Covid-19 vaccine

[tabzer]

@tabzer Everything you need to know about the cardiologist (not epidemiologist) who has been spewing anti-vax nonsense can be found here:
https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...nated-contrary-to-claims-by-peter-mccullough/

With regard to the most recent conversation about him taking place, there is no evidence that the mRNA vaccines cause blood clotting issues, and the suggestion that they do comes from a misunderstanding of a study that even the others say doesn't demonstrate anything this cardiologist is suggesting.

Tabzer, when you metaphorically wade into a pool of doctors and scientists, and you swim past one after another until you find one who is making the same debunked pseudoscientific claims about vaccines that you're making, that's called cherry-picking, which is a logical fallacy. It's also a fallacious argument from authority if your reason for saying a person's debunked claims are correct is because he's a medical authority. The broad medical community, as well as the actual epidemiologists and vaccine experts, have already demonstrated that the vaccines are safe and effective.

Notimp has already sourced that and I have been addressing it. The "fact check" if you read it, doesn't dispute the actual claim it's in reference to. People are allowed to cherry pick their medical advocacy. My original dispute with you was that it isn't up to you to prescribe it for them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Herd immunity achieved through vaccination has always been stronger and faster than that achieved through no control at all, it's been so for decades, it's been documented for many illnesses both far more dangerous than COVID and far less so too. Believing otherwise despite the facts is ignorant at best, misleading and stupid and dangerous at worst.

You are missing my point and assuming that I am saying that the ideal isn't a good one. The ideal is impossible to expect solely on people's choices to become vaccinated.

 

[RocaBOT]

That's why some vaccinations have been made mandatory for periods of time in some countries, and that's why we're trying to get people educated on vaccines and prevention. Everyone who can be safely vaccinated has a moral imperative to do so because it reduces the risks not only for them, but also for people who cannot get vaccinated because of underlying conditions, by shielding the latter from being contaminated.
In some cases like COVID that mutate enough that the vaccine is only reducing (by a lot mind you, not just a little) the contamination risk and not completely nullifying it, you may want to take other prerogatives on top of it, but that in no way forbids you from seeing vulnerable family members or friends, as long as precautions are reasonably taken if you know having been at risk of being infected (and thus being at risk of transmitting it).

Anyway, not having an ideal conclusion is not an excuse to not take the best ones available. It is a fallacy to say "no I want the perfect solution and nothing else will do". Perfect solutions don't exist, short of killing and burning anyone that is contagious, which is far from ethical, and so I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[Lacius]

Notimp has already sourced that and I have been addressing it.

It is possible I missed something, but I didn't find you actually addressing the facts of the fact check.

Here is an interview I posted with him. He says he doesn't reccomend the vaccine to pregnant people and people who already have had covid--not that people should go out and catch and spread covid, as suggested by your "fact check" and what @Lacius' implied as the only alternative to getting the vaccine.

1. What the doctor says about vaccinating pregnant women is either wrong or outdated: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/pregnancy.html
2. Saying people should not get the vaccine because it causes harm, or that natural immunity from getting the disease is better than the immunity from the vaccine, are both suggestions that people would be better off catching and spreading the disease rather than getting vaccinated.
3. These claims and the others are all dangerous pseudoscientific nonsense.
4. These claims and the others have all been debunked.
5. Any credibility this medical professional (a cardiologist, not an epidemiologist) might have once had is gone now. He's peddling anti-vax conspiracies unsupported by evidence.

 

[tabzer]

That's why some vaccinations have been made mandatory for periods of time in some countries,

If you are going to advocate mandatory vaccination, I am disinterested.

The idea that getting vaccinated is a moral imperative is a false dilemma based on a notion, that by not being vaccinated, that you are somehow assaulting people.

Piss poor analogy: but it's like saying that by running with scissors that you are assaulting people with scissors.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

It is possible I missed something, but I didn't find you actually addressing the facts of the fact check.

