Rfk drops ball

[probinson]

Here is a chart posted by the CDC as per the effectiveness of the Flu vaccine over the years.

It will be interesting to see what the CDC's study for 2024-2025 vaccine effectiveness shows.

I am not clear on what is meant by vaccine effectiveness. You are trying to put a yes effective or no not effective binary call onto something that is a bit more complex than that. As we know there is the aspect of either not getting infected or being asymptomatic, and there is the aspect of severity of infection, does it lead to being bed ridden, or hospital care or death?

Actually, the Cochrane Review on flu vaccines addresses those things directly.

Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case, and 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost.​

​

Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults | Cochrane

www.cochrane.org

​

So we see here that flu vaccines probably have no "appreciable effect" on hospitalization or working days lost. This would seem to indicate that despite what we've been told, the flu vaccine does not reduce the severity of the disease. If it did, one would expect to find a significant effect on lowered hospitalizations or working days lost.

I'm assuming effective is in relation to a control group (a.k.a. unvaccinated) so in the chart above 60% effective may mean you are 60% less likely than an unvaccinated person to maybe test positive for having an established infection at some point during the trial?

Part of the problem with the chart you posted is that the methodology is not clear and you are left to "assume" what things mean.

The chart above shows that it is pretty expected that vaccines are giving a significant advantage over those who don't get vaccinated. And you would expect this, because if there is no advantage then why would they bother doing vaccines? But of course it would also be interesting to see the morbidity rate comparisons as well (hospitalisations and death).

The Cochrane Review found no "appreciable effect" of flu vaccines on hospitalizations.

So if it is true that the 24-25 season is showing that those vaccinated feared worse (it seems unlikely, because how can a vaccine make you more susceptable?). People ought to be asking what went wrong with the 24-25 vaccine?
Personally I wouldn't trust a report that says a vaccine makes people more susceptible, I would think a failed vaccine would simply show no improved efficacy. But a negative efficacy is a big deal and would warrant significant investigation.

It's kind of telling that you wouldn't trust a study that doesn't give you the results you expect it to, but you do trust a chart from the CDC that doesn't even explain its methodology.

Also, I'm kind of surprised that you don't realize that all medical interventions, including vaccines, have risks and benefits. One well-known risk of vaccination is the risk of immune imprinting, where a previous vaccine that was effective against one strain of a virus has now reduced your immune system's ability to adapt to a new strain. Importantly, this phenomenon can happen both in vaccination and with prior infections. Nonetheless, this is why vaccinating against the flu and/or COVID (both which can mutate rapidly) can be quite risky. If the vaccine you've received has caused immune imprinting, your body may be LESS able to adapt and mount a defense to a different strain.

This is a plausible explanation as to why there have been multiple studies that have shown that people with an increased number of doses of COVID vaccine also experience an increased number of infections. It's quite plausible that the original vaccine caused immune imprinting with whatever strain of the virus was in that vaccine and that results in the immune system not being able to mount an effective defense against a different strain.

Indeed, the Cleveland Clinic study that showed a perfect correlation between increased number of vaccine doses and increased infections hypothesized that it could be due to immune imprinting.

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.​

​

Negative vaccine efficacy from immune imprinting is not a new concept and it is a real concern, particularly on viruses that are known to mutate frequently.

 

[probinson]

The previous post could suggest that no flu vaccine has been approved for 25 26. In fact it has. It was approved at a meeting on March 13.

Thank you for that clarification. I did not mean to imply that no flu vaccine had been approved, only that the advisory committee meeting had been canceled.

 

[stevil]

It's kind of telling that you wouldn't trust a study that doesn't give you the results you expect it to,

It's not that it doesn't give the results that I expect it to.
I would expect that the vaccines give a benefit to the vaccinated.
I wouldn't expect that the vaccines give no benefit to the vaccinated.

If it simply showed no benefit, that would be interesting.

But it showing a negative, like making people more susceptible to an infection, it's just so very odd. How can a vaccine make people more susceptible? This makes me very suspicious of the study.

Like if people think eating oranges with their Vitamin C makes you healthier and less likely to catch a cold, but studies find that those who eat oranges are more likely to catch a cold, that would be a very odd finding and should make people suspicious of the study.

 

[probinson]

How can a vaccine make people more susceptible?

I provided a detailed answer to this question in the last post. It's also addressed in the studies I've posted. Either you haven't read them, or you're just ignoring what they say.

Here's what I said again.

One well-known risk of vaccination is the risk of immune imprinting, where a previous vaccine that was effective against one strain of a virus has now reduced your immune system's ability to adapt to a new strain. Importantly, this phenomenon can happen both in vaccination and with prior infections. Nonetheless, this is why vaccinating against the flu and/or COVID (both which can mutate rapidly) can be quite risky. If the vaccine you've received has caused immune imprinting, your body may be LESS able to adapt and mount a defense to a different strain.​

​

This is a plausible explanation as to why there have been multiple studies that have shown that people with an increased number of doses of COVID vaccine also experience an increased number of infections. It's quite plausible that the original vaccine caused immune imprinting with whatever strain of the virus was in that vaccine and that results in the immune system not being able to mount an effective defense against a different strain.​

​

Indeed, the Cleveland Clinic study that showed a perfect correlation between increased number of vaccine doses and increased infections hypothesized that it could be due to immune imprinting.​

​

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.​

Negative vaccine efficacy from immune imprinting is not a new concept and it is a real concern, particularly on viruses that are known to mutate frequently.​

 

[stevil]

Negative vaccine efficacy from immune imprinting is not a new concept and it is a real concern, particularly on viruses that are known to mutate frequently.​

You anti vaxxers try to make out that the scientists are dumb and that they don't know about immune imprinting. And that this is a gottcha that they haven't already addressed.

