MavsBoard

(10-07-2021, 03:30 PM)MrGoat Wrote: [ -> ]You just reminded me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxsQ7jJJcEA

Carlin is just timeless. He was more a philosopher that used humor than a comedian.

(10-07-2021, 03:42 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]it really isn't Vax vs NI as much as a question of how to best strengthen our NI

Right now it is still immunity vs overflowing hospitals and ICUs in rural parts of the country. Especially Alaska. Taking the vaccine helps to limit the number of critical cases (@"Jannemann2" posted the numbers). It is better than the no protection starting point you have without the vaccine. Natural immunity comes at the risk of adding to the number of critical cases.

I'll add this: The vast majority of those hospitalized from covid are over the age of 50. The vast majority that have died from covid are over the age of 50. Those up the 50+ group should probably vaccinate. The rest should make a determination based on their own circumstances. Acting in an authoritarian manner is simply not an option because there is no coming back from that. Gov't never cedes power is has gained. 

Also, natural immunity is just that: a function of normal biological process. It's the goal of vaccination in general but somehow that's become lost in all this. The vaccine doesn't provide you lasting immunity, however natural immunity is proving to be long term and very effective (as we've always known). It seems we've thrown out all relative science in place of this new medical venture.

Also:
https://earlycovidcare.org/

And:
[b]Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19-Associated Hospitalizations[/b]
COVID-19-Associated Hospitalizations by Age: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/COVID19_5.html

Kamm, I'd also add a daily regimen of vitamin D (10,000 IU) and vitamin c, magnesium and zinc. If you're African American, D is probably the most important simply because of genetics (and I won't get into that now unless someone asks). Going outside if beneficial but in order to get your levels up, bulk dosages would be required at the outset and it's not toxic at those levels (provided you do not have certain medical conditions). My D level is over 50 now being black and over 40. 

I almost locked this post because I thougth we were done!! LOL

That natural immunity may be more effective than immunity via vaccine isn't suprising. It seems intuitive, though I know science isn't always intuitive. 

But I don't understand why "natural immunity is better" is even part of the debate about whether to get vaccinated except as it relates to whether or not folks with natural immunity need to be vaccinated. 

It seems to have nothing to do with the debate about whether folks that haven't been infected should get the vaccine.

(10-07-2021, 05:13 PM)fifteenth Wrote: [ -> ]I almost locked this post because I thougth we were done!! LOL

That natural immunity may be more effective than immunity via vaccine isn't suprising. It seems intuitive, though I know science isn't always intuitive. 

But I don't understand why "natural immunity is better" is even part of the debate about whether to get vaccinated except as it relates to whether or not folks with natural immunity need to be vaccinated. 

It seems to have nothing to do with the debate about whether folks that haven't been infected should get the vaccine.

That's not hard to understand. Natural immunity is one infection and done for most if not all and it will be a complete, robust immunity to the virus as opposed to a temporary vaccination effect that would have to be repeated (which is very similar to a flu shot).

That's why. 

Those pushing the shots never took the time to fully educate people on how this all works. Now you way not want to go that route, and I don't blame you, but one of the reasons data was either hidden, not freely given or not collected, was to remove the ability of people to use it to properly assess the situation and make personal decisions. You had to jump through hoops, know someone, listen to the right people or have a degree in statistics to get adequate data (and you still do on some level). They took your ability to educate your decision making process off the table. And furthermore, you cannot lie to people on such a regular basis and have them NOT be skeptical. Did any of us really trust government or politicians or even big pharma for that matter? No, and their actions in this climate have only strengthened that position. 

Oh I hate big pharma and their wee beady eyes saying “buy my vaccine!”

Dad, how can you hate big pharma?

Because they put an addictive chemical in their vaccine that makes you crave it nightly, smart allec!”

(10-07-2021, 05:02 PM)luka_skywalker_77 Wrote: [ -> ]I'll add this: https://earlycovidcare.org/

Early treatment is important. But this is more of a drug commerical.

