Covid-19 News

    • Official Post

    Whenever evidence of harmful effects of this mass experiment surfaces, we get the magic catch all phrase (or spell?) that “the benefits outweigh the risks”.


    Well, not all experts agree, as was manifest in this article, specially taking about the mass inoculation of children.


    https://childrenshealthdefense…cine-dont-outweigh-risks/


    But coming back to the general population, the single article that, based on publicly available data, attempted to cast more light over the possibility that “the benefits don’t outweigh the risks” and that passed the peer review filters and finally got published in “Vaccines”, and got nearly 500K views of the article, in a rare case where the reads of the article were 5x the reads of the abstract, lasted less than a fortnight before it was unilaterally retracted by the journal, ignoring all the responses of the authors to the criticism. I contacted the corresponding author and got his answers to the “notice of concern” and to the”retraction”. The journal never even bothered to publish those. Anyone can make its own conclusions about this, but to me, the catch all phrase “the benefits outweigh the risks” is brainwashing unscientific official narrative propaganda.

    Quote from Fm1

    You might want to read up on dresslers syndrome before posting your opinion

    Why? the numbers are all I need to do the risk calculation... In any case vaccine-induced pericarditis is different from Dresslers syndrome where the heart has been injured sepaartely from an immune response. In the vaciine case, it seems to be an over-active immune response doing the whole thing.


    THH

    Curbina - it only catches the case where the benefits outweigh the risks! :)


    No-one is arguing for vaccination below 12 without a lot more data. So it looks like all the experts are agreeing on this one?


    An advisory committee to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a virtual meeting Thursday to discuss what data would be needed to vaccinate children under 12 against COVID.

    While some advisors said it’s too soon to rush the use of vaccines in the pediatric population because kids are at such low risk from the virus, most argued that it’s important to have authorizations on hand should there be a resurgence of the virus in the fall and winter.

    The members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) were not asked to provide specific advice or to vote during the meeting.


    The disagreement here is just about is there any point trying to gather evidence now. And if they do, then whether and with what to vaccinate these children would be based on their risk-benefit.


    It is true that 6 - 12 years is the age group least at risk from COVID - so the equation there is least clear in terms of personal benefit. that is why no-one has suggested doing this yet.


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    As i say it is a political thing. It is like when those concerned about AGW are against geoengineering, because they think it is used as an excuse to take less action now (which it is, by some people). On that question I am for action now, and also for geoengineering.


    But it can be political because the scientiifc merits of this study are debatable - you can argue it both ways. Some things are like that.

    If you are referring to Russ George there is no debate the government study was flawed with bias, remember they were opposed to this and the study done by tribal leaders with an independent group of scientist found That salmon levels were growing and in in some regions had been fully restored.

    But coming back to the general population, the single article that, based on publicly available data, attempted to cast more light over the possibility that “the benefits don’t outweigh the risks” and that passed the peer review filters and finally got published in “Vaccines”, and got nearly 500K views of the article, in a rare case where the reads of the article were 5x the reads of the abstract, lasted less than a fortnight before it was unilaterally retracted by the journal, ignoring all the responses of the authors to the criticism. I contacted the corresponding author and got his answers to the “notice of concern” and to the”retraction”. The journal never even bothered to publish those. Anyone can make its own conclusions about this, but to me, the catch all phrase “the benefits outweigh the risks” is brainwashing unscientific official narrative propaganda.


    I'm sorry you don't like the words "benefits outweigh the risks". how about "I've done the math and the regulators have it right - my daughter is less likely to die if she has the Pfizer vaccine than if she does not"


    Is that better?


    You will not be surprised that I don't find 500K views a good reason to keep up an article which is clearly wrong. Anyway, nothing vanishes on the internet. I'm sure you can post it here and i bet I can find out why it was retracted!


