Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

[Sargonski]

I'm saying it presently. I'm saying that we all have access to that data including you even if you haven't looked at it or HAVE looked at it but not understood its significance or rejected its accuracy. I believe that I've provided it to you, but it may have been to other posters.

I doubt that you're interested, but for those that are, here is one place I've done the cost-benefit analysis. Here is more discussion of the topic, this time directed to you. Add in the morbidity and mortality rates in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated, and you have a more complete picture of the relevant data.

Here's what it looks like in one survey (you can find more if you search "covid deaths in vaccinated vs unvaccinated people"). The reason the blue bars (unvaccinated) are shrinking and the yellow bars (vaccinated and boosted) are growing is because the data represents absolute numbers of deaths by class rather than relative numbers:

View attachment 90326

This article explains the drift if one uses the absolute numbers rather than relative rates per cohort. It's analogous to the idea that most people who get polio now are vaccinated, because that's most people. Even if all unvaccinated people got polio and only 1% of the vaccinated get it, if the population is 99.9% vaccinated, the second group will outnumber the first if absolute numbers of deaths are used rather that death rate by category. If 1998 of 2000 people (99%) have the vaccine and 1% get polio, that's 20 people. If both of the unvaccinated get it (100%), that's only 2 cases compared to the 20 among the vaccinated.

In the final analysis, it isn't important to others that the unvaccinated understand or agree with that data or arguments like the ones I've made because it's no longer important to others whether they vaccinate or not. One's chance to be community minded and contribute to herd immunity voluntarily has passed. Many if not most of the unvaccinated likely have acquired the infection unvaccinated and acquired some future immunity because of it, and in so doing, has unwitting and involuntary contribution to herd immunity, which is why we no longer need them to get vaccinated.

"who is saying they have access to the data confirming the Jab is safer than the virus"

The Data you posted does not show that the Jab is safer than the virus .. and what part of ...your statement "Jab is safer than virus" makes no sense do you still not understand even after I had corrected it for you --but your data does not show that claim is true either.

Then you go on about contribution to herd immunity .. something completely unrelated .. but again you are completely wrong.. The Jab did nothing to contribute to herd immunity.. what on earth are you talking about ... That Rachel Madow Lie was corrected by the CDC ages ago.

The data you posted does not apply to the overwhelming majority of the population --- what part about this fact is not sinking in ?

 

[Sargonski]

Oh boy, we're back to this "gain of function" nonsense again.


"So what did the team find? Did they make a more dangerous version of the coronavirus? No. In fact, contrary to many of the people who are spouting off on this on social media, the new chimeric strain was less dangerous by comparison in animal tests. Some readers may have seen the figure of 80% of the mice exposed to the chimeric virus dying (because that one is sometimes passed around in ALL CAPS, it can be hard to miss). But before jumping out of your chair, consider that when these mice were exposed to the original Wuhan coronavirus that 100% of them died. This would also be a good time to mention that "exposed", in this experiment, means "large dose sprayed directly up their noses", not wafting around in the cage like some simulation of a mouse dinner party. And as another real virologist (Marion Koopmans of the Netherlands) notes from the data in the preprint, the chimeric virus actually had lower ability to replicate deep in the lung tissue, which may be some of the reason that it was less virulent than the ancestral strain."

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/gain-function-not-so-fast

I did not claim any of the ridiculous strawman fallacy nonsense you posted "Chimera strain" ?? .. what on earth are you talking about ?

What is nonsensical about "Gain of Function" Research ? and how is this related to the results of this research escaping the lab and subsequent cover up by the Fauci Clown and friends.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Data you posted does not show that the Jab is safer than the virus ... Then you go on about contribution to herd immunity .. something completely unrelated

Perhaps not to you, but it does to those able to see and understand it absent an antivax confirmation bias. As I said, it's not important to anybody but you and perhaps the people who care about you that you understand, agree, or comply with the recommendation you get vaccinated if you are eligible, have an intact immune system capable of responding to it, and it is not contraindicated in you.

The digression about herd immunity was for the benefit of others who might not have thought about why almost nobody wants you masked to come into their business or asks to prove vaccination status, and why I said it doesn't matter anymore to the vaccinated that many people refuse vaccination.

I also thought the matter of absolute and relative numbers of cases was interesting and useful in understand the evolution of that bar graph.

The Jab did nothing to contribute to herd immunity

That's incorrect. Whatever reduces the fraction of individuals in a population who get the disease and the severity, duration, and after-effects of the infections in those who do contributes to herd immunity. This includes being immunocompetent, which is what saved the lives of those who got the infection unvaccinated whether before or after they were available in those with no prior exposure, and having antibodies and memory T-cells for Covid from previous infection or vaccination. All of that together limits the impact of the disease on a population.

what part of ...your statement "Jab is safer than virus" makes no sense do you still not understand even after I had corrected it for you

It all makes sense. I simply disagree with your "correction."

