First a trickle....Now a flood

[User]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

And that your confounding factors explain why we should expect deaths to go UP.

I'm saying flat out - you are wrong.

Once again, you keep making up crap I did not say. 

I never said "we should expect deaths to go up"

You are not saying I am wrong, you keep arguing against something I did not say and ignoring what I did say even after I have copied and pasted it like half a dozen times for you now. 

 

[User]

11 minutes ago, Goddess said:

No.  Not all arguments carry the same weight.

I did not say all arguments carry the same weight; I said mine carried as much as yours did here, in you saying so vs my saying so. 

It really does help if you would stop this game of misrepresenting what I say like this. 

 

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You believe deaths in a particular disease can and should go UP after mass vaccinating and that this is normal.  No reason.  Just your belief.

For the millionth time, I never said this either. 

 

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, User said:

when that number was roughly 10-20% of the entire population which amounts to MILLIONS of people. 

Closer to 10 % and almost everybody has had covid.

 

3 minutes ago, User said:

There were no millions of deaths or millions of excess deaths in Canada. 

** sigh ** 

We're talking US numbers.

4 minutes ago, User said:

It is perfectly reasonable to say that MILLIONS of unvaccinated would still continue to die to the tune of 20,000 dead. 

It's not.  For the reasons above.

There are also people like me - not jabbed and never got covid, in spite of being exposed to it repeatedly.  Studies have asked why people like me exist.  They believe that we have immunity based on a prior coronavirus infection or some combination of coronavirus infections that have provided natural immunity.  I know you don't believe in natural immunity because you believe all unvaccinated people who got covid, are infectious.  I can assure you, natural immunity is a thing and was widely accepted for centuries before covid.

I am still waiting for your data and stats that show your claim that the majority of people dying of covid now are unvaccinated.

 

[User]

8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Closer to 10 % and almost everybody has had covid.

If we are talking about the US, as you now say below, it was not closer to 10%.  It still isn't that high today. 

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

** sigh ** 

We're talking US numbers.

Same difference either way. 

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It's not.  For the reasons above.

You provided no reasons above. 

10 minutes ago, Goddess said:

There are also people like me - not jabbed and never got covid, in spite of being exposed to it repeatedly.  Studies have asked why people like me exist.  They believe that we have immunity based on a prior coronavirus infection or some combination of coronavirus infections that have provided natural immunity.  I know you don't believe in natural immunity because you believe all unvaccinated people who got covid, are infectious.  I can assure you, natural immunity is a thing and was widely accepted for centuries before covid.

Good for you and you clearly have no idea what I believe as you continue to make up crap I have never said. 

I never said I do not believe in natural immunity, I already stipulated about it earlier in that to get that immunity you have to SURVIVE. 

If you are now defining natural immunity as just having immunity, the number of people with this would be very small and not something you can make national policy off of to oppose vaccines. 

I never said I believe all unvaccinated people who got COVID are infectious, but that is a logical deduction to make because that is how infectious diseases work. There might be some odd unicorns out there. 

If natural immunity was so amazing and widespread, there never would have been a Pandemic, because everyone would have been naturally immune. There would be no disease at all and no deaths from disease! That is not how the world works. 

Now, if you mean natural immunity in that if you SURVIVE a disease, your body has built up the immune system... sure, that happens, but even then, it is not always perfect or flawless becoming some magic shield forever more protecting you. 
 

 

[eyeball]

39 minutes ago, Goddess said:

There are also people like me - not jabbed and never got covid, in spite of being exposed to it repeatedly. 

What about people like me who've been jabbed as many times as it's possible? I've lost count but I should have dropped dead 4-5 jabs ago by now according to you.

I've also had at least as many CT scans and echocardiograms of my heart since COVID and aside from bicuspid aortic stenosis everything else looks good. That said after last week's scan it looks like there's a couple of lines on a statistical chart moving inexorably towards an intersection that says open heart surgery...the end of next summer by the looks of it. My cardiologist looked at me like I was a crackpot and said 'not another one' when I asked him about myocarditis from vaccine.

I told him I was just asking for a friend.

 

[Goddess]

2 hours ago, User said:

If we are talking about the US, as you now say below, it was not closer to 10%.  It still isn't that high today. 

Same difference either way. 

You provided no reasons above. 

