Interesting. It takes very little research to discover that the vaccines have been rushed to production without the safeguards that have been in place for many decades. Now we are seeing a slew of side effects, some of which are fatal or turn young adults into cardiac cripples for life. If these "vaccines" were under the same scrutiny…
Interesting. It takes very little research to discover that the vaccines have been rushed to production without the safeguards that have been in place for many decades. Now we are seeing a slew of side effects, some of which are fatal or turn young adults into cardiac cripples for life. If these "vaccines" were under the same scrutiny as other drugs, they would have been discontinued long ago. Think thalidomide.
I have a 20-something son who is in his senior year at a local college. They are refusing to allow him to continue his education in the spring term unless he gets the jab - something I, as a retired doctor, have counseled him against. I hope he listens.
In addition, almost by serendipity, I treated three relatives early last spring by use of ivermectin. I had seen Dr. Pierre Kory's testimony before Congress - now long-deleted by YouTube's parent company, Google - and at that time there were no sanctions against its use. After forty years of practice, I would have to characterize their response as remarkable. The wife's oxygen levels were in the 'eighties; clearly she was on her way to hospital, and we know how that often ends. They recovered immediately and completely. I sent a gentle letter about it to the editor of my local paper and he refused to print it. Now I see several doctors have been suspended by their hospitals for using their clinical judgment and prescribing ivermectin for their patients. Personal freedom in America is under attack in a way I have never seen in my 68 years. This nonsense HAS TO STOP.
This is all anecdotal information. Very few side effects and millions of people have received the vaccine. Rates of pulmonary side effects are at the same rate of occurrence as non-vaccinated population and are higher if you get the actual virus. Still don't agree with mandates but the results of the effectiveness of vaccines is very simple and very clear. Any other result is conspiracy theory and science denial routed in politics.
The most dangerous vaccines in history according to the best available data, which is also in accordance with anecdote. So “very few” relative to what? Certainly not the disease itself which is on the mild side as far as pandemics go.
Very few side effects? Are you serious? Just because CNN, NBC, Slate, Vox … says it does not make it true.
I agree, if you are over 24 or so, the vaccines carries fewer risks than COVID but they are far from 0 risk. I think the CDC rates vaccine fatality around 20 per millions doses.
"I think the CDC rates vaccine fatality around 20 per millions doses."
Arrogant ignorance on display. Try perhaps zero related deaths for the mRNA vaccines and perhaps 3 for the J&J vaccine due to blood clots out of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of recipients. The adverse event reporting system captures health outcomes for all recipients. When an 86 year old gets sick or dies two weeks after getting vaccinated it goes into the database. Cases are then evaluated to determine if the vaccine caused the issue. As you can imagine, there are huge numbers of people who get sick or die every month so there will be a lot of "adverse event" entries. There are currently no indications of any real risk of death from the vaccines. Of course if you believe that huge numbers of researchers and physicians are dishonest and corrupt and are fudging the facts in a giant conspiracy...
Lies spread much faster than the truth. Scientific data and journals are a long hard slog to read, if you don't have that kind of background and you can't tell a good study from a bad. Or understand the difference between a scientific study and anecdotal evidence.
We have a problem in this country that expert opinion is routinely ignored. Would the people promoting horse de-wormer go to a podiatrist for cardiac surgery? Or perhaps more relevant go to an actor who plays a Dr. for brain surgery?
Personal freedom, fine. But I don't want to be in the hospital and you showing up at my bedside.
Medicines, like people, can do more than one thing at a time. Ivermectin is effective as an antiparasitic for both dumb animals and human animals (but I repeat myself) AND is widely reported as an effective antiviral. My personal - but admittedly very limited - experience with it suggests that it is a remarkably effective antiviral.
Here is the NIH's stance on Ivermectin for COVID: "There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. " They called for more research. What they didn't say is, "Omigawd it's horse paste!" https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
Note: Since they said there wasn't enough evidence to recommend *against* it's use, why not try it as part of a multimed cocktail in the middle of an epidemic?
All those claiming to be an "expert" (you know, the kind trotted out on cable news, or the NYT...)are anything but, and have been shown to generally be wrong more than 50% of the time. That's worse than chance for all you MSM "science" worshippers.
The true expert lives in a world of doubt and uncertainty, eagerly searching for new data to help them understand the world around them
The true expert can also separate conjecture and hearsay from statistically compelling evidence. The true expert also understands that they are not an expert in every subject, and that reading a few articles and listening to a few really opinionated people does not make one an authority on a complex topic.
What if I told you that the idea people are promoting a horse de-wormer was a lie...but you don't know that because that lie spread much faster than the truth?
Amusing side note: Merck's new Covid antiviral pill (molnupiravir) began as a therapy for equine encephalitis (i.e. as horse pills).
The horse dewormer is ivermectin, I believe. And people were indeed promoting its use. Didn't Joe Rogan take it when he had Covid, and he told everyone that he had taken it.
Per Wikipedia: “In 2018, ivermectin was the 420th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than one hundred thousand prescriptions.” Also: “The medication is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines.” And: “William Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for its discovery and applications.”
There is a human version and an animal version — as there are with many medicines. Joe Rogan took the human version, of course, as prescribed by his doctor. The reason you think he took an animal version and advocated an animal version is that fast-spreading lie I was talking about.
You're claiming that the thousands of people with myocarditis after getting vaccinated are "anecdotal"? It's fully documented and even the CDC admits it's happening. Get out of here with your blanket dismissals and fact-free assertions.
Thousands of cases of myocarditis from vaccination? Try 2 per 100,000 in the attached large study. The great majority of these were minor cases and required no treatment, and there is an incidence of myocarditis in the general population regardless of vaccination that would account for some of these. Now how about myocarditis with COVID infection? Try about 145 per 100,000 cases of COVID, and this is far from the only health risk COVID poses. See how science works? The OVERWHELMING evidence tells us that vaccination is far, far better than being unvaccinated from a risk standpoint. Sure it's possible that prior infection is pretty similar to vaccination in terms of the protection that is conferred (the 27 times better claim in the article has been shown to be greatly exaggerated in other studies), but other than this interesting discussion, anti-vaxers are just cobbling together anecdotes, falsehoods and false claims.
