Covid Vaccine

[Superman]

next, the wonder clot shot will prevent hang nails and split ends

 

[Hines57]

next, the wonder clot shot will prevent hang nails and split ends

Need an anti Ogurr shot, preferably something out of a gun.

 

[Superman]

Need an anti Ogurr shot, preferably something out of a gun.

rail gun or missile silo, preferably

 

[Hines57]

Yes that be the correct kind of mRNA treatment the world needs to solve a viral outbreak.

 

[Superman]

 

[Troglodyte]

Keep obfuscating the point made and changing the discussion.

It’s not obfuscating anything. It’s completely relevant that the historical rise in cancer cases has absolutely been caused by something else. THAT cannot be refuted.

The point made was we are predicted to hit an all-time, alarming high in cancer diagnoses. The question was asked, "Why the spike?"

I did the homework you should have done before you baselessly linked it the Covid vaccine. The ACS attributes it largely to the growth and aging of the population.

https://www.cancer.org/research/acs-research-news/facts-and-figures-2024.html

What’s more is that the ACS data you keep referring to that was used to make the prediction was from PRIOR to the vaccines.

https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21820

Could the vaccines be one of innumerable causes?

**** NO! The vaccines have no ******* basis in the estimate whatsoever.

It's that simple.

Oh, it’s simple alright. There’s no correlation to indicate that, no basis.

 

[Steeltime]

I probably should have phrased that differently. You should feel relieved that to date there is no evidence that the vaccines cause cancer.

You are correct but the lack of scientific proof right now is of little comfort. The problem with that statement is that cancer as an unfortunate by-product of chemicals or medicines is one that almost always takes time to prove in terms of causation. I agree that as of right now, no published peer-reviewed data can meet the standard for causation, but the concern is that passage of more time and further research is very likely to prove causation.

 

[oneforthebus]

You are correct but the lack of scientific proof right now is of little comfort. The problem with that statement is that cancer as an unfortunate by-product of chemicals or medicines is one that almost always takes time to prove in terms of causation. I agree that as of right now, no published peer-reviewed data can meet the standard for causation, but the concern is that passage of more time and further research is very likely to prove causation.

You could say that about literally anything.

 

[Steeltime]

You could say that about literally anything.

Oh for crying out loud, no, you can't. The starting point for the analysis is a new medication that is accompanied by an increase in cancer among those under age 50 and if the increase is caused by the medication - because THAT is the point of discussion.

So I guess it's true that for every new medication, put on the market on an emergency basis without the usual course of testing, and which is then associated with a statistically significant increase in cancer, yes, more time may yield proof of causation.

 

[oneforthebus]

the graph that Tim posted goes in 5-year increments. If you look at just the time frame between 2015 and 2020, you can see that cancer cases dipped a bit for men (not Flog) around 2017-2018 but then started rising again. it's not out of the realm of possibility to say that these cases, going by how the lines continue to rise, will continue to go up after 2020, unless there is some significant drop as there was in 1991-92.

with the medical issues that the holy shot has produced in many people, its not out of the realm of possibility that it could also be helping cancer along in others. We'll know more in 2025 when that graph is updated. per worldometers, there's been nearly 500k deaths from cancer this month already. that would total nearly 6 million people dying from cancer worldwide. to me, that's an awful lot of people dying - it would be interesting to know how many of those people who died were also vaxxed 19 times.

Cancer started rising a bit before the vaccines existed, therefore if it continues to rise we should suspect the vaccines are causing it? That makes no sense.

 

[oneforthebus]

Oh for crying out loud, no, you can't. The starting point for the analysis is a new medication that is accompanied by an increase in cancer among those under age 50 - because THAT is the point of discussion.

So I guess it's true that for every new medication, put on the market on an emergency basis without the usual course of testing, and which is then associated with a statistically significant increase in cancer, yes, more time may yield proof of causation.

The rise in cancer among those under 50 began in the 1990s. Unless there was a huge additional spike AFTER the vaccines existed, the logical assumption would be that the vaccines are not the cause. Something (or things) that started happening in the 1990s is the most likely cause. Obesity is like a flashing billboard but hey I guess we should look at the vaccines even though they didn’t exist til 30 years later.

 

[oneforthebus]

In 1990 11.6% of US adults were obese. At present it’s over 31%. Given that obesity and the poor diet and overeating that cause obesity are risk factors for numerous cancers, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what is causing most of the rise. Again, if you have any data showing an unusual spike above and beyond this 30 year trend in the last 2 years I’d be interested in seeing it. So far no one has produced any. All you guys keep saying is cancers are rising in this age group but you stubbornly ignore that they’ve been rising for decades so in no way are associated with the appearance of Covid vaccines.

 

[Confluence]

You could say that about literally anything.

How many pFizer drugs have received FDA approval when the clinical trial has removed the control group?

