Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

[Sargonski]

That's nice.

I think the Gov't and Healthcare may have lied about the risk of harm because they believed there was some overall benefit to keeping the Public in the dark .. but . I would ot classify this behavior as "Nice". I didn't think Adolfs forcef medical treatment program was very nice either .. but then again what do I know !?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You guys do not understand what "Effectivenes" means in context of a vax. 90% is not great and anything below this is horribly ineffective.

Says the poster who doesn't seem to understand how vaccines work in the first place.

 

[metis]

Says the poster who doesn't seem to understand how vaccines work in the first place.

Why is it that those who know the least speak the loudest and most often?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why is it that those who know the least speak the loudest and most often?

Great question.

 

[Quetzal]

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)

I think you are making this up as you go because the data doesn't support your claim. For myself, if I knew a medical intervention could give me better chances of not being hospitalized/dying from the disease, I would take it. I have had the vaccine and boosters. I still got COVID recently but you wanna know the cool part? I was out of commission for a day or two. I find that to be a much better outcome than the alternatives.

It isn't perfect, the vaccine doesn't bat 1.000. That isn't the point. The point is it helps prevent transmission, complications, and long-term effects.

 

[Sargonski]

Says the poster who doesn't seem to understand how vaccines work in the first place.

Who doesn't understand how vaccines work ?? Is it just me or did you just claim that the mRNA vaccines work the same as vaccines in the past ? Humor

but aside that .. what does it matter what I understand or say or think to the Truth or falsehood of the findings of a Study published in a Journal called Vaccine ?

Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults​

Results: Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000

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

So friend - 12.5 per 10,000 Severe Adverse Reaction 1 in 800 chance of getting myocharditis or some other nasty .. even possible death in this game of russian roulette.

No need to worry yourself over what I think - aside from the fact that your positions always get crucified just by my presense but that is another matter. What we are all interested in is what you think about the risk of harm .. did ya figure 1 in 800 is safe ? or how about 1 in 300 for males 16-30.

This is not about whether the Vax works .. but what the risk of harm is .. and we are relying not on me, but on you to tell us if the vax is "Safe" .. providing the metrics on which you based this decision..

​

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who doesn't understand how vaccines work ??

I think you've demonstrated that you don't with all your harping about transmission.

Is it just me or did you just claim that the mRNA vaccines work the same as vaccines in the past ? Humor

Yep, because they do. They're meant to teach your body how to defend itself from illness.

but aside that .. what does it matter what I understand or say or think to the Truth or falsehood of the findings of a Study published in a Journal called Vaccine ?

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

So friend - 12.5 per 10,000 Severe Adverse Reaction 1 in 800 chance of getting myocharditis or some other nasty .. even possible death in this game of russian roulette.

You're reading it wrong. I already addressed this in detail. As have other posters.

There should be a ton more dead people, if your claims about the vaccine causing major harm are true.

No need to worry yourself over what I think

We're currently discussing what you think.

- aside from the fact that your positions always get crucified just by my presense but that is another matter.

LOL

What we are all interested in is what you think about the risk of harm .. did ya figure 1 in 800 is safe ? or how about 1 in 300 for males 16-30.

Again, I've already addressed this. The risk of myocarditis from having COVID itself is way higher than it is from the risk of contracting it from the vaccine. And the symptoms are much milder and subside much more quickly in those who contracted it via vaccination. I've provided you with studies and articles demonstrating this.

This is not about whether the Vax works .. but what the risk of harm is .. and we are relying not on me, but on you to tell us if the vax is "Safe" .. providing the metrics on which you based this decision..

You're way overinflating the risk of harm from vaccines.

 

[Quetzal]

So friend - 12.5 per 10,000 Severe Adverse Reaction 1 in 800 chance of getting myocharditis or some other nasty .. even possible death in this game of russian roulette.

That is a 0.125% chance of a complication. That means that 99.875% of participants did not have said complications. All medical procedures carry some sort of non-zero percent risk factor. How do you look at a number like 99.875% and say "Not good enough"?

 

[Sargonski]

I think you've demonstrated that you don't with all your harping about transmission.

Yep, because they do. They're meant to teach your body how to defend itself from illness.

You're reading it wrong. I already addressed this in detail. As have other posters.

There should be a ton more dead people, if your claims about the vaccine causing major harm are true.

We're currently discussing what you think.