What if it turns out that there is quality scientific research showing that the vaccines do cause heart problems in some percentage of young adults. Would you change your mind?
You also wrote: "Very few side effects and millions of people have received the vaccine."
What if it turns out that the side effects are longer-term or it takes, say, 10 years for us to discover the vaccines caused an increased risk of heart attacks in some significant percentage of the population? Would you change your mind?
What if cell phones cause brain damage? What if microwaves make us sterile? Every issue of concern related to the vaccines has been discussed ad nauseam by researchers and regulators who are trained to investigate and evaluate these things. The vaccine trials followed the usual multi-stage process and were quite large. The adverse event reporting system is robust and transparent. Risks and benefits are constantly evaluated using good old statistics, and the overall approach to vaccine approval is quite risk averse. Thousands and thousands of smart, honest people with years of education and training have done their utmost to provide us with a safe and effective vaccine using all of the relevant knowledge humanity has accumulated to date. The people who are making outlandish assertions about the vaccines and the process behind their creation are asking us to believe that their uneducated, ill-informed opinions are somehow more credible and honest than those of countless scientists around the world. The lack the self-awareness is staggering.
For some, all that is required to feel secure in injecting themselves with new technology is that issues of concern have been “discussed” at length by experts. Others put much less trust in the talk of experts and wish to wait and see what reality reveals. Is it really difficult to understand the latter point of view?
Oh I can understand the point of view. I'm just telling you that your reactions are based on feelings, not objective analysis for which most people are not equipped. Vaccines have not just been "discussed" by countless experts. A lengthy, well established process that relies on objective facts and statistical analysis enables us to say with confidence that the vaccines are safe and GREATLY DECREASE any person's risk of serious health issues in a world with SARS-Cov-2. Anti-vaxers are not playing it safe. They are taking an irrational risk based on feelings. Combine that with ridiculous claims of being more credible than virtually the entire scientific community and you've got a pretty sorry situation.
Yes, of course that’s correct. My reactions are based on feelings. Do you imagine that is not the case with your reactions? With the reactions of experts? Do you believe there is a person or group of people that does emotionless, purely objective analysis to which we should defer? If so, how do you propose we average citizen determine which person or group of people has achieved that level of objectivity? What about the clear influence of political considerations and profit motives on these decisions? Does that not worry you at all?
You are also arguing in favor of the “lengthy, well established process” we use to identify whether vaccines and other therapies are safe. Are you aware that this process normally takes place over a much longer time frame? That these vaccines were developed and authorized much faster than any vaccine has been before? That they employ a brand new technology that has no long-term safety data?
If you think that--short of some theoretical all-knowing and powerful oracle--all knowledge and assertions are roughly equal, you are simply wrong. If you think that the scientific community and the process they utilized to develop the vaccines are so flawed that any fool off the street can just reject them based on uneducated "whataboutism," you are simply wrong. Again; anti-vaxers are taking a very proven and substantial risk to avoid a "risk" that is demonstrably tiny. Anti-vaxers are de facto claiming to be more knowledgeable and honest than many thousands of people who actually know what they are talking about. It's dumb.
I would also like to challenge you assertion that unvaccinated people are “taking a very proven and substantial risk to avoid a ‘risk’ that is demonstrably tiny.” For some people, it is a demonstrably tiny risk vs a demonstrably tiny risk. A fit, healthy, middle-aged person with no underlying conditions and a strong immune system has — according to the science — a very low risk of serious consequences from Covid infection. He or she also has a very low risk of adverse reactions from the vaccine and, most likely, a very low risk of long-term issues because of being vaccinated.
So: What is wrong with that person making a personal choice to not get vaccinated? Science says both options are very low risk. There are even certain benefits to getting Covid for this sort of person, according to science. At least, there is strong evidence that naturally acquired immunity is much more durable and comprehensive than vaccine immunity.
You are correct in stating that not all assertions are equal. In a perfect world, people would “trust the science” when it came to their personal risk decisions because the scientific experts would have established the trust and credibility necessary for this to be the case. How? By making pronouncements and predictions that proved to be accurate and true. But something like the opposite has happened.
In fact, the experts have been so wrong so often that I question why you continue to put so much faith in what they say? On so many matters of importance, what the experts have told us has turned out to be wrong. Heck, the experts said that getting these vaccines you admire as fast as we did was impossible. Do you remember that?
The experts also said that when 70% of a population was vaccinated, that population would achieve herd immunity. No one is saying that anymore. Apparently, there is no number at which we achieve herd immunity. Then the experts said that vaccines would at least reduce transmission. Yet the pandemic has continued virtually unabated, and now the experts are saying that vaccinated people can transmit the virus just as easily as unvaccinated people.
We could also talk about the experts on masks (ineffective and unnecessary before they were essential and mandatory), surface transmission (how much money did we waste on surface sanitation when that is not a vector of transmission?), how long we would need to lock down to “slow the spread” and on and on. Is it any wonder people are skeptical of the claim that the experts know (for sure this time!) that the vaccines are safe?
By the way: What do the experts say about how long vaccination protects a person from hospitalization and death? How long before a booster shot is needed? Will future booster shots be needed? If so, how often?
No need to answer. I know the experts don’t know, at least not yet. So, let’s reason together. If the experts can’t answer these questions about the long-term *efficacy* of the vaccines, what makes you think they know the long-term *safety* of these vaccines?
