I wonder if any of the arrogant types on covid will admit now they were wrong on anything...

[celticdawg]

Sure, but the main thing to note here is not how many of the adverse events were due to the vaccine or not, but that the reports to the VAERS system over the past 2 years are many times over all the VAERS reports total from the last 2 or 3 decades. That should have sent up red flags, and the genetic experimental injections should have been halted, especially for those not at risk.

You must be kidding that the increase in reports means anything significant.

Very few ever knew about this reporting until suddenly millions of people took these vaccines and a certain group of people started misinformation about the vaccines.

The red flag is you posting people who died and saying they died from a vaccine.

So did journalist Wahl die from a vaccine like I read on the internet?

 

[HarryDawg'95]

There are no documented cases of a vaccine having significantly delayed medical effects. This argument of "we don't know what will happen in 5, 10, 20 years" is totally bogus and made up. There is simply no medical, scientific, or even logical reasoning behind this. It is just scared people that don't know better and politics.

Facts (and some personally interpretation mixed in):
1. The vaccines work (see below), but their effectiveness is relatively short-lived. They undoubtedly saved lots of lives and hospital strain/costs.
2. The benefits/hopes of the vaccine were overstated, as they are very poor at limiting infection, but do a decent job of "priming" the immune system and significantly reducing the chances of severe outcomes (hospitalizations and death).
3. The vaccines are safe.
4. Lock downs and mask wearing were medically and scientifically justified early on given all of the uncertainty and issues with high hospitalization rates.
5. Medical community (in general) and government folks (including Fauci) were knowingly dishonest about the effectiveness of homemade masks. They were hoping they would work a little, but knew the benefits were minimal at best. They did this because they didn't want a run of N95 masks. I get it, but it was still dishonest and eroded public trust.
6. Mask wearing, lockdowns, and school closures lasted too long in many areas. This did harm, certainly to the learning and socialization skills of school aged children. Politicians locked into "my side is right" just couldn't let go. Once vaccines started rolling out and doctors got a handle on effective treatment regimes all lockdowns should have been lifted.
7. Misinformation about COVID being the flu, not being serious, cured with UV light and horse dewormer, were just that, misinformation. Put fourth by folks that wanted confusion or wanted to make a buck, and then picked up by folks that thought it somehow supported their politics.
8. The US was utterly unprepared for an event like this. Stockpiles were too small - this likely goes back several administrations, but certainly wasn't helped by the Trump administration. Too much outsourcing of critical supplies and electrically components to foreign countries.
9. Trump administration did a great job spurring private sector development of the vaccines. Early stages of vaccine roll out could have been better, but doing so was unprecedented so they probably should be cut some slack.
10. Vaccines and public health in general shouldn't be political.

Well said sir

 

[LRA Dawg]

Voters 70 and up are majority conservative and have more health issues than the Dim base. Life insurance actuaries are reporting a 40% increase in excess mortality in the 30-50 working age demographic starting in 2021 after the employer vax mandates rolled out.

That argument doesn't hold when you see the death rate in Republican geographical regions with much higher rates of death than similar Democratic geographical regions. The vaccines were not perfect, but the data is overwhelming on their risk reduction impact. I personally know five people who would probably be alive today if they had gotten vaccinated, but they did not trust it and paid with their life.

 

[shonuff253]

The heart inflammation pericardial and myocarditis are serious serious issues and long COVID has been shown to be a major reason for the rise in cases. The experts have been saying this for 2 years now but guys get the vaccine and boosters. Each time you get COVID while your symptoms maybe less or feel a little sick, this virus is doing real damage to your heart.

All politics aside this is going to cause a major health crisis within the next decade. If you can listen to Twitter feeds or politicians looking to get elected but please listen to the experts.

