COVID-19 vaccine discussion

5 minutes ago, kevwun said:

This stuff isn't stopping at vaccines.

What's next, colonoscopies?

the stupid shit anti-science people will do impress Jenny McCarthy.  She doesn't love yoU!

On 10/10/2021 at 8:20 AM, Caponata said:

What is your medical background?

Listen, smart guy.  I'll have you know he is a proud grad of Hollywood Upstairs Medical College.

 

On 10/9/2021 at 9:10 AM, Somnio said:

It this fake news?  Is this guy who claims to be a doctor lying?  Is he inviting hatred and contempt upon himself for the lulz, or something more sinister?  Or is he just really dumb?

What say you, Surly?

 

https://seed306.bitchute.com/qsqOliWyhidn/N5UAQT3s31TY.mp4

 

The funny thing is how many people can't differentiate between M.D. and PhD.

8 minutes ago, Lobo said:

the stupid shit anti-science people will do impress Jenny McCarthy.  She doesn't love yoU!

On 10/10/2021 at 9:07 AM, kevwun said:

A new troll has been born.

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Sbbruin

43 minutes ago, kevwun said:

This stuff isn't stopping at vaccines.

 

37 minutes ago, StruggleBus said:

What's next, colonoscopies?

Pretty sure he's talking about the growing anti-tonsillectomy movement.

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You need to keep up -- it's spilling into ALL vaccines.  And not just hesitancy, but outright bans on ANYPLACE requiring them, with such bans having the force of law.  Good luck not having fucking polio make a comeback.

We have leadership that is making being anti-vax, ALL VAXES, a central tenet of their governing philosophy.  It's getting worse, across the board.  It's all falling apart.  The worst-case scenario happens to be matching up to reality rather perfectly. 

I haven't noticed this. But, I can see government mandates for vaccines having negative repercussions. Some people don't like a vocal, active central government that minimizes the voice of local and state governments.

33 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I haven't noticed this. But, I can see government mandates for vaccines having negative repercussions. Some people don't like a vocal, active central government that minimizes the voice of local and state governments.

We have had vaccine requirements in schools for decades.  Those will be going away.  It's an inevitability, now.  Not because of any sound policy reason, but because of a raging case of oppositional defiance disorder.

How about this: I am all in favor of personal responsibility.  You are free to refuse any vaccine for yourself or your children.  But if a case of such illness is ever traced to you or your kid as the source, you are liable, criminally and civilly, for assault.  If you want to act recklessly with regard to yourself, have at it.  The second it harms a third party, you pay the piper.

You are free to refuse any vaccine for yourself or your children.  But if a case of such illness is ever traced to you or your kid as the source, you are liable, criminally and civilly, for assault.  If you want to act recklessly with regard to yourself, have at it.  The second it harms a third party, you pay the piper.

50 minutes ago, utee94 said:

 

Pretty sure he's talking about the growing anti-tonsillectomy movement.

MUH APPENDIX, MUH RIGHTS!  You will not remove my analog freedoms and install your digital socialism! 

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We have had vaccine requirements in schools for decades.  Those will be going away.  It's an inevitability, now.  Not because of any sound policy reason, but because of a raging case of oppositional defiance disorder.

How about this: I am all in favor of personal responsibility.  You are free to refuse any vaccine for yourself or your children.  But if a case of such illness is ever traced to you or your kid as the source, you are liable, criminally and civilly, for assault.  If you want to act recklessly with regard to yourself, have at it.  The second it harms a third party, you pay the piper.

Civil liability makes sense but I don't think it makes sense criminally as assault unless the person willfully spreads disease after infection.

Just now, Bevo said:

Civil liability makes sense but I don't think it makes sense criminally as assault unless the person willfully spreads disease after infection.

If you walk outside and discharge a firearm in multiple directions because MAH FREEDOMS, and a bullet hits a bystander, will you be criminally charged?  Of course you will.  

Engage in a reckless activity that by its very nature creates a high risk of harm to others, face criminal liability.

Personal responsibility.  It means something.  Like "consequences."

That gives me an idea... How can I invest in Thomas J Henry billboards?

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If you walk outside and discharge a firearm in multiple directions because MAH FREEDOMS, and a bullet hits a bystander, will you be criminally charged?  Of course you will.  

Engage in a reckless activity that by its very nature creates a high risk of harm to others, face criminal liability.

Personal responsibility.  It means something.  Like "consequences."

That would be more like a knowingly infected, non-vaccinated person walking around in public and I would agree that that should be a crime. Assault requires intent, meaning that there has to be a deliberate, unjustified interference with the personal right or liberty of another.

