Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[luka_skywalker_77]

This short circuited me. Who are "they"? 

I mean...not trying to start election talk, but hey, this thread isn't in the basketball sections anymore, so...anyone who doesn't want any of this, go ahead and go back to the basketball section. 

I'll just say that I really hate the false dichotomy of right and left, that there are two giant menus of "what you should think", with each menu passed out to a different half of the U.S. 

So who are "they"?

All you had to do is ask--the rest of that is just a shot across the brow. "They" is a reference to gov't, mainstream news media, politicians etc. In this particular instance, "they" is accurate because these groups (subsets) have carried the same ideologically disseminated talking points from circumstance to circumstance. The who are the influencers of otherwise occupied, ignorant and easily manipulated citizens. 

[fifteenth]

All you had to do is ask--the rest of that is just a shot across the brow. "They" is a reference to gov't, mainstream news media, politicians etc. In this particular instance, "they" is accurate because these groups (subsets) have carried the same ideologically disseminated talking points from circumstance to circumstance. The who are the influencers of otherwise occupied, ignorant and easily manipulated citizens. 

Apologies for the "shot across the bow.' It wasn't meant to be. I hate the culture war and was just sharing where my question came from. 

Also, sounds like you're not saying what I thought you were saying. So are you saying that what the government is doing now in its push for vaccination is similar to what Trump and company did in claiming that the election was stolen? If so, then kudos for calling out both sides of the culture war!

[Dahlsim]

Read this over and over and tell me this doesn't sound weird.

[...]
Are adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine recordable on the OSHA recordkeeping log?

DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers' vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904's recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination at least through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.

www.osha.gov/coronavirus/faqs

www.thedesertreview.com/business/osha-suspends-reporting-adverse-covid-shot-reactions/article_29a63af8-bcd5-11eb-bb3a-b70c12715ffc.html

As an aside, Ryan Cole might be a quack, but he's an exception in a sea of reputable scientists researching this issue. The key here, is that opponents of the anti vaxx camp will use this as the symbol of the movement, the same way they use false claims of voter fraud in the past election. It's purpose is to dismiss legitimate claims of side effects and reputable research from extraordinarily accomplished individuals. 

At the end of the day, people reserve the right to care for themselves in a way that protects them--not someone else--because only they have to live with the consequences of that action since the gov't and big pharma has removed themselves from liability. The lies have to end at some point, and most people are coming to that conclusion.
This entire "American experiment" is executed under the "consent of the governed", which is definitely not being adhered to and people will change what needs to be changed despite the oligarchical nature of this modern era's gov't. Authoritarianism always begins as reason, then quickly devolves into the familiar madness and chaos of "order".

@dahlsim I'd say you're almost wasting your time here, but I do come back to post and share information with you specifically and anyone else looking for it with an open mind. People will come around eventually--sooner than later--and when they do, it'll either be too late or it'll be spun so as to protect those involved; i.e. "the science is always evolving".

Good catch @"luka_skywalker_77"  

Its outrageous really how openly these things are being done.  This is what happen when the public literally supports suppression of expression and information, as long its against their political adversaries of course.  We get more of what we support, more suppression. 
 They in the this case once again our government and its agencies are openly telling us what they will distort and corrupt the data inputs into the medical science statistics and the science we rely on when it comes to forcing vaccinations on the citizens. 

“DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations,” the health agency says on its official website. “OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts.

As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination at least through May 2022. We will re-evaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.”

So adverse effects, as I've been posting about from the beginning of this thread, ARE openly being suppressed.  I've referenced the CDC's VAERS site several times and its well known even based on a Harvard study that whatever numbers are reported on that site and similar are under reported.  By some estimates as much as 10x underreporting.  As recall our friend @"dirkfansince1998" tried to reply they are likely overreported?  Not a chance. 

Now we see (as if it wasn't already clear) that this sort of corruption and manipulation of the numbers that are reported is being done intentionally across the agencies and enforced through employers as well.  
If the safety profile is so strong then why in the world would they feel the need to suppress the reporting of adverse effects / side effects?   
We are supposed to trust the science knowing that this is sort of thing is being done to support the mandate of forced vaccinations? 

Just recently this statement was made very publicly which also calls into the questions the science and the numbers the public is being given as to what percentage of COVID deaths are vaccinated versus unvaccinated. 

https://twitter.com/bbisback_4/status/14...8897158147

[dirkfansince1998]

They in the this case once again our government and its agencies are openly telling us what they will distort and corrupt the data inputs into the medical science statistics

Look up the difference between medical reporting (example VAERS) and OSHA reporting. What comes first. What comes second.  Just because a case doesn´t end up in the OSHA system it isn´t lost. This is more about the usual shenanigans. Who pays?
Note that I don´t agree with them. I don´t think it helps. They saw how the previous FAQ answers impacted the vaccine policies of employers and made the wrong adjustment. The old FAQ stated that vaccine requirements lead to reportable adverse reactions. As a result employers changed their policies. No more requirements. No more encouraging. In fact the opposite. Suddenly vaccinated workers are a potential liability. A financial risk.
OSHA adjusted the text to stop this process but they are doing it to the detriment of the people that they are supposed to protect. More vaccinations are a good thing. Workers potentially carrying the financial risk of any adverse reaction isn´t.

So adverse effects, as I've been posting about from the beginning of this thread, ARE openly being suppressed.  I've referenced the CDC's VAERS site several times and its well known even based on a Harvard study that whatever numbers are reported on that site and similar are under reported.  By some estimates as much as 10x underreporting.  As recall our friend @dirkfansince1998 tried to reply they are likely overreported?  Not a chance. 

As stated before. It really depends on (and I hate the word) your social bubble. You can find underreporting. You can find overreporting. I am pretty sure you know where to look for one or the other.
That was my initial statement:
Others would argue the direct opposite. We are seeing an overreporting of COVID vaccine criticism. Creating a false balance because the waste majority of scientists and existing research is pretty clear about the benefits (outweighting the risks).

Notice that I am not talking about individual report systems. I tried to highlight how VAERS works. Will do it again. It comes with strengths and weaknesses. As mentioned by the Harvard study. Not all events are reported to VAERS. Other problem. It is an open system and that can lead to unverified or even fabricated reports.
But now the important part. VAERS is meant to track any possible adverse reaction. The system itself is set up to include events that aren´t connected to a vaccine. That´s why I am opposing your attempts to use it as anecdotal evidence. That´s why I am calling it overreporting when you or the people or other media outlets you listed are using the data in that way. VAERS is not designed to determine if an individual event was caused by the vaccine.

Just recently this statement was made very publicly which also calls into the questions the science and the numbers the public is being given as to what percentage of COVID deaths are vaccinated versus unvaccinated. 

Do you want to do the maths yourself? Just to simplify it.

Population: 6m
Vaccination rate Maryland: 66%

4000000 vaccinated accout for 40%.
2000000 unvaccinated account for 60%.

Obviously haven´t accounted for a high vax rate among the at risk groups, age or other factors. Just wanted to make clear what the numbers mean.

There is no doubt that the delta variant is leading to more breakthrough infections. Also no doubt that immunity is waning. But it seems like the vaccine is still doing what it is supposed to do.
If I would go full "mainstream" media fact checker my verdict would be "misleading information".

[dirkfansince1998]

And just to add the full picture. Waning immunity is not only a problem for vaccinated. Also for previously infected. We are seeing an increasing amount of reinfections.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/o...scientists

[Dahlsim]

The big story here for me is what the player reports as suppression of the adverse effect.  

I continue to hear stories anecdotally similar to these news stories, personally from people I know.  A close friend today I found out just recovered from Covid.  He was unvaccinated but thanks to Monoclonal antibody therapy he was able to get here in Dallas he says it that treatment was very effective and probably saved his life.  He also reported that there were a lot of people there getting that treatment and from what he could tell most of them had been fully vaccinated. 

