- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,407
- Reaction score
- 5,482
- Points
- 113
It’s nothing like long Covid. Long Covid is Covid that never went away, it’s not delayed Covid.
Covid Vaccine
- Thread starter jitter77
- Start date
What a careless fool.
www.independent.co.uk
Engineer, 27, died from blood clot on brain days after first Covid jab, inquest told
Jack Last began suffering headaches and vomiting a week after vaccine and died two weeks later
www.independent.co.uk
Novavax is approved I see. Just in time for the Nina wave. Hayeah
Reading and listening comprehension are not strong points.
And the doctor drops knowledge we all knew. Thank you Dr. Dipshit. You get the Captain Obvious of the Day award.
"Long Covid is Covid that never went away." /Floggy
. And water is wet.The effects of these vaccines last as well. For how long? Just wait. Just wait.
You seem a lot smarter when you dont speak.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 3,702
- Reaction score
- 6,959
- Points
- 113
Talk about handing someone their own ***...well done
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,407
- Reaction score
- 5,482
- Points
- 113
You literally stated that effects of the vaccine were “just (exactly) like long haul Covid”. No doctor is making that comparison. What effects that never went away? Your latest in a long line of baseless claims.And the doctor drops knowledge we all knew. Thank you Dr. Dipshit. You get the Captain Obvious of the Day award.
"Long Covid is Covid that never went away." /Floggy
The effects of these vaccines last as well. For how long? Just wait. Just wait.
“Just wait, just wait” Sure, Tim, sure.
CITIZEN FREE PRESS
NEWS JUNKIES -- CHECK OUT OUR HOMEPAGE
Argentina- Mother of a 3 yr old that died after the cIot shot says the government constantly pressuring has made her vax her child. She says she is twice jabbed. Her child only had one. Bringing to light the hidden realities, waking up the sleepers.
Sad details from Argentina.
3 year-old girl dies from Vaccine…
Posted by Kane on July 15, 2022 1:56 amNEWS JUNKIES -- CHECK OUT OUR HOMEPAGE
Argentina- Mother of a 3 yr old that died after the cIot shot says the government constantly pressuring has made her vax her child. She says she is twice jabbed. Her child only had one. Bringing to light the hidden realities, waking up the sleepers.
Sad details from Argentina.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 3,702
- Reaction score
- 6,959
- Points
- 113
The Novavax vaccine also appears to carry a risk of heart inflammation for younger men, known as myocarditis and pericarditis, similar to Pfizer and Moderna’s shots. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle and pericarditis is inflammation of the outer lining of the heart.
FDA officials flagged four cases of myocarditis and pericarditis from Novavax’s clinical trial in young men ages 16 to 28. People who develop heart inflammation as a side effect of Covid vaccines are usually hospitalized for several days as a precaution but then recover.
FDA authorizes Novavax Covid vaccine for adults as the first new shots in U.S. in more than a year
FDA authorization of Novavax's vaccine was delayed for weeks as the agency reviewed changes to the company's manufacturing process.
I was really hoping this one would be a better option. Perhaps it is....still looking into it.
ah, but did the FDA flag the superduperneverwrong Holy Vaccines? If so, when?The Novavax vaccine also appears to carry a risk of heart inflammation for younger men, known as myocarditis and pericarditis, similar to Pfizer and Moderna’s shots. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle and pericarditis is inflammation of the outer lining of the heart.
FDA officials flagged four cases of myocarditis and pericarditis from Novavax’s clinical trial in young men ages 16 to 28. People who develop heart inflammation as a side effect of Covid vaccines are usually hospitalized for several days as a precaution but then recover.
FDA authorizes Novavax Covid vaccine for adults as the first new shots in U.S. in more than a year
FDA authorization of Novavax's vaccine was delayed for weeks as the agency reviewed changes to the company's manufacturing process.www.cnbc.com
I was really hoping this one would be a better option. Perhaps it is....still looking into it.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 3,702
- Reaction score
- 6,959
- Points
- 113
Same article
In the case of the mRNA shots, the CDC has found that the risk of myocarditis is higher from Covid infection than vaccination. Myocarditis is usually caused by viral infections.
Sooo...no
No you ******* dipshit, I didn't. Your misinterpretation doesn't change the writer's intent. Let me break it down for you Captain Obvious:
"100%. Vaccine injuries happen any number of months after the jabs. Just like long covid, there are also lasting repercussions to the shots, which we don't still fully understand. We will be a decade before we understand the repercussions."
Translation: Vaccine injuries happen any number of months after the jabs or for months or LIFE after the jab. JUST LIKE long covid affects sufferers over the long haul. I.e., vaccine injuries and long covid occur can both over a long spanse of time.
I know personally what long Covid is, I have one lingering symptom a year later (messed up smell).
The statement was a comparison between vaccine injuries and long covid...both of which can affect the afflicted/infected long after the initial infection/injection.
