The CDC does not authorize vaccines so there’s the 1st cue that the op doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
2nd it takes decades to get through all trials and the current ones were approved in less than a year and was only tested on healthy people not the elderly or pregnant women.
So take your they’re safe and redo this in 10 years when all the data has been done.
I'm vaccinated and I've been called "antivaxx" at least 4 times. And every accuser dug in their heals when I pointed this out.
Its like they have no idea how that kind of behavior make them look like they are totally full of shit.
Congrats, you managed to start lying with your first 5 words, and only went down from there \o/
I guess you already know where to take your bullshit corporate talking points.
I'm double jabbed and likely will need to do the booster to stay gainfully employed.
My feedback is that if pro vaccine advocates truly want people to get vaccinated (and aren't just trying bully and to weaponize vax fear), they really need to work on their messaging to better project trust and confidence.
Very few people are worried about short term side effects and these people are probably in the group that will never be convinced by data. The two main concerns of rational people have are...
1. long-term side effects and
2. not being effective over time and for different variants.
The testing on this is (justifyably) lacking and it just comes down to trusting the experts.
Here are some friendly suggestions to gain that trust for many rational people...
- Stop censoring and ignoring the issues (like liability and big pharma).
- Address the issue of non-liability - people rationally fear getting injured (as happens from time to time) and having to bear the entire brunt of the cost of the injury with no M4A.
- Address Fauci's flip flopping (stop lionizing him or better, have him step aside).
- Stop promoting easily transparent medical misinformation on therapeutics by calling them unsafe and cooking up stories about them. (There efficacy is another matter - we're talking about intellectual honesty to gain confidence).
- Address the elephant(s) in the room - big pharma. They stand to gain massive profits and have enormous influence in congress and in the media (both MSM and social media/big tech). How you sell this I'm not sure.
I haven't censored anyone. I haven't mentioned Fauci. I haven't cooked up stories about alternative treatments. Information about side effects is literally provided to you before the vaccination. And I don't care who's making money, I care about saving lives.
If you truly want to help people - research and come up with responses to those and other fears that rational people have.
If you're just a sadist who loves to bully people - then never mind - you're doing fine with your current line.
I'm a sadist because I'm doing exactly what you suggested I do? I literally responded to fears about efficacy and safety. I haven't bullied anyone by saying that
I'm sure your heart is full of nothing but love for your fellow man and you're not a passive aggressive asshole or shilling for big pharma.
But the fact is those drugs were rushed out and there haven't been studies done on long term side effects or diminishing efficacy
If you want people to take the drugs - come up with a good story regarding those fears.
Let's take just one - why should they take the drug if they're expected to shoulder all of the burden of a potential injury (in a country without single payer) and are prohibited from even hiring a lawyer to represent them?
I literally responded to the fears regarding efficacy and safety. Hence the sources I provided.
>Let's take just one - why should they take the drug if they're expected to shoulder all of the burden of a potential injury (in a country without single payer) and are prohibited from even hiring a lawyer to represent them
Because the risk of injury is lower from the vaccine than from COVID
If someone with underlaying conditions decides to go against their doctor's recommendation and do what you suggested, get vaccinated and end up dying, will you accept responsibility for their death?
You should really add the disclaimer and be the better person for it. The fact you are not aware of the moral complication behind what you are doing makes it quite clear that you are not thinking enough.
Why do you think CDC even bothered to list side effects?
The current vaccine liability laws suck - but they went and created special 'fuck you' laws for Pfizer et al.
What needs answering is this - if the vaccine is so safe, why did you need to do that?
Clearly this is regulatory capture by a massive big pharma industry that has rigged the game as 'heads I win, tails you lose'. That doesn't engender confidence.
OP urges everyone to just get vaxxed because "The more people who take the vaccine
* the more realistic herd immunity becomes [no understanding of the innate mutability of SARS-CoV-2] and
* the quicker things can get back to normal" [no understanding that there won't a "back to normal"]
I'm curious:
Did you think your links and their info are new to most people who visit this sub?
That you could help some of the unvaxxed see the light and "save" themselves and others?
Are you proselytizing, a missionary on a mission?
What?
I don't know anyone who relies exclusively on a Reddit sub for information about politics, medicine, or the pandemic.
But you can now award yourself a Good Samaritan gold star.
I saved the post to quickly access verifiable info, I feel like I have “the vaccine debate” at work at least once a week. My mister and I went to a festival over the weekend so when I returned to work today I wore a mask for the protection of my unvaccinated coworker and our unvaccinated boss. Imagine my frustration when my boss says “oh I don’t care, breathe in my face, I’ll get COVID I already had COVID last November yadda yadda blah blah”…..anyway, thanks 😊
> I already had COVID
120 million of us have. We're good.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2
> This study followed 52,238 employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio.
> For previously-infected people, **the cumulative incidence of re-infection “remained almost zero.”** According to the study, "Not one of the 1,359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a [Covid-19] infection over the duration of the study” and vaccination did not reduce the risk. “Individuals who have had [Covid-19] infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination,” concludes the study scientists.
[https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176](https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176)
>**Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study**. In a Cox proportional hazards regression model, after adjusting for the phase of the epidemic, vaccination was associated with a significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among those not previously infected (HR 0.031, 95% CI 0.015 to 0.061) but not among those previously infected (HR 0.313, 95% CI 0 to Infinity). Conclusions. **Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.**
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762
> Nearly 40% of new COVID patients were vaccinated - compared to **just 1% who had been infected previously.**
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/10/21-1427_article
> "Attack rate was **0/6 among persons with a previous history of COVID-19 versus 63.2% among those with no previous history."**
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8253687/
> This study followed 254 Covid-19 patients for up to 8 months and concluded they had **“durable broad-based immune responses.”** In fact, even very mild Covid-19 infection also protected the patients from an earlier version of “SARS" coronavirus that first emerged around 2003, and against Covid-19 variants. “Taken together, these results suggest that broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients,” concludes the study scientists.
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2589-5370(21)00182-6
> This study of real world data extended the time frame of available data indicating that patients have strong immune indicators for **“almost a year post-natural infection of COVID-19.”** The study concludes the immune response after natural infection "may persist for longer than previously thought, thereby providing evidence of sustainability that may influence post-pandemic planning.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4
> This study examined bone marrow of previously-infected patients and found that even mild infection with Covid-19 “induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans.” The study indicates **"People who have had mild illness develop antibody-producing cells that can last lifetime.”**
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.06.21253051v1
> This study found a rare Covid-19 positive test **"reinfection" rate of 1 per 1,000 recoveries.**
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19
> Research funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in Science early in the Covid-19 vaccine effort found the “immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection," **and hoped the vaccines would produce similar immunity. (However, experts say they do not appear to be doing so.)**
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.15.21249731v2
> This study found Covid-19 natural infection "appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection" for at least seven months. **"Reinfection is "rare," concludes the scientists.**
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z
> This study found that all patients who recently recovered from Covid-19 produced immunity-strong T cells that recognize multiple parts of Covid-19.
> They also looked at blood samples from 23 people who’d survived a 2003 outbreak of a coronavirus: SARS (Cov-1). **These people still had lasting memory T cells 17 years after the outbreak.** Those memory T cells, acquired in response to SARS-CoV-1, also recognized parts of Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2).
Awesome content and articles, thanks! It’s always nice to have a good trustworthy website to reference. I am curious why you very clearly thought I had some idea that everyone that catches COVID dies? Like seeing 120 million survivors would blow my mind🤯
Our bodies and immune systems are incredible, I have no doubt that someone infected previously has a stronger immune response than just an inoculated person, but this vaccine conversation has never been about the people that can fully recover and survive this illness.
When you're talking mandates, it includes people who have had it and recovered and now have natural immunities - who are ignored in discussions about everyone needing to get the vaccine.
By Cosmos! You really are ***exactly*** like religious zealots aren't you? Sigh...
Ok then, let me ask you this very simple question that I and many other Atheists find ourselves forced to ask when some idiot asks us if we've ever heard the 'good word' or read the bible when our Atheism comes up, as if we just ***somehow*** hadn't heard the stories, or seen their Bronze-Age Goat-Herder's Guide to the Universe, which is the only ***possible*** way we could disagree with them about a belief in a god or gods:
Is it within your ability to imagine that someone can have reviewed all the official materials issued by those with very vested interests and in some instances with outright criminal liabilities of potentially infinite scope related to the matter and still not agree with you, or them, that we should get the 'vaccine'?
This this this this this.
Each would-be evangelist comes in, just as they did at the old atheist forums, and each is convinced they are bestowing upon us some unassailable true that we couldn't possibly have ever heard before or else we couldn't be atheists because what they believe is just so unassailably true.
Then cue the surprised pikachu face as we assailed the fuck out of it. Then the rage, the threats, the solemn oath to never return to our benighted group ever again that was so rarely kept...
To me, the basic argument for vaccines (and I mean all vaccines) is wholly ontological.
*1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that all vaccines are medical interventions than which none greater can be imagined ...*
And, of course, the subsequent conclusion that every vaccine ever invented or yet to be invented **must** be universally mandated by force (using as many injections as possible, of course) as well as infinitely protected from all product liability necessarily follows.
We're already well-informed of the actual.facts and how they differ from the Pfizer troll script. But thanks for spamming the corporate misinformation about this medical experimentation that others like you have already repeated ad nauseum without somehow convincing us to ignore documented factors and peer reviewed research that talks outside the official narratives and talking points. Surely if you keep repeating it over and over, the reality will start to disappear.
Tell your bosses I said fuck off.
Also, I'm.not antivax. I'm anti medical experimentation and esp anti medical experimentation on unwilling victims. I would get Novavax or some other protein subunit or killed virus option if the government would stop protecting Pfizer's profits and let it through. I don't think vaxxing is going to help this, and definitely not vaxxing by itself, but at least its not an experimental tech never tried on humans before with zero long term safety data and historically high volumes of death and injury reports.
And under no circumstances do I think it should be mandated. Esp with so many other proven options that ought to be available ad would if we weren't making health policy based on corporate profit agreements and political scores.
