Covid Patients that Develop Severe Psychotic Symptoms

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm aware that Covid is deadly but one **ONE** vacccine shot would be enough already.

It turned out that the vaccine antibodies decreased more quickly than had been expected, decreasing to less than 50% resistance (protection against hospitalization or death), so a 2nd jab was indicated, especially given the arrival of the more infectious and more virulent Delta variant. This boosted resistance back up to around 75%. Giving a booster of a different vaccine was found to take it back up to over 90%.

Boosters were considered fairly early, but initial moves were slow. As the Omicron variant started spreading rapidly, its virulence was uncertain, and health services were under extreme stress, a booster was considered to be the best way to minimize further serious illness or death, with the consequent additional pressure on health services.

Getting all three jabs within 6 months is probably not optimal - ISTR suggestions that longer gaps could be better. Here in the UK, it was typically 3-4 months between 1st & 2nd, and 6 months for the booster.

AIUI, it has since been shown that prior infection provides roughly as much protection against serious illness or death from further infection as the two jabs, and a booster increases that significantly.

 

[drtime]

This contradictory stance compared to the vast majority of experts in the field, from someone involved in the earliest development of mRNA vaccines, was puzzling until I looked into Dr. Malone's backstory; it seems he has a very personal axe to grind...

This article in The Atlantic gives a good synopsis.

The article says his opinions were based on botched science from a newspaper. Prove it. I suspect his many peer reviewed papers and years of education and experience made him a little smarter than to base it all on a newspaper article! I think many professionals are growing a spine and some are starting to speak out. One cannot wave it all away based on saying there are still more experts siding with the strangely uniform government agenda that we see all over the world. One should need nothing more than to see that these rabid fanatics are pushing for little children to be jabbed.

 

[timewerx]

Getting all three jabs within 6 months is probably not optimal - ISTR suggestions that longer gaps could be better. Here in the UK, it was typically 3-4 months between 1st & 2nd, and 6 months for the booster.

I wouldn't have if not for a relative that panicked and lost their mind when I said NO to the booster.

Maybe it's the psychosis or w/e. Other families are not having problems as severe as ours.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The article says his opinions were based on botched science from a newspaper. Prove it.

The article said that on Bannon's podcast he was using a botched quote from USA Today to suggest that the vaccines might make Covid worse. Given his background in mRNA vaccine development, he should have known that was highly implausible. The clear implication is that either he was being deliberately misleading, or he was not as knowledgeable about the vaccines in question as he claimed to be.

I suspect his many peer reviewed papers and years of education and experience made him a little smarter than to base it all on a newspaper article!

Exactly; one would expect an expert in the field to quote from or refer to a peer-reviewed paper when making such a claim, rather than using a misquote from USA Today - but he couldn't, because there isn't one. The clear results from 10.8 billion doses administered around the world have shown what he said on Bannon's podcast to be egregiously wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[drtime]

The article said that on Bannon's podcast he was using a botched quote from USA Today to suggest that the vaccines might make Covid worse. Given his background in mRNA vaccine development, he should have known that was highly implausible. The clear implication is that either he was being deliberately misleading, or he was not as knowledgeable about the vaccines in question as he claimed to be.

Exactly; one would expect an expert in the field to quote from or refer to a peer-reviewed paper when making such a claim, rather than using a misquote from USA Today - but he couldn't, because there isn't one. The clear results from 10.8 billion doses administered around the world have shown what he said on Bannon's podcast to be egregiously wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Things change so fast is it possible to use peer reviewed papers from anything related to latest developments in the pandemic? The thrust of what these doctors and nurses say is what is important. Spending time on some supposed quote that was supposedly wrong is not really helpful. Did he address that later if it was truly wrong? You seem to be trying to cast aspersions on him by ignoring the camel and straining at a supposed nat sighting!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Things change so fast is it possible to use peer reviewed papers from anything related to latest developments in the pandemic? The thrust of what these doctors and nurses say is what is important. Spending time on some supposed quote that was supposedly wrong is not really helpful. Did he address that later if it was truly wrong? You seem to be trying to cast aspersions on him by ignoring the camel and straining at a supposed nat sighting!

You introduced him to the forum; I checked his background and reported what I found. I found nothing to suggest he has corrected the views he expressed. I think it's important that when an expert makes a controversial claim in public, they make it on the basis of scientific evidence, not media misquotes.

But if you have evidence to suggest he does have scientific evidence for his claims, by all means provide it.