    In fact - here it is on retractionwatch:


    https://retractionwatch.com/20…ns-expression-of-concern/


    update


    https://retractionwatch.com/20…-vaccine-study-defend-it/


    The authors, including Harald Walach, who was also co-author of a just-published paper in JAMA Pediatrics questioning the safety of masks in children, had used data from the Dutch national registry of side effects. That registry carries a warning label about its use. The editors of Vaccines, which published the study last month, wrote that there were concerns over “misrepresentation of the COVID-19 vaccination efforts and misrepresentation of the data.”


    Walach told us earlier this week that he would send us a detailed response to the criticisms. He did that today, and we have made the entire response available here.

    Walach and his co-authors are responding to criticisms leveled by Eugène van Puijenbroek of the University of Groningen. In it, they write:

    Quote
    These vaccines have had an emergency approval without the necessary safety data. Although we would agree with Prof. van Puijenbroek that the self-reporting system of side-effects for vaccines and other drugs is far from foolproof, it is the only data we have. So why should it not be put to use?

    They add:

    Quote
    We are happy to concede that the data we used – the large Israeli field study to gauge the number needed to vaccinate and the LAREB data to estimate side-effects and harms – are far from perfect, and we said so in our paper. But we did not use them incorrectly. We used imperfect data correctly. We are not responsible for the validity and correctness of the data, but for the correctness of the analysis. We contend that our analysis was correct. We agree with LAREB that their data is not good enough. But this is not our fault, nor can one deduce incorrect use of data or incorrect analysis.

    So, basically, they knew the data was wrong, but used it anyway.


    I think their data is wrong, or the question they are answering is different from what matters, because several times over data from US VAERS is showing that in all age groups 12 and up the Pfizer vaccine pericarditis risk is significantly less than the risks from COVID.


    The retraction notice and comment from the authors on that:


    Update, 2330 UTC, 7/4/21: Walach and a co-author, Rainer Klement, sent us a statement they had submitted to Vaccines. In it, they write, “The true reason seems to have been pressure on part of some editors of the journal” and “The timeline suggests that the Journal was not really interested in our response and that our response was irrelevant to the retraction.” Read the entire response here.



    Personally i tend to be on the side of keeping every paper up there and simply pointing out its errors. i can see from the way stuff is posted here though that in these circumstances that could easily cost lived, because a lot of people seem to think "scientiifc paper => they may be right" even when the scientific merits of the case are very clear. As we all know on any question - no matter how apparently clear - you will find scientists to argue both sides.


    https://retractionwatch.com/20…udy-comes-under-scrutiny/


    It was with great surprise that the Poznan University of Medical Sciences learnt of the article questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccinations co-authored by Dr. Harald Walach, who used to collaborate with our University.

    Although we highly value freedom of speech among academia, we also believe that it is of utmost importance for a scientific paper to be based on reliable research and sound methodology. In our opinion, the paper in question fails to meet this condition. That is why we wish to emphasise most strongly that the article does not express the views of our University.

    The retracted manuscript „The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations – We Should Rethink the Policy”1 (Vaccines, Publisher MDPI) is based on the wrong assumptions. A number of experts had serious concerns about the use of Lareb data2. Moreover, data extracted by the authors from the observational study by Dagan et al.3 concern short-term mortality after the first dose, which is not at all representative of mortality prevention in the long term after the second dose. In our opinion, the study misleadingly used data to yield conclusions that are wrong and may lead to public harm.


    OK - following this trail I am beginning to understand this. They calculated the benefits of vaccination completely wrong. And they used rubbish data (more allowable, although still bad).


    I am beginning to see why people got so upset about their paper. It is blatantly misleading. Does anyone here want to post it from the dark web - or a fellow qAnon archive - or maybe extract it from Bill gates microchips in people's heads?


    Then we could actually dissect it properly for ourselves.


