Science & Technology News

[GordMay]

Do vaccines actually limit the spread of the virus?
YES.


A large study [1], not yet peer-reviewed, led by a team at Oxford University, and looking specifically at the Delta variant, has shown that both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines do indeed reduce transmission of the disease.
The study looked at almost 150,000 contacts, who were traced from nearly 100,000 initial cases of COVID. The initial COVID-positive cases contained a mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, and the aim was not only to see which groups were most likely to pass on the virus, but also which of the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines were most effective in reducing transmission.

The findings [1] showed that both vaccines reduced transmission, but that the Pfizer vaccine was the most effective in doing so.
The contacts of those who were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine were 65 percent less likely to test positive for COVID-19, compared with the contacts of those who were unvaccinated.
The contacts of those fully vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine, meanwhile, were 36 percent less likely to test positive, when compared with the contacts of those who were unvaccinated.

As with previous studies, this Oxford study found that the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups had similar levels of the virus in their bodies, but those who were vaccinated were less likely to pass it on to others, suggesting that they clear the virus quicker, and are more likely to have less infectious viral particles.

The study also found that the protection the vaccines offer against transmission wanes over time.
Three months after having the AstraZeneca vaccine, those who had breakthrough infections were just as likely to spread the Delta variant, as the unvaccinated.
While protection against transmission decreased in people who had received the Pfizer vaccine, there was still a benefit, when compared with unvaccinated people. Although this appears disheartening, the vaccines still offer good protection against serious illness.

Pre-Print, NOT Yet Peer Reviwed [September 29, 2021]
[1] “The impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on Alpha & Delta variant transmission” ~ by David W Eyre et al

“... Conclusions
Vaccination reduces transmission of Delta, but by less than the Alpha variant. The impact of vaccination decreased over time. Factors other than PCR-measured viral load are important in vaccine-associated transmission reductions. Booster vaccinations may help control transmission together with preventing infections ...”

Full Study ➥ https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v1.full
Hot links:
➥ https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...260v1.full.pdf
➥ https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....28.21264260v1

[Lake-Effect]

T-Up, even if we took your VAERS numbers without question (eg approx 110k reactions, 16k deaths) as being 100% attributable to vaccination... that's out of approx 400 million shots in the US, yielding:

chance of reaction: 1 in 3600
(majority being temporary, with full recovery)

chance of death: 1 in 25000

which are better odds than if one caught COVID... but the majority of VAERS-listed deaths have been from other causes, so the chance is certainly much lower.

Even some of your quoted examples are implausible:
eg "This one died from the booster:"... he died from a cerebral haemorrhage. Can you find ANY mechanism or other evidence to show how a COVID vaccine could cause a fatal haemorrhage within hours of vaccination? A really big fat spike, maybe?

or the asthma guy. Thousands die from asthma annually. Etc. Apply logic, please; in a group of say 240 million Americans, how unusual is it for 16,000 of them to die from illness in a one year period?

What science is apparently saying:

Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination
(as of Oct 6, 2021)

after 396 million doses administered in the US (approx 180 million fully vaccinated)

• anaphylaxis: < 5 per million
• Myocarditis and pericarditis (in people under 30): 1590 reported, 906 confirmed, these are being investigated
• VAERS - reported deaths: 8,390 reports of death (0.0021%)... to be investigated; many are coincidences, some have comorbidities

The CDC's count of VAERS reported deaths is approx half of yours... can you explain that? We're doing science today; please spare us any mention of felons or collusion.

[Lake-Effect]

Here's a recent breakdown of vaccine events reported in my Canadian province of Ontario.

Serious reactions (hospitalization or death) 737, out of 21.8 million shots.

With a public healthcare system, we keep very good stats.

[Lake-Effect]

Here's what [SF] Bay Area doctors say about how COVID affects the brain

“There are viruses that can cause cognitive issues in otherwise healthy people” — and COVID is clearly one of them, said Dr. Joanna Hellmuth, a UCSF neurologist.