Good for you and you clearly have no idea what I believe as you continue to make up crap I have never said. 

I never said I do not believe in natural immunity, I already stipulated about it earlier in that to get that immunity you have to SURVIVE. 

If you are now defining natural immunity as just having immunity, the number of people with this would be very small and not something you can make national policy off of to oppose vaccines. 

I never said I believe all unvaccinated people who got COVID are infectious, but that is a logical deduction to make because that is how infectious diseases work. There might be some odd unicorns out there. 

If natural immunity was so amazing and widespread, there never would have been a Pandemic, because everyone would have been naturally immune. There would be no disease at all and no deaths from disease! That is not how the world works. 

Now, if you mean natural immunity in that if you SURVIVE a disease, your body has built up the immune system... sure, that happens, but even then, it is not always perfect or flawless becoming some magic shield forever more protecting you. 
 

 

There is so much illogic in this.

You don't understand so much and that is what makes you susceptible to whatever the TV tells you.

And it's not just that you are uninformed and misinformed about immunology and epidemiology, it's the whole process - how Big Pharma works, how vaccine trials work, how to analyze statistics and data and see where the gaps are, there's so much you're ignorant of.  So you don't even understand how this all ties together.

You're so focused on validating whatever you're told on TV that you just quickly google something that agrees with that narrative and that's your source of truth.

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

What about people like me who've been jabbed as many times as it's possible? I've lost count but I should have dropped dead 4-5 jabs ago by now according to you.

I've explained ad nauseum why some people don't.  And why some people do, but you keep insisting that since it didn't happen to you, it doesn't exist.

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I've also had at least as many CT scans and echocardiograms of my heart since COVID and aside from bicuspid aortic stenosis everything else looks good. That said after last week's scan it looks like there's a couple of lines on a statistical chart moving inexorably towards an intersection that says open heart surgery...the end of next summer by the looks of it. My cardiologist looked at me like I was a crackpot and said 'not another one' when I asked him about myocarditis from vaccine.

I'll take "Things That Never Happened" for $800, Alex.

But on the off-chance you did ask, if your cardiologist hasn't read the numerous myocarditis from the shot studies, there's a problem.  He really should.

Also, myocarditis from the shot affects mainly young people.  Not that you care about young people.

[User]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

There is so much illogic in this.

You don't understand so much and that is what makes you susceptible to whatever the TV tells you.

OK, make your case because saying I am susceptible to whatever the TV tells me is just a petty ad hom fallacy. 

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

And it's not just that you are uninformed and misinformed about immunology and epidemiology, it's the whole process - how Big Pharma works, how vaccine trials work, how to analyze statistics and data and see where the gaps are, there's so much you're ignorant of.  So you don't even understand how this all ties together.

Ah yes, you made an awful argument and instead of dealing with that, now you move on to the grand conspiracy that I just do not understand!

What I do understand is that you made an awful argument about the vaccine and deaths. 

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You're so focused on validating whatever you're told on TV that you just quickly google something that agrees with that narrative and that's your source of truth.

You are the one talking about TV here, not me. 

If there was something I said here or provided here that you think was not true, lets see your refutation. Enough of the hasty generalizations. 

[Goddess]

2 hours ago, User said:

I already stipulated about it earlier in that to get that immunity you have to SURVIVE. 

Duh.

And covid-19 had a 99%+ survival rate even before the jab rollout.

A metric f&*kton of people got it before the rollout and had natural immunity.

Yes, we all know you can still get it after natural immunity, but you can also get it after 47 jabs, so...... respiratory viruses mutate in ways others don't.  Once you've had chicken pox, measles, mumps, etc ...... it's done.  You're good for life.

[Goddess]

12 minutes ago, User said:

OK, make your case because saying I am susceptible to whatever the TV tells me is just a petty ad hom fallacy. 

Everything you say is based on what the TV tells you and when you get here, you quickly google something to support the TV narrative.  But you don't understand what you're googling.  I can tell.  I ignore a lot of what you say because it's a deep subject and I don't feel you're particularly interested in it, you just want to be right.

 

12 minutes ago, User said:

Ah yes, you made an awful argument and instead of dealing with that, now you move on to the grand conspiracy that I just do not understand!

