The Playground

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    guess:: the remaining 80% or 1000/week are from vaxx induced deaths....

    That's what I would guess, plus the social, mental and physical repercussions of lockdowns and mandates, plus the compromising of the body from prior infection. In the US, life insurance agencies are still reporting unprecedented levels of death claims for those covered under group work insurance. Specifically, deaths increased by 40 percent and benefits by about 160 percent. A 10 percent increase in deaths is a 200 year event. Also, these are typically not Covid deaths.


    But not to worry, I'm sure the CDC is on top of this.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    4 to 5 days testing positive seems typical for low to no symptoms people here. A few, generally older people (60+), were positive for longer (7 to 10 days) and had more symptoms and often lingering general tiredness for up to three weeks. We have many boxes of tests and anyone who wants a test can have one any time, or take a box of 5 home. (even testing not with group at lunch!). All cases so far have been halted at one transmission in our workplace. We only go on the testing and masking routine when there is a reason for it, but we were fooled once by a few mild food poisonings from a local restaurant.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    All cases so far have been halted at one transmission in our workplace.

    Why? Do you like do go with the Covid fun-theater for a few more months?? Take once Omicron and you can forget it. It's an extremely mild cold for healthy people and the others should take our recommended drugs.

    Omicron does not infect the deep lung until, now at least...Why wait until it does again?


    And please avoid any boosters!

    I thought many here, following the anti-vaxxer rhetoric and, being fair-minded, would appreciate the following journalistic deconstruction of a paper claiming biological pathways for harm from mRNA vaccines.


    This is the "mRNA is bad for you" or - more specifically, "COVID spike mRNA is bad for you" anti-vaxxer meme. It is, to me, the most convincing strand of antivaxxer rhetoric. It seems so plausible. After all, mRNA in COVID vaccines is experimental, the vaccines had not been properly tested before its use.


    Let us ignore the thing that now changes that. We have had an enormous real-world test now, and the side-effects are very well understood both qualitatively and quantitatively. The balance, for young people where it is unclear, is between small numbers getting the very nasty MIS-C or nasty but not life-threatening long COVID, and smaller numbers getting pericarditis. That risk/benefit has been so well studied there is no room for fair-minded debate. Even if like many year you are inclined to believe in global conspiracies you have to be a full-blown tin-hat wearer to believe regulatory capture independently for every developed nation in the world for the benefit of Pfizer shareholders at the expense of the country's children.


    Let us look at a journalistic deconstruction. hat any person familiar with google and scientific phraseology, but without any medical specific, could do.


    In this case it is Mr. Data Science doing the deconstruction. He is undoubtedly a very competent scientist - whose job is to look at numbers and work out the diference between coincidence and some real effect over many different domains. That gives him an edge here but if you read his analysis you can ask: "how muhc of this is juts common sense".


    I'd be interested in how the antivaxxers posting here deal with this. All I need is a yes of no: "Yes - you agree this specific paper is rubbish in the sense that it is trying to make links that no-one would normally make and that are not supported", or "No - this is antivaxxer rhetoric with no scientific value".


    What interests me is how clearly some of the classic publication games (we all do them) play out. For example "self-citation" - who would not do this when it can be justified and ibcreaes ones own citation count? More tricky - in a review paper you self-cite another review paper (as here) and use that as claimed evidence for primary research claiming something. Ummm - not - that is not right. But review papers are a bit like opinion pieces, and you can find a jornal somehere that will publish pretty well anything.


    Does McCullough's paper really "establish a mechanistic framework" for mRNA vaccine harm?
    Peter McCullough & colleagues have just published a paper in Food and Chemical Toxicology that posits biological mechanisms underlying purported innate immune…
    www.covid-datascience.com


    This very long review article presents many details about various biological pathways, most related to cancer, but their links to mRNA vaccines are almost wholly speculative. In some cases, they link to other vaccines, old mRNA technology, or COVID-19 infection, but are not directly linked to mRNA vaccines.


    In fact, so much of their evidence is from papers on severe COVID-19 infections, not vaccination, much of the evidence in this article might be better suited to a paper pointing out potential downstream dangers of severe COVID-19 infections than on trying to raise alarm about mRNA vaccination.

    A number of places in the article seem to make stronger statements linking mRNA vaccines to some of these processes, but they self-cite a previous review article by senior author McCullough and do not reference any primary biological research making these connections.


    They suggest connections of these mechanisms to various anecdotal case reports for herpes zoster reactivation, liver damage, optic neuropathy, T cell lymphoma progression, Hepatitis C reactivation, events not yet confirmed to be related to mRNA vaccination.


    The paper amounts to laying out a series of hypotheses about mechanisms of harm that may come from mRNA vaccines. Hypothesis generation is a valuable exercise, including in this context of understanding downstream biological effects of vaccination that might induce harm.