A new study from Oxford University offers the worrisome suggestion that the coronavirus not only can shrink the brain, but also reduce “gray matter thickness,” damage tissue in areas associated with the sense of smell, and cause more than 60 other long-term changes to that essential organ.

...the researchers were able to compare hundreds of brain scans of the same people before and after COVID hit. Of the 785 participants, 401 tested positive for the coronavirus before their second scan, giving researchers a unique opportunity to see how each brain may have changed as a result.

Strikingly, the changes occurred whether people had been hospitalized for COVID or had had only a mild case.
...
From 15% to 36% of COVID survivors report memory loss, cognitive deficits or trouble concentrating, according to a Stanford University analysis of 13 studies, published in May in the American Medical Association’s JAMA Network Open publication.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... A new study from Oxford University offers the worrisome suggestion that the coronavirus not only can shrink the brain, but also reduce “gray matter thickness,” damage tissue in areas associated with the sense of smell, and cause more than 60 other long-term changes to that essential organ ...

A direct link, to that Pre-Print study:
“Brain imaging before and after COVID-19 in UK Biobank” ~ by Gwenaëlle Douaud et al
➥ https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...1258690v3.full

[Thumbs Up]

....can you prove that

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Well, we'll take that question as rhetorical, as we all know TU's the new king of unreflective accusation and ignorant assumption. OBJECTION it is never good to start a scientific discussion with a rude insult

See below.
Found 111,921 cases where Vaccine is COVID19 and Serious
In the first 20 cases, 18 were primarily anaphylactic based, which strongly implies a correlation none were medically investigated,malfeasance none were life threatening you are not pathologist, therefore not qualified to make these assumption. Many of the deaths are preceded by anaphylaxis but those are listed in the DEATHS search (except the one that was apparently self-reported)

Found 5,819 cases where Location is U.S. States and Vaccine is COVID19 and Patient Died First 20 cases, none caused by vaccine. once again, you are not a pathologist. Anaphylaxis followed by death is very common in these reports https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfi...ID19)&DIED=Yes

The plausibility of these of these reports has been evaluated (independently) to be greater than 80%.
What does this even mean? The reports are 'plausible', so I guess that means they're proof that 'covid vaccine bad'? It means that even though the FDA/CDC has neglected to properly evaluate them, that professionals in the field have and conclude that they are plausible

Now that's 'real science' for ya!
So, what's the cure for a "zombie apocalypse"? Something about cutting off their heads, in'nit? Lame attempt at humor? What are you implying?

Oh, and by the way, the one thing that would "make my skin crawl" would be the serial display of ignorance and misunderstanding exemplified below, had I not become inured to it by it's repetition. More unwarranted and rude insults, you have yet to make a point unless that is the point in which case I object

I watched this start to finish once, watched in pieces twice and listened to it twice. In no place did it talk about "how to leverage the next pandemic to get the public to accept a universal messenger type RNA flu vaccine". They are inferring it throughout he entire session At about 10.5 minutes, the somewhat buffoonish moderator asked what would be necessary for a sense of urgency about the production of a universal flu vaccine to occur, in response to a statement about the lack of urgency existing in the current capitalistic mode of production, but at no time in the entire discussion did anyone suggest or imply "leverag[ing] the next pandemic they keep referring to an event, a disruption, and the next pandemic to accept a mRNA vaccine". In fact, in the entire discussion mRNA was only brought up once; the discussion was about the prospects for a universal flu vaccine, regardless of the technology used to deliver it. Other techniques were also discussed, as well as the socio-politico-economical facets and challenges. 48:26 in the video. Fauci: "when you do get a universal flu vaccine your gonna want to give it to six month old kids" after which they immediately go back to discussing MRNA technology (gene therapy)

So once again, your personal opinion and conspiratorial mind-set cloud your judgement about a fairly informative and innocuous discussion among consumate professionals. (though about half of them seemed fairly loopy, i.e. an average representation of humanity...)Yes they do seem loopy. They seem like they have decided that a disruptive event to make people accept a new vaccination would be good for humanity
https://www.c-span.org/video/?465845...al-flu-vaccine

