Pfizor Booster CDC Possible Adverse Event Signal

[mtdjed]

Recent news indicates a CDC signal indicated a possible concern with the Pfizor booster. Several other monitors do not duplicate this finding and CDC continues to encourage continued usage of this booster. While I have absolutely no training in this area, I did want to know the significance of the "adverse event signal". The following is what I found. The 3rd paragraph seemed a bit undefined (sentence in Bold Red). Same data used but with a different methodology could not replicate.


"The signal was detected in the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaboration involving the CDC and about a dozen health-care organizations with electronic health records on 12 million people. As part of routine monitoring for possible adverse events, officials noticed late last year that they were picking up indications of higher-than-expected stroke risk, officials said.

Among about 550,000 people 65 and older who had already been vaccinated and received a booster dose of the Pfizer bivalent vaccine, 130 people had strokes in the first three weeks after getting the shot. No deaths have been reported. That finding raised a question because it suggested that people who received the bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with Days 22 through 44 following vaccination.

The findings prompted officials to look for similar findings. CDC officials conducted a different analysis in the Vaccine Safety Datalink system, using the same data but different methodology, and were not able to replicate the finding. Officials also searched other systems, including those of Medicare, the Department of Veterans Affairs and Pfizer’s global surveillance network. Regulators in other countries, including Israel, also were consulted, but no evidence of similar findings emerged, the officials said."

[Pairadocs]

Recent news indicates a CDC signal indicated a possible concern with the Pfizor booster. Several other monitors do not duplicate this finding and CDC continues to encourage continued usage of this booster. While I have absolutely no training in this area, I did want to know the significance of the "adverse event signal". The following is what I found. The 3rd paragraph seemed a bit undefined (sentence in Bold Red). Same data used but with a different methodology could not replicate.


"The signal was detected in the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaboration involving the CDC and about a dozen health-care organizations with electronic health records on 12 million people. As part of routine monitoring for possible adverse events, officials noticed late last year that they were picking up indications of higher-than-expected stroke risk, officials said.

Among about 550,000 people 65 and older who had already been vaccinated and received a booster dose of the Pfizer bivalent vaccine, 130 people had strokes in the first three weeks after getting the shot. No deaths have been reported. That finding raised a question because it suggested that people who received the bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with Days 22 through 44 following vaccination.

The findings prompted officials to look for similar findings. CDC officials conducted a different analysis in the Vaccine Safety Datalink system, using the same data but different methodology, and were not able to replicate the finding. Officials also searched other systems, including those of Medicare, the Department of Veterans Affairs and Pfizer’s global surveillance network. Regulators in other countries, including Israel, also were consulted, but no evidence of similar findings emerged, the officials said."

My intent here is NOT to begin a whole "vax" "no vax" on line "argument" (that would never end), but just to comment that I fear this is only the beginning. As more data becomes available (remember "the larger the sample") and it's pouring in from other countries as well, there is going to be even much more to come. A colleague in a European country, with whom I communicate frequently, has given me a worrisome report on what they are finding in relation to various Covid formulations and data from boosters now, and asked me why our country has so little interest in aggressive data analysis. I have no idea ? Perhaps the oldest "root".... money, profit ? But, definitely am looking for more news, and possibly not what we want to hear.

[blueash]

My intent here is NOT to begin a whole "vax" "no vax" on line "argument" (that would never end), but just to comment that I fear this is only the beginning. As more data becomes available (remember "the larger the sample") and it's pouring in from other countries as well, there is going to be even much more to come. A colleague in a European country, with whom I communicate frequently, has given me a worrisome report on what they are finding in relation to various Covid formulations and data from boosters now, and asked me why our country has so little interest in aggressive data analysis. I have no idea ? Perhaps the oldest "root".... money, profit ? But, definitely am looking for more news, and possibly not what we want to hear.

The CDC issues a transparent notice that it is carefully doing post marketing surveillance using multiple data sources, in this case the signal coming from a health care system with 12 million patients. They further report that they then checked for a similar signal across their other systems which include the VA, the manufacturer, and medicare data which did not confirm the concern, and that they checked with international health care agencies where such a concern has also not been seen.

But then you come here and complain that the US agencies are not looking into potential problems and their numbers are too small and you know somebody who might know something. Why don't you please get back to your colleague and ask him for the published data from a journal or a governmental agency or a news report of exactly what worrisome stuff he is privy to that is being kept secret from all of us Americans by our health care agencies who are being controlled by money.

Apparently Pfizer didn't have enough dollar power to suppress this report but you are sure that somehow they are controlling all the levers. /s

Please post here as soon as you have the report from your friend. I understand that tin foil is available at your local supermarket.

If you believe that there is not vigorous discussion and analysis in the medical literature you might want to read the latest issue of NEJM and come back and tell us about Dr. Offit's piece on the benefit of the bivalent booster.

Just a moment... (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780)

Be sure to inform yourself of Dr. Offit's job and his opinion on the value of vaccination.

[mtdjed]

I was referring to the fact that the signal that came from a study of a sample of 550,000 persons over 65 of which 130 had a stroke within 21 days of getting the booster shot. That quantity seemed to trigger an adverse effect signal. They go on to say they used the same data and analyzed with a different methodology and could not duplicate the results.

I realize that they could have used more detailed analysis such as a closer look at the age distribution etc , but if the number 130 out of 550,000 within 21 days sets off a trigger, it would seem that a better explanation would be more convincing. What would be the normal expectation of that type of stroke in a population and age of this type? Seemingly, they infer that the grouping of those strokes was within 21 days of the start date, and then perhaps not an issue. How does different methodology yield different results and why does that mitigate the initial trigger?

I was hoping not to trigger any arguments and harsh comment regarding other data offered. I think it is fair to offer other data without citing sources but my subject is the cited adverse trigger event data.

I realize that samples from other sources don't replicate the results of concern but get concerned when I see CDC stating that the analysis of subject data can't be replicated.

[Sabella]

Really you believe the government? Why did the CDC recently change the definition of a vaccine?

[Bill14564]

Really you believe the government? Why did the CDC recently change the definition of a vaccine?

What did they change in the definition; how is the "new" definition different from the "old"?

[shut the front door]

A vaccine, by definition provides immunity. The covid shot does not. In order to keep calling it a vaccine, one must change the definition of vaccine.

[DARFAP]

Although I've had 2xModerna and a booster, I'm done. Young, healthy people, esp athletes, are suddenly dying: cardiac arrest, strokes, aortic dissections... Now even CDC is investigating Pfizer vax causing strokes. Never again for me.

[Bill14564]

A vaccine, by definition provides immunity. The covid shot does not. In order to keep calling it a vaccine, one must change the definition of vaccine.

Let me fix that for you:

A vaccine, by one definition, provides immunity. No vaccines are 100% effective in providing immunity. In order to keep using the word "vaccine" in today's landscape with vaccine deniers, one must change that definition of vaccine.

[B-flat]

Although I've had 2xModerna and a booster, I'm done. Young, healthy people, esp athletes, are suddenly dying: cardiac arrest, strokes, aortic dissections... Now even CDC is investigating Pfizer vax causing strokes. Never again for me.

Plus one here. This goes a lot deeper than any of us really know.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

The OP is an analysis of decimal dust in medical history. . .

Both the virus itself and the shots can cause blood clots / strokes in individuals with certain genetics. On one of our drives down from MA to TV, at a drink/bathroom/fuel stops, we talked with a woman relocation from NH, and several of her family relatives had blood clots after shots. Not medical data nor evidence, nor valid sample size, but the future of medicine is genetic mappings and genetic reactions. Genetics determine survivability to human natural predators. . . the apex predator is a virus. . .

The problem at the moment is reliance on medical science to fix all . . . all humans have always had medical risks from playing in the dirt Potentially Deadly Bacteria Detected in U.S. Soil for First Time - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/health/deadly-bacteria-us-soil-water.html) to eating improperly prepared food. We currently live in amazing times with modern medicine, but we are all still mortal to unknown events, remember the future is uncertain, and at times more uncertain that at other times.

Everyone should really read "On Being Mortal", as the book by a Boston surgeon, Atul Gwande. . .
Amazon.com (https://www.amazon.com/Being-Mortal-Illness-Medicine-Matters/dp/1250081246)

The first part of the book is about the history of medicine and quickly people would die after being struck down in an infinite number of ways. From that you realize that we currently live in an fairy tale of successful medicine compared with all prior 1900s medical history. .. .

so back to the original post, decimal dust of life outcomes, and remember that hard wired survival behavioral human responses grossly outweigh negative events with extremely low probabilities over positive happy outcomes with very large probabilities.

[ThirdOfFive]

Ain't modern medicine wonderful?

They've invented a cure that is worse than the disease! (yeah, I know...no cure...figure of speech and all that...)

[blueash]

Although I've had 2xModerna and a booster, I'm done. Young, healthy people, esp athletes, are suddenly dying: cardiac arrest, strokes, aortic dissections... Now even CDC is investigating Pfizer vax causing strokes. Never again for me.

Do you have any evidence, any at all, that the incidence of deaths, in athletes or others, is any different now than it has always been? Because there is no such evidence. (https://www.factcheck.org/2023/01/scicheck-no-surge-in-athlete-deaths-contrary-to-widespread-anti-vaccine-claims/) You just are getting fed scare data from sources with an agenda to make you anti-science and anti-vaccine. Young people have always had these adverse events.

My first patient as an asst. chief resident was a 19 year old with an aortic aneurism. My daughter had a soccer player drop dead playing against her team in the 1990s. I am fairly sure these were not Covid vaccine side effects.

There is no increase in sudden deaths. There was a signal finding of increase myocarditis from the J&J vaccine about 18 months ago which is why is not a shot of choice any longer.

Certain news media talking heads have giddily produced lists of young people who have had heart problems like the Bills football player and showed you that list and claimed that all of them are victims of a shot. No data whether they did or did not get a vaccine, or when. No data on whether there are more such cases now than in the past [there are not], just a list of names. Don't be a sucker for such nonsense.

Remember that Tucker won a defamation case when the Trump appointed judge wrote:
This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” … Given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism’

Remember that Hannity just testified (https://www.wsiu.org/politics-elections/politics-elections/2022-12-22/fox-news-sean-hannity-says-he-knew-all-along-trump-lost-the-election) that he never believed that the 2020 election was stolen.

If these people are your news sources look elsewhere. They are not stating actual facts and don't believe what they are telling you to believe.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Do you have any evidence, any at all, that the incidence of deaths, in athletes or others, is any different now than it has always been?

BA, totally agree. . . . .

again, these stories are like catnip for the hard wired survival brain to be attracted to negative news to avoid that pitfall. . because the human brain developed over a thousand years without modern medicine and statistics, and the brain doesn't intuitively process very tiny negative modern probability outcomes to the trash bin. . .

instead, the cave man survival brain sends that piece of information to the top of the "stay away from this" list. . . behavioral psychology, all it very visible here on TOTV. . .

psych guy

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

So - 130 individuals out of 155,000 people who were 65 years old or older had a stroke during a 3-week period. According to the OP:

130 people had strokes in the first three weeks after getting the shot. No deaths have been reported. That finding raised a question because it suggested that people who received the bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with Days 22 through 44 following vaccination.

So which is it? Strokes, or ischemic stroke? And if ischemic stroke, which of the four types? Because if they mean a TIA, then those 155,000 65-year-old-plus folks are doing pretty good. TIAs are common in seniors, many don't even realize they've had one.

How many 65-year-old-plus Villagers have had some type of stroke - including TIAs - in the last three weeks? We have around 155,000 people living here, it should be easy to track.

[DiandJay]

Read the book. It was quite good.

[Cobullymom]

Let me fix that for you:

A vaccine, by one definition, provides immunity. No vaccines are 100% effective in providing immunity. In order to keep using the word "vaccine" in today's landscape with vaccine deniers, one must change that definition of vaccine.
Vaccine deniers? Denying something that doesn't work? More like vaccine brainwashed.

[Cobullymom]

Do you have any evidence, any at all, that the incidence of deaths, in athletes or others, is any different now than it has always been? Because there is no such evidence. (https://www.factcheck.org/2023/01/scicheck-no-surge-in-athlete-deaths-contrary-to-widespread-anti-vaccine-claims/) You just are getting fed scare data from sources with an agenda to make you anti-science and anti-vaccine. Young people have always had these adverse events.

My first patient as an asst. chief resident was a 19 year old with an aortic aneurism. My daughter had a soccer player drop dead playing against her team in the 1990s. I am fairly sure these were not Covid vaccine side effects.

There is no increase in sudden deaths. There was a signal finding of increase myocarditis from the J&J vaccine about 18 months ago which is why is not a shot of choice any longer.

Certain news media talking heads have giddily produced lists of young people who have had heart problems like the Bills football player and showed you that list and claimed that all of them are victims of a shot. No data whether they did or did not get a vaccine, or when. No data on whether there are more such cases now than in the past [there are not], just a list of names. Don't be a sucker for such nonsense.

