Covid-19 vaccine

[notimp]

1st. I didn't compare medical science of the US to medical science of Nazis. I made the point that America took and use Nazi medical science.

2nd. If you want a comparison, check the US government going door to door looking for unvaccinated people.

3rd. I haven't spread misinformation. Being fearful and or unconvinced of the vaccine is a rational response.

4th: View attachment 269906
@Lacius

Practice cardiology. Have learned about virology the last tims in the 30s when you studied. Never came in contact with other people actively in the forefront of vaccination development, despite "your best efforts" which arent characterized.

Make bold claims that get picked up by image forums with right wing connections, but stay absolutely sure, that no one posts your rational on WHY you made those claims, because that could be refuted. Just post credentials.

Also post that they have found 'wondercure' with great properties, that they arent at all likely to profit from, and thats not at all more costly than vaccines, and that its a conspiracy - because vaccine is injected with needles, and their 'solution' isnt picked up by the medical community after double blind studies. Essentially do the same thing you did, when you believed Trump in telling you which miracle cure to get (which then wasnt available to the general public and vastly overpriced) - just so you can stay away of vaccines.

Idiots exist in every field. Some of them even make it very far in their respective professions. Some of them produce great accomplishments in their respective fields, then go over the cliff getting a god complex, thinking that their contributions will save the world - as a cardiologist, then fizzle out into nowhere.

And if the Dr. declared vaccines to be bioterrorism he has other problems.

But we can do nothing about this post on a detailed level, because it left out everything. The papers he published. His actual claims. His reasoning. Which 'alternative medicine' he flogged. We get nothing. We get 'believe'. From a freaking image board.

You can stop that, none of that is needed anymore - you are not protecting people with that, you are not protecting an administration, that is bound to inaction (because it gutted the public health system), and therefore has to keep people calm with BS - none of it is needed anymore.. So why are you still posting FUD?

edit: Oh and here is the factcheck on it: Inaccurate and missleading:

https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...nated-contrary-to-claims-by-peter-mccullough/

McCullough didn’t cite his sources when stating these figures, but the ballpark figure of 4,000 has been cited before in another claim about COVID-19 vaccines. It may correspond to the number of reports of death occurring after a COVID-19 vaccination in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database.

VAERS collects reports of adverse events that occur after vaccination. Its purpose is to serve as a surveillance system that allows public health authorities to detect signals that may indicate potential safety problems.

However, VAERS reports have provided fertile ground for COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. VAERS clearly states that reports cannot be used to determine if the vaccine was the cause of an adverse event. But this hasn’t stopped people from claiming that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe on the basis of VAERS reports alone (see previous reviews here, here, and here). In fact, citing VAERS reports as evidence that vaccines are harmful is a common feature of vaccine misinformation in general.

Furthermore, it is important to consider that the U.S. vaccinated more than 147 million people by early May 2021. In such a large group of people, we need to remember that incidental deaths and illnesses take place. Even in an unvaccinated population, a certain number of deaths are expected. As illustrated in this commentary in Science Translational Medicine:

“We’re talking about treating very, very large populations, which means that you’re going to see the usual run of mortality and morbidity that you see across large samples. Specifically, if you take 10 million people and just wave your hand back and forth over their upper arms, in the next two months you would expect to see about 4,000 heart attacks. About 4,000 strokes. Over 9,000 new diagnoses of cancer. And about 14,000 of that ten million will die, out of usual all-causes mortality. No one would notice. That’s how many people die and get sick anyway.

But if you took those ten million people and gave them a new vaccine instead, there’s a real danger that those heart attacks, cancer diagnoses, and deaths will be attributed to the vaccine. I mean, if you reach a large enough population, you are literally going to have cases where someone gets the vaccine and drops dead the next day (just as they would have if they *didn’t* get the vaccine). It could prove difficult to convince that person’s friends and relatives of that lack of connection, though. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is one of the most powerful fallacies of human logic, and we’re not going to get rid of it any time soon.”

Therefore, it is necessary to compare the rate of the adverse event between the unvaccinated (baseline) and vaccinated groups. Only when the rate is significantly higher in the vaccinated group do researchers have grounds to hypothesize that there is a causal relationship. Indeed, such comparisons are what health authorities and regulatory agencies do when adverse events are reported.