LOL

Again, I've already addressed this. The risk of myocarditis from having COVID itself is way higher than it is from the risk of contracting it from the vaccine. And the symptoms are much milder and subside much more quickly in those who contracted it via vaccination. I've provided you with studies and articles demonstrating this.

You're way overinflating the risk of harm from vaccines.

You said you didn't care what I think .. and I agree it is not important .. and quit lying about what was said to you. I gave you the results from a Study 1 in 800 got a Severe Adverse Reaction from the mRNA vaccine . why do you say that I am over-inflating the risk .. in some desperate attempt to demonize and shoot the messenger for something not done .. all I did was give you the information .. and did not inflate anything. 1 in 800 SAR is the number .. and this number comes from Pfizers own Phase III Clinical Trials .. If you have a problem with their numbers .. take it up with Pfizer and the Biden Fauci Clown show .. that was running around overinflating the safety.

What part of 1 in 800 SAR -- is what the Study says .. not what I say ... is difficult for you to understand friend. And who said anything about there being high numbers of dead people .. you are making things up again.. and attributing to me - got to stop that.

You then make a completely unsupported claim .. stating the risk of myocharditis from having Covid is way hither than the risk from the Vax.

Where did you get this idea friend ? I think someone has been pulling your leg .. support this claim that the risk of myocharditis or other severe reaction is way higher than 1 in 800. way higher than 1 in 300 for males 16-30.

and good luck What did you think the risk of myocharditis/SAR from Covid is for a healthy male 16-30 .. 1 in 10 ? That would make absolutely no sense .. you should think a little harder about what you are claiming.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You said you didn't care what I think .. and I agree it is not important .. and quit lying about what was said to you. I gave you the results from a Study 1 in 800 got a Severe Adverse Reaction from the mRNA vaccine . why do you say that I am over-inflating the risk .. in some desperate attempt to demonize and shoot the messenger for something not done .. all I did was give you the information .. and did not inflate anything. 1 in 800 SAR is the number .. and this number comes from Pfizers own Phase III Clinical Trials .. If you have a problem with their numbers .. take it up with Pfizer and the Biden Fauci Clown show .. that was running around overinflating the safety.

What part of 1 in 800 SAR -- is what the Study says .. not what I say ... is difficult for you to understand friend. And who said anything about there being high numbers of dead people .. you are making things up again.. and attributing to me - got to stop that.

You then make a completely unsupported claim .. stating the risk of myocharditis from having Covid is way hither than the risk from the Vax.

Where did you get this idea friend ? I think someone has been pulling your leg .. support this claim that the risk of myocharditis or other severe reaction is way higher than 1 in 800. way higher than 1 in 300 for males 16-30.

and good luck What did you think the risk of myocharditis/SAR from Covid is for a healthy male 16-30 .. 1 in 10 ? That would make absolutely no sense .. you should think a little harder about what you are claiming.

I've already addressed this. And supported my claims.

This game of yours is tired. It's no different than creationists repeating their debunked claims endlessly as though they've never been addressed umpteen times.

Get some new material.

 

[Ebionite]

I think you are making this up as you go because the data doesn't support your claim.

So the authors of the paper didn't interpret their own data properly?

I was out of commission for a day or two. I find that to be a much better outcome than the alternatives.

Like cancer, you mean? A reasonable man would step back from the treatment if he knew that big pharma has misled the regulators about the presence of an adulterant in their product which was related to a known carcinogen (SV40).

 

[Quetzal]

So the authors of the paper didn't interpret their own data properly?

No, you did not interpret their data properly.

Like cancer, you mean? A reasonable man would step back from the treatment if he knew that big pharma has misled the regulators about the presence of an adulterant in their product which was related to a known carcinogen (SV40).

Like dying of the disease that has already killed millions in the last few years. You are reaching and unless you want to continue this discussion in good faith, ill find someone else to talk to.

 

[Ebionite]

No, you did not interpret their data properly.

Wrong, I didn't look at their data, I commented on text from their discussion section.

Like dying of the disease that has already killed millions in the last few years.

You know that there's a difference between dying with covid and dying from covid, right?

You are reaching

No, I'm not. An adulterant is the correct term for an undisclosed substance in a pharmaceutical product. Health Canada acknowledged the failure to inform them about the presence of the SV40 promoter.