The data you posted does not apply to the overwhelming majority of the population --- what part about this fact is not sinking in ?

Same answer as before. Your sentence is easy to understand but is incorrect.

You have beliefs, you express them, but your arguments if any aren't compelling, especially in light of the fact that you don't seem to be aware of the available data. It's not surprising that you ignored most of my post including the data that you say doesn't exist. You made no effort to refute my interpretation of it. You just post comments like these above and ask what's so difficult to understand about them. Nothing.

A better question would be, "What's so impossible to accept about my claims?" Now, the answer is no longer "nothing."

Why are you still arguing this point? You're free to refuse vaccination, you change no minds, but you do get a lot of negative blowback, and you present opportunities for others to correct your comments and teach people the opposite of what you would have them believe with sound, evidenced argument, which is counterproductive to your apparent purpose. So why go on? What has to be the case for you to feel like your effort is counterproductive and decide that your time is better spent arguing other points instead?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did not claim any of the ridiculous strawman fallacy nonsense you posted "Chimera strain" ?? .. what on earth are you talking about ?

You made a bunch of claims about "gain of function."

What is nonsensical about "Gain of Function" Research ? and how is this related to the results of this research escaping the lab and subsequent cover up by the Fauci Clown and friends.

I just posted it for you. Try reading it.

 

[Sargonski]

You made a bunch of claims about "gain of function."

I just posted it for you. Try reading it.

True -- as gain of function was part of the topic.. you were stammering around claiming there was something nonsensical about gain of function "Gain of function nonsense" you cried .. as if this was supposed to be an argument without more information.

What is this gain of function nonsense that is troubling you Skeptic ? I can't help if you if you can't tell us what on earth you think is nonsensical ?

 

[Sargonski]

Perhaps not to you, but it does to those able to see and understand it absent an antivax confirmation bias. As I said, it's not important to anybody but you and perhaps the people who care about you that you understand, agree, or comply with the recommendation you get vaccinated if you are eligible, have an intact immune system capable of responding to it, and it is not contraindicated in you.

The digression about herd immunity was for the benefit of others who might not have thought about why almost nobody wants you masked to come into their business or asks to prove vaccination status, and why I said it doesn't matter anymore to the vaccinated that many people refuse vaccination.

I also thought the matter of absolute and relative numbers of cases was interesting and useful in understand the evolution of that bar graph.

That's incorrect. Whatever reduces the fraction of individuals in a population who get the disease and the severity, duration, and after-effects of the infections in those who do contributes to herd immunity. This includes being immunocompetent, which is what saved the lives of those who got the infection unvaccinated whether before or after they were available in those with no prior exposure, and having antibodies and memory T-cells for Covid from previous infection or vaccination. All of that together limits the impact of the disease on a population.

It all makes sense. I simply disagree with your "correction."

Same answer as before. Your sentence is easy to understand but is incorrect.

You have beliefs, you express them, but your arguments if any aren't compelling, especially in light of the fact that you don't seem to be aware of the available data. It's not surprising that you ignored most of my post including the data that you say doesn't exist. You made no effort to refute my interpretation of it. You just post comments like these above and ask what's so difficult to understand about them. Nothing.

A better question would be, "What's so impossible to accept about my claims?" Now, the answer is no longer "nothing."

Why are you still arguing this point? You're free to refuse vaccination, you change no minds, but you do get a lot of negative blowback, and you present opportunities for others to correct your comments and teach people the opposite of what you would have them believe with sound, evidenced argument, which is counterproductive to your apparent purpose. So why go on? What has to be the case for you to feel like your effort is counterproductive and decide that your time is better spent arguing other points instead?

False -- the Jab does not prevent transmission .. = there is no significant transmission reduction .. don't forget to understand what the word "Significant" means .. as this will help you to understand what preventing transmission means.

No data shows COVID-19 vaccine prevents transmission: Tam​

No data shows COVID-19 vaccine prevents transmission: Tam | News

Federal health officials have said that although COVID-19 vaccines protect against the virus, data does not exist on how well they prevent transmission.

dailyhive.com

The above is pior to the Jab -- so no evidence of transmision prevention. The hope was that on application we would see Transmission prevention .. but .. unfortunately --- that didn't happen

CDC: 74% Of People Infected in Massachusetts COVID-19 Outbreak Were Vaccinated​

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.

www.verywellhealth.com

The above study showed that there was no transmission prevention and a very slight increase in severity of symptoms for the Jabbed.

Among five people who were hospitalized in the outbreak, four were fully vaccinated. No deaths were reported in the outbreak.

CDC report shows vaccinated people can spread COVID-19​

The newly released report showing that vaccinated people can still be superspreaders drove the recent decision by the CDC to once again recommend masks for vaccinated people indoors where case counts are high or substantial.