As explained in this Health Feedback review, scientists observed that deaths haven’t occurred at a higher rate in vaccinated people as compared to unvaccinated people. Such an observation doesn’t support McCullough’s claim that COVID-19 vaccines cause death.

 

[tabzer]

But we can do nothing about this post on a detailed level, because it left out everything. The papers he published. His actual claims. His reasoning. Which 'alternative medicine' he flogged. We get nothing. We get 'believe'. From a freaking image board.

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.

I'm not anti-vax btw. I'm pro-choice.

Anyone interested in listening to Lacius or anyone else regarding the vaccine should also be interested in listening to a doctor.

@Lacius, you should watch 15 minutes of it before responding with your typical ad hominem.

 

[KingVamp]

Dr.tabzer knows best, despite not giving any credible evidence.

 

[notimp]

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 covid, as suggested by your "fact check".

And this is a another direct quote from him:
“We know that the vaccine technology produces the dangerous spike protein […] which damages blood vessels and causes blood clotting”

“[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.”

Endothelial cells are cells that line the inner walls of blood vessels. This contradicts McCullough’s claim that the spike protein from the vaccines would damage blood vessels.

Another study examined blood samples from people who received the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and detected spike protein in 11 out of 13 vaccinated people[8]. However, this study also doesn’t provide evidence that the spike protein from vaccines causes damage, since the levels of spike protein detected were infinitesimal. Specifically, they were in the realm of picograms per milliliter. Gorski put this in perspective:

“That’s 10-12 grams/milliliter. What was the concentration used by Manor’s lab again? Oh, yes, 4 micrograms/milliliter. One microgram is 10-6 grams, or one million-fold more than one picogram!”

Overall, McCullough’s claim that vaccine-induced spike protein poses a danger to people isn’t substantiated by evidence. In fact, the available evidence contradicts his claim.

(Probably) Overlooks a factor of one million, misrepresents the cause of blood clotting (thats the 1:700.000 chance of occurring side effect with mRNA vaccines), misrepreents the cause for that occuring ( https://www.ft.com/content/f76eb802-ec05-4461-9956-b250115d0577 caused by the adenovirus vector (the thing the spike protein was designed onto - in vector based vaccines (not in mRNA vaccines)), then tells women with children to worry most - based on nothing.

Here, from the ft article:

https://www.ft.com/content/f76eb802-ec05-4461-9956-b250115d0577

Rolf Marschalek, a professor at Goethe university in Frankfurt who has been leading studies into the rare condition since March, said his research showed the problem sat with the adenovirus vectors that both vaccines [AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson] use to deliver the genetic instructions for the spike protein of the Sars-Cov-2 virus into the body. The delivery mechanism means the vaccines send the DNA gene sequences of the spike protein into the cell nucleus rather than the cytosol fluid found inside the cell where the virus normally produces proteins, Marschalek and other scientists said in a preprint paper released on Wednesday. Once inside the cell nucleus, certain parts of the spike protein DNA are spliced, or split apart, creating mutant versions, which are unable to bind to the cell membrane where important immunisation takes place. The floating mutant proteins are instead secreted by cells into the body, triggering blood clots in roughly one in 100,000 people, according to Marschalek’s theory. In contrast, mRNA-based vaccines, such as the jabs developed by BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna, deliver the spike’s genetic material to the cell fluid and it never enters the nucleus. “When these . . . virus genes are in the nucleus they can create some problems,”

Marschalek told the Financial Times. The rare blood-clotting reaction that has disrupted the rollout of the AstraZeneca and J&J shots has been recorded in 309 of the 33m people who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK, causing 56 deaths. In Europe, at least 142 people have experienced the blood clots out of 16m recipients of the vaccine.