Uggh. Let's just leave it at this. You, Jordan Pine, have discovered that the scientific community is ignorant, bumbling, and potentially corrupt. Your unique expertise and intelligence allows you to authoritatively reject the notion that taking a vaccine for COVID is far, far safer than going without. Never mind the vast trove of data that is the basis for declaring the vaccine is both safe and effective. You found examples of overstatements or errors in someone's remarks or projections, so all of the conclusions taken from the vaccine trials should be thrown out the window. Meanwhile, we're approaching 1 million people dead and an equally large number have experienced very serious illness. Most of the deceased were elderly or frail, but many tens of thousands were not. Ever wonder why you aren't inclined to play "whatabout" with COVID infection? You grasp at any opportunity to reject the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, but getting COVID is no cause for concern? All of the health complications that people are reporting after infection aren't real or worth putting into your risk calculation? Just face it. Either a whole lot of highly educated, sincere professionals are dimwits, or...
Well, Scott M(something), it seems we have reached the end of what could possibly be productive discourse. At this point, you are debating with some caricature of my position rather than seriously considering my questions or engaging with my point of view. I thank you for the exchange and wish you and your family health and happiness as we continue to navigate through this pandemic.
Anytime anyone tries to shut down discussion of science (and especially medicine) with the phrase: “That’s just anecdotal” I immediately realize that they know nothing of either.
The bedrock of medical research is the patient case history/case study. aka anecdote.
Anecdotes are a *kind* of recognized evidence, and all scientific research and study begins anecdotally. All of it.
Rather than shutting people down for sharing their “anecdotes” the correct, scientific thing yo do is research further…gather more anecdotes…aggregate the data…do more extended studies.
It cracks me up when people who claim to be “following the science” also try to shut down “anecdotal information” since this is literally where all scientific knowledge begins:
Observe and report. This thing is happening to this group of people…let’s find out why. Etc.
Now, instead, we have: “This is happening to this group of people. Let’s take their testimony off YouTube, shut them out of the ongoing conversation, call their concerns “anecdotal” then mock them as science deniers, and tell everyone that it’s misinformation.”
This is where science always begins…with a story or observation from life, also known as anecdote.
I’m not saying we should stop at anecdote…I’m just saying it’s nonsensical and anti-scientific to dismiss ‘anecdotal evidence’ as somehow invalid when it’s literally the precursor to all scientific knowledge…and particularly medical / health knowledge.
I mean seriously…where do people think that well-established disease symptoms and side effects come from in the medical community. Especially ones the physician can’t see or measure?
It’s all anecdotal. All of it. It’s hundreds of thousands of patients/test subjects saying to their doctors…I took this medicine and I had a headache for a week. The physician can’t see or measure the headache…they rely on the anecdotal reports from patients.
Now, suddenly…with a rushed vaccine…Internet scientists sneer at ‘anecdotal’ reports of adverse affects…even though that’s how the medical community has always gathered data.
How else are they supposed to get it other than from the patients themselves?
I can answer this question: you will witness, in this order, 1 - a vague blank stare, like when a Siberian Husky hears a strange command 2 - visible discomfort morphing into a look of disgust 3 - some disdainful gesture, like a hand wave or a head shake and then 4 - some form of retreat that usually will contains words like "I just can't" and/or "The Science."
I used to sit in history class and think how lucky I was to live in a time generally bereft of religious zealots. I used to laugh at those bygone days. But it's not funny anymore, and I'm not feeling too lucky...
Again, interesting. I had this very type of discussion with some locals last week. "If you disagree with me, it's conspiracy theory and science denial." No arguing, no convincing, no evidence - anecdotal or otherwise. Just name-calling and denigration.
"These are the facts and I don't want to hear anything else." Well, others may disagree, and they are able to present their reasons. What are you afraid of?
Ikr? They use "The Science" like it's a shield. Like they will never have to think for themselves as long as they can claim that someone else has done it for them. It's proving to be very brittle form of protection.
You just have NO idea of what constitutes a scientific field, what the scientific method is, and especially don't get that that most of "science" is completely unsettled at any given moment in time, and that uncertainty is the motive force for further exploration.
We can simply recommend "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. Classic treatise on the human psychology and other factors involved in overcoming established scientific dogma. Looks right... it's right.... it's right and you are a fool.... oh my god we've been wrong for decades.
My favorite has always been ulcers. Doctors believed that ulcers were caused by stress. They seriously all believed that. Always been amazing to me.
Pediatricians were pretty darn sure that giving your kids peanuts was the problem, too. Oops.
Science as craved in stone religion then? And at "warp speed!" How about those "theories!" All hail the hypothetical process! Fact freezes at the point of maximum return on investment. There is your god.
Actually, history is replete with cases where the accepted "experts" turned out to be spectacularly wrong. We might start with Galileo and the Church or the famed chemist Linus Pauling's Very Wrong model of DNA, or the VERY famous Edison's stubborn support of DC current as a distribution model for domestic electricity, but if you really want to educate yourself, my personal favorite is astropyhysicist Mario Livio's "Brilliant Blunders: From Darwin to Einstein." If we live long enough, count on Herr Fauci's being right at the top. Twice. Look up his take on AIDS in the 'eighties.
Here's what one has to also take into account: you don't get data if you don't run studies. Ivermectin is generic and with no profit motive, no one is going to run a proper study. Who should do that, then? Who should run those studies to see if there is a cheap generic we could treat with and generate high-quality data? Why, of course, this is a critical role for the NIH, one they usually play. The relevant institute? Fauci's NIAID.
Of course, NIAID set up a whole schema, the "ACTIV" mechanism, to test drugs to help us all. And Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins being super smart leaders, they made a critical choice and touted it: everything they did would be "closely partnered with industry" - because of course that would drive things the fastest. So the ACTIV mechanism supported about 17 trials in the first 12 months of the pandemic - remdesivir, antibodies, and several other things. And since they "closely partnered with industry", ALL of those things were novel drugs that were on patent and would generate $$$ for pharma. Meaning - there was already a profit motive to run those studies and it was not useful to spend NIH, or really, time on them. Zero of the things tested in the first 12 months were generic. Zero.