    Till then - a hypothetical. An astronomer, based on rubbish data, and confusing "impact in the next 10,000 years" with "impact in the next month" claims he is 80% certain that Washington DC will be hit by a large meteor in the next 30 days. Some here (and pretty well the whole of QAnon) would maybe view that is A Good Thing. Nevertheless it creates widespread panic in social media because no-one believes the scientists who rebut this paper (they are experts, and not to be trusted) and it is a good story. The original paper is not retracted, because like me the publishing editors reckon it is obviously wrong and a rebuttal is the best way to handle the matter. unfortunately the press (and even other media) has no way to handle this except - "Well - some scientists support this, some disagree" giving equal air time to both sides even when 99.9% of scientists who bother to read the rebuttal agree with it and can point out the original problems. Also these problems do not fit into a 10 second sound bite so never get broadcast in a form that makes sense.


    As result of this millions of people flee the capital in panic, there is a stock market crash, many lives are lost in the panic, many more form the resulting economic dislocation.


    Should the paper have been retracted? What would you have done on that editorial board?

    Quote from JedRothwell

    A Georgia hospital chain just announced that doctors and nurses must get vaccinated. This is a slippery slope. What next? Insisting they must have a license to practice medicine? Forcing surgeons to wear masks and gloves? Not letting them conduct surgery while drunk??? Where will it all end?


    https://www.ajc.com/news/coron…QF6CE5XBDU5K3SBSAEMYWJAU/

    :)


    It is a slope we seem all to have fallen down a long time ago. been there, done that!


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2810172/

    Quote from Fm1

    If you are referring to Russ George there is no debate the government study was flawed with bias, remember they were opposed to this and the study done by tribal leaders with an independent group of scientist found That salmon levels were growing and in in some regions had been fully restored.

    No - it is a general point about all geoengineering that many people, for political reasons, do not think it should be researched because it leads to excuses (wrongly). And they have a point, I just fall on the other side of that point.

    • Official Post

    Everyone involved in this post Mortem analysis of the article retraction is spinning it the way it serves their purposes.


    Adverse reactions and deaths caused by pharmaceutical interventions, in general, are known to be under reported and assuming that in this case they are perfectly reported is an unacceptable bias.


    The idea that there’s no possible link whatsoever between all those reported deaths and injuries because they are self reported is an intellectual travesty. The sheer scale of this mass inoculation and the corresponding increase of self reports can’t be unlinked by a magical act.

    Harald Walach not only does not like vaccines, he does not like masks!


    https://jamanetwork.com/journa…trics/fullarticle/2781743


    Research Letter

    June 30, 2021

    Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children

    A Randomized Clinical Trial

    Harald Walach, PhD1; Ronald Weikl, MD2; Juliane Prentice, BA3; et alAndreas Diemer, PhD, MD4; Helmut Traindl, PhD5; Anna Kappes, MA6; Stefan Hockertz, PhD7

    Author Affiliations Article Information

    JAMA Pediatr. Published online June 30, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.2659



    And here is retractionwtach page on this:

    https://retractionwatch.com/20…ldren-respond-to-critics/

    it has not been retracted - just destroyed form all sides.


    From the comments on the link to the paper (number 1):

    Unsuitable CO2 meassurement device

    Alejandro Keller, PhD in Natural Sciences | University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland

    The authors use an CO2 incubator analyzer (0-20%) that has an accuracy of 1% of the range (i.e. 2000ppm) and a time response T^90<=20 seconds for CO2. This device is unsuitable for measuring the transient concentrations during the respiration processes. A normal respiration cycle has a duration of 3 to 4 seconds. Thus, it is impossible to separate the concentration of CO2 in inhaled and exhaled air using this device. This also explains why the authors measure average concentrations of around 2700ppm-CO2, way above the ambient value of 740ppm, even when no mask is present.

    The authors refer to the dead volume behind the mask as the main problem. The relevant data would be the comparison between this dead volume and the lung capacity and/or the volume of one respiration cycle. The lungs never collapse completely during respiration. Together with the rest of the respiratory airways, the respiratory system has also a dead volume that is much larger than the dead volume between the mask and the face. The comparison of these volume is of extreme importance for the discussion and may change the author's conclusions.


    So- basically - they are not separating the inhaled and the exhaled air because they are using an incorrect measuring device! Worth pointing out that Walach has no expertise in CO2 measurements which I guess is why he got this wrong.