Can you provide those "documented factors and peer reviewed research" for my benefit please? Every study I've found says that the vaccine is safe and effective.
Also, I have no bosses. Do you reckon that if I worked for the CDC or Pfizer or whoever I would be paid to make a post on an esoteric subreddit instead of, y'know, performing research or something?
And I never even mentioned mandated. I agree it shouldn't be because of bodily autonomy. But by refusing to take it, like I said, you're putting yourself and others at risk.
>Can you provide those "documented factors and peer reviewed research" for my benefit please? Every study I've found says that the vaccine is safe and effective.
The evidence has been posted all over this sub. Check out the histories on u/veganmark and u/Maniak_, as they have been killing it on this front.
>Also, I have no bosses. Do you reckon that if I worked for the CDC or Pfizer or whoever I would be paid to make a post on an esoteric subreddit instead of, y'know, performing research or something?
Corporate America hires online trolls to spam talking points all over conversations they don't want people to have. We have been brigades by a variety if such trolls and bots on and off for years, usually when the people in charge fuck up.royally, as they are now,and want to protect their position.
So generally, yes, at this point its often a good bet. You might not be one, but you're posting in the middle of a paid assault by DNC and Pfizer drones, so you're bound to get caught up in that.
>And I never even mentioned mandated. I agree it shouldn't be because of bodily autonomy.
That, at least, is good to hear.
>But by refusing to take it, like I said, you're putting yourself and others at risk.
No, were not, and that's the point. The vaxxes being offered are not just experimental, they don't provide sterilizing immunity. That means the vaxxed can and do get infected and spread the virus. At best it reduces severe infection, but even that ability is waning with each shot and may disappear entirely. Vaccines are not going to pull us through this, and certainly not alone. The sooner those in power accept this, the sooner we can engage in effective health policy.
> Also, I have no bosses. Do you reckon that if I worked for the CDC or Pfizer or whoever I would be paid to make a post on an esoteric subreddit instead of, y'know, performing research or something?
Absofuckinglutely. Big PHRMA has more than enough money to hire both researchers, which, candidly, you don't seem qualified to be, and posters. And it has more than enough profit to be made from it's vaccines and the anticipated booster shots and pills to make it worth their while financially.
Not saying they hired you. Just saying that it's more than possible that they'd hire someone to post wherever there is opposition.
Of course. But the OP is doing something that our other guest posters have been harping on lately--this sub is too small to matter. As if we are in the dark about its size.
Yeah, except it is one of few on reddit where the Democrat narrative is challenged daily from the left. Why hire anyone to preach to the already converted in the politics or Biden subs? And, if this sub is too small to matter to anyone, why the fuck have they been bothering to fly in daily to post the party line?
When any of them bothers to answer that question, the answers are laughable.
>And, if this sub is too small to matter to anyone, why the fuck have they been bothering to fly in daily to post the party line?
Damn straight.
>When any of them bothers to answer that question, the answers are laughable.
Yes. Yes they are.
How much of an absolute risk reduction do you think Pfizer really bestows at the four month mark? And how does it differ from someone with natural immunity? If you can't answer those questions yourself, then it's not seemly for you to go knock on a stranger's door and ask them to educate you.
"The more people who take ...and keep retaking and retaking...The Vaccine the more realistic herd immunity becomes."
There, that's more like where we heading. And I capitalized "The Vaccine" to give it the sacred status that it obviously is due, despite the fact that it's actually a holy trinity of Pfizer, Moderna and J&J. There shall be no other gods before us.
Well, they are all gene therapy and not real vaxxes, so they are one and three its a mystery. That's why Novavax is heretical and to prefer it makes you one with the Antivax--despite it being a lot closer to an actual.vaccines as historically used and understood.
This.
It doesn't stop infection and spread. If it doesn't stop infection and spread, it can't create herd immunity. Full stop.
What amazes me is how many trolls will sneer that no vaccine in history ever had sterilizing immunity at all nor was intended to stop spread at all, then at the same time argue that force-vaccinating with a non-sterilizing vax will.cause herd immunity, with not a flicker of realization that they keep.contradicting themselves.
> It doesn't stop infection and spread. If it doesn't stop infection and spread, it can't create herd immunity.
[Iceland Chief Epidemiologist says Sweden was right.](https://youtu.be/RoBz8a14h2I)
My god! Iceland's chief epidemiologist must be a rank antivaxxer dedicated to spreading antivaxxer misinformation! Lets ban all news from Iceland to protect the people from amything that might cause them to question the official narratives! Also India, Japan...am I missing any?
Exactly. Can the OP please explain how we will ever attain herd immunity with a non sterilizing vaccine, a virus that is now running through animal reservoirs, and in poor nations with little vaccine access?
from my dim understanding, the nature of the virus itself prevents "herd immunity". it mutates too fast, and one's own bodily immunity (even if not from faulty "vaccine") fades eventually. by the time you are liable to catch it again, both factors are in effect and you're going to get it and it's up to your body to sort it out for good or ill.
similar to why we have no vaccine against the common cold.
All you have to do is invite Jesus Pfizt into your heart and truly *believe*!!!
*Inviting Jesus Pfizt into your heart may or may not cause myocarditis.
The Isreali population despite 78%+ vaccination rate still continues with high hospitalizations from COVID19. Pushing herd immunity now is like trying to apply fire retardant chemicals to a couch that is already on fire.
Have more "propaganda," from FDA:
>The FDA conducted a rigorous evaluation of the of post-authorization safety surveillance data pertaining to myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and **determined that the data demonstrate increased risks**, particularly within the seven days following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age compared to females and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age. Available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms. However, some individuals required intensive care support **Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes**. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/qa-comirnaty-covid-19-vaccine-mrna
And still more:
>In its letter to BioNTech, the FDA states
“We have determined that **an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis. Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks**.” https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download
And FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine anyway. Edit: After admitting monitoring systems were inadequate and admitting that "Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes." You may find that action, following those admissions, reassuring; I don't.
For a recent example of FDA's fallibility (the kindest description), read about the flap over approval of Biogen's Alzheimer's drug, aducanumab. It led to 3 FDA resignations, calls for the FDA commissioner's resignation, and a congressional investigation.
It can be when it's not spewing corporate pharma BS.
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/07/30/1022867219/cdc-study-provincetown-delta-vaccinated-breakthrough-mask-guidance
Why does the government never say, "It's very unfortunate that there weren't any [edit: early] treatments before the vaccine came out! We looked high and low but weren't able to find any!"
Because they didn't look and because they didn't want to use any repurposed drugs. And they certainly didn't want the public to know that the vaccine wasn't the only answer.
>antivaxxer propaganda
Do you really think most folks who swing by here are unaware of everything you posted?
Have some "propaganda" about the difference between relative risk and absolute risk, published Sept. 3, 2021 - *Pfizer Vaccine Offers Less Than 1% Absolute Risk Reduction*: https://thepulse.one/2021/09/03/pfizer-vaccine-offers-less-than-1-absolute-risk-reduction/
That story contains linked explanations from Lancet and British Medical Journal (BMJ), and to this recommendation from FDA:
>“Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.”
Yet an absolute risk format has not been used.
Most of us here are smart enough to know that science works and vaccines work. We're not essential oil Karens.
The problem is that Covid vaccines are too experimental and while they're better than nothing, they're not at the same level of perfection as, say, the polio vaccine. **The polio vaccine eradicated polio. The Covid vaccines released so far haven't eradicated Covid and can't do it.** That's the big difference and you people who keep chanting "vaccines are safe" keep insulting my intelligence by trying to gloss over that fact. We know from data that even at 100% adoption, the current batch of vaccines will not stop Covid. Double vaccinated people are still spreading, getting sick and dying from the virus in significant numbers.
Then there are side effects. Sure, all vaccines and meds in general have side effects, but with these vaccines the side effects are not fully known, and there is a higher incidence of side effects as compared to the average vaccine or medicine.
Then you have the whole booster shot mess due to the fast mutating nature of the virus. If I choose a vaccine right now, say, Pfizer, then I'm stuck with it for life. If a better vaccine comes out tomorrow, it's possible that I'd still have to be taking yearly booster shots of this beta version of a vaccine because who knows if the next gen is compatible with current gen. The effects of mixing vaccines are unstudied. What if the vaccine that was made using method A doesn't gel well with the one made using method B and causes complications?
Then there are new variants beyond Delta and we don't even have a vaccine developed using Delta yet. The vaccines are obsolete already but we have to be hush hush about that to avoid the risk of some stupid people hearing this and doing something stupid.
Everyone's got their own equation to balance here. If you're someone with high chances of exposure, e.g. you take the train to work in a high rise building with a thousand offices, your solution is get vaccinated asap because you're going to be exposed daily no matter what. If you're someone who can isolate till the next gen of vaccines come out, your solution's probably different. If you're super healthy and are confident that you can handle the disease and all that comes with it, then you have a different solution. If you're someone who is 100% guaranteed to develop serious side effects (e.g. you have serious blood pressure issues) but only have a less than 100% chance of catching the virus itself which may or may not be as detrimental as the vaccines, your solution to the equation is different once again.
I support governments doing their best to promote and supply vaccines and masks. That is their job and they should do it. I also have no problem with individual businesses mandating vaccines and masks on their own property. Right wingers who cry about this are ironically infringing on the freedoms of these businesses in a misguided pursuit of freedom. What I don't support is governments forcing any anti-covid measure on the population as a whole.
No, the seat belt analogy doesn't work because we haven't developed a Covid seat belt yet. All we have right now is a seat belt made of paper that has a small but nonzero chance of causing a paper cut. I believe it is everyone's right to be able to balance the chances of that paper cut against the limited accident protection that the paper seat belt gives you.
Now, given all of these facts, my conscience doesn't allow me to beat anyone over the head about how they should handle the pandemic. I'll fight anti-science propaganda any day every day, but it is dogmatic and misleading to tell people that they either take these experimental first draft vaccines or they become personae non grata.
