Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[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.