Jump to content

Menu

Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?


PeterPan
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

So, even in this article, where they likely looked for the most convincing cases, half the cases really don't seem like vaccine reactions. 

I must have hit my head too hard, because those look like vaccine reactions to me. And since the hospitals and doctors themselves were on tv saying a % would have anaphylactic reactions, I'm not sure why it's a shock to say people are having (and dying from) anaphylactic reactions. And my point then is were they preventable. 

9 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

I also think that characterizing all the deaths in VAERS as being anaphylactic reactions within 20 minutes is a false narrative.

I'm sorry, I'm not a debater, but did I say all?? I said ONE. I have no clue what happened to everyone else. One woman had a reaction, left anyway, and died. It's horrible. And it's horrible because they KNEW the anaphylactic reactions would happen in a percentage and their set up and plan didn't catch them. 

Now if my dad's flare up is from the vaccine, one I can't prove it, two it's not getting reported, and three HE CHOSE. He went of his own free will and took a shot that had the % to give him freedom and the % to hurt him. We all make choices like that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PeterPan said:

Oh it definitely is. And I agree with mercola that the testing of it with children is eyebrow raising. If it's even POSSIBLE that some of the things they're claiming could happen, it's astonishing. 

Of COURSE they are testing it on kids!!  I’m delighted they are testing it on kids. I know kids generally don’t have severe COVID, but the inflammatory post-COVID stuff freaks me out. We have no clue what the repercussions to COVID may be.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Plum said:

They should be studying people that struggle with long covid and got both shots. If they have a stronger reaction to the second shot and how those reactions parallel their illness. 
 

This disease is weird. Everyone seems to have a different set of symptoms and progression after becoming symptomatic. Why would vaccine reactions be any different? 

Because this vaccine isn’t a weakened disease. It’s a bit of code that makes your body produce proteins. There is no virus in your body at any point.

There may still be reactions and delayed reactions, but this is not the same.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PeterPan said:

Thanks for sharing the article. I used to read Mercola years ago and got busy. He's bringing up some points I had wondered about. I had noticed they were calling them vaccinations, not immunizations, and wondered why. The medical community would slam anyone to the hilt who calls childhood vaccinations vaccinations, but now with covid it's vaccine, not immunization. So he's definitely onto a nuance there I hadn't quite understood. 

 

That's flatly not true.  The medical community uses both words.

The words vaccination and immunization have different medical meanings.  (Colloquially, they tend to get used interchangeably, but formally, they are not the same thing)

Roughly, vaccination means the act of administering a vaccine.  It's a very narrow term.  Immunization is more broad and includes what happens after the vaccine is administered - the biological process of becoming immune to a disease because of a vaccine.

Childhood vaccines (and all vaccines) are called vaccines because that's what they are called, by the medical community and everyone else.  Childhood immunization is a broader term and encompasses the desired outcome.  Childhood vaccination is correct if talking just about administering jabs.  For example, one might go to a vaccination clinic to get vaccinated, as part of an immunization program.

edited to fix link

Edited by wathe
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

I have diagnosed long Covid and have been vaccinated.

Granted—I was not super sick with Covid when I had it, though annoying side effects have lingered. I never had a fever. No cough. A couple of days of fatigue and body aches.

18 hours after the second shot I was knocked off my feet. Fever, chills, intense body aches, fatigue.  I lost two days of work, which is all my sick time for a year(NYS mandates 40 hours of paid sick time, but when you work 24 hour shifts it doesn’t take much to lose that, because one day of being sick wipes out half of it).   I personally know people who have hesitated over the vaccines simply because they can’t afford being out of work.  If they were to get Covid, our state has paid sick time if you’ve been diagnosed with Covid. So they’re weighing that.

The frustrating thing about the political response is that instead of targeting funds, they just threw money at everyone. I would think that offering payment to quarantine after a positive test or payment for the vaccine to cover potential missed days of work would make a heck of a lot more sense. A mild case of Covid would mean people people felt perfectly fine to work and would basically be making that sacrifice for others. In some circumstances, that sacrifice could be extremely costly for an individual and I know many people refused to even test after close contact for that reason.  My boys had to sacrifice a number of paychecks last summer for that reason but they had a roof over their head and some back up. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, frogger said:

I would think that offering payment to quarantine after a positive test or payment for the vaccine to cover potential missed days of work would make a heck of a lot more sense.

Money for everyone covers that, though. And it also boosts the economy, which is definitely suffering from the decreased participation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

Money for everyone covers that, though. And it also boosts the economy, which is definitely suffering from the decreased participation. 

Nope. It doesn't. Trust me. If you are broke, you will gladly take both. Incentives matter and a check you got three months ago will probably not affect your decision to work now, especially if you already lost money during the lock down and then got sick again later. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread now has so much misinformation and conspiracy theories that I can't possibly keep up. 

I'd love to discuss statistics with anyone who's interested about how to actually answer population-wide questions about whether things are generally safe -- these are genuinely hard questions.  If anyone wants to start a thread on that, I'm all for it; I'd also love to discuss the biology behind mRNA vaccines, which I find truly fascinating (and it fits neatly into what we've been studying with DD8.) But I think this thread is probably not the place. So I'm going to unfollow 🙂 . 

Tag me if anyone wants to seriously discuss it, though! 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, frogger said:

Nope. It doesn't. Trust me. If you are broke, you will gladly take both. Incentives matter and a check you got three months ago will probably not affect your decision to work now, especially if you already lost money during the lock down and then got sick again later. 

No, you're right about that. I just think they should have done both. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wathe said:

The medical community uses both words.

