New study of jabbed in the journal "Circulation"

[trifan]

What I find so amazing about the Covid vaccine discussion is why did the world get it's collective panties in a wad over a disease that is 99.3% survivable, why do hospitals withhold non-vaccine treatment options and why effective non-vaccine treatments are vilified in the media and no weight given to natural immunity when it comes to public policy decisions. Mrna vaccines are new to the world so there is no history to draw from, only computer projections. The numbers are showing over 90% efficacy to the original virus but less for the variants, hence the need for boosters. The number of "adverse incidents" of these new vaccines would have been reason enough to pull them off the market in times past but fear is a powerful policy driver.



"Covid lung" is a killer caused by the body's own immune system going into hyperdrive creating a cytokine storm. Montelukast, an older asthma drug also known by it's brand name Singulair, suppresses that reaction. Zinc is a potent antiviral as is the old drug Ivermectin, neither of which can make money for Big Pharma. Covid also has a tendency to produce blood clots which have been known to be fatal. Aspirin mitigates that. Swelling in the lungs from the inflammation has a tendency to develop secondary infections and Azithromycin will take care of that. Prednisolone is very effective in treating swelling. Monoclonal antibodies have also been proven to be an effective treatment option.



My point to all this is that there is simply too much hysteria surrounding this disease. You have to always follow the money and the finger points squarely at those corps who are raking in obscene amounts of money for their products. Early in the process they were granted legal immunity from any "anomalies". They have been helped by the FUD merchants, those who deal with (F)ear, (U)ncertainty and (D)oubt. I have no doubt that the vaccines work for most people, those in the middle of the bell curve but I wonder about those on the outer edges.



Just my observations and that plus a couple of bucks might buy coffee nowdays.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by trifan

What I find so amazing about the Covid vaccine discussion is why did the world get it's collective panties in a wad over a disease that is 99.3% survivable, why do hospitals withhold non-vaccine treatment options and why effective non-vaccine treatments are vilified in the media and no weight given to natural immunity when it comes to public policy decisions. Mrna vaccines are new to the world so there is no history to draw from, only computer projections. The numbers are showing over 90% efficacy to the original virus but less for the variants, hence the need for boosters. The number of "adverse incidents" of these new vaccines would have been reason enough to pull them off the market in times past but fear is a powerful policy driver.

"Covid lung" is a killer caused by the body's own immune system going into hyperdrive creating a cytokine storm. Montelukast, an older asthma drug also known by it's brand name Singulair, suppresses that reaction. Zinc is a potent antiviral as is the old drug Ivermectin, neither of which can make money for Big Pharma. Covid also has a tendency to produce blood clots which have been known to be fatal. Aspirin mitigates that. Swelling in the lungs from the inflammation has a tendency to develop secondary infections and Azithromycin will take care of that. Prednisolone is very effective in treating swelling. Monoclonal antibodies have also been proven to be an effective treatment option.

My point to all this is that there is simply too much hysteria surrounding this disease.

Just about all of your "facts" are wrong or incomplete. And unsupported. Especially that 99.3% survivability, and that you've ignored the toll on healthcare from treating the sick, and the great numbers of folks with persistent, perhaps permanent "long COVID". We won't get past hysteria and FUD if folks continue to spread misinformation. Leave doctoring to doctors.

Here's a thought experiment for anyone: COVID, besides killing and harming many, many people, has also been a colossal pain in the ass for just about everyone, including most corporations and governments.

Do you really think that governments would inflict such widespread harm to their populations, their debt levels, and themselves, as some enhanced means of control? Do you honestly think that a few pharma giants could or would inflict such widespread global hardships for a few quarters of above-average profit?

Do you believe that "they" have actively suppressed simple, inexpensive treatments that are effective? Look at a poor, populous place like India. If there was something cheap and effective, they'd be using it regardless of what authorities or others tell them, and we'd have incontrovertible evidence that it worked. They tried ivermectin and other touted treatments... didn't really work, and now they have stopped recommending them.

The indulging of misinformation and conspiracy theories is a first world luxury, that in this case is harming others.

[nortonscove]

Given the size of the sample we have going on here I would love to see the actual numbers defining this dramatic increase. This is the kind of hogwash that gets bandied about by those with alternative views or just want to get their few minutes in the limelight. Every writer of scientific papers uses the headline to ensure it is seen by the eyes required to secure funding for the next big headline.