Not sure how you get "quality studies" with no profit motive and a NIH that won't run them. Instead you get people nitpicking the work of and assuming bias for scientists in Egypt, India, etc. I'm not sure if that's racist, but it ain't antiracist.
Silver lining: enough data built up for one generic drug that the NIH did decide to fund a study on it. The study began in April. The drug? Ivermectin.
So if you think ivermectin is a fool's errand, well the data was at least compelling enough to start the first NIH generic drug trial of the entire pandemic. It is to the great shame of our public health authorities that the first generic trial started in April 2021.
"Still don't agree with mandates but the results of the effectiveness of vaccines is very simple and very clear." So effective one is rendered absolutely immune to Covid? Just laugh out loud funny.
Anecdotally... I got twice jabbed plus seasonal flu shot and Covid two weeks later.
The most recent explanation I've heard is that the jab is personal protection only. Here's why, the vaccine slowly loses its effectiveness as a prophylactic but (anedotally) retains the capacity to reduce severity of symptoms. This means you can get vaxxed and still be a spreader (because you're infected by the virus) but YOU still stand to benefit from harm reduction it provides. All of which is to say that, "get the vaccine to save others" is largely BS. Vaccine does not confer complete immunity to you or people around you; that is, anecdotally, as obvious as water being wet.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here but talk with any doctor and the results and success of the vaccine is very clear. If we would all get the vaccine we wouldn't have to be panicking about every strain coming through. No one is saying that it offers absolute immunity. Offers less transmission, decreases hospitalization and death chances significantly. Pretty pure and simple. I am married to doctor and discuss research with him and friends/family that are also doctors. This is overwhelmingly the take-away. People are making it more complicated than it is b/c ok their own political beliefs.
"This is overwhelmingly the take-away. People are making it more complicated than it is b/c ok their own political beliefs."
Anecdotally, of the several indivuals I know who refused (or fought up to the point of vax or get fired) none of them were politically motivated. Several already had covid and though the jab stupid (because in their case it is). Others were concerned about long term side-effects (which, we do not yet know). Still others were immune compromised and the vaccine created an immediate risk that they opted to avoid and then take other precautions to avoid getting the virus. None of that is political and your blanket declaration that refusal is politics is a simple minded refusal to engage with real reasons people refuse the vaccine.
Had Covid and still had the antibodies. Have thyroid and auto-immune issues that run in my family.
Read several reputable studies that said prior Covid makes getting the vaccine more risky and less beneficial. Read several other reputable studies that said the vaccine has been shown to trigger thyroid issues and autoimmune issues in some people and the risk was greater for both of these things in women than in men.
I’m also in an industry that requires a lot of travel, so I was testing regularly and taking all precautions. Traveled to 29 states in 2020 without contracting Covid.
Then my husband and I both got it two weeks after he got his second dose. Go figure. I (unvaccinated) recovered more quickly than he did.
For me…a middle-aged woman with prior Covid…for my personal risk/benefit profile, getting the vaccine was absolutely unnecessary and nonsensical.
I finally broke down and got it in September, and I really wish I hadn’t.
Agree with the last sentence. Politics make one blind.
Actually, the Real Rcience is quite fascinating: There are five proteins in the CCP Virus that are available to the immune system for attack. The "vaccine" provokes immunity to one, the "spike;" one's natural immunity attacks all five - one side effect of which is to provide a fairly broad immune response to the CCP virus AND SOME RESPONSE TO ITS VARIANTS - explaining why natural immunity is clearly stronger than "vaccinated" immunity in China Virus patients.
Public health and epidemiology are well understood. It is axiomatic that you do not immunize in the face of a pandemic; if you do you will force the pathogen to mutate - sort of like giving an ICU full of staph patients a narrow-spectrum antibiotic. What you are doing is driving the bugs' evolution to create an antibiotic-resistant strain. Sound familiar? Delta, Omicron, anybody? Epidemiologists have cautioned against widespread vaccination in the face of the CCP virus, predicting variant strains. Well, who'd-a guessed it? That's exactly what we have.
I hate to say it, but even with the increased mutation risk, we still need vaccines, because pandemic management is ultimately a numbers game.
Health care systems are very, very expensive, between the equipment, the highly trained/educated personnel, the drugs, etc. There are only so many hospital beds to go around, so "flatten the curve" is still a necessity.
If that were true there is no way the medical personnel would be getting fired, many also having their religious or medical reasons ignored (discrimination).
Thank you! I'm hoping Substack is the place where we can make exchanging and testing opinions a better process. At least, that seems to be the spirit of Common Sense.
I am genuinely interested in engaging with thoughtful people whose viewpoints differ from my own, so I can improve my thinking on these matters.
I almost don't dare say it for fear I will break the spell, but it seems that Substack is EXACTLY the kind of place it should be - a place where people can argue from all points of view in the bright sunlight without fear of retribution. Warily optimistic I am, as Yoda might say, but cross your fingers; we shall see....
Interesting. It takes very little research to discover that the vaccines have been rushed to production without the safeguards that have been in place for many decades. Now we are seeing a slew of side effects, some of which are fatal or turn young adults into cardiac cripples for life. If these "vaccines" were under the same scrutiny as other drugs, they would have been discontinued long ago. Think thalidomide.
I have a 20-something son who is in his senior year at a local college. They are refusing to allow him to continue his education in the spring term unless he gets the jab - something I, as a retired doctor, have counseled him against. I hope he listens.
In addition, almost by serendipity, I treated three relatives early last spring by use of ivermectin. I had seen Dr. Pierre Kory's testimony before Congress - now long-deleted by YouTube's parent company, Google - and at that time there were no sanctions against its use. After forty years of practice, I would have to characterize their response as remarkable. The wife's oxygen levels were in the 'eighties; clearly she was on her way to hospital, and we know how that often ends. They recovered immediately and completely. I sent a gentle letter about it to the editor of my local paper and he refused to print it. Now I see several doctors have been suspended by their hospitals for using their clinical judgment and prescribing ivermectin for their patients. Personal freedom in America is under attack in a way I have never seen in my 68 years. This nonsense HAS TO STOP.