 

[Ebionite]

From Kevin McKernan's twitter (he discovered the presence of the SV40 promoter):

BREAKING- Latest study on 27 vials. All vials exceed the guidelines by orders of magnitude using Fluorometry. All vials are under the guidelines using qPCR for single dose. Over once you take many.

OSF

osf.io

From the paper: "In an exploratory analysis, we found preliminary evidence of a dose response relationship of the amount of DNA per dose and the frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs)."

 

[SkepticThinker]

From Kevin McKernan's twitter (he discovered the presence of the SV40 promoter):

BREAKING- Latest study on 27 vials. All vials exceed the guidelines by orders of magnitude using Fluorometry. All vials are under the guidelines using qPCR for single dose. Over once you take many.

OSF

osf.io

You've cited a non-peer-reviewed pre-print article riddled with problems.


"Misleading: While SV40 is known to cause cancer in certain animals like hamsters, epidemiological studies didn’t find an elevated risk of cancer in people who received SV40-contaminated polio vaccine.
Inadequate support: Neither the preprint by McKernan et al. nor the other studies cited in the article provided evidence for the claim that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines contained significant DNA contamination or that the vaccines can alter DNA in people. The analysis underpinning this claim was performed on vials of unknown origin ...

In the preprint, the authors claimed that they detected DNA in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and in particular a particular gene sequence originating from the simian virus 40 (SV40)[1]. The gene sequence is known as a promoter, which can enhance expression of a gene that is located after the promoter. The U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute explains more about the role of promoters in this article. It is this finding that forms the basis for the article’s claim that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could modify DNA and increase cancer risk.

However, one of the most significant limitations is that the vials tested were of “unknown provenance” and the authors explained that the vials had been sent to them “anonymously in the mail without cold packs” but that the vials were “unopened”. Simply put, whether the vials were actually of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the integrity of the contents is questionable. The Epoch Times article simply glossed over this fact, discussing the preprint findings as conclusive evidence of DNA contamination when this is far from certain.

Michael Imperiale, a professor at the University of Michigan who studies DNA tumor viruses, told Health Feedback in an email that the results are far from establishing that DNA contamination of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is widespread. “Since this article has not been peer reviewed, we don’t know if there was truly significant DNA contamination,” he explained ...

...It’s important to note that the upper limit of 815 ng DNA/mL RNA came from a lot that had been treated with the incorrect DNase stock, as the footnote on the report clearly showed, resulting in more residual DNA left in the vaccine. This fact however, is glossed over by The Epoch Times.

Were we to exclude that value, the highest value would be 211 ng DNA/mL RNA, which is within the “commercial acceptance criterion” of the European Medicines Agency (≤330 ng DNA/mg RNA) stated in the report.

Furthermore, vaccine vials with significant residual DNA levels exceeding that criterion wouldn’t be used for vaccination in the first place. This would also be the case in the U.S., Imperiale pointed out.

Others also pointed out that since quantifying residual DNA levels is based on a measurement relative to RNA levels, vials that weren’t stored properly are likely to experience significant RNA degradation. In contrast, DNA would be more stable and less likely to degrade. This could produce spurious results as DNA levels could thus be much higher than RNA levels by the time the analysis was conducted."

Claim that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines contain DNA contaminants based on study of vials of "unknown provenance"; no evidence COVID-19 mRNA vaccines can alter DNA in people

To date, claims that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines can alter DNA in people lack a biologically plausible mechanism to explain how this would happen. A certain proportion of polio vaccine administered between the 1950s and 1960s were contaminated with the virus SV40, which can cause tumors in animals...

healthfeedback.org

This is why we shouldn't get our "news" from the Epoch Times.
It's also why we shouldn't hang our hats on one lone study.

 

[Ebionite]

There should be a ton more dead people, if your claims about the vaccine causing major harm are true.

View attachment 83901

 

[SkepticThinker]

Link to the source?

 

[Ebionite]

You've cited a non-peer-reviewed pre-print article.

Because the precautionary principle doesn't apply if to do so would result in the embarrasment of official sources.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because the precautionary principle doesn't apply if to do so would result in the embarrasment of official sources.

Nah, the problem is the non-peer-reviewed, pre-print that you cited doesn't demonstrate what you claim it does and it's got some methodological errors as well.

 

[Ebionite]

Nah, the problem is the non-peer-reviewed, pre-print that you cited doesn't demonstrate what you claim it does

You don't know what you're talking about.