|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 5, 2021 11:06:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Oct 5, 2021 20:52:32 GMT -6
In a 10-minute video... conveyed that natural antibodies produced following a Covid-19 infection are superior to the vaccine. Yeah, Zerohedge being a tool again. "When somebody is naturally immune -- like they got COVID -- they probably have more antibodies against the virus... That is not exactly a killer point. Not sure anybody contests that. It is not an argument for anybody to avoid getting the shot... Nor does it have anything to do with the problems and limitations stated above with relying on natural immunity. BTW, Did you read the instances of inaccuracy, misinterpretation and lack of context in the linked article? One critique of Pfizer is hardly evidence refuting how your favorite source of misinformation has repeatedly shown no editorial judgment as it regularly misinterprets, stretches the truth, and prints fringe opinion on Covid topics. ZeroHedge posts articles from a wide variety of sources in addition to those written by their own staff. Like all sources, some of what they print in time proves to be incorrect. If we eliminated all the sources you cite which have reported erroneous material (think of all the Trump Russian Hoax shit) there wouldn't be much left for you to post to support your agenda. For the most part, ZeroHedge gets it right a lot more than they get it wrong. They also aren't afraid to take a risk and post emerging stories. They were all over the Wuhan Lab leak months before more MSM sources (including Fox) felt safe to report it. The bottom line here is: you have a US Government who is unwilling to accept immunity through Covid-19 infection and recovery in spite of the scientific evidence. The Israeli study of nearly 800,000 subjects should be the gold standard and it proves natural immunity from recovery from Covid-19 is not only equivalent, but superior to vaccine induced immunity. In addition, you have scientists who helped develop the vaccine, admitting that in undercover recordings, that natural immunity is better. That was generally a fair and balanced Yahoo article you linked. One good mention was on going and upcoming litigation. True, the California court case was lost, but what would you expect from a judge most likely appointed by Obama. In time, the same argument will be heard by higher courts where the judges may be more open minded. It will probably eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. I always find it interesting what arguments you take time to defend and don't. You failed to offer an explanation for all the health care workers who refuse to get vaccinated. Today, Northwell Health, a large New York health care system, terminated 1,400 of their workers because they declined to get a Covid-19 vaccine. I would assume most, if not all, refused due to previous recovery from Covid-19. I ask again, what is your explanation for a group that should know the most about this issue, refusing to take the vaccine at the cost of their career? |
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Oct 5, 2021 21:05:02 GMT -6
Calhoun and Dr Fauci, what a pairing, point out the two key things to decide the matter. There isn't much downside of vaccine for anybody, The downsides are the following risks: 1) Myocarditis mostly in young adult males, a group that is one of the least at risk from Covid-19. 2) Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS). This nasty blood clotting leading to death was especially prevalent with the Astrazeneca Covid-19 vaccine used extensively in Europe. At least the FDA was smart enough not to approve the Astrazeneca vaccine for use in the USA. 3) Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS). Sometimes referred to as super mono. I had a friend whose daughter contracted this, not from a Covid-19 vaccine, but probably from contaminated water (best guess). You never want to have this, trust me. 4) The effects of the vaccine on pregnancy are still under study. Again, the linked Yahoo article was generally a fair article giving arguments from both sides. Not your typical Yahoo article. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 6, 2021 1:48:39 GMT -6
Calhoun and Dr Fauci, what a pairing, point out the two key things to decide the matter. There isn't much downside of vaccine for anybody, The downsides are...I had a friend whose daughter contracted this... You never want to have this, trustme The three conditions VERY rarely occur. Even more rare to be be serious. Most commonly asymptomatic or easily treatable. Don't trust me, trust the numbers from millions of vaccinations. From authoritative scientific sources. The odds of serious illness from Covid makes this small risk necessary. Nobody wants any of that. Nobody wants development of variants in the population. If we would observe mitigation and testing at higher levels, we could avoid mandates. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 6, 2021 2:16:02 GMT -6
Zero Hedge does not more often get it right.
Their fringe science reprints have USUALLY been debunked.
Disputed reports about Russia have held up much better. Reputable sources make mistakes. Sure. And when rarely they do so, they often acknowledge and correct them. Has Zero Hedge done so even in egregious error?
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 6, 2021 2:40:33 GMT -6
Health care workers resisting vaccines are a MINORITY. Very few physicians and scientists in that small number.