Thats an occurance of 1:110.000 in Europe and at the most 20% or them were fatal (percentage taken from here: https://archive.is/C5WEB ), thats with the number of people 'naturally' experiencing blood clots not factored out I believe. Because for germany, i've done the calculation separately a wile ago (when the problem popped up), and it was lower. Also I cant double check the ft number of "out of 16m recipients" - I can just tell you that 1:100.000 seems high. (Edit: But the german scientist did, and he also mentions 1:100.000 with vector vaccines (probably mostly AstraZeneca, as J&J was hardly used in Europe (you guys just didnt deliver it to us.. )).

For the other vaccines (other delivery mechanism and therefore lower occurrence) the numbers look like this.

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

And here is the percentage of vaccines 'given out' to people in the EU:

src: https://www.dw.com/de/faktencheck-was-bedeutet-ein-totalausfall-von-astrazeneca/a-56902462

Light blue is given to people, dark blue is delivered to countries. Andere is others, and Alle Hersteller is all Manufacturers combined (percentage of the population that at least received one dose in march.).

So in the US, which uses mostly Pfizer and J&J, this 'argument' is simply a joke. And yes in germany - mostly women were affected by blood clots after the shots for some reason, maybe a statistical fluke - who knows. Why that brings a cardiologist to suggest, that pregnant women should stay away from the vaccines is still beyond me.

But more importantly - if that is what you 'fear' then take Pfizer or Moderna. I have two shots of Moderna in me btw, if you'd want to know.

edit:

But the argument, that you have to make the decision yourself is still standing. I still dont want to be responsible in the very, very unlikely case something goes wrong. But I can present you with information on how (un)likely it is.

edit2: Replaced the NYT link with an archive.is link, so its not behind a paywall anymore.

 

[tabzer]

Dr.tabzer knows best, despite not giving any credible evidence.

Credible evidence of what, that not taking the vaccine does not increases odds of transmission? I don't need "credible evidence" to point out the false phrasing and the misrepresentation of the sources others have been citing. The sources are the same sources that have already been referenced. Do you want me to get a peer reviewed paper to convince you that +0 is not an increase?

Why that brings a cardiologist to suggest, that pregnant women should stay away from the vaccines is still beyond me.

He says it is because the trials didn't make a focus group of pregnant women as the reason. If I have to tell you what he says in the video, then it is only going to be me responding to your confirmation bias that he must be wrong because of *some reason*.

 

[notimp]

He says it is because the trials didn't make a focus group of pregnant women as the reason.

Rrmm.. not good enough imho. Using pregnant women for trials wouldnt be ethical in the first place. (That for sure wouldnt be greenlit in eruope I believe...) But I'm not an expert.

Just edited the posting above to represent what 'both vaccines' the german researcher was talking about, to make it a bit clearer.

 

[tabzer]

Using pregnant women for trials wouldnt be ethical in the first place. (That for sure wouldnt be greenlit in eruope I believe...) But I'm not an expert

Okay, and it is probably by that same ethic that he isn't being the one to test pregnant women with it in its current status.

"That for sure...I believe". Lol.

And this is a another direct quote from him:
“We know that the vaccine technology produces the dangerous spike protein […] which damages blood vessels and causes blood clotting”

A direct quote shouldn't involve you snipping whatever he is saying. It removes context, and as you present it--it looks like he says that the spike protein is what is dangerous and that the vaccine produces it. The refutation-- the "contradiction" isn't a contradiction. It says that the spike proteins are dangerous, but that the anticipated outcome of the vaccine should fix the danger. The spike proteins seem to be the cause of the blood clotting side-effects. Is that wrong?

 

[KingVamp]

Credible evidence of what, that not taking the vaccine does not increases odds of transmission? I don't need "credible evidence" to point out the false phrasing and the misrepresentation of the sources others have been citing. The sources are the same sources that have already been referenced. Do you want me to get a peer reviewed paper to convince you that +0 is not an increase?

So, cases and deaths going down as more people get vaccinated is just a coincidence?

I meant generally trying to convince people not to take the vaccine, despite being medically capable of doing so.

 

[tabzer]

So, cases and deaths going down as more people get vaccinated is just a coincidence?

It's correlation and the vaccine does have an affect.

I meant generally trying to convince people not to take the vaccine, despite being medically capable of doing so.

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

 

[notimp]

Okay, and it is probably by that same ethic that he isn't being the one to test pregnant women with it in its current status.

