MavsBoard

(10-11-2021, 09:59 PM)Mapka Wrote: [ -> ]"the positive effect you will find will be marginal."

I'm not sure you're aware of the complete side effects profile, as it is growing each day. Again, you're free to do what you choose but let's not speak about it as if there isn't cause for concern. There are far too many unknowns to speak so confidently about your decision to take such a compound without fully realizing the potential harm it could cause (and does cause to thousands of people). None of that has been adequately researched on any level, especially for a vaccine, that aside,

I'm not trying to argue or convince you of taking/not taking/justifying/not justifying your decision. I'm never wasting my time again doing that here. I'm just providing information.

But when this all comes to a head, I won't say I told you so. I'll just be as somber as everyone else that took the shot, praying for a way to reverse what went wrong.

(10-09-2021, 11:25 AM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry. Badly phrased on my part. Should have added an explanation. What I mean is that you (and I hope that I am understanding you correctly) do not share the opinion of anti vaxxers that you quoted in your posts. You wanted to bring up their opinion to bring some balance to a in your opinion one sided debate. The mentioned approach gives the entire discussion a pro/contra setup that lacks nuance.

I contributed as well. Despite my declaration not to turn this into a purely medical/scientifc debate I failed to do that. I could have been more emphatic towards different believe systems and the role of anectodal experience or stories. Not just responded with the statistics/studies that apply for the mentioned examples.

@"dirkfansince1998" thanks again for a thoughtful reply. 
Been busy and catching up a bit on this since it was moved.  
Quick reply here and then I'd like to come back later and hit what I though was the most important point point you raised as to what sort of solutions and answers are available to us in use of the vaccinations, reducing risks and continuing to fight this pandemic. 

Yes I purposely point attention to points being raised from the so called anti-vaccine side of the debate not because I agree in lockstep with every point raised but because I have a much bigger issue and concern with suppression of free speech and free expression which is now full scale being accepted across our country and across what used to known as the free world, now becoming less and less free. 

I hear people calling everything "Science" that fits the obvious mainstream narrative while at the same time labeling everything and everyone evil that expresses anything other Rah! Rah! Go VACCINATIONS! Force Them In Until We Win!!!.
Anyone not repeating the cheer is immediately placed under the evil banner Anti-vaxxer     .  
I found it very interesting that even Crazy Kyrie Irving (still a bright young man) recently came out and said very similar to what some of us have said here, that he not anti-vaccination but he is against forcing the vaccinations.   I don't know maybe he eventually takes it but I say good for him in taking his stand in this case. 
----- 
https://nba.nbcsports.com/2021/10/14/kyr...od-for-me/

Quote:

Quote:Don’t believe any of that s***. Really be aware of what’s being said before I even get a chance to be on the podium and speak for myself.

Quote:What would you do if you felt uncomfortable going into the season when you were promised that you would have exemptions or that you didn’t have to be forced to get the vaccine? This wasn’t an issue before the season started. This wasn’t something that I foresaw coming where I prepared for it and I had a chance to strategize about what was going to be best for me and my family. I came into the season thinking that I was just going to be able to play ball.

Quote:It’s not about being anti-vax or about being on one side or the other. It’s just really about being true to what feels good for me. I’m still uncertain about a lot of things. And that’s OK. If I’m going to be demonized for having more questions and taking my time to make a decision with my life, then that’s just what it is. That’s something I’ve got to sit in. I know the consequences of the decisions I make with my life.

Quote:To demonize one another and to judge and continue to point the finger and be like, “Yo, you should do this.” Think about what that puts a person – what type of position that puts a person in. You’re backing them up against the wall to make a decision out of fear, out of having anxiety or they just don’t know.

And why is it unreasonable for Kyrie or anyone else to still have their own personal concerns about vaccinations when significant members of the medical and scientific community are still working through their own concerns? 

People are still getting sick and it is a bad assumption that this is only because of the unvaccinated.   The political narrative is scapegoating the unvaccinated while ignoring other areas of focus like improved prophylactics, treatments, pushing to strengthen and bolster natural immunity etc. 

Meanwhile yes millions and and millions are vaccinated.  Good for everyone that felt quite comfortable and happy to get it.  Unfortunately some took it under coercion and threat of force against their livelihood and freedoms.  Is that really necessary at this point and more importantly is it really working to defeat the virus? 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/the-vaccinated-are-worried-and-scientists-don-t-have-answers/ar-AANzgN7 

Quote:Anecdotes tell us what the data can’t: Vaccinated people appear to be getting the coronavirus at a surprisingly high rate. But exactly how often isn’t clear, nor is it certain how likely they are to spread the virus to others. 
Though it is evident vaccination still provides powerful protection against the virus, there’s growing concern that vaccinated people may be more vulnerable to serious illness than previously thought.

@"Dahlsim"

Though this was interesting: https://stomson2001.wordpress.com/2021/0...e-systems/

"Anecdotes tell us what the data can’t: Vaccinated people appear to be getting the coronavirus at a surprisingly high rate. But exactly how often isn’t clear, nor is it certain how likely they are to spread the virus to others. 

From the article you linked.

All that said, some facts are well established at this point. Vaccinated people infected with the virus are much less likely to need to go to the hospital, much less likely to need intubation and much less likely to die from the illness. There’s no doubt that vaccines provide significant protection. But a large proportion of the nation -- almost 30% of U.S. adults -- have not been vaccinated, a fact that has conspired with the highly contagious delta variant to push the country into a new wave of outbreaks.
“The big picture here is that the vaccines are working and the reason for the spike in the U.S. is we have too little vaccine uptake,” Frieden said.


To clarify it one more time. Yes breakthrough infections are a thing. And with more people getting the vaccine we will see more and more of them. Bur the numbers are as clear as it gets. Maybe a visual presentation can help.


Same for hospitalizations:

Summary

• For all adults aged 18 years and older, the cumulative COVID-19-associated hospitalization rate was about 12-times higher in unvaccinated persons.
  
• Although weekly rates can vary, the cumulative rate of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations in unvaccinated adults ages 18–49 years was about 14-times higher than fully vaccinated adults aged 18–49 years.
  
• Although weekly rates can vary widely, the cumulative rate of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations in unvaccinated adults ages 50–64 years was about 15-times higher than fully vaccinated adults aged 50–64 years.
  
• Although weekly rates can vary widely, the cumulative rate of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations in unvaccinated adults ages 65 years and older was about 9-times higher than fully vaccinated adults ages 65 years and older.
  

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker...ine-status


Not sure what I should tell you about Dr. Williams and Dr. Cole. First of all Mr. Cole is free to provide evidence for his claims about cancer rates. So far he hasn´t done that. US cancer data is published at a later date so we don´t have any official US numbers. Looking around I couldn´t find any number to support his claim. Actually the opposite. Sadly we had less screening/testing. Leading to lower case numbers. Potentially more missed cases. Also a potential explanation for anectodal mentions of increasing numbers of cancer in advanced stages.

2nd part once again isn´t providing any evidence for the claims about suppressed killer cells. For all the people that aren´t into topics like this. We aren´t talking about COVID specific t-cells (As mentioned previously we can see a clear increase in CD4+ and CD8+ cells with vaccine).
Difficult to explain. Maybe the best way to say it. "We are talking about the specific mechanism that is used to prevent a immune response that would "attack" the vaccine. The mentioned toll-like receptors work like an alarm signal. They detect pathogens (more than just viruses, also important for cancer) and initiate the non specific + antibody/b/t cell response.
The developers of MRNA vaccines had to bypass this mechanism. To quote one of the developers:

Quote:“In the natural world, the body relies on millions of tiny proteins to keep itself alive and healthy, and it uses mRNA to tell cells which proteins to make. If you could design your own mRNA, you could, in theory, hijack that process and create any protein you might desire — antibodies to vaccinate against infection, enzymes to reverse a rare disease, or growth agents to mend damaged heart tissue […]
The problem, [Karikó] knew, was that synthetic RNA was notoriously vulnerable to the body’s natural defenses, meaning it would likely be destroyed before reaching its target cells. And, worse, the resulting biological havoc might stir up an immune response that could make the therapy a health risk for some patients.” (Dr Kaliko, co-author of the paper that Mr. Williams is refering to)

Question is. How to bypass the TLR. Answer of the paper. Modify the MRNA. Camouflage it. Prevent detection. For whatever reason Cole and Williams assume that the TLR is getting modified or to quote him turned off. That´s not what the paper is saying. It is not impacting the TLRs ability to detect other pathogens. Only thing that is getting modified is the MRNA.

The "camouflage" isn´t perfect and TLR will be stimulated just like in any other case. That´s actually wanted. At least to a certain degree. The "activation" triggers certain parts of the immune response. Especially b-cell activity. A "natural" adjuvant.

So much in theory. We obviously don´t know everything and as the study from the netherlands suggests further research is needed. Especially when it comes to potential mechanisms that trigger the innate immune response. We want to do that. But only to a certain degree.

Edit: Just found a summary that is better than anything I could provide. Just read this. Someone already adressed Cole´s statements.

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/n...ne-system/

(10-16-2021, 03:49 PM)luka_skywalker_77 Wrote: [ -> ]@"Dahlsim"

Though this was interesting: https://stomson2001.wordpress.com/2021/0...e-systems/

"Anecdotes tell us what the data can’t: Vaccinated people appear to be getting the coronavirus at a surprisingly high rate. But exactly how often isn’t clear, nor is it certain how likely they are to spread the virus to others. 

Though it is evident vaccination still provides powerful protection against the virus, there’s growing concern that vaccinated people may be more vulnerable to serious illness than previously thought.

