Covid Vaccine

[oneforthebus]

Trog will be back. He has to come back and reply. This whole thread essentially, boils down to getting in the last word. Who is it going to be? We may never know. I mean, one of them has to die first, I guess.

I’m certainly not suggesting that any possible causes shouldn’t be investigated. I’ve only said that to date, there is no data that would indicate any link to the vaccines. I’ve asked to see any if anyone had any but so far, bupkus. It is misleading in a thread entitled “Covid Vaccines” to post a headline stating “Doctors alarmed by a rise in cancers in young people” without clearly stating that the data that shows this rise predates the vaccines. Someone can certainly backtrack and say they weren’t trying to say or imply the vaccines are responsible but frankly that’s bs.
This is how misinformation works, both in this thread and in social media in general. Take something that is true and factual (cancers are rising in young people), omit context (they have been for decades and the most recent published data predates the vaccines) and imply a link that doesn’t exist. People should be aware of it and not believe everything they read.

 

[Booted]

I’m certainly not suggesting that any possible causes shouldn’t be investigated. I’ve only said that to date, there is no data that would indicate any link to the vaccines. I’ve asked to see any if anyone had any but so far, bupkus. It is misleading in a thread entitled “Covid Vaccines” to post a headline stating “Doctors alarmed by a rise in cancers in young people” without clearly stating that the data that shows this rise predates the vaccines. Someone can certainly backtrack and say they weren’t trying to say or imply the vaccines are responsible but frankly that’s bs.
This is how misinformation works, both in this thread and in social media in general. Take something that is true and factual (cancers are rising in young people), omit context (they have been for decades and the most recent published data predates the vaccines) and imply a link that doesn’t exist. People shouldn’t be aware of it and not believe everything they read.

Ok Tim. This one is going to be hard to beat. I know you're up to the challenge.

 

[oneforthebus]

Ok Tim. This one is going to be hard to beat. I know you're up to the challenge.

That should say people “should be aware of it” lol. You beat me to my edit.

 

[Hypocycloids]

I’m certainly not suggesting that any possible causes shouldn’t be investigated. I’ve only said that to date, there is no data that would indicate any link to the vaccines. I’ve asked to see any if anyone had any but so far, bupkus. It is misleading in a thread entitled “Covid Vaccines” to post a headline stating “Doctors alarmed by a rise in cancers in young people” without clearly stating that the data that shows this rise predates the vaccines. Someone can certainly backtrack and say they weren’t trying to say or imply the vaccines are responsible but frankly that’s bs.
This is how misinformation works, both in this thread and in social media in general. Take something that is true and factual (cancers are rising in young people), omit context (they have been for decades and the most recent published data predates the vaccines) and imply a link that doesn’t exist. People should be aware of it and not believe everything they read.

I liken this to the overinflated numbers of COVID deaths....that if you were run over and killed by a bus and had COVID, you died of COVID.
I don't believe that every malady that comes along will have been caused by the vaccine, but that's not to say people shouldn't be concerned. It can be eye opening.

 

[Confluence]

I’m certainly not suggesting that any possible causes shouldn’t be investigated. I’ve only said that to date, there is no data that would indicate any link to the vaccines. I’ve asked to see any if anyone had any but so far, bupkus. It is misleading in a thread entitled “Covid Vaccines” to post a headline stating “Doctors alarmed by a rise in cancers in young people” without clearly stating that the data that shows this rise predates the vaccines. Someone can certainly backtrack and say they weren’t trying to say or imply the vaccines are responsible but frankly that’s bs.
This is how misinformation works, both in this thread and in social media in general. Take something that is true and factual (cancers are rising in young people), omit context (they have been for decades and the most recent published data predates the vaccines) and imply a link that doesn’t exist. People should be aware of it and not believe everything they read.

While I generally agree, I have a simple question:

Can you point out any vaccine or Covid shot that does not weaken the receiver's immune system as the primary mechanism of activation of that drug?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Ok Tim. This one is going to be hard to beat. I know you're up to the challenge.

Not really. OFTB and Trog stated that I said something I did not. And I'll defend that position.

It is misleading in a thread entitled “Covid Vaccines” to post a headline stating “Doctors alarmed by a rise in cancers in young people” without clearly stating that the data that shows this rise predates the vaccines. Someone can certainly backtrack and say they weren’t trying to say or imply the vaccines are responsible but frankly that’s bs.

Here's the original post: https://www.steelernation.com/forums/threads/covid-vaccine.36523/post-1126403

If you read that post, the point I was making was rather simple. The ACS, when asked in the interview I saw on FoxNews, what may be leading to these predicted rises in cancers? The doctor from the ACS said "you're asking the right questions, but we don't know."

