2094 replies to this topic

[Hip]

Just a facet of his to fit his present agenda. All open there for anyone to read on his PR profile that he himself in fact benefited the most from failure supplements:

 

I already stated that I employ alternative medicine, and find it useful. 

 

But no alternative medical treatment has ever turned a fatal disease into a non-fatal one. If you don't agree with this, please provide an example where alternative medicine has succeeded in saving lives in the case of fatal diseases or life-critical medical emergencies. Conventional medicine does this routineIy.

 

In any case, William7 was arguing against the mechanistic approach to medicine, ie, the scientific cause and effect approach. I pointed out that most of alternative medicine uses the mechanistic approach anyway. Most supplements have been discovered and manufactured using the scientific method.

[Daniel Cooper]

Normally when there are flaws in a argument, then pointing out those flaws is the best approach, and helps us get to the truth. However, this approach does not always work.

 

For example, some people have mental health issues such that they genuinely believe they are the second coming of Jesus Christ. I've read accounts of such people who have these beliefs, and their belief is unshakable. 

 

Do you really think it would be fruitful to engage with such a person, and try to have a rational discussion about their belief that they are the messiah? Of course not. If you humour them, it's just going to make it worse.

 

Similarly, when someone claims that all mental health diagnoses and classifications are false, and their real intention is just to oppress the poor and working classes, then engaging in discussing about such a conspiracy theory would be fruitless. 

 

Because of the ubiquity of schizotypy, the Internet is plagued with conspiracy theories. Sometimes these conspiracy theories have terrible effects in real life, such as the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory, or the pizzagate conspiracy theory. 

 

If we are going to try to maintain the sanity of the human race, we need to call out these people mad people who believe in outlandish conspiracy theories, and given them the help they need. We should not humour them, we need to help them.

 

 

So tell me Hip, exactly which members here have you diagnosed with schizotrpy? And since you're a man that insists on credentials, what exactly are yours in this area?

 

 

[Gal220]

But COVID infection itself can trigger myocarditis, as well as numerous other medical events including death, and worse still, long COVID. 

 

If the vaccine are withdrawn, there will be a wave of death as well as an increase in COVID-triggered medical events. Would you like to take that decision of withdrawing the vaccines, and then face the wrath of all the families who have lost loved ones on the basis of that decision?

 

According to whom?  The myocarditis data gets worse and worse for the vaccine

https://twitter.com/...734467667906561

 

 

I would say it is on the criminal side of things to have ever offered them to under 30 without long term studies.  However the short term harms should have ruled it out already

 

Thailand is fixing to revoke them.  Denmark and UK no longer providing vaccine booster if under 50, it will start to snowball here shortly

 

 

If my risk was higher, I would personally be open to a vaccine, just not the mRNA

[Hip]

Labeling someone as insane because you disagree with isn't doing much to "maintain the sanity of the human race".  

 

Of course it is helping to maintain the sanity of the human race.

 

A lot of people these days suffer from mental health problems, some serious, some not so serious, and many have subclinical mental health issues.

 

Unfortunately, a lot go undiagnosed for decades, and some are never properly diagnosed. The result is that people are missing out on treatments which could help them, and reduce the suffering in their lives.

 

Thankfully over the last decade or two, there has been a major increase in awareness of mental health issues, which means that people are more likely to seek help, and this awareness has reduced the terrible stigma associated with mental symptoms. 

 

This is a good thing, because for centuries, society often tried to sweep mental health under the carpet. 

[Hip]

So tell me Hip, exactly which members here have you diagnosed with schizotrpy? And since you're a man that insists on credentials, what exactly are yours in this area?

 

I have not diagnosed anyone, as I am not medically qualified, and nobody should be providing diagnoses unless they are a doctor. 

 

But I have suggested to certain people that they might look up the symptoms of schizotypy, and see if they can relate to them. 

 

With 1 in 25 people having schizotypy, obviously there are going to be some with schizotypy on almost any Internet forum. 

[Daniel Cooper]

Of course it is helping to maintain the sanity of the human race.

 

A lot of people these days suffer from mental health problems, some serious, some not so serious, and many have subclinical mental health issues.

 

Unfortunately, a lot go undiagnosed for decades, and some are never properly diagnosed. The result is that people are missing out on treatments which could help them, and reduce the suffering in their lives.