Then I heard specifically from another friend yesterday who said that in addition to her mother who had a severe adverse affect despite no health issues or medications. 
What stood out to me here though is the part of about getting tired.  She said she's hear that a lot. 

Why suppress factual information?   This leads to an inaccurate sense of what the risks are especially for someone who was likely at a low risk for severe Covid anyway like this young athlete. 
Looks like the news only gets out because the player talks about it on a Twitch stream. 

[b]ATLANTA, UNITED STATES – A NBA player suffered blood clots shortly after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Brandon Goodwin, a former point guard for the Atlanta Hawks, had his season ended early last year due to blood clots as a result of the COVID-19 vaccine. Goodwin hasn’t signed with another NBA team since his release from the Atlanta Hawks[/b] [b]after his diagnosis.[/b]

“I got sick and I never quite recovered from it,” Goodwin said on a Twitch stream. “I would always have back pain, I was just super tired in the games. I was so tired, I felt like I couldn’t run up and down the court. My back was [color=#747a80]hurting. My back really started hurting bad,” Goodwin recalled. “Then, I’m like, ‘OK. I need to go to the doctor. That’s when I found out I had blood clots. That all within the span of a month.”[/color

NBA player suffers blood clots after vaccination.

Goodwin then left nothing up to the imagination when he revealed what caused the health issues. “I was fine until then, I was fine up until I took the vaccine, I was fine. People trying to tell you, ‘No. It’s not the vaccine.’ How do you know?” Goodwin asked. “You don’t know. Yes, the vaccine ended my season. One thousand percent.”

“I don’t know where I’m playing at this year. I’m not going to lie to y’all, I don’t know. (The Hawks) were just like, ‘Don’t say anything about it, don’t tell anybody. I’m like, ‘Bruh, what?’”

[Dahlsim]

I don´t even want to get into the natural immunity debate again. Great for people that already recovered but for whatever reason you rarely mention that one has to make it through the infection to get their.

This was an important point raised by my friend   @"dirkfansince1998" which I did want to respond to at least briefly.  I and others have mentioned efforts to make it through the infection based around natural immunity.
The point about natural immunity is not as simple as some might imply.  

Studies, observations and efforts around natural immunity include the understanding that we can do more than just wait around to get deathly sick.  As deadly and serious as this disease is there are many people that get very mild cases of it and even some so mild that they didn't even know they had it.  

All the reasons for that great disparity between those getting deadly and severely ill and those whose immunity systems handle it better than a regular season flu, are simply not clear or known yet. 
So what people can all do, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated is take every effort to strengthen their Natural Immunity.  

What I have said if it wasn't understood is that we could have more studies done to compare various outcomes for those that use an array of efforts to build and strengthen their natural vs. those that don't or even compared to the outcomes of the vaccinated.  Not saying it isn't done but I haven't seen it much.  The push seems to imply that vaccination is the ultimate solution rather than an important component of solutions all built around natural immunity in the end. 

Here's an information page I like on potential solutions, both  Preventative and Treatments can be useful for everyone, vaccinated and unvaccinated: 

Speed The Spread Page here also has document link for printing handouts.  

I also would add Monoclonal Antibody Therapy to the list of treatments to consider.  I know lives have been saved by this treatment.  

[b]DISCLAIMER:[/b]
Nothing on this site is medical advice.
I have no medical background or training.
I am not a doctor, nurse, chiropractor, naturopath,
or any other health care worker.
I am reporting research findings
and treatments used successfully by doctors.
I cite sources for the information.
I suggest you do your own research.

Many health resources suggest that there are ways to raise immunity. Take lots of Vitamin C, Vitamin D, the suggested amount of Zinc (as per the resources below). Often Quercetin is also mentioned.

Another frequent suggestion is that, if you take Vitamin D, also take Vitamin K for heart health.

3 EFFECTIVE TREATMENTS:
Ivermectin, Budesonide, and
HCQ / Hydroxychloroquine.

Here are the PROTOCOLS suggested by doctors.



https://speedthespread.info/covid-cures-treatment.html 

[dirkfansince1998]

This was an important point raised by my friend   @"dirkfansince1998" which I did want to respond to at least briefly.  I and others have mentioned efforts to make it through the infection based around natural immunity.
The point about natural immunity is not as simple as some might imply.  

Studies, observations and efforts around natural immunity include the understanding that we can do more than just wait around to get deathly sick.  As deadly and serious as this disease is there are many people that get very mild cases of it and even some so mild that they didn't even know they had it.  

All the reasons for that great disparity between those getting deadly and severely ill and those whose immunity systems handle it better than a regular season flu, are simply not clear or known yet. 
So what people can all do, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated is take every effort to strengthen their Natural Immunity.  

What I have said if it wasn't understood is that we could have more studies done to compare various outcomes for those that use an array of efforts to build and strengthen their natural vs. those that don't or even compared to the outcomes of the vaccinated.  Not saying it isn't done but I haven't seen it much.  The push seems to imply that vaccination is the ultimate solution rather than an important component of solutions all built around natural immunity in the end. 

Here's an information page I like on potential solutions, both  Preventative and Treatments can be useful for everyone, vaccinated and unvaccinated: 

Speed The Spread Page here also has document link for printing handouts.  

I also would add Monoclonal Antibody Therapy to the list of treatments to consider.  I know lives have been saved by this treatment.  

This post shows a lack of understanding when it comes to the entire concept of immunity. You have to be careful with the way you phrase this.
Active immunity can be acquired through infection ("natural" immunity) or the vaccine. No other options.
People cannot strengthen their natural immunity. Because they don´t have it in the first place (pre infection). What they can do and what you are refering to is more about a "healthy" lifestyle. Avoiding potential risks like obesity, smoking and so on. Doing your best to take care of your body (and mind, mental aspects are often forgotten). Great idea. Has my full support.
Again...careful with the wording. Highly disputed topic. Pretty obvious that we can do things to improve our health. And in some cases we can even connect it to cellular mechanisms. But in the majority of cases it is still difficult to find specific mechanisms.

For more information (including the role of micronutrients): Spoiler - for the majority of people a balanced diet is enough. No need for supplements.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-h...une-system
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-h...-on-health

You are absolutely right we can do more than just wait around. Get vaccinated. It is that easy. Even "young" or "healthy" people can have severe or potentially deadly outcomes. Why risk it when a better option is available.
No vaccines (as of now, I am hopeful that we will see upgraded, even better versions in the future) aren´t perfect but they are by far the best option we have to avoid severe cases and deaths. I really don´t understand the entire it only has 70%...80%...90% efficacy that´s why we shouldn´t take it logic. That´s still better than anything else we have.
And no natural immunity is not the solution that everything is build around. For some reason that´s what you want it to be. Active immunity is the solution. As mentioned. Can be acquired through the vaccine or after an infection. Vaccine option is preferable because it comes with less risks.

To adress the mentioned lack of knowledge about different outcomes. Severe vs mild cases? You are right. We don´t know a lot. But through case studies we have a pretty good idea about potential risk factors and have seen some papers that focus on genetic predisposition.

For people that are interested. This is a very interesting paper that focuses on the impact of one specific group of cytokines and the connection to severe cases. Coming to the conclusion that an early release of the mentioned cytokine (TGFß) "impairs" the innate immune response in severe cases. Leading to follow up questions about genetic predispositions and treatment options. Could the inhibition of TGFß prevent severe cases? If that´s the case some substances that are used as rheumatic or cancer treatment are an option. I think some are already undergoing clinical trials.

https://www.charite.de/en/service/press_..._response/



Last part is the same stuff you have posted earlier. Presented by the same "experts". On a different page. I tried to explain the scientific consensus. Highlighted why the "work" of the mentioned persons is standing outside the scientific process. It´s not because they have other opinions. That´s part of the process. It´s about their choice to ignore scientific principles. I can disagree with the majority. Make my case. Provide evidence. Provide options to falsify my thesis. That´s what lead to some of the biggest scientific breakthroughs in history.
But that´s not what they are doing. They are standing outside the system. Science isn´t a democratic process. It is evidence based. There is no voting. There is no majority that decides. Strong evidence itself brings together a majority. Individuals arrived at the same conclusion. And not all opinions have equal scientific value. Strong evidence beats weak evidence.

