First a trickle....Now a flood

[Goddess]

51 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Good luck with that.

BTW have you ever noticed how little you put out to corroborate your conclusions about Fauci/Mengele? I mean, you seem think the fact Marjorie Taylor Greene believes the same hooey is enough. But that's it, that's all the authority you can appeal to?

You're the only one who keeps talking about Marjorie Taylor Greene.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

You're the only one who keeps talking about Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Because like you she keeps talking about your favorite Angel of Death.

[eyeball]

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier and cheaper to kill millions of people with space lasers?

No need for excavators...just vaporize everyone.

[Goddess]

It's Time for the Scientific Community to Admit We Were Wrong About COVID and It Cost Lives | Opinion - Newsweek

As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19. I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.

I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.

I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.

We made science a team sport, and in so doing, we made it no longer science. 

If our public health officials had led with less hubris, the course of the pandemic in the United States might have had a very different outcome, with far fewer lost lives.

It's OK to be wrong and admit where one was wrong and what one learned. That's a central part of the way science works. Yet I fear that many are too entrenched in groupthink—and too afraid to publicly take responsibility—to do this.

 

[Goddess]

Another study (out of Germany) that again confirms surge in IgG4 switch in children one year after vaccination with Pfizer’s vax.

The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal (lww.com)

The study authors also say: “IgG4 responses should gain more attention in health and disease, especially in the context of mRNA vaccination. Understanding the unusual mechanism triggering IgG4 production is crucial, as more mRNA vaccines are currently under development and could hit the global market soon.”

Primary school children given two doses. Most showed an increase in IgG4 at 35 days. Most showed a massive increase by 1 year.

IgG4 switches the immune response from "attack" to "ignore".

This "ignore" mode can also be problematic, RE:  Infections.

If the immune system shifts too much towards tolerance, it might fail to effectively combat all pathogens because it’s telling your immune system not to respond to things that it normally would fight (viruses, bacteria, cancer, etc…)

Cancer: Tumors might exploit this mechanism to evade immune detection and destruction.

It's unwise to expect that a vaccine can influence respiratory tract infection by a virus that doesn't cause viremia. In most cases, respiratory viruses are gone about five days after the onset of symptoms. Beyond this point, inflammation develops, which may result in pneumonia that, in most cases, has no known etiology. 

Most people who died in the early days, didn't die of covid, but of secondary pneumonia.

What this IgG4 switch means for the multi-vaxxed, your immune system is lowered to the point that you cannot fight off other pathogens (viruses, infections, bacteria) that humans normally fight off quite easily.

Reminder of other studies that confirmed IgG4 switch: 

Atopy and Elevation of IgE, IgG3, and IgG4 May Be Risk Factors for Post COVID-19 Condition in Children and Adolescents - PubMed (nih.gov)

Viruses | Free Full-Text | The Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG1 and IgG3 Antibody Isotypes with Limited Neutralizing Capacity against Omicron Elicited in a Latin Population a Switch toward IgG4 after Multiple Doses with the mRNA Pfizer–BioNTech Vaccine (mdpi.com)

Humoral profiles of toddlers and young children following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination | Nature Communications

 

 

Further reading:

Walkthrough: "Delayed Induction of Noninflammatory SARS-CoV-2 Spike-Specific IgG4 Antibodies Detected 1 Year After BNT162b2 Vaccination in Children" (July '24) (substack.com)

 

[myata]

What saddens me most in this period is the loss of the standard and credibility of science. Unfortunately many episodes were factual and contributed to public discontent. What is disturbing is the professional level and standing on which it was happening.

I recall a study of Russian vaccine published in a leading edition, Lancet looking back now possibly a total bogus, fabrication. Then there was a study in 2023 I believe, by recognized experts in the field (back then) claiming to support the animal origin hypothesis. It was based on the DNA examination of samples from cages in Wuhan market in January 2020, where some traces of COV virus were discovered. But the first reported human cases were dating back as far as mid-November. And we know that with this virus it can take time to spread and become noticed as most infected would have a light form. So it's almost certain that it was already around in Wuhan in October- early November. And then you take samples from cages in January: what could it prove, about the origin?

