Covid-19 News

Quote from JedRothwell

Frankly, the anti-science, irrational and dangerous garbage you and other anti-vaccine people spew has no place here. This forum is supposedly about science. What you say is the extreme opposite of science. If I were in charge, I would not throw you out, but I would ask you to shut up about this.

You are Mr. Google Science. Isn't it interesting that those who claim to wear the science flag unleash a lot of virtue on others. I've given dozens of science based points you don't comprehend or want to comprehend, so you talk about "throwing people out."

This is what any moral person fights against. This culture of fake-science that can't withstand criticism in the face of complexity.

Quote from Zeus46

Hmmmm. Taking only 'table V' that seems to be the case, but reading the whole paper suggests the above claim is somewhat shaky, in my opinion. Table IV suggests extra vaccine shots were necessary, and its reported that amount of antiserum given was uncontrolled, an obvious potentially confounding variable. Also, it seems p-values weren't in fashion in 1946.

Worth a read though.

Just accept the facts for what they are. This stuff is complex and you can't sanitize it away. It is the techno-religionists who want to prove the intervention has no flaws, and that nothing has changed in a century (in our learning of the body and ability to fight disease). You can't make progress if you don't question. Maybe a safe era of vaccines is possible or maybe other therapies - in the route we are going that won't happen since the business model is threatened!

Quote from JedRothwell

Ignorant, dangerous comment. Rubella is a terrible disease. It kills people. It causes lifelong suffering when it infects pregnant women. It is highly contagious.

JedRothwell : This is complete bull-shit. Rubella is dangerous for woman (& newborn) wanting a child only and they should get a vaccination!

The problem is: With the try to eradicate Rubella nobody gets a free vaccination anymore. This forces people to do so. It's a perfect business model based on fear.

The trick is to sell it as MMR package and so the income is secured. Mumps is the same. The vaccination is useless a you can have it for free. But after the age of 12 only boys have to vaccinate.

Missing a child disease is missing a live experience. Now the USA has to learn its lesson and look how they perform.

Quote from Zeus46

extra vaccine shots were necessary

All doctors give you a tetanus refresh after a dirty injury! The vacciantion is just a first firewall!

Quote from Navid

You are Mr. Google Science. Isn't it interesting that those who claim to wear the science flag unleash a lot of virtue on others. I've given dozens of science based points you don't comprehend or want to comprehend, so you talk about "throwing people out."

This is what any moral person fights against. This culture of fake-science that can't withstand criticism in the face of complexity.

Navid: ante up here. Prove you are more scientifically accurate than Jed by giving a properly referenced science reply to Jed & Zeuss and Alan - who seem to have you beat at the moment.

What is your scientific evidence for the dangers of modern Tetanus vaccines? BTW - are you saying you would not vaccinate your children against tetanus?

Zeuss - thanks for the paper.

Cheerleading microdata about tetanus or rubella is missing a societal problem of epidemic proportions. Vaccines is part of a major threat at young ages to all nations because of toxification and talking points about a single vaccine does x or not x is avoidance. If you think a few billions paid out in vaccine court represents is a rare accident - you don't know anything, and I mean anything, about how injuries occur in the real world. They occur on a spectrum, not a delta function.

Delta functioners watch out!

Quote from Navid

Just accept the facts for what they are. This stuff is complex and you can't sanitize it away. It is the techno-religionists who want to prove the intervention has no flaws, and that nothing has changed in a century (in our learning of the body and ability to fight disease). You can't make progress if you don't question. Maybe a safe era of vaccines is possible or maybe other therapies - in the route we are going that won't happen since the business model is threatened!

Navid - let me agree with you this stuff is complex, and that you can't sanitise the facts - which is why highlighting two figures in a long paper, with no analysis, helps no-one.

Thanks to Zeuss I can now do this.

(1) As Alan points out this was an early and not very effective tetanus vaccine. Modern vaccines are much better and safer.

(2) even given that you can see that they showed the vaccine + passive "boosters" has 18.2% mortality, whereas no vaccine no boosters has 43.8% mortality. That would seem a significant win for the vaccine + boosters. No?

I'm not saying that c1935 vaccine was very safe, nor very efficacious. But Tetanus in WWII was a significant cause of death, and even then the active vaccine when administered with passive boosters delivers significantly better figures than anything else. From just your own figures. I wonder why you did not look at them all?

If your point is that bad vaccines administered in the wrong way are dangerous and often worse than no vaccine - of course I'd agree. that is why we have phase II and phase III trials.

Quote from Navid

Cheerleading microdata about tetanus or rubella is missing a societal problem of epidemic proportions. Vaccines is part of a major threat at young ages to all nations because of toxification and talking points about a single vaccine does x or not x is avoidance. If you think a few billions paid out in vaccine court represents is a rare accident - you don't know anything, and I mean anything, about how injuries occur in the real world. They occur on a spectrum, not a delta function.

Delta functioners watch out!

Navid - all we are asking you to do is to give evidence to back up this BS.

You showed us "single vaccine" evidence about Tetanus, which when properly considered does not show what you want it to show. So I understand now you don't want to stick with that. Show us any evidence you want - as long as it is real quantitative evidence - not ideological talking points.

For those who think about this stuff. just imagine what would happen to any US company that allowed its vaccine to be used when the safety and efficacy figures did not add up? They would get sued for their entire capitalisation by class actions. A strong incentive not to market bad vaccines.

