely keeping it from us. Yet they have informed us of other adverse events that ARE slightly more common in vaccinated people than unvaccinated ones. How do you explain this? Do they just have it in for pregnant women? Devious population control?

I swore I would not keep beating this "VAERS reports are not data" drum because it's futile. But when you attempt to convince pregnant women not to get vaccinated that is irresponsible and dangerous.

OFTB, Are you suggesting that the large spike in VAERS reporting recently is somehow different than the VAERS reporting in the past, or just that so many people have recently been vaccinated compared to a couple years ago that actual percentage of miscarriages is about the same?
If the latter, then what of the flu shots plus other vaccines that folks have taken over the recent years.....is the number that small to render the new VAERS peak uninteresting?

In the most recent Flu season, almost 170M flu shots were given:
Flu vaccine is produced by private manufacturers, so supply depends on manufacturers. For the 2018-2019 season, manufacturers have projected they will provide as many as 163 to 168 million doses of injectable influenza vaccine for the U.S. market. (Projections may change as the season progresses.)

2018-19 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Total Doses Distributed | CDC

Influenza vaccine distribution information for the 2018-2019 season is posted here

www.cdc.gov

That is about half the US population.

If the new vaccines had no effect on miscarriages, would we not expect the VAERS data to reflect only difference between usually flu vaccinated and Covid flu vaccinated.....or about 25% above the half that are usually vaccinated for flu? From my POV, that would indicate, all other things being equal, that the miscarriage rate should be about 50% higher now, reflecting a 50%(ish) increase in the number of people vaccinated, and assuming that pregnant women are equal parts of both groups.

While VAERS does not show causation, the data clearly shows that miscarriages are far above expected values in this time of Covid flu vaccinations.

Do we know if any of the vaccination safety studies, still incomplete, included pregnant women?