On July 31, 2021, RFK Jr. traveled to Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. His goal in the heart of the COVID pandemic was to scare the Amish away from lifesaving vaccines.
This article is classic misdirection. The article is great as far as it goes, making three key points: 1.) The overall autism rate is 1 in 271 for all Amish. 2.). Most of Amish do vaccinate to some degree. 3.). Many of the Amish who do not vaccinate do so for non-religious reasons such as a concern about side effects.
Nevertheless, the claim the article claims to debunk was that the unvaccinated Amish have incredibly low rates of autism. What is the autism rate in the unvaccinated Amish? The Autism rate in the unvaccinated Amish is than 1 in 1000 which is consistent with records for other doctors with numerous unvaccinated clients. It is hard to debunk the truth. So people talk around it and avoid it.
There is also great data and videos comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated in the same families, when families stop vaccinating.
It confirms a lower than otherwise vax rate but it shows the myth that the Amish are unvaccinated is just that, a myth. The other article is however quite good.
Thanks. I appreciate this second article. You are right, it proves that it is a myth that the Amish do not vaccinate their children for a religious belief that all vaccines are prohibited. I always appreciate having more information and this 2007 survey was conducted in a way to really illuminates that question. Because only 359 out of 1000 responded, the uncertainties are still quite large. 85% of the respondents gave at least one of their children at least one vaccine. So the absolute minimal vaccination rate for giving at least one child at least one vaccine is 305 out of 1000 or 30.5% and we know for sure that 45 out of 1000 said they refused all vaccines for all of their children, so the maximum would be 955 out of 1000 or 95.5%. Of those 45 who did not vaccinate any of their children, most did not vaccinate because of concerns about side effects, but it appears that many Amish people also have concerns about how many vaccines are made. Perhaps there is a religious opposition to using vaccines that relied on the use of fetal cell lines? It is telling that there were no questions on the survey about how many of your children have received all of the vaccinations on the childhood schedule. After the Covid vaccines, a new survey is needed.
Perhaps there is a religious opposition to using vaccines that relied on the use of fetal cell lines?
>>
There is no religious group on this planet that teaches opposition to using vaccines developed using foetal cell lines. Even the Catholic Church doesn't oppose it.
Your a proven liar Paul. The problem is you keep lying and kids keep getting sicker and sicker and dying. The real truth is that RFJ Jnr has actually looked and cannot be corrupted like you.
The AV movement only has kegs because the truth will never lay down.
When pushed into corner Paul resorts to distorted ideas of reality. Any clinician in their right mind would never make the kinds of claims he makes here:
I have contributed to other platforms that are interested in patient safety as well. I’m actually not “struggling” with respect to placebos and their function at all. If you agree with Paul about these things I can understand why you are so confident in your position
Dr Setty, perhaps you can reflect on your stated position...you are implying Offit is a "proven liar", basing this upon the "lie" he has told about placebos. You clearly disagree with his opinion on the status of what is a true placebo for vaccine trials and his assumed definition and what constitutes a valid placebo in these scenarios.
Leaving aside the question of whether his opinion is right or wrong for the moment, you can see that the topic is one of some controversy and difference of opinion.
That being the case, do you think it is helpful for one professional to consider another one as "a proven liar" just because of a difference of scientific opinion? Would you be happy for me to label you "a proven liar" because I think your position on the definition of a placebo is incorrect, and for me to say that "no clinician in their right mind "would think as you do?
It's one thing to call someone a liar and offer no evidence or citation or to include such things without explanation. My characterization of Paul with regard to this topic of the utility and purpose of a true placebo is actually a nod to his intellect. If he possessed no more than a below average intellect I would call him misinformed, not a liar.
I trained at Penn where he is a professor. I also trained at ChoP where he is affiliated. There are a lot of very intelligent clinicians and researchers there. There are also a lot of institutionalized people who simply go along with what their herd is saying. I was offered a faculty position there, which I turned down because I sensed there was something inherently limiting about devoting my professional life to a large institutional entity. I am not saying that this choice would have been right for everyone. Great things come out of those places too.
To defend his idea that a saline placebo is not required to test for safety and efficacy he offers the idea that too much water or salt can be life threatening, therefore saline is not harmless, and throws it into the same bucket of "immunologically inert" substances that are presently being used as control. He further says that these inert formulations have been deemed 100% safe by the FDA. Really? How does the FDA know that a small quantity of these kinds of "placebos" do not have a detrimental effect on some people? They don't. The reason why we know this is because they would have to offer an RCT that tests them against what? A saline placebo, obviously. There is no ethical way to such a study where you are testing only for harm without benefit. The FDA hasn't proven them safe. IT would be impossible. That is why interventions like vaccines need to be tested against a saline placebo, always.
To say otherwise is absolutely laughable and does not meet the basic elements of logic or common sense. He's smart enough to know this. This is why I call his statements prevarications and not merely a differing opinion.
Furthermore, he went on in his defense of his idea of a placebo to state unequivocally that the Salk Vaccine for Polio was tested against a true saline placebo. This is was false. Official documents from that trial over sixty years ago are available publicly and directly contradict him.
I can understand why the layperson or even a physician or scientist in the medical field may not be aware of this, but Paul Offit? Indeed, if he was the consummate researcher he claims to be one would have expected him to do a modicum of investigation into this before making public statements on such an issue as a purported world expert on vaccinology.
He's either making inaccurate statements purposefully (a liar in my book) or he is woefully uninformed or dumb. You don't win awards, work with Pharma or make it to the advisory committees of the FDA by being dumb.
Such blatant disregard for human life. My blood boils, knowing that RFK jr. is still pushing this BS after the injuries and deaths he has caused. Truly a degenerate human being.
Please get another shot immediately! It’s not over until you have EVERY booster and EVERY shot! PLEASE 🙏🏻 And take your foolish brainwashed family and friends with you!
Injuries and death? The lock-down world wide, as of March 2022, per The Lancet medical journal,l killed twice as many people than did covid and caused hundreds of million to be pushed in poverty or extreme poverty. Ivermectin was taken of the shelves causing many people and animals to be infected with parasites. The rates of TB and Malaria skyrocketed and the amount of suffering worldwide in unfathomable. The lock-downs here caused untold damage to the American people and caused many inner city youths to fall way behind in their education (watch videos of Monica Ghandi, MD), which leads to higher crime and poverty rates. Many people are injured from the vaccine but no one is allowed to say that. Many scientists and doctors who show how bad these policy failures were, lost their medical licenses and were banned from social media platforms. You haven't doing your homework and the only politician in this discussion regarding harmful practices, is Paul Offit. Do your homework.
Lifesaving vaccines? Please! As more and more vaccines are being given to American kids, their health is declining. We now have a generation with high rates of chronic illness, autoimmune disease, metal toxicity, neurological damage, etc. And it is known that some vaccines INCREASE transmission of the disease they were supposed to stop. The 'herd immunity' concept is wishful thinking at best, and used as coercion to push vaccines, most notably the COVID vaccines. The Amish largely avoid any of this nonsense. Your ad hominem attacks against RFK, Jr. are erroneous and unethical.
There are numerous falsehoods in your Gish Gallop of antivax tropes. One can view the health of American kids in different ways. A good and important one is the infant mortality rate, which has declined steadily since the introduction of vaccines. This may be causal, not just correlative, seeing as how one of the main causes of infant death is infection.
Which vaccines increase transmission of the disease (as compared to transmission from an unvaccinated person)? Can you name a few, without lying?
What do you find problematic about the concept of "herd immunity"? It's well established, and can result from natural infection (in fact it is the reason that childhood infections are generally cyclical in nature). Neither natural Covid or vaccination provides any helpful herd immunity, something we have discovered during the pandemic and nobody is currently claiming that they do so (although a few antivaxers like to claim natural Covid infection is best because it gives herd immunity).
The Amish do vaccinate, they just don't do so to the extent other groups usually do. And the Amish are not some tribe of superhumans who never get ill and never get autism. In fact there are special clinics in some centres where Amish children with autism and other neurological disoders are reviewed.
Offit's attacks against RFKjr are not "ad hominem", in that he is not attacking him as a person; he is criticising RFK's behaviour and actions. Please look up the meaning of "ad hominem" before you claim people are deploying logical fallacies.
Herd immunity from measles occurs if 95% of the population is vaccinated, in the U.K. we had few cases of measles until a couple of years ago, vaccination rates are currently around 80% in some areas and there’s an increase in measles in those areas.
Vaccines cannot stop a person becoming infected in the upper respiratory tract, giving symptoms like fever, lethargy, swollen lymph nodes (all of which show a robust immune response) but they do stop the infection if it manages to spread to the lungs, thus preventing serious illness, hospitalisation, ITU admissions or death.
You may benefit from watching either Vincent Racianello or Brianne Barker lecture on virology and immunology respectively on YouTube, particularly the lectures that cover vaccines.
There is always room for both sides of every issue. There are people vaccines don’t work for. And very few vaccines prevent carrying and spreading disease so it should be a choice.
Just like cigarettes it took time for people to accept the voices saying there was a problem with them weren’t crazy. Covid’s silver lining was making it crystal clear pharma doesn’t care about your health. Time to wake up people, tobacco also used the argument correlation doesn’t confirm causation. But added to other signals was enough to say we need to look at this further. Pharma wasn’t committed to vaccines until the 1986 vaccine act, in fact without it they were getting out of the vaccine segment as they were all too aware a portion of the population was getting harmed by their products, and the liability wasn’t good for shareholders. It’s just a fact that will be openly accepted one day.
Oh my goodness. Thank you for this info. Now explain the excess 15-20 M deaths and likely $20 trillion in losses over four years caused by you and your ilk.
No, you must be wrong WynEdd... a massive global pandemic with huge socioeconomic consequences could not possibly result in an increase in deaths! That's implausible. It must be the fault of the vaccines developed for it! I don't know how, because everywhere they have been studied they have been shown to dramatically reduce Covid mortaklity,,, but it just has to be the vaccines, yes???? /s
It is both the vaccines and the pandemic response that have resulted in excess deaths. There isn’t any proof, other than ridiculous PSAs coming from the CDC that there is a mortality benefit from the vax. More people died in the pFizer trial if they got the vax. Period. People who die from Covid-19 within two weeks of vaccination are excluded from effectiveness calculations. Our agencies of public health are playing you
Evidence of vaccine effectiveness comes not from just the Pharma studies (which don’t show more deaths in the vaxed*) but from multiple sources across the globe, as well as strong epidemiological evidence.
This conversation is a distraction from the article, which is about RFKjr’s antivax activism. We should stick to that.
* IIRC, there were 2 deaths in the vax arm and 4 deaths in the saline placebo arm of the study.
The Pfizer vaccine trial demonstrated 15 deaths in the vax cohort and 14 in the placebo. After the study was unblinded, there were 21 deaths in those who received the vaccine compared to 17 in the control. This should have been a hard stop but this therapy was given to a billion human beings any way.
Now we do not have any data from matched cohorts. The CDC and the ONS use faulty means of calculating efficacy. We are totally in the dark about how effective or safe these things are.
It’s disquieting to see someone like offit and people who do (or did) research on this or related topics turn a blind eye to the lack of any substantive evidence of safety or effectiveness while considering any skepticism a product of paranoid pseudoscience.
Over a quarter million serious adverse events reported from people who chose to be vaccinated and the regulatory agencies ignore them all? What exactly will it take for people who know something about stats and epidemiology to change their minds? After three years of watching this unfold, I don’t think anything will.
Right, so according to you in the study of over 40,000 people taking place over 3-6 months, there were 38 deaths, 21 in the active vaccine group and 17 in the placebo group.
WRT vaccine safety, you are concluding that the vaccine is therefore killing people.
So tell us, what killed those who had placebo?
Did you look at the causes of death?
Did you take basic statistics at medical school?
Did you learn about calculations of probability, and statistical significance?
Did anyone tell you to look at the analysis, and determine with what level of confidence you might say vaccine recipients were significantly more likely to die?
Or maybe did you check how many of the trial subjects would be likley to die during the trial from natural causes, and see if more or less than expected had died?
....I can tell from your earlier claim that the answer to my questions must be: "No", and you have not done any of the above.
Did you do immunology as a medical student? Did they teach you how it takes 10-14 days for the body to mount an immune response to vaccination? Did they tell you that people are unprotected for the first 2 weeks following vaccination, because of this fact?
I hope so.
Taking on board that information, then an analysis of the effectiveness of vaccination as compared to placebo can certainly be justified in "starting" at 2 weeks post vaccination. After all, that's the time from which the vaccine will work, so there's little point including outcomes prior to that date, is there? What do you think including those 2 weeks will show you, other than muddying the waters because before the 2 week mark everyone in both arms of the study are immunologically "unimmunised".
Okay Mike, name a different intervention where you begin measuring effectiveness at the peak of effectiveness. Take an antibiotic. Some take quite some time before blood concentrations attain peak effectiveness. Do we only examine outcomes from that point or do we group cohorts based on placebo vs. therapy?
Tell me why you believe it takes 10-14 days for it to "work"? Are you basing this on IGM concentrations in the average person? In other words, are you using Ab concentrations as a surrogate for protection? Yes you are.
Why are you doing that? The FDA has long held that antibody concentrations are not a surrogate for protection. That was their sole argument as to why they insisted that even people who had Covid and had the titers to prove it still HAD to get the jab.
You bring up a very interesting topic. Let us say that it is somehow okay to only measure outcomes until the vaccine has allowed the body to mount an immune response. Let's say it's 14 days. As you well know, if you got Covid within 14 days of completing the primary series, your infection would not enter into the CDC vax effectiveness calculation. However this is grossly unscientific. Why would we ever exclude these outcomes from efficacy calculations?? These are people who got the jab and got sick from the target disease. I completely disagree that "there's little point including outcomes prior to that date".
How would you explain it to a patient who is asking the valid question, "how much protection will the shot give me, doc?"
Answer: It's going to help you two weeks out. But you might be more susceptible in the next two weeks. WE don't know. We don't count those cases.
You are raising a very interesting question. How do you think the CDC reported on vaccine effectiveness once the population was getting line? You are correct that they didn't include outcomes in people who were recently vaccinated (ie within two weeks of dose 2). But did they include those people in the denominator?
The CDC hinted that they were doing this, but not explicitly. I corresponded with them several times asking for this simple clarification. They kept asking for more specifics and places from their website where this was mentioned. I went back to give them a link to their own website and it was taken down.
I will assume that you have enough background in mathematics to see what would happen if you exclude outcomes in the recently vaccinated but include them in the pool of vaccinated people. It would result in an inflated vaccine effectiveness. I cannot say for certain that the CDC is doing this, but that is what the ONS in England is doing. They are even more audacious, including outcomes in the recently vaccinated into an "unvaccinated" outcome.
You may find this analysis fascinating. Here, I assume that vaccine was 0% effective, ie no better than a placebo. I also assume that the CDC is playing this game of including the recently vaccinated in the pool of vaccinated people but excluding any outcome.
Based on the vaccine uptake in the US during the first 9 months of 2021, we get a placebo "effectiveness" profile that nearly matches what we were told about the Covid vaccines. Once uptake essentially went to zero, so did effectiveness (a mathematical certainty). That happened around August, 2021, right when the CDC was urging us to get our booster.
Then, just like with the primary series, they also don't count recently boosted outcomes but include them in their pool of recently boosted, instantly fabricating 100% effectiveness that "wanes" as the two week window expires.
"Tell me why you believe it takes 10-14 days for it to "work"? Are you basing this on IGM concentrations in the average person? In other words, are you using Ab concentrations as a surrogate for protection? Yes you are."
Vaccines take 10-14 days "to work" because that is what the science of immunology has informed us about every active vaccine that has ever been used, and because the entire basis of immunology tells us this. The antigenic stimulus takes a little time to induce an adaptive immune response; the immune system is not primed ready to instantly react from the word "go", as you well know. Briefly put, after the antigen has made its way into the host, it encounters antigen presenting cells such as macrophages and dendritic cells, which ingest the antigens, and then display fragments of these on their surface. These cells have to migrate to regional lymph nodes usually by way of the lymphatic system. They encounter T cells, which bind the antigens and are stimulated to proliferate and divide into T helper cells, Cytotoxic T cells and T suppressor cells. The T helper cells go on to regulate the production of antigen specific antibodies via B cell proliferation. B cells differentiate into plasma cells which start to produce antigen specific antibodies, as well as memory B cells for future primed immune responses.
