“Doctor: Monkeypox is actually shingles, a side effect of the Covid vaccines.”

Extremist right wing delusional conspiracy theories still persist to this day.

In reality it isn't really "extremist". There is a legitimate question to the origins. The science seems to point to a zoonotic source but it could be otherwise.

I think, however, that many, especially those with little to no actual scientific training, gravitate toward the "conspiracy" because it just "feels" better especially given our current political state and our dislike of China.
 
Yes because people love to kill themselves to achieve their political ends.

To be fair, America and most countries have worked quite hard over their history to develop biological weapons. So it would n ot be beyond the pale. The evidence doesn't seem to line up with it right now, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time a virus has made it out of a lab. And, apparently, it wouldn't be the first time that a zoonotic virus was initially thought to be a lab leak.

This is the retreat of those who wish to make political hay based on their own ignorance. Conspiracy theories always provide much more entertainment than reality.
 
Ummmmm...."Of those, 1451 patients (mean [SD] age, 51.6 [12.6] years; 845 [58.2%] female) "

That didn't take long.

But also, why would you need the age or previous chicken-pox infection if the cohort had a control. If the prevalence of HZ in any given population is constant then the control group would allow for the comparison of the actual test group.
The study uses people that came in to be vaccinated compared to those that visited for another reason.
1. It is recommended that older people be vaccinated for Covid-19 so the sample will skew older
2. People of all ages are eligible for an annual doctor visit so this sample could skew younger

The rate of incidence of shingles was .20% in the first group and .11% in the second group. While statistically significant, if the second group isn't the same age range as the first group, there is a problem with the study.
 
The study uses people that came in to be vaccinated compared to those that visited for another reason.
1. It is recommended that older people be vaccinated for Covid-19 so the sample will skew older
2. People of all ages are eligible for an annual doctor visit so this sample could skew younger

The rate of incidence of shingles was .20% in the first group and .11% in the second group. While statistically significant, if the second group isn't the same age range as the first group, there is a problem with the study.
Yep, I noted the exact same thing. Almost no one under 55 has had chickenpox. But it turns out the study didn’t say what the OP claimed. The claim is just Russian misinformation. It’s amazing how gullible these clowns are.
 
To be fair, America and most countries have worked quite hard over their history to develop biological weapons. So it would n ot be beyond the pale. The evidence doesn't seem to line up with it right now, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time a virus has made it out of a lab. And, apparently, it wouldn't be the first time that a zoonotic virus was initially thought to be a lab leak.

This is the retreat of those who wish to make political hay based on their own ignorance. Conspiracy theories always provide much more entertainment than reality.
At times it’s best to deal with i\diotic conspiracy theories with a bit of hyperbole.
 
The study uses people that came in to be vaccinated compared to those that visited for another reason.
1. It is recommended that older people be vaccinated for Covid-19 so the sample will skew older
2. People of all ages are eligible for an annual doctor visit so this sample could skew younger

The rate of incidence of shingles was .20% in the first group and .11% in the second group. While statistically significant, if the second group isn't the same age range as the first group, there is a problem with the study.

But if the control group is similarly situated any difference in the occurrence of MPox would be a general indicator of it as a possible side-effect.
 
But if the control group is similarly situated any difference in the occurrence of MPox would be a general indicator of it as a possible side-effect.
Do you know the difference between mpox and shingles?
The study I am responding to only refers to the activation of the varicella-zoster virus to cause shingles in people that have had chickenpox.
 
Do you know the difference between mpox and shingles?
The study I am responding to only refers to the activation of the varicella-zoster virus to cause shingles in people that have had chickenpox.

Yes, I misspoke. But the point remains the same. If HZ prevelance would be expected to be the same between the test group and the control group then it should still show up as a signal.

That's kind of why we include control groups in science.
 

Top Doctor Blows Whistle: Monkeypox Is a Side Effect of Covid ‘Vaccines’​

A renowned German doctor has spoken out to warn the public that the monkeypox “outbreak” is a hoax and the “symptoms” are actually side effects of Covid mRNA vaccines.

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg issued the warning in a new whistleblowing interview with the Austrian outlet AUF1.

He explains that reports of a monkeypox “global emergency” from the World Health Organization (WHO) are part of a fearmongering campaign designed to scare the masses.