ER Editor: Dr. Mike Williams does a sterling job of explaining the probable mechanism behind the mRNA vaccines and why they have been engineered to TURN OFF a key element in our immune system response (this element is particular TLRs or toll-like receptors). Turning off this component permits the mRNA to enter our cells to do its job. When these are neutralized or prevented from working, however, there is then a knock-on effect on the CD8 T-cells, which are vital to a robust immune-system response. As Dr. Ryan Cole refers to them in this article/tweet, they are your ‘killer’ cells which, among other things, keep viruses in check. When you turn off certain TLRs, you also disable these highly necessary T-cells.

Whoever thought this was good idea? 

All of which may explain why certain types of cancer, as well as shingles, seem to be on the rise following Covid vaccination."

The issue I have is how does this affect the immune system long term. I don't think it simply disappears after it's time in our body wanes and that is concerning. Thankfully, there are a lot of doctors and scientists out there studying this around the clock; something the mainstream of doctors won't do. And at least we can get real data from that--peer review is sh*te for the most part but at least the research is being done. 

Forgot to add: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7833091/

Do COVID-19 RNA-based vaccines put at risk of immune-mediated diseases? In reply to “potential antigenic cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 and human tissue with a possible link to an increase in autoimmune diseases”

[...] The reactogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in individuals suffering from immune-mediated diseases and having therefore a pre-existent dysregulation of the immune response has not been investigated. It may be hypothesized that immunosuppressive agents prescribed to these patients mitigate or even prevent side effects related to vaccine immunogenicity.


How it works: 
[...] RNA vaccines have been principally designed for cancer and infectious diseases. This innovative therapeutic approach is based on the synthesis of RNA chains coding for desired antigenic proteins and exploits the intrinsic immunogenicity of nucleic acids. In order to avoid degradation by RNases, RNA can be encapsulated in nanoparticles or liposomes, which deliver the cargo inside target cells following a process of endocytosis. mRNA is then translated into immunogenic proteins by cell ribosomal machinery [...]

Dangers: 
[...] However, prior to the translation, mRNA may bind pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) in endosomes or cytosol. Toll-like receptor (TLR)3, TLR7 and TLR8 are able to recognize chains of double-stranded (ds)RNA or single-stranded (ss)RNA in endosomes, while retinoic acid-inducible gene-I (RIG-I) and melanoma differentiation-associated protein 5 (MDA5) may detect short and long filaments of dsRNA in the cytosol. The final result is the activation of several pro-inflammatory cascades, including the assembly of inflammasome platforms, the type I interferon (IFN) response and the nuclear translocation of the transcription factor nuclear factor (NF)-kB 

Further concern: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...21256520v1 (under eval)
https://www.news-medical.net/news/202105...ant-Notice

The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses

[...] Here we confirmed that BNT162b2 vaccination of healthy individuals induced effective humoral and cellular immunity against several SARS-CoV-2 variants. Interestingly, however, the BNT162b2 vaccine also modulated the production of inflammatory cytokines by innate immune cells upon stimulation with both specific (SARS-CoV-2) and non-specific (viral, fungal and bacterial) stimuli. The response of innate immune cells to TLR4 and TLR7/8 ligands was lower after BNT162b2 vaccination, while fungi-induced cytokine responses were stronger. In conclusion, the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine induces complex functional reprogramming of innate immune responses, which should be considered in the development and use of this new class of vaccines [...]

(10-16-2021, 08:31 PM)luka_skywalker_77 Wrote: [ -> ]
Forgot to add: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7833091/

Do COVID-19 RNA-based vaccines put at risk of immune-mediated diseases? In reply to “potential antigenic cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 and human tissue with a possible link to an increase in autoimmune diseases”

[...] The reactogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in individuals suffering from immune-mediated diseases and having therefore a pre-existent dysregulation of the immune response has not been investigated. It may be hypothesized that immunosuppressive agents prescribed to these patients mitigate or even prevent side effects related to vaccine immunogenicity.

Besides the mechanism of molecular mimicry, mRNA vaccines may give rise to a cascade of immunological events eventually leading to the aberrant activation of the innate and acquired immune system [...]

How it works: 
[...] RNA vaccines have been principally designed for cancer and infectious diseases. This innovative therapeutic approach is based on the synthesis of RNA chains coding for desired antigenic proteins and exploits the intrinsic immunogenicity of nucleic acids. In order to avoid degradation by RNases, RNA can be encapsulated in nanoparticles or liposomes, which deliver the cargo inside target cells following a process of endocytosis. mRNA is then translated into immunogenic proteins by cell ribosomal machinery [...]

Dangers: 
[...] However, prior to the translation, mRNA may bind pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) in endosomes or cytosol. Toll-like receptor (TLR)3, TLR7 and TLR8 are able to recognize chains of double-stranded (ds)RNA or single-stranded (ss)RNA in endosomes, while retinoic acid-inducible gene-I (RIG-I) and melanoma differentiation-associated protein 5 (MDA5) may detect short and long filaments of dsRNA in the cytosol. The final result is the activation of several pro-inflammatory cascades, including the assembly of inflammasome platforms, the type I interferon (IFN) response and the nuclear translocation of the transcription factor nuclear factor (NF)-kB 

Further concern: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...21256520v1 (under eval)
https://www.news-medical.net/news/202105...ant-Notice

The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses

[...] Here we confirmed that BNT162b2 vaccination of healthy individuals induced effective humoral and cellular immunity against several SARS-CoV-2 variants. Interestingly, however, the BNT162b2 vaccine also modulated the production of inflammatory cytokines by innate immune cells upon stimulation with both specific (SARS-CoV-2) and non-specific (viral, fungal and bacterial) stimuli. The response of innate immune cells to TLR4 and TLR7/8 ligands was lower after BNT162b2 vaccination, while fungi-induced cytokine responses were stronger. In conclusion, the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine induces complex functional reprogramming of innate immune responses, which should be considered in the development and use of this new class of vaccines [...]

Thanks for continuing to share this information @"luka_skywalker_77" and to all continuing to follow this most serious topic.   



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7833091/ 

Quote:Do COVID-19 RNA-based vaccines put at risk ...

I've seen a number of possible vaccination risks raised by well credentialed and experience doctors and scientists of which cancer linkage is one of them.  Doctors and Scientists have cited and explained in some detail their reasons for various concerns on the afore linked: 



---



https://vaccines.daystar.com 



--- 



On the other side of the debate dismissing vaccination concerns, the answer will always be something along the lines of lack of proof or evidence, particularly the sort of studies and peer reviewed type used commonly for validating any of these concerns. 







As a non-professional in the field, just looking objectively, my concern remains as to what happens when an issue of health and safety becomes clearly driven by political forces that have taken a side.  How is it we are not all on one side against the disease but instead a societal war is taking place over how to fight against the disease?  







Shouldn't we see a push to fight it by all means and any means whether a vaccination or for example by the numerous ways known to strengthen natural immunity or by potential prophylactic remedies or effective post disease treatments? 







If we're honest, we don't see that.  The movement forcing of vaccinations rather allowing free public debate has led to an all out war of suppressing not only anything that might infer problems with the vax but even anything that might be considered an alternative approach to the vaccinations!   This is very dangerous and in my view very much potentially corrupts the real science that we the people rely on.  







How can we expect the sort of studies to be prioritized and the needed accurate data inputs to gathered with the funding $$$.  For example how much money and resources are being funneled into studying just how effective the various efforts are strengthen natural immunity?  I don't see a lot going on there.  I don't hear Dr. Fauci beating the drum on that front.  If he is doing it, the media isn't reporting it. 







Instead the clear narrative imperative is to defend the vaccine and downplay any possible alternative.  

• When adverse effects are reported downplay them or outright suppress the information. 
  
• If people report anecdotally that they were helped or healed by some drug or treatment, fight against the story!!!  Anyone remember this story from last year for example? 
  

State Rep. Karen Whitsett 

• Via Detroit Free Press:
  
  
• State Rep. Karen Whitsett, who learned Monday she has tested positive for COVID-19, said she started taking hydroxychloroquine on March 31, prescribed by her doctor, after both she and her husband sought treatment for a range of symptoms on March 18.
  “It was less than two hours” before she started to feel relief, said Whitsett, who had experienced shortness of breath, swollen lymph nodes, and what felt like a sinus infection. She is still experiencing headaches, she said.
  
  Whitsett said she was familiar with “the wonders” of hydroxychloroquine from an earlier bout with Lyme disease, but does not believe she would have thought to ask for it, or her doctor would have prescribed it, had Trump not been touting it as a possible treatment for COVID-19.
  
  
  
• Whitsett went on to credit President Trump with playing a significant role in saving her life:
  
• “It has a lot to do with the president … bringing it up,” Whitsett said. “He is the only person who has the power to make it a priority.”
  Asked if she thinks Trump may have saved her life, Whitsett said: “Yes, I do,” and “I do thank him for that.”
  

[*]Of course former President's Trump's name being included in the story made it immediately politically driven story and the scientific discussion because a weapon to discredit the drug as quickly as possible.  

I have to ask this response really driven by science 1st?  



[*]On the other side if there is any story release that even slightly implies that the Covid vaccination may have contributed to an adverse effect of any the idea and anyone who raises it is attacked and discredited, right away and with every sort of force available. 
[*]Again, full disclaimer, I post this very recent story only to make the point about the interest of free discussion.  I don't claim to know what if any real connection there is, but we talked earlier about how post vaccination adverse events are easy to simply dismiss. 

What I have seen is that immediately it has become a political issue to do anything more than just mention that he was fully vaccinated. 