These responses are not instant,, but by around the 7 day mark, antibody levels are starting to rise, and by 2 weeks sufficient immune response has been generated to be clinically protective either against initial infection (the primary role of the neutralising antibodies) or clinical disease (primarily the role of the protective T cell response).
I don't know why you think the immune response is up and working from day one...that's biologically impossible.
I'm not using antibody levels as a direct measure of protection, although they do correlate well in most instances. It is possible for some people to produce low levels of antibody but still have clinical protection against infection (we see this for example with Hep B, where after 10 years or so HBsAb levels drop often to quite low levels [and people are recommended to get boosters] but in fact exposure to Hep B then will in not practice result in infection because these low levels are still protective and clones of Hep B specific memory B cells are able to rapidly produce more antibody). It's also possible for people to have high levels of neutralising antibody but still be susceptible to infection. For these reasons we don't say the correlation between levels and protection is exact; but it's not bad.
There’s no proof the vaccine saved anyone’s life. I know several who have died from taking the vaccine, 4 from cancer and others who are now incapacitated. Before the Covid vaccine I might know one person with cancer.
Your anecdotes are unconvincing and don’t constitute valid evidence. I have anecdotes that are contrary to your experience, as well as personal experience through my professional capacity, but I prefer to rely on sound, substantive studies that encompass the objective experience of populations, not individuals.
As Offit's noted before, the disinformation campaign, including the anti-vax campaign is alive and well. I can understand those who were duped by the mor eglib players and bought the disinformation because they're out of their scientific depth. I can't fathom people like RFKjr who do this intentionally, with a much better understanding of the consequences.
This highlights the requirement we, as scientists, have to better communicate the science, and truth as established by that science and careful investigation to the public. It's not an easy task for a number of my colleagues, and for that matter, wasn't easy for me at the height of the pandemic. That still means we have an obligation to help educate, and to refute those dangerous disinformation statements.
RFK Jr uses real science! Not the crap published by the pharmaceutical industry. Try reading the Real Anthony Faucci and Turtles All The Way Down and see what the science actually says. Unfortunately now a days half the science has been fabricated! And if he had it so wrong why hasn’t he been sued for The Real Anthony Faucci… well they can’t sue RFK Jr for this book as it all backed up science and all has been verified
I prefer to read the medical literature and confer with colleagues in epidemiology, virology, vaccinology and clinical practice. I’m afraid your sources are not consistent with the work I do.
And, no, RFKjr does not use science in the manner those of us with a scientific background and career do. His statements are misrepresentations at best. Had he stuck with environmental law and depended on his expert witnesses, rather than extrapolating without real data to his conclusions on vaccines, we’d be better off.
Simple question for you Gerry: how do you know that the literature you rely upon is true and accurate? Just because it has passed editorial and peer review? That’s fine, but you must acknowledge that you’re making a faith based argument, not an objective one.
Editorial committees of medical journals can be easily bought. Academic research depends on grant money coming from the NIH or other governmental institutions which receive massive contributions from the private sector.
There’s very little chance scientific evidence of vaccine harm would ever make it to print.
Part of my judgement is based on training and prior education. Knowledge of anatomy and physiology, virology, immunology also help. And I'm a multidisciplinary scientist, and used to evaluating disparate data sources. I read each article at least twice, once to get the gist of the material, then critically to attempt to identify issues that might have escaped editorial review and need to be highlighted.
I also tend to look more favorably at work either done or recommended by colleagues who have earned my respect over the years. I know their standards and ethics, and that goes a long way.
As for "buying" editorial committees in any journal, save some of the very narrow niche specialty, and often intentionally slanted ones, it's harder than you think. Since I've never received any honorarium for reviewing for ANY journal, it's hard to suggest I'd been bought. And no one else I know's been paid to review. My research has often been supported by Federal grants, occasionally contracts, and occasionally private sector foundations, but I've never performed directed research for a for-profit entity. I've colleagues in non-medical fields who have indeed performed directed research but none have been coerced, to my knowledge, to produce material that was dictated by the funding organization. They might not get funded by that entity again, but most I know wouldn't sacrifice integrity for funding like that.
So, very little I accept is "faith-based". Instead, it requires a lot more effort on my part to "read" a journal article than it takes most to determine whether they agree with something on social media. For the record, I have, this morning, scanned and subsequently reread two articles, including a rather involved BJM article involving a meta-analysis, case-controlled and well-designed involving over 20k patients. I've reviewed the statistics and later tonight I'll download their available data and attempt to reproduce their statistical results independently. If that sounds like faith-based acceptance to you, I don't know where to begin.
IF I wanted a faith-based argument, I'd look at the ASA guidance several months ago about declining patients on GLP-1a's for general anesthesia or conscious sedation unless they'd withheld their medication for at least a week because of anecdotal reports of GERD and emesis complications. A major society issued a recommendation on anecdotal evidence, and a number of my friends/colleagues in the specialty accepted it on its face. THAT is a faith-based acceptance.
I agree with you. The ASA has very little to back up their "guidelines" with regard to holding GLP-1a's yet it has permeated throughout our practice. Now if you break with the new guidelines and your patient aspirates you have no leg to stand on.
The ASA also removed a highly effective antiemetic, Droperidol, from our arsenal decades ago because of some reports of Qt prolongation.
This why I find it astounding that all of these professional organizations support "keeping up to date with Covid vaccinations" despite literally hundreds of thousands of passive reports of serious adverse events. You don't think that, in and of itself, points to some double standard? I do. The question is, from where does this hypocrisy arise?
I am not saying that it buying editorial committees is easy. I am just saying that it is not impossible. Throughout these last four years I have been astounded at the kind of garbage that is getting through editorial review and because it gets into print it gets into the ethos by way of media coverage.
Most of the failures of quality in the medical literature I've seen have been related to one of two things: A) fringe journals that published special interest results rather than requiring qualified peer review, and looking for tie-breakers if the reviews were not consistent (and we're talking well-trained reviewers, not random folks who sought or were recruited because reviewing is not easy, and is often thankless; or, B) trying to respond to the flood of articles and reports that came through, some with apparently good study design but where the actual research (or worse, meta-analysis) was poorly performed.
A lot of the early work was small pseudo-studies or short series case reports (although Raoult's claims about hydroxychloroquine claimed a larger series... apparently without cause) that attempted to make sense of the noise. Indeed, the discussions I participated in were similar but not submitted for publication. We looked at what people had seen in the last day, or week, and tried to synthesize new approaches to treatment in near-real time. This resulted in some changes that eventually permeated the treatment realm, including changes to mechanical ventilation, use of high-flow oxygen and NIV in place of CMV, and lowering peak pressures and flow to reduce barotrauma to remaining viable lung tissue. We also championed steroids almost as soon as the initial reports arose, and saw results in uncontrolled use. Note that I was not a practicing clinician. If anything, I helped synthesize the overall thoughts, and asked the probing questions allowing the groups to consider new options.
Having designed and been involved in clinical trials, I can do a pretty good job of identifying errors in design. I was initially skeptical of the speed with which the vaccines' trials were completed, but upon reading the data related to the trials, the fact that they were conducted in a pandemic allowed normal endpoints to be reached in near record time. I was satisfied with the quality of the trials and of the statistical analyses associated with them. As for the myriad reports of adverse events, too many people attempt to download and analyze VAERS data. The dataset can be updated by anyone, and there's no automatic process to prevent "stuffing the box" with events, which CDC has, indeed, found to have occurred. There were also recommendations online and in some conservative media to do exactly that, which probably did, in fact, contribute to the overload of VAERS data. Recall that VAERS is designed solely to provide a rapid signal to an increase in adverse events, not to provide deep and definitive data to allow tracking the potential problems. THAT requires other investigative tools and research, which has been ongoing and has been reported. Unfortunately, some of the later research suggesting elevated adverse event rates has been mis-played in the media and online, and has, indeed, demonstrated that said events are consistent with prior, and more "traditional" vaccines. Even the authors of the most recent of these that I've looked at made the statement that the vaccines are all safer than contracting the viral disease.
The easiest way to buy an editorial committee is to create your own niche journal. A number of those arose with COVID. I've found the vast majority of them to have been designed to push misinformation, at least based on my experience and education. The fact that I'd even look at preprint servers, something I tried to avoid prior to COVID, means I was looking at a larger variety of data to base my opinions on. That said, the preprint servers meant I had a moral obligation to read each article like a reviewer, and provide feedback to the authors when I felt they had erred. That increased my work per paper significantly, and honestly, while I believe it was the right thing to do, I often wished I'd not embarked on that path.
It doesn’t take a scientist to realize we have been gaslighted by big Pharma, the FDA, CDC and frankly any governmental agency. You can look around you and see for yourself. All the vaccine injured, all the people who were vaxxed over and over again and still got COVID over and over again. We have been gaslighted on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, masks, lockdowns..you name it. Fortunately the majority of Americans have figured that out based on the low numbers who have decided, no more COVID jabs. What was the rationale for the FDA originally not willing to release the Pfizer clinical trial data?It wasn’t until after a FOIA request that it was finally released and the data was not favorable to the Pfizer proclaimed results. Efficacy was based on a relative risk vs absolute, more people died in the treatment arm than the placebo arm, transmission and infection in vaccinated individual was never studied and safety..the biggest gaslighting of all was barely studied, and no long term safety. As you so eloquently said Gerry, we too have a right to refute those disinformation statements, that pretty most of which have turned out to be true. Don’t you find it unusual that not government
No...I am not.....most of what is written now a days is not true. It's propaganda.
If someone slanders you with untrue information you can sue and if the information is in fact untrue most likely you will win. RFK Jr will do his damage to the ruling classes once he's put on a debate stage with Biden and Trump. Actually RFK Jr has already awaken enough minds that the medical complex as it works today will not be tolerated much longer.
The fact that no lawsuit was brought is an invitation to the idea that what RFK Jr has written may not be false. If it were abjectly inaccurate or wrong than a lawsuit would have surely followed such an attack on Fauci, the NIAID and the regulatory complex in general. I would seriously consider reading his material completely and critically before getting too comfortable with your understanding of this complex situation
RFKjr is a lawyer. He can lie about events and make false claims without those constituting libel. Anyway, scientists who are libelled or slandered usually don’t sue; it’s distracting from their professional roles, inconvenient, time consuming, and highly expensive. There’s little gain for them at the end of the day.
But RFKjr can sue .. why hasn’t he sued Offit? It would be easy for him as a lawyer, and would represent a major propaganda coup for him if he won.
Anybody can make up lies and sue, including doctors and Pharma companies. Kennedy has sued large interests successfully. There’s no reason to sue a doctor that is making claims about vaccines. What purpose would that serve?
It hasn’t taken a scientist to figure out the gaslighting that has occurred by supposed scientists in the past three years. I think the people have realized they have been lied to..very few Americans are interested in taking any more COVID jabs.
I'll rise to this. Yes, I seriously AM a scientist and have spent a lifetime in science. At no time have I gas-lighted anyone, but I have had my position and opinions change due to additional information becoming available. This has been the case for all the peers I work with on a regular basis, as well as experts such as Offitt. On the other hand, there are people, some with science and medical educations, who have not modified their views based on new information and data, and who have continued to spread misinformation. In addition, there are talking heads who have ideas and positions, likely supported monetarily, who are prone to spread mis- and disinformation. I can only guess at their motivations. The amount of effort required to evaluate new data as it becomes available is significant, and time-consuming, and often requires experience and training that's not afforded to someone who's not dedicated their lifetime work experience to scientific and medical endeavors.
I will note that CDC had significant problems with getting legitimate material out the door during the previous administration because budget cuts saw an exodus of senior scientific talent in the early stages of said administration, and during the Pandemic early phases, political hacks were installed to make sure messaging was consistent with the political intent of the administration. Also, Redfield was not an inspired choice for his directorship, nor an inspiring leader.
FDA suffered similar problems until Hahn discovered his reputation was really suffering by being politically reliable and refused to take that stance any longer. Azar never really learned that lesson.
We continue to see evidence that the vaccines have proven beneficial, and also have a solid role in preventing, or ameliorating Long-COVID symptoms. In addition, continued well-designed and well-controlled research has demonstrated their safety. Over time, efficacy has dropped because of the nature of the coronavirus to mutate rapidly, leading to immune evasion, but overall, it has continued to reduce incidence of severe illness, hospitalization and death.
Since you ask, I've read 4 studies this morning, and looked at their materials and methods and statistical analysis with a critical lens before adding them to my references here on the computer. Having read, now, thousands of such reports, I have a pretty good idea of the past and ongoing research, but will admit I am occasionally surprised at the direction some researchers go to look at another aspect of this disease process. SARS-CoV-2 continues to surprise us with the different ways it affects the human pathophysiology.
Personally, I will continue to get the recommended boosters, as some of the consequences of severe illness are not where I want to go. In my estimation, the potential for adverse effects from vaccination vs. adverse effects from infection falls in strong favor of getting vaccinated.
I've read the Colpo "article". It is not consistent with the medical literature and real world interactions with clinicians, virologists, vaccinologists and epidemiologists I've been working fairly closely with for the last 4 years. His take and evaluation are completely inconsistent with what has been found in real world studies, and continuing research looking at, e.g., hospitalizations for those vaccinated vs. those not vaccinated.
I don't suspect you'd appreciate the idea that Colpo's take is rather shrill and not aligned with what we've seen clinically, nor in well-designed studies or reviews.
What has been shown, though, is those who have completed the series and have been boosted are less likely to have severe disease or require hospitalization than people who have not been vaccinated at all. The picture becomes a bit more muddled when you consider illness-derived immunity, because while there is some durability there, it tends, in research studies, mostly laboratory, to be less durable than vaccine-derived immunity, AND, COVID infection has been demonstrated to cause aberrations in the cellular immune response process.
And... there is a recent report of a German male who, for reasons completely opaque to me, but of his own volition, has received (from memory, so approximate) 267 COVID-19 vaccinations, of various origins. Researchers have been studying his immune response, and have found he has an active immunity to COVID-19 that's somewhat higher than most others who have been vaccinated, and has no deficit in his cellular immunity. These assays that are being conducted on him are highly technical, and not all the data are available yet, but the early answer is there was, in an N=1 example (which isn't a well-designed research program), no adverse effect found from what I'd call "over-vaccination".
To answer your question: I continue to follow the literature, from a variety of scientific sources I consider reputable based on quite a few years of work and life experience, and all the data in those journals has pointed to vaccines being safe and effective, and that any attempts to achieve population immunity via illness-derived immunity in the face of a rapidly changing virus have not been as successful as some people have advertised.
One significant problem we experienced starting early in the pandemic was that with clinical and laboratory information coming as fast as it was, processing it and communicating well was difficult. I found myself often having to change opinions as new information with more patient data came in, or as we got new, e.g., autopsy data that required us to change paradigms on the disease process. My attempts to communicate with both my organization and the public were unsuccessful partially because I was trying to relate the data, and my explanations of said data were poorly composed. Often I'd devolve into specific language that had particular meaning in the epidemiology, infectious disease, or critical care realm, but while the words seemed to be readily interpreted English, their meaning was actually obscured in their precision: What I was saying meant something to someone within the field, but might be misconstrued by a "normal human" reading the material. In fact, within my organization, I was assigned a keeper, who interpreted what I was trying to say for the organization.
This pandemic was the first where everyone had relatively unfettered access to how the science is made. This poses a problem because in its natural form, science is messy, and we often disagree on facts and findings. I've been to scientific meetings that could have become brawls (in fact, I've seen one brawl over a science discussion, but in another field) save there were too many people around who would prevent such action. But we eventually can converge on an answer, in most cases. This time, the public was watching, and we didn't converge too quickly. Indeed, there were some whose motives for saying some of what they said can only be attributed to wanting to be seen as someone with a "different opinion" who wanted to see their 15 minutes of fame. Their interpretations, often outside of their areas of expertise, were orthogonal to the science as it was being elucidated in real time, and they didn't want to change their opinions.
