On Wed, 21 Dec 2022 at 11:57, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> I have had the Pfizer shots and advocate these for most of our population. > On the other hand, if some people have allergic reactions to these shots > causing clotting and cardiomyopathy, why would anyone sane demand that they > take medicine that will surely kill them? What kind of people demand > loyalty unto death, for a public medical policy that doesn't differentiate > for example about physiological or genetic susceptibility? > Clotting disorders and cardiomyopathy are not allergic reactions. You would not know that you would have these problems before you had them, otherwise of course you would not have the vaccine. You would have the vaccine because the risk of harm from it is a lot less than the risk of harm from the virus. The practice of inoculation with active smallpox, which preceded the invention of vaccination, carried a risk of severe disease and death, but it was used because the risk was still less than infection by respiratory spread. > > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34908713/ > > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34921468/ > > > https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html > > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35655235/ > > Thus, all we need to do to reassure people is the willingness, so far > undemonstrated by the CDC and NIH and Joey, to fund for testing those who > might be vulnerable? It may be worth it medically speaking once identified > to switch to other modalities. Astra-Zenica, the Chinese crap (50% > effective) taking Paxlovid, masking up? > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dylan Distasio <interz...@gmail.com> > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Sent: Tue, Dec 20, 2022 1:47 pm > Subject: Re: Death, science, and politics > > I'd point out that the large majority of people in the US now have > concerns over these particular vaccines based on how public health policy > has been conducted over the last 2+ years. You may be disappointed to > find out that it's not just righty wingnuts who are questioning the > reliability and veracity of public health agencies due to how they > comported themselves, especially now that people have the benefit of > hindsight. The CDC in particular has done an incredible amount of damage > to their previously sterling reputation. > > US CDC data show that while about 69% of the US population has completed > the primary 2-dose vaccine series, only about 14% of people aged 5 and > older have received the updated booster. > > This might have been avoided if public health agencies had avoided > allowing themselves to be politicized, and been upfront about what they > could know with certainty throughout this process, and honest enough to > admit where things were not as clear cut. > > Instead of basing policy that would have a huge impact on businesses and > people's livelihoods on science, many decisions were made arbitrarily: > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-six-foot-social-distancing-rule-was-arbitrary-says-former-fda-commissioner/?sh=2059263ae8e6 > > They also disregarded natural immunity in regard to setting policy because > it would overcomplicate things, and because in their opinion, people were > too stupid to have a nuanced conversation on it. > > Instead of attempting an honest discussion and allowing those with > concerns to voice them and potentially be refuted in the public square and > in the literature, they, in concert, with the mainstream press attempted to > squash any efforts to do so. Anyone who expressed any concerns was > publicly demonized by politicians, public figures, and the press. > > It also didn't help that they changed the long standing definition of a > vaccine (and no, I'm not buying their explanation and I doubt many others > are): > > https://www.newswest9.com/article/news/verify/coronavirus-verify/cdc-changed-vaccine-definition-more-transparent/ > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 12:42 PM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 11:39 AM spudboy100 via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > * > Statically we are looking at 1/100 of vaccine recipients. That a lot > of people sick and then dead.* > > > *BULLSHIT! *And it is people just like you spreading this sort of quack > medical advice that is killing people, thousands and thousands of people > every fucking day. > > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > uty > > > > > Such a nice little proggie puppet! > > Delightfully cheering. > > It looks great for DeSantis. If people oppose him, it won't be for have a > grand jury look at the malpractices of the Dem party funder$. > > Back to the science article, and we are talking about 2 things. > Statically we are looking at 1/100 of vaccine recipients. That a lot of > people sick and then dead. Secondly, these are young people. who went along > and then died. No pre-screening, just Dem insistence and coercion about > taking the drug. People, including families of those who may have been > killed, will likely seek retribution. