Science Deniers Try to Take Over a Sarasota Public Hospital

[Ceallaigh]

It targets the promiscuous. The more partners you have the greater chance you have to catch. How much do you think it ‘plagues’ lesbians?

Lesbians are homosexuals.

 

[Larniavc]

Lesbians are homosexuals.

Whoosh

 

[BNR32FAN]

I am sure the self described conservative Christian patriots would agree with you.
I am also concerned that women who miscarry might be given a hard time in such a hospital by personnel directed to look for signs of a self-induced miscarriage even when none exist.
If, for example, an addict miscarried, would she be deemed to he guilty of child neglect? Sadly, an addict can't just turn off an addiction on command. In a hospital run by zealots, a pregnant woman who jogged or didn't seek medical attention quickly enough *(although uninsured) could be a target. I am repeating actual concerns of younger women, not spinning my wheels.

And all of this is based purely on stereotypical speculation. Some Christians did these things before so these Christians will probably do the same thing.

 

[BNR32FAN]

But what if not providing an abortion is murder.

Refusing to kill one human being to save another is never considered to be murder.

 

[SimplyMe]

A recent study by Cleveland Clinic found that “The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19”

Did you catch that? The study found that more doses of vaccine corrleates with a higher risk of contracting COVID-19. Perhaps repeated boosters without long-term data wasn’t the greatest idea after all.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0G1KRMjsLO99eACIQp-QQmGxhfF_5-PgcQwP0adr97AfeA-qGJafLvUhc

The study concludes, "We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed."

Contrary to shortsighted and foolish statements, this is not an "anti-vax" position. It's a genuinely concerning conclusion from the study. As I've been sayin on this forum for well over a year now, the neanderthal-like approach to COVID vaccination of "VACCINE GOOD! MORE BETTER!" has always been remarkably foolish.

A recent WSJ article wonders aloud if it's possible that vaccines are "fueling new COVID variants".

Opinion | Are Vaccines Fueling New Covid Variants?

The virus appears to be evolving in ways that evade immunity.

www.wsj.com

We're just beginning to see the results of those arrogant public health "experts" that have relentlessly and indiscriminately pushed COVID vaccines. The advisement to approach a brand new vaccine with a never-before utilized mechanism in human beings with caution and nuance was NEVER "anti-science". That was simply a pejorative introduced to silence those who dared question the approved narrative.

I think the most important point that can be made is right at the top, "The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder." Since the study appears to be trying to use the reputation of the Cleveland Clinic, the fact it was not submitted for peer review, and looks like it will not be published in any journal that requires peer review, is a huge red flag.

Having said that, a quick review of the study makes me understand why they didn't get the study peer reviewed. First, this was a study based on employment records; they had no access to interview or get additional information from the "participants." Next, there are assumptions made about the "data." For example, they assumed that people who got multiple doses of the vaccine were being "more careful," that those who got multiple doses were those that had a larger fear of the disease and took it more seriously. This isn't something known, or that could be known, particularly without interviews. Instead, it could be that many of those that got multiple boosters felt "safer" (and did it to feel safer) so actually were less careful, since they believed they were protected and didn't need to worry as much about catching the virus.

Next, they appear to make some conclusions based on the Omicron variant (which apparently was the dominant variant during the time the study covered). To some degree, they seem to be postulating that since the vaccines weren't made to protect against Omicron, that is one reason why the vaccine failed (particularly against those who may have not been boosted but had the Omicron variant previously). It would appear that one reason for this conclusion was that the Bivalent boosters did appear to be more effective in preventing COVID, even compared to those that had COVID previously.

My last note, the study appears to be very limited in scope, for example, the vast majority in the study were between 20-40 in a limited geographic care (all participants work at the hospital), nor did they appear to make any attempt to measure the severity of COVID infections -- merely whether a person was infected or not. We know much of the claim of vaccines is that, while they don't always prevent infection, the claim is that they lead to less severe infections with fewer deaths. It has some interesting information but it does not appear we can draw too many conclusions from this study -- though it would be interesting to have a more robust study, particularly one that can be submitted for peer review.

 

[probinson]

I think the most important point that can be made is right at the top, "The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder." Since the study appears to be trying to use the reputation of the Cleveland Clinic, the fact it was not submitted for peer review, and looks like it will not be published in any journal that requires peer review, is a huge red flag.