1. What the doctor says about vaccinating pregnant women is either wrong or outdated: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/pregnancy.html
2. Saying people should not get the vaccine because it causes harm, or that natural immunity from getting the disease is better than the immunity from the vaccine, are both suggestions that people would be better off catching and spreading the disease rather than getting vaccinated.
3. These claims and the others are all dangerous pseudoscientific nonsense.
4. These claims and the others have all been debunked.
5. Any credibility this medical professional (a cardiologist, not an epidemiologist) might have once had is gone now. He's peddling anti-vax conspiracies unsupported by evidence.

Based on how these vaccines work in the body, experts believe they are unlikely to pose a risk for people who are pregnant. However, there are currently limited data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant people.

Clinical trials that study the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and how well they work in pregnant people are underway or planned.

-From your own source.

The doctor who advocates for the patient has to make judgement calls all the time.

You are actually saying that the guy loses credibility by not agreeing with you, without listening to what he has said nor his explanations.

 

[Lacius]

If you are going to advocate mandatory vaccination, I am disinterested.

The idea that getting vaccinated is a moral imperative is a false dilemma based on a notion, that by not being vaccinated, that you are somehow assaulting people.

Piss poor analogy: but it's like saying that by running with scissors that you are assaulting people with scissors.

It isn't a false dilemma if it's true. If you agree that not getting vaccinated causes you to have significantly higher odds of catching and spreading the disease relative to one's vaccinated counterparts, then there's a moral imperative.

A good analogy would be driving a car without preparing for or having a driver's license. You might not hit anybody, particularly if you aren't on a busy road, but privileges like being on the road are contingent upon passing the driver's test and getting your license, and you have a dramatically increased risk of causing harm to others by being on the road without knowing how to drive. There is a moral imperative to knowing how to drive before driving, just as there's a moral imperative to not driving drunk.

 

[tabzer]

If you agree that not getting vaccinated causes you to have significantly higher odds of catching and spreading the disease relative to one's vaccinated counterparts, then there's a moral imperative.

I said it several times but not getting the vaccine doesn't add +100 to your odds of catching and spreading covid. If you want to make the argument that doing everything you can to prevent the spread of covid is a moral imperative, then vaccines will never be enough.

A good analogy would be driving a car without preparing for or having a driver's license. You might not hit anybody, particularly if you aren't on a busy road, but privileges like being on the road are contingent upon passing the driver's test and getting your license, and you have a dramatically increased risk of causing harm to others by being on the road without knowing how to drive.

I was making an analogy for the not getting vaccinated = injuring people. You are making an analogy that living is a privilege contingent of an governing body. It reads more like an advocacy for mandatory vaccination than it does about what I was talking about.

 

[Lacius]

If you are going to advocate mandatory vaccination, I am disinterested.

The idea that getting vaccinated is a moral imperative is a false dilemma based on a notion, that by not being vaccinated, that you are somehow assaulting people.

Piss poor analogy: but it's like saying that by running with scissors that you are assaulting people with scissors.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Based on how these vaccines work in the body, experts believe they are unlikely to pose a risk for people who are pregnant. However, there are currently limited data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant people.

Clinical trials that study the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and how well they work in pregnant people are underway or planned.

-From your own source.

The doctor who advocates for the patient has to make judgement calls all the time.

You are actually saying that the guy loses credibility by not agreeing with you without listening to what he has said nor his explanations.

The information you cited from the CDC is correct. It also says:

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) have safety monitoring systems in place to gather information about COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and will closely monitor that information. Early data from these systems are preliminary, but reassuring. These data did not identify any safety concerns for pregnant people who were vaccinated or for their babies."

"Studies in animals receiving a Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, or J&J/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine before or during pregnancy found no safety concerns in pregnant animals or their babies."

Do not get me wrong. Considering the limited data on the vaccine's effects on pregnant women, I don't condemn a pregnant women for not getting vaccinated, assuming she isn't going out in public much, she's mask-wearing, and anyone she lives with and regularly interacts with is vaccinated and otherwise not at high-risk for transmitting the disease to her. There is less of a moral imperative to get vaccinated when the effects on the fetus are less understood. In fact, the existence of pregnant women only makes it even more of a moral imperative for the rest of us to get vaccinated.

