It is said that don't know history are bound to repeat it.
In the light of the covid vax here is some historical video from 1976
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bOHYZhL0WQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bOHYZhL0WQ
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
Every medicine has risks. You can overdose on asprin if you try hard enough. Vaccines are no different.
Vaccines and therapies have side effects. Their use is determined by a risk/reward analysis. Some number of people will be injured by the use of drugs and vaccines. It is inevitable.
The issue is, is their use, knowing that some number of people will be injured, bring about enough positive health outcomes to outweigh the risks.
When private companies create and test drugs, vaccines, etc., knowing that they can be sued into insolvency, they only sell products with very minimal risks.
However the federal government, not having the risk of lawsuits that private companies have, will issue drugs and vaccines that carry higher risks of side effects than what private companies ordinarily are willing to assume. That's why the companies that created the Covid vaccines were given immunity by the federal government for most kinds of prosecution.
In times of national emergency the normal guidelines for safety are changed. As an example, in normal circumstances, drugs and vaccines can have serious side effects for well below 1% of the population receiving them. In times of national emergency a higher number is accepted. The thinking is better to protect 98% of the population and let 2% have serious side effects than let the disease kill or seriously effect 20% or more of the population.
So the drugs and vaccines are "safe" in that large numbers of people are not seriously affected by them. But when the federal government declares a national emergency drugs and vaccines are a little less safe than they usually are.
The difficulty is that the federal government will not admit this because they don't want people avoid the drug or vaccine. This is because if large portions avoid the drug or vaccine the disease will cause a much larger problem.
Although you can't predict exactly who, a few people will be hurt by the drug or vaccine.
Vaccines and therapies have side effects. Their use is determined by a risk/reward analysis. Some number of people will be injured by the use of drugs and vaccines. It is inevitable.
The issue is, is their use, knowing that some number of people will be injured, bring about enough positive health outcomes to outweigh the risks.
When private companies create and test drugs, vaccines, etc., knowing that they can be sued into insolvency, they only sell products with very minimal risks.
However the federal government, not having the risk of lawsuits that private companies have, will issue drugs and vaccines that carry higher risks of side effects than what private companies ordinarily are willing to assume. That's why the companies that created the Covid vaccines were given immunity by the federal government for most kinds of prosecution.
In times of national emergency the normal guidelines for safety are changed. As an example, in normal circumstances, drugs and vaccines can have serious side effects for well below 1% of the population receiving them. In times of national emergency a higher number is accepted. The thinking is better to protect 98% of the population and let 2% have serious side effects than let the disease kill or seriously effect 20% or more of the population.
So the drugs and vaccines are "safe" in that large numbers of people are not seriously affected by them. But when the federal government declares a national emergency drugs and vaccines are a little less safe than they usually are.
The difficulty is that the federal government will not admit this because they don't want people avoid the drug or vaccine. This is because if large portions avoid the drug or vaccine the disease will cause a much larger problem.
Although you can't predict exactly who, a few people will be hurt by the drug or vaccine.
1-25 of 29
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@HoraceGreenley You are mostly correct. However there is no statistical evidence that the vax prevents disease. It little more than wearing a clove of garlic around your neck to ward off vampires. When as is the case in Britain almost half the cases of covid are people who are fully vaxed you have to question the efficacy of the vax.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@hippyjoe1955 Efficacy is a different issue than safety. My explanation was to show how decisions are made whether to use a drug or vaccine or not.
I have no access to any of the efficacy or safety data. I can't comment on either.
I do know nothing has 100% efficacy.
My comment was to describe the framework for how decisions are made.
I have no access to any of the efficacy or safety data. I can't comment on either.
I do know nothing has 100% efficacy.
My comment was to describe the framework for how decisions are made.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@HoraceGreenley However efficacy is vital in coming to a proper balance in whether to administer the treatment or not. If there is a .5% chance of death warding off a 100% chance of death if the treatment is not used the risk is well worth it. However if the risk is .5% of death and 0% of preventing/curing the illness what is the point of using the treatment? From the data that is available the only thing that can conclusively be shown is the vax has increased the number of deaths.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 No-one claimed vaccines are always guaranteed 100% preventative for everyone. Instead they greatly reduce the risk of becoming infected to a dangerous level.