"That for sure...I believe". Lol.



A direct quote shouldn't involve you snipping whatever he is saying. It removes context, and as you present it--it looks like he says that the spike protein is what is dangerous and that the vaccine produces it. The refutation-- the "contradiction" isn't a contradiction. It says that the spike proteins are dangerous, but that the anticipated outcome of the vaccine should fix the danger. The spike proteins seem to be the cause of the blood clotting side-effects. Is that wrong?

Doesnt matter in this case. What he said was utterly wrong and stupid. I reitterate.

He proposed the wrong cause.
The wrong working mechanism.
The wrong urgency, probably by a factor of one million. (In terms of spike proteins damaging blood vessles.)
The wrong advice (in as far as becoming infected will prevent you from getting a mutated version of it).
And the wrong conclusion (people stay away from vaccination) - probability wise.

There is nothing he could have 'known more' or said in a different context here that would make all of that ok. Its just one person not getting the feedback they needed, making a generalized assumption based on faulty conclusions made, with no feedback loops in place.

Happens.

Regardless that 'you need context' is a good rebuttle, but here we are on the rhetorical playground again, where that is all neat and good to convince people based on bravado and believes. But in the scientific world, this is game over. Not because he made the assumptions, but he made pretty bold claims derived from seemingly nothing - knowing that they might influence peoples actions, and he did so without being thorough seemingly at all.

And thats not all of it. The posting you provided makes way more effort to not direct you towards what he actually said, but what he actually did for the community, as a physician and human being. Different community granted but that seemingly isnt important, whats important is to characterize him as a good man. And at that point you have a warning flag as high as a ten story building, because thats how you convince masses, and not how you make a proper fact based argument. You are playing with peoples emotions, based on their fears and archetype based unterstandings of how societies work. Basically "the good doctor is always right" - is the context you are bringing forward with your snippet. Thats much more selling believes than anything else.

You are hunting for stupid people, that cant do research based on what is happening in the field, and have to rely on trust. And you are abusing them. There is only so much understanding one can muster for this - because this really, really is an issue. If people are selling emotional truths, that dont depend on actual arguments on the 'functional' level of the thing, but rather how much you have to like a person who has been mistreated - promise! We have a problem.

And the easiest way to step out of it is to actually look at the probabilities of grave sideeffects, and then decide, if the proposed measure is rectified by them. Because those numbers he is in no position to dispute. He didnt make additional studies with worse out comes, and... He was a cardiologist. He doesnt have any additional numbers - he has the same numbers we have. And in the case of blood clotting its even more obvious because there was just one set of numbers pubished in Europe on that thing. And we all saw our governments act based on that. (In my country - f.e. people above 65 were bared from getting AstraZeneca shots, and then the EU shifted mainly towards mRNA vaccine procurement. As indicated in the vaccination percentages.)

But the meme you post doesnt reflect anything like that - heck it doesnt even differenciate between different vaccines.

Also we still dont have the "miracle cure" he is supposed to have 'found' based on the 4Chan image board post (because not only is he a doctor, and very important, and very wonderful to his community, no hes also the savior, and died on the cross, because people didnt believe him and treated him badly.... So much for story telling.), if you identify that one - post its name here, I'll then do research again based on whats out there on that.

 

[TR_mahmutpek]

This pandemic will end IF EVERYONE GET VACCINED! So please dont be an anti-vaxxer.

 

[Glyptofane]

As the other guy said, this is getting off-topic. Also, I am finished with this thread and won't be making further replies.

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.

 

[tabzer]

He proposed the wrong cause.
The wrong working mechanism.
The wrong urgency, probably by a factor of one million. (In terms of spike proteins damaging blood vessles.)
The wrong advice (in as far as becoming infected will prevent you from getting a mutated version of it).
And the wrong conclusion (people stay away from vaccination) - probability wise.

Spike proteins are the cause of blood clotting as well as the mechanism, afaik. Please clarify if not to be redundant. There is no urgency implied by the "direct quote". The wrong advice and the wrong conclusion? Afaik he does reccomend the vaccine in the video I linked, just not to children, covid survivors and pregnant women. He says it in the video. You are looking for bad news for permission to ignore everything the guy says. But the "bad news" isn't contradictory.