Wodarg asserts that globalists are seeking to cover up the negative health impact of Covid shots while trying to profit from testing and treating monkeypox.

He asks why other doctors aren’t questioning why people are being diagnosed with monkeypox based on a positive Rostar test.


The Rostar test is an expensive product that pharmaceutical companies are profiting from.

Meanwhile, share prices in companies that produce monkeypox vaccines are soaring following the WHO’s recent emergency declaration.

“They’re scaring us again,” Wodarg said of the globalist medical establishment.

“It’s a business exploiting the effects of the corona shots they pushed on us.


This is why alternative media is so good. It allows alternate ideas to be aired. There absolutely may be somthing to this. But You also need to realize how much big money is involved with this new onslaught of fear being pushed globally by WHO. Follow the money.
Is there anything you won't believe if it aligns with your politics?
 
Yes, I misspoke. But the point remains the same. If HZ prevelance would be expected to be the same between the test group and the control group then it should still show up as a signal.

That's kind of why we include control groups in science.
The study isn't about prevalence of the virus. It is about the percentage that get symptoms. The number with the virus is unknown and never tested for.
 
The study isn't about prevalence of the virus.

It is about the occurence of a given disease predicated on a pre-existing disease in a given population. Ergo it is related to the prevelance of the disease.


It is about the percentage that get symptoms. The number with the virus is unknown and never tested for.

And, yet, one more time, my point still stands.

If you have a test and a control group and you have reason to believe they are well chosen samples (ie random) then the prevalence of whatever kicks off the response will be assumed to be the same.

Try reading it again.

One of the reasons control groups are used is to control for unknown variability. You will have to show that the control group is somehow non-representative of the larger population for you to assume the control wouldn't "control" for unknown variance.
 
One of the reasons control groups are used is to control for unknown variability. You will have to show that the control group is somehow non-representative of the larger population for you to assume the control wouldn't "control" for unknown variance.
The control group doesn't have to be representative of the larger population if the test group is not representative of the larger population. In fact if the test group is not representative then for the control group to be representative would skew the results.
 
The control group doesn't have to be representative of the larger population if the test group is not representative of the larger population. In fact if the test group is not representative then for the control group to be representative would skew the results.

Yeah, proper sampling has as its goal a representation of the larger population. That's kind of the heart of statistics.

In this case, if you want to find out in any given population if the COVID vax kicks off any particular side-effect you should test against a representative control sample.

It seems that you are most upset that the cohort wasn't 100% made up of people all of whom have had known chickenpox infections in the past. That would be a reasonable sample set as well. But much harder to verify and find.

If we are looking, let's say, crudely at a t-test comparing the presence of HZ being re-activated it would still suffice if the test group and the control group are imperfect sample sets but have a reasonable expectation of a similar mix between the two samples. Right now estimates are that 95% of American adults have had Chickenpox (SOURCE) and the Chickenpox vax wasn't introduced until 1995 it would seem reasonable to assume that the test cohorts will provide sufficient evidence for or against the hypothesis that the COVID vax reactivates HZ.
 
I felt dirty just reading about them.

"Slay News is a conservative news and opinion website that frequently promotes misinformation and false claims, especially as it relates to Covid-19 vaccines and WEF conspiracies (see failed fact checks).

The website does not produce original journalism but rather summarizes, adds commentary, or plagiarizes other’s news content without attribution. Further, their editorial standards page is copied directly from The Blaze website. Articles and headlines contain strongly emotional wording such as this ‘Climate Czar’ John Kerry Caught Lying about Private Jet Use during House Hearing and Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist: ‘Climate Crisis’ Narrative Is a Hoax.

Editorially, all stories favor the conservative right and often promote conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. For example, they frequently promote anti-vaccine propaganda, such as this ‘Vaccination Expert’ Dr Alfredo Victoria Dies Suddenly at 42 after Promoting Shots on TV. There is no evidence to indicate the MD died from the vaccine. Further, the source of this information is the anti-vaccine outlet Died Suddenly. Finally, Slay News strongly supports former President Trump and repeats his stolen election claims like this Dinesh D’Souza Challenges Bill Barr to Debate over Election Fraud Claims in ‘2000 Mules’. They also consistently denigrate Democrats, such as this Obama’s WH Doctor Warns Biden’s Mental Decline ‘Brings Us Closer’ to WW3. In general, Slay News is a far-right biased news source that routinely promotes disinformation for purposes that are unknown."

