Rfk drops ball

[probinson]

Idiotic misinformation

I think you've confused "idiotic misinformation" with "scientific studies".

Vaccinated People Not More Susceptible to COVID-19 Than Unvaccinated - FactCheck.org

Q. Are vaccinated and boosted people more susceptible to infection or disease with the omicron variant than unvaccinated people? A. No. Getting vaccinated increases your protection against COVID-19. Sometimes, certain raw data can suggest otherwise, but that information cannot be used to...

www.factcheck.org

Ah yes. When I want the highest quality scientific information, factcheck.org is always my first source. I mean, who would want to go directly to the study and read it for themselves when you have some flunky at factcheck.org that can "explain" it to you?

In any event, none of this "fact-check" addresses either study I referenced. Here they are again. These aren't my words or opinions. These are the results of multiple scientific studies. We ignore them at our own peril.

Repeated COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations increase SARS-CoV-2 IgG4 antibodies, indicating extensive IgG class switching following the first booster dose. This shift in IgG subclasses raises concerns due to the limited ability of IgG4 to mediate Fc-dependent effector functions.​

...​

Elevated IgG4 levels and higher ratios of non-cytophilic to cytophilic antibodies after booster vaccination were significantly associated with an increased risk of breakthrough infections (IgG4 HR[10-fold increase]=1.8, 95% CI=1.2–2.7; non-cytophilic to cytophilic ratio HR[10-fold increase]=1.5, 95% CI=1.1–1.9). Moreover, an increased non-cytophilic to cytophilic antibody ratio correlated with reduced functionality, including neutralization.​

...​

These findings suggest a potential association between IgG4 induction by mRNA vaccination and a higher risk of breakthrough infection, warranting further investigation into vaccination strategies to ensure sustained protection.​

https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(25)00067-2/fulltext​

​

The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with more prior vaccine doses was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of participants in this study were young, and all were eligible to have received ≥3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received <3 doses (46% of individuals in the study) were not ineligible to receive the vaccine but rather chose not to follow the CDC's recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to exhibit risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than that that of participants those who received more prior vaccine doses.

Ours is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19. During an Omicron wave in Iceland, individuals who had previously received ≥2 doses were found to have a higher odds of reinfection than those who had received <2 doses, in an unadjusted analysis [21]. A large study found, in an adjusted analysis, that those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving 3 doses of vaccine had a higher risk of reinfection than those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving 2 doses [22]. Another study found, in multivariable analysis, that receipt of 2 or 3 doses of am mRNA vaccine following prior COVID-19 was associated with a higher risk of reinfection than receipt of a single dose [7]. Immune imprinting from prior exposure to different antigens in a prior vaccine [22, 23] and class switch toward noninflammatory spike-specific immunoglobulin G4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination [24] have been suggested as possible mechanisms whereby prior vaccine may provide less protection than expected. We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to vaccine effectiveness, it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.

Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine

Among 51 017 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine was 29% and 20% effective in preventing infection while the

academic.oup.com

 

[probinson]

When did I say that?

When you said you "eradicated' the disease. Perhaps you don't know what that word means?

During the pre-vaccination period of the pandemic, we irradicated the disease entirely from our population.

No, you suppressed the disease, and for a very short time. It came roaring back and you've had nearly twice the rate of infections as the US.

 

[probinson]

FDA's top vaccine scientist, Dr. Peter Marks, is out​

In his resignation letter, Marks wrote that health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wanted "subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies."

“If Peter Marks does not want to get behind restoring science to its golden standard and promoting radical transparency, then he has no place at FDA under the strong leadership of Secretary Kennedy,” a spokesperson at HHS said.

A person familiar with the matter told NBC News that Marks was forced out of his position.

In a resignation letter to acting FDA Commissioner Sara Brenner, Marks wrote that undermining confidence in vaccines is “irresponsible, detrimental to public health, and a clear danger to our nation’s health, safety, and security.”

Dr. Marks is glossing over his own "misinformation and lies".