I noted in many words that never do you hear the vaccines being 'suspected' as a 'potential' cause. And that they should be investigated.

I neither SAID nor IMPLIED they are causing the cancers. That's what the two accused me of. I provided evidence as to why they should be studied/researched as a potential cause.

Now maybe it could have been worded differently (as some like to say), but the point made was - why aren't we investigating ALL potential causes? Including this all new medical technology foisted upon the world's population?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Can you point out any vaccine or Covid shot that does not weaken the receiver's immune system as the primary mechanism of activation of that drug?

Bingo.

 

[oneforthebus]

While I generally agree, I have a simple question:

Can you point out any vaccine or Covid shot that does not weaken the receiver's immune system as the primary mechanism of activation of that drug?

Weaken the immune system as the primary mechanism? None of them do that. They provoke an immune system reaction which in general, causes the immune system to better recognize and fight that specific pathogen next time it's exposed to it. An over simplification of course but I am not following you. What are you saying, that all vaccines are likely to cause cancer? Do you have any data to support that?

I'm sure you'll just say "Medical News Today" is just a tool of big pharma but here goes anyway:

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/is-your-immune-system-weak-after-covid-vaccine

It is a myth that the COVID-19 vaccine weakens the immune system. After someone receives a vaccine, their immune system is better equipped to protect against subsequent infections.
Although there are slight differences in the ways that the various COVID-19 vaccines work, they all follow the same principle. They help the body create immunity, or resistance, to SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes COVID-19 — by mimicking an infection. The immune system then remembers how to fight that infection in the future.


COVID-19 vaccines strengthen and prime the body’s immune response and help prevent serious COVID-19 disease and hospitalization.

Some European regulators have expressed concerns that giving COVID-19 booster shots too frequently could weaken the immune response to the vaccination. However, this is not the same as weakening a person’s immune system overall.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/is-your-immune-system-weak-after-covid-vaccine

It is a myth that the COVID-19 vaccine weakens the immune system. After someone receives a vaccine, their immune system is better equipped to protect against subsequent infections.

Simple question. Do you truly believe this?

Given all of the evidence we have posted, and what we see personally, do you really believe this?

We've posted evidence about reinfection rates among the vaccinated ad nausea. Reinfection among the vaxxed is LITERALLY the reason the GOVERNMENT had to stop saying "If you get the vaccine, you won't get Covid" and switched to the narrative "If you get the vaccine, it prevents serious illness."

I mean...it's commonly known the vaccine doesn't prevent you getting Covid. In fact, much of whats reported shows a very high reinfection rate among the vaxxed.

Smells like misinformation.

Meanwhile, we've all posted our anecdotal evidence.

Mine...AGAIN:

Wife. No Vax. One infection. No reinfection.
Me. No Vax. One infection. No reinfection.
Son 1. One vax. 2 infections of Covid.
Son 2. One vax. 3 infections of Covid.

And everyone that I know who's vaxxed (and I live in Liberal-LaLa Land MD where boosters are taken like candy at Halloween) is 2x, 3x, some literally 5x infected.

Forget your source. Do you truly believe what they claim above? Really, do you?

 

[oneforthebus]

Simple question. Do you truly believe this?

Given all of the evidence we have posted, and what we see personally, do you really believe this?

We've posted evidence about reinfection rates among the vaccinated ad nausea. Reinfection among the vaxxed is LITERALLY the reason the GOVERNMENT had to stop saying "If you get the vaccine, you won't get Covid" and switched to the narrative "If you get the vaccine, it prevents serious illness."

I mean...it's commonly known the vaccine doesn't prevent you getting Covid. In fact, much of whats reported shows a very high reinfection rate among the vaxxed.

Smells like misinformation.

Meanwhile, we've all posted our anecdotal evidence.

Mine...AGAIN:

Wife. No Vax. One infection. No reinfection.
Me. No Vax. One infection. No reinfection.
Son 1. One vax. 2 infections of Covid.
Son 2. One vax. 3 infections of Covid.

And everyone that I know who's vaxxed (and I live in Liberal-LaLa Land MD where boosters are taken like candy at Halloween) is 2x, 3x, some literally 5x infected.

Forget your source. Do you truly believe what they claim above? Really, do you?