Dumbass. You literally 100% misinterpreted the entire message and are now down one of your ignorant rabbit holes arguing about something you made up...yet...again.
Last edited:
Welp, there you have it. I'm O+. O-blood type people are better protected from infection.
www.mirror.co.uk
A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirmed the idea and found those with blood type A had a 45% increased risk of being infected with Covid than those with other blood types.
Again, the findings concluded that blood type O was 35% less likely to be infected.
Researchers and scientists are now confirming that your blood type can have a significant impact on the likelihood of catching Covid, with type A being more susceptible and type O having a lesser risk.
Dr Xand van Tullekan from Healthcheck UK Live said: "There is some truth in it, or at least there is some data to support it.
"There was a study in Wuhan that said that blood type A was more susceptible, and that's our most common blood type in the UK.
Covid infection more likely depending on your blood type, experts warn
Despite rapidly rising Covid cases, some people have still managed to avoid a coronavirus infection. Your blood type could be one such reason, say studies
www.mirror.co.uk
A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirmed the idea and found those with blood type A had a 45% increased risk of being infected with Covid than those with other blood types.
Again, the findings concluded that blood type O was 35% less likely to be infected.
Researchers and scientists are now confirming that your blood type can have a significant impact on the likelihood of catching Covid, with type A being more susceptible and type O having a lesser risk.
Dr Xand van Tullekan from Healthcheck UK Live said: "There is some truth in it, or at least there is some data to support it.
"There was a study in Wuhan that said that blood type A was more susceptible, and that's our most common blood type in the UK.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,407
- Reaction score
- 5,482
- Points
- 113
No, Who is complaining about lingering effects from the vaccine? You made an idiotic comparison and now you’re flailing away trying to redefine what you wrote.No you ******* dipshit, I didn't. Your misinterpretation doesn't change the writer's intent. Let me break it down for you Captain Obvious:
"100%. Vaccine injuries happen any number of months after the jabs. Just like long covid, there are also lasting repercussions to the shots, which we don't still fully understand. We will be a decade before we understand the repercussions."
Translation: Vaccine injuries happen any number of months after the jabs or for months or LIFE after the jab. JUST LIKE long covid affects sufferers over the long haul. I.e., vaccine injuries and long covid occur can both over a long spanse of time.
I know personally what long Covid is, I have one lingering symptom a year later (messed up smell).
The statement was a comparison between vaccine injuries and long covid...both of which can affect the afflicted/infected long after the initial infection/injection.
Dumbass. You literally 100% misinterpreted the entire message and are now down one of your ignorant rabbit holes arguing about something you made up...yet...again.
Something to consider:
Why Vaccines May Be Helping Some With Long COVID
As more people get vaccinated against COVID-19, a surprise discovery has been that vaccines seem to provide some relief for some patients with what’s being called “long COVID.” A prominent Yale researcher is working with colleagues to launch what she predicts will be a large collaborative study...
www.yalemedicine.org
No, Who is complaining about lingering effects from the vaccine? You made an idiotic comparison and now you’re flailing away trying to redefine what you wrote.
Something to consider:
Why Vaccines May Be Helping Some With Long COVID
As more people get vaccinated against COVID-19, a surprise discovery has been that vaccines seem to provide some relief for some patients with what’s being called “long COVID.” A prominent Yale researcher is working with colleagues to launch what she predicts will be a large collaborative study...
Jesus you're a ********. I know what I wrote. And thanks for re-confirming you simply have comprehension issues.
Now that you see the comparison I made that you clearly misinterpreted, you shift to attacking it. Spin, backpedal, and dance floggy. Fact - some people do suffer long term from Covid, and some people do suffer long term from the vaccines. Prove me wrong.
Last edited:
You know how we keep hearing follow "the science? Here is an overview of "the science" - the organizations, the machinations - that make up the BS science we've been fed.
www.commonsense.news
The calls and text messages are relentless. On the other end are doctors and scientists at the top levels of the NIH, FDA and CDC. They are variously frustrated, exasperated and alarmed about the direction of the agencies to which they have devoted their careers.
“It's like a horror movie I'm being forced to watch and I can't close my eyes,” one senior FDA official lamented. “People are getting bad advice and we can’t say anything.”
That particular FDA doctor was referring to two recent developments inside the agency. First, how, with no solid clinical data, the agency authorized Covid vaccines for infants and toddlers, including those who already had Covid. And second, the fact that just months before, the FDA bypassed their external experts to authorize booster shots for young children.
That doctor is hardly alone.
At the NIH, doctors and scientists complain to us about low morale and lower staffing: The NIH’s Vaccine Research Center has had many of its senior scientists leave over the last year, including the director, deputy director and chief medical officer. “They have no leadership right now. Suddenly there’s an enormous number of jobs opening up at the highest level positions,” one NIH scientist told us. (The people who spoke to us would only agree to be quoted anonymously, citing fear of professional repercussions.)