I see what you're saying, makes sense. However I will again point out the propoganda/mental nature of the word choice. I was CORRECTED by a doctor when I used the wrong term, so it's very important to them what we call it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, frogger said:

I would think that offering payment to quarantine after a positive test

Just throwing this out, do you think some people would purposely take risks to test positive and get the check? I could totally see that happening. Wouldn't be healthy or wise, but someone would do it. If people will sell their kidneys for money, they'd get covid for money.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

This thread now has so much misinformation and conspiracy theories that I can't possibly keep up. 

Different perspectives. Misinformation is a political term. Conspiracy just means someone doesn't agree with you. 

I'm not saying I agree with every "fact" presented somewhere, but doesn't it at all bother you at some point to say people can't disagree, can't have a different perspective, or can't be allowed to be wrong? At what point did our country turn into "having something wrong on the internet will ruin our nation and endanger our health and so free speech must end" kwim? That's where this has been going. This whole stupid labeling needs to end. It's political and it's canceling. If something is incorrect, it's incorrect. But it's also naive to say one person, one govt office, one org knows everything. There's always something more and people who've lived a while know that.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Just throwing this out, do you think some people would purposely take risks to test positive and get the check? I could totally see that happening. Wouldn't be healthy or wise, but someone would do it. If people will sell their kidneys for money, they'd get covid for money.

Maybe, and I have no proof of this, but my guess it would a lot less than people who just kept working since they only lost their sense of taste and smell or some scenario like that. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, frogger said:

Maybe, and I have no proof of this, but my guess it would a lot less than people who just kept working since they only lost their sense of taste and smell or some scenario like that. 

 

People are crazy. It still completely boggles my mind that a trained medical person took the vaccine when he was symptomatic and had recently had a positive test. He died btw. People do crazy stuff, irrespective of their education level apparently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Scientific Method - Four Acts

Act 1: Hypothesis

17 hours ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

If i had a dollar for every time someone on this board dismissed a source because it wasn’t peer-reviewed . . .

 

Act 2: Gathering Data that supports or refutes Hypothesis

11 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Well I like data, so I just searched this board for the terms "peer review" and "peer reviewed." I read the first 100 hits for "peer reviewed" and the first 50 hits for "peer review." I stopped at 50 for the latter term because a large portion of those referred to students reviewing each other's writing, and most of the other mentions were in the context of discussing peer review in general — how it works, why it's important, etc. I stopped at 100 hits for "peer reviewed" because at that point I was getting results as far back as 2012 and many were along the lines of "can anyone recommend some peer reviewed studies on XYZ..."

So here's what I found:

I found 23 instances where someone posted a link to, or summary of, research results and included a caveat along the lines of  “this study seems interesting/promising, but note that it is not peer reviewed yet…”

I found 7 instances where lack of peer review was mentioned as one of several criticisms of a research study, article, or anecdotal information. There was also a discussion in the Stella Immanuel thread about the importance of peer review, but no one suggested that the only issue with Immanuel's claims was lack of peer review — the discussion was more like "real research is disseminated via publication in peer reviewed journals, not youtube videos."

Out of that sample of 150 posts, I did not find one in which someone dismissed a study out of hand for no reason other than lack of peer review. It's possible I somehow missed a few, but the claim that this is common here does not match the data.

The closest comments I could find to your claim were a post that said “I have not read any peer reviewed studies on essential oils and depression…” and a post criticizing an article about plastic bag use, saying the author had not provided any evidence to back up their claims or cited any peer reviewed studies.

So if you count those two posts you'd have 2 bucks. If you deducted a dollar for each of the posts by people who posted research they agreed with while openly acknowledging that these were just preprints and not yet peer reviewed, you'd have -$21.

 

Act 3: Peer Insistence upon Verification via Replication of Results by Independent Parties

10 hours ago, wathe said:

But your little study reviewing peer review has not been peer reviewed, so.....

 

Act 4: Confirmation Bias Hinders Acceptance of Findings

8 hours ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Three things:

1. The search function is notoriously bad here. There’s some data to look for. How many times has that been mentioned?

2. You can’t search posts of people whose accounts have been deleted, or edited and/or removed their posts, or threads that have been. There are specific posters I am thinking of.

3. “Several” and “quite a few” does not equate to “common.” More attribution of words not said.


 

Traditionally dramas are structured in five acts, so we have not arrived at how the story ends. But in all seriousness this is an *excellent* example of how the scientific method is actually supposed to work. 

The method does not claim to get it perfectly and immutably right the first time out the gate. For any problem, let alone a spanking new disease that seems to operate differently than others.

The method depends on verification by further work, other population segments, better measurement tools, the accumulation of more and better data sets.

The method does not claim to yield Eternal Truth. There will be revisions as more and better data emerges, and more and better metrics are developed. That's not an indictment of the method. That.Is.The.Method.

The method is not undermined by a healthy push-pull between the body of existing Received Wisdom and newly emergent findings.... which is only a more diplomatic way of referring to what Not a Number calls "priors" and what is also, in its extreme form, "confirmation bias." Everyone under the sun has an existing perspective; there's nothing wrong with that; and the method actually functions in relation to that in a dynamic whereby the New Stuff has to prove itself -- in an evidence-based way -- against prevailing wisdom.

 

It only breaks down when that attachment to existing Received Wisdom is so steadfast that evidence is DISMISSED. Not scrutinized and seriously evaluated, but dismissed without such serious evaluation.

Looking forward to Act Five, that's always my favorite.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PeterPan said:

People are crazy. It still completely boggles my mind that a trained medical person took the vaccine when he was symptomatic and had recently had a positive test. He died btw. People do crazy stuff, irrespective of their education level apparently. 

Yes, people are always your greatest variable.

