Army Tries to Bring Back Soldiers Booted for Refusing the COVID Vaccine

[Tuur]

Good point.

The first great lie of COVID was that they said there was a 3.4% mortality rate. This extremely inflated number was propagandized and pushed all over the world. It was never true.

Well ... it depended on demographics. With my demographic, the original virus had a higher mortality rate than 3%. Can't recall the number at the moment. Just as I can't remember the mortality rate of healthy people in the age demographic of the military, only that it was much lower than for my demographic. But the difference between the mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated in my demographic was significant enough that I got the vaccine.

 

[Tuur]

Hard to distance when Donald Trump is cutting off unemployment and trying to force everyone back to work.

Trump's $300 in weekly unemployment benefits extended to 6 weeks

FEMA, which is overseeing the supplementary payments, had previously promised only three weeks of jobless benefits.

www.cbsnews.com

It's also mighty hard to distance when you're working on an electric line, or stocking store shelves, or tending to a patient in a hospital. And people still need food grown, processed, and delivered, pandemic or not. I was one of those who continued to work, because people still needed electricity.

 

[probinson]

So, in the case of 2020, you have virtually nobody being sick with it for the first quarter of the year,

Again, there is evidence that COVID was spreading worldwide by January 2020. Just because you don't see it in the official numbers doesn't mean it wasn't already here infecting people. That's

while 2021 started with one of the bigger active case loads of the pandemic and most folks unable to be fully vaccinated for another few months.

Anecdotally speaking, how many people do you personally know that have NOT had COVID? I'm not sure I could name a single person that hasn't had it. Everyone in my family has had it. Every one of my friends has had it. Everyone in my social circles has had it. Everyone at work has had it. Vaccinated or not, they all got COVID, and there wasn't a discernible difference in severity of disease in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people. Some vaccinated people had it worse than unvaccinated and vice versa. At best it was a crap shoot of how sick they got irrespective of vaccination status.

I'm curious if that's the same for others.

 

[probinson]

Nobody was coerced to take a brand new drug with zero long term data.

Yes they were. The coercion was intense. Take the vaccine or lose your job. Take the vaccine or be ostracized from society. Take the vaccine or never leave your home again. Take the vaccine or be denied healthcare. The list of coercive tactics goes on and on.

And there was no long-term data. How could there be? This was a brand new vaccine with a brand new mechanism. Never before had humans been given mRNA, and with good reason. As recently as 2017, Moderna was running into safety problems with its mRNA technology:

Founded in 2012, Moderna reached unicorn status — a $1 billion valuation — in just two years, faster than Uber, Dropbox, and Lyft, according to CB Insights. The company’s premise: Using custom-built strands of messenger RNA, known as mRNA, it aims to turn the body’s cells into ad hoc drug factories, compelling them to produce the proteins needed to treat a wide variety of diseases.​

​

But mRNA is a tricky technology. Several major pharmaceutical companies have tried and abandoned the idea, struggling to get mRNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects.​

​

Bancel has repeatedly promised that Moderna’s new therapies will change the world, but the company has refused to publish any data on its mRNA vehicles, sparking skepticism from some scientists and a chiding from the editors of Nature.​

​

Lavishly funded Moderna hits safety problems in bold bid to revolutionize medicine

Moderna Therapeutics, the most highly valued private company in biotech, has run into troubling safety problems with its most ambitious therapy, STAT found.

www.statnews.com

​

​

As you can see, mRNA technology was "triggering nasty side effects" in 2017. I guess we were just supposed to trust (with no data) that they got those "nasty side effects" figured out just in time for a global rollout of the COVID vaccines.

And did you know that there are serious questions about the integrity of the data in the Pfizer trial that have yet to be answered? Whistleblowers at the BMJ had this to say:

But, for researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety. A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. ​

​

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial​

Those are some serious allegations. You'd think someone would want to follow up and see what happened with the falsified data and unblinded patients. And how exactly did they compromise patient safety? Yet there is a very odd incurious attitude to these very serious allegations.

Couple that with the fact that it is literally impossible to have "long-term data" for a vaccine that has been on the market for such a short time as the ONLY way you can acquire long-term data is by monitoring it over a LONG time, and it is abundantly clear that people were coerced into taking a vaccine that had no long-term data, a sketchy history and trial results based on questionable data.

Hard to distance when Donald Trump is cutting off unemployment and trying to force everyone back to work.

You know there were plenty of people that had to work the entire pandemic, right? Lockdowns and work closures were just a way to shift the burden of the pandemic off of the laptop class to the "essential worker", a term coined to make people feel special, but really intended to allow some people to stay "safer at home" while making their Uber Eats delivery driver face the pandemic every day so they didn't have to.

 

[probinson]

Well ... it depended on demographics.