The CDC has experienced a similar exodus. “There’s been a large amount of turnover. Morale is low,” one high level official at the CDC told us. “Things have become so political, so what are we there for?” Another CDC scientist told us: “I used to be proud to tell people I work at the CDC. Now I’m embarrassed.”
Why are they embarrassed? In short, bad science.
The longer answer: that the heads of their agencies are using weak or flawed data to make critically important public health decisions. That such decisions are being driven by what’s politically palatable to people in Washington or to the Biden administration. And that they have a myopic focus on one virus instead of overall health.
Nowhere has this problem been clearer—or the stakes higher—than on official public health policy regarding children and Covid.
First, they demanded that young children be masked in schools. On this score, the agencies were wrong. Compelling studies later found schools that masked children had no different rates of transmission. And for social and linguistic development, children need to see the faces of others.
Next came school closures. The agencies were wrong—and catastrophically so. Poor and minority children suffered learning loss with an 11-point drop in math scores alone and a 20% drop in math pass rates. There are dozens of statistics of this kind.
Then they ignored natural immunity. Wrong again. The vast majority of children have already had Covid, but this has made no difference in the blanket mandates for childhood vaccines. And now, by mandating vaccines and boosters for young healthy people, with no strong supporting data, these agencies are only further eroding public trust.
One CDC scientist told us about her shame and frustration about what happened to American children during the pandemic: “CDC failed to balance the risks of Covid with other risks that come from closing schools,” she said. “Learning loss, mental health exacerbations were obvious early on and those worsened as the guidance insisted on keeping schools virtual. CDC guidance worsened racial equity for generations to come. It failed this generation of children.”
An official at the FDA put it this way: “I can’t tell you how many people at the FDA have told me, ‘I don't like any of this, but I just need to make it to my retirement.’”
Right now, internal critics of these agencies are focused on one issue above all: Why did the FDA and the CDC issue strong blanket recommendations for Covid vaccines in children?
Three weeks ago, the CDC vigorously recommended mRNA Covid vaccines for 20 million children under five years of age. Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, declared that the mRNA Covid vaccines should be given to everyone six months or older because they are safe and effective.
The trouble is that this sweeping recommendation was based on extremely weak, inconclusive data provided by Pfizer and Moderna.
Start with Pfizer. Using a three-dose vaccine in 992 children between the ages of six months and five years, Pfizer found no statistically significant evidence of vaccine efficacy. In the subgroup of children aged six months to two years, the trial found that the vaccine could result in a 99% lower chance of infection—but that they also could have a 370% increased chance of being infected. In other words, Pfizer reported a range of vaccine efficacy so wide that no conclusion could be inferred. No reputable medical journal would accept such sloppy and incomplete results with such a small sample size. More to the point, these results should have given pause to those who are in charge of public health.
Referring to Pfizer’s vaccine efficacy in healthy young children, one high-level CDC official—whose expertise is in the evaluation of clinical data—joked: “You can inject them with it or squirt it in their face, and you’ll get the same benefit.”
Moderna’s results—they conducted a study on 6,388 children with two doses—were not much better. Against asymptomatic infections, they claimed a very weak vaccine efficacy of just 4% in children aged six months to two years. They also claimed an efficacy of 23% in children between two and six years old—but neither result was statistically significant. Against symptomatic infections, Moderna’s vaccine did show efficacy that was statistically significant, but the efficacy was low: 50% in children aged six months to two years, and 42% in children between two and six years old.
Then there’s the matter of how long a vaccine gives protection. We know from data in adults that it’s generally a matter of months. But we have no such data for young children.
“It seems criminal that we put out the recommendation to give mRNA Covid vaccines to babies without good data. We really don’t know what the risks are yet. So why push it so hard?” a CDC physician added. A high-level FDA official felt the same way: “The public has no idea how bad this data really is. It would not pass muster for any other authorization.”
And yet, the FDA and the CDC pushed it through. That slap in the face of science may explain why only 2% of parents of children under age five have chosen to get the Covid vaccine, and 40% of parents in rural areas say their pediatricians did not recommend the Covid vaccine for their child.
This isn’t the first time that Covid vaccines recommendations based on scant evidence have been pushed through these agencies.
Most recently, back in May, the lack of clinical evidence for booster shots in young people created a stir at the FDA. The White House promoted it hard even before FDA regulators had seen any data. Once they saw the data, they weren’t impressed. It showed no clear benefit against severe disease for people under 40.
[to be continued...]
U.S. Public Health Agencies Aren't ‘Following the Science,’ Officials Say
‘People are getting bad advice and we can’t say anything.’
U.S. Public Health Agencies Aren't ‘Following the Science,’ Officials Say
‘People are getting bad advice and we can’t say anything.’
www.commonsense.news
The calls and text messages are relentless. On the other end are doctors and scientists at the top levels of the NIH, FDA and CDC. They are variously frustrated, exasperated and alarmed about the direction of the agencies to which they have devoted their careers.