It would be good to put the Covid shots, pFizer's highest revenue drug of all time, in context.

 

[Troglodyte]

Oh for crying out loud, no, you can't. The starting point for the analysis is a new medication that is accompanied by an increase in cancer among those under age 50 and if the increase is caused by the medication - because THAT is the point of discussion.

It wasn’t accompanied by an increase in cancer among those under age 50. That rise existed for decades PRIOR to the vaccine.

So I guess it's true that for every new medication, put on the market on an emergency basis without the usual course of testing, and which is then associated with a statistically significant increase in cancer, yes, more time may yield proof of causation.

It’s not associated with an increase in cancer.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

Amusing that we're arguing about a product that does not prevent infection and does not prevent the spread of infection.

What we're left with is speculation from supporters of this product, and of course the manufacturer making millions, if not billions, off this, that it now prevents more serious cases of said infection, although there's no conclusive way of actually measuring that. Convenient that all cases are pretty much mild now, but that's because of the vax, right?

So, while it can't be proven that the recent uptick in cancer cases may be related to, or unrelated to this product, why would anyone subject themselves to even the slightest risk?

We have a product that bypassed normal FDA development procedures, the consequences of which may not be know for years to come.

 

[oneforthebus]

What we're left with is speculation from supporters of this product, and of course the manufacturer making millions, if not billions, off this, that it now prevents more serious cases of said infection, although there's no conclusive way of actually measuring that. Convenient that all cases are pretty much mild now, but that's because of the vax, right?

There are plenty of studies that show the vaccines reduce hospitalizations and deaths. Studies that compare illness and death in vaccinated populations vs. unvaccinated ones. I won't bother posting them here because there is no interest in actual scientific data from mainstream medicine and science sites here but you can google and find plenty. Effectiveness wanes over time. It is true that they do not prevent infection or spread, although there are studies that show they reduce it some.
The vaccines are far from perfect. But for people at high risk they are better than nothing. Reducing risk of death is good, no?

 

[Steeltime]

It wasn’t accompanied by an increase in cancer among those under age 50. That rise existed for decades PRIOR to the vaccine.

It’s not associated with an increase in cancer.

Again, for about the 5th time in the last 4 pages, a notable increase in the increase is an increase.

Got it?

 

[ZonaBurgh]

There are plenty of studies that show the vaccines reduce hospitalizations and deaths. Studies that compare illness and death in vaccinated populations vs. unvaccinated ones. I won't bother posting them here because there is no interest in actual scientific data from mainstream medicine and science sites here but you can google and find plenty. Effectiveness wanes over time. It is true that they do not prevent infection or spread, although there are studies that show they reduce it some.
The vaccines are far from perfect. But for people at high risk they are better than nothing. Reducing risk of death is good, no?

I didn't say that this shot didn't reduce mortality rates for the vulnerable percentage of the population when the virus first appeared in 2020.
What I did say is that it can't be proven that it does anything in 2024 to reduce symptoms, when symptoms today are little more than sniffles.
What marketing is saying is "I tested positive for Covid, so I'm not taking a chance and will consume yet another medication." Go Pfizer!!
The risk-benefit of this product doesn't warrant it's continued use.
I'm not aware of any current study saying that it absolutely reduces symptoms of those that continually test positive, even after receiving every possible booster.
Getting another booster in 2024 is prompted by fearmongering, greed and nothing more. My opinion. And after all of this, it's still a product that did not go through normal FDA testing, which means this story will continue to unfold.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

It’s not obfuscating anything. It’s completely relevant that the historical rise in cancer cases has absolutely been caused by something else. THAT cannot be refuted.

It is 1,000% obfuscating because it has been stated over and over that there is an UPTICK in the rise in cancer cases (predicted) that you want to ignore. You explain away the predicted uptick by using the historical "cases have been rising." Convenient. Lazy. Predictable for an ideologue.

I did the homework you should have done before you baselessly linked it the Covid vaccine. The ACS attributes it largely to the growth and aging of the population.

I didn't link it to the vaccines. You're just a bumbling retard, but we knew this. Go back to the original post and read what I said. "Why aren't we questioning the vaccines as a potential culprit?"

There's no linking there. There's a request to question the vaccines as a potential cause.

You obfuscate.

https://www.cancer.org/research/acs-research-news/facts-and-figures-2024.html

What’s more is that the ACS data you keep referring to that was used to make the prediction was from PRIOR to the vaccines.

And I've only addressed this now 14 times. The ACS is predicting a record number of cases and the other article corroborate we will set records we shouldn't be setting.

https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21820

**** NO! The vaccines have no ******* basis in the estimate whatsoever.

See? Complete ideology. You literally believe the vaccines cannot have caused one cancer, one death, one injury.

