Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Bad science Medicine Skepticism/critical thinking

Norman Fenton: “It’s not p-hacking if you don’t use p-values.”

Defending an awful paper on COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, Prof. Norman Fenton claims that it can’t be p-hacking if you don’t use p-values. Hilarity ensues.

As you might imagine, not everyone was happy with my post the other day discussing another paper by Peter Doshi attempting to “prove” that the randomized controlled trials used to justify the emergency use authorization (EUA) for mRNA-based vaccines actually showed more serious adverse events than the placebo group. Of course as I discussed, it took p-hacking, cherry picking of data, and comparing apples and oranges to reach that conclusion, making the preprint by Peter Doshi and at least two other “COVID-19 contrarians” (Joseph Fraiman and Patrick Whelan) highly suspect at best, disinformation at worst.

One of the people not happy with my deconstruction of this study and, even less so, the deconstruction by Susan Oliver in a 12 minute YouTube video, is Norman Fenton, Professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London. At the time I encountered his initial objections on Twitter I didn’t recall ever having heard of Prof. Fenton before, but he is clearly unhappy by the criticism leveled at Doshi. Indeed, yesterday he posted a rant on his blog entitled Response to Susan Oliver video “Antivaxxers fooled by p-hacking and apples to oranges comparison.” (Let’s just say that he’s not particularly creative coming up with titles for his post.) His key point?

This:

Interestingly, despite the video title, Susan spends less than 30 seconds describing what p-hacking is and instead refers to a paper about it [2] (we agree entirely with the general concerns raised about p-hacking and show how it is avoided using Bayesian hypothesis testing [3]). But the key flaw in Susan’s criticism is that the “Doshi paper” is not an example of p-hacking at all. They do not use p-values and, also contrary to the continued assertions of Susan, they make no claims at all of statistical significance. Rather, the paper provides risk differences and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the various different comparisons of vaccine v placebo.

If the authors had been “p-hacking” they would have chosen a p-value like 0.05 and would have added, for each comparison of vaccine v placebo, a ‘significance statistic’ and arrived at at least one example where the statistic was less than 0.05.  Then they would claim, for example, that the increased SAE rate was ‘significant’.  They do nothing like that at all.

I think I just lost neurons reading that passage. No, seriously, Prof. Fenton’s argument is that it can’t be p-hacking if you don’t use p-values, an argument that is just plain nonsense. He also claims that Joseph Fraiman, Peter Doshi, and the rest of the authors—whom I mention in passing mainly because this paper is clearly primarily Fraiman and Doshi’s, given that they serve as first author and corresponding author, respectively—make no claims of statistical significance at all, even though they used confidence intervals. Let’s revisit the chart (which, conveniently enough, Fenton also reproduces in his post):

Doshi Table 2
If Fraiman and Doshi weren’t drawing implications of statistical significance, then why did they bother to calculate 95% confidence intervals? Remember, if a 95% CI overlaps 1.0, that’s usually considered not to be a statistically significant result; if the CI does not overlap 1.0, it is statistically significant.

So why did Fraiman and Doshi calculate risk differences per 10,000 participants with confidence intervals, as well as risk ratios (RRs), again, with confidence intervals? I will thank Fenton for one thing. Dealing with his post, I rather quickly came to realize that the description in this preprint of how the statistics were done was so minimal as to be almost nonexistent. There’s not even a section on “statistics,” as is the case in most papers. On the one hand, one might argue that that strengthens Fenton’s retort that they didn’t really claim statistical significance. While that might be true, the inclusion of confidence intervals in such a way implies to any scientist that they are looking at which comparisons are and are not statistically significant. They are implicitly looking at statistical significance, even though they’re very careful in their manuscript to avoid the use of words “statistical significance” (or, to be honest, “significance,” “statistics,” or “statistical”) at all wherever possible. I rather suspect that this was done to preempt the sort of argument (such as it is) that they were engaged in p-hacking, which any decent reviewer would likely bring up.