“It's like a horror movie I'm being forced to watch and I can't close my eyes,” one senior FDA official lamented. “People are getting bad advice and we can’t say anything.”
That particular FDA doctor was referring to two recent developments inside the agency. First, how, with no solid clinical data, the agency authorized Covid vaccines for infants and toddlers, including those who already had Covid. And second, the fact that just months before, the FDA bypassed their external experts to authorize booster shots for young children.
That doctor is hardly alone.
At the NIH, doctors and scientists complain to us about low morale and lower staffing: The NIH’s Vaccine Research Center has had many of its senior scientists leave over the last year, including the director, deputy director and chief medical officer. “They have no leadership right now. Suddenly there’s an enormous number of jobs opening up at the highest level positions,” one NIH scientist told us. (The people who spoke to us would only agree to be quoted anonymously, citing fear of professional repercussions.)
The CDC has experienced a similar exodus. “There’s been a large amount of turnover. Morale is low,” one high level official at the CDC told us. “Things have become so political, so what are we there for?” Another CDC scientist told us: “I used to be proud to tell people I work at the CDC. Now I’m embarrassed.”
Why are they embarrassed? In short, bad science.
The longer answer: that the heads of their agencies are using weak or flawed data to make critically important public health decisions. That such decisions are being driven by what’s politically palatable to people in Washington or to the Biden administration. And that they have a myopic focus on one virus instead of overall health.
Nowhere has this problem been clearer—or the stakes higher—than on official public health policy regarding children and Covid.
First, they demanded that young children be masked in schools. On this score, the agencies were wrong. Compelling studies later found schools that masked children had no different rates of transmission. And for social and linguistic development, children need to see the faces of others.
Next came school closures. The agencies were wrong—and catastrophically so. Poor and minority children suffered learning loss with an 11-point drop in math scores alone and a 20% drop in math pass rates. There are dozens of statistics of this kind.
Then they ignored natural immunity. Wrong again. The vast majority of children have already had Covid, but this has made no difference in the blanket mandates for childhood vaccines. And now, by mandating vaccines and boosters for young healthy people, with no strong supporting data, these agencies are only further eroding public trust.
One CDC scientist told us about her shame and frustration about what happened to American children during the pandemic: “CDC failed to balance the risks of Covid with other risks that come from closing schools,” she said. “Learning loss, mental health exacerbations were obvious early on and those worsened as the guidance insisted on keeping schools virtual. CDC guidance worsened racial equity for generations to come. It failed this generation of children.”
An official at the FDA put it this way: “I can’t tell you how many people at the FDA have told me, ‘I don't like any of this, but I just need to make it to my retirement.’”
Right now, internal critics of these agencies are focused on one issue above all: Why did the FDA and the CDC issue strong blanket recommendations for Covid vaccines in children?
Three weeks ago, the CDC vigorously recommended mRNA Covid vaccines for 20 million children under five years of age. Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, declared that the mRNA Covid vaccines should be given to everyone six months or older because they are safe and effective.
The trouble is that this sweeping recommendation was based on extremely weak, inconclusive data provided by Pfizer and Moderna.
Start with Pfizer. Using a three-dose vaccine in 992 children between the ages of six months and five years, Pfizer found no statistically significant evidence of vaccine efficacy. In the subgroup of children aged six months to two years, the trial found that the vaccine could result in a 99% lower chance of infection—but that they also could have a 370% increased chance of being infected. In other words, Pfizer reported a range of vaccine efficacy so wide that no conclusion could be inferred. No reputable medical journal would accept such sloppy and incomplete results with such a small sample size. More to the point, these results should have given pause to those who are in charge of public health.
Referring to Pfizer’s vaccine efficacy in healthy young children, one high-level CDC official—whose expertise is in the evaluation of clinical data—joked: “You can inject them with it or squirt it in their face, and you’ll get the same benefit.”
Moderna’s results—they conducted a study on 6,388 children with two doses—were not much better. Against asymptomatic infections, they claimed a very weak vaccine efficacy of just 4% in children aged six months to two years. They also claimed an efficacy of 23% in children between two and six years old—but neither result was statistically significant. Against symptomatic infections, Moderna’s vaccine did show efficacy that was statistically significant, but the efficacy was low: 50% in children aged six months to two years, and 42% in children between two and six years old.
Then there’s the matter of how long a vaccine gives protection. We know from data in adults that it’s generally a matter of months. But we have no such data for young children.
“It seems criminal that we put out the recommendation to give mRNA Covid vaccines to babies without good data. We really don’t know what the risks are yet. So why push it so hard?” a CDC physician added. A high-level FDA official felt the same way: “The public has no idea how bad this data really is. It would not pass muster for any other authorization.”
And yet, the FDA and the CDC pushed it through. That slap in the face of science may explain why only 2% of parents of children under age five have chosen to get the Covid vaccine, and 40% of parents in rural areas say their pediatricians did not recommend the Covid vaccine for their child.