I mention his case in this context because per the discussion here, Colin Powell had cancer and on the Daystar website a number of doctors expressed what they believe could be a link to weakening the system against cancer citing patients who saw a resurgence of their cancers. 
Colin Powell, first Black US secretary of state, dies of Covid-19 complications amid cancer battle. 
Cancer Battle 
I understand the vaccine may have nothing to with his Covid case but with these questions at how do we expect accurate science to emerge and the public to be fully reliant on the push for a forced vaccination? 



[*]---
Colin Powell, former secretary of state, dies of COVID-19 complications, was fully vaccinated ... 
Colin Powell

(10-18-2021, 10:22 AM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]I've seen a number of possible vaccination risks raised by well credentialed and experience doctors and scientists of which cancer linkage is one of them.  Doctors and Scientists have cited and explained in some detail their reasons for various concerns on the afore linked: 



---



https://vaccines.daystar.com 



--- 



On the other side of the debate dismissing vaccination concerns, the answer will always be something along the lines of lack of proof or evidence, particularly the sort of studies and peer reviewed type used commonly for validating any of these concerns. 







As a non-professional in the field, just looking objectively, my concern remains as to what happens when an issue of health and safety becomes clearly driven by political forces that have taken a side.  How is it we are not all on one side against the disease but instead a societal war is taking place over how to fight against the disease?  







Shouldn't we see a push to fight it by all means and any means whether a vaccination or for example by the numerous ways known to strengthen natural immunity or by potential prophylactic remedies or effective post disease treatments? 







If we're honest, we don't see that.  The movement forcing of vaccinations rather allowing free public debate has led to an all out war of suppressing not only anything that might infer problems with the vax but even anything that might be considered an alternative approach to the vaccinations!   This is very dangerous and in my view very much potentially corrupts the real science that we the people rely on.  







How can we expect the sort of studies to be prioritized and the needed accurate data inputs to gathered with the funding $$$.  For example how much money and resources are being funneled into studying just how effective the various efforts are strengthen natural immunity?  I don't see a lot going on there.  I don't hear Dr. Fauci beating the drum on that front.  If he is doing it, the media isn't reporting it. 







Instead the clear narrative imperative is to defend the vaccine and downplay any possible alternative.  

• When adverse effects are reported downplay them or outright suppress the information. 
  
  
• If people report anecdotally that they were helped or healed by some drug or treatment, fight against the story!!!  Anyone remember this story from last year for example? 
  

That´s telling me more about your believe system than anything COVID related. Others would argue the direct opposite. We are seeing an overreporting of COVID vaccine criticism. Creating a false balance because the waste majority of scientists and existing research is pretty clear about the benefits (outweighting the risks).
I am sorry that I cannot take you serious when you refer to the mentioned names as well credentialed doctors. You found reasons to question other scientists because of a poitical driven agenda. Maybe do a backup check on the ones that you are listing. You will find some interesting connections that lead to the attack on the capitol (featuring Simone Gold, in a leading role), other right wing organizations and snake oil salesmen schemes.

(10-18-2021, 10:22 AM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]Of course former President's Trump's name being included in the story made it immediately politically driven story and the scientific discussion because a weapon to discredit the drug as quickly as possible.

Trumps name being mentioned shouldn´t matter because he has no medical expertise. That obviously did not stop him from making claims about various treatment options. The problem isn´t that it is mentioned by the media. The problem is that he made those claims in the first place. Without any evidence.

(10-18-2021, 10:22 AM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ] This is very dangerous and in my view very much potentially corrupts the real science that we the people rely on.  




How can we expect the sort of studies to be prioritized and the needed accurate data inputs to gathered with the funding $$$.  For example how much money and resources are being funneled into studying just how effective the various efforts are strengthen natural immunity?  I don't see a lot going on there.  I don't hear Dr. Fauci beating the drum on that front.  If he is doing it, the media isn't reporting it. 

There is a lot of research being done in all kinds of directions. Including potential risks of the vaccine. Including various treatment options. On aspect are clinical trials for various drugs with known anti-viral or anti-inflammatory traits. The other. Development of new drugs and treatment options.
Easy to find. CDC/FDA or in "mainstream" media.


For example:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020...ments.html

Would argue that COVID related research has more funding than any virus related research ever.

(10-18-2021, 10:22 AM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]I post this very recent story only to make the point about the interest of free discussion. 

And I disagree with this approach. Free discussion can be used as an excuse to make all kind of claims. Spread outright lies and misinformation. The example is terrible. Admitting that it has no scientific value or any form of evidence to back it up doesn´t change that.
To highlight the development that I have just witnessed on this board. Two studies. One being badly misinterpreted. So much that even the author voiced her concerns. The other not making any claims about cancer or any other complications. Just highlighting the need for more research when it comes to changes of the innate immune response. As far as the study goes we don´t even know if there are any lasting changes. If they are good/bad. That´s why the authors aren´t making those claims. They highlight changes in the innate immune response. Those changes aren´t a rarity. All kinds od vaccines lead to similar changes.

https://jlb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...I0315-096R

Same for contact with pathogens (like viruses). In this case. COVID. That´s where we have a clear prove of longterm auto-immune complications (Long Covid).

The let´s say "interesting" interpretation of multiple studies combined with anecdotal numbers from Dr. Cole (he hasn´t given any evidence or published his data) leads to the claim that MRNA vaccines weaken the immune system. Cause auto-immune diseases or cancer.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/04/sciche...-vaccines/

Leading to interesting takes from our posters. Linking random cases to the mentioned claims. Fabricating connections without any evidence. Ignoring the existing evidence.

Great example for the origin and evolution of misinformation. And to sum this up. Quoting the original author of one of the papers Cole is refering to. Norbert Pardi: "No publications demonstrate that mRNA vaccines cause cancer or autoimmune diseases".

(10-18-2021, 11:54 AM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]That´s telling me more about your believe system than anything COVID related

You're going right back to directing your attacks at people instead of staying focused on the issue.  

Quote:Ad hominem
a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Now its time to take swipes at me and my belief system?  You can't take me seriously because you think you know what my belief system is?  Seriously?    Can we avoid making this about me, or about some politician etc.   I really haven't made about you have I @"dirkfansince1998" or whatever your belief system or motives are, have I? 

Notice that by going Ad hominem in your reply you didn't really have anything to say about the woman's life being saved?  State Rep. Karen Whitsett is a Democrat by the way, not a Trump supporter if that matters to you for some reason.   My point is was not politically driven which I guess you implied. 

I didn't see a comment really about the loss of a great American leader in Colin Powell, the possibility of any link to cancer which was the point under discussion.   No thoughts one way or the other I guess.  
I could have listed a lot more anecdotes long ago, I haven't up until this point but really there are lots of stories right in front of this and many of them have been vaccinated famous people, sports, politicians, entertainment.   

I'm not going to start listing them all because I'm really not anti-vaccination here.  I don't doubt the vaccinations are saving many lives from more severe COVID effects which is great, but let's not cover our eyes or force a vaccination on people where all the data is not yet in.  

The point is until the data is all in on how effective is, the anecdotes are part of what we have and we can all see.  They may not mean what we think, but they also start adding up and may well mean something.   
 
Are you seeing red because a certain politicians name was referenced?   The only reason Trump's name is mentioned for example is because the woman who feels that the HCQ saved her life mentioned him.   Do you have a problem with her saying the drug saved her life?  Do you have a problem with her mentioning Trump or do you just have a problem with me even sharing the story? 

Should we now pretend as though her story never happened or is it somehow harmful in your mind to even mention or reference it?   Sigh.   

Quote:We are seeing an overreporting of COVID vaccine criticism.

If the market for expression is truly free then the public on the whole, professional and civilian determine what reporting is done.  So who is to say what is overreporting unless there is some sort of centralized control of what is spread and shared across the society.   

How is it overreporting if 57 top doctors put out public statement of concern over adverse effects as I referenced earlier and they sign their names to it? 
 
How is it overreporting if a highly experienced scientist with years of experience at a major vaccination manufacturer like Pfizer forms an association with over 160 other doctors, scientists and researchers from around the world to voice their concerns over something like forced vaccinations, safety and efficacy?   
https://doctors4covidethics.org   

Is centralized control of expression from some designated smartest people really what you want, because its sits directly in opposition to the entire free press principal and much more in line with various oppressive forms of government over the course of history. 

Quote:And I disagree with this approach. Free discussion can be used as an excuse to make all kind of claims. Spread outright lies and misinformation. The example is terrible. Admitting that it has no scientific value or any form of evidence to back it up doesn´t change that.

I think you completely missed the wisdom and understanding of an earlier statement I referenced. 
Pay attention to what is said here regarding peer-review and tell me if it makes any sense to you. 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/the-vaccinated-are-worried-and-scientists-don-t-have-answers/ar-AANzgN7 

Quote:Anecdotes tell us what the data can’t: Vaccinated people appear to be getting the coronavirus at a surprisingly high rate. But exactly how often isn’t clear, nor is it certain how likely they are to spread the virus to others. 

Though it is evident vaccination still provides powerful protection against the virus, there’s growing concern that vaccinated people may be more vulnerable to serious illness than previously thought.

Get it?  People's real stories are not valueless.  As the piece above says, Anecdotes sometimes tell us what the data can't.  Sometimes the data is not all there yet, or worst yet the data is being manipulated.  

Yes placing the stories under scientific testing as soon as possible and as completely possible is definitely desirable, but when people report they are sick after taking something it is not without value.  When they report that they took something and immediately got better that is also not without value until all the studies and peer review come in.   It means something.  

Ignoring every report of an adverse effect or possible adverse effect until the smart people tell you what it means is an overreliance on systems like peer review which are great systems but have their own vulnerabilities.  At the end of the day, its still people were are listening to and people's data and interpretations of the data we trusting. 