This perfectly highlights why we need a better way to fund science.

[Mike OReilly]

trifan, thanks for providing the perfect example of my observation.

To LE's comments, I'll only add this graph. It shows case-mortality rates 20 countries, going from worse to best. Based on your mortality claim, you must not live in any of these countries:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

[waterman46]

Originally Posted by longjonsilver

New study of the effects of the jab published in the journal "Circulation".

The last sentence of the abstract:



You can read the essay or watch the video. Link to the original is in the video


https://vernoncoleman.org/videos/fin...vid-jab-murder

Have at it

So what? This would apply to the 0.001% of folks who have a negative reaction to the vaccine. A minuscule percentage compared to the percentage of lives saved by the vaccine.

[waterman46]

Originally Posted by Jrubi12

Can someone please point me to the study’s that show the heath effects of this “vaccine” after 3 years, 5 years, 10 years?

Can your please point me to the studies that show the health effects of giving 5 year old children the “vaccine” when they are of child bearing age or 18-20 years old?

Talk to me in 5 to 10 years after we have seen the full effects of the “vaccine” and then, if proven safe, I’ll take one. In the mean time I’ve had COVID, I’ll trust my GOD given immune system.

If you feel so strongly about it please absolve the rest of us from paying your medical bills through increased insurance rates. I'm pretty sure your God also gave us the ability to improve our lives by applying His intelligence in creating vaccines for those intelligent enough to use them.

[ozsailer]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It's so disheartening to see CF become a source of so much disinformation with regard to Covid-19 and the vaccines.

Well said Mike, no more comment needed than this.

Oz

[billgewater]

So what has Darwinian theory to say here? The unprotected will be eliminated?

Now it appears that a new Covid variant has appeared in Africa (B.11.529?). This variant has different spike (surface) proteins and many mutations so the current vaccines may not be as effective. Cheerful stuff eh? Surely a consequence of earlier inadequate vaccination programs.

The probability of a variant arriving increases if the original variant is allowed free rein to multiply (as for the Delta variant in India). Having an unvaccinated population is exactly how these variants arrive. It’s basic statistics.
Once that new variant arrives in the population it can spread like wildfire.

In Aus. as elsewhere, the vast majority of deaths from (or with) Covid are nearly all with the unvaccinated.

As for those who believe that they should be entitled to decide for themselves maybe they should be asked if they have the right to decide the fate of others as well, because that is what an infected Covid carrier is. Poorly informed, stunningly selfish or both.

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by waterman46

So what? This would apply to the 0.001% of folks who have a negative reaction to the vaccine. A minuscule percentage compared to the percentage of lives saved by the vaccine.

It’s not so what to me. You want to split my healthcare costs? The concern over whether they’ll be able to fix me some day?

Being a researcher myself, I’d bet the number is much higher than .0001%. That’s why transparently is important.

[Nord Sal]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

trifan, thanks for providing the perfect example of my observation.

To LE's comments, I'll only add this graph. It shows case-mortality rates 20 countries, going from worse to best. Based on your mortality claim, you must not live in any of these countries:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

Those that stated that your likelihood of death from a Covid-19 infection is on the order of 99.3% are correct [for middle-aged people].

You seem to be confusing the case fatality rate (CFR) presented in the source you linked above with the infection fatality rate (IFR). They are far from the same thing. The CFR will always be higher than the IFR because many, perhaps most, infections of Covid-19 do not become cases.


IFR and CFR are simple calculations.

IFR = no. of deaths / no. of infections

CFR = no. of deaths / no. of cases

If you search for the IFR for Covid-19, you will find that the IFR is much lower than the '2% mortality rate' that you claim (post #19). For example, Wikipedia (hardly a source of extremist disinformation), lists the IFR from Covid-19 for those between 55 and 64 years as 0.0075 (0.75%). That number soundly agrees with the 99.3% probability of surviving a Covid-19 infection that Trifan posted above (post #46).

