| ▲ | logicchains 12 hours ago |
| >where one of the only things that actually worked to stop people dying was the roll out of effective vaccines. The only reason you believe that is because all information to the contrary was systematically censored and removed from the media you consume. The actual data doesn't support that, there are even cases where it increased mortality, like https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11278956/ and increased the chance of future covid infections, like https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39803093/ . |
|
| ▲ | wvenable 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It isn't hard to find that randomized controlled trials and large meta-analyses show that COVID vaccines are highly effective. No need to rely on media. You can point to one or two observational re-analyses that show otherwise but overall they are not particularly convincing given the large body of easily accessible other evidence. |
| |
| ▲ | lisbbb 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think a meta analysis is worth anything at all, to be totally honest with you. I also don't think those gene therapy shots were at all effective, given how many people contracted covid after receiving the full course of shots. I think basic herd immunity ended covid and the hysteria lasted far beyond the timeframe in which there was truly a problem. Furthermore, I think those shots are the cause of many cancers, including my wife's. The mechanism? The shots "programmed" the immune system to produce antibodies against covid to the detriment of all other functions, including producing the killer T-Cells that destroy cells in the early stages of becoming cancerous. That's why so many different cancers are happening, as well as other weird issues like the nasty and deadly clotting people had. I have no idea about mycarditis, but that's fine because it is a well documented side effect that has injured a lot of people. So cancer and pulmonary issues are the result of those poorly tested drugs that were given out to millions of people without informed consent and with no basic ethical controls on the whole massive experiment. And before you gaslight me, please understand that my wife, age 49 was diagnosed with a very unusual cancer for someone of her sex and age and it's been a terrible fight since June of 2024 to try and save her life, which has nearly been lost 3x already! Of course I have no proof that the Pfizer shots caused any of this, but damn, it sure could have been that. Also, her cousin, age 41, was diagnosed with breast cancer that same year. So tell me, how incredibly low probability is it that two people in the same family got cancer in the same year? It's got to be 1 in 10 million or something like that. Just don't gaslight me--we can agree to disagree. I'm living the worst case scenario post covid and I only hope my daughter, who also got the damn shots never comes down with cancer. | | |
| ▲ | wvenable 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I am sorry to hear what you and your wife are going through. Nothing I say here is meant to dismiss your experience. That said, I think it's important to separate personal experiences from what the larger body of evidence shows. Many vaccinated people still got COVID, especially once Omicron came along. The vaccines were never perfect at preventing infection. But the strongest data we have from randomized trials and real-world results show that vaccinated people were far less likely to end up in the ICU or die from COVID. That's what the vaccines were designed to do and that's where they consistently worked. As for cancer, I understand why you'd connect your wife's diagnosis to the vaccine -- it's natural to search for causes -- our brains are wired to look for patterns especially when big events happen close together. But cancer registries and monitoring systems around the world haven't found an increase in cancer rates linked to COVID vaccines. The vaccines give a short-lived immune stimulus; they don't reprogram the immune system or permanently shut down T-cells. My family has a long history of cancer going back generations. Literally every other member of my family has had cancer long before COVID. The idea that there is a low probability of two people in the same family getting cancer in the same year is unfortunately not as unlikely as you want to believe. That is perhaps a cold comfort but doctors and scientists aren't seeing the pattern you're worried about. That isn't to say there aren't side effects to the vaccine. Myocarditis and clotting problems are well documented but rare side-effects. In fact, someone I know about indirectly had a heart attack immediately after the COVID vaccine -- his family is genetically predisposed to this kind of heart attack but it was directly triggered by the shot (he survived). It's good to acknowledge those risks. But when you look at the big picture, health agencies estimate that the vaccines prevented millions of deaths. I sadly know of a few people who died from COVID prior to vaccine availability and have family members with permanent lung issues. They're currently struggling to get another COVID shot because they don't think they can survive getting it unprotected again. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | rpiguy 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I appreciate you. People have become more anti-Vax because the Covid vaccines were at best ineffective and as you said anything contra-narrative is buried or ignored. If you push a shitty product and force people to take it to keep their jobs it’s going to turn them into skeptics of all vaccines, even the very effective ones. More harm than good was done there. The government should have approved them for voluntary use so the fallout would not have been so bad. |
| |
| ▲ | OrvalWintermute 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Throughout my life I always got vaccines without a question. Thought antivaxxers were nutty/crazy. When I was in the US military overseas I was stuck regularly as only world travelers going to disease hotspots are. When they ignored my wife's medical allergy to vaccine ingredients while she was pregnant, and a medical friend in Europe warned me about people dying there due to the vaccine, I rethought my previous position. Started crunching numbers. Hearing of vaccine impurities and contamination w. SV40 Told by vet friends about side effects being suppressed from the DMED database VAERS numbers seemed pretty bad JHU numbers painted a very mixed story Bioethics around informed consent disappeared Read over vaccine production process and the filth it entails Vaccine Mafia came out in force. Am so thankful now that I did not get the vaccine and my eyes were opened by our Kleptocratic vaccine industry.... I always thought BigPharma was an issue, but didn't realize how tyrannical they could be via outsourcing enforcement to the federal, state, and local government in cahoots with Academia & Retail. No Trust! | | |
|
|
| ▲ | cynicalkane 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This is typical of Covid conspiracy theorists, or conspiracy theorists of any sort: one or two papers on one side prove something, but an overwhelming mountain of evidence on the other side does not prove something. The theorist makes no explanation as to how a planetful of scientists missed the obvious truth that some random dudes found; they just assert that it happened, or make some hand-waving explanation about how an inexplicable planet-wide force of censors is silencing the few unremarkable randos who somehow have the truth. The first paper seems to claim a very standard cohort study is subject to "immortal time bias", an effect whereby measuring outcomes can seem to change them. The typical example of sampling time bias is that slow-growing cancers are more survivable than fast-growing ones, but also more likely to be measured by a screening, giving a correlation between screening and survivablility. So you get a time effect where more fast-acting cancers do not end up in the measurement, biasing the data. But in measurements such that one outcome or the other does not bias the odds of that outcome being sampled, there can be no measurement time effect, which is why it's not corrected for in studies like this. The authors do not explain why measurement time effects would have anything to do with detecting or not detecting death rates in the abstract, or anywhere else in the paper, because they are quacks, who apply arbitrary math to get the outcome they want. As another commenter pointed out, randomized controlled trials -- which cannot possibly have this made-up time effect -- often clearly show a strongly positive effect for vaccination. I did not read the second paper. |
| |
| ▲ | lisbbb 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is no conspiracy, the studies were all crap! They raced through them and failed at basic double blind experiments as well as giving control groups live shots afterwards, thus eliminating any retrospective studies. There was never any positive effect. It didn't exist. It's disgusting what happened and how so many professionals that we rely on to stand up and tell the truth knuckled under to the pressure of the moment and lied or turned their backs. |
|