And we, in public health, often seemed to talk down to the public, which didn't sit well with said recipients. The problem was, we were, as I did, using precise language, and a liberal interpretation of what we said didn't match the intent of the precise language, so we felt we had to explain it again, in different terms. Had we used the second explanation and never uttered the first, perhaps we'd have been better off, but we were still hampered by the fact that our data were changing so quickly that what I might say as a solid recommendation today would be obsolete by the time I completed 3 nightly telecons and read the first couple of articles in my inbox the next morning. Our data had changed, the facts as we understood them had changed, and thus, our opinions and recommendations were revised. No, we hadn't lied to anyone, but we were overwhelmed by the data. In the first 6 months of the pandemic I had read over 700 articles, spent thousands of hours on telecons with clinicians who were treating people in the ICUs. As we gained more information our knowledge changed, and in some cases increased. Recall that we were dealing with a novel virus to which few people had any form of natural immunity, that was spreading rapidly, that was contagious before symptoms occurred. In other words, while it was technically of the line of coronaviruses, it didn't behave like the others, per se. We had to adapt to that reality. The issues we saw with lung compliance, and barotrauma on mechanical ventilation, the issues we saw with microclotting in vascular space and solid organs were not something we were sued to seeing with this class of virus. But our attempts to express this to the public were rough, at best.
Simply put, there are now information sources I cannot find credible (and you cited one) because I've spent too much time working through the science of this disease, and clinical processes, even though I've done the latter as a scientist and not as a clinician. Being well aware of what the clinician does, I can contribute to that area, and had some part in some of the evolving treatments used in the pandemic. Some were even successful. I tend to follow the information sources I know and trust, and I don't depend on social media, or the news media, broadcast, online, or print, that's focused toward the public, as authoritative sources for scientific information. I've spent a few years in the trenches and have a pretty good idea of where to get authoritative data.
I would say the Colpo article is much more compelling than yet another observational study that SUGGESTS that the COVID vaccines reduced hospitalization and death. I would agree this is plausible in the at risk population, but the vast majority of the population were not at risk for COVID related hospitalization or death. So to mass vaccinate the not at risk population, in my opinion was criminal..not to mention locking down the society, closing schools etc. I found the link to this study which was in an article written by Martin Kuldorff after his disgraceful firing from Harvard. What I have found most fascinating about the last four years is why have all the promoters of the vaccines, lockdowns etc. have never risen up to the offers to debate or even have open discussion with the likes of Kulldorff, but rather have done just the opposite, promoted censorship and ridicule. I would suggest you read the recent Kulldorff article. Being “consistent with medical literature” does not mean the medical literature is correct. And yes sir we have been lied too…over and over again.
There was absolutely NO science going on from 2020- present in this dystopian reality we’re suffering through. 6ft , masks, lockdowns, tyrannical governments, fascists nazis thugs, riots, forced injections of an experimental gene therapy drug. GO AHEAD WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC ABOUT ALL THIS RESPONSE TO A SARS COV2 outbreak from whatever origin??????
a clear history of tragedy of recent epidemics of measles associated with vaccine-deniers influencing a community -- and RFKJr is among the worst actors.
The comment was sarcastic.. I am vaccine injured from the shots they gave me in the sixties. I am not anti vax…..I just wish they make them safe…I realize most people with autoimmune disorders have no idea how they got them
All the folks lining up for their 4th, 5th or 6th shot should be treated with the utmost compassion because they have been tricked by fear into agreeing to this medical intervention. These folks will never change their minds, therefore leaving them open to further exploitation, fear-mongering and poisonous medical practices.
The struggle is real. Honestly though, it made is easier to drop relationships that clearly were unhealthy and hollow. I pity them, I don't hate them. The truth is always there.🙏
Exactly, Roxanne. You’re absolutely right about severing unhealthy friendships. We’re all here to learn and help, though in some instances it’s almost impossible.
Yes, dropping relationships with people who only think of themselves and ignore the fact that they might pose a risk to others is a good recipe for life.
That you did. Why are you unaware of asymptomatic spread or presymptomatic spread? Have you been asleep for the last 4 years?
Oh, and have you uploaded your source evidence for your claims about BC vaccine deaths to your substack yet? It’s been a week or two since you promised you would.
I’m sorry indeed to hear that you and your family were harassed because you refused to be duped.
It has been a learning curve for us all and the way forward, of course, is to keep the family ties strong, up-front and honest. Anything else with find it’s own level, including those folks who quite simply, made the wrong decision. It’s a terribly bitter pill to swallow, to realise that one’s trusted health (-sickness) industry is so corrupted and profit-driven. Some folks can genuinely not take that in.
It didn’t bother me. Nor my sons. But my wife is very sociable. She was a good friend to many women in the neighbourhood. She would dog-sit for them, help them in many ways. Bring casseroles when people were very sick etc. Her ‘friends’ shunned her when she merely expressed doubts about COVID. When the vax came along she said she wanted to wait for a bit. They attacked. She doesn’t run with them, get invited over, she has been blacklisted. Some very close friends cut her off completely. Decades long friendships. I feel for her. On the positive side, she was to my way of thinking ‘overly invested’ socially. It meant a little too much to her. She has dialed back a ton. And is I think happier for it.
And I bet her friends felt good about the situation too.
I've seen examples of the scenarios you speak of.
We have a friend whose mother was extremely vulnerable, and who died after she caught Covid back during the first wave of infection in 2020, despite supposedly being in "isolation" in what was called a family bubble to prevent it. We think the source was contact with one of my friend's acquaintances who ignored restrictions, remained unmasked, and yet thought it a good idea to wisit my friend's mother to see if she was "doing ok". She was, but then one week later came down with Covid. Game over. We assume the acquaintance had asymptomatic infection, as she denied having had symptoms, but she probably was just saying that.
Extraordinary. How does a wicked perversion of the known facts manage to dupe so many people? Inducing people to believe dangerous nonsense peddled by the anti-vaxxers is a form of fraud and should be criminalised as such.
When you spent your whole life getting vaccines and never got harmed by a shot or caught the disease and then the "best vaccine ever" comes out and kills 7 of your friends and the rest catch the disease anyway, you start asking questions. Then you get criticized for asking questions. Then you ask more questions and you realize that all of your vaccines may have been a lie and you just got lucky, and even then maybe not as lucky as you thought.
Though in a way I am grateful for the covid vaccine push, if it hadn't been for that I would have gotten my 25th, 26th, and 27th annual flu shots by now, with no long term studies on what that could be doing to me.
‘I gave my dog the new mRNA rabies shot, four times now. He’s had rabies three times since then and he can’t walk up stairs anymore.’ NO ONE WOULD DO THAT. Yet they do it for COVID. unbelievable.
I gave my dog Jimbo the new mRNA rabies shot, and annual boosters. It didn't stop him from getting rabies, but when he did he recovered completely and vaccination also meant the rabies was no longer fatal, as it would have been if he wasn't vaccinated.
I think he's quite pleased about this. I certainly am.
My hypothetical scenario is the accurate one. My heavily vaxed friends are constantly sick. Over and over. Most have developed troublesome to serious issues they didn’t have before. My unvaxed friends are fine. About half my vaxed friends are kicking themselves for having gotten it. I know NO unvaxed who regret not being vaxed.
Why is your anecdote the “right” one, when it only seems to surface as an antivax propaganda trope, yet my anecdote, which is widely perceived as reflecting reality among friends, acquaintances, colleagues and heath care peers, is the “wrong” one?
Maybe your friends are either unlucky or in poor health to begin with?
Neither myself nor my vaxxed friends are ever sick. A few of us have had Covid, but it was very mild and over in a day or two.
That's the problem with anecdotes - everyone has them. But data holds the real answers and data says thaf health outcomes for the vaxxed are far far better than those of the unvaxxed.
I’ve read hundreds of anecdotes from vax injured people and families of those killed by the vax. Anecdotes are important. Also, a third of the vaccines were saline shots so those people would not have side effects. You have this backwards. It’s the vaxxed who are getting sick. Two of my vaxed friends recently end up with RSV and were quite sick, probably from the fact that the Covid vax injured their immune system.
Apply all that to yourself and what you believe and spout. ‘Vaccines are good. Therefore all vaccines are good. Therefore anything called a vaccine must also be good’. Are you not aware of how many approved pharma products, supposedly properly tested are eventually recalled or shown to never have done anything other than create side effects? Are you unaware of how many vaccines have been recalled? There are many places Bill Gates can’t go to in Africa because of all the vaccines he gave that killed and sterilized people. But, keep spouting your disinformation. We sort of have free speech.
Well I can help you out a bit…my wife is Kenyan, was forcibly vaccinated (as in cornered in a room, someone held her down, and she was injected) with what was trumpeted as a “tetanus” vaccine, suspiciously only given (without any consent, much less informed consent) to women of child-bearing age supposedly to pre-innoculate hypothetical future babies….since that day (some 20 years ago) she had never had a normal period. She has been been pregnant 7 times, with 6 miscarriages (two mid term) and one surviving child, our daughter was delivered by emergency c section way premature because of so many abnormalities in placenta, umbilical cord, etc. (She is fine today.) ALL of my wife’s school mates from that era whom she is still in contact with have had fertility related problems, while the ones too poor to afford school fees, and thus spared the “tetanus” vaccine have all had normal reproductive lives (if they are involved in starting a family).
Anecdotal ? Sure…add up the many, many, many similar anecdotes from actual African women and you start to have a robust set of data.
And this is STILL going on…my sister-in-law was recently (18 months ago or so) presented with the choice of receiving some sort of COVID vax (no records are kept, even though Kenya supposedly has an “E-citizen” account for every Kenyan who has received ANY government “service”) or being denied the right to sit her secondary school exam, the results of which are mandatory to be able to apply for entrance to ANY university in Kenya.
So far my SIL is OK, but in the village, when one of the very healthy leaders obediently lined for and received the COVID “vaccine” and then abruptly “died suddenly” the rest of the villagers “fell for” the anti vax “disinformation” and declined further injections….no one else died, incidentally, with zero deaths from COVID or COVID related illnesses during the whole “epidemic”, with the sole exception of the “anecdotal” case of death closely following injection with some foreign pharmaceutical substance.
I only know this because abuse this is my immediate family which has been affected….but the sorrow and misery unleashed on the African continent by Gates et al is absolutely mind boggling, heart breaking and unfathomably evil.
The foundational principle of Western medical ethics used to be “informed consent”. In NONE of the cases I am citing in Kenya is this principle even given lip service. The Kenyan government (and I suspect many others) receives massive amounts of payola in one form or another and offers up its population as Guinea pigs for Western pharmaceutical experiments.
The Constant Gardener isn’t just a book and movie…there are many real victims out there, whether or not you choose to believe it.
What is that supposed to mean? Do you want pictures of my wife in her village? Medically records from the hospital where she most recently lost yet another baby?
Your level of denial must be deep, deep, deep to post such an asinine remark as a comment such as mine.
He’s not for depopulation through genocide. He wants to reduce infant mortality through vaccination which reduces deaths from infections like polio, neonatal tetanus, malaria, measles etc.
Reduction in infant mortality then translates into reduced birth rates (you don’t need to have 5 kids to make sure 2 survive childhood)
Serious question Peter. If it comes to be known that the mRNA vaccines have killed millions of young people, that this was known to be a likely outcome, and that COVID itself would never have hurt these otherwise healthy young people, and that too was known by Fauci/Birx/Walensky etc what should be the punishment. You want to criminalize opinion. Will you be willing to see Fauci etal sent to prison for life should it come out they knew the harm they were doing. Harm up to and including death? First degree murder?
It isn’t piffle. I asked you a serious Question. If we are right and all the above is true what would your attitude be towards Fauci et al? You advocate criminal prosecution for doubters. If they were correct and the other side knew they were wrong would you advocate criminal charges? What if they believed they were correct and turned out not to be? Criminal charges, or not?
I advocate prosecution for people who persuade others to follow a false and dangerous course of action which then results in terrible disease and risk to life. Abstaining from known safe and effective public health measures like vaccination against measles is foolish and those who try to persuade others to do so are not just reckless but putting them in danger.
Not a full answer to my two questions 1. If a PHO or a doctor knew in advance the mRNA vax had no benefit to a young person, couldn’t stop transmission to anyone else, and was killing many young people, should that be misinformation criminally chargeable? Or the second instance, same scenario only they sincerely believed the vax would help and were mistaken? Same charges? No charges? I am specifically referring to mRNA vaxes.
BTW everyone I knew got measles as a kid. No one got more than sick for a few days. IF people are actually getting seriously sick from the measles now then very likely it is something else not the measles. Or not the measles alone.
Well, I'm happy to answer your question below, but bear in mind that you are trying to draw comparisons between chalk and cheese regarding the MMR/RFKjr and the Covid vaccines/Fauci etc.
"If it comes to be known that the mRNA vaccines have killed millions of young people, that this was known to be a likely outcome, and that COVID itself would never have hurt these otherwise healthy young people, and that too was known by Fauci/Birx/Walensky etc what should be the punishment."
Should that be the case, then yes, punishments should take place, and should probably consist of life imprisonment.
However, your statement is false. Firstly, the mRNA vaccines have NOT killed millions of young people; that's pure fantasy on your part. In fact I doubt if the numbers in the US reach double figures.
Secondly, Covid IS known to hurt otherwise healthy young people. Around 2000 children/young people have died from Covid in the US. Without vaccines that total would have been far higher. Around 40% of them were "healthy" and without comorbidities (though it's pretty repugnant that you wish to trivialise deaths in a young person from Covid because they may also have had diabetes).
So your claim is untrue, and Fauci et al will likely never face your trumped up charges.
But now getting back to the topic of RFKjr...The evidence is explicity clear that he has discouraged MMR vaccination to the point where he has precipitated epidemics which have resulted in at least 83 deaths and hundreds of cases of damaging encephalitis...So let's see the punishment options here then? Should he face charges for manslaughter? First degree murder? Should he be in prison for life?
My wife worked with families with developmentally delayed children 0-3. This could be anything from a mild premie case to very significant multi involved children. One day, this was maybe 15 years ago she was on the phone with her co-worker. They were dividing up that months new intake. She said about one ‘okay, got it. So whats the issue? Okay, a vax baby.’ Then she went on after hearing the details. I asked after ‘what’s a vax baby?’ She explained that about five or six times a year, and this is in a relatively small community, a healthy happy child, with no problems is vaccinated, has a severe reaction and then is RUINED for life. Massive mental problems. On a typical month their entire caseload new intake would be about 0-5 new cases. Maybe average about 3 or 36 a year. Around 10% were directly related to a vaccine. January of 2022 she was talking to her former supervisor who casually mentioned they might have to hire extra people. The last two months had seen a massive increase in development delayed infants. January had 17. They had never had anything like that before. Not even close. Gee…what happened in 2021? Anything different? Covid didn’t do it. They had no increase during pre vax COVID pregnancies. My son’s buddy’s wife was pregnant. Her doctor talked her into getting the vax. She lost the baby. She got pregnant again. Got vaxed again. Lost another one. Her gynecologist said when asked if she should be boosted, still trying. She’s lost three now, ‘NO. I am seeing massive problems in vaxed women.’ Olen your eyes.
I note you didn’t answer the question I asked, which is what you yourself had asked!
If your anecdotes bore any resemblance to generalised reality, your country would have long dissolved into anarchy.
The thresholds for diagnosis for neurodevelopmental delay have fallen over time, and more sensitive screening detects more subtle cases on the spectrum that previously would go unnoticed.
And I hope you realise that large studies in pregnancy show no increase in miscarriage rate. For every woman like your son’s buddy’s wife, you’ll find one where there would have been a miscarriage if not for the vaccine. But you’d never be aware of that, since you wouldn’t know that beforehand.
You are hiding your head in the sand. My anecdote is not a casual anecdote. This was first hand knowledge of professionals in the field. And my son’s friend’s wife gyno urged her NOT to get any more vaxes based on what she was seeing. As for answering tour RFKjr comment I am hesitant to answer as I don’t know what he has said. I know what the public health officers have said including Fauci etal. I know they lied.
Why are these anecdotes of widespread miscarriages and dire fetal outcomes not reflected in any of the epidemiological data on pregnancy outcomes, nor in any valid studies on the subject?
I can only assume that there is a general conspiracy to cover this up taking place at the highest levels, and deep enough and wide spread enough to involve everyone in public health and women’s health, and yet this conspiracy has passed off unnoticed without a fragment of evidence it is occurring.