When Biden wanted to mandate the COVID 19 vaccine via OSHA and to military members and to pressure companies to do the same, he faced a challenge. The vaccine was authorized only under Emergency use authorization and not full biologic licensing agreement. Legal experts disagreed if a vaccine could be mandated without BLA.​

​

Peter Marks then pressured Gruber and Krause at FDA to grant full BLA. When they did not play ball, Marks pressured them to resign (This was also documented in Krause’ testimony to Congress.​

​

Then, with the BLA in hand, Biden was allowed to advance the single greatest anti-vax action in the 21st century. Mandating a vaccine that did not halt transmission and has no third party benefit. ​

​

This has resulted in massive vaccine hesitancy.​

​

Then to top it all off, Peter was a long time proponent of lowering the bar for gene therapy. Against the advice of 3 FDA scientists on 2 occasions he granted both accelerated and regular approval to Sarepta’s Duchenne’s MD gene therapy. A therapy that has no evidence it helps boys. Sadly, now, at least 1 is dead.​

​

The same media that lied about all things COVID is lying about Peter Marks' departure from FDA

The media is dishonest

substack.com

​

​

For anyone who followed the politics behind vaccine approval during COVID, Dr. Marks departure is welcome news.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It's always good to carry talismans and take meaningless actions to try to help.

In those days people were dying left and right while very little was know about the disease. It was prudent to be precautious.

 

[probinson]

In those days people were dying left and right while very little was know about the disease. It was prudent to be precautious.

Cochrane Review A122, Physical Interventions to Interrupt or Reduce the Spread of Respiratory Viruses, was first published on October 18, 2006. Its results haven't changed in 19 years. These are the results concerning masking:

Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks​

We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence). ​

​

N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks​

We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low‐certainty evidence).​

​

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

​

​

On March 2, 2020, then Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams' said this on Twitter.

“Seriously people,” he began, and though it’s a tweet, you can almost hear the exasperation in his plea. “STOP BUYING MASKS!”​

“They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!” he continued.​

​

The surgeon general wants Americans to stop buying face masks | CNN

US Surgeon General Jerome Adams says Americans should stop buying face masks over fears of coronavirus.

www.cnn.com

​

On March 8, 2020, Dr. Fauci famously said this on 60 Minutes:

While masks may block some droplets, Fauci said, they do not provide the level of protection people think they do. Wearing a mask may also have unintended consequences: People who wear masks tend to touch their face more often to adjust them, which can spread germs from their hands. ​

​

March 2020: Dr. Anthony Fauci talks with Dr Jon LaPook about COVID-19

In March, Fauci told 60 Minutes that masks should largely be reserved for healthcare providers. In April, the recommendations were broadened to include simple masks for the general public.

www.cbsnews.com

​

It was well-known before masks were mandated that they were ineffective in public settings for preventing the spread of respiratory illness.

 

[Perpetual Student]

You know the political affiliation and motivation of everyone who didn't take the COVID vaccine?

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/719918

We find that even after controlling for a host of demographic and attitudinal variables, Republicans are significantly less likely—and Democrats more likely—to be vaccinated, to be willing to be vaccinated, and to recommend vaccination to a friend who asks for advice

For COVID-19 vaccinations, party affiliation matters more than race and ethnicity

There's no reason to believe that these gaps in vaccination rates will disappear anytime soon.

www.brookings.edu

According to Gallup, 40% of Republicans “don’t plan” to get vaccinated, versus 26% of Independents and just 3% of Democrats. In response to a more sharply worded KFF question, 23% of Republicans report that they will “definitely not” get vaccinated, compared to 11% of Independents and just 4% of Democrats.

https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/45/4/930/7220452?login=false

Among adults in the United States, the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine is strongly associated with political affiliation, with Republicans significantly less likely than Democrats to be vaccinated.

 

[stevil]

When you said you "eradicated' the disease. Perhaps you don't know what that word means?

We irradicated it from our country

No, you suppressed the disease, and for a very short time. It came roaring back and you've had nearly twice the rate of infections as the US.

We irradicated for the bulk of the pre vaccine pandemic. Saving thousands of lives and giving us our freedoms back.

 

[stevil]

What about he people that had to face the pandemic daily so that you could order takeaways?

Idiotic right?
Maybe you should start thinking.

Do you care about their health? I mean, you got to stay "safer at home", but someone had to go to work and make your food just like they always did. The government decided to label these people "essential workers" to make them sound special, but in reality, they were the ones that faced the pandemic on a daily basis so that the laptop class could be "safer at home".

Risks were minimised, but a tradeoff was made to allow businesses to run and stay above water.

 

[stevil]

When you said you "eradicated' the disease. Perhaps you don't know what that word means?

I can't quite work out if you are trolling, or inhibited by your preconcieved beliefs or just being pedantic about what you think the definition of that word is.