Yes, but they were saying that the overall mortality rate was going to be 3.4%. In realty, it was closer to 0.1% or 0.2%, on par with the seasonal flu.

With my demographic, the original virus had a higher mortality rate than 3%. Can't recall the number at the moment. Just as I can't remember the mortality rate of healthy people in the age demographic of the military, only that it was much lower than for my demographic. But the difference between the mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated in my demographic was significant enough that I got the vaccine.

Vaccinating high-risk people likely always made sense. Vaccinating people at infinitesimal risk never made sense.

The across the board recommendation of the CDC right now is that everyone 6 months and older should get the new vaccine. This is out-of-step with the rest of the world. Most countries only recommend that those 55+ or 65+ take the new vaccine. Why? Because the risk profile of an 18-year old healthy male athlete is vastly different than the risk profile of an 85-year old female. This has always been true.

 

[KCfromNC]

Not really.

If you believe what you're saying about the vaccines reducing transmission, you should be one of the first in line to get that updated 2023 vaccine.

Is this really trying to sell the fantasy that I'm literally so powerful that my actions can retroactively change the outcome of peer reviewed scientific studies? If you actually believed this you wouldn't dare question me for fear of what I might do to your past.

But of course we all know it's just a desperate attempt to change the subject away from the fact that the peer reviewed scientific research showed your post was just empty rhetoric. I mean, if there was an actual reasonable response to the studies I linked to we wouldn't be reading these wild fantasies about me traveling back in time to undo years of scientific progress.

 

[KCfromNC]

I didn't.

I got the original 2-dose series of Pfizer and had horrible side effects with both doses. Got COVID anyway. It was actually worse than my friends that got it that weren't vaccinated, but still pretty mild. Anecdotal perhaps, but I see no reason for any additional vaccines as the first ones didn't really help and just made me ill.

Looks like the fact that other people did get the most recent vaccines wasn't the one thing holding up accepting the research showing their effectiveness after all. Who would have guessed it was just another in a long line of word games?

 

[KCfromNC]

Again, there is evidence that COVID was spreading worldwide by January 2020. Just because you don't see it in the official numbers doesn't mean it wasn't already here infecting people.

I guess one just has to have faith despite the data.

 

[probinson]

Is this really trying to sell the fantasy that I'm literally so powerful that my actions can retroactively change the outcome of peer reviewed scientific studies?

No, it's a simple question. Are you one of the ~17% of US adults that have gotten the 2023 COVID vaccine? You obviously don't have to answer, but I'd think you'd be proud to let us know that you're one of the good guys helping "slow the spread" rather than part of the other ~83% of Americans that are nothing more than science and vaccine deniers.

By the way, have you heard of healthy vaccinee bias? Do any of your linked observational studies account for that? Im just curious.

 

[probinson]

I guess one just has to have faith despite the data.

Speaking of the data, here's a scientific paper you might find interesting. It documents the many statistical and numerical errors the CDC has made throughout the pandemic.

Conclusion: A basic prerequisite for making informed policy decisions is accurate and reliable statistics, even during times of uncertainty. Our investigation revealed 25 instances of numerical or statistical errors made by the CDC. Our investigation suggests 1) the need for greater diligence in data collection and reporting, and 2) that the federal entity responsible for reporting health statistics should be firewalled from the entity setting policy due to concerns of real or perceived systematic bias in errors.​

​

Statistical and Numerical Errors Made by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been a major source of information during the COVID-19 pandemic, guiding policies and pract

papers.ssrn.com

​

 

[KCfromNC]

No, it's a simple question. Are you one of the ~17% of US adults that have gotten the 2023 COVID vaccine? You obviously don't have to answer, but I'd think you'd be proud to let us know that you're one of the good guys helping "slow the spread" rather than part of the other ~83% of Americans that are nothing more than science and vaccine deniers.

I already quoted a post where you immediately dismissed someone else getting the vaccine as irrelevant to your beliefs on the subject, which just shows this request isn't sincere. Instead, it's yet another lame attempt to try and handwave away actual data showing your previous post was wrong.

Do any of your linked observational studies account for that? Im just curious.

If this question was sincere you'd have actually read the studies and found out for yourself. Have you? "it's a simple question". "You obviously don't have to answer, but I'd think you'd be proud to let us know that you're one of the good guys helping" inform others about the flaws you've discovered in scientific research.

 

[KCfromNC]

Speaking of the data, here's a scientific paper you might find interesting. It documents the many statistical and numerical errors the CDC has made throughout the pandemic.

Does that include data showing the case loads of covid in the US in Jan 2020? Because if not, seems like yet another attempt to divert away from a fact based discussion on the subject. Not sure why that would be necessary to preserve a particular point of view, but the evidence does seem pretty clear that it does.

