Anti-vaxxers crumble as every prediction fails to come true

I prefer to be the judge of mis or dis or whatever information. We never have information which allows us to make decisions with 100% certainty. There is a lot discussion here about absolute proof of causality. We never have that. If there are many reports of serious adverse reactions to covid vaccinations and a correlation can be shown I am willing to conclude that if you are below the age of 60 and have none of the CDC listed preconditions which put you at high risk to Covid you should not be vaccinated. Of course the final decision is up to the individual but not up to the government and not a condition of employment.

I am sure that my posts have been reported as mis/dis information but I don't believe that any of them have been removed.

 

Autopsies show that cardiovascular involvement in deaths likely caused by covid vaccines. One such study was removed by the Lancet but then published by the NIH.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/healt...9-vaccines-likely-caused-deaths-study-5568559

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38221509/

 

Yep, we all get to choose what to accept based on the available evidence. The problem is in many cases I’ve detailed in this thread, public health entities provided clear disinformation with the knowledge it conflicts with all available evidence.

Absolute proof isn’t even possible in science, contrary to the opinions of some progressive types here. Most people who invoke “science” or “experts” here know nothing of either. All we have is evidence.

Healthy lifestyle choices are more protective against Covid infection and severe disease than current Covid vaccines. That’s not surprising as that’s true for influenza as well. Of course pharmaceutical companies and public health entities won’t publicize that information but that’s what the evidence shows.

Because folks aren’t aware of other ways to avoid infection and severe disease, it’s easy to convince most that vaccination is the only “hope”. It’s easy to demonize those who choose to use other protections besides vaccination when the populace believes vaccination is the only responsible mitigation strategy. It’s sad that public health entities engage in this lie of omission, especially since even the vaccinated could benefit from simple strategies like combining a little exercise with vaccination, especially in the aged as it increases efficacy. At the end of the day, public health entities in this country do not prioritize health. They prioritized disinformation and lies of omission to increase vaccination rates.

I warned against this strategy of pushing disinformation and then criticizing the skeptics before the vaccines were available. Oh, well. Didn’t take.

Yep, vaccination should be a personal choice. And people who accept the evidence that there are other options as or more effective than vaccination should be congratulated for making healthy choices that greatly decrease all cause mortality, not just mortality related to Covid. They shouldn’t be called science deniers or denigrated in other ways. That just creates more distrust of science in general. And that’s not a good thing at all.

 

Once again the Epoch Times is not a reliable source of information and should be ignored.

Once again a research article has been posted that is obviously biased and the work of known anti-vaxxers with an agenda.

The paper ‘A systematic review of autopsy findings in deaths after covid-19 vaccination’ was uploaded to a preprint server associated with the Lancet back in July of 2023.

This authors claimed that they had analyzed autopsy reports of people vaccinated against covid-19 and concluded that 73.9% of those deaths were directly due to or significantly contributed to by covid-19 vaccination.

When one looks at the names of the authors of the article one can quickly conclude that article will be biased because Risch, Hodkinson, Makis, and McCullought are well-known for spreading covid-19 misinformation. Six of the nine authors are affiliated with the ‘The Wellness Company’ which sells supplements that allegedly protect against ‘vaccine injury’. McCullough is the chief scientific officer of this company. It would be in their interest to publish papers that try to claim vaccine injury in order to sell their supplements.

The article was removed from the server within 24 hours by the Lancet because the conclusions of the study were not supported by the methodology. Basically, no causal links can be established simply by reviewing autopsy data. It got uploaded to another server.

In the abstract, it states that “three independent physicians with cardiac pathology experience and expertise” reviewed the chosen autopsy cases to determine which deaths could be directly attributed to covid-19 vaccination. The three physicians happened to be the well-known disseminators of vaccine misinformation — Hodkinson, Makis, and McCullough. One would have assumed from the abstract that ‘independent’ physicians meant unbiased physicians with expert knowledge that were not involved directly in the study or involved in a company that sells supplements related to vaccine ‘injury’. One seriously has to call into question the objectivity of their analysis in light of their bias and involvement in the Wellness Company.

A supposed research article should not use terms that are specifically used by anti-vaccine groups — for example - ‘vaccine injury syndrome’.

