Covid Patients that Develop Severe Psychotic Symptoms

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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?

Because he based his expression of concern on a media misprint not on scientific data.

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

If you want follow suggestions based on misprints, go for it.

 

[bèlla]

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)

Their opinion of me is immaterial. That doesn’t minimize the impact of consuming negative information continually. It’s been addressed on numerous occasions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This site is a good source of actual issues with the vaccines, without random tangents: Vaccine Safety Update – The Daily Sceptic

It's worth pointing out that some of the data there is missing important caveats - for example, the data from the UK Freedom Project on the Yellow Card self-reporting system quote has 12 major caveats, the first being: "We don't know... Whether a death or reaction reported was caused by the vaccine or a coincidence". This is quite an important point.

From the study I quoted previously, ~50-75% of adverse reactions in trials were placebo effect, and IIRC, people reporting via the Yellow Card system are generally more likely to report side-effects from medications in general; i.e. on average, they have a higher than normal misattribution rate. This should be remembered when looking at the reported figures.

 

[sfs]

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.

Speaking as one of those professionals, I'd say your belief here has zero connection to reality. Every infectious disease expert I have anything to do with -- and that's a lot -- has no doubt that the vaccines are highly safe and effective. We're all vaccinated and those who have children are vaccinating them when they can.

 

[bèlla]

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.

There’s a difference between being informed and emotionally invested in a subject. It influences your stance and consumption.

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.

Respected by whom? Just because someone is lauded by others doesn’t mean I hold them in the same esteem. Their input is relevant to the measure I assign.

I see current events in relation to my pursuits. My lone concern is how it impedes my path and the steps I need to take to minimize it. Revelations are important to the degree they effect the bottom line. I don’t need to know everything. That’s overkill.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There’s a difference between being informed and emotionally invested in a subject. It influences your stance and consumption.

Sure - and?

Revelations are important to the degree they effect the bottom line. I don’t need to know everything. That’s overkill.

OK, but sometimes you don't know the bottom line until you've looked at the small print.

 

[bèlla]

OK, but sometimes you don't know the bottom line until you've looked at the small print.

I know my bottom line. That’s the focus. Not everyone else’s.

 

[drtime]

A preprint (no scare quotes needed) can, for example, report the results of a statistical analysis of deaths following vaccination

You would need to know what they actually died from

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.

Assuming the events were reported and reported as such.

Exactly the same kind of information that can appear in peer-reviewed studies and reports from government health agencies and from nongovernmental organizations.

Nonsense in other words. OK.

 

[drtime]

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

You assume that a site that lists deaths or complications from the vaccines is based on something real. Prove it. I suggest the stats are not really reported or known in any meaningful way.

 

[drtime]

Because he based his expression of concern on a media misprint not on scientific data.

If you want follow suggestions based on misprints, go for it.

Not in interviews I have seen him in. If you want to trust media as they engage in character assassinations, that is up to you.

 

[drtime]

Their opinion of me is immaterial.

As would be yours to them.

That doesn’t minimize the impact of consuming negative information continually.

You would need to know the difference to declare some info negative.

 

[drtime]

Speaking as one of those professionals, I'd say your belief here has zero connection to reality. Every infectious disease expert I have anything to do with -- and that's a lot -- has no doubt that the vaccines are highly safe and effective. We're all vaccinated and those who have children are vaccinating them when they can.

I believe the many professional that disagree with you, thanks.

 

[sfs]

I believe the many professional that disagree with you, thanks.

My belief is based on decades of experience in the field. My belief about the efficacy and safety of vaccines is based on every study that's been done by anyone, anywhere. Your belief is based on wishful thinking.

You assume that a site that lists deaths or complications from the vaccines is based on something real. Prove it. I suggest the stats are not really reported or known in any meaningful way.

Sorry, that gets into utterly insane territory. The idea that all of the public health officials in every country in the world are conspiring to fake the data in vaccine event registries (to which anyone can submit reports) for no conceivable reason -- no, I'm not going to try prove that reality is real. Of course, if such a successful conspiracy were underway, you'd have no way of getting accurate information -- there would still be no reason to believe those who are attacking vaccines.