    Interested in the O2 data

    Presten Witherspoon, DC | Private office

    A review of the supplemental content appears to suggest that one of the measurements taken by researchers was the oxygen level of the blood. The concern with mask wearing among children is, realistically, two-fold: 1) that CO2 will be increased in the blood, and 2) that oxygen will be reduced in the blood.

    While CO2 concentration is best assessed via bloodwork, which would be difficult to obtain from children in a timely manner after a short testing period, O2 concentration seems simpler data to collect. Current publication information does not list the O2 levels as measured by the researchers. Adding that information to the study may provide further context for the effects of masks on blood chemistry beyond an observation that inhaled air increases in CO2 content underneath a child's mask.


    So - basically - they should have listed the blood O2 level measurements which apparently they made. I wonder why they did not?


    And - another problem with this study...


    What was measured doesn't matter

    John Murphy, PhD CIH ROH | University of Toronto

    The lack of methodological detail makes it unclear as to why the researchers concluded that they were measuring the concentration of inhaled CO2 as opposed to the concentration of exhaled CO2 or a mix of both. But the real question the author's don't clearly address is "Why does it matter?". The paper begins by stating "The question whether nose and mouth covering increases carbon dioxide in inhaled air is crucial.", and infer that it the reason is that the jurisdiction's regulatory limit for the concentration of CO2 in ambient indoor air is 2000 ppm, and that mask use results in overexposure in relation to that limit, which presumably is considered hazardous. Such a line of reasoning is mistaken. Indoor ambient CO2 limits are not set because CO2 itself is hazardous above those values, but because elevated CO2 correlates with elevated constellations of a range of indoor air pollutants that cause increasing occupant discomfort as levels rise. The CO2 indoor air standard is ultimately a ventilation effectiveness guideline, not a health-based exposure limit. It should also be recognized that any re-breathed CO2 is endogenous, and such air is qualitatively different from the ambient indoor air for which CO2 is solely a proxy indicator of composition, and to which the CO2 indoor air guidelines only apply.


    And somone who got cross...


    Our Children Deserve Better Science

    Eve Bloomgarden, MD | Northwestern University Chicago IL; Co-founder and COO of IMPACT (http://www.impact4hc.com)

    Authors:

    Eve Bloomgarden,MD (Northwestern University, Co-founder IMPACT4hc), Elisabeth Marnik PhD (Husson University, author of Science Whiz Liz),

    Alison Bernstein PhD (Michigan State University, Co-founder SciMoms and MommyPhD), Rebecca J. Heick, PhD (Augustana College, Author of Your Friendly Neighborhood Epidemiologist)

    JAMA is a well respected peer reviewed journal. This research letter has extensive flaws and repercussions that may lead to very real harm for children. It is disappointing to see that this research letter was published in this journal.

    First, this is written by individuals with known bias against masks and other non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID, as well as vaccinations. The lead author is a psychologist with no training pertaining to this area of research.

    Second, there are extensive methodological issues. They used a G100 CO2 incubator analyzer, which is made for measuring CO2 levels in incubators. There is no data supporting the use of G100 as a valid and accurate instrument for the type of measurement used in this study. They also did not address the amount of dead space within the mask that could be further making their measurements inconsistent or unreliable. It is also unclear how they could reliably distinguish between inhaled and exhaled air using the described methods.

    Third, their results presented are incomplete and difficult to interpret as many previous commenters have noted. Their trial protocol included in supplement 2 outlines that they would also collect blood oxygenation, heart rate and breathing frequency. Yet none of this data was included in this letter. Their results also show almost the same CO2 readings for both surgical masks and respirator FFP2 masks. If their findings were accurate you would expect a difference, given the differing filter capabilities. It is also unclear why their measurement of CO2 in baseline inhaled air is different than in ambient air.

    Fourth, there was also no discussion regarding whether these results are clinically meaningful. They’re using flawed measurements obtained with a device that was not designed for this purpose and stating that this demonstrates harm. There were no actual health metrics reported, like pO2 or pCO2 and no discussion of the actual data needed to confirm clinical significance. These would be more reliable indicators of potential harmful effects on children.