You realize at that if you reject certain data without your own careful consideration, because of who it came from for example, at that point you are running the risk of relying more on faith in who you choose to listen to and just calling it science.  
You yourself cannot vet the vetter, fact check the fact checker or verify that all the input data going into the statistics you regurgitate are complete or accurate.   Do you even think about that? 

Quote:I am sorry that I cannot take you serious when you refer to the mentioned names as well credentialed doctors. You found reasons to question other scientists because of a poitical driven agenda.

What mentioned names?  

• The 57 top doctors referenced?  
  
• The 160 + doctors, scientists and researchers referenced?  
  
• Dr. Michael Yeadon, former VP and chief scientist of Pfizer?  
  

Are you talking about one of the many doctors and scientists or affected citizens appearing on vaccinations.daystar.com or my references to https://vaers.hhs.gov the governments own Vaccinations Adverse Event Reporting site? 

What exactly and who exactly are you talking about with this political driven agenda or questionable credentials?  All of them?    

Quote:Free discussion can be used as an excuse to make all kind of claims. Spread outright lies and misinformation.

This is true, no denying that.  Are we saying though that there is some centralized authority we can rely on now that is free of outright lies and misinformation?   Like who?  The government perhaps with its perfect record of pure integrity and honesty? 

How about letting other medical professionals, scientists, doctors and researchers speak and publish freely so they can fact check the fact checkers who in turn fact check them.  They are in the field.  Let's hear both sides.  That's the beauty of real free speech, freedom of the press and free expression in a society, it fact checks itself if not suppressed by political power and financial influences.

Quote: You found reasons to question other scientists because of a poitical driven agenda.

What scientist did I question as to their personal motive and agenda? 


I have said in general that the political apparatus is behind behind forced vaccinations.  Is that even a debatable question?  Its all over the news, every day, we know the narrative the official government forces in power are backing.  

If the concern from our trusted authorities were really all for the safety of our citizens by the way can you explain why an unknown thousands of people (Afghan, Southern Border) are being allowed to freely enter the country without covid testing let alone covid vaccinations?   Would that be politically driven or based on the science? 
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/im...th-worlds/ 

I'll leave the heavy political debate alone here but its disingenuous to pretend the political power is equally distributed. 


That doesn't make anything they say right or wrong in and of itself but it does mean that we know full well who is David and who is Goliath in this story.  We know on which side people are losing jobs and losing their reputations and freedoms because they insist on being heard with what is a essentially a counter narrative.  
The biggest money and dollars, and power to punish are clearly positioned to not only vaccinate the entire population but to force inject the population if at all possible. Yes I consider that a very dangerous and slippery slope, which I fully expect we will continue to slide down.   

As the saying goes in regards to corruption, follow the money. Follow the power.    Does it cut both ways? Absolutely.  Well meaning and not so well meaning people can vie for the $$$ available on either side.  

Its actually you and others similarly dispositioned who like to attack the integrity and qualifications of people who normally would never be assailed for their years of education, degrees and highly specialized experience. 

I haven't questioned any doctor or scientist, or study or person you @"dirkfansince1998" or @"Jannemann2" or any other particularly strong advocate of the vaccinations has quoted, and I have certainly not attacked their personal motives or credentials. 

Let's not make things up or mix things up please.

(10-18-2021, 04:50 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]You're going right back to directing your attacks at people instead of staying focused on the issue.  

I guess the friendly discussion is coming to an end.
Not sure what I did. Just pointed out that a different believe system leads to different opinons.. For some reason you are quick to dismiss available data and studies. Prefer to focus on anecdotes. Fine with me. To each their own.
What I don´t buy is the fake neutrality. You have argued from a completly one sided position. I already voiced my concerns about that in an earlier post. There is nothing balanced about your posts.

(10-18-2021, 04:50 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]Now its time to take swipes at me and my belief system?  You can't take me seriously because you think you know what my belief system is?  Seriously?    Can we avoid making this about me, or about some politician etc.   I really haven't made about you have I @dirkfansince1998 or whatever your belief system or motives are, have I? 

Where did I say that. I did say that I cannot take you seriously because of the names you linked (I think it was vaccine.daystar). You are the one that is complaining about political agendas. I agree they are a problem. You aren´t trusting the pharma industry or the government. I can understand why. So political bias is a problem for you.
Well sorry that I cannot take the claim serious when you go one to list the who is who of right wing doctors and media stars. Don´t they have an agenda as well. I think the attack on the capitol was a pretty big thing. Should we at least question the motives of doctors that participated?
Should we question the motives of physicians that are running online shops for these so called wonder drugs?

(10-18-2021, 04:50 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not going to start listing them all because I'm really not anti-vaccination here.  I don't doubt the vaccination is saving many lives from more severe COVID effects which is great, but let's not cover our eyes or force a vaccination on people where all the data is not yet in.  

The point is until the data is all in on how effective is, the anecdotes are part of what we have and we can all see.  They may not mean what we think, but they also start adding up and may well mean something. 

This final data you are waiting for is never going to come. There will always be new research. Potentially new discoveries. The relevant data is in but for some reason you are covering your eyes.

(10-18-2021, 04:50 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]If the market for expression is truly free then the public on the whole, professional and civilian determine what reporting is done.  So who is to say what is overreporting unless there is some sort of centralized control of what is spread and shared across the society.   

How is it overreporting if 57 top doctors put out public statement of concern over adverse effects as I referenced earlier and they sign their names to it? 
 
How is it overreporting if a highly experienced scientist with years of experience at a major vaccination manufacturer like Pfizer forms an association with over 160 other doctors, scientists and researchers from around the world to voice their concerns over something like forced vaccinations, safety and efficacy?   

What. That´s exactly the point I just made. You are the one that is talking about suppression and under reporting. Even mentioning manipulated research. Point is that this take is your opinion. Nothing else. I just made the point that another person with a different focus could come to a different conclusion.
Not sure how the mentioned (I love the phrase "top". Wonder who came up with that) doctors matter in this case. What if I put them next to 10000s of doctors with a different opinion. What if media outlet x/y/z chooses to give the 160 doctors 80% of coverage and only 20% to the 100000. Next one is doing the opposite. 1% for the 160 / 99% for the 10000.
That´s why I don´t get the whole suppression talk. CNN will have a different focus than FOX. Are pro vaccine scientists suppressed because OAN isn´t inviting them? We have a divided media landsacpe. But that´s not suppression.

(10-18-2021, 04:50 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]Is centralized control of expression from some designated smartest people really what you want, because its sits directly in opposition to the entire free press principal and much more in line with various oppressive forms of government over the course of history. 

Not sure where that is coming from. I guess it goes along with your complaints about suppression.

(10-18-2021, 04:50 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]Are you seeing red because a certain politicians name was referenced?   The only reason Trump's name is mentioned for example is because the woman who feels that the HCQ saved her life mentioned him.   Do you have a problem with her saying the drug saved her life?  Do you have a problem with her mentioning Trump or do you just have a problem with me even sharing the story? 

Absolutely not. But once again. Complaining about political agendas. No problem when a president promotes unproven medical treatments. Something isn´t adding up. We could try to move on but that´s not possible because the topic is about politics. By now we have pretty strong evidence that HCQ offers no benefits for COVID treatment. Doesn´t stop people from using it. Doesn´t stop people from promoting it. Please explain why.
I have a big problem with promotion for treatments that aren´t helping people.
And in this case I have problems with the conclusion you are trying to make. You are acting like the research hasn´t been done. In case of HCQ we are past anecdotes. We have enough data to make the call. So we can put the anecdote where it belongs. She recovered. That´s great. It is very unlikely that HCQ played any role in her recovery.
No further need to promote it. That obviously won´t stop your favorit doctors from doing it anyway as long as there is money to be made. Maybe share some anecdotes about people that were scammed by organizations like the AFLD or FLCCC.

(10-18-2021, 04:50 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]I think you completely missed the wisdom and understanding of an earlier statement I referenced. 
Pay attention to what is said here regarding peer-review and tell me if it makes any sense to you. 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/the-vaccinated-are-worried-and-scientists-don-t-have-answers/ar-AANzgN7 

Sorry to tell you that I have a different interpretation of this. But it is nice to see that they agree with me. Some FACTS are established. As mentioned. The research doesn´t stop. We will continue to make new discoveries. Sometimes get contradicting results. Not to mention that the virus mutates. The Delta variant did not exist when Pfizer and Moderna developed the first vaccines.
Good thing about the mentioned example. We can track cases. Especially clinical breakthrough cases. And we can compare them to the amount of unvaccinated cases. That´s what the CDC did in the last couple of month to get a better picture. Data was published a few days ago. I posted the link a few days ago. I just realized that the article is nearly two month old. Meaning that the scientific approach once again did what it is supposed to do.
Two month ago we had questions and contradicting information on breakthrough cases. Now we are getting more and more results and information. More clarity when it comes to the amount and severity of breakthrough cases.

I never claimed that anecdotes have no value. Without them scientists wouldn´t even know what to look for. But once we have established facts or at least strong evidence we don´t need to rely on them any longer (see HCQ). That seems to be the point where we disagree. I already mentioned this in one of my first posts in this thread. If we cannot accept certain things as facts. Everything is just an opinion. The sky is yellow. The earth is flat.

(10-18-2021, 04:50 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]Ignoring every report of an adverse effect or possible adverse effect until the smart people tell you what it means is an overreliance on systems like peer review which are great systems but have their own vulnerabilities.  At the end of the day, its still people were are listening to and people's data and interpretations of the data we trusting. 