I really think this is futile. You will continue to spread misinformation and justify it as an act unbiased of reporting.
Completly ignoring the political bias of your sources.

Sometimes I wonder if you actually listen to the things some of your sources are saying.
From Tenpenny (vaccine induces magnetism) to Zelenko and Yeadon (vaccination equals genocide). And I don´t even know where to start when it comes to the AFLD and Simone Gold. I have already mentioned her leading role in the attack on the capitol. I mentioned the snake oil salesmen schemes. You are questioning the role of the government and big pharma. You don´t have a problem to ignore the scientific consensus. But are happy to listen to a select group of right wing activists.

I have heard your complains about a politicized discussion. Your recent sources are the perfect example. But for some reason you don´t see it or choose to ignore it.

[Dahlsim]

This post shows a lack of understanding when it comes to the entire concept of immunity. You have to be careful with the way you phrase this.
Active immunity can be acquired through infection ("natural" immunity) or the vaccine. No other options.
People cannot strengthen their natural immunity.

I sort of thought we were done here, as you say, positions are clear and "resistance is futile."   
Your reply has some good stuff in it, although your tone, well  
Since I'm planning to do some speaking now on a related subject now, I'll try and address a few points in some detail. 

Ok, I don't lack understanding of what's happening here when a person if confronted with the virus, that's pretty clear if you've been paying attention.   Your point about agreeing on and sticking to the proper use of the wording is a fair one though.  
If we say strengthen their natural immune system does that work better for you?  More in line with the reference you linked where the semantics are to "boost your immune system". 

And no natural immunity is not the solution that everything is build around

More semantics, but for your sake, lets substitute again, the natural immune system, which is in fact the solution that everything is built around, would you agree? 

Science isn´t a democratic process.

Again, a subject that deserves its own thread and much more time to do justice.  I would say that by using what you call "consensus" you are in fact making science a democratic process aren't you?  Think about it. The rules you say these misinformed scientists are standing outside of are rules established by consensus, right? 
You're really believing them because you feel comfortable with majority you think agrees upon them, making you not much more than believer.  

By contrast the principals of free speech would dictate that we let the marketplace of ideas sift them, and consider each point on its own merit or lack thereof.   The general public is not as dumb as some seem to think. Let it all out and don't force people one way with financial and political power. 

We don't need to toss some views out summarily and hide them away under the label of misinformation because they stand outside the consensus rules. 

The article you linked from Harvard is a good one, thanks for sharing it.  There are several important points made there and its more than I have time to dive into now but if the conversation continues maybe.  Important thing for me is that they say several times that there aren't many studies on this or more studies are needed etc.  

Whenever you see that you also generally see the accompanying "there is no evidence to prove" or similar language. 
So if there aren't enough studies then from the standpoint of a training scientist there is "no evidence" to prove, show or demonstrate.  
That does not mean that the point in question is NOT true, it means we don't have the required evidence based the standards we have established.  That may be because we have not focused on that area, or supplied enough resources, or even worse we have an agenda that doesn't prioritize that type of research?  

I could  say a lot more on this but it would be too lengthy but as I said earlier I've had in depth discussions with our own Doctor on similar topics and others.  Bottom line is, since anecdotal evidence is not evidence and since peer reviewed studies are often lacking on a number of topics in medical science, saying there is not evidence could mean that something which is very true and even life saving essentially gets ignored by the smartest guys in the room, based on a technicality.  
Some interested posts from your referenced link:  

There appears to be a connection between nutrition and immunity in the elderly. A form of malnutrition that is surprisingly common even in affluent countries is known as "micronutrient malnutrition." Micronutrient malnutrition, in which a person is deficient in some essential vitamins and trace minerals that are obtained from or supplemented by diet, can happen in the elderly.
Older people tend to eat less and often have less variety in their diets. One important question is whether dietary supplements may help older people maintain a healthier immune system. Older people should discuss this question with their doctor.

Interesting when you consider that it's older people that are also at the higher risk in general for Covid-19. 
Here's another point for example. 

Demonstrating whether an herb — or any substance, for that matter — can enhance immunity is, as yet, a highly complicated matter. Scientists don't know, for example, whether an herb that seems to raise the levels of antibodies in the blood is actually doing anything beneficial for overall immunity.

Aha. So again, based on the criteria by which scientists (or at least most that subscribe to the rules) know things, this is something that highly complicated and they actually don't know. 
 
For someone that takes a supplement for example or directly knows people that take something and can plainly see and now they get help, they might know very well that it works, at least for their case.  Keep in mind, they are not applying this to a general study group, it works for them, it works for their family members, in fact they may observe it work for a lot of people.  Scientifically speaking, from the perspective of people you and @"Jannemann2" there is 'no evidence to prove'. 

You are absolutely right we can do more than just wait around. Get vaccinated. It is that easy. Even "young" or "healthy" people can have severe or potentially deadly outcomes. Why risk it when a better option is available.

You like to toss the word misinformation around very loosely at people, Doctors, Scientists, People of all types.  You liove to throw that word at me too.  Its become a crutch word for people in my view.   Is it misinformation because I share an NBA players story which he shares in his own words about an adverse effect that he felt himself certain was from the vaccination?  Its a guy sharing his own story. I didn't interpret anything there really.  Is that misinformation when you tell him and everyone else to just get vaccinated, its that easy, as if any other risks should not even be mentioned?  
https://www.bitchute.com/video/chcruaF54mS0/ 



Is it misinformation to report that President Biden's fully vaccinated Press Secretary Jen Psaki still got Covid and still could spread it to others in theory just as an unvaccinated person could? 
https://www.newsweek.com/how-common-covi...ll-1644386

White House Press Secretary Jan Psaki announced on Sunday that she had tested positive for COVID despite being fully vaccinated. The statement came just days after Psaki's last meeting with President Joe Biden, during which she said she wore a mask and maintained a six-foot distance.

Psaki catching the virus and the death of Colin Powell last month as a result of complications arising from a breakthrough COVID infection, have resulted in an increase in Google users searching for information on breakthrough infections.

To reiterate, my position is that the vaccinations are almost certainly helping many people reduce their vulnerability to Covid and probably their vulnerability to spreading it.  How much?  I can easily find significant disagreement among even credentialed and experienced Doctors, Scientists and Researchers. 
 
What is the percentage on adverse effects?  There are certainly far more people not having severe adverse effects than having them but honestly I don't think we have good numbers of what the real percentage is.  As for potential long term effects, tangential effects or minor effects (a lot people report tiredness for example) I don't know and I don't think we know.  If people made a free and informed choice to get vaccinated then the risks are risks.  We all live with them.  Being forced though to accept the risks, that's a different matter and many people are actively resisting that.  Let's not pretend they are simply stupid or misinformed. 

This is in large part because we have people, all the powerful entities, that are approaching this more like vaccinations are a religious doctrine rather than a scientifically produced option for people to evaluate and choose for themselves.  

A vaccine, especially one that 
1) does not have the efficacy to protect beyond what this one is doing, 
2) nor the ability to stop the actual spread from a vaccinated person to anyone else any more than this one is doing, 
3) and has questions outstanding about it's true adverse affect numbers, see VAERS and other sources, should absolutely NOT be forced on individuals.  

If people want to strengthen or boost their natural immune system, that should be not only valid option but one that is equally encouraged for everyone along with the option to take the vaccination. 