Remember that Tucker won a defamation case when the Trump appointed judge wrote:


Remember that Hannity just testified (https://www.wsiu.org/politics-elections/politics-elections/2022-12-22/fox-news-sean-hannity-says-he-knew-all-along-trump-lost-the-election) that he never believed that the 2020 election was stolen.

If these people are your news sources look elsewhere. They are not stating actual facts and don't believe what they are telling you to believe.
You're wallowing deep in your politics, I believe you're crossing the line. Why hasn't this post been deleted and the poster been warned? That's how this site works supposedly..we will see, I'll be watching.

[Altavia]

Vaccine deniers? Denying something that doesn't work? More like vaccine brainwashed.

That's why the unvaccinated in China are dropping like flies. Karma is a bitch.

You should be thanking the vaccinated for protecting you and your family instead of slinging ignorant insults.

[Bill14564]

You're wallowing deep in your politics, I believe you're crossing the line. Why hasn't this post been deleted and the poster been warned? That's how this site works supposedly..we will see, I'll be watching.

Perhaps because there was nothing at all political in that post.

[terryf484]

Recent news indicates a CDC signal indicated a possible concern with the Pfizor booster. Several other monitors do not duplicate this finding and CDC continues to encourage continued usage of this booster. While I have absolutely no training in this area, I did want to know the significance of the "adverse event signal". The following is what I found. The 3rd paragraph seemed a bit undefined (sentence in Bold Red). Same data used but with a different methodology could not replicate.


"The signal was detected in the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaboration involving the CDC and about a dozen health-care organizations with electronic health records on 12 million people. As part of routine monitoring for possible adverse events, officials noticed late last year that they were picking up indications of higher-than-expected stroke risk, officials said.

Among about 550,000 people 65 and older who had already been vaccinated and received a booster dose of the Pfizer bivalent vaccine, 130 people had strokes in the first three weeks after getting the shot. No deaths have been reported. That finding raised a question because it suggested that people who received the bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with Days 22 through 44 following vaccination.

The findings prompted officials to look for similar findings. CDC officials conducted a different analysis in the Vaccine Safety Datalink system, using the same data but different methodology, and were not able to replicate the finding. Officials also searched other systems, including those of Medicare, the Department of Veterans Affairs and Pfizer’s global surveillance network. Regulators in other countries, including Israel, also were consulted, but no evidence of similar findings emerged, the officials said."


If you Google strokes related to COVID - 19 vacs, you also get as many medical studies that state that there is an increase in strokes, especially in younger people as results of getting COVID - 19. So I guess it's dang if you do or dank if you don't, take your pick.

[birdawg]

Do you think we can trust the government?

[Cheapbas]

Although I've had 2xModerna and a booster, I'm done. Young, healthy people, esp athletes, are suddenly dying: cardiac arrest, strokes, aortic dissections... Now even CDC is investigating Pfizer vax causing strokes. Never again for me.

Here are the numbers, 1600 reports of myocarditis in 360,000,000 injections. And this isn’t deaths. So, you are not young and the odds of this happening are .000005. Weigh those odds against catching COVID and possibly severe outcomes like hospitalization, long COVID or worse.

[Harold.wiser]

It was not properly tested and ru$hed to the market. The long-term effects of this DNA altering "vaccine" will not be known for quite some time however, some of the negative effects are already surfacing.
There must be big money in it because they are still promoting it!

[Two Bills]

It was not properly tested and ru$hed to the market. The long-term effects of this DNA altering "vaccine" will not be known for quite some time however, some of the negative effects are already surfacing.
There must be big money in it because they are still promoting it!

What ones?
Interested, as I have had all the recommended shots, without a perceived problem, but would like to know what to watch out for.

[NotGolfer]

Did any of you think when they said it wasn't tested that y'all were a part of the tests?? Trust the "science" they said........

[Bill14564]

Did any of you think when they said it wasn't tested that y'all were a part of the tests?? Trust the "science" they said........

Who is the "they" who said it wasn't tested? I remember hearing about the testing and reading the test reports with the analysis of the efficacy.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Read the book. It was quite good.

We read it after my MIL was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer at 86, after she passed away. I am using what i learned in the book with handling my 96 year old mom, with dementia, so that we avoid any unnecessary pain or suffering. Also we have adopted the attitudes of the support staff for people with known little time left.

Made a huge difference in our outlooks on how to handle aging and on being mortal.
A major point is about how to handle increased less time left, which adopts a more positive outlook for each day which is a gift. . .

[waltwl]

You're wallowing deep in your politics, I believe you're crossing the line. Why hasn't this post been deleted and the poster been warned? That's how this site works supposedly..we will see, I'll be watching.

Free speech

[JMintzer]

Free speech

Irrelevant. "Free Speech" deals with the government limiting your speech. Not a private message board...

[JMintzer]

Do you have any evidence, any at all, that the incidence of deaths, in athletes or others, is any different now than it has always been? Because there is no such evidence. (https://www.factcheck.org/2023/01/scicheck-no-surge-in-athlete-deaths-contrary-to-widespread-anti-vaccine-claims/) You just are getting fed scare data from sources with an agenda to make you anti-science and anti-vaccine. Young people have always had these adverse events.

My first patient as an asst. chief resident was a 19 year old with an aortic aneurism. My daughter had a soccer player drop dead playing against her team in the 1990s. I am fairly sure these were not Covid vaccine side effects.

There is no increase in sudden deaths. There was a signal finding of increase myocarditis from the J&J vaccine about 18 months ago which is why is not a shot of choice any longer.

Certain news media talking heads have giddily produced lists of young people who have had heart problems like the Bills football player and showed you that list and claimed that all of them are victims of a shot. No data whether they did or did not get a vaccine, or when. No data on whether there are more such cases now than in the past [there are not], just a list of names. Don't be a sucker for such nonsense.

Remember that Tucker won a defamation case when the Trump appointed judge wrote:


Remember that Hannity just testified (https://www.wsiu.org/politics-elections/politics-elections/2022-12-22/fox-news-sean-hannity-says-he-knew-all-along-trump-lost-the-election) that he never believed that the 2020 election was stolen.

If these people are your news sources look elsewhere. They are not stating actual facts and don't believe what they are telling you to believe.

You had me until you just had to play the "FOX News" card...

Don't forget, certain media "talking heads" were adamant that taking the vaccine would "stop it in its tracks" and would "prevent you from infecting others". Not to mention "prevent you from getting covid in the first place"...

But now, they insist they never said any of those things...

"If these people are your news sources look elsewhere. They are not stating actual facts and don't believe what they are telling you to believe."

Sage advice...

[ithos]

The fact of the matter is that there are highly credentialed and renowned health professionals in some of the most prestigious medical institutions and universities who have made very critical or cautionary assessments of the RNA vaccines.

From the onset of the pandemic, any medical expert who had a contrary opinion with the CDC regarding the vaccine or therapeutics was instantly vilified by the health agencies and the lemmings in the press.

Most of them believed that the vaccine had its place but recommendations should be based on age and health status.

The very fact that rigorous open debate was squelched using the power of government in the very beginning when there was very limited data on the virus and the experimental vaccine which required a waiver is very troubling. This is not how the scientific protocol is supposed to work. If you disagree then you will be silenced and prevented from working in your chosen field.

Remember how HQL and Ivermectin was denounced after Trump mentioning it? Well just days before:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced on Sunday that New York state has acquired 70,000 doses of Hydroxychloroquine, 10,000 doses of Zithromax and 750,000 doses of Chloroquine after getting approval from the Food and Drug Administration to conduct the trials.

New York to begin experimental drug trials Tuesday – The Legislative Gazette (https://legislativegazette.com/new-york-to-begin-experimental-drug-trials-tuesday/)

And there was also this:

The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases, Korean Society for Antimicrobial Therapy, Korean Society of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and a tuberculosis association published their recommendations on Thursday.

South Korean disease experts have begun to recommend the use of a combination of antiviral and anti-malaria drugs for patients of the new strain of coronavirus.

South Korea experts recommend anti-HIV, anti-malaria drugs for COVID-19 - UPI.com (https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2020/03/12/South-Korea-experts-recommend-anti-HIV-anti-malaria-drugs-for-COVID-19/6961584012321/)


For the record I received both of the Pfizer gene therapy shots.

This level of censorship and coercion has not been been inflicted on science since Galileo.

[drstevens]

reporting adverse reactions:
The COVID Blog(R) - Official blog of COVID Legal USA™. Vaccines are the leading cause of coincidences. Stay Vigilant. (https://thecovidblog.com/)

[Love2Swim]

If people don't want to get the vaccines, works for me. Thinning of the herd. Bring it on.

[ithos]

If people don't want to get the vaccines, works for me. Thinning of the herd. Bring it on.

You are obviously going off script.

'The looming question': Fauci says studies suggest vaccines slow virus spread
The bottom-line message, Fauci says, is "when your turn to get vaccinated comes up, get vaccinated."

'''The looming question''': Fauci says studies suggest vaccines slow virus spread (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/looming-question-fauci-says-studies-suggest-vaccines-slow-virus-spread-n1258142)


Fauci: Vaccinated people become ‘dead ends’ for the coronavirus
Fauci: Vaccinated people become ‘dead ends’ for the coronavirus | The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-vaccinated-people-become-dead-ends-for-the-coronavirus/)

[defrey12]

My intent here is NOT to begin a whole "vax" "no vax" on line "argument" (that would never end), but just to comment that I fear this is only the beginning. As more data becomes available (remember "the larger the sample") and it's pouring in from other countries as well, there is going to be even much more to come. A colleague in a European country, with whom I communicate frequently, has given me a worrisome report on what they are finding in relation to various Covid formulations and data from boosters now, and asked me why our country has so little interest in aggressive data analysis. I have no idea ? Perhaps the oldest "root".... money, profit ? But, definitely am looking for more news, and possibly not what we want to hear.

Why are we even talking about this anymore? Go live your life. They’re making it all up anyway. End of line.

[ithos]

Who would have thought that the Swedes could be so anti science?

Sweden to stop offering Covid jabs to teenagers (https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-09-sweden-covid-jabs-teenagers.html)

Sweden's Public Health Agency said Friday it was no longer recommending that children aged 12 to 17 get vaccinated against Covid-19, citing the "very low risk" for the group.

After having a high death toll at the beginning of the pandemic, the Nordic country now has fewer deaths per capita than the European average.

[oldtimes]

My own observations about this is that the only people I know that died from Covid were not vaccinated. However the ones I know who have had it the most times were vaccinated and fully boosted. I personally only had the initial vaccine series (2 shots) back in 2021. The one and only time I got Covid it was so mild I’ve had colds that were worse. I have to wonder if people are so over-vaccinated that they can no longer produce a natural response. What is everyone’s own experience with this?

[Joe Mack]

openvaers.com

[jimjamuser]

That's why the unvaccinated in China are dropping like flies. Karma is a bitch.

You should be thanking the vaccinated for protecting you and your family instead of slinging ignorant insults.
The Chinese situation IS pretty much, "the proof is in the pudding".....an old Chinese proverb.

[jimjamuser]

It was not properly tested and ru$hed to the market. The long-term effects of this DNA altering "vaccine" will not be known for quite some time however, some of the negative effects are already surfacing.
There must be big money in it because they are still promoting it!
My humble prayer.............................Oh God, please give me an FCC that prevents lies and propaganda on American radio and TV.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

My own observations about this is that the only people I know that died from Covid were not vaccinated. However the ones I know who have had it the most times were vaccinated and fully boosted. I personally only had the initial vaccine series (2 shots) back in 2021. The one and only time I got Covid it was so mild I’ve had colds that were worse. I have to wonder if people are so over-vaccinated that they can no longer produce a natural response. What is everyone’s own experience with this?

I've had 4 Pfizer shots total. I had COVID last year, maybe six months ago? Seven? Something like that. The only reason I even suspected I might have it, was because I couldn't taste the cinnamon in my coffee that morning. I know that loss of taste/smell is a symptom. I took the test you get free from the government that morning (I had 4 of them because - free stuff). It was positive. I allowed for the possibility of a false positive and tested again the next day. Also positive. I isolated for 5 days, tested a third time, negative. Continued on my merry way.

BTW I was able to taste the cinnamon in my coffee the second day, and had no other symptoms at all.

Fast forward to around a month ago I started getting the sniffles. I still have them. I tested negative for COVID twice in the past month, so I'm just assuming it's - the sniffles. You can pretend that's an official medical diagnosis. I was a snot-nosed kid too.

[jimjamuser]

You had me until you just had to play the "FOX News" card...

Don't forget, certain media "talking heads" were adamant that taking the vaccine would "stop it in its tracks" and would "prevent you from infecting others". Not to mention "prevent you from getting covid in the first place"...

But now, they insist they never said any of those things...

"If these people are your news sources look elsewhere. They are not stating actual facts and don't believe what they are telling you to believe."