The authors excluded over 50 studies from their analysis without stating the reasons for doing so. The exclusion of a large number of studies could easily alter the results, therefore there should be some kind of justification for the exclusion.

There was no clear explanation of what the criteria was to assign cause of death. In terms of myocarditis, it is usually stated as the cause of death due to a high degree of suspicion based on history of events prior to death and then it is confirmed by a physician performing the autopsy who has expertise in diagnosing myocarditis. Myocarditis has a wide range of symptoms and as a cause of death is rare. A diagnosis involves extensive sampling of the heart and isn’t easy to diagnose.
One can diagnose myocarditis as cause of death but one certainly can’t make any definitive causative statements related to vaccinations except a temporal association especially when one fails to rule out other causative factors.

If a person dies after covid-19 vaccination, you can’t immediately claim causation especially from a case report. For conclusions to actually be meaningful, the authors would have had to compare findings in autopsies of vaccinated people to an unvaccinated group. They didn’t do this. The authors did nothing other than to speculate how the covid vaccines might cause harm by focusing on the alleged deleterious effects of the spike protein induced by vaccine.

Despite what the authors suggest, reports of death following vaccination are extremely rare. There have also been numerous studies showing that vaccinated people don’t die at a higher rate than unvaccinated people. The authors failed to take into account rudimentary factors that can influence a person’s risk of death. The mean age of death in the autopsies that were evaluated was 70.4 years. Older people and underlying health conditions increase a person’s risk of death regardless of vaccination status. None of this was considered by the authors.

A country like the US has vaccination rates of the elderly of over 90 percent, you can expect most deaths in this population will occur among vaccinated people but that doesn’t mean that vaccines were the cause.

The paper with its methodological flaws, biases, and failure to consider confounding factors makes it totally unreliable.
What they did was something like this — say that a group of anti-coca cola physicians decided that Coca Cola causes cancer. Let’s not forget that these anti Coca Cola physicians invest heavily in the company that manufactures Pepsi. They decide to do a study by finding all the people that drank Coca Cola prior to getting cancer and excluded anybody who didn’t drink Coca Cola and had cancer. As part of the study they ignored any other confounding factors that might have contributed to the person getting cancer like age and lifestyle factors. Three biased doctors reviewed the cancer reports and said ‘yup, definitely, drinking Coca Cola causes cancer. A study like that would be rejected out of hand for its methodological flaws, biases, and failures to consider confounding factors, just like the study linked to related to autopsies and the vaccines should be. It’s useless garbage and doesn’t produce any evidence of anything except the authors are biased morons.

 

It’s more credible than liberals want to believe.

 

the anti-vaxxers got it wrong it seems, time for them to attack the next vaccine

 

Referring to the quote "Once again the Epoch Times is not a reliable source of information and should be ignored….". All that the journalists who wrote the articles appearing in the Epoch Times which I have posted are reporting on medical papers some of which are peer reviewed. The information is true, general correlation is established, absolute causation is questionable in some cases, but the public is entitled to have access to the information in order to make educated decisions. There are risks associated with the Covid vaccines. And those segments of the population at high risk are well know. Each individual should have information on risk of harm from the Covid virus and Covid vaccines and decide on vaccination according to his/her priorities. For example I am 75 and in the high risk due to age group. I am healthy and active - Kiliminjaro and the Inca Trail last year - and have none of the CDC listed preconditions. I have never to my knowledge had Covid. I have been twice vaccinated and once boosted and have had adverse reactions but nothing serious. I will not be getting any additional covid shots but will continue taking zinc and Vitamin D.

 

Look, why deny there are adverse effects from vaccination, including myocarditis? It just makes people more skeptical when you deny biological processes.

Activation of the innate and adaptive immune systems is well known to result in damage to many organs of the body. Because vaccination typically elicits a less pronounced response than actual infection, we would expect less damage from vaccines compared to infection. We see that with Covid sequelae vs. vaccination adverse events.

That’s the case for all pathogens including SARS-CoV-2. Why would you deny this virus and vaccines for it behave differently than others? Adverse events from vaccination are FAR less common than sequelae after infection, but they aren’t zero for any vaccine.

Are these scientists morons?