What is immune imprinting, and should the public be worried about it?

Q: What is immune imprinting, and should the public be worried about it? A: Don't let statements about imprinting stop you from getting your annual

thosenerdygirls.org

Don’t let statements about imprinting stop you from getting your annual vaccines for COVID and flu. Immune imprinting refers to the fact that our immune response to a vaccine (or infection) is affected by previous exposures to similar vaccines (or infections). Imprinting has both pros and cons – it allows our immune system to respond quickly to pathogens (any organisms that make you sick) that are familiar, but it can interfere with an optimal vaccine response. The public does not need to worry about imprinting, because we have good evidence that annual vaccines are effective.​

Why does imprinting come up now?

Using previously made memory cells to respond to new variants can be at the expense of making new immune cells. Scientists care about this when developing vaccines for things like influenza and SARS-CoV-2. They want to make sure that the new vaccines provide the maximum protection possible to new variants. However, the immune response can be impacted by previous infections and/or vaccination for that pathogen. This knowledge allows scientists to study ways of generating new memory cells when vaccinating for variants or strains that take into account the benefits and challenges of imprinting.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic first started, people have discussed imprinting a lot and have concerns about its impact on immunity from annual vaccines or repeat COVID infections. A recent paper looked specifically at this in the context of variant boosters and found that while there is evidence of imprinting, those who received updated COVID vaccines this past fall did produce antibodies that could cross-react with many different variants. This supports the continued benefit of updated COVID vaccines for decreasing infection severity.

 

[probinson]

You anti vaxxers

This is your first error that all of your other errors stem from. I am not an "anti vaxxer". This colors your perception of everything I say and makes it impossible to have an objective, productive discussion.

try to make out that the scientists are dumb

Now you're just making stuff up. At no point have I tried to "make out that the scientists are dumb".

and that they don't know about immune imprinting.

I know that scientists know about immune imprinting. It's referenced in the studies I've provided as a plausible explanation for why people who have increased doses of COVID vaccine also have an increased number of infections. I'm not so sure you understand what immune imprinting is because if you did, you wouldn't say things like, "How can a vaccine make people more susceptible?"

And that this is a gottcha that they haven't already addressed.

I'm not looking for a "gotcha". I'm simply telling you what can happen with vaccines for viruses that mutate frequently. There are many studies that confirm the phenomenon of immune imprinting and its impact on vaccine efficacy.

What is immune imprinting, and should the public be worried about it?

Q: What is immune imprinting, and should the public be worried about it? A: Don't let statements about imprinting stop you from getting your annual

thosenerdygirls.org

"Those Nerdy Girls?" Did you Google "immune imprinting" and post the first article you found that told you not to worry about it?

C'mon man.

 

[stevil]

This is your first error that all of your other errors stem from. I am not an "anti vaxxer". This colors your perception of everything I say and makes it impossible to have an objective, productive discussion.

You have posted lots of stuff against vaccines, I haven't seen you post anything in support of vaccines.

I mean, you post an article about the 2024-2025 vaccine not being effective, but you don't mention that this is an outlier and that all previous years were effective.

I'm not looking for a "gotcha". I'm simply telling you what can happen with vaccines for viruses that mutate frequently. There are many studies that confirm the phenomenon of immune imprinting and its impact on vaccine efficacy.

I appreciate you informing me about immune imprinting, I have learned something.
But I don't think it is the big gottcha that you may have thought it was.
The scientists know about it and they develop the next batch of vaccines with this in mind, and they test and they release the vaccine when they have proven it is effective and safe.

"Those Nerdy Girls?" Did you Google "immune imprinting" and post the first article you found that told you not to worry about it?

C'mon man.

You don't like nerds, or you don't like girls? or maybe you don't like or respect nerdy girls???

 

[probinson]

Vaccine boosting results in distinct, imprinted patterns of hybrid immunity with different combinations of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. Immune protection is boosted by B.1.1.529 (Omicron) infection in the triple-vaccinated, previously infection-naïve individuals, but this boosting is lost with prior Wuhan Hu-1 imprinting. This “hybrid immune damping” indicates substantial subversion of immune recognition and differential modulation through immune imprinting and may be the reason why the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) wave has been characterized by breakthrough infection and frequent reinfection with relatively preserved protection against severe disease in triple-vaccinated individuals.​

​

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq1841?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

​

​

Note that this paper was published in June 2022. It was established even then that there was a "substantial subversion of immune recognition and different modulation through immune imprinting" that resulted in "frequent reinfection" in triple-vaccinated individuals.

In an evidence-based paradigm, these findings SHOULD have resulted in a more cautious approach to continually boosting people with more and more and more doses of vaccine. But that kind of prudent caution doesn't pay the bills at Pfizer, so instead we have the people at "Those Nerdy Girls" write articles stating that yes, immune imprinting is a thing that could reduce vaccine efficacy or even make it turn negative, but don't worry about such science-y things. Just shut up and get your booster and hope for the best!

 

[stevil]

In an evidence-based paradigm, these findings SHOULD have resulted in a more cautious approach to continually boosting people with more and more and more doses of vaccine. But that kind of prudent caution doesn't pay the bills at Pfizer

Would you have prefered just to let people die naturally by the disease, the way god intended?

 

[probinson]

Would you have prefered just to let people die naturally by the disease, the way god intended?

As we've already established, the pre-vaccine mortality rates from COVID infection were quite low. Here they are again for your reference.