This isn’t the first time that Covid vaccines recommendations based on scant evidence have been pushed through these agencies.
Most recently, back in May, the lack of clinical evidence for booster shots in young people created a stir at the FDA. The White House promoted it hard even before FDA regulators had seen any data. Once they saw the data, they weren’t impressed. It showed no clear benefit against severe disease for people under 40.
[to be continued...]
Last edited:
[continued...]
The FDA’s two top vaccine regulators—Dr. Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s vaccine office, and her deputy director, Dr. Philip Krause—quit the agency last year over political pressure to authorize vaccine boosters in young people. After their departure they wrote scathing commentaries explaining why the data did not support a broad booster authorization, arguing in the Washington Post that “the push for boosters for everyone could actually prolong the pandemic,” citing concerns that boosting based on an outdated variant could be counterproductive.
“It felt like we were a political tool” a CDC scientist told us about the issue. That insider went on to explain that he got vaccinated early but chose not to get boosted based on the data. Ironically, that person was unable to go on a trip with a group of parents because proof of being boosted was required. “I asked for someone to show me the data. They said the policy was based on the CDC recommendation.”
As one NIH scientist told us: “There’s a silence, an unwillingness for agency scientists to say anything. Even though they know that some of what’s being said out of the agency is absurd.”
That was a theme we heard over and over again—people felt like they couldn’t speak freely, even internally within their agencies. “You get labeled based on what you say. If you talk about it you will suffer, I’m convinced,” an FDA staffer told us. Another person at that agency added: “If you speak honestly, you get treated differently.”
And so they remain quiet, speaking to each other in private or in text groups on Signal.
One subject these doctors and scientists feel passionately about but feel they cannot bring up is natural immunity. Why, they wonder, are we insisting on immunizing children who already have some immunity to the disease due to having contracted Covid?
As of February, 75% of children in the U.S. already had natural immunity from prior infection. It could easily be over 90% of children today given how ubiquitous Omicron has been since then. The CDC’s own research shows that natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity and a recent New England Journal of Medicine study from Israel has questioned the benefits of vaccinating previously infected persons. Many countries have long credited natural immunity towards vaccine mandates. But not the U.S.
In this, the leaders of these American health agencies made the U.S. an international outlier in how it treats children. Sweden never offered vaccination to children under 12. Finland limits Covid vaccines to children under 12 who are at high risk. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health has appropriately stated that “some children may benefit” but “previous infection offers as good of protection as the vaccine against reinfection.” Denmark announced on June 22 that its recommendation to vaccinate any children under age 16 was a mistake. “The vaccinations were not predominantly recommended for the child’s sake but to ensure pandemic control,” said Søren Brostrøm, head of the Danish Ministry of Health.
It is statistically impossible for everyone who works inside of our health agencies to have 100% agreement about such a new and knotty subject. The fact that there is no public dissent or debate can only be explained by the fact that they are—or at least feel that they are—being muzzled.
It is an ancient, moral requirement of our profession to speak up when we believe questionable treatments are being proposed. It is also good for the public. Imagine, for example, a world in which those scientists who suggested that masking for children and school lockdowns were worse for public health were not smeared but instead debated?
The official public health response to Covid has undermined the public's belief in public health itself. This is a terrible outcome with potentially disastrous consequences. For one thing, because of these sloppy and politicized policies, we run the risk of parents rejecting routine vaccines for their children—ones we know are safe, effective and life-saving.
The leaders of the CDC, the FDA and the NIH should welcome internal discussion—even dissension—based on the evidence. Silencing physicians is not "following the science." Less absolutism and more humility by the men and women running our public health agencies would go a long way in rebuilding public trust.
The FDA’s two top vaccine regulators—Dr. Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s vaccine office, and her deputy director, Dr. Philip Krause—quit the agency last year over political pressure to authorize vaccine boosters in young people. After their departure they wrote scathing commentaries explaining why the data did not support a broad booster authorization, arguing in the Washington Post that “the push for boosters for everyone could actually prolong the pandemic,” citing concerns that boosting based on an outdated variant could be counterproductive.
“It felt like we were a political tool” a CDC scientist told us about the issue. That insider went on to explain that he got vaccinated early but chose not to get boosted based on the data. Ironically, that person was unable to go on a trip with a group of parents because proof of being boosted was required. “I asked for someone to show me the data. They said the policy was based on the CDC recommendation.”
As one NIH scientist told us: “There’s a silence, an unwillingness for agency scientists to say anything. Even though they know that some of what’s being said out of the agency is absurd.”
That was a theme we heard over and over again—people felt like they couldn’t speak freely, even internally within their agencies. “You get labeled based on what you say. If you talk about it you will suffer, I’m convinced,” an FDA staffer told us. Another person at that agency added: “If you speak honestly, you get treated differently.”
And so they remain quiet, speaking to each other in private or in text groups on Signal.