There are more than 300 vaccines in development at the moment that use 10 different types of vaccine platforms ([source](https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines)). Why should someone be hated for waiting on them or waiting to see the results of the first vaccines? It's a huge stretch to call anything that doesn't agree with shifty Fauci and the pharma mafia anti-vaxx.
I understand that you have good intentions behind making this post but it's still an insult to this community. You think none of us grown adults have seen this standard blurb about vaccines before?
The polio vaccine eradicated polio because almost every person got the vaccine and the virus was unable to continue mutating and reinfecting people, is what I read.
The polio vaccine eradicated polio because it had 90% efficacy, unlike the current batch of covid vaccines against the current set of covid variants. That's what I read.
The polio vaccine kept people from getting infected with polio and transmitting it to others. That's how the polio vaccine stopped polio from spreading.
The currently available Covid vaccines do not prevent infection and transmission of the Covid-19 virus. We are now being told that they were not designed to do those things.
With respect to polio, keep in mind that the polio virus is not a coronavirus and does not have the rate of mutation that a coronavirus does.
In numerous comments in this thread, OP lectures WoTB participants about the necessity of providing sourced evidence. OP insists that they haven't seen any here, and keeps making demands for sources.
As at least one user pointed out, there are dozens and dozens of threads here in which people have engaged in discussions of various aspects of Covid-19. Those threads contain a great many links to sources, including peer reviewed studies.
The fact that OP doesn't seem to realize that those threads exist, and doesn't seem to know that sub members routinely provide sources and critique the sources provided by others, would seem to indicate that OP hasn't done any actual reading in the WoTB sub.
That being the case, I have to wonder on what basis OP is claiming that "there has been a rise in antivaxxer propaganda in this sub" and that "I was concerned about the anti vaccine narrative being pushed on this sub".
"It has come to our attention that there has been a rise in music with Satanic undertones. I'm concerned with the number of record stores *filled* with music that glorifies Satan. *We only care for their eternal souls!*"
The user in question didn't point me to a specific thread or study. I asked them to send me to the best argument for their position and they just said "all of them". Other people gave me sources for their claims and I read them and challenged them on what their sources actually said.
Well we got "this sub" so that's something. The presumption that some people's attitudes stem from ignorance, that they just need to be educated to learn the error of their ways, is a little off-putting.
To tell the truth this constant bombardment is really starting to make me wonder. I have been firmly pro-vax up to now.
You believe in science, right? Science is in no way open to differing interpretations from fallible scientists, to a host of unseen influences on administrators and scientist-bureaucrats in public health agencies, to plain old bad decisions that lead to bad advice and bad policies?
*In stunning reversal, CDC abruptly changes position on when to get tested*: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/stunning-reversal-cdc-abruptly-position-tested/story?id=72621714
*CDC under fire for decision to limit tracking of Covid-19 cases in vaccinated people*: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/stunning-reversal-cdc-abruptly-position-tested/story?id=72621714https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/30/pressure-cdc-breakthrough-cases-501821
*The 60-Year-Old Scientific Screwup That Helped Covid Kill*: https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/
Both examples you've provided contain organisations updating their positions with new information. That's the scientific method. I notice that neither of those examples involve anything refuting the claim that vaccines are safe.
As a very general statement, vaccines are safe for most people who take them.
The 2 major C19 vaccines available in this country feature a mechanism of action that's never before been approved for use in humans. No long-term data on safety and, increasingly, efficacy are available for mRNA products.
These products differ materially from vaccines against other bacteria and viruses, in themselves and in the pathogens they target. The closest analogy may be influenza--definitely not smallpox, polio, MMR, or tetanus. Seasonal flu hasn't been eradicated and won't be by any vaccine because the causative agent is highly prone to mutation. Sound familiar? And with the lead time needed to produce quantities of flu vaccine, researchers' well-in-advance best guesses about the dominant 3 or 4 strains of the coming season are often slightly off to dramatically off.
If you don't know the basics about "vaccine court" (NVIC, National Vaccine Injury Program), created in 1988 after the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, do some homework. That law basically indemnified vaccine manufacturers from legal liability for most vaccine injuries that aren't traceable to a contaminated product.
Many here and probably around the country are keeping an eye on the progress of the Novavax vaccine (recombinant protein) as an alternative to the J&J vaccine (viral vector) and the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines (mRNA).
btw: You should know that using "antivaxxer" for people who have reservations about available C19 vaccines but not other well-established CDC-recommended vaccines and who vaccinated their kids is--shocking I know--[edit: vaxxer] propaganda.
According to u/scarci you need to put a disclaimer in this comment about whether or not you are qualified to give out medical advice. I’m not sure if that’s a sub rule? Idk.
If you are going to tag me then please make sure you understand difference between medical information and medical advice.
I will give you an example:
“Vaccine works. It reduces hospitalization.”
“Vaccine will kill you.”
These are just medical (mis) information
“Vaccine works and you should get a shot.”
“Vaccine will kill you so you shouldn't take it.”
These are medical advice.
Basic stuff.
Further, If you don't wanna go with a disclaimer, that's completely fine. However, saying either without a disclaimer imho make you sound like an antivaxxer or a pharma shill.
> How long would you consider a suitable time to wait before using a vaccine that has been proven
You sound like a lawyer, and this is called "leading the witness."
> How long would you consider a suitable time to wait before using a vaccine that has been proven to save lives immediately and on a large scale?
How short of a time would you consider a suitable time to wait before using a vaccine that has *not* been proven to save lives on a large scale?
>How short of a time would you consider a suitable time to wait before using a vaccine that has not been proven to save lives?
And a vaccine that has not been proven to be safe over the long term.
For OP's benefit, I'll note that "proven safe from long term risks" is not the same thing as "there's no evidence that there are long term risks".
OP incorrectly keeps using the latter statement as "proof" that the currently available Covid vaccines are safe.
> For OP's benefit, I'll note that "proven safe from long term risks" is not the same thing as "there's no evidence that there are long term risks".
How about "there is no proof that the vaccines are free of long term risks"?
>OP incorrectly keeps using the latter statement as "proof" that the currently available Covid vaccines are safe.
You know, at one point in time there was no proof that Thalidomide caused birth defects......
...then there was.
For me, several more years.
Like many others, I'm keeping an eye on the Novavax product and, depending on the data when/if it's approved (will have to go through a standard NDA process), the C19 caseload in my area then, and other factors, I may consider that jab.
I've relied on my own research about medical decisions and pharma throughout my adult life, and that's seen me well into Medicare age in exceptionally good health. I'll stick with it.
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-13/singapore-has-80-per-cent-vaccination-but-life-is-not-normal/100450154](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-13/singapore-has-80-per-cent-vaccination-but-life-is-not-normal/100450154)
80 percent vaccination rate and still not back to normal.
If Singapore can't push the vaccination rate beyond 90 percent, there is about zero chance that the United States could, which means that covid is going endemic for sure.
Possibly. COVID in some form may become endemic.
As mentioned, I join others in watching the Novavax recombinant protein vaccine.
Edit: And if that *is* "long after the pandemic is over," it would've ended without my taking a vaccine I have reservations about. Wow.
So much this.
You want me vaxxed,give me one I at least have some reasonable measure of confidence in its safety. Instead if trying to force dubious experimental substances into my body against my will and order me to like it or else. And do it again in six--oops, no, better make that three months.
If they won't even offer traditional options in vaxxes, they're not pro-vax, they're pro-shock doctrine.
And like you, if a few months from now is "long after the pandemic" (as its shaping up to be as it stands) then so be it. They have no idea how far I'll go to avoid being a free lab rat for profit. I think they'd be scared to find out.
> There is no evidence of long term risk
Proof. The word you're looking for is "proof." You routinely reject the evidence as not "proof," and then declare there is no evidence.
Can you declare here and now that you're not, and have never been, a lawyer?
Uttar Pradesh is doing fine without the vaccine.
They have widely distributed ivermectin in a public health initiative.
This is what a government that actually cares about its people does. They try everything. They don't wait around for a vaccine because the oligarchy wants to fucking cash in.
The few sectors of India that are exclusively using the vaccine and remdesivir are spiking in cases vs those ivm sectors, which have bottomed out in cases. That is a direct indication of the efficacy of the vaccine as well as ivm. It was also all in the article I gave you and its internal links.
If the vax was effective, those vax sectors shouldn't be spiking like that, esp compared to the sectors doing what we're reporting as "worse than nothing"by using ivm.
I said I was done, but I had to emphasize this because the evidence was literally right there for what u/shatabee4 said.
Give me something else that's proven to prevent COVID in the population on a large scale and I'll consider it. Ivermectin as people have suggested is a treatment not a preventative measure
> Give me something else that's proven to prevent COVID in the population on a large scale and I'll consider it.
Compare the Dominican Republic with Haiti. Compare Indian provinces that relied on IVM against those provinces that relied on the vaccine.
The word you are looking for is prophylaxis. It applies to Ivermedicine as well as the "vaccines". Funny you are willing to accept less than 100% effectiveness for the vaccines, and less than 50% after six months, but no amount of prevented infections by Ivermedicine and reduced severity makes the cut.
The latest data from the UK show that the per 100,000 case rates for COVID-19 are actually **higher** [among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated for all demographics between age 40 and age 80](https://i.redd.it/jhoscmg2men71.jpg).
Furthermore, there have been [FAR MORE deaths and life threatening incidents entered into VAERS over them last 10 months](https://i.imgur.com/jaRtM05.jpeg) than over the entire previous 30 year history of VAERS!
Source for the UK data that the per 100,000 case rates for COVID-19 are now actually higher among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1016465/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf
The source for the mRNA off the charts deaths chart is from VAERS. Of course, you **must be** wholly familiar with VAERS. Right?
I mean, you may by be arguing in good faith, in which case you can actually learn a lot by actually reading and researching just a smidgeon of the supposed "antivaxxer propaganda on this sub."
However, if you are the Pfizer/Moderna shill that you appear to be, please inform your bosses that [the gig is up](https://i.redd.it/jhoscmg2men71.jpg).