There is data that they reduce severe illness and death. But also that effectiveness wanes over time. Certainly they aren’t the most effective vaccines we’ve ever had. Probably on par with flu vaccines on a middling year. I doubt they are much better than natural immunity (if that first case didn’t kill you)

But we were discussing how vaccines in general work. They don’t work by “weakening your immune system” was my point.
Misinformation is intentional. Were they wrong about some aspects of the vaccine? Yes. Do I think they intentionally lied about it? I doubt it. The initial vax did reduce transmission some but not as well as we were led to believe and that protection waned much faster than they thought. I guess they hoped it would be more effective on variants but it clearly was not.

As far as anecdotes I’m vaxxed and single boosted had covid once pre-vax and once post-vax. Both mild cases. The second was super mild barely lasted 3 days but who knows if that was vax or immunity from the first case or what. I know three unvaxxed people who got Covid and died, two of whom were elderly and/or had serious underlying conditions. One of whom was 52 and perfectly healthy. I don’t know any vaxxed healthy people who died of Covid. I do know a couple of very elderly vaxxed and boosted people who died of Covid now. So it’s a mixed bag.

 

[Superman]

I liken this to the overinflated numbers of COVID deaths....that if you were run over and killed by a bus and had COVID, you died of COVID.
I don't believe that every malady that comes along will have been caused by the vaccine, but that's not to say people shouldn't be concerned. It can be eye opening.

Hey, smartass, what if the bus had Covid?

 

[Badcat]

There is data that they reduce severe illness and death. But also that effectiveness wanes over time. Certainly they aren’t the most effective vaccines we’ve ever had. Probably on par with flu vaccines on a middling year. I doubt they are much better than natural immunity (if that first case didn’t kill you)

I can't trust the news, I can't trust the social media "fact checkers", and I can't trust the health organizations who have contradicted themselves and have since backtracked on their advice and positions. You say "there is data" and Tim has posted his data and Trog has posted his frail positions to counter and what we're left to believe is that we can't trust a damn thing. Not a single thing. What I believe now is what I experience and see with my own two eyes. Me and my pure blood family have had it no more than once or twice. My boss and his family, over three times and his wife and daughter hospitalized after their most recent booster having both collapsed and passed out at a restaurant while on separate vacations continents apart. Our resident caretaker confirming that he and his colleges are seeing upticks in blood clots of those deceased. Young people are now dying at an alarming rate, including a young pole vaulter from Canada, an Olympian, with whom I followed and knew to be a very health conscious person outside of being vaxed with this poison. In the end, we just have to do what is right by ourselves and believe what we believe. None of us are ever going to truly sway each other's opinions on the matter.

 

[Booted]

None of us are ever going to truly sway each other's opinions on the matter.

Don't let that stop us from trying. I suggest using all CAPS for a more convincing argument.

 

[Superman]

I can't trust the news, I can't trust the social media "fact checkers", and I can't trust the health organizations who have contradicted themselves and have since backtracked on their advice and positions. You say "there is data" and Tim has posted his data and Trog has posted his frail positions to counter and what we're left to believe is that we can't trust a damn thing. Not a single thing. What I believe now is what I experience and see with my own two eyes. Me and my pure blood family have had it no more than once or twice. My boss and his family, over three times and his wife and daughter hospitalized after their most recent booster having both collapsed and passed out at a restaurant while on separate vacations continents apart. Our resident caretaker confirming that he and his colleges are seeing upticks in blood clots of those deceased. Young people are now dying at an alarming rate, including a young pole vaulter from Canada, an Olympian, with whom I followed and knew to be a very health conscious person outside of being vaxed with this poison. In the end, we just have to do what is right by ourselves and believe what we believe. None of us are ever going to truly sway each other's opinions on the matter.

goodness. let the raysiss out!

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Misinformation is intentional.

I quoted your post for this very reason. You liberally throw this word and phrases like these around, while ignoring your own contributions to misinformation.

This article you posted re-spreads the same misinformation the White House, the CDC, the WHO and others have spread for years. To quote it again:

"It is a myth that the COVID-19 vaccine weakens the immune system. After someone receives a vaccine, their immune system is better equipped to protect against subsequent infections."

While very trickily worded, this article you shared heavily implies that if you get the Covid vaccine, you won't get Covid (or have a very reduced chance of getting) again.

Was your misinformation intentional?

 

[Hypocycloids]

Hey, smartass, what if the bus had Covid?

.

Further proof that masks don't work.

 

[oneforthebus]

I quoted your post for this very reason. You liberally throw this word and phrases like these around, while ignoring your own contributions to misinformation.

This article you posted re-spreads the same misinformation the White House, the CDC, the WHO and others have spread for years. To quote it again:

"It is a myth that the COVID-19 vaccine weakens the immune system. After someone receives a vaccine, their immune system is better equipped to protect against subsequent infections."