Some believe there is a flat earth, some believe children are kept in cages and frightened and their hormones are extracted to make drugs to inject politicians with. People where I live hate communism but get a check every year from our communally owned natural resources. So 🤷

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Different perspectives. Misinformation is a political term. Conspiracy just means someone doesn't agree with you. 
 

No, it doesn’t. It means it has no evidence and people who believe it can’t name evidence that would convince them. It’s a specific mental alignment.

15 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

I'm not saying I agree with every "fact" presented somewhere, but doesn't it at all bother you at some point to say people can't disagree, can't have a different perspective, or can't be allowed to be wrong? At what point did our country turn into "having something wrong on the internet will ruin our nation and endanger our health and so free speech must end" kwim? That's where this has been going. This whole stupid labeling needs to end. It's political and it's canceling. If something is incorrect, it's incorrect. But it's also naive to say one person, one govt office, one org knows everything. There's always something more and people who've lived a while know that.

I’ve never said anything like “one person knows everything.” I tend to be willing to say that the emperor has no clothes no matter who it is. But there’s been an incredible level of misunderstanding of statistics and biology on this thread, and I can’t keep up.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

The method does not claim to yield Eternal Truth. There will be revisions as more and better data emerges, and more and better metrics are developed. That's not an indictment of the method. That.Is.The.Method.

The method is not undermined by a healthy push-pull between the body of existing Received Wisdom and newly emergent findings....

Yes, this.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, frogger said:

some believe children are kept in cages

Actually that has happened in our state. It even happened in my town, if you can imagine. If you mean the political/border one, dunno, lol. Anything that's said on politics I figure has another side we aren't hearing, lol.

7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

incredible level of misunderstanding of statistics and biology on this thread

I can raise my hand on that one. :biggrin:

9 minutes ago, frogger said:

their hormones are extracted to make drugs to inject politicians with

Wow, hadn't heard this one. I need to find more interesting places to get my news, lol.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Just a disclaimer. On macs you can do a cmd-f search and put in terms. So if I didn't bother to link, it's partly because I'm still a bit dizzy/loopy and partly because I was assuming people could do that within the thread and find the previously given links. 

Beyond that, I assume most experienced people here know how to do google site searches. As you say, old posts are disappearing, don't know why. 

But yeah, can other computers do the screen search or is that a mac thing? 

Just for your trivia, you can search it yourself. https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html  I just did and it's currently at 656, which is 82.1% of the reported reactions. 

NVIC just sent around another story about a woman dying from an anaphylactic reaction. She waited the required 15 minutes and the shot was not administered at a hospital. By the time she was walking to her car (so maybe 20 minutes post shot?) she was symptomatic for the reaction. Rather than walking back in to get treatment (where presumably they had the shots, oxygen, etc.) or calling an ambulance, they started driving to a hospital. 

So it's horribly tragic that she died, but if she was symptomatic at 20 minutes what was happening at 15, kwim? There seems like a whole failure of the system there. If this many people are having reactions, they could look at the wait times and increase them. I thought they were initially doing 30, weren't they? So have they dropped it to 15 for convenience and are missing some of these people having reactions? 

Like I said, I had my dad vaccinated at the hospital. They're doing these vaccines at fair grounds and all kinds of weird places. As a consumer, I would want to know how outcomes differ with the anaphylactic reactions when the shot is administered in a more equipped medical facility vs. other settings.

I'm pretty sure the protocol here is 15 minutes for most people, 30 minutes for people who have had an anaphylaxis reaction to anything.  My husband worked a vaccine event (doing data entry); one of the questions was about if you've ever had a serious allergic reaction to anything and they put those people in a different waiting area.  There was a woman who fell after getting the vaccine.  She was 87, not very stable, wasn't even hurt really, but there was a protocol that they had to go through and it was investigated as if the vaccine had caused the fall.  It's just the way the process works.

During the phase 3 studies, there was a person who was STRUCK BY LIGHTNING  a week after receiving the vaccine.  Because he was in a vaccine study, they had to do a whole write up before determining that his death after being struck by lightning was not related to the vaccine.   

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

discuss statistics

Now don't go way over my head on this, but I've sort of wondered whether statistics were a reason they aren't asking everyone who is getting the vaccine to be tested. Well logistics and cost would be reasons too. But I have a friend who lives in a state where they told everyone who was traveling to be courteous and get tested before they traveled, and the caught asymptomatic cases. 

So I'm connecting that my dad's AL is not allowed to have visitors when the positivity is above 10%. Y'all are forever talking positivity. So if they tested everyone getting the vaccine, they could save a few lives AND get the positivity rate down to reopen congregate livings, a win-win.

But they don't do this, because they want the positivity rate to remain up. That's how, in my pea brain, it seems to me. 

If finances and logistics were not the issues, would doing the testing of everyone getting vaccines mess up your use/value of positivity rates? 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Terabith said:

there was a person who was STRUCK BY LIGHTNING  a week after receiving the vaccine.

Oh my, how horrible. Well I suppose there could be a way, but as you say it's mostly disconnected. That would be really stretching it, like he was so whatever that he wanted out into the rain holding a pole up.... But still, how improbable and horrible. 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Actually that has happened in our state. It even happened in my town, if you can imagine. If you mean the political/border one, dunno, lol. Anything that's said on politics I figure has another side we aren't hearing, lol.

I can raise my hand on that one. :biggrin:

Wow, hadn't heard this one. I need to find more interesting places to get my news, lol.

I meant the whole thing together. I know that children have been kept in cages in general. It is very kooky but I personally know people who think this is happening and the rest of us are blind. 😕 But I don't want a rabbit trail. The point is, people are unpredictable and don't always make sense.

