To be fair, his arteries were 100% blocked. It was just a matter of time.
Shane D. Moderator
- from Pensacola Beach, Fl.
- Member since Jan 26th 2015
- Last Activity:
Rather alarming if this pans out:
"there is a credible reason to believe that the COVID vaccines will cross-react with the syncytin and reproductive proteins in sperm, ova, and placenta, leading to impaired fertility and impaired reproductive and gestational outcomes,"
"We simply cannot put these [coronavirus vaccines] in our children who are at .002% risk for COVID mortality if infected, or any more of the child-bearing age population, without thoroughly investigating this matter,” she said.
Otherwise, “we could potentially sterilize an entire generation."
Let's turn the temperature down a bit. We are looking for excess heat, but not this kind.
WRONG!!! These atrocities should never be forgotten for the sake of someone's emotions and if they portray what is happening in the world then this type of posting is and should be acceptible. Plus, show me where it should apply as to the posting. I'm sick and tired of snowflakes and propaganda.
I never said that they should be forgotten. Just suggested we give our German members a break, and pick on someone else for a change.
Wyttenbach - when we will finally get rid of your provocative and miserable Nazi-affine language and argumentation here in this board? I am sure you can do better if you want....but every other day you end up in those bad comparisons, as if you cannot find other words. Or is it intenionally? Today it is Dr. Mengele, yesterday it was Auschwitz, the day before it was 3. Reich, I could go on and on. No one else here is doing that. Maybe it is a Swiss issue...?
"Yes some people will get the Dr. Mengele award for forced testing of experimental drugs among over 1 Billion people without any serious tests and and e.g. a faked phase III Study by Pfizer"
Plenty of other atrocities to select from as analogies, and I have been hoping he would give our German members a break from being reminded of theirs.
When a complaint is filed, one of us usually edit it out...as I did with most of your examples. Can't always read every word written here, so we count on you to report something offensive.
Too good to be true?
If he did not work for the Navy, I would think so. Same goes for Pais. Not that being employed at a government lab makes them more personally credible, or guarantee what they claim is not some made up fantasy, but the military does have an effective check and balance in place to weed out nut cases.
Good article saying basically what many here concluded long ago:
"Some clear thinking based on data that were available last spring would have led to two insights. First, the benefits of protecting the old and vulnerable exceed the costs. Second, the costs of protecting the young and healthy exceed the benefits."
"We find that the benefits of protection are disproportionately higher for older people. Consider two extremes: the 18-year-old and the 85-year-old. If the 18-year-old dies, he loses 61.2 years of expected life. That’s a lot. But the probability of the 18-year-old dying, if infected, is tiny, about 0.004%. So the expected years of life lost are only 0.004% times 35% times 61.2 years, which is 0.0009 year. That’s only 7.5 hours. Everything this younger person has been through over the past year was to prevent, on average, the loss of 7.5 hours of his life.
Now consider the 85-year-old. If he dies, he will lose 6.4 years of expected life. The probability of dying, if infected, is much higher for him, about 8%. So the expected years of life lost are 8% times 35% times 6.4 years, which is 0.179 year—65 days. The benefits of protection, measured in life expectancy, are 210 times as high for the older person."
Did you find anything specifically wrong in this article? Something that looks like a mistake, or a political statement? I don't see anything. This squares with other sources of information, and with common sense. It mentions the problem I just listed: old people often die.
Pretty simple. Here is what the CDC website says:
"Over 245 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through May 3, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 4,178 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA physicians review each case report of death as soon as notified and CDC requests medical records to further assess reports. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines."
Here is what Politifact then asks about this data, to which Dr. Offit answers:
"VAERS has proven to be an effective tool for the CDC, FDA and researchers skilled at interpreting the enormous volumes of data that the system generates.
So how should the rest of us analyze those numbers?
Offit has a straightforward answer: We shouldn’t.
It’s natural for people to seek out information to safeguard their family’s health and to look to government health agencies for guidance and data. But as the VAERS website itself warns, the reports in the system are not nearly enough to determine whether a vaccine causes a particular health event."
The 4,1678 figure may be a gross under exaggeration according to VAERS historical data collection gathering, or an over exaggeration. Offit feels in this case it should be ignored nonetheless, but admits the data has been a good bell-weather in the past for other diseases.