While very trickily worded, this article you shared heavily implies that if you get the Covid vaccine, you won't get Covid (or have a very reduced chance of getting) again.

Was your misinformation intentional?

No it doesn’t. Protection from subsequent infections can mean protection from severe illness and death. The flu vaccine has been that way for years. It reduces but doesn’t eliminate your chances of getting the flu, it reduces but doesn’t eliminate your chances of becoming severely ill or dying from the flu. This is nothing new or nefarious. And the reason is that the flu, like Covid, has numerous variants. Some are somewhat related or similar to each other. Which is why a new flu vaccine is made every year because no one knows which variants will show up. Sometimes it’s more effective sometimes less, depending on what variants are circulating. Medicine is not an exact science that doesn’t mean it’s an intentional lie. The way the Covid vaccines work (or don’t work) is somewhat disappointing. They were hoping they would work long term and equally well against all variants, like the flu and a few other vaccines sadly that’s not the case. Wish we had something better but for some demographics it’s better than nothing.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

No it doesn’t. Protection from subsequent infections can mean protection from severe illness and death.

You're obfuscating. In the context of that article, protection from subsequent infections meant protection against reinfection. "...is better equipped to protect against subsequent infections."

Against subsequent reinfections isn't really up for interpretation.

The flu vaccine has been that way for years. It reduces but doesn’t eliminate your chances of getting the flu, it reduces but doesn’t eliminate your chances of becoming severely ill or dying from the flu. This is nothing new or nefarious. And the reason is that the flu, like Covid, has numerous variants. Some are somewhat related or similar to each other. Which is why a new flu vaccine is made every year because no one knows which variants will show up. Sometimes it’s more effective sometimes less, depending on what variants are circulating. Medicine is not an exact science that doesn’t mean it’s an intentional lie. The way the Covid vaccines work (or don’t work) is somewhat disappointing. They were hoping they would work long term and equally well against all variants, like the flu and a few other vaccines sadly that’s not the case. Wish we had something better but for some demographics it’s better than nothing.

Right. All legit what you wrote. But what you originally posted (and the link) remains misleading. What you posted reinforces the notion (the lie) that was foisted upon the world that "if you get the vaccine, you won't get Covid." Remember, our dear great leader stating this on video, among hundreds of other talking heads. Over and over for months, only for us to find the reinfection rate among the vaccinated has been nothing short of startling.

The comment from your article that I've reposted several times reinforces/implies that premise, again albeit with legalese-tricky wording.

It implies that if you get the vaccine, you won't get the virus.

Which, is of course, misinformation.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

I heard somewhere that 23 and me was hacked. Probably no big deal. Nobody could do anything nefarious with people's genetic data.

 

[oneforthebus]

You're obfuscating. In the context of that article, protection from subsequent infections meant protection against reinfection. "...is better equipped to protect against subsequent infections."

Against subsequent reinfections isn't really up for interpretation.



Right. All legit what you wrote. But what you originally posted (and the link) remains misleading. What you posted reinforces the notion (the lie) that was foisted upon the world that "if you get the vaccine, you won't get Covid." Remember, our dear great leader stating this on video, among hundreds of other talking heads. Over and over for months, only for us to find the reinfection rate among the vaccinated has been nothing short of startling.

The comment from your article that I've reposted several times reinforces/implies that premise, again albeit with legalese-tricky wording.

It implies that if you get the vaccine, you won't get the virus.

Which, is of course, misinformation.

Tim keep trying to find some little kernel that you can twist to obscure that you posted an obvious and deliberately misleading headline that has absolutely nothing to do with Covid vaccines in a thread entitled “Covid vaccines”. The vaccines initially offered some protection against infection and continue to offer some protection against severe illness and death. Not all vaccines are 100% effective at preventing infection. That doesn’t mean they aren’t protective. You say it was a “lie” I say it was an emergency use of something that initially appeared to be more effective than it would ultimately prove to be long term, especially against new variants of a novel virus. Could I be wrong about that? Is it possible that we were intentionally lied to. Sure. Is it probable? Not in my opinion.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

Can we all agree that the measures taken in 2020 and 2021, which seemed logical at the time, were actually draconian?

And now in 2024, agree that an individual has the right to decide what to put in their body or not? Actually proven vaccines that prevent communicable diseases (M-M-R, etc. being the exception).

Unless you're in favor of a totalitarian state, the answers seem pretty simple to me.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Tim keep trying to find some little kernel that you can twist to obscure that you posted an obvious and deliberately misleading headline that has absolutely nothing to do with Covid vaccines in a thread entitled “Covid vaccines”.