The idea that because they are fallible in some cases, or because the micro-organism has jumped ahead, makes them totally pointless, is plain wrong.
More serious is not individuals having their own doubts as you express, but the wilful drives by malevolent and well-orgnaised groups to persuade people to refuse vaccination out of hand. Who they are I have no idea, and why they are so cruel they want all manner of horrible diseases to be rampant only they can tell; but they need flushing out, identifying and banning for life from the WWW.
The idea that because they are fallible in some cases, or because the micro-organism has jumped ahead, makes them totally pointless, is plain wrong.
More serious is not individuals having their own doubts as you express, but the wilful drives by malevolent and well-orgnaised groups to persuade people to refuse vaccination out of hand. Who they are I have no idea, and why they are so cruel they want all manner of horrible diseases to be rampant only they can tell; but they need flushing out, identifying and banning for life from the WWW.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@hippyjoe1955 I know how the decision is made, having some experience with it.
As I said I don't have the data therfore I can not comment as to whether it was the correct decision or not.
I'm not going to guess at the data.
Given the litigious nature of our society, I would guess that the vaccine is efficacious with somewhat higher risk. Therefore it is worth using.
But again I don't have the data.
As I said I don't have the data therfore I can not comment as to whether it was the correct decision or not.
I'm not going to guess at the data.
Given the litigious nature of our society, I would guess that the vaccine is efficacious with somewhat higher risk. Therefore it is worth using.
But again I don't have the data.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@HoraceGreenley Fortunately for big pharma they are protected. Sadly for big government they believe anything big pharma tells them. There simply has not been adequate testing to know if these things are worth it or not. I am of the opinion that "Do No Harm" means you don't do mass vaxes with unproven untested vaxes. The other point that is so often missed is corona viruses tend to lose their punch in a year or two. The 1918 swine flu is a prime example. Yes it was deadly. Very deadly. Two of my family members died from it. However it became a non story in 1921. Covid was released on the world in 2019. It did its damage in 2020 and is already losing its killer ways in 2021. So why again are we injecting people with an unproven (safety or efficacy) vax? Seems rather silly.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@hippyjoe1955 Well all viruses become less virulent as they "hop" from person to person. There's no point in killing all the hosts, because then the virus dies too. That's why a viral infection doesn't wipe out everyone on the planet like in the movies. So yes, the virus will lose it's punch over time. The downside is how many people die before that happens?
There's no upside for anyone by issuing a vaccine with little to no efficacy and a of of risk. There is a lot of downside, whoever.
So in the end it's worth vaccinating a lot of people.
There's no upside for anyone by issuing a vaccine with little to no efficacy and a of of risk. There is a lot of downside, whoever.
So in the end it's worth vaccinating a lot of people.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@HoraceGreenley Vs how many people will die from the vax. This disease is completely upside down. We know that it will lose its punch in a few years. We know that a fully tested vax won't be available for 3 to 10 years so why did we fixate on a vax instead of effective therapies. Research scientists have come up with 52 different but effective protocols but here in Canada none of them can be used. Does that even make sense? Instead they are pushing a vax that kills people. Very strange behavior.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@hippyjoe1955 There seems to be few people with serious side effects but millions of Covid deaths. The math adds up.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@HoraceGreenley Not really given that many of the covid deaths are not actually covid deaths. There was an article out today that pointed out that over the last few weeks more people have died from the vax than died from the disease. If it can be shown that the vax is preventative then you have a case. However that is not the case. You can't statistically show that the vax is doing anything beyond killing people. Strange how that works but it is a fact.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@hippyjoe1955 I'm looking at the whole pandemic, not just a few weeks.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@HoraceGreenley So lets look at the whole pandemic. A disease breaks out. Do we find an effective or at least the most effective treatment and use it as best we can. Or do we come up with a very unorthodox preventative method with absolutely no evidence it is safe or effective? I go for option one and then work toward a preventative method that is shown to be safe and effective if it can be shown that the preventative is still needed.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@hippyjoe1955 You assume no evidence of efficacy.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@HoraceGreenley You can't have any evidence in such a short time. Given the seasonal variability of the disease itself having a drop in the case count in the summer is not indication that the vax is working.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@hippyjoe1955 Of course you can. That's what clinical trials are for, and they were conducted.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@HoraceGreenley There hasn't been enough time for said critical trials to take place. Those things take years not weeks or months.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@hippyjoe1955 There have been some conducted