More misinformation. This time from the hydroxychloroquin fanbase.
Direct question. Can you prove any of the Hydroxychloroquine related claims from Dr. McCullough. This isn´t even in the up for debate based on future research category like Ivermectin. This is in the proven to not work category.
Next part. Can you provide any evidence for his claim that the vaccine is dangerous for people that already recovered from an infection. There is no evidence for any additional longterm impact besides the already known side effects and a stronger/shorter initial reaction. Strong evidence for a bolstered immune response.
Mr. McCullough is facing lawsuits because he continues to claim titles from Baylor university (was fired earlier).
Same for Mr. Ritsch. Outright lies. Nothing else. Claims like 60% of cases are breakthroughs at a time when the CDC reported 7100 in total.
Dr. Zelenko. Who lied about a FDA aproved study that he was supposed to lead. And came up with even more outrages claims like "Millions around the world died from COVID injections" "The data shows that we are currently witnessing the greatest organized mass murder in the world".

What brings all of them together. They are suspended on most social platforms. Are ignored by the scientific community around the world. Appear on right wing media.

Just stop it.

(10-07-2021, 05:44 PM)ItsGoTime Wrote: [ -> ]Oh I hate big pharma and their wee beady eyes saying “buy my vaccine!”

Dad, how can you hate big pharma?

Because they put an addictive chemical in their vaccine that makes you crave it nightly, smart allec!”

Great scene. 

"oooooh you're going to buy my vaccine, aren't you?!"

(10-07-2021, 05:18 PM)luka_skywalker_77 Wrote: [ -> ]
That's not hard to understand. Natural immunity is one infection and done for most if not all and it will be a complete, robust immunity to the virus as opposed to a temporary vaccination effect that would have to be repeated (which is very similar to a flu shot).

That's why. 

Those pushing the shots never took the time to fully educate people on how this all works. Now you way not want to go that route, and I don't blame you, but one of the reasons data was either hidden, not freely given or not collected, was to remove the ability of people to use it to properly assess the situation and make personal decisions. You had to jump through hoops, know someone, listen to the right people or have a degree in statistics to get adequate data (and you still do on some level). They took your ability to educate your decision making process off the table. And furthermore, you cannot lie to people on such a regular basis and have them NOT be skeptical. Did any of us really trust government or politicians or even big pharma for that matter? No, and their actions in this climate have only strengthened that position. 

Natural immunity might be longer lasting (as suggested by the study @"TXBamanut" linked) but we know that the IgG-titer are dropping in both cases. Thankfully T/B cell half life time is looking solid. Be it natural immunity or the vaccine. Not a have it once and be done with it situation. And as mentioned the vaccine also improves the immune response of people that already had it.

The mechanisms of the mRNA COVID vaccines aren´t in any way or form comparable to the flu shot. We are talking about completly different viruses. The flu shot is targeting a number of different subtypes/strains and needs to be adjusted each year. As of now we don´t know if this is the case with COVID. Next important part of vaccine research is the impact of the booster shot.
Data wasn´t hidden. In some cases data was simply missing. That´s pretty normal when we are talking about a new virus. We nearly made it out of the conspiracy theory category in the last two days but it seems like we are making a deep dive again.

(10-07-2021, 03:16 PM)TXBamanut Wrote: [ -> ]That's logically flawed and presented with a lot of slanted bias... Which is EXACTLY what I talked about in my other post.

What that study says is, you're MUCH better having recovered from the virus than having your immune system revved-up by the vaccine. Each is a form of getting a person's body primed to fight off the infection. How does a person go about that? EITHER get infected and recover, or get vaccinated. Infected people are dying. Not all, which is the recover part. AND a person doesn't know, until they know. If we knew, ahead of time, there could be adjustments. Flawed logic? Bias? The virus kills. Some people. Some people recover.

Wrt natural immunity, my Covid worsened into Covid pneumonia and I had a 4 day hospitalization. Luckily day 2 my body started fighting back though it took a good two months to feel somewhat normal again. My lungs clearly showed damage. I am skinny, exercise, was in very good shape with no other comorbidities and it still got me.  Docs I know talk in recent months about many who are coming in who are younger than 30. 