 

Thankfully over the last decade or two, there has been a major increase in awareness of mental health issues, which means that people are more likely to seek help, and this awareness has reduced the terrible stigma associated with mental symptoms. 

 

This is a good thing, because for centuries, society often tried to sweep mental health under the carpet. 

 

No, your going around "diagnosing" people as mentally unbalanced because you do not agree with them actually makes the world just a bit more crazy.

 

You have taken us off on quite the tangent here. I suggest we get back on discussing covid vaccines rather than your new hobby of amateur psychiatry.

[Hip]

According to whom?  The myocarditis data gets worse and worse for the vaccine

https://twitter.com/...734467667906561

 

 

I would say it is on the criminal side of things to have ever offered them to under 30 without long term studies.  However the short term harms should have ruled it out already

 

Possibly it may not be wise to offer vaccines to the under 30s, but it's a hard balancing act to accomplish. 

 

The vaccine critics here are always biased, pointing out the side effects of the vaccine, without ever once drawing our attention to the health benefits of the vaccines.

 

I consider long COVID to be a fate worse than death, and you can be hit with LC at any age (unlike death from COVID, which is much more common in the elderly). LC will imprison you in your home for the rest of your life, it's that bad. And your risk of developing LC is high, about 1 in 100 every time you catch COVID. That's a roll of the dice I expect most people would want to avoid.   

 

So the risk of long COVID should be central to any discussion on giving vaccines to younger people. The COVID vaccines unfortunately only provide limited protection from LC. If I remember correctly, they reduce your chances of LC by 15% to 40%, depending on which studies you look at. So say 25% as a middle figure. Nevertheless, if you can reduce the current global toll of long COVID (which currently stands at 65 million people) by 25%, that is a very worthwhile accomplishment.

 

 

So put these facts on the weighing scale, and YOU tell me if you think, on balance, vaccines for the under 30s are a good thing or not.

Edited by Hip, 06 February 2023 - 09:33 PM.

[Hip]

And germophobia is even more common and has a bigger audience. If we start diagnosing people over the internet we could do the same and "diagnose" you with that disorder and claim your judgment is affected by it so much that everything you say is invalid.

 

You would probably be upset if someone did that.

 

I would not be upset if you accused me of being germophobic. If it were true I would be happy to admit it (since I suffer with a number of other mental symptoms anyway, so one more on the list is not going to have any increased stigma).

 

But I would say it is false. Germophobia tends to be found in people with OCD, and their fear of germs is an irrational uncontrollable emotional fear. Whereas my interest is how viruses and bacteria may be the hidden cause of nearly all chronic diseases. But that's an intellectual interest, not an uncontrollable emotional fear.

Edited by Hip, 06 February 2023 - 09:32 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

 

The vaccine critics here are always biased, pointing out the side effects of the vaccine, without ever once drawing our attention to the health benefits of the vaccines.

 

 

 

I think there is a level of discomfort with vaccines because:

 

• The approval process was rushed as everyone acknowledges. I'm not saying this was wrong and I speak as someone who thinks the normal FDA approval process is unnecessarily long and expensive and doesn't add that much value to the patient for the extra time and money. Still this vaccine was released in roughly a year. A 10 year approval process on a vaccine isn't unheard of in normal times.  Obviously your chances of missing long term effects will necessarily increase given this abbreviated process.
• The decision was made that the most prominent vaccines would be made with new technology which had no prior approval from our FDA. And the fact that mRNA vaccines had no prior approvals wasn't for a lack of trying. Several cancer related mRNA vaccines had been slated to be submitted for approval but all had issues before they got that far. The cynics amongst us suspect the push to use this relatively untested technology was because you can do things in an emergency that you can't do in normal times and the two big players (Pfizer and Moderna) saw an opportunity to move mRNA vaccines out of the lab and into production, something they hadn't managed to do in about two decades.  It is clear that the mRNA technique wasn't the only viable path to a covid-19 vaccine.  We've essentially just executed a N= billion+ phase 2 clinical trial of mRNA vaccines. That's pretty astounding if you think about it.
• The first two points are even more astounding when you consider that they happened at the same time - we conducted an aggressively compressed approval process on a vaccine using a technology that had never been previously approved.
• The health bureaucracy at least in the US was caught out on several instances being less than forthright with the public on important issues surrounding the pandemic, and that's putting it charitably.