    Overall, this paper misinterprets inappropriately collected data leading to incorrect, distorted, and dangerous conclusions.

    Lastly, we have real life evidence from millions of children who have been successfully wearing masks every day for months. We have extensive evidence that masking is an essential protective strategy to slow and prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. If this study were accurate and reflective of the real world we would see adverse health events reported worldwide. We do not. We also have data from other peer reviewed papers that has shown no harmful effects. This is a study searching for a mechanism for a non-existent problem. The subject of this letter, regardless of conclusion, should have prompted intense scientific scrutiny prior to publication. The bell cannot be unrung, as this research letter is already being used as “scientific proof” that masks are harming our children, but a retraction should be strongly considered.


    And an annoying person asking for more precision in what was measured


    Lack of Outcome Comparisons

    Matthew Loxton, MA Knowledge Management | None

    The method states that "carbon dioxide content in inhaled air" was measured, but this is not an accurate statement since the amount of gas in the mask region is a small fraction of tidal volume, and the method of measurement is sensitive to the respiration rate.

    Secondly, to know if this measurement is of any clinical significance, both blood oxygenation and blood CO2 levels would need to be measured and compared to masked respiration and unmasked respiration.

    Without these tests, any measurement of CO2 levels in the mask region is merely a curiosity, and not indicative of a risk factor.


    this was one i noticed, though not the hypercapnia thing, which is an accuarte point.


    Not a Randomized Trial

    Robert Rosen, D.O. | Private Practice, Dermatology

    The subtitle "Randomized Clinical Trial" implies comparison between clinical interventions. It is unclear what participants were randomized to, and no significant difference was found between 2 unidentified types of masks. The subtitle is bound to mislead casual (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) readers. Further the discussion references hypercapnia, defined as elevated CO2 concentration in blood, but they include no blood measurements of C02 nor any evidence their results could be extrapolated to that.



    Oh dear - it looks like this paper has got enough traction that people with expertise are beginning to weigh in:


    Flawed Methodology

    Julius Cheng, MD | University of Rochester

    Questions have been raised about the use of an environmental CO2 measuring device (PCE-CMM 10), and not a medically calibrated end-tidal CO2 device.

    This is especially relevant since the headline-grabbing mean CO2 of "between 13 120 (384) and 13 910 (374) ppm" is higher than the stated measuring range of 400-5000 ppm by the device's manufacturer.

    The authors did not measure the actual dead space behind any of the masks.

    And, the measured respiratory rate of the participants did not change. If the participants were getting clinically hypercapnic, you would think there would be some change in respiratory rate.


    and... My favourite so far is Trisha (Oxford):


    Flawed Design, Unsafe Conclusions

    Trisha Greenhalgh, FMedSci | University of Oxford

    Walach et. al’s Research Letter [1] contains major flaws which cast doubt on the paper’s scientific integrity.

    Most importantly, the main outcome cannot test the authors’ hypothesis. The authors used a surrogate outcome - carbon dioxide (CO2) levels inside the mask - as a proxy for CO2 levels inhaled by a child. This is actually a measure of ‘dead space’ CO2. Most of the air entering the child’s lungs will be inhaled from the ambient air outside the mask (in the same way a swimmer using a snorkel breathes in a small amount of ‘dead space’ air from within the snorkel, but most air comes from outside it).

    Second, CO2 levels were not correctly measured. The Geotech G100 is designed to be used with incubators. It has a response time of 20 seconds (T90 = 20 seconds, i.e. the instrument takes 20 seconds to reach 90% of a stable reading) [2]. In comparison, a capnograph [3], which would have been an appropriate instrument to use in this study, stabilizes in milliseconds. The study claims to have measured CO2 in inhaled air, but the authors provide no basis for distinguishing between inhaled and exhaled air, using the G100, at 1.5 cm from nose and face.