​

The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0-19 years, 0.003% at 20-29 years, 0.011% at 30-39 years, 0.035% at 40-49 years, 0.129% at 50-59 years, and 0.501% at 60-69 years.​

​

...​

The IFRs had a median of 0.035% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.013 - 0.056%) for the 0-59 years old population, and 0.095% (IQR 0.036 - 0.125%,) for the 0-69 years old.​

​

Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly informed from pre-vaccination national seroprevalence studies ​

Now, let's consider that repeated vaccination may be associated with a HIGHER chance of infection. So if you want to take the vaccine because you believe it will reduce your already infinitesimal risk of mortality from COVID, that's certainly your prerogative. But you should be aware that in doing so, there is a very real risk that repeated vaccination could result in a HIGHER risk of infection. For me, that makes no sense. I am at no real risk from the flu (if I get it) and the last thing I want to do is INCREASE my odds of being infected.

Once one has all of that information, they can make a decision. We call this "informed consent". You lay out the benefits and the risks, and then you make a decision. But for informed consent to work, you have to be informed of both the benefits AND the risks. It is common practice for health authorities to overstate the benefits and understate the risks. That's why when they talk about the benefits of vaccines they repeat the trope "SAFE AND EFFECTIVE! SAFE AND EFFECTIVE! SAFE AND EFFECTIVE!" like a trained parrot. But when risks are discussed they are dismissed as RARE!

This breeds distrust because there is rarely an accurate accounting of benefits AND risks of vaccination. Thankfully, my current doctor believes fully in informed consent. I was happy to hear him say at my last appointment when discussing such things that his job is to inform me of the risks and benefits and my job is to decide what is right for me. if only all of public health took such a position, we could begin to repair the trust that has been decimated.

 

[stevil]

As we've already established, the pre-vaccine mortality rates from COVID infection were quite low. Here they are again for your reference.

​

The question was simply looking for a yes/no answer.
I have no interest in your beliefs that Covid isn't very deadly.

It seems to me that you would rather have not had the vaccine, nor done anything to slow down the spread. Just let it flow through the population.

And it seem you are now arguing against even flu vaccines because you found an article saying that the 2024 season of the vaccine may not have been effective.
OK, so you aren't for vaccines? Anti-vaxx - no, let's not use THAT word. Perhaps just of the opinion that there are no vaccines that are safe and effective.

 

[probinson]

The question was simply looking for a yes/no answer.

You presented a false dichotomy. Your question was akin to "Should we get vaccinated or die? ", as if those are the only two possible outcomes.

I have no interest in your beliefs that Covid isn't very deadly.

It's not my "belief". It's what the seroprevalence data shows.

It seems to me that you would rather have not had the vaccine,

You are correct. By the time I got vaccinated for COVID, I had already had COVID and recovered. The vaccine provided no additional benefit for me, because I had acquired natural immunity, which public health authorities would later admit was just as good if not better than vaccine-acquired immunity. Further, when I got the second dose of my Pfizer vaccine, my temperature spiked to 104 F and I was temporarily paralyzed. I could not even walk without my wife's help for about 48 hours after the second dose. I filed a report with VAERS, but to this day, no one has followed up. I guess temporary paralysis isn't a severe enough adverse event for the CDC to investigate further.

nor done anything to slow down the spread.

I'm assuming you're again referring to masking and social distancing, neither of which have any evidence showing any benefit. So yes, you are correct again. I would rather not have had governments and public health authorities mandate non-evidence-based measures that did nothing to help.

Just let it flow through the population.

You know, it's funny that you pretend like that's such an odd thing. You maybe should read up on why that may well have resulted in even lower mortality. But I don't know if you'd be able to accept it, since you're fully convinced of the propaganda that lockdowns were beneficial despite literal mountains of evidence to the contrary.

And it seem you are now arguing against even flu vaccines because you found an article saying that the 2024 season of the vaccine may not have been effective.

That study not only showed that the vaccine was not effective in the 2024-2025 season, it showed that those who received the vaccine were at a 27% HIGHER risk of infection. Why in the world would I want to get vaccinated against a disease that poses no real risk to me but could elevate my chances of infection by 27%?

Also, you're ignoring (once again) the Cochrane Reviews I've posted that show that there is nothing more than a modest benefit to flu vaccination, and that there is no appreciable effect on hospitalization or work days lost. This recent study by the Cleveland Clinic is just the latest study to show that flu vaccine efficacy has been overstated for a long time.

OK, so you aren't for vaccines?

I am opposed to vaccine MANDATES. I am not opposed to vaccines.

Anti-vaxx - no, let's not use THAT word.

Because it's inaccurate.

Perhaps just of the opinion that there are no vaccines that are safe and effective.

Except I've never said that. I think that most childhood vaccinations are beneficial. It is for that reason that I find the dishonesty surrounding COVID and flu vaccines troubling. When you conflate vaccinations of questionable efficacy with vaccines that have a proven benefit and track record, you're just asking people to question everything they've ever been told about vaccines.

When I run across what I like to call "vaxx-zealotry", it's hard to have a conversation. There are some people who believe that any discussion of potential risks and adverse events from vaccination are taboo. Vaccines are like sacred cows to this group and nothing negative must ever be spoken. But that's not the least bit scientific and it flies in the face of evidence-based medicine.

 

[stevil]

You are correct.

So why not just answer Yes, to my previous post?

By the time I got vaccinated for COVID....

Sorry, I'm not interested in anecdotal stories.

I'm assuming you're again referring to masking and social distancing, neither of which have any evidence showing any benefit. So yes, you are correct again. I would rather not have had governments and public health authorities mandate non-evidence-based measures that did nothing to help.

You'd rather have done nothing about the global pandemic. OK
I'm glad you don't run a country.