 

Sometimes I don't make sense I'm sure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Were you considered to have long covid before this?

Yes, I was diagnosed before the shot.

 

2 hours ago, Plum said:

Yes dh’s hospital started giving second doses on Fridays. 
 

What I mean is long term reactions after getting the second dose and they have long covid. Like does it amplify their existing complications? For reasons I’d rather not go into that is something I’m considering. 

So I personally have had amplified symtoms the last month. By that I mean the olfactory hallucinations and the dysfunctional taste(everything tastes burnt or smoky) is much worse.  Whether or not that has to do with the immune response from The vaccine, I don’t know.

There is just so much that is unknown.

  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

I must have hit my head too hard, because those look like vaccine reactions to me. And since the hospitals and doctors themselves were on tv saying a % would have anaphylactic reactions, I'm not sure why it's a shock to say people are having (and dying from) anaphylactic reactions. And my point then is were they preventable. 

All four of them?  Do you think that the nuns died from covid reactions, even though they were high risk for covid, and living in a place where 26 other people had covid, and had positive covid tests?  

Or are you saying that the two that I said looked like possible vaccine reactions to me, also looked like possible reactions to you?  

I'll say that after I posted, I looked at the case of the man with MIS-A.  Apparently while he didn't have a positive covid test while he was hospitalized for MIS-A, which makes sense since MIS is something you develop after the virus has cleared your system, he did have antibodies to parts of the virus other than the spike protein, indicating that he probably had the virus in the past.  So, to me, that supports the theory that he died of long term effects of covid, and not of a vaccine reaction.  I'm not saying we should stop looking at MIS-A cases to see if they are more or less common after vaccination, but I don't think we can conclude that this was definitely a vaccine reaction.

Quote

I'm sorry, I'm not a debater, but did I say all?? I said ONE. I have no clue what happened to everyone else. One woman had a reaction, left anyway, and died. It's horrible. And it's horrible because they KNEW the anaphylactic reactions would happen in a percentage and their set up and plan didn't catch them. 

You said that the numbers indicate "a lot"  Those are words you used.  You also said that you thought it unlikely that most of the reactions in VAERS were unrelated, and gave an anaphylactic reaction as an example.  To me that implied that you thought there had been more than one anaphylactic reaction, since obviously there could be one, and my statement that most of the reports will be determined to not be vaccine reactions could be true too.

Can you link to the reaction you're talking about.  The one in the article was a man (I googled), and was not anaphylactic.  The article I read just said "not anaphylactic" so maybe a heart attack?  Clearly that could also be related. 

Quote

 

Now if my dad's flare up is from the vaccine, one I can't prove it, two it's not getting reported, and three HE CHOSE. He went of his own free will and took a shot that had the % to give him freedom and the % to hurt him. We all make choices like that.

Anyone can report a vaccine reaction.  You could report it if you wanted to.    I think I would in your situation. 

If you reported it, it would be added to that number of reported events. You don't need to prove it.  The whole purpose of VAERS is to allow people to make reports, so that experts can investigate them.   If you want it investigated you should report it.  

Here is the form to make report:

https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Or are you saying that the two that I said looked like possible vaccine reactions to me, also looked like possible reactions to you?  

I don't think I read what you wrote the way you meant it. I tried rereading it just now, and my brain is still too swirly to get there. I think you may have gotten there at a higher reading comprehension level than my current brain.

19 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

MIS-A

I have no clue what this is. I was skipping a bunch of paragraphs you wrote because I don't know what you're talking about.

9 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

you should report it.  

I'm not seeing him in person to do that. I would have to think about it, but it seems like the multiple doctors and practitioners who have been seeing him could be doing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kand said:

 

Lol!! What the hell?! That’s literally the worst you’ll ever hear me swear, but this is actually getting insane to the point that I don’t even know how to respond. No. That’s actually not what either of those words mean. They have actual meanings, and some information is true and some information is not. I feel like we’ve entered utter crazy land.

QFT

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

To me that implied that you thought there had been more than one anaphylactic reaction, since obviously there could be one, and my statement that most of the reports will be determined to not be vaccine reactions could be true too.

Something could be determined not to be a vaccine reaction that is. Others here have pointed out the idea of trust and the trust gap on the explanation of safety extends to the trust gap on explanation of reactions too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, katilac said:

I will unequivocally state that some 'conspiracy theories' turn out to be partially or substantially true, but that doesn't change the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or that posting extraordinary, inflammatory, and/or accusatory things with no evidence isn't okay just because the poster says, well, I'm not saying it's true, but . . . 

 

I don't understand this, because that is exactly what they are saying. Sometimes there is really no traction for an investigation to go very far, but they are investigating. 

Investigation of Physician's Death after Covid Vaccine

CDC Investigating Death of Nebraska Man Who Rec'd Covid Vaccine

California Investigates Death of Man Who Rec'd Vaccine

It was a terrible name to choose. 

 

That is not what it says. It's a 7-page document, but the most relevant part is probably: 

In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely. However, please note that testing for COVID–19 should be conducted whenever possible.

So, not the mere existence of Covid symptoms. 

I would say something to that effect if you were responding to me saying that I was going to take riding lessons. 

The CDC does not have those powers. 

They are acceptable for what they are, which is preliminary evidence that points toward certain conclusions. They are not, to my knowledge, being accepted or asserted as absolute proof of anything. We're really getting to see science in motion with Covid - we don't usually get to see things play out so fast, but you have to go with the strongest evidence you have at the time when decisions must be made. When the evidence changes, the decisions change. If the available evidence points toward masks being useful to slow down transmission, using masks is a great decision, even if we don't have all the evidence on what masks are best and so on. 


there are a lot of things which I believe to be true due to personal evidence which however might be someone I know from foster care situation and can’t give any details due to confidentiality issues and so on  (abuse of children, child trafficking for example - and also I have seen photos, though they could be faked these days - and personal stories could be made up too so probably nothing would convince most people anyway). 