One subject these doctors and scientists feel passionately about but feel they cannot bring up is natural immunity. Why, they wonder, are we insisting on immunizing children who already have some immunity to the disease due to having contracted Covid?
As of February, 75% of children in the U.S. already had natural immunity from prior infection. It could easily be over 90% of children today given how ubiquitous Omicron has been since then. The CDC’s own research shows that natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity and a recent New England Journal of Medicine study from Israel has questioned the benefits of vaccinating previously infected persons. Many countries have long credited natural immunity towards vaccine mandates. But not the U.S.
In this, the leaders of these American health agencies made the U.S. an international outlier in how it treats children. Sweden never offered vaccination to children under 12. Finland limits Covid vaccines to children under 12 who are at high risk. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health has appropriately stated that “some children may benefit” but “previous infection offers as good of protection as the vaccine against reinfection.” Denmark announced on June 22 that its recommendation to vaccinate any children under age 16 was a mistake. “The vaccinations were not predominantly recommended for the child’s sake but to ensure pandemic control,” said Søren Brostrøm, head of the Danish Ministry of Health.
It is statistically impossible for everyone who works inside of our health agencies to have 100% agreement about such a new and knotty subject. The fact that there is no public dissent or debate can only be explained by the fact that they are—or at least feel that they are—being muzzled.
It is an ancient, moral requirement of our profession to speak up when we believe questionable treatments are being proposed. It is also good for the public. Imagine, for example, a world in which those scientists who suggested that masking for children and school lockdowns were worse for public health were not smeared but instead debated?
The official public health response to Covid has undermined the public's belief in public health itself. This is a terrible outcome with potentially disastrous consequences. For one thing, because of these sloppy and politicized policies, we run the risk of parents rejecting routine vaccines for their children—ones we know are safe, effective and life-saving.
The leaders of the CDC, the FDA and the NIH should welcome internal discussion—even dissension—based on the evidence. Silencing physicians is not "following the science." Less absolutism and more humility by the men and women running our public health agencies would go a long way in rebuilding public trust.
Last edited:
see, that's the problemNo, Who is complaining about lingering effects from the vaccine? You made an idiotic comparison and now you’re flailing away trying to redefine what you wrote.
Something to consider:
Why Vaccines May Be Helping Some With Long COVID
As more people get vaccinated against COVID-19, a surprise discovery has been that vaccines seem to provide some relief for some patients with what’s being called “long COVID.” A prominent Yale researcher is working with colleagues to launch what she predicts will be a large collaborative study...
Tim's having a discussion. He's open to the facts as they're presenting themselves. And then makes his decision based on that. I believe that's called "following the science".
you see more facts being presented and determine those to be "misconceptions" and determine the "science is settled" ... and anyone who knows the most remote about science knows that science is never settled. To decide that, one is called a "denier".
you're welcome.
Good news
www.breitbart.com
Court: Air Force Can't Discharge Troops Who Filed for Religious Vaccine Exemptions
A court on Thursday prohibited the Air Force from enforcing the vaccine mandate against airmen who have filed for religious exemptions.
www.breitbart.com
Of course.
A growing body of scientific evidence suggests that mask mandates did little to nothing to curb the spread of Covid-19. The latest research further undermines the controversial policy.
A new study analyzing a pair of schools in Fargo, North Dakota—one which had a mask mandate in place in the fall of the 2021-2022 academic year and one that did not—provides more evidence that mask mandates are ineffective public policy.
“Our findings contribute to a growing body of literature which suggests school-based mask mandates have limited to no impact on the case rates of COVID-19 among K-12 students,” researchers at the University of Southern California and the University of California, Davis concluded.
The findings, which have not yet been peer-reviewed, were published on July 1 in a preprint paper on Research Square.
Supporters of mask mandates will say one preprint study is hardly conclusive proof that mask mandates have been ineffective during the pandemic, and they’d be right.
Unfortunately, the latest research represents just one spoke in the wheel (to borrow an expression from a farmer I know). An abundance of research shows mask mandates in schools have been ineffective policy, including a robust Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study from 2020 analyzing some 90,000 students in 169 Georgia elementary schools in November and December.
“The 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional,” the CDC admitted in the report.
If you hadn’t heard that the CDC’s own research showed no statistically significant difference in schools that had mask mandates in place and those that did not, you can be forgiven. The CDC buried the finding, choosing not to include it in the summary of the report, a practice scientists describe as “file drawering.”
“That a masking requirement of students failed to show independent benefit is a finding of consequence and great interest,” Vinay Prasad, an associate professor in University of California, San Francisco’s Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, told New York magazine* last year. “It should have been included in the summary.”
The CDC never explained why it opted to not include the finding in its summary, but one obvious theory is that the CDC simply didn’t wish to highlight the fact that its own scientific research found its controversial policy was ineffective.