That study not only showed that the vaccine was not effective in the 2024-2025 season, it showed that those who received the vaccine were at a 27% HIGHER risk of infection. Why in the world would I want to get vaccinated against a disease that poses no real risk to me but could elevate my chances of infection by 27%?

That study, for that year is an outlier. The CDC chart shows that on all years included in their chart there was a significant advantage to getting the flu vaccine.

I am opposed to vaccine MANDATES. I am not opposed to vaccines.

Which vaccines if any do you think are safe and effective?

Except I've never said that. I think that most childhood vaccinations are beneficial.

Ok, cool.

It is for that reason that I find the dishonesty surrounding COVID and flu vaccines troubling. When you conflate vaccinations of questionable efficacy with vaccines that have a proven benefit and track record, you're just asking people to question everything they've ever been told about vaccines.

You are badly informed by right wing media and lots of anti-vaxx propaganda material on the internet.

There are some people who believe that any discussion of potential risks and adverse events from vaccination are taboo.

Most people think that medicines should come with a warning about the potential side effects.

I certainly don't get upset if someone is talking about the myocarditis issue with the Covid vaccine, but I would point out to them that the disease gives a worse case of myocarditis.

Perhaps you might find this show useful. An actual doctor discussing against 20 anti vaxx people. The doctor was very respectful, didn't degrade people, didn't talk over them, didn't talk down to them.

 

[probinson]

So why not just answer Yes, to my previous post?

I already told you why, but you clipped that from my answer. It's kind of your MO.

I didn't answer "yes" to your previous question because it was a false dichotomy.

Sorry, I'm not interested in anecdotal stories.

You should be. "Anecdotal stories", or more accurately, people's reactions and adverse events to vaccination, is (or should be) the way we determine the "safe" part of "safe and effective". I'm sa little urprised you don't care what happened to me when I got the vaccine. Apparently, I experienced one of those "rare" adverse events we've been told so much about. But oddly, the CDC didn't even care to follow up on my report, despite my symptoms beginning a mere 4 hours after the administration of the second dose.

You'd rather have done nothing about the global pandemic. OK

I'd rather have done evidence-based measures and not carried around a talisman plastered to my face that was about as effective as carrying around a four-leaf clover and hoping for good luck.

I'm glad you don't run a country.

Believe me, the feeling is mutual.

That study, for that year is an outlier.

It is not.

The CDC chart shows that on all years included in their chart there was a significant advantage to getting the flu vaccine.

You don't even know the methodology they used to create that chart. Moreover, you don't seem to care. You just like that it shows efficacy on a convenient bar chart, which is the purpose of the chart.

A meta-analysis of the efficacy of flu vaccination was conducted in 2012. Here is that they found.

Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking.​

​

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(11)70295-X/abstract

​

​

This is consistent with what the Cochrare Reviews on flu vaccination have found, that there is, at best, a moderate benefit to flu vaccination, but it is not providing anywhere near the protective effect public health agencies claim.

Further, you should look up healthy vaccinee bias. Observational vaccine studies are subject to this phenomenon. Basically, it's where someone (like me) gets the flu vaccine and then I don't get the flu, and we attribute that to the vaccine. But what that doesn't account for is that as a healthy, active, mid-40's male, my odds of contracting the flu in any given season are quite low. Before I started getting the flu shot, I would get the flu maybe once every 5 years. After I started getting the flu shot, I still got the flu about once every 5 years. There was no difference in severity of the disease. But in any observational study that counts me as "vaccinated", the vaccine would be given credit for me not getting the flu in the years when I got it, even though my chanced of contracting the flu were small to begin with. This is a bit like putting a sign in yard that says "NO ELEPHANTS!" and then trying to convince people the reason there aren't any elephants in my yard is only because I put a sign there.

If you had read the Cleveland Clinic study I posted (which I am certain you did not), you would see yet another concern in studies that causes one to overestimate vaccine efficacy. Specifically, they said this:

“Test-negative” design studies are case-control studies, and one cannot obtain relative risks from case control studies. One can obtain odds ratios, but odds ratios always exaggerate the size of the effect compared with relative risks and when the event is not rare, as is usually the case in published “test-negative” design studies, this difference can be substantial [12]. That is why estimates of vaccine effectiveness from “test -negative” design studies, which treat odds ratios as if they are relative risks in order to estimate vaccine effectiveness, systematically overestimate true vaccine effectiveness.​

It is in the CDC's best interest to overstate vaccine effectiveness for their purpose of getting more people to take the vaccine. Therefore, any "study" that the CDC conducts should keep in mind that they have a vested interest in overstating vaccine efficacy. Nowhere was this more prevalent than during COVID. They conducted literal phone surveys to determine that the efficacy of masking was 80%. It was complete and utter nonsense masquerading as "science", but it served the purpose of convincing people that THE SCIENCE! supported masking. It didn't matter that the methodology was literal garbage. All they needed was some data, any data, twisted and torutred and cherry-picked, so they could make an infographic to convince the masses. It worked for a while, but you can only lie to people for so long. That's not really a long-term public-health strategy.

Which vaccines if any do you think are safe and effective?

I already told you, I believe that most childhood vaccinations are a net positive for most children. However, I oppose compulsory vaccination in all cases.

You are badly informed by right wing media and lots of anti-vaxx propaganda material on the internet.

This is absolutely an hilarious accusation coming from someone who tried to refute the scientific studies I've posted from the Cleveland Clinic by posting an articles from a random blog called "The Nerdy Girls" and factcheck.org. Throughout this discussion, I have posted actual scientific studies and data with links so you can read them for yourself. While it would make your talking points easier if I had posted from "right-wing media", I have not. Everything I've posted is straight from the study itself.