    However, not all hypotheses are equally supported. Some are well-girded in direct evidence from relevant studies, while others are more speculative and extrapolate principles from other settings, e.g. SARS-CoV-2 infections or other injected vaccines, as done here.


    Mr. COVID data science does have ONE advantage over the rest of us. He is very good at data science which means that he can more easily than most of us understand the many VAERS data claims made by the antivaxxers and which extraordinarily make up a lot of this paper. In fact the VAERS data is the only part of it that (if it were correct) would represent real evidence.


    Read the article and ask yourself, “Are any of these points actually demonstrated in the article?"


    Scientists have detected, validated, and characterized various minority harm risks of vaccines, including anaphylaxis/myocarditis for mRNA vaccines, and VITT/GBS for viral vectors. Detection, validation, and characterization of any other risk is critically important. And deep characterization of the subgroups at highest risk of these serious complications, and of the severity and long-term effects of them needs to be highly prioritized research and considered in refining vaccination recommendations. Studies integrating information from existing literature to posit hypotheses explaining these harms and others are potentially useful, which this paper purports to do. However, the purported “mechanistic frameworks” laid out in this paper lack any documented connections to mRNA vaccines, instead linking them to other vaccines, old mRNA technologies, or COVID-19 infections and speculating connections to mRNA vaccines. This makes their hypotheses speculative at best.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    They suggest connections of these mechanisms to various anecdotal case reports for herpes zoster reactivation, liver damage, optic neuropathy, T cell lymphoma progression, Hepatitis C reactivation, events not yet confirmed to be related to mRNA vaccination.

    Our clown is back!! Welcome him as long he is not part of the 3x,4x booster excess mortality due do vaxx (gene therapy) side effects...


    Or clown still claims that he is vaccinated as clowns do not understand the difference between immune stimulation aka RNA gene therapy and a real vaccination.

    Why do all those corrupt government scientists keep on saying vaccines work better than prior infection at stopping COVID when we all know they don't?


    Ummm - well - I have always been a sucker for this line of proper questioning - now turned mostly into antivaxxer rhetoric, because vaccines do stop COVID better than prior infection. But it is a complex argument. I'll just give what I think are the key points that are needed for context.


    • NAbs (neutralising antibody) counts tell you quantitatively how well vaccines or prior infections neutralise virus
    • Relative counts reduction (between strains) is worse for vaccines - which were designed to be highly targeted - than for infection - but absolute values are much higher
    • Both vaccine and infection NAbs decay quite rapidly over time. Like Flu. Alas. It means COVID will go on recurring.
    • Although NAbs decays, after vaccination or prior infection the levels can be ramped up quicker. Not enough to prevent infection, but enough to make it less severe.
    • For severe infection what also matters is T-cell immunity. This is induced by both vaccine and prior infection and is much broader between strains.
    • NAbs and T-cell immunity from prior infection is very dependent on severity. "No pain no gain". If you have a light infection you get much less immunity than if you have a really serious nasty infection.
    • Multiple vaccinations restore NAbs and a bit more - but do not change the decay time constant. Relative to single vaccines they make future infection less severe by increasing the speed at which NAbs can be regenerated as well as priming T-cell immunity.
    • Multiple (mRNA) vaccines lead to increasing reactogenicity - a problem for those who are reactogenic, typically the young
    • Using population data to estimate relative effectiveness of vaccines vs infections in preventing future severe disease is now very complex because of all of the correlations between vaccination, illness, risk factors, prior infection. For example those who are ill have risk factors and are more likely to be vaccinated (or vaccinated more times etc).


    And for some really illuminating science about the numbers, which informs some of the above (the rest from stuff posted here over several years) we are again indebted to Mr. COVID data science


    Paper demonstrating Omicron's immune escape vs. vaccination and previous infection
    Biological researchers in Switzerland released a preprint in late December providing very useful information about the immune escape properties of Omicron vs.…
    www.covid-datascience.com

    Yes, but as you know THHuxleynew all hypotheses are speculative especially in cold fusion until they are radically disproven. Science only moves forward in small steps by advancing theories thought up initially in 'thought experiments' like in Einstein and Sternglass's case, proven correct by the advent of hydrogen bombs which 'work'. The mRNA vaccines also 'work' but in both cases terrestrial use of virus or nuclear technology both can have disastrous side-effects, on the one hand destroying the innate immune system and on the other wiping out the whole planet in nuclear armageddon. Which fate do you prefer?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    For severe infection what also matters is T-cell immunity. This is induced by both vaccine and prior infection and is much broader between strains.

    Would be correct in theory for a real vaccine. But gene therapy (RNA fake vaccine) does not induce a proper T-Cell immunity. Basically it does the same as an acquired allergy does. It produces a point = single substance memory of no use for future virus.