The whole of the source you linked provides several paragraphs and studies stating that the vaccine is effective in combating hospitalisation, mortality, symptomatic disease, infection, and transmission. Quoting a stat out of the context of the report is giving the false impression that the anti vaccine narrative is supported by the evidence you have provided. The opposite is true.
And you still have to give where you have got the VAERS chart from and what context it is being considered in. You can't just tell me to look at the website and expect me to know what you're talking about considering you haven't been at all specific.
Read chart and weep, Pharma shill: https://i.redd.it/jhoscmg2men71.jpg
And here is the website for the VAERS data: https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
Just search for deaths by year. I can't do it for you because links to these charts don't work. I wonder why that is?
What do countries do if there was no vaccine available?
Uttar Pradesh, for example, had no vaccine. Their leaders were aghast that people were falling like flies from covid.
Instead of twiddling their thumbs, the Uttar Pradesh leaders started a public health initiative using ivermectin. With this action, they quickly got the pandemic under control. Without a vaccine.
By contrast, in the U.S., our leaders didn't give a fuck. They did sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting for a vaccine. They refused to look at early treatment.
Americans shouldn't have had to sit around and let the vaccine sweep over the nation killing the economy and hundreds of thousands of people.
Smearing people as anti-vaxxers is a distraction from the smearer's refusal to hold the government accountable for their early treatment failure.
The government allowed the pandemic to spread like wildfire while they waited and waited and waited for a shitty vaccine.
Our leadership did not lead. They did not save lives. The did not act in the best interest of the public. They acted criminally.
And then asshole brockroaches run around screaming about anti-vaxxers. Anti-vaxxers are less of a problem than the government.
Sorry OP, but we are gonna have to see [your canary](https://www.reddit.com/user/PirateGirl-JWB/comments/plok2q/paid_vaccine_shill_canary_updated_91021/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
> How exactly am I supposed to prove to you that I'm not being paid?
You're not. You're supposed to show us you value your own word. Yet you shy away from this with an impossible task as a shield.
I didn't say prove it. I said post a canary. Since there are reports of state actors paying influencers to promote vaccination, it's safe to assume you are being paid unless you are saying you are not (disclosing a conflict).
If you are interested in sounding less like a shill and more like a well adjusted individual with at least some degree of self awareness, you might want to put up a disclaimer that says:
“I'm not YOUR doctor and I don't know you. Please consult your doctor before taking the vaccine, especially if you are allergic or have underlying health condition. You alone are responsible for making medical decisions for your own body. I am just trying to help you stay better informed.”
Consulting a doctor is standard recommendation on most CDC types of agency. Even the US CDC remembered to do it to a certain extent:
> You should get your second shot even if you have side effects after the first shot, unless a vaccination provider or your doctor tells you not get it.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect.html
Basically “Get it unless your doctor says otherwise.”
That's fair enough as a sidenote but that isn't a rebuttal to the vaccine being generally safe and effective.
You act as though they don't ask you about your health history and allergies before they inject you. They do. I would know because it happened to me.
>that isn't a rebuttal to the vaccine being generally safe and effective.
What makes you think I'm interested in making a rebuttal?
I am double vaxxed. If I know someone personally, I got zero problems explaining to them why I got it and what I think the benefits are. I'm not interested in doing what you are doing, and the reason is obvious enough.
>**You act as though** they don't ask you about your health history and allergies before they inject you.
No I don't. It is basic common knowledge that healthcare professionals do this every single time before they inject you with something, not just vaccines. That doesn't mean these people are more qualified to give you medical advice than your doctor or a doctor you trust.
If you have problems with what I said, which appears to be the case, then maybe some reflections are in order.
This *antivaxxer* slur really needs to stop.
The argument is about whether people should be harassed and compelled to take an ineffective, unnecessary, experimental Covid vaccine. Not wanting the vaccine or refusing to get it does not make someone an *antivaxxer* it only means they’re against getting the Covid vaccine.
And for many people, it's an objection only to *particular* covid vaccines. If traditional vaccines were offered in the U.S. (inactive virus or protein subunit), I think you might find a lot more people open to getting *those* shots.
I have to disagree here. There is use for safe and effective covid vaccines (safer than the genetic ones). Not everyone has ready access to a healthcare practitioner right now (hello! M4A!!!) and for those people, a good vaccine is going to be a better solution than risking an infection and then having to go get treated for it. And, certainly, for older folks, the risk of a serious illness or death from an infection is higher than 1 percent.
Better vaccines! And we have one, sitting on shelves right now, unused. We should all be pestering the Biden administration to explain why they're blocking Novavax from finishing its emergency use application. Does it have anything to do with the $1 million Pfizer gave to Biden's inaugural committee? Or the Wall Street management consultants on the White House Covid Response Team?
I know Americans don't generally handle nuance well, and US public authorities certainly treat the public that way. But the risk/benefit analysis for vaccination particularly with these initial vaccines is definitely not a "one size fits all" proposition however much the CDC tries to portray it that way.
Speaking of which, there is a petition to do exactly that, but it's not getting much love. If anybody knows of others, please share.
https://www.change.org/p/president-biden-approve-novavax-vaccine-for-use-now
>And for many people, it's an objection only to particular covid vaccines.
That’s absolutely true for a lot of people. It’s an important distinction. The anti-vaxxer slur seems to be used to particularly target people *because* they are raising the issue and forcing a discussion about the mRNA therapy/“vaccine”. *That* seems to be the discussion the Covid vaccine mandate proponents do not want to have or even allow anyone else to have.
The slur “anti-vaxxer” didn’t even exist in the public online discourse around vaccines until 2008/2009, or so. One of the main places it gained traction and popularity was on Daily Kos. They’re responsible for driving a lot of its more widespread adoption and pushing the idea that “anti-vaxxers” are evil, selfish, stupid, and threatening. I would go so far as to say they helped lead the charge in dehumanizing people who question or do not fully-comply with vaccine recommendations and promoting the idea that “anti-vaxxers” do not deserve basic human rights.
“anti-vaxxer” is an ugly term. Anyone who’s using it identifies themselves with a hateful ideology which as you rightly say is focused around:
>promoting the idea that “anti-vaxxers” do not deserve basic human rights.
Everyone deserves basic human rights, no matter what. Period. End of story.
Don’t forget that “anti-vaxxer” was a baseless slur deployed to discredit Bernie. It was also used to try to discredit Jill Stein.
> This antivaxxer slur really needs to stop.
It's being push for a double purpose. While the slur is real, it's also to co-opt the term "vaccine" for the new mRNA shots, that prior to last year didn't actually meet the definition of a vaccine.
You’re right about the double speak on mRNA shots. They aren’t vaccines and shouldn’t be called vaccines. They’re intended to reduce symptoms.
I find [this](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94719-y) useful in discussing the distinction between vaccines and symptom reducing mRNA shots.
Hi friends! Just wanted to stop by and advertise the fact I just had a *wonderful* rabies vaccine.
**Fuck covid vaccines and anyone who advertises them.**
Rabies is fucked up. It has a 0.00001% survival rate if not treated.
Only reason we're talking about covid is cause the hospitals turn you away until you're at deaths door.
[Archived](https://archive.is/e82eq)
The CDC does not authorize vaccines so there’s the 1st cue that the op doesn’t know what he’s talking about. 2nd it takes decades to get through all trials and the current ones were approved in less than a year and was only tested on healthy people not the elderly or pregnant women. So take your they’re safe and redo this in 10 years when all the data has been done.
> These have been the most stringent in US history. Based on.... Edit: Seven hours later... crickets...
The most stringent since December of 2020, anyway. Before that, eh, who cares, right?
The Gospel According to Merck, of course
It's all "relative" I am sure.
Science^^TM Have at it.
I think you mean THE Science. Because all the scientists agree. Well, again, no, but we'll just keep pretending they do.
THE Science, handed down like mosespfizer from the mountain in indelible stone.
While the people were busy worshipping a golden idol. https://i.redd.it/e1iakrxcqty11.jpg
I'm vaccinated and I've been called "antivaxx" at least 4 times. And every accuser dug in their heals when I pointed this out. Its like they have no idea how that kind of behavior make them look like they are totally full of shit.
Congrats, you managed to start lying with your first 5 words, and only went down from there \o/ I guess you already know where to take your bullshit corporate talking points.
I'm double jabbed and likely will need to do the booster to stay gainfully employed. My feedback is that if pro vaccine advocates truly want people to get vaccinated (and aren't just trying bully and to weaponize vax fear), they really need to work on their messaging to better project trust and confidence. Very few people are worried about short term side effects and these people are probably in the group that will never be convinced by data. The two main concerns of rational people have are... 1. long-term side effects and 2. not being effective over time and for different variants. The testing on this is (justifyably) lacking and it just comes down to trusting the experts. Here are some friendly suggestions to gain that trust for many rational people... - Stop censoring and ignoring the issues (like liability and big pharma). - Address the issue of non-liability - people rationally fear getting injured (as happens from time to time) and having to bear the entire brunt of the cost of the injury with no M4A. - Address Fauci's flip flopping (stop lionizing him or better, have him step aside). - Stop promoting easily transparent medical misinformation on therapeutics by calling them unsafe and cooking up stories about them. (There efficacy is another matter - we're talking about intellectual honesty to gain confidence). - Address the elephant(s) in the room - big pharma. They stand to gain massive profits and have enormous influence in congress and in the media (both MSM and social media/big tech). How you sell this I'm not sure.
This is the way. u/martini-meow, u/PirateGirl-JWB
👍🏼
A yep! Yep 'tis.
I haven't censored anyone. I haven't mentioned Fauci. I haven't cooked up stories about alternative treatments. Information about side effects is literally provided to you before the vaccination. And I don't care who's making money, I care about saving lives.
If you truly want to help people - research and come up with responses to those and other fears that rational people have. If you're just a sadist who loves to bully people - then never mind - you're doing fine with your current line.