It needs to be investigated further IMO. At the least, it could form the basis for a solid risk/benefit analysis to determine if getting vaccinated is worth it for the younger people. For us old folks, and the young and infirm, it seems pretty clear we need to get vaccinated.
(probably similar for other reporting systems)
It’s designed so that anyone — parents, patients and health care professionals — can freely report any health effects that occur after a vaccination, according to the CDC, whether or not those effects are believed to be caused by the vaccine. The reports are not verified before they’re entered into the database. But anyone with a computer can search the data, download it, sort through the numbers and interpret them as they wish
VAERS has proven to be an effective tool for the CDC, FDA and researchers skilled at interpreting the enormous volumes of data that the system generates.
So how should the rest of us analyze those numbers?
Offit has a straightforward answer: We shouldn’t.
This a good reason I distrust these so called "fact checkers"...whatever their political leanings. And all BTW lean one way or the other. The article by Politifact does a good job laying out the history of VAERS. From what I read, it (VAERS) is used as a "bird in the coalmine", or an early warning system for potential problems. If the bird dies, they investigate further.
Those investigations have historically lead to some notable successes that saved many lives, and some false leads. This Dr. Offit though, claims in this case VAERS reporting (COVID Vaccine deaths/side effects) is misleading.
He may be right, or wrong, but to be honest, I do not trust him, and especially this Politifact. I think we get better pro/con commentary here on the forum.
Famous, or infamous depending on your politics, Dr. Zelenko was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his advocacy, and pioneering the use of the HCQ/Zinc protocol.
Most articles say he has been "awarded" the prize, but are in the process of correcting themselves to say he was "nominated".
"When asked about studies that seemed to discredit the efficacy of HCQ in treating the Chinese coronavirus, Zelenko explained “You don’t fire a gun without a bullet in it and then say the gun doesn’t work when you don’t kill the target. The studies that were done on HCQ did not include the use of Zinc. HCQ is what opens the cell and enables Zinc to attack the virus. One is not effective without the other, or without a suitable substitute for HCQ. The studies were designed to fail.”
Ivemectin is a live saving treatment that can end the pandemic. Full stop.
Meta-review published: https://journals.lww.com/ameri…_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx
The anti-science death cult will chime in..in 3, 2, 1....
From the article:
"Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance."
Almost every IVM study I have read concluded it leads to "statistically significant time to viral clearance", as compared to those receiving standard treatment. If it does that, it must be working.
Viruses don't experience a placebo effect, read the news, or have an opinion based on their politics. If a drug interferes with their replication, they die off. The less they replicate, the faster the patient recovers and the better the outcome. It's that simple....I think.
I propose to issue a warning to Wittenbach for his disrespect for the "Russians", for his Russophobic position and insulting a Russian physicist who died in 2013,
Wyttenbach insults everyone, so do not take it personally.
We are, however, insisting that after vaccines become available, if you don't want one, we don't want to be in the same store or movie theater or airplane with you. Go ahead and kill yourself, but do not endanger me. Breakthrough cases are rare and usually mild, but I don't want one.
I understand what you are saying, but speaking for myself, I am vaccinated and have no problem with being in the company of those who are not. One of the reasons for getting vaccinated is so we can get out and do what we want, without worry about how others choose to live their life.
It is for your benefit, and the benefit of other customers who want to stay healthy. If you prefer to risk sickness and death, that's what you should do.
People in the low risk group (<55, healthy) do not fear sickness, or death from COVID because the stats show them they don't have to. So why push, or coerce them to get vaccinated?
I took the vaccine because of my age. Were I younger, I would probably prefer to take the natural route (get exposed) and develop immunity that way. With new variations popping up almost weekly, that may be the best way to fight back than to count on science to stay one step ahead of the mutations.
In order to convince a younger me to get jabbed, someone would have to give me a better reason than "you might get sick, and die if you don't". Do we have that reason?
It should be apparent that we have absolutely no shame and are compelled to continue despite serious deficiencies. We will do better. Nevertheless, however it rolls, we roll with it brother.
Sounds like a good strategy. Go girl.. I mean sister!