Sage advice...
I personally believe that Covid WOULD have been stopped in its tracks, if during Delta, the anti-vaccers had not run their mouths so WOOF-si-fer-ous-ly - and the US vaccines had been as widely accepted as vaccines were in the distant past. And of course, NOW we would have NEEDED China to desire to use our vaccines and we desired to give it to them.
........And NOW we are too late and Covid is still incubating away.....23......7

[jimjamuser]

Did any of you think when they said it wasn't tested that y'all were a part of the tests?? Trust the "science" they said........
It was tested on a SMALL group and government was worried about the potential for 1 MILLION Americans dying for nothing from the DISEASE (which did happen) that they made the CORRECT decision to go ahead and give out the shots.

[JP]

A friend of mine, who is an infectious disease Dr, says that after the 1917 era flu pandemic, Parkinson symptoms/disease could be correlated to previous flu infections. This was happening 40-50 years after the pandemic in people that were his patients. I think it is safe to say science/medicine has no clue what the future holds for covid survivors and/or vaccination effects. The covid virus may, like the chickenpox virus, just go live in some ganglion and emerge as something that has never been seen. Likewise, the vaccine could cause some alteration we really don't know about although he felt this was less likely due to the vaccine being mRNA vs. a "real" vaccine that uses DNA that might be more readily incorporated into your genetic structure. Time will tell.

[oldtimes]

I've had 4 Pfizer shots total. I had COVID last year, maybe six months ago? Seven? Something like that. The only reason I even suspected I might have it, was because I couldn't taste the cinnamon in my coffee that morning. I know that loss of taste/smell is a symptom. I took the test you get free from the government that morning (I had 4 of them because - free stuff). It was positive. I allowed for the possibility of a false positive and tested again the next day. Also positive. I isolated for 5 days, tested a third time, negative. Continued on my merry way.

BTW I was able to taste the cinnamon in my coffee the second day, and had no other symptoms at all.

Fast forward to around a month ago I started getting the sniffles. I still have them. I tested negative for COVID twice in the past month, so I'm just assuming it's - the sniffles. You can pretend that's an official medical diagnosis. I was a snot-nosed kid too.

Thanks, this is helpful.

[Dusty_Star]

My own observations about this is that the only people I know that died from Covid were not vaccinated. However the ones I know who have had it the most times were vaccinated and fully boosted. I personally only had the initial vaccine series (2 shots) back in 2021. The one and only time I got Covid it was so mild I’ve had colds that were worse. I have to wonder if people are so over-vaccinated that they can no longer produce a natural response. What is everyone’s own experience with this?

My experience is that I got infected with the original virus SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) in March of 2020. It was less than a cold. I had an unusual (never felt before) congestion in my upper lungs, I had an irrepressible urge to cough. (I was outside at a public park at the time & the mania had just hit - say March 15th or so & I did NOT want to cough - I really, really tried not to cough). I got to my car & felt free to cough. I drove home & started to write what I thought would be an article about my experience with the dread COVID. An original article by a sufferer would have been of interest at the time as so little was known about the virus. The next day, I woke up feeling fine. No symptoms, no article to write. But I did have something invaluable - natural immunity. I have been thankfully free of any cold/flu symptoms since. (I don't think it is a magic power - I think the Covid virus (& its associated variants) has out competed the normal cold/flu viruses & it probably won't last much longer). Some details: 60 years old, non-smoker, adequate Vitamin D level (as shown in blood tests a few months later), daily walker, excellent health, pretty good nutrition (I eat my veggies).

[oldtimes]

My experience is that I got infected with the original virus SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) in March of 2020. It was less than a cold. I had an unusual (never felt before) congestion in my upper lungs, I had an irrepressible urge to cough. (I was outside at a public park at the time & the mania had just hit - say March 15th or so & I did NOT want to cough - I really, really tried not to cough). I got to my car & felt free to cough. I drove home & started to write what I thought would be an article about my experience with the dread COVID. An original article by a sufferer would have been of interest at the time as so little was known about the virus. The next day, I woke up feeling fine. No symptoms, no article to write. But I did have something invaluable - natural immunity. I have been thankfully free of any cold/flu symptoms since. (I don't think it is a magic power - I think the Covid virus (& its associated variants) has out competed the normal cold/flu viruses & it probably won't last much longer). Some details: 60 years old, non-smoker, adequate Vitamin D level (as shown in blood tests a few months later), daily walker, excellent health, pretty good nutrition (I eat my veggies).

Interesting, thanks

[HappyGirl126]

Doctor Calls for Withdrawal of Pfizer, Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines Following New Research

Provided by The Epoch Times

Here is the article. There are 1,000s of Drs worldwide that already know this. But most people are afraid to go to NIH, PubMed or even to Pfizer to look at the information Pfizer wanted concealed from us for over 75+ years.

The information presented here is drawn from peer-reviewed scientific literature from the United States, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, France, and Japan, as well as statistics published by public health agencies in each of these countries. More than 100 hours of research and internal peer review among scientists with experience in infectious diseases, virology, clinical trials, and vaccine epidemiology have been invested in presenting this summary of the evidence.

[HappyGirl126]

Another article from The Epoch Times.

Sudden Death: The No. 1 Cause of Death for Under 65s in 2021

The lengthy article contains charts/graphs and a lengthy description.

Perhaps they have a "trial subscription" so that you could read this and many others.

One-year subscription is, I believe 10.99/year. Time to do some research to find answers to questions asked.

[jimjamuser]

My experience is that I got infected with the original virus SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) in March of 2020. It was less than a cold. I had an unusual (never felt before) congestion in my upper lungs, I had an irrepressible urge to cough. (I was outside at a public park at the time & the mania had just hit - say March 15th or so & I did NOT want to cough - I really, really tried not to cough). I got to my car & felt free to cough. I drove home & started to write what I thought would be an article about my experience with the dread COVID. An original article by a sufferer would have been of interest at the time as so little was known about the virus. The next day, I woke up feeling fine. No symptoms, no article to write. But I did have something invaluable - natural immunity. I have been thankfully free of any cold/flu symptoms since. (I don't think it is a magic power - I think the Covid virus (& its associated variants) has out competed the normal cold/flu viruses & it probably won't last much longer). Some details: 60 years old, non-smoker, adequate Vitamin D level (as shown in blood tests a few months later), daily walker, excellent health, pretty good nutrition (I eat my veggies).
I would suggest that your fast RECOVERY from Covid-like symptoms was due to your relatively (with respect to Covid) YOUNG AGE and non-smoking with daily walks. It worked for you, so keep up the good work. But, there are few valuable conclusions to be drawn from that to help seniors, in general about Covid. Statistically, it is an N of 1, which is meaningless. The statistics did tell us that the bulk of the DEATHS and hospitalizations were for the OLDER seniors in the age 75 and up brackets. Whole different world for them - the body bags in NY City were being filled up by that plus 75 group. So, when the vaccines were developed, the rush was on for that group in The Villages to get vaccinated. People drove all over the state for the vaccine early on. True that many people 75 plus did NOT get the vaccine, especially in the Midwest. But, the Midwest ended up paying for its vaccine avoidance by having the most deaths per 1000 people in the US. To me, that fact is proof-positive that the vaccines WORKED. Personally, I wished that it had been MANDATED except for immuno-compromised people.

Today people in the US are STILL dying (in smaller numbers) from Covid and it seems to be spreading. In China Covid is spreading RAPIDLY and KILLING a lot of people. China has lost control of the situation. China has a bad vaccine and many won't take it. When comparing the US and China the conclusion about Covid that I and others come to is that observationally and statistically - the US vaccine worked and saved lives.
.........To me, that amounts to a 2nd proof-positive. I see it as simple as 2 plus 2 equals 4.

[Love2Swim]

Doctor Calls for Withdrawal of Pfizer, Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines Following New Research

Provided by The Epoch Times

Here is the article. There are 1,000s of Drs worldwide that already know this. But most people are afraid to go to NIH, PubMed or even to Pfizer to look at the information Pfizer wanted concealed from us for over 75+ years.

The information presented here is drawn from peer-reviewed scientific literature from the United States, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, France, and Japan, as well as statistics published by public health agencies in each of these countries. More than 100 hours of research and internal peer review among scientists with experience in infectious diseases, virology, clinical trials, and vaccine epidemiology have been invested in presenting this summary of the evidence.

According to Wikipedia, Epoch Times is a far right media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement. It frequently promotes misinformation and conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccine information, and false claims of election fraud in the 2020 US election.

[oneclickplus]

I was referring to the fact that the signal that came from a study of a sample of 550,000 persons over 65 of which 130 had a stroke within 21 days of getting the booster shot. That quantity seemed to trigger an adverse effect signal. They go on to say they used the same data and analyzed with a different methodology and could not duplicate the results.

I realize that they could have used more detailed analysis such as a closer look at the age distribution etc , but if the number 130 out of 550,000 within 21 days sets off a trigger, it would seem that a better explanation would be more convincing. What would be the normal expectation of that type of stroke in a population and age of this type? Seemingly, they infer that the grouping of those strokes was within 21 days of the start date, and then perhaps not an issue. How does different methodology yield different results and why does that mitigate the initial trigger?

I was hoping not to trigger any arguments and harsh comment regarding other data offered. I think it is fair to offer other data without citing sources but my subject is the cited adverse trigger event data.

I realize that samples from other sources don't replicate the results of concern but get concerned when I see CDC stating that the analysis of subject data can't be replicated.

The government reports that out of 350,000,000 (350 million) people in the US, there are about 600,000 first-time strokes per year. That's one(1) stroke for every 583 people per year.
So, for 550,000 people, 943 would have a stroke in a year's time. That's 18.8 strokes per week or 56 strokes in 3 weeks.

The issue then is that 130 strokes in 3 weeks is several multiples of the 56 expected in that time frame using the historical data as a predictor. By my math, a person is 2.32 (130/56) times more likely to have a stroke in the 3-week window after taking the booster.

[oldtimes]

I would suggest that your fast RECOVERY from Covid-like symptoms was due to your relatively (with respect to Covid) YOUNG AGE and non-smoking with daily walks. It worked for you, so keep up the good work. But, there are few valuable conclusions to be drawn from that to help seniors, in general about Covid. Statistically, it is an N of 1, which is meaningless. The statistics did tell us that the bulk of the DEATHS and hospitalizations were for the OLDER seniors in the age 75 and up brackets. Whole different world for them - the body bags in NY City were being filled up by that plus 75 group. So, when the vaccines were developed, the rush was on for that group in The Villages to get vaccinated. People drove all over the state for the vaccine early on. True that many people 75 plus did NOT get the vaccine, especially in the Midwest. But, the Midwest ended up paying for its vaccine avoidance by having the most deaths per 1000 people in the US. To me, that fact is proof-positive that the vaccines WORKED. Personally, I wished that it had been MANDATED except for immuno-compromised people.

Today people in the US are STILL dying (in smaller numbers) from Covid and it seems to be spreading. In China Covid is spreading RAPIDLY and KILLING a lot of people. China has lost control of the situation. China has a bad vaccine and many won't take it. When comparing the US and China the conclusion about Covid that I and others come to is that observationally and statistically - the US vaccine worked and saved lives.
.........To me, that amounts to a 2nd proof-positive. I see it as simple as 2 plus 2 equals 4.

I do not believe anything I read from any news source which is why I am asking for personal experiences. So far we have 3 mild cases from unvaccinated, vaccinated, and vaccinated and boosted.

[ithos]

Surfer arrested because the police were just following "the Science".

Paddle boarder arrested in Malibu, ignored coronavirus closures - Los Angeles Times (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-03/paddle-boarder-arrested-in-malibu-after-flouting-coronavirus-closures)
96503

[ThirdOfFive]

And the endless debate continues...

I forget where in this thread it was mentioned but someone observed that they don't trust ANY news source. I tend to agree. In this vastly overpoliticized and underinformed culture of ours, there is one truth that always seems to stand out. And that is that sensationalism sells. When that sensationalism involves news, which we so naively seem to believe is a dispassionate recital of the facts, it is doubly dangerous. News services are businesses like any other. They're out there to make money. And if sensationalism draws readership and generates hits, you can bet the farm that they'll use as much of that as they can. I tend to gravitate to sources without a dog in the fight, but those are becoming harder and harder to find.

This is what my own experience tells me. My wife and I decided from the getgo (on a cruise ship actually, which was one of the last to make it into port before the door slammed shut) that we were going to live our lives without fear, and as normally as possible. We rarely wore masks, and hung out with people with the same mindset. Handshakes and hugs were the norm, not those ridiculous fist-bumps. Oh--we both had COVID--late fall 2020. My wife had a VERY mild case. For me--well, not a picnic but to be honest I've had far worse cases of the flu. Felt kinda puny for about four days but after that my major gripe was that it interfered with my golf.