 

[probinson]

I already quoted a post where you immediately dismissed someone else getting the vaccine as irrelevant to your beliefs on the subject, which just shows this request isn't sincere. Instead, it's yet another lame attempt to try and handwave away actual data showing your previous post was wrong.

Um, OK. I guess your'e not going to answer.

If this question was sincere

It is.

you'd have actually read the studies and found out for yourself. Have you? "it's a simple question".

Probably. I'm. not going to lie. I didn't read them when you posted them yesterday, but you and I and many others have been discussing this topic for years and I've almost certainly read them at some point. That's why I can say with a relatively high degree of certainty that they probably don't even mention healthy vaccinee bias, because nearly every observational study I have read on vaccine efficacy does not mention it.

"You obviously don't have to answer, but I'd think you'd be proud to let us know that you're one of the good guys helping" inform others about the flaws you've discovered in scientific research.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Again, there is evidence that COVID was spreading worldwide by January 2020. Just because you don't see it in the official numbers doesn't mean it wasn't already here infecting people. That's

Ok, even if that is true, it doesn’t undermine my point. There were fewer people with covid (and thus, fewer people spreading it) at the beginning of 2020 than there were at the beginning of 2021. That there were also fewer people looking for it could also help answer your question about why the official death toll for 2021 was higher than 2020.

Anecdotally speaking, how many people do you personally know that have NOT had COVID? I'm not sure I could name a single person that hasn't had it. Everyone in my family has had it. Every one of my friends has had it. Everyone in my social circles has had it. Everyone at work has had it. Vaccinated or not, they all got COVID, and there wasn't a discernible difference in severity of disease in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people. Some vaccinated people had it worse than unvaccinated and vice versa. At best it was a crap shoot of how sick they got irrespective of vaccination status.

I'm curious if that's the same for others.

Most everybody I know has had it, though I do know a couple people who only got it for the first time within the last couple months.

What I haven’t heard in a long time are anybody with serious complications. A couple acquaintances in Boston, both healthy adult men, contracted early on; one (very early on) was on a respirator for a few weeks while the other (a competitive cyclist) wound up with long covid for over a year.

 

[probinson]

Does that include data showing the case loads of covid in the US in Jan 2020?

If cases prior to March 2020 were not being counted, there is literally no way any data could ever show that. However, I posted an article that provides compelling evidence that COVID was probably circulating in China in October of 2019 and worldwide by 2020. Here it is again in case you missed it the first time.

The coronavirus that causes Covid-19 may have started spreading in China as early as October 2019—two months before the first official case was identified in the city of Wuhan—a new study suggests, adding to previous reports which suggest the deadly virus may have been silently spreading a few months before it was detected by scientists.​

​

Covid-19 May Have Started Spreading As Early As October 2019 In China, U.K.-Led Study Suggests

The start date of the coronavirus outbreak has been a subject of intrigue for scientists and many have suggested it may have been spreading long before the first case was detected in December 2019.

www.forbes.com

​

Did you catch that? The study suggests that COVID was circulating before it was detected by scientists. How could they track something if they didn't even know it existed? There's no way to know just how widespread it was at that time because we werren't incessantly shoving Q-tips up everyone's noses to look for it.

The study suggests that November 17, 2019, is the most likely date for the virus’ emergence in China and adds that it had probably already spread globally by January 2020—before China began locking down the city of Wuhan.​

​

The first official Covid-19 case was detected in December 2019 and it was linked to Wuhan’s Huanan seafood market, however, the study notes that some early cases had no known connection with the market which implies that the virus was already circulating before that.​

 

[probinson]

Ok, even if that is true, it doesn’t undermine my point. There were fewer people with covid (and thus, fewer people spreading it) at the beginning of 2020 than there were at the beginning of 2021. That there were also fewer people looking for it could also help answer your question about why the official death toll for 2021 was higher than 2020.

Still, by January 2021, data shows that nearly 20 million people had been infected with COVID. The vaccination campaign was also beginning in earnest. So there was a degree of protection from previous infections in a large number of people AND there was vaccination. Yet case counts and deaths climbed ever higher. The Biden administration coined the term "The pandemic of the unvaccinated™" until it was no longer possible to keep up that charade.

Most everybody I know has had it, though I do know a couple people who only got it for the first time within the last couple months.

Don't you find that odd? If vaccines "slow" infections, how is it that everyone we both know has been infected? Is the purpose of the vaccine to delay infection?

This isn't how vaccines are supposed to work. Take the measles vaccine as an example. How many people do you know that have had the measles recently? I can't name one.

What I haven’t heard in a long time are anybody with serious complications. A couple acquaintances in Boston, both healthy adult men, contracted early on; one (very early on) was on a respirator for a few weeks while the other (a competitive cyclist) wound up with long covid for over a year.

