Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Exactly. I am amazed at some people. It is not that they cannot reason. They cannot afford to reason. If they did their arguments would fall apart for them.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Suppression of Free Speech on Covid
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
We have already gone over that data in previous comments. I don't have anything else to offer to that discussion unless you have a different dataset you are referring to.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
We have already discussed why this data appears this way. We have also already discussed why the conclusion is a flawed understanding of how the data works. I am not going to reiterate what has already been said.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Yes, I know what religious bias is and how the Church of England promoted the usual interests.
There's also the issue of the temporal relationship between injection and death, which is what the video was about.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
- Studies across geographic regions have found that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are associated with negative effectiveness after 4 to 6 months. As efficacy waned, studies showed that COVID-19 vaccinated individuals developed an increased risk of infection. This is not found in other vaccines, including the flu vaccine.
- The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines present a risk of subclinical and clinical myocarditis, and other cardiovascular conditions among otherwise healthy individuals.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
The 70%-90% levels were not for general effectiveness, but for cases where the immune system had an opportunity to adapt.
"Notably, the rapid waning in vaccine effectiveness against Omicron infections contrasts with the more durable protection for prior infection against Omicron reinfection." (from Discussion section)
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What is that even supposed to mean?
I think he may be saying that the Vax is not very good .. but hard to know for sure .. so as Fred Flinstone would say "Jabber Dabber doo"
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
It's from the paper that was referenced by Florida's Surgeon General when he recommended against COVID-19 boosters from those under 65.
Yes, reading is hard. It's easier to watch cartoons.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Amazing how some people seem to fear vaccines.
As someone who used to do a lot of overseas travel in the course of my work, I have been used to getting vaccinations at regular intervals, against a variety of pathogens, from yellow fever to typhoid and cholera. It really is not an issue. You get a sore arm and feel feverish for a day or two, whereas catching the disease can easily kill you.
Experience has shown no significant risk with the Covid vaccines and that, on the contrary, that they play a major role in reducing the severity of infection. The people that run the NHS vaccination campaigns are not fools and do not stand to gain in any way personally from their decisions. I had my 4th booster against covid last month and got a flu vaccination at the same time.
This conspiracy nonsense is simply not worth engaging with. The fact that the poster somehow contrives to drag the Church of England (!!) into the thread should be enough for readers to work out who is posting rationally and who is not.
As someone who used to do a lot of overseas travel in the course of my work, I have been used to getting vaccinations at regular intervals, against a variety of pathogens, from yellow fever to typhoid and cholera. It really is not an issue. You get a sore arm and feel feverish for a day or two, whereas catching the disease can easily kill you.
Experience has shown no significant risk with the Covid vaccines and that, on the contrary, that they play a major role in reducing the severity of infection. The people that run the NHS vaccination campaigns are not fools and do not stand to gain in any way personally from their decisions. I had my 4th booster against covid last month and got a flu vaccination at the same time.
This conspiracy nonsense is simply not worth engaging with. The fact that the poster somehow contrives to drag the Church of England (!!) into the thread should be enough for readers to work out who is posting rationally and who is not.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Good job. Go get your fifth one.
The Jab more dangerous to some than to others !
Trust a political appointment by DeSantis?
Excerpted...
Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo altered an analysis released by the Florida Department of Health last year to suggest mRNA Covid-19 vaccines pose a significant health risk to men ages 18 to 39, Politico reported Monday.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/18/politics/desantis-covid-policy-florida/index.html
DeSantis pushes to permanently ban Covid-19 mandates in Florida
Politico said it obtained a document as part of a public records request that shows Ladapo’s changes to the eight-page analysis. The changes deleted comments that said a link with slightly increased risk of cardiac-related deaths after Covid-19 vaccination was “no longer significant” for multidose vaccines and “there is little suggestion of any effect immediately following vaccination.” The document shows an added line that says mRNA vaccines may be driving an increased risk of cardiac-related death in males, especially those ages
Excerpted...
Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo altered an analysis released by the Florida Department of Health last year to suggest mRNA Covid-19 vaccines pose a significant health risk to men ages 18 to 39, Politico reported Monday.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/18/politics/desantis-covid-policy-florida/index.html
DeSantis pushes to permanently ban Covid-19 mandates in Florida
Politico said it obtained a document as part of a public records request that shows Ladapo’s changes to the eight-page analysis. The changes deleted comments that said a link with slightly increased risk of cardiac-related deaths after Covid-19 vaccination was “no longer significant” for multidose vaccines and “there is little suggestion of any effect immediately following vaccination.” The document shows an added line that says mRNA vaccines may be driving an increased risk of cardiac-related death in males, especially those ages
I wouldn't be relying on State Propaganda purveyors CNN and Politico for truthful info on the Vax. Good luck finding out what is meant by "Significant health Risk" from fake news sources.
Below is some of the data from the actual Phase III clinical trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna.
Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults - PubMed
The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
12.5 per 10,000 vaxed = 1 in 800 vaxed have a "Serious adverse effect" according to Pfizer's own data- Heart Damage / Myocharditis being the most common.
Is this not a "Significant Health Risk ? When the Swine flue vax achieved a Severe Adverse Event (SAE) rate of 1 in 100,000 it was deemed a significant health risk and taken off the market. By what measure is it claimed that 1 in 800 SAR is not a significant health risk to the general population and 1 in 300 for males 16-30 having a post jab myocharditis rate 300% higher than the general public.
You guys do not understand what "Effectivenes" means in context of a vax. 90% is not great and anything below this is horribly ineffective.
This is not about fear of vaccines in the past... because the mRNA products are not like vaccines of the past .. and thus should not be compared.
The claim "no significant Risk" with Covid vaccines looks to be quite false on the basis of the Phase III Clinical Trial Data which showed a risk of of a Severe Adverse Effect of 1 in 800 on average. Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults - PubMed
By what measure is 1 in 800 SAE not significant ? given the Swine Flue Vax was taken off the shelves due to an SAE of 1 in 100,000 .. being an ex Chemist .. this should be a relatively straight forward comparison of risk. The people running the vax campaign have huge amounts to gain personally.. so kind of missed the boat on that flawed assumption.
The "reducing severity of infection" claim is also problematic given numerous exceptionally good studies that show otherwise..
CDC: 74% Of People Infected in Massachusetts COVID-19 Outbreak Were Vaccinated
A new CDC report found that nearly three-fourths of people who were infected in a COVID-19 outbreak in Massachusetts earlier this summer were fully vaccinated.
That's nice.I wouldn't be relying on State Propaganda purveyors CNN and Politico for truthful info on the Vax. Good luck finding out what is meant by "Significant health Risk" from fake news sources.
Below is some of the data from the actual Phase III clinical trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna.
Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults - PubMed
The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.
12.5 per 10,000 vaxed = 1 in 800 vaxed have a "Serious adverse effect" according to Pfizer's own data- Heart Damage / Myocharditis being the most common.
Is this not a "Significant Health Risk ? When the Swine flue vax achieved a Severe Adverse Event (SAE) rate of 1 in 100,000 it was deemed a significant health risk and taken off the market. By what measure is it claimed that 1 in 800 SAR is not a significant health risk to the general population and 1 in 300 for males 16-30 having a post jab myocharditis rate 300% higher than the general public.