Science Deniers Try to Take Over a Sarasota Public Hospital

[probinson]

I mean, one could choose to post an opinion piece

[/QUOTE]

This "opinion piece", published in the New England Journal of Medicine by a member of the FDA's vaccine advisory committee, is based on actual data. Here it is again, in red, in case you missed it.

On October 24, 2022, David Ho and colleagues released the results of a study examining levels of neutralizing antibodies against BA.4 and BA.5 after receipt of a monovalent or bivalent booster dose. They found “no significant difference in neutralization of any SARS-CoV-2 variant,” including BA.4 and BA.5, between the two groups.3 One day later, Dan Barouch and colleagues released the results of a similar study, finding that “BA.5 [neutralizing-antibody] titers were comparable following monovalent and bivalent mRNA boosters.” Barouch and colleagues also noted no appreciable differences in CD4+ or CD8+ T-cell responses between participants in the monovalent-booster group and those in the bivalent-booster group.4 Neither research group found the bivalent boosters to elicit superior immune responses. The results are now published in the Journal.​

questioning how effective the boosters may or may not be, or one could post actual research results from the boosters in actual use : New Covid boosters work better against infection than previous shots, CDC finds

"Actual research results". **Processed to post article from NBC**

Are you serious? This links to this "study" by CDC's incomprehensibly incompetent propaganda wing of the CDC, MMWR (which I might add, is NOT peer-reviewed).

Effectiveness of Bivalent mRNA Vaccines in Preventing ..

This report describes the vaccine effectiveness of an updated ..

www.cdc.gov

The updated booster shots performed better in preventing infections in all adult age groups, with higher vaccine efficacy seen in people who waited longer before getting the updated booster, the CDC found.​

​

I wonder which approach is more likely to give an accurate representation of the reality on the ground?

The NEJM piece addresses this MMWR study by saying this.

On November 22, 2022, the CDC published data on the effectiveness of the BA.4 and BA.5 mRNA vaccines for preventing symptomatic infection within 2 months after receipt of the booster dose. For people who had received a monovalent vaccine 2 to 3 months earlier, the extra protection associated with the bivalent booster dose ranged from 28 to 31%. For those who had received a monovalent vaccine more than 8 months earlier, the extra protection ranged from 43 to 56%.5 Given the results of previous studies, it’s likely that this moderate increase in protection against probably generally mild disease will be short lived. As of November 15, 2022, only about 10% of the population for whom the bivalent vaccine had been recommended had received it.5 By December 2022, the BA.4 strain was no longer circulating, and BA.5 accounted for less than 25% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains, having been partially replaced by more immune-evasive strains, such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, XBB, and XBB.1.​

The news cycle is turning against bivalent boosters for all.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2023-01-11/bivalent-covid-boosters-offer-no-extra-protection-studies-suggest

Data Doesn’t Support New COVID-19 Booster Shots for Most, Says Expert

It’s time to rethink the blanket recommendation for giving the new Omicron booster to everyone

time.com

Younger, healthy people don't need another Covid booster, vaccine expert says, challenging FDA guidance

Protecting against Covid infection with the current mRNA technology is unrealistic, a vaccine expert said in a paper published in a major medical journal.

www.nbcnews.com

Interestingly, what Paul Offit is suggesting in all of this is already the recommendation in many countries. The US is an outlier in suggesting that 9-month old babies should be boosted with the bivalent booster. In most parts of the world, boosters are reserved for those who might actually derive some benefit from them (what a novel idea!)

The title of this thread attempts to implicate "science-deniers", but there is nothing more science-denying than suggesting six-month old babies require the same medical interventions as 85-year old adults.

 

[jayem]

Conservatives skeptical of covid vaccines battle to lead a hospital (yahoo.com)

Some of the views of the four "conservative Christian patriots" who are trying to take over the board of the Sarasota Hospital--up until now ranked as the sixth best in Florida.



If this hospital fell into the hands of these renegades, would they even qualify for accreditation? Would insurers pay for patients' stays there? Would they decline to provide some services they are legally, as a public hospital, required to provide?