"Some animals in the market likely were infected with COV in January 2020": the honest science title. The actual one: "An evidence for animal origin". Ohoh.

I just can't convince myself that leading experts could be this clueless. This kind of bad, unfaithful science goes into textbooks. And make waves of mistrust and lost credibility in the society. If there's an alternative explanation I will listen and try to see it. But a break of public trust of this proportion is certainly nothing ordinary.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, myata said:

What saddens me most in this period is the loss of the standard and credibility of science.

You haven't been able to master coherent sentences. I think it's a little soon for you to be worrying about advanced stuff like science

[myata]

Junior K looking up to science, that's positive. Dead brain a serious snag though, just in case.

[CdnFox]

Just now, myata said:

Junior K looking up to science, that's positive. Dead brain a serious snag though, just in case.

Dear diary.... 

[myata]

Sure, but they tried.

[CdnFox]

Just now, myata said:

Sure, but they tried.

spam spam spam .... 

 

[myata]

Dead brains are clearly trying to communicate something - but what? Science is baffled. Bullsh*t (but a different slice)? Adore Him? Anathema? A formidable challenge!

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, myata said:

Dead brains are clearly trying to communicate something - but what? 

We have no idea what you're trying to communicte, you refuse to speak simple english. What was the native language on the planet your from?

[Goddess]

Oxford study of 820,926 adolescents, age 12-15, & 283,422 children, age 5-11

OpenSAFELY: Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in children and adolescents | medRxiv

 

1. No deaths from COVID, meaning death rate for age 5-15 is between 0 and 0.00003%

2. Heart inflammation is 37/MM in vaccinated & 0/MM for COVID infection.

3. Vaccine risk-benefit ratio unfavorable

This paper shows how pointless it was to vaccinate kids/adolescents for COVID (despite residual confounding, likely favoring the vaccine arm) all benefits were fleeting.

 

Supports the results of the BMJ ethics analysis of boosters.

 

 

Amongst 283,422 previously unvaccinated children and 132,462 children who had received a first vaccine dose, COVID-19-related outcomes were too rare to allow IRRs to be estimated precisely. A&E attendance and unplanned hospitalisation were slightly higher after first vaccination (IRRs versus no vaccination 1.05 (1.01-1.10) and 1.10 (0.95-1.26) respectively) but slightly lower after second vaccination (IRRs versus first dose 0.95 (0.86-1.05) and 0.78 (0.56-1.08) respectively). There were no COVID-19-related deaths in any group.

 

Erring on the side of caution is to not get your kid vaccinated.

 

Which is what most parents did in America.

 

 

 

[Goddess]

This is a perfect example of why politicians need to butt out of medical/scientific issues and stop the virtue-signaling and pandering to the chicken littles, hypochondriacs and fanatical health puritans amongst the citizenry.

This is absurd policy,

Irrational covid fear and love of unproven boosters are two faddish ideas among the extreme progressive wing of their party and they are catering to this. It is just a shame that they don’t have the courage to educate their supporters instead.

The CDC, proud sponsors of ‘lets make 2 year olds mask in day care except when they nap’ recommends COVID shots annually for everyone, even if they have had COVID many, many times.

Of course the CDC is wrong.

They have no data that repeat doses improve clinical outcomes for *all people*. Worse, the harms of annual boosters likely are larger than benefits for young people, and people who had COVID. It is possible a repeat dose helps a nursing home patient, but even here there is no data, and I am not sure it does.

A better policy would be to not recommend COVID boosters to anyone until the company runs an appropriate randomized study.

The CDC is also out of step with Americans who retain common sense. Most do not get annual vaccines. For young men, repeat doses are HARMFUL.

COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities (bmj.com)

Our estimate shows that university COVID-19 vaccine mandates are likely to cause net expected harms to young healthy adults—for each hospitalization averted we estimate approximately 18.5 SAEs and 1430–4626 disruptions of daily activities—that is not outweighed by a proportionate public health benefit. Serious COVID-19 vaccine-associated harms are not adequately compensated for by current US vaccine injury systems. As such, these severe infringements of individual liberty and human rights are ethically unjustifiable. Mandates are also associated with wider social harms. The fact that such policies were implemented despite controversy among experts and without updating the sole publicly available risk-benefit analysis to the current Omicron variants nor submitting the methods to public scrutiny suggests a profound lack of transparency in scientific and regulatory policy making.

FIVE ETHICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST UNIVERSITY BOOSTER MANDATES:

1.  Transparency  Risk-benefit assessment is essential to the ethical acceptability of public health policy, and transparent, peer-reviewed assessments help maintain trust in public health, especially in the context of controversial policies. There is an even stronger rationale for thorough and transparent risk-benefit assessment when interventions are mandated or when (given uncertainty or relevant population differences) some people might face harms not outweighed by individual benefits.

2.  Potential net expected individual harm The reasonable possibility of a net harm to individuals (as presented in our risk-benefit assessment) should provide a strong basis to argue for the ethical case against booster mandates for young adults. Mandates at institutions of higher education serve the age group with one of the lowest public health burdens from COVID-19. Hence, boosters provide a low and transient impact on transmission and hospitalisation for an age group with a vague and unquantified prospect of benefit. Arguably, this has been considered by most universities and colleges and is the reason why most do not have booster mandates for the fall of 2022.

3.  Lack of proportionate public health benefit Proportionality, a key principle in public health ethics, requires that the benefits of a public health policy must be expected to outweigh harms, including harms arising from the restriction of individual liberty and basic human rights such as access to education and employment. COVID-19 booster mandates often involve a degree of coercion, including the threat of loss of access to education and free choice of occupation, disproportionately affecting disenfranchised groups. Contrary to those who restrict the concept of coercion to situations of a direct threat to something people should have access to as a matter of right, we endorse here a broader concept of coercion that includes situations of structural pressure that deprive people of reasonable options. To be ethically acceptable, such severe restrictions of individual liberty need to be justified by an individual benefit and by the expectation that vaccination reduces harm to others. Booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines provide limited lasting reduction in the probability of infection or transmission, hospitalization and limited expected benefits to young healthy individuals, especially those who have already been infected.

4.  Failure of reciprocity  Most vaccines are covered in the USA and Canada by an injury compensation programme based on fair (reciprocal) compensation for those who experience a vaccine-related harm. Mandatory vaccines arguably require even stronger protections for individuals who experience consequences that lead to permanent harm because their free choice regarding vaccination has been limited.  Thus, universities and colleges that mandate COVID-19 boosters are pressuring young adults to receive a vaccine that, in case of injury, has no transparent legal route to adequate compensation. In sum, one core precondition for vaccine mandates is a functioning and fair compensation programme, which has not been achieved for COVID-19 vaccines.

5.  Wider social harms Strong coercion may create significant social harms. COVID-19 vaccine mandates have generally involved a high degree of coercion, effectively ostracizing unvaccinated individuals from society. University mandates involve significant coercion in that they exclude unvaccinated people from the benefits of university education (or employment) and thereby entail major infringements to free choice of occupation and freedom of association. When such mandates are not supported by a compelling public health justification and where exemptions are not easily available, the likelihood of reactance and negative social effects are increased. The fact that such policies were implemented despite controversy among experts and without updating the sole publicly available risk-benefit analysis to the current Omicron variants nor submitting the methods to public scrutiny suggests a profound lack of transparency in scientific and regulatory policy making.

Politicians have NOT been "following the science" during covid.  They have pandered and bowed to the chicken littles of society and it must STOP.

Edited August 20 by Goddess

[Goddess]

Ironically, it may be unvaccinated people who have this specific gene that are the key to solving covid.

Some people never get COVID-19: researchers say a specific gene could be why | Watch (msn.com)

[eyeball]

On 8/15/2024 at 1:34 PM, Goddess said:

What this IgG4 switch means for the multi-vaxxed, your immune system is lowered to the point that you cannot fight off other pathogens (viruses, infections, bacteria) that humans normally fight off quite easily

Hmmm, 3 years and 6-7 vaccinations later and I've had little more than one two day bout of the sniffles that I fought off without so much as a fever.