 

[drtime]

You introduced him to the forum; I checked his background and reported what I found. I found nothing to suggest he has corrected the views he expressed. I think it's important that when an expert makes a controversial claim in public, they make it on the basis of scientific evidence, not media misquotes.

But if you have evidence to suggest he does have scientific evidence for his claims, by all means provide it.

So what about the changing claims of Fauci? Masks are needed, now they aren't etc etc etc etc. Are any scientists that don't echo the party line supposed to be perfect? I also don't think that we can rule out that the vaccine could do as he suggested? How would we know? There are no long term studies. There are no good stats about whether something was caused by the disease or vaccine etc.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So what about the changing claims of Fauci? Masks are needed, now they aren't etc etc etc etc. Are any scientists that don't echo the party line supposed to be perfect? I also don't think that we can rule out that the vaccine could do as he suggested? How would we know? There are no long term studies. There are no good stats about whether something was caused by the disease or vaccine etc.

I just pointed out that there seems to be more to Dr Malone's contrarianism than meets the eye. I'm not interested in your whataboutism.

 

[drtime]

I just pointed out that there seems to be more to Dr Malone's contrarianism than meets the eye. I'm not interested in your whataboutism.

Yet who says he was wrong? How would they know if vaccines might cause the sort of problems Malone suggested? That sounds more like authoritarian journalism than science. There are oodles of doctors and scientists and professionals who disagree with the covid agena.

How about other things the dr says? Such as
"In my opinion, our public policies in managing this have had a particularly strong adverse effect on our children, and vaccines for our children are completely unjustified at this point."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...ularly_strong_adverse_effect_on_children.html

Speaking of psychotic symptoms Malone diagnoses much of society as having

I just pointed out that there seems to be more to Dr Malone's contrarianism than meets the eye. I'm not interested in your whataboutism.

 

[bèlla]

I don’t know anyone who experienced the same. Given the fear and continued coverage I’m not surprised if some generated psychosomatic responses. You see the same with placebos.

Consuming a steady diet of the topic will take a toll. You don’t have to see, hear, or read everything. It will mess with your head.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yet who says he was wrong? How would they know if vaccines might cause the sort of problems Malone suggested? That sounds more like authoritarian journalism than science. There are oodles of doctors and scientists and professionals who disagree with the covid agena.

The evidence to date says he's wrong, and if the vaccines turn out to be harmful in the long term, a media misquote won't count as a prediction.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the 'covid agenda' (whatever that may be) on rational grounds, preferably evidence-based grounds, but that's not the same as using your position as a supposed authority on the vaccines to make an unsubstantiated public claim of potential harm with no evidential grounds. At best it's negligent, at worst it's dishonest and potentially dangerous.

How about other things the dr says? Such as
"In my opinion, our public policies in managing this have had a particularly strong adverse effect on our children, and vaccines for our children are completely unjustified at this point."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...ularly_strong_adverse_effect_on_children.html

Speaking of psychotic symptoms Malone diagnoses much of society as having

I currently have no view on his other opinions, although given what I've seen so far, my confidence in his credibility is low.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don’t know anyone who experienced the same. Given the fear and continued coverage I’m not surprised if some generated psychosomatic responses. You see the same with placebos.

Consuming a steady diet of the topic will take a toll. You don’t have to see, hear, or read everything. It will mess with your head.

It's worth keeping an eye out for relevant publications, for example, a meta-analysis suggests that 76% of reported systemic adverse events after the 1st jab, and 52% after the 2nd jab are due to placebo effects:

Question What was the frequency of adverse events (AEs) in the placebo groups of COVID-19 vaccine trials?

Findings In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 articles including AE reports for 45 380 trial participants, systemic AEs were experienced by 35% of placebo recipients after the first dose and 32% after the second. Significantly more AEs were reported in the vaccine groups, but AEs in placebo arms (“nocebo responses”) accounted for 76% of systemic AEs after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose and 52% after the second dose.
Frequency of Adverse Events in the Placebo Arms of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
​

 

[bèlla]

It's worth keeping an eye out for relevant publications, for example, a meta-analysis suggests that 76% of reported systemic adverse events after the 1st jab, and 52% after the 2nd jab are due to placebo effects:

It isn’t necessary. Once the decision is made its moot. You’re beating a dead horse.

When I pull the trigger that’s it. I don’t revisit my decision again and again. I put the plan in motion and focus on the goal. Not the thing that put me on the path.

