Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yeah, I get it, washing our hands is important.Very common tactic of vaxxers. Its the vaccines that saved us!!! I just said that the invention of modern plumbing is what led to the decrease of disease. All of the infectious diseases decreased rapidly after that. I have studied graphs for hours, maybe it would do you well to look at them too.
I laugh at this. The number of kids I know whose parents proudly say "my kids have never been to the doctor" as if that's supposed to be a great thing.HAHAHA. Nope, never followed Q or Alex Jones or Trump in my quest for truth.
I am staunchly anti-vax and will never allow one to be injected in me nor my children. My kids have NEVER needed a doctor at 15 and 11. How many vaxxers do you know whose kids never needed a doctor?
That's great. I broke 4 limbs, only one of which was my fault (most of my breaks were from being a very young child and some mistakes my older siblings made...ie...leaving a sliding door open). You seem to suggest that this is some kind of badge of honor to not visit a doctor. Why would you think that?My 11 yr old is pretty clumsy too, he gets many cuts and bruises and we allow him to run around the neighborhood and play up in trees. Never broke a bone or needed a doctor.
Lucky them. Good genes and a good diet.Worst thing they ever had was a fever, and hey the body knows what it's doing! They get better within a day or two. We work with the body not against it.
I agree with the chicken pox one because chicken box innoculates against shingles which I understand to be pretty awful but think about what youre saying. You are suggesting that 1 or 2% of children should die instead of taking a vaccine. I'm not sure how you could advocate for a stance that would see 50,000 children dying a year instead of just getting a shot.Measles was a childhood rite of passage and 99% of people recovered fine. Even polio 98% of people recovered fine. I had chicken pox as a child I can't believe kids now are vaccinated for it.
This is the weirdest post saying "It'd be better if more children were dying because in my and my tiny communities experience my children weren't affected by these diseases".Tetanus is easily avoided by knowing that you stepped on something that punctured deep in your body and you CLEAN it out. Tetanus can't form with oxygen. The others are not even a risk to Americans. Flu and cold viruses are the body's way of cleaning out. If you are a toxic person that is petrified of viruses you are going to have a rough go of it.
'Identified'? They didn't even know about 'germs' until the 1860's, they are making an inference based on symptoms alone. I have no desire to debate the details of infectious disease, I am well past the age I thought that was fun. Most people will only dig as deep as what they are told.
Well anyone who is a Christian knows God is in control we fear not man nor the devil, nor 'germs'. But I would be lying if I said I had no fear, of course I feel fear like everyone else, I just don't let it control my decisions.
Very common tactic of vaxxers. Its the vaccines that saved us!!!
Hi - I see you changed your name from @Janelle525 to @InChristAlone525.You cannot compare now to a hundred years ago. Great fear tactic though. I don't live my life based on fear.
This is classic projection. Even though you carefully forewent naming names, none of those responding to you in this thread show any hatred like that, so you're seeing yourself in others.But thanks for your intense hatred of people who don't believe like you, this forum is one of the most toxic places I've ever been to
The paranoia in this post is palpable. I think I will take my leave of you here. Good luck in your future endeavors.Yes there are many Moms like me out there who raised their kids not believing in the fear tactics used by the media. Sicknesses were rampant when there was no modern plumbing and access to clean water and healthy food. But please continue to live your life as if you are back in the stone ages. Ya'll look like the zombie apocolyse, the people I hang around are healthy and strong and don't need toxic fear mongering and hate filled people around us. Praise God that He is still in control despite ya'll that would love to murder us.
You really should provide reliable non-biased sources for all of the claims you’re making here in this forum. Otherwise, your claims are nothing but hearsay.Very common tactic of vaxxers. Its the vaccines that saved us!!! I just said that the invention of modern plumbing is what led to the decrease of disease. All of the infectious diseases decreased rapidly after that. I have studied graphs for hours, maybe it would do you well to look at them too.
I'm not quite sure how this discussion drifted into one about atheism, but will point out that the desire to be a god is more prevalent than we might realize. All it takes is the desire of "My will be done." No one is immune, not a preacher in a pulpit nor a parishioner in the pew or an agnostic or an atheist. Doesn't matter. It's a subtle, insidious, thing, whether one believes in God or not.