Edited October 12, 2021 by Bevo

Hearing coming soon for JNJ and Moderna booster approvals. Would expect them to go through. 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Satoshi

42 minutes ago, Bevo said:

That would be more like a knowingly infected, non-vaccinated person walking around in public and I would agree that that should be a crime. Assault requires intent, meaning that there has to be a deliberate, unjustified interference with the personal right or liberty of another.

Yes, but shouldn't we do this across the board versus picking and choosing. Did I not just see in another thread that HIV positive people knowingly having unprotected sex was no longer a crime? Seems like that is way worse and can actually be proven that the person "knew"

I don't think there is any real way to implement something like this and we should all just prepare for more political shitshow going forward.

Edited October 12, 2021 by ZB'Tejas

5 minutes ago, ZB'Tejas said:

Yes, but shouldn't we do this across the board versus picking and choosing. Did I not just see in another thread that HIV positive people knowingly having unprotected sex was no longer a crime? Seems like that is way worse and can actually be proven that the person "knew"

If it helps, I think it should be a crime for an HIV positive person to knowingly have unprotected sex.

If it helps, I think it should be a crime for an HIV positive person to knowingly have unprotected sex.

Without disclosure and consent

11 minutes ago, Bevo said:

If it helps, I think it should be a crime for an HIV positive person to knowingly have unprotected sex.

Didn't somewhere in California reduce it from a felony to a misdemeanor? 

What we really need is a Covid strain that is 100% fatal but that existing vaccines are 100% effective against.  I'm guessing we'll get the former, but not the later.

Well I suppose we could just turn the Abortion Bounty law on the unvaccinated and let private individuals sue them for knowingly going out in public with COVID

4 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

What we really need is a Covid strain that is 100% fatal but that existing vaccines are 100% effective against.  I'm guessing we'll get the former, but not the later.

"Back to the lab!"

2 hours ago, Satoshi said:

Hearing coming soon for JNJ and Moderna booster approvals. Would expect them to go through. 

I got my Moderna booster and it kicked my ass.  I took that as a good sign as the first 2 didn't do much at all.  Figure I am invincible now.

Has anyone looked at/posted data from vigiaccess.org?

8 minutes ago, maninblack said:

Has anyone looked at/posted data from vigiaccess.org?

What are we supposed to be looking at?

2 hours ago, Satoshi said:

Hearing coming soon for JNJ and Moderna booster approvals. Would expect them to go through. 

 

The FDA is increasingly irrelevant. 

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What are we supposed to be looking at?

 

1 minute ago, maninblack said:

 

 

As expected with a vaccination, local admin site reactions and general non-specific conditions are most frequently reported.  What is the take away suppose to be?  Beyond these general, expected reactions, you need comparison groups to contrast background rates and get to causal inference. 

Pyrexia (476892)

Fatigue (410834)

Chills (322881)

Malaise (197127)

Injection site pain (162545)

So my MILs cardiologist, who has a lot of “opinions,” told my MIL that if you get the flu shot and a booster together there’s potential for the flu shot to be less effective.  But then it gets even weirder - he said the “research” shows that if you get the booster first, you should wait 2 weeks for the flu shot, but if you do it the other way round, you need to wait 4 weeks after the flu shot for the Covid booster. 

Now my MIL wants to wait until November for her flu shot in case he’s right. 

6 minutes ago, maninblack said:

 

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-115845554856

Quote

CLAIM: A World Health Organization tool called VigiAccess shows thousands of adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. The WHO list known as VigiAccess shows symptoms reported by people following vaccination. The reports, some of which are in the hundreds of thousands, are not vetted or verified, nor are they proof that the vaccine caused a particular symptom, according to a spokesperson from the organization that oversees the database.

THE FACTS: As a growing number of people worldwide receive COVID-19 vaccines, social media users are sharing a video of a WHO database without proper context.The video shows a phone user navigating to the search engine DuckDuckGo.com and searching for “vigiaccess.” The user clicks into the tool, searches for COVID-19 vaccines, and finds hundreds of results labeled “adverse drug reactions.” They include a range of ailments, from cardiac disorders to immune system deficiencies.

“You HAVE to see all the ‘adverse reactions’ from the covid jab they are hiding from you,” one Twitter user wrote alongside the video.

“VigiAccess is a worldwide reporting system for adverse effects of vaccines,” another user wrote. “Check out these numbers!”