Can you give a link to the studies that show a slew of side effects for the coronavirus vaccines? I haven’t heard about them.
This parsed from the CDC’s VAERS database. Note: the data is similar to data collected from other countries so doesn’t seem too far off:
https://vaersanalysis.info/2021/11/19/vaers-summary-for-covid-19-vaccines-through-11-12-2021/
This is all anecdotal information. Very few side effects and millions of people have received the vaccine. Rates of pulmonary side effects are at the same rate of occurrence as non-vaccinated population and are higher if you get the actual virus. Still don't agree with mandates but the results of the effectiveness of vaccines is very simple and very clear. Any other result is conspiracy theory and science denial routed in politics.
The most dangerous vaccines in history according to the best available data, which is also in accordance with anecdote. So “very few” relative to what? Certainly not the disease itself which is on the mild side as far as pandemics go.
Keep telling yourself that.
Very few side effects? Are you serious? Just because CNN, NBC, Slate, Vox … says it does not make it true.
I agree, if you are over 24 or so, the vaccines carries fewer risks than COVID but they are far from 0 risk. I think the CDC rates vaccine fatality around 20 per millions doses.
"I think the CDC rates vaccine fatality around 20 per millions doses."
Arrogant ignorance on display. Try perhaps zero related deaths for the mRNA vaccines and perhaps 3 for the J&J vaccine due to blood clots out of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of recipients. The adverse event reporting system captures health outcomes for all recipients. When an 86 year old gets sick or dies two weeks after getting vaccinated it goes into the database. Cases are then evaluated to determine if the vaccine caused the issue. As you can imagine, there are huge numbers of people who get sick or die every month so there will be a lot of "adverse event" entries. There are currently no indications of any real risk of death from the vaccines. Of course if you believe that huge numbers of researchers and physicians are dishonest and corrupt and are fudging the facts in a giant conspiracy...
Another data and science denier. Great.
Lies spread much faster than the truth. Scientific data and journals are a long hard slog to read, if you don't have that kind of background and you can't tell a good study from a bad. Or understand the difference between a scientific study and anecdotal evidence.
We have a problem in this country that expert opinion is routinely ignored. Would the people promoting horse de-wormer go to a podiatrist for cardiac surgery? Or perhaps more relevant go to an actor who plays a Dr. for brain surgery?
Personal freedom, fine. But I don't want to be in the hospital and you showing up at my bedside.
Medicines, like people, can do more than one thing at a time. Ivermectin is effective as an antiparasitic for both dumb animals and human animals (but I repeat myself) AND is widely reported as an effective antiviral. My personal - but admittedly very limited - experience with it suggests that it is a remarkably effective antiviral.
Here is the NIH's stance on Ivermectin for COVID: "There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. " They called for more research. What they didn't say is, "Omigawd it's horse paste!" https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
Note: Since they said there wasn't enough evidence to recommend *against* it's use, why not try it as part of a multimed cocktail in the middle of an epidemic?
All those claiming to be an "expert" (you know, the kind trotted out on cable news, or the NYT...)are anything but, and have been shown to generally be wrong more than 50% of the time. That's worse than chance for all you MSM "science" worshippers.
The true expert lives in a world of doubt and uncertainty, eagerly searching for new data to help them understand the world around them
The true expert can also separate conjecture and hearsay from statistically compelling evidence. The true expert also understands that they are not an expert in every subject, and that reading a few articles and listening to a few really opinionated people does not make one an authority on a complex topic.
“Promoting a horse dewormer…”
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!
Oh the irony is rich in this comment.
"Lies spread much faster than the truth"
"people...[are] promoting horse de-wormer"
What if I told you that the idea people are promoting a horse de-wormer was a lie...but you don't know that because that lie spread much faster than the truth?
Amusing side note: Merck's new Covid antiviral pill (molnupiravir) began as a therapy for equine encephalitis (i.e. as horse pills).
The horse dewormer is ivermectin, I believe. And people were indeed promoting its use. Didn't Joe Rogan take it when he had Covid, and he told everyone that he had taken it.
Per Wikipedia: “In 2018, ivermectin was the 420th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than one hundred thousand prescriptions.” Also: “The medication is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines.” And: “William Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura won the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for its discovery and applications.”
There is a human version and an animal version — as there are with many medicines. Joe Rogan took the human version, of course, as prescribed by his doctor. The reason you think he took an animal version and advocated an animal version is that fast-spreading lie I was talking about.
He took it human, not veterinary, Ivermectin, which was prescribed by his doctor. See my post above.
“Would the people promoting horse de-wormer go to a podiatrist for cardiac surgery?”
Are you that thick? I mean that seriously.
You're claiming that the thousands of people with myocarditis after getting vaccinated are "anecdotal"? It's fully documented and even the CDC admits it's happening. Get out of here with your blanket dismissals and fact-free assertions.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737
Thousands of cases of myocarditis from vaccination? Try 2 per 100,000 in the attached large study. The great majority of these were minor cases and required no treatment, and there is an incidence of myocarditis in the general population regardless of vaccination that would account for some of these. Now how about myocarditis with COVID infection? Try about 145 per 100,000 cases of COVID, and this is far from the only health risk COVID poses. See how science works? The OVERWHELMING evidence tells us that vaccination is far, far better than being unvaccinated from a risk standpoint. Sure it's possible that prior infection is pretty similar to vaccination in terms of the protection that is conferred (the 27 times better claim in the article has been shown to be greatly exaggerated in other studies), but other than this interesting discussion, anti-vaxers are just cobbling together anecdotes, falsehoods and false claims.
You wrote: "This is all anecdotal information."