Dissenters include workers with no medical training, and who have various reasons, not scientific beliefs. The level of dissent lower than the general public.
So. IF number of workers is convincing to you, HOW exactly do you ignore the rather overwhelming numbers in the majority there?
Your cited Northwell case is not convincing, it has I believe 76000 workers who are vaccinated with 1400 discharged... A number terminated are not medically trained staff. A number now terminated will be vaccinated and return.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 6, 2021 3:13:13 GMT -6
BTW, hospital workers are not only more often vaccinated than the general public, but almost universally wear masks. Their patients are masked. Not many dissenters about that... Should we avoid a mandate in the general public and practice the same level of mitigation? Even less would kill the pandemic. Or do you still believe Zero Hedge that masking is a worse health hazard than Covid?
Or that treatment with Ivermectin will save the day. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 8, 2021 9:14:23 GMT -6
Where studies differ is in how long immunity lasts and how consistently strong the immunity. In the link just below a number of issues are raised. ONE issue is that
Let's assume a test shows you were infected at some point, and we use that as a substitute for vaccination. When you were infected is not clear from a test. Critical for predicting the immunity you have. Even knowing how long ago doesn't make the predicted immunity clear due to the variability.
In contrast to that, vaccination records are dated, and although statistical evidence about duration of immunity is also variable, there is a more reliable bet that a vaccinated person has predictable immunity. PLUS a booster is known to restore immunity to high levels. If you were infected, AND are later vaccinated, not only is there little harm, but you acquire "super" immunity! VERY great plus to vaccination if there is any doubt.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Oct 8, 2021 11:49:51 GMT -6
Health care workers resisting vaccines are a MINORITY. Very few physicians and scientists in that small number. Dissenters include workers with no medical training, and who have various reasons, not scientific beliefs. The level of dissent lower than the general public. So. IF number of workers is convincing to you, HOW exactly do you ignore the rather overwhelming numbers in the majority there? Your cited Northwell case is not convincing, it has I believe 76000 workers who are vaccinated with 1400 discharged... A number terminated are not medically trained staff. A number now terminated will be vaccinated and return. The minority who actually held strong to their beliefs to the point of being fired are just the "tip of the iceberg". Most folks cave when confronted with the loss of their career and income. Little things like paying the rent and putting food on the table enter into their decisions. If 2 to 5% of health professionals actually pushed the system all the way to being fired probably means more like 20 to 30% believe in acquired immunity being as good, or better than vaccine induced immunity. I've never seen a breakdown of medical degree and refusal to be vaccinated. Have you, or are you just pulling shit of of thin air? Just because someone doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't make them an uneducated moron. Refer back to an earlier post on the number of PhD's who didn't buy into all this. |
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Oct 8, 2021 12:04:17 GMT -6
Zero Hedge does not more often get it right. Their fringe science reprints have USUALLY been debunked. Disputed reports about Russia have held up much better. Reputable sources make mistakes. Sure. And when rarely they do so, they often acknowledge and correct them. Has Zero Hedge done so even in egregious error? What part of the Trump was a agent of Russia taking commands from Russia held up? Over 4 years of the Mueller probe staffed full of hardcore Democratic supporters couldn't find anything all the while MSM kept up a constant drumbeat of Russia, Russia, Russia, all the while ignoring the Hunter Laptop and the evidence it contained linking Joe Biden to Hunter's illicit business activities. Do I have to remind you of the whole Tony Bobulinski testimony? I still don't have real high hopes for John Durham Probe, but at least he is making some progress now that he has indicted a former Hillary Clinton lawyer to starting the Russia shit. Still think Joe Biden will shut down the investigation before Durham indicts the true kingpins. time.com/6099018/john-durham-indicts-lawyer/ |
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Oct 8, 2021 12:13:32 GMT -6
BTW, hospital workers are not only more often vaccinated than the general public, but almost universally wear masks. Their patients are masked. Not many dissenters about that... Should we avoid a mandate in the general public and practice the same level of mitigation? Even less would kill the pandemic. Or do you still believe Zero Hedge that masking is a worse health hazard than Covid?