Multiple studies showed that COVID-19 increases the risk of heart inflammation more than vaccines do; study in Israel misleadingly used to claim otherwise

Myocarditis and pericarditis are conditions involving inflammation of the heart. Both conditions are commonly caused by viral infections, such as COVID-19 and the flu. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have also been associated with a higher risk of myocarditis, particularly in young men. However, the...

healthfeedback.org

 

[willdup]

The heart inflammation pericardial and myocarditis are serious serious issues and long COVID has been shown to be a major reason for the rise in cases. The experts have been saying this for 2 years now but guys get the vaccine and boosters. Each time you get COVID while your symptoms maybe less or feel a little sick, this virus is doing real damage to your heart.

All politics aside this is going to cause a major health crisis within the next decade. If you can listen to Twitter feeds or politicians looking to get elected but please listen to the experts.

Multiple studies showed that COVID-19 increases the risk of heart inflammation more than vaccines do; study in Israel misleadingly used to claim otherwise

Myocarditis and pericarditis are conditions involving inflammation of the heart. Both conditions are commonly caused by viral infections, such as COVID-19 and the flu. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have also been associated with a higher risk of myocarditis, particularly in young men. However, the...

healthfeedback.org

Exactly right. Myocarditis is associated with the vaccine but there is a much higher rate associated with Covid itself, which is entirely logical.

There have been over 18b vaccine shots administered world wide. If the vaccine caused adverse outcomes at the rates suggested by the anti-Vaxxers, deaths above average world wide would be spiked higher than when covid deaths were at their peak, which of course hasn’t happened. Just the opposite has happened, despite the fact that covid infections are still running high.

Correction: that’s 13b shots administered, not 18b.

 

[HarryDawg'95]

Limping through that victory lap.

 

[LrgK9]

The discussion around the vax and heart issues had to come off the other board. But there is too much happening to be ignored.

Masks, lockdowns, school closures, vaccine not stopping spread, unknown vax side effects, long lasting economic problems - every single problem could have been foreseen *because they were foreseen at the time from solid information and logic*. But when we said it we got mocked or shadowbanned or maybe just outright banned.

Do any of those folks have the integrity to own it now?

Those arrogant folks need ‘a gain of function’ to realize that arrogance can also be weaponized in the same manner as Covid. Ain’t either side of the street clean imo.

 

[WyoDawg307]

That argument doesn't hold when you see the death rate in Republican geographical regions with much higher rates of death than similar Democratic geographical regions. The vaccines were not perfect, but the data is overwhelming on their risk reduction impact. I personally know five people who would probably be alive today if they had gotten vaccinated, but they did not trust it and paid with their life.

Would love to see your data showing such, because I haven't seen anything showing it by red/blue that isn't tainted or made up.

Hopefully it wasn't done by the same researcher who produced this gem:

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S000...?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#tbl0001

As a wise man once said, lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

[elderdawg]

That argument doesn't hold when you see the death rate in Republican geographical regions with much higher rates of death than similar Democratic geographical regions. The vaccines were not perfect, but the data is overwhelming on their risk reduction impact. I personally know five people who would probably be alive today if they had gotten vaccinated, but they did not trust it and paid with their life.

Only 10min. Worth your time. Whistleblowers and Medical experts not on Big Pharma payroll, like the FDA and CDC.

INSIDE THE CAPITOL HILL COVID FORUM

Watch full hearing highlights of a Capitol Hill Covid Forum hosted by US Senator Ron Johnson. The hearing, ‘Covid-19 Vaccines: What They Are, How They Work, and Possible Causes of Injuries,” held in W

rumble.com

 

[Dawg 'n IT]

The heart inflammation pericardial and myocarditis are serious serious issues and long COVID has been shown to be a major reason for the rise in cases. The experts have been saying this for 2 years now but guys get the vaccine and boosters. Each time you get COVID while your symptoms maybe less or feel a little sick, this virus is doing real damage to your heart.

All politics aside this is going to cause a major health crisis within the next decade. If you can listen to Twitter feeds or politicians looking to get elected but please listen to the experts.

Multiple studies showed that COVID-19 increases the risk of heart inflammation more than vaccines do; study in Israel misleadingly used to claim otherwise

Myocarditis and pericarditis are conditions involving inflammation of the heart. Both conditions are commonly caused by viral infections, such as COVID-19 and the flu. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have also been associated with a higher risk of myocarditis, particularly in young men. However, the...

healthfeedback.org

I'm just here for discussion, not absolute declaration of right or wrong.