However, there is a difference between saying the above and peddling anti-scientific and debunked nonsense like (to paraphrase) "the mRNA vaccines cause blood clots" and "getting infected and having natural immunity is better than getting vaccinated" and "people who have gotten the disease don't need to get vaccinated" and "the vaccine is unsafe and unrecommended."

 

[tabzer]

"the mRNA vaccines cause blood clots" and "getting infected and having natural immunity is better than getting vaccinated" and "people who have gotten the disease don't need to get vaccinated" and "the vaccine is unsafe and unrecommended."

You need to start paraphrasing what the Doctor actually said. I posted a video a while back. As I said, you should watch a little of it before going in with the ad hominems and now these strawmen.

If I could choose between having natural immunity without having covid or taking the vaccination, I would go the primary. Obviously you love scientific method so much that you would subject your body for testing, so I don't have to really question what you'd choose.

 

[Lacius]

I said it several times but not getting the vaccine doesn't add +100 to your odds of catching and spreading covid. If you want to make the argument that doing everything you can to prevent the spread of covid is a moral imperative, then vaccines will never be enough.

Nobody argued that not getting the vaccine "adds +100 to your odds of catching and spreading COVID-19." Read my post next time, and don't be disingenuous.

I was making an analogy for the not getting vaccinated = injuring people. You are making an analogy that living is a privilege contingent of an governing body. It reads more like an advocacy for mandatory vaccination than it does about what I was talking about.

My analogy had nothing to do with "living being a privilege continent upon a governing body." I'll dumb down my analogy for you:

• You = you
• Driving a car = interacting with other people
• Driving a car on a busy road = interacting with other people in public/crowds
• Car crash = COVID-19 infection
• Death or serious injury from a car crash = death or serious injury from a COVID-19 infection
• Learning how to drive = vaccination
• The privilege of getting to drive = the privilege of not having to wear masks

 

[notimp]

Spike proteins are the cause of blood clotting as well as the mechanism, afaik.

In a roundabout way yes. In the way the physician apparently quoted, no. To 'damage blood vessels' the concentration would have had to been 1.000.000 times higher. Its a different interaction mechanism in the way vector vaccines (AstraZeneca and J&J) reproduce but mRNA doesnt. (The vector virus had copies of it produced in cells nuclei (intended behavior, btw), while the mRNA had them being reproduced outside cells nuclei which lead to different properties.) Also its an issue so infrequent, that you couldnt reasonably detect in in stage 3 trials. And when it was detected during vaccination runs, steps to reduce the issue were set by governments in the west. Also the statement that its both an issue with AZ and J&J is somewhat problematic if you take into account the very low number of reported cases in the US administration case, with J&J. So low in fact, that its out of 'you'd have to do something about it' range for US populations. If you vaccinate half of the US citizenry, and you have six cases in total... theres not that much you can do about it. But at the same time, its probably not something that should keep you awake at night, because on the statistical reasoning level you prevented much more harm than you dished out.

The interpretation that it was 'spike proteins' that damage blood vessels afaik is not correct. And then the question arises, how did that physician come to that conclusion. And the first thing that comes into mind at that stage is, that he heard spike, and did some free associations with pointy and blood vessels, and thats not good. And at that point, at the latest, you start to wonder, how a cardiologist (not a virologist) can make a mistake like that, then tell people not to get vaccinated, based on 6-100ish reported cases of that occuring in the US, while misrepresenting the mechanism. And ignoring, that a spike protein is something man viruses have - without killing the host altogether, because that would also kill them. And then it being misquoted by a 4chan post suddenly not differenciating between vaccines anymore, which then you are using to construct your story from.

This thing has more holes, than connections you can make.

Ands thats just one example of the stuff he spread, all of which was problematic - and misleading - next thing is the statment, that 'natural immunity' is better than the vaccine. No its not. Especially not after the first booster shot. And especially not concerning mutations.

A human being that goes out there and tells the public, with no expertise in the field, something thats factually wrong, and then follows it up with 'getting it naturally is better than getting vaccinated', without thinking for a moment about the harm he produces, frankly should not be someone who is featured in anything but a meme on a 4chan like image board.

