Vaccine

espola said:
Here is a response from real medical practitioners --

"COVID-19 vaccination has substantially altered the course of the pandemic, saving tens of millions of lives globally. "

Click to expand...
Look, I know I'm not going to influence your belief...and that is fine. The covid vaccine(s) did save lives silly goose - I've never said otherwise. I'm just not blind and linear like you. The vaccine(s) also had zero impact on saving lives. There is also a rich and documented history on excess serious risk of adverse effects.

You go ahead and plant your flag on articles written by people who benefit from vaccines being put into people's arms...have a it. Again, not an issue for you, your time on this earth is quite shorter than a vaccinated and boosted pediatric patient. Your world looks much different than theirs.

By the way, this article is junk...anything with the gates foundations endorsement is junk. The Lancet also suffered from ideology driven medicine and research...don't you remember the terrible articles they published that had to be retracted? I'll let you look it up..you can do it.
 
Happened again said:
Look, I know I'm not going to influence your belief...and that is fine. The covid vaccine(s) did save lives silly goose - I've never said otherwise. I'm just not blind and linear like you. The vaccine(s) also had zero impact on saving lives. There is also a rich and documented history on excess serious risk of adverse effects.

You go ahead and plant your flag on articles written by people who benefit from vaccines being put into people's arms...have a it. Again, not an issue for you, your time on this earth is quite shorter than a vaccinated and boosted pediatric patient. Your world looks much different than theirs.

By the way, this article is junk...anything with the gates foundations endorsement is junk. The Lancet also suffered from ideology driven medicine and research...don't you remember the terrible articles they published that had to be retracted? I'll let you look it up..you can do it.
Click to expand...
Your prejudice blinds you.
 
espola said:
Your prejudice blinds you.
Click to expand...
what part of my post do you disagree with? Your weird, wanna be sauve but limp responses have gone sour. Are you saying The Lancet's credibility has taken hit (much like many professional medical journals). Are you saying that big pharma companies didn't take out ads promoting their product, taking advantage of the fear mongering courtesy of your government-----especially in places like CA? Are you disagreeing that the covid vaccine wasn't evaluated based on traditional norms? What exactly do you believe in besides posting links to articles with corporate backing?

"Your prejudice blinds you" is such a silly statement. Look inward, the ones blinded are people like you.
 
Happened again said:
what part of my post do you disagree with? Your weird, wanna be sauve but limp responses have gone sour. Are you saying The Lancet's credibility has taken hit (much like many professional medical journals). Are you saying that big pharma companies didn't take out ads promoting their product, taking advantage of the fear mongering courtesy of your government-----especially in places like CA? Are you disagreeing that the covid vaccine wasn't evaluated based on traditional norms? What exactly do you believe in besides posting links to articles with corporate backing?

"Your prejudice blinds you" is such a silly statement. Look inward, the ones blinded are people like you.
Click to expand...

"anything with the gates foundations endorsement is junk. The Lancet also suffered from ideology driven medicine and research."

Prejudice by definition.
 
espola said:
"anything with the gates foundations endorsement is junk. The Lancet also suffered from ideology driven medicine and research."

Prejudice by definition.
Click to expand...
Ahh, I see....an opinion based on analysis of presented facts counters your religion and you call it prejudice. How fitting. Good thing freedom of speech is a thing or you would be in big trouble with comments like this. I don't need a link to an article written by someone inside the industry to give me courage to present opinion.

so you are saying the Lancet has maintained its prestige? And you are confident that Bill is a well intentioned person who cares about humanity?
 
Happened again said:
Ahh, I see....an opinion based on analysis of presented facts counters your religion and you call it prejudice. How fitting. Good thing freedom of speech is a thing or you would be in big trouble with comments like this. I don't need a link to an article written by someone inside the industry to give me courage to present opinion.

so you are saying the Lancet has maintained its prestige? And you are confident that Bill is a well intentioned person who cares about humanity?
Click to expand...
The Lancet, like any respectable journal, recognizes its errors and publishes retractions and corrections where necessary.

