Coronavirus

[hector]

The non-vaccinated trended fatter, older, poorer, right.

Did they? Do we know this?

The most common reason I heard for not getting the vaccine was "I am young and healthy I will take my chances with covid."

The non-vaccinated certainly perceived themselves as younger and healthier in my experience.

I was definitely reading this back during Covid.
Except for the last descriptor “right”. I think that emerged later on.

[asdf]

The non-vaccinated trended fatter, older, poorer, right.

Did they? Do we know this?

The study cited was conducted on patients in a hospital in Iran. Personally, I know nothing about the demographics of the vaxxed vs. unvaxxed in Iran.

[hector]

The non-vaccinated trended fatter, older, poorer, right.

Did they? Do we know this?

The study cited was conducted on patients in a hospital in Iran. Personally, I know nothing about the demographics of the vaxxed vs. unvaxxed in Iran.

Same. I’m only speaking to the weirdness that is America.

[SSJBartSimpson]

https://newsnationnow.com/health/corona ... s-doctors/

So excited for in a year when all the data starts to show that vaccinated people are 10x less likely to develop the rare cancers linked to COVID and people are still looking for a reason to be skeptical of the vaccine.

[acorn93]

https://newsnationnow.com/health/corona ... s-doctors/

So excited for in a year when all the data starts to show that vaccinated people are 10x less likely to develop the rare cancers linked to COVID and people are still looking for a reason to be skeptical of the vaccine.

Quick google search says 72.3% of the world got at least partially vaccinated (as of March 2023). That’s over 5.5 billion people. How many world COVID cases have been reported as of today? This website says ~700mil as of last reported https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/. Does this reflect the absolute amount of cases? Probably not but it’s the data we have. What’s more likely to explain excess deaths including those from cancers: over 5.5 billion vaccinations (reported a year ago) or less than a billion cases of COVID (reported a month ago)? Let’s say hypothetically it is the latter: did the COVID vaccine prevent people from getting COVID? The CDC doesn’t even make that claim anymore. “COVID 19-vaccines are effective at protecting people from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying. Vaccination remains the safest strategy for avoiding hospitalizations, long-term health outcomes, and death.” That’s straight from their website. Nowhere does that say you won’t catch/spread COVID like the mainstream originally claimed. The vaccine didn’t do what it originally set out to do. If they’re basing those claims off of articles like you linked earlier, then I’m skeptical of that website quote because I couldn’t even find the data that broke down comorbidities per group (they have total comorbidities for all subjects) and it looks like they lumped unvaccinated and partially vaccinated into its own group in table 4. Look, if I’m wrong I’ll admit I was wrong. But if I’m right I certainly won’t be celebrating all these people dying from cancer because they were forced/tricked into taking a vaccine that didn’t do what it was originally supposed to do. That Japanese article I linked earlier in the thread explains possible mechanisms from the technology to cause cancer. Saying it’s not even a possible explanation for the rise in cancer when we gave supposedly ~3/4ths of the world’s population new vaccine technology is ludicrous.

[KyleSchuant]

What’s more likely to explain excess deaths including those from cancers: over 5.5 billion vaccinations (reported a year ago) or less than a billion cases of COVID (reported a month ago)?

A billion delayed cancer screenings.

[Philbert]

https://newsnationnow.com/health/corona ... s-doctors/

So excited for in a year when all the data starts to show that vaccinated people are 10x less likely to develop the rare cancers linked to COVID and people are still looking for a reason to be skeptical of the vaccine.