    The authors report no meaningful physiological variables, such as blood oxygen saturation or arterial partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2). Measurement of transient increases in CO2 around the breathing zone (even if accurate) are not indicative of harm. Although Supplementary material reports that oximeters were used during the study and pulse rates appear to have been measured by oximeters, oxygen saturation level data are not reported.

    The authors’ causal claims regarding physiological impact are wholly unsupported by the data.

    The science of mask-wearing should be based on good data. Some of the authors have publicly associated themselves with, and taken funding from, non-science-based campaign groups [4]. We respectfully suggest that not only is this study scientifically flawed, but its publication puts the reputation of JAMA Pediatrics and its peer-review process at risk.

    Professor Trisha Greenhalgh FMedSci, University of Oxford

    Megan L. Ranney MD MPH, Brown University

    Asit Kumar Mishra PhD, Berkeley Education Alliance for Research in Singapore

    References

    1. Walach H, Weikl R, Prentice J, et al. Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatr. Published online June 30, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.2659

    2. Geotech. G100 | QED. Published 2020. Accessed July 3, 2021. https://www.qedenv.com/products/g100/

    3. Gravenstein N, Jaffe MB. 10 - Capnography. In: Ehrenwerth J, Eisenkraft JB, Berry JM, eds. Anesthesia Equipment (Third Edition). W.B. Saunders; 2021:239-252. doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-67279-5.00010-8

    4. Hockertz S. Generation Maske: Corona: Angst und Herausforderung. Kopp, 2021.



    Lots more if you read the link...

    Quote from Curbina

    Everyone involved in this post Mortem analysis of the article retraction is spinning it the way it serves their purposes.


    Adverse reactions and deaths caused by pharmaceutical interventions, in general, are known to be under reported and assuming that in this case they are perfectly reported is an unacceptable bias.


    The idea that there’s no possible link whatsoever between all those reported deaths and injuries because they are self reported is an intellectual travesty. The sheer scale of this mass inoculation and the corresponding increase of self reports can’t be unlinked by a magical act.

    You may have the advantage over me if you have read the paper. Then you could reply to my salient criticism above (which you do not get until the Polish Uni make their statement). The comparison was made was with deaths saved in a short period after the 1st vaccination, not, as obviously is relevant, deaths saved in a long period after second vaccination.

    • Official Post
    Quote from JedRothwell

    A Georgia hospital chain just announced that doctors and nurses must get vaccinated. This is a slippery slope. What next? Insisting they must have a license to practice medicine? Forcing surgeons to wear masks and gloves? Not letting them conduct surgery while drunk??? Where will it all end?


    https://www.ajc.com/news/coron…QF6CE5XBDU5K3SBSAEMYWJAU/


    That was said in jest, but it brings up an interesting point I have been contemplating on: Will those opting not to get vaccinated be able to live a normal life?


    There are many ways to force, or coerce vaccinations without officially mandating them. To a large degree that is already happening; i.e. want a job, want to travel, attend class, join the military...well, better get vaccinated.


    There is a growing chorus of TV talking heads (some are medical "experts"), admitting that to be the strategy: "make life difficult for those being stubborn, and they will eventually come around", or something to that effect.


    Sadly, they seem to be getting their way, and I see little choice left for those over the age of 12. Their access to a normal lifestyle is quickly being cut off...one right at a time. Either they submit...even if already naturally protected, or else they will have to learn to live with the limited options made available to them.


    .

    • Official Post

    As you can see from what is happening in France, the continuous push will only have one consequence: a backlash.


    Edit to add: this is what I am talking about.


    https://mobile.twitter.com/dis…tatus/1415332268084801539

    Harald Wallach is now on my least fave persons list (you can guess who else is there).


    He writes scientific-sounding rubbish that causes harm, and does not admit errors when critiqued.


    His reply to the face mask paper critiques:


    Let us also remind everyone of one important scientific principle: Facts are not constituted by single studies, but by multiple replications and discourse. This is the first peer-reviewed study of carbon dioxide content under face masks in children in a short measurement set-up. The measurements, we contend, are valid and were conducted by individuals with high content expertise (Dr. Ing. Helmut Traindl, a measurement engineer & Andreas Diemer, a physicist and physician). If someone doubts our results, the way to go is not to claim they are wrong without proof, but to produce better and different results.