In realty, YOU are badly informed by public health entities that have consistently overstated the efficacy of flu and COVID vaccines. And it seems you're happy to keep it that way.

Most people think that medicines should come with a warning about the potential side effects.

What do you think people should do with that list of potential side effects? What purpose does it serve?

I certainly don't get upset if someone is talking about the myocarditis issue with the Covid vaccine, but I would point out to them that the disease gives a worse case of myocarditis.

But you would be propagating misinformation.

It is possible for one to have myocarditis from a COVID infection, but that only applies IF you are infected, and even then the risk is very, very small. If you vaccinate someone, you are ABSOLUTELY introducing them to the risk of myocarditis from vaccination. Further, we know that the incidence of myocarditis did NOT increase substantially in 2020 before the mass vaccination campaign. So while it may be possible for myocarditis to be a side-effect of COVID itself, there have been many studies done showing the elevated risks of myocarditis from vaccination, specifically in young males.

Given that the risk from COVID is already infinitesimal to young, healthy males, even a "rare" side effect of myocarditis is significant. Understanding the age-stratification of risks from COVID ic critical to making vaccination recommendations that are nuanced to each group to ensure maximum efficacy with minimum harm. But again, those kinds of recommendations don't pay the bills at Pfizer, so instead of making evidence-based recommendations based on age group, they implemented mandates on everyone, all but ensuring they would cause harm.

Perhaps you might find this show useful. An actual doctor

Sorry, I always find it amusing when people say things like "an actual doctor". The implication of course being that if you're not an "actual doctor", you can't analyze information for yourself. Classic appeal to authority fallacy.

discussing against 20 anti vaxx people.

When I have time, I will watch this. I'm curious to see if any of the things we've discussed in this thread are discussed in this video.

The doctor was very respectful, didn't degrade people, didn't talk over them, didn't talk down to them.

If only everyone was like that.

 

[probinson]

Perhaps you might find this show useful. An actual doctor discussing against 20 anti vaxx people. The doctor was very respectful, didn't degrade people, didn't talk over them, didn't talk down to them.

Thank you for this video. As I'm typing this, I am currently 34 minutes into the video, and I've enjoyed the debate. Some of the vaccine skeptics are clearly down the rabbit hole on questionable conspiracies, but others are well-informed and debating with data. Overall, it's a very good discussion thus far. I decided to pause the video and type some responses as I'm watching.

My frist observation: SAN News is providing "fact-checking" for this video. Occasionally as the "vaccine skeptics" speak, a side panel appears with a "fact-check" correcting them. Thus far, Dr. Mike has not received a single fact-check, which is rather remarkable to me. The implication here is that the vaccine-skeptics need to be continually fact-checked while the good doctor can speak freely without interruption or correction.

The reason I paused at this point in the video 34:35 is because one of the vaccine skeptics is questioning the mandates and if Dr. Mike supported them. Remarkably, Dr, Mike is contending that even with mandates in the military, those people had a "choice". He concedes that the choice was not "fair", but this is a slippery slope.

Let's imagine a scenario where a female employee is approached by her boss and he tells her that if she does not sleep with him, she will lose her job. Would anyone contend that if she refused and lost her job, she had a "choice", albeit an "unfair choice"? Of course not. This is illegal coercion, as were the COVID vaccine mandates, and I'm disheartened that this doctor doesn't acknowledge that vaccine mandates were a major driver of vaccine skepticism.

He then goes on to contend that if a child is in a public school and is unvaccinated against COVID, this poses a risk to the other children. I often wonder when someone makes this assertion if they're aware that COVID vaccines DO NOT prevent transmission of the disease, and therefore any benefit to the "herd" is highly questionable.

.... (back to video)

Dr. Mike continually appeals to "consensus" in his arguments. I find this interesting, because a few of the "vaccine skeptics" have pointed out to him that, particularly as it pertained to the COVID, the consensus had been largely manufactured. I've not heard a good rebuttal to that as of yet.

.... (back to video)

At the 40:20 mark in the video, Dr. Mike talks about the hierarchy of evidence. Clearly, he is referring to the evidence pyramid. Ironically, he does not state that the vast majority of the evidence that was used to justify most of the COVID mitigation, up to and including vaccine mandates, was at the lowest levels of that pyramid.

.... (back to video)

At the 42:50 mark, a "SAN fact-check claims that there have been multiple studies that have shown that the risk of myocarditis from COVID is higher than the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine. This fact-check fails to acknowledge that those studies are not age-stratified and that other studies that are stratified by age have shown that vaccine-induced myocarditis is a far higher risk for some age groups, particularly young, healthy males.

.... (back to video)

At the 43:30 mark, Dr. Mike states that 98% of doctors got vaccinated and that there have been no mass adverse events as a result. This was probably not reported at the time the video was produced, but there is now a cluster of nurses at the same hospital in Boston working on the same floor that all have developed brain tumors. The hospital has done its own investigation and claims there is no environmental risk. Now, let me be clear, there is no evidence that this cluster of nurses has developed these tumors as a result of vaccination, but SOMETHING has caused up to 10 nurses IN THE SAME HOSPITAL ON THE SAME FLOOR to develop brain tumors. That's not normal. You'd think investigating all possible avenues would be prudent, but already people are downplaying that It "can't" be that all of these nurses were vaccinated, or even that perhaps they all received a "bad batch" of the vaccine. Because apparently, science begins with preconceived ideas and refuses to question those things that people hold sacred. Could it have been a bad batch of COVID vaccine? We'll probably never know, because even suggesting that nearly a dozen nurse in the same unit being diagnosed with brain tumors COULD be related to a medical intervention they were mandated to take is opening a giant Pandora's box.