As soon as the 3 months from my discharge was up, I signed up for the vaccine and now am fully vaccinated. I would have loved it if my stint with the actual virus built up some natural immunity but everything I have read says that those antibodies are not staying long. Even if natural immunity was strong after catching it, why would anyone want to go through what I and others who have had a serious case have gone through?  You think lung damage and and other longer documented effects is better than any undocumented long term fears that you might have about the vaccine?  

None of us know for sure. I agree. So we research and hopefully do what we feel is best for our own situation.  But this is a global pandemic and if studies are documenting that hospitalization and serious outcomes are less for folks who are vaccinated, do strongly consider getting one.

An opinion out of Kentucky relating to "Covidiots"...

Lexington Herald Leader

(10-07-2021, 07:29 PM)hakeemfaan Wrote: [ -> ]Wrt natural immunity, my Covid worsened into Covid pneumonia and I had a 4 day hospitalization. Luckily day 2 my body started fighting back though it took a good two months to feel somewhat normal again. My lungs clearly showed damage. I am skinny, exercise, was in very good shape with no other comorbidities and it still got me.  Docs I know talk in recent months about many who are coming in who are younger than 30. 

As soon as the 3 months from my discharge was up, I signed up for the vaccine and now am fully vaccinated. I would have loved it if my stint with the actual virus built up some natural immunity but everything I have read says that those antibodies are not staying long. Even if natural immunity was strong after catching it, why would anyone want to go through what I and others who have had a serious case have gone through?  You think lung damage and and other longer documented effects is better than any undocumented long term fears that you might have about the vaccine?  

None of us know for sure. I agree. So we research and hopefully do what we feel is best for our own situation.  But this is a global pandemic and if studies are documenting that hospitalization and serious outcomes are less for folks who are vaccinated, do strongly consider getting one.

Sorry you endured it and glad you survived @"hakeemfaan" thru that.

(10-08-2021, 07:43 AM)david75090 Wrote: [ -> ]An opinion out of Kentucky relating to "Covidiots"...

Lexington Herald Leader

From the piece, 

Quote:Science could hardly be plainer about COVID-19

In fact, I've never in my lifetime seen so much disagreement on any significant topic in the community of Medical Science.  

Its only suppression biases backed by 3 fold powerhouses of government and big tech and big media that gives the impression that all of the critical science is so plain.  Anyone lumping these factual suppressions under the label of conspiracy theories are literally burying their heads in the sand or covering their eyes with their hands so they see no evil. 

Its amazing who can now be classified as a Covid Idiot.  

Now I've seen some of the efforts to discredit and minimize the concerns of Dr. Robert Malone and he is evidently not the sole mRNA inventor for example but does he really quality now as a COVID idiot? 

 Please notice that I am not referencing a anti-vax article or website here.  If anything the piece seemed to searching for a way to diminish the Dr. Malone but still some facts remain. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch...ic/619734/ 

Quote:The man who invented the mRNA technology used in some coronavirus vaccines says he was censored by YouTube for sharing his concerns on the vaccines in a podcast.


"[O]ne of my concerns are that the government is not being transparent with us about what those risks are. And so, I'm of the opinion that people have the right to decide whether to accept a vaccine or not, especially since these are experimental vaccines," said Dr. Robert Malone during a Wednesday segment on Fox News's Tucker Carlson Tonight, saying YouTube deleted a video of him speaking about the associated risks.


Opening the segment, Carlson shared some studies showing heart inflammation and death correlating with the use of the vaccines.
"A Norwegian study conducted of 100 nursing home residents who died after receiving Pfizer's corona shots. They found that at least 10 of those deaths were likely caused by the vaccine. 10%," Carlson said.

Another reference I purposely take from a piece clearly supportive of the vaccine and more or less meant to discredit  Scientist and Pharmacologist Michael Yeadon. 

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/spe...s-skeptic/ 

Quote:What gave the debunked claim credibility was that one of the petition's co-authors, Michael Yeadon, wasn't just any scientist. The 60-year-old is a former vice president of Pfizer, where he spent 16 years as an allergy and respiratory researcher. He later co-founded a biotech firm that the Swiss drugmaker Novartis purchased for at least $325 million.