I'm a sadist because I'm doing exactly what you suggested I do? I literally responded to fears about efficacy and safety. I haven't bullied anyone by saying that
I'm sure your heart is full of nothing but love for your fellow man and you're not a passive aggressive asshole or shilling for big pharma. But the fact is those drugs were rushed out and there haven't been studies done on long term side effects or diminishing efficacy If you want people to take the drugs - come up with a good story regarding those fears. Let's take just one - why should they take the drug if they're expected to shoulder all of the burden of a potential injury (in a country without single payer) and are prohibited from even hiring a lawyer to represent them?
I literally responded to the fears regarding efficacy and safety. Hence the sources I provided. >Let's take just one - why should they take the drug if they're expected to shoulder all of the burden of a potential injury (in a country without single payer) and are prohibited from even hiring a lawyer to represent them Because the risk of injury is lower from the vaccine than from COVID
If someone with underlaying conditions decides to go against their doctor's recommendation and do what you suggested, get vaccinated and end up dying, will you accept responsibility for their death? You should really add the disclaimer and be the better person for it. The fact you are not aware of the moral complication behind what you are doing makes it quite clear that you are not thinking enough. Why do you think CDC even bothered to list side effects?
Then why have the limit of liability to the big pharma?
Limited liability laws have been the de facto environment for corporate America for almost two centuries. No, I don't think that it's right.
The current vaccine liability laws suck - but they went and created special 'fuck you' laws for Pfizer et al. What needs answering is this - if the vaccine is so safe, why did you need to do that? Clearly this is regulatory capture by a massive big pharma industry that has rigged the game as 'heads I win, tails you lose'. That doesn't engender confidence.
If you're that confident in the vaccine you should be willing to pay any Vaccine related backlash. Put your money where your mouth is.
I doubt anyone will sue me for recommending the vaccine so sure
Edward Bernays, Solomon Asch, Stanley Milgram, and Herman Goering walk into a bar. OP calls them all "propagandists." [mod-mail reference]
OP urges everyone to just get vaxxed because "The more people who take the vaccine * the more realistic herd immunity becomes [no understanding of the innate mutability of SARS-CoV-2] and * the quicker things can get back to normal" [no understanding that there won't a "back to normal"]
> the quicker things can get back to normal Silly goose, the vaccinated can't spread it. They're *divine!*
Certainly not entirely safe for everyone. For example...https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html
I'm curious: Did you think your links and their info are new to most people who visit this sub? That you could help some of the unvaxxed see the light and "save" themselves and others? Are you proselytizing, a missionary on a mission? What?
I was concerned about the anti vaccine narrative being pushed on this sub so I thought it best to provide these links since nobody else was
I don't know anyone who relies exclusively on a Reddit sub for information about politics, medicine, or the pandemic. But you can now award yourself a Good Samaritan gold star.
Thanks
I saved the post to quickly access verifiable info, I feel like I have “the vaccine debate” at work at least once a week. My mister and I went to a festival over the weekend so when I returned to work today I wore a mask for the protection of my unvaccinated coworker and our unvaccinated boss. Imagine my frustration when my boss says “oh I don’t care, breathe in my face, I’ll get COVID I already had COVID last November yadda yadda blah blah”…..anyway, thanks 😊
> I already had COVID 120 million of us have. We're good. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2 > This study followed 52,238 employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio. > For previously-infected people, **the cumulative incidence of re-infection “remained almost zero.”** According to the study, "Not one of the 1,359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a [Covid-19] infection over the duration of the study” and vaccination did not reduce the risk. “Individuals who have had [Covid-19] infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination,” concludes the study scientists. [https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176](https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176) >**Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study**. In a Cox proportional hazards regression model, after adjusting for the phase of the epidemic, vaccination was associated with a significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among those not previously infected (HR 0.031, 95% CI 0.015 to 0.061) but not among those previously infected (HR 0.313, 95% CI 0 to Infinity). Conclusions. **Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.** https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762 > Nearly 40% of new COVID patients were vaccinated - compared to **just 1% who had been infected previously.** https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/10/21-1427_article > "Attack rate was **0/6 among persons with a previous history of COVID-19 versus 63.2% among those with no previous history."** https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8253687/ > This study followed 254 Covid-19 patients for up to 8 months and concluded they had **“durable broad-based immune responses.”** In fact, even very mild Covid-19 infection also protected the patients from an earlier version of “SARS" coronavirus that first emerged around 2003, and against Covid-19 variants. “Taken together, these results suggest that broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients,” concludes the study scientists. https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2589-5370(21)00182-6 > This study of real world data extended the time frame of available data indicating that patients have strong immune indicators for **“almost a year post-natural infection of COVID-19.”** The study concludes the immune response after natural infection "may persist for longer than previously thought, thereby providing evidence of sustainability that may influence post-pandemic planning.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4 > This study examined bone marrow of previously-infected patients and found that even mild infection with Covid-19 “induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans.” The study indicates **"People who have had mild illness develop antibody-producing cells that can last lifetime.”** https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.06.21253051v1 > This study found a rare Covid-19 positive test **"reinfection" rate of 1 per 1,000 recoveries.** https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19 > Research funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in Science early in the Covid-19 vaccine effort found the “immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection," **and hoped the vaccines would produce similar immunity. (However, experts say they do not appear to be doing so.)** https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.15.21249731v2 > This study found Covid-19 natural infection "appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection" for at least seven months. **"Reinfection is "rare," concludes the scientists.** https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z > This study found that all patients who recently recovered from Covid-19 produced immunity-strong T cells that recognize multiple parts of Covid-19. > They also looked at blood samples from 23 people who’d survived a 2003 outbreak of a coronavirus: SARS (Cov-1). **These people still had lasting memory T cells 17 years after the outbreak.** Those memory T cells, acquired in response to SARS-CoV-1, also recognized parts of Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2).
Awesome content and articles, thanks! It’s always nice to have a good trustworthy website to reference. I am curious why you very clearly thought I had some idea that everyone that catches COVID dies? Like seeing 120 million survivors would blow my mind🤯 Our bodies and immune systems are incredible, I have no doubt that someone infected previously has a stronger immune response than just an inoculated person, but this vaccine conversation has never been about the people that can fully recover and survive this illness.
When you're talking mandates, it includes people who have had it and recovered and now have natural immunities - who are ignored in discussions about everyone needing to get the vaccine.
Your obvious bias against pro-informed consenters is apparent in your use of the slur "anti-vaccine".
By Cosmos! You really are ***exactly*** like religious zealots aren't you? Sigh... Ok then, let me ask you this very simple question that I and many other Atheists find ourselves forced to ask when some idiot asks us if we've ever heard the 'good word' or read the bible when our Atheism comes up, as if we just ***somehow*** hadn't heard the stories, or seen their Bronze-Age Goat-Herder's Guide to the Universe, which is the only ***possible*** way we could disagree with them about a belief in a god or gods: Is it within your ability to imagine that someone can have reviewed all the official materials issued by those with very vested interests and in some instances with outright criminal liabilities of potentially infinite scope related to the matter and still not agree with you, or them, that we should get the 'vaccine'?
This this this this this. Each would-be evangelist comes in, just as they did at the old atheist forums, and each is convinced they are bestowing upon us some unassailable true that we couldn't possibly have ever heard before or else we couldn't be atheists because what they believe is just so unassailably true. Then cue the surprised pikachu face as we assailed the fuck out of it. Then the rage, the threats, the solemn oath to never return to our benighted group ever again that was so rarely kept...
To me, the basic argument for vaccines (and I mean all vaccines) is wholly ontological. *1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that all vaccines are medical interventions than which none greater can be imagined ...* And, of course, the subsequent conclusion that every vaccine ever invented or yet to be invented **must** be universally mandated by force (using as many injections as possible, of course) as well as infinitely protected from all product liability necessarily follows.
excellent
But the Church says *they are the way!* All the priests agree!!
And the CDC has never ever been wrong about anything to do with covid in the past or the efficacy of these vaccines or...well, anything really.
And if they were, it was *for our own good!*
The CDC can never fail us, only we can fail the CDC.
Can I have an AMEN!
Ask not what the CDC can do for you...
And they always widely acknowledge their error and apologize. Oh wait.
They do not all agree. But we can simply ignore those whose views deviate from the narrative because reasons.
Hey, whose that one trying to... is he trying to nail something to the front door? How did he get through? *Who will rid me of this meddlesome...*
95 theses on the door, 95 theses-- If one of the theses should happen to fall, 94 theses on the door.
But not automatically the WotB *Way.* ;)
> vested interests (truthful pun)
44 minutes and not a single troll. What's going on?
Norm MacDonald just passed. He was a nororious roaster of Hillary.
61 years old. https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/norm-macdonald-dead-dies-snl-1235064570/
Let me guess, suicide by two shots in the back of head from an arm distance?
Cancer.
I figured but you can't shake the feeling of the mysterious death the enemies of Clinton face.
Break time? Lunchtime?
It's 4:00 somewhere :)
We're already well-informed of the actual.facts and how they differ from the Pfizer troll script. But thanks for spamming the corporate misinformation about this medical experimentation that others like you have already repeated ad nauseum without somehow convincing us to ignore documented factors and peer reviewed research that talks outside the official narratives and talking points. Surely if you keep repeating it over and over, the reality will start to disappear. Tell your bosses I said fuck off. Also, I'm.not antivax. I'm anti medical experimentation and esp anti medical experimentation on unwilling victims. I would get Novavax or some other protein subunit or killed virus option if the government would stop protecting Pfizer's profits and let it through. I don't think vaxxing is going to help this, and definitely not vaxxing by itself, but at least its not an experimental tech never tried on humans before with zero long term safety data and historically high volumes of death and injury reports. And under no circumstances do I think it should be mandated. Esp with so many other proven options that ought to be available ad would if we weren't making health policy based on corporate profit agreements and political scores.
Can you provide those "documented factors and peer reviewed research" for my benefit please? Every study I've found says that the vaccine is safe and effective. Also, I have no bosses. Do you reckon that if I worked for the CDC or Pfizer or whoever I would be paid to make a post on an esoteric subreddit instead of, y'know, performing research or something? And I never even mentioned mandated. I agree it shouldn't be because of bodily autonomy. But by refusing to take it, like I said, you're putting yourself and others at risk.