To continue to pretend as though this vaccine, which is clearly a good thing to have available, should be force injected into every living person as though its a slam dunk "its that easy" take-it-or-else fix is both wrong morally and from a standpoint of honest science.  

Let people make their own choices over their own body. The forced vax movement is more like religion than science, and the bigger problem is, its bad religion.

[dirkfansince1998]

Ok, I don't lack understanding of what's happening here when a person if confronted with the virus, that's pretty clear if you've been paying attention.   Your point about agreeing on and sticking to the proper use of the wording is a fair one though.  
If we say strengthen their natural immune system does that work better for you?  More in line with the reference you linked where the semantics are to "boost your immune system". 

More semantics, but for your sake, lets substitute again, the natural immune system, which is in fact the solution that everything is built around, would you agree? 

Not semantics. Accurate wording. The way you used the term "natural" immunity in this thread never made any sense. I let it go in earlier posts but in this case I had to clarify the difference.
I am not the one that is hell-bent on including the term "natural". That´s your agenda. Yes in general everything comes down to the immune system but in this case we are talking about a specific virus and options to prevent the spread and illness/death. That´s why this entire thread focused on specific immunity. Acquired through infection or the vaccine. When we discussed natural immunity in earlier posts that was the topic. Certainly suggests a lack of understanding to connect the term with the overall immune response. Even if you are trying to shift the topic in that direction.
And no. A healthy lifestyle alone and a strong immune system isn´t enough. It helps but it´s not a substitute for the vaccine.

Again, a subject that deserves its own thread and much more time to do justice.  I would say that by using what you call "consensus" you are in fact making science a democratic process aren't you?  Think about it. The rules you say these misinformed scientists are standing outside of are rules established by consensus, right? 
You're really believing them because you feel comfortable with majority you think agrees upon them, making you not much more than believer.  

By contrast the principals of free speech would dictate that we let the marketplace of ideas sift them, and consider each point on its own merit or lack thereof.   The general public is not as dumb as some seem to think. Let it all out and don't force people one way with financial and political power. 

We don't need to toss some views out summarily and hide them away under the label of misinformation because they stand outside the consensus rules. 

The article you linked from Harvard is a good one, thanks for sharing it.  There are several important points made there and its more than I have time to dive into now but if the conversation continues maybe.  Important thing for me is that they say several times that there aren't many studies on this or more studies are needed etc.  

Whenever you see that you also generally see the accompanying "there is no evidence to prove" or similar language. 
So if there aren't enough studies then from the standpoint of a training scientist there is "no evidence" to prove, show or demonstrate.  
That does not mean that the point in question is NOT true, it means we don't have the required evidence based the standards we have established.  That may be because we have not focused on that area, or supplied enough resources, or even worse we have an agenda that doesn't prioritize that type of research?  

I could  say a lot more on this but it would be too lengthy but as I said earlier I've had in depth discussions with our own Doctor on similar topics and others.  Bottom line is, since anecdotal evidence is not evidence and since peer reviewed studies are often lacking on a number of topics in medical science, saying there is not evidence could mean that something which is very true and even life saving essentially gets ignored by the smartest guys in the room, based on a technicality.  
Some interested posts from your referenced link:  

Read what I stated. It is not that difficult to understand. Science is evidence based. Different people arrive at the same conclusion based on the available evidence. On their own. There is no prior agreement. No collusion. No one trying to convince the other. The strong evidence alone is enough. New (stronger evidence) might lead to changes. The scientific process never stops. And as mentioned. People are free to disagree but they have to provide evidence.
Claims/opinons that aren´t providing any evidence (ignore, don´t acknowledege exisiting evidence) or ways to falsify their takes cannot be considered as a part of the scientific process. They are making claims. Nothing else. And yes in a way rules are a part of it.
It´s called the scientific method. Starts with the basic construct of research (question/thesis, prediction, experiment, analysis) but goes way deeper. Includes acknowledgement of potential weaknesses (uncertainty) and bias, replication of results (you don´t have to believe you can replicate the experiment and come to the same results), falsifiability.
The foundation for of all of this is critical thinking. That´s the important part for us "non" experts. That´s what we can use when we are confronted with science. A few principles.

Occam´s razor. To oversimply it. The simplest explanation is usually the best one.
Correlation does not imply causation and similar but not quite the same. The post hoc fallacy. Pretty self explanatory.
And once again falsifiability. A claim that cannot be proven/disproven is nothing more than that. A claim. An opinion.

Pretty easy to understand why retracted studies or claims that cannot be falsified aren´t included in the scientific consensus. Has nothing to do with free speach. No one is getting silenced. It´s not like they aren´t promoting their opinions on all kinds of platforms. They simply aren´t following scientific methods and therefore aren´t part of the scientific process that leads to the scientific consensus.

If you want some examples from your recent posts. We have one Dr. Cole that is making claims about cancer rates among vaccinated but he isn´t giving the public any inside on his database that supposingly tracked those cases. Meaning that we have no information about his methods and potential uncertainties. Meaning that we cannot falsify the claims.
Another example. The VAERS citations of Dr. Yeadan, Dr. Zelenko and others. Critical thinking teaches us about the post hoc fallacy. A reported event that occured after the vaccination isn´t automatically caused by it.

To adress the lack of evidence and research point you made. First of all a lack of evidence is always based on a specific thesis. For example. HCQ reduces the mortality rate of COVID patients. That doesn´t mean that no research has been done. It means that to the best of our current knowledge (scientific consensus) the thesis has been disproven. There is no evidence that supports the thesis. The experiments (in this case clincial trials) did exactly what they were supposed to do. The scientific process worked. If I phrase it differently I have strong evidence that suggests that HCQ is not reducing mortality rate.
I know that you will call it semantics but this is important.
Next part. As mentioned the scientific process never stops. New evidence can change things and yes in some cases we simply don´t have any reliable sources. That´s the part where your favorit anecdotes play a role. They can showcase aspects that need further investigation and research.
But as stated above they have limitations and in the field of medicin they are very important. I cannot falsify an anecdote. I cannot replicate it. If I cannot do that I cannot guarantee the wanted outcome.

Aha. So again, based on the criteria by which scientists (or at least most that subscribe to the rules) know things, this is something that highly complicated and they actually don't know. 
 
For someone that takes a supplement for example or directly knows people that take something and can plainly see and now they get help, they might know very well that it works, at least for their case.  Keep in mind, they are not applying this to a general study group, it works for them, it works for their family members, in fact they may observe it work for a lot of people.  Scientifically speaking, from the perspective of people you and @Jannemann2 there is 'no evidence to prove'. 

And why isn´t it possible to test the treatment option in a study. If it works for multiple people it could potentially work for others. Pretty easy to turn this into a RCS. Mentioned treatment option. Compare the outcome of a random immune event. Let´s say mortality rate among flu patients. One group gets the treatment, one group a placebo, one group nothing. That´s what has been done in case of Vitamin C, D or Zinc.
The initial information (experiment/trial) isn´t telling us anything about the potential immune response. But it is easy to follow it up with another one.
Once again. You will call it semantics. Thesis/experiment one. Treatment x/y/z raises the level of antibodies. Thesis/experiment two. Treatment x/y/z vs outcome of illness x/y/z.
It is obviously difficult to test the immune response without any trigger (in this case illness x/y/z).
But overall this is actually a good example for the research and development of new treatments and drugs. Scientists know about specific properties of the mentioned herb. Based on that they formulate a thesis and test it (in case of drugs obviously not starting with human trials).

Goes along with my recent example. We know about a specific cytokine that plays a big role in severe COVID cases. We know that some substances can inhibit the mentioned cytokine. Bring both informations together and voila. We have a new topic for further research. Drugs to undergo non-clinical and clinical trials.