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M22-2274

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9510095/

When the literature shows increased risk of myocarditis after Covid vaccination why would we call scientists attempting to quantify the potential mortality related to this elevated risk morons? It just makes you look like you are attempting to hide something when you can’t accept evidence.

Why not just accept that vaccines stimulate the innate and adaptive immune systems and support quantification of the damage (however slight or severe) that results from that stimulation? Why deny it happens when there is so much evidence to the contrary?

Oh, the study the other poster presented is currently published in peer reviewed journals.

 

Epoch Times is credible.

 

When it comes to sources or expressing opinions, liberals do not approve of sources in which opinions are based on facts. Liberals will search out a source which cherry-picks facts and ignores others which don’t support their views.

 

One would expect a person who constantly posts links to the Epoch Times to support it as a trustworthy source. Unfortunately, when it comes to the articles Epoch Times publishes related to Covid-19, the articles are full of misinformation, therefore one can’t trust the links related to covid-19. I can’t speak to any other subject that the Epoch Time publishes as I have no interest in reading their articles. When a person has an unwavering belief that vaccines are unsafe or don’t work, they will find information that supports their belief without checking whether the information is misinformation or not. I check all sources and have enough education related to science to understand when an article contains misinformation. That goes for scientific journals as well and articles do get retracted and at least the journals admit the information published has been found to contain something erroneous.

Some examples of misinformation published by the Epoch Times related to covid:

The Epoch Times tried to claim the vaccines contain ‘dangerous levels’ of the SV40 monkey virus DNA which they stated causes cancer. This misinformation has been repeated on this website more than a few times. The truth is that non-functional fragments of SV40’s DNA sequence are being used as ‘starting material’ in producing the vaccine. These fragments are mostly broken down and removed in the manufacturing process. Any tiny amounts of the fragments are well within established safety guidelines. There is absolutely no risk, despite the misinformation published by the Epoch Times, that the vaccines contain any plasmid DNA that might potentially be a cancer risk.

The Epoch Times published an article that claimed the stillbirth rate had ‘skyrocketed’ after the covid-19 vaccine rollout. The information apparently came from a memo email from a hospital employee in Fresno County. The memo does not mention the vaccines at all and the memo never states that its figures are only for stillbirths. The public health department stated there had been no significant increase in the stillbirth rate since the introduction of the vaccines.

The Epoch Times published an article where it falsely claimed that the FDA had stated that the vaccines were linked to blood clots and it was part of a mass genocide operation. The FDA admitted no such thing and when this article was published the FDA had not found any new causal relationships between the Pfizer vaccine and blood clots.

These are just a few examples of why Epoch Times is not a trustworthy source of information related to the covid-19 vaccinations. I don’t have time to explain why each of their covid-19 articles possess misinformation to some extent.

The Epoch Times is not a trustworthy source of information and one can easily determine this by fact-checking their information.

I can ask where is the ‘general correlation’ between SV40 non-functional genetic material and the vaccines causing cancer? There isn’t one because NON-FUNCTIONAL DNA doesn’t cause cancer. So the journalist who wrote this article is posting information that isn’t true and a simple internet search reveals this

The ‘peer-reviewed’ papers you refer to are written by biased anti-vaxxers and I have pointed out the misinformation and flaws in their papers.

It is absolutely correct that public is entitled to have access to information to make educated decisions but one can’t make an informed educated decision from the information that the Epoch Times publishes related to the vaccines. They engage in scare tactics to conflate the vaccines as extremely dangerous. How is one supposed to make an educated decision after being falsely told that the vaccines contain cancer causing DNA when they don’t? How is one supposed to make an educated decision from lies and misinformation? One needs to get more reliable information from elsewhere.

Of course there are risks associated with vaccines and that goes for all vaccines. But the problem with the Epoch Times is that they conflate very small rare risks into imminent risk of death which is a really stupid and egregious lie.

Anecdotes are meaningless unless everybody has identical genetics, health habits, etc.

 

When a source expresses an ‘opinion’, it isn’t expressing a fact. Opinions are open to interpretation and opposition. When a source is scientifically wrong, then it’s wrong whether you are Liberal or not. Those who constantly post all the vaccine misinformation are guilty of cherry-picking their sources from anti-vaxxers. Some of us engage in fact checking prior to stating an opinion and back up our comments with facts from reliable sources.