I think if you weren't somewhat concerned by this you just haven't thought it through. That doesn't mean that you dismiss the vaccines out of hand, but if they don't make you at least a little nervous I think you're not paying attention.

 

I elected to get the first two shots of Pfizer. I won't be getting any more unless the situation changes dramatically for the worse which I do not anticipate.

 

I hope I made the right decision, but I'd be lying if I said that some of the information that has come out subsequent to that decision doesn't makes me slightly nervous.

[Mind]

But COVID infection itself can trigger myocarditis, as well as numerous other medical events including death, and worse still, long COVID. 

 

If the vaccine are withdrawn, there will be a wave of death as well as an increase in COVID-triggered medical events. Would you like to take that decision of withdrawing the vaccines, and then face the wrath of all the families who have lost loved ones on the basis of that decision?

 

 

As for Prof Retsif Levi, this critique of his comments says he is a professor of business administration, not medicine or science. You might like to read that critique to see the flaws in his argument.

 

Just as there is a persistent myth that natural immunity from COVID is "weak", (keeps being repeatedly stated in this discussion) there is a persistent myth that the recent surge in myocarditis over the last two years is due to people getting COVID. There are multiple peer-reviewed observational studies, dozens of case reports, and now this PEER-REVIEWED research as well, finding that the COVID injections are causing most of the rise in myocarditis. Multiple health agencies around the world even acknowledge this. I am unsure why this myth of COVID-caused myocarditis persists.

[Mind]

I wonder why you never call out Mind  when he calls people he disagrees with evil, but you always call out Hip?

 

People have always disagreed and argued. The thing that is different now is the embrace of alterative facts, denial of reality, social media news echo chambers and internet charlatan-gurus that people follow and this hyper-partisan tribal identity politics where everyone who is on the other team is evil. At the end of the day what should matter is truth and facts. That is all but lost in these discussions where people cherry pick conclusions from papers-scroll up and you will see my last post is calling out for someone doing this-and the only thing that matters is that your side is validated.

 

Please point to where I directly called someone in this discussion or or others "evil".

 

I have called Dr. Fauci a liar and a megalomaniac, based upon the fact that he has lied in public multiple times, called himself "the science", and has a house filled with paintings of himself.

 

I have called multiple health organizations incompetent because of their doubling and tripling down on pandemic responses that were useless and counter-productive.

 

I have called out the CDC for lying and hiding data, because they lied (self-admittedly) and hid data on multiple occasions.

 

I have might have called the practice of doxing, harassing, and threatening people who offered alternate opinions on the COVID response "evil", because, well....it seemed evil to me.

 

 

[geo12the]

Just as there is a persistent myth that natural immunity from COVID is "weak", (keeps being repeatedly stated in this discussion) there is a persistent myth that the recent surge in myocarditis over the last two years is due to people getting COVID. There are multiple peer-reviewed observational studies, dozens of case reports, and now this PEER-REVIEWED research as well, finding that the COVID injections are causing most of the rise in myocarditis. Multiple health agencies around the world even acknowledge this. I am unsure why this myth of COVID-caused myocarditis persists.

 

Once again you cherry pick the bits that support your side but miss the big picture. 

 

"finding that the COVID injections are causing most of the rise in myocarditis."

 

 ​That is NOT the finding of this paper. If anything the conclusion is that myocarditis caused by vaccine is milder:

 

Conclusions Compared with myocarditis associated with covid-19 disease and conventional myocarditis, myocarditis after vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines was associated with better clinical outcomes within 90 days of admission to hospital.

[geo12the]

I think there is a level of discomfort with vaccines because:

 

• The approval process was rushed as everyone acknowledges. I'm not saying this was wrong and I speak as someone who thinks the normal FDA approval process is unnecessarily long and expensive and doesn't add that much value to the patient for the extra time and money. Still this vaccine was released in roughly a year. A 10 year approval process on a vaccine isn't unheard of in normal times.  Obviously your chances of missing long term effects will necessarily increase given this abbreviated process.
• The decision was made that the most prominent vaccines would be made with new technology which had no prior approval from our FDA. And the fact that mRNA vaccines had no prior approvals wasn't for a lack of trying. Several cancer related mRNA vaccines had been slated to be submitted for approval but all had issues before they got that far. The cynics amongst us suspect the push to use this relatively untested technology was because you can do things in an emergency that you can't do in normal times and the two big players (Pfizer and Moderna) saw an opportunity to move mRNA vaccines out of the lab and into production, something they hadn't managed to do in about two decades.  It is clear that the mRNA technique wasn't the only viable path to a covid-19 vaccine.  We've essentially just executed a N= billion+ phase 2 clinical trial of mRNA vaccines. That's pretty astounding if you think about it.
• The first two points are even more astounding when you consider that they happened at the same time - we conducted an aggressively compressed approval process on a vaccine using a technology that had never been previously approved.
• The health bureaucracy at least in the US was caught out on several instances being less than forthright with the public on important issues surrounding the pandemic, and that's putting it charitably.