You realize at that if you reject certain data without your own careful consideration, because of who it came from for example, at that point you are running the risk of relying more on faith in who you choose to listen to and just calling it science.  
You yourself cannot vet the vetter, fact check the fact checker or verify that all the input data going into the statistics you regurgitate are complete or accurate.   Do you even think about that? 

Not really sure how this is connected to peer reviews. Most studies we are seeing right now are early prints. I guess you are talking about the scientific discourse. First of all. You are absolutely right. It isn´t without fault. Mistakes are made. Even fraud.
But it is still a great system to remove bias. We aren´t listening to one interest group. We are listening to people from different countries, cultures, political systems, rich/poor.
Once again. This is coming down to the does a scientific consensus exist...Do facts exist debate. You will always find people that disagree. Be it the shape of the earth, climate change or COVID. And they are free to make their case. But they actually have to make a case. More than just claims. In case of our recent example it means that Dr. Cole needs to publish his cancer data. Show us evidence. As long as he isn´t doing that he cannot even be considered a part of the scientific process.

(10-18-2021, 04:50 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]the governments own Vaccinations Adverse Event Reporting site? 

And that´s what I don´t get. No one is ignoring reports of adverse effects. I was the first one that mentioned the myocarditis/pericarditis example. The system worked. Anecdotes turned into VAERS (or similar systems from other countries) events and researchers connected the anecdotes. That´s why systems like VAERS exist. They are meant to overreport (sometimes they don´t do because the data isn´t inserted). The majority of events that are listed aren´t related to the vaccine but they are reported anyway.

(10-18-2021, 04:50 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]This is true, no denying that.  Are we saying though that there is some centralized authority we can rely on now that is free of outright lies and misinformation?   Like who?  The government perhaps with its perfect record of pure integrity and honesty? 

How about letting other medical professionals, scientists, doctors and researchers speak and publish freely so they can fact the fact checkers.  They are in the field.  Let's hear both sides.  That's the beauty of real free speech, freedom of the press and free expression in a society, it fact checks itself if not suppressed by political power and financial influences.

Of course not. As mentioned. No system is perfect. But...and we really are back to the begnning of the entire thread...
No one is preventing the mentioned scientists from participating in the discourse. And we are hearing both sides. Some of the physicians you mentioned made their case in front of the authorities. They had the opportunity. They could also use the waste income of their organizations to found research. Again. No one is preventing them from doing that.

To repeat myself. Where do you draw the line? Hate speech, potentially harmful information, criminal acts (in this case scam)?
Can we accept the fact that people shouldn´t inject bleach? Can we do something about it when social media content is promoting it?
What about HCQ? How many additional high quality studies do we need or can we finally put the topic to rest.
Or to come back to the cancer/immune diseases claim. Is it okay to highlight the take as long as no one is providing prove or publishing anything.

(10-18-2021, 05:34 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]What scientist did I question as to their personal motive and agenda? 


I have said in general that the political apparatus is behind behind forced vaccinations.  Is that even a debatable question?  Its all over the news, every day, we know the narrative the official government forces in power are backing.  

If the concern from our trusted authorities were really all for the safety of our citizens by the way can you explain why an unknown thousands of people (Afghan, Southern Border) are being allowed to freely enter the country without covid testing let alone covid vaccinations?   Would that be politically driven or based on the science? 
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/im...th-worlds/ 

I'll leave the heavy political debate alone here but its disingenuous to pretend the political power is equally distributed. 


That doesn't make anything they say right or wrong in and of itself but it does mean that we know full well who is David and who is Goliath in this story.  We know on which side people are losing jobs and losing their reputations and freedoms because they insist on being heard with what is a essentially a counter narrative.  
The biggest money and dollars, and power to punish are clearly positioned to not only vaccinate the entire population but to force inject the population if at all possible. Yes I consider that a very dangerous and slippery slope, which I fully expect we will continue to slide down.   

As the saying goes in regards to corruption, follow the money. Follow the power.    Does it cut both ways? Absolutely.  Well meaning and not so well meaning people can vie for the $$$ available on either side.  

Its actually you and others similarly dispositioned who like to attack the integrity and qualifications of people who normally would never be assailed for their years of education, degrees and highly specialized experience. 

I haven't questioned any doctor or scientist, or study or person you @"dirkfansince1998" or @"Jannemann2" or any other particularly strong advocate of the vaccinations has quoted, and I have certainly not attacked their personal motives or credentials. 

Let's not make things up or mix things up please.

Another opinion piece presented as facts. With fake neutrality. It is interesting that you are willing to accept certain things as facts that cannot be falsified. But dismiss any factual consensus when it comes to COVID.
You cannot turn this into a political debate and simply undo it with a but let´s leave the "heavy political debate alone". Especially when the rest of the post is a subjective and political opinion piece.
Only thing I can say is that I was honest about my intentions and positions from the very start. Cannot say the same about you. You cannot both way it if you continue to make one-sided arguments.

And to adress my "attacks" on some of the mentioned people. Was it about their qualification or experience or their agenda? Answer. Agenda. I guess that´s pretty comparable to your claims about the "political apparatus". Differnce is that I wanted to be precise. I gave examples of things they did/are doing that lead to questions about their integrity.
You could do the same. "political apparatus" is a nice word construct. Who is the one that is making the decisions. Who is behind the forced vaccination? There are names attached to those decisions. You obviously question the integrity of them.

(10-18-2021, 04:50 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't see a comment really about the loss of a great American leader in Colin Powell, the possibility of any link to cancer which was the point under discussion.  No thoughts one way or the other I guess.

The link to cancer exists and it is extremely obvious and not what you might or might not have been implying. Mr. Powell was suffering a form of cancer which specifically concerns plasma cells. The biological function of these cells is to mass-produce antibodies against previously recognized pathogens. People with this type of cancer are known to have a severely reduced immunoresponse and hence a severely increased risk to fall victim to all kind of infections, even those, which are usually completely harmless for healthy people. These patients are also well known to often be unable to develop sufficient immunity from vaccinations - as the natural protection from vaccinations uses the same mechanisms and the same group of cells to induce a protection via antibodies against infectious agents.

Knowledge about that is actually established for decades. It is known and shown to be also the case for Covid-19 in several studies (as expected). In fact, doctors, researchers and even some politicians are concerned since the start of the whole pandemic about how to protect this very group of people which are known to be both: extremely vulnerable to Covid-19 and with a much reduced chance to get sufficient protection from vaccination.

The risk for severe cases of Covid-19 is higher in older people, and especially high for the age group of 80y+. Mr. Powell was 84 years old.

Mr. Powell got his second shot in February per sources. 8 month from now. Data from all over the world consistently shows, immunity is increasingly waning after 5-6 month; younger people still have good protection especially against severe courses. But waning of protection is much, much steeper in the age group 80y+.

So Mr. Powell had cancer, a form which severely reduces the ability to produce antibodies at all (from vaccination and infection with the actual SarsCov-2 virus), was member of an age group known to be severely endangered by Covid-19 (much more than the mean of the population) and which is also known to have a lower immuncompetence and therefore weaker protection from vaccination even without cancer. If he had been under actual treatment against cancer (I didn't see any information about this) it would have further weakened his immunocompetence. Unfortunate as his passing may be, he was exactly the kind of person you'd expect to fall victim to the virus.

With all the information I've just lined out available (in a more compressed form) in more or less every source I've seen about Collin Powells passing it's really difficult for me to understand why one would think it was necessary for the sake of free speech or some misguided idea of balance to indicate a connection between Mr Powells cancer and his Anti-SarsCov-2 vaccination. Of course you didn't say it, you said, maybe, or maybe not and you would never say there is a connection, but you still don't know ...

But you have actually put both pieces of information on the table close enough to indicate there could be a causal connection while no available data hints to that and the overwhelming majority of researchers don't consider it a serious threat (especially compared to the threat from the virus itself)

Free speech is something important. But with great power comes great responsibility. And presenting information in a way like you did here (and not for the first time in this thread) is irresponsible in my opinion because it fails to differentiate between information that is supported with a lot of data and information which is supported with few data or no data at all (like Anti-SarsCov-2 vaccines maybe inducing cancer). This is producing doubt and mistrust into vaccines that are currently our best weapon against the pandemic (by a large margin) and as a consequence that adds to the establishment of a climate where people get the false idea it is unclear whether the vaccines create more good or more harm and therefore might avoid this important way to protect themselves and die or get severely ill. The same goes for indicating Vitamin D, invermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and a daily walk would offer the same or even better protection. Which they do not.

(I'm not even talking about the last quote about refugees from Afghanistan and their vaccination status as an indicator that the government might have some hidden agenda to force the whole population to get vaccinated for whatever evil reasons they might have).

(10-18-2021, 07:48 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]I guess the friendly discussion is coming to an end.
Not sure what I did.

Not at all, not on my part.  It may be a little more emotion tinged, hard to avoid completely but I certainly respect your effort and considerations on the discussions.  More importantly is you're still Mavs fan right?  Its all good in that case.   

What I was referring to is that our arguments were starting focus on the motives and credentials of the people being referenced in the articles or posts I linked to more so than addressing the direct point being made.  In that you included my beliefs as part of your refutation I suppose about the woman who says that the HCQ saved her life. 

I'm not saying you didn't address some of the actual points we were discussing aside from the people involved, you did.  Its why I continue to engage with you.  You and others have made a number reasonable points.  It just happens to be in sync with the mainstream narratives which the government is using its considerable power to push.  Doesn't make it wrong, but the techniques being used to suppress any and everyone who has anything counter to the narrative in my view makes even the data much less reliable. 