Many of the foreign listings are from Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J. They are required by law to post them onto VAERS. There is also a European reporting system as well as several other other countries (including Canada).
So? And?
The foreign listings were removed by OPENVAERS search, they are still accessible with MEDALERTS. Many of these were vague (intentionally?) but are still bona fide death reports. The VAERS reports don't cover all vaccine deaths worldwide, if you add deaths from different reporting systems you get staggering numbers

Finally we arrive at your real point, your tour de force.
Conspiracy theory.
In case you haven't realized, others in the world are aware of the crimes commited by big pharma. If anything, your misguided ire should be directed at capitalism or more accurately, the misapplication of the captialist model to corporate interests, which absolutely defines the corrupt future [and ultimate failure] of a capitalistic outlook in a finite space. You are basically admitting that there is a corporate cabal which could in itself be criticized as being a conspiracy theory

Please... How 'bout providing some 'initial evidence'?
I have provided enough evidence through links I have posted in this thread to cast serious doubts on the integrity of this vaccine roll out, Anthony Fauci, and the theory of natural emergence.

Has it never occured to you that no one's bothered to "prove you wrong about any of this" (though many people have pointed out your logical fallacies [to no avail]) is because you haven't provided any scientific statements? As long as you continue to use second or third hand accounts as your primary source of (mis)information, you can expect to be greeted, correctly, with a certain level of opprobrium. To expect others to grant you full accreditation when you apparently fail to meet the requirements they hold for themselves, as regards intellectual rigor at least, is, for those conversant in human nature, mind-bogglingly naive. Second and third hand accounts are the bread and butter of the fact checks you are so fond of. You struggle with basic spelling errors. It is absurd and ironic of you to accuse me as having a lack of intellectual rigor.

Yes. Please do. Or, once again, consider your actions before accusing others of the same, i.e. "look in the mirror". Just went back 3 pages, found zero instances of you providing primary scientific research links, as par, just wounded, paranoia-revealing rants and links to equally paranoiac websites. This shows that you have not actually looked because they are there for all to see. I provide more primary scientific research links in these threads than almost anyone else on the forum. Again, you refuse to look at the science

I guess you didn't look then, the VAERS ID number is at the top of each
one.
"Reading many of them" is not science. If you want to use VAERS data as a support for your failed assumption that covid vaccines are detrimental, anecdotal 'evidence' doesn't cut it. VAERS reports are from the official FDA/CDC reporting system designed to warn of safety signals associated with vaccines, by stating this you are the one with a failed assumption

Please provide any evidence that the "FDA/CDC hasn't admitted a single death happened from those vaccines, not a single one. Because they haven't done the required investigations!"
The following statement by the CDC, coupled with the actual VAERS reports and lack of autopsy reports, and failure to address the extreme nature of these reports (instead choosing to minmalize them) is sufficient evidence to prove malfeasance:

FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...se-events.html

In conclusion, Mr. Bunyard, I have outlined and responded to all of your allegations. Please refrain from personal attacks and insults in the future. They breed animosity and have no place in a scientific or even a civil discussion.

[Thumbs Up]

My comments (once again) are in red.

Originally Posted by GordMay

Do vaccines actually limit the spread of the virus?
YES.
A large study [1], not yet peer-reviewed, led by a team at Oxford University, and looking specifically at the Delta variant, has shown that both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines do indeed reduce transmission of the disease.
The study looked at almost 150,000 contacts, who were traced from nearly 100,000 initial cases of COVID. The initial COVID-positive cases contained a mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated people, and the aim was not only to see which groups were most likely to pass on the virus, but also which of the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines were most effective in reducing transmission.