In other cases I do not know personally, but given knowledge of particular people  who say ____ is true (example would be Robert Kennedy Jr) will give them  a substantial amount of consideration that they may know. Certainly they know way more than I do. 

 

I am deeply saddened by many of the attitudes I encounter, people Not wanting to consider things outside personal comfort zones or that is not in mainstream media. I understand now a great deal more of how something like Nazi Holocaust could come to be.  Who would believe that people were being kept prisoner, killed, “medical” experimentation being done, skin being used for lampshades.  Extraordinary proof would be considered required, right? And yet, by then how many millions were dead?  
 

In a good vs evil situation like Nazi Holocaust, , most people think they would have been on the “good” side — but in reality most people even if not actually Mengele himself, or his assistants, were not on the side of good, denied what was happening, did nothing to help, looked to the Goebbels led media to prove nothing was wrong, ignored or ridiculed anyone trying to bring information about the existence of the Holocaust happening. 
 

And that is true now as well, in my opinion. 
 

I cannot bring you extraordinary proof. I do not think you would believe it even if I could.

I hope all of you will look deeply into things, beyond today’s version of Goebbels’ led media, for yourselves. 

I have no apologies to you at all for mentioning things that may turn out to be not true but which I believe more probably than not are. Much as if I had heard about Concentration camps I would be trying to get word out about that even if I could not prove it. 
 

I firmly believe that deliberate unwillingness to consider such things to be potentially true and look into them and possibly help if one  can may be a form of moral complicity should it turn out that they are true. 
 

ETA: I believe personally that denial, unwillingness to look, IS a form of moral complicity with evil, not merely that it “may be”.  

Edited by Pen
  • Like 3
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Pen said:


there are a lot of things which I believe to be true due to personal evidence which however might be someone I know from foster care situation and can’t give any details due to confidentiality issues and so on  (abuse of children, child trafficking for example - and also I have seen photos, though they could be faked these days - and personal stories could be made up too so probably nothing would convince most people anyway). 

In other cases I do not know personally, but given knowledge of particular people  who say ____ is true (example would be Robert Kennedy Jr) will give them  a substantial amount of consideration that they may know. Certainly they know way more than I do. 

 

I am deeply saddened by many of the attitudes I encounter, people Not wanting to consider things outside personal comfort zones or that is not in mainstream media. I understand now a great deal more of how something like Nazi Holocaust could come to be.  Who would believe that people were being kept prisoner, killed, “medical” experimentation being done, skin being used for lampshades.  Extraordinary proof would be considered required, right? And yet, by then how many millions were dead?  
 

In a good vs evil situation like Nazi Holocaust, , most people think they would have been on the “good” side — but in reality most people even if not actually Mengele himself, or his assistants, were not on the side of good, denied what was happening, did nothing to help, looked to the Goebbels led media to prove nothing was wrong, ignored or ridiculed anyone trying to bring information about the existence of the Holocaust happening. 
 

And that is true now as well, in my opinion. 
 

I cannot bring you extraordinary proof. I do not think you would believe it even if I could.

I hope all of you will look deeply into things, beyond today’s version of Goebbels’ led media, for yourselves. 

I have no apologies to you at all for mentioning things that may turn out to be not true but which I believe more probably than not are. Much as if I had heard about Concentration camps I would be trying to get word out about that even if I could not prove it. 
 

I firmly believe that deliberate unwillingness to consider such things to be potentially true and look into them and possibly help if one  can may be a form of moral complicity should it turn out that they are true. 
 

ETA: I believe personally that denial, unwillingness to look, IS a form of moral complicity with evil, not merely that it “may be”.  

If you truly think that mainstream media is "today's version of Goebbels' led media", then I don't know what to say.

 

Edit: I had a longer post written out, but I decided it wasn't worth it. Suffice it to say, I disagree, but I really don't want to get into a long, drawn-out posting, so I'll just leave it at that. 

Edited by historically accurate
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pen said:

In a good vs evil situation like Nazi Holocaust, , most people think they would have been on the “good” side — but in reality most people even if not actually Mengele I firmly believe that deliberate unwillingness to consider such things to be potentially true and look into them and possibly help if one  can may be a form of moral complicity should it turn out that they are true. 

Comparing those who actually believe in science and evidence to Holocaust deniers, unwilling to look at the "evidence" for Q-anon theories and the anti-vaxx crap spewed by the likes of Robert Kennedy is really rich. 

The people in this thread who have repeatedly refuted the same false claims over and over HAVE looked at the evidence — that's precisely why they know that the information in the antivaxx sites that you and others have linked here is false.

The second worst thing about 2020 for me — after the 500,000 deaths, many of which could've been prevented — is the horrifying realization of just how easy it is to persuade huge numbers of Americans to believe easily refutable falsehoods. That does not bode well for the future of this country.

 

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 15
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PeterPan said:

I see what you're saying, makes sense. However I will again point out the propoganda/mental nature of the word choice. I was CORRECTED by a doctor when I used the wrong term, so it's very important to them what we call it.

It's very important to THAT doctor. I've never encountered a healthcare professional who showed any concern about it. 