Monkey pox is real, albeit less contagious than our current pandemic.
The COVID vaccine is not government's attempt to "own your body."
An assault weapon by any other name is still a weapon that should not be available to private citizens.

Sadly, 3 of this "squad" won seats on the board. But there are 9 members. So hopefully, their influence will be minimized if they try to do anything crazy.

The article quotes this statement from one of the winning candidates:

"Calling it a vaccination is a joke," Rohe said. "All it really is is a government-mandated shot to inoculate people to the fact that the government owns your body, and you do not."

That's more than just ignorance and hyperbole. It verges on paranoia. Hopefully, the hospital has good mental health providers on staff. This man needs a psychiatric evaluation.

 

[KCfromNC]

The intent of these posts has never been to prove that "vaccines are bad". Your continued intentional mischaracterization of this after you have been corrected multiple times tells me that you are not interested in honest discourse.

I see there's still no explanation of why we're supposed to believe a preprint non-peer-reviewed paper which contradicts the other paper in a single post.
Instead, we get complaints that somehow post after post about the dangers, risks and ineffectiveness of vaccines isn't an attempt to show that vaccines are bad. And how I'm such a terrible person for trying to do so.
Almost as if there's a need to distract from a discussion of what the referenced papers really say.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well OK. If the repeated dosing of vaccines were having a protective effect on hospitalizations as we've been told, one would not expect those who had a higher number of doses to have more hospitalizations.

I guess this means you still haven't looked at the links I posted.

You are saying we can't know that the repeated dosing of vaccines is ineffective because you hypothesize that those who had more doses are likely older people.

Nope.

Again, when posts can't even correctly represent simple points I've made, it really doesn't inspire confidence in their interpretation of detailed scientific papers.

"Sleight of hand" is not what's happening here. The data clearly shows a correlation between increased hospitalizations and more vaccine doses.

Similar to data showing how pirates reduce global warming.

This is yammering nonsense.

Just not in any way this post can actually identify. Empty assertions of imagined failings of the people involved rather than actually addressing the point. Par for the course when anti-vaxx talking points run into reality, I guess.

 

[KCfromNC]

This links to this "study" by CDC's incomprehensibly incompetent propaganda wing of the CDC, MMWR (which I might add, is NOT peer-reviewed).

I can't help but laugh at how quickly peer review suddenly becomes very very important when the research doesn't support the idea that vaccines are bad. Shows how seriously we're supposed to take the claims of previous posts when they're so quickly discarded when they get in the way of the narrative.

Anyway, not sure why this paper is so upsetting. I mean, just a few pages back we had a paper linked which said the same thing - "These findings do not undermine the short-term public health utility of booster vaccination.". So what's the big deal about yet another bit of research which agrees with that paper - one you were saying that people were being unreasonable for not accepting 100%? Seems the big difference, aside from weird conspiracy theories about the CDC, is that there's nothing in there to cherry-pick to try and prop up anti-vaxx messaging.

 

[probinson]

I can't help but laugh at how quickly peer review suddenly becomes very very important when the research doesn't support the idea that vaccines are bad.

You're the one that puts weight behind peer review, not me. So let's say it's "odd" that you would choose a non peer-reviewed source to make your claim. If you think peer-review is so important, why did you choose a non peer-reviewed study to make your point? Worse than that, you found a news article about the non peer-reviewed study. I had to actually go find the study and post the link so people would be able to read it for themselves. It sure seems like you have different standards for acceptable evidence depending on whether it fits in your narrative or not.

Shows how seriously we're supposed to take the claims of previous posts when they're so quickly discarded when they get in the way of the narrative.

Not at all. It simply shows they hypocrisy of someone demanding that papers should be peer-reviewed one second and then turning around and using non peer-reviewed research to try to make their point.

Anyway, not sure why this paper is so upsetting. I mean, just a few pages back we had a paper linked which said the same thing - "These findings do not undermine the short-term public health utility of booster vaccination.". So what's the big deal about yet another bit of research which agrees with that paper - one you were saying that people were being unreasonable for not accepting 100%? Seems the big difference, aside from weird conspiracy theories about the CDC, is that there's nothing in there to cherry-pick to try and prop up anti-vaxx messaging.