As for others in our life...our yard guy died after being hospitalized for COVID. He had had the shot. Died of cardiac arrest; I talked to him a couple of days before and he was looking forward to getting out of the hospital. What are the odds that his death certificate listed "COVID" as cause of death? Others? My wife's daughter, her husband and four kids all had the vaccination. A few months later all of them came down with COVID--my step-granddaughter's case also involved a pneumonia diagnosis. My sister had the shot, and then had COVID--twice. The last time, this past December, damn near killed her. My oldest granddaughter also had COVID--twice--AFTER having the shot.

My conclusions?

1. I know more people who have had COVID AFTER the vaccine than who have gotten it without having the vaccine. Some multiple times. Doesn't seem to help much if at all.

2. The biggest threat is not COVID, but the FEAR of COVID. For my wife and myself, as well as a whole lot of others who decided to LIVE our lives rather than curl up in a fetal position under some bed, that is the case.

3. People who take the government at their word are fools.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

My experience is that I got infected with the original virus SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) in March of 2020. It was less than a cold. I had an unusual (never felt before) congestion in my upper lungs, I had an irrepressible urge to cough. (I was outside at a public park at the time & the mania had just hit - say March 15th or so & I did NOT want to cough - I really, really tried not to cough). I got to my car & felt free to cough. I drove home & started to write what I thought would be an article about my experience with the dread COVID. An original article by a sufferer would have been of interest at the time as so little was known about the virus. The next day, I woke up feeling fine. No symptoms, no article to write. But I did have something invaluable - natural immunity. I have been thankfully free of any cold/flu symptoms since. (I don't think it is a magic power - I think the Covid virus (& its associated variants) has out competed the normal cold/flu viruses & it probably won't last much longer). Some details: 60 years old, non-smoker, adequate Vitamin D level (as shown in blood tests a few months later), daily walker, excellent health, pretty good nutrition (I eat my veggies).

Were you diagnosed with COVID via a test? Or are you just assuming that's what you had?

You will never be "immune" to colds and flu by the way. The common cold mutates regularly, just like the flu does. Even the flu shot doesn't provide 100% foolproof immunity. It provides the chance for your body to create its own antibodies against the flu, which can reduce your risk of getting sick AND reduce symptoms if you fail the dice roll.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

The government reports that out of 350,000,000 (350 million) people in the US, there are about 600,000 first-time strokes per year. That's one(1) stroke for every 583 people per year.
So, for 550,000 people, 943 would have a stroke in a year's time. That's 18.8 strokes per week or 56 strokes in 3 weeks.

The issue then is that 130 strokes in 3 weeks is several multiples of the 56 expected in that time frame using the historical data as a predictor. By my math, a person is 2.32 (130/56) times more likely to have a stroke in the 3-week window after taking the booster.

Picking a specific 3-week period using a specific demographic, and comparing it to a 52-week period using every person in the country - does not add up and is not mathematics, at all, even a little bit.

What percentage of of ALL people in the USA, had strokes in the last 52 weeks? Compare that to the 52 weeks prior, and the 52 weeks prior, and keep going back until you're beyond 52 weeks before the first case of COVID.

If you want whole numbers, then pick all the people in the USA up to and including 350 million of them - if it falls short, add some folks from Canada to make up the shortage. And figure out how many of those people had strokes in the last 52 weeks. And then the 52 weeks prior, and the 52 weeks prior to that, and so on, until you're beyond 52 weeks before the first case of COVID.

Compare like with like, otherwise your data has no merit, and is useless.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

And the endless debate continues...

I forget where in this thread it was mentioned but someone observed that they don't trust ANY news source. I tend to agree. In this vastly overpoliticized and underinformed culture of ours, there is one truth that always seems to stand out. And that is that sensationalism sells. When that sensationalism involves news, which we so naively seem to believe is a dispassionate recital of the facts, it is doubly dangerous. News services are businesses like any other. They're out there to make money. And if sensationalism draws readership and generates hits, you can bet the farm that they'll use as much of that as they can. I tend to gravitate to sources without a dog in the fight, but those are becoming harder and harder to find.

This is what my own experience tells me. My wife and I decided from the getgo (on a cruise ship actually, which was one of the last to make it into port before the door slammed shut) that we were going to live our lives without fear, and as normally as possible. We rarely wore masks, and hung out with people with the same mindset. Handshakes and hugs were the norm, not those ridiculous fist-bumps. Oh--we both had COVID--late fall 2020. My wife had a VERY mild case. For me--well, not a picnic but to be honest I've had far worse cases of the flu. Felt kinda puny for about four days but after that my major gripe was that it interfered with my golf.

As for others in our life...our yard guy died after being hospitalized for COVID. He had had the shot. Died of cardiac arrest; I talked to him a couple of days before and he was looking forward to getting out of the hospital. What are the odds that his death certificate listed "COVID" as cause of death? Others? My wife's daughter, her husband and four kids all had the vaccination. A few months later all of them came down with COVID--my step-granddaughter's case also involved a pneumonia diagnosis. My sister had the shot, and then had COVID--twice. The last time, this past December, damn near killed her. My oldest granddaughter also had COVID--twice--AFTER having the shot.

My conclusions?

1. I know more people who have had COVID AFTER the vaccine than who have gotten it without having the vaccine. Some multiple times. Doesn't seem to help much if at all.

2. The biggest threat is not COVID, but the FEAR of COVID. For my wife and myself, as well as a whole lot of others who decided to LIVE our lives rather than curl up in a fetal position under some bed, that is the case.

3. People who take the government at their word are fools.

There are more people who have had the vaccine, than not had it. The difference is that most of the people who are contracting covid now, aren't deathly ill, needing any kind of special treatment, and aren't dying.

No one is saying that people have to crawl under their beds in a fetal position and be fearful. There's "it's all a hoax, the government is fooling you" and there's "we're all going to die." Civilized intelligent people believe something in between the two extremes. Everyone who believes in either extreme - are, by definition, extremists.

You do you. If it suits you, you could just get sick and trust in the lord to either make you better or end your suffering, and not bother with aspirin, or cough medicine, or chicken soup, or a doctor - since, y'know - it's all a hoax.

[blueash]

The government reports that out of 350,000,000 (350 million) people in the US, there are about 600,000 first-time strokes per year. That's one(1) stroke for every 583 people per year.
So, for 550,000 people, 943 would have a stroke in a year's time. That's 18.8 strokes per week or 56 strokes in 3 weeks.

The issue then is that 130 strokes in 3 weeks is several multiples of the 56 expected in that time frame using the historical data as a predictor. By my math, a person is 2.32 (130/56) times more likely to have a stroke in the 3-week window after taking the booster.

It is good to see an attempt at critical thinking. BUT, you missed one extremely important detail. The data on strokes reported by the CDC in this signal are only on those 65 and older. Thus you need to be comparing the stroke rate reported here with not the 350 million Americans, but rather the much smaller number of over 65. Come back to us with that calculation.. The number of baseline strokes in a three week period in the over 65 vs the report of 130 in a half million seniors.

[oldtimes]

And the endless debate continues...

I forget where in this thread it was mentioned but someone observed that they don't trust ANY news source. I tend to agree. In this vastly overpoliticized and underinformed culture of ours, there is one truth that always seems to stand out. And that is that sensationalism sells. When that sensationalism involves news, which we so naively seem to believe is a dispassionate recital of the facts, it is doubly dangerous. News services are businesses like any other. They're out there to make money. And if sensationalism draws readership and generates hits, you can bet the farm that they'll use as much of that as they can. I tend to gravitate to sources without a dog in the fight, but those are becoming harder and harder to find.

This is what my own experience tells me. My wife and I decided from the getgo (on a cruise ship actually, which was one of the last to make it into port before the door slammed shut) that we were going to live our lives without fear, and as normally as possible. We rarely wore masks, and hung out with people with the same mindset. Handshakes and hugs were the norm, not those ridiculous fist-bumps. Oh--we both had COVID--late fall 2020. My wife had a VERY mild case. For me--well, not a picnic but to be honest I've had far worse cases of the flu. Felt kinda puny for about four days but after that my major gripe was that it interfered with my golf.

As for others in our life...our yard guy died after being hospitalized for COVID. He had had the shot. Died of cardiac arrest; I talked to him a couple of days before and he was looking forward to getting out of the hospital. What are the odds that his death certificate listed "COVID" as cause of death? Others? My wife's daughter, her husband and four kids all had the vaccination. A few months later all of them came down with COVID--my step-granddaughter's case also involved a pneumonia diagnosis. My sister had the shot, and then had COVID--twice. The last time, this past December, damn near killed her. My oldest granddaughter also had COVID--twice--AFTER having the shot.

My conclusions?

1. I know more people who have had COVID AFTER the vaccine than who have gotten it without having the vaccine. Some multiple times. Doesn't seem to help much if at all.

2. The biggest threat is not COVID, but the FEAR of COVID. For my wife and myself, as well as a whole lot of others who decided to LIVE our lives rather than curl up in a fetal position under some bed, that is the case.

3. People who take the government at their word are fools.

Great info and I wholeheartedly agree

[Altavia]

Death Rate by Vaccination Status.

[oldtimes]

Death Rate by Vaccination Status.

Any of these studies can be skewed to show whatever result they desire. I am only interested in first hand personal experiences and so far the results are mixed which I very much expected. Granted it will be a very small sample and by no means conclusive but I find the responses I have received very interesting.

[JMintzer]

My humble prayer.............................Oh God, please give me an FCC that prevents lies and propaganda on American radio and TV.

You spelled "CDC" wrong...

[Whitley]

I strongly suggest you listen to the reports from Dr Bruce Campbell. The one attached discusses "Facts" surrounding the vaccine and the current variant.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYz-yelhkYE

[JMintzer]

My own observations about this is that the only people I know that died from Covid were not vaccinated. However the ones I know who have had it the most times were vaccinated and fully boosted. I personally only had the initial vaccine series (2 shots) back in 2021. The one and only time I got Covid it was so mild I’ve had colds that were worse. I have to wonder if people are so over-vaccinated that they can no longer produce a natural response. What is everyone’s own experience with this?

I'm a Covid hipster. I had covid before it was cool...

February 2020... Mild fever and body aches for 36 hrs, a cough for 3 days and tired for 4-5 days.

Didn't even know it was covid since tests were not yet available. I was able to confirm via antibody blood tests 3 months later.

I still took the Moderna jabs (first one made me WAAAAAY sicker than when I had covid, the second one was nothing), and 1 booster.

The wife caught covid from me. She had typical flu-like symptoms for a week and lost taste and smell a week later. That lasted about 7-10 days. She also was jabbed (she got the J&J, followed by the first Moderna booster). She caught covid again last Summer. It was a bad cold for a week...

We're both done with the boosters until they actually test them and prove they work...

[JMintzer]

Who is the "they" who said it wasn't tested? I remember hearing about the testing and reading the test reports with the analysis of the efficacy.

FDA to authorize new Covid boosters without trials in people (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-authorize-new-covid-boosters-data-tests-people-rcna45387)

[JMintzer]

I personally believe that Covid WOULD have been stopped in its tracks, if during Delta, the anti-vaccers had not run their mouths so WOOF-si-fer-ous-ly - and the US vaccines had been as widely accepted as vaccines were in the distant past. And of course, NOW we would have NEEDED China to desire to use our vaccines and we desired to give it to them.
........And NOW we are too late and Covid is still incubating away.....23......7

I'd agree with you... But then we'd both be wrong...

[JMintzer]

It was tested on a SMALL group and government was worried about the potential for 1 MILLION Americans dying for nothing from the DISEASE (which did happen) that they made the CORRECT decision to go ahead and give out the shots.

It was tested on 8 MICE...

[JMintzer]

There are more people who have had the vaccine, than not had it. The difference is that most of the people who are contracting covid now, aren't deathly ill, needing any kind of special treatment, and aren't dying.

Which is exactly the same as what was happening BEFORE the vaccine was available...

[Whitley]

You will see that there are a few who get absolutely rabid when defending the jab and it's follow up jabs since the original one didn't work as planned. I once owned a Maserati. My wife told me before I bought it, that it was a foolish choice. I bought it, believing the salesman that maintenance was not extreme and it would fulfill all my driving fantasies. Of course, it was a nightmare. Even so, with each visit, and bill from the repair shop, I dug my heels in deeper, stating how great the auto was and how I would buy one again. To admit that it was a mistake at this point would prove I made a poor decision. Each time evidence showed it was a silly choice, I defended it louder. Had I the power I may even censor those who proved me wrong. To admit it would be to admit I made a questionable choice, then acted like a fool keeping it each time it was shown to be a foolish choice. Human nature I guess. Side note, anyone interested in a 1981 Merak (built October)?

[oldtimes]

I'm a Covid hipster. I had covid before it was cool...

February 2020... Mild fever and body aches for 36 hrs, a cough for 3 days and tired for 4-5 days.

Didn't even know it was covid since tests were not yet available. I was able to confirm via antibody blood tests 3 months later.

I still took the Moderna jabs (first one made me WAAAAAY sicker than when I had covid, the second one was nothing), and 1 booster.