You cannot be reasoned with. The flu vaccine has done these things. But the Covid vaccine is your Holy Grail and shant be questioned.

Oh, it’s simple alright. There’s no correlation to indicate that, no basis.

No one correlated. We said the vaccines should be a suspect, just like jelly beans, preservatives, grilled food, and everything else that is studied as a potential cause of cancer.

You're this retarded.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

You could say that about literally anything.

So therefore keep sucking up the vaccine and "hope" it isn't one of those drugs that do.

That's some weird faith.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

All you guys keep saying is cancers are rising in this age group

NO. NO. NO.

I started this tirade. My original post did. I posted a MAIN topic - there is predicted to be an abnormal increase in cancer diagnoses this year by the ACS.

There was a SUB TOPIC - cancer diagnoses were going to increase in younger age groups like those under 50.

The main point is that we are about to set records for cancer diagnoses never seen, not expected.

You and your mate Floggy have hyper-focused on the sub-comments about rising cancer cases in younger age groups.

The point is the OVERALL diagnoses.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I didn't say that this shot didn't reduce mortality rates for the vulnerable percentage of the population when the virus first appeared in 2020.
What I did say is that it can't be proven that it does anything in 2024 to reduce symptoms, when symptoms today are little more than sniffles.
What marketing is saying is "I tested positive for Covid, so I'm not taking a chance and will consume yet another medication." Go Pfizer!!
The risk-benefit of this product doesn't warrant it's continued use.
I'm not aware of any current study saying that it absolutely reduces symptoms of those that continually test positive, even after receiving every possible booster.
Getting another booster in 2024 is prompted by fearmongering, greed and nothing more. My opinion. And after all of this, it's still a product that did not go through normal FDA testing, which means this story will continue to unfold.

Stop talking like you have some sort of a medical degree.

 

[Confluence]

You and your mate Floggy have hyper-focused on the sub-comments about rising cancer cases in younger age groups.

The point is the OVERALL diagnoses.

Hey, that's just mean.

I may disagree with about everything that OFTB has to write about vaccines and these Covid shots, but I would never stoop so low as to use her, mate and Floggy in the same sentence.

I'm sure it was a simple oversight, but I'd think an apology/edit is in order.

 

[oneforthebus]

NO. NO. NO.

I started this tirade. My original post did. I posted a MAIN topic - there is predicted to be an abnormal increase in cancer diagnoses this year by the ACS.

There was a SUB TOPIC - cancer diagnoses were going to increase in younger age groups like those under 50.

The main point is that we are about to set records for cancer diagnoses never seen, not expected.

You and your mate Floggy have hyper-focused on the sub-comments about rising cancer cases in younger age groups.

The point is the OVERALL diagnoses.

Again, for it to be related to the vaccines, you would have to see an anomaly in the data that corresponded with the introduction (really, the time of widespread administration of) the vaccines. “Cancers were rising before the vaccines and are projected to keep on rising after them” isn’t it. You either need A) some data that shows the spike in cancers after the vaccines is out of line with the general trend that was happening before them or B) a study that shows people who are vaccinated are getting cancers at rates greater than people who aren’t. When this is pointed out to you guys, you just say “Just because it hasn’t been proven yet doesn’t mean it isn’t happening”. To even suspect something is happening there needs to be some sort of signal that there might be a correlation. None of you have produced an iota of evidence of that. Cancers in young people are rising as they have been for decades. (Cancer deaths by the way continue to decline as detection and treatment improves.) Logically cancers take time to develop, grow and be diagnosed. Yes. It sure is possible that 5 or 10 years from now there will be a wave of cancers in the vaccinated and no such wave in the unvaccinated. As of now there is literally nothing that would indicate that will be the case.

 

[oneforthebus]

I didn't say that this shot didn't reduce mortality rates for the vulnerable percentage of the population when the virus first appeared in 2020.
What I did say is that it can't be proven that it does anything in 2024 to reduce symptoms, when symptoms today are little more than sniffles.
What marketing is saying is "I tested positive for Covid, so I'm not taking a chance and will consume yet another medication." Go Pfizer!!
The risk-benefit of this product doesn't warrant it's continued use.
I'm not aware of any current study saying that it absolutely reduces symptoms of those that continually test positive, even after receiving every possible booster.
Getting another booster in 2024 is prompted by fearmongering, greed and nothing more. My opinion. And after all of this, it's still a product that did not go through normal FDA testing, which means this story will continue to unfold.

I’m not going to argue this is an especially effective vaccine and I think most people don’t believe these boosters that are developed for three variants ago are doing much at all. I’m not arguing everyone should go out and get as many boosters as they can. I’m simply arguing that a lot of the fear mongering about deadly side effects is based in misinformation and twisting of data that has little or no relevance to the topic. You as a medical professional know this is true. You must.