You've been throwing out assertions in this whole thread about mortality and immunity without any backup and even calling people liars who you disagree with. You've linked one actual source (Johns Hopkins, above), but you appear to not understand what it is your source is actually saying. You might want to consider what someone actually said before posting something completely different as a (incorrect) rebuttal.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-..._fatality_rate

[fivecapes]

Originally Posted by Nord Sal

Those that stated that your likelihood of death from a Covid-19 infection is on the order of 99.3% are correct [for middle-aged people].

You seem to be confusing the case fatality rate (CFR) presented in the source you linked above with the infection fatality rate (IFR). They are far from the same thing. The CFR will always be higher than the IFR because many, perhaps most, infections of Covid-19 do not become cases.


IFR and CFR are simple calculations.

IFR = no. of deaths / no. of infections

CFR = no. of deaths / no. of cases

If you search for the IFR for Covid-19, you will find that the IFR is much lower than the '2% mortality rate' that you claim (post #19). For example, Wikipedia (hardly a source of extremist disinformation), lists the IFR from Covid-19 for those between 55 and 64 years as 0.0075 (0.75%). That number soundly agrees with the 99.3% probability of surviving a Covid-19 infection that Trifan posted above (post #46).

You've been throwing out assertions in this whole thread about mortality and immunity without any backup and even calling people liars who you disagree with. You've linked one actual source (Johns Hopkins, above), but you appear to not understand what it is your source is actually saying. You might want to consider what someone actually said before posting something completely different as a (incorrect) rebuttal.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-..._fatality_rate

- your data is a year old
- how are #infections determined to get IFR
- flu rates are based on cases so CFR use is consistent
- previous epidemics (H1N1, SARS, MERS, bird) refer to CFR
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fatality_rates
- https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ 5.2mio/260mio=2% CFR, close enough

[Nord Sal]

Originally Posted by fivecapes

- your data is a year old

Yes they are. If there are more recent I didn't find any and they are still listed on Wikipedia. Are you disputing their validity?

- how are #infections determined to get IFR

Excellent question. I don't have an answer without some research. Regardless of that, these are the values used IFR and the claim was made about IFR (without calling it that) that MO'R attempted to rebut with the CFR. Is this in dispute?

- flu rates are based on cases so CFR use is consistent

Consistent with what? I made no mention of the flu. I only pointed out that one person is describing an IFR and the person trying to rebut them is using CFR. That comparison is not consistent. Do you dispute this?

- previous epidemics (H1N1, SARS, MERS, bird) refer to CFR
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fatality_rates
- https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ 5.2mio/260mio=2% CFR, close enough

I'm not disputing the CFR as a useful metric. Only pointing out the improper comparison.

Time to turn in. Good night

[fivecapes]

Yes they are. If there are more recent I didn't find any and they are still listed on Wikipedia. Are you disputing their validity?

I took a look at the Dec 2020 WHO paper (I didn't bother going through anything earlier than that even though they were brought up in the Wiki entry) that was referenced and found a short paragraph related to IFR in the 24 page essay. Didn't find a rigorous statistical treatise on their IFR number, just references to 3 papers that used the word 'estimate' numerous times with one focusing on sub-Sahara Africa and Eastern Europe. Valid, maybe is a stretch. Useful, no.

Consistent with what? I made no mention of the flu.

Consistent with how fatality ratios are looked at in other epidemics, eg the biggest and most common one.

I only pointed out that one person is describing an IFR and the person trying to rebut them is using CFR. That comparison is not consistent. Do you dispute this?

The person did not mention IFR, you did, and you had to add a qualifier 'for middle-aged people' to shoe horn in the 99.3% assertion.

Mike brought up CFR to call out a made up number, so not actually a comparison and nothing to dispute.

Nite nite

[Mike OReilly]

Nord, I quoted from a credible source the actual CFR for various countries. Our friend made up some number, without source and without explanation. Now you're doing statistical backflips to try to justify it.

I think fivescapes has already said all I would have, so no need to repeat. You can't downplay the virulence of this virus by cherry-picking data. I well understand the difference between infection fatality rates and case fatality rates. The former is an unknown based on extrapolation and sampling, while the latter is directly measured, and is the standard for global measure and comparison.

Yes, different age groups have different fatality rates, and we could zero in on each sub-category if that was part of the claim initially made; it was not.

[trifan]

Hmmm... I detect normal human nature on exhibit in this thread. Several psychological principles are on display. Fascinating.