The wife caught covid from me. She had typical flu-like symptoms for a week and lost taste and smell a week later. That lasted about 7-10 days. She also was jabbed (she got the J&J, followed by the first Moderna booster). She caught covid again last Summer. It was a bad cold for a week...

We're both done with the boosters until they actually test them and prove they work...

I think I had it before it became a thing also but can’t prove it. I had flu like symptoms (which is what I thought I had) but lost my sense of taste and smell for an entire week which has never happened to me before.

[Whitley]

A concern of mine is that while the chance of serious illness (hospitalization), to those under 21 years old are almost non existent, while the cases of adverse effects are shown to be statistically significant (recent study, peer reviewed in Taiwan). In spite of this, the CDC is pushing for children over 6 months old to get the jab.
Risk vs Benefit. The risk to young adults and children from the current strain are miniscule compared to serious adverse side effects of the jab.

[Whitley]

I do not believe anything I read from any news source which is why I am asking for personal experiences. So far we have 3 mild cases from unvaccinated, vaccinated, and vaccinated and boosted.

I am not vaccinated. Tested positive last September. The symptoms were less than a common cold. I know had I been jabbed everyone would say that was the reason for the very mild symptoms. Can I say my not being jabbed resulted in mild symptoms?

[ThirdOfFive]

"You will see that there are a few who get absolutely rabid when defending the jab and it's follow up jabs since the original one didn't work as planned. I once owned a Maserati. My wife told me before I bought it, that it was a foolish choice. I bought it, believing the salesman that maintenance was not extreme and it would fulfill all my driving fantasies. Of course, it was a nightmare. Even so, with each visit, and bill from the repair shop, I dug my heels in deeper, stating how great the auto was and how I would buy one again. To admit that it was a mistake at this point would prove I made a poor decision. "

Great points.

I too have noticed the defensiveness on the part of some when their views on the efficacy of the vaccine/subsequent boosters are questioned. On an individual level it is somewhat amusing but when it becomes the case with government entities it is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Case in point. Minnesota was one of the most front-and-center states in The-Sky-Is-Falling movement. Led by University of Minnesota epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, the doleful prediction was that one hundred thousand Minnesotans were in line to die of COVID in the space of eight months (the numbers and timelines may vary but that is the gist of it). Didn't happen, of course, but Governor Walz, a somewhat credulous type, bought into it hook, line and sinker. The state began hosting weekly (Saturday mornings as I recall) media sessions where he and Minnesota Dept. of Health Director Jan Malcolm, in dirgelike tones, recounted the previous week's progress of the bug across Minnesota. The tone of those sessions gradually changed as the numbers began to reveal that what was happening was nothing like the doleful predictions, but Walz, sticking to the original script, went out on a limb and purchased, for several million dollars, a huge old warehouse that was going to be used as a temporary morgue for all the COVID victims that he was sure were going to be swept up off the street that winter. Didn't happen, of course, and there were quite a few waggish suggestions made as to how the State could use that building. As far as I know, it still sits there, empty.

The problem was, even when the numbers began to tell a tale that was diametrically opposite of what the official doomsayers predicted, the state agencies refused to change course, many adapting the narrative to support continued draconian measures that the situation obviously did not call for. In my judgment it was a case of "in for a penny, in for a pound". A lot of well-known academic and department-head types had gone out so far on The-Sky-Is-Falling limb, that any change in course or action would have meant totally reversing their original take(s), and by so doing would have made them look extremely stupid.

Not admitting to obvious mistakes is the height of irresponsibility, in my opinion.

[oldtimes]

"You will see that there are a few who get absolutely rabid when defending the jab and it's follow up jabs since the original one didn't work as planned. I once owned a Maserati. My wife told me before I bought it, that it was a foolish choice. I bought it, believing the salesman that maintenance was not extreme and it would fulfill all my driving fantasies. Of course, it was a nightmare. Even so, with each visit, and bill from the repair shop, I dug my heels in deeper, stating how great the auto was and how I would buy one again. To admit that it was a mistake at this point would prove I made a poor decision. "

Great points.

I too have noticed the defensiveness on the part of some when their views on the efficacy of the vaccine/subsequent boosters are questioned. On an individual level it is somewhat amusing but when it becomes the case with government entities it is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Case in point. Minnesota was one of the most front-and-center states in The-Sky-Is-Falling movement. Led by University of Minnesota epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, the doleful prediction was that one hundred thousand Minnesotans were in line to die of COVID in the space of eight months (the numbers and timelines may vary but that is the gist of it). Didn't happen, of course, but Governor Walz, a somewhat credulous type, bought into it hook, line and sinker. The state began hosting weekly (Saturday mornings as I recall) media sessions where he and Minnesota Dept. of Health Director Jan Malcolm, in dirgelike tones, recounted the previous week's progress of the bug across Minnesota. The tone of those sessions gradually changed as the numbers began to reveal that what was happening was nothing like the doleful predictions, but Walz, sticking to the original script, went out on a limb and purchased, for several million dollars, a huge old warehouse that was going to be used as a temporary morgue for all the COVID victims that he was sure were going to be swept up off the street that winter. Didn't happen, of course, and there were quite a few waggish suggestions made as to how the State could use that building. As far as I know, it still sits there, empty.

The problem was, even when the numbers began to tell a tale that was diametrically opposite of what the official doomsayers predicted, the state agencies refused to change course, many adapting the narrative to support continued draconian measures that the situation obviously did not call for. In my judgment it was a case of "in for a penny, in for a pound". A lot of well-known academic and department-head types had gone out so far on The-Sky-Is-Falling limb, that any change in course or action would have meant totally reversing their original take(s), and by so doing would have made them look extremely stupid.

Not admitting to obvious mistakes is the height of irresponsibility, in my opinion.

I believe it was extensively over exaggerated as is everything the media reports on. I'm not saying it wasn't a major issue but the media hyped it well beyond the reality. Many people died but most people survived.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

I believe it was extensively over exaggerated as is everything the media reports on. I'm not saying it wasn't a major issue but the media hyped it well beyond the reality. Many people died but most people survived.

One of the problems is how people viewed and media reported outcomes. There is the binary view, dead/ not dead. and there is the severity view, hospitalized or dead view, and there is the range of outcomes, from had it not tested not severe to fever, in bed, positive test but no hospitalization, to hospitalized but not ICU, to ICU to dead. .. ie a finer range of outcomes though some harder to report than others, because of lack of reporting outside of controllable systems, such as hospitals and physician practices. So if the controllable accurate reporting is sourced from the location of the most severe, what information bias does it show?

There are confounding issues though: Media advertising model for revenue competition, resulting in fear mongering for clicks, which is the worst, to disinformation groups from abroad, to data and statistics under uncertainty, because what the hospital data showed, is how the state public health systems instructed health systems to report, along with government payments for counts to support where health insurance systems would not. . .

So with something new, there is a lot of incomplete and customer perceived annoying survey questions, which after getting through an overwhelmed and stressed system. . . the patients didn't want to complete, but is a very, important part of evaluation and efficacy of the system. . . Likewise, many medical health record systems had to be modified for not containing enough data collection fields for electronically collecting NEW pandemic information.. .

So with something basically as new and complex as our current health system with recent technology, insurance payment processes, and systems not optimized with enough slack for a pandemic, both human, technology and health systems got overwhelmed, and that all combined to create the fog of viral war of information.

So throw all those variables, which are NOT highly controllable,as well as social influences of medically unqualified reporting making statements for clicks, or otherwise, and the result is what we have today. . . information and data chaos. . .

So, that's why the accurate science outcomes and knowledge will come years later, after research and controlled studies/analysis and genetics will show a much more accurate picture of the virus impacts and outcomes. . .

So although I have access through Coach K's research hospital system's information through her, this Sportsguy is focusing on trying to take reasonable steps to prevent getting sick, as its never fun to be sick, and trying to improve my health to better deal with any future adverse outcomes, whether from COVID 19 or any variant or other new virus, and not worry about sensationalized media, nor catnip media tidbits for the fear attracting human survival bias for clicks. . .

ie, reported that several people got covid while attending the golden globes. . . news worthy? not any more, because the report doesn't specify severity, therefore is just sensationalizing for clicks or views.

good luck weeding yourself off the media catnip for your prehistoric survivalist brain. . .

sportsguy

[Love2Swim]

And the endless debate continues...

I forget where in this thread it was mentioned but someone observed that they don't trust ANY news source. I tend to agree. In this vastly overpoliticized and underinformed culture of ours, there is one truth that always seems to stand out. And that is that sensationalism sells. When that sensationalism involves news, which we so naively seem to believe is a dispassionate recital of the facts, it is doubly dangerous. News services are businesses like any other. They're out there to make money. And if sensationalism draws readership and generates hits, you can bet the farm that they'll use as much of that as they can. I tend to gravitate to sources without a dog in the fight, but those are becoming harder and harder to find.

This is what my own experience tells me. My wife and I decided from the getgo (on a cruise ship actually, which was one of the last to make it into port before the door slammed shut) that we were going to live our lives without fear, and as normally as possible. We rarely wore masks, and hung out with people with the same mindset. Handshakes and hugs were the norm, not those ridiculous fist-bumps. Oh--we both had COVID--late fall 2020. My wife had a VERY mild case. For me--well, not a picnic but to be honest I've had far worse cases of the flu. Felt kinda puny for about four days but after that my major gripe was that it interfered with my golf.

As for others in our life...our yard guy died after being hospitalized for COVID. He had had the shot. Died of cardiac arrest; I talked to him a couple of days before and he was looking forward to getting out of the hospital. What are the odds that his death certificate listed "COVID" as cause of death? Others? My wife's daughter, her husband and four kids all had the vaccination. A few months later all of them came down with COVID--my step-granddaughter's case also involved a pneumonia diagnosis. My sister had the shot, and then had COVID--twice. The last time, this past December, damn near killed her. My oldest granddaughter also had COVID--twice--AFTER having the shot.

My conclusions?

1. I know more people who have had COVID AFTER the vaccine than who have gotten it without having the vaccine. Some multiple times. Doesn't seem to help much if at all.

2. The biggest threat is not COVID, but the FEAR of COVID. For my wife and myself, as well as a whole lot of others who decided to LIVE our lives rather than curl up in a fetal position under some bed, that is the case.

3. People who take the government at their word are fools.

I thought the vaccines and boosters were to prevent serious illness and lower the rate of deaths. If so, sounds like the shots did their job.

[oldtimes]

I thought the vaccines and boosters were to prevent serious illness and lower the rate of deaths. If so, sounds like the shots did their job.

Yet some of the people who responded got Covid before being vaccinated or refused it and still had a mild case.

[Love2Swim]

Yet some of the people who responded got Covid before being vaccinated or refused it and still had a mild case.

Uh, yeah , so? Everyone who smokes doesn't get lung cancer. Does that mean it's okay to smoke? Not very good logic. Everyone who gets Covid certainly isn't going to end up in the hospital or die, but your chances are radically increased for the unvaccinated.I read that a million people died of Covid in 2020 before the vaccines were available, and that number is obviously much smaller now that we have been vaccinated. I read that in 2022, since the majority of Americans had been vaccinated, the number of Covid Deaths for the unvaccinated were about 8 times higher than that of the unvaccinated. No vaccine is 100% effective, but vaccination, and boosters for the elderly who may not mount a good immune response to the primary series, reduces the risk.

And one thing people neglect to mention are the effects of having long Covid. I have a relative who lost his sense of smell, and ended up losing 20 pounds because he can't taste food anymore.

[oldtimes]

Uh, yeah , so? Everyone who smokes doesn't get lung cancer. Does that mean it's okay to smoke? Not very good logic. Everyone who gets Covid certainly isn't going to end up in the hospital or die, but your chances are radically increased for the unvaccinated.I read that a million people died of Covid in 2020 before the vaccines were available, and that number is obviously much smaller now that we have been vaccinated. I read that in 2022, since the majority of Americans had been vaccinated, the number of Covid Deaths for the unvaccinated were about 8 times higher than that of the unvaccinated. No vaccine is 100% effective, but vaccination, and boosters for the elderly who may not mount a good immune response to the primary series, reduces the risk.

And one thing people neglect to mention are the effects of having long Covid. I have a relative who lost his sense of smell, and ended up losing 20 pounds because he can't taste food anymore.

Maybe Covid was just running its course. People who were vaccinated have also gotten long Covid. I’m not saying the vaccines don’t work I’m just saying there are a lot of variables and we may never know for sure. I don’t however have a lot of confidence in the boosters.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

In a pandemic, the only people, to whom one should listen, are epidemiologists.

The two sides of the bivalent booster debate, broken down and explained. (https://insidemedicine.substack.com/p/the-two-sides-of-the-bivalent-booster)

The two sides of the bivalent booster debate, broken down and explained.
summary of Team Topol and Team Offit views.