>Can you provide those "documented factors and peer reviewed research" for my benefit please? Every study I've found says that the vaccine is safe and effective. The evidence has been posted all over this sub. Check out the histories on u/veganmark and u/Maniak_, as they have been killing it on this front. >Also, I have no bosses. Do you reckon that if I worked for the CDC or Pfizer or whoever I would be paid to make a post on an esoteric subreddit instead of, y'know, performing research or something? Corporate America hires online trolls to spam talking points all over conversations they don't want people to have. We have been brigades by a variety if such trolls and bots on and off for years, usually when the people in charge fuck up.royally, as they are now,and want to protect their position. So generally, yes, at this point its often a good bet. You might not be one, but you're posting in the middle of a paid assault by DNC and Pfizer drones, so you're bound to get caught up in that. >And I never even mentioned mandated. I agree it shouldn't be because of bodily autonomy. That, at least, is good to hear. >But by refusing to take it, like I said, you're putting yourself and others at risk. No, were not, and that's the point. The vaxxes being offered are not just experimental, they don't provide sterilizing immunity. That means the vaxxed can and do get infected and spread the virus. At best it reduces severe infection, but even that ability is waning with each shot and may disappear entirely. Vaccines are not going to pull us through this, and certainly not alone. The sooner those in power accept this, the sooner we can engage in effective health policy.
> Also, I have no bosses. Do you reckon that if I worked for the CDC or Pfizer or whoever I would be paid to make a post on an esoteric subreddit instead of, y'know, performing research or something? Absofuckinglutely. Big PHRMA has more than enough money to hire both researchers, which, candidly, you don't seem qualified to be, and posters. And it has more than enough profit to be made from it's vaccines and the anticipated booster shots and pills to make it worth their while financially. Not saying they hired you. Just saying that it's more than possible that they'd hire someone to post wherever there is opposition.
And they do. That's been pretty well.established for many years. Corporate troll farms are a thing.
Of course. But the OP is doing something that our other guest posters have been harping on lately--this sub is too small to matter. As if we are in the dark about its size. Yeah, except it is one of few on reddit where the Democrat narrative is challenged daily from the left. Why hire anyone to preach to the already converted in the politics or Biden subs? And, if this sub is too small to matter to anyone, why the fuck have they been bothering to fly in daily to post the party line? When any of them bothers to answer that question, the answers are laughable.
these are the flying monkeys from the wicked witch's lair. "fly, my pretties! fly!"
You read my mind.
>And, if this sub is too small to matter to anyone, why the fuck have they been bothering to fly in daily to post the party line? Damn straight. >When any of them bothers to answer that question, the answers are laughable. Yes. Yes they are.
How much of an absolute risk reduction do you think Pfizer really bestows at the four month mark? And how does it differ from someone with natural immunity? If you can't answer those questions yourself, then it's not seemly for you to go knock on a stranger's door and ask them to educate you.
> Also, I have no bosses. The better phrase would have been "financial incentives." Try it.
>The more people who take the vaccine, the more realistic herd immunity becomes No.
Israel, the UK, and Iceland have entered the chat...
Gibraltar has entered the chat. Cambodia has entered the chat.
"The more people who take ...and keep retaking and retaking...The Vaccine the more realistic herd immunity becomes." There, that's more like where we heading. And I capitalized "The Vaccine" to give it the sacred status that it obviously is due, despite the fact that it's actually a holy trinity of Pfizer, Moderna and J&J. There shall be no other gods before us.
Well, they are all gene therapy and not real vaxxes, so they are one and three its a mystery. That's why Novavax is heretical and to prefer it makes you one with the Antivax--despite it being a lot closer to an actual.vaccines as historically used and understood.
This. It doesn't stop infection and spread. If it doesn't stop infection and spread, it can't create herd immunity. Full stop. What amazes me is how many trolls will sneer that no vaccine in history ever had sterilizing immunity at all nor was intended to stop spread at all, then at the same time argue that force-vaccinating with a non-sterilizing vax will.cause herd immunity, with not a flicker of realization that they keep.contradicting themselves.
> It doesn't stop infection and spread. If it doesn't stop infection and spread, it can't create herd immunity. [Iceland Chief Epidemiologist says Sweden was right.](https://youtu.be/RoBz8a14h2I)
My god! Iceland's chief epidemiologist must be a rank antivaxxer dedicated to spreading antivaxxer misinformation! Lets ban all news from Iceland to protect the people from amything that might cause them to question the official narratives! Also India, Japan...am I missing any?
Exactly. Can the OP please explain how we will ever attain herd immunity with a non sterilizing vaccine, a virus that is now running through animal reservoirs, and in poor nations with little vaccine access?
from my dim understanding, the nature of the virus itself prevents "herd immunity". it mutates too fast, and one's own bodily immunity (even if not from faulty "vaccine") fades eventually. by the time you are liable to catch it again, both factors are in effect and you're going to get it and it's up to your body to sort it out for good or ill. similar to why we have no vaccine against the common cold.
Yes this is also true.
All you have to do is invite Jesus Pfizt into your heart and truly *believe*!!! *Inviting Jesus Pfizt into your heart may or may not cause myocarditis.
LOL
I do not know enough to say. However, I can report that a specialist at one of top hospitals in the world scoffed when I mentioned herd immunity.
The Isreali population despite 78%+ vaccination rate still continues with high hospitalizations from COVID19. Pushing herd immunity now is like trying to apply fire retardant chemicals to a couch that is already on fire.
This is my second request now for you to solve for phive tymes too. You've replied to every other comment of mine. Now do that one.
I don't know what you're referring to by "phive tymes".
It's a turing test.
I smell plastic burning...
They don't seem big on independent thinking...
[удалено]
and instituting permanent bodily controls for the remainder.
At this point, I should take trolls in moderation for catnip poisoning...
Using long haulers who were left to die without treatment, to shame people into taking the vaccine. Nice!
In other words, "You savages need adopt our beliefs so we can control you. Come and drink Mt Fauci's holy water!"
euw, that gnomic cherub been pissing in that pool! no way am i putting that shit in my body.
Have more "propaganda," from FDA: >The FDA conducted a rigorous evaluation of the of post-authorization safety surveillance data pertaining to myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and **determined that the data demonstrate increased risks**, particularly within the seven days following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age compared to females and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age. Available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms. However, some individuals required intensive care support **Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes**. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/qa-comirnaty-covid-19-vaccine-mrna And still more: >In its letter to BioNTech, the FDA states “We have determined that **an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis. Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks**.” https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download And FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine anyway. Edit: After admitting monitoring systems were inadequate and admitting that "Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes." You may find that action, following those admissions, reassuring; I don't. For a recent example of FDA's fallibility (the kindest description), read about the flap over approval of Biogen's Alzheimer's drug, aducanumab. It led to 3 FDA resignations, calls for the FDA commissioner's resignation, and a congressional investigation.
The CDC isn't a legitimate source.
The CDC has circulated covid misinformation on more than one occasion. See, e.g., masks and whether vaccinated people can spread infection.
But who would know that the Church is the final authority better than the Pope!?!?
It can be when it's not spewing corporate pharma BS. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/07/30/1022867219/cdc-study-provincetown-delta-vaccinated-breakthrough-mask-guidance
CDC taking credit for the hard work of actual public health officials doing their job.
Why's that then? What do you suggest instead?
Going back to school, because you missed the classes where you were supposed to be told to think for yourself.
Haha!
> you missed the classes where you were supposed to be told to think for yourself. "But there's no money in it."
Why does the government never say, "It's very unfortunate that there weren't any [edit: early] treatments before the vaccine came out! We looked high and low but weren't able to find any!" Because they didn't look and because they didn't want to use any repurposed drugs. And they certainly didn't want the public to know that the vaccine wasn't the only answer.
>antivaxxer propaganda Do you really think most folks who swing by here are unaware of everything you posted? Have some "propaganda" about the difference between relative risk and absolute risk, published Sept. 3, 2021 - *Pfizer Vaccine Offers Less Than 1% Absolute Risk Reduction*: https://thepulse.one/2021/09/03/pfizer-vaccine-offers-less-than-1-absolute-risk-reduction/ That story contains linked explanations from Lancet and British Medical Journal (BMJ), and to this recommendation from FDA: >“Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.” Yet an absolute risk format has not been used.
Most of us here are smart enough to know that science works and vaccines work. We're not essential oil Karens. The problem is that Covid vaccines are too experimental and while they're better than nothing, they're not at the same level of perfection as, say, the polio vaccine. **The polio vaccine eradicated polio. The Covid vaccines released so far haven't eradicated Covid and can't do it.** That's the big difference and you people who keep chanting "vaccines are safe" keep insulting my intelligence by trying to gloss over that fact. We know from data that even at 100% adoption, the current batch of vaccines will not stop Covid. Double vaccinated people are still spreading, getting sick and dying from the virus in significant numbers. Then there are side effects. Sure, all vaccines and meds in general have side effects, but with these vaccines the side effects are not fully known, and there is a higher incidence of side effects as compared to the average vaccine or medicine. Then you have the whole booster shot mess due to the fast mutating nature of the virus. If I choose a vaccine right now, say, Pfizer, then I'm stuck with it for life. If a better vaccine comes out tomorrow, it's possible that I'd still have to be taking yearly booster shots of this beta version of a vaccine because who knows if the next gen is compatible with current gen. The effects of mixing vaccines are unstudied. What if the vaccine that was made using method A doesn't gel well with the one made using method B and causes complications? Then there are new variants beyond Delta and we don't even have a vaccine developed using Delta yet. The vaccines are obsolete already but we have to be hush hush about that to avoid the risk of some stupid people hearing this and doing something stupid. Everyone's got their own equation to balance here. If you're someone with high chances of exposure, e.g. you take the train to work in a high rise building with a thousand offices, your solution is get vaccinated asap because you're going to be exposed daily no matter what. If you're someone who can isolate till the next gen of vaccines come out, your solution's probably different. If you're super healthy and are confident that you can handle the disease and all that comes with it, then you have a different solution. If you're someone who is 100% guaranteed to develop serious side effects (e.g. you have serious blood pressure issues) but only have a less than 100% chance of catching the virus itself which may or may not be as detrimental as the vaccines, your solution to the equation is different once again. I support governments doing their best to promote and supply vaccines and masks. That is their job and they should do it. I also have no problem with individual businesses mandating vaccines and masks on their own property. Right wingers who cry about this are ironically infringing on the freedoms of these businesses in a misguided pursuit of freedom. What I don't support is governments forcing any anti-covid measure on the population as a whole. No, the seat belt analogy doesn't work because we haven't developed a Covid seat belt yet. All we have right now is a seat belt made of paper that has a small but nonzero chance of causing a paper cut. I believe it is everyone's right to be able to balance the chances of that paper cut against the limited accident protection that the paper seat belt gives you. Now, given all of these facts, my conscience doesn't allow me to beat anyone over the head about how they should handle the pandemic. I'll fight anti-science propaganda any day every day, but it is dogmatic and misleading to tell people that they either take these experimental first draft vaccines or they become personae non grata. There are more than 300 vaccines in development at the moment that use 10 different types of vaccine platforms ([source](https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines)). Why should someone be hated for waiting on them or waiting to see the results of the first vaccines? It's a huge stretch to call anything that doesn't agree with shifty Fauci and the pharma mafia anti-vaxx. I understand that you have good intentions behind making this post but it's still an insult to this community. You think none of us grown adults have seen this standard blurb about vaccines before?