But what about Fenton’s argument that it can’t be p-hacking if you don’t use p-values? This, too, is a nonsensical argument. “P-hacking” is a term commonly used, but because it focuses so much on p-values scientists now tend to use other terms for it, with p-hacking being a subset of a general technique designed to find “statistical significance” through multiple comparisons, plus mixing and combining categories, and multiple hypothesis testing designed to produce a “positive” value. More general terms are:

Inflation bias, also known as “p-hacking” or “selective reporting,” is the misreporting of true effect sizes in published studies (Box 1). It occurs when researchers try out several statistical analyses and/or data eligibility specifications and then selectively report those that produce significant results [12–15]. Common practices that lead to p-hacking include: conducting analyses midway through experiments to decide whether to continue collecting data [15,16]; recording many response variables and deciding which to report postanalysis [16,17], deciding whether to include or drop outliers postanalyses [16], excluding, combining, or splitting treatment groups postanalysis [2], including or excluding covariates postanalysis [14], and stopping data exploration if an analysis yields a significant p-value [18,19].

I also like the term “data dredging,” which I used in my previous post on this study and further point out, citing the paper above, that unfortunately p-hacking, data dredging, or whatever you want to call it is widespread. It’s a major problem under normal circumstances in the scientific literature, but a less known aspect of it is that it can be weaponized in the service of portraying vaccines, in this case the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, as more dangerous than they are and the RCTs used to garner their EUAs in December 2020 as flawed and not showing the “true extent” of serious AEs attributable to them.

Also, as pointed out by one of my readers:

Interesting comment: they say in the paper
In contrast to the FDA analysis, we found an increased risk of all cause SAEs in the Pfizer trial.
What is that based on? If they are only looking at the point estimates then they can say that about their samples, but there is no way to determine whether the size difference is due to chance or something else. If they rest the statement on their confidence intervals then they are essentially using p-values, despite the denials by you and Norman Fenton (who is on record as “questioning” covid vaccine effectiveness and safety).

Elsewhere in Fraiman and Doshi’s study:

In the Pfizer trial, 52 serious AESI (27.7 per 10,000) were reported in the vaccine group and 33 (17.6 per 10,000) in the placebo group. This difference corresponds to a 57% increased risk of serious AESI (RR 1.57 95% CI 0.98 to 2.54) and an absolute risk increase of 10.1 serious AESI per 10,000 vaccinated participants (95% CI -0.4 to 20.6). In the Moderna trial, 87 serious AESI (57.3 per 10,000) were reported in the vaccine group and 64 (42.2 per 10,000) in the placebo group. This difference corresponds to a 36% increased risk of serious AESI (RR 1.36 95% CI 0.93 to 1.99) and an absolute risk increase of 15.1 serious AESI per 10,000 vaccinated participants (95% CI -3.6 to 33.8). Combining the trials, there was a 43% increased risk of serious AESI (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.92) and an absolute risk increase of 12.5 serious AESI per 10,000 vaccinated participants (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9). (Table 2) Of the 236 serious AESIs occurring across the Pfizer and Moderna trials, 97% (230/236) were adverse event types included as AESIs because they are seen with COVID-19. In both Pfizer and Moderna trials, the largest increase in absolute risk occurred amongst the Brighton category of coagulation disorders. Cardiac disorders have been of central concern for mRNA vaccines; more cardiovascular AESIs occurred in the vaccine group in the Pfizer trial, but cardiovascular AESI events were balanced in the Moderna trial. (Tables 3 and 4)

It’s utterly ridiculous to claim that Fraiman and Doshi weren’t looking for statistical significance here, given that they use confidence intervals and explicitly claim elevated absolute risk and relative risk for their chosen adverse events (AEs). They do appear to have been engaging in data dredging, inflation bias, p-hacking, or whatever you want to call it, under the guise of an “exploratory” reanalysis of the RCT data from Pfizer and Moderna.

Next up, Fenton argues:

Susan’s final criticisms of the Doshi paper concerns the selection of SAEs and the possibility of ‘double counting’. Regarding selection, the events included and not included are governed by the WHO endorsed Brighton scheme, and are not decided by the authors, so this is a critical error Susan makes. The Brighton list was created a priori, based on data before the any results were released from the trials. Any double counting, such as with the diarrhoea and abdominal pain example she uses, are a direct effect of the fact that the data are not public. There’s merit to both measures – counting number of participants (with any SAE) and number of events. If one person has two SAEs that is worse than one person having one SAE. “Double counting” sounds bad, but this is not double counting. Doshi et al are measuring how many SAEs occur in the vaccine group versus the placebo group. If Diarrhoea and abdominal pain were each recorded as a SAE, then that is two SAEs. We don’t know which ones were in the same person as Pfizer/Moderna have not released IPD. In any case, the authors recognise the issue that, because some SAEs occur in the same person, the SAEs are not all independent events; they note it in the paper, and introduce an adjustment to standard error to account for it. It is unclear whether the adjustment is sufficient, but it actually weakens their case (it increases the size of the confidence intervals) – so they can hardly be accused of bias. 