You like to toss the word misinformation around very loosely at people, Doctors, Scientists, People of all types.  You liove to throw that word at me too.  Its become a crutch word for people in my view.   Is it misinformation because I share an NBA players story which he shares in his own words about an adverse effect that he felt himself certain was from the vaccination?  Its a guy sharing his own story. I didn't interpret anything there really.  Is that misinformation when you tell him and everyone else to just get vaccinated, its that easy, as if any other risks should not even be mentioned?  
https://www.bitchute.com/video/chcruaF54mS0/ 



Is it misinformation to report that President Biden's fully vaccinated Press Secretary Jen Psaki still got Covid and still could spread it to others in theory just as an unvaccinated person could? 
https://www.newsweek.com/how-common-covi...ll-1644386

I did not adress the Goodwin case because I thought that the mentioned rare adverse reaction is common knowledge. They even halted the role out for a couple of days. Came to the conlusion that the benefit outweighted the risk and continued.
Have I called any of this misinformation. No. Deflecting and putting words in my mouth. I am using the word when you are refering to treatment options like HCQ that underwent multiple RCS that did not find any evidence for a positive impact on the outcome of COVID cases. I am using it when you are linking to doctors that are making up vaccine related death tolls without any source. I am using it when you are trying to link the vaccine to cancer cases without any way to falsify the claim. When your sources make claims about miscarriage or infertility that have been debunked.
Again. Have you actually listened to some of the things your sources are saying. Maybe I made a mistake. I thought that I should listen to the people you refered to. That´s what I did and I am dumber for it.  Do you think that vaccination equals genocide. Do you think this is the third world war? That unvaccinated are freedom fighters and all vaccinated will die. Do you think that the vaccine turns people into magnets? Just to list some highlights from Zelenko and Tenpenny.

Or to take a few examples from the latest link and the list of facts. "Vaccine more dangerous than the virus according to studies" (obviously nothing linked). Please provide the studies that support this take. Or something that explains how masks are dangerous.

Or my personal favorite:

It's not a vaccine, it's an operating system."
In other words, according to researchers like Fitts,
it makes people controllable from outside


How did I not know that the nano bots turned me into a magnet. Cannot wait for Bill Gates to take control of my body.

But you obviously aren´t spreading misinformation.

To reiterate, my position is that the vaccinations are almost certainly helping many people reduce their vulnerability to Covid and probably their vulnerability to spreading it.  How much?  I can easily find significant disagreement among even credentialed and experienced Doctors, Scientists and Researchers. 

I don´t think anyone is disputing that. But be it 90% or 60% efficacy as of now it is by far the best option. It´s not perfect. It cannot prevent all cases. It cannot prevent, only limit the spread. It´s not perfect...now I don´t want it. I don´t get the logic.

What is the percentage on adverse effects?  There are certainly far more people not having severe adverse effects than having them but honestly I don't think we have good numbers of what the real percentage is.  As for potential long term effects, tangential effects or minor effects (a lot people report tiredness for example) I don't know and I don't think we know.  If people made a free and informed choice to get vaccinated then the risks are risks.  We all live with them.  Being forced though to accept the risks, that's a different matter and many people are actively resisting that.  Let's not pretend they are simply stupid or misinformed. 

I think the misconception linked to vaccine safety is mostly about the quick development. But it is easy to understand why the current COVID vaccine roll out might be the safest vaccine roll out in history.  First of all the development was quick but they did not skip any trial stage. Steps that are usually done after another happened simultaneously. Also should be mentioned that they did not start from scratch. Vaccine development against coronaviruses happened for both SARS and MERS. Developers could build on that foundation.
Same applies when it comes to the use of mRNA. First animal testing of the mechanisms happened in the 90s. We also had human clinical trials for all kinds of mRNA vaccine candidates. First one in 2013 (against rabies).

Next important part. The high number of vaccinations makes it a lot easier to find rare adverse reactions. Time isn´t the important factor. What matters is the number of vaccinations. More data makes it easier to discover rare adverse reactions. Anomalies (compared to the general population) that aren´t noticable in smaller sample sizes can be found in bigger ones. Recent example. The myocarditis cases. One case among 1000, 10000, 1000000 vaccinated can always happen. 10-20 among one million on the other hand are an anomaly.
The important part right here. We already know about extremly rare adverse reactions in the 5-20 among one million range. Even if they find more severe adverse reactions they are most likely going to be even rarer.

I am still not sure what kind of longterm effects you are waiting for. Longterm effects are basically unheard of when it comes to vaccines. The adverse reaction happens shortly after the jab (max within a month). Just like in this case. It took month to find risks like blod clots or myocarditis but they are all happening shortly after the jab. The mentioned complications can obviously lead to longterm health issues.
But a completly new complication that appears years after the jab would be a novelty. Is not going to happen. How is that even supposed to work. A vaccine that left the body at max weeks after the jab is going to cause something years in the future. Would love to hear an explanation.

A vaccine, especially one that 
1) does not have the efficacy to protect beyond what this one is doing, 
2) nor the ability to stop the actual spread from a vaccinated person to anyone else any more than this one is doing, 
3) and has questions outstanding about it's true adverse affect numbers, see VAERS and other sources, should absolutely NOT be forced on individuals.  

If people want to strengthen or boost their natural immune system, that should be not only valid option but one that is equally encouraged for everyone along with the option to take the vaccination. 

To continue to pretend as though this vaccine, which is clearly a good thing to have available, should be force injected into every living person as though its a slam dunk "its that easy" take-it-or-else fix is both wrong morally and from a standpoint of honest science.  

Let people make their own choices over their own body. The forced vax movement is more like religion than science, and the bigger problem is, its bad religion.

I don´t have a strong opinion when it comes to mandates. As mentioned when we started this entire thread. As a health care worker I would prefer to have as many people as possible vaccinated in my work place environment but in Germany we aren´t even having the discusison. It´s not necessary. Vax rate among hospital workers is in the 90% + range.

For me it is pretty simple. To avoid unnecessary death and illness the highest possilbe vax rate has to be the goal. Not sure if a mandate will lead to the expected results. Especially in a politicized and divided environment. But once again we are coming to different conclusion. I don´t really see big bad religious group of vaccine supporters. Is the government trying to push for more vaccinations. Absolutely. Are they doing it for nefarious reasons. I don´t think so.

My bigger concern is the amount of misinformation. It would be great if we could simply present the facts and let people come to their own conclusion. Sadly we are long past that point. Facts and opinions are bluring into each other.. Alternative facts (a phrase that did not exist a couple of years ago) are the new reality. This is basically the case that I made in my first post in this thread. And it doesn´t stop with COVID. From the shape of the earth or climate change to election results. Next is probably the color of the sky.

And to close this. Back to the mandate question. We already discussed that a mandate can be a legal option. Question is if the situation calls for it. Especially with (as you mentioned) vaccines that cannot completly (obviously not 100%, lets say measles level 97%) prevent the spread. Thankfully it is not my decision to make. How do you weigh the chance to save probably 1000s of lifes vs the individual choice.

[Dahlsim]

Not semantics. Accurate wording. 

I think I'm speaking outside of the box you draw your information from my friend, so this may be a point to just drop, but I'll try one more time.  Not trying to insult your obviously high intellectual capacity but its clear to me that you draw your world from a very well defined group of mainstream scientific thought.  You constantly imply or outright proclaim that anything outside that domain as you see it is inaccurate.  

There are a lot of holes in that approach.  Its great for many forms of inquiry but far from perfect in terms of investigation of many topics and definitely not as immune to human biases as you clearly seem to think.  I'll try and keep to the topic at hand. 