Having said that, a quick review of the study makes me understand why they didn't get the study peer reviewed. First, this was a study based on employment records; they had no access to interview or get additional information from the "participants." Next, there are assumptions made about the "data." For example, they assumed that people who got multiple doses of the vaccine were being "more careful," that those who got multiple doses were those that had a larger fear of the disease and took it more seriously. This isn't something known, or that could be known, particularly without interviews. Instead, it could be that many of those that got multiple boosters felt "safer" (and did it to feel safer) so actually were less careful, since they believed they were protected and didn't need to worry as much about catching the virus.

Next, they appear to make some conclusions based on the Omicron variant (which apparently was the dominant variant during the time the study covered). To some degree, they seem to be postulating that since the vaccines weren't made to protect against Omicron, that is one reason why the vaccine failed (particularly against those who may have not been boosted but had the Omicron variant previously). It would appear that one reason for this conclusion was that the Bivalent boosters did appear to be more effective in preventing COVID, even compared to those that had COVID previously.

My last note, the study appears to be very limited in scope, for example, the vast majority in the study were between 20-40 in a limited geographic care (all participants work at the hospital), nor did they appear to make any attempt to measure the severity of COVID infections -- merely whether a person was infected or not. We know much of the claim of vaccines is that, while they don't always prevent infection, the claim is that they lead to less severe infections with fewer deaths. It has some interesting information but it does not appear we can draw too many conclusions from this study -- though it would be interesting to have a more robust study, particularly one that can be submitted for peer review.

Now ask yourself if you apply this same level of scrutiny to studies that demonstrate vaccine efficacy...

 

[probinson]

Regarding comments on peer review.

"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused."​

​

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

​

​

Peer review is not the golden stamp of approval that some seem to think.

Additionally, the Cleveland Clinic study is not alone in this finding, and the study cites two additional studies that also show a link between a larger number of vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID infection.

This is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19. A large study found that those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving three doses of vaccine had a higher risk of reinfection than those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving two doses of vaccine [21]. Another study found that receipt of two or three doses of a mRNA vaccine following prior COVID-19 was associated with a higher risk of reinfection than receipt of a single dose [7].​

​

...​

​

[7] Shrestha NK, Shrestha P, Burke PC, Nowacki AS, Terpeluk P, Gordon SM. Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Boosting in Previously Infected or Vaccinated Individuals (COVID-19). Clin Infect Dis 2022; :ciac327.​

​

...​

​

[21] Chemaitelly H, Ayoub HH, Tang P, et al. COVID-19 primary series and booster vaccination and immune imprinting. 2022:2022.10.31.22281756. Available at: COVID-19 primary series and booster vaccination and immune imprinting. Accessed 13 November 2022.​

Lastly, this chart really ought to concern people.

This is the polar opposite of what one would expect if vaccine boosters were effective at preventing infections. Keep in mind that this study included 51,011 employees of the Cleveland Clinic.

Despite the above criticisms of the study, the methodology of the study was quite simple.

Employees of Cleveland Clinic in employment on the day the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine first became available to employees, were included. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined over the following weeks. Protection provided by vaccination (analyzed as a time-dependent covariate) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. The analysis was adjusted for the pandemic phase when the last prior COVID-19 episode occurred, and the number of prior vaccine doses received.​

It doesn't get much simpler than that. They looked at all employees that were employed the day the bivalent vaccine first became available to them and simply recorded the number of infections. While there are some postulations made later in the paper, that does not in any way change the objective raw data shown in the chart above.

I can understand why one would be anxious to downplay this study, particularly if one has been boosted multiple times. Coming to terms with the fact that people who are boosted are potentially at a higher risk than those who aren't can be a tough pill to swallow. But the reality is that there was a very clear correlation between increased doses of the vaccine and risk of infection, and as the paper concludes "We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed."

 

[SimplyMe]

Now ask yourself if you apply this same level of scrutiny to studies that demonstrate vaccine efficacy...

I try to.

 

[rambot]

Refusing to kill one human being to save another is never considered to be murder.

Of course not because as you write it, nobody is dead.

But not aborting a fetus HAS killed women. Not sure how that can be justified; certainly not biblically.