PS This article is about RFK and measles vax. Don’t try and divert onto your pet topic please.
You must really have your head in the sand. If you look at Pfizer’s clinical trial data which they only produced after a judge ordered them, you will see that in the short time of less than 6 months 1226 people died after getting the shot. Prior vaccines were taken off the market long before that number. Swine flu vax was taken off when around 20 died.
Problem is that I do the research and have written extensively on the vaccines, being a viral immunologist. I have not found credible evidence as Offit has well documented. Calling him a whore does not make you an expert. Show me your evidence, or admit you are a liar. I have asked MANY, MANY people like you to back up your claims and NOT ONE HAS! Rather, ALL respond with character attacks like you have. I contend you have have nothing else to offer. Prove me wrong. I bet you either ignore this, OR respond with more invective. But, you will NOT respond with evidence.....
Wrong. Neither of them EVER won a Nobel Prize for medicine. Their prizes were awarded by a wholly separate committee. Basically, you do not know what you are talking about.
I KNOW they won a Peace Prize. Sheesh. The Nobels, all of them, have been politicized. You must know that. There is a ton of evidence. I think you don’t understand the word ‘evidence’.
not the science ones. You DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!! If there is a ton of evidence, why is no one showing it? Evidence is NOT you saying so.....YOU do not know what evidence is.....
If you can’t see the damage being done you are doing everything you can to NOT see it. You read every study looking for one tiny thing to discredit it. Then toss it. In 2022 in BC you were three times as likely to die from COVID if you had had three shots as if you had none. On a per capita basis. After a few months of that they buried those stats. I showed these stats to true believers such as yourself. They looked shocked. Then said triumphantly ‘I would have to know the ages of those who died for this to be meaningful’. And it was dismissed. Their statement isn’t stupid, but dismissing it was. They are up to their fifth or sixth shot now. They’ve all aged ten years in three. Their clarity is gone. But weirdly iff and on. Five minutes of clarity flowed by two of confusion. Alternating. They get angry easily. Really fired up over small things easily. It o a mess.
How were they "buried"? Is it possible to bury stats in the current internet age?
You mention this was on a percapita basis. You say those who had 3 shots were three times more likely to die than someone who had no shots. Are you sure you are not just misinterpreting this via the Base Rate fallacy?
And let's also not forget that those who were first in line to get vaxed and boosted were who, exactly?...the elderly, the immune compromised etc...just the group of people who are probably normally 10 times as likely to die from Covid than young, healthy [unvaxed] individuals anyway. So reducing that to only 3 times would be a measure of success!
I had measles back in the 50s before there was a vaccine. Other than having red freckles on my skin, I remember it as a minor event in my life. I remember my physician-father telling me I now had natural immunity. Why all the anxiety over measles?
With measles, which doesn’t mutate readily, you do now have natural immunity that should persist for a long time, perhaps life. That’s not always the case with other viruses. About 20% of the folks who contract measles have a LOT more than red “freckles”, and enough die from the disease that it’s considered a public health threat. Vaccination prevents the disease pretty reliably, except in patients whose immune system will not mount a response to the vaccine, a small number. If, in the case of measles, roughly 95% of the population is vaccinated, we do actually see population immunity (often mislabeled “herd” immunity). Measles can have serious effects on the population and is a preventable disease.
The CDC’s information on the fatality rates of diseases such as measles, mumps, scarlet fever, etc all declined to very low levels in advance of vaccines. The diseases like scarlet fever that never had vaccines came down just the same as the ones that did have vaccines. Engineers providing sanitation and clean drinking water, heated homes, refrigeration, etc did more for public health than vaccines ever did. The idea that we would return to 1800’s mortality rates by dropping vaccines is the same mentality as telling the population covid was something to fear. Disease takes out the weak and the sick, whether or not this demographic is targeted for vaccines is perhaps a relevant consideration but healthy young people should never have been vaccinated on mass. The fact that the regulators that are captured by pharma refuse to do vaxxed verse unvaxxed overall health comparisons should be all you need to see to know they know their products are causing harm. Think about it, if it painted a story in their favour it would be paraded non stop, they aren’t against comparisons, look at the spectacle of the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” we were subjected to. And that was based on corrupted data (not vaccinated until 14 days after your second dose, how many people died and were injured in that window). The pandemic of the unvaccinated fell apart by mid 2022 and all the comparison numbers were pulled once the vaccinated were clearly having worse outcomes.
We’ve been scammed, but the beauty of Covid is it caused so many people to look beyond Covid. Anyone or industry that would do what they did during covid didn’t just suddenly lose all morals, they were obviously bankrupt in this department long before but were effective at hiding it. More People are learning this on a daily basis.
You might be right, but I can remember back in the 50s parents used to have’measles’ parties so that youngsters could become infected and then heal with naturally acquired immunity. Purely anecdotal, but I can’t remember any childhood friends having died from measles. Am I being too cavalier? Public Health Threat? 4 years ago we were told by career bureaucrats and known liars in the media that a ‘new’ virus with a >99% survival rate was a Public Health Threat/Emergency. Also a National Security Threat requiring official Countermeasures, yikes! Would Pharma and career bureaucrats try to scare us? 🙄
Back in the day, people were more concerned about devastating diseases like diphtheria and polio. Those infections which nobody could prevent or treat were regarded as normal rites of childhood; there was nothing else except getting on with them. Measles was only regarded as minor, because there were other more dangerous diseases that killed your kids. Some only had mild measles, but a significant minority suffered seriously.
In 2009 Marcia Angell, editor of JAMA, wrote that "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely upon the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my 2 decades as editor." I do not know if the Journal of Infectious Disease is so afflicted, but given the events of the last 4 years, I am as cynical as Marcia Angell about the integrity of too many organs of the US medical profession.
From pushing opioids to pushing poison shots, it is clear that the Hippocratic Oath is no longer honored by too many in the profession.
This is one of the tired old tropes that gets dragged out frequently whenever someone wants to rubbish scientific research....the cynical view of one editor eclipses everything!
Since 2009, a lot of work has gone into how we police research and how we review journal articles. I've spent anywhere from a few hours (for a well-written article reporting a well-designed research study and providing the base dataset, to days for lower-quality research, providing feedback to the authors, and recommendations on publication back to journal editors. Citing an editorial reference that's 15 years old doesn't reflect the current state of the art.
I hope you're right about that Gerry, but the sad truth, just 1 example, is that 68 colleges and universities still require their students (not staff) to be injected with as bioweapon, the same injection that the huge majority of the medical profession have been pushing for years.
I see the medical profession as a noble profession, and still do. But the sad truth is that from the top down, by way of the insurance industry and regulatory agencies, and of course Pharma, today's medical profession has demonstrated it does not know right from wrong. If you're familiar with Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, you know what a scandal that was. That scandal was eclipsed by the Scamdemic. I want to believe, I really do, but I need to see some actions before I can.
I and millions of others survived Measles with no apparent harm. I'm not against old fashioned, real vaccines, though I have more questions about them now that we've been through the Scamdemic.
Hopefully you were lucky and received injections from the least harmful batches! A fair number of people I know were not so lucky. More than a dozen dead, a handful with permanent injury.
If you personally know "more than a dozen dead" from the Covid vaccinations, you know all of those in the entire US whose deaths have been medically attributed to the vaccine....I guess you must know 330 million people!
That being the case though, I guess you also personally know 1.2 million people killed by the virus. I offer my condolences.
Not a single vaxxed person I know, including friends, family and the 200 employees in my workplace, have suffered even a single vaccine injury and nobody has died. Not one.
However, sadly, 12 people I know died of Covid. 11 of them prior to the release of the vaccination. One of them after vaccination release, but he refused it.
Of the 12, nine of them were either older or had an underlying health issue, that made it impossible to combat the virus. They were fighting either Delta or alpha, which were much stronger than omicron. Not a single one of them was overweight.
The other three were younger, 40's and early 50's, and in enviable great health and that includes my anti-VAX school friend who we all loved dearly. All male, interestingly.
My school friend thought his perfect health would get him through, but it failed him. Covid didn't care.
We miss him dearly. His greatest relief on his deathbed was to discover that his wife and children had received the vaccination without telling him. At least he died knowing they were safe.
So, yes, cheers to no anxiety, whatsoever, because we are thriving and safe!
RFK, Jr is pretty disgusting. I have been blogging on the covid pandemic since March 2020. In one post, I posed the question whether intentional vaccine disinformation that led to harm should be considered criminal. How would that be different from intentionally withholding insulin from a diabetic in crisis?
Perhaps instead of insults and ad homs calling Offit a Pharma whore you could post a rebuttal to his evidence on what RFKjr has done? I'm sure that would be more convincing.
Insulin has a long track record of working. A less than 6 month clinical trial where the control group were given the vaccine does not prove that the vaccine worked. Look up Maddie DeGaray, a 13 year old who is now in a wheelchair and feeding tube after taking part in the clinical trial.
flat wrong. Phase III clinical trials were adequate to show the vaccines are safe and effective. You don't need long term trials for vaccines. Besides, all approved medicines also under go phase IV, or post-approval trials. Billions of vaccine doses have been given to millions of people, which have confirmed the Phase III trials. Maddie's single experience does not disprove the results of all this.
off topic but Dr. Offit just said on MSNBC's Morning Joe that there was "absolutely no evidence the Covid virus was manipulated in a lab" and that "it came from a spillover event." I challenged him to a debate on this two months ago and he ignored the challenge. I have abundant evidence the virus was manipulated in a lab and I proved on 2.20.2020 the virus couldn't have entered the human population from natural zoonotic spillover.
His shills stepped in to say he didn't waste his time debating unqualified people. Turns out Dr. Offit went to Tufts (ranked 360-something)- major not disclosed on the internet- and is a pediatrician with 3 years of training and one of fellowship in infectious diseases and the "unqualified" challenger graduated from MIT (ranked #1 in the world for 13 straight years), majored in physics and is a pediatric heart surgeon with 12 years of postgraduate training. Ah, the good ole days...
We are in the realm of epidemiology here. Knowledge of infectious diseases is useful, but not nearly important as statistical analysis and interpretation of large data sets. Doctors aren't particularly good understanding data, let alone challenging methodology. Dr. Sheftall is particularly qualified as a physician with a comprehensive background in mathematics. Your casual dismissal of this professional's opinion as peacocking speaks to the unfounded hubris of medical researchers and so called "specialists" which has kept them locked in dogma.
He’s been boasting about his ranking in his degree courses, and claiming his universities are better than Offit’s. He says he’s better qualified than Offit.
Do you think he’s better qualified as of now to speak about infection and vaccine science than Offit is?
As I wrote earlier, this is more about epidemiology and statistics, not infectious diseases and vaccine science. The issue at hand is not the pathogenesis of SARS-COV2 infections or the intimate details of technology built on the mRNA platform (neither of which Offit is an authority for that matter), it is about figuring out what this technology is actually doing to large groups of human beings.
Moreover, Offit is hardly an objective voice in this matter and as far as I am concerned, he has completely abandoned what objectivity he may have once had as a young vaccine scientist. The fact that he has publicly stated that saline placebos are not innocuous because too much water or salt can be lethal speaks to this point.
Nevertheless, Paul hasn't lost his wits completely. He knows Dr. Sheftall would blow his arguments apart in a scientific debate. That's why he will never accept an invitation to talk things out with him. He serves his masters better by making appearances on platforms where he can answer soft-ball questions and never get challenged.
This is an extract from “The beautiful cure” by Daniel M Davis, professor of immunology at University of Manchester, England which may be relevant. Particularly the phrase “get childhood vaccinations” that applies to the Amish and Hutterite communities.
“ To answer this, scientists have studied two relatively isolated farming communities living in the USA: the Amish and the Hutterites, who have similar ancestry but differ in their susceptibility to asthma. Amish children have asthma relatively rarely – around 5% are affected – while the prevalence of asthma among Hutterite children is around four times greater. Both communities have large families, similar diets and get childhood vaccinations, but one difference is that the Amish use traditional farming methods on single-family dairy farms while the Hutterites embrace larger-scale communal mechanised farming. Each community lives in a similar environment but Amish children live closer to animals and their sheds. The fact that the Amish are less likely to get asthma corresponds with the hygiene hypothesis: stimulation of the immune system by microbes found on small farms might be what protects the Amish from asthma. To test whether or not there were any differences in the state of the immune system in Amish and Hutterite children, a team of researchers, primarily from the universities of Chicago and Arizona, analysed the numbers of different immune cells and which genes were active in blood samples taken from sixty schoolchildren. They found that the Amish children’s innate immune cells, which recognise the telltale signs of germs, were being continuously stimulated at a low level. In other words, their immune system was continuously being tickled by the presence of bacteria.”
If there are differences in the immune systems then that could explain a lot.
Of course, there are those here who think absolutely nothing is different in these communities from other populations....not their genetics, not their traditional practices, not their social or religious conventions, not their diet, not their environments, not their occupations, not their access to medical care...absolutely nothing except their vaccination status (which as it turns out is not so different after all!).
The Amish seem to be doing better than the general population, healthwise. Thanks “scientismism”!
The Amish vaccinate.
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/claim-that-the-amish-are-healthier-because-they-opt-out-of-all-vaccines-is-incorrect/
This article is classic misdirection. The article is great as far as it goes, making three key points: 1.) The overall autism rate is 1 in 271 for all Amish. 2.). Most of Amish do vaccinate to some degree. 3.). Many of the Amish who do not vaccinate do so for non-religious reasons such as a concern about side effects.
Nevertheless, the claim the article claims to debunk was that the unvaccinated Amish have incredibly low rates of autism. What is the autism rate in the unvaccinated Amish? The Autism rate in the unvaccinated Amish is than 1 in 1000 which is consistent with records for other doctors with numerous unvaccinated clients. It is hard to debunk the truth. So people talk around it and avoid it.
There is also great data and videos comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated in the same families, when families stop vaccinating.
I linked in error on another comment to the wrong article, I meant this one:
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/128/1/79/30323/Underimmunization-in-Ohio-s-Amish-Parental-Fears?redirectedFrom=fulltext
It confirms a lower than otherwise vax rate but it shows the myth that the Amish are unvaccinated is just that, a myth. The other article is however quite good.
Thanks. I appreciate this second article. You are right, it proves that it is a myth that the Amish do not vaccinate their children for a religious belief that all vaccines are prohibited. I always appreciate having more information and this 2007 survey was conducted in a way to really illuminates that question. Because only 359 out of 1000 responded, the uncertainties are still quite large. 85% of the respondents gave at least one of their children at least one vaccine. So the absolute minimal vaccination rate for giving at least one child at least one vaccine is 305 out of 1000 or 30.5% and we know for sure that 45 out of 1000 said they refused all vaccines for all of their children, so the maximum would be 955 out of 1000 or 95.5%. Of those 45 who did not vaccinate any of their children, most did not vaccinate because of concerns about side effects, but it appears that many Amish people also have concerns about how many vaccines are made. Perhaps there is a religious opposition to using vaccines that relied on the use of fetal cell lines? It is telling that there were no questions on the survey about how many of your children have received all of the vaccinations on the childhood schedule. After the Covid vaccines, a new survey is needed.
>>
Perhaps there is a religious opposition to using vaccines that relied on the use of fetal cell lines?
>>
There is no religious group on this planet that teaches opposition to using vaccines developed using foetal cell lines. Even the Catholic Church doesn't oppose it.
Your a proven liar Paul. The problem is you keep lying and kids keep getting sicker and sicker and dying. The real truth is that RFJ Jnr has actually looked and cannot be corrupted like you.
The AV movement only has kegs because the truth will never lay down.
Your a horrible human
Grammar isn’t your strong suit. Vaccines, immunology, and virology all happen to be some of Dr. Offit’s strong suits.
"Proven liar"? ...How is that?
When pushed into corner Paul resorts to distorted ideas of reality. Any clinician in their right mind would never make the kinds of claims he makes here:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/paul-offit-vaccines-placebos/
Ah, I see you are a contributor to RFKjr’s antivaccine propaganda outlet.
You seem, like many, to be struggling wrt placebos and their function.