People have linked studies for the past 3 years and people have dismissed them, so what makes this one believable?

What causes myocarditis? If both the disease and the vaccine cause myocarditis, how is it determined that being vaccinated then getting the disease is somehow safer than just getting the disease as far as myocarditis is concerned?

This study just published a few weeks ago even says a risk benefit analysis needs to be done, but the recommendation is immunization in the meantime because the expected benefits outweigh the risks of an infection overall.

Higher Incidence of Myocarditis, Pericarditis Found After COVID-19 Vaccination

Despite evidence of a higher risk of myocarditis or pericarditis with COVID-19 vaccination, immunization should still be recommended because the benefits likely outweigh the harms, study shows.

www.pharmacytimes.com

The study even points out that people with 2 doses were more likely to experience myocarditis than 1 dose. When this study is redone to consider boosters, I wonder how the data will change.

The CDC says that no significant connection has been found to myocarditis with the J&J shot, only mRNA shots.

@willdup you asked why the myocarditis incidents worldwide don't follow 13b doses, well all 13b aren't mRNA are they? We need a more granular study to make sense of anything we're seeing. It would be nice to see a global study of myocarditis comparing incidents from the unvaccinated and vaccinated broken down by vaccine.

Thus far, the only commonality between the disease and the vaccine is the vaccine causes the body to produce spike proteins while the disease is a result of infection by the virus that includes the spike protein. Can we infer that the spike protein plays a significant role in developing myocarditis?

So while the vaccine triggers an immune response prior to SARS-CoV-2 exposure, doesn't regular boosting mean more duration exposure to spike proteins apart from actual virus exposure? Would that ongoing regular exposure increase risk over time?

We haven't had enough time to know, but I do know early concerns about heart problems were shunned and dismissed as conspiracy yet here we are where the CDC fully acknowledges the connection and points out it is specific to mRNA. That suggests we simply do not know the ultimate outcome because we're still living in the observation period.

Thoughts or answers to my questions and points of concerns?

 

[willdup]

I'm just here for discussion, not absolute declaration of right or wrong.

People have linked studies for the past 3 years and people have dismissed them, so what makes this one believable?

What causes myocarditis? If both the disease and the vaccine cause myocarditis, how is it determined that being vaccinated then getting the disease is somehow safer than just getting the disease as far as myocarditis is concerned?

This study just published a few weeks ago even says a risk benefit analysis needs to be done, but the recommendation is immunization in the meantime because the expected benefits outweigh the risks of an infection overall.

Higher Incidence of Myocarditis, Pericarditis Found After COVID-19 Vaccination

Despite evidence of a higher risk of myocarditis or pericarditis with COVID-19 vaccination, immunization should still be recommended because the benefits likely outweigh the harms, study shows.

www.pharmacytimes.com

The study even points out that people with 2 doses were more likely to experience myocarditis than 1 dose. When this study is redone to consider boosters, I wonder how the data will change.

The CDC says that no significant connection has been found to myocarditis with the J&J shot, only mRNA shots.

@willdup you asked why the myocarditis incidents worldwide don't follow 13b doses, well all 13b aren't mRNA are they? We need a more granular study to make sense of anything we're seeing. It would be nice to see a global study of myocarditis comparing incidents from the unvaccinated and vaccinated broken down by vaccine.

Thus far, the only commonality between the disease and the vaccine is the vaccine causes the body to produce spike proteins while the disease is a result of infection by the virus that includes the spike protein. Can we infer that the spike protein plays a significant role in developing myocarditis?

So while the vaccine triggers an immune response prior to SARS-CoV-2 exposure, doesn't regular boosting mean more duration exposure to spoke proteins apart from actual virus exposure? Would that ongoing regular exposure increase risk over time?

We haven't had enough time to know, but I do know early concerns about heart problems were shunned and dismissed as conspiracy yet here we are where the CDC fully acknowledges the connection and points out it is specific to mRNA. That suggests we simply do not know the ultimate outcome because we're still living in the observation period.