I prefer the old challenge:

You're in a hospital that is burning down and you're in a nursery/lab that has 70,000 fertilized frozen eggs and 4 babies.

Who do you save?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Of course not because as you write it, nobody is dead.

But not aborting a fetus HAS killed women. Not sure how that can be justified; certainly not biblically.

I prefer the old challenge:

You're in a hospital that is burning down and you're in a nursery/lab that has 70,000 fertilized frozen eggs and 4 babies.

Who do you save?

I’m sorry, you said “not aborting a fetus has killed women.” So essentially what your saying is that not killing a human being has killed women. Abortion kills a human being, that’s a fact, whether you want to acknowledge it or not is irrelevant. And this brings us to the other fact that less than 1% of abortions are due to medical complications. And the fact that not all of those are guaranteed to result in death or serious health problems. But one thing you can absolutely count on without a doubt is that 100% of abortions will result in the death of a human being. So your position is to guarantee the death of one human being to prevent the chance of another human being from dying and not only that but in the process roughly 600,000 human beings will be put to death who are not causing a serious health risk to the mother. It truly baffles me how you don’t see the error in this logic.

In the situation of the burning hospital, you save as many as you can, just like you would in any other life threatening situation and you certainly try not to kill anyone in the process.

 

[KCfromNC]

Now ask yourself if you apply this same level of scrutiny to studies that demonstrate vaccine efficacy...

Which studies in particular are you asking about?

Or is this just some sort of vague "whatabout" argument in an attempt to avoid addressing the critique of the study in question.

 

[KCfromNC]

Available at: COVID-19 primary series and booster vaccination and immune imprinting. Accessed 13 November 2022.

Given the study is thinking that older types of boosters train the immune system to look for older variants, I'm not sure how relevant this is to the current booster situation. Is there updated data from the bivalent boosters showing similar issues?

Lastly, this chart really ought to concern people.

View attachment 325984

This is the polar opposite of what one would expect if vaccine boosters were effective at preventing infections.

Depends on how well the data represents the population as a whole, among other questions.

Keep in mind that this study included 51,011 employees of the Cleveland Clinic.

Despite the above criticisms of the study, the methodology of the study was quite simple.

Employees of Cleveland Clinic in employment on the day the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine first became available to employees, were included. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined over the following weeks. Protection provided by vaccination (analyzed as a time-dependent covariate) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. The analysis was adjusted for the pandemic phase when the last prior COVID-19 episode occurred, and the number of prior vaccine doses received.​

It doesn't get much simpler than that. They looked at all employees that were employed the day the bivalent vaccine first became available to them and simply recorded the number of infections. While there are some postulations made later in the paper, that does not in any way change the objective raw data shown in the chart above.

Hmm, no answers to the question raised in previous posts, just returing to the talking points that the "raw data" is scary.

I can understand why one would be anxious to downplay this study, particularly if one has been boosted multiple times. Coming to terms with the fact that people who are boosted are potentially at a higher risk than those who aren't can be a tough pill to swallow.

Uh oh, attempts to make this about posters rather than the research aren't a good sign. Almost as if there's a need to invent excuses for why people might be skeptical of a single non-peer reviewed article other than the obvious.

 

[probinson]

Given the study is thinking that older types of boosters train the immune system to look for older variants, I'm not sure how relevant this is to the current booster situation. Is there updated data from the bivalent boosters showing similar issues?




Depends on how well the data represents the population as a whole, among other questions.



Hmm, no answers to the question raised in previous posts, just returing to the talking points that the "raw data" is scary.



Uh oh, attempts to make this about posters rather than the research aren't a good sign. Almost as if there's a need to invent excuses for why people might be skeptical of a single non-peer reviewed article other than the obvious.

I had hunch that you would think you knew better than the Cleveland Clinic.

For those who missed it, take a look again at this very unambiguous chart showing people who took more doses of vaccine were at clearly higher risk of infection.

This is a result that the Cleveland Clinic called "unexpected". They're absolutely right. We've been told that more boosters protect us. But in this study of more than 50,000 people, those who took more doses of the vaccine had more infections. Have we flipped the definition of vaccine so far on its head that people are now willing to believe that a vaccine that makes you more likely to be infected is somehow providing "protection"?

As they mentioned at the end of the study, "We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed."