I think if you weren't somewhat concerned by this you just haven't thought it through. That doesn't mean that you dismiss the vaccines out of hand, but if they don't make you at least a little nervous I think you're not paying attention.

 

I elected to get the first two shots of Pfizer. I won't be getting any more unless the situation changes dramatically for the worse which I do not anticipate.

 

I hope I made the right decision, but I'd be lying if I said that some of the information that has come out subsequent to that decision doesn't makes me slightly nervous.

 

 

COVID was a complex and weird disease and an unprecedented event in our lifetime. Among my social circle it cruelly killed a bunch of elderly moms and dads. Was the government response perfect? Of course not! But I never expected it to be. Histrionic posts of Mind and others aside, all data suggests the mRNA vaccines were safe and did their job of introducing our immune systems to a disease they had not encountered before. They saved countless lives. The fact that the government response was not perfect does not mean we should wallow in Alex Jones conspiracies and Robert Kennedy kooky anti-vax theory.          

[Hip]

I think there is a level of discomfort with vaccines because:

 

• The approval process was rushed as everyone acknowledges. I'm not saying this was wrong and I speak as someone who thinks the normal FDA approval process is unnecessarily long and expensive and doesn't add that much value to the patient for the extra time and money. Still this vaccine was released in roughly a year. A 10 year approval process on a vaccine isn't unheard of in normal times.  Obviously your chances of missing long term effects will necessarily increase given this abbreviated process.
• The decision was made that the most prominent vaccines would be made with new technology which had no prior approval from our FDA. And the fact that mRNA vaccines had no prior approvals wasn't for a lack of trying. Several cancer related mRNA vaccines had been slated to be submitted for approval but all had issues before they got that far. The cynics amongst us suspect the push to use this relatively untested technology was because you can do things in an emergency that you can't do in normal times and the two big players (Pfizer and Moderna) saw an opportunity to move mRNA vaccines out of the lab and into production, something they hadn't managed to do in about two decades.  It is clear that the mRNA technique wasn't the only viable path to a covid-19 vaccine.  We've essentially just executed a N= billion+ phase 2 clinical trial of mRNA vaccines. That's pretty astounding if you think about it.
• The first two points are even more astounding when you consider that they happened at the same time - we conducted an aggressively compressed approval process on a vaccine using a technology that had never been previously approved.
• The health bureaucracy at least in the US was caught out on several instances being less than forthright with the public on important issues surrounding the pandemic, and that's putting it charitably.

I think if you weren't somewhat concerned by this you just haven't thought it through. That doesn't mean that you dismiss the vaccines out of hand, but if they don't make you at least a little nervous I think you're not paying attention.

 

I elected to get the first two shots of Pfizer. I won't be getting any more unless the situation changes dramatically for the worse which I do not anticipate.

 

I hope I made the right decision, but I'd be lying if I said that some of the information that has come out subsequent to that decision doesn't makes me slightly nervous.

 

All valid points.

 

Though for people reading these COVID vaccine threads, and trying to use the info in them to decide whether or not to get vaccinated, it would be good if someone weighed up the pros and cons, to get a balanced perspective, rather than just keep posting the cons all the time.

 

The situation we are in is the situation we are in. We have to make the best choices with what we have to hand at this moment. The vaccines are not perfect, but there are no other vaccines available at present. So we have to make adult choices.

 

 

I read that although the COVID vaccines were produced in lightning time, they did not skimp on the testing. They all went through the normal 3 phases of clinical trial. The vaccines were produced quickly because thousands of scientists around the world were working around the clock on them.

 

The mRNA technology is fairly untested, but the adenovirus vector COVID vaccines use a technology which has been around longer. As it turned out, the adenovirus vector COVID vaccines had to be stopped by the regulators, because of the fatal blood clots they would very occasionally cause. So it turns out that the mRNA tech was safer. That's just the luck of the draw. 