And you are still dancing around the fact, that the entire posting was designed to get an uneducated person to respond emotionally. Promote conspiratorial thinking, has no foundation in actual procedual logic, nor in statistical risk assessment - and only exists to make people afraid. Of something that has no - literally no bearing on reality.

Something something, spike protein, is not enough, I'm sorry. Thats not the cause of the problem. Even if spike sounds spikey.

And creating meaning by association is also something that is used in manipulating masses, not in scientific work.

So we have to come to terms, that the 'good doctor' likely read a paper. Misinterpreted its contents, babbled out a conection as a 'functional mechanism' that they made up in their mind. And then went on to injest the frigging fear of god in people, based on something the statistical risk assessment shows might not be even enough to give out a warning - which could be missunderstood. And then the 4chan post made five times more sure it was misunderstood, by focusing not on what he said, but what a swell guy he was, namingly someone who would save the world with a miracle cure, that was not a vaccination -- something that plays straight into Trump narratives at a time, before he himself got vaccinated.

So stop being the flipping troll pulling out a fake association to a word like spike protein out of your flipping hat, when the good doctor got everything wrong he could have gotten wrong. And the entire post you share was designed to play the emotional strings of people unable to do any research. Unable to look up the statistical risk related. Unable to know that several different vaccines exist, and are not even affected (statistically).


While at the same time having nothing but the utmost benefit of the doubt for the good doctor, that is practically jesus, and was prevented from saving the world with his miracle cure.

Oh and which has factcheck articles online denouncing him as misleading and factually wrong - and who hasnt even cared to respond. I dont know what image you have of the scientific field - but thats not enough. By a flipping longshot. But then your sole source of info are image board spreading dark PR for people that want to life in a world, where it was 'so close' that all of them were saved, but then sadly, the big conspiracy came along and...

You just dont know how madening it is to see you leading yourself around your own nose, making connections up out of thin air, promoting 'I think it has something to do with the spike protein, and thats enough for me', once others (me) have laid out to you that the 'good doctor' got the entire mechanism wrong by which the side effect is triggered. Because he isnt a flipping virologist, and not someone thats an expert in anti immune responses.

 

[Lacius]

You need to start paraphrasing what the Doctor actually said. I posted a video a while back. As I said, you should watch a little of it before going in with the ad hominems and now these strawmen.

I have direct quotes of what the doctor said, and I said I was paraphrasing them. If you have a problem with my representation of what he said, let me know how I got it wrong, be specific, and provide evidence.

If I could choose between having natural immunity without having covid or taking the vaccination, I would go the primary. Obviously you love scientific method so much that you would subject your body for testing, so I don't have to really question what you'd choose.

You incorrectly label things as false dilemmas a lot, but your suggestion that it's either pro-scientific method or not have your body experimented on is itself a false dilemma. In reality, I am a proponent of the scientific method and skepticism, but that does not mean I must allow my body to be experimented on. My vaccination occurred after the scientific experiments were concluded that demonstrated vaccine safety and efficacy.

 

[The Catboy]

Claims that one can know the future requires the burden of proof. Nice try backwards person.



I never heard 15 years being referred to as "decades" before. Totally serious. Plurality usually implies 2 or more.

You are the one who made the claim and as per the normal with you, you attempt to avoid citing your sources. You made the claim, you are the one urging caution, and yet you aren’t willing to provide any sources to back up your caution. This is on you, not on anyone else for needing evidence.

 

[tabzer]

Nobody argued that not getting the vaccine "adds +100 to your odds of catching and spreading COVID-19." Read my post next time, and don't be disingenuous.


My analogy had nothing to do with "living being a privilege continent upon a governing body." I'll dumb down my analogy for you:

• You = you
• Driving a car = interacting with other people
• Driving a car on a busy road = interacting with other people in public/crowds
• Car crash = COVID-19 infection
• Death or serious injury from a car crash = death or serious injury from a COVID-19 infection
• Learning how to drive = vaccination
• The privilege of getting to drive = the privilege of not having to wear masks

Saying that not getting the vaccination increases odds is patently false and propagandic. I cannot overstate this.