.... (back to video)

At the 45:10 mark, Dr. Mike points out that vaccine skepticism is not unique to one political party. In fact, he points out that vaccine skepticism originated in Democratic circles that were skeptical of the government. So any claims in this thread that vaccine skepticism results exclusively from "right-wing media" is simply not based in fact.

.... (back to video)

General thought.... the concept of people being "villains" is being repeated by the vaccine skeptics. Basically they are saying they've been made to feel like a "villain" for simply expressing skepticism. I find this interesting, because making people feel like they are a "villain" is not a viable strategy for public health. To Dr. Mike's credit, he said that he doesn't think any of these people are villains, and I think he is doing a fantastic job of being respectful, even when crackpot claims are made.

.... (back to video)

At the 47:50 mark, Dr. Mike is questioned if he has ever been wrong. His response was "absolutely". Yet still at this point, more than halfway through the video, not a single statement he has made has been "fact-checked" in the video.

.... (back to video)

At the 53:11 mark, the debate clock in the background shows 8:38 remaining with the current debater. At the 53:39 mark, 28 seconds later the debate clock shows 5:10 remaining. That means that roughly 3 minutes of this exchange was edited out for some reason.

.... (back to video)

At the 53:50, Dr. Mike states that he is concerned that RFK Jr. would get rid of vaccines. I'm not aware of any place that RFK Jr. has suggested that we should get rid of vaccines. Can anyone provide a source where RFK Jr. advocates against all vaccines? This seems like a great place for a fact-check to pop up on Dr. Mike, but alas, there was none.

.... (back to video)

At the 55:22, one of the vaccine skeptics makes the statement "If we don't get vaccinated with Jesus...." As a Christian, I don't find these kinds of remarks beneficial in these types of debates. I believe that salvation is important, but in the context of a scientific discussion, sound bites like this just make it easy to write off legitimate vaccine skepticism.

.... (back to video)

At the 58:53 mark, Dr. Mike introduces the third claim, that anti-vaxxers are both victims and villains of information. I only note this here, because earlier I commented that some of the vaccine skeptics had expressed that they were made to feel like "villains" for expressing skepticism.

.... (back to video)

At the 59:26 mark, Dr. Mike delineates between "vaccine skeptics" and "anti-vaxxers", something some on this forum seem incapable of understanding. He states that vaccine skepticism is warranted while anti-vaxx disinformation is dangerous. I agree with Dr. Mike on this point.

.... (back to video)

At the 1:03:49 mark, Dr. Mike states that we do science to try to disprove ourselves.He then goes on to state that we don't do research to confirm our beliefs because we want it to be true. I agree with him wholeheartedly on this point. It is remarkable, then, that there is no acknowledgment that EVERY SINGLE STUDY the CDC did through COVID confirmed what they already believed to be true. With very few exceptions, all of the "science" done by the "consensus" was "confirming" preconceived ideas and policies. There were only a handful of "unexpected findings" (some of which I've posted in this thread) that were largely dismissed.

.... (back to video)

At the 1:0543 mark, Dr. Mike says that we have a vaccine compensation program to compensate people for their vaccine injuries. Dr. Mike seems unaware that the vaccine compensation program pays out in exceedingly few cases, and the burden of proof is so high that most people don't even bother to try.

.... (back to video)

At the 1:23:03 mark, Dr. Mike again repeats the claim that the risk of getting myocarditis from COVID is higher than getting myocarditis from the COVID vaccine. To drive home this point, the "fact-check" appears on the side of the screen stating there are multiple studies that support this claim. However, neither Dr. Mike nor the "fact-check" acknowledge that those studies do not present age-stratified risks, and that there are other multiple studies that support the conclusion that myocarditis from the vaccine was more prevalent in certain age groups.

.... (back to video)

At the 1:26:23 mark, Dr. Mike says "Knowing what we know now vs. knowing what we knew then..." This has become a common refrain. The intent is to make it seem like no one was cautioning about giving children COVID vaccines back then, but now that we have more data, the recommendations have changed. However, this is historical revisionism. There were plenty of experts and doctors AT THE TIME that were cautioning about the risks of vaccinating children against COVID for effectively no benefit. Unfortunately, those people were accused of spreading misinformation and censored. So I don't buy this "We did the best with what we knew at the time" argument. We SHOULD have known better. But there was immense political pressure to comply with whatever nonsensical measures were pushed at the highest levels, and anyone who dared to question it was summarily dismissed.

.... (back to video)


So final thoughts.

Thank you for this video. I enjoyed it. I think Dr. Mike did a great job of being respectful to people that had vastly different views than he did. I think he provided them with a forum to vent. With a few exceptions, that's really all it was. There were a few people that referenced studies and data, but there was a lot of emotion from people who have had children they believe were injured from vaccines.

As I expected, the concerns I raised in this thread about immune imprinting and the correlation of increased infections with increased vaccine doses was not discussed at all. So I'm not sure why this video was posted in response to those studies.

I find it interesting, and indicative of bias, that NOT ONCE did the "fact-checkers" feel it necessary to correct ANYTHING that Dr. Mike said in the 90-minutes of exchanges.

But overall, I thought it was a good discussion. If you have 90 minutes to kill and want to hear different perspectives, I'd recommend watching it.

 

[stevil]

As I expected, the concerns I raised in this thread about immune imprinting and the correlation of increased infections with increased vaccine doses was not discussed at all. So I'm not sure why this video was posted in response to those studies.

I posted it because I thought you'd find it interesting. Not to support any particular argument.

