Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[dirkfansince1998]

my point which is that there is not this overwhelming consensus

I am keeping it short. There is. You still haven´t figured out what scientific consensus means. Doesn´t mean that all people have to agree. Detailed explanation is in an earlier post.

I have read over ever link I have posted.  My point to you is that the notion of validating the studies and laps of all of these Doctors, Scientists and Researchers is not only beyond the time and scope of this discussion but it is in fact foolish that you even think you can do it with accuracy from the comfort of your easy chair or wherever you are passing judgements on the validity of all of these people many of which are far more qualified than you are. 

Absolutely. But for the most part the stuff that you are posting is complete BS. Doesn´t take a genius to take it apart. And how to you know that they are more qualified than me. Many of them are. Some of them aren´t. But then again. Don´t trust the internet.
So you are just posting it because it fits your narrative. Without even understanding what some of them are talking about. Without even knowing if all of them are the experts they claim to be. I don´t think I am the armchair researcher in this thread.

It is foolish to post things when you don´t even understand them. Foolish to post things without knowing whether they are true or false. And no in most cases it isn´t a we don´t know scenario. I have replied to many of those examples. You refuse to acknowledge that they exist.

Here's another well credentialed and experienced Professor and Scientist making all the same points I've made to you repeatedly.  The studies you are treating like the Bible of your faith are NOT without major concerns coming from many qualified professionals who give very, very credible rationale and evidence for their concerns. 

Do I even have to mention your own contradictions. The one person that constantly questions RCT and prefers to talk about anecdotes suddenly agrees that they are the gold standard of drug testing. Amazing.

Concerning the stage 3 clinical trials. They aren´t telling us a lot about death rates. Why? Because both groups had no deadly outcomes that go beyond fault tolerance. Different story when we are talking about case numbers and severe cases. That´s where the initial efficacy in the 90s is coming from.

We aren´t talking about one group of participants. Approximately 150 clinical trials sides in the United States, Germany, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina.

Next part. He is right that we don´t have any impactful RCT that confirm the observed impact on mortality. But he forgets to mention why we aren´t doing this. Ethical reasons. There is no way to justify a trial like this after the initial trials confirmed a high efficacy. Cannot risk the health of a potential placebo or control group. That´s why we are relying on observational and retrospective methods. In this case the next best option.

It is completly normal for clinical trials to continue after approval (or in this case emergency approval). That´s the standard protocol. Meaning that the complete trial data will not be available prior to the determined end dates. And only upon request. Remember that they have to consider privacy and patient right laws in many different countries.
That´s the area where the quick development impacts the process. And some (I would say many and rightfully so) are arguing that the producers should skip the standard protocols and publish the raw data. The special situation made it possible to "cut the red tape". Should also be possible to skip some data protocols. Obviously not going to happen because no matter how small the chance is the producers aren´t taking any risk and go for legal safety.

But we also have to remember. This wasn´t a normal situation. We are talking about a global pandemic. A global crisis. That´s why the agencies started with emergency approvals. Not full approvals. As of today only one vaccine is fully approved. FDA and CDC waited for more data and information before they made that decision. Billions received a vaccine. And the additional data allowed doctors and researchers to identify rare adverse reactions and adjust recommendations. Leading to the full approval of the Pfizer-Biontech vaccine.


There is a lot of valid research that focuses on vaccine adverse reactions. And it fulfills a very important. Sadly there is also a lot of content that cannot even be considered to be scientific. For some reasons those sources are your favorites. And no you don´t have to be a medical expert to differentiate them (also it certainly helps). Applying scientific methods and critical thinking can be enough.

And yes patient compliance and involvement is important. It is the ideal scenario fo any medical worker/instution-patient relationship. But and I can keep this short there are certain scenarios where it obviously cannot apply. For example risk of self harm or endangering others.
If you want to bring this back to the mandate talk. I am absolutely pro all attempts to convince people that the vaccine is the best option for their specific scenario if that is the case. I also want to inform people if that isn´t the case.
Problem is and that is why mandates exist that some times those attempts are futile but a grave danger requires action to protect the society.
This isn´t coming from my personal opinion. That´s what the supreme court said in 1905. Was upheld ever since. I can tell that you don´t agree. Who knows maybe the curent debate and ongoing law suits will change something.

1)"Trust the science." one of your mantras?   - He says as I said scientists don't all agree n this matter.  So whose science are we supposed to be trusting?  

Apply scientific methods and critical thinking and you will now. It´s pretty easy. I won´t explain scientific consensus and method again. Quick tip any so called evidence that relies on a premised conspiracy isn´t exactly reliable. Same for content that relies on multiple ad hoc hypothesis to prevent falsification. In this case debunking.

2)He states as I have repeatedly, dissenting views are critical to advancing science.  What you are subscribing to is very possibly bad science and you double down by advocating that it should be forced into people, or at least some of them.  

Absolutely but for the most part your content isn´t even part of the scientific process. I have mentioned it multiple times. They choose to not engage. Not to publish papers or defend them in front of others. Others do and lots of opinions are getting considered.