What do you have against Bill Gates besides his behavior at Microsoft?
 
espola said:
The Lancet, like any respectable journal, recognizes its errors and publishes retractions and corrections where necessary.
Click to expand...
Fair point. Like when they had to retract the article that claimed Hydroxychloroquine provided no benefit for Covid treatment and claimed it actually decreased survival rates?
RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis - The Lancet

I'm not a HCQ proponent, or critic, but it is interesting to note. Maybe the Lancet needs to do a better job of vetting studies before they publish them. Once the Jeannie is out of the bottle it's tough to put her/him back in.
 
watfly said:
Fair point. Like when they had to retract the article that claimed Hydroxychloroquine provided no benefit for Covid treatment and claimed it actually decreased survival rates?
RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis - The Lancet

I'm not a HCQ proponent, or critic, but it is interesting to note. Maybe the Lancet needs to do a better job of vetting studies before they publish them. Once the Jeannie is out of the bottle it's tough to put her/him back in.
Click to expand...
Does that mean HCQ works now?
 
watfly said:
Fair point. Like when they had to retract the article that claimed Hydroxychloroquine provided no benefit for Covid treatment and claimed it actually decreased survival rates?
RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis - The Lancet

I'm not a HCQ proponent, or critic, but it is interesting to note. Maybe the Lancet needs to do a better job of vetting studies before they publish them. Once the Jeannie is out of the bottle it's tough to put her/him back in.
Click to expand...
Further background on the HCQ retraction --

www.theguardian.com

Covid-19: Lancet retracts paper that halted hydroxychloroquine trials

Retraction made after Guardian investigation found inconsistencies in data
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
espola said:
The Lancet, like any respectable journal, recognizes its errors and publishes retractions and corrections where necessary.

What do you have against Bill Gates besides his behavior at Microsoft?
Click to expand...
Just because you are forced to retract something doesn't mean you re-establish credibility. Doesn't take much to lose credibility...COVID being a great case. Remember that one time at band camp when people told you (before actually conducting trials) that the vaccines stopped transmission?It all went down hill after that.

Good question in regards to Gates. I don't really care about/for him. The foundation, while providing a substantial amount of money into research and development (and funding most of the worlds' health organizations) hasn't really impacted root cause issues with developing country health care systems. Sometimes tech isn't the way to go when caring for certain populations...proven over and over again by smaller NGOs that specialize in that type of medicine. Look it up, I'm sure there are plenty of articles written by professionals who have a not so rosy view of the Gate's foundation's real impact in places like Africa.

Don't always succumb to dogma...you would be amazed at what is and isn't true, especially in the world of medicine.
 
Happened again said:
Just because you are forced to retract something doesn't mean you re-establish credibility. Doesn't take much to lose credibility...COVID being a great case. Remember that one time at band camp when people told you (before actually conducting trials) that the vaccines stopped transmission?It all went down hill after that.

Good question in regards to Gates. I don't really care about/for him. The foundation, while providing a substantial amount of money into research and development (and funding most of the worlds' health organizations) hasn't really impacted root cause issues with developing country health care systems. Sometimes tech isn't the way to go when caring for certain populations...proven over and over again by smaller NGOs that specialize in that type of medicine. Look it up, I'm sure there are plenty of articles written by professionals who have a not so rosy view of the Gate's foundation's real impact in places like Africa.

Don't always succumb to dogma...you would be amazed at what is and isn't true, especially in the world of medicine.
Click to expand...
There are numerous articles that discuss the issues caused by this study that was based upon bogus data. The incident (among many others) highlights one of the biggest issues during Covid, which is the scientific community sacrificed accuracy for speed. The media was quick to publish and/or promote "studies", or opinions, that were without merit, and unfortunately in some cases health policy was based on these unsubstantiated theories. Like I said before, lab rats rushed to have their 15 minutes of fame and the media was quick to indulge them. (Unfortunately, Fauci wasn't stopped at 15) Some of this was political, and some was just ego. One of the dangerous results of this bogus study was that it caused research into HCQ to be halted, which could have potentially prevented a valuable treatment. Fortunately, it appears that HCQ's efficacy is questionable.

What we've seen time and time again, is Espola and Dad4 falling victim to the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.
 
Happened again said:
Good question in regards to Gates. I don't really care about/for him. The foundation, while providing a substantial amount of money into research and development (and funding most of the worlds' health organizations) hasn't really impacted root cause issues with developing country health care systems. Sometimes tech isn't the way to go when caring for certain populations...proven over and over again by smaller NGOs that specialize in that type of medicine. Look it up, I'm sure there are plenty of articles written by professionals who have a not so rosy view of the Gate's foundation's real impact in places like Africa.
Click to expand...
So you don't like Gates because you are "sure there are plenty of articles written by professionals"? That's it?
 
Last edited:
Happened again said:
Just because you are forced to retract something doesn't mean you re-establish credibility. Doesn't take much to lose credibility...COVID being a great case. Remember that one time at band camp when people told you (before actually conducting trials) that the vaccines stopped transmission?It all went down hill after that.
Click to expand...

The Lancet did their duty with the retraction and the publicity about it. The credibility that was damaged was that of the authors. Getting an article published in a major journal such as Lancet is a big deal for an author. Having to issue a retraction is infinitely worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top