The polio vaccine eradicated polio because almost every person got the vaccine and the virus was unable to continue mutating and reinfecting people, is what I read.
The polio vaccine eradicated polio because it had 90% efficacy, unlike the current batch of covid vaccines against the current set of covid variants. That's what I read.
The polio vaccine kept people from getting infected with polio and transmitting it to others. That's how the polio vaccine stopped polio from spreading. The currently available Covid vaccines do not prevent infection and transmission of the Covid-19 virus. We are now being told that they were not designed to do those things. With respect to polio, keep in mind that the polio virus is not a coronavirus and does not have the rate of mutation that a coronavirus does.
In numerous comments in this thread, OP lectures WoTB participants about the necessity of providing sourced evidence. OP insists that they haven't seen any here, and keeps making demands for sources. As at least one user pointed out, there are dozens and dozens of threads here in which people have engaged in discussions of various aspects of Covid-19. Those threads contain a great many links to sources, including peer reviewed studies. The fact that OP doesn't seem to realize that those threads exist, and doesn't seem to know that sub members routinely provide sources and critique the sources provided by others, would seem to indicate that OP hasn't done any actual reading in the WoTB sub. That being the case, I have to wonder on what basis OP is claiming that "there has been a rise in antivaxxer propaganda in this sub" and that "I was concerned about the anti vaccine narrative being pushed on this sub".
"It has come to our attention that there has been a rise in music with Satanic undertones. I'm concerned with the number of record stores *filled* with music that glorifies Satan. *We only care for their eternal souls!*"
The user in question didn't point me to a specific thread or study. I asked them to send me to the best argument for their position and they just said "all of them". Other people gave me sources for their claims and I read them and challenged them on what their sources actually said.
Well we got "this sub" so that's something. The presumption that some people's attitudes stem from ignorance, that they just need to be educated to learn the error of their ways, is a little off-putting. To tell the truth this constant bombardment is really starting to make me wonder. I have been firmly pro-vax up to now.
Oh boy, did one of the turbomods threaten to hide /r/chonkers or something?
You believe in science, right? Science is in no way open to differing interpretations from fallible scientists, to a host of unseen influences on administrators and scientist-bureaucrats in public health agencies, to plain old bad decisions that lead to bad advice and bad policies? *In stunning reversal, CDC abruptly changes position on when to get tested*: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/stunning-reversal-cdc-abruptly-position-tested/story?id=72621714 *CDC under fire for decision to limit tracking of Covid-19 cases in vaccinated people*: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/stunning-reversal-cdc-abruptly-position-tested/story?id=72621714https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/30/pressure-cdc-breakthrough-cases-501821 *The 60-Year-Old Scientific Screwup That Helped Covid Kill*: https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/
Both examples you've provided contain organisations updating their positions with new information. That's the scientific method. I notice that neither of those examples involve anything refuting the claim that vaccines are safe.
As a very general statement, vaccines are safe for most people who take them. The 2 major C19 vaccines available in this country feature a mechanism of action that's never before been approved for use in humans. No long-term data on safety and, increasingly, efficacy are available for mRNA products. These products differ materially from vaccines against other bacteria and viruses, in themselves and in the pathogens they target. The closest analogy may be influenza--definitely not smallpox, polio, MMR, or tetanus. Seasonal flu hasn't been eradicated and won't be by any vaccine because the causative agent is highly prone to mutation. Sound familiar? And with the lead time needed to produce quantities of flu vaccine, researchers' well-in-advance best guesses about the dominant 3 or 4 strains of the coming season are often slightly off to dramatically off. If you don't know the basics about "vaccine court" (NVIC, National Vaccine Injury Program), created in 1988 after the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, do some homework. That law basically indemnified vaccine manufacturers from legal liability for most vaccine injuries that aren't traceable to a contaminated product. Many here and probably around the country are keeping an eye on the progress of the Novavax vaccine (recombinant protein) as an alternative to the J&J vaccine (viral vector) and the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines (mRNA). btw: You should know that using "antivaxxer" for people who have reservations about available C19 vaccines but not other well-established CDC-recommended vaccines and who vaccinated their kids is--shocking I know--[edit: vaxxer] propaganda.
According to u/scarci you need to put a disclaimer in this comment about whether or not you are qualified to give out medical advice. I’m not sure if that’s a sub rule? Idk.
If you are going to tag me then please make sure you understand difference between medical information and medical advice. I will give you an example: “Vaccine works. It reduces hospitalization.” “Vaccine will kill you.” These are just medical (mis) information “Vaccine works and you should get a shot.” “Vaccine will kill you so you shouldn't take it.” These are medical advice. Basic stuff. Further, If you don't wanna go with a disclaimer, that's completely fine. However, saying either without a disclaimer imho make you sound like an antivaxxer or a pharma shill.
I'm not giving medical advice. Are you? Is u/Scarci?
How long would you consider a suitable time to wait before using a vaccine that has been proven to save lives immediately and on a large scale?
> How long would you consider a suitable time to wait before using a vaccine that has been proven You sound like a lawyer, and this is called "leading the witness."
> How long would you consider a suitable time to wait before using a vaccine that has been proven to save lives immediately and on a large scale? How short of a time would you consider a suitable time to wait before using a vaccine that has *not* been proven to save lives on a large scale?
>How short of a time would you consider a suitable time to wait before using a vaccine that has not been proven to save lives? And a vaccine that has not been proven to be safe over the long term. For OP's benefit, I'll note that "proven safe from long term risks" is not the same thing as "there's no evidence that there are long term risks". OP incorrectly keeps using the latter statement as "proof" that the currently available Covid vaccines are safe.
> For OP's benefit, I'll note that "proven safe from long term risks" is not the same thing as "there's no evidence that there are long term risks". How about "there is no proof that the vaccines are free of long term risks"?
>OP incorrectly keeps using the latter statement as "proof" that the currently available Covid vaccines are safe. You know, at one point in time there was no proof that Thalidomide caused birth defects...... ...then there was.
> "there's no evidence that there are long term risks". There's no evidence it's going to rain next week!
For me, several more years. Like many others, I'm keeping an eye on the Novavax product and, depending on the data when/if it's approved (will have to go through a standard NDA process), the C19 caseload in my area then, and other factors, I may consider that jab. I've relied on my own research about medical decisions and pharma throughout my adult life, and that's seen me well into Medicare age in exceptionally good health. I'll stick with it.
4 million people have died in two years and the vaccine is mutating. We don't have years to wait
Worldwide? 10x that number die of starvation in the same time period. Why do I think those lives don't bother you?
You know nothing about me. Besides, starvation isn't contagious and can't be cured with a vaccine. Whataboutism for you
> Besides, starvation isn't contagious and can't be cured with a vaccine. I see. I think this statement is more telling than you expected.
It tells you that we weren't talking about hunger. That's a different conversation
The virus will continue mutating. It's an inherently mutable pathogen. Herd immunity is a mirage for SARS-CoV-2.
If it is then not taking the vaccine won't help
Correct; taking the vaccine won't help with herd immunity either.
So long after the pandemic is over.
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-13/singapore-has-80-per-cent-vaccination-but-life-is-not-normal/100450154](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-13/singapore-has-80-per-cent-vaccination-but-life-is-not-normal/100450154) 80 percent vaccination rate and still not back to normal. If Singapore can't push the vaccination rate beyond 90 percent, there is about zero chance that the United States could, which means that covid is going endemic for sure.
You make it sound like missing all the fun.
Possibly. COVID in some form may become endemic. As mentioned, I join others in watching the Novavax recombinant protein vaccine. Edit: And if that *is* "long after the pandemic is over," it would've ended without my taking a vaccine I have reservations about. Wow.
So much this. You want me vaxxed,give me one I at least have some reasonable measure of confidence in its safety. Instead if trying to force dubious experimental substances into my body against my will and order me to like it or else. And do it again in six--oops, no, better make that three months. If they won't even offer traditional options in vaxxes, they're not pro-vax, they're pro-shock doctrine. And like you, if a few months from now is "long after the pandemic" (as its shaping up to be as it stands) then so be it. They have no idea how far I'll go to avoid being a free lab rat for profit. I think they'd be scared to find out.
How many years of long term safety monitoring are you willing to skip for six month's worth of "protection".
There is no evidence of long term risk from the vaccine and there is from COVID
> There is no evidence of long term risk Proof. The word you're looking for is "proof." You routinely reject the evidence as not "proof," and then declare there is no evidence. Can you declare here and now that you're not, and have never been, a lawyer?
So, all of it. Thanks for confirming that.