Myself, I think understanding the idea is much more important than a silly arguement about the specific definition of a word. If you can't grasp the idea, then there are obviously some inhibitors, perhaps some core beliefs getting in the way.

Just to please you, I will try to clarify in a way hopefully you can understand what I mean by "irradication".
And clearly the context is NZ and not the entire world.

I'll start by describing what is NOT irradication.

If Farmer Joe wanted to get rid of the gorse on his farm and he went around and cut the plants down to the ground level, burned the cut plants and looked around and saw no gorse on his farm, well that wouldn't be irradication, becasue as we know the roots are below ground, they are still there and can grow again.

But, if Farmer Joe poisoned al the plants, they all died, including all the roots. That is close, but still might not be irradication because maybe there are ungerminated seeds in the grass, from those very plants that he poisoned.

So, let's say Farmer Joe was very persistent, he checked his farm regularly and as each young plant started to grow, but before it produced flowers and seeds, he poisoned it. He did this for a while and overtime, no seeds were left, no roots, no plants on his property.
Well in this instance Farmer Joe has irradicated gorse from his property.


However Farmer Gargamel lived next door, his farm was ravaged by gorse. Over time he saw that Farmer Joe's property had no gorse. This made him very jealous and angry. So he snuck out in the middle of the night, and started planting gorse into Farmer Joe's property. Now Farmer Joe has gorse again. This doesn't mean that Farmer Joe had never irradicated gorse from his property. What it does mean though is that gorse was re-introduced to his property.


Now back to NZ and our Covid situation.
NZ was infected with SARS-CoV-2 but using masks and social distancing we got rid of it completely from society. There was not a single active SARS-CoV-2 virus in our population. No seed, no roots, nothing. Completely irradicated.

The world was still ravaged by it, but not NZ.
We did however, let people from overseas come into our country, albiet with a two week quarantine period. And on the odd occassion a quarantined person snuck out of quarantine and into our population. These events re-introduced SARS-CoV-2 to our population, but isolated to certain areas. We were able to apply masks and social distancing to those areas and irradicate the disease again. This happened a couple of times. Eventually the Omicron variant got introduced to Auckland and we weren't able to irradicate that varient, and also eventually, once the vast majority of people were vaccinated, we just opened up our borders.

 

[probinson]

Idiotic right?

No, but pretty selfish. Telling some people, "You have to go to work and face a deadly pandemic so I can order takeout ood and be 'safer at home'" strikes me as quite selfish.

Risks were minimised, but a tradeoff was made to allow businesses to run and stay above water.

Except they weren't. As we've already established, masking didn't minimize risks, and asking some people to go to work every day while everyone else stayed "safer at home" was remarkably selfish.

 

[stevil]

Except they weren't. As we've already established, masking didn't minimize risks, and asking some people to go to work every day while everyone else stayed "safer at home" was remarkably selfish.

I know you keep repeating that troupe but it worked in NZ, we irradicated the disease entirely from our country using masking and social distancing.

 

[probinson]

I can't quite work out if you are trolling, or inhibited by your preconcieved beliefs or just being pedantic about what you think the definition of that word is.

The definition of the word "eradicated" is pretty self-explanatory.

Myself, I think understanding the idea is much more important than a silly arguement about the specific definition of a word. If you can't grasp the idea, then there are obviously some inhibitors, perhaps some core beliefs getting in the way.

Words have meaning. If you have to downplay the definition of a word to make your point, you probably don't have a very strong point to begin with.

Just to please you, I will try to clarify in a way hopefully you can understand what I mean by "irradication".

Speaking of being pedantic, "irradicated" is the wrong word entirely. Irradicate means "to root deeply". Eradicate means "to do away with as completely as if by pulling up by the roots". Here is more info on the proper usage of each word. If you're going to try to educate people on the meaning of a word, it helps if you use the correct word in the fist place.

Although now that I think about it, your freudian slip is more accurate than what you're claiming. It's clear that NZ did in fact root COVID deeply as evidenced by the explosion of cases in the country.

I'll start by describing what is NOT irradication.

You mean, eradication.

If Farmer Joe wanted to get rid of the gorse on his farm and he went around and cut the plants down to the ground level, burned the cut plants and looked around and saw no gorse on his farm, well that wouldn't be irradication, becasue as we know the roots are below ground, they are still there and can grow again.

But, if Farmer Joe poisoned al the plants, they all died, including all the roots. That is close, but still might not be irradication because maybe there are ungerminated seeds in the grass, from those very plants that he poisoned.