Comments by @NEJM authors Dr. David Ho, Dr. Dan Barouch,
quotes by @celinegounder

[oldtimes]

One of the problems is how people viewed and media reported outcomes. There is the binary view, dead/ not dead. and there is the severity view, hospitalized or dead view, and there is the range of outcomes, from had it not tested not severe to fever, in bed, positive test but no hospitalization, to hospitalized but not ICU, to ICU to dead. .. ie a finer range of outcomes though some harder to report than others, because of lack of reporting outside of controllable systems, such as hospitals and physician practices. So if the controllable accurate reporting is sourced from the location of the most severe, what information bias does it show?

There are confounding issues though: Media advertising model for revenue competition, resulting in fear mongering for clicks, which is the worst, to disinformation groups from abroad, to data and statistics under uncertainty, because what the hospital data showed, is how the state public health systems instructed health systems to report, along with government payments for counts to support where health insurance systems would not. . .

So with something new, there is a lot of incomplete and customer perceived annoying survey questions, which after getting through an overwhelmed and stressed system. . . the patients didn't want to complete, but is a very, important part of evaluation and efficacy of the system. . . Likewise, many medical health record systems had to be modified for not containing enough data collection fields for electronically collecting NEW pandemic information.. .

So with something basically as new and complex as our current health system with recent technology, insurance payment processes, and systems not optimized with enough slack for a pandemic, both human, technology and health systems got overwhelmed, and that all combined to create the fog of viral war of information.

So throw all those variables, which are NOT highly controllable,as well as social influences of medically unqualified reporting making statements for clicks, or otherwise, and the result is what we have today. . . information and data chaos. . .

So, that's why the accurate science outcomes and knowledge will come years later, after research and controlled studies/analysis and genetics will show a much more accurate picture of the virus impacts and outcomes. . .

So although I have access through Coach K's research hospital system's information through her, this Sportsguy is focusing on trying to take reasonable steps to prevent getting sick, as its never fun to be sick, and trying to improve my health to better deal with any future adverse outcomes, whether from COVID 19 or any variant or other new virus, and not worry about sensationalized media, nor catnip media tidbits for the fear attracting human survival bias for clicks. . .

ie, reported that several people got covid while attending the golden globes. . . news worthy? not any more, because the report doesn't specify severity, therefore is just sensationalizing for clicks or views.

good luck weeding yourself off the media catnip for your prehistoric survivalist brain. . .

sportsguy

I think this accurately sums up what I am trying to get across. I am not saying the vaccines don't work but I am saying that about 80% of the media has fed us is rubbish and social media about 100% is rubbish. No one reports the news anymore they are just creating clickbait for profit. There are so many variables that it will be years before the actual science catches up since right now even the experts don't agree.

[oldtimes]

In a pandemic, the only people, to whom one should listen, are epidemiologists.

The two sides of the bivalent booster debate, broken down and explained. (https://insidemedicine.substack.com/p/the-two-sides-of-the-bivalent-booster)

The two sides of the bivalent booster debate, broken down and explained.
summary of Team Topol and Team Offit views.


Comments by @NEJM authors Dr. David Ho, Dr. Dan Barouch,
quotes by @celinegounder

Sorry Sportsguy I couldn't read this without a subscription

[Altavia]

I think this accurately sums up what I am trying to get across. I am not saying the vaccines don't work but I am saying that about 80% of the media has fed us is rubbish and social media about 100% is rubbish. No one reports the news anymore they are just creating clickbait for profit. There are so many variables that it will be years before the actual science catches up since right now even the experts don't agree.

Sad situation indeed.

At the end of the day, the hybrid vaccinated/natural immunity here seems to have evolved the risk into something no worse than the flu.

China is demonstrating what happens when you have neither.

[Altavia]

Sorry Sportsguy I couldn't read this without a subscription

Staying up-to-date on boosters matters for high-risk people. But it's not clear that the new Omicron-containing bivalent formulation changed the game as was hoped.

Is the bivalent Covid-19 vaccine booster better than the monovalent booster it replaced? We still don’t know. If it improves things, the available evidence says that it’s not the game changer many had hoped it might be. Still, for at-risk people in particular, a recent dose of a Covid-19 booster decreases rates of infection, and with it, lowers hospitalization rates, at least for a time.

How might we determine if the bivalent booster is better than the monovalent one? There are two ways:

Clinical data.
Laboratory data.
In yesterday’s Inside Medicine, we discussed new clinical data out of Israel (and some from the US) which show that staying up-to-date on Covid-19 vaccines remains important for high-risk older individuals who want to avoid hospitalization. We also know that the new boosters decrease the short-term odds of getting infected for everyone.

But these studies did not pit bivalent against monovalent boosters. They just looked at whether the bivalent booster recipients fared better than people who had not been boosted in a while.

It’s likely that a head-to-head clinical study comparing bivalent to monovalent booster effectiveness will never happen. However, one piece of clinical data we can expect to get in the coming months, is whether the protection offered by the new bivalent version of the boosters lasts longer than that offered by the previous one. That would be great news, and I await the answers.

Other than that, we’re basically left with laboratory data as the lens through which we can judge the new bivalent booster. This week, two relevant studies were published in The New England Journal of Medicine. Both tested whether patients who were boosted with bivalent formulations had better immune responses than those who received monovalent ones. In both studies, there was no appreciable difference between the formulations.

Both the bivalent and monovalent boosters increased antibody responses nicely. In one of the studies, antibody levels spiked to 1,500% of pre-booster levels (among monovalent recipients) and 1,700% of pre-booster levels (bivalent recipients). That difference is not meaningful. Scientists had been looking for orders of magnitude of difference between the two formulations. That said, the 1,500%-1,700% difference in both from pre-booster levels is meaningful, and it explains why the Israeli clinical data from yesterday look good, at least temporarily. (Yes, we expect the effect to wane.) It’s clear that staying up-to-date on vaccines is important for high-risk people and others who want to limit their short-term risk of infection. It’s just that the new-and-improved bivalent vaccine is not changing the game that much.

T cell responses, which are indicative of longer-term protection against severe disease, were not augmented significantly by either the monovalent or the bivalent boosters, one of the studies showed. The monovalent vaccine increased T cell responses by 180%-210% (again, not much; we wanted at least 1000%). Meanwhile, the bivalent vaccine increased T cell responses by just 140%-190%. One might think this means the bivalent did worse. But in reality, the differences are so small at this level, that it makes these results interchangeable. Again, we’re looking for order-of-magnitude differences (1000% if not 10,000% increases, not “merely” 2-fold increases).

Over the last couple of days, an intellectual brawl has erupted over whether all the available data indicate that the bivalent booster outperforms the monovalent.

You’ve got two sides: Team Offit and Team Topol.

Dr. Paul Offit argues that the bivalent booster is a bust. He points out that Covid-19 vaccines are great for decreasing severe, critical, and fatal cases, but only prevent infections for a short period. He feels that boosters have been overplayed since the start, although he is supportive of boosters for older and high-risk people. He’s also worried that bivalent booster’s relatively low value-add may be because the population is already somewhat overboosted—that is, the immune systems of patients who received 3, 4, or even 5 doses of the Wuhan variant (original) vaccine prior to receiving a bivalent vaccine are more-or-less ignoring the new parts of the bivalent vaccine, because they’ve been “trained” to look for the old parts they keep seeing. This phenomenon is called “imprinting.” Data from my collaboration with epidemiologists in Qatar suggests that this indeed is happening. (We’ll discuss this in the future, but what this means is that some people, ironically, may need more boosting, while some would actually do better with less.)

Dr. Eric Topol argues that the bivalent is better. The crux of Dr. Topol’s argument is that there are a handful of other studies that show the bivalent booster does elicit higher antibody responses, and that the two New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) studies are outliers. Because both research teams used a kind of viral assay called a pseudovirus, he believes the NEJM data are inferior to other studies that used live virus.

I asked the lead authors of the two NEJM studies about this point. Both Dr. David Ho (Columbia University) and Dr. Daniel Barouch (Harvard University) disagreed with Dr. Topol.

“We also do live virus studies. The results generally parallel pseudovirus results,” Dr. Ho told Inside Medicine via email. He also strongly implied that scientists with domain expertise in this area tend to agree that the differences between these assays are not meaningful.

“We have also numerous times shown comparability between the pseudovirus and live virus assay,” Dr. Barouch said to Inside Medicine, also via email.

Dr. Barouch also mentioned that in the past, Moderna had generated some flashy data using pseudovirus. (He was more-or-less implying that it was cherry-picking to make a complaint or distinction about the assays now.)

But why did those other studies Dr. Topol mentioned have slightly better results, if the difference was not the assay being used?

Dr. Barouch has thoughts. He believes it comes down to major differences in how far the study participants were from their prior dose when they were most recently boosted.

“The major issue, in my view, is skewed populations. The Moderna and Pfizer studies that showed 4-6 fold increased [antibody] titers of their bivalent boosters compared with their monovalent boosters are based on skewed populations that are not equivalent. The companies looked at their monovalent boosters in individuals in February, 2022 who received their last vaccine 4-6 months previously, but looked at their bivalent boosters in individuals in August, 2022 who received their last vaccine 9-11 months previously. The differences in the calendar dates and the times from prior vaccination skew their data (substantially) in favor of the bivalent booster. This is particularly true since the BA5 surge occurred in summer 2022, and so many people in the bivalent booster group were seeing BA5 for the second time (due to prior BA5 infection), whereas no one in the monovalent group had seen BA5 previously (as that was before the BA5 surge). Negative [antibody tests indicative of prior infection] does not exclude all infections and cannot be used to claim these two populations are equivalent.” —Dr. Dan Barouch.

Dr. Céline Gounder, an infectious diseases specialist, also pointed out that in the studies where the bivalent booster elicited higher antibody levels, those increases were modest, rather than the 10-100 fold differences scientists believe would be meaningful.

[Two Bills]

Why are people still banging the same old drum after 3+years?
No one is going to change their opinions now.
You are for vaccination or against them.
At least some ( a very few mind you ) learn something from roundabout threads!

[oldtimes]

Why are people still banging the same old drum after 3+years?
No one is going to change their opinions now.
You are for vaccination or against them.
At least some ( a very few mind you ) learn something from roundabout threads!

I am not for or against. I believe no one really knows for sure either way. Even the medical experts don’t agree so everyone should just do what makes them feel comfortable and stop thinking they have all the answers.

[oldtimes]

Staying up-to-date on boosters matters for high-risk people. But it's not clear that the new Omicron-containing bivalent formulation changed the game as was hoped.

Is the bivalent Covid-19 vaccine booster better than the monovalent booster it replaced? We still don’t know. If it improves things, the available evidence says that it’s not the game changer many had hoped it might be. Still, for at-risk people in particular, a recent dose of a Covid-19 booster decreases rates of infection, and with it, lowers hospitalization rates, at least for a time.

How might we determine if the bivalent booster is better than the monovalent one? There are two ways:

Clinical data.
Laboratory data.
In yesterday’s Inside Medicine, we discussed new clinical data out of Israel (and some from the US) which show that staying up-to-date on Covid-19 vaccines remains important for high-risk older individuals who want to avoid hospitalization. We also know that the new boosters decrease the short-term odds of getting infected for everyone.

But these studies did not pit bivalent against monovalent boosters. They just looked at whether the bivalent booster recipients fared better than people who had not been boosted in a while.

It’s likely that a head-to-head clinical study comparing bivalent to monovalent booster effectiveness will never happen. However, one piece of clinical data we can expect to get in the coming months, is whether the protection offered by the new bivalent version of the boosters lasts longer than that offered by the previous one. That would be great news, and I await the answers.

Other than that, we’re basically left with laboratory data as the lens through which we can judge the new bivalent booster. This week, two relevant studies were published in The New England Journal of Medicine. Both tested whether patients who were boosted with bivalent formulations had better immune responses than those who received monovalent ones. In both studies, there was no appreciable difference between the formulations.

Both the bivalent and monovalent boosters increased antibody responses nicely. In one of the studies, antibody levels spiked to 1,500% of pre-booster levels (among monovalent recipients) and 1,700% of pre-booster levels (bivalent recipients). That difference is not meaningful. Scientists had been looking for orders of magnitude of difference between the two formulations. That said, the 1,500%-1,700% difference in both from pre-booster levels is meaningful, and it explains why the Israeli clinical data from yesterday look good, at least temporarily. (Yes, we expect the effect to wane.) It’s clear that staying up-to-date on vaccines is important for high-risk people and others who want to limit their short-term risk of infection. It’s just that the new-and-improved bivalent vaccine is not changing the game that much.

T cell responses, which are indicative of longer-term protection against severe disease, were not augmented significantly by either the monovalent or the bivalent boosters, one of the studies showed. The monovalent vaccine increased T cell responses by 180%-210% (again, not much; we wanted at least 1000%). Meanwhile, the bivalent vaccine increased T cell responses by just 140%-190%. One might think this means the bivalent did worse. But in reality, the differences are so small at this level, that it makes these results interchangeable. Again, we’re looking for order-of-magnitude differences (1000% if not 10,000% increases, not “merely” 2-fold increases).