 

It should inspire faith in the regulatory authorities that the adenovirus vector COVID vaccines were stopped. Some pharmaceutical companies invested heavily in these adenovirus vector COVID vaccines, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca (and the Russian Sputnik V, who stole the tech from AstraZeneca), yet the regulatory authorities still shut down these vaccines. 

 

Some of the cynics here argue that the pharmaceutical companies are too powerful to be shut down, and have control over the regulator; but shut down they were nevertheless. So that shows these companies do not control the regulators. That should inspire some faith in the regulatory process. It was just bad luck that the adenovirus vector vaccines caused these blood clots, yet the regulators still halted them completely.

 

 

The Pandemrix flu vaccine used in the 2009 flu pandemic had bad luck also: it turned out this would trigger the incurable chronic disease of narcolepsy in a few people. So that vaccine had to be pulled, and the people affected received some compensation (not very much, only £120,000 in the UK). I believe Pandemrix used traditional vaccine technology; but by an unfortunate coincidence, one of the proteins in the vaccine was very similar to a protein in the brain, so in some very rare cases, the vaccine triggered an autoimmune attack on the brain, causing narcolepsy. Fortunately cases like Pandemrix are not common.

 

If we started to develop a new COVID vaccine tomorrow that we hoped might be safer, it might backfire, and might also be subject to such bad luck as Pandemrix had. Every new pharmaceutical product goes through clinical trials, but the ultimate test is when it's given to millions of the general public. 

Edited by Hip, 07 February 2023 - 01:36 AM.

[Hip]

Just as there is a persistent myth that natural immunity from COVID is "weak" 

 

It's a fact that natural immunity from COVID is very weak. If it were strong, nobody would ever catch COVID twice. But lots of people are getting reinfected with COVID, often within a year. That's very poor natural immunity.

 

If you want to know what strong natural immunity is, look at the poliovirus epidemics that we used to have prior to the 1950s. Once you caught poliovirus, you were immune to catching that virus again for your entire life. If you caught poliovirus just once, you would never get it again, because the natural immunity it produced was robust and very long lasting.

 

But with COVID, you'd be lucky if your natural immunity against reinfection lasts even 3 months. This article states that people can be reinfected after just two months. 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 07 February 2023 - 01:34 AM.

[william7]

https://media.mercol...vid-jab-pdf.pdf

 

More Than 217,000 Americans Killed by the COVID Jab

 Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola  Fact Checked

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

February 07, 2023

 According to a December 2021 survey of 2,840 Americans, between 217,330 and 332,608 people died from the COVID jabs in 2021

 Survey results also show that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed

 Of the respondents, 34% knew one or more people who had experienced a signicant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22% knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot

 51% of the survey respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 13% reported experiencing a “serious” health problem post-jab. Compare that to Pzer’s six-month safety analysis, which claimed only 1.2% of trial participants experienced a serious adverse event

 In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll, 34% reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and 7% reported major side effects

While it's clear that the experimental COVID shots have killed a considerable number of people, the total death toll remains elusive, thanks to U.S. health agencies obfuscating, hiding and manipulating data.

That said, the most recent survey1,2 — published in the peer-reviewed journal BMC Infectious Diseases — puts the death toll from the COVID jabs somewhere between

 

 217,330 and 332,608 in 2021 alone. As noted by Steve Kirsch:3

"[We've] killed at least 217,000 Americans and seriously injured 33 million ... in just the rst year, and the CDC and FDA want to give you more shots ... Since deaths from the vaccine were higher in 2022, most experts would estimate the all-cause mortality death toll from the COVID vaccines to be in the range of 500K to 600K.

So the global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people ... These [data] are consistent with the numbers I've been saying for a long time. It's not a coincidence."

[william7]

I already stated that I employ alternative medicine, and find it useful. 

 

But no alternative medical treatment has ever turned a fatal disease into a non-fatal one. If you don't agree with this, please provide an example where alternative medicine has succeeded in saving lives in the case of fatal diseases or life-critical medical emergencies. Conventional medicine does this routineIy.

 

In any case, William7 was arguing against the mechanistic approach to medicine, ie, the scientific cause and effect approach. I pointed out that most of alternative medicine uses the mechanistic approach anyway. Most supplements have been discovered and manufactured using the scientific method.