I have contributed to other platforms that are interested in patient safety as well. I’m actually not “struggling” with respect to placebos and their function at all. If you agree with Paul about these things I can understand why you are so confident in your position
Dr Setty, perhaps you can reflect on your stated position...you are implying Offit is a "proven liar", basing this upon the "lie" he has told about placebos. You clearly disagree with his opinion on the status of what is a true placebo for vaccine trials and his assumed definition and what constitutes a valid placebo in these scenarios.
Leaving aside the question of whether his opinion is right or wrong for the moment, you can see that the topic is one of some controversy and difference of opinion.
That being the case, do you think it is helpful for one professional to consider another one as "a proven liar" just because of a difference of scientific opinion? Would you be happy for me to label you "a proven liar" because I think your position on the definition of a placebo is incorrect, and for me to say that "no clinician in their right mind "would think as you do?
It's one thing to call someone a liar and offer no evidence or citation or to include such things without explanation. My characterization of Paul with regard to this topic of the utility and purpose of a true placebo is actually a nod to his intellect. If he possessed no more than a below average intellect I would call him misinformed, not a liar.
I trained at Penn where he is a professor. I also trained at ChoP where he is affiliated. There are a lot of very intelligent clinicians and researchers there. There are also a lot of institutionalized people who simply go along with what their herd is saying. I was offered a faculty position there, which I turned down because I sensed there was something inherently limiting about devoting my professional life to a large institutional entity. I am not saying that this choice would have been right for everyone. Great things come out of those places too.
To defend his idea that a saline placebo is not required to test for safety and efficacy he offers the idea that too much water or salt can be life threatening, therefore saline is not harmless, and throws it into the same bucket of "immunologically inert" substances that are presently being used as control. He further says that these inert formulations have been deemed 100% safe by the FDA. Really? How does the FDA know that a small quantity of these kinds of "placebos" do not have a detrimental effect on some people? They don't. The reason why we know this is because they would have to offer an RCT that tests them against what? A saline placebo, obviously. There is no ethical way to such a study where you are testing only for harm without benefit. The FDA hasn't proven them safe. IT would be impossible. That is why interventions like vaccines need to be tested against a saline placebo, always.
To say otherwise is absolutely laughable and does not meet the basic elements of logic or common sense. He's smart enough to know this. This is why I call his statements prevarications and not merely a differing opinion.
Furthermore, he went on in his defense of his idea of a placebo to state unequivocally that the Salk Vaccine for Polio was tested against a true saline placebo. This is was false. Official documents from that trial over sixty years ago are available publicly and directly contradict him.
I can understand why the layperson or even a physician or scientist in the medical field may not be aware of this, but Paul Offit? Indeed, if he was the consummate researcher he claims to be one would have expected him to do a modicum of investigation into this before making public statements on such an issue as a purported world expert on vaccinology.
He's either making inaccurate statements purposefully (a liar in my book) or he is woefully uninformed or dumb. You don't win awards, work with Pharma or make it to the advisory committees of the FDA by being dumb.
The Vigorous Immune System health movement..
Such blatant disregard for human life. My blood boils, knowing that RFK jr. is still pushing this BS after the injuries and deaths he has caused. Truly a degenerate human being.
Please get another shot immediately! It’s not over until you have EVERY booster and EVERY shot! PLEASE 🙏🏻 And take your foolish brainwashed family and friends with you!
Please get your booster, the rsv and flu shot. You can get them all at once!
Did exactly that. Easy peezy. Thank you, science!
Russian roulette sooner or later it’s a loaded chamber and you lose.
Impossible, given that there isn't one.
I am sorry for you Wyn. You will die within two years assuming you keep getting boosted. Make a will.
And in two years, you'll be saying we will all drop dead in another two years, and so on and so forth. Got it. Any day now!
We won’t be having this convo in two years. You will die.
Injuries and death? The lock-down world wide, as of March 2022, per The Lancet medical journal,l killed twice as many people than did covid and caused hundreds of million to be pushed in poverty or extreme poverty. Ivermectin was taken of the shelves causing many people and animals to be infected with parasites. The rates of TB and Malaria skyrocketed and the amount of suffering worldwide in unfathomable. The lock-downs here caused untold damage to the American people and caused many inner city youths to fall way behind in their education (watch videos of Monica Ghandi, MD), which leads to higher crime and poverty rates. Many people are injured from the vaccine but no one is allowed to say that. Many scientists and doctors who show how bad these policy failures were, lost their medical licenses and were banned from social media platforms. You haven't doing your homework and the only politician in this discussion regarding harmful practices, is Paul Offit. Do your homework.
I suspect Offit does diligently do his homework, but not using the same sources as you do for yours!
Lifesaving vaccines? Please! As more and more vaccines are being given to American kids, their health is declining. We now have a generation with high rates of chronic illness, autoimmune disease, metal toxicity, neurological damage, etc. And it is known that some vaccines INCREASE transmission of the disease they were supposed to stop. The 'herd immunity' concept is wishful thinking at best, and used as coercion to push vaccines, most notably the COVID vaccines. The Amish largely avoid any of this nonsense. Your ad hominem attacks against RFK, Jr. are erroneous and unethical.
There are numerous falsehoods in your Gish Gallop of antivax tropes. One can view the health of American kids in different ways. A good and important one is the infant mortality rate, which has declined steadily since the introduction of vaccines. This may be causal, not just correlative, seeing as how one of the main causes of infant death is infection.
Which vaccines increase transmission of the disease (as compared to transmission from an unvaccinated person)? Can you name a few, without lying?
What do you find problematic about the concept of "herd immunity"? It's well established, and can result from natural infection (in fact it is the reason that childhood infections are generally cyclical in nature). Neither natural Covid or vaccination provides any helpful herd immunity, something we have discovered during the pandemic and nobody is currently claiming that they do so (although a few antivaxers like to claim natural Covid infection is best because it gives herd immunity).
The Amish do vaccinate, they just don't do so to the extent other groups usually do. And the Amish are not some tribe of superhumans who never get ill and never get autism. In fact there are special clinics in some centres where Amish children with autism and other neurological disoders are reviewed.
Offit's attacks against RFKjr are not "ad hominem", in that he is not attacking him as a person; he is criticising RFK's behaviour and actions. Please look up the meaning of "ad hominem" before you claim people are deploying logical fallacies.
Herd immunity from measles occurs if 95% of the population is vaccinated, in the U.K. we had few cases of measles until a couple of years ago, vaccination rates are currently around 80% in some areas and there’s an increase in measles in those areas.
Vaccines cannot stop a person becoming infected in the upper respiratory tract, giving symptoms like fever, lethargy, swollen lymph nodes (all of which show a robust immune response) but they do stop the infection if it manages to spread to the lungs, thus preventing serious illness, hospitalisation, ITU admissions or death.
You may benefit from watching either Vincent Racianello or Brianne Barker lecture on virology and immunology respectively on YouTube, particularly the lectures that cover vaccines.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38274635/
There is always room for both sides of every issue. There are people vaccines don’t work for. And very few vaccines prevent carrying and spreading disease so it should be a choice.
Just like cigarettes it took time for people to accept the voices saying there was a problem with them weren’t crazy. Covid’s silver lining was making it crystal clear pharma doesn’t care about your health. Time to wake up people, tobacco also used the argument correlation doesn’t confirm causation. But added to other signals was enough to say we need to look at this further. Pharma wasn’t committed to vaccines until the 1986 vaccine act, in fact without it they were getting out of the vaccine segment as they were all too aware a portion of the population was getting harmed by their products, and the liability wasn’t good for shareholders. It’s just a fact that will be openly accepted one day.
Oh my goodness. Thank you for this info. Now explain the excess 15-20 M deaths and likely $20 trillion in losses over four years caused by you and your ilk.
Excess deaths from Covid. Losses from the economic strain of a worldwide pandemic (Covid).
No, you must be wrong WynEdd... a massive global pandemic with huge socioeconomic consequences could not possibly result in an increase in deaths! That's implausible. It must be the fault of the vaccines developed for it! I don't know how, because everywhere they have been studied they have been shown to dramatically reduce Covid mortaklity,,, but it just has to be the vaccines, yes???? /s
It is both the vaccines and the pandemic response that have resulted in excess deaths. There isn’t any proof, other than ridiculous PSAs coming from the CDC that there is a mortality benefit from the vax. More people died in the pFizer trial if they got the vax. Period. People who die from Covid-19 within two weeks of vaccination are excluded from effectiveness calculations. Our agencies of public health are playing you
Evidence of vaccine effectiveness comes not from just the Pharma studies (which don’t show more deaths in the vaxed*) but from multiple sources across the globe, as well as strong epidemiological evidence.
This conversation is a distraction from the article, which is about RFKjr’s antivax activism. We should stick to that.
* IIRC, there were 2 deaths in the vax arm and 4 deaths in the saline placebo arm of the study.
The Pfizer vaccine trial demonstrated 15 deaths in the vax cohort and 14 in the placebo. After the study was unblinded, there were 21 deaths in those who received the vaccine compared to 17 in the control. This should have been a hard stop but this therapy was given to a billion human beings any way.
Now we do not have any data from matched cohorts. The CDC and the ONS use faulty means of calculating efficacy. We are totally in the dark about how effective or safe these things are.
It’s disquieting to see someone like offit and people who do (or did) research on this or related topics turn a blind eye to the lack of any substantive evidence of safety or effectiveness while considering any skepticism a product of paranoid pseudoscience.
Over a quarter million serious adverse events reported from people who chose to be vaccinated and the regulatory agencies ignore them all? What exactly will it take for people who know something about stats and epidemiology to change their minds? After three years of watching this unfold, I don’t think anything will.
Right, so according to you in the study of over 40,000 people taking place over 3-6 months, there were 38 deaths, 21 in the active vaccine group and 17 in the placebo group.
WRT vaccine safety, you are concluding that the vaccine is therefore killing people.
So tell us, what killed those who had placebo?
Did you look at the causes of death?
Did you take basic statistics at medical school?
Did you learn about calculations of probability, and statistical significance?
Did anyone tell you to look at the analysis, and determine with what level of confidence you might say vaccine recipients were significantly more likely to die?
Or maybe did you check how many of the trial subjects would be likley to die during the trial from natural causes, and see if more or less than expected had died?
....I can tell from your earlier claim that the answer to my questions must be: "No", and you have not done any of the above.
Re Effectiveness trials.....
Did you do immunology as a medical student? Did they teach you how it takes 10-14 days for the body to mount an immune response to vaccination? Did they tell you that people are unprotected for the first 2 weeks following vaccination, because of this fact?
I hope so.
Taking on board that information, then an analysis of the effectiveness of vaccination as compared to placebo can certainly be justified in "starting" at 2 weeks post vaccination. After all, that's the time from which the vaccine will work, so there's little point including outcomes prior to that date, is there? What do you think including those 2 weeks will show you, other than muddying the waters because before the 2 week mark everyone in both arms of the study are immunologically "unimmunised".
Okay Mike, name a different intervention where you begin measuring effectiveness at the peak of effectiveness. Take an antibiotic. Some take quite some time before blood concentrations attain peak effectiveness. Do we only examine outcomes from that point or do we group cohorts based on placebo vs. therapy?
Tell me why you believe it takes 10-14 days for it to "work"? Are you basing this on IGM concentrations in the average person? In other words, are you using Ab concentrations as a surrogate for protection? Yes you are.
Why are you doing that? The FDA has long held that antibody concentrations are not a surrogate for protection. That was their sole argument as to why they insisted that even people who had Covid and had the titers to prove it still HAD to get the jab.
You bring up a very interesting topic. Let us say that it is somehow okay to only measure outcomes until the vaccine has allowed the body to mount an immune response. Let's say it's 14 days. As you well know, if you got Covid within 14 days of completing the primary series, your infection would not enter into the CDC vax effectiveness calculation. However this is grossly unscientific. Why would we ever exclude these outcomes from efficacy calculations?? These are people who got the jab and got sick from the target disease. I completely disagree that "there's little point including outcomes prior to that date".
How would you explain it to a patient who is asking the valid question, "how much protection will the shot give me, doc?"
Answer: It's going to help you two weeks out. But you might be more susceptible in the next two weeks. WE don't know. We don't count those cases.
You are raising a very interesting question. How do you think the CDC reported on vaccine effectiveness once the population was getting line? You are correct that they didn't include outcomes in people who were recently vaccinated (ie within two weeks of dose 2). But did they include those people in the denominator?
The CDC hinted that they were doing this, but not explicitly. I corresponded with them several times asking for this simple clarification. They kept asking for more specifics and places from their website where this was mentioned. I went back to give them a link to their own website and it was taken down.
I will assume that you have enough background in mathematics to see what would happen if you exclude outcomes in the recently vaccinated but include them in the pool of vaccinated people. It would result in an inflated vaccine effectiveness. I cannot say for certain that the CDC is doing this, but that is what the ONS in England is doing. They are even more audacious, including outcomes in the recently vaccinated into an "unvaccinated" outcome.
You may find this analysis fascinating. Here, I assume that vaccine was 0% effective, ie no better than a placebo. I also assume that the CDC is playing this game of including the recently vaccinated in the pool of vaccinated people but excluding any outcome.
Based on the vaccine uptake in the US during the first 9 months of 2021, we get a placebo "effectiveness" profile that nearly matches what we were told about the Covid vaccines. Once uptake essentially went to zero, so did effectiveness (a mathematical certainty). That happened around August, 2021, right when the CDC was urging us to get our booster.
Then, just like with the primary series, they also don't count recently boosted outcomes but include them in their pool of recently boosted, instantly fabricating 100% effectiveness that "wanes" as the two week window expires.
https://madhavasetty.substack.com/p/an-elegant-demonstration-of-how-efficacy
Part 1:
"Tell me why you believe it takes 10-14 days for it to "work"? Are you basing this on IGM concentrations in the average person? In other words, are you using Ab concentrations as a surrogate for protection? Yes you are."
Vaccines take 10-14 days "to work" because that is what the science of immunology has informed us about every active vaccine that has ever been used, and because the entire basis of immunology tells us this. The antigenic stimulus takes a little time to induce an adaptive immune response; the immune system is not primed ready to instantly react from the word "go", as you well know. Briefly put, after the antigen has made its way into the host, it encounters antigen presenting cells such as macrophages and dendritic cells, which ingest the antigens, and then display fragments of these on their surface. These cells have to migrate to regional lymph nodes usually by way of the lymphatic system. They encounter T cells, which bind the antigens and are stimulated to proliferate and divide into T helper cells, Cytotoxic T cells and T suppressor cells. The T helper cells go on to regulate the production of antigen specific antibodies via B cell proliferation. B cells differentiate into plasma cells which start to produce antigen specific antibodies, as well as memory B cells for future primed immune responses.
These responses are not instant,, but by around the 7 day mark, antibody levels are starting to rise, and by 2 weeks sufficient immune response has been generated to be clinically protective either against initial infection (the primary role of the neutralising antibodies) or clinical disease (primarily the role of the protective T cell response).
I don't know why you think the immune response is up and working from day one...that's biologically impossible.
I'm not using antibody levels as a direct measure of protection, although they do correlate well in most instances. It is possible for some people to produce low levels of antibody but still have clinical protection against infection (we see this for example with Hep B, where after 10 years or so HBsAb levels drop often to quite low levels [and people are recommended to get boosters] but in fact exposure to Hep B then will in not practice result in infection because these low levels are still protective and clones of Hep B specific memory B cells are able to rapidly produce more antibody). It's also possible for people to have high levels of neutralising antibody but still be susceptible to infection. For these reasons we don't say the correlation between levels and protection is exact; but it's not bad.
There’s no proof the vaccine saved anyone’s life. I know several who have died from taking the vaccine, 4 from cancer and others who are now incapacitated. Before the Covid vaccine I might know one person with cancer.
Your anecdotes are unconvincing and don’t constitute valid evidence. I have anecdotes that are contrary to your experience, as well as personal experience through my professional capacity, but I prefer to rely on sound, substantive studies that encompass the objective experience of populations, not individuals.
Excess deaths are from the Covid vaccine. Ask Ed Dowd.
Impossible. Data say no.
What data?
All of it. In all charts, in all countries, excess deaths spikes coincide with Covid case/death spikes.
Not in BC.
