One-Third of U.S. Troops Have Declined Covid Vaccine, Pentagon Says

Are you not aware of the reported risks and side-effects that are already documented? And then is the fact that they have not been fully tested over the long-term.

 

The link you provide (the part I can see without joining the consent default) looks like a commercial promo, not an actual non-biased study.

 

Everything has become binary for most of the Lefties I've encountered online. My lack of respect for that political persuasion isn't about what they believe as much as it flows from their desire to compel others to do as THEY do and say. I guess that once people are indoctrinated in hate for the "other", it's easy to disregard their right to disagree. It truly is an astonishing level of arrogance and they don't seem to even be self-aware enough to see the negative side for themselves.

 

Look, almost all research papers end with "more research is needed." I know because I author them too. Science is always evolving, one finding on top of the other. It is bad form to pretend that something is definitive. Elegantly, we keep saying this, at the end. And the non-peer-reviewed part, is very common with Covid-19. Given the galloping speed of the pandemic, it's been a gentleman's agreement that we'll publish studies ahead of print and ahead of peer review. But then eventually they will all get peer-reviewed. It's a time-consuming process and the pandemic can't wait.

 

I provided a lay-journalist account, not the actual study. Here is one of the two studies:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00448-7/fulltext
Sometimes I publish studies and people complain that they are too difficult to read and understand. Sometimes I oblige and publish lay-journalist accounts, and then people complain that I didn't provide the actual study. One can't win.
Of course one way is to provide both, which I'm doing now. Satisfied?
Now, the other one seems to have been just *announced* by Israel's Health Ministry. I've been unable to find a copy of this one. Maybe it's still being finalized ahead of submission. I do have a report by an Israeli newspaper:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-says-vaccine-dramatically-effective-prevents-98-9-of-covid-deaths/?source=content_type:react|first_level_url:news|section:main_content|button:body_link
------
Adding more: Seems like the study leaked ahead of submission. Here:
"The unpublished, 22-page report was first obtained by Nadav Eyal, a prominent Israeli journalist, who described the findings on Thursday and published screenshots of the text on Twitter.

Pfizer did not confirm the authenticity of the study document. Its lead authors are Sharon Alroy-Preis, head of public health for Israel’s health ministry, and Eric Haas, a ministry researcher. In addition, the study was carried out by a team of eight Pfizer researchers, including epidemiologists Farid Khan and John McLaughlin and the company’s global medical lead for covid vaccines, David Swerdlow, an infectious disease expert previously with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

https://www.technologyreview.com/20...ring-covid-19-in-its-largest-real-world-test/

 

Neither right nor left is innocent.

 

Welcome to the free-of-charge discussion forum.

Nope.

 

But it's not about them. Vaccination for herd immunity is a numbers game.

 

Then why are those vaccinated still told to wear mask and social distance?

 

https://www.health.com/condition/in...navirus/wear-mask-after-getting-covid-vaccine

 

Yes, they are already considering bribes for youngsters to take the experimental drugs. California is discussing cancelling student loans for those who take the shot. Bribing the troops will not be anything new, as you've mentioned.

 

You ask too many questions.

 

Well, of course there are risks and side effects, like in every medication or vaccine known to men. But the other side of this, is the also documented benefits. In Medicine, everything is a benefits/risk ratio. In the case of these vaccines the benefits far far far far outweigh the risks.

 

This thread is about people who have already experienced dishonesty in industry and are unwilling to take the chance.

You are being dishonest yourself now because you do not know the benefit-risk value but claim that you do.

 

Whaaaat? First, this is a personal attack, not allowed by the rules here. You do you. I won't retaliate by personally attacking you, but please put down the personal attack of calling me dishonest. I'm anything but.

Second, I'm a medical scientist precisely in this field, MD/PhD with 40 years of experience, and you think I don't know the risks/benefits ratio of these vaccines? Since I am involved with both academic research AND directly provided medical care of Covid-19 patients, yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

You might want to consult my posting history to browse the extensive technical details I've repeatedly explained to people who asked, such as my State of the Vaccines thread, my SARS-CoV-2 variants thread (you can find both in the Coronavirus Pandemic Discussions subforum - not news; discussions), and many others (including Virology and Immunology details), and you'll easily notice that my expertise is for real.

I've addressed the risks here many times, ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement), transverse myelitis, thrombocytopenia, anaphylaxis, etc., and talked about the frequency of their occurrence with these vaccines. I also detailed - showing a large number of scientific studies, the real ones, not merely journalistic reports about them - the consequences of an infection by the SARS-CoV-2 that get avoided by the vaccine, even for those who don't die from the disease (myocarditis, clotting disorders, pulmonary fibrosis, neurocognitive problems, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple inflammatory syndrome, etc.). So, the risks/benefits ratio is evidenced by the statistical rarity of the adverse reactions versus the frequency of problems caused by the virus.