 

[probinson]

I posted it because I thought you'd find it interesting. Not to support any particular argument.

I did find it interesting. There were a few times I would have liked to have jumped into the ring in that debate. Dr. Mike said many good things that I agreed with. Given that he seems to be very much in favor of evidence-based medicine, I would be curious to hear his take on the studies of flu and COVID vaccines that are showing a concerning correlation between increased doses and increased infections, and particularly the latest Cleveland Clinic study that showed a negative efficacy of this year's flu vaccine. I would be interested to hear his thoughts on mandating flu and COVID vaccines in healthcare settings given the data in these studies.

 

[stevil]

I did find it interesting. There were a few times I would have liked to have jumped into the ring in that debate. Dr. Mike said many good things that I agreed with. Given that he seems to be very much in favor of evidence-based medicine,

He tried to bring up that coincidences happen and that these don't necessarily point to cause and effect.
He mentioned Vaers and said it is for the scientist to discover patterns, not to investigate each and every reporting.
With that one guy that was annoyed that the judge sided with his wife, he was saying the doctor had to make a call, either the father's way or the mother's way. He tried to point out the judges aren't telling in situtations where both the parents don't want the vax, that they MUST vaccinate the child. But this situation isn't using the Dr's expertise, it is just asking this person for his personal opinion.
He was mentioning that vaccine compensation program presumably just so that more people know about it as an option, cheaper than trying to sue pharmaceutical companies.
I've watched many of these Surrounded videos, they fact check people on both sides of the argument. Dr Mike didn't seem to make any unfactual claims here. Mostly he let the other people speak. Some asked questions, but many just took the opportunity to speak up their mind.

I would be curious to hear his take on the studies of flu and COVID vaccines that are showing a concerning correlation between increased doses and increased infections, and particularly the latest Cleveland Clinic study that showed a negative efficacy of this year's flu vaccine.

That would be somewhat interesting, although I don't understand why you take the one bad year and want to use that against ever getting the flu vax.

I would be interested to hear his thoughts on mandating flu and COVID vaccines in healthcare settings given the data in these studies.

He's a doctor, not a politician. His view on mandating vaccines is largely irrelevant.

It is best to ask him about scientific reports, because he could explain terms and jargon, and give the gist and perhaps correct misunderstandings when laymen read the reports.

It may be interesting to get his take on herd immunity, rather than his opinion on whether governments or employers should mandate.
I doubt he would be in favour of governments forcing people against their will to take vaccines, most people would be against that, and I don't think there are any countries that do that. But again in this context he is just a person with an opinion. His opinion on mandates is irrelevant. Having a doctor's education and experience doesn't qualify him uniquely regarding government mandates.

 

[probinson]

He tried to bring up that coincidences happen and that these don't necessarily point to cause and effect.

This is true. Correlation != causation.

He mentioned Vaers and said it is for the scientist to discover patterns, not to investigate each and every reporting.

Yes, but as someone who reported a vaccine side effect to VAERS that occurred just FOUR HOURS after the administration of the vaccine and never received a follow up, I'm calling shenanigans on VAERS. If you look around, you can find many more examples of vaccine-injured people that have had similar experiences, where they've reported an adverse event to VAERS and never received a follow up.

With that one guy that was annoyed that the judge sided with his wife, he was saying the doctor had to make a call, either the father's way or the mother's way. He tried to point out the judges aren't telling in situtations where both the parents don't want the vax, that they MUST vaccinate the child. But this situation isn't using the Dr's expertise, it is just asking this person for his personal opinion.

That was interesting to me, and I agreed with Dr. Mike's take. That's a difficult decision, because there are two parents involved with different opinions. It's not like the state was vaccinating the child against the will of both parents, so I think that was a very specialized set of circumstances.

He was mentioning that vaccine compensation program presumably just so that more people know about it as an option, cheaper than trying to sue pharmaceutical companies.

But the vaccine compensation program pays out in very few cases.

I've watched many of these Surrounded videos, they fact check people on both sides of the argument. Dr Mike didn't seem to make any unfactual claims here.

Sure he did. I've pointed out that the claims that myocarditis occurs more frequently from COVID than from the vaccine is only true if you do not age-stratify the results. When you look at specific age groups, it becomes obvious that myocarditis is a greater risk from the vaccine than from the disease in certain age groups, particularly young, healthy males.

Mostly he let the other people speak. Some asked questions, but many just took the opportunity to speak up their mind.

I respect what Dr. Mike did. He listened to some, let's kindly say, "interesting" perspectives and was polite and respectful the entire time.

That would be somewhat interesting, although I don't understand why you take the one bad year and want to use that against ever getting the flu vax.

Because it's not just "one bad year". The Cochrane Reviews on flu vaccines have shown modest benefit for many years. The study I posted from 2012 showed that vaccine efficacy is routinely overstated.

He's a doctor, not a politician.

I believe that. Nothing about his demeanor or his responses led me to believe that his medical opinions were greatly influenced by his politics.

His view on mandating vaccines is largely irrelevant.

Not really. I mean, there were doctors during COVID that wouldn't see patients if they didn't get the COVID vaccine. That raises all sorts of ethical concerns, but how a doctor feels about compulsory vaccination is certainly relevant.

It may be interesting to get his take on herd immunity, rather than his opinion on whether governments or employers should mandate.
I doubt he would be in favour of governments forcing people against their will to take vaccines, most people would be against that, and I don't think there are any countries that do that.

Um, are you forgetting the mandates for COVID vaccines that were implemented just a few short years ago? There are plenty of people that believe compulsory vaccination is a good thing.

But again in this context he is just a person with an opinion. His opinion on mandates is irrelevant. Having a doctor's education and experience doesn't qualify him uniquely regarding government mandates.