The "questions" that you say need answered in this study are largely manufactured and irrelevant. It's a simple observational study, much like many other COVID studies, that looks at who got infected and how many doses of the vaccine they had when they were infected. One can speculate why the results show increased infections for increased doses, but the data doesn't lie. In this group of mostly young, healthy people, more vaccine doses = more infections.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I had hunch that you would think you knew better than the Cleveland Clinic.

For those who missed it, take a look again at this very unambiguous chart showing people who took more doses of vaccine were at clearly higher risk of infection.

View attachment 326008

This is a result that the Cleveland Clinic called "unexpected". They're absolutely right. We've been told that more boosters protect us. But in this study of more than 50,000 people, those who took more doses of the vaccine had more infections. Have we flipped the definition of vaccine so far on its head that people are now willing to believe that a vaccine that makes you more likely to be infected is somehow providing "protection"?

As they mentioned at the end of the study, "We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed."

The "questions" that you say need answered in this study are largely manufactured and irrelevant. It's a simple observational study, much like many other COVID studies, that looks at who got infected and how many doses of the vaccine they had when they were infected. One can speculate why the results show increased infections for increased doses, but the data doesn't lie. In this group of mostly young, healthy people, more vaccine doses = more infections.

This is disturbing news to me. USCIS made my wife & two daughters get vaccinated otherwise they couldn’t get a green card. I didn’t want them to be vaccinated yet because I was still waiting to see what the long term effects of the vaccination might be. Thankfully none of us have caught Covid

 

[probinson]

This is disturbing news to me. USCIS made my wife & two daughters get vaccinated otherwise they couldn’t get a green card. I didn’t want them to be vaccinated yet because I was still waiting to see what the long term effects of the vaccination might be. Thankfully none of us have caught Covid

The data I'm seeing now is that it is the boosters that are most problematic. All data currently points to the initial 2-dose regimen of the mRNA vaccines being mostly beneficial, particularly in adults who were not already infected. It's only after repeated dosing that we begin to see something odd happening in the immune system. FWIW, I had the two-dose Pfizer vaccine after I had a COVID infection. It's been nearly a year since my second dose and I've not had COVID again since despite being around many confirmed infected people.

 

[rambot]

I’m sorry, you said “not aborting a fetus has killed women.” So essentially what your saying is that not killing a human being has killed women.

Depending on how you define a human being, but sure.

Abortion kills a human being, that’s a fact, whether you want to acknowledge it or not is irrelevant.

You could argue it kills a "potential human being" but that is also likely irrelevant to your point.

And this brings us to the other fact that less than 1% of abortions are due to medical complications.

Great! So since that number is so infinitesimal then CERTAINLY you would support it in those DIRE circumstances. (though I've read it's closer to 4%....again, minor point)

And the fact that not all of those are guaranteed to result in death or serious health problems.

Source?

But one thing you can absolutely count on without a doubt is that 100% of abortions will result in the death of a human being.

It will end in the death of a potential human being.

So your position is to guarantee the death of one human being to prevent the chance of another human being from dying and not only that but in the process roughly 600,000 human beings will be put to death who are not causing a serious health risk to the mother.

1) You are shifting goal posts here based on..i'm not sure what. "the death of one human being to prevent the chance of another human being from dying", is a purposeful misrepresentation of my argument. There PLENTLY of documented cases that I am referring to and not what you are trying to force the discussion into.
2) NO idea where you got the 600,000 number from and no idea whatsoever why it would be relevant.

It truly baffles me how you don’t see the error in this logic.

You want baffling?
I'm not sure how you compare a sentient, living woman who is able to make decisions and advocate for her own well being, who has relationships, often times, family and other children, who contribute sto society, who has the mental capacity and fortitude to live independently of other and who often ACTUALLY WANTS TO HAVE A BABY with a 5 month old fetus with none of those things. I mean, sometimes even the fetus isn't viable and then antiabortion activists STILL want the mother to jeopardize her life.

You are robbing that woman of the chance to have her own, viable, healthy babies by sentencing her to death.

Its all about dominating and control over women's bodies and taking the easiest righteous position available: The belief that you are "saving babies".