 

It is a trustworthy source.

 

Opinions are often based on facts. A source can be credible even if you disagree with the opinion or conclusion stated.

 

So Trump was right. The pandemic was real, and the vaccine worked. It's worth remembering that the first people to roundly mock the pandemic and say they'd never take the "Trump vaccine" were Democrats.

 

A trustworthy source does not repeatedly post disinformation, misinformation, and outright lies. So no its not trustworthy.

 

Unfortunately the information posted in the Epoch Times related to vaccines is misinformation and therefore not credible.

 

so the vaxx is safe and the statistic of excess deaths and the tremendous rise of myocardia in a population that never had such numbers are to be ignored? I think we would better informed to ignore you. If you are not on some pro-vaxx payroll, you should apply.

 

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

Epoch Times is a credible source.

 

You are misinformed by sources such as the Epoch Times regarding actual deaths that can be attributed to the vaccines. Myocarditis is rare and mild. All I am doing is countering the misinformation posted on this site. I have no business telling people to be vaccinated from covid or not as that is a personal choice. To make an informed and educated decision based on age and other factors, one should ignore articles that are produced by the Epoch Times and other sources of bias and misinformation and look for reliable sources. That’s all. The more varied sources, the better.

I just wonder why even though you know that the sources you link to are highly biased and contain misinformation, you still say they are credible. Boggles the mind, really.

No it isn’t. I have demonstrated it contains misinformation related to covid vaccines, therefore unless it retracts/corrects the misinformation it is absolutely not credible.

 

The Epoch Times publishes articles baesd on peer reviewed scientific papers from reputable medical and science individuals. I appreciate their due diligence in making that information available to the public so that informed personal vaccination decisions can be made.

 

You mean trustworthy sources like the psychotically greedy big pharma monopolists who were paid tens of billions by governments for their permission to use the results of research governments mostly paid for, and claimed their products were safe based on minimal testing, yet very carefully sought, and obtained, unconditional indemnity against any harm those products might cause to the billions of people forced to use them? Those sources?

 

Epoch Times is the mouthpiece for Falun Gung a cult religious group with an express mandate to advance an anti Communist China agenda to the point of issuing false information that has been repudiated over and over again. I think its members believe their mission entitles them to twist and distort any subject matter as long as it makes Communist China look bad thus its take on Covid which it believes was a deliberate Communist China created weapon.

Look I am no fan of Mainland China politics. I understand China persecutes people for their religious and political beliefs including unfair detention and torture. I do not downplay that. In fact I would argue the myths regarding Covid were spread by China and Russia for political reasons with articles below to source my stated albeit second hand opinions.

However I back Muchado's comments. Neither of us are here to defend China just ask the subject matter of Covid be dealt with credibly and by not using propaganda sites that do not provide medical evidence for their assertions.

Let us repeat what the vast majority of the world's health care providers have advised:
i-covid like SARS, swine, bird fu, was spread from contact with the blood, urine and feces of animals left open in unhygienic conditions in open markets in China;
ii-it is passed easily on through hand to hand contact, sneezing, breathing in confined spaces and so airplanes, trains, incubators, closed recycled air buildings all serve as incubators for it;
iii-more such viruses are on the way and the current covid continues to mutate.

Today's vaccines can quickly adapt to the new strains. They are NOT and were never presented as a cure. Like the current influenza vaccines, they can cut down on the severity of systems and the total number of days of being contagious with the virus and so capable of passing it on. Because it can be without symptoms or very minor ones now people are vaccinated, it can still be spread.

That said there is no substitute for washing hands, keeping safe distances and understanding the more you eat out or travel the chances of you catching it rises.

This topic should be dead but false stories never die on the internet. Like viruses they mutate and repeat with new features.

One must ask, who do these false reports on Covid help?

False covid stories upset, divide, all of us. Ask who that helps.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid-coronavirus-russia-china-1.5583961

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/18/russian-media-spreading-covid-19-disinformation

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/us/politics/russia-disinformation-coronavirus.html

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-china-covid-disinformation-campaigns/31590996.html

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/02/ukraine-biolabs-conspiracy-theory-qanon/

https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

 

Talk about misinformation...