Later - bigger and broader studies such as the London Study showed the same thing. Sorry you fell for the lie friend .. sucks when the Gov't - mainstream media and health agencies are lying .. so I feel your pain .. tough necessary illusion bubble to have burst.

and sorry -- normal healthy people did not show any benefit from the Jab -- no decrease in hospitalization or death .. that is another lie unfortunately. It did seem to help those who were really old .. morbidly obese and on deaths door .. with numerous co-morbidities and non functional immune system. For the rest of the population there was no such possitive effect and given the third lie - the lie that the vax was safe .. turns out the risk of harm from the Jab 1-800 having Severe Adverse Reaction as per the Phase III pfizer-moderna clinical trial .. is greater than the risk of harm from not Jabbing.

4th lie -- that Covid presented a big risk of harm healthy people .. greater say than a normal influenza season .

Once again .. don't shoot the messenger .. but they lied to you bro.

 

[SkepticThinker]

True -- as gain of function was part of the topic.. you were stammering around claiming there was something nonsensical about gain of function "Gain of function nonsense" you cried .. as if this was supposed to be an argument without more information.]

Nope. You brought it up first.

You must be confusing me with another poster again.

What is this gain of function nonsense that is troubling you Skeptic ? I can't help if you if you can't tell us what on earth you think is nonsensical ?

It appears to be troubling you. You brought it up.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

False -- the Jab does not prevent transmission

I know. It reduces the rate of transmission. Originally, that was about a 90% reduction, but with the appearance of delta and epsilon variants, that number fell into the thirties. I haven't seen recent numbers. It might be higher or lower now.

there is no significant transmission reduction

That's incorrect.

And it's not just that vaccinated people are less likely to become infected. They are also less likely to transmit the virus to others, as they have smaller viral loads and are contagious for fewer days. They are also less likely to develop severe disease, early organ disfunction, and long Covid. And if there are complications that first manifest years after the infection like diabetes, dementia, or cancers, the vaccinated are less likely to develop them, and when they do, after more years, since reduced viral loads for reduced numbers of days could result in fewer late sequelae if there are going to be some down the road.

No data shows COVID-19 vaccine prevents transmission: Tam

The claim is that it reduces transmission as I just described.

CDC: 74% Of People Infected in Massachusetts COVID-19 Outbreak Were Vaccinated

OK. To determine the degree of protection conferred by the vaccine, we'd need more data, namely, what fraction of vaccinated people acquired the illness or were asymptomatic carriers compared to the analogous numbers for the unvaccinated.

Did you read the article:

Key Takeaways

• The majority of people infected in a July COVID-19 outbreak in Massachusetts were fully vaccinated against the virus.
• This report suggests that people who are fully vaccinated can still spread the virus to others.
• Still, doctors stress the importance of the COVID-19 vaccine to prevent serious illness and hospitalization.

CDC report shows vaccinated people can spread COVID-19

Yes, we know. You seem to think that makes the vaccines worthless, which is a different claim than that they are dangerous.

normal healthy people did not show any benefit from the Jab -- no decrease in hospitalization or death

That's incorrect. Those are the people who benefitted most. It was those with weakened immune systems from age or disease who benefitted least.

Once again .. don't shoot the messenger .. but they lied to you bro.

Did you think that you made the case for that with these links?

 

[Sargonski]

Nope. You brought it up first.

You must be confusing me with another poster again.

It appears to be troubling you. You brought it up.

Not confusing you with anyone .. but you are correct that someone is confused .. I did not say gain of function was not brought up .. so that would be the first confusion .. the second is the troubled one .. who cried out . in troubled consternation "Gain of function nonsense"

and we are wondering what you thought was nonsensical about the gain of function research going on at Wuhan ? clearly you were troubled by something that was said .. is there some confusion here with another poster ? did you not cry out "Oh boy, we're back to this "gain of function" nonsense again" -

I believe it was you friend .. now please clear up this confusion and tell us what statements in relation to gain of function research going on at Wuhan you thought were "Nonsense"

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not confusing you with anyone .. but you are correct that someone is confused .. I did not say gain of function was not brought up .. so that would be the first confusion .. the second is the troubled one .. who cried out . in troubled consternation "Gain of function nonsense"

and we are wondering what you thought was nonsensical about the gain of function research going on at Wuhan ? clearly you were troubled by something that was said .. is there some confusion here with another poster ? did you not cry out "Oh boy, we're back to this "gain of function" nonsense again" -

I believe it was you friend .. now please clear up this confusion and tell us what statements in relation to gain of function research going on at Wuhan you thought were "Nonsense"

I'm sorry you're having such trouble following along. I've already addressed my issue with your "gain of function" comments and exposed their inaccuracies. Sorry you missed it.