No, I made a good argument but you don't like it so you quickly googled something opposite.  Yes, you don't understand what you are arguing SO PASSIONATELY about.  That's what brainwashing does to a person.  Let's face it, for years you lapped up whatever was fed to you on TV without giving it any critical thought and now you're being challenged and you don't like it.

12 minutes ago, User said:

provided here that you think was not true, lets see your refutation.

I provided my refutation.  My confounding factors are better than yours.  And they're based on science.

Suck it up and educate yourself.

Edited March 19 by Goddess

[User]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Duh.

And covid-19 had a 99%+ survival rate even before the jab rollout.

A metric f&*kton of people got it before the rollout and had natural immunity.

Yes, we all know you can still get it after natural immunity, but you can also get it after 47 jabs, so...... respiratory viruses mutate in ways others don't.  Once you've had chicken pox, measles, mumps, etc ...... it's done.  You're good for life.

Oh man, bringing out the old talking points. No, the survival rate was closer to 98%, but that was an average, depending on your age, your health, or any other conditions you might have, your chances of survival were A LOT less than 98%.

The stupidity of that is that 1-2 deaths out of 100 is still A LOT. 

Yes, you can still get into a car crash even with your seatbelt on, but wearing it greatly increases your chances of survival. 

You know what is better than surviving chicken pox, measles, and mumps? Never getting it to begin with. Never having to go to the hospital to begin with. Not dying from it. 

I thought way earlier you said you were not against vaccines and you supported the measles vax. So... now you don't support any of those vaccines either?

 

[User]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Everything you say is based on what the TV tells you and when you get here, you quickly google something to support the TV narrative.  But you don't understand what you're googling.  I can tell.  I ignore a lot of what you say because it's a deep subject and I don't feel you're particularly interested in it, you just want to be right.

How do you know what I say is based on what the TV tells me?

You are just making up crap about me, like you had to continually make up crap I never said. Why? Because you are incapable of simply dealing with the facts and someone who can tear apart your bad arguments. 

8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

No, I made a good argument but you don't like it so you quickly googled something opposite.  Yes, you don't understand what you are arguing SO PASSIONATELY about.  That's what brainwashing does to a person.  Let's face it, for years you lapped up whatever was fed to you on TV without giving it any critical thought and now you're being challenged and you don't like it.

I could have trained monkeys typing out random things for me to say... all that matters is your inability to actually refute it. 

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I provided my refutation.  My confounding factors are better than yours.  And they're based on science.

Suck it up and educate yourself.

LOL, if they were better, you could actually defend them instead of ignoring my response. 

 

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Oh man, bringing out the old talking points. No, the survival rate was closer to 98%, but that was an average, depending on your age, your health, or any other conditions you might have, your chances of survival were A LOT less than 98%

You're not saying anything I don't know. I've covered all this.  It's boring to me.  It's common knowledge.  What you can't seem to extrapolate from the info is that, if it had a high survival rate and was only dangerous to a certain portion of the population - why mandate it for everybody.  Why force people to choose between their jobs and careers?  If it only had a (you say) 98% survival rate for certain elderly/obese people, then mandating it for children means it should have had a 100% safety rate.

You are unable to reason critically on information.

8 minutes ago, User said:

The stupidity of that is that 1-2 deaths out of 100 is still A LOT. 

Yes it is.  That's why we go by IFR.  The IFR of covid was slightly higher that the seasonal flu and affects the same demographic.  Yet we don't shut down society and close business and crash the economy for the flu every year.

 

10 minutes ago, User said:

Yes, you can still get into a car crash even with your seatbelt on, but wearing it greatly increases your chances of survival. 

You can take your seatbelt off when you're not driving.  You can never un-vaccinate yourself.

11 minutes ago, User said:

You know what is better than surviving chicken pox, measles, and mumps? Never getting it to begin with. Never having to go to the hospital to begin with. Not dying from it.

Do you expect to go through life never getting any disease?  Is that the goal here?

Do you know how many children died of childhood diseases before vaccines?  Here's a chart for you (US CDC data):

About what......5000 children?  Tragic yes, every child death is tragic.  But that was the problem vaccines were going to solve. Over 70 shots per year now, given to newborn babies. To prevent 5000 deaths.  More children die from other causes per year.

20 minutes ago, User said:

I thought way earlier you said you were not against vaccines and you supported the measles vax. So... now you don't support any of those vaccines either?