What if it turns out that there is quality scientific research showing that the vaccines do cause heart problems in some percentage of young adults. Would you change your mind?
You also wrote: "Very few side effects and millions of people have received the vaccine."
What if it turns out that the side effects are longer-term or it takes, say, 10 years for us to discover the vaccines caused an increased risk of heart attacks in some significant percentage of the population? Would you change your mind?
What if cell phones cause brain damage? What if microwaves make us sterile? Every issue of concern related to the vaccines has been discussed ad nauseam by researchers and regulators who are trained to investigate and evaluate these things. The vaccine trials followed the usual multi-stage process and were quite large. The adverse event reporting system is robust and transparent. Risks and benefits are constantly evaluated using good old statistics, and the overall approach to vaccine approval is quite risk averse. Thousands and thousands of smart, honest people with years of education and training have done their utmost to provide us with a safe and effective vaccine using all of the relevant knowledge humanity has accumulated to date. The people who are making outlandish assertions about the vaccines and the process behind their creation are asking us to believe that their uneducated, ill-informed opinions are somehow more credible and honest than those of countless scientists around the world. The lack the self-awareness is staggering.
For some, all that is required to feel secure in injecting themselves with new technology is that issues of concern have been “discussed” at length by experts. Others put much less trust in the talk of experts and wish to wait and see what reality reveals. Is it really difficult to understand the latter point of view?
Oh I can understand the point of view. I'm just telling you that your reactions are based on feelings, not objective analysis for which most people are not equipped. Vaccines have not just been "discussed" by countless experts. A lengthy, well established process that relies on objective facts and statistical analysis enables us to say with confidence that the vaccines are safe and GREATLY DECREASE any person's risk of serious health issues in a world with SARS-Cov-2. Anti-vaxers are not playing it safe. They are taking an irrational risk based on feelings. Combine that with ridiculous claims of being more credible than virtually the entire scientific community and you've got a pretty sorry situation.
Yes, of course that’s correct. My reactions are based on feelings. Do you imagine that is not the case with your reactions? With the reactions of experts? Do you believe there is a person or group of people that does emotionless, purely objective analysis to which we should defer? If so, how do you propose we average citizen determine which person or group of people has achieved that level of objectivity? What about the clear influence of political considerations and profit motives on these decisions? Does that not worry you at all?
You are also arguing in favor of the “lengthy, well established process” we use to identify whether vaccines and other therapies are safe. Are you aware that this process normally takes place over a much longer time frame? That these vaccines were developed and authorized much faster than any vaccine has been before? That they employ a brand new technology that has no long-term safety data?
If you think that--short of some theoretical all-knowing and powerful oracle--all knowledge and assertions are roughly equal, you are simply wrong. If you think that the scientific community and the process they utilized to develop the vaccines are so flawed that any fool off the street can just reject them based on uneducated "whataboutism," you are simply wrong. Again; anti-vaxers are taking a very proven and substantial risk to avoid a "risk" that is demonstrably tiny. Anti-vaxers are de facto claiming to be more knowledgeable and honest than many thousands of people who actually know what they are talking about. It's dumb.
I would also like to challenge you assertion that unvaccinated people are “taking a very proven and substantial risk to avoid a ‘risk’ that is demonstrably tiny.” For some people, it is a demonstrably tiny risk vs a demonstrably tiny risk. A fit, healthy, middle-aged person with no underlying conditions and a strong immune system has — according to the science — a very low risk of serious consequences from Covid infection. He or she also has a very low risk of adverse reactions from the vaccine and, most likely, a very low risk of long-term issues because of being vaccinated.
So: What is wrong with that person making a personal choice to not get vaccinated? Science says both options are very low risk. There are even certain benefits to getting Covid for this sort of person, according to science. At least, there is strong evidence that naturally acquired immunity is much more durable and comprehensive than vaccine immunity.
You are correct in stating that not all assertions are equal. In a perfect world, people would “trust the science” when it came to their personal risk decisions because the scientific experts would have established the trust and credibility necessary for this to be the case. How? By making pronouncements and predictions that proved to be accurate and true. But something like the opposite has happened.
In fact, the experts have been so wrong so often that I question why you continue to put so much faith in what they say? On so many matters of importance, what the experts have told us has turned out to be wrong. Heck, the experts said that getting these vaccines you admire as fast as we did was impossible. Do you remember that?
The experts also said that when 70% of a population was vaccinated, that population would achieve herd immunity. No one is saying that anymore. Apparently, there is no number at which we achieve herd immunity. Then the experts said that vaccines would at least reduce transmission. Yet the pandemic has continued virtually unabated, and now the experts are saying that vaccinated people can transmit the virus just as easily as unvaccinated people.
We could also talk about the experts on masks (ineffective and unnecessary before they were essential and mandatory), surface transmission (how much money did we waste on surface sanitation when that is not a vector of transmission?), how long we would need to lock down to “slow the spread” and on and on. Is it any wonder people are skeptical of the claim that the experts know (for sure this time!) that the vaccines are safe?
By the way: What do the experts say about how long vaccination protects a person from hospitalization and death? How long before a booster shot is needed? Will future booster shots be needed? If so, how often?
No need to answer. I know the experts don’t know, at least not yet. So, let’s reason together. If the experts can’t answer these questions about the long-term *efficacy* of the vaccines, what makes you think they know the long-term *safety* of these vaccines?
Uggh. Let's just leave it at this. You, Jordan Pine, have discovered that the scientific community is ignorant, bumbling, and potentially corrupt. Your unique expertise and intelligence allows you to authoritatively reject the notion that taking a vaccine for COVID is far, far safer than going without. Never mind the vast trove of data that is the basis for declaring the vaccine is both safe and effective. You found examples of overstatements or errors in someone's remarks or projections, so all of the conclusions taken from the vaccine trials should be thrown out the window. Meanwhile, we're approaching 1 million people dead and an equally large number have experienced very serious illness. Most of the deceased were elderly or frail, but many tens of thousands were not. Ever wonder why you aren't inclined to play "whatabout" with COVID infection? You grasp at any opportunity to reject the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, but getting COVID is no cause for concern? All of the health complications that people are reporting after infection aren't real or worth putting into your risk calculation? Just face it. Either a whole lot of highly educated, sincere professionals are dimwits, or...