I guess you didn’t watch that video on cannabis as medicine I gave you a link to. Those were videos of television programs on CNN by Dr. Mercola. Cannabis is curing life threatening diseases on a regular basis. Those children were suffering from life threatening seizures. Cannabis was once a safe and effective medicine that most doctors carried in their medical bags back in early 1900s until it was suppressed by corporate greed utilizing “mechanistic medicine” as a means to make greater profits. 
 

Study: Medical Cannabis Saves Lives

https://www.marijuan...is-saves-lives/

 

Marijuana dispensaries save lives, new study shows
https://www.msnbc.co...hows-msna642141    

Attached Files

•  A3B11FFA-58AA-477C-996B-7689D2AC6931.jpeg   72.41KB   0 downloads

[joesixpack]

I gave up on these two a long time ago.

 

You can't convince them or persuade them. I think they may be paid shills to just spout the msm meme of the the day.

 

No point in engaging them in any type of discussion. But I appreciate and follow the efforts to have one.

[joesixpack]

I gave up on these two a long time ago.

 

You can't convince them or persuade them. I think they may be paid shills to just spout the msm meme of the the day.

 

No point in engaging them in any type of discussion. But I appreciate and follow the efforts to have one.

 

Since someone needs a reference, read their posts.

[Hip]

I guess you didn’t watch that video on cannabis as medicine I gave you a link to. Those were videos of television programs on CNN by Dr. Mercola. Cannabis is curing life threatening diseases on a regular basis. Those children were suffering from life threatening seizures. Cannabis was once a safe and effective medicine that most doctors carried in their medical bags back in early 1900s until it was suppressed by corporate greed utilizing “mechanistic medicine” as a means to make greater profits. 

 

I am well informed on the medical benefits of Cannabis and its THC and CBD content. Cannabis works for a small range of conditions, as you say, for epilepsy, and for certain subsets of breast cancer (it helps for HER2-positive breast cancer, which accounts for 20% of breast cancers). It may help certain subtypes of brain cancer too. 

 

And Cannabis can help in multiple sclerosis. But it is not the the universal panacea that you are making out. For the vast majority of diseases and medical condition, Cannabis does very little. 

 

Only people who are high on Cannabis attribute to this plant some universal panacea qualities. 

 

 

Side effects of Cannabis include psychosis (especially with modern plant breeding, which creates Cannabis strains with a high THC to CBD ratio).

 

Cannabis is an intriguing plant, because it contains both a potent psychosis inducer (THC), and a potent antipsychotic compound (CBD). When THC and CBD are in the normal natural balance, the risk of psychosis from THC is largely mitigated by the antipsychotic effects of CBD. However, when plant breeders create high THC strains, this changes the balance, and that's why these days more people experience psychotic episodes from Cannabis requiring temporary hospitalisation. 

 

In the UK, there are over 30,000 Cannabis hospitalisations each year. Ref: here.

 

Recreational Cannabis users also tend to score highly for schizotypy traits. Ref: here. 

Edited by Hip, 07 February 2023 - 03:30 PM.

[Mind]

 

Once again you cherry pick the bits that support your side but miss the big picture. 

 

"finding that the COVID injections are causing most of the rise in myocarditis."

 

 ​That is NOT the finding of this paper. If anything the conclusion is that myocarditis caused by vaccine is milder:

 

Conclusions Compared with myocarditis associated with covid-19 disease and conventional myocarditis, myocarditis after vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines was associated with better clinical outcomes within 90 days of admission to hospital.

 

 

Not cherry picking anything. Read closely. The paper found the RATE of myocarditis among the vaccinated was much higher. My point was NOT about the degree of illness.

[Mind]

It's a fact that natural immunity from COVID is very weak. If it were strong, nobody would ever catch COVID twice. But lots of people are getting reinfected with COVID, often within a year. That's very poor natural immunity.

 

If you want to know what strong natural immunity is, look at the poliovirus epidemics that we used to have prior to the 1950s. Once you caught poliovirus, you were immune to catching that virus again for your entire life. If you caught poliovirus just once, you would never get it again, because the natural immunity it produced was robust and very long lasting.

 

But with COVID, you'd be lucky if your natural immunity against reinfection lasts even 3 months. This article states that people can be reinfected after just two months. 

 

The vast majority of the data shows that natural immunity is strong, as the recent Nature paper specifically stated "it is STRONG".