 

I know that since covid you think you're entitled to everyone else's private medical data and what they believe or don't believe, but you're not.

Educate yourself and make up your own mind.

I would challenge you to read the book I recommended.

[User]

Just now, Goddess said:

You're not saying anything I don't know. I've covered all this.  It's boring to me.  It's common knowledge.  What you can't seem to extrapolate from the info is that, if it had a high survival rate and was only dangerous to a certain portion of the population - why mandate it for everybody.  Why force people to choose between their jobs and careers?  If it only had a (you say) 98% survival rate for certain elderly/obese people, then mandating it for children means it should have had a 100% safety rate.

You are unable to reason critically on information.

1-2 deaths out of 100 is not a high survival rate. Are you just not that good at math or something? America has a population of some 320 million, 1 death out of 100 = 3.2 million dead. 

That is A LOT. 

Now you are pulling the classic West argument, where everything goes back to the mandate. When have I ever advocated mandating the vaccine to everyone? 

That is not what our discussion was ever about here. Then you accuse me of not being able to reason critically? No, once again, you just make up crap to argue against. 

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Yes it is.  That's why we go by IFR.  The IFR of covid was slightly higher that the seasonal flu and affects the same demographic.  Yet we don't shut down society and close business and crash the economy for the flu every year.

Well, if you want to go by IFR, you are still wrong. COVID was not "slightly" higher, it was much higher, evidenced by the fact that far more people died... I mean, seriously, this was the same ignorant garbage pushed back in 2020.

It has been common both to make and to resist comparisons that equate the Covid-19 pandemic to influenza. We take the comparison between Covid-19 and flu seriously by asking how many years of influenza and pneumonia deaths are needed for cumulative deaths to those two causes to equal the cumulative toll of the Covid-19 pandemic between March 2020 and February 2023-that is, three years of pandemic deaths. We find that in one state alone-Hawaii-three years of Covid-19 mortality is equivalent to influenza and pneumonia mortality in the three years preceding the Covid-19 pandemic. For all other states, at least nine years of flu and pneumonia are needed to match Covid-19; for the United States as a whole, seventeen years are needed; and for four states, more than 21 years (the maximum observable) are needed. These results provide an easy-to-understand calibration of flu as a heuristic for Covid-19, and vice versa.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37162957/#:~:text=Abstract,-19%2C and vice versa.

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You can take your seatbelt off when you're not driving.  You can never un-vaccinate yourself.

OK, and? The point is still the same. That your trying to say that you still get COVID with or without the jab is stupid as "the jab" reduced the risk of death and serious illness. 
 

11 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Do you expect to go through life never getting any disease?  Is that the goal here?

At least not the easily preventable ones, no. The goal here is to provide facts and truth in response to your absurd positions. People die and get seriously sick from those diseases, and you are here acting like it is no big deal and people should just get them instead of being vaccinated. 
 

14 minutes ago, Goddess said:

About what......5000 children?  Tragic yes, every child death is tragic.  But that was the problem vaccines were going to solve. Over 70 shots per year now, given to newborn babies. To prevent 5000 deaths.  More children die from other causes per year.

OMG, what an absurdly ignorant argument. First, not even bothering with your chart or how accurate it is, since you provided no source for where you got it... also, it is only a snapshot of the year prior, not a reflection of how some years there were epidemics and far more deaths and serious illnesses. 

But lets look at one disease: Polio. 

Death is not the only concern. I keep saying severe illness before now, because the fact that you might live, doesn't mean the suffering to get there was good. 

in 1952 there were 3,000 deaths from Polio, not 1300 in 1955, and there were another some 20,000 cases of irreverable paralytic polio leaving children permanently disabled. Thousands of those suffered severe respiratory paralysis and had to live in an iron lung for the short lives they had. 

You sit here ignorantly, acting like oh well, only 1300 kids died from polio, no big deal! 

Now, if we were to go disease by disease, there is far more impact than those deaths would suggest. 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I know that since covid you think you're entitled to everyone else's private medical data and what they believe or don't believe, but you're not.

Educate yourself and make up your own mind.

I would challenge you to read the book I recommended.

Here we go again, you are making up more BS about me. 

I will take this as you admitting you are a totally anti-vax person and not just against COVID. 