Take it to the conspiracy theory forum. That's the only place it belongs.

 

[Tom 1]

You assume that a site that lists deaths or complications from the vaccines is based on something real. Prove it. I suggest the stats are not really reported or known in any meaningful way.

You keep saying ‘prove it’ as if that has any meaning in this context. And then you cite some other random thing that is self-evidently suspect as if it were just true. You might benefit from reading your own posts and reflecting on how they might sound to someone else.

 

[Tom 1]

It's worth pointing out that some of the data there is missing important caveats - for example, the data from the UK Freedom Project on the Yellow Card self-reporting system quote has 12 major caveats, the first being: "We don't know... Whether a death or reaction reported was caused by the vaccine or a coincidence". This is quite an important point.

From the study I quoted previously, ~50-75% of adverse reactions in trials were placebo effect, and IIRC, people reporting via the Yellow Card system are generally more likely to report side-effects from medications in general; i.e. on average, they have a higher than normal misattribution rate. This should be remembered when looking at the reported figures.

The site has a balance of different reports on the vaccines that give different data. It’s for information, not a definitive study.

 

[drtime]

My belief is based on decades of experience in the field. My belief about the efficacy and safety of vaccines is based on every study that's been done by anyone, anywhere. Your belief is based on wishful thinking.

That would be based on nothing then since there were no long term studies. Calling it a vaccine is questionable also.

Sorry, that gets into utterly insane territory. The idea that all of the public health officials in every country in the world are conspiring to fake the data in vaccine event registries (to which anyone can submit reports) for no conceivable reason

Rather than show data and fact you wave it off by saying we must believe for no reason. Fine.

-- no, I'm not going to try prove that reality is real. Of course, if such a successful conspiracy were underway, you'd have no way of getting accurate information -- there would still be no reason to believe those who are attacking vaccines.

Good point. I take it all with a grain of salt. However some things I do know, so I lean toward the one side. I know that the agenda was questioned by thousands of professionals. I know the lockdowns also were questioned.
example:
"Researchers at Johns Hopkins University conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of thousands of studies to determine whether or not there is empirical evidence to support the belief that "lockdowns" reduce COVID-19 mortality.

They concluded that such policies are "ill-founded" and should be "rejected."

"While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted," the researchers wrote in the abstract. "In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

The meta-analysis, titled "A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality," began by identifying 18,590 studies that potentially could support the belief that lockdowns reduce COVID-19 mortality.

TRENDING: Sorry, boomer

"After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis," the researchers wrote."
Massive Johns Hopkins study: Lockdowns, masks, closures did NOT reduce death

Some people still believe in a second opinion rather than the Dr Mengala approach.

You were unable to support your beliefs. They are not to be considered science therefore.

 

[sfs]

That would be based on nothing then since there were no long term studies.

There have never been long term studies of vaccines before they were adopted. There have also, in the history of vaccines, never been effects that only showed up years after vaccination.

Calling it a vaccine is questionable also.

Of course it's a vaccine. Wherever do you get these ideas?

Rather than show data and fact you wave it off by saying we must believe for no reason.

I'll be happy to show data to support any claim I make about vaccines. What I can't do is show data to refute the idea that all of our data is faked -- which is what you've suggested. How about you offer any evidence at all that the data has been falsified?

Good point. I take it all with a grain of salt. However some things I do know, so I lean toward the one side. I know that the agenda was questioned by thousands of professionals.

What agenda? We're talking about vaccines, not lockdowns.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not in interviews I have seen him in. If you want to trust media as they engage in character assassinations, that is up to you.

I haven't seen any character assassinations, only the report of his claim based on a media error.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The site has a balance of different reports on the vaccines that give different data. It’s for information, not a definitive study.

Yes, it's quite informative. I just thought it worth pointing out that some of the data has caveats that are not displayed; i.e. some care is required in interpretation.

 

[Ophiolite]

Rather than show data and fact you wave it off by saying we must believe for no reason. Fine

Nonsense. @sfs makes the reasonable point that as you have made a claim it is up to you to support it, not the otherway around. It seems you are unable to provide evidence that the data are faked. If I am mistaken then present the evidence now, or be recognised as someone who is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.