Lesbians are homosexuals.It targets the promiscuous. The more partners you have the greater chance you have to catch. How much do you think it ‘plagues’ lesbians?
Upvote
0
Lesbians are homosexuals.It targets the promiscuous. The more partners you have the greater chance you have to catch. How much do you think it ‘plagues’ lesbians?
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.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.
Refusing to kill one human being to save another is never considered to be murder.But what if not providing an abortion is murder.
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think the most important point that can be made is right at the top, "The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder."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to use the reputation of the Cleveland Clinic, the fact it was not submitted for peer review, and looks like it will not be published in any journal that requires peer review, is a huge red flag.A recent study by Cleveland Clinic found that “The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of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.
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.
Of course not because as you write it, nobody is dead.Refusing to kill one human being to save another is never considered to be murder.
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.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?
Which studies in particular are you asking about?Now ask yourself if you apply this same level of scrutiny to studies that demonstrate vaccine efficacy...
Available at: COVID-19 primary series and booster vaccination and immune imprinting. Accessed 13 November 2022.
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.
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.
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.
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 CovidI 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
Depending on how you define a human being, but sure.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.
You could argue it kills a "potential human being" but that is also likely irrelevant to your point.Abortion kills a human being, that’s a fact, whether you want to acknowledge it or not is irrelevant.
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 this brings us to the other fact that less than 1% of abortions are due to medical complications.
Source?And the fact that not all of those are guaranteed to result in death or serious health problems.
It will end in the death of a potential human being.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.
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.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.
You want baffling?It truly baffles me how you don’t see the error in this logic.
So you would go for the 700,000 fertilized eggs since that's the "many as you can" option?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.
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.
... And anyone who doesn't believe it (this time, for real) is just living in denial. ...
Not a personal attack. Just an observation that you seem to think you know better than the Cleveland Clinic.
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.Can you explain why you don't believe this study?
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.
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.