3)The Professor says the data you and others regurgitate so often reporting that death rates are dramatically reduced by the vaccines are contradicted by other evidence.  He further states that some of the reported data would not accepted as causal evidence under normal circumstances. 

I already answered this point earlier. You simply don´t know what he is talking about. No suprise. That has been the story of the last couple of weeks when it comes to your own sources. He is refering to the stage III clinical trial. He is actually telling you what I have been trying to tell you for weeks. RCT are the highest standard of drug testing.
Because the RCT had no deadly event beyond the fault tolerance in both groups researchers couldn´t make any call on the mortality based on that trial. That´s why we are relying on other methods (as mentioned ethical reasons prevent another study that could put the health of placebo or control group at risk).
He is voicing concerns about those methods because they obviously aren´t as good as RCTs. But they aren´t an option. We aren´t talking about normal circumstances. Just comparing mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated isn´t perfect. As he mentioned. We have to consider all kinds of risk factors but a bigger sample size should be able to even out some of the additional risk factors. Additional measures like algorythms or existing knowledge about those riks factors can also help to account for them.
It´s funny that you are realizing this right now. Are you sure that you don´t want to revisite the article you posted that linke the vaccine to 100000s of deaths around the globe. Now that scientific standards are back on the table you might have a revelation.

4)  He states concerns that serious scholars and scientists have not been able examine the FDA and CDC evidence for their positions. He claims the information being released comes mostly from highly curated industry controlled press releases.  Unacceptable for good science. 

5) Vaccine manufacturers have not been honoring requests for raw data.  

6) For speed, relaxed standards were implemented and along with the lower standards vaccine studies have not made much of their results publicly. 

Already answered those in the abstract at the top.

7) He says legitimate scientific challenges have been set aside and labeled as misinformation.  Scientists are being labeled as anti-vaxxer further compromising young scientists objectivity. 

See answer to point one.

To be clear, this is not only about the vaccine injuries and adverse reactions.  Those number as pointed out in an earlier video are clearly magnitudes higher than other vaccines or a normal flu shot but the issue is WHY are there tens of thousands of vaccine adverse reactions and even deaths?  

So we are back to the VAERS topic or similar systems. You still don´t understand what we are talking about. No not tens of thousands of vaccine adverse reactions or deaths. Just VAERS events. At this point you probably won´t learn the difference or you are not acknowledging it for other reasons. Neither scenario would suprise me. It is an open report system. Meaning that anyone (most likely a medical worker but also you or me) can report an event.

Just to clarify it one last time. The disclaimer on the website:
"The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable"
"The inclusion of events in VAERS data does not imply causality"

Severe events and deaths lead to an investigation. That´s how similar systems in other countries found the link to blood clots and myocarditis. It is supposed to find anomalies that wouldn´t be visable in smaller sample sizes. The data is getting compared to a baseline. How many events did we track. How many would we expect in the general population? That´s why no one is panicking. The events were investigated For the majority of them researchers couldn´t find a plausible link to the vaccine. The comparisation to the baseline found no increased risk of death. The event results are within the expected baseline.
Except for the few mentioned cases.

So why are we seeing more events than in other years. First of alll because a lot of people got the vaccine. Way more for example than the yearly flu shots but that still doesn´t explain the large discrapency. Now what makes the COVID vaccines special? The social interest. The media interest. Also the interest in VAERS. In general new vaccines or other drugs all follow the same trend. A lot of reports after the approval/roll out. But once the public loses interest the numbers goes down. That´s what you are refering to when you complain about underreporting. Initially people are more aware and even report mostly mild reactions (rash, fever, flu like symptoms). COVID is taking this to a new level. First major pandemic in the social media age. 24 hours constant news, updates and developments. More people than ever know about VAERS. More people than ever report events.

For more information:

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-...are-tactic

https://www.reuters.com/article/factchec...SL2N2OE1ZA

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot...id-vaccine


Bottom line: VAERS and similar systems are valuable tools and helped to discover rare adverse reactions. You on the other hand are refering to classic anti vax fearmongering tactics. Misinterpretating the numbers. Acting like all events are directly caused by the vaccine.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of this wouldn´t be bad if it was just about you embarassing yourself and showing your lack of understanding. But this about more. Misinformation is killing people. And you are contributing to it.
Avoidable infections, illness, severe cases and death. Just because people refused to take the vaccine. COVID is killing 1000s of americans every day. The vaccine would have saved many of them.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brie...e=hs_email

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covi...tatus.aspx





I don´t know if I should smash something or if I should cry. When I see some of your posts I want to do both.
It´s reckless. It´s stupid. It´s dangerous. And you aren´t even concerned about it. No signs of responsiblity. Who cares if someone reads the post. Believes the story and refuses the vaccine or chooses an alternative treatment like HCQ instead.

And I know that I won´t reach you. I can only beg you to stop. Consider if you really know what you are posting. Is it actually true? Are the sources reliable? You don´t have to trust me, experts or the government. Just think for yourself. Do you really understand what your sources are saying. Is it even the message that you want to promote.

Started this post more than 2h ago. I thing I am done for today. This is just really really exhausting.

Have a good day and stay safe.