 

5 hours ago, PeterPan said:

 I'm not saying I agree with every "fact" presented somewhere, but doesn't it at all bother you at some point to say people can't disagree, can't have a different perspective, or can't be allowed to be wrong? At what point did our country turn into "having something wrong on the internet will ruin our nation and endanger our health and so free speech must end" kwim? That's where this has been going. This whole stupid labeling needs to end. It's political and it's canceling. If something is incorrect, it's incorrect. But it's also naive to say one person, one govt office, one org knows everything. There's always something more and people who've lived a while know that.

 

If any appreciable number of people were saying that people can't disagree, then sure, that would bother me, but that isn't happening. I certainly don't see anyone saying free speech muste end - where are you seeing that? We've been discussing covid on this board for a year now; we started off with a wide variety of opinions, and we continue to have a wide variety of opinions. I see a wide variety of opinions in news articles and opinion pieces, on social media, and pretty much everywhere. Free speech is alive and kicking. 

5 hours ago, PeterPan said:

 If finances and logistics were not the issues, would doing the testing of everyone getting vaccines mess up your use/value of positivity rates? 

No. The more testing you do, the more information you have. 

I think the focus is on getting the vaccine out there, and that requiring covid tests beforehand would add another layer of complication. Most importantly, the United States does not have enough tests to do this if we wanted to. 

4 hours ago, PeterPan said:

 I am not seeing him in person to do that.  

You don't have to see him in person. From the site: 

Who can report to VAERS? VAERS accepts reports from anyone.

3 hours ago, kand said:

This is an important point when considering VAERS reports. Anyone can report anything they want. 
 

Back on the example given of the nuns who died of Covid after an outbreak in their home. The fact Mercola used that as an example illustrates the information there is totally unreliable. It is literally impossible to catch Covid19 from an mRNA vaccine. There is NO virus in the vaccine. It’s not there. All that is in the vaccine is the mRNA that codes for a piece of the spike protein on the outside of the virus. All your body can do with that is make little pieces of spike protein so your body learns to recognize it. The vaccine can not give you Covid. So, using the Covid outbreak as an example of a vaccine reaction shows a shocking lack of scientific understanding. 

Yep. And they tried to present it as though there was no possible source of Covid exposure, but of course that isn't true. The spokesperson said that they weren't going anywhere . . . to speak of. That means they were going somewhere, and had the potential for exposure. It only takes one person.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Terabith said:

I'm pretty sure the protocol here is 15 minutes for most people, 30 minutes for people who have had an anaphylaxis reaction to anything.  My husband worked a vaccine event (doing data entry); one of the questions was about if you've ever had a serious allergic reaction to anything and they put those people in a different waiting area.  There was a woman who fell after getting the vaccine.  She was 87, not very stable, wasn't even hurt really, but there was a protocol that they had to go through and it was investigated as if the vaccine had caused the fall.  It's just the way the process works.

During the phase 3 studies, there was a person who was STRUCK BY LIGHTNING  a week after receiving the vaccine.  Because he was in a vaccine study, they had to do a whole write up before determining that his death after being struck by lightning was not related to the vaccine.   

This is true here.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PeterPan said:

I see what you're saying, makes sense. However I will again point out the propoganda/mental nature of the word choice. I was CORRECTED by a doctor when I used the wrong term, so it's very important to them what we call it.

Medical terms generally have precise medical meanings. I don't think that using medical terms in a manner consistent with their accepted definitions is propaganda.

I will add that patients mis-use medical terms all the time.  When taking a history, I often have to probe to see if, when a  patient uses a medical term to describe a symptom, does that word mean to them what it means to me (and any other doctor or medical professional).  Experience has taught me that I can't assume that patients know the definitions of medical terms, or use them in a way that's consistent with the medical definition.   As simple as the word "fever".  Medically, this means an elevation in body temperature above normal, not caused by the environment.  You'd think that most people would know this, but plenty don't.  They will endorse the symptom of fever, but what they actually mean is that they feel really crummy.  They may not have taken their temperature, or even had someone feel their forehead to see if they feel hot.  They have no idea if they've actually had a fever.  But they will tell me they have had a fever, because they feel really crummy, and in their minds that's a fever.  There are plenty of situations where this matters.  A lot. This kind of miscommunication can cause medical errors, and can be very dangerous.  So, yes, doctors care that the words you use actually mean what you think they mean.  Otherwise accurate communication becomes impossible.  I don't go around CORRECTING people, but will explain that the term they've used/mis-used has a medical meaning, and therefore means something different to me and other medical people than it might mean to them.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, Pen said:


there are a lot of things which I believe to be true due to personal evidence which however might be someone I know from foster care situation and can’t give any details due to confidentiality issues and so on  (abuse of children, child trafficking for example - and also I have seen photos, though they could be faked these days - and personal stories could be made up too so probably nothing would convince most people anyway). 

In other cases I do not know personally, but given knowledge of particular people  who say ____ is true (example would be Robert Kennedy Jr) will give them  a substantial amount of consideration that they may know. Certainly they know way more than I do. 

 

I am deeply saddened by many of the attitudes I encounter, people Not wanting to consider things outside personal comfort zones or that is not in mainstream media. I understand now a great deal more of how something like Nazi Holocaust could come to be.  Who would believe that people were being kept prisoner, killed, “medical” experimentation being done, skin being used for lampshades.  Extraordinary proof would be considered required, right? And yet, by then how many millions were dead?  
 

In a good vs evil situation like Nazi Holocaust, , most people think they would have been on the “good” side — but in reality most people even if not actually Mengele himself, or his assistants, were not on the side of good, denied what was happening, did nothing to help, looked to the Goebbels led media to prove nothing was wrong, ignored or ridiculed anyone trying to bring information about the existence of the Holocaust happening. 
 

And that is true now as well, in my opinion. 
 

I cannot bring you extraordinary proof. I do not think you would believe it even if I could.