I have educated myself, and I have dealt with loony toons, ignorant anti-vaxxers for a long time now. 

[Goddess]

7 minutes ago, User said:

1-2 deaths out of 100 is not a high survival rate. Are you just not that good at math or something? America has a population of some 320 million, 1 death out of 100 = 3.2 million dead. 

That is A LOT

Maybe educate yourself on what IFR is.  That's the metric used, not the 98% you say.  Check out Case Fatality Rate, too.  IFR is what is used during ebola outbreaks.  Any outbreak.

The IFR of covid was "modeled" at the beginning as being like 3.2 or something.  It turned out to be just over 1 IFR.  Which is high, yes.  And that was at the beginning.  It very quickly became 0.04 IFR, comparable to the flu.

10 minutes ago, User said:

But lets look at one disease: Polio.

Yes, let's look at polio.  Tomorrow.  I'll post here on it.

12 minutes ago, User said:

You sit here ignorantly, acting like oh well, only 1300 kids died from polio, no big deal! 

No.  I said every child death is tragic.

So are the ones who died from the covid jab, but none of you are concerned about them.

13 minutes ago, User said:

Now, if we were to go disease by disease, there is far more impact than those deaths would suggest. 

Of course.

There has been a lot of suffering, not health related, to covid mandates and restrictions, too.  But again, none of you care about that.  I have always said that suffering counted, but you all disagreed with me.

15 minutes ago, User said:

I will take this as you admitting you are a totally anti-vax person and not just against COVID. 

You can take it however you want.  I don't much care.

15 minutes ago, User said:

I have educated myself

You actually haven't.  You're just good at googling opposite views and posting the first thing that pops up.

[User]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

Maybe educate yourself on what IFR is.  That's the metric used, not the 98% you say.  Check out Case Fatality Rate, too.  IFR is what is used during ebola outbreaks.  Any outbreak.

The IFR of covid was "modeled" at the beginning as being like 3.2 or something.  It turned out to be just over 1 IFR.  Which is high, yes.  And that was at the beginning.  It very quickly became 0.04 IFR, comparable to the flu.

You were the one who started this discussion with the 99% metric. I showed you how that was dumb, now you pivot to IFR and criticize me for responding to the very metric you were the one who started to use in this discussion. 

I get what IFR is, again, the IFR of Covid was not comparable to the Flu... which is obvious on its face, or far fewer people would have died. 

Yeah, "eventually," COVID has gotten to the point where it is no longer as deadly, so what? It was not that way initially. 

It did not happen quickly and we are looking back in hindsight. No one could have predicted perfectly how long it would take for COVID to play out. 

In the early days of COVID, the IFR was around the 1% mark. 1% is 25 times larger than .04%.
 

8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

No.  I said every child death is tragic.

So are the ones who died from the covid jab, but none of you are concerned about them.

I am concerned about them. You are comparing apples to oranges. The COVID vaccine is not every other vaccine. Do you think it is worse to get a polio vaccine in 1955 or to get polio?

10 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Of course.

There has been a lot of suffering, not health related, to covid mandates and restrictions, too.  But again, none of you care about that.  I have always said that suffering counted, but you all disagreed with me.

Once again, apples to apples and you are here making up crap about me I never said. We are not talking about suffering in an subjective feelings sense. Like, OMG, I had to stay home for 6 months and it was miserable suffering, we are talking about being paralyzed for life, living in an Iron lung kind of suffering. 

For the record, if you bothered to pay any attention to anything I have said on here, I did not support the lockdowns or mandates or mask mandates or half the stupid shit they did for COVID. 

What does any of that have to do with you thinking kids should still be living in iron lungs, 20,000 getting paralyzed for life, and dying by the thousands every year because you are anti-vax?
 

13 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You actually haven't.  You're just good at googling opposite views and posting the first thing that pops up.

Even if this were true, you are not very good at countering random google posts... LOL
 

[Goddess]

7 minutes ago, User said:

You were the one who started this discussion with the 99% metric. I showed you how that was dumb, now you pivot to IFR and criticize me for responding to the very metric you were the one who started to use in this discussion. 

I get what IFR is, again, the IFR of Covid was not comparable to the Flu... which is obvious on its face, or far fewer people would have died. 

Yeah, "eventually," COVID has gotten to the point where it is no longer as deadly, so what? It was not that way initially. 