My only consideration is its impact on the bigger thing. I don’t care about the details. The strategy and hedges are mindful of current events. But I don’t follow them religiously. I devise ways to circumvent their influence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It isn’t necessary. Once the decision is made its moot. You’re beating a dead horse.

When I pull the trigger that’s it. I don’t revisit my decision again and again. I put the plan in motion and focus on the goal. Not the thing that put me on the path.

My only consideration is its impact on the bigger thing. I don’t care about the details. The strategy and hedges are mindful of current events. But I don’t follow them religiously. I devise ways to circumvent their influence.

I don't really know what decision you're referring to (your last post didn't quote what you were responding to), so I'm not trying to change your mind about it, but sometimes the details are important.

It may also be worth pointing out that many respected people down the ages have made the same point about wisdom that John Maynard Keynes made, “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions.” This is also a fundamental principle of science.

 

[sfs]

Things change so fast is it possible to use peer reviewed papers from anything related to latest developments in the pandemic?

True. For rapidly developing pandemic information, it's also reasonable to look to preprints from research groups with demonstrated expertise in the topic at hand. Which is also not the case here.

Yet who says he was wrong? How would they know if vaccines might cause the sort of problems Malone suggested?

They'd know by doing statistical studies of the billions of people who've received the vaccines. Which they'd then report in preprints and peer-reviewed studies and government reports. Which are what the good doctor did not cite.

 

[drtime]

I don’t know anyone who experienced the same. Given the fear and continued coverage I’m not surprised if some generated psychosomatic responses. You see the same with placebos.

Consuming a steady diet of the topic will take a toll. You don’t have to see, hear, or read everything. It will mess with your head.

And they might say you are under mass psychosis maybe. Looks like there are different opinions. To solve anything one side has to stop demanding the other side share their opinion or basically die. (not work, shop, travel, etc etc)

 

[drtime]

The evidence to date says he's wrong, and if the vaccines turn out to be harmful in the long term, a media misquote won't count as a prediction.

To date is meaningless if death and suffering lied ahead. Since there are no long term studies, why not heed the concern of one of the people deeply involved in creating the mrna vaccines?

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the 'covid agenda' (whatever that may be) on rational grounds, preferably evidence-based grounds, but that's not the same as using your position as a supposed authority on the vaccines to make an unsubstantiated public claim of potential harm with no evidential grounds. At best it's negligent, at worst it's dishonest and potentially dangerous.

So is not having proper stats about actual vaccine deaths and effects. So is gambling with no long term studies. So is censoring all opinions that do not agree with the agenda. The agenda has been full tilt mass media bias for the vaccine programs, unnecessary and harmful lockdown, sill mask rules, bogus stats, mandates causing pain and suffering to families from loss of income, and etc etc

I currently have no view on his other opinions, although given what I've seen so far, my confidence in his credibility is low.

His credos are good. Most of what he says is great common sense. His censorship and vilifying seal the deal.

 

[drtime]

True. For rapidly developing pandemic information, it's also reasonable to look to preprints from research groups with demonstrated expertise in the topic at hand. Which is also not the case here.

They'd know by doing statistical studies of the billions of people who've received the vaccines. Which they'd then report in preprints and peer-reviewed studies and government reports. Which are what the good doctor did not cite.

How would a 'preprint' tell us what someone actually died from?

 

[sfs]

How would a 'preprint' tell us what someone actually died from?

A preprint (no scare quotes needed) can, for example, report the results of a statistical analysis of deaths following vaccination. Or it can report a suspicious series of adverse events following vaccination, or even a single case of a rare and unexpected death following vaccination. Exactly the same kind of information that can appear in peer-reviewed studies and reports from government health agencies and from nongovernmental organizations. That's how we learn about adverse vaccine outcomes. Where else would we get the information from?

 

[Tom 1]

I suspect his many peer reviewed papers and years of education and experience made him a little smarter than to base it all on a newspaper article!

These kinds of assumptions are a common thread in posts/threads based on dodgy info. There's often an assumption that such and such a person should know what they are talking about. When you can actually see that they are not effectively demonstrating that, as in this example, why make that assumption? If this site is anything to go by, those sort of blind assumptions tend to spiral into all kinds of random notions, and the person so affected can no longer find their way back to any kind of solid ground.

There's no need to rely on assumptions about dubious claims either. This site is a good source of actual issues with the vaccines, without random tangents: Vaccine Safety Update – The Daily Sceptic