 

[Pogo]

Pfizer accused of ‘bringing discredit’ on pharmaceutical industry after Covid social media posts

Watchdog rules company breached regulatory code five times including promoting unlicensed medicines

www.telegraph.co.uk

Wow, tempest in a tea pot, somebody inadvertently jumped the gun on great news at a time when we really needed it. And it was published and it was not misleading.

The complaint centred on a social media post on X by Dr Berkeley Phillips, the medical director of Pfizer UK. He shared a post from an employee of Pfizer in the US which said: “Our vaccine candidate is 95 per cent effective in preventing Covid-19, and 94 per cent effective in people over 65 years old. We will file all of our data with health authorities within days. Thank you to every volunteer in our trial, and to all who are tirelessly fighting this pandemic.”

Four other Pfizer employees, including one “senior” colleague, published the same message

Yes it was a technical violation, but nothing nefarious.

 

[Sargonski]

I'm sorry you're having such trouble following along. I've already addressed my issue with your "gain of function" comments and exposed their inaccuracies. Sorry you missed it.

I am not sorry .. as I am sure it was the same raging nonsense as above . If you have posted previously .. then give the post number so we can have a look at your argument .. make sure you are not just making things up and funnin with us.

What is this Gain of Function nonsense you are referring to .. and what did this nonsense have to do with anything I posted .. or are you just talking silliness again ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am not sorry .. as I am sure it was the same raging nonsense as above . If you have posted previously .. then give the post number so we can have a look at your argument .. make sure you are not just making things up and funnin with us.

What is this Gain of Function nonsense you are referring to .. and what did this nonsense have to do with anything I posted .. or are you just talking silliness again ?

Oh boy, a cut and paste repeat of the exact same post again.
Scroll back and look. It's not that far back. I'm sorry you're having trouble following along, but that's a you problem.

I'm out.

 

[Sargonski]

Oh boy, a cut and paste repeat of the exact same post again.
Scroll back and look. It's not that far back. I'm sorry you're having trouble following along, but that's a you problem.

I'm out.

LOL ... Your out alright .. unable to back up your ridiculous comment on gain of function after jumping into a convo you did not follow .. offering a wild goose chase as support for claim concurrent with projecting your inability to follow the topic onto others..

You said "Oh boy, we're back to this "gain of function" nonsense again" - what nonsense are you referring to friend .. did you forget .. or were you having trouble following and mis-spoke once again.

Necessary illusion bubble poppage makes people do some strange things .. I know it sucks to find out the trusted authorities can not be trusted .. but this is the life ... for a skeptic thinker you are not much of a skeptic though .. Should be more skeptical of Gov't .. and the mainstream propaganda media .. and unfortunately our healthcare institutionss . that one really hurts .. I Know...

 

[Ebionite]

Yes it was a technical violation, but nothing nefarious.

CDC Finally Releases 148 Page Study on Myocarditis Following COVID Vaccine - And EVERY SINGLE WORD is Redacted! | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Zachary Stieber, a reporter with the Epoch Times, released the CDC report on the frequency of myocarditis following the COVID vaccines.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[Pogo]

CDC Finally Releases 148 Page Study on Myocarditis Following COVID Vaccine - And EVERY SINGLE WORD is Redacted! | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Zachary Stieber, a reporter with the Epoch Times, released the CDC report on the frequency of myocarditis following the COVID vaccines.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Fact Check: CDC Allegedly Released Redacted 148-Page Study on Myocarditis After COVID-19 Vaccination. Here's the Truth​

Epoch Times, Gateway Pundit. LOL
First thing anyone with a clue does is a search to see if there is any there there.
Answer no, it wasn't a study and was Redacted because it didn't meet the FOIA requirements .
This is par for these "news organizations".

 

[Ebionite]

Fact Check: CDC Allegedly Released Redacted 148-Page Study on Myocarditis After COVID-19 Vaccination. Here's the Truth​

Epoch Times, Gateway Pundit. LOL
First thing anyone with a clue does is a search to see if there is any there there.
Answer no, it wasn't a study and was Redacted because it didn't meet the FOIA requirements .
This is par for these "news organizations".

Get back to me when you have one of those clues that you speak of.

 

[Pogo]

Get back to me when you have one of those clues that you speak of.

So you admit the Epoch Pundit article was garbage and post an opinion video.
I don't accept You Tube opinion videos as anything, they are not worth the time.

 

[Ebionite]

So you admit the Epoch Pundit article was garbage and post an opinion video.

Your lack of reading comprehension is about consistent with your refusal to face the facts about the injury caused by the "safe and effective vaccine".

 

[Pogo]

Your lack of reading comprehension is about consistent with your refusal to face the facts about the injury caused by the "safe and effective vaccine".

Reading comprehension? I told you I don't do videos, A transcript I will look at,

BTW my sister handles FOIA requests and if you write a request for info not in the docs you specify, you get nothing.