It did not happen quickly and we are looking back in hindsight. No one could have predicted perfectly how long it would take for COVID to play out. 

In the early days of COVID, the IFR was around the 1% mark. 1% is 25 times larger than .04%.
 

You just repeated everything I just posted.  Why?

 

8 minutes ago, User said:

I did not support the lockdowns or mandates or mask mandates or half the stupid shit they did for COVID. 

What did you do about it?

 

9 minutes ago, User said:

What does any of that have to do with you thinking kids should still be living in iron lungs, 20,000 getting paralyzed for life, and dying by the thousands every year because you are anti-vax?

I'm not anti-vax.

Please provide the cite where I said I think kids should still be living in iron lungs.

I feel like you're getting getting emotional and it's making you irrational.

Maybe have a cup of tea?

10 minutes ago, User said:

you are not very good at countering random google posts

I don't have to be.  I'm good at doing actual research.

[User]

36 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You just repeated everything I just posted.  Why?

I didn’t. You tried to claim Covid was as bad as the flu and I showed how it was worse.

38 minutes ago, Goddess said:

What did you do about it?

I called out my government at all levels. I exercised my vote. 
 

39 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I'm not anti-vax.

Please provide the cite where I said I think kids should still be living in iron lungs.

I feel like you're getting getting emotional and it's making you irrational.

Maybe have a cup of tea?

Cool story. 
 

So you are just gonna pretend you didn’t say all the crap you just did starting with this:

”About what......5000 children?  Tragic yes, every child death is tragic.  But that was the problem vaccines were going to solve. Over 70 shots per year now, given to newborn babies. To prevent 5000 deaths.  More children die from other causes per year.”

41 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I don't have to be.  I'm good at doing actual research.

Your posting so far shows otherwise. 

[Goddess]

11 hours ago, User said:

I didn’t. You tried to claim Covid was as bad as the flu and I showed how it was worse.

You did.

 

12 hours ago, Goddess said:

The IFR of covid was "modeled" at the beginning as being like 3.2 or something.  It turned out to be just over 1 IFR.  Which is high, yes.  And that was at the beginning.  It very quickly became 0.04 IFR, comparable to the flu.

I posted that before you did.

[User]

30 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You did.

LOL, OK, is this the part of the discussion where you just act obtuse and obfuscate now? 

31 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I posted that before you did.

Yeah, and the issue is the "very quickly" 

It helps if you stop ignoring what I say, as I said more than you did:

Yeah, "eventually," COVID has gotten to the point where it is no longer as deadly, so what? It was not that way initially. 

It did not happen quickly and we are looking back in hindsight. No one could have predicted perfectly how long it would take for COVID to play out. 

In the early days of COVID, the IFR was around the 1% mark. 1% is 25 times larger than .04%.

[Michael Hardner]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

 My cardiologist looked at me like I was a crackpot and said 'not another one' when I asked him about myocarditis from vaccine.

I told him I was just asking for a friend.

 

It has been so long since I looked into this that I forgot what the fake controversies are.  

[eyeball]

15 hours ago, Goddess said:

But on the off-chance you did ask, if your cardiologist hasn't read the numerous myocarditis from the shot studies, there's a problem.  He really should.

It seems to me he's probably read enough to come up with a snappy wisecrack. But seriously, and because I have family members who think like you I have asked my team what they think of all the controversy and they all just shake their heads at how sad it is there's so much hooey out there.

[eyeball]

29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It has been so long since I looked into this that I forgot what the fake controversies are.  

About the same as always for COVID but I can't help but notice how much disbelief and mistrust in general attends so many more controversies than before. It's just not healthy.

[Goddess]

POLIO

The only disease for which a vaccine was introduced in the 1950's.

Every other disease had sharp declines in mortality before & after 1900, but polio had almost no deaths in 1900.  It was fairly innocuous until 1890, then gradually increasing rates of mortality until a few years before 1952, when there was a sharp increase in morality.  It then declined sharply ON ITS OWN in the few years before a vaccine was introduced in 1955 (the Salk polio vax) and in 1961 (the Sabin polio vax).

Experts believe there was one or more outside factors that made the polio virus more lethal in the first half of the 1900's and as those outside factors declined, so did the mortality of polio.