Quick google search says 72.3% of the world got at least partially vaccinated (as of March 2023). That’s over 5.5 billion people. How many world COVID cases have been reported as of today? This website says ~700mil as of last reported https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/. Does this reflect the absolute amount of cases? Probably not but it’s the data we have. What’s more likely to explain excess deaths including those from cancers: over 5.5 billion vaccinations (reported a year ago) or less than a billion cases of COVID (reported a month ago)? Let’s say hypothetically it is the latter: did the COVID vaccine prevent people from getting COVID? The CDC doesn’t even make that claim anymore. “COVID 19-vaccines are effective at protecting people from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying. Vaccination remains the safest strategy for avoiding hospitalizations, long-term health outcomes, and death.” That’s straight from their website. Nowhere does that say you won’t catch/spread COVID like the mainstream originally claimed. The vaccine didn’t do what it originally set out to do. If they’re basing those claims off of articles like you linked earlier, then I’m skeptical of that website quote because I couldn’t even find the data that broke down comorbidities per group (they have total comorbidities for all subjects) and it looks like they lumped unvaccinated and partially vaccinated into its own group in table 4. Look, if I’m wrong I’ll admit I was wrong. But if I’m right I certainly won’t be celebrating all these people dying from cancer because they were forced/tricked into taking a vaccine that didn’t do what it was originally supposed to do. That Japanese article I linked earlier in the thread explains possible mechanisms from the technology to cause cancer. Saying it’s not even a possible explanation for the rise in cancer when we gave supposedly ~3/4ths of the world’s population new vaccine technology is ludicrous.

Acorn, do you have any idea how long it takes to get a cancer from oncogenesis to diagnosis, and from diagnosis to death? The Japanese article you linked was drawing correlations with a lead time of 4 months. This would represent a 30-90 fold increase in the rate of cancer development, which would be a truly remarkable finding. This applies to the "weird cancers after Covid" articles too, not just you. Note also I am not saying the infection or vaccines cannot be accelerating the growth of cancers, just that we cannot be seeing many cancers caused by either at this early point in our experience. And I am preemptively calling you out on motte and bailey fallacy on that, so don't even go there. And do you really think that 90% of the world population somehow avoided contracting Covid? Believing that would actually be ludicrous.

[Philbert]

What’s more likely to explain excess deaths including those from cancers: over 5.5 billion vaccinations (reported a year ago) or less than a billion cases of COVID (reported a month ago)?

A billion delayed cancer screenings.

And a substantial amount of care does not just get delayed. People schedule their next screening when the results come from the current screening. If the current screening is cancelled, with no new date set, a substantial number will never resume screening. I see this very frequently. And not just screening. Patient this week had gallstone pancreatitis, was supposed to have his gallbladder out 4 years ago, but got cancelled. Luckily a mild case, severe cases (1 in 5) have a mortality of ~20%

[SSJBartSimpson]

This applies to the "weird cancers after Covid" articles too, not just you. Note also I am not saying the infection or vaccines cannot be accelerating the growth of cancers, just that we cannot be seeing many cancers caused by either at this early point in our experience.

I was being tongue in cheek. But based on the way vaccines work, it wouldn't at all be suprising that the disease and the vaccine would have similar long term side effects; however, it is exceedingly obvious that whatever side effects you would get from the jab would be less harmful than if you got the disease without the vaccine, and the long term side effects from the disease while vaccinated would also be less detrimental.
Could the data a few years down the road show that the best possible option would have been to never get vaccinated and never catch the disease. Sure, I'll grant that's theroetically possible, but would be wholly irrelevent. You can't run a society like that.

[acorn93]

https://newsnationnow.com/health/corona ... s-doctors/

So excited for in a year when all the data starts to show that vaccinated people are 10x less likely to develop the rare cancers linked to COVID and people are still looking for a reason to be skeptical of the vaccine.

Quick google search says 72.3% of the world got at least partially vaccinated (as of March 2023). That’s over 5.5 billion people. How many world COVID cases have been reported as of today? This website says ~700mil as of last reported https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/. Does this reflect the absolute amount of cases? Probably not but it’s the data we have. What’s more likely to explain excess deaths including those from cancers: over 5.5 billion vaccinations (reported a year ago) or less than a billion cases of COVID (reported a month ago)? Let’s say hypothetically it is the latter: did the COVID vaccine prevent people from getting COVID? The CDC doesn’t even make that claim anymore. “COVID 19-vaccines are effective at protecting people from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying. Vaccination remains the safest strategy for avoiding hospitalizations, long-term health outcomes, and death.” That’s straight from their website. Nowhere does that say you won’t catch/spread COVID like the mainstream originally claimed. The vaccine didn’t do what it originally set out to do. If they’re basing those claims off of articles like you linked earlier, then I’m skeptical of that website quote because I couldn’t even find the data that broke down comorbidities per group (they have total comorbidities for all subjects) and it looks like they lumped unvaccinated and partially vaccinated into its own group in table 4. Look, if I’m wrong I’ll admit I was wrong. But if I’m right I certainly won’t be celebrating all these people dying from cancer because they were forced/tricked into taking a vaccine that didn’t do what it was originally supposed to do. That Japanese article I linked earlier in the thread explains possible mechanisms from the technology to cause cancer. Saying it’s not even a possible explanation for the rise in cancer when we gave supposedly ~3/4ths of the world’s population new vaccine technology is ludicrous.

