11-02-2021, 04:03 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-05-2021, 01:26 AM by 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(11-01-2021, 08:26 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: 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.
(11-01-2021, 08:26 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: 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.
(11-01-2021, 08:45 PM)Dahlsim Wrote: 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.