However, talk of polio generally elicits extremely strong emotional responses and conjure up images of children in iron lungs, paralyzed children, which makes it hard to discuss the topic of polio objectively.

The popular belief is that millions would have been paralyzed with polio, but the truth is, it was already in steep decline before the vaccine was introduced.  Even paralytic polio was considered so rare that the efficacy trials for it in 1954 required over 1 million children to determine efficacy.  Medical researchers at the time even complained about the attention being given to polio, since many of them were working on solutions for other diseases that, while also rare, were far more prevalent than polio.

The polio virus had been endemic and benign for millennia, infecting generation after generation of humans and causing almost no harm with the exception of a few, very rare cases.  The epidemiology of poliomyelitis; problems at home and among the Armed Forces abroad - PubMed

Sabin, in 1947, explained "paralytic polio became an epidemic disease only about 50 years ago, and the epidemic outbursts in the last 30-40 years are events that could NOT have been readily missed in the past."  Polio, like many other viruses, silently circulated for millennia, causing only rare individual harm.

Until 1890.

For a few decades, polio cases increased, accelerating in the 19040's, peaking around 1952, with around 3000 deaths and an estimated multiple of that number paralyzed.

While almost every other disease was becoming LESS harmful around this time, polio was moving in the opposite direction.

Researchers at the time could not explain this, and it was unique to industrialized nations with no outbreaks in developing nations.  Sabin explained, "One of the problems with the epidemiology of polio is determination of the factors related to the virus, host and environment.  Large cities (NYC, Chicago, Denver, LA) have histories of large outbreaks, while bigger cities in China on the same latitude experience only rare, sporadic cases."  As you can see from the study above, there were outbreaks amongst US military stationed overseas, while no cases in the surrounding population.  Further details in the above paper.

Another puzzle was - why polio cases clustered in the summer months, dormant during about 2/3 of each year.  What exposure or differential was causing an otherwise innocuous virus to only harm individuals in developed nations and only during the summer months?

Another oddity - The only natural hosts for the polio virus are humans.  Not animals.  Yet domestic animals experienced the same outbreaks, at the same time as their human counterparts in developed countries.  Medical Times 1912-05: Vol 40 Iss 5 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive  Why would animals who cannot be infected with the po9lio virus become paralyzed?  Was there a common exposure?

These facts all point to a potential unknown factor or factors.

The virus appeared to be lethal only when this unknown factor or factors was present.

Scientists, including Sabin, were at a loss.

Improved hygiene theory was examined and rejected.  Even Sabin called the theory "untenable."

Following the Salk vaccine, the definition of what constituted a case of paralytic polio was changed to a more strict criteria.  But if the same criteria was used for both before (1953, 1954) & after (1955-1959) the vaccine, the data shows that the Salk vaccine had a negligible impact on the disease.  (Confirmed by experts later on. Keep reading before you react emotionally to that statement.)

In what would be considered blasphemy today, but were uncontested facts in 1960:

"The low incidence of disease complicates evaluation of the vaccine.....Because of the low incidence of polio, neither the private, nor local public health physician is in a position to judge the value of the vaccine."

Quote

"One of the most obvious pieces of misinformation being delivered to the American public is that the 50% rise in cases in 1958 and the acceleration of cases in 1959 have been caused by persons failing to get vaccinated.  This represents an unwillingness to face facts and to evaluate the true effectiveness of the Salk vaccine."

You should really read his reasoning in the below paper.  True in 1950 and still true today, vaccine believers will credit the vaccine when cases decline and when they increase, will blame those who did not get vaccinated, even when the overall vaccination rate increased.

This illogical belief has long been the lore of vaccine mythology, but at least in the 1950's, respected academics were willing and able to chastise such false beliefs.

Professor Greenberg explains the reduction in polio cases as mostly an artifact of:

• changing the definition of what constituted a case
• the post-1955 requirement of lab confirmation of a case, which resulted in identification of other conditions that cause paralysis (Coxsackie, ECHO viruses, meningitis, etc.)
• the lack of incentive to the patient to be diagnosed post-1955 and a strong bias to not find polio among the vaccinated

The PRESENT status of polio vaccine - PubMed

Thus, according to respected researchers of the day, the significant decline in paralytic polio was an artifact of these factors and not the result of an effective vaccine.