Over the last couple of days, an intellectual brawl has erupted over whether all the available data indicate that the bivalent booster outperforms the monovalent.

You’ve got two sides: Team Offit and Team Topol.

Dr. Paul Offit argues that the bivalent booster is a bust. He points out that Covid-19 vaccines are great for decreasing severe, critical, and fatal cases, but only prevent infections for a short period. He feels that boosters have been overplayed since the start, although he is supportive of boosters for older and high-risk people. He’s also worried that bivalent booster’s relatively low value-add may be because the population is already somewhat overboosted—that is, the immune systems of patients who received 3, 4, or even 5 doses of the Wuhan variant (original) vaccine prior to receiving a bivalent vaccine are more-or-less ignoring the new parts of the bivalent vaccine, because they’ve been “trained” to look for the old parts they keep seeing. This phenomenon is called “imprinting.” Data from my collaboration with epidemiologists in Qatar suggests that this indeed is happening. (We’ll discuss this in the future, but what this means is that some people, ironically, may need more boosting, while some would actually do better with less.)

Dr. Eric Topol argues that the bivalent is better. The crux of Dr. Topol’s argument is that there are a handful of other studies that show the bivalent booster does elicit higher antibody responses, and that the two New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) studies are outliers. Because both research teams used a kind of viral assay called a pseudovirus, he believes the NEJM data are inferior to other studies that used live virus.

I asked the lead authors of the two NEJM studies about this point. Both Dr. David Ho (Columbia University) and Dr. Daniel Barouch (Harvard University) disagreed with Dr. Topol.

“We also do live virus studies. The results generally parallel pseudovirus results,” Dr. Ho told Inside Medicine via email. He also strongly implied that scientists with domain expertise in this area tend to agree that the differences between these assays are not meaningful.

“We have also numerous times shown comparability between the pseudovirus and live virus assay,” Dr. Barouch said to Inside Medicine, also via email.

Dr. Barouch also mentioned that in the past, Moderna had generated some flashy data using pseudovirus. (He was more-or-less implying that it was cherry-picking to make a complaint or distinction about the assays now.)

But why did those other studies Dr. Topol mentioned have slightly better results, if the difference was not the assay being used?

Dr. Barouch has thoughts. He believes it comes down to major differences in how far the study participants were from their prior dose when they were most recently boosted.

“The major issue, in my view, is skewed populations. The Moderna and Pfizer studies that showed 4-6 fold increased [antibody] titers of their bivalent boosters compared with their monovalent boosters are based on skewed populations that are not equivalent. The companies looked at their monovalent boosters in individuals in February, 2022 who received their last vaccine 4-6 months previously, but looked at their bivalent boosters in individuals in August, 2022 who received their last vaccine 9-11 months previously. The differences in the calendar dates and the times from prior vaccination skew their data (substantially) in favor of the bivalent booster. This is particularly true since the BA5 surge occurred in summer 2022, and so many people in the bivalent booster group were seeing BA5 for the second time (due to prior BA5 infection), whereas no one in the monovalent group had seen BA5 previously (as that was before the BA5 surge). Negative [antibody tests indicative of prior infection] does not exclude all infections and cannot be used to claim these two populations are equivalent.” —Dr. Dan Barouch.

Dr. Céline Gounder, an infectious diseases specialist, also pointed out that in the studies where the bivalent booster elicited higher antibody levels, those increases were modest, rather than the 10-100 fold differences scientists believe would be meaningful.

Thank you, interesting article.

[Boston-Sean]

Well, this is concerning.

The FAA has very quietly tacitly admitted that the EKGs of pilots are no longer normal. We should be concerned. Very concerned. (https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-faa-has-very-quietly-tacitly?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=auto_share&r=o7iqo)

"After the vaccine rolled out, the FAA secretly widened the EKG parameter range for pilots so they wouldn't be grounded. It looks like the vax gave at least 50M Americans heart damage."

[Whitley]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMyERFBdB4E&t=1291s

Above deals with the Immunology of mRNA vaccines.

Totally agree that the chance of anyone changing their mind from posts on ToTV is slim. Hopefully people will research and follow the facts.

[oldtimes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMyERFBdB4E&t=1291s

Above deals with the Immunology of mRNA vaccines.

Totally agree that the chance of anyone changing their mind from posts on ToTV is slim. Hopefully people will research and follow the facts.

sorry, I don't believed ANYTHING I see on youtube

[CFrance]

Well, this is concerning.

The FAA has very quietly tacitly admitted that the EKGs of pilots are no longer normal. We should be concerned. Very concerned. (https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-faa-has-very-quietly-tacitly?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=auto_share&r=o7iqo)

"After the vaccine rolled out, the FAA secretly widened the EKG parameter range for pilots so they wouldn't be grounded. It looks like the vax gave at least 50M Americans heart damage."
Here's an interesting article from MIT on Steve Kirch, the author of the above. Steve Kirch seems to have turned into an anti vaxer. I thought his article stated a lot of his theory rather than proven facts.


Tech millionaire Steve Kirsch went from covid trial funder to misinformation superspreader | MIT Technology Review (https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/10/05/1036408/silicon-valley-millionaire-steve-kirsch-covid-vaccine-misinformation/)

[Whitley]

Yet some of the people who responded got Covid before being vaccinated or refused it and still had a mild case.

I can say I received a mild case because I was not vaccinated. Vaccine, no vaccine, the debate will go on for a very long time. What I find more disturbing is the censorship that occurred, and how so many embraced it. That is something I never would have expected. We are living in strange times.

[Whitley]

Why are people still banging the same old drum after 3+years?
No one is going to change their opinions now.
You are for vaccination or against them.
At least some ( a very few mind you ) learn something from roundabout threads!

I agree, minds will not be changed. It is not as black and white as "you are for vaccines or against". I am for vaccines, but not the mRNA shot for covid. I had two of my doctors (I have some health issues) advise against the shot because I am high risk. I had and beat stage 3 cancer. Many long term effects (no complaints, I am alive). I go every two months for three infusions, and every four months for transfusions (it has averaged 3x a year. Of course labs are run monthly). I was set up to get the, I forget the names, IV at the hospital if I got covid. When I did get it, it was such a mild strain that I ended up only getting Vitamin D shots and the regular infusion. I went to the office, isolated myself and worked through it. My team did explain the situation well, but I would have liked to have done additional research. The censorship prevented this.

[PugMom]

Although I've had 2xModerna and a booster, I'm done. Young, healthy people, esp athletes, are suddenly dying: cardiac arrest, strokes, aortic dissections... Now even CDC is investigating Pfizer vax causing strokes. Never again for me.

my best friend's sister-in-law was a healthy 54 year old mother of 2 grown kids. she worked full time & was active in sports & community projects. she was never diagnosed with high blood pressure or any of the things some of us @ that age had. she had the jab boosters & was fine up until last year when she suffered a stroke none of her docs can explain. she can't walk, eat or do any physical activity without help, & only recently is doing much better in her speaking. that's all i have to say.

[B-flat]

If people don't want to get the vaccines, works for me. Thinning of the herd. Bring it on.

Read RFK Jrs. book "The Real Anthony Fauci". Bill Gates, Big Pharma and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health.

Yes, it is the thinning of the herd, the same reason they are pushing vaccines and boosters.

[JMintzer]

I thought the vaccines and boosters were to prevent serious illness and lower the rate of deaths. If so, sounds like the shots did their job.

That is NOT what we were initially told. We were told that it would PREVENT you from catching Covid and PREVENT you from spreading Covid...

The prevention of "serious illness and lower death rates" were their fall back reasons after the initial ones proved false...

[Bill14564]

That is NOT what we were initially told. We were told that it would PREVENT you from catching Covid and PREVENT you from spreading Covid...

The prevention of "serious illness and lower death rates" were their fall back reasons after the initial ones proved false...

The prevention of serious illness and lower death rates were what the vaccines were tested to do and the reason for their EUA. There are probably many reasons why "that is not what we were initially told." Just one of those reasons is that "we" are terrible at critical thinking and statistics and likely would have taken anything less than an announcement of an absolute cure as an admission that the vaccines don't work.

"They" needed good marketing. "They" might not have taken the time to even look at the test results. "They" needed to give us a reason to get the shots and slow the hospitalizations and deaths. We can certainly discuss whether the ends justified the means and I would probably agree that intentionally misleading Americans is never justified. But in the end, the vaccines did what they were tested to do and the rate of deaths dropped significantly among those who took the vaccinations.

[oldtimes]

That is NOT what we were initially told. We were told that it would PREVENT you from catching Covid and PREVENT you from spreading Covid...

The prevention of "serious illness and lower death rates" were their fall back reasons after the initial ones proved false...

If you ever watched Dopesick Purdue Phama's claim was that Oxycontin would eliminate pain. After people took it for a while and the pain came back they said no problem just double the dosage. When people were getting addicted to it they said that it was because the dosage was not high enough so increase the dosage. Do you see a pattern here?

[JMintzer]

The prevention of serious illness and lower death rates were what the vaccines were tested to do and the reason for their EUA. There are probably many reasons why "that is not what we were initially told." Just one of those reasons is that "we" are terrible at critical thinking and statistics and likely would have taken anything less than an announcement of an absolute cure as an admission that the vaccines don't work.

"They" needed good marketing. "They" might not have taken the time to even look at the test results. "They" needed to give us a reason to get the shots and slow the hospitalizations and deaths. We can certainly discuss whether the ends justified the means and I would probably agree that intentionally misleading Americans is never justified. But in the end, the vaccines did what they were tested to do and the rate of deaths dropped significantly among those who took the vaccinations.

Sorry, that doesn't fly...

If you intentionally lie to the general public, how can you ever expect them to trust you in the future?

Just like when Fauci initially lied about masks... And then lied about them again, 2 years later...

[Bill14564]

...

"They" needed good marketing. "They" might not have taken the time to even look at the test results. "They" needed to give us a reason to get the shots and slow the hospitalizations and deaths. We can certainly discuss whether the ends justified the means and I would probably agree that intentionally misleading Americans is never justified. But in the end, the vaccines did what they were tested to do and the rate of deaths dropped significantly among those who took the vaccinations.

Sorry, that doesn't fly...

If you intentionally lie to the general public, how can you ever expect them to trust you in the future?

Just like when Fauci initially lied about masks... And then lied about them again, 2 years later...

I believe I already agreed with that.

[JMintzer]

I believe I already agreed with that.

Yes, you did... My bad...

I was primarily responding to your first paragraph...

[Whitley]

I know there are a few doctors on here. I'd like to know if the mRNA can spread systemically throughout the body. Cells circulate. Can the spike protein in the blood last for weeks. If it systemically spreads, wouldn't it be able to create an auto immune type response in the brain, heart, ovaries, testes etc.. My one course in immunology was taken at night while I was in graduate school, so apologies if I am not explaining this properly. I would research it, but as I mentioned earlier social media has become a place of restrictive information.

[oldtimes]

I know there are a few doctors on here. I'd like to know if the mRNA can spread systemically throughout the body. Cells circulate. Can the spike protein in the blood last for weeks. If it systemically spreads, wouldn't it be able to create an auto immune type response in the brain, heart, ovaries, testes etc.. My one course in immunology was taken at night while I was in graduate school, so apologies if I am not explaining this properly. I would research it, but as I mentioned earlier social media has become a place of restrictive information.

I have no medical training at all but wasn’t there some discussion of it being used that way to target cancer?

[Altavia]

I have no medical training at all but wasn’t there some discussion of it being used that way to target cancer?

Clinical advances and ongoing trials of mRNA vaccines for cancer treatment - The Lancet Oncology (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(22)00372-2/fulltext)

[lkagele]

According to Wikipedia, Epoch Times is a far right media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement. It frequently promotes misinformation and conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccine information, and false claims of election fraud in the 2020 US election.

Really, Swim? With due respect you've formed an opinion based on, what some would say, is a biased left-wing publication.

Pretty sure you can get a limited free trial subscription. You really ought to try it. The health and medical coverage is great. Yes, there are some articles that disagree with what we're given through the main stream media. But the research done and the sources quoted are simply too credible to ignore. That, however, is only a small portion of it health and medical coverage.

The reporting done in the numerous other sections is old school journalism in that it simply relays facts without reaching conclusions or forming opinions. That's left to the reader. And that includes the reporting done on developments regarding numerous election issues. Providing the latest updates on the Kari Lake lawsuit doesn't classify as an election denier.

It does have an opinion section and from the few articles I've read there, definitely conservative views. But at least that section is clearly identified and not an attempt to provide an opinion piece under the guise of journalistic reporting.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Really, Swim? With due respect you've formed an opinion based on, what some would say, is a biased left-wing publication.

Pretty sure you can get a limited free trial subscription. You really ought to try it. The health and medical coverage is great. Yes, there are some articles that disagree with what we're given through the main stream media. But the research done and the sources quoted are simply too credible to ignore. That, however, is only a small portion of it health and medical coverage.