I mean what I say when I say I don't see any point in simply making the same points the mainstream narrative is making.  Its not that the narrative is all wrong in my opinion.  The vaccinations have a lot of merit.  As I've said I don't doubt they are helping many people avoid more serious cases of Covid.   
The point is there are also valid concerns in my view.  

I personally know numerous people that have died or gotten seriously ill with Covid but I also know a smaller but not insignificant number several that reported adverse reactions they attribute to occurring immediately or very shortly after taking the vaccine.   So are we supposed to pretend that issue doesn't exist because its a smaller number so people like that simply have take a forced injection and live or die with it, for the greater good?   Really? 

By most accounts the adverse reaction number and effects is a number we really don't know exactly since its almost universally acknowledge as being underreported even on official sites like VAERS.  

So in my view the best picture is seen by examining both the dissenting views and the mainstream.

(10-18-2021, 08:55 PM)Jannemann2 Wrote: [ -> ]The link to cancer exists and it is extremely obvious and not what you might or might not have been implying. Mr. Powell was suffering a form of cancer which specifically concerns plasma cells. The biological function of these cells is to mass-produce antibodies against previously recognized pathogens. People with this type of cancer are known to have a severely reduced immunoresponse and hence a severely increased risk to fall victim to all kind of infections, even those, which are usually completely harmless for healthy people. These patients are also well known to often be unable to develop sufficient immunity from vaccinations - as the natural protection from vaccinations uses the same mechanisms and the same group of cells to induce a protection via antibodies against infectious agents.

Knowledge about that is actually established for decades. It is known and shown to be also the case for Covid-19 in several studies (as expected). In fact, doctors, researchers and even some politicians are concerned since the start of the whole pandemic about how to protect this very group of people which are known to be both: extremely vulnerable to Covid-19 and with a much reduced chance to get sufficient protection from vaccination.

The risk for severe cases of Covid-19 is higher in older people, and especially high for the age group of 80y+. Mr. Powell was 84 years old.

Mr. Powell got his second shot in February per sources. 8 month from now. Data from all over the world consistently shows, immunity is increasingly waning after 5-6 month; younger people still have good protection especially against severe courses. But waning of protection is much, much steeper in the age group 80y+.

So Mr. Powell had cancer, a form which severely reduces the ability to produce antibodies at all (from vaccination and infection with the actual SarsCov-2 virus), was member of an age group known to be severely endangered by Covid-19 (much more than the mean of the population) and which is also known to have a lower immuncompetence and therefore weaker protection from vaccination even without cancer. If he had been under actual treatment against cancer (I didn't see any information about this) it would have further weakened his immunocompetence. Unfortunate as his passing may be, he was exactly the kind of person you'd expect to fall victim to the virus.

With all the information I've just lined out available (in a more compressed form) in more or less every source I've seen about Collin Powells passing it's really difficult for me to understand why one would think it was necessary for the sake of free speech or some misguided idea of balance to indicate a connection between Mr Powells cancer and his Anti-SarsCov-2 vaccination. Of course you didn't say it, you said, maybe, or maybe not and you would never say there is a connection, but you still don't know ...

But you have actually put both pieces of information on the table close enough to indicate there could be a causal connection while no available data hints to that and the overwhelming majority of researchers don't consider it a serious threat (especially compared to the threat from the virus itself)

Free speech is something important. But with great power comes great responsibility. And presenting information in a way like you did here (and not for the first time in this thread) is irresponsible in my opinion because it fails to differentiate between information that is supported with a lot of data and information which is supported with few data or no data at all (like Anti-SarsCov-2 vaccines maybe inducing cancer).  This is producing doubt and mistrust into vaccines that are currently our best weapon against the pandemic (by a large margin) and as a consequence that adds to the establishment of a climate where people get the false idea it is unclear whether the vaccines create more good or more harm and therefore might avoid this important way to protect themselves and die or get severely ill. The same goes for indicating Vitamin D, invermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and a daily walk would offer the same or even better protection. Which they do not.

(I'm not even talking about the last quote about refugees from Afghanistan and their vaccination status as an indicator that the government might have some hidden agenda to force the whole population to get vaccinated for whatever evil reasons they might have).

Let's start here @"Jannemann2" 

Quote:But you have actually put both pieces of information on the table close enough to indicate there could be a causal connection while no available data hints to that and the overwhelming majority of researchers don't consider it a serious threat (especially compared to the threat from the virus itself)

Free speech is something important. But with great power comes great responsibility. And presenting information in a way like you did here (and not for the first time in this thread) is irresponsible in my opinion because it fails to differentiate between information that is supported with a lot of data and information which is supported with few data or no data at all (like Anti-SarsCov-2 vaccines maybe inducing cancer). 

Let's look at the facts here. I posted a reference link.  You came back now and provided information about the linkage.  That's called free speech.  It gets the job done.  If you want to say I am irresponsible for presenting the simple link to the information without the differentiation or detail you provide then would it be fair for me to accuse you of being irresponsibility for never addressing the point of such well know people's vaccination related issues to the begin with?   

So is all he responsibility on me to present the views that dissent with mainstream AND to detail your more mainstream narrative views as well?   I don't think so.  How about you be responsible and share what you know and I'll be responsible and share points that I find concerning and / or relevant to the discussion. 

That would be your part of the great free speech responsibility side of the equation.  

Quote:The same goes for indicating Vitamin D, invermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and a daily walk would offer the same or even better protection. Which they do not.

 
#1 I never said those particular items would offer the same or even better protection.  For a scientist I think you're failing in making a point like that in such an offhanded and careless manner. 

1) One there are a number of methods many people use to strengthen natural immunity and or provide prophylactic support against COVID-19. 

2) Can you substantiate exactly how much protection factors that support natural immunity provide compared to vaccination? 

3) What age group can you substantiate this for? In other words if people under 20 get their protection from natural immunity how does that stack up to vaccination?   Under 30? Under 40? Under 50?  Over 50?  Do you have those studies? I'd love to see them. 

4) What is the risk factor for various demographic groups, age, race and those with possible underlying conditions for example have what risks in taking the vaccinations?   
Can some of these demographic groups pretty please Mr. scientist decide for themselves?  Maybe some of them are low risk to begin with and their research leads to feel that natural immunity strengthening measures are preferred? 
Maybe some of them are even Doctors or Scientists or Researches or Nurses or others that might have reached a somewhat different conclusion from you and the smartest guys in the room? 
Should those professionals have a choice if they would like to rely on their own natural immunity measures or
must they be forcefully injected by you much smarter people? 

Quote: it's really difficult for me to understand why one would think it was necessary for the sake of free speech or some misguided idea of balance to indicate a connection between Mr Powells cancer

I really appreciate your additional details although I did say myself that his case involved cancer and I did say we could not define the relationship as blaming the vaccine.   

In all seriousness I could list 10 to 20 more post vaccination serious adverse event cases right now among well known people.  I've already posted a piece about how some are alarmed at the clear volume of anecdotal evidence that vaccinated and even fully vaccinated are still getting Covid and even serious cases at a case higher than they expected.  That source was mainstream, not a "anti-vax" site.    

A few adverse event cases I know personally.  Other cases documented with video evidence and details on the sites I linked to like vaccinations.daystar.com .   
They have credentialed Doctors there that provide other cases they claim to have personally treated or know involving cancer and blood issues in particular.  

Vaccinated people are also still spreading the virus which I find to be something that public certainly here in the US is terribly misinformed about.  The clear implication when you walk into business is ignorance when they say "wear a mask if unvaccinated, not need if you are fully vaccinated."  Where is the public getting the idea that they don't need to worry about the spreading the virus if they are vaccinated but the unvaccinated are the ones presenting all the danger? 

Is that more from sound proven science or more from narrative?

It just so happened that Mr. Colin Powell's case just happened as we are having this discussion.  
If I were trying to actively discredit the vaccination, which I am not, I would direct post some of doctors and videos to some of the people that have claimed much worse.    
There is some risk to the vaccine. 

The virus is the obvious great threat so its great to have vaccinations that reduce its impact. 
Hiding or suppressing the risks of vaccinations and downplaying alternatives like natural immunity to justify forcing those vaccinations?    Anti free expression and not cool.   

 
81 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted
https://brownstone.org/articles/79-resea...nd-quoted/

Quote:We should not force COVID vaccines on anyone when the evidence shows that naturally acquired immunity is equal to or more robust and superior to existing vaccines. Instead, we should respect the right of the bodily integrity of individuals to decide for themselves. 

My point remains that it is more misleading and irresponsible to simply present the vaccinations as a slam dunk issue that should be forcefully injected to all of the public.  To do this too many people kind of like yourself seem to be arguing that there is no real or respectable dissent or disagreement in the Medial and Scientific community.  That simply does not appear to accurate. 

The vaccinated are showing viral loads (very high) similar to the unvaccinated (Acharya et al. and Riemersma et al.), and the vaccinated are as infectious. Riemersma et al. also report Wisconsin data that corroborate how the vaccinated individuals who get infected with the Delta variant can potentially (and are) transmit(ting) SARS-CoV-2 to others (potentially to the vaccinated and unvaccinated).

This troubling situation of the vaccinated being infectious and transmitting the virus emerged in seminal nosocomial outbreak papers by Chau et al. (HCWs in Vietnam), the Finland hospital outbreak[/url] (spread among HCWs and patients), and the [url=https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.39.2100822#html_fulltext]Israel hospital outbreak (spread among HCWs and patients).

Quote:But once we have established facts or at least strong evidence we don´t need to rely on them any longer (see HCQ). That seems to be the point where we disagree. I already mentioned this in one of my first posts in this thread. If we cannot accept certain things as facts. Everything is just an opinion. The sky is yellow. The earth is flat.