But these posts don’t provide enough context around VigiAccess, which is a search tool to look through unverified reports of symptoms observed after taking a drug or getting immunized. The reports in VigiAccess are aggregated from data in a WHO database called VigiBase. VigiAccess is meant to be a “starting point” for people interested in learning about potential side effects, according to its website. Neither VigiAccess nor VigiBase shows confirmed side effects, as some social media users claimed.

Reports in VigiBase are submitted by organizations that have been appointed by health departments in various countries to do so. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is one example.

Uppsala Monitoring Centre, a Swedish organization that operates the WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring, is responsible for overseeing the database. The reported information is different depending on the country submitting the information, and the group does not remove any reports from the database unless the person who submits the initial report asks for it to be removed.

“Neither WHO or UMC vets the reports of suspected side effects in VigiBase (shown in VigiAccess) upon submission,” Helena Skold, VigiBase Manager at Uppsala Monitoring Centre, said in an email. “The nature of spontaneous reporting however, makes it very difficult to prove that reports are falsified as reporters are often anonymous.”

Skold said the process of maintaining the database is largely automated and very permissive because there are so many reports to handle.

“We only do a basic validation to confirm that the minimum required information is included,” she said.

A disclaimer on the website says “VigiAccess cannot be used to infer any confirmed link between a suspected side effect and any specific medicine.”

Skold further confirmed to the AP that it is not possible to draw any conclusions about the safety of a medicinal product just from looking in VigiAccess.

 

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

 

As expected with a vaccination, local admin site reactions and general non-specific conditions are most frequently reported.  What is the take away suppose to be?  Beyond these general, expected reactions, you need comparison groups to contrast background rates and get to causal inference. 

Pyrexia (476892)

Fatigue (410834)

Chills (322881)

Malaise (197127)

Injection site pain (162545)

Can you find any other vaccine with similar number in the same time period?

1 minute ago, elguapo said:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-115845554856

 

Fact checking the WHO now. Cool

Just now, maninblack said:

Can you find any other vaccine with similar number in the same time period?

What exactly is the point you're trying to make?

Just now, DDD Dad said:

What exactly is the point you're trying to make?

Adding data to the discussion. It's why I asked if anyone had posted/seen it

Just now, maninblack said:

Adding data to the discussion. It's why I asked if anyone had posted/seen it

But what is the point you're trying to make with that data?

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

If it helps, I think it should be a crime for an HIV positive person to knowingly have unprotected sex.

If they’re on PreP supposedly they cannot spread the virus through sex.  But they should be required to disclose to any partner regardless. 

2 minutes ago, maninblack said:

Fact checking the WHO now. Cool

 

Just now, maninblack said:

Adding data to the discussion. It's why I asked if anyone had posted/seen it

Yes I'm sure you are acting in good faith.

Just now, elguapo said:

 

Yes I'm sure you are acting in good faith.

Is the WHO?

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

But what is the point you're trying to make with that data?

That it's the data. Interpret as you see fit.

13 minutes ago, maninblack said:

 

Adverse reactions to covid vaccine in 2014 - 2018?

Come on man. There is a likely a significant surveillance bias playing out in that example. Lots of testing going to find asymptomatic cases with a non-sterilizing vaccine. 

Hospital Cases

There are 10 people with Covid-19 in University Hospital Waterford, according to the latest HSE update - one of those is being treated in ICU.

It's a jump up from 7 on the previous 24 hours.

It's the highest number of cases on site there since March 31st.

Meanwhile, the latest CSO statistics indicate that one person has died in Waterford due to the virus in the week ending October 1st.

The total number of deaths from the virus in the county since the pandemic began is 110.

Just now, maninblack said:

That it's the data. Interpret as you see fit.

I interpret that you are wanting to make a point without stating the point you're wanting to make.

Just now, Sawbonz said:

Adverse reactions to covid vaccine in 2014 - 2018?

Email the World Health Organization

3 minutes ago, maninblack said:

How about a link rather than a screenshot?

4 minutes ago, maninblack said:

Where did you find this on Facebook?

Edited October 12, 2021 by Neonmoon

4 minutes ago, maninblack said:

Clearly the vaccine is causing these new cases.

9 minutes ago, Liquor and Poker said:

So my MILs cardiologist, who has a lot of “opinions,” told my MIL that if you get the flu shot and a booster together there’s potential for the flu shot to be less effective.  But then it gets even weirder - he said the “research” shows that if you get the booster first, you should wait 2 weeks for the flu shot, but if you do it the other way round, you need to wait 4 weeks after the flu shot for the Covid booster. 

Now my MIL wants to wait until November for her flu shot in case he’s right. 

This sounds like nonsense, but would love to see the rationale. 

1 minute ago, maninblack said:

Email the World Health Organization

Nah