In recent months, Yeadon (pronounced Yee-don) has emerged as an unlikely hero of the so-called anti-vaxxers, whose adherents question the safety of many vaccines, including for the coronavirus. The anti-vaxxer movement has amplified Yeadon's skeptical views about COVID-19 vaccines and tests, government-mandated lockdowns and the arc of the pandemic.

Yeadon has said he personally doesn't oppose the use of all vaccines. But many health experts and government officials worry that opinions like his fuel vaccine hesitancy – a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated – that could prolong the pandemic. COVID-19 has already killed more than 2.6 million people worldwide.

Again, I'm not subscribing to everything any of these Doctors or Scientists say, whether they are labeled as Anti-Vax or they fall in line with the Mainstream narrative.  I am saying that classifying hundreds and even thousands of medical professionals as COVID Idiots for their concerns is it itself idiocrasy.  Remember its clear in daily that news that lots of medical professionals have been and are being fired and silenced or else for dissenting views or resisting the injection.  

I am saying that to say the Science is so crystal clear and plain needs more examination as to what exactly we are saying so clear and plain.  Some things are clear and plain I agree with that much but some of the relevant issues are not yet so clear and plain. 

Take for example the language used here to put a favorable spin on relevant studies and news regarding vaccine adverse effects. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/factchec...SL1N2LA28C 

Quote:“456 U.K. deaths so far immediately after having ‘vaccines’”, the posts read. “MHRA has received 212 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 244 reports for the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine.”
...
Due to the sheer scale of the vaccination program, it is accepted that some people will naturally experience a new illness after receiving the vaccine.

VERDICT

Missing context. This number reflects adverse reactions that have happened after vaccination, but not necessarily caused by the vaccine.

(10-08-2021, 10:18 AM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]Take for example the language used here to put a favorable spin on relevant studies and news regarding vaccine adverse effects. 

There really is no favorable or unfavorable spin. Just need to understand how MHRA data collection works (event reporting,not a study!!!) Why research needs to verify the individual events. Why we aren´t using it as factual evidence but as a source that can highlight potenial risks/problems that require further research/investigation. Understand the flaws and advantages of open reporting systems (risks of under/over reporting).
Same for VAERS or similar systems that exist in most developed countries.

And just to fight back against the suppression, lack of critical reporting argument. Systems like this lead to the discovery of side effects/complications. I already mentioned the most important Pfizer/Moderna related one. Pericarditis and Myocarditis cases spiking among younger men. Leading to adjusted vaccine guide lines in multiple countries. And an open debate among experts about the implications for potential vaccine programs for children.

(10-07-2021, 07:08 PM)david75090 Wrote: [ -> ]What that study says is, you're MUCH better having recovered from the virus than having your immune system revved-up by the vaccine. Each is a form of getting a person's body primed to fight off the infection. How does a person go about that? EITHER get infected and recover, or get vaccinated. Infected people are dying. Not all, which is the recover part. AND a person doesn't know, until they know. If we knew, ahead of time, there could be adjustments. Flawed logic? Bias? The virus kills. Some people. Some people recover.

Less than 1% of infected people are dying.  Recognize that...so couching this as "well, you get it and die or get over it" posits that these two options are similar in outcome, but they are NOT...and it's a very biased presentation.

Maybe time to move this thread to ROTW forum?

(10-08-2021, 01:22 PM)TXBamanut Wrote: [ -> ]Less than 1% of infected people are dying.  Recognize that...so couching this as "well, you get it and die or get over it" posits that these two options are similar in outcome, but they are NOT...and it's a very biased presentation.

So you are fine with a 1:100 chance to die (not talking about long Covid) but are afraid of a 1:1 000 000 (000?) chance of dying by a vax.

I really can´t understand this kind of thinking.

(10-08-2021, 02:15 PM)Mapka Wrote: [ -> ]So you are fine with a 1:100 chance to die (not talking about long Covid) but are afraid of a 1:1 000 000 (000?) chance of dying by a vax.

I really can´t understand this kind of thinking.

Oversimplification. 

1) There are a whole range of health outcomes between death and perfectly well.  
2) You have an explicit assumption that the numbers you read or hear are accurate