    But here unluckily very damaging as ACE2 antipodes (spike anti bodies) lead to immune suppression... ==> excess mortality as we see it.

    Mr Covid science doesn't dig very deep!


    Team Enigma
    Team Enigma is a group of international pharmaceutical R&D professionals, academic researchers and data analysts working on analysis of public health datasets…
    www.bitchute.com

    Quote from Fm1

    Mr Covid science doesn't dig very deep!


    https://www.bitchute.com/channel/7dNrFbLeGSev/

    You mean he does not reference unpublished anonymous antivaxxer bitchute videos...


    (1) Do you agree that there is a lot of propaganda on the internet (on both sides of any political issue)?

    (2) How do you personally work out whether a video you find somewhere is propaganda, or proper science from those who are have something to contribute and care about the science more than which side it supports? I've posted the various ways I try to make this distinction.


    I'd also suggest that bitchute is not a likely source for accurate science... Far right organisations have become particularly anti-science (more so than far-left) over the last 20 years.


    BitChute - Wikipedia


    BitChute (a portmanteau of "bit", a unit of information in computing, and "parachute"[1]) is an alt-tech video hosting service launched by Ray Vahey in January 2017.[2] It describes itself as offering freedom of expression,[3][4] while the service is known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hate speech.[a][b] Some creators who use BitChute have been banned from YouTube; some others crosspost content to both platforms or post more extreme content only to BitChute.[5][16] Before its deprecation, BitChute claimed to use peer-to-peer WebTorrent technology for video distribution,[2] though this was disputed.[17][18]


    Deen Freelon and colleagues writing in Science characterised BitChute as among the alt-tech sites that are "dedicated to right-wing communities", and listed the site along with 4chan, 8chan, Parler, and Gab. They noted there are also more ideologically neutral alt-tech platforms, such as Discord and Telegram.[11] Joe Mulhall of the UK anti-racism group Hope Not Hate has categorised BitChute among the "bespoke platforms" for the far-right, which he defines as platforms which were created by people who themselves have "far-right leanings". He distinguishes these from "co-opted platforms" such as DLive and Telegram, which were adopted by the far-right due to minimal moderation but not specifically created for their use.[15]

    #1 yes

    #2 I watch and read all to have a more balanced view.


    Now as for bit chute, if you question mainstream you are banned! So it seems the only place to post is on a rightwing site. Do you agree? When your voice is taken away on mainstream sites, you have no choice but to use these sites to get your message out. You disagree with the message and approve mainstream media suppressing that message. That's bias to the highest

    Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials by Joseph Fraiman, Juan Erviti, Mark Jones, Sander Greenland, Patrick Whelan, Robert M. Kaplan, Peter Doshi :: SSRN


    Results: Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest, with an absolute risk increase of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95% CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an absolute risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9). The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).

    Discussion: The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes such as hospitalization or death.


    SSRN-id4125239.pdf (riotimesonline.com)

    Quote from Shane D.

    The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).

    At least those suffering from adverse events from injection went to hospital with respectable neutralizing antibody titres for the virus. I'm sure THH and Mr. Data Science would agree.

    Quote from Fm1

    Now as for bit chute, if you question mainstream you are banned! So it seems the only place to post is on a rightwing site. Do you agree?

    No to both your propositions.


    1. Many people question mainstream views but are not banned.
    2. As I said in the post you replied to, there are plenty of neutral sites (not specifically right-wing) that can be used for any views which are banned. In fact journals do not ban contentious views - they ban contentious views which are not well supported by science.


    Let me ask you a different question. If all internet sites are uncensored (as Elon Musk would like) how do you determine what is science and what is propaganda.


    You have just proven that you (for example) do not do this accurately because you are giving equal weight to obvious propaganda (like the above paper) as you do to high quality peer reviewed science.


    Take one example - is negative info about COVID vaccines banned? No - not by peer-reviewed journals - though it may be by politicians for good or bad reasons.


    https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2024597118


    And for specific negative peer-reviewed articles in high impact journals:


    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00791-7/fulltext


    Why emergency COVID-vaccine approvals pose a dilemma for scientists
    Immunizations are speeding towards approval before clinical trials end, but scientists say this could complicate efforts to study long-term effects.
    www.nature.com


    Reports of myocarditis and pericarditis following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review of spontaneously reported data from the UK, Europe and the USA and of the scientific literature
    Objectives To combine spontaneously reported data from multiple countries to estimate reporting rate, and better understand risk factors for myocarditis and…
    bmjopen.bmj.com

    Quote from Shane D.

    Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials by Joseph Fraiman, Juan Erviti, Mark Jones, Sander Greenland, Patrick Whelan, Robert M. Kaplan, Peter Doshi :: SSRN


    Results: Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest, with an absolute risk increase of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95% CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an absolute risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9). The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).

    Discussion: The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes such as hospitalization or death.


    SSRN-id4125239.pdf (riotimesonline.com)

    Which proves my point taht anything can be published - no?


    Even from somone like J Fraiman self-advertising on twitter as "ER Doc with a science hobby". Probably not the best positioned to review the science of risk/benefit here. Which is what that paper tries to do but in reality it is just an opinion piece. The same is true for global warming deniers - although their arguments have had to get more and more obscurely twisted over time as the claims are shown false by recorded temps following models or worse (alas for us all - I was hoping the models would be a bit on the high side).


    So: no censorship.

    => you can find all opinions, as you should. And anyone who does a "find and believe like-minded people" trawl of even the peer-reviewed literature can find evidence for anything. Just muhc much less, and the serious reviews, if read properly, show why.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Which proves my point taht anything can be published - no?


    Even from somone like J Fraiman self-advertising on twitter as "ER Doc with a science hobby". Probably not the best positioned to review the science of risk/benefit here

    One of the authors (Robert Kaplan) from Stanford Univ is one of the most respected in the field.

    Quote from Shane D.

    One of the authors (Robert Kaplan) from Stanford Univ is one of the most respected in the field.

    The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).


    From the results.


    While that is true, it is meaningless - it is what you say when you want to make a point - that the risks here deserve more study.


    When you compare (fixed) vaccine risks with (scaled by COVID rate and study time) placebo COVID risks you get a meaningless comparison. To make sense you need to scale up to 100% chnace of getting COVID (in the Uk we are at 80% now).


    I actually agree with that point. The serious adverse effects are at a higher rate than many other vaccines and do deserve special study if we are going to contine to use these first vaccines, or even slightly modded versions (you'd expect risks to be similar). COVID mRNA vaccines are not a good candidate for a permanent every year flu-jab type vaccine for lots of reasons - we need something better.


    But it is an opinion piece, possibly informed by vaccine politics which is horrible but pretty well 100% there in the US - not something presenting new science. Robert M Kaplan is a pioneering Behavioural Scientist - not an immunology expert - and likely to me more enmeshed in the politics than most (though I'm not sure on what side).


    Everyone is entitled to publish opinions, even famous Stanford profs. public health decisions are so controversial because they are rooted in psychology, which is an even softer science than traditional medicine.

    Quote from Shane D.

    One of the authors (Robert Kaplan) from Stanford Univ is one of the most respected in the field.

    I also notice Peter Doshi who I believe is still a senior editor at the BMJ and has quite a few articles published in that well respected peer reviewed journal:


    There this one: In which he rightfully demands to see the raw data from the clinical trials

    and this one: In which he points out the shortcomings of the trials

    this one: In which he warns about discourse being stifled under the guise of 'misinformation'

    Questioning the 95% effectiveness: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines


    gosh, i keeping finding more. Even back in 2013: Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease


    and as a graduate student in 2006: Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence


    My respect for that man keeps growing. And the BMJ who appear to be brave enough to occasionally publish differing points of view...

    Lessons Learned from the Pandemic—A Cardiologist Speaks to Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services


    Lessons Learned from the Pandemic—A Cardiologist Speaks to Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services
    Recently, the State of Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services Committee (HHS) to listen to public testimony on the ongoing pandemic response…
    www.trialsitenews.com


    Recently, the State of Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services Committee (HHS) to listen to public testimony on the ongoing pandemic response in the nation’s second most populous state. Under the Public Health Data categories, the senate sought to elicit testimony on the processes associated with public health data collection and coordination with an eye on barriers to real-time dissemination of data concerning health care facility capacity. The Pandemic Response segment investigates the impact of state and federal pandemic policies from agency guidance, licensing, and regulatory activity to assessing how the regulatory guidance impacts ongoing the patient doctor relationship. Several speakers presented, including the renowned, often maligned advocate for early COVID-19 treatment, cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, MD, MPH. A vocal COVID-19 vaccine critic, McCullough first focused on lessons learned during the pandemic, addressing a topic that several hours of testimony by others failed to cover---the vital importance of early treatment for not only SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19, but any other infectious viruses moving forward. The prominent, outgoing, and consequently maligned Texas cardiologist has been through a whirlwind during the pandemic with great ups- and-downs. Now a rising media star mostly via right-wing outlets such as Fox News that allow for a more critical view of the pandemic countermeasure response (at least for now), McCullough estimates that over 35% of the American public are aligning with his point of view. That's serious influence, and now with kinks in the mainstream media pandemic narrative armor, his influence may even grow potentially transcending what appears as a forced liberal to right political chasm associated with the pandemic response.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.