You're not the first poster who seems to have a problem understanding that I don't have to agree with everything that's written in an article to find merit in referring and even quoting it. The reason I referred and quoted the article above was to show that even some who believe in the smallpox virus don't believe that vaccines were very helpful in reducing and possibly elminating smallpox outbreaks.
The Safety and Efficacy of Vaccines
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
You're not the first poster who seems to have a problem understanding that I don't have to agree with everything that's written in an article to find merit in referring and even quoting it. The reason I referred and quoted the article above was to show that even some who believe in the smallpox virus don't believe that vaccines were very helpful in reducing and possibly elminating smallpox outbreaks.
The title of the thread says..:Safety and Efficacy of Vaccines". You have questioned them. This thread is by people who do.
No, no and more no. You cannot find any merit for your argument in an article that has as its basic premise something you completely deny.
I guess you're saying that you wrote that post for anyone who questioned the saftey and efficacy of vaccines. I decided to click on your link this time around and see that Sloan Kettering is short for Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. What you failed to mention is that the 1626 cases were collected using a national -passive- reporting system, VAERS to be precise. The problem with this passive reporting system is that there is no default check to see if someone was injured. If someone suffers an adverse event after getting a vaccine but no one reports the injury, it won't be included in the VAERS database. Quoting an article on this:
**
Mr. Kirch and other critics of vaccine safety often mention that only 1% of vaccine-related adverse events are reported. This claim is based on a 2011 report from Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc., which stated that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.”
**
Source:
https://medium.com/microbial-instin...reporting-system-vaers-explained-14fe22b2a65f
Now, to be fair, the article goes on to mention that while this may well be true, many vaccine adverse events are minor and studies have shown that when it comes to severe adverse events, the percentage of reports is significantly higher, but what it means is that we need to take those case numbers and estimate upwards to get a better picture of the true amount of cases.
Anyway, I was looking at various articles regarding Covid vaccines and found one from Newsweek that I that was pretty interesting. Quoting a bit of it, and coloring the part I found most surprising in blue:
**
NewsGuard: Now that the vaccine is out there and has been taken by tens of millions of people, what's your assessment of it?
Kennedy: It's really hard to say. The Moderna vaccine [is] probably the more reactogenic of the two. And I would say that it's at the indicia from the clinical trial, and from what we've seen on the ground, are that it is extremely reactogenic.
Reactogenicity refers to reactions that occur soon after vaccination, representing "a physical manifestation of the inflammatory response to vaccination," according to a September 2019 article in the journal NPJ Vaccines. "A reactogenic vaccine is not the same thing as an unsafe vaccine," Saad Omer, a vaccinologist and the director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told The Atlantic in a December 2020 article.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated on its website that the immediate side effects from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine "were common but were mostly mild to moderate."
Meaning what?
Meaning that in the clinical trials it was five times as deadly as the Pfizer vaccine. During a phase one trial, you had 100 percent injury rate after the second dose. You had a 6 percent injury in the low-dose group after the first dose, and that is one in every 20 people has a serious injury, meaning medical intervention or hospitalization required. And in the high dose group, it's a 20 percent, 21 percent injury rate, which means one in five people are gravely injured and required medical intervention. That kind of product would never get FDA approval.
**
Full article:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Vaccines, COVID and Dr. Fauci: 'I Read the Science' | newsweek.com
Your flaw here is in thinking the article I quoted only had a single premise, when it actually had many. The title, for instance, asked whether the story that the smallpox vaccine was a success was a lie. In the section I quoted, the claim was made that it was actually containment and sanitation that eradicated smallpox. Now, being aligned with the small group of doctors I referenced in the opening post who question or don't believe that biological viruses exist, I wouldn't go for the bit about containment, but I can certainly believe that sanitation probably played an important role. The article also points that only a small percentage of the global population was vaccinated, culminating in a statement from a pathologist and an eminent doctor. Quoting:
**
“It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpox with vaccines, when only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated.” — [Glen Dettman Ph.D., pathologist, awarded (together with the eminent Australian doctor Archie Kalokerinos M.D.) the Australian Medal of Merit for “Outstanding Scientific Research”. (1978)]
**
I don't see why I have to believe in viruses in order to agree with their assessment. Do you disagree with their findings? And if so, why?
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Yeah, but that pre-supposes you know anything about science. I suspect you know next to nothing. Certainly not in this area of expertise.
So just going against authority in a topic you know nothing about isn't really "scientific" either.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
yes, we know you're an elitist totalitarian.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
LOL. You do realize you are here supporting and defending making decisions WITHOUT any expertise, right? Is that what you were aiming for? Is that how you live your life?
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
experts were lying in this case.
your simplistic "believe all authorities" totalitarian worldviews makes you prone to harm by bad actors in high places.
https://biblehub.com › ephesians › 6-12.htm
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world's darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
you really ARE defending making decisions without knowledge! Wow! Congrats! You are KING OF THE DUMBFUCKS.
Ohhhh jeeeezus, a Bible quote. Gimme a break.
Talk about taking someone's word for something! LOLOL.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
NO i'm really not.
Im talking about thinking for oneself, and not falling for the appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Many doctors disagreed with the statist lies about vaccines.
DO YOU REALLY ASSUME AUTHORITY FIGURES NEVER LIE?
don't check now, but you may be very stupid.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
I don’t find anything you post credible. I don’t waste my time on nonsense, as I told you before.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
dude. the company admitted to the u.n. they didn't even test it for transmission effectiveness.
I don't have to be a virologist.
are you a virologist?
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
And here's the REAL STORY behind that:
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/10/s...us-that-pfizer-trial-didnt-test-transmission/
From the article:
That’s not uncommon. In a commentary published in Science in March, Natalie E. Dean, assistant professor in the Department of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics at the Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, and M. Elizabeth Halloran, head of the Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Epidemiology Program at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center’s Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, wrote that estimating indirect effects of a vaccine, such as reduction in infectiousness, “is typically done after a vaccine is licensed, in either observational studies or cluster randomized trials.”
(Emphasis added)
Correction: You COULDN'T be. It would require education
That's the claim anyway. Given my dismal view of vaccines, I'd say it's a bad thing even if true.
Again, I'm not sure that the claim is accurate, but if it is, I'd agree. Something that's usually not mentioned is the various toxins in vaccines. I personally suspect they're the largest issue with vaccines, even these alleged mRNA ones.
Last edited:
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
the company did not test it for transmission.
that's still the truth.
come to find out, it doesnt prevent transmission.
so the authority figures still lied.
it still does not prevent transmission.
I presented the TRUE STORY initially, but thanks for your pathetic attepts at damage control.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
DID YOU NOT READ THE QUOTE?
Or are you illiterate?
LOL, Illiterate Hillbilly thinks he knows how vaccines are tested.
HILARIOUS
I've got a bridge to sell you, super-genius.
You sure you want to commit to that? I believe the world is spherical. If you stick to your guns, you'd have to find my belief here uncredible by default.
Unsubstantiated assertion.