Your analogy totally sucks and is not a better analogy for how not getting the vaccination=assault. By your definition of terms it's an analogy about how interacting with people without a mask is a privilege, and to not wear a mask and not be vaccinated and interact with others is immoral---and for that last point I might agree for different reasons. This creates a lot more possible scenarios that are besides "get vaccinated or you are a murderer" and validates my claim of such simple stupid statement as being a false dilemma. If I am not wearing a mask and someone approaches me, I am going to assume a consent of the risk.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Your analogy literally creates more confusion and departs from the original claim.

 

[KingVamp]

I don't reccomend that people do or do not take the vaccine. I reccomend people do whatever they think is best for themselves.

Just happens to say nothing, but negative things about the vaccine, including things that "might go wrong" decades from now.

Which, of course, completely disregards all the people that are getting sick and dying in the present.

Lol, I started to feel disgusted and dismayed with the abject lunacy of the pro-vaxx shills as well. No need to waste your time with an exercise in futility. Stand strong, my brother.

Lunatics and shills for wanting to keep everyone safe.

 

[tabzer]

Snip

 

[tabzer]

You incorrectly label things as false dilemmas a lot, but your suggestion that it's either pro-scientific method or not have your body experimented on is itself a false dilemma.

Throughout the life of this thread I have labelled a single proposition as a false dilemma, consistently.

I'm not suggesting that refusing the vaccine is anti-scientific method, or that a choice has to be made between two. It's purely hypothetical to shed light on the fact that the doctor didn't say getting covid is better than getting the vaccine as the "fact checker" falsely insinuates--and that I also prefer natural immunity.

 

[smf]

Blame the un-vaxxed for your "vaccination" not working.

Yes, the vaccine can't work if anti vaxxers refuse to take it.

Why don't you demand a better solution (cure)?

We could euthanize those who don't want to take the vaccine, that is the best solution that science can offer right now.

Obviously the government has enough power to push it if getting a vaccine that gains pharmaceutical companies trillions in revenue was so easy.

You appear to have a poor understanding of the situation.

 

[tabzer]

The interpretation that it was 'spike proteins' that damage blood vessels afaik is not correct. And then the question arises, how did that physician come to that conclusion. And the first thing that comes into mind at that stage is, that he heard spike, and did some free associations with pointy and blood vessels, and thats not good. And at that point, at the latest, you start to wonder, how a cardiologist (not a virologist) can make a mistake like that, then tell people not to get vaccinated, based on 6-100ish reported cases of that occuring in the US, while misrepresenting the mechanism. And ignoring, that a spike protein is something man viruses have - without killing the host altogether, because that would also kill them. And then it being misquoted by a 4chan post suddenly not differenciating between vaccines anymore, which then you are using to construct your story from.

The doctor said that spike proteins cause blood clots.

A source that the fact checker used to dispute the claim said:

“[The results suggest] that vaccination-generated antibody […] against [spike] protein not only protects the host from SARS-CoV-2 infectivity but also inhibits [spike] protein imposed endothelial injury.”

Which is to say, the spike proteins that cause clots are inhibited by the antibody.

Both seem to say spike proteins are not good. (Inhibiting would be). Both the doctor being "refuted" and the one doing the"refutation" seem to agree about spike proteins being bad.

 

[notimp]

@tabzer: Good news, you were correct. Arguably. In one part. But I was as well..

Did some more research. Looked up the original paper of the german scientist who first came to a (preliminary) conclusion on the blood clot phenomenon.

Here, we present data that may explain these severe side effects which have been attributed to adenoviral vaccines. According to our results, transcription of wildtype and codon-optimized Spike open reading frames enables alternative splice events that lead to C-terminal truncated, soluble Spike protein variants. These soluble Spike variants may initiate severe side effects (in 1:100.000 people) when binding to ACE2-expressing endothelial cells in blood vessels.

src: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-558954/v1

So blood vessels arent damaged because of the spike protein, but because of an interaction with one form of the delivery mechanism (vector vaccine, so AZ and J&J), truncated proteines are produced in cells nuclei, which are then let go into the body (instead of binding to the cells membrane) which then may inititate the severe side effects, when binding with endothelial cells in blood vessels. Binding is not necessarily damaging them (its more clogging them up.).