 

People get various respiratory ailments all the time throughout their lives...and develop immunity. New variants that are sufficiently different come along and then they might get sick again in a couple of years. This does not mean there is no natural immunity.

 

This is a case where I look around my own sphere on influence and connections - to add some context to what I am hearing from our awful "health" bureaucracies. Everyone I know got COVID. Many got it twice, like me. They all - to a person - said it was very minor the second time around.

[Mind]

First it was Bill Gates saying the current mRNA injections are poor vaccines (after selling his stake in BioNtech). Specifically he said:

 

 

 

You know, we’re seeing through a variety of the data, Israel data, U.K. data, that particularly if you’re in your 70s, within four or five months of taking the vaccine, that protection really is going down

the vaccine is not reducing transmission, hardly at all

...they don’t block infection

 

Now Dr. Fauci has come out with a new paper saying essentially the same thing, that the current COVID injections are not great for respiratory infections like COVID (the authors don't come out an exactly say it, but they say things need to be investigated and improved).. The intro to the paper reads like someone who has his eyes and ears closed for the last three years. Dr. Bahkdi has been telling anyone who would listen since early 2020, THE EXACT SAME THING that Dr. Fauci just happened to discover now. Dr. Fauci and other health bureaucrats led the charge to destroy the reputation of any scientist who disgreed. Dr. Bahkdi should sue. There needs to be criminal investigations.

 

I would be pissed off if I was pressured to take the COVID injection, only to find out now that it doesn't work very well, according to the biggest promoters like Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci.

Edited by Mind, 07 February 2023 - 05:40 PM.

[geo12the]

Not cherry picking anything. Read closely. The paper found the RATE of myocarditis among the vaccinated was much higher. My point was NOT about the degree of illness.

 

The study did not look at all at the rate of myocarditis actually caused by the vaccine. What I mean is that it was not data that you can ask "what % of people who are vaccinated got myocarditis?" It doesn't say anything about the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine. It looked at people in the hospital with myocarditis. Since vaccination rates in nordic countries is very high (87% in Norway for example) it's not surprising data. 

 

There was a very large recent study where they looked at the rate of myocarditis caused by the vaccine vs. COVID infection. 

 

From the conclusions:

 

Conclusions:

Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. However, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.

 

Getting back to the original paper you cited the main conclusion is that myocarditis caused by the vaccine is much less severe:

 

Conclusions

We found that myocarditis after vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines was associated with a lower risk of heart failure within 90 days of admission to hospital compared with conventional myocarditis and myocarditis after covid-19 disease. Less severe outcomes of myocarditis after vaccination were found in different subgroups, including younger patients with no predisposing comorbidities, and in both men and women. Our results suggested that the outcome of myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination was less severe than for other types of myocarditis.

 

Those are the facts, no cherry picking of data.

 

Edited by geo12the, 07 February 2023 - 05:14 PM.

[Hip]

People get various respiratory ailments all the time throughout their lives...and develop immunity. New variants that are sufficiently different come along and then they might get sick again in a couple of years. This does not mean there is no natural immunity.

 

In the case of COVID, people are getting reinfected after just two months. That's generally too short a time for a new variant to come along. So they are getting reinfected with the same virus after just a few months. Natural immunity is feeble!

 

And not only is natural immunity feeble, the massive Veterans Affairs database study demonstrated that if you have a prior infection with COVID, it means that on your next COVID infection, you are MORE likely to die, not less likely. So prior infection actually increases your chances of death in subsequent infections, not decreases it.

 

Why don't all the natural immunity advocates just come clean and admit they got it totally wrong?

Edited by Hip, 07 February 2023 - 07:26 PM.

[Hip]

First it was Bill Gates saying the current mRNA injections are poor vaccines (after selling his stake in BioNtech). Specifically he said:
 
 
Now Dr. Fauci has come out with a new paper saying essentially the same thing, that the current COVID injections are not great for respiratory infections like COVID (the authors don't come out an exactly say it, but they say things need to be investigated and improved).. The intro to the paper reads like someone who has his eyes and ears closed for the last three years.

 

Are you sure it is not your eyes and ears that were closed for the last three years? Right at the beginning of the pandemic, before the virus even hit Western countries, immunologists were discussing the fact that coronavirus vaccines may not be able to create long lasting immunity, because natural immunity to coronavirus is also not long lasting. This is a characteristic of coronaviruses, that they do not create lasting immunity, neither naturally nor by vaccination. 