Acorn, do you have any idea how long it takes to get a cancer from oncogenesis to diagnosis, and from diagnosis to death? The Japanese article you linked was drawing correlations with a lead time of 4 months. This would represent a 30-90 fold increase in the rate of cancer development, which would be a truly remarkable finding. This applies to the "weird cancers after Covid" articles too, not just you. Note also I am not saying the infection or vaccines cannot be accelerating the growth of cancers, just that we cannot be seeing many cancers caused by either at this early point in our experience. And I am preemptively calling you out on motte and bailey fallacy on that, so don't even go there. And do you really think that 90% of the world population somehow avoided contracting Covid? Believing that would actually be ludicrous.

I don’t think the vaccines were safe and effective. I do think the rise in cancer/excess deaths could be linked to vaccines especially the over prescription of them. I’ve said that a few times. I don’t think I have explicitly stated by what mechanism for the COVID vaccines because I don’t know. If 70+% of the world was vaccinated and you say 90% of the world got COVID, then did the vaccines actually work? The vaccines were supposed to end the pandemic by stopping the spread. They didn’t work this way. Hence they were not effective. In that Japanese study I linked they suggested that at least one of the age groups that had a rise in cancer deaths also had high vaccination rates. I’m not an oncologist. I don’t understand the mechanisms behind developing cancer. You’re saying don’t go here but people are referring to a lot of these cancers as “turbo cancers” correct? Wikipedia, which is very mainstream, calls this an antivax conspiracy theory but also used to label lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory and still describes it as such. I cannot tell you if the process of developing cancer is accelerating and at what rate. I believe the authors in the study mention how Japan has some of the highest cancer rates in the world. They also had some of the highest vaccination rates. They’re saying they saw a rise in cases/death after vaccine roll out. They explain mechanisms that could cause cancer as it relates to the vaccine. I don’t fully understand the process. You describe this as not possible because the development of cancer is too slow normally. You’re saying don’t go here but that would be accelerated based on your definition. You’re making that argument for me. That case report I linked earlier saw quick development at the site of injection. Again I know you’re saying don’t go here but that is acceleration of cancer development after vaccination in a patient with history of cancer. Yes I understand you’re suggesting death in this scenario would be even slower. That is a reasonable consideration. But when we’re using new vaccine technology never used on that kind of scale with people, why is it a crazy thought that maybe there is a link? There is huge push back on this idea. If you’re trying to argue there isn’t, then we will agree to disagree. Gun to my head, this is my argument as it relates to the COVID vaccines: the vaccines were not effective because they did not achieve the goal they were set out to do (stop the spread; side note: I also question their ability to reduce severity which is what the goal posts were changed to at some point but place less stock in this argument) and I don’t think they were safe for a couple of reasons: 1. they downplayed the adverse effects/risk:reward in some populations and 2. because I do think they are linked with the rise in cancer/excess deaths, but I cannot fully explain to you how and to what extent. The information I provided explains possibilities. You decided to extrapolate that they’re suggesting an exponential increase in the rate of developing cancer and quick death. I may be wrong and if I am I will admit I was wrong.

[EricK]

@acorn93, it seems a little disingenuous to say, flatly that the vaccines were ineffective. That's way too general. They did not reduce rates of infection or transmission but they definitely reduced severity of infection thereby reducing the number of hospitalizations and deaths from the disease. You can certainly criticize anyone who said it reduced the spread if they did or should have known that it didn't, because that's just as bad as trying to say it is ineffective.

I think the point that @SSJBartSimpson was making earlier is that if there are long term effects of getting the disease with or without the vaccine, at least with the vaccine you drastically reduce the severity of the disease while you have it. That sure seems like a clear advantage to me.