But they are very much related. This is why doctors who didn't agree with the narrative were largely silenced. It didn't matter at that time they also had a doctor's education and experience. If they didn't state the narrative exactly as it was told to then, they were in danger of repercussions.

I know you don't like anecdotes, but here's one more. My son was chosen to perform at Carnegie Hall in 2022 at the height of all of the COVID mandates. In NYC at that time, you had to be vaccinated to do anything. So, my elderly parents (both over 80) who had both had COVID and recovered had to be vaccinated to go to the performance. They spoke with their doctor, who told them that it was silly for them to get vaccinated since they had both had and recovered from COVID, and that if they must get vaccinated, they should get the J&J vaccine as it was only a single dose. He then proceeded to tell them it was obvious the vaccines weren't performing as we had been promised, and the mandates were foolish. But then he said, "Please don't tell anyone I told you this. I don't want to get in trouble."

Now this was a respected medical doctor that my parents have been going to for nearly 20 years. Yet his opinion was not welcome, and he was concerned that if people found out he dared to question the narrative, he would face repercussions. So riddle me this. Why would his medical training and experience be any less important simply because he had evaluated the evidence and came to different conclusions?

This illustrates that in the science world, there is a very real danger of being placed in an echo chamber where you only hear what confirms what you want to be true. That a doctor was concerned with telling my parents what was in their best medical interests for fear of repercussions from his employer is extremely problematic.

 

[stevil]

Sure he did. I've pointed out that the claims that myocarditis occurs more frequently from COVID than from the vaccine is only true if you do not age-stratify the results. When you look at specific age groups, it becomes obvious that myocarditis is a greater risk from the vaccine than from the disease in certain age groups, particularly young, healthy males.

The doctor wasn't breaking it all down into various groups, he was talking in general, and in general what he said was true.
I'm unconvinced that young males get worse myocarditis from the vaccine than the disease itself. I have not seen any reports to suggest this.

I respect what Dr. Mike did. He listened to some, let's kindly say, "interesting" perspectives and was polite and respectful the entire time.

Some people are very good at doing this, rather than arguing, they listen and they discuss.
Dr Mike
Pete Buttigieg
Neil De Grasse Tyson
Alex O'Connor

Because it's not just "one bad year".

Not according to the CDC table.

Not really. I mean, there were doctors during COVID that wouldn't see patients if they didn't get the COVID vaccine. That raises all sorts of ethical concerns, but how a doctor feels about compulsory vaccination is certainly relevant.

I don't know all of what went on in places in USA. In NZ if you had symptoms of Covid, you weren't to just walk into the clinic and potentially get everyone there sick. You were to call in advance and wait outside and a nurse would come to you.

Um, are you forgetting the mandates for COVID vaccines that were implemented just a few short years ago? There are plenty of people that believe compulsory vaccination is a good thing.

I've never heard of people going to jail or being held down and forced by police etc to receive a vaccine.

But they are very much related. This is why doctors who didn't agree with the narrative were largely silenced.

Doctors are people too. Some doctors have personal views which differ from the generally accepted practice.
If you have 1,000 Doctors saying X and 1 doctor saying not X, it would be good to know that one doctor is an outlier.

It didn't matter at that time they also had a doctor's education and experience. If they didn't state the narrative exactly as it was told to then, they were in danger of repercussions.

I would like it if my doctor tells me when he/she is going outside what is regarded as best practice.
If my doctor starts straying into Natrotherapy, or TCM then I really need them to declare this to me. I don't like junk added to my evidence based medicine advice.

I know you don't like anecdotes, but here's one more. My son was chosen to perform at Carnegie Hall in 2022 at the height of all of the COVID mandates. In NYC at that time, you had to be vaccinated to do anything. So, my elderly parents (both over 80) who had both had COVID and recovered had to be vaccinated to go to the performance. They spoke with their doctor, who told them that it was silly for them to get vaccinated since they had both had and recovered from COVID, and that if they must get vaccinated, they should get the J&J vaccine as it was only a single dose. He then proceeded to tell them it was obvious the vaccines weren't performing as we had been promised, and the mandates were foolish. But then he said, "Please don't tell anyone I told you this. I don't want to get in trouble."

Now this was a respected medical doctor that my parents have been going to for nearly 20 years.

I'm sure there are many USA right wing doctors that listen to the right wing opinion shows that call masks face diapers and fight against social distancing and vaccines. Doctors aren't immune to that stuff.

Yet his opinion was not welcome, and he was concerned that if people found out he dared to question the narrative, he would face repercussions.

I would certainly complain to the clinic if a Doctor there was advising me not get an approved vaccine.

So riddle me this. Why would his medical training and experience be any less important simply because he had evaluated the evidence and came to different conclusions?

Doctors are susceptible to misinformation and politics, just like everyone else.
I would expect doctors to follow the approved guidelines of their practice rather than inject their own politics, beliefs etc into their work.

Drs should be very careful about doing that. Sure if a doctor is out with his or her friends he can grumble and say he doesn't believe in using the Covid vaccine. But when on the job he should just be giving the vaccine to people who want it.

This illustrates that in the science world, there is a very real danger of being placed in an echo chamber where you only hear what confirms what you want to be true.

Nah, in the science world people are encourage to debunk claims. Some get famous for doing that.
A doctor isn't a scientist. It is inappropriate for them to be doing the opposite of what is recommended for the practice.
But a researcher, or a medical scientist, they should be studying and testing claims, even trying to debunk claims, not rushing to the internet to express their views, but quietly performing tests and analysis and writing peer reviewed papers on their findings.