Despite its best efforts, however, evidence continues to mount suggesting that mask mandates are not effective at reducing the spread of Covid.
Writing in The New York Times on May 31, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer David Leonhardt said that copious amounts of evidence show mask mandates appear to have little to no correlation with the spread of Covid.
“In U.S. cities where mask use has been more common, Covid has spread at a similar rate as in mask-resistant cities. Mask mandates in schools also seem to have done little to reduce the spread. Hong Kong, despite almost universal mask-wearing, recently endured one of the world’s worst Covid outbreaks.
Advocates of mandates sometimes argue that they do have a big effect even if it is not evident in populationwide data, because of how many other factors are at play. But this argument seems unpersuasive.”
There are many theories on why mask mandates appear to be so ineffective, a phenomenon Leonhardt sees as a kind of paradox because some scientific research shows masking is an effective method of preventing the spread.
Perhaps the masks people wear are of low quality. Perhaps the masks are being worn improperly. Maybe people in mandated settings remove facial coverings frequently. Perhaps the studies suggesting masks are effective at virus control are flawed or incomplete.
Whatever the reason, there’s an emerging scientific consensus that mask mandates have not been effective in curbing the spread of Covid.
Decades from now, scientists will likely still be exploring why mask mandates were so ineffective during the Great Coronavirus Pandemic. Theories we can’t even imagine today will be offered, discussed, and debated.
One thesis that will likely not be explored is the idea that the means were all wrong...
The ends planners sought—less community spread—were noble. The means they used to achieve those ends—government force—were not. (If you do not believe mask mandates constitute force, review the videos of the Alabama woman body-slammed by a police officer and the New York mother thrown to the ground by NYPD officers. Both conflicts began over violations of mask protocols.)
Whether the lackluster results of mask mandates stem from their rotten means is debatable, of course.
But one person, at least, would not have been surprised by the sterile results: Leonard Read. Read understood that means matter more than ends, “the bloom pre-exists in the seed.”
This is why Americans would do well to remember that force is a dangerous foundation for a society, even if one’s ends are pure—and that it’s not too late to reimagine a world based on voluntary action.
‘Limited to No Impact’: Study Provides More Evidence That School Mask Mandates Are Not Effective | Jon Miltimore
Researchers at the University of Southern California and the University of California, Davis: "Our findings contribute to a growing body of literature which suggests school-based mask mandates have limited to no impact on the case rates of COVID-19 among K-12 students.”
fee.org
A growing body of scientific evidence suggests that mask mandates did little to nothing to curb the spread of Covid-19. The latest research further undermines the controversial policy.
A new study analyzing a pair of schools in Fargo, North Dakota—one which had a mask mandate in place in the fall of the 2021-2022 academic year and one that did not—provides more evidence that mask mandates are ineffective public policy.
“Our findings contribute to a growing body of literature which suggests school-based mask mandates have limited to no impact on the case rates of COVID-19 among K-12 students,” researchers at the University of Southern California and the University of California, Davis concluded.
The findings, which have not yet been peer-reviewed, were published on July 1 in a preprint paper on Research Square.
Supporters of mask mandates will say one preprint study is hardly conclusive proof that mask mandates have been ineffective during the pandemic, and they’d be right.
Unfortunately, the latest research represents just one spoke in the wheel (to borrow an expression from a farmer I know). An abundance of research shows mask mandates in schools have been ineffective policy, including a robust Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study from 2020 analyzing some 90,000 students in 169 Georgia elementary schools in November and December.
“The 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask use among students was not statistically significant compared with schools where mask use was optional,” the CDC admitted in the report.
If you hadn’t heard that the CDC’s own research showed no statistically significant difference in schools that had mask mandates in place and those that did not, you can be forgiven. The CDC buried the finding, choosing not to include it in the summary of the report, a practice scientists describe as “file drawering.”
“That a masking requirement of students failed to show independent benefit is a finding of consequence and great interest,” Vinay Prasad, an associate professor in University of California, San Francisco’s Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, told New York magazine* last year. “It should have been included in the summary.”
The CDC never explained why it opted to not include the finding in its summary, but one obvious theory is that the CDC simply didn’t wish to highlight the fact that its own scientific research found its controversial policy was ineffective.
Despite its best efforts, however, evidence continues to mount suggesting that mask mandates are not effective at reducing the spread of Covid.
Writing in The New York Times on May 31, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer David Leonhardt said that copious amounts of evidence show mask mandates appear to have little to no correlation with the spread of Covid.
“In U.S. cities where mask use has been more common, Covid has spread at a similar rate as in mask-resistant cities. Mask mandates in schools also seem to have done little to reduce the spread. Hong Kong, despite almost universal mask-wearing, recently endured one of the world’s worst Covid outbreaks.
Advocates of mandates sometimes argue that they do have a big effect even if it is not evident in populationwide data, because of how many other factors are at play. But this argument seems unpersuasive.”