All language is based to some degree on agreement among groups of people. 
Its accurate based on the way a certain group of people define something and/or the common usage of the word. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics 
1: the study of the meanings of words and phrases in language
2: the meanings of words and phrases in a particular context



So accuracy as you put it must be based on some definition of the word or phrases which is itself based on some agreed upon use of the word or to use your word consensus within a people group.  
I do have specialized language education so I am probably drawing from a point of reference you are not.  I also have some training in science as well including a minor in physics as I've stated so yes, I know appreciate the scientific method.   We could even talk about how the definition and usage of the scientific method itself has changed over time, but that would digress too far. 

In this case I've already conceded that your point about the usage of the words is a valid one in the specific context.   I was being more loose with terminology.  The particular context here does should require a more precise handling of the term natural immunity. 

The way you used the term "natural" immunity in this thread never made any sense. I let it go in earlier posts but in this case I had to clarify the difference.

I am not the one that is hell-bent on including the term "natural". That´s your agenda

  The world natural has a very common meaning as does the word system. 
Its not hard to understand the sense of it as you said unless we play egghead and act as if we need someone to tell us what every thing means in a scientific journal somewhere. 

Its the immune system we were born with, God given if you will and yes everything we're talking about including the vaccinations are based around that system.  I think the average guy understands that.

[Dahlsim]

Read what I stated. It is not that difficult to understand. Science is evidence based.

Actually I would say you don't understand it very well outside of the box you have drawn your world in which quite frankly is too small and to inflexible to work for many of areas we need understanding in, scientific or otherwise. 

All kinds of things are evidence based.  Evidence is a very generic word in and of itself.   We need more detail than that.   

evidence
1: something which shows that something else exists or is true 
2: chiefly US, somewhat formal : a visible sign of something 
3: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something 

Sorry to say but once again you don't really understand that you're presenting everything from a box that is defined as science by a modern consensus.  Science is not the only field to rely on evidence.   We all rely on evidence every day and there many other valid ways that societies have reached accurate understandings before the formal constructs of a scientific method ever existed.  Anecdotes are a form of evidence.  They have their weaknesses especially when you try and apply to broad groups and various situations but societies have progressed for thousands of years on simple observations. 

The scientific method formalized an approach to those observations, hypothesis, testing etc.  
It was and is a great methodology.  It does not solve every problem and is not even applicable to every form of investigation.  
In this case, it takes time and our understanding of Covid needs to be supplemented by every available form of data and investigation. 

People are free to disagree but they have to provide evidence.

Seriously?  I'm going to ignore the quotes and the whole line of rambling you did where you basically go find different quotes from certain doctors that may have been included in the many references I gave.  

The disingenuous thing is you're pulling out quotes that have nothing to do with any point I made as if I have endorse everything any of these professionals have ever said on the topic.  That's nonsense.   

I gave a link for instance to an article with 58 medical doctors in one post, over 160 doctors, scientists and researchers on another forum and I gave you many others that support the points I have made: 

Eighty one research studies 81 
https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/ 

We should not force COVID vaccines on anyone when the evidence shows that naturally acquired immunity is equal to or more robust and superior to existing vaccines. Instead, we should respect the right of the bodily integrity of individuals to decide for themselves.

You can question the validity or meaning of the evidence but to pretend that the only people providing evidence are one side of any debate is absurd.  As if you and the references you cited are the only people providing evidence?  Let's try to be just a little more genuine here.   

And why isn´t it possible to test the treatment option in a study.

A lot of things are possible but it's not all being done for various reasons and I've never said or implied that they reasons are all nefarious.  It was a quote from the Harvard article you linked by the way said what you are responding to. Since you omitted it in your reply, let me requote it. 

Quote:

Demonstrating whether an herb — or any substance, for that matter — can enhance immunity is, as yet, a highly complicated matter. Scientists don't know, for example, whether an herb that seems to raise the levels of antibodies in the blood is actually doing anything beneficial for overall immunity.

Point is, using formally agreed upon consensus methods, some of the quite important aspects of what may strengthen or boost the natural immune system, is not known, and can be highly complicated to prove using those methodologies. 

Make sense?

[Dahlsim]

 Thankfully it is not my decision to make. How do you weigh the chance to save probably 1000s of lifes vs the individual choice.

Problem is the vaccinations are saving some lives but others are having adverse effects.  Your numbers on the adverse effects, I'm pretty certain are not accurate. It is underplayed, certainly in the US at this point in time. Many professionals confirm this with evidence.   

I personally know too many reporting adverse effects for it to be just a few in a million. I don't personally know a million people so what are the chances I should know several?  

Many people's anecdotes don't square with those numbers although again, if we're just group counting, I have no problem with the idea that its helping many more than its hurting.  Problem is, if you're one of the small number that was hurt or your family member is one, its not a non issue or a slam dunk.  You'd like to make your own choice.

[dirkfansince1998]

With thinking inside a box you mean that I am not cherry picking. Enter the conversation with clear principles and use them consistently. Instead of using the scientific method when it fits my narrative. Switching to anecdotes or questioning the integrity of the scientific method when it doesn´t fit the narrative.
When the applied methods find prove for natural immunity they are great. When they find that a given treatment isn´t providing any benefit anecdotes are more important.

Seriously?  I'm going to ignore the quotes and the whole line of rambling you did where you basically go find different quotes from certain doctors that may have been included in the many references I gave.  

The disingenuous thing is you're pulling out quotes that have nothing to do with any point I made as if I have endorse everything any of these professionals have ever said on the topic.  That's nonsense.   

I gave a link for instance to an article with 58 medical doctors in one post, over 160 doctors, scientists and researchers on another forum and I gave you many others that support the points I have made: 

Every mentioned example is coming from links that you provided or sources that the linked articles are citing. i didn´t need to find those quotes. If you had actually looked at all the links you provided you would have found them yourself. If you don´t want to talk about them you shouldn´t add the link. You are using the given sites as sources. I am only confronting you with the statements that are made. What do you want to do. Just promote whatever chery picked information they are listing. Ignoring the so called prove they have because you don´t want to talk about it. For someone that has been high on transparency and the acknowledgement of bias you are once again doing a great job of contradictiing yourself.

Are you not at least somewhat sceptical when one of your sources promotes treatment options because we cannot trust the vaccine and then goes on a lengthy ramble that includes all kinds of conspiracy theories (for example magnetism, nano bots, George Soros and Bill Gates). Not even mentioning reasonable concerns like adverse reactions.


This is basically the same argument we had earlier in this thread. You are spreading information (misinformation) without any regards for accuracy or even the thought of checking the sources. And not only random misinformation. Potentially dangerous one in a pandemic. Are you responsible for the content that you are posting? Or to give another example. Are you responsible for the posts you make on social media platforms.
In my opinion that´s the case. We aren´t free to do everything we want. It ends when our own freedom endangerous others (the freedom of others). In the social media bubble that includes the spread of potentially harmful misinformation or hate speech. Mind you that is my personal opinion. Different understanding of freedom. It cannot be absolute. Freedom and reason vs arbitrariness. I guess a discussion about philosophical schooles of thought (in this case Hegel) and the enlightment is a topic for another thread.


I am sorry to tell you that something like a list of 60 names doesn´t impress me. Going along with the concerns that you highlighted (bias, suppression, political agendas, money) I am not going to believe something just because of a list of names. I am looking at the individual points they are making. And once again follow the scientific method. Make my own decision.

Now you are deflecting again and changing the topic to talk about something that I have never questioned. Natural immunity is the scientific consensus. Never disagreed. Similar to the vaccine we can talk about things like efficacy or question how long it will last. To the best of our knowledge both waning.

I disagreed with your takes that promote certain treatment options or claims about adverse reactions that aren´t falsified (example cancer). Not to mention the style to ask questions that have already been answered. To repeat claims that have been debunked (example miscarriage and fertility issues). Completly ignoring the existing evidence and scientific consensus. Switching to claims that cannot be falsified or use ad hoc hypothesis to prevent it.

