In all fairness to the conversation, posting tweets is not equivalent to posting scientific peer-reviewed studies.
Proprietary COVID-19 and Vaccine thread
- Thread starter FresnoGator
- Start date
Can't resist...if you post something that might suggest criticism of the vaccine, it's sort of peer reviewed.
All good…As long as it is in good spirits I’m down.
Which explains why no one can answer my questions…did those phase 3 projects catch the risk of myocarditis? Blood clots?
You mean the phase 3 trials? Usually phase 3 trials catch things like that but not always. Sometimes when you’re N is only 400 You might miss something that is clinically significant with a sample size of say 10,000 or 100,000 or 1 million. No research study is perfect. As alluded to before. But with a sample size of 400 you can determine something effectiveness and safety with a very high probability and a confidence interval with P value better than 0.05.
In the end there’s no way to give you 100% guarantee that anything and everything you do in life will never cause you harm. But we have given on the magnitude of I think it’s 32 billion doses of vaccines now with very few issues. in particular not lingering long-term issues, that we have found to date.
But again valid points and you Gotta make the best decision for you. It’s just hard on our end because we see the ones that chose not to be vaccinated not doing well but we also don’t see the thousands that weren’t vaccinated that survive without having to go to the hospital so our view is skewed. But the research does strongly favor the effectiveness of the vaccine and the safety of the vaccine for what it’s worth.
Peer-reviewed studies aren't worth much if the people reviewing them are activists.
I get your point, but my point has validity as well.
Even with a lot of the information presented here, there's almost an air of "You clearly aren't educated or smart enough to understand what these numbers mean, here, let me hold your hand and walk you through it".
Most people are smarter than we give them credit for. The dummies are the ones that took the shot immediately without question, or rejected it immediately without question.
Anyone still on the fence is smart enough that you give them the facts, and not the commentary on what you think the facts mean (or what you want them to think the facts mean).
'You' meaning anyone.
Self awareness and intelligence are obviously mutually exclusive personality traits.
Thanks for proving my point. Bonus points for not being smart enough to realize you were, as you did. LOL
Logically, this reminds me of the 'skeptical regress'. Man, we have to agree on some point of objective truth even without the benefit of certainty. Peer-reviewed studies definitely are fallible, but we are talking about a human endeavor in which fallibility is the constant. The scientific method is the best thing we have in determining what is likely true. Much more rigorous than tweets.
I am not trying to convince you of anything, whether to get vaccinated or not. I am focused upon reaching a mutually logical conclusion based upon the real evidence at hand.
At some point, logic has to prevail because ultimately the stakes are high. You have every right to be skeptical. Healthy skepticism is the key to truth. But simply dismissing mountains of evidence because disproportionately small amounts of counter evidence exists is illogical.
I'm not asking you to be a sheep, or to be deceived. I am asking you to apply the same weight of consideration for the evidence on both sides of the argument and go forward from there.
For me, the evidence is overwhelming - and I was strongly anti-vax initially. The proper skeptic is one that is confident in what he or she knows, but is also willing to change their minds in the face of compelling evidence.
Be well and Go Gators.
And there in lies the Essence between good and bad science.
Or good and bad logic.
Bad logic or flawed logic, A.k.a. bad science, proposes a hypothesis, develops a theory, and then amends the research to fit the theory.
good logic, a.k.a. good research, proposes a hypothesis, develops a theory, and then amend the theory to fit the research.
It is dangerous to fall in love with your theories.
This is all too common, and debilitating to logic. When the conclusion drives the selection of evidence rather than evidence driving the conclusion, objective truth cannot be observed.
Small sample in favor of my preconceived conclusion? Ha! Smoking gun!!
Small sample in favor of an opposing position? Bullshit.
True logic favors nobody. It is what it is.
Way too frequent a problem these days. You are either somebody that bends your conclusions to fit the truth or the truths to fit your conclusions. One is the pathway to enlightenment the other is the pathway to Ignorance.
The open mind versus the closed mind.
This is why I wish logic, formal and informal, along with the scientific method was emphasized in grade school. We would be so much better off.
Too busy teaching kids what to think and not how to think. I live 30 minutes from Loudoun County VA, ask me how I know.
In business, we have found that whenever someone is considering a major purchase (a new car, a new house, where to send a child to college), that the person will do copious amounts of research. Into all options.
But AFTER the purchase decision is made, something interesting happens. Any further research that the person makes about the purchase is likely to confirm they made the right choice. They stop seeking out information both pro and con on the product, and now start paying attention to only information that is positive about the product they just bought.
I think we are seeing the same thing here, in fact I know we are. The 'purchase decision' in this case was getting or not getting the shot. Everyone did their research, but after the decision was made, then we start looking only for information that VALIDATES to us that we made the right decision.
Let's be honest, if someone got the shot, after they got the shot, would they still continue to research if getting the shot was bad for them? Of course not. They don't want to hear that, they want to hear that THEY MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE.