Thoughts or answers to my questions and points of concerns?

@808 Dawg has already summarized my POV quite well, but I'll add a few more thoughts.

• Yes, the efficacy of the vaccine was overstated regarding avoidance of infection.
• However, the vaccine has been shown definitively to have reduced hospitalizations and saved many lives
• The Covid vaccines, just like all vaccines, have adverse side effects. In my POV, the risk/benefit analysis has generally justified the prior policies of both the public and private sectors regarding vaccine requirements.
• I will be interested in the results of peer-reviewed studies on the following topics:
  • medium to long term impacts of long covid
  • prevalence and severity of long covid in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations
  • prevalence and severity of myocarditis in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations
  • Impact on all of the above of both number of covid infections and number of vaccinations and boosters.

There is much left to learn, but we had to take extreme steps based on the limited information we had at the time. I remember having debates on the Chat early in the pandemic regarding what death toll would justify the lockdowns and people were dismissive that we would eclipse 200-300k. Of course we are at well over 1m in the US and if you were personally untouched by Covid you should consider yourself lucky. I lost five people off of a team of 120 in India after having only one death on the team in the prior five years. I know six people who lost a parent and we have all heard the tragic stories on here about people dying well before their time, including some young and otherwise healthy people.

So back to the original post, I'm unsure of what @BigDaddyDawgBreath was referencing specifically when he called out the arrogant people admitting they were wrong. Our response was not perfect, but given the circumstances I think we did quite well over all.

 

[mikul1]

We will see.

One of the most important things we did after any mission was an AAR. After action report. Leave your feels outside and bluntly say who and what was right or wrong.

If a 20 year old E4 is demandedthem. to accept that kind of accountability, 70 year old senior executive service types making $400,000, other senior bureaucrats, and elected officials can be made to answer at least a few pointed questions...

How much money do you donate to them , right? Why would they do any thing you want. You don’t donate to me and we have mail in ballots to,protect me as long as I do the right things for the woke agenda.raise food and energy prices on the poor and then have you explain how it is necessary they suffer for the good of themselves.

 

[DawgWCK]

@808 Dawg has already summarized my POV quite well, but I'll add a few more thoughts.

• Yes, the efficacy of the vaccine was overstated regarding avoidance of infection.
• However, the vaccine has been shown definitively to have reduced hospitalizations and saved many lives
• The Covid vaccines, just like all vaccines, have adverse side effects. In my POV, the risk/benefit analysis has generally justified the prior policies of both the public and private sectors regarding vaccine requirements.
• I will be interested in the results of peer-reviewed studies on the following topics:
  • medium to long term impacts of long covid
  • prevalence and severity of long covid in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations
  • prevalence and severity of myocarditis in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations
  • Impact on all of the above of both number of covid infections and number of vaccinations and boosters.

There is much left to learn, but we had to take extreme steps based on the limited information we had at the time. I remember having debates on the Chat early in the pandemic regarding what death toll would justify the lockdowns and people were dismissive that we would eclipse 200-300k. Of course we are at well over 1m in the US and if you were personally untouched by Covid you should consider yourself lucky. I lost five people off of a team of 120 in India after having only one death on the team in the prior five years. I know six people who lost a parent and we have all heard the tragic stories on here about people dying well before their time, including some young and otherwise healthy people.

So back to the original post, I'm unsure of what @BigDaddyDawgBreath was referencing specifically when he called out the arrogant people admitting they were wrong. Our response was not perfect, but given the circumstances I think we did quite well over all.

I too thought @808 Dawg did a good job, i think a couple of points are debatable.

1. The ivermectin, zinc, steroid concoction that many Dr’s prescribed when nothing else was available had some positive impact on some patients with Covid. Even the Duke study showed Ivermectin alone reduced illness by 1 day. Certainly not a wonder drug but the concoction although vilified by many helped and was not hocus pocus.
2. The lockdowns were WAY to widespread and lengthy. All schools should have started up in Sept 2020 at the very least on a hybrid schedule where they could toggle on and off based on number of cases in the district. Georgia and Florida were the model to use. Many we’re determined to keep all shut down thru the election of 2020 no matter the cost to learning.