My 85-year old diabetic father spent 3 days in the hospital due to dehydration that was brought on by COVID and was feeling nearly 100% better one week later. I personally know one person that died as a result of complications from COVID. Although I am not convinced that many of the deaths that occurred with people on ventilators were not largely iatrogenic in nature.

There are just so many things about the pandemic response that do not pass the sniff test. Trust in our regulatory agencies and medical "experts" are at historic lows, and with good reason. The response to the pandemic often caused more harm than good. Here is a PBS documentary showing how horribly nursing home residents were treated during the lockdowns. It's not often that something infuriates me, but watching this documentary on how these residents were told they were being "protected" all the while being mistreated and being made to feel like prisoners is just one example of why the "experts" don't deserve our trust. As you watch this documentary it's incredibly easy to see in hindsight that their policies were foolish, but it should have been obvious how damaging the policies were when they were enacted. The myopic focus on preventing COVID had very real and profound consequences.

Fire Through Dry Grass - POV

An unlikely group of nursing home residents launch a movement during the pandemic.

www.pbs.org

 

[iluvatar5150]

Still, by January 2021, data shows that nearly 20 million people had been infected with COVID. The vaccination campaign was also beginning in earnest.

"beginning"

Again, it still took a while to actually get it in people's arms. The first rounds were restricted to at-risk groups, and once that opened up, there were still issues with supply. Lots of places were running out all the time or had appointments booked solid. I didn't get my shots until April and May, and I was trying to get in. Many people didn't try as hard to get in.

So there was a degree of protection from previous infections in a large number of people AND there was vaccination. Yet case counts and deaths climbed ever higher. The Biden administration coined the term "The pandemic of the unvaccinated™" until it was no longer possible to keep up that charade.

You're overstating the number of people who were infected in 2020 and, therefore, would've had some sort of immunity. According to worldometer, the total US case count on Jan 1, 2021 was about 21 million, or about 6% of the country. That's probably an undercount, but not by enough to justify your skepticism.

Don't you find that odd? If vaccines "slow" infections, how is it that everyone we both know has been infected? Is the purpose of the vaccine to delay infection?

Yes, it is - or rather, to reduce the likelihood of infection, to reduce the severity of the infection, and to reduce the transmission of the virus.

This isn't how vaccines are supposed to work. Take the measles vaccine as an example. How many people do you know that have had the measles recently? I can't name one.

I think you should probably read up on "how vaccines are supposed to work." No vaccine is 100% effective. We've had high rates of measles immunization for several decades now vs just a couple years for covid, which helps cut down on the number of measles cases floating around, and measles doesn't mutate the way that covid does, which means that we don't need to be re-inoculated against new strains of it.

 

[KCfromNC]

If cases prior to March 2020 were not being counted, there is literally no way any data could ever show that.

Like I said, just something we have to take on faith.

 

[KCfromNC]

Um, OK. I guess your'e not going to answer.

I guess I don't view health care choices through the lens of being performative virtue signaling to make others know I'm part of the right sports fans, uh, I mean political supporters.

Probably. I'm. not going to lie. I didn't read them when you posted them yesterday, but you and I and many others have been discussing this topic for years and I've almost certainly read them at some point.

If you're not going to take the time to answer what appeared to be a very very important question, guess it really didn't matter after all.

 

[probinson]

"beginning"

Again, it still took a while to actually get it in people's arms. The first rounds were restricted to at-risk groups, and once that opened up, there were still issues with supply. Lots of places were running out all the time or had appointments booked solid. I didn't get my shots until April and May, and I was trying to get in. Many people didn't try as hard to get in.

Some people tried harder. I recall reading stories of people who drove hundreds of miles to get vaccinated.

You're overstating the number of people who were infected in 2020 and, therefore, would've had some sort of immunity. According to worldometer, the total US case count on Jan 1, 2021 was about 21 million, or about 6% of the country. That's probably an undercount, but not by enough to justify your skepticism.

The point is, there were 20+ million people with immunity acquired from prior infection, and there were ~200 million doses of vaccine administered in the US by early April 2021. There was NONE of that in 2020. Yet infections and deaths were FAR higher in 2021 with all of that newly induced immunity.

Yes, it is - or rather, to reduce the likelihood of infection,

But I just told you, and you just said, that everyone we know has been infected. How did it reduce their "likelihood of infection" if ultimately everyone was infected?

I think you should probably read up on "how vaccines are supposed to work." No vaccine is 100% effective. We've had high rates of measles immunization for several decades now vs just a couple years for covid, which helps cut down on the number of measles cases floating around, and measles doesn't mutate the way that covid does, which means that we don't need to be re-inoculated against new strains of it.

If you think vaccines are supposed to work by requiring people to get them every 3-4 months, you and I have vastly different opinions on "how vaccines are supposed to work".

The bottom line is that governments and public health experts have continually moved the goalposts on vaccination efficacy. That's probably why the vast majority of people are skipping this latest vaccine.