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@HoraceGreenley There were some preliminary testing done but nothing that anyone should trust with their lives or expect them to provide indication of efficacy or safety. You can't do that in the few weeks/months that elapsed between the development of the vax and the roll out of the vax. That time should have bee 3 years minimum.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@hippyjoe1955 Safety and efficacy can be established quickly. One of the things that takes a long time is manufacturing approval. Companies wait until they know approval is a lock. For the Covid vaccines, manufacturing was set up while clinical trials were conducted because the federal government gave guarantees to cover manufacturing costs. So the pharmaceutical companies didn't have to risk their capital for manufacturing and clinical which would be devastating if approval was not forthcoming.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@HoraceGreenley Neither safety or efficacy can be shown in quick fashion. Too many variables to take into account. It still can not be statistically shown that the vax has had any effect on preventing the disease. They are excusing the failure with variants. You got the vax and died but it wasn't from covid it was the delta variant. The effect is the same. We don't know if there even is a delta variant since we are not privy to the information surrounding it. To use a Democrat talking point Imagine what would have happened if smallpox had that number of variants each which the smallpox vaccination was as effective as the mRNA vaxes being tested on humans today! Small pox would still be ravaging human populations. These things are not proven safe or effective and may well end up being very deadly to any and all that got them. The idea behind them screams of hubris the kind of hubris that declared the Titanic unsinkable.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@hippyjoe1955 I've had enough. I have been involved in clinical trials. Phase 1 is safety and dosing. Phase 2 is efficacy. Phase 3 is side effects.
Thousands of people were involved in the clinical trials.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Thousands of people were involved in the clinical trials.
You don't know what you are talking about.
@HoraceGreenley the problem I have is that this vaccine came out due to a virus that is 99.9% survivable.
People have had worse side effects from the vaccine than the actual disease. Many more people have died from this vaccine than the disease.
And why do leftists insist people get jabbed with this poison?
Before saying he doesn't know what he talks about, maybe research s little more instead of saying democrap fauci talking points
People have had worse side effects from the vaccine than the actual disease. Many more people have died from this vaccine than the disease.
And why do leftists insist people get jabbed with this poison?
Before saying he doesn't know what he talks about, maybe research s little more instead of saying democrap fauci talking points
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@Stargazer89 Lord Fauci should be shot.
I am intimately familiar with how clinical trials are conducted.
I refuse to debate the mechanics of how clinical trials work.
It would require a lot of explanation to do so, and I'm not going to argue with someone that is demonstrably wrong about conducting trials.
Fauci is a fool. I'm a conservative and in no way a Fauci apologist. However I do know what it takes to develop pharmaceuticals and conduct trials.
I am intimately familiar with how clinical trials are conducted.
I refuse to debate the mechanics of how clinical trials work.
It would require a lot of explanation to do so, and I'm not going to argue with someone that is demonstrably wrong about conducting trials.
Fauci is a fool. I'm a conservative and in no way a Fauci apologist. However I do know what it takes to develop pharmaceuticals and conduct trials.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@Stargazer89 Operation Warp Speed was miraculous. President Trump did a fantastic job. There were a number of ways in which the process was streamlined. But there were no "shortcuts" that ignored the basic medical facts.
I will not entertain conspiracy theories.
I will not entertain conspiracy theories.
@HoraceGreenley people who are rightly skeptical of vaccines aren't conspiracy theorists.
Many people have been hurt or killed because of blood clotting and other lingering effects. Read Joe's other posts and other people's posts instead of falling for the mainstream narrative. You can say fauci needs to be shot, but both you and him are pushing the vaccine on people, hmmm.
Many people have been hurt or killed because of blood clotting and other lingering effects. Read Joe's other posts and other people's posts instead of falling for the mainstream narrative. You can say fauci needs to be shot, but both you and him are pushing the vaccine on people, hmmm.
1-25 of 29