There are many theories on why mask mandates appear to be so ineffective, a phenomenon Leonhardt sees as a kind of paradox because some scientific research shows masking is an effective method of preventing the spread.
Perhaps the masks people wear are of low quality. Perhaps the masks are being worn improperly. Maybe people in mandated settings remove facial coverings frequently. Perhaps the studies suggesting masks are effective at virus control are flawed or incomplete.
Whatever the reason, there’s an emerging scientific consensus that mask mandates have not been effective in curbing the spread of Covid.
Decades from now, scientists will likely still be exploring why mask mandates were so ineffective during the Great Coronavirus Pandemic. Theories we can’t even imagine today will be offered, discussed, and debated.
One thesis that will likely not be explored is the idea that the means were all wrong...
The ends planners sought—less community spread—were noble. The means they used to achieve those ends—government force—were not. (If you do not believe mask mandates constitute force, review the videos of the Alabama woman body-slammed by a police officer and the New York mother thrown to the ground by NYPD officers. Both conflicts began over violations of mask protocols.)
Whether the lackluster results of mask mandates stem from their rotten means is debatable, of course.
But one person, at least, would not have been surprised by the sterile results: Leonard Read. Read understood that means matter more than ends, “the bloom pre-exists in the seed.”
This is why Americans would do well to remember that force is a dangerous foundation for a society, even if one’s ends are pure—and that it’s not too late to reimagine a world based on voluntary action.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,447
- Reaction score
- 17,403
- Points
- 113
I didn't think it was hard to understand.
Long covid has lasting repercussions.
"the shots" have lasting repercussions.
It's going to take a long time before we fully understand the repercussions.
You're welcome.
Well ****.The Novavax vaccine also appears to carry a risk of heart inflammation for younger men, known as myocarditis and pericarditis, similar to Pfizer and Moderna’s shots. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle and pericarditis is inflammation of the outer lining of the heart.
FDA officials flagged four cases of myocarditis and pericarditis from Novavax’s clinical trial in young men ages 16 to 28. People who develop heart inflammation as a side effect of Covid vaccines are usually hospitalized for several days as a precaution but then recover.
FDA authorizes Novavax Covid vaccine for adults as the first new shots in U.S. in more than a year
FDA authorization of Novavax's vaccine was delayed for weeks as the agency reviewed changes to the company's manufacturing process.
I was really hoping this one would be a better option. Perhaps it is....still looking into it.
All I know when I’m forced again this is my jab.
Well now ain't this just some **** eh? The media, the government, the "science" treated natural immunity like Ivermectin.
With time comes truths. Some of us said all along...natural immunity...like every other epidemic ever...would win the day.
thestarnewsnetwork.com
A study has found that natural immunity following COVID infection provides protection against severe illness that is superior to that imparted by the COVID vaccines.
In a preprint article published at MedRxiv, Qatar researchers revealed they found people who survived COVID-19 infection, and were not vaccinated, had outstanding protection against severe COVID disease or death from COVID.
“Effectiveness of primary infection against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 reinfection was 97.3% … irrespective of the variant of primary infection or reinfection, and with no evidence for waning,” the researchers noted. “Similar results were found in sub-group analyses for those ≥50 years of age.”
The study, which was conducted on the total population of Qatar, set out to answer three questions:
Just days after the release of the study, White House COVID-19 Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted it is “clear from the data” the COVID vaccines government health officials have been pushing do not actually work well in preventing the infection.
Here's the study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.06.22277306v1
Natural immunity. Your best protection.
With time comes truths. Some of us said all along...natural immunity...like every other epidemic ever...would win the day.
Study: Natural Immunity Is 97 Percent Effective Against Severe COVID After 14 Months - The Star News Network
A study has found that natural immunity following COVID infection provides protection against severe illness that is superior to that imparted by the COVID vaccines.
thestarnewsnetwork.com
A study has found that natural immunity following COVID infection provides protection against severe illness that is superior to that imparted by the COVID vaccines.
In a preprint article published at MedRxiv, Qatar researchers revealed they found people who survived COVID-19 infection, and were not vaccinated, had outstanding protection against severe COVID disease or death from COVID.
“Effectiveness of primary infection against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 reinfection was 97.3% … irrespective of the variant of primary infection or reinfection, and with no evidence for waning,” the researchers noted. “Similar results were found in sub-group analyses for those ≥50 years of age.”
The study, which was conducted on the total population of Qatar, set out to answer three questions:
- 1) When infected with a pre-Omicron variant, how long does protection persist against reinfection with pre-Omicron variants?
- 2) When infected with a pre-Omicron variant, how long does protection persist against reinfection with an Omicron subvariant?
- 3) When infected with any variant, how long does protection persist against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19?
Just days after the release of the study, White House COVID-19 Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted it is “clear from the data” the COVID vaccines government health officials have been pushing do not actually work well in preventing the infection.
Here's the study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.06.22277306v1
Natural immunity. Your best protection.
Similar threads