As Offit's noted before, the disinformation campaign, including the anti-vax campaign is alive and well. I can understand those who were duped by the mor eglib players and bought the disinformation because they're out of their scientific depth. I can't fathom people like RFKjr who do this intentionally, with a much better understanding of the consequences.
This highlights the requirement we, as scientists, have to better communicate the science, and truth as established by that science and careful investigation to the public. It's not an easy task for a number of my colleagues, and for that matter, wasn't easy for me at the height of the pandemic. That still means we have an obligation to help educate, and to refute those dangerous disinformation statements.
RFK Jr uses real science! Not the crap published by the pharmaceutical industry. Try reading the Real Anthony Faucci and Turtles All The Way Down and see what the science actually says. Unfortunately now a days half the science has been fabricated! And if he had it so wrong why hasn’t he been sued for The Real Anthony Faucci… well they can’t sue RFK Jr for this book as it all backed up science and all has been verified
I prefer to read the medical literature and confer with colleagues in epidemiology, virology, vaccinology and clinical practice. I’m afraid your sources are not consistent with the work I do.
And, no, RFKjr does not use science in the manner those of us with a scientific background and career do. His statements are misrepresentations at best. Had he stuck with environmental law and depended on his expert witnesses, rather than extrapolating without real data to his conclusions on vaccines, we’d be better off.
Simple question for you Gerry: how do you know that the literature you rely upon is true and accurate? Just because it has passed editorial and peer review? That’s fine, but you must acknowledge that you’re making a faith based argument, not an objective one.
Editorial committees of medical journals can be easily bought. Academic research depends on grant money coming from the NIH or other governmental institutions which receive massive contributions from the private sector.
There’s very little chance scientific evidence of vaccine harm would ever make it to print.
Part of my judgement is based on training and prior education. Knowledge of anatomy and physiology, virology, immunology also help. And I'm a multidisciplinary scientist, and used to evaluating disparate data sources. I read each article at least twice, once to get the gist of the material, then critically to attempt to identify issues that might have escaped editorial review and need to be highlighted.
I also tend to look more favorably at work either done or recommended by colleagues who have earned my respect over the years. I know their standards and ethics, and that goes a long way.
As for "buying" editorial committees in any journal, save some of the very narrow niche specialty, and often intentionally slanted ones, it's harder than you think. Since I've never received any honorarium for reviewing for ANY journal, it's hard to suggest I'd been bought. And no one else I know's been paid to review. My research has often been supported by Federal grants, occasionally contracts, and occasionally private sector foundations, but I've never performed directed research for a for-profit entity. I've colleagues in non-medical fields who have indeed performed directed research but none have been coerced, to my knowledge, to produce material that was dictated by the funding organization. They might not get funded by that entity again, but most I know wouldn't sacrifice integrity for funding like that.
So, very little I accept is "faith-based". Instead, it requires a lot more effort on my part to "read" a journal article than it takes most to determine whether they agree with something on social media. For the record, I have, this morning, scanned and subsequently reread two articles, including a rather involved BJM article involving a meta-analysis, case-controlled and well-designed involving over 20k patients. I've reviewed the statistics and later tonight I'll download their available data and attempt to reproduce their statistical results independently. If that sounds like faith-based acceptance to you, I don't know where to begin.
IF I wanted a faith-based argument, I'd look at the ASA guidance several months ago about declining patients on GLP-1a's for general anesthesia or conscious sedation unless they'd withheld their medication for at least a week because of anecdotal reports of GERD and emesis complications. A major society issued a recommendation on anecdotal evidence, and a number of my friends/colleagues in the specialty accepted it on its face. THAT is a faith-based acceptance.
I agree with you. The ASA has very little to back up their "guidelines" with regard to holding GLP-1a's yet it has permeated throughout our practice. Now if you break with the new guidelines and your patient aspirates you have no leg to stand on.
The ASA also removed a highly effective antiemetic, Droperidol, from our arsenal decades ago because of some reports of Qt prolongation.
This why I find it astounding that all of these professional organizations support "keeping up to date with Covid vaccinations" despite literally hundreds of thousands of passive reports of serious adverse events. You don't think that, in and of itself, points to some double standard? I do. The question is, from where does this hypocrisy arise?
I am not saying that it buying editorial committees is easy. I am just saying that it is not impossible. Throughout these last four years I have been astounded at the kind of garbage that is getting through editorial review and because it gets into print it gets into the ethos by way of media coverage.
Most of the failures of quality in the medical literature I've seen have been related to one of two things: A) fringe journals that published special interest results rather than requiring qualified peer review, and looking for tie-breakers if the reviews were not consistent (and we're talking well-trained reviewers, not random folks who sought or were recruited because reviewing is not easy, and is often thankless; or, B) trying to respond to the flood of articles and reports that came through, some with apparently good study design but where the actual research (or worse, meta-analysis) was poorly performed.
A lot of the early work was small pseudo-studies or short series case reports (although Raoult's claims about hydroxychloroquine claimed a larger series... apparently without cause) that attempted to make sense of the noise. Indeed, the discussions I participated in were similar but not submitted for publication. We looked at what people had seen in the last day, or week, and tried to synthesize new approaches to treatment in near-real time. This resulted in some changes that eventually permeated the treatment realm, including changes to mechanical ventilation, use of high-flow oxygen and NIV in place of CMV, and lowering peak pressures and flow to reduce barotrauma to remaining viable lung tissue. We also championed steroids almost as soon as the initial reports arose, and saw results in uncontrolled use. Note that I was not a practicing clinician. If anything, I helped synthesize the overall thoughts, and asked the probing questions allowing the groups to consider new options.
Having designed and been involved in clinical trials, I can do a pretty good job of identifying errors in design. I was initially skeptical of the speed with which the vaccines' trials were completed, but upon reading the data related to the trials, the fact that they were conducted in a pandemic allowed normal endpoints to be reached in near record time. I was satisfied with the quality of the trials and of the statistical analyses associated with them. As for the myriad reports of adverse events, too many people attempt to download and analyze VAERS data. The dataset can be updated by anyone, and there's no automatic process to prevent "stuffing the box" with events, which CDC has, indeed, found to have occurred. There were also recommendations online and in some conservative media to do exactly that, which probably did, in fact, contribute to the overload of VAERS data. Recall that VAERS is designed solely to provide a rapid signal to an increase in adverse events, not to provide deep and definitive data to allow tracking the potential problems. THAT requires other investigative tools and research, which has been ongoing and has been reported. Unfortunately, some of the later research suggesting elevated adverse event rates has been mis-played in the media and online, and has, indeed, demonstrated that said events are consistent with prior, and more "traditional" vaccines. Even the authors of the most recent of these that I've looked at made the statement that the vaccines are all safer than contracting the viral disease.
The easiest way to buy an editorial committee is to create your own niche journal. A number of those arose with COVID. I've found the vast majority of them to have been designed to push misinformation, at least based on my experience and education. The fact that I'd even look at preprint servers, something I tried to avoid prior to COVID, means I was looking at a larger variety of data to base my opinions on. That said, the preprint servers meant I had a moral obligation to read each article like a reviewer, and provide feedback to the authors when I felt they had erred. That increased my work per paper significantly, and honestly, while I believe it was the right thing to do, I often wished I'd not embarked on that path.
Sometime last year an article came out saying most medical peer reviewed articles are crap. Well, they didn’t say it quite like that.
It doesn’t take a scientist to realize we have been gaslighted by big Pharma, the FDA, CDC and frankly any governmental agency. You can look around you and see for yourself. All the vaccine injured, all the people who were vaxxed over and over again and still got COVID over and over again. We have been gaslighted on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, masks, lockdowns..you name it. Fortunately the majority of Americans have figured that out based on the low numbers who have decided, no more COVID jabs. What was the rationale for the FDA originally not willing to release the Pfizer clinical trial data?It wasn’t until after a FOIA request that it was finally released and the data was not favorable to the Pfizer proclaimed results. Efficacy was based on a relative risk vs absolute, more people died in the treatment arm than the placebo arm, transmission and infection in vaccinated individual was never studied and safety..the biggest gaslighting of all was barely studied, and no long term safety. As you so eloquently said Gerry, we too have a right to refute those disinformation statements, that pretty most of which have turned out to be true. Don’t you find it unusual that not government
Are you claiming that something must be true if nobody has sued you?
....If so, then what Offit says must be true because RFKjr hasn't sued him.
No...I am not.....most of what is written now a days is not true. It's propaganda.
If someone slanders you with untrue information you can sue and if the information is in fact untrue most likely you will win. RFK Jr will do his damage to the ruling classes once he's put on a debate stage with Biden and Trump. Actually RFK Jr has already awaken enough minds that the medical complex as it works today will not be tolerated much longer.
The ole 1,3 switcherooski. As we all know, though, this reasoning only applies to those with whom you disagree.
The fact that no lawsuit was brought is an invitation to the idea that what RFK Jr has written may not be false. If it were abjectly inaccurate or wrong than a lawsuit would have surely followed such an attack on Fauci, the NIAID and the regulatory complex in general. I would seriously consider reading his material completely and critically before getting too comfortable with your understanding of this complex situation
RFKjr is a lawyer. He can lie about events and make false claims without those constituting libel. Anyway, scientists who are libelled or slandered usually don’t sue; it’s distracting from their professional roles, inconvenient, time consuming, and highly expensive. There’s little gain for them at the end of the day.
But RFKjr can sue .. why hasn’t he sued Offit? It would be easy for him as a lawyer, and would represent a major propaganda coup for him if he won.
Anybody can make up lies and sue, including doctors and Pharma companies. Kennedy has sued large interests successfully. There’s no reason to sue a doctor that is making claims about vaccines. What purpose would that serve?
You seriously aren’t a scientist are you?
It hasn’t taken a scientist to figure out the gaslighting that has occurred by supposed scientists in the past three years. I think the people have realized they have been lied to..very few Americans are interested in taking any more COVID jabs.
I'll rise to this. Yes, I seriously AM a scientist and have spent a lifetime in science. At no time have I gas-lighted anyone, but I have had my position and opinions change due to additional information becoming available. This has been the case for all the peers I work with on a regular basis, as well as experts such as Offitt. On the other hand, there are people, some with science and medical educations, who have not modified their views based on new information and data, and who have continued to spread misinformation. In addition, there are talking heads who have ideas and positions, likely supported monetarily, who are prone to spread mis- and disinformation. I can only guess at their motivations. The amount of effort required to evaluate new data as it becomes available is significant, and time-consuming, and often requires experience and training that's not afforded to someone who's not dedicated their lifetime work experience to scientific and medical endeavors.
I will note that CDC had significant problems with getting legitimate material out the door during the previous administration because budget cuts saw an exodus of senior scientific talent in the early stages of said administration, and during the Pandemic early phases, political hacks were installed to make sure messaging was consistent with the political intent of the administration. Also, Redfield was not an inspired choice for his directorship, nor an inspiring leader.
FDA suffered similar problems until Hahn discovered his reputation was really suffering by being politically reliable and refused to take that stance any longer. Azar never really learned that lesson.
We continue to see evidence that the vaccines have proven beneficial, and also have a solid role in preventing, or ameliorating Long-COVID symptoms. In addition, continued well-designed and well-controlled research has demonstrated their safety. Over time, efficacy has dropped because of the nature of the coronavirus to mutate rapidly, leading to immune evasion, but overall, it has continued to reduce incidence of severe illness, hospitalization and death.
Since you ask, I've read 4 studies this morning, and looked at their materials and methods and statistical analysis with a critical lens before adding them to my references here on the computer. Having read, now, thousands of such reports, I have a pretty good idea of the past and ongoing research, but will admit I am occasionally surprised at the direction some researchers go to look at another aspect of this disease process. SARS-CoV-2 continues to surprise us with the different ways it affects the human pathophysiology.
Personally, I will continue to get the recommended boosters, as some of the consequences of severe illness are not where I want to go. In my estimation, the potential for adverse effects from vaccination vs. adverse effects from infection falls in strong favor of getting vaccinated.
You may choose to disagree.
Yes, I am a scientist.
You seem like a reasonable person. I would be interested in understanding why you would continue up to recommend and get the Covid booster.
Would suggest you read and seriously digest the information in the linked article before you take your next COVID booster.
https://open.substack.com/pub/anthonycolpo/p/worlds-biggest-study-on-covid-vaccine?r=wgq8&utm_medium=ios
I've read the Colpo "article". It is not consistent with the medical literature and real world interactions with clinicians, virologists, vaccinologists and epidemiologists I've been working fairly closely with for the last 4 years. His take and evaluation are completely inconsistent with what has been found in real world studies, and continuing research looking at, e.g., hospitalizations for those vaccinated vs. those not vaccinated.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45953-1
I don't suspect you'd appreciate the idea that Colpo's take is rather shrill and not aligned with what we've seen clinically, nor in well-designed studies or reviews.
What has been shown, though, is those who have completed the series and have been boosted are less likely to have severe disease or require hospitalization than people who have not been vaccinated at all. The picture becomes a bit more muddled when you consider illness-derived immunity, because while there is some durability there, it tends, in research studies, mostly laboratory, to be less durable than vaccine-derived immunity, AND, COVID infection has been demonstrated to cause aberrations in the cellular immune response process.
And... there is a recent report of a German male who, for reasons completely opaque to me, but of his own volition, has received (from memory, so approximate) 267 COVID-19 vaccinations, of various origins. Researchers have been studying his immune response, and have found he has an active immunity to COVID-19 that's somewhat higher than most others who have been vaccinated, and has no deficit in his cellular immunity. These assays that are being conducted on him are highly technical, and not all the data are available yet, but the early answer is there was, in an N=1 example (which isn't a well-designed research program), no adverse effect found from what I'd call "over-vaccination".
To answer your question: I continue to follow the literature, from a variety of scientific sources I consider reputable based on quite a few years of work and life experience, and all the data in those journals has pointed to vaccines being safe and effective, and that any attempts to achieve population immunity via illness-derived immunity in the face of a rapidly changing virus have not been as successful as some people have advertised.
One significant problem we experienced starting early in the pandemic was that with clinical and laboratory information coming as fast as it was, processing it and communicating well was difficult. I found myself often having to change opinions as new information with more patient data came in, or as we got new, e.g., autopsy data that required us to change paradigms on the disease process. My attempts to communicate with both my organization and the public were unsuccessful partially because I was trying to relate the data, and my explanations of said data were poorly composed. Often I'd devolve into specific language that had particular meaning in the epidemiology, infectious disease, or critical care realm, but while the words seemed to be readily interpreted English, their meaning was actually obscured in their precision: What I was saying meant something to someone within the field, but might be misconstrued by a "normal human" reading the material. In fact, within my organization, I was assigned a keeper, who interpreted what I was trying to say for the organization.
This pandemic was the first where everyone had relatively unfettered access to how the science is made. This poses a problem because in its natural form, science is messy, and we often disagree on facts and findings. I've been to scientific meetings that could have become brawls (in fact, I've seen one brawl over a science discussion, but in another field) save there were too many people around who would prevent such action. But we eventually can converge on an answer, in most cases. This time, the public was watching, and we didn't converge too quickly. Indeed, there were some whose motives for saying some of what they said can only be attributed to wanting to be seen as someone with a "different opinion" who wanted to see their 15 minutes of fame. Their interpretations, often outside of their areas of expertise, were orthogonal to the science as it was being elucidated in real time, and they didn't want to change their opinions.
And we, in public health, often seemed to talk down to the public, which didn't sit well with said recipients. The problem was, we were, as I did, using precise language, and a liberal interpretation of what we said didn't match the intent of the precise language, so we felt we had to explain it again, in different terms. Had we used the second explanation and never uttered the first, perhaps we'd have been better off, but we were still hampered by the fact that our data were changing so quickly that what I might say as a solid recommendation today would be obsolete by the time I completed 3 nightly telecons and read the first couple of articles in my inbox the next morning. Our data had changed, the facts as we understood them had changed, and thus, our opinions and recommendations were revised. No, we hadn't lied to anyone, but we were overwhelmed by the data. In the first 6 months of the pandemic I had read over 700 articles, spent thousands of hours on telecons with clinicians who were treating people in the ICUs. As we gained more information our knowledge changed, and in some cases increased. Recall that we were dealing with a novel virus to which few people had any form of natural immunity, that was spreading rapidly, that was contagious before symptoms occurred. In other words, while it was technically of the line of coronaviruses, it didn't behave like the others, per se. We had to adapt to that reality. The issues we saw with lung compliance, and barotrauma on mechanical ventilation, the issues we saw with microclotting in vascular space and solid organs were not something we were sued to seeing with this class of virus. But our attempts to express this to the public were rough, at best.