The disagreement has to do with what I see as the limited way in which you, and many others evidently rely on almost exclusively to vet and validate your information.  I had a similar discussion including with @"Jannemann2" back in the infamous Luka Tattoo thread on evolution etc.  I love real science.  I do hold a BS (CS) that includes minors in Physics and Math but I don't compare my credentials in a context like this as being particularly relevant.  I just make the point that I don't dismiss science.  Its clear to me that there is a form of scientific practice today that crosses over into belief and trust in people to the point where it is more like religion than it is really science. 

The way in which you decide that something is factual for example involves some methods which I also agree upon and use to test information such as various forms of publicly reported scientific researching and peer reviewed studies etc. yada.  
I just posted an example of relevant professionals against forced vaccinations based on their own scientific and medical research and conclusions at this point in time. 
https://brownstone.org/articles/79-resea...nd-quoted/ 

Quote:Moreover, existing immunity should be assessed before any vaccination, via an accurate, dependable, and reliable antibody test (or T cell immunity test) or be based on documentation of prior infection (a previous positive PCR or antigen test). Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity. This will function to mitigate the societal anxiety with these forced vaccine mandates and societal upheaval due to job loss, denial of societal privileges etc. Tearing apart the vaccinated and the unvaccinated in a society, separating them, is not medically or scientifically supportable. 
The Brownstone Institute previously documented 30 studies on natural immunity as it relates to Covid-19. 
This follow-up chart is the most updated and comprehensive library list of 81 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and allow you to draw your own conclusion.
I’ve benefited from the input of many to put this together, especially my co-authors:

• Dr. Harvey Risch, MD, PhD (Yale School of Public Health) 
  
  
• Dr. Howard Tenenbaum, PhD ( Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto)
  
  
• Dr. Ramin Oskoui, MD (Foxhall Cardiology, Washington)
  
  
• Dr. Peter McCullough, MD (Truth for Health Foundation (TFH)), Texas
  
  
• Dr. Parvez Dara, MD (consultant, Medical Hematologist and Oncologist)
  

Where we differ is I do not rely exclusively on those methods or even almost exclusively.  
You said for example that the Democratic representative from Detroit who reported anecdotally that HCQ treatment saved her life in a battle in  a COVID-19 should now be dismissed in terms of reference because WE know better now.  

Last year, very much during the pandemic outbreak frenzy I had several discussions with our local family doctor.  As I've shared before in this threat this has been very active and outspoken in regards to covid-19.  Last we talked maybe a few months ago now as I've said he is also very supportive of voluntary covid-19 vaccinations which I take into high consideration on my own evaluations since I respect his opinions as a working professional in the field.   

I wish you would consider these types of statements I've made earlier when you throw out your accusations like fake objectivity etc. etc. Just because I don't arrive at the same conclusions as you do @"dirkfansince1998" and @"Jannemann2" doesn't mean my objectivity is fake.   
In my view you fall into a large segment of modern western society etc. that has subscribed to a more limited view of what is valid science and what the valid ways are of testing your conclusions.  

Let me return to my anecdotal discussions with our local physician from last year before the existence of the vaccinations.  He shared something back then in our discussions which I find relevant here as it relates to anecdotal evidence vs. scientific lab studies.  
Let me summarize if you will this way: 

1) He says that as a practicing Doctor in the field he sees literally hundreds of patients a week in his office.  

2) He compared the experience of professionals in the field fighting disease to some scientific studied where he would easily see more Covid-19 patients in a month than most of the studies which he also reads and vets for himself through the lens of his own hands on experience as well as his education.  
Again, he also reads and respects studies himself, but does not rely exclusively on this as "The Gospel" so to speak. 

3) At the time, pre-vaccination he used specific treatments to treat his Covid-19 patients including several of the well known ones mentioned here such as HCQ and a couple of others.   

4) According to him, last year as many were getting severely ill and dying, NONE of his hundreds of patients over months of care had either died or been hospitalized except for one patient who had other illnesses and did not die but was hospitalized briefly.  

5) He said the key was 1) early detection and treatment at 1st sign of symptoms.  2) The drugs and treatments he applied including HCQ which he said definitely worked for many patients, mind you he used different treatments in different cases at the time as I recall he had 3 favorites one of which was HCQ. 

6) We talked again later still pre-vaccination but after the politically driven narrative surfaced regarding Trump and the remarks he made about HCQ.   Mind you our early discussions were pre-Trump remarks.  He said he now had to have lawyers draft a special disclaimer. 

If he treated patients with HCQ at times, which he did, he had the disclaimer signed he could continue to use HCQ in his practice because of the scrutiny that came on that drug which he and many other doctors had already reported they were using successfully, was already abundantly available and also very affordable for the every day citizen. 

In the links I have you there are other practicing doctors that reported very similar stories, anecdotally if you will from their work in the field. They report about treatments and methods that they know actually worked and worked very well including methods to strengthen natural immunity. 

So later when studies come down from people that thankfully are paid to do those studies, those studies and their interpretations also get vetted by live in the field peer-reviews so to speak.  Many of those doctors in the field get suppressed and attacked if they reach different conclusions than the studies.  

This is just part of the problem that can does occur when political and financial influences are applied  to official scientific inquiry. So yes when you say something like WE now know that HCQ or other treatments have no value in contrast to this very public report from one of many people who say that a drug like this did help them, even saved their life, I apply my own vetting process to my research. 

I do not dismiss anecdotal evidence quite as easily in the face of officially released studies. I do value dissenting views and studies when it is clear to me that certain narratives are being politically influenced. 

Finally you both alluded to my point about immigration which I think you both missed entirely.  
The point I made was that it is an example of how political influences are affecting the decisions about vaccinations.  It appears that we the public are being told we should be very worried about our unvaccinated fellow citizens like Kyrie Irving  but at the same time we should not be worried at all about the possibility that thousands of unvaccinated and even untested non-citizens may be literally getting transported into our communities every day?  

If we hear reports of increased covid-19 spread among our border agents and in communities that those immigrants are shipped into we should just ignore it since it probably comes from the evil anti-vaxxer people. 
What is the science driving this sort of policy? 

I said I didn't want to get heavily into the politics, meaning I don't intend to get into the larger political discussion about immigration policy, that was my point. I intended only to make the point about political influence on the vaccinations movement.

(10-16-2021, 03:49 PM)luka_skywalker_77 Wrote: [ -> ]@"Dahlsim"

Though this was interesting: https://stomson2001.wordpress.com/2021/0...e-systems/

"Anecdotes tell us what the data can’t: Vaccinated people appear to be getting the coronavirus at a surprisingly high rate. But exactly how often isn’t clear, nor is it certain how likely they are to spread the virus to others. 

Though it is evident vaccination still provides powerful protection against the virus, there’s growing concern that vaccinated people may be more vulnerable to serious illness than previously thought.

ER Editor: Dr. Mike Williams does a sterling job of explaining the probable mechanism behind the mRNA vaccines and why they have been engineered to TURN OFF a key element in our immune system response (this element is particular TLRs or toll-like receptors). Turning off this component permits the mRNA to enter our cells to do its job. When these are neutralized or prevented from working, however, there is then a knock-on effect on the CD8 T-cells, which are vital to a robust immune-system response. As Dr. Ryan Cole refers to them in this article/tweet, they are your ‘killer’ cells which, among other things, keep viruses in check. When you turn off certain TLRs, you also disable these highly necessary T-cells.

Whoever thought this was good idea? 

All of which may explain why certain types of cancer, as well as shingles, seem to be on the rise following Covid vaccination."

The issue I have is how does this affect the immune system long term. I don't think it simply disappears after it's time in our body wanes and that is concerning. Thankfully, there are a lot of doctors and scientists out there studying this around the clock; something the mainstream of doctors won't do. And at least we can get real data from that--peer review is sh*te for the most part but at least the research is being done. 

Thanks @"luka_skywalker_77" .  Good stuff. I hadn't seen the possible linkage with shingles for example. We should have more appreciation for all of these doctors and scientists on all sides of the issue that are working hard on 

Quote:explaining the probable mechanism

even before they can completely validate these mechanisms via robust testing and studies. 

Similarly on both sides of the issue which is unfortunately mislabeled as pro-vax/anti-vax, we have good scientific investigation into the long term vaccination effects. 
This is all very important and another reason the forced vaccinations movement is not only unethical in my view but also short-sighted. 

Naturally in the public with people getting sick and dying around us the long-term concerns are easily buried under the immediate fears.  Most of the public want a right now solution and are willing to kick all concerns over the long-term down the road with little concern.  This is one of the reasons most of public can be persuaded to support even forced vaccinations against their fellow citizens.  

Unfortunately, what is a helpful thing is being presented or perhaps misrepresented as a right now immediate cure to the pandemic, if only their unvaccinated neighbors would comply.

(10-19-2021, 07:16 AM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]The disagreement has to do with what I see as the limited way in which you, and many others evidently rely on almost exclusively to vet and validate your information.  I had a similar discussion including with @Jannemann2 back in the infamous Luka Tattoo thread on evolution etc.  I love real science.  I do hold a BS (CS) that includes minors in Physics and Math but I don't compare my credentials in a context like this as being particularly relevant.  I just make the point that I don't dismiss science.  Its clear to me that there is a form of scientific practice today that crosses over into belief and trust in people to the point where it is more like religion than it is really science. 

The way in which you decide that something is factual for example involves some methods which I also agree upon and use to test information such as various forms of publicly reported scientific researching and peer reviewed studies etc. yada.  
I just posted an example of relevant professionals against forced vaccinations based on their own scientific and medical research and conclusions at this point in time. 