The findings [1] showed that both vaccines reduced transmission, but that the Pfizer vaccine was the most effective in doing so.
The contacts of those who were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine were 65 percent less likely to test positive for COVID-19, compared with the contacts of those who were unvaccinated. 65% is not that great. We need to see the study design and the raw data
The contacts of those fully vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine, meanwhile, were 36 percent less likely to test positive, when compared with the contacts of those who were unvaccinated.

As with previous studies, this Oxford study found that the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups had similar levels of the virus in their bodies,This is a huge problem. They are inferring that the vaccinated are more likely to be asymptomatic carriers but those who were vaccinated were less likely to pass it on to others, suggesting that they clear the virus quicker, and are more likely to have less infectious viral particles.

The study also found that the protection the vaccines offer against transmission wanes over time.
Three months after having the AstraZeneca vaccine, those who had breakthrough infections were just as likely to spread the Delta variant, as the unvaccinated.
While protection against transmission decreased in people who had received the Pfizer vaccine, there was still a benefit, when compared with unvaccinated people. Although this appears disheartening, the vaccines still offer good protection against serious illness. It does appear disheartening and is what the science is warning us.

Pre-Print, NOT Yet Peer Reviwed [September 29, 2021]
[1] “The impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on Alpha & Delta variant transmission” ~ by David W Eyre et al

“... Conclusions
Vaccination reduces transmission of Delta, but by less than the Alpha variant. The impact of vaccination decreased over time. Factors other than PCR-measured viral load are important in vaccine-associated transmission reductions. Booster vaccinations may help control transmission together with preventing infections ...”

Full Study ➥ https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v1.full
Hot links:
➥ https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...260v1.full.pdf
➥ https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....28.21264260v1

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

My comments (once again) are in red.
...
As with previous studies, this Oxford study found that the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups had similar levels of the virus in their bodies,This is a huge problem. They are inferring that the vaccinated are more likely to be asymptomatic carriers

That is misleading. Here, let me help:

1. the vaccinated are 35 to 65% less likely to be infected, depending on vaccine used
2. of the vaccinated who become infected, they are much less likely to become seriously ill, and they have shorter illness

So, taken all together, the unvaccinated are clearly more likely to contract COVID, and to have it for longer, so are therefore more likely to be carriers and transmitters. - asymptomatic or otherwise. This should be obvious.

btw, i was speaking today with our doctor about boosters, and he told me that the current guidance for healthy people under 65 was that boosters are advisable at 32 weeks AFTER the 2nd injection... which to me indicates a high confidence in the persistence of effective protection from the initial 2-shot vaccination.

[Thumbs Up]

Lake Effect, I am not neglecting you just being careful to formulate my responses (something that we should all be doing here). I will address your questions by annotating your post with my comments in red:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

T-Up, even if we took your VAERS numbers without question (eg approx 110k reactions, 16k deaths) as being 100% attributable to vaccination... that's out of approx 400 million shots in the US, yielding:

chance of reaction: 1 in 3600
(majority being temporary, with full recovery)

chance of death: 1 in 25000

which are better odds than if one caught COVID...Absolute risk reduction analyses for the different vaccines with their different stages of effectiveness with breakdowns of NNT (number needed to treat to prevent 1 Covid death) have not been provided. but the majority of VAERS-listed deaths have been from other causes, so the chance is certainly much lower. Once again we have an amateur pathologist making assumptions. VAERS events have been proven to be underreported up to 100 fold so NO, the chance is probably much higher

Even some of your quoted examples are implausible:
eg "This one died from the booster:"... he died from a cerebral haemorrhage. Can you find ANY mechanism or other evidence to show how a COVID vaccine could cause a fatal haemorrhage within hours of vaccination? A really big fat spike, maybe? Absolutely. Sounds like a classic case of it. It is called Vaccine-induced thrombotithrombocytopenia.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejme2106315
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33928772/
https://www.hematology.org/covid-19/...rombocytopenia
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34259661/

or the asthma guy. here is a link to his report:https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfi...NUMBER=1696501 Thousands die from asthma annually. Etc. Apply logic, please; in a group of say 240 million Americans, how unusual is it for 16,000 of them to die from illness in a one year period?In the US there are 4000 deaths each year for asthma alone, however, when you have onset of symptoms leading to death immediately after a medical procedure (injection) causality should be evaluated by a certified pathologist (not an armchair pathologist)