But lets give this point to you, because in the original paper the word "blood vessels" is mentioned, which very likely means, we have found what the 'good doctor' based his assessment on.

So they didnt do any studies themselves (as a cardiologist he cant), he just read that one paper, and decided, that it was time to tell people not to get vaccinated.

Issue - the same paper (see source) is limiting the effect to only AZ and J&J and limiting it to a 1:100.000 occurence at the most.

That doesnt take into account that far fewer cases are reported with J&J (see postings on the last page --) and, now the kicker ... Bloomberg reports that other molecular virologists have reported, that they see that effect, but they see the proteins stoping in a stage before they would cause blood clotting:

https://archive.is/feK8O

Ending with - further research is recommended.
-

So at this point, we very arguably have the entire picture. US cardiologist reads this paper, interprets it maybe slightly wrong (damaging blood vessles), then takes the reported case number of 1:100.000 and warns people to get the vaccine. Thats just random guy, with a voice - as far as the molecular virology world is concerned, he knows jack.

At the same time other studies are started, that seem to indicate, that this might be part of the cause, but dont explain it entirely.

And for some reason J&J also produces significantly less cases of that sideeffect occuring in reported data (see last page)

Besides the eight cases in Johnson & Johnson recipients, all in the US, the EMA said there had been 287 such incidents in people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, including 142 in Europe. The figures for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna jabs were 25 and five.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...n-vaccine-and-rare-blood-clots-says-regulator

So your source is basically misrepresenting everything. Your 'source for the warning' did no research, they read a paper. Based on a 1:100.000 occurance stated in that paper he decided "to warn people not to get vaccinated", at the same time real world occurance of the complication in J&J recipients turned out to be 8 at a point where half of the US population was vaccinated. US didnt use AstraZeneca(AZ) broadly - afair.

So all of that - and "they took the jesus doctor from us and didnt let them give us the good medizine, that would have made vaccinations useless, for

a 1:3.000.000 change of a side effect occuring as far as we can tell. There was another 1:130.000 chance side effect reported with J&J yesterday - btw ( https://www.healthline.com/health-news/fda-adds-warning-to-jj-vaccine-over-very-rare-side-effect ) but that didnt get the 'the good doctor wanted to save us" threatment from 4chan yet, so you werent woried.

On Pfizer and Moderna, nothing along those lines yet (harmfull sideeffects with a risk probability even close to that of the two instances named here).

Also, that the 'good doctor' just read the paper linked in this thread, and then made his comments, is a guess on my part. But its the only thing that fits. Its the main study on those blood cluts, and it mentions bloodvessels which propbably got the interest of our 'good doctor cardeologist'.

Btw, it also got the interest of countries around the world, some of which (germany) halted vaccinating people with AZ at that point (for a while), and then switched to mainly mRNA based vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) in procurement shortly afterwards. Also all around the world people in governments, and virologists read the same paper, without giving out a warning, that people shouldnt get the AZ shot.

Arguably (as in maybe), in Euope they 'phased out' AZ anyhow. And J&J (as well as (Moderna and) Pfizer, which is the most used vaccine in the US) never produced those kind of numbers of severe side effects. (You need the central agency overlooking the vaccination drive pulling together that data to report it, so its not that there could be multiple source, which people could miss, or anything like that).

 

[smf]

It's purely hypothetical to shed light on the fact that the doctor didn't say getting covid is better than getting the vaccine as the "fact checker" falsely insinuates--and that I also prefer natural immunity.

Relying on natural immunity is a terrible strategy as millions of people will end up with long covid.

It seems there is a problem with your ability to assess risk.

If you are going to advocate mandatory vaccination, I am disinterested.

Disinterested means it doesn't affect you either way, so you wouldn't refuse a mandatory vaccination. Is this what you meant?

You cannot know the long term effects (decades) of a solution that is younger than decades.

Not consuming anything that hasn't been available for decades would seem to be quite limiting.

How are you connecting to the internet? How do you know what the health effects of using the internet are?