So, let's say Farmer Joe was very persistent, he checked his farm regularly and as each young plant started to grow, but before it produced flowers and seeds, he poisoned it. He did this for a while and overtime, no seeds were left, no roots, no plants on his property.
Well in this instance Farmer Joe has irradicated gorse from his property.

Very good! That's a great example of what eradication is and is not.

However Farmer Gargamel lived next door, his farm was ravaged by gorse. Over time he saw that Farmer Joe's property had no gorse. This made him very jealous and angry. So he snuck out in the middle of the night, and started planting gorse into Farmer Joe's property. Now Farmer Joe has gorse again. This doesn't mean that Farmer Joe had never irradicated gorse from his property. What it does mean though is that gorse was re-introduced to his property.

This is where your analogy starts to fall apart.

Now back to NZ and our Covid situation.
NZ was infected with SARS-CoV-2 but using masks and social distancing we got rid of it completely from society. There was not a single active SARS-CoV-2 virus in our population. No seed, no roots, nothing. Completely irradicated.

Except it wasn't. As data shows, COVID was ALWAYS lurking just below the surface. Unless your long-term plan was to never allow anyone in or out of NZ ever again, this was never a sustainable plan for "eradication". To use your analogy, you simply cut it to the surface so you couldn't see it. Just like the farmer who cut the weeds to the ground, it looked good for a while. But unfortunately, reality simply does not support the idea that COVID was ever "eradicated" anywhere. Only suppressed for a short time.

 

[probinson]

I know you keep repeating that troupe but it worked in NZ, we irradicated the disease entirely from our country using masking and social distancing.

I think the word you're looking for here is "trope".

It's amazing to me how you have convinced yourself that measures that have no scientific basis or evidence were beneficial. It's also amazing to me that you refer to scientific evidence as a "trope".

This is the antithesis of science.

 

[stevil]

Except it wasn't. As data shows, COVID was ALWAYS lurking just below the surface.

This is why it is a waste of time discussing this with you. You have no interest in understanding what happened in NZ.

Unless your long-term plan was to never allow anyone in our out of NZ, this was never a sustainable plan for "eradication".

This is a very silly twist of the term irradication. You don't have to get rid of something forever to irradicated it.
NZ's goal was never to close NZ down permanently to the world.
Our goal was to irradicate the disease buying us time to get our population vaccinated.

To use your analogy, you simply cut it to the surface so you couldn't see it.

That's not what happened, when it came back, it was re-introduced from overseas. You clearly can't understand. Oh, well, not my problem.

 

[stevil]

I think the word you're looking for here is "trope".

You've devolved to being a spelling or grammer nazi. Oh boi

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I realize that masks were worthless and did absolutely nothing but then, I didn't get covid twice until after the mandate went away.

 

[probinson]

This is why it is a waste of time discussing this with you. You have no interest in understanding what happened in NZ.

I know exactly what happened in NZ. You suppressed COVID for a short period of time before it came roaring back.

This is a very silly twist of the term irradication.

Eradication. Seriously. You're using the wrong word.

You don't have to get rid of something forever to irradicated it.

Eradicate: to do away with as completely as if by pulling up by the roots

Completely.

NZ's goal was never to close NZ down permanently to the world.

I don't think Arden had any idea what the goal was.

Our goal was to irradicate the disease buying us time to get our population vaccinated.

"Eradicate."

Again, in the context of disease, suppress is a better word here. Or if you want to use the language of the times, "flatten the curve". Which NZ did for a while. Until it flattened to the Y-axis.

 

[probinson]

You've devolved to being a spelling or grammer nazi. Oh boi

If I spent my time correcting all of your GRAMMAR mistakes, I wouldn't be able to respond to anything else.

But in this case a "troupe" is not even remotely the same thing as a "trope".

 

[stevil]

I don't think Arden had any idea what the goal was.

Because you don't think, you just argue.

Ardern was very clear with her communications, she let the NZ public know exactly what the goal was right from the beginning.
And yet you just rush right into argue something you have no idea about.

Again, in the context of disease, suppress is a better word here.

Nope, iirradicate is the word.

 

[stevil]

If I spent my time correcting all of your GRAMMAR mistakes, I wouldn't be able to respond to anything else.

But in this case a "troupe" is not even remotely the same thing as a "trope".

I'm pretty sure most people understand what I am saying despite the odd spelling mistake.
I'm not writing a thesis or publishing a book here. This is idiotic.