Well, Scott M(something), it seems we have reached the end of what could possibly be productive discourse. At this point, you are debating with some caricature of my position rather than seriously considering my questions or engaging with my point of view. I thank you for the exchange and wish you and your family health and happiness as we continue to navigate through this pandemic.
Anytime anyone tries to shut down discussion of science (and especially medicine) with the phrase: “That’s just anecdotal” I immediately realize that they know nothing of either.
The bedrock of medical research is the patient case history/case study. aka anecdote.
Anecdotes are a *kind* of recognized evidence, and all scientific research and study begins anecdotally. All of it.
Rather than shutting people down for sharing their “anecdotes” the correct, scientific thing yo do is research further…gather more anecdotes…aggregate the data…do more extended studies.
It cracks me up when people who claim to be “following the science” also try to shut down “anecdotal information” since this is literally where all scientific knowledge begins:
Observe and report. This thing is happening to this group of people…let’s find out why. Etc.
Now, instead, we have: “This is happening to this group of people. Let’s take their testimony off YouTube, shut them out of the ongoing conversation, call their concerns “anecdotal” then mock them as science deniers, and tell everyone that it’s misinformation.”
Thank you for this incredibly salient point.
An anecdote is someone’s story or observation.
This is where science always begins…with a story or observation from life, also known as anecdote.
I’m not saying we should stop at anecdote…I’m just saying it’s nonsensical and anti-scientific to dismiss ‘anecdotal evidence’ as somehow invalid when it’s literally the precursor to all scientific knowledge…and particularly medical / health knowledge.
I mean seriously…where do people think that well-established disease symptoms and side effects come from in the medical community. Especially ones the physician can’t see or measure?
It’s all anecdotal. All of it. It’s hundreds of thousands of patients/test subjects saying to their doctors…I took this medicine and I had a headache for a week. The physician can’t see or measure the headache…they rely on the anecdotal reports from patients.
Now, suddenly…with a rushed vaccine…Internet scientists sneer at ‘anecdotal’ reports of adverse affects…even though that’s how the medical community has always gathered data.
How else are they supposed to get it other than from the patients themselves?
Vaccines themselves began with anecdotal data. "Hey, Ed, didja ever notice that none of the milkmaids get smallpox?"
Edward Jenner that is, no relation to Caitlyn.
I can answer this question: you will witness, in this order, 1 - a vague blank stare, like when a Siberian Husky hears a strange command 2 - visible discomfort morphing into a look of disgust 3 - some disdainful gesture, like a hand wave or a head shake and then 4 - some form of retreat that usually will contains words like "I just can't" and/or "The Science."
I used to sit in history class and think how lucky I was to live in a time generally bereft of religious zealots. I used to laugh at those bygone days. But it's not funny anymore, and I'm not feeling too lucky...
Again, interesting. I had this very type of discussion with some locals last week. "If you disagree with me, it's conspiracy theory and science denial." No arguing, no convincing, no evidence - anecdotal or otherwise. Just name-calling and denigration.
"These are the facts and I don't want to hear anything else." Well, others may disagree, and they are able to present their reasons. What are you afraid of?
Ikr? They use "The Science" like it's a shield. Like they will never have to think for themselves as long as they can claim that someone else has done it for them. It's proving to be very brittle form of protection.
Actual proven scientific facts leave very little room to "disagree". That is the whole point--there is a method to make them objective.
You probably think stress causes gastric ulcers and stomach cancer, don’t you?
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-doctor-who-drank-infectious-broth-gave-himself-an-ulcer-and-solved-a-medical-mystery
You just have NO idea of what constitutes a scientific field, what the scientific method is, and especially don't get that that most of "science" is completely unsettled at any given moment in time, and that uncertainty is the motive force for further exploration.
We can simply recommend "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. Classic treatise on the human psychology and other factors involved in overcoming established scientific dogma. Looks right... it's right.... it's right and you are a fool.... oh my god we've been wrong for decades.
My favorite has always been ulcers. Doctors believed that ulcers were caused by stress. They seriously all believed that. Always been amazing to me.
Pediatricians were pretty darn sure that giving your kids peanuts was the problem, too. Oops.
Omg. Please. Science is a process, not a religion.
I don’t think you understand science, fact vs data, theory vs hypothesis.
Science as craved in stone religion then? And at "warp speed!" How about those "theories!" All hail the hypothetical process! Fact freezes at the point of maximum return on investment. There is your god.
Actually, history is replete with cases where the accepted "experts" turned out to be spectacularly wrong. We might start with Galileo and the Church or the famed chemist Linus Pauling's Very Wrong model of DNA, or the VERY famous Edison's stubborn support of DC current as a distribution model for domestic electricity, but if you really want to educate yourself, my personal favorite is astropyhysicist Mario Livio's "Brilliant Blunders: From Darwin to Einstein." If we live long enough, count on Herr Fauci's being right at the top. Twice. Look up his take on AIDS in the 'eighties.
Here's what one has to also take into account: you don't get data if you don't run studies. Ivermectin is generic and with no profit motive, no one is going to run a proper study. Who should do that, then? Who should run those studies to see if there is a cheap generic we could treat with and generate high-quality data? Why, of course, this is a critical role for the NIH, one they usually play. The relevant institute? Fauci's NIAID.
Of course, NIAID set up a whole schema, the "ACTIV" mechanism, to test drugs to help us all. And Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins being super smart leaders, they made a critical choice and touted it: everything they did would be "closely partnered with industry" - because of course that would drive things the fastest. So the ACTIV mechanism supported about 17 trials in the first 12 months of the pandemic - remdesivir, antibodies, and several other things. And since they "closely partnered with industry", ALL of those things were novel drugs that were on patent and would generate $$$ for pharma. Meaning - there was already a profit motive to run those studies and it was not useful to spend NIH, or really, time on them. Zero of the things tested in the first 12 months were generic. Zero.