No, I haven't heard of it, but am not surprised. I grew up near an old cemetery, and a grandmother used to tell me stories about those buried there. The same for the cemetery where we went to church. Unfortunately, can only remember a few of those stories.Have you heard of Bodie, CA? It is a ghost town. There is a lot of interesting history, but there is one thing I saw with my own 2 eyes. One year there was an influenza epidemic. The result was that there are scores of tombstones with a lamb on top. Each is the grave of a child.
That's true, but misses the big question: If it's caused by an immune response to the spike protein, then it should also be seen at the same rate in the unvaccinated who contracted COVID-19. That's my suspicion because both the mRNA vaccine and the actual strain of the virus had the same spike protein, and the incidents of myocarditis seem to happen at a higher rate in those with more active immune systems. If there's no difference between the unvaccinated who caught COVID-19 and the vaccinated, then being unvaccinated didn't offer protection from myocarditis.
Quite the opposite. Shingles occurs because someone got chickenpox as a child, the virus then remains dormant and it resurfaces much later in life.I agree with the chicken pox one because chicken box innoculates against shingles which I understand to be pretty awful ...
Post 53 admits you have no idea if you've read the studies or not.
Quite the opposite. Shingles occurs because someone got chickenpox as a child, the virus then remains dormant and it resurfaces much later in life.
No, I said I didn't read them when you posted them this time. But it's almost certain that I've read them at some point.
Which of those studies you've now read and are sure failed to account for whatever excuse you have for trying to dismiss them? And more importantly, the statistical analysis you did to prove that this was true?
From the linked page "ED-I-TOR-I-AL". Did *YOU* catch that? This essay was written prior to *any* published data on the efficacy of the vaccines in the real world. It seems more a warning from a professional that can be transmitted to the general public that they (we) should not expect the vaccine to provided magical perfect protection against the disease.This was published in the BMJ in 2020, before any vaccine was approved.
But what will it mean exactly when a vaccine is declared “effective”? To the public this seems fairly obvious. “The primary goal of a covid-19 vaccine is to keep people from getting very sick and dying,” a National Public Radio broadcast said bluntly.6Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said, “Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things . . . first, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission.”7Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either (table 1). None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus....In all the ongoing phase III trials for which details have been released, laboratory confirmed infections even with only mild symptoms qualify as meeting the primary endpoint definition.9101112 In Pfizer and Moderna’s trials, for example, people with only a cough and positive laboratory test would bring those trials one event closer to their completion....Severe illness requiring hospital admission, which happens in only a small fraction of symptomatic covid-19 cases, would be unlikely to occur in significant numbers in trials. Data published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in late April reported a symptomatic case hospitalisation ratio of 3.4% overall, varying from 1.7% in 0-49 year olds and 4.5% in 50-64 year olds to 7.4% in those 65 and over.13Because most people with symptomatic covid-19 experience only mild symptoms,14 even trials involving 30 000 or more patients would turn up relatively few cases of severe disease.Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us
The world has bet the farm on vaccines as the solution to the pandemic, but the trials are not focused on answering the questions many might assume they are. Peter Doshi reports As phase III trials of covid-19 vaccines reach their target enrolments, officials have been trying to project calm...www.bmj.com
Yes, because they were measuring the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing infection (and positive tests) and a good number of the infected only had very mild symptoms, yet were still infectious. Even if the *only* impact was to eliminate mild and stealth infections by 80% it would have still had an impact by reducing spread (those who aren't positive, can't spread).Did you catch that? If the vaccine prevented people from having a mild cough, it was included in the efficacy numbers.
Yes, it's called experimental design. To detect a 50% reduction in hospitalizations you would need a sample large enough for the difference to be statistically significant. For example (and depending on how many std dev medical research uses as a standard) ~100 hospitalizations reducing to ~50 should be enough for statistical significance, but 3 in the placebo group versus 2, or 0, or 1, or 4 in the vaccine group tells us exactly nothing.Are you surprised to find out the vaccine trials were NEVER intended to show a reduction in hospital admissions, ICU admissions or deaths, nor were they studied to determine their ability to interrupt transmission? They were evaluated against mild symptoms because there weren't enough people that would have severe outcomes to evaluate.