This is why your idea that we all have to be objective enough to agree that some sources of information are simply credible is fallacy. That will only happen if your group only consists of people that did or did not get the shot. Once you mix the two groups, there will be disagreements over the validity of the information provided.
That's just the way it is.
Let me give you an example: Last year there was a study that came out that showed the effectiveness of HCQ in treating covid. One of the claimed doctors here immediately dismissed the study's findings, saying it was merely an observational study, and therefore worthless.
Fine.
Then a few weeks ago, that same poster promoted here a study that said that the shots were effective treatment against covid.
It was an observational study. The poster embraced this one because it told him what he wanted to hear.
If we have made our decision to get or not get the shot, we are all in 'tell me I made the right choice' mode. So any information to the contrary will most likely be dismissed simply because of how the information jives with our decision.
This is just simple human nature.
Yes, confirmation bias is a common psychological phenomenon. Where you keep missing the mark, as it pertains to my posts, is that you are stating your assumptions as facts, and you are misinterpreting what I am saying. I do not have the idea that we have to agree on any given source of information. My idea is that we bring valid sources to the table and have a reasonable discussion about those sources.
As I said, being a healthy skeptic is a good thing. Becoming psychologically entrenched in a position and dismissing contrary evidence out of hand is not a good thing.
If you have evidence, share it and let's discuss its merit, like the study I posted where @jfegaly mentioned the limitations. That kind of back and forth is where the discussion should lie if it were to be beneficial IMO.
But what I have seen is questioning the research and statistical validity without even acknowledging that it is impactful and has merit, even if there are flaws.
Coupled with the posting of non-scientific information not done with research that comes from tweets and then claiming that has the same validity as actual scientific research.
Or posting things that come from magazines like Vox They don’t even “the research study that they’re getting their information they’re writing about so that you can go to the source and appropriately vet it’s validity.
True. The quality of the source is important. Utilizing the best information available keeps the conversation much more legitimate.
Great post. Lack of condescending tone is noted and appreciated.
Here's a skeptical person's balance sheet on the subject.
What we know:
- Early peer reviewed studies showed good efficacy and a solid safety profile short term.
- While the definition of efficacy changed, the numbers on hospitalizations and deaths clearly show the vaccine does help you avoid serious outcomes, but it's not necessarily foolproof (but what is? this is a man made virus and it's very new).
- There have been 4.2BB doses administered worldwide. I trust that tracking. If these shots were highly deadly short term it would be impossible to hide.
- Compare that to the known, tracked cases and the recorded deaths and the virus seems more dangerous than the vaccine short term. However, I'm skeptical of these numbers even in the US. Throw in other countries (like China) and I really don't trust them. I also don't think we've recorded all C19 infections - labs misreport, people don't get tested, lab tests may not be available to everyone, I have my doubts about PCR testing, etc. So the denominator might be many times higher than we know.
- Early studies missed side effects that are now listed on the safety data sheets for all 3 vaccines.
What we don't know:
- The mechanism these vaccines use has been researched since 1993 and has been in trials since 2003. To my knowledge no drug, treatment or vaccine has ever rec'd formal approval. Why?
- We have no good tracking of adverse effects. Our tracking system isn't monitored or verified. If you trust those numbers these treatments are scary. If you don't, then you're sort of "flying blind" with only half the required info to make an informed decision. It would be nice if we monitored the treatment as much as the disease. I'm not sure if the British Yellow Flag system is any more trustworthy than VAERS, but those numbers aren't great. Worse, any sharing of info about someone who had a reaction is wiped from the internet. So now we're left digging in the dark recesses to get info - not always the best place to get info.
- We don't know if there are any long term effects - despite nearly 30 years of R&D on this type of treatment. Video above shows what @gator1776 described as "interesting lab analysis" regarding spike proteins and organ tissue inflammation but it's far from conclusive. Wouldn't it behoove good science to look into this more deeply? When that doesn't happen the skeptic says "well I guess the medical community is using the 'greater good' mentality, I sure hope I'm not a guinea pig here".
- The ability for the vaccinated to infect others has been a bit of moving target, reducing the community benefit argument a bit.
- ADE so far hasn't been identified, but even the CDC hasn't closed the book on the possibility (although I think we'd know by now).
- Mandates. Easiest way to get an American to tell you to fvck off is to try to make them do something. Literally anything. Many of us are very uncompliant people - not selfish, but free to a fault. Colleges, NYC, Healthcare and Schools...both masking and vaccines. It isn't helping.
Given this balance sheet I'm not sure how any person can make a totally informed decision, especially if they are young and healthy. The math changes as you get older and sicker. My situation is I'm straddling that line. Every risk factor is another bullet in the chamber as you play viral Russian roulette vs entering a late-stage vaccine trial. I envy the decision being easy for some on either side. I change my mind about 3 times per day on the subject - I've literally been to the last page to schedule an appt with the Frederick County Health Dept about 5 times and bailed. It sucks.
I've been a Marketing professional for over 20 years and post-purchase confirmation bias is 100% a real thing, and it's directly correlated with the size of the purchase and the research done.