Do you understand that difference between "short-term" and "long-term"? You're doing an awful lot of dancing around to avoid talking about what I'm talking about. The Cleveland Clinic study shows a perfect correlation between increased doses of vaccine and increased infections over time. So while there may be a "short-term utility" of booster vaccination, don't you think it's also important to know if the "long-term" benefits are what people are expecting? Especially in light of the two studies I referenced above which said that the bivalent booster provided no additional protection? Here it is, again, in case you missed it the first two times.

On October 24, 2022, David Ho and colleagues released the results of a study examining levels of neutralizing antibodies against BA.4 and BA.5 after receipt of a monovalent or bivalent booster dose. They found “no significant difference in neutralization of any SARS-CoV-2 variant,” including BA.4 and BA.5, between the two groups.3 One day later, Dan Barouch and colleagues released the results of a similar study, finding that “BA.5 [neutralizing-antibody] titers were comparable following monovalent and bivalent mRNA boosters.” Barouch and colleagues also noted no appreciable differences in CD4+ or CD8+ T-cell responses between participants in the monovalent-booster group and those in the bivalent-booster group.4 Neither research group found the bivalent boosters to elicit superior immune responses. The results are now published in the Journal.​

​

So now we have data that shows that the bivalent booster does not "elicit superior immune responses" and data that shows that over the long-term, those who have had more doses of vaccine have more infections.

Maybe the FDA regulators that resigned in protest over the authorization of boosters for all were right, and we shouldn't be giving boosters indiscriminately to everyone alive. Maybe 6-month old babies should have different guidance than 80-year old adults. Maybe colleges mandating a bivalent booster that provides no additional protection for the group most at-risk for myocarditis from the vaccine (college-aged males) and at infinitesimal risk from COVID is a foolish discriminatory policy with no basis in science. Maybe other countries that are only offering boosters to those who would actually benefit from them are on to something.

Despite all of your lame, flailing attempts to make me sound like I'm just an "anti-vaxxer" saying "vaccines are bad", that's not at all what I'm saying. I've had COVID. I've had two-doses of the Pfizer vaccine. I've not had COVID again since. On the other hand, my friends that bought into booster-mania have had COVID over and over again. Yes, I know that's anecdotal. But it aligns with the study data from the Cleveland Clinic.

As I've already stated, and I'll say again, if you've not had COVID, I believe that the data shows that the two-dose regimen of the vaccine would likely be beneficial for you. (I don't know if you know this, but saying something like that out loud can get you kicked out of "anti-vaxxers anonymous"). But I also believe that there are adverse events that are being downplayed, and each person should be made aware of the benefits AND risks so they can decide for themselves if they want the injections or not. But as each day passes and more data emerges, I am more convinced than ever that indiscriminate boosting of people, and particularly mandating that people receive repeated injections that multiple studies have shown to be ineffective, is remarkably foolish. Anyone who continues to suggest that every single human being should be boosted and boosted some more is NOT "following the science". The science is saying STOP BOOSTING PEOPLE WHO DON'T NEED IT AND BENEFIT FROM IT!

You really, REALLY don't want to talk about that last paragraph. That's why you keep resorting to ad hominem (while accusing me of doing what you're actually doing) and intentionally misrepresenting my motives by saying I'm just trying to convince everyone that vaccines are bad. I don't think that at all, and you have to know that by now. Yet you continually fall back on your demonstrably false ad hominems, because you can't engage rationally when discussing the differences between an initial vaccine, the "short-term" benefits and unintended "long-term" consequences. It seems like any suggestion that vaccine recommendations should be nuanced and focused on the people that would most benefit from them (which many countries have been doing since boosters became available) is met by you with some snarky nonsense and an extra helping of ANTI-VAXXER!!! thrown in for good measure. It's just a lazy way to attempt to distract from the discussion.

 

[probinson]

One more comment about the CDC and your comment regarding "weird conspiracy theories".