Or that treatment with Ivermectin will save the day. I'll counter your BBC article with some hard science. journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspxAs the conclusion of the American Therapeutics article states: "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally." On a more personal level, I have a good friend in Jakarta, Indonesia who credits the early use of Ivermectin when he, his wife, and teenage son came down with Covid-19 this year for keeping him out of a Jakarta hospital. My friend has several underlying health conditions and Indonesian hospitals are not somewhere you ever want to go with anything serious. From my experience of living 11 years in Indonesia, for anything serious, you wanted to go to Singapore if you wanted a decent chance of survival. |
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Oct 8, 2021 12:51:11 GMT -6
The downsides are...I had a friend whose daughter contracted this... You never want to have this, trustme The three conditions VERY rarely occur. Even more rare to be be serious. Most commonly asymptomatic or easily treatable. Don't trust me, trust the numbers from millions of vaccinations. From authoritative scientific sources. The odds of serious illness from Covid makes this small risk necessary. Nobody wants any of that. Nobody wants development of variants in the population. If we would observe mitigation and testing at higher levels, we could avoid mandates. As the title of the article states, "Blood clots associated with AstraZeneca vaccine are ‘rare but devastating,’ study says" In a peer-reviewed paper published Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine, scientists from Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and other institutions analyzed the first 220 cases of the condition reported in the United Kingdom. I'll agree with you that it is rare, but a nearly 1 in 5 chance of dying is not my idea of "even more rare to be serious". If you already have acquired immunity from defeating the infection, why would you want to risk this? I'll also note that yesterday Finland joined Sweden in suspending the use of the Moderna vaccine for males age 12 to 30 because of the risk of developing myocarditis. Both nations are still allowing the use of the Pfizer vaccine for the age group. www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-young-men-2021-10-07/ |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 8, 2021 14:12:27 GMT -6
Astrazenica is not approved in the US...not a problem for us?
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 8, 2021 15:39:16 GMT -6
BTW, hospital workers are not only more often vaccinated than the general public, but almost universally wear masks. Their patients are masked. Not many dissenters about that... Should we avoid a mandate in the general public and practice the same level of mitigation? Even less would kill the pandemic. Or do you still believe Zero Hedge that masking is a worse health hazard than Covid?
Or that treatment with Ivermectin will save the day. I'll counter your BBC article with some hard science. journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspxAs the conclusion of the American Therapeutics article states: "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally." On a more personal level, I have a good friend in Jakarta... The article you cite is a study summarizing of previously published literature. In September many of the articles about Ivermectin were withdrawn due to methodology and other errors.
The article also talks about nations who adopted Ivermectin treatment. Without conclusive results. Plus, BBC accurately reports many nations have withdrawn that modality.
How many of the articles which this study relies on were withdrawn and how would that impact their conclusions?
The BBC article dated yesterday reports the difficulty existing with relying on studies. So in fact does the article you cite, which says for example:
"There are a number of limitations with this review. Several of the studies contributing data did not provide full descriptions of methods..."
So in this potentially out of date article which you are excited about, please note that the conclusion says "may" based on their research. And the recommendation is clinical trials, not use. The paragraph you quote in its entirety reads:
"Low-certainty evidence on improvement and deterioration also support a likely clinical benefit of ivermectin. Low-certainty evidence suggests a significant effect in prophylaxis. Overall, the evidence also suggests that early use of ivermectin may reduce morbidity and mortality from COVID-19."
So after we discount the studies now withdrawn and consider the conclusion suggests not that there is proof but at best a reason to try a clinical trial, and that much of the evidence is "low certainty," and given the article was written before many studies were withdrawn from publication, I think the BBC has good points... I am all for such study, but not for relying on a drug now unproven.
Yes, if you avoid a proven vaccine and end up with Covid, it may be reasonable to try something unproven, but do not make that your plan.
As to the anecdotal personal experience you cite, recovery after a treatment is not very convincing unless we have statistical data to back up that experience.
I'd agree on one thing, and that is Singapore has had a good record in response to Covid, and that it has first class medical care, although I have to point out it also has had the highest vaccination rate in that region.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 9, 2021 10:57:15 GMT -6
Nordic countries are restricting Moderna ONLY with young people. The study basis for this is under review. These countries still recommend vaccination for young people. Odds of myocarditis is 9 times higher in the young people who contract Covid than among vaccinated(including Moderna). So if that's your concern, get the shot. There are many other causes of death and many other serious side effects in addition to myocarditis if you get Covid. Odds of death or serious illness is very low. Even Astrazenica has few deaths. NOT 20% of those vaccinated, but 20% of rare serious illness. For Israel see: www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109730Published last week. |
|