 

[ugaboz]

dems getting 10 vaccines
anything goes

 

[808 Dawg]

I too thought @808 Dawg did a good job, i think a couple of points are debatable.

1. The ivermectin, zinc, steroid concoction that many Dr’s prescribed when nothing else was available had some positive impact on some patients with Covid. Even the Duke study showed Ivermectin alone reduced illness by 1 day. Certainly not a wonder drug but the concoction although vilified by many helped and was not hocus pocus.
2. The lockdowns were WAY to widespread and lengthy. All schools should have started up in Sept 2020 at the very least on a hybrid schedule where they could toggle on and off based on number of cases in the district. Georgia and Florida were the model to use. Many we’re determined to keep all shut down thru the election of 2020 no matter the cost to learning.

I'm not aware of any significant findings supporting Ivermectin in treating COVID. It appears there were 1 or more studies that showed in vitro (using cell cultures) benefits against SARS-COV and similar viruses when using extremely high doses (well above what could be safely administered to humans). This seems to be were the idea came from, but again it just doesn't work as a clinical treatment of COVID.

I'm not knocking you DawgWCK, just laying out what I know. I'm not a virologist, but I have worked on viral resistance in marine organisms so I'm not a complete novice. Also, the media and media-acting mouth pieces often misinterpret research findings and/or overstate them. Once this happens, the general public/social media pervert the findings even more. It is like a fishing tale where the bass started out as 7 lbs and ended up 17 lbs.

Here is what I have seen:
"• The current study by Caly et al. was published as a “pre-proof”, which means it is still subject to additional edits. The main outcome of the study was reduction in virus detected in cell culture at 48 hours, and ivermectin did result in a 50% reduction in virus.
• The authors report promising “in vitro” anti-viral activity of ivermectin against SARS-CoV2, however, it is uncertain whether or not the plasma concentration required to emulate these in vitro exposures can be safely achieved in humans. The concentration used in the study by Caly et al. was approximately 50-fold greater than concentrations achieved with current clinical regimens.
• The authors do not recommend ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment option for COVID-19, but rather call for in vivo research to further explore their preliminary findings.
• Prior “in vitro” studies demonstrated promising anti-viral activity of ivermectin for Dengue virus, which is also a single-stranded RNA virus, but further “in vivo” trials have shown no clinical benefits in humans. 2-3
• Ivermectin is associated with significant side effects, including Mazzotti reaction (dermatological reaction including pruritis and urticaria), lymphadenitis, and arthralgias. In addition, ivermectin can cross the blood-brain barrier and induce encephalopathy, especially in patients in hyperinflammatory states such as COVID-19. 4
• To date, no clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 infection.

Loading…

dason.medicine.duke.edu

and,
DURHAM, N.C. – A study led by the Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) in partnership with Vanderbilt University found no differences in relief of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 symptoms between participants taking ivermectin and participants taking a placebo.

“There was no significant benefit in our primary endpoint of resolution of symptoms in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 illness,” said Adrian Hernandez, M.D., the study’s administrative principal investigator and executive director of the DCRI. “Overall, most people improved their symptoms whether they took ivermectin or not. Given these results, there does not appear to be a role for ivermectin outside of a clinical trial setting, especially considering other available options with proven reduction in hospitalizations and death.”

There was also no difference observed in the number of hospitalizations or emergency room visits. Findings appear on medRxiv, a pre-publication server, and have been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.

Study Finds No Benefit to Taking Ivermectin for COVID-19 Symptoms

DURHAM, N.C. – A study led by the Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) in partnership with Vanderbilt University found no differences in relief of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 symptoms between participants taking ivermectin and participants taking a placebo.

corporate.dukehealth.org

 

[DawgWCK]

I'm not aware of any significant findings supporting Ivermectin in treating COVID. It appears there were 1 or more studies that showed in vitro (using cell cultures) benefits against SARS-COV and similar viruses when using extremely high doses (well above what could be safely administered to humans). This seems to be were the idea came from, but again it just doesn't work as a clinical treatment of COVID.