The ENTIRE anti abortion movement unfortunately, consistently displays this mindsent and it's more than a little disheartenning:

I remember the first time I read this and it shook me that is exactly what I see christians doing. The ONLY fight so many of them take is the fight for the unborn...the easiest most unmentioned in the Bible, of all the groups mentioned above.

In the situation of the burning hospital, you save as many as you can, just like you would in any other life threatening situation and you certainly try not to kill anyone in the process.

So you would go for the 700,000 fertilized eggs since that's the "many as you can" option?

 

[KCfromNC]

I had hunch that you would think you knew better than the Cleveland Clinic.

Uh oh - leading with a lame attempt at a personal attack rather than addressing the content of the post. Not a great sign.

Look, I get it, this is the one study which finally vindicated years of anti-vaxx hopes. Not like the last preliminary study which did the same thing, this is totally different. Or the one before that one, or the prior one either. This one, for reals, is like a total game changer. And anyone who doesn't believe it (this time, for real) is just living in denial.

 

[probinson]

Uh oh - leading with a lame attempt at a personal attack rather than addressing the content of the post. Not a great sign.

Not a personal attack. Just an observation that you seem to think you know better than the Cleveland Clinic.

... And anyone who doesn't believe it (this time, for real) is just living in denial. ...

Can you explain why you don't believe this study?

 

[KCfromNC]

Not a personal attack. Just an observation that you seem to think you know better than the Cleveland Clinic.

I guess posts are welcome to post incorrect attempts at observations all they like. Not really a great way to convince people the rest of those posts are worth anything, but oh well.

Can you explain why you don't believe this study?

Well, there is the minor issue of the post linking to another study which seems to contradict it. Plus it isn't peer reviewed. Plus all the caveats called out in the study itself. And the unaddressed objections to the study posted in this thread. Plus the attempts to deflect from these facts by lame personal attacks, such as the ones previously quoted.

But yeah, let's ignore all that and pretend that this really is finally the one true study that's going to validate anti-vaxx views we've been reading for years now. Ignore the rest of those one true studies in the past which had the same goal, this time it's really different. This time it's really the one, for sure, no doubt, that's going to vindicate having faith in how bad vaccines are for all those years. At some point, there's been enough crying of wolf that one catches on.

Sure, maybe this one time is actually different. Possibly, let's wait and see if actual medical research comes to the same conclusions. But for now, it goes on the "ehh, whatever" pile like all the rest.

 

[probinson]

I guess posts are welcome to post incorrect attempts at observations all they like. Not really a great way to convince people the rest of those posts are worth anything, but oh well.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm well aware that your mind is made up.

Well, there is the minor issue of the post linking to another study which seems to contradict it.

Um, which study is that, and what specifically do you believe is contradictory?

Plus it isn't peer reviewed.

Here's what a former editor of the BMJ has to say about peer review.

"So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused."​

​

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

​

Plus all the caveats called out in the study itself.

Let's talk about them. Which caveats specifically are you concerned about?

And the unaddressed objections to the study posted in this thread.

Again, let's talk about them. What unaddressed objections do you think have merit and why?

Plus the attempts to deflect from these facts by lame personal attacks, such as the ones previously quoted.

You think that you would know by now that your baseless accusations of "personal attacks" do not work on me. It's your goto when you have no apparent rational argument, and I would concur that these feeble attempts at deflection are "lame"

But yeah, let's ignore all that and pretend that this really is finally the one true study that's going to validate anti-vaxx views we've been reading for years now. Ignore the rest of those one true studies in the past which had the same goal, this time it's really different.

"The rest of those studies"? Which ones are those?

This time it's really the one, for sure, no doubt, that's going to vindicate having faith in how bad vaccines are for all those years. At some point, there's been enough crying of wolf that one catches on.

You bloviated this same thing in your last post. I know you think it's clever, but it's just a "lame" attempt to deflect from the substance of the discussion.

Sure, maybe this one time is actually different. Possibly, let's wait and see if actual medical research comes to the same conclusions. But for now, it goes on the "ehh, whatever" pile like all the rest.

What a foolish take. Here we have documented evidence that would suggest that increased boosters could be resulting in a higher susceptibility to infection. If you want to pretend like that's an "ehh, whatever" moment, that's your prerogative. But I would think that people want to know if the vaccine doses that are being promoted to them are actually protecting them as opposed to making them more susceptible to infection.