[acorn93]

@acorn93, it seems a little disingenuous to say, flatly that the vaccines were ineffective. That's way too general. They did not reduce rates of infection or transmission but they definitely reduced severity of infection thereby reducing the number of hospitalizations and deaths from the disease. You can certainly criticize anyone who said it reduced the spread if they did or should have known that it didn't, because that's just as bad as trying to say it is ineffective.

I think the point that @SSJBartSimpson was making earlier is that if there are long term effects of getting the disease with or without the vaccine, at least with the vaccine you drastically reduce the severity of the disease while you have it. That sure seems like a clear advantage to me.

Was the suggested purpose of lockdowns not to slow infections down until a vaccine was made to actually stop the spread? What you’re saying the vaccines are effective at was not what was initially suggested by MSM. Could something have been misinterpreted by MSM? Of course. But are we basing effectiveness off of the old standards or new standards? If the old standards apply, then they were not effective. If we’re talking about the new standards, how effective is practically significant? I do question the claim that it reduces severity of infection but am willing to concede. I asked if someone could point out if the article provided by @SSJBartSimpson has the raw data provided on the comorbidities of each group (they list comorbidities of total subjects as far as I can see) so I can compare with own eyes. I also asked if I am wrong in interpreting how the researchers grouped incomplete vaccination in table 4 (was it just partial vaccination or did they also lump unvaccinated in this group?).@Philbert seems knowledgeable on the subject, perhaps he can help clear things up regarding that.

[acorn93]

@EricK do you think mandating the vaccine was appropriate for what you’re saying the benefits of it are?

[SSJBartSimpson]

Just curious about what your educational background @acorn93?

[acorn93]

@SSJBartSimpson I already stated that in a previous post when the subject of anti-academia was brought up. I’m almost done my orthopedic residency in physical therapy. That’s ~8 years of higher level learning: 4 undergrad, 3 graduate, and ~1 post-graduate. I am not a medical doctor but I am a doctor in my field working on specializing in orthopedics. I would say I have a basic understanding on this topic and I don’t claim to be an expert on oncology or virology. I’m just skeptical of a government and industry that has a record of lying to us and financial incentive to do so.

[EricK]

acorn93, it seems a little disingenuous to say, flatly that the vaccines were ineffective. That's way too general. They did not reduce rates of infection or transmission but they definitely reduced severity of infection thereby reducing the number of hospitalizations and deaths from the disease. You can certainly criticize anyone who said it reduced the spread if they did or should have known that it didn't, because that's just as bad as trying to say it is ineffective.

I think the point that SSJBartSimpson was making earlier is that if there are long term effects of getting the disease with or without the vaccine, at least with the vaccine you drastically reduce the severity of the disease while you have it. That sure seems like a clear advantage to me.

Was the suggested purpose of lockdowns not to slow infections down until a vaccine was made to actually stop the spread? What you’re saying the vaccines are effective at was not what was initially suggested by MSM.

How is that relevant to anything I said? Have I denied that? Does one disingenuous or simply inaccurate message justify another?

Could something have been misinterpreted by MSM? Of course. But are we basing effectiveness off of the old standards or new standards?

How about honest standards?

The vaccines did not reduce the risk of infection or transmission. => valid criticism

Some people who knew better or should have known better falsely claimed that they would. => Valid criticism

The vaccines reduced the severity of infection, reducing deaths and hospitalizations. => factual, positive assessment.

The vaccines were "ineffective" => disingenuous given the above.

All I'm trying to say is that being an honest broker requires we acknowledge the good in the "other side." And it brings to light yet another thing you have to reconcile: If (big, huge, undemonstrated if) the vaccines have somehow contributed to the increase in excess mortality, how much was that offset by the number of lives it saved, because the vaccine was effective at reducing the severity of infection?

EricK do you think mandating the vaccine was appropriate for what you’re saying the benefits of it are?

I could see an argument to be made for it considering it likely reduced the strain on hospitals, a limited public resource, provided the information was accurate to the degree possible (same standard I'm holding you to). But philosophical or hypothetical arguments are often vacuous when applied to reality.

