- 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
Posted on 1/12/23 at 11:39 pm to TigerDoc
Answer the question. Well, you already did. But I’m amazed by it, so I want you to reiterate it. You, as a doc, are saying the Pfizer vaccine is 95% effective in preventing transmission. Yes or no?
Posted on 1/12/23 at 11:40 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
What science would the median poster here consider credible these days?
I just don’t like the idea of the mRNA vaccine. Too many unknowns. I don’t know how many antigens my cells will produce and what cells will produce those antigens. It would suck if it were cardiac cells producing antigen proteins.
Posted on 1/12/23 at 11:42 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Not just COVID. What science would the median poster here consider credible these days?
It’s not that complicated. Like I said before, studies done credibly by credible people/organization are readily believable.
Posted on 1/12/23 at 11:42 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
And you think people should make health decisions based on that instead of medical research?
No. I did not make that assertion either.
Posted on 1/12/23 at 11:45 pm to BBONDS25
Yes, it was. The prevalence of strains changed between 2020 when the research was done and 2021 when it was begun to be given to the broad public.
Go grab data on R0 and immune escape differences and show us if I’m wrong.
Go grab data on R0 and immune escape differences and show us if I’m wrong.
Posted on 1/12/23 at 11:50 pm to GumboPot
Someone should post us the most cited research on long COVID morbidity and compare it to the most cited research on vaccine injury morbidity. We never see those threads. Way too normie and BORING.
This post was edited on 1/12/23 at 11:51 pm
Posted on 1/12/23 at 11:51 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Yes, it was. The prevalence of strains changed between 2020 when the research was done and 2021
I’m not a doc, so forgive me if my questions are elementary. Are you saying the Pfizer vaccine was effective against the 2020 strain but not 2021 strains?
Posted on 1/12/23 at 11:53 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
burial services up 30%
Can be explained by people deciding to have actual funerals which they couldn’t during the pandemic
Why bring an epidemic in to explain what is clearly just plain old supply and demand? Supply remains the same as demand increases and these drive cost increases.
Posted on 1/12/23 at 11:54 pm to BBONDS25
Here’s the other thing Bonds.
What criteria are used to evaluate a vaccine’s effectiveness? Copy and paste us an answer from Wikipedia if you have to.
What criteria are used to evaluate a vaccine’s effectiveness? Copy and paste us an answer from Wikipedia if you have to.
This post was edited on 1/12/23 at 11:55 pm
Posted on 1/13/23 at 12:03 am to TigerDoc
quote:
What criteria are used to evaluate a vaccine’s effectiveness? Copy and paste us an answer from Wikipedia if you have to.
Not sure where this comment came from. From our prior conversations you know I am the black sheep from a family full of docs. They all told me to get the vax. So I did. I’m just asking if I understand you correctly about the effectiveness of the vax, in your opinion.
I recently read the stage 3 trial results from Pfizer released in 2020. It seemed to be at odds with what I understand to be the transmission rates of Covid. You said it was accurate. I’m just trying to reconcile that and figure out if you think the vaccine continues to be 95% effective against transmission, or if that is dated info.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 12:15 am to BBONDS25
Epidemiologists tracking the pandemic in winter 2020/2021 just as the vaccine was being released were noting the emergence of variants that had properties that made them more transmissible and evade the immune system (including infection-induced and vaccine-induced immunity) and thus vaccines were expected to be less likely prevent infection than in the original research if such types replaced the initial strain (which they in fact did months later).
They were already mentioning likely need for better vaccines before the broad general public even had a chance to start being vaccinated.
Here’s an accessible piece in Science from that time. When this was written only healthcare workers, nursing home residents and other elderly and predisposed people were getting the vaccine.
Link
I’ll check back after some zzz’s.
They were already mentioning likely need for better vaccines before the broad general public even had a chance to start being vaccinated.
Here’s an accessible piece in Science from that time. When this was written only healthcare workers, nursing home residents and other elderly and predisposed people were getting the vaccine.
Link
I’ll check back after some zzz’s.
This post was edited on 1/13/23 at 12:51 am
Posted on 1/13/23 at 12:41 am to GumboPot
quote:
Lincoln Financial has to fund raise due to excessive life insurance payments last year, burial services up 30%, etc.
Link?
Posted on 1/13/23 at 4:34 am to GumboPot
If only there was a vaccine that Prevented long Covid… well at least someone did something.


Posted on 1/13/23 at 4:56 am to TigerDoc
quote:
In a similar way to how you can get injuries in MVA’s even though seat belts work.
Could you please list all of the known, adverse health effects attributed to seat belt use?
How great is the threat myocarditis, blood clots or heart attack from seat belt use?
I guess a seat belt could lead to strangulation.
Is there an adverse side effect warning on a seat belt?
Did the seat belt designer or manufacturers receive indemnity from these side effects?
I don't think they did.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 5:01 am to LSUAngelHere1
quote:
I said from day one that “long covid” was the vax effects.
And you were just as wrong as they are.
I’ll tell you what long-covid is. You remember we used to have people we called hypochondriacs? You notice they are all gone? They are the ones with “long-covid”, which was around before the vaccines started.
Anyway, this will resolve itself with one good, honest academic study. Who is dying? Were they vaxed? If it’s long-covid then we’ll have the same instance of dropping dead among both cohorts - vaxed and unvaxed.
This post was edited on 1/13/23 at 5:04 am
Posted on 1/13/23 at 5:02 am to loogaroo
quote:
Hard facts are hard to deny. I don’t think they can spin their way out of this one.
The “blame long COVID” deflection does create a degree of plausible deniability for the masses.
What we need is definitive proof that it’s the vax, and honest journalism.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 5:04 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Obviously thanks to racist unvaccinated climate deniers. And this line of questioning only emboldens Putin and election deniers. Why do you hate democracy!!!
Bravo!
Are you an elite journalist?
Hollywood script writer? Do you work for the View?
Posted on 1/13/23 at 5:06 am to TigerDoc
quote:
They were already mentioning likely need for better vaccines before the broad general public even had a chance to start being vaccinated.
Oh that explains why they halted the push for the vax, and why they totally didn't double & triple & quadruple down on boosters.
It's also totally why they haven't pushed it on children too.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 5:07 am to CubsFanBudMan
quote:
Remember when they said the vaccine would cure long COVID, and the best way to prevent long COVID was to get vaccinated? People who couldn't smell or taste for months all of a sudden could after taking the jab.
And women’s tits got bigger! Really! That’s what they were saying.
That last one might actually be temporarily true. The vaccines are certainly causing lymph node swelling.
Popular
Back to top


0