Against *infections*, which (what ever the number was) it was. Not a lie. In a non-emergency situation (as best I can tell not being a medical researcher), a larger round of tests would have ensued to catch the effectiveness against more rare outcomes (like hospitalization and death) before general distribution. Instead, it was demonstrated to be safe, so they started to distribute to those most vulnerable. And infections went down and severe outcomes went way down. (I know you've been shown the plots that demonstrate this.) The post-emergency approval data from wide-spread usage is quite definitive for the initial vaccine and the initial variants of the virus.Why? Because it made it easier to claim "95% effective!" (against mild coughs) and propagandize it all over the world.
And a sufficiently scared and desperate populace of useful idiots lapped it up. Not only did they believe it, then they started scapegoating people who were not actually to blame. The US federal government coined the term "Pandemic of the unvaccinated™" and a willing media pushed that narrative hard to blame and shame people into taking the vaccine.
Perhaps you forget the time from exactly 3 years ago when the first distributions were on the cusp. Many people were almost desperate to get vaccinated. Others were hesitant in at least wanting to wait and see about adverse reactions first, but large numbers of those who were hesitant eventually decided they wanted it as well. As for me, I wasn't eager to "go first", but not being in the study area and under 50 I would have to wait until millions had gone first. By the time I got my injections in April 2021, the first signs of reduced infection *and* severe outcomes were already showing up in the older populations that had received protection months earlier and I was eager to get my shot and move on with life.Pfizer, Moderna and their shareholders laughed all the way to the bank as they introduced a brilliant new business model whereby the government paid them many billions of dollars for vaccines that they then coerced people to take.
From the linked page "ED-I-TOR-I-AL". Did *YOU* catch that?
This essay was written prior to *any* published data on the efficacy of the vaccines in the real world.
It seems more a warning from a professional that can be transmitted to the general public that they (we) should not expect the vaccine to provided magical perfect protection against the disease.
Yes, because they were measuring the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing infection (and positive tests) and a good number of the infected only had very mild symptoms, yet were still infectious.
Even if the *only* impact was to eliminate mild and stealth infections by 80% it would have still had an impact by reducing spread (those who aren't positive, can't spread).
Yes, it's called experimental design. To detect a 50% reduction in hospitalizations you would need a sample large enough for the difference to be statistically significant. For example (and depending on how many std dev medical research uses as a standard) ~100 hospitalizations reducing to ~50 should be enough for statistical significance, but 3 in the placebo group versus 2, or 0, or 1, or 4 in the vaccine group tells us exactly nothing.
The size of the study require to put statistically significant value on hosipitalization would have been very large. It just wasn't feasible.
This was also the scaled-up safety study where all participants were monitored for reactions closely.
Finally, the study was largely (or was it entirely) conducted in the summer of 2020 around New York City which didn't have a huge COVID outbreak during the period. If the study had been fortuitously planned for some place in the south where the summer outbreaks occured, it would have been better sampled on disease. (The study also excluded those most vulnerable to death - the elderly and immunocomprimised, which is pretty normal.)
Against *infections*, which (what ever the number was) it was. Not a lie.
In a non-emergency situation (as best I can tell not being a medical researcher), a larger round of tests would have ensued to catch the effectiveness against more rare outcomes (like hospitalization and death) before general distribution.
Instead, it was demonstrated to be safe,
so they started to distribute to those most vulnerable. And infections went down and severe outcomes went way down. (I know you've been shown the plots that demonstrate this.)
The post-emergency approval data from wide-spread usage is quite definitive for the initial vaccine and the initial variants of the virus.
Perhaps you forget the time from exactly 3 years ago when the first distributions were on the cusp. Many people were almost desperate to get vaccinated.
Others were hesitant in at least wanting to wait and see about adverse reactions first, but large numbers of those who were hesitant eventually decided they wanted it as well.
As for me, I wasn't eager to "go first", but not being in the study area and under 50 I would have to wait until millions had gone first. By the time I got my injections in April 2021, the first signs of reduced infection *and* severe outcomes were already showing up in the older populations that had received protection months earlier and I was eager to get my shot and move on with life.
Yes. Did *YOU* catch that the "ED-I-TOR-I-AL" was published by the Associate Editor of the "B-M-J", only one of the world's oldest and most trusted medical journals?
Cough. Cough. Cough. (and a positive test)Yes, and it was talking about how the trials were not powered to determine efficacy against severe outcomes from COVID but rather whether or not someone had a mild cough. Do you dispute that point?
Ah. So the vaccine was measured for its efficacy to prevent "very mild symptoms". Thanks for confirming.
