- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What's Your Covid Jab Opinion?
Posted on 1/15/25 at 7:46 am to IvoryBillMatt
Posted on 1/15/25 at 7:46 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
You have more faith in the veracity of outcome-funded research than I do. I am open-minded about the topic, but I have never seen a study to prove the "lessened severity" assertion that was not corrupted by unwarranted assumptions.
Sadly this is the state we have fallen into. “The science” has become so corrupted by politics and money that we don’t know whom to trust.
I posted a study a couple of weeks ago, but unfortunately didn’t bookmark it. It was a Systematic Review, actually, of hundreds of other studies on the efficacy of covid vaccines. It employed a system of winnowing out faulty studies. I read it at the time, and it seemed sound to me, but you can never account for dishonesty. The peer review system used to be very effective and reliable, but we’ve seen it corrupted by Fauci, for one.
Anyway, this Review settled on about two dozen studies and tabulated the effectiveness of many of the covid vaccines. I was only interested in the mRNA ones, and they had the best results anyway. It showed a substantial lowering of hospitalization in the vaccine cohorts relative to the unvaccinated.
I understand the leeriness of those who don’t trust anything anymore, and I understand that there is some peer reviewed fraudulent stuff out there, but I’ve seen enough that I believe that the mRNA vaccines are good for those at serious risk.
Aha! Found that Systematic Review
This post was edited on 1/15/25 at 7:56 am
1
Posted on 1/15/25 at 7:52 am to OccamsStubble
quote:
Vaccines’ against viral infection prevent infection. As these shots never prevented infection, calling them vaccines is simply inaccurate.
I don’t know anyone who got those shots and subsequently didn’t get infected.
There is an esoteric debate over whether these mRNA shots are actually vaccines. I have no interest in that debate. But the idea, as you say, that vaccines prevent infection, is not true if you mean with 100% effectiveness and without wearing off. And if you mean they prevent it mostly and for a time, then so do the mRNA ones.
The data showed about 90% effectiveness at stopping infection FOR A WHILE. It was a short while, unfortunately - just a couple of months. This led to the need to be boosted every six months, then it was every five months, then…
All of this was great for Pfizer but a little inconvenient for the long-suffering masses.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 8:03 am to TrapperJohn
Money grab complicit with Dem leaders to force it on the public.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 8:09 am to Penrod
quote:
But the idea, as you say, that vaccines prevent infection, is not true if you mean with 100% effectiveness and without wearing off. And if you mean they prevent it mostly and for a time, then so do the mRNA ones.
So a vaccine that has 51% effectiveness and lasts for two weeks is a vaccine just like one that is 99% effective and lasts for a decade. Your definition makes the word lose all meaning, particularly the meaning it had prior to covid.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 8:13 am to Penrod
quote:Has this been proven, or was it a statement by the Biden administration?
The vaccines reduced the severity of the outcomes. In that sense they were a success.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 8:17 am to Lawyered
quote:
However politicians will swear up and down there was no mandate and you didn't have to choose and that is categorically false.
They still argue this even though Biden came out multiple times blaming unvaxxed and saying enough is enough.
You couldn’t eat in restaurants, go to sports games, go into hospitals, could not enroll into colleges. LSU police escourted you off campus out of class if you were not vaxxed by the deadline.
People lost jobs, kicked out of the military, couldn’t attend funerals, list goes on and on, but it wasn’t mandated….
Posted on 1/15/25 at 8:22 am to IvoryBillMatt
My take is a little different:
I don’t think Covid was nearly as bad as the media wanted us to believe.
I don’t think the Jab is nearly as bad as people who didn’t take it want us to believe (I didn’t take it for the record).
BUT, the real damage caused by Covid is to trust in the medical community. We have created an entire population of people who are now skeptical of pharmaceuticals and vaccines, the ramifications of which we don’t know yet. Maybe it will be a good thing and maybe it will allow smallpox to resurface.
I don’t think Covid was nearly as bad as the media wanted us to believe.
I don’t think the Jab is nearly as bad as people who didn’t take it want us to believe (I didn’t take it for the record).