In addition, countries that only used the Salk vaccine - Sweden, Iceland, the Netherlands - which did not stop transmission, polio still disappeared nonetheless, even amongst the unvaccinated.

Dr. Kleinman, epidemiologist from the Minnesota Department of Health and US Public Health Service delegate concurred:

"If polio antibodies mean anything in relation to protection, then I am forced to conclude that much of the Salk vaccine we have been using is useless.  for 2 years now we have done antibody titrations on vaccinated children (3 or more doses).  These titrations show 50% do not have antibodies.  That is a very disturbing fact."

Dr. Cox:  "Type II polio represents only 3% of paralytic cases throughout the world.  The Salk vaccine does a poor job on Type I which is 85% of paralytic cases and Type III, which is 12% of cases.  In other words, the vaccine is doing its best job against the least important type of polio.  With low concentrates of antigen, you may do more harm than good."

Professor Meier, biostatistician from the U of Chicago:  "How is that today we hear from the members of this panel that the Salk vaccine questions are confused, and yet what everybody knows from the newspapers is that the situation was and is marvelous?  The reason for this discrepancy lies, I think, in the attitudes of many public health and publicity men.  It's hard to convince the public that something is good, so the best way to push forward a new program is to decide what you think is best and then not question it thereafter and not raise questions before the public or openly discuss the issues.....the attitude that dissent and public discussion are unwelcome."

Sound familiar?

Dr. Ratner, Director of Public Health & Professor of Preventative Medicine and Public Health at the Stritch School of medicine in Chicago, addressed the question of whether a state health department would recommend against children getting the Salk vaccine:  "They would be in a position of opposing mass propaganda and the public opinion formed by it."

Sound familiar?

Dr. Meier agreed, stating:  "The great pressure of publicity has been exerted.  It would be a health officer of great self-confidence that would be prepared to make a judgement different than that of the USPHS.  On the other hand, I don't consider it convincing evidence of the efficacy of the Salk vaccine that all, or almost all, health officers have gone along with it."

Dr Ratner then concludes:  "It should also be stressed that safety testing was inadequate with the Salk vaccine."

The objective facts are:

• something made the innocuous polio virus pathogenic in 1890
• paralysis was relatively rare, even at its peak in the US
• the vaccine had very limited efficacy
• the number of cases dropped precipitously due to factors other than the vaccine's effectiveness
• Misinformation drove a fearful public to rally around the vaccine
• individuals were "clinging" to the vaccine for "sentimental or personal reasons"  ThePresentStatusOfPolioVaccines-1960-Chicago.pdf

This is just a small sample of the facts from 1890-1960, which likely differs greatly from what you've heard about polio mythology.

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

It has been so long since I looked into this that I forgot what the fake controversies are.  

That "fake controversy" - there is now a black box warning on covid vaccines for myocarditis.

[User]

58 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The objective facts are:

• something made the innocuous polio virus pathogenic in 1890
• paralysis was relatively rare, even at its peak in the US
• the vaccine had very limited efficacy
• the number of cases dropped precipitously due to factors other than the vaccine's effectiveness
• Misinformation drove a fearful public to rally around the vaccine
• individuals were "clinging" to the vaccine for "sentimental or personal reasons"  ThePresentStatusOfPolioVaccines-1960-Chicago.pdf

This is just a small sample of the facts from 1890-1960, which likely differs greatly from what you've heard about polio mythology.

 

Oh man, you broke out all the usual anti-vax literature and talking points!

The reality is that polio was seasonal and came in waves, so arguing it was already on some smooth downward trend just doesn’t match how it actually behaved; it didn’t quietly fade out, it stopped once mass vaccination was rolled out.

And it didn’t just happen in America. If polio were naturally disappearing, you’d expect it to decline everywhere at roughly the same time, but instead we see countries continue to have outbreaks, sometimes for decades longer, until they introduced large-scale vaccination, and then cases dropped off rapidly.

The countries that didn’t vaccinate widely kept having outbreaks, while in America, it didn’t just become “rare,” it was eliminated entirely, which is a completely different outcome.

India is a great example, polio continued to impact huge numbers of people well into the late 20th century until they rolled out mass vaccination, and then it went to zero.

It’s a pretty incredible coincidence if you think polio just happened to disappear in different countries at different times, always right after vaccination campaigns started, and stuck around everywhere they didn’t.