 

These things were known before the pandemic hit the West. I read all about them 3 years ago.  

 

But you would only know this if you read scientific publications. This is the problem with the conspiracy theory and pseudoscience garbage websites you enjoy perusing, it leads you up the garden path.  

 

Edited by Hip, 07 February 2023 - 07:27 PM.

[pamojja]

Naturally immunity is feeble!

 

Why don't all the natural immunity advocates just come clean and admit they got it totally wrong?

 

You life in a fantasy world.

 

We have a total population of 8 billion. Of which up to today about 676 Million alledgedly got infected. Which first of all means, more than 91% of the world population had very sound natural immunity.

 

Not feeble or wrong understood. But the vast majority perfectly strong enough to be done with this new corona virus already at the mucosal barrier without allowing any infection, as healthy immunity is suppost to. Like in my case without any infection during the last 3 years, without vaccination. We with sound immunity are the vast majority of the human population.

 

Died have about 6.77 Million or about 1% of known infected. But as we all now from the beginning, most countries attributed deaths wrongly to covid, where in reality above 90% of dying had at least 3 serious co-morbitities, which before the covid-area would have been assumed guildy on any death certificate.
 

Finally in times of real plagues, like the middle ages, about 30% of European died. In our Covidian area 3 years with an population increase of a little less than 200.000.000 - already 30 times more births than deaths alledged to covid, was already declared an emergy situation against which basic human rights allegdedly had to be abolished.

 

If there is anything feeble, then its human intelegence. Not natural immunity.

[Daniel Cooper]

In the case of COVID, people are getting reinfected after just two months. That's generally too short a time for a new variant to come along. So they are getting reinfected with the same virus after just a few months. Natural immunity is feeble!

 

And not only is natural immunity feeble, the massive Veterans Affairs database study demonstrated that if you have a prior infection with COVID, it means that on your next COVID infection, you are MORE likely to die, not less likely. So prior infection actually increases your chances of death in subsequent infections, not decreases it.

 

Why don't all the natural immunity advocates just come clean and admit they got it totally wrong?

 

Is it just the one study that you're hanging your hat on with respect to second infections being more deadly?

[Mind]

As I predicted not long ago, public health authorities are slowly moving away from vaccine mandates for everyone.

 

California and Quebec are a couple of the latest places drop vaccine recommendations for various members of the population. The reason they are dropping the vaccine mandates is because the risk outweighs the benefit. If the COVID injections were "nearly 100 percent and safe and effective", as everyone was told early on, then there would be no reason to stop recommending the injections for everyone. No reason at all.

[healthmysteries31]

Is it just the one study that you're hanging your hat on with respect to second infections being more deadly?

 

 a meta analysis of 26 studies was just published suggesting the second infections caused much less severe disease

 

https://www.thelance...0801-5/fulltext

 

11 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and 15 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of hybrid immunity were included. For previous infection, there were 97 estimates (27 with a moderate risk of bias and 70 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of previous infection against hospital admission or severe disease was 74·6% (95% CI 63·1–83·5) at 12 months. The effectiveness of previous infection against reinfection waned to 24·7% (95% CI 16·4–35·5) at 12 months. For hybrid immunity, there were 153 estimates (78 with a moderate risk of bias and 75 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of hybrid immunity against hospital admission or severe disease was 97·4% (95% CI 91·4–99·2) at 12 months with primary series vaccination and 95·3% (81·9–98·9) at 6 months with the first booster vaccination after the most recent infection or vaccination. Against reinfection, the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following primary series vaccination waned to 41·8% (95% CI 31·5–52·8) at 12 months, while the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following first booster vaccination waned to 46·5% (36·0–57·3) at 6 months

 

 

All estimates of protection waned within months against reinfection but remained high and sustained for hospital admission or severe disease. Individuals with hybrid immunity had the highest magnitude and durability of protection

 

 

 

there really isn't much in terms of science that shows the oppposite. The other study was done in a very specific group, elderly veterans and it's hard to draw any conclusions about immunity from it.

 

The idea that reinfections would be more severe was promoted early in the pandemic. This can only happen if there is ADE(Antibody dependent enhancement) but that is not the case. If there was ADE the vaccines could also be dangerous for the same reason. If immunity doesn't work the vaccines won't work either.

Edited by healthmysteries31, 07 February 2023 - 10:10 PM.