Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[Dahlsim]

The link to cancer exists and it is extremely obvious and not what you might or might not have been implying. Mr. Powell was suffering a form of cancer which specifically concerns plasma cells. The biological function of these cells is to mass-produce antibodies against previously recognized pathogens. People with this type of cancer are known to have a severely reduced immunoresponse and hence a severely increased risk to fall victim to all kind of infections, even those, which are usually completely harmless for healthy people. These patients are also well known to often be unable to develop sufficient immunity from vaccinations - as the natural protection from vaccinations uses the same mechanisms and the same group of cells to induce a protection via antibodies against infectious agents.

Knowledge about that is actually established for decades. It is known and shown to be also the case for Covid-19 in several studies (as expected). In fact, doctors, researchers and even some politicians are concerned since the start of the whole pandemic about how to protect this very group of people which are known to be both: extremely vulnerable to Covid-19 and with a much reduced chance to get sufficient protection from vaccination.

The risk for severe cases of Covid-19 is higher in older people, and especially high for the age group of 80y+. Mr. Powell was 84 years old.

Mr. Powell got his second shot in February per sources. 8 month from now. Data from all over the world consistently shows, immunity is increasingly waning after 5-6 month; younger people still have good protection especially against severe courses. But waning of protection is much, much steeper in the age group 80y+.

So Mr. Powell had cancer, a form which severely reduces the ability to produce antibodies at all (from vaccination and infection with the actual SarsCov-2 virus), was member of an age group known to be severely endangered by Covid-19 (much more than the mean of the population) and which is also known to have a lower immuncompetence and therefore weaker protection from vaccination even without cancer. If he had been under actual treatment against cancer (I didn't see any information about this) it would have further weakened his immunocompetence. Unfortunate as his passing may be, he was exactly the kind of person you'd expect to fall victim to the virus.

With all the information I've just lined out available (in a more compressed form) in more or less every source I've seen about Collin Powells passing it's really difficult for me to understand why one would think it was necessary for the sake of free speech or some misguided idea of balance to indicate a connection between Mr Powells cancer and his Anti-SarsCov-2 vaccination. Of course you didn't say it, you said, maybe, or maybe not and you would never say there is a connection, but you still don't know ...

But you have actually put both pieces of information on the table close enough to indicate there could be a causal connection while no available data hints to that and the overwhelming majority of researchers don't consider it a serious threat (especially compared to the threat from the virus itself)

Free speech is something important. But with great power comes great responsibility. And presenting information in a way like you did here (and not for the first time in this thread) is irresponsible in my opinion because it fails to differentiate between information that is supported with a lot of data and information which is supported with few data or no data at all (like Anti-SarsCov-2 vaccines maybe inducing cancer).  This is producing doubt and mistrust into vaccines that are currently our best weapon against the pandemic (by a large margin) and as a consequence that adds to the establishment of a climate where people get the false idea it is unclear whether the vaccines create more good or more harm and therefore might avoid this important way to protect themselves and die or get severely ill. The same goes for indicating Vitamin D, invermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and a daily walk would offer the same or even better protection. Which they do not.

(I'm not even talking about the last quote about refugees from Afghanistan and their vaccination status as an indicator that the government might have some hidden agenda to force the whole population to get vaccinated for whatever evil reasons they might have).

Let's start here @"Jannemann2" 

But you have actually put both pieces of information on the table close enough to indicate there could be a causal connection while no available data hints to that and the overwhelming majority of researchers don't consider it a serious threat (especially compared to the threat from the virus itself)

Free speech is something important. But with great power comes great responsibility. And presenting information in a way like you did here (and not for the first time in this thread) is irresponsible in my opinion because it fails to differentiate between information that is supported with a lot of data and information which is supported with few data or no data at all (like Anti-SarsCov-2 vaccines maybe inducing cancer). 

Let's look at the facts here. I posted a reference link.  You came back now and provided information about the linkage.  That's called free speech.  It gets the job done.  If you want to say I am irresponsible for presenting the simple link to the information without the differentiation or detail you provide then would it be fair for me to accuse you of being irresponsibility for never addressing the point of such well know people's vaccination related issues to the begin with?   