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> > To: spudboy...@aol.com; everything-list@googlegroups.com < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Tue, Dec 20, 2022 2:51 am > Subject: Re: Fwd: Death, science, and politics > > > > On 12/19/2022 11:08 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: > > The language is Hindi I believe. > > > That's all you've got say about your Champion. > > There are others looking at the vaccines more carefully than you and John. > Advocacy journalism follows: > > https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-study-covid-vaccine-blood-clot-elderly-et/ > Core report: > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22014931 > > > Typical bad medical statistics. They set a threshold for significance of > 1% false positive, but then applied it to 14 different "outcomes". If > there's a 1% chance of error that's 99% chance of no error...on each test. > So the probability of finding at least one false positive is 0.99^14=0.869 > or 13%. > > And what is the only "outcome" they identified as significant: Pulmonary > embolism in in the inpatient setting. In other words vaccinated persons > who were also inpatients had a significantly higher risk of PE. Don't > suppose it could have anything to do with lying prone a lot, or being in a > hospital with other sick people. > > > Counter argument- > DeSantis' anti-vax grand jury petition suggests that a rise in > cardiac-related mortality in young people might be caused by vaccines. Of > course, if you actually look at the study, you'll see—shockingly—that the > rise predates vaccination. Because it's mostly due to COVID itself. > > I am willing to find out whether it (the vax) does or does not present a > danger to a minority of the public. > > Define "danger". One in chance in a thousand? ten thousand? hundred > thousand? > > > Bhattacharya is a prof at Stanford and that is one thing neither you nor I > are. > > And I know statistics which neither you nor he do. > > > For the democrat practice of character assassination (which work great for > your team members but not ours) there is Professor Makary, at Johns > Hopkins, who sides with Bhattacharya. > > > Oh well, now I'm really impressed there's some other guy who's taken > sides. Too bad nobody has an argument or data. > > > @JohnsHopkins <https://twitter.com/JohnsHopkins> > professor, > @theNAMedicine <https://twitter.com/theNAMedicine> > member, > @harvardchansph <https://twitter.com/harvardchansph> > alum, author of 2 NYT bestselling books. Honest debate is healthy, I can > be persuaded > > > "Lancet study of Covid+ and - teens found “poor well-being, fatigue & > Long COVID were broadly similar” but loneliness increased steadily. Take > home message—Long-covid is not the mass disabling complication that has > permanently damaged a generation of children, social isolation is." > All I want is to find out so as to save lives. > > > If that were true you'd be advocating that all the unvaccinated Trumpkins > get vaccinations. > > It would seem that practicing public health should be adjustable to > discoveries in medical science. > Seems sensible at first blush. Unless there are underlying financial or > obsessive-compulsive disorders happening? > Or, more directly to your flavor of your discussions: (Get Ready..) > If ya want Trump back, this is how ya get More Trump!!! (Laughter placed > here) :" Bwah ha hah hah hah...." > Meanwhile,in a home in Florida-DeSantis Saves, Jesus too? Moses Invests, > & Elvis Surfs > Meaning, if you wish to hurt DeSantis and now you may be on Don's side in > this, you won't hurt his chances by focusing on his grand jury move. He'd > have to look weak against Newsome of Cal. The only thing Newsome has > going for him is that he has been far, more, active, than Joe-Kamala on > Renewable energy. How significant in 24 will this be, we have way of > knowing now. As one dem pollster said back on November 10th, if DeSantis > can beat Trump in the primaries, there is no one on the Democratic side > that can beat him. > > And they're saying De Sanctimonious has no chance against The Stable > Genius. > > Why do you bother to type this made up shit? > > Brent > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/810555212.683349.1671554347844%40mail.yahoo.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/810555212.683349.1671554347844%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Tp%2BD6dfhEAGxyRQKDEOBPz%3D4uZPwbbwvEhGyeaSD3oA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Tp%2BD6dfhEAGxyRQKDEOBPz%3D4uZPwbbwvEhGyeaSD3oA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJrqPH-gxxuCuubL_a3cDA1xinjJJm-bWySc3tNRARuKZ%3DA0yQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJrqPH-gxxuCuubL_a3cDA1xinjJJm-bWySc3tNRARuKZ%3DA0yQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/38859130.255915.1671584253871%40mail.yahoo.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/38859130.255915.1671584253871%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypUERKK8Jq12JKKqyKiG46e1-Rm_72Bn0RhtDfVBw_-Byg%40mail.gmail.com.