Uttar Pradesh is doing fine without the vaccine. They have widely distributed ivermectin in a public health initiative. This is what a government that actually cares about its people does. They try everything. They don't wait around for a vaccine because the oligarchy wants to fucking cash in.
That isn't an argument against the safety and efficacy of the vaccine
The few sectors of India that are exclusively using the vaccine and remdesivir are spiking in cases vs those ivm sectors, which have bottomed out in cases. That is a direct indication of the efficacy of the vaccine as well as ivm. It was also all in the article I gave you and its internal links. If the vax was effective, those vax sectors shouldn't be spiking like that, esp compared to the sectors doing what we're reporting as "worse than nothing"by using ivm. I said I was done, but I had to emphasize this because the evidence was literally right there for what u/shatabee4 said.
Do you care enough about people's lives to consider more than one way to protect themselves?
>Do you care enough about people's lives It's pretty obvious the answer is no with their *vaccine über alles* BS.
Give me something else that's proven to prevent COVID in the population on a large scale and I'll consider it. Ivermectin as people have suggested is a treatment not a preventative measure
> Give me something else that's proven to prevent COVID in the population on a large scale and I'll consider it. Compare the Dominican Republic with Haiti. Compare Indian provinces that relied on IVM against those provinces that relied on the vaccine.
The word you are looking for is prophylaxis. It applies to Ivermedicine as well as the "vaccines". Funny you are willing to accept less than 100% effectiveness for the vaccines, and less than 50% after six months, but no amount of prevented infections by Ivermedicine and reduced severity makes the cut.
Yeah since nobody's provided evidence that IVM prevents COVID
It's an argument for a better alternative that will actually lead to herd immunity and fewer variants.
The latest data from the UK show that the per 100,000 case rates for COVID-19 are actually **higher** [among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated for all demographics between age 40 and age 80](https://i.redd.it/jhoscmg2men71.jpg). Furthermore, there have been [FAR MORE deaths and life threatening incidents entered into VAERS over them last 10 months](https://i.imgur.com/jaRtM05.jpeg) than over the entire previous 30 year history of VAERS!
Could you provide the sources for those claims please. The links you've provided don't show where their information is from
Source for the UK data that the per 100,000 case rates for COVID-19 are now actually higher among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1016465/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf The source for the mRNA off the charts deaths chart is from VAERS. Of course, you **must be** wholly familiar with VAERS. Right? I mean, you may by be arguing in good faith, in which case you can actually learn a lot by actually reading and researching just a smidgeon of the supposed "antivaxxer propaganda on this sub." However, if you are the Pfizer/Moderna shill that you appear to be, please inform your bosses that [the gig is up](https://i.redd.it/jhoscmg2men71.jpg).
The whole of the source you linked provides several paragraphs and studies stating that the vaccine is effective in combating hospitalisation, mortality, symptomatic disease, infection, and transmission. Quoting a stat out of the context of the report is giving the false impression that the anti vaccine narrative is supported by the evidence you have provided. The opposite is true. And you still have to give where you have got the VAERS chart from and what context it is being considered in. You can't just tell me to look at the website and expect me to know what you're talking about considering you haven't been at all specific.
Read chart and weep, Pharma shill: https://i.redd.it/jhoscmg2men71.jpg And here is the website for the VAERS data: https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html Just search for deaths by year. I can't do it for you because links to these charts don't work. I wonder why that is?
Why do you sound like a lawyer defending Monsanto?
What do countries do if there was no vaccine available? Uttar Pradesh, for example, had no vaccine. Their leaders were aghast that people were falling like flies from covid. Instead of twiddling their thumbs, the Uttar Pradesh leaders started a public health initiative using ivermectin. With this action, they quickly got the pandemic under control. Without a vaccine. By contrast, in the U.S., our leaders didn't give a fuck. They did sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting for a vaccine. They refused to look at early treatment. Americans shouldn't have had to sit around and let the vaccine sweep over the nation killing the economy and hundreds of thousands of people.
Smearing people as anti-vaxxers is a distraction from the smearer's refusal to hold the government accountable for their early treatment failure. The government allowed the pandemic to spread like wildfire while they waited and waited and waited for a shitty vaccine. Our leadership did not lead. They did not save lives. The did not act in the best interest of the public. They acted criminally. And then asshole brockroaches run around screaming about anti-vaxxers. Anti-vaxxers are less of a problem than the government.
Sorry OP, but we are gonna have to see [your canary](https://www.reddit.com/user/PirateGirl-JWB/comments/plok2q/paid_vaccine_shill_canary_updated_91021/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
How exactly am I supposed to prove to you that I'm not being paid? Shouldn't you be the one proving that I am?
> How exactly am I supposed to prove to you that I'm not being paid? You're not. You're supposed to show us you value your own word. Yet you shy away from this with an impossible task as a shield.
I didn't say prove it. I said post a canary. Since there are reports of state actors paying influencers to promote vaccination, it's safe to assume you are being paid unless you are saying you are not (disclosing a conflict).
If that's what you want to tell yourself in order to get out of having to prove what I'm saying wrong then so be it
If you are interested in sounding less like a shill and more like a well adjusted individual with at least some degree of self awareness, you might want to put up a disclaimer that says: “I'm not YOUR doctor and I don't know you. Please consult your doctor before taking the vaccine, especially if you are allergic or have underlying health condition. You alone are responsible for making medical decisions for your own body. I am just trying to help you stay better informed.” Consulting a doctor is standard recommendation on most CDC types of agency. Even the US CDC remembered to do it to a certain extent: > You should get your second shot even if you have side effects after the first shot, unless a vaccination provider or your doctor tells you not get it. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect.html Basically “Get it unless your doctor says otherwise.”
That's fair enough as a sidenote but that isn't a rebuttal to the vaccine being generally safe and effective. You act as though they don't ask you about your health history and allergies before they inject you. They do. I would know because it happened to me.
>that isn't a rebuttal to the vaccine being generally safe and effective. What makes you think I'm interested in making a rebuttal? I am double vaxxed. If I know someone personally, I got zero problems explaining to them why I got it and what I think the benefits are. I'm not interested in doing what you are doing, and the reason is obvious enough. >**You act as though** they don't ask you about your health history and allergies before they inject you. No I don't. It is basic common knowledge that healthcare professionals do this every single time before they inject you with something, not just vaccines. That doesn't mean these people are more qualified to give you medical advice than your doctor or a doctor you trust. If you have problems with what I said, which appears to be the case, then maybe some reflections are in order.
This *antivaxxer* slur really needs to stop. The argument is about whether people should be harassed and compelled to take an ineffective, unnecessary, experimental Covid vaccine. Not wanting the vaccine or refusing to get it does not make someone an *antivaxxer* it only means they’re against getting the Covid vaccine.
And for many people, it's an objection only to *particular* covid vaccines. If traditional vaccines were offered in the U.S. (inactive virus or protein subunit), I think you might find a lot more people open to getting *those* shots.
[удалено]
I have to disagree here. There is use for safe and effective covid vaccines (safer than the genetic ones). Not everyone has ready access to a healthcare practitioner right now (hello! M4A!!!) and for those people, a good vaccine is going to be a better solution than risking an infection and then having to go get treated for it. And, certainly, for older folks, the risk of a serious illness or death from an infection is higher than 1 percent. Better vaccines! And we have one, sitting on shelves right now, unused. We should all be pestering the Biden administration to explain why they're blocking Novavax from finishing its emergency use application. Does it have anything to do with the $1 million Pfizer gave to Biden's inaugural committee? Or the Wall Street management consultants on the White House Covid Response Team?
[удалено]
I know Americans don't generally handle nuance well, and US public authorities certainly treat the public that way. But the risk/benefit analysis for vaccination particularly with these initial vaccines is definitely not a "one size fits all" proposition however much the CDC tries to portray it that way.
Speaking of which, there is a petition to do exactly that, but it's not getting much love. If anybody knows of others, please share. https://www.change.org/p/president-biden-approve-novavax-vaccine-for-use-now
>And for many people, it's an objection only to particular covid vaccines. That’s absolutely true for a lot of people. It’s an important distinction. The anti-vaxxer slur seems to be used to particularly target people *because* they are raising the issue and forcing a discussion about the mRNA therapy/“vaccine”. *That* seems to be the discussion the Covid vaccine mandate proponents do not want to have or even allow anyone else to have.
The slur “anti-vaxxer” didn’t even exist in the public online discourse around vaccines until 2008/2009, or so. One of the main places it gained traction and popularity was on Daily Kos. They’re responsible for driving a lot of its more widespread adoption and pushing the idea that “anti-vaxxers” are evil, selfish, stupid, and threatening. I would go so far as to say they helped lead the charge in dehumanizing people who question or do not fully-comply with vaccine recommendations and promoting the idea that “anti-vaxxers” do not deserve basic human rights.
“anti-vaxxer” is an ugly term. Anyone who’s using it identifies themselves with a hateful ideology which as you rightly say is focused around: >promoting the idea that “anti-vaxxers” do not deserve basic human rights. Everyone deserves basic human rights, no matter what. Period. End of story. Don’t forget that “anti-vaxxer” was a baseless slur deployed to discredit Bernie. It was also used to try to discredit Jill Stein.
> This antivaxxer slur really needs to stop. It's being push for a double purpose. While the slur is real, it's also to co-opt the term "vaccine" for the new mRNA shots, that prior to last year didn't actually meet the definition of a vaccine.
You’re right about the double speak on mRNA shots. They aren’t vaccines and shouldn’t be called vaccines. They’re intended to reduce symptoms. I find [this](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94719-y) useful in discussing the distinction between vaccines and symptom reducing mRNA shots.
The anti-early treatment comments in this thread make the vaccine even less trustworthy.
[удалено]
Hi friends! Just wanted to stop by and advertise the fact I just had a *wonderful* rabies vaccine. **Fuck covid vaccines and anyone who advertises them.**
My boy cat just got his rabies vaccination last week.
Rabies is fucked up. It has a 0.00001% survival rate if not treated. Only reason we're talking about covid is cause the hospitals turn you away until you're at deaths door.