What science is apparently saying:
Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination
(as of Oct 6, 2021) The United States CDC is a vaccine company. Their rationalizations are not considered "science". Their attempt to minimalize the concern and overstate the positives constitutes medical fraud, coercion, and malfeasance. These are serious allegations. They frequently make assumptions with disclaimers such as "based on available data". This is not science. Medical science is supposed to be discourse oriented information seeking research by qualified professionals.
discourse among qualified professionals of the merits and drawbacks of a particular treatment based

after 396 million doses administered in the US (approx 180 million fully vaccinated)

• anaphylaxis: < 5 per million
• Myocarditis and pericarditis (in people under 30): 1590 reported, 906 confirmed, these are being investigated
• VAERS - reported deaths: 8,390 reports of death (0.0021%)... to be investigated; many are coincidences, some have comorbidities

Once again VAERS incidents were proven to be vastly underreported by factors as much as 100 to 1. I can post the study if you like. In a recent analysis, anaphylactic reactions after covid vaccines are shown as well to be vastly under reported. I can dig up the link if you want.
The CDC's count of VAERS reported deaths is approx half of yours... can you explain that? We're doing science today; please spare us any mention of felons or collusion.I have explained it in my preceding posts and I included the cases including and excluding foreign reports in the database search links that I provided

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That is misleading. Here, let me help:

1. the vaccinated are 35 to 65% less likely to be infected, depending on vaccine used
2. of the vaccinated who become infected, they are much less likely to become seriously ill, and they have shorter illness

So, taken all together, the unvaccinated are clearly more likely to contract COVID, and to have it for longer, so are therefore more likely to be carriers and transmitters. - asymptomatic or otherwise. This should be obvious. You are not qualified to make these assumptions, especially from the little information that was included on this preprint

btw, i was speaking today with our doctor about boosters, and he told me that the current guidance for healthy people under 65 was that boosters are advisable at 32 weeks AFTER the 2nd injection... which to me indicates a high confidence in the persistence of effective protection from the initial 2-shot vaccination.

Despite what your doctor said, in Canada boosters are only recommended for:

1. Moderately to Severely Immunocompromised, and
2. Vulnerable Elderly in Congregate Settings
https://health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/prog...mendations.pdf

Our FDA (USA) doesn't recommend boosters for low risk people under the age of 65. The advisory panel only recommended them for people over the age of 65 after which the FDA voted to approve them anyway for high risk people below the age of 65. Subsequently two of our top FDA officials (who voted no) have resigned. This constitutes more malfeasance.

Recent published analysis concluded:
Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States
https://link.springer.com/article/10...54-021-00808-7

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

.... In conclusion, Mr. Bunyard, I have outlined and responded to all of your allegations. Please refrain from personal attacks and insults in the future. They breed animosity and have no place in a scientific or even a civil discussion.

Do you really think people aren't able to read and comprehend basic English? Or make their own decisions about who's actually lost virtually all these --- exercises in logical fallacy?

Your histrionic claims to superiority are tiring. The most interesting thing you said in your whole tirade is, "You struggle with basic spelling errors.", though this illustration of how little you know of the scientific method comes in a close second, "Second and third hand accounts are the bread and butter of the fact checks you are so fond of". (Don't you mean "of which you are so fond", Ms. Up?)

So, please, educate me on my spelling errors (letter transpostion doesn't count; i.e. 'captialist', especially when the word is spelled correctly in the same sentence; 'they' do have spell check you know? [though I keep it turned off as a memory aid...]). Since you obviously know nothing about fact-checking.. and, though you fail to realize it, this is not a 'scientific discussion' because (as previously noted) you continue to fail to bring any scientific material to bear.