    That is not they way science works, When you publish measurements, if you are challenged with methodological or other errors, you answer them or retract. You don't say "well - I am the firts person to do these measurements - if you disagree with my science you muts do your own measurements to show mine are wrong".


    An absurd argument.


    If somone could dredge up his original quickly retracted paper we could post it here and have go and discovering for ourselves whether it is good science.


    it is just not true that all - or ebven most - science is spin.


    Read Trisha Greenhalgh's response above. Her points destroy completely the mask paper. I suspect from other people's summary of its content the vaccine paper to be equally bad, and will be happy to destroy it myself if it is so.


    Curbina - please post it - so we can do this.

    So - you would not agree we should have foot-and-mouth quarantine? they certainly destroy normal farm life...


    :)


    Same principle.

    • Official Post

    Was already posted here weeks ago and also the responses to the notice of concern and the retraction. If you can’t find them I will fetch them later.

    It's much more than that Shane, look at the just released CDC guidance on masks and school reopenings, if vaccinated you don't have to wear a mask. The problem with this is 11 and 12 year olds go to school together. Parents are going to go wild when one son must mask while his older sibling in the same building doesn't. And what happens down the road, will today's 5 year olds be required to vaccinate when Covid is in the rear view mirror mandating vaccine will open a can of worms that will never be able to close.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Will those opting not to get vaccinated be able to live a normal life?

    I couldn't care less about them and their problems. They are endangering the lives of others by inviting the Delta variant and a new wave of infections. They will kill hundreds of thousands more people and once again destroy the economy. Letting them live a normal life is like saying we should let people drive drunk, or shit on the vegetables at the grocery store.


    Quote from Shane D.

    There are many ways to force, or coerce vaccinations without officially mandating them. To a large degree that is already happening; i.e. want a job, want to travel, attend class, join the military...well, better get vaccinated.

    Darn right. That's been the policy since the 19th century. You can't join the military without getting vaccinated, and they require a lot of extra vaccinations if you are deployed. We also insist that children be vaccinated before they can go to school, and we insist that people must wear a shirt and shoes before they can go into stores. And -- as I said -- they are not allowed to shit in public. We should enforce minimum standards of decency and public health. You should not be allowed to spread deadly diseases when there is a 100% effective perfectly safe vaccine to prevent them. That was decided by the courts in 1905, Jacobson v. Massachusetts. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2810172/


    Quote from Shane D.

    "make life difficult for those being stubborn, and they will eventually come around", or something to that effect.

    I don't care if they come around or not, as long they are prevented from harming me and others. Let them kill themselves. Let them destroy their own lives. People should be allowed to drink themselves to death, as long as they don't drive cars while they are doing it. People should be allowed to die of a broken leg or an infected finger if they don't want to go to the doctor for treatment. But they should not be allowed to break my leg.


    I am strongly libertarian when it comes to things like this. People should be free to commit suicide. But not murder!

    • Official Post
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    So - you would not agree we should have foot-and-mouth quarantine? they certainly destroy normal farm life...


    :)


    Same principle.

    FMD (and all highly transmissible and economic damaging veterinarian diseases responses, for that matter) focus on quarantining the sick individuals and not the healthy ones.

    Mandatory vaccination is not exactly a new thing: countries can require vaccination to protect the health of their population. What is so diffiferent?



    Which travel vaccines do I need?

    You can find out which vaccinations are necessary or recommended for the areas you'll be visiting on these websites:

    Some countries require proof of vaccination (for example, for polio or yellow fever vaccination), which must be documented on an International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (ICVP) before you enter or when you leave a country.

    Saudi Arabia requires proof of vaccination against certain types of meningitis for visitors arriving for the Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages.

    Even if an ICVP is not required, it's still a good idea to take a record of the vaccinations you have had with you.

    Find out more about the vaccines available for travellers abroad

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.