Quote from Navid

Just accept the facts for what they are.

I do, and your ignoring everything but table V shows that you don’t.

For those perhaps bemused by my aggressiveness here. Anti-vax propaganda is a clear and present threat to the world's economy and health at the moment. It has done very great harm in the past by pushing on the side of inertia and reducing preparedness for this epidemic - luckily we still had CEPI and therefore all was not lost.

Anti-vax lies are also responsible for the resurgence of Measles in the UK and US. Not in the same league as lack of preparation for a new deadly respiractory disease, but still a thing.

Just now, the difference between US vaccinating at 80% and 60% could be either COVID infection rates going to zero, and the country opening up, or COVID continuing, with fear, masks, restrictions, etc indefinitely.

Anti-vax propaganda, if believed, makes that difference. If there was anything to it i'd be sympathetic - but it is just scientific exaggeration and FUD.

https://www.infectioncontrolto…ults-doubt-vaccine-safety

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

For those who think about this stuff. just imagine what would happen to any US company that allowed its vaccine to be used when the safety and efficacy figures did not add up? They would get sued for their entire capitalisation by class actions. A strong incentive not to market bad vaccines.

I think US companies have some kind of protection from this, with their own ‘vaccine court’ to settle things.

Highly recommended article:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/art…t-system-with-bad-science

Quote from Wyttenbach

The problem is: With the try to eradicate Rubella nobody gets a free vaccination anymore. This forces people to do so. It's a perfect business model based on fear.

The cost is trivial! Everyone is "forced" to pay a few dollars once in a lifetime. Are you seriously complaining about that?!?

It is not a business model at all. The companies that manufacture the vaccine have no say in making the laws. The government mandates it. The vaccine companies make little profit on common vaccines such as this one. It is "based on fear" for good reason. The disease should make you afraid! You might as well say that traffic signals, stop signs and speed limits are based on fear. Yes, because letting people drive through the streets at 60 mph without stopping would be frightful.

Quote from Zeus46

I think US companies have some kind of protection from this, with their own ‘vaccine court’ to settle things.

Well, it is not "their own." It isn't as if the companies administer it. It is a Federal court. See:

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

I do not think this is a "Get Out of Jail Free" card. I think they are protected as long as they took reasonable steps to ensure safety. If one of them was negligent and released a dangerous vaccine, I expect that would not be covered.

It only covers a small number of commonly used vaccines, but they are the most used ones. They are listed here:

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-c…vered-vaccines/index.html

According to a new Swiss information the classic Chinese contact tracing paper is erroneous. The paper says that tracing for the last 48 hour contacts is enough. A new evaluation of the data shows that in this case you only get 61% of the potential infections. 5 days back you get 97% of all infections.

This also explains why most countries currently fail with contact tracing. E.g. Japan, France etc.. with a strong surge of infections.

Quote from Zeus46

I do, and your ignoring everything but table V shows that you don’t.

I showed you the data and you want to play poker with it. It clearly shows that mortality is higher in the vaccinated group. Go back to the original post, and I mentioned many reasons this science (in this case on tetanus) is complex and people on a LENR-Forum are fooling themselves if they Google the CDC's website and spam it as proof of vaccines being safe and effective and achieving the status of "obvious and if you don't agree you are a threat to humanity" status.

Quote from THHuxleynew

For those perhaps bemused by my aggressiveness here. Anti-vax propaganda is a clear and present threat to the world's economy and health at the moment. It has done very great harm in the past by pushing on the side of inertia and reducing preparedness for this epidemic - luckily we still had CEPI and therefore all was not lost.

Anti-vax lies are also responsible for the resurgence of Measles in the UK and US. Not in the same league as lack of preparation for a new deadly respiractory disease, but still a thing.

Just now, the difference between US vaccinating at 80% and 60% could be either COVID infection rates going to zero, and the country opening up, or COVID continuing, with fear, masks, restrictions, etc indefinitely.

Anti-vax propaganda, if believed, makes that difference. If there was anything to it i'd be sympathetic - but it is just scientific exaggeration and FUD.

https://www.infectioncontrolto…ults-doubt-vaccine-safety

THH

Display More

You are a propagandist.. When you can't handle the debate you pull out the usual "propoganda". Your science is as slippery as a fish.

The industry is the one that produces propoganda, everybody knows that because that is what pharma does. The truth, is never a threat.

Yes, measles vaccines saved the world.

Quote from Bjohnk

suggested I measure it after some strenuous activity

By the way, it will also read low if your fingers are cold. (like after handling ice or holding a wet icy drink.

Quote from Navid

It clearly shows that mortality is higher in the vaccinated group.

Navid, please explain your statement. There are two actively vaccinated figures: 18.2% and 87.8% - differing in what was done. There is one non-vaccinated figure 48.7%

In what world is that "clearly shows mortality is higher in vaccinated groip"

It is higher by 2X in active vaccine / no passive booster. It is lower by 2X in active vaccinated with passive booster.

As the paper points out, this is a (very early) vaccine that badly needs those passive boosters.

In what weird world does that make your point?

If you are saying that vaccination of soldiers during WW2 was not properly understood, and they were not all given an effective vaccine. I'd agree. But i think you are trying to make some point about vaccines not working?