Point is, using formally agreed upon consensus methods, some of the quite important aspects of what may strengthen or boost the natural immune system, is not known, and can be highly complicated to prove using those methodologies. 

Make sense?

 In the mentioned example we are talking about a herb that raises the amount of antibodies. That alone is no prove for a benefical impact on the immune response. More antibodies alone aren´t prove for an improved immune responce (for all we know they could even be harmful). The immune system is complex and as stated there are still a lot of things that we don´t now.

But that doesn´t prevent us from using scientific methods. Ignoring the technicalities (ethics, steps like in vitro, animal, before human trial). The herb could be tested in all kinds of ways. As mentioned that´s what scientists did with vitamin C or D. Testing them vs specific immune events (for example flu or covid, or to use another example we could also try cancer...mortality rate/days in hospital and so on).
We would learn about the potential benefits of the herb in the given scenario. And now the difficult part. Connecting both findings.
Let´s say the given herb reduces the mortality rate of flu patiens by 50%. That´s a great information but not necessarily connected to the first experiment. We don´t have enough information to make the connection. Who knows maybe the herb is raising more than just antibody levels. Maybe it is causing other cellular reactions that we don´t know about.

Finding benefits of a given treatment is not the most difficult part. Bringing them together with specific mechanisms on the other hand is really difficult. We are seeing all kinds of examples right now. Including COVID treatment options like Remdesvir or Ivermectin. It´s not preventing us from using or at least testing them in clinical trials. Even though we only have limited knowledge about the anti viral mechanisms they cause.

Problem is the vaccinations are saving some lives but others are having adverse effects.  Your numbers on the adverse effects, I'm pretty certain are not accurate. It is underplayed, certainly in the US at this point in time. Many professionals confirm this with evidence.   

I personally know too many reporting adverse effects for it to be just a few in a million. I don't personally know a million people so what are the chances I should know several?  

So lets take a look at the myocarditis example. Mind you that a lot of cases be it vaccine/COVID or completly unrelated go unnoticed. People barely recognize them. So what we are actually comparing are clinically relevant cases. Sorry to cut this short but I am running out of time. Will work with quotes.

https://www.tctmd.com/news/studies-highl...9-vaccines


Among about 2.4 million adult members of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) integrated health system, the incidence of acute myocarditis after the second dose of vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna was 5.8 per million people

And among more than 2.5 million people ages 16 and older vaccinated within Clalit Health Services, the largest healthcare organization in Israel, the estimated incidence after receipt of at least one dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was 2.3 per 100,000 people,

second NEJM paper, involving a retrospective review of Israeli Ministry of Health data, found the rate of definite or probably myocarditis to range from 1 in 26,000 in males to 1 in 218,000 in females

Data from all three papers confirm that the rare complication was clustered in young males, tended to occur after the second dose, and usually followed a benign clinical course, with most affected patients recovering after a short hospital stay.

Southern California data:

The incidence of myocarditis over a 10-day observation window was 0.8 per million first doses and 5.8 per million second doses in the vaccinated cohort.
For comparison, the incidence of myocarditis during the same time period among unvaccinated individuals was 2.2 per million people.

Israel data:

The researchers calculated an overall incidence of 2.13 myocarditis cases per 100,000 vaccinated individuals, with a higher incidence in men versus women (4.12 vs 0.23 per 100,000) and in those younger than 30 versus 30 or older (5.49 vs 1.13 per 100,000). The highest incidence was observed in men ages 16 to 29 (10.69 per 100,000).

And now a final quick addition from me. Severe adverse reactions like myocarditis are more likely to be picked up than mild ones. Meaning that the underreporting of severe adverse reactions isn´t as big of a problem (See the Harvard study that you brought up. Cannot find the link right now). More severe complication. Less underreporting. Minor initial reactions like swelling, reddening or a rash. More likely underreported.

And now we are coming back to the risk/benefit question. Looking at the numbers the studies presented all authors are coming to the conclusion that the benefi outweighst the risks. And that would still be the case if we double the numbers to account for potential underreporting. Even more important. The majority of cases is mild. Especially compared to the complications of COVID.
We should obviously consider the at risk groups. In this case young males. But it doesn´t mean that they cannot get vaccinated. Because for once benefits still outweigh the risks and non mRNA vaccines are availalbe. That´s the benefit of multiple vaccine options. That´s what countries like Sweden or Denmark are doing. Rich countries are in a great position. Concerns about one vaccine. No problem. Halt the roll out, investigate and use another one.

[ItsGoTime]

It seems like Dahl is constantly trying to argue against the FORCED vaccination and I’m not sure if dirkfan is trying to argue against, as I’ve been keeping up with this by skimming (so I very well could have skimmed past). DF, are you for or against government mandated vaccination? That at one point was the crux of this back and forth. Is there at least not enough out there for people to have a somewhat reasonable reason to not want to be vaccinated?

I’m vaccinated and had the virus, but I would not want to make that decision for others.

[dirkfansince1998]

It seems like Dahl is constantly trying to argue against the FORCED vaccination and I’m not sure if dirkfan is trying to argue against, as I’ve been keeping up with this by skimming (so I very well could have skimmed past). DF, are you for or against government mandated vaccination? That at one point was the crux of this back and forth. Is there at least not enough out there for people to have a somewhat reasonable reason to not want to be vaccinated?

I’m vaccinated and had the virus, but I would not want to make that decision for others.

I am torn. Vaccines save lifes. And as discussed in the early days of this thread. They can be a legal option. But I am not sure if the current situation justifies a vaccine mandate. Especially if we are talking about a mandate for all americans. Would be a different story if the vaccines would completly stop transmission but that´s not the case. Or with an even deadlier virus. Even with a mandate there obviously need to be exemptions. Previously infected (let´s say within the last 6-12) month shouldn´t be forced. To the best of our knowledge they have immunity. Not to mention a small group of people that cannot take the vaccine for various health related reasons.

I can definitely see a good case for mandates in specific fields of work. Especially among health care workers. We really don´t need a repeat of the NY hospital situation. Or something even worse like the first wave in northern italy. Mandates for health care workers are actually a wide spread policy around the world.


When we started this discussion it wasn´t as much about medical talking points. More focused on freedom and social issues. Going bigger picture. And that is just my opinion but it is very similar to some of the rulings that upheld vaccine mandates in the past or in other countries. There is no way to deny that this is a human/individual rights issue. Bodily integrity is at the core of this issue. Protecting our body and the ability to be the masters of our body. But and now it gets interesting we aren´t isolated individual beings. We live in a society. It is not only about our own freedom or bodily integrity. That´s the core of social life. We are agreeing to certain norms for the benefit of ourselfs as a part of the society. In modern days this is organized in form of countries/states/governments.

And this brings us to the point where we cannot say that all of those individual rights are absolute. There are justifiable intrusions on individual liberties. In this case they cannot be seen as an intrusion. They are actually the direct opposite. They are measures to protect members of the society (their bodily integrity). Especially the most vulnerable. That´s the entire point of social life. We aren´t measured by the right of the strongest. We are measured by the way we take care of the most vulnerable (that includes children, for some reason we rarely mention them) or in non medical situations minorities.

The big question is if COVID and the resulting need for vaccines is a justifiable intrusion. In my opinion it is. Now comes the next question. Is the mandate the best option to achieve the goal (protect society, most vulnerable). In my opinion it is. No other treatment/preventive option comes close. We don´t have the time to wait for potentially better treatments. We have seen that measures like social distancing, masks or lockdowns aren´t sustainable. And to come back to the most vulnerable groups are having a big impact on children.