The reporting done in the numerous other sections is old school journalism in that it simply relays facts without reaching conclusions or forming opinions. That's left to the reader. And that includes the reporting done on developments regarding numerous election issues. Providing the latest updates on the Kari Lake lawsuit doesn't classify as an election denier.

It does have an opinion section and from the few articles I've read there, definitely conservative views. But at least that section is clearly identified and not an attempt to provide an opinion piece under the guise of journalistic reporting.

Epoch Times is a known entity in the media business, they're not some "oh only the far left think this" group. They ARE affiliated with a a religious cult, and they DO support alt-right, Qanon, and anti-vax conspiracies. They don't just report them, they support them. This is known, it's not a secret that your doctor doesn't want you to know about.

Whatever they report, will be reported with a bias. There is very little actual "unbiased" news in news reporting anymore. Aside from maybe Reuters and the AP wire, whatever you read in any newspaper, online or print, will have a bias. Epoch Times is not merely biased. It is HARD-right.

[Two Bills]

I just do as my doctor advises.
It's a very simple system, and has worked extremely well for me over the last 83 years.:thumbup:

[CoachKandSportsguy]

and for those who think that COVID19 deaths are overstated, or media sensationalized.

Insurance executive says death rates among working-age people up 40 percent (https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/insurance-death-rates-working-age-people-up-40-percent)

You might want to rethink your data sources, as this data source has skin in the game, paying out money!

[Boston-Sean]

and for those who think that COVID19 deaths are overstated, or media sensationalized.

Insurance executive says death rates among working-age people up 40 percent (https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/insurance-death-rates-working-age-people-up-40-percent)

You might want to rethink your data sources, as this data source has skin in the game, paying out money!



Are those really Covid deaths? Or vaccine related? Or lockdown related from people not getting preventative care or lockdown related mental health/drug/alcohol?

Here is one of the most extreme branch covidians finally admitting that covid death counts were vastly over stated:

Dr. Leana Wen writes that COVID deaths are being overcounted (https://nypost.com/2023/01/14/dr-leana-wen-writes-that-covid-deaths-are-being-overcounted/)

[oldtimes]

and for those who think that COVID19 deaths are overstated, or media sensationalized.

Insurance executive says death rates among working-age people up 40 percent (https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/insurance-death-rates-working-age-people-up-40-percent)

You might want to rethink your data sources, as this data source has skin in the game, paying out money!

What I would like to know is how many were unvaccinated vs vaccinated. I am not questioning that people died but rather how well do the vaccines really protect and how efficient are the boosters. Are deaths going down because of all the shots or simply because the virus is mutating into a more transmissible but less deadly disease. There is just so much they don't yet know.

[lkagele]

Epoch Times is a known entity in the media business, they're not some "oh only the far left think this" group. They ARE affiliated with a a religious cult, and they DO support alt-right, Qanon, and anti-vax conspiracies. They don't just report them, they support them. This is known, it's not a secret that your doctor doesn't want you to know about.

Whatever they report, will be reported with a bias. There is very little actual "unbiased" news in news reporting anymore. Aside from maybe Reuters and the AP wire, whatever you read in any newspaper, online or print, will have a bias. Epoch Times is not merely biased. It is HARD-right.

How is 'this is known'? Because some entity told you so or from your actual experience in reading the publication? I subscribed a few months ago because of the medical information it provides. Except in the Opinion section, I've seen no evidence of 'support reporting'. Yes, it reports on issues not followed by the MSM but I find that a good thing. I really don't care if the bias comes from the left or the right; if it's good reporting, I'll follow it.

I'm open minded. Give us examples where it has 'supported' Qanon or religious cults. It does have a very good section on religion. Do you consider reporting on Christianity as supporting a 'religious cult'? Give me some examples other than 'it is known' or 'people say'.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

What I would like to know is how many were unvaccinated vs vaccinated. I am not questioning that people died but rather how well do the vaccines really protect and how efficient are the boosters. Are deaths going down because of all the shots or simply because the virus is mutating into a more transmissible but less deadly disease. There is just so much they don't yet know.

Do you really think that you are the only one who wants to know? Don't you think that every epidemiologist and every research hospital wants that data to better understand efficacy? Did you read post # 77
https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/2176564-post77.html
about the difficulty of the electronic medical records system setup and reporting from the beginning of the pandemic? do you understand who is in charge of reporting public health reporting? So if you want to do your part, you take all the survey serious and answer as accurately possible. Data collection is costly in time and cleanliness, but the more data collected, even if its noisy, the better. . .

I have posts from within a research and educational hospital system from coachK (my wife) on here who was in the middle between EMR internal systems and public health system reporting requests, as well as publishing hourly updates to internal reporting sites for virus status to the medical staff. the statistical mis representations of the data happens very quickly, simpson's paradox, with a real life data example in one post. . . .

go do some searches on our name, and the virus/data/etc, and you will learn where data lives, and how its reported, and that public news sources do NOT publish all the data for privacy and other reasons, and its not black and white at all, its not a death no death outcome analysis, and its not solely a vax / no vax status, there are many confounding variables to normalize, to find the most accurate possible answer, but it will never be perfect as there is NEVER complete and accurate and clean data, that only exists in entry level data analysis courses.

[oldtimes]

Do you really think that you are the only one who wants to know? Don't you think that every epidemiologist and every research hospital wants that data to better understand efficacy? Did you read post # 77
https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/2176564-post77.html
about the difficulty of the electronic medical records system setup and reporting from the beginning of the pandemic? do you understand who is in charge of reporting public health reporting? So if you want to do your part, you take all the survey serious and answer as accurately possible. Data collection is costly in time and cleanliness, but the more data collected, even if its noisy, the better. . .

I have posts from within a research and educational hospital system from coachK (my wife) on here who was in the middle between EMR internal systems and public health system reporting requests, as well as publishing hourly updates to internal reporting sites for virus status to the medical staff. the statistical mis representations of the data happens very quickly, simpson's paradox, with a real life data example in one post. . . .

go do some searches on our name, and the virus/data/etc, and you will learn where data lives, and how its reported, and that public news sources do NOT publish all the data for privacy and other reasons, and its not black and white at all, its not a death no death outcome analysis, and its not solely a vax / no vax status, there are many confounding variables to normalize, to find the most accurate possible answer, but it will never be perfect as there is NEVER complete and accurate and clean data, that only exists in entry level data analysis courses.

Exactly! So all of the studies that everyone is quoting as doctrine are in fact flawed.

[Love2Swim]

Really, Swim? With due respect you've formed an opinion based on, what some would say, is a biased left-wing publication.

Pretty sure you can get a limited free trial subscription. You really ought to try it. The health and medical coverage is great. Yes, there are some articles that disagree with what we're given through the main stream media. But the research done and the sources quoted are simply too credible to ignore. That, however, is only a small portion of it health and medical coverage.

The reporting done in the numerous other sections is old school journalism in that it simply relays facts without reaching conclusions or forming opinions. That's left to the reader. And that includes the reporting done on developments regarding numerous election issues. Providing the latest updates on the Kari Lake lawsuit doesn't classify as an election denier.

It does have an opinion section and from the few articles I've read there, definitely conservative views. But at least that section is clearly identified and not an attempt to provide an opinion piece under the guise of journalistic reporting.

Do your research. Epoch Times is an extremely right wing conservative news outlet. It is biased.It is a global scale mis-information machine pushing fringe narratives. It is tied to the Chinese group Falun Gong, which has an extreme belief system that forbids interracial marriage, condemns homosexuality and discourages the use of modern medicine. Epoch Times has posted anti-vaccine articles, an article falsely claiming that Bill Gates and other elites are “directing” the Covid-19 pandemic and allegations about a “Jewish mob” that controls the world. It has been banned from Facebook for posting from fake accounts to amplify its phony messages. It is basically a publication for fruitcakes.

[Whitley]

How is 'this is known'? Because some entity told you so or from your actual experience in reading the publication? I subscribed a few months ago because of the medical information it provides. Except in the Opinion section, I've seen no evidence of 'support reporting'. Yes, it reports on issues not followed by the MSM but I find that a good thing. I really don't care if the bias comes from the left or the right; if it's good reporting, I'll follow it.

I'm open minded. Give us examples where it has 'supported' Qanon or religious cults. It does have a very good section on religion. Do you consider reporting on Christianity as supporting a 'religious cult'? Give me some examples other than 'it is known' or 'people say'.

Joy Behar on the View and the Huffington Post said so.

[Whitley]

Do you really think that you are the only one who wants to know? Don't you think that every epidemiologist and every research hospital wants that data to better understand efficacy? Did you read post # 77
https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/2176564-post77.html
about the difficulty of the electronic medical records system setup and reporting from the beginning of the pandemic? do you understand who is in charge of reporting public health reporting? So if you want to do your part, you take all the survey serious and answer as accurately possible. Data collection is costly in time and cleanliness, but the more data collected, even if its noisy, the better. . .

I have posts from within a research and educational hospital system from coachK (my wife) on here who was in the middle between EMR internal systems and public health system reporting requests, as well as publishing hourly updates to internal reporting sites for virus status to the medical staff. the statistical mis representations of the data happens very quickly, simpson's paradox, with a real life data example in one post. . . .

go do some searches on our name, and the virus/data/etc, and you will learn where data lives, and how its reported, and that public news sources do NOT publish all the data for privacy and other reasons, and its not black and white at all, its not a death no death outcome analysis, and its not solely a vax / no vax status, there are many confounding variables to normalize, to find the most accurate possible answer, but it will never be perfect as there is NEVER complete and accurate and clean data, that only exists in entry level data analysis courses.

There is that overly aggressive response. All the person said was "What I would like to know is how many were unvaccinated vs vaccinated."

[Whitley]

Do your research. Epoch Times is an extremely right wing conservative news outlet. It is biased.It is a global scale mis-information machine pushing fringe narratives. It is tied to the Chinese group Falun Gong, which has an extreme belief system that forbids interracial marriage, condemns homosexuality and discourages the use of modern medicine. Epoch Times has posted anti-vaccine articles, an article falsely claiming that Bill Gates and other elites are “directing” the Covid-19 pandemic and allegations about a “Jewish mob” that controls the world. It has been banned from Facebook for posting from fake accounts to amplify its phony messages. It is basically a publication for fruitcakes.


So you do not believe Bill Gates played any role in the formation of how covid was handled? To back up your claim you use Facebook Censoring them as proof. Bless your heart, I wish you the best.

[Whitley]

Dr. Scott Gotlieb, a Pfizer Board Member, used the special link between the White House and Twitter to get FDA Head Censored For Saying Natural Immunity is ‘Superior’to the vaccine. Gottlieb feared the post by Dr Brett Giroir That natural immunity is “superior” to COVID-19 jab induced-immunity. Twitter and Dr Gottlieb admit that the post by Dr Giroir is factual and violates no terms of service. Gotlieb pressed Twitter to censor Dr Giroir, stating that his words could create covid vaccine hesitancy (and it follows would hurt the bottom line for Pfizer, who was paying Gotlieb). August 2021, Gottlieb told Todd O’Boyle – a senior manager in Twitter’s public policy department – that a tweet from @drgiroir claiming CORRECTLY that natural immunity was superior to vaccine immunity was ‘corrosive’ and might ‘go viral " Twitter responded that while they had no justification to censor the post(s), “Twitter put a misleading tag on the tweet, preventing it from being shared." Emboldened, Gottlieb then went after a tweet about Covid’s low risk to kids from @justin_hart. Pfizer would soon win the okay for its mRNA shots for children, so keeping parents scared was crucial."
When confronted, Gotlieb said that keeping the truth from coming out was what would be best for the population.

[Bogie Shooter]

Dr. Scott Gotlieb, a Pfizer Board Member, used the special link between the White House and Twitter to get FDA Head Censored For Saying Natural Immunity is ‘Superior’to the vaccine. Gottlieb feared the post by Dr Brett Giroir That natural immunity is “superior” to COVID-19 jab induced-immunity. Twitter and Dr Gottlieb admit that the post by Dr Giroir is factual and violates no terms of service. Gotlieb pressed Twitter to censor Dr Giroir, stating that his words could create covid vaccine hesitancy (and it follows would hurt the bottom line for Pfizer, who was paying Gotlieb). August 2021, Gottlieb told Todd O’Boyle – a senior manager in Twitter’s public policy department – that a tweet from @drgiroir claiming CORRECTLY that natural immunity was superior to vaccine immunity was ‘corrosive’ and might ‘go viral " Twitter responded that while they had no justification to censor the post(s), “Twitter put a misleading tag on the tweet, preventing it from being shared." Emboldened, Gottlieb then went after a tweet about Covid’s low risk to kids from @justin_hart. Pfizer would soon win the okay for its mRNA shots for children, so keeping parents scared was crucial,” Berenson continued.

Reading this, makes my head hurt.

[Whitley]

Reading this, makes my head hurt.


Oh NO! Headache is number eight on the covid symptoms list.