The US government has spent $5 BILLION of taxpayer money on bivalent vaccines (as the CNN article I posted above stated for context, that's roughly the entire annual budget for the state of Delaware). As of this posting, ~16% of people have gotten the updated booster, and it doesn't look like that number is going to go much higher. You don't have to believe in conspiracy theories to understand that the government has a clear conflict of interest in pushing these bivalent boosters. They've basically given the pharmaceutical companies a $5 BILLION handout for a vaccine that the vast majority of the US population does not NEED and does not WANT. Now you can pretend like 84% of the entire US population are "anti-vaxxers", or you can realize that the majority of the US population has realized that repeated boosters is not in their best interest and will not provide them any additional benefit.

 

[probinson]

Not sure why my last post posted twice... Edited to remove duplicate.

 

[expos4ever]

... or you can realize that the majority of the US population has realized that repeated boosters is not in their best interest and will not provide them any additional benefit.

This is hardly the best explanation for the low uptake. Do we explain the obesity epidemic by hypothesizing that the the majority of the US population have realized that being obese is not a threat to health?

You are giving people far too much credit.

Marjorie Taylor Greene = proof that there is every reason to question to soundness of mind of the general population.

 

[probinson]

This is hardly the best explanation for the low uptake.

OK. I say that the majority of the US population has realized that repeated boosters is not in their best interest and will not provide them any additional benefit. You say "that is hardly the best explanation from the low uptake". So what do you think is the best explanation?

Bivalent booster uptake is STILL under 16% in the US despite a focused marketing effort by the CDC and the FDA. Those two agencies long ago abdicated their responsibility to public health and have become nothing more than a marketing machine for Pfizer and Moderna.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. If people thought they would derive benefit/protection from the booster, they would get it. But they're not. And the intellectually lazy response of "anti-vaxxers" won't fly here, unless you believe ~85% of Americans and ~75% of Canadians are "anti-vaxxers".

So what say you? Why do you believe the overwhelming majority of Americans and Canadians have chosen not to get the bivalent booster?

 

[KCfromNC]

OK. I say that the majority of the US population has realized that repeated boosters is not in their best interest and will not provide them any additional benefit. You say "that is hardly the best explanation from the low uptake". So what do you think is the best explanation?

Seems like an attempt to shift the burden of proof rather than simply acknowledging the original claim was just a guess.

 

[probinson]

Seems like an attempt to shift the burden of proof rather than simply acknowledging the original claim was just a guess.

What are you even talking about?

My contention is that people aren't getting the bivalent booster because they don't think that it will benefit them. I mean, people don't usually take medical interventions that they don't feel they need, so this seems like a pretty safe assumption.

So if you don't think that's the reason, then what do you think is the reason?

 

[expos4ever]

OK. I say that the majority of the US population has realized that repeated boosters is not in their best interest and will not provide them any additional benefit. You say "that is hardly the best explanation from the low uptake". So what do you think is the best explanation?

Apathy and ignorance.

Let's be clear: you are speculating as to why people are not taking the vaccine. As am I.

But, as my example about obesity illustrates, it is clear that people often make bad decisions - they do not eat themselves into obesity for reasons that make sense. Likewise, one cannot simply assume that people who do not take the vaccine have made a wise, informed decsion.

 

[expos4ever]

The simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. If people thought they would derive benefit/protection from the booster, they would get it. But they're not. And the intellectually lazy response of "anti-vaxxers" won't fly here, unless you believe ~85% of Americans and ~75% of Canadians are "anti-vaxxers".

Not sure exactly how you ground this claim that the "simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation". Just a little internet research shows that application of this principle willy-nilly is considered to be very risky indeed.

 

[expos4ever]

My contention is that people aren't getting the bivalent booster because they don't think that it will benefit them. I mean, people don't usually take medical interventions that they don't feel they need, so this seems like a pretty safe assumption.

Even if this is true - that people do not think the booster will benefit them - how do you know that people are making an informed decision? Every day, people are making billions of decisions that are decidedly not wise.

In other words, it does not really matter what people think, what matters is what is actually the case.