Again, you're twisting what was laid out there into what you think I meant. I've been very clear (said in my best Jean-Pierre voice) that predicted record levels of rises in cancers should lead to more investigation into the vaccines to rule out or establish any form of a link. No where did I say they were connected. You accused me of implying they were.

The vaccines initially offered some protection against infection and continue to offer some protection against severe illness and death. Not all vaccines are 100% effective at preventing infection. That doesn’t mean they aren’t protective. You say it was a “lie” I say it was an emergency use of something that initially appeared to be more effective than it would ultimately prove to be long term, especially against new variants of a novel virus. Could I be wrong about that? Is it possible that we were intentionally lied to. Sure. Is it probable? Not in my opinion.

Right. I agree with your assessment of the "early days" when we didn't know better and believed the promise.

But you posted a link to an article published in December, 2022 - two entire years after vaccines began rolling out. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/is-your-immune-system-weak-after-covid-vaccine

By that point, we knew about not only the efficacy of the vaccines waning severely, but also about the high reinfection rates among those who were vaccinated.

And the blaring sub-headline of the article you posted stated "It is a myth that the COVID-19 vaccine weakens the immune system. After someone receives a vaccine, their immune system is better equipped to protect against subsequent infections."

Now you're defending sharing this link by referencing a time period 2 years prior in order to excuse the article because "we didn't know what we didn't know then." But when that article was published, we absolutely did know the claim to be misleading.

Had that article been printed 2 years prior, it would have applied to that time period. It was printed and published after we knew the claim was inaccurate.

It's propaganda.

 

[oneforthebus]

Again, you're twisting what was laid out there into what you think I meant. I've been very clear (said in my best Jean-Pierre voice) that predicted record levels of rises in cancers should lead to more investigation into the vaccines to rule out or establish any form of a link. No where did I say they were connected. You accused me of implying they were.



Right. I agree with your assessment of the "early days" when we didn't know better and believed the promise.

But you posted a link to an article published in December, 2022 - two entire years after vaccines began rolling out. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/is-your-immune-system-weak-after-covid-vaccine

By that point, we knew about not only the efficacy of the vaccines waning severely, but also about the high reinfection rates among those who were vaccinated.

And the blaring sub-headline of the article you posted stated "It is a myth that the COVID-19 vaccine weakens the immune system. After someone receives a vaccine, their immune system is better equipped to protect against subsequent infections."

Now you're defending sharing this link by referencing a time period 2 years prior in order to excuse the article because "we didn't know what we didn't know then." But when that article was published, we absolutely did know the claim to be misleading.

Had that article been printed 2 years prior, it would have applied to that time period. It was printed and published after we knew the claim was inaccurate.

It's propaganda.

No, I disagree with you on what is meant by protection. To you, protection only means 100% chance of not getting infected. To me, reducing your chance of severe illness and death is still protection. Just like the influenza vaccine.

I already said this of course but you ignored that part.

 

[oneforthebus]

Can we all agree that the measures taken in 2020 and 2021, which seemed logical at the time, were actually draconian?

And now in 2024, agree that an individual has the right to decide what to put in their body or not? Actually proven vaccines that prevent communicable diseases (M-M-R, etc. being the exception).

Unless you're in favor of a totalitarian state, the answers seem pretty simple to me.

I agree with that. Never agreed with the shutdowns except in the very early days when we all thought this was going to be a severely fatal disease in a lot of people. They were way too slow to acknowledge that most young healthy people are not at much risk, that we should protect the vulnerable and let the rest of us go about our lives. Never agreed with mandates, always believed they would backfire and result in fewer people being willing to get vaccinated, and they have, bigly. They've also caused a lot of mistrust in the medical community and in other very necessary and effective vaccines.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

No, I disagree with you on what is meant by protection. To you, protection only means 100% chance of not getting infected. To me, reducing your chance of severe illness and death is still protection. Just like the influenza vaccine.

I already said this of course but you ignored that part.

There you go putting words in my mouth again. Please point to where I have said protection only means 100% chance of no infection?

And you're diverting from posting that article, one that further promotes the "get the vaccine, you won't get Covid narrative" by directly implying so. I'll keep re-pasting it. The average person on the street reads this and believes the vax will keep them from getting Covid (or minimum, severely reduce that risk). Both of which are false.

"It is a myth that the COVID-19 vaccine weakens the immune system. After someone receives a vaccine, their immune system is better equipped to protect against subsequent infections."

Of course you'll refuse to admit this is misleading information.