Note how Fenton doesn’t even deny the charge of double counting. (How could he?) Instead, he tries to claim that it is justified and a “good thing” because “if one person has two SAEs that is worse than one person having one SAE.” Clearly, Fenton is not a clinician. His argument can be refuted by pointing out that often the SAEs as defined in the trial cluster in a single patient, an observation used by the authors to justify applying a “correction” to the standard error estimates in order to enlarge them. It’s hard not to respond to this sort of argument by saying that there is no reason to use standard errors, much less to introduce an arbitrary “adjustment” to them supposedly in order to account for multiple counting of SAEs in individual patients if you aren’t interested in using some sort of statistical test to show a “statistically significant” difference in their comparisons—or at least to imply that there is a real difference.

As for his defense of the Brighton criteria and how they were mapped, this allows me to come back to a criticism of the paper that I missed, namely how various adverse events (AEs) were “mapped” to the Brighton serious adverse events of special interest (serious AESIs or SAESIs). I did touch on it a bit, but I hadn’t realized at the time that the dataset for the analysis was included as a link near the end of the manuscript that led to a hosting platform that hosted a Microsoft Excel file. One thing stood out, namely that all chest pain, cardiac and non-cardiac, was mapped to myocarditis/pericarditis, while all upper abdominal pain was mapped to colitis/enteritis.

Next up, Fenton digs himself in deeper:

Further regarding double counting, SAEs are counted individually to avoid them being hidden. So, if you get renal failure and then your penis drops off that should be two SAEs, not one.  One person having three SAEs (renal failure, penis drops off, stroke) could be considered as serious as three people having a stroke; so, although some clinicians disagree, it is entirely reasonable to count SAEs separately.  But Susan does not appear to understand what a SAE is. She assumes something like diarrhoea cannot be a SAE because lots of diarrhoea happens to be mild. But most covid is not serious, either. So diarrhoea can be a SAE if it’s serious enough and meets the regulatory criteria. And it’s a leading cause of death in some places

First of all, it is not a general principle that “one person having three SAEs” should be considered as serious as “three people having a stroke.” It depends on the specific SAEs and how serious they are. As I discussed last time, AEs are graded from 1-3, with serious adverse events (SAEs) being grades 3 and above. Let’s review again briefly. According to the standard terminology used to rate SAEs in clinical trials grade 3 events and above (on a five-point scale) are rated severe. If you look at the list of specific AEs, you’ll see that some grade 3 AEs require hospitalization; some don’t.

A grade 3 is defined as an AE that:

  • Is severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; OR
  • Requires hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization indicated; OR
  • Limits self care/activities of daily living (ADL)

For completeness, I’ll mention now as I did the other day that grade 4 AEs are by definition life-threatening events that require urgent medical or surgical intervention and that grade 5 events are by definition AEs that result in death.

So, no, as a general principle, it is not true that someone suffering three SAEs is necessarily as big a deal as three people suffering a single SAE each. It might be less severe. It might be more severe. It might suggest similar severity. Which of these three possibilities is the case all depends on the specific SAEs in the clinical trial subjects being considered. I would argue that it is not Susan Oliver who doesn’t understand AEs and SAEs, but rather Norman Fenton, who concludes with what he claims to be a “Bayesian analysis” of AEs in the Moderna and Pfizer clinical trials that is not really Bayesian at all, as you will see:

The benefits of applying a Bayesian analysis to the data is that we are able to ‘learn’ the full probability distributions of the adverse reaction rates for vaccine and placebo. This enables us not just to compute the risk ratios and CIs (we get slightly different results to Doshi) but, crucially, also to make explicit probabilistic statements about whether the vaccine SAE rate is higher than that of the placebo (this approach is the Bayesian alternative to the flawed p-value approach). The results (which we provide below) do indeed provide explicit support for the hypothesis that the SAE rate for vaccine is higher than that of the placebo.

