GOLFMK8
GOLFMK7
GOLFMK6
GOLFMKV

The COVID19 SCAMdemic... Spam Bots Argue Over Lack Of Critical Pfizer Studies Funded By Pfizer

Unreal1

Autocross Champion
Do we know for a fact that the government is not funding this type of research? Got a source?

Yeah. You can search everything the government is funding, you won't find anything related to pre-existing immunity. You can start here:

https://grants.nih.gov/funding/SearchGuide/index.html?query=covid&x=0&y=0#/

While I agree that the vaccine does not reduce viral load, vaccines are not always intended to completely prevent infection

We've already been through this once already. Either you want to believe the science or you don't. I don't care.

All these adverse vaccine reactions are a nothing-sandwich when compared to the risks of the disease itself.

Risk of the virus for whom? What group are you referring to? If you're elderly or compromised, yes get the vaccine. However, for everyone else the risk of the vaccine may not outweigh the reward. It depends.

As for the myocarditis point, studies show that vaccines cause a 3-fold risk of myocarditis, but actually catching the disease causes an 18-fold risk.

Your 18 fold isn't entirely accurate. Regardless, I said your risk increases each time your body is exposed to the spike protein. So sure, it's 3-fold after 2 doses. But, where is it at after 4 shots? 6-fold increase? What about when you have to boost again next year... The safety profile of the vaccine changes/diminishes the more it's used. So yes, it absolutely makes sense to start weighing the risk vs reward based on a person's medical profile, as opposed to mandating it for any and everyone. I've never said the vaccine shouldn't be used at all. All I'm saying is that the data clearly indicates that we require a more nuanced approach to its administration.
 

cb1111

Newbie
Do we know for a fact that the government is not funding this type of research? Got a source?


While I agree that the vaccine does not reduce viral load, vaccines are not always intended to completely prevent infection -- we've been over this. They make infection less likely, and if it does happen, they make symptoms less severe -- the COVID vaccines are accomplishing this part very well. There are vaccine risks, but they're all so much lower in occurrence and more mild than actually catching the thing. All these adverse vaccine reactions are a nothing-sandwich when compared to the risks of the disease itself.

As for the myocarditis point, studies show that vaccines cause a 3-fold risk of myocarditis, but actually catching the disease causes an 18-fold risk.

"Myocarditis and an associated risk, pericarditis (inflammation around the heart) have previously been linked to the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines themselves, particularly among adolescent boys and young men. But the risk is far higher after infection with COVID-19, according to the new paper by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)." ..."The CDC study pointed to a paper by Israeli researchers published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine that found that messenger RNA vaccines increased the risk of myocarditis three-fold. That paper showed COVID increased the chances of developing myocarditis 18-fold, roughly in line with the new CDC study."

Myocarditis risk higher for COVID than for vaccines: study (medicalxpress.com)
Of course the government is funding this type of research. Immune response to vaccination after COVID-19 | National Institutes of Health (NIH) and this as well as this
 

torga

Autocross Champion

oddspyke

Autocross Champion
vaccine_research_2x.png
 

torga

Autocross Champion
We've already been through this once already. Either you want to believe the science or you don't. I don't care.
How is what I'm saying incorrect? This is exactly how the flu vaccine works -- it's not an impeneteable shield. Someone gets a flu vaccine, and they might still get the flu. The whole point is if they do get the flu, it turns into a few-day bout instead of a multi-week slog. Sounds familiar, right?

Your 18 fold isn't entirely accurate. Regardless, I said your risk increases each time your body is exposed to the spike protein. So sure, it's 3-fold after 2 doses. But, where is it at after 4 shots? 6-fold increase? What about when you have to boost again next year... The safety profile of the vaccine changes/diminishes the more it's used. So yes, it absolutely makes sense to start weighing the risk vs reward based on a person's medical profile, as opposed to mandating it for any and everyone. I've never said the vaccine shouldn't be used at all. All I'm saying is that the data clearly indicates that we require a more nuanced approach to its administration.
It's not my 18-fold risk, it's the researchers' 18-fold risk. But you should reach out to them -- I'm sure they'd love golfmk6 user Unreal1's redlines on their research.

I agree that studies should continue to be done on these vaccines.
 

Unreal1

Autocross Champion
How is what I'm saying incorrect? This is exactly how the flu vaccine works -- it's not an impeneteable shield. Someone gets a flu vaccine, and they might still get the flu. The whole point is if they do get the flu, it turns into a few-day bout instead of a multi-week slog. Sounds familiar, right?


It's not my 18-fold risk, it's the researchers' 18-fold risk. But you should reach out to them -- I'm sure they'd love golfmk6 user Unreal1's redlines on their research.

I agree that studies should continue to be done on these vaccines.

I'm on golfmk7.com and the point is there are other studies that report different numbers.
 

anotero

Autocross Champion
Please tell what Zrick could have possibly done about it.

Do nothing -- gretafan bitches.
Go for a tour of the capitol -- gretafan bitches.
 

anotero

Autocross Champion
No, you're just a racist, genocidal, asshole with an antisocial personality.

You are the one that dragged your merc ass to the other side of the globe to kill some arabs. So you are the genocidal one. ;)
 

zrickety

The Fixer
Yes, but instead gov just wants to mass vaccinate everyone with a leaky vaccine, instead of finding out who really needs it. If nothing else, their approach of pretending forms of natural immunity doesn't exist only increases vaccine hesitancy. As now, people (who aren't so gullible) have to question why they're not being honest.

What happened to changing our approach as new data is presented?
Yes, exactly. If having the actual virus doesn't give you immunity, how is the vaccine supposed to work?
 

zrickety

The Fixer
Btw, I think it's safe to assume that blood work is a lot cheaper than 2 doses of the vaccine. So, for people who are young and healthy, why not have them get tested for pre-existing immunity, if they want? If they are immune, allow them to be exempt from any vaccine mandates. Same should go for those who have recovered from an infection.

This is the science.
Funny how they told the vaccinated not to test for antibodies...
 
Top