If you add in the fact that this is internal and not external, sprinkle in politics and passion - you have the situation we're in now. It's a mess.
I have to jump into a meeting, but this is a great post that I want to spend some time giving it its proper consideration. Thank you for taking the time to put this together. I will put my thoughts together that hopefully adds to your excellent points.
Shocking New Study Reveals Covid ‘Vaccines’ Do Permanent Damage to 62% of Recipients
https://uncanceled.news/shocking-ne...ines-do-permanent-damage-to-62-of-recipients/
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
- Dr. Charles Hoffe, a family physician from Lytton, British Columbia, told health officials that his patients were suffering adverse effects from the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines
- Hoffe was quickly accused of causing “vaccine hesitancy” and local health authorities threatened to report him to the licensing body
- The spike protein in the vaccine can lead to the development of multiple, tiny blood clots because it becomes part of the cell wall of your vascular endothelium; these cells are supposed to be smooth so that your blood flows smoothly, but the spike protein means there are “spiky bits sticking out”
- Hoffe has been conducting the D-dimer test on his patients to detect the potential presence of blood clots within four to seven days of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine; 62% have evidence of clotting
- The long-term outlook is very grim, Hoffe said, because with each successive shot, it will add more damage as you’re getting more damaged capillaries
And as I said, we as a group are likely never going to agree on what those 'valid' sources are.
Validity will be determined in great part by WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS.
That's just reality here.
And everyone here is stating assumptions as if they were facts. Including you.
Bingo. And in this case, this is a health decision, so that makes it an emotional one. Which magnifies the desire to believe I made the right choice, and shut out sources of information that aren't telling me what I want to hear.
Applies to everyone here, to differing degrees.
This is precisely what the doctors here have done, they have offered what they claimed were their personal observations from treating covid patients.
Maybe if the sample size is 15, it becomes more credible?
Crap. I really hope this is completely untrue.
If true, we basically have two shitty options.
Edit: I wonder if a certain dose of aspirin after getting the vaccine should be considered?
Edit Edit: I still think getting at least one full vaccination might be indicated to hopefully gain T and B cells against Covid...? But this goes to the heart of my question - do we know what happens if we keep pumping people full of spike proteins with booster after booster?
Last edited:
Let me clarify something that I think is important, for 'valid', I am considering this in the sense of quality of data (scientific, not tweets) more so than just a subjective assessment of the source itself. In other words, setting a minimum threshold of source credibility in order for it to be entered into the conversation. Definitely not saying that, so long as the credibility requirement is met, that we have to agree on the validity of that source's conclusions (or that we will ever agree).
Again, I am not trying to convince you to change your mind. I am mainly concerned with fleshing out your argument in a way that anyone else who (dares) read this thread can get something out of it from both perspectives and make an informed conclusion on their own.
Then I assume you might get into the bleed-out scenario. Not sure if that's valid, but just a thought.
I’m a bit busy today to play these games. Will look at it later if I have time.
But you are correct, one Dr reported something is not scientific research for what it’s worth. Doesn’t is not worth looking at and investigating further.
Info on the Yellow Card Scheme in the UK.
The British gov't is much more transparent than ours. To start, they admit that people have died from adverse reactions to the vaccine. I've seen medical professionals here claim that number is zero many times. That's not helpful.
The British gov't is much more transparent than ours. To start, they admit that people have died from adverse reactions to the vaccine. I've seen medical professionals here claim that number is zero many times. That's not helpful.
I think we should also step back in time and gather some wisdom into the whole Covid/vaccine process and the intent behind it. It never was/is about health. It was always about control. Our government is in bed with the powerful leaders spinning this world who want complete control and couldn't care less about our health. But, of course, we are being programmed into seeing the health aspect because it does produce sickness and death that triggers the responses and the desired outcome they were looking for. It's a perfect way to control, not like the failed attempt with "Global warming turned into Global climate change." That didn't have the impact of global control they wanted. This process will continue until the desired outcome is achieved. Lovely.
ZFC, I don't have the medical knowledge to make an intelligent assertion either way. Just thinking if you can reduce the platelet's ability to stick to the spikes it might reduce clotting.
I just hope the concept of spike proteins getting caught up in the capillaries of important organs is BS. If it's not...this could be really nasty down the road.
That domain was just registered a few months ago.
Domain Information
- Name: uncanceled.news
- Internationalized Domain Name: uncanceled.news
- Registry Domain ID: 1df2c9a003094db8a8524f04961b89f8-DONUTS
- Domain Status:
clientDeleteProhibited
clientRenewProhibited
clientTransferProhibited
clientUpdateProhibited - Nameservers:
rodney.ns.cloudflare.com
mallory.ns.cloudflare.com
- Registry Expiration: 2022-02-21 11:28:26 UTC
- Updated: 2021-02-28 23:06:08 UTC
- Created: 2021-02-21 11:28:26 UTC
Of course, the negative response I expected. I can't wait until you declare it bogus and I can sleep on that with peacefulness.
Similar threads