BUT, the real damage caused by Covid is to trust in the medical community. We have created an entire population of people who are now skeptical of pharmaceuticals and vaccines, the ramifications of which we don’t know yet. Maybe it will be a good thing and maybe it will allow smallpox to resurface.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 8:24 am to Penrod
quote:
There is an esoteric debate over whether these mRNA shots are actually vaccines. I have no interest in that debate. But the idea, as you say, that vaccines prevent infection, is not true if you mean with 100% effectiveness and without wearing off. And if you mean they prevent it mostly and for a time, then so do the mRNA ones.
The data showed about 90% effectiveness at stopping infection FOR A WHILE. It was a short while, unfortunately - just a couple of months. This led to the need to be boosted every six months, then it was every five months, then…
All of this was great for Pfizer but a little inconvenient for the long-suffering masses.
Vaccines for viral agents prevent infection for all but those severely immunosuppressed. You can twist and torque and pitch and yaw definitions all you want.
DAMN NEAR EVERONE was told by the Director of the CDC, The CEO of Pfizer, and the President of the United States that
1) if you get the ‘vaccine’
2) you will not get infected
DAMN NEAR EVERONE who believed then and got the shots got infected, including me, twice
You really have no room here in this debate. They lied. It never was a vaccine.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 8:26 am to IvoryBillMatt
only good for Pelosi and company.....
Posted on 1/15/25 at 8:27 am to Penrod
quote:
They lied about the effectiveness in stopping the spread. In that sense they were abject failures.
The vaccines reduced the severity of the outcomes. In that sense they were a success.
The side effects have proven to be tolerable for those who were at real risk of covid, but significant enough that the vaccines never should have been applied to the 60% of our population that was not at high risk of covid.
The above post is submitted as proof that some people will never abandon the lies they fell for. It’s crazy that anyone can say anything positive about the jabs today, after everything they’ve seen and learned.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 8:38 am to SundayFunday
quote:I have a relative who recently retired after decades of practicing internal medicine. This relative recommends ZERO vaccines of ANY KIND.
As a doctor who gives/recommends vaccines daily, I agree with this.
I am a pureblood who treated my one bout of COVID with ivermectin during the summer of 2022. The relative I mentioned wrote the prescription.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 9:00 am to IvoryBillMatt
Follow the money.
Covid jab reimbursement was double that of the flu shot. Taxpayers paid for the Covid shots. It was pure profit motive for doctors to jab as many people as possible.
Covid jab reimbursement was double that of the flu shot. Taxpayers paid for the Covid shots. It was pure profit motive for doctors to jab as many people as possible.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 9:08 am to dgnx6
quote:
Covid jab reimbursement was double that of the flu shot. Taxpayers paid for the Covid shots. It was pure profit motive for doctors to jab as many people as possible.
Thanks. I wasn't even aware of ANY reimbursements for flu or Covid jabs.
Do you have a link for that?
Posted on 1/15/25 at 9:10 am to IvoryBillMatt
How easy people forget….
The Covid vaccine operations is one of the most impressive feats by any sitting president ever and not a single one besides Trump could have pulled it off and he saved numerous lives because of it
The Dems hijacked it with mandates and trumps most ardent supporters fell deep into their trap and it actually caused them to ruthlessly attack the very accomplishment Trump created
Posted on 1/15/25 at 9:10 am to SoFla Tideroller
Perfect comparison
Posted on 1/15/25 at 9:14 am to lsupride87
quote:
not a single one besides Trump could have pulled it off
Any president can cut red tape and throw money at a problem. You might be closer to the truth if you said nobody but Trump would have pulled it off.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 9:17 am to Flats
None have the balls to do what he did. So no, I meant what I said. No other president could have done it
Posted on 1/15/25 at 9:18 am to lsupride87
quote:
The Covid vaccine operations is one of the most impressive feats by any sitting president ever and not a single one besides Trump could have pulled it off and he saved numerous lives because of it
The Dems hijacked it with mandates and trumps most ardent supporters fell deep into their trap and it actually caused them to ruthlessly attack the very accomplishment Trump created
But probably more than half of Trump supporters were against the mRNA vaxx that Trump supported and we are called a cult.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 9:19 am to lsupride87
quote:
None have the balls to do what he did.
Throw billions of dollars at big pharma?
Ok.
Posted on 1/15/25 at 9:24 am to udtiger
quote:
At the time, yes.
After 3+ years of real time human trials, apparently not.
Your 2nd sentence proves your 1st sentence wrong. They couldn’t have been a breakthrough at the time if they were proven ineffective after 3+ years of human trials.
I agree with the rest of your post, though.
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News