 

[Lacius]

Ah...I see....

And also People who are not vaccinated against

- Flue
- Swine Flue
- Avian Avienze Flue

......

Ok,I understand now the Term "Every Human Being has a Opinion".

So WE People,we decide to NOT get vaccinated are selfish,egoistic,ruthless "Deathbringers",....

Wow,really great..


P.S. It is nothing personal against you and your Post,my Friend @Lacius

But this represents the Opinion of many,many,many,many People and what have we learned from the Past.

The majority is ALWAYS right...
(For Example 1933 - 1945)

There is a greater moral imperative to get vaccinated against COVID-19 because of how infectious and deadly it is, but you are correct that there is also a moral imperative to get your yearly flu shot. Your odds of contracting and spreading the flu are relatively higher if you don't get the vaccine.

 

[tabzer]

There is a greater moral imperative to get vaccinated against COVID-19 because of how infectious and deadly it is, but you are correct that there is also a moral imperative to get your yearly flu shot. Your odds of contracting and spreading the flu are relatively higher if you don't get the vaccine.

He never said that there is a moral imperative. You did, lol.

And it's bull hockey.

 

[Lacius]

He never said that there is a moral imperative. You did, lol.

And it's bull hockey.

Tabzer, you sometimes have to go back in the thread to see what posts were being responded to in order to get context. The post to which I was responding was itself in response to what I had to say about the morality of getting vaccinated.

 

[RocaBOT]

Spike proteins are the cause of blood clotting as well as the mechanism, afaik. Please clarify if not to be redundant.

There's not yet concluding enough proof to assert that for sure, but it is something that is indeed suspected with reasonable doubt to be held for a potential cause of said protein by a few studies, as far as I'm able to tell.
In which case, taking the vaccine is even more of a prerogative, as spreading the virus is a far greater risk to cause blood clots in unprotected and vulnerable people than the vaccine itself would (the smaller parts of the protein made by the vaccine stay localised in your arm muscle, while the virus doesn't keep that kind of very localised behaviour as it infects respiratory tracts and spreads to the blood system because respiratory system is highly vascularised.

 

[Lacius]

I don't have to prove anything to you since you're not my fucking mother. I'm not anti-vaccine, but I'm not gonna force someone to take anything if they don't want to, so why don't you not be stupid in disregarding basic human rights just because somebody doesn't wanna take an experimental fucking liquid god knows what's in it? But fuck me and everyone else who chooses not to take it, right? Force people to take it because you think it's right.

1. If you don't want your comments dismissed out of hand, you must provide evidence for your claims. A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you don't care about potentially looking foolish, then you're right then you don't owe anybody any evidence.
2. I don't think I or anyone else has advocated for forcing people to get vaccinated. We've argued that people should get vaccinated by citing the medical evidence that shows the vaccines to be safe, effective, and recommended. We've also presented the moral (and selfish) arguments for getting vaccinated.
3. The vaccines are not an "experimental liquid" with "God knows what" in them. We know they're safe and effective, and we know what's in them.

 

[tabzer]

Tabzer, you sometimes have to go back in the thread to see what posts were being responded to in order to get context. The post to which I was responding was itself in response to what I had to say about the morality of getting vaccinated.

So you honestly read it to be in agreement that it is a moral imperative?

There's not yet concluding enough proof to assert that for sure, but it is something that is indeed suspected with reasonable doubt to be held for a potential cause of said protein by a few studies, as far as I'm able to tell.
In which case, taking the vaccine is even more of a prerogative, as spreading the virus is a far greater risk to cause blood clots in unprotected and vulnerable people than the vaccine itself would (the smaller parts of the protein made by the vaccine stay localised in your arm muscle, while the virus doesn't keep that kind of very localised behaviour as it infects respiratory tracts and spreads to the blood system because respiratory system is highly vascularised.

The sourced "dispute" concedes that the spike protein is the cause but that the antibodies produced overrides them.

 

[Halbour]

Im not getting it. IDK Why. Its just not fo