Fauci lies more.

that's more well documented too.
 
Rather than relying on conspiracies there is science being gathered on this topic. The "lab leak" is not yet fully ruled out nor may it ever be. But there are ways to assess the likelihood of it being a lab leak. Remember, the lab leak hypothesis "feels good" right now because of political bullshit, not actual science.

Here's a great summary of the various "hypotheses" from "lab leak" to "fully zoonotic" (arising from animals and crossing to humans) and the relative weight of the evidence. What I think you'll note is that it is a lot more than just finding random events in China and leveraging the nations feelings about China.

. (Emphasis added)
The lab leak is pretty much what happened. But hey, you think it didn't because that "feels good" to you. Maybe you should stop getting "news" that makes you "feel good" from echo chambers.

 
Yes because people love to kill themselves to achieve their political ends.
They didn't seem to die, they seem to still be in charge and their protest problem seems to have disappeared. Folks, like you, that cared about it in 2019 do not seem to care about it any longer...
 
The lab leak is pretty much what happened. But hey, you think it didn't because that "feels good" to you.

Actuallly I am following the SCIENCE. Right now it is not a definite thing. I provided a reference which summarized both the pro and con and discussed those datapoints.

So it isn't just what it "feels" like to me.

Maybe you should stop getting "news" that makes you "feel good" from echo chambers.

I posted a scientific article. You are free to point out the errors the authors made (assuming you even read the article or have the expertise)



 
Actuallly I am following the SCIENCE. Right now it is not a definite thing. I provided a reference which summarized both the pro and con and discussed those datapoints.

So it isn't just what it "feels" like to me.



I posted a scientific article. You are free to point out the errors the authors made (assuming you even read the article or have the expertise)
Yet it is what it "feels" like to you. The science referenced in the article I presented tells us that it is more likely to be one over the other, you just choose to "feel" like it is the other because that is what you want it to be. The reality is, what I think (my opinion) is based in science and the likelihood of what happened while yours is based on reporting from when Fauci was telling you it "couldn't possibly be" the one and what you "feel"... you feel dismissive of opinions that differ from the one you originally formed when your "leaders" were telling you what to believe, even when such opinions are based in facts and, according to science, what is more likely... I get that. It is often easy to do yourself what you accuse others of doing. No negative judgement on my part, I am just telling you what I see and hear from you.

Anyway, you get on with your opinion, I'll get on with mine. I know mine isn't based on "feels" even if you want me to have based it on that.
 
Yet it is. The science referenced in the article I presented

A NY Times op ed? Sorry, not a great source of scientific detail. Also it's behind a paywall so I can't read it. My article on the other hand is free to read. I encourage you to give it a shot.

The reality is, what I think (my opinion) is based in science and the likelihood of what happened while yours is based on reporting from when Fauci was telling you it "couldn't possibly be"

Your point about "Fauci" there is most telling. You can't actually address the science which my article actually DID discuss in gory detail so you take it to the place where YOU function best: innuendo and pop-sci conspiracy stuff.

That's fine. Science is not for everyone.
 
A NY Times op ed? Sorry, not a great source of scientific detail. Also it's behind a paywall so I can't read it. My article on the other hand is free to read. I encourage you to give it a shot.



Your point about "Fauci" there is most telling. You can't actually address the science which my article actually DID discuss in gory detail so you take it to the place where YOU function best: innuendo and pop-sci conspiracy stuff.

That's fine. Science is not for everyone.
Says the guy ignoring the article presented in response to his article. What I have to say about Fauci is simply what I believe based on what the science says when compared to what he said about this subject. I get that you like articles that present you with "facts" that meet your bias and do not like the NY Times article that doesn't fit your confirmation bias, but it doesn't change the reality that my opinion is based on something other than my "feels" as you claim. I believe you should obtain information from sources that are not within your echo chamber and instead actually challenge your mind. While I would always love to believe what folks like Fauci tell me, what I have learned in this lifetime is that like every other human out there even folks like Fauci lie.
 
Back
Top