I don´t even want to get into the natural immunity debate again. Great for people that already recovered but for whatever reason you rarely mention that one has to make it through the infection to get their.

The point is that you are not consistent. You are cherry picking the evidence that fits your narrative. I don´t disagree that natural immunity is to the best of our knowledge part of the scientific consensus. As far as the research goes people that had the virus show a robust immune response for at least 6-12 month (exact time frame is up for debate, maybe even longer but that´s the factual knowledge we have). 
But what about anecdotes and research that highlights cases of people that did not develop any antibodies after an infection. Is that enough to question the entire concept of natural immunity? Of course not. We have overwhelming evidence. It´s just another aspect. As I said. There will always be new discoveries and the research never stops. 100% clarity are nearly impossible to achieve.
If you would apply the same logic in case of other examples. For example treatment options or vaccine safety you would come to a different conclusion.

When the evidence isn´t supporting your narrative you are switching to anecdotes. Or question the integrity of the entire scientific process. Claims like suppression, manipulations (financial influence). The latter is the one consistent in all of your posts. The ultimate defense to justify everything and nothing. Obviously without any way to prove it.

(10-19-2021, 07:16 AM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]You said for example that the Democratic representative from Detroit who reported anecdotally that HCQ treatment saved her life in a battle in  a COVID-19 should now be dismissed in terms of reference because WE know better now.  

Last year, very much during the pandemic outbreak frenzy I had several discussions with our local family doctor.  As I've shared before in this threat this has been very active and outspoken in regards to covid-19.  Last we talked maybe a few months ago now as I've said he is also very supportive of voluntary covid-19 vaccinations which I take into high consideration on my own evaluations since I respect his opinions as a working professional in the field.   

I wish you would consider these types of statements I've made earlier when you throw out your accusations like fake objectivity etc. etc. Just because I don't arrive at the same conclusions as you do @dirkfansince1998 and @Jannemann2 doesn't mean my objectivity is fake.   
In my view you fall into a large segment of modern western society etc. that has subscribed to a more limited view of what is valid science and what the valid ways are of testing your conclusions.  

Let me return to my anecdotal discussions with our local physician from last year before the existence of the vaccinations.  He shared something back then in our discussions which I find relevant here as it relates to anecdotal evidence vs. scientific lab studies.  

You certainly seem to know better in case of natural immunity. I guess for whatever reason the same logic cannot be applied to treatment options. There is a time and place for anecdotes. And they are getting consideration. But again. In case of HCQ we are past that stage. Those kind of anecdotes lead to research that tried to verify the anecdotal benefits of HCQ. And we aren´t talking about lab vs field scenarios. We are talking about multiple high quality clinical trials. All coming to the same conclusion. No evidence for any benefit as a treatment option for COVID.
I really don´t know how many more we need before we can put the topic to rest.

In the following abstract about your family doctor (not going to quote it, trying to keep this a little bit more organized). You list a number of reasons why the mentione anecdotes cannot be verified. Why anecdotes lead to more research. Not medical guidelines.
We cannot verify who received which treatment. It seems like he used multiple, maybe even a combination. Which one had a positive impact on the outcome?
Was he even seeing critical cases or was he only treating mild cases? A more likely scenario for a family doctor.
How many of his patients would have made a quick and full recovery without any treatment? Most likely the majority.
Patients received treatment. How do we account for a potential placebo?
Just to name a few problems.

I do not disagree that personal experience can be important. The local physician / family doctor knows more about his patients than any expert. Just like the patient himself has knowledge about himself, family history and other things that no doctor can have.
Those stories are important but they don´t justify the use of drugs (even low risk options like HCQ can lead to adverse reactions) that based on the evidence do not provide any benefit as a treatment option.
A good example for the benefit of those stories. Vaccine choice. For example. If a close family member suffered from an adverse reaction. Let´s say the first Moderna shot lead to a myocarditis case (cousin or brother). Maybe another brother/cousin should consider a different vaccine (not MRNA).

(10-19-2021, 07:16 AM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]This is just part of the problem that can does occur when political and financial influences are applied  to official scientific inquiry. So yes when you say something like WE now know that HCQ or other treatments have no value in contrast to this very public report from one of many people who say that a drug like this did help them, even saved their life, I apply my own vetting process to my research. 

I do not dismiss anecdotal evidence quite as easily in the face of officially released studies. I do value dissenting views and studies when it is clear to me that certain narratives are being politically influenced. 

And we are back at it again. When it doesn´t fit the narrative it is politically or financially influenced. The dissenting views that you are promoting obviously aren´t. It is David vs Goliath. Pharma, government and "mainstream" media against a group of heros. The term and description of "mainstream" media that has been used in previous posts alone is showing me where you stand. I guess you aren´t refering to FOX + FOX News. They combine for the most viewers in the US. They certainly aren´t supressing the people you mentioned.
I guess it isn´t a problem to promote unproven treatments. But it certainly is a problem to question them. That´s mainstream. How dare they?
You complain that it is a political issue. And I agree. Some of it is about politics. But we obviously have different ideas about the political issues.

And that´s where I am using the term "fake objectivity". You clearly blame/distrust one side. But would obviously never admit. Instead we are playing this I see both sides but only argue in favor of one game.

(10-19-2021, 09:08 AM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]We should have more appreciation for all of these doctors and scientists on all sides of the issue that are working hard on 

I thought that we cannot trust some of them because of political and financial influence. Again. You cannot make those claims and continue to both-side the issue.
And no we shouldn´t appreciate some of them. Mr. Cole for example hasn´t even done his own research. Hasn´t published his data. Hasn´t answered any of the questions from authors he is refering to.

(10-19-2021, 09:08 AM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]Similarly on both sides of the issue which is unfortunately mislabeled as pro-vax/anti-vax, we have good scientific investigation into the long term vaccination effects. 
This is all very important and another reason the forced vaccinations movement is not only unethical in my view but also short-sighted. 

You are right. Not all are pro/anti vax. Some have different agendas. Some add real concerns.
But what about the ones that clearly are anti vax. Ignoring any evidence or anecdotes. That´s still an influential group. Lead by figures like Tenpenny or Kennedy Jr. They are against all vaccines. From Tetanus to MMR and now COVID vaccines.
Giant sample sizes. Longterm studies. It doesn´t matter.


And I don´t even want to get into the topic of religious exemptions. There are quite a few groups that are lobbying against the vaccine.

(10-19-2021, 09:08 AM)Dahlsim Wrote: [ -> ]Naturally in the public with people getting sick and dying around us the long-term concerns are easily buried under the immediate fears.  Most of the public want a right now solution and are willing to kick all concerns over the long-term down the road with little concern.  This is one of the reasons most of public can be persuaded to support even forced vaccinations against their fellow citizens.  

Unfortunately, what is a helpful thing is being presented or perhaps misrepresented as a right now immediate cure to the pandemic, if only their unvaccinated neighbors would comply.

That´s not what is happening. And for someone that is valuing the opinions and freedom of the individual you have a very negative view of our society. It´s not the lack of information that lead to the decision to get vaccinated. I would argue that it is the direct opposite. We have rarely seen so much coverage of medical research. Rarely seen people show so much interest into a medical topic.
You are right. In an ideal world we want the best possible solution as quickly as possible. But people are aware that this isn´t an every day occurrence. By now they have learned that we are dealing with something completly new. The biggest pandemic in the modern era.
What a majority of people realized is that vaccines are the best option to protect themself. What they realized is that it is the best option to avoid another wave with 1000s of deaths every day.
And it is the best option (not the only one, it takes more) to get closer to the life that we had prior to the pandemic.

Read this over and over and tell me this doesn't sound weird.

[...]
Are adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine recordable on the OSHA recordkeeping log?

DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers' vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904's recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination at least through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.

www.osha.gov/coronavirus/faqs

www.thedesertreview.com/business/osha-suspends-reporting-adverse-covid-shot-reactions/article_29a63af8-bcd5-11eb-bb3a-b70c12715ffc.html

As an aside, Ryan Cole might be a quack, but he's an exception in a sea of reputable scientists researching this issue. The key here, is that opponents of the anti vaxx camp will use this as the symbol of the movement, the same way they use false claims of voter fraud in the past election. It's purpose is to dismiss legitimate claims of side effects and reputable research from extraordinarily accomplished individuals. 

At the end of the day, people reserve the right to care for themselves in a way that protects them--not someone else--because only they have to live with the consequences of that action since the gov't and big pharma has removed themselves from liability. The lies have to end at some point, and most people are coming to that conclusion. This entire "American experiment" is executed under the "consent of the governed", which is definitely not being adhered to and people will change what needs to be changed despite the oligarchical nature of this modern era's gov't. Authoritarianism always begins as reason, then quickly devolves into the familiar madness and chaos of "order".

@dahlsim I'd say you're almost wasting your time here, but I do come back to post and share information with you specifically and anyone else looking for it with an open mind. People will come around eventually--sooner than later--and when they do, it'll either be too late or it'll be spun so as to protect those involved; i.e. "the science is always evolving".

(10-20-2021, 10:13 AM)luka_skywalker_77 Wrote: [ -> ]The key here, is that opponents of the anti vaxx camp will use this as the symbol of the movement, the same way they use false claims of voter fraud in the past election.

This short circuited me. Who are "they"? 

I mean...not trying to start election talk, but hey, this thread isn't in the basketball sections anymore, so...anyone who doesn't want any of this, go ahead and go back to the basketball section. 

I'll just say that I really hate the false dichotomy of right and left, that there are two giant menus of "what you should think", with each menu passed out to a different half of the U.S. 

So who are "they"?