I'm not knocking you DawgWCK, just laying out what I know. I'm not a virologist, but I have worked on viral resistance in marine organisms so I'm not a complete novice. Also, the media and media-acting mouth pieces often misinterpret research findings and/or overstate them. Once this happens, the general public/social media pervert the findings even more. It is like a fishing tale where the bass started out as 7 lbs and ended up 17 lbs.

Here is what I have seen:
"• The current study by Caly et al. was published as a “pre-proof”, which means it is still subject to additional edits. The main outcome of the study was reduction in virus detected in cell culture at 48 hours, and ivermectin did result in a 50% reduction in virus.
• The authors report promising “in vitro” anti-viral activity of ivermectin against SARS-CoV2, however, it is uncertain whether or not the plasma concentration required to emulate these in vitro exposures can be safely achieved in humans. The concentration used in the study by Caly et al. was approximately 50-fold greater than concentrations achieved with current clinical regimens.
• The authors do not recommend ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment option for COVID-19, but rather call for in vivo research to further explore their preliminary findings.
• Prior “in vitro” studies demonstrated promising anti-viral activity of ivermectin for Dengue virus, which is also a single-stranded RNA virus, but further “in vivo” trials have shown no clinical benefits in humans. 2-3
• Ivermectin is associated with significant side effects, including Mazzotti reaction (dermatological reaction including pruritis and urticaria), lymphadenitis, and arthralgias. In addition, ivermectin can cross the blood-brain barrier and induce encephalopathy, especially in patients in hyperinflammatory states such as COVID-19. 4
• To date, no clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 infection.

Loading…

dason.medicine.duke.edu

and,
DURHAM, N.C. – A study led by the Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) in partnership with Vanderbilt University found no differences in relief of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 symptoms between participants taking ivermectin and participants taking a placebo.

“There was no significant benefit in our primary endpoint of resolution of symptoms in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 illness,” said Adrian Hernandez, M.D., the study’s administrative principal investigator and executive director of the DCRI. “Overall, most people improved their symptoms whether they took ivermectin or not. Given these results, there does not appear to be a role for ivermectin outside of a clinical trial setting, especially considering other available options with proven reduction in hospitalizations and death.”

There was also no difference observed in the number of hospitalizations or emergency room visits. Findings appear on medRxiv, a pre-publication server, and have been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.

Study Finds No Benefit to Taking Ivermectin for COVID-19 Symptoms

DURHAM, N.C. – A study led by the Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) in partnership with Vanderbilt University found no differences in relief of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 symptoms between participants taking ivermectin and participants taking a placebo.

corporate.dukehealth.org

As I noted, when NO OTHER treatment options were available (summer of 2020 ) this concoction ( zinc, ivermectin, steroids) was used in south ga, California and other places with some success. Someone posted it on the Vent and I took a copy to an immediate family member who is an Internal Medicine Dr. He was very much aware of this concoction and said it was only non-hospital option available at the time. I read the Duke study, and it did note minor success with ivermectin alone. Would I use it now, heck no, more options available and I’ve had the original vaccine. But would have tried it in summer of 2020 for sure.

 

[brgodawgs]

The discussion around the vax and heart issues had to come off the other board. But there is too much happening to be ignored.

Masks, lockdowns, school closures, vaccine not stopping spread, unknown vax side effects, long lasting economic problems - every single problem could have been foreseen *because they were foreseen at the time from solid information and logic*. But when we said it we got mocked or shadowbanned or maybe just outright banned.

Do any of those folks have the integrity to own it now?

@BigDaddyDawgBreath nope. Los Angeles, Philly, NYC back to masking students

 

[elderdawg]

I'm not aware of any significant findings supporting Ivermectin in treating COVID.

Can't get a better "finding" than the covid data coming in from the African continent a year ago.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/09/02/ivermectin-in-africa-blocks-covid/