re: Study: MRNA Vaccines Increase Risk of Contracting COVID-19; Each Booster Shot Raises Risk

quote:

---

I would bet my right nut you still come running to my ER the next time you have chest pain or any other life/limb threatening situation.

---

I go running to a mechanic when my oil needs to be changed. Is it still ok to call him an a-hole if he has an a-hole take on cars?

Considering the government was working with various social media platforms to silence any criticism of the vaccines, it does appear that one opinion was not something the government wanted getting out. Why is that?

quote:

---

Here...take this untested shot that we have ZERO long term data on.

It’s 99% effective though (absolute lie) and by the way, we have absolved the maker of any responsibility whatsoever if you are incapacitated or die.

---

The CDC changed the way that deaths associated with Covid were counted (it inflated them greatly). This was early in the process (2020?). Needless to say, it stoked fear, and allowed for subsequent “emergency plan“ actions via executive (gubernatorial) overreach.

Additionally, old people were basically culled with German-like efficiency through “emergency plans” at the state level. The mechanism was crammed elder care facilities.

I’m of the opinion that the response was previously planned and coordinated.

Why, and to what end, who knows?

I have my thoughts, but I won’t post them on the OT.

At the end of the day, this should make anyone that blindly trusts the government to question their own decision making.

At this point, I would suggest that the government (elected or otherwise) deserves derision, not trust.

What is the benefit of honing in on all cause mortality for the purpose of determining the shot's effectiveness of doing what it was designed to do?

What is the purpose of saying "significantly higher" followed by the rates in the infection category (over 150% higher fwiw), but then only saying the percent difference in the hospitalizations and mortality category?

And here is the editorial cherry on top for why curious people choose to tell some "experts" to frick off

quote:

---

The data raise questions about the wisdom of reliance on natural immunity when safe and effective vaccines are available.

---

If you are against natural immunity in young healthy people, especially in a "peer reviewed" study that says the vaccinated get COVID more than the previously infected, you're someone with a not hidden agenda.

quote:

---

Here another study for OP to ignore, this one actually having been peer-reviewed: SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Hospitalization, and Death in Vaccinated and Infected Individuals by Age Groups in Indiana, 2021-2022

---

This study is out of date

Can you dispute the findings in the study linked in the OP. I read it and don’t see any egregious errors. Certainly not enough to take the results from negative vaccine efficiency to positive efficiency in regards to infection. At the very least the vaccines are currently worthless.

No one in this thread has offered a serious critique of the study. Stop saying it isn’t peer reviewed. You are a peer, review it.

In addition, the authors admit they were surprised at the results and even try to paint the results in a positive light. They didn’t set out to find this conclusion, but I commend them for still publishing.

Post the conclusion from the abstract.

Why would you say that the average internet poster is a peer for the purposes of reviewing scientific literature?

quote:

---

Would not surprise me to find out a portion of this was egged on to cull the social security rolls to keep that system from collapsing

---

I wouldn’t go that far, but at one point, 45% of all Covid deaths were concentrated in .06% of the population (nursing homes). The vast majority of those deaths (at the time) were in NY, NJ, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

The irony is that the Director of Pennsylvania’s Dept of Health removed his mom from a nursing home the day before the isolation order was issued. Who was the guy that did that?

quote:

---

Why would you say that the average internet poster is a peer for the purposes of reviewing scientific literature?

---

I responded to someone who claims to be an ED physician. Why are you being deliberately obtuse?

quote:

---

Can you dispute the findings in the study linked in the OP. I read it and don’t see any egregious errors. Certainly not enough to take the results from negative vaccine efficiency to positive efficiency in regards to infection. At the very least the vaccines are currently worthless.

---

What exactly do we need to dispute? It's a study, not a definitive analysis of a vaccination program. If we place it in the context of everything else we know about the pathogen right now, it is a critique of the ultimately poor choice of using a narrow molecular range as an immunogen in the vaccine, because that strategy, absent a worldwide rollout, relied on an extremely robust antibody response to the spike protein. While there was some protective response, actual infection had immunologic material which still provoked an overactive cytokine response in some patients, which suggests to me that perhaps the quality of infection was mediated by HLA serotypes or other genetic factors.

In context, we can look at the reinfections two ways. We could look at it as though the vaccines were complete failures, which this study doesn't suggest. Or we could see that the context of reinfection might be that spike protein antibody response was effective enough at clearing an initial infection, with the side effect that not all immunologic material underwent T-cell dependent activation of B cells, which would lead to reinfections in subsequent generations of the virus, as each minor difference in viral protein structure would require new antibodies.