Simply put, there are now information sources I cannot find credible (and you cited one) because I've spent too much time working through the science of this disease, and clinical processes, even though I've done the latter as a scientist and not as a clinician. Being well aware of what the clinician does, I can contribute to that area, and had some part in some of the evolving treatments used in the pandemic. Some were even successful. I tend to follow the information sources I know and trust, and I don't depend on social media, or the news media, broadcast, online, or print, that's focused toward the public, as authoritative sources for scientific information. I've spent a few years in the trenches and have a pretty good idea of where to get authoritative data.
I would say the Colpo article is much more compelling than yet another observational study that SUGGESTS that the COVID vaccines reduced hospitalization and death. I would agree this is plausible in the at risk population, but the vast majority of the population were not at risk for COVID related hospitalization or death. So to mass vaccinate the not at risk population, in my opinion was criminal..not to mention locking down the society, closing schools etc. I found the link to this study which was in an article written by Martin Kuldorff after his disgraceful firing from Harvard. What I have found most fascinating about the last four years is why have all the promoters of the vaccines, lockdowns etc. have never risen up to the offers to debate or even have open discussion with the likes of Kulldorff, but rather have done just the opposite, promoted censorship and ridicule. I would suggest you read the recent Kulldorff article. Being “consistent with medical literature” does not mean the medical literature is correct. And yes sir we have been lied too…over and over again.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/harvard-tramples-the-truth?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
https://brownstone.org/articles/have-people-been-given-the-wrong-vaccine/
There was absolutely NO science going on from 2020- present in this dystopian reality we’re suffering through. 6ft , masks, lockdowns, tyrannical governments, fascists nazis thugs, riots, forced injections of an experimental gene therapy drug. GO AHEAD WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC ABOUT ALL THIS RESPONSE TO A SARS COV2 outbreak from whatever origin??????
Have you happened to read
a clear history of tragedy of recent epidemics of measles associated with vaccine-deniers influencing a community -- and RFKJr is among the worst actors.
You should look at how many children died from Bill Gates pushing vaccines in Africa and India.
Please get your booster, you can get the rsv and flu vax with it.
Have your kids had the MMR vaccine, Ryn?
The comment was sarcastic.. I am vaccine injured from the shots they gave me in the sixties. I am not anti vax…..I just wish they make them safe…I realize most people with autoimmune disorders have no idea how they got them
Making sarcastic comments when people are talking about serious issues like measles deaths isn’t a good idea?
I did! Was a breeze. Thank u, science!
All the folks lining up for their 4th, 5th or 6th shot should be treated with the utmost compassion because they have been tricked by fear into agreeing to this medical intervention. These folks will never change their minds, therefore leaving them open to further exploitation, fear-mongering and poisonous medical practices.
I agree. What counters this in me, and I am being uncharitable, is the vitriol they aimed at me and my family for NOT falling for the stupidity.
The struggle is real. Honestly though, it made is easier to drop relationships that clearly were unhealthy and hollow. I pity them, I don't hate them. The truth is always there.🙏
Exactly, Roxanne. You’re absolutely right about severing unhealthy friendships. We’re all here to learn and help, though in some instances it’s almost impossible.
Yes, dropping relationships with people who only think of themselves and ignore the fact that they might pose a risk to others is a good recipe for life.
Except we never posed a risk to others.
Still waiting for your source on the vaxed deaths in BC, mystic.
That you did. Why are you unaware of asymptomatic spread or presymptomatic spread? Have you been asleep for the last 4 years?
Oh, and have you uploaded your source evidence for your claims about BC vaccine deaths to your substack yet? It’s been a week or two since you promised you would.
Dear Mystic William
I’m sorry indeed to hear that you and your family were harassed because you refused to be duped.
It has been a learning curve for us all and the way forward, of course, is to keep the family ties strong, up-front and honest. Anything else with find it’s own level, including those folks who quite simply, made the wrong decision. It’s a terribly bitter pill to swallow, to realise that one’s trusted health (-sickness) industry is so corrupted and profit-driven. Some folks can genuinely not take that in.
It didn’t bother me. Nor my sons. But my wife is very sociable. She was a good friend to many women in the neighbourhood. She would dog-sit for them, help them in many ways. Bring casseroles when people were very sick etc. Her ‘friends’ shunned her when she merely expressed doubts about COVID. When the vax came along she said she wanted to wait for a bit. They attacked. She doesn’t run with them, get invited over, she has been blacklisted. Some very close friends cut her off completely. Decades long friendships. I feel for her. On the positive side, she was to my way of thinking ‘overly invested’ socially. It meant a little too much to her. She has dialed back a ton. And is I think happier for it.
So, ...good result all round!
And I bet her friends felt good about the situation too.
I've seen examples of the scenarios you speak of.
We have a friend whose mother was extremely vulnerable, and who died after she caught Covid back during the first wave of infection in 2020, despite supposedly being in "isolation" in what was called a family bubble to prevent it. We think the source was contact with one of my friend's acquaintances who ignored restrictions, remained unmasked, and yet thought it a good idea to wisit my friend's mother to see if she was "doing ok". She was, but then one week later came down with Covid. Game over. We assume the acquaintance had asymptomatic infection, as she denied having had symptoms, but she probably was just saying that.
Your anecdote means nothing.
They mean just as much as yours do.
Which is, to be fair, absolutely nothing.
But I thought you’d appreciate someone talking to you in terms you apparently understand.
Extraordinary. How does a wicked perversion of the known facts manage to dupe so many people? Inducing people to believe dangerous nonsense peddled by the anti-vaxxers is a form of fraud and should be criminalised as such.
When you spent your whole life getting vaccines and never got harmed by a shot or caught the disease and then the "best vaccine ever" comes out and kills 7 of your friends and the rest catch the disease anyway, you start asking questions. Then you get criticized for asking questions. Then you ask more questions and you realize that all of your vaccines may have been a lie and you just got lucky, and even then maybe not as lucky as you thought.
Though in a way I am grateful for the covid vaccine push, if it hadn't been for that I would have gotten my 25th, 26th, and 27th annual flu shots by now, with no long term studies on what that could be doing to me.
‘I gave my dog the new mRNA rabies shot, four times now. He’s had rabies three times since then and he can’t walk up stairs anymore.’ NO ONE WOULD DO THAT. Yet they do it for COVID. unbelievable.
I gave my dog Jimbo the new mRNA rabies shot, and annual boosters. It didn't stop him from getting rabies, but when he did he recovered completely and vaccination also meant the rabies was no longer fatal, as it would have been if he wasn't vaccinated.
I think he's quite pleased about this. I certainly am.
My hypothetical scenario is the accurate one. My heavily vaxed friends are constantly sick. Over and over. Most have developed troublesome to serious issues they didn’t have before. My unvaxed friends are fine. About half my vaxed friends are kicking themselves for having gotten it. I know NO unvaxed who regret not being vaxed.
Why is your anecdote the “right” one, when it only seems to surface as an antivax propaganda trope, yet my anecdote, which is widely perceived as reflecting reality among friends, acquaintances, colleagues and heath care peers, is the “wrong” one?
Maybe your friends are either unlucky or in poor health to begin with?
Neither myself nor my vaxxed friends are ever sick. A few of us have had Covid, but it was very mild and over in a day or two.
That's the problem with anecdotes - everyone has them. But data holds the real answers and data says thaf health outcomes for the vaxxed are far far better than those of the unvaxxed.
I’ve read hundreds of anecdotes from vax injured people and families of those killed by the vax. Anecdotes are important. Also, a third of the vaccines were saline shots so those people would not have side effects. You have this backwards. It’s the vaxxed who are getting sick. Two of my vaxed friends recently end up with RSV and were quite sick, probably from the fact that the Covid vax injured their immune system.
Apply all that to yourself and what you believe and spout. ‘Vaccines are good. Therefore all vaccines are good. Therefore anything called a vaccine must also be good’. Are you not aware of how many approved pharma products, supposedly properly tested are eventually recalled or shown to never have done anything other than create side effects? Are you unaware of how many vaccines have been recalled? There are many places Bill Gates can’t go to in Africa because of all the vaccines he gave that killed and sterilized people. But, keep spouting your disinformation. We sort of have free speech.
Unfortunately, many in Africa fell for the ideologically driven antivax disinformation about vaccines strilising people.
You seem to think Bill Gates "gave vaccines that sterilised people". Can you expand on this please, and back up your claim with evidence?
Well I can help you out a bit…my wife is Kenyan, was forcibly vaccinated (as in cornered in a room, someone held her down, and she was injected) with what was trumpeted as a “tetanus” vaccine, suspiciously only given (without any consent, much less informed consent) to women of child-bearing age supposedly to pre-innoculate hypothetical future babies….since that day (some 20 years ago) she had never had a normal period. She has been been pregnant 7 times, with 6 miscarriages (two mid term) and one surviving child, our daughter was delivered by emergency c section way premature because of so many abnormalities in placenta, umbilical cord, etc. (She is fine today.) ALL of my wife’s school mates from that era whom she is still in contact with have had fertility related problems, while the ones too poor to afford school fees, and thus spared the “tetanus” vaccine have all had normal reproductive lives (if they are involved in starting a family).
Anecdotal ? Sure…add up the many, many, many similar anecdotes from actual African women and you start to have a robust set of data.
And this is STILL going on…my sister-in-law was recently (18 months ago or so) presented with the choice of receiving some sort of COVID vax (no records are kept, even though Kenya supposedly has an “E-citizen” account for every Kenyan who has received ANY government “service”) or being denied the right to sit her secondary school exam, the results of which are mandatory to be able to apply for entrance to ANY university in Kenya.
So far my SIL is OK, but in the village, when one of the very healthy leaders obediently lined for and received the COVID “vaccine” and then abruptly “died suddenly” the rest of the villagers “fell for” the anti vax “disinformation” and declined further injections….no one else died, incidentally, with zero deaths from COVID or COVID related illnesses during the whole “epidemic”, with the sole exception of the “anecdotal” case of death closely following injection with some foreign pharmaceutical substance.
I only know this because abuse this is my immediate family which has been affected….but the sorrow and misery unleashed on the African continent by Gates et al is absolutely mind boggling, heart breaking and unfathomably evil.
The foundational principle of Western medical ethics used to be “informed consent”. In NONE of the cases I am citing in Kenya is this principle even given lip service. The Kenyan government (and I suspect many others) receives massive amounts of payola in one form or another and offers up its population as Guinea pigs for Western pharmaceutical experiments.
The Constant Gardener isn’t just a book and movie…there are many real victims out there, whether or not you choose to believe it.
What a fanciful imagination you have. 🙄
What is that supposed to mean? Do you want pictures of my wife in her village? Medically records from the hospital where she most recently lost yet another baby?
Your level of denial must be deep, deep, deep to post such an asinine remark as a comment such as mine.
I’ve also read that about Bill Gates. Remember he’s all for depopulation.
He’s not for depopulation through genocide. He wants to reduce infant mortality through vaccination which reduces deaths from infections like polio, neonatal tetanus, malaria, measles etc.
Reduction in infant mortality then translates into reduced birth rates (you don’t need to have 5 kids to make sure 2 survive childhood)
He’s a WEFer which says it all. Gates’s father was a eugenisist and so is Klaus Schwab.
I can edit this for you. ‘Unfortunately, many in Africa fell…’. You can leave it at that.
Right, so you have no evidence for your claim.
…figures.
Are my requests too hard for you?
No. But you know everything out there. You refuse to look. SubStack won’t accept some graphs on my phone for posting.
Ah, so the dog ate your homework, and it’s now supposedly my fault.
I agree; what rankles is that RFKjr can get away with this behaviour. But I guess it's ok as long as the kids dying are only Somalians, or Samoans.
Serious question Peter. If it comes to be known that the mRNA vaccines have killed millions of young people, that this was known to be a likely outcome, and that COVID itself would never have hurt these otherwise healthy young people, and that too was known by Fauci/Birx/Walensky etc what should be the punishment. You want to criminalize opinion. Will you be willing to see Fauci etal sent to prison for life should it come out they knew the harm they were doing. Harm up to and including death? First degree murder?
Serious answer, Mystic....it's piffle.
It isn’t piffle. I asked you a serious Question. If we are right and all the above is true what would your attitude be towards Fauci et al? You advocate criminal prosecution for doubters. If they were correct and the other side knew they were wrong would you advocate criminal charges? What if they believed they were correct and turned out not to be? Criminal charges, or not?
I advocate prosecution for people who persuade others to follow a false and dangerous course of action which then results in terrible disease and risk to life. Abstaining from known safe and effective public health measures like vaccination against measles is foolish and those who try to persuade others to do so are not just reckless but putting them in danger.
Not a full answer to my two questions 1. If a PHO or a doctor knew in advance the mRNA vax had no benefit to a young person, couldn’t stop transmission to anyone else, and was killing many young people, should that be misinformation criminally chargeable? Or the second instance, same scenario only they sincerely believed the vax would help and were mistaken? Same charges? No charges? I am specifically referring to mRNA vaxes.
BTW everyone I knew got measles as a kid. No one got more than sick for a few days. IF people are actually getting seriously sick from the measles now then very likely it is something else not the measles. Or not the measles alone.
Well, I'm happy to answer your question below, but bear in mind that you are trying to draw comparisons between chalk and cheese regarding the MMR/RFKjr and the Covid vaccines/Fauci etc.
"If it comes to be known that the mRNA vaccines have killed millions of young people, that this was known to be a likely outcome, and that COVID itself would never have hurt these otherwise healthy young people, and that too was known by Fauci/Birx/Walensky etc what should be the punishment."
Should that be the case, then yes, punishments should take place, and should probably consist of life imprisonment.
However, your statement is false. Firstly, the mRNA vaccines have NOT killed millions of young people; that's pure fantasy on your part. In fact I doubt if the numbers in the US reach double figures.
Secondly, Covid IS known to hurt otherwise healthy young people. Around 2000 children/young people have died from Covid in the US. Without vaccines that total would have been far higher. Around 40% of them were "healthy" and without comorbidities (though it's pretty repugnant that you wish to trivialise deaths in a young person from Covid because they may also have had diabetes).
So your claim is untrue, and Fauci et al will likely never face your trumped up charges.
But now getting back to the topic of RFKjr...The evidence is explicity clear that he has discouraged MMR vaccination to the point where he has precipitated epidemics which have resulted in at least 83 deaths and hundreds of cases of damaging encephalitis...So let's see the punishment options here then? Should he face charges for manslaughter? First degree murder? Should he be in prison for life?
...please tell.
My wife worked with families with developmentally delayed children 0-3. This could be anything from a mild premie case to very significant multi involved children. One day, this was maybe 15 years ago she was on the phone with her co-worker. They were dividing up that months new intake. She said about one ‘okay, got it. So whats the issue? Okay, a vax baby.’ Then she went on after hearing the details. I asked after ‘what’s a vax baby?’ She explained that about five or six times a year, and this is in a relatively small community, a healthy happy child, with no problems is vaccinated, has a severe reaction and then is RUINED for life. Massive mental problems. On a typical month their entire caseload new intake would be about 0-5 new cases. Maybe average about 3 or 36 a year. Around 10% were directly related to a vaccine. January of 2022 she was talking to her former supervisor who casually mentioned they might have to hire extra people. The last two months had seen a massive increase in development delayed infants. January had 17. They had never had anything like that before. Not even close. Gee…what happened in 2021? Anything different? Covid didn’t do it. They had no increase during pre vax COVID pregnancies. My son’s buddy’s wife was pregnant. Her doctor talked her into getting the vax. She lost the baby. She got pregnant again. Got vaxed again. Lost another one. Her gynecologist said when asked if she should be boosted, still trying. She’s lost three now, ‘NO. I am seeing massive problems in vaxed women.’ Olen your eyes.
I note you didn’t answer the question I asked, which is what you yourself had asked!
If your anecdotes bore any resemblance to generalised reality, your country would have long dissolved into anarchy.