Not sure how you get "quality studies" with no profit motive and a NIH that won't run them. Instead you get people nitpicking the work of and assuming bias for scientists in Egypt, India, etc. I'm not sure if that's racist, but it ain't antiracist.
Silver lining: enough data built up for one generic drug that the NIH did decide to fund a study on it. The study began in April. The drug? Ivermectin.
So if you think ivermectin is a fool's errand, well the data was at least compelling enough to start the first NIH generic drug trial of the entire pandemic. It is to the great shame of our public health authorities that the first generic trial started in April 2021.
https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initiatives/activ/covid-19-therapeutics-prioritized-testing-clinical-trials
(Ivermectin was the first drug in ACTIV-6).
Wisdom from a podcast: “Don’t bother arguing with closed minds. It just causes frustration.” That set me free.
"Still don't agree with mandates but the results of the effectiveness of vaccines is very simple and very clear." So effective one is rendered absolutely immune to Covid? Just laugh out loud funny.
Anecdotally... I got twice jabbed plus seasonal flu shot and Covid two weeks later.
The most recent explanation I've heard is that the jab is personal protection only. Here's why, the vaccine slowly loses its effectiveness as a prophylactic but (anedotally) retains the capacity to reduce severity of symptoms. This means you can get vaxxed and still be a spreader (because you're infected by the virus) but YOU still stand to benefit from harm reduction it provides. All of which is to say that, "get the vaccine to save others" is largely BS. Vaccine does not confer complete immunity to you or people around you; that is, anecdotally, as obvious as water being wet.
That is a common theme. Some scientists have pointed out that your risk of infection vs baseline actually increases initially.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here but talk with any doctor and the results and success of the vaccine is very clear. If we would all get the vaccine we wouldn't have to be panicking about every strain coming through. No one is saying that it offers absolute immunity. Offers less transmission, decreases hospitalization and death chances significantly. Pretty pure and simple. I am married to doctor and discuss research with him and friends/family that are also doctors. This is overwhelmingly the take-away. People are making it more complicated than it is b/c ok their own political beliefs.
I actually offers NO immunity
“If we would all get the vaccine we wouldn't have to be panicking about every strain coming through.”
Demonstrably false.
Explain Gibraltar. They all got the vaccine. They are shutting down again.
"This is overwhelmingly the take-away. People are making it more complicated than it is b/c ok their own political beliefs."
Anecdotally, of the several indivuals I know who refused (or fought up to the point of vax or get fired) none of them were politically motivated. Several already had covid and though the jab stupid (because in their case it is). Others were concerned about long term side-effects (which, we do not yet know). Still others were immune compromised and the vaccine created an immediate risk that they opted to avoid and then take other precautions to avoid getting the virus. None of that is political and your blanket declaration that refusal is politics is a simple minded refusal to engage with real reasons people refuse the vaccine.
Thank you.
This is me.
Had Covid and still had the antibodies. Have thyroid and auto-immune issues that run in my family.
Read several reputable studies that said prior Covid makes getting the vaccine more risky and less beneficial. Read several other reputable studies that said the vaccine has been shown to trigger thyroid issues and autoimmune issues in some people and the risk was greater for both of these things in women than in men.
I’m also in an industry that requires a lot of travel, so I was testing regularly and taking all precautions. Traveled to 29 states in 2020 without contracting Covid.
Then my husband and I both got it two weeks after he got his second dose. Go figure. I (unvaccinated) recovered more quickly than he did.
For me…a middle-aged woman with prior Covid…for my personal risk/benefit profile, getting the vaccine was absolutely unnecessary and nonsensical.
I finally broke down and got it in September, and I really wish I hadn’t.
Agree with the last sentence. Politics make one blind.
Actually, the Real Rcience is quite fascinating: There are five proteins in the CCP Virus that are available to the immune system for attack. The "vaccine" provokes immunity to one, the "spike;" one's natural immunity attacks all five - one side effect of which is to provide a fairly broad immune response to the CCP virus AND SOME RESPONSE TO ITS VARIANTS - explaining why natural immunity is clearly stronger than "vaccinated" immunity in China Virus patients.
Public health and epidemiology are well understood. It is axiomatic that you do not immunize in the face of a pandemic; if you do you will force the pathogen to mutate - sort of like giving an ICU full of staph patients a narrow-spectrum antibiotic. What you are doing is driving the bugs' evolution to create an antibiotic-resistant strain. Sound familiar? Delta, Omicron, anybody? Epidemiologists have cautioned against widespread vaccination in the face of the CCP virus, predicting variant strains. Well, who'd-a guessed it? That's exactly what we have.
I hate to say it, but even with the increased mutation risk, we still need vaccines, because pandemic management is ultimately a numbers game.
Health care systems are very, very expensive, between the equipment, the highly trained/educated personnel, the drugs, etc. There are only so many hospital beds to go around, so "flatten the curve" is still a necessity.
If that were true there is no way the medical personnel would be getting fired, many also having their religious or medical reasons ignored (discrimination).
It's true, and it's an incredibly stupid policy to be artificially creating a nursing shortage in the middle of a pandemic.
Thank you! I'm hoping Substack is the place where we can make exchanging and testing opinions a better process. At least, that seems to be the spirit of Common Sense.
I am genuinely interested in engaging with thoughtful people whose viewpoints differ from my own, so I can improve my thinking on these matters.
I almost don't dare say it for fear I will break the spell, but it seems that Substack is EXACTLY the kind of place it should be - a place where people can argue from all points of view in the bright sunlight without fear of retribution. Warily optimistic I am, as Yoda might say, but cross your fingers; we shall see....