I also hear this routinely from friends and family.

Still seems like way more trickle than flood.

[Goddess]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Hmmm, 3 years and 6-7 vaccinations later and I've had little more than one two day bout of the sniffles that I fought off without so much as a fever.

I also hear this routinely from friends and family.

Still seems like way more trickle than flood.

Glad you're doing well.  Lots are not.

I just post what the scientific studies are showing.

[eyeball]

19 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Glad you're doing well.  Lots are not.

Most are doing just fine from where I'm sitting. Co-workers...family...friends...all seem to doing well too.

I've read the virtual opposite of what you're saying, that a steady trickle of vaccine, of any kind, causes our immune systems to stay in a steady state of readiness for anything that comes our way.

This matches what I see on the ground in my life and circles on a day to day basis. The people I know who do get sick, especially with COVID, are usually unvaccinated people who were committed anti-vaxxers long before the pandemic hit. I know one fellow who's been sick with COVID now about as often as I've been vaccinated. The poor guy is an anti-vaxxer out of solidarity with his wife.

To each his own I suppose.

Edited August 23 by eyeball

[Goddess]

Just now, eyeball said:

Most are doing just fine from where I'm sitting.

It's because you refuse to listen to those who have been injured or had loved ones die from it.

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I've read the virtual opposite of what your saying,

I'm not saying it.

Peer-reviewed medical studies from all over the world are saying it.

Datasets from all over the world are saying it.  

Excess deaths are up almost 20% in every highly-vaxxed country.  Disabilities have sky-rocketed in both Canada and the US.

And it's not the elderly, obese or terminally ill dying now.  It's young people and working age people dying suddenly in their sleep or from heart attacks/strokes, or "unknown cause".

[eyeball]

18 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It's because you refuse to listen to those who have been injured or had loved ones die from it.

There's no one to listen to. I don't know of a single person who's suffered injury or death.

You OTOH seem to report friends and family dying on a routine basis. It's a little suspicious.

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There's no one to listen to.

Home - React19

That's just one of many websites.  I've given it to you before, but you refused to look at it.  I'm sure you will refuse again.

So, you don't get to say there are no injuries or deaths when you simply refuse to look at the evidence, the scientific studies or the datasets.

Just now, Goddess said:

Home - React19

That's just one of many websites.  I've given it to you before, but you refused to look at it.  I'm sure you will refuse again.

So, you don't get to say there are no injuries or deaths when you simply refuse to look at the evidence, the scientific studies or the datasets.

That website/group, BTW, was started by one of the women who was badly injured in the vaccine trials.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

That's just one of many websites.  I've given it to you before, but you refused to look at it.  I'm sure you will refuse again.

So, you don't get to say there are no injuries or deaths when you simply refuse to look at the evidence, the scientific studies or the datasets.

It's easy to believe everyone of them is fabricated nonsense when the evidence on the ground is so different.

I mean take yourself for example. You apparently know more vaccine injured and killed people than everyone in this forum combined. How do you explain that, bad luck?

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's easy to believe everyone of them is fabricated nonsense

Yes, I know you've said before - they are all liars.

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

when the evidence on the ground is so different.

How would you know?  The Canadian and US gov'ts and all the alphabet entities said they deliberately censored vax injuries and deaths from the public.

Are you saying all the people (evidence on the ground) are lying and the studies are lying the datasets are lying because YOU haven't seen anyone injured (that you know of)?  You're so vocal about your denial that I doubt if anyone close to you had an injury, you would be the last one they'd tell.  You'd just call them a liar.  I sure wouldn't confide in you.

Really?

That's your stance?  A total rejection of science?  You support  gov'ts deliberately lying to you about it?

I'm not really surprised.  Just surprised you admit it.

Edited August 23 by Goddess

[Goddess]

LOL

The more I think about it, the more absurd you are!

The gov't and pharma industry ADMITTED lying to the public about vax injuries and you're still here saying they WEREN'T lying!!!!

You're a special kind of stupid.