So is all he responsibility on me to present the views that dissent with mainstream AND to detail your more mainstream narrative views as well?   I don't think so.  How about you be responsible and share what you know and I'll be responsible and share points that I find concerning and / or relevant to the discussion. 

That would be your part of the great free speech responsibility side of the equation.  

The same goes for indicating Vitamin D, invermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and a daily walk would offer the same or even better protection. Which they do not.

 
#1 I never said those particular items would offer the same or even better protection.  For a scientist I think you're failing in making a point like that in such an offhanded and careless manner. 

1) One there are a number of methods many people use to strengthen natural immunity and or provide prophylactic support against COVID-19. 

2) Can you substantiate exactly how much protection factors that support natural immunity provide compared to vaccination? 

3) What age group can you substantiate this for? In other words if people under 20 get their protection from natural immunity how does that stack up to vaccination?   Under 30? Under 40? Under 50?  Over 50?  Do you have those studies? I'd love to see them. 

4) What is the risk factor for various demographic groups, age, race and those with possible underlying conditions for example have what risks in taking the vaccinations?   
Can some of these demographic groups pretty please Mr. scientist decide for themselves?  Maybe some of them are low risk to begin with and their research leads to feel that natural immunity strengthening measures are preferred? 
Maybe some of them are even Doctors or Scientists or Researches or Nurses or others that might have reached a somewhat different conclusion from you and the smartest guys in the room? 
Should those professionals have a choice if they would like to rely on their own natural immunity measures or
must they be forcefully injected by you much smarter people? 

 it's really difficult for me to understand why one would think it was necessary for the sake of free speech or some misguided idea of balance to indicate a connection between Mr Powells cancer

I really appreciate your additional details although I did say myself that his case involved cancer and I did say we could not define the relationship as blaming the vaccine.   

In all seriousness I could list 10 to 20 more post vaccination serious adverse event cases right now among well known people.  I've already posted a piece about how some are alarmed at the clear volume of anecdotal evidence that vaccinated and even fully vaccinated are still getting Covid and even serious cases at a case higher than they expected.  That source was mainstream, not a "anti-vax" site.    

A few adverse event cases I know personally.  Other cases documented with video evidence and details on the sites I linked to like vaccinations.daystar.com .   
They have credentialed Doctors there that provide other cases they claim to have personally treated or know involving cancer and blood issues in particular.  

Vaccinated people are also still spreading the virus which I find to be something that public certainly here in the US is terribly misinformed about.  The clear implication when you walk into business is ignorance when they say "wear a mask if unvaccinated, not need if you are fully vaccinated."  Where is the public getting the idea that they don't need to worry about the spreading the virus if they are vaccinated but the unvaccinated are the ones presenting all the danger? 

Is that more from sound proven science or more from narrative?

It just so happened that Mr. Colin Powell's case just happened as we are having this discussion.  
If I were trying to actively discredit the vaccination, which I am not, I would direct post some of doctors and videos to some of the people that have claimed much worse.    
There is some risk to the vaccine. 

The virus is the obvious great threat so its great to have vaccinations that reduce its impact. 
Hiding or suppressing the risks of vaccinations and downplaying alternatives like natural immunity to justify forcing those vaccinations?    Anti free expression and not cool.   

 
81 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted
https://brownstone.org/articles/79-resea...nd-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. 

My point remains that it is more misleading and irresponsible to simply present the vaccinations as a slam dunk issue that should be forcefully injected to all of the public.  To do this too many people kind of like yourself seem to be arguing that there is no real or respectable dissent or disagreement in the Medial and Scientific community.  That simply does not appear to accurate. 

The vaccinated are showing viral loads (very high) similar to the unvaccinated (Acharya et al. and Riemersma et al.), and the vaccinated are as infectious. Riemersma et al. also report Wisconsin data that corroborate how the vaccinated individuals who get infected with the Delta variant can potentially (and are) transmit(ting) SARS-CoV-2 to others (potentially to the vaccinated and unvaccinated).

This troubling situation of the vaccinated being infectious and transmitting the virus emerged in seminal nosocomial outbreak papers by Chau et al. (HCWs in Vietnam), the Finland hospital outbreak[/url] (spread among HCWs and patients), and the [url=https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.39.2100822#html_fulltext]Israel hospital outbreak (spread among HCWs and patients).