I hope all of you will look deeply into things, beyond today’s version of Goebbels’ led media, for yourselves. 

I have no apologies to you at all for mentioning things that may turn out to be not true but which I believe more probably than not are. Much as if I had heard about Concentration camps I would be trying to get word out about that even if I could not prove it. 
 

I firmly believe that deliberate unwillingness to consider such things to be potentially true and look into them and possibly help if one  can may be a form of moral complicity should it turn out that they are true. 
 

ETA: I believe personally that denial, unwillingness to look, IS a form of moral complicity with evil, not merely that it “may be”.  

All bolding by me except the word "not" in the fourth paragraph.

Personal evidence: obviously no one is going to be convinced by evidence that isn't actually shared with them. That's fine if it convinces you, but it isn't going to go beyond that (and shouldn't). 

Giving people substantial consideration: I do give the word of some people substantial consideration, as in I am willing to pay attention to what they say and examine the evidence they offer, but I do expect evidence to  be offered. Just because I have respect for a person in general doesn't mean I believe everything they say without any evidence. 

Extraordinary proof would be required: You list 'unbelievable' things about the Holocaust, that people would refuse to consider without extraordinary proof, but there was in fact substantial evidence of some of these things, and evidence that terrible things were happening even if the particulars weren't known. Jewish people were clearly and obviously being rounded up and taken somewhere, never to be seen again. Jewish people were clearly being discriminated against with government approval. Synagogues had been burned openly, businesses destroyed, homes vandalized, people murdered, hell, Hitler had openly called for the extermination of the Jewish race. German citizens saw Kristallnacht, they saw train cars full of Jewish people being taken away, they saw the yellow stars . . . it is willful naivete to imply that there wasn't clear and compelling evidence that something terrible was going on. I don't blame anyone for not coming to the conclusion that millions were being slaughtered, but there was extraordinary proof that evil was occuring. 

I do not think you would believe it: I assure you, I am quite willing to consider and weigh evidence. Also, just because I don't believe that international sex traffickers frequent every Walmart in the country, doesn't mean I don't believe that child sexual abuse and trafficking exist. I don't know anyone who thinks that. 

ETA: I believe personally that denial, unwillingness to look, IS a form of moral complicity with evil, not merely that it “may be”: I think that most people would agree with this as stated. Thinking that certain claims are farfetched and lacking in evidence is not the same as being unwilling to look. 

Edited by katilac
  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PeterPan said:

That's really interesting. His flare up of inflammation and pain with his back lesion is really conspicuous. And it was just starting to get better and then he got the 2nd shot and it's pretty high level again. 

So it may be a thing. And it's something that won't get reported to the system and would be hard to tease apart given all the other factors. (lockdown in small space, progressive nature of the back problems anyway, etc.) 

I guess we'll see if it improves over the next month. Could be something to look forward to. I'll watch. 

My dad got the first Moderna shot late last week. His main symptom (aside from some arm soreness) was his knees started bothering him. He has arthritis in his knees, which usually doesn't bother him - he started taking some supplements that helped a lot, glucosamine maybe? But about 12 hrs after the vaccine, his knees were killing him and it lasted for a couple of days. I hope your dad feels better soon! And if he has the vaccine app, he can report the side effects - I know my dad did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AmandaVT said:

My dad got the first Moderna shot late last week. His main symptom (aside from some arm soreness) was his knees started bothering him. He has arthritis in his knees, which usually doesn't bother him - he started taking some supplements that helped a lot, glucosamine maybe? But about 12 hrs after the vaccine, his knees were killing him and it lasted for a couple of days. I hope your dad feels better soon! And if he has the vaccine app, he can report the side effects - I know my dad did. 

Ok, I'll look into it. No, my dad doesn't have a vaccine app. I scheduled his appointments for him. I can dig through the messages and see if it said anything about reporting through their system. That's interesting that your dad had a flare up of pre-existing painful conditions. For my dad he has gone from walking daily and only using a scooter for say Disney to in a wheelchair and barely going to the bathroom by himself. He's having significant pain. But because he has the preexisting condition, people aren't connecting it. The pain was getting better and now it's way worse after the 2nd shot. Like literally every day he had been getting better, then the 2nd shot and he's really high level pain now, very grumpy with pain. Turns out he was yelling at a nurse today, and he hasn't had those kinds of behaviors in years, many years. 

So I'll look into reporting it. I think I didn't *want* it to be connected, if that makes sense. I want the vaccine to work, everyone to be fine, and all this to go away. But I'll go work on it. If it's happening to other people, his numbers might as well be in the system too.

  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Ok, I'll look into it. No, my dad doesn't have a vaccine app. I scheduled his appointments for him. I can dig through the messages and see if it said anything about reporting through their system. That's interesting that your dad had a flare up of pre-existing painful conditions. For my dad he has gone from walking daily and only using a scooter for say Disney to in a wheelchair and barely going to the bathroom by himself. He's having significant pain. But because he has the preexisting condition, people aren't connecting it. The pain was getting better and now it's way worse after the 2nd shot. Like literally every day he had been getting better, then the 2nd shot and he's really high level pain now, very grumpy with pain. Turns out he was yelling at a nurse today, and he hasn't had those kinds of behaviors in years, many years. 

So I'll look into reporting it. I think I didn't *want* it to be connected, if that makes sense. I want the vaccine to work, everyone to be fine, and all this to go away. But I'll go work on it. If it's happening to other people, his numbers might as well be in the system too.

I think that the fact that your Dad has some kind of preexisting condition is important information.  One of the concerns with the mRNA vaccines is the potential for inflammation, particularly in populations with specific conditions.  I won't go into specific complicated jargon, but not knowing what the underlying condition is with your Dad it would make sense for his condition to be investigated.  