All you've done in your "outlining and responding" is prove your lack of understanding, and, perhaps, even your ability to do so. To engage with you further serves only to reinforce your desire for attention.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect
T-Up, even if we took your VAERS numbers without question (eg approx 110k reactions, 16k deaths) as being 100% attributable to vaccination... that's out of approx 400 million shots in the US, yielding:

chance of reaction: 1 in 3600
(majority being temporary, with full recovery)

chance of death: 1 in 25000

which are better odds than if one caught COVID...Absolute risk reduction analyses for the different vaccines with their different stages of effectiveness with breakdowns of NNT (number needed to treat to prevent 1 Covid death) have not been provided.

Irrelevant. To generate enough immunity, enough people have to have had COVID, or be vaccinated. Vaccination carries much less risk than contracting COVID, even using your VAERS numbers as being correct. Roughly 400 million vaccinations haven't killed anywhere near to even 1% of the 700+k Americans killed by COVID. Surely you get THAT much.

Once again we have an amateur pathologist making assumptions. VAERS events have been proven to be underreported up to 100 fold so NO, the chance is probably much higher

COVID is under everyone's microscope. I don't believe that serious reactions are being underreported. If people are too afraid (or can't afford) to seek treatment in the US for an adverse reaction, that's a different issue. Anyway, I've also linked you to Ontario's tally of reactions, where reporting is much more part of the system. So you have another data set besides VAERS (a voluntary system) to consider.

eg "This one died from the booster:"... he died from a cerebral haemorrhage. Can you find ANY mechanism or other evidence to show how a COVID vaccine could cause a fatal haemorrhage within hours of vaccination? A really big fat spike, maybe? Absolutely. Sounds like a classic case of it. It is called Vaccine-induced thrombotithrombocytopenia.

Highly unlikely that it would happen within an hour or two of the shot. Read the diagnostic criteria: 4 to 42 days after injection. Also, TTS appears far more likely following AstraZeneca/Johnson and Johnson adenoviral vaccines than Moderna/Pfizer mRNA vaccines. (your case had an mRNA vaccine)

when you have onset of symptoms leading to death immediately after a medical procedure (injection) causality should be evaluated by a certified pathologist (not an armchair pathologist)

Indeed. Which makes VAERS reports inconclusive til said pathologists review them.

What science is apparently saying:
Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination
(as of Oct 6, 2021) The United States CDC is a vaccine company. Their rationalizations are not considered "science". Their attempt to minimalize the concern and overstate the positives constitutes medical fraud, blah blah blah

Sorry, today only, we're doing evidence-based science. Conspiracies later in the week if you insist.

Once again VAERS incidents were proven to be vastly underreported by factors as much as 100 to 1.

Well, I doubt that's the case with COVID, but hey, ignore those and look at the Ontario numbers I gave you, where reporting isn't some voluntary inbox, but baked into the publicly funded medical system. Or look at other countries. VAERS seems pretty flaky for a modern country.

Despite what your doctor said, in Canada boosters are only recommended for:...

I suspect that most Ontario doctors (ours anyway) are quite tuned in and get to see proposals and recommendations before they get carved into formal public policy. So I believe that he gave me his current read on the planned booster program, which for most people would commence early next year, barring other findings or discoveries.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Do you really think people aren't able to read and comprehend basic English? Or make their own decisions about who's actually lost virtually all these --- exercises in logical fallacy?

Your histrionic claims to superiority are tiring. The most interesting thing you said in your whole tirade is, "You struggle with basic spelling errors.", though this illustration of how little you know of the scientific method comes in a close second, "Second and third hand accounts are the bread and butter of the fact checks you are so fond of". (Don't you mean "of which you are so fond", Ms. Up?)