Why do you think you can summarily dismiss my 40 years of expertise with this assumption "you do not know..." "what you claim" etc.? Apparently you have no idea about what I do and don't know, so, browse my posting history at will for a good sample of my knowledge.

Yes, sure, not all people who claim expertise in an anonymous Internet forum are real-life experts... but you will probably soon realize that the depth and diversity of my demonstrated expertise is incompatible with faking it. You don't even need to go too far... take a look at post #48, here in this very thread. See if it looks to you like something a lay person would have authored.

 

<COMMENTS EDITED>

It is irrelevant.

No, I don't think that you do. To say "vaccines are beneficial" is too broad a statement and it only applies to any sort of medicine that has been proven. Not all vaccines that have been produced have been "beneficial" and some have been harmful or even deadly. That applies to both ineffectual medicines and the consequences of side-effects. To know the benefits of any intervention you need to know three fundamental things. In this case, these are:

1). Are the statistics trustworthy and non-biased, ie. non-political, non-commercial?
2). Have the percentages of recipients versus non-recipients been recorded?
3). Do the percentages (as in point #2) show a decrease in COVID 19 in a controlled environment?

It is difficult to know if point one can be established and point three has not been presented. <COMMENTS EDITED>

 

<COMMENTS EDITED>

Absolutely not. Expertise matters.

I'm talking about THESE vaccines, obviously. My thread "State of the Vaccines" is about vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 and it extensively analyses each one, with dozens of links to scientific studies. YOU are engaging in a fallacy here, as if I was talking about all vaccines, when the topic here is the SARS-CoV-2. I've extensively addressed elsewhere, for example, the Guillain-Barré Syndrome with the H1N1 vaccines. It's irrelevant to THESE vaccines we're talking about, now. Different platforms, (mRNA for Moderna and Pfizer, and non-replicant adenovirus vector DNA for Johnson and Johnson), different viruses.

I go by scientific studies, either peer-reviewed, or when not, I'm perfectly equipped to review them myself, given that I actually am a real-life peer-reviewer and I have been invited by many scientific journals to review studies authored by peers, over and over. You guys may operate from biased, political, or commercial sources. I operate from scientific sources. To know the benefits of any intervention what you actually need to know is the "number needed to treat" versus the "number needed to harm." Read up on these biostatistical concepts.

Of course. Both in controlled situations, and in real life.

Erm, you don't seem to know what a phase 3, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled study is. Get informed. And yes.

It may be difficult for you. Not for me. And point 3 has been presented, extensively. Go to my State of the Vaccine threads and get to the links to the FDA's advisory committee, which will show you the multi-page packages for each of the three approved vaccines, for the controlled environment parts. Then go to post #81 above for a couple of the real life ones (there's many more). If you don't understand it or don't know how to get to the information, it's not my problem, it's yours.
<COMMENTS EDITED>

I've done it extensively, here on PF (and in real life). EXTENSIVELY. I don't owe you any additional explanation.<COMMENTS EDITED>Have a nice and long and safe life (take the vaccine). Over and out forever, as far as you're concerned.

 

<COMMENT EDITED>The main issue is “One-Third of U.S. Troops Have Declined Covid Vaccine” as the OP makes clear.

I have stated the most likely reasons why they have “declined the vaccine” and I defend them and their reasoning behind it. Your purpose on this thread is something else as I've already noted and pointed out. A slightly off-topic agenda is probably the best way to describe it. Somewhere in left field … rather than centre.

Better to be more sympathetic to those who have "declined" and refrain from claiming by default that point 1 (statistic trustworthiness, bias, and political/commercial corruption) are no concern to anyone and play no part in the matter. This is only one reason why I used the term "dishonest". Either you are unaware of those implications .... or the term fits. Do you follow me?

“One-Third of U.S. Troops Have Declined Covid Vaccine” and it is no surprise at all. With so many instances of increasing political and commercial corruption - particularly in the medical industry - a growing number of people are less eager to accept anything stamped "official".

 

▶ According to a January analysis by Gallup, 51 percent of health care workers and first responders polled in December were unconvinced of the merits of getting vaccinated, even if the vaccine “was free, available, FDA approved and 90% effective.”

 

What percentage do we need for herd immunity?

49 percent of GOP men say they won't get vaccinated: PBS poll
https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...say-they-wont-get-vaccinated-pbs-poll.443257/