As mentioned, anyone can report to VAERS, you can also simply download the V-safe app and enter his information. VAERS is assumed to contain bias, so its information has limited value on its own.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's a mess. I just started looking through the VAERS stuff, and as I should have known it's set up for a doctor to do the reporting. You have to do so much that basically they already have all the data at that point. They want every med he's taking, relevant labs to verify, on and on, tons of stuff. It would take quite a bit of time. It's definitely not set up for general consumer complaints that they're somehow going to "investigate" later. You're doing all that work for them entering the data. 

So that's just way more complicated than what I have time to make happen. 

Makes you wonder how often this is happening. Also, covid vaccines are not on the list on their site of legally mandated for reporting of averse reactions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, melmichigan said:

As mentioned, anyone can report to VAERS, you can also simply download the V-safe app and enter his information.

Is it more user friendly than what is on their main website? Because I'm going through the online forms and it would take me a ton of time. It's not a like a vague quick thing. They wanted every medication, diagnostic codes, all kinds of stuff. It would take me hours to go through his files and get all that and get it entered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, melmichigan said:

I think that the fact that your Dad has some kind of preexisting condition is important information.  One of the concerns with the mRNA vaccines is the potential for inflammation, particularly in populations with specific conditions.  I won't go into specific complicated jargon, but not knowing what the underlying condition is with your Dad it would make sense for his condition to be investigated.  

As mentioned, anyone can report to VAERS, you can also simply download the V-safe app and enter his information. VAERS is assumed to contain bias, so its information has limited value on its own.

So I think the faster thing for me would be to call his VA doctor (which I have the right to do, all the paperwork is signed) and talk with him. Then it's their problem to file it. I need to talk to him anyway, so I could do that. But I can't file that kind of paperwork. It's quite involved and the stuff I would have to provide (given his particulars) would be time consuming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, melmichigan said:

One of the concerns with the mRNA vaccines is the potential for inflammation

So are they *treating* the inflammation right now? Is there some sort of theoretical best practice for tamping it down? I think they did some injections on him, not sure. But I think if they aren't thinking in terms of the vaccine causing a flare-up, they might just go in suck it up mode. 

I can call his doctor. It's a call I needed to make anyway and it's worth a try. Who knows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

So are they *treating* the inflammation right now? Is there some sort of theoretical best practice for tamping it down? I think they did some injections on him, not sure. But I think if they aren't thinking in terms of the vaccine causing a flare-up, they might just go in suck it up mode. 

I can call his doctor. It's a call I needed to make anyway and it's worth a try. Who knows. 

I don't remember any specifics about your Dad's underlying condition.  I would suggest the call to his doctor to discuss your concerns.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2021 at 8:40 PM, Pen said:

While, otoh, in some places with robust vaccine programs (Tennessee, Israel) mortality has increased.   or so I’ve heard. 

 

Heard where? In a news report? From a scientist? In a paper? From a random person on the bus? In a facebook meme? I mean, spreading things you've heard, without saying where you heard it, is how conspiracies are spread. My college roommate said that african americans had one extra muscle compared to "white people". I heard that. Doesn't mean it is true, or that I should spread that info around as if it is. 

On 2/22/2021 at 9:16 AM, Not_a_Number said:

 

Basically, if you can't be Australia or New Zealand or South Korea, you may as well be Florida 😛 . When there's a certain amount of virus circulating, illogical lockdowns do little other than mess with local businesses. 

Masks have data behind them, though, last I checked. 

well, the bigger cities in florida do have mask mandates. After those our rates went down a lot. And winter is our summer, for disease transmission. 

On 2/22/2021 at 3:02 PM, SKL said:

Well if it's not comparable, then people should not make statements like "the death rate from the vax is obviously much lower than the death rate from not being vaxed."  (Putting aside the fact that such a statement, even if true on average, must be evaluated separately for different populations.)

You have to realize that if you die of something with symptoms that resemble those of Covid, it makes sense to list it as one of the causes of death, even if it wasn't the only cause. But if you died wearing a red shirt, it does not make sense to list "red shirts" as the cause of death, because the symptoms had nothing to do with the color red. Likewise, if the person's death had no similarities with the types of things the vaccine can and does do, it makes no sense to list it as one of the causes of death, especially if far removed in time. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

You have to realize that if you die of something with symptoms that resemble those of Covid, it makes sense to list it as one of the causes of death, even if it wasn't the only cause. But if you died wearing a red shirt, it does not make sense to list "red shirts" as the cause of death, because the symptoms had nothing to do with the color red. Likewise, if the person's death had no similarities with the types of things the vaccine can and does do, it makes no sense to list it as one of the causes of death, especially if far removed in time. 

Unless you are a Matador and were gored to death by a bull maybe.....  🙂

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kand said:

There are many asked questions that haven’t been answered, but this is the one that came back to me this morning. I’ve yet to hear any reason why people think “they” want high Covid positivity rates. (And I still don’t know exactly who “they” is.) I think answering this one would be helpful for understanding where everyone is coming from. I still can’t fathom what reason there would be for anyone to not want this to get better and for things to get back to normal as soon as possible. And I haven’t heard a reason given for that, even though a number of people seem to be operating from a belief that this is the underlying reason for all kinds of things. 

The reasons I have seen for this belief  are that “They” want the COVID rates high because “they” want to keep the “lockdowns” and keep the mask requirements to show that “they” are in charge and can manipulate the population.  So we all become reliant on the government as a step toward communism or some such. 
 

*I’m not saying anyone on this thread believes that, it’s just what I have seen on Twitter or Facebook or chatting with conservative friends.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...