Next question. Has the society (in this case presented by the government) done everything in their power to convince people. Exhausted all other options (information campaigns, incentives). That´s where it gets difficult and where I see major problems (at least in the US) because states are essentially doing whatever they want. This thread alone is showcasing that the necessary informations aren´t reaching the people. Debunked news about potential adverse reactions on the one side. Not knowing about some of the more severe adverse reactions on the other side.
That´s the point that we as a society need to focus on. And the option that I would prefer over mandates. I really think that if people would simply look at the available facts and make their decision based on them we wouldn´t need any mandates. The vaccine rate in the US isn´t higher or lower (lower compared to other countries of similar development) because people are smarter/dumber. It is lower because the topic is highly politized.

And that brings us to the political side and the divided political landscape in the US. Another major concern. Even if mandates are justifable they might not lead to the desired results. As shown by some of the posts in this thread. Mandates aren´t changing the minds of people. The opposite. They strengthen the opinions of skeptics. Especially if the mandate comes from an authority they don´t trust.
And they would still refuse the available vaccines. Something that even a mandate cannot change. A mandate can prevent them from working in a given field or visiting certain places. It can never justify forced injections.


To bring this to an end. I am happy that I don´t have to determine whether mandates are justifiable in this case. And I am not qualified to make that decision. Personally I would support mandates for health care workers and can also see the case for a few other groups (for example teachers). But maybe I am under/over rating the threat. And I would highlight that any potential mandate needs clearly defined evidence based exemptions (for example a previous infection within the last six month leading to immunity, allergies, other health related reasons).

[ItsGoTime]

I am torn. Vaccines save lifes. And as discussed in the early days of this thread. They can be a legal option. But I am not sure if the current situation justifies a vaccine mandate. Especially if we are talking about a mandate for all americans. Would be a different story if the vaccines would completly stop transmission but that´s not the case. Or with an even deadlier virus. Even with a mandate there obviously need to be exemptions. Previously infected (let´s say within the last 6-12) month shouldn´t be forced. To the best of our knowledge they have immunity. Not to mention a small group of people that cannot take the vaccine for various health related reasons.

I can definitely see a good case for mandates in specific fields of work. Especially among health care workers. We really don´t need a repeat of the NY hospital situation. Or something even worse like the first wave in northern italy. Mandates for health care workers are actually a wide spread policy around the world.


When we started this discussion it wasn´t as much about medical talking points. More focused on freedom and social issues. Going bigger picture. And that is just my opinion but it is very similar to some of the rulings that upheld vaccine mandates in the past or in other countries. There is no way to deny that this is a human/individual rights issue. Bodily integrity is at the core of this issue. Protecting our body and the ability to be the masters of our body. But and now it gets interesting we aren´t isolated individual beings. We live in a society. It is not only about our own freedom or bodily integrity. That´s the core of social life. We are agreeing to certain norms for the benefit of ourselfs as a part of the society. In modern days this is organized in form of countries/states/governments.

And this brings us to the point where we cannot say that all of those individual rights are absolute. There are justifiable intrusions on individual liberties. In this case they cannot be seen as an intrusion. They are actually the direct opposite. They are measures to protect members of the society (their bodily integrity). Especially the most vulnerable. That´s the entire point of social life. We aren´t measured by the right of the strongest. We are measured by the way we take care of the most vulnerable (that includes children, for some reason we rarely mention them) or in non medical situations minorities.

The big question is if COVID and the resulting need for vaccines is a justifiable intrusion. In my opinion it is. Now comes the next question. Is the mandate the best option to achieve the goal (protect society, most vulnerable). In my opinion it is. No other treatment/preventive option comes close. We don´t have the time to wait for potentially better treatments. We have seen that measures like social distancing, masks or lockdowns aren´t sustainable. And to come back to the most vulnerable groups are having a big impact on children.

Next question. Has the society (in this case presented by the government) done everything in their power to convince people. Exhausted all other options (information campaigns, incentives). That´s where it gets difficult and where I see major problems (at least in the US) because states are essentially doing whatever they want. This thread alone is showcasing that the necessary informations aren´t reaching the people. Debunked news about potential adverse reactions on the one side. Not knowing about some of the more severe adverse reactions on the other side.
That´s the point that we as a society need to focus on. And the option that I would prefer over mandates. I really think that if people would simply look at the available facts and make their decision based on them we wouldn´t need any mandates. The vaccine rate in the US isn´t higher or lower (lower compared to other countries of similar development) because people are smarter/dumber. It is lower because the topic is highly politized.

And that brings us to the political side and the divided political landscape in the US. Another major concern. Even if mandates are justifable they might not lead to the desired results. As shown by some of the posts in this thread. Mandates aren´t changing the minds of people. The opposite. They strengthen the opinions of skeptics. Especially if the mandate comes from an authority they don´t trust.
And they would still refuse the available vaccines. Something that even a mandate cannot change. A mandate can prevent them from working in a given field or visiting certain places. It can never justify forced injections.


To bring this to an end. I am happy that I don´t have to determine whether mandates are justifiable in this case. And I am not qualified to make that decision. Personally I would support mandates for health care workers and can also see the case for a few other groups (for example teachers). But maybe I am under/over rating the threat. And I would highlight that any potential mandate needs clearly defined evidence based exemptions (for example a previous infection within the last six month leading to immunity, allergies, other health related reasons).

Pretty sure most if not all hospitals are taking care of healthcare workers. I guess there is the individual/specialist offices, don't know where they are at on this, a person can always ask and change their specialist if they don't require it. Same can be said about stores you frequent. Call or look up if they  require vaccination for their employees. If they don't, don't go, or use a delivery service. Sure, it puts more work into the ones choosing to go the probable safest route, but the whole reason to get vaccinated is to go the safest route, right?

[dirkfansince1998]

Pretty sure most if not all hospitals are taking care of healthcare workers. I guess there is the individual/specialist offices, don't know where they are at on this, a person can always ask and change their specialist if they don't require it. Same can be said about stores you frequent. Call or look up if they  require vaccination for their employees. If they don't, don't go, or use a delivery service. Sure, it puts more work into the ones choosing to go the probable safest route, but the whole reason to get vaccinated is to go the safest route, right?

This goes back to my point about the most vulnerable. And along with some of the complains during lockdowns. Let them stay home. Let the rest of us do whatever we want. I don´t agree with that approach and would like to point out that at some points the roles will be reversed (hopefully we will all reach a certain age). Again that´s why humanity isn´t living in isolation. They came to the conclusion that it is benefical to form a society. Even if that comes with certain norms it provides a benefit for the individual. We can be hopeful that we that cared for the vulnerable will be taken care of when we reach that point.

But it goes beyond that. In this case one point for the health care worker to get the vaccine is to protect the patients. Prevent the spread of the virus. The other to protect themself. Which also protects others because the worker can continue to his job. In this case take caring of patients.


Not to mention that you are offering a very specific example. In many cases people don´t have the choice. Just like people in  fields of work don´t have the options to avoid contact or protect themself. They have to rely on others to do their part. Just like they are doing their part. To the benefit of not only them but all.
To add to that. We also have clear regulations for work place safety on both public and private level. In this case a vaccine mandate might be the last resort but it can be an option. So far we are mostly seeing policies that give other options. Per definition test mandates with exemptions for vaccinated people.

And not to forget. This isn´t only limited to certain groups. The individual that is choosing to take the risk of COVID is not only endangering himself and other because of the chance to spread the virus. The person could also contribute to overwhelmed hospitals. Once again not only making a decision for himself. Also endangering others.

For people that are interested. An interesting read that expands on the points that I tried to make:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...d-science/

[ItsGoTime]

What I was saying is I don’t know of any hospitals that are employing unvaccinated workers. My sister-in-law who is a new nurse looking for work in the Hou area has not found a single hospital that will employ her without the vaccination record, so she got it to be able to find employment.

[luka_skywalker_77]

The mandate is unconstitutional and tyrannical and will be struck down in court.

"Roundtable discussion with vaccine injured and medical experts on federal vaccine mandates and the importance of health care freedom"

https://rumble.com/vokrf7-sen.-johnson-e...K0g1lGuf-U