But the study wasn't designed to look for an impact on reducing spread. It was designed to look for reducing mild coughs. I suppose if you want to attempt to extrapolate this to say that someone without a mild cough can't infect someone that's your prerogative, but that seems a bit of a stretch.
What? Are you denying COVID was serious?So the disease wasn't severe enough in the vast majority of people and "it just wasn't feasible" to enroll a population large enough to detect a statistically significant benefit in severe outcomes. Tell me how severe this disease was again?
Sounds like a problem with a subset of the data, not the whole study, if accurate.Yeah, about that... here's another article from the BMJ you might find interesting.
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
Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight. Paul D Thacker reports In autumn 2020 Pfizer’s chairman and chief executive, Albert Bourla, released an open...www.bmj.com
Doesn't sound like they were being monitored all the closely for adverse events after all.
Because those *are* infections. The uninfected don't transmit.So they tested the vaccine on a largely healthy population that was at low risk to begin with. Pretty smart if you're trying to create marketing hype for the vaccine rather than actually determine if it's efficacious against severe outcomes.
Except "infections" was broadly defined to include mild coughs and a positive test. The old axiom "Numbers don't lie. Liars use numbers" comes to mind. While it may not have been a "lie", it was incredibly and intentionally misleading.
At this point, all I see is a desire to attack the vaccine, etc.Yes, because CLINICAL OUTCOMES are what is important. A vaccine that may or may not prevent a mild cough is not all that useful.
Of course it was. If you don't follow up on adverse events in the trial, you'll think it's "safe". Can't find what you're not looking for.
No models needed. They were literally case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths versus time plots. Once vaccines were wide spread the ratio of deaths and hospitaliztions to cases went way down. The effectiveness of the vaccinations against severe disease for the first few variants was clarly shown.Most of those plots are based on highly questionable models. The plots that claim "MILLIONS" were saved by COVID vaccines are some of the most implausible nonsense ever published.
Now you're on to politics. I'm done with this and you.Sure it is. Because much like the trial itself, there is a considerable and immeasurable healthy-vaccinee bias baked into all of the results.
That's because democrats and liberals in particular had overestimated the actual risk of the virus by many orders of magnitude. If you read the study I posted above regarding scapegoating the unvaccinated, liberals and democrats incorrectly believed that the risk of hospitalization if you were infected with COVID was somewhere around 50%. It was closer to 1%
Second, representative polls done prior to data collection suggest that liberals were more likely to overestimate C19 risks. A Franklin Templeton-Gallup Economics of Recovery Study conducted in the second half of 2020 asked US residents to estimate the percentage of C19 infections that result in hospitalisation (the correct number at the time was between 1% and 5%18). The poll showed that around 41% of Democrats (and 28% of Republicans) estimated this rate to be 50% or higher, and more Republicans (26%) than Democrats (10%) estimated the hospitalisation rate correctly at 1%–5%.
No matter what you think about all other aspects of the pandemic, it is a MASSIVE failing of public health that so many people so severely overestimated the hospitalization rate of an infection. Some might posit that this misperception was by design, because as you correctly stated, these people were DESPERATE to get vaccinated. That desperation was borne from a fear based on wildly inflated perceptions of the risk the disease posed to them.
I mean really, who wants a mild cough anyway? If you can get a vaccine 3 or 4 times a year that ensures you never cough again, who wouldn't want that?!
True enough, but still millions more were coerced into vaccination whether they wanted it or not. The vaccine was apparently so good, we had to threaten people's livelihoods to get them to take it and institute all sorts of illogical and nonsensical mandates and policies that were badly contradictory on their face. This has caused incalculable damage to trust in public health and in vaccinations in general. It's why vaccination rates are down across the board. Those who favored mandating COVID vaccines own this looming public health crisis concerning vaccines.
Still many more NEVER got their shot and moved on with life just fine.
The point is, the vaccine mandates and the prejudicial steps taken to coerce a largely healthy population into getting vaccinated was never justified. The vaccine did not prevent infections. It did not slow transmission. It may have provided a personal benefit to those at the highest risk. It should always have been a personal choice.
I haven't had it or, if I did, my symptoms were literally so mild I didn't notice and apparently I didn't spread it to anyone. My brother, sister-in-law and mother haven't had it. I'm aware of three coworkers who have tested positive, though I only started working here in June 2021. About 35 others are either no, or unknown by me.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?