The thresholds for diagnosis for neurodevelopmental delay have fallen over time, and more sensitive screening detects more subtle cases on the spectrum that previously would go unnoticed.
And I hope you realise that large studies in pregnancy show no increase in miscarriage rate. For every woman like your son’s buddy’s wife, you’ll find one where there would have been a miscarriage if not for the vaccine. But you’d never be aware of that, since you wouldn’t know that beforehand.
That's how averages work.
You are hiding your head in the sand. My anecdote is not a casual anecdote. This was first hand knowledge of professionals in the field. And my son’s friend’s wife gyno urged her NOT to get any more vaxes based on what she was seeing. As for answering tour RFKjr comment I am hesitant to answer as I don’t know what he has said. I know what the public health officers have said including Fauci etal. I know they lied.
Why are these anecdotes of widespread miscarriages and dire fetal outcomes not reflected in any of the epidemiological data on pregnancy outcomes, nor in any valid studies on the subject?
I can only assume that there is a general conspiracy to cover this up taking place at the highest levels, and deep enough and wide spread enough to involve everyone in public health and women’s health, and yet this conspiracy has passed off unnoticed without a fragment of evidence it is occurring.
PS This article is about RFK and measles vax. Don’t try and divert onto your pet topic please.
You must really have your head in the sand. If you look at Pfizer’s clinical trial data which they only produced after a judge ordered them, you will see that in the short time of less than 6 months 1226 people died after getting the shot. Prior vaccines were taken off the market long before that number. Swine flu vax was taken off when around 20 died.
Maybe the perversion is yours. Have you ever considered that thought?
Problem is that I do the research and have written extensively on the vaccines, being a viral immunologist. I have not found credible evidence as Offit has well documented. Calling him a whore does not make you an expert. Show me your evidence, or admit you are a liar. I have asked MANY, MANY people like you to back up your claims and NOT ONE HAS! Rather, ALL respond with character attacks like you have. I contend you have have nothing else to offer. Prove me wrong. I bet you either ignore this, OR respond with more invective. But, you will NOT respond with evidence.....
Are you referring to vaccines in general, or the mRNA vaccines?
In this case, I refer to the mRNA vaccines, which just one the inventors the Nobel Prize....
Oooh a Nobel!! Yasser Arafat and Obama, he of the seven war fronts, for Nobels too.
Wrong. Neither of them EVER won a Nobel Prize for medicine. Their prizes were awarded by a wholly separate committee. Basically, you do not know what you are talking about.
I KNOW they won a Peace Prize. Sheesh. The Nobels, all of them, have been politicized. You must know that. There is a ton of evidence. I think you don’t understand the word ‘evidence’.
not the science ones. You DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!! If there is a ton of evidence, why is no one showing it? Evidence is NOT you saying so.....YOU do not know what evidence is.....
If you can’t see the damage being done you are doing everything you can to NOT see it. You read every study looking for one tiny thing to discredit it. Then toss it. In 2022 in BC you were three times as likely to die from COVID if you had had three shots as if you had none. On a per capita basis. After a few months of that they buried those stats. I showed these stats to true believers such as yourself. They looked shocked. Then said triumphantly ‘I would have to know the ages of those who died for this to be meaningful’. And it was dismissed. Their statement isn’t stupid, but dismissing it was. They are up to their fifth or sixth shot now. They’ve all aged ten years in three. Their clarity is gone. But weirdly iff and on. Five minutes of clarity flowed by two of confusion. Alternating. They get angry easily. Really fired up over small things easily. It o a mess.
Again! Please provide evidence to back up your ramblings. NO ONE HAS EVER PROVIDED EVIDENCE TO BACK UP WHAT YOU CLAIM!! There is a reason for that....
Many studies. Tons of evidence. You know that.
Can I see those BC stats please?
How were they "buried"? Is it possible to bury stats in the current internet age?
You mention this was on a percapita basis. You say those who had 3 shots were three times more likely to die than someone who had no shots. Are you sure you are not just misinterpreting this via the Base Rate fallacy?
https://ibb.co/GvKNqCL
And let's also not forget that those who were first in line to get vaxed and boosted were who, exactly?...the elderly, the immune compromised etc...just the group of people who are probably normally 10 times as likely to die from Covid than young, healthy [unvaxed] individuals anyway. So reducing that to only 3 times would be a measure of success!
...SMH.
Nonsense. This was dying from Covid. Easy peasy hiding stats now if you are the government.
I had measles back in the 50s before there was a vaccine. Other than having red freckles on my skin, I remember it as a minor event in my life. I remember my physician-father telling me I now had natural immunity. Why all the anxiety over measles?
With measles, which doesn’t mutate readily, you do now have natural immunity that should persist for a long time, perhaps life. That’s not always the case with other viruses. About 20% of the folks who contract measles have a LOT more than red “freckles”, and enough die from the disease that it’s considered a public health threat. Vaccination prevents the disease pretty reliably, except in patients whose immune system will not mount a response to the vaccine, a small number. If, in the case of measles, roughly 95% of the population is vaccinated, we do actually see population immunity (often mislabeled “herd” immunity). Measles can have serious effects on the population and is a preventable disease.
The CDC’s information on the fatality rates of diseases such as measles, mumps, scarlet fever, etc all declined to very low levels in advance of vaccines. The diseases like scarlet fever that never had vaccines came down just the same as the ones that did have vaccines. Engineers providing sanitation and clean drinking water, heated homes, refrigeration, etc did more for public health than vaccines ever did. The idea that we would return to 1800’s mortality rates by dropping vaccines is the same mentality as telling the population covid was something to fear. Disease takes out the weak and the sick, whether or not this demographic is targeted for vaccines is perhaps a relevant consideration but healthy young people should never have been vaccinated on mass. The fact that the regulators that are captured by pharma refuse to do vaxxed verse unvaxxed overall health comparisons should be all you need to see to know they know their products are causing harm. Think about it, if it painted a story in their favour it would be paraded non stop, they aren’t against comparisons, look at the spectacle of the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” we were subjected to. And that was based on corrupted data (not vaccinated until 14 days after your second dose, how many people died and were injured in that window). The pandemic of the unvaccinated fell apart by mid 2022 and all the comparison numbers were pulled once the vaccinated were clearly having worse outcomes.
We’ve been scammed, but the beauty of Covid is it caused so many people to look beyond Covid. Anyone or industry that would do what they did during covid didn’t just suddenly lose all morals, they were obviously bankrupt in this department long before but were effective at hiding it. More People are learning this on a daily basis.
You might be right, but I can remember back in the 50s parents used to have’measles’ parties so that youngsters could become infected and then heal with naturally acquired immunity. Purely anecdotal, but I can’t remember any childhood friends having died from measles. Am I being too cavalier? Public Health Threat? 4 years ago we were told by career bureaucrats and known liars in the media that a ‘new’ virus with a >99% survival rate was a Public Health Threat/Emergency. Also a National Security Threat requiring official Countermeasures, yikes! Would Pharma and career bureaucrats try to scare us? 🙄
Back in the day, people were more concerned about devastating diseases like diphtheria and polio. Those infections which nobody could prevent or treat were regarded as normal rites of childhood; there was nothing else except getting on with them. Measles was only regarded as minor, because there were other more dangerous diseases that killed your kids. Some only had mild measles, but a significant minority suffered seriously.
This might enlighten you:
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/189/Supplement_1/S4/823958
In the last major epidemic between 1987-89, there were 67,000 cases, of whom 0.3% died, 0.1% had encephalitis, and 20% were hospitalised.
In 2009 Marcia Angell, editor of JAMA, wrote that "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely upon the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my 2 decades as editor." I do not know if the Journal of Infectious Disease is so afflicted, but given the events of the last 4 years, I am as cynical as Marcia Angell about the integrity of too many organs of the US medical profession.
From pushing opioids to pushing poison shots, it is clear that the Hippocratic Oath is no longer honored by too many in the profession.
This is one of the tired old tropes that gets dragged out frequently whenever someone wants to rubbish scientific research....the cynical view of one editor eclipses everything!
Since 2009, a lot of work has gone into how we police research and how we review journal articles. I've spent anywhere from a few hours (for a well-written article reporting a well-designed research study and providing the base dataset, to days for lower-quality research, providing feedback to the authors, and recommendations on publication back to journal editors. Citing an editorial reference that's 15 years old doesn't reflect the current state of the art.
I hope you're right about that Gerry, but the sad truth, just 1 example, is that 68 colleges and universities still require their students (not staff) to be injected with as bioweapon, the same injection that the huge majority of the medical profession have been pushing for years.
I see the medical profession as a noble profession, and still do. But the sad truth is that from the top down, by way of the insurance industry and regulatory agencies, and of course Pharma, today's medical profession has demonstrated it does not know right from wrong. If you're familiar with Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, you know what a scandal that was. That scandal was eclipsed by the Scamdemic. I want to believe, I really do, but I need to see some actions before I can.
I and millions of others survived Measles with no apparent harm. I'm not against old fashioned, real vaccines, though I have more questions about them now that we've been through the Scamdemic.
Why all th anxiety over measles? Because it kills kids. Just ask Samoa or your grandparents.
Did you feel the same level of anxiety regarding the c19 virus?
Vaxxed to the max and so are the kids. We're good :)
Hopefully you were lucky and received injections from the least harmful batches! A fair number of people I know were not so lucky. More than a dozen dead, a handful with permanent injury.
Cheers to anxiety, eh?
If you personally know "more than a dozen dead" from the Covid vaccinations, you know all of those in the entire US whose deaths have been medically attributed to the vaccine....I guess you must know 330 million people!
That being the case though, I guess you also personally know 1.2 million people killed by the virus. I offer my condolences.
You are a very poor guesser.
Not a single vaxxed person I know, including friends, family and the 200 employees in my workplace, have suffered even a single vaccine injury and nobody has died. Not one.
However, sadly, 12 people I know died of Covid. 11 of them prior to the release of the vaccination. One of them after vaccination release, but he refused it.
Of the 12, nine of them were either older or had an underlying health issue, that made it impossible to combat the virus. They were fighting either Delta or alpha, which were much stronger than omicron. Not a single one of them was overweight.
The other three were younger, 40's and early 50's, and in enviable great health and that includes my anti-VAX school friend who we all loved dearly. All male, interestingly.
My school friend thought his perfect health would get him through, but it failed him. Covid didn't care.
We miss him dearly. His greatest relief on his deathbed was to discover that his wife and children had received the vaccination without telling him. At least he died knowing they were safe.
So, yes, cheers to no anxiety, whatsoever, because we are thriving and safe!
There were batches that were just saline. If everyone in your area was vaxxed within that area then likely they got a saline batch.
Sounds like vintage emotional appeal and Fauci propaganda WE. Somebody might fall for it, but I don’t.
RFK, Jr is pretty disgusting. I have been blogging on the covid pandemic since March 2020. In one post, I posed the question whether intentional vaccine disinformation that led to harm should be considered criminal. How would that be different from intentionally withholding insulin from a diabetic in crisis?
We all, on the other side of this, think it should be. All the PHOs, Fauci et al should be criminally charged.
Problem is RFK Jr has the truth!
If you actually do some pretty easy research you will find out that all vaccines cause a lot of injuries.
You’ve been duped by the Pharma whores like Faucci and Offit!
Perhaps instead of insults and ad homs calling Offit a Pharma whore you could post a rebuttal to his evidence on what RFKjr has done? I'm sure that would be more convincing.
Insulin has a long track record of working. A less than 6 month clinical trial where the control group were given the vaccine does not prove that the vaccine worked. Look up Maddie DeGaray, a 13 year old who is now in a wheelchair and feeding tube after taking part in the clinical trial.
flat wrong. Phase III clinical trials were adequate to show the vaccines are safe and effective. You don't need long term trials for vaccines. Besides, all approved medicines also under go phase IV, or post-approval trials. Billions of vaccine doses have been given to millions of people, which have confirmed the Phase III trials. Maddie's single experience does not disprove the results of all this.
off topic but Dr. Offit just said on MSNBC's Morning Joe that there was "absolutely no evidence the Covid virus was manipulated in a lab" and that "it came from a spillover event." I challenged him to a debate on this two months ago and he ignored the challenge. I have abundant evidence the virus was manipulated in a lab and I proved on 2.20.2020 the virus couldn't have entered the human population from natural zoonotic spillover.
His shills stepped in to say he didn't waste his time debating unqualified people. Turns out Dr. Offit went to Tufts (ranked 360-something)- major not disclosed on the internet- and is a pediatrician with 3 years of training and one of fellowship in infectious diseases and the "unqualified" challenger graduated from MIT (ranked #1 in the world for 13 straight years), majored in physics and is a pediatric heart surgeon with 12 years of postgraduate training. Ah, the good ole days...
Yeah, we've seen you peacocking before, Reid.
Get back to him when your infectious diseases bio is as good as his.
We are in the realm of epidemiology here. Knowledge of infectious diseases is useful, but not nearly important as statistical analysis and interpretation of large data sets. Doctors aren't particularly good understanding data, let alone challenging methodology. Dr. Sheftall is particularly qualified as a physician with a comprehensive background in mathematics. Your casual dismissal of this professional's opinion as peacocking speaks to the unfounded hubris of medical researchers and so called "specialists" which has kept them locked in dogma.
He’s been boasting about his ranking in his degree courses, and claiming his universities are better than Offit’s. He says he’s better qualified than Offit.
Do you think he’s better qualified as of now to speak about infection and vaccine science than Offit is?
As I wrote earlier, this is more about epidemiology and statistics, not infectious diseases and vaccine science. The issue at hand is not the pathogenesis of SARS-COV2 infections or the intimate details of technology built on the mRNA platform (neither of which Offit is an authority for that matter), it is about figuring out what this technology is actually doing to large groups of human beings.
Moreover, Offit is hardly an objective voice in this matter and as far as I am concerned, he has completely abandoned what objectivity he may have once had as a young vaccine scientist. The fact that he has publicly stated that saline placebos are not innocuous because too much water or salt can be lethal speaks to this point.
Nevertheless, Paul hasn't lost his wits completely. He knows Dr. Sheftall would blow his arguments apart in a scientific debate. That's why he will never accept an invitation to talk things out with him. He serves his masters better by making appearances on platforms where he can answer soft-ball questions and never get challenged.
The topics I challenged him on have nothing to do with infectious diseases.
This is an extract from “The beautiful cure” by Daniel M Davis, professor of immunology at University of Manchester, England which may be relevant. Particularly the phrase “get childhood vaccinations” that applies to the Amish and Hutterite communities.
“ To answer this, scientists have studied two relatively isolated farming communities living in the USA: the Amish and the Hutterites, who have similar ancestry but differ in their susceptibility to asthma. Amish children have asthma relatively rarely – around 5% are affected – while the prevalence of asthma among Hutterite children is around four times greater. Both communities have large families, similar diets and get childhood vaccinations, but one difference is that the Amish use traditional farming methods on single-family dairy farms while the Hutterites embrace larger-scale communal mechanised farming. Each community lives in a similar environment but Amish children live closer to animals and their sheds. The fact that the Amish are less likely to get asthma corresponds with the hygiene hypothesis: stimulation of the immune system by microbes found on small farms might be what protects the Amish from asthma. To test whether or not there were any differences in the state of the immune system in Amish and Hutterite children, a team of researchers, primarily from the universities of Chicago and Arizona, analysed the numbers of different immune cells and which genes were active in blood samples taken from sixty schoolchildren. They found that the Amish children’s innate immune cells, which recognise the telltale signs of germs, were being continuously stimulated at a low level. In other words, their immune system was continuously being tickled by the presence of bacteria.”
If there are differences in the immune systems then that could explain a lot.
Thanks for casting some light into the darkness.
Of course, there are those here who think absolutely nothing is different in these communities from other populations....not their genetics, not their traditional practices, not their social or religious conventions, not their diet, not their environments, not their occupations, not their access to medical care...absolutely nothing except their vaccination status (which as it turns out is not so different after all!).
I would have thought RFKjr was capable of communicating his antivax propaganda without needing Bigtree to hold his hand.
But maybe Dell is going to produce a movie…
Which reminds me of this attempt by someone from the past on HPV vaccine.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MsPpAfcmbHw&feature=youtu.be
Please get your booster, you actually get the flu, Ravi and Covid all at the same time.
“make a facebook group” “don’t forget twitter”😂