So, please, educate me on my spelling errors I just did in a previous post and apparently hit a nerve (letter transpostion doesn't count; i.e. 'captialist', especially when the word is spelled correctly in the same sentence; 'they' do have spell check you know? [though I keep it turned off as a memory aid...]). Since you obviously know nothing about fact-checking.. and, though you fail to realize it, this is not a 'scientific discussion' because (as previously noted) you continue to fail to bring any scientific material to bear. I had already stipulated that it was to be a scientific discussion: "Looking forward to having this discourse although I have a feeling that you have no valid science to present." which you promptly poisoned with insults and since you yourself have since not brought any evidence, valid science nor valuable insight to the table, nor commented on the material that I have posted I can only conclude that you made that statement in error.

All you've done in your "outlining and responding" is prove your lack of understanding, and, perhaps, even your ability to do so. To engage with you further serves only to reinforce your desire for attention.

Your opinion has been noted. Luckily for me, most of my statements and the links I have submitted have been recorded in the thread. Anyone can look and see that for themselves. There is no further need to argue about it.
"To engage with you further serves only to reinforce your desire for attention" So much for my sincere attempt to get you to actually look at the science. Since you can rarely respond without blathering insults, I think it is for the best.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Irrelevant. To generate enough immunity, enough people have to have had COVID, or be vaccinated. Vaccination carries much less risk than contracting COVID, even using your VAERS numbers as being correct. Roughly 400 million vaccinations haven't killed anywhere near to even 1% of the 700+k Americans killed by COVID. Surely you get THAT much. In every single country, the rise of deaths has directly followed their vaccination drive. You will say that it is preposterous to suppose a causal link but there are vaccine consultants (Geert Vanden Bossche) who had warned of the dangers of vaccinating into the pandemic. Your assertion requires proof.

COVID is under everyone's microscope. I don't believe that serious reactions are being underreported. If people are too afraid (or can't afford) to seek treatment in the US for an adverse reaction, that's a different issue. Anyway, I've also linked you to Ontario's tally of reactions, where reporting is much more part of the system. So you have another data set besides VAERS (a voluntary system) to consider. VAERS reports are in fact, not only compulsory but are the official monitoring system for these adverse reactions. Any deficiency in the VAERS system is, in fact more evidence of malfeasance by the FDA/CDC.

Highly unlikely that it would happen within an hour or two of the shot. Read the diagnostic criteria: 4 to 42 days after injection. Also, TTS appears far more likely following AstraZeneca/Johnson and Johnson adenoviral vaccines than Moderna/Pfizer mRNA vaccines. (your case had an mRNA vaccine)While entitled to your opinion on the matter, it is just an opinion by an unqualified person so has no bearing on the probable truth.

Indeed. Which makes VAERS reports inconclusive til said pathologists review them.If the CDC/FDA are not doing their due diligence (which they are not) it is, once again malfeasance
Sorry, today only, we're doing evidence-based science. Conspiracies later in the week if you insist. Trying to keep it real here, I haven't floated a conspiracy, only leveled accusations (with evidence)

Well, I doubt that's the case with COVID, but hey, ignore those and look at the Ontario numbers I gave you, where reporting isn't some voluntary inbox, but baked into the publicly funded medical system. Or look at other countries. VAERS seems pretty flaky for a modern country. You don't have a problem quoting our FDA/CDC when it suits you and we already agree that the US healthcare system is corrupt right?

I suspect that most Ontario doctors (ours anyway) are quite tuned in and get to see proposals and recommendations before they get carved into formal public policy. So I believe that he gave me his current read on the plannedInteresting choice of words, maybe better to slow down and examine the science, and the ongoing trials booster program, which for most people would commence early next year, barring other findings or discoveries.

What is the MD vaccination rate in Canada (and how do you know they are telling the truth)?

[GordMay]

Thumbs Up [https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3501422 & etc]

You seem to want to ignore some important limitations, regarding VAERS, to whit:

While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.
VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public.
More ➥ https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html

Guide to Interpreting VAERS Data
When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.
More ➥ https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

Don’t Fall for the ‘VAERS Scare’ Tactic
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS] is being misused, by anti-vaxxers & others, to mislead, and terrify [would that make them ‘terrorists”?] the public.
➥ https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/co...s-scare-tactic


All of which, have been previously discussed, on the CF.