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? 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 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/ Corereport: 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 professor, @theNAMedicine member, @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. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