[mikeylikey]

acorn93, it seems a little disingenuous to say, flatly that the vaccines were ineffective. That's way too general. They did not reduce rates of infection or transmission but they definitely reduced severity of infection thereby reducing the number of hospitalizations and deaths from the disease. You can certainly criticize anyone who said it reduced the spread if they did or should have known that it didn't, because that's just as bad as trying to say it is ineffective.

I think the point that SSJBartSimpson was making earlier is that if there are long term effects of getting the disease with or without the vaccine, at least with the vaccine you drastically reduce the severity of the disease while you have it. That sure seems like a clear advantage to me.

Was the suggested purpose of lockdowns not to slow infections down until a vaccine was made to actually stop the spread? What you’re saying the vaccines are effective at was not what was initially suggested by MSM.

How is that relevant to anything I said? Have I denied that? Does one disingenuous or simply inaccurate message justify another?

Could something have been misinterpreted by MSM? Of course. But are we basing effectiveness off of the old standards or new standards?

How about honest standards?

The vaccines did not reduce the risk of infection or transmission. => valid criticism

Some people who knew better or should have known better falsely claimed that they would. => Valid criticism

The vaccines reduced the severity of infection, reducing deaths and hospitalizations. => factual, positive assessment.

The vaccines were "ineffective" => disingenuous given the above.

All I'm trying to say is that being an honest broker requires we acknowledge the good in the "other side." And it brings to light yet another thing you have to reconcile: If (big, huge, undemonstrated if) the vaccines have somehow contributed to the increase in excess mortality, how much was that offset by the number of lives it saved, because the vaccine was effective at reducing the severity of infection?

EricK do you think mandating the vaccine was appropriate for what you’re saying the benefits of it are?

I could see an argument to be made for it considering it likely reduced the strain on hospitals, a limited public resource, provided the information was accurate to the degree possible (same standard I'm holding you to). But philosophical or hypothetical arguments are often vacuous when applied to reality.

Imagine a trolley with an incapacitated driver. It is approaching a switch, and the lever is in your reach. There are probably a lot of people tied to the left track. There are probably a lot of people tied to the right track. You can't see very far down either track and can't say for sure how many are on either track or who they are, and it's unclear if you ever will be able to know these things. Should you pull the lever?

[EricK]

Imagine a trolley with an incapacitated driver. It is approaching a switch, and the lever is in your reach. There are probably a lot of people tied to the left track. There are probably a lot of people tied to the right track. You can't see very far down either track and can't say for sure how many are on either track or who they are, and it's unclear if you ever will be able to know these things. Should you pull the lever?

Exactly. Vacuous.

[acorn93]

@EricK you and I just don’t agree on this topic. It’s relevant because you seem so sure about accepting the mainstream narrative at face value and they’ve been repeatedly wrong throughout this process specifically, not to mention their track record overall. Why is it crazy to question whether they’re right on this or willing to actually look into it? Remember when the CDC said fully vaccinated people don’t need to mask indoors or socially distance? Or when Fauci admitted they were worried everyone would buy up all the masks and medical professionals wouldn’t have any so they told people they didn’t need to mask up? Our president is on record saying the vaccine prevents you from getting infected. Our president and vice president are also responsible for the mainstream vaccine hesitancy. They were on MSM saying they would be hesitant to take a Trump vaccine. CNN was telling people Joe Rogan was taking a horse dewormer medication lol. That’s disingenuous. Remember when it was revealed government agencies pressured social media sites to censor “misinformation?” Wider scope, but remember when it was revealed the NSA was illegally spying on Americans? We seem to agree on the opioid crisis if I recall. These are the institutions you’re defending when you say vaccine involvement in excess deaths isn’t even a plausible hypothesis. Can you address my questions about @SSJBartSimpson ’s article?

[acorn93]

@mikeylikey except that classic ethical dilemma isn’t applicable to what we’re discussing. You really believe our government bodies were just acting on behalf of an incapacitated driver and just had to make a tough decision? I haven’t even discussed that we saw the largest upward transfer of wealth during this time as a direct result of policies that helped big corporations/billionaires. The tough decision they made just happened to fall in line with this?