You’ll recall that Bayesian analysis (which I’m a fan of, as are my coauthors at my not-so-secret other blog) involves considering prior probability in determining the posterior probability; e.g., the estimated probability that the null hypothesis is rejected. More simply, this is the probability a difference observed between the groups being compared is due to something other than random chance alone, with the threshold for “significance” of this difference (or rejecting the null hypothesis) generally chosen as 95%, which corresponds to a p-value of 0.05, or a 5% chance that the results observed could be due to random chance alone. I’ve discussed this in detail a number of times, most recently in considering the case of ivermectin for COVID-19. I’ll refer you to these discussions (as well as to discussions by Dr. Kimball Atwood of frequentist statistics versus Bayesian statistics) if you want more information, noting that there is a rich irony in my doing so because the chart that I like use my talks and blog posts about the differences between science-based medicine and evidence-based medicine comes from a work by Sander Greenland, one of the co-authors of Fraiman and Doshi’s paper. The Cliffs Notes version of the discussion is that posterior probability (the probability that the null hypothesis has been rejected) can be strongly affected by the prior probability when the prior probability is very low.

Oh, heck, I’ll just post the chart again:

Bayesian table for SBM for consideration with p-values and for p-hacking
Goodman and Greenland’s 2007 calculation for posterior probability based on prior probability.

Now how, for a p-value of 0.05 (which normally indicates a 95% probability that the difference observed is not due to random chance), if the prior probability is low, the posterior probability becomes much lower, even for “highly significant” p–values.

So a true Bayesian analysis would involve estimating the prior probability that a given AE being considered (or, in the case of the total of pooled AEs, such as special AESIs examined by Fraiman and Doshi) is due to the vaccine and then incorporating that estimate into the calculation of posterior probability after comparing control and vaccine groups. Of course, it really isn’t possible, a priori, to come up with an estimate of the probability that the total serious AESIs were due to the vaccines, although it is somewhat possible to make such estimates for individual AEs. Also, one criticism of Bayesian approaches is that there is always some subjectivity involved in estimating prior probabilities, which is why I tend only to invoke Bayesian analysis when the prior probability is inarguably incredibly low (or even zero), such as is inarguably the case for alternative medicine interventions like homeopathy or reiki, although it was arguably very low for ivermectin for COVID-19 as well based just on pharmacological considerations.

So what did Fenton do? Looking at his chart, it appears to me that he just compared AEs in the control and vaccine groups, calculated a 95% confidence interval in the standard manner, and then estimated (again, in a standard manner) the probability that the null hypothesis has been rejected; i.e., that the differences determined were not due to random chance alone. This is, in fact, standard frequentist statistics, whether you use a p-value or 95% confidence intervals calculated using some other statistical test, not Bayesian statistics, and discounts that “statistical significance” is defined in frequentist statistics as a p-value less than or equal to 0.05. (I could go into how many are advocating the use of even stricter p-values because of how bias and poor experimental design often mean that a p-value under 0.05 doesn’t map to a 95% probability that the null hypothesis has been rejected, but rather a much lower probability, but I won’t and will just leave it at stating that observation.) In any event, Fenton’s “Bayesian” analysis is not Bayesian and just compounds the errors of Fraiman and Doshi’s paper by using the confidence intervals in the paper to calculate the probability that the null hypothesis is rejected. In other words, he does exactly what he claims that Fraiman and Doshi did not do, even as he denies that they engaged in p-hacking.

Finally, Mr. Fenton seems pretty cheesed at some of the criticism of Peter Doshi, citing yours truly on Twitter when I pointed out that Doshi had signed a document supporting HIV/AIDS denial, a Tweet in which Steve Salzberg offered to write a letter to The BMJ over Doshi’s continued employment there as a senior editor, and a Tweet by bioethicist Arthur Caplan concurring. Given Doshi’s very long history of playing footsie with antivaxxers and even serving as an expert witness for an antivaccine organization’s lawsuit challenging the University of California system’s influenza vaccine mandate, to the point where I vacillate between considering him antivaccine, “antivax-adjacent,” or just a useful idiot for the antivaccine movement, it is not at all unreasonable to ask why The BMJ continues to employ him.

Even leaving Doshi’s history aside, Prof. Fenton’s defense of Fraiman and Doshi’s paper, which was indeed an exercise in p-hacking and misleading comparisons, is a clear misfire, and I still shake my head in disappointment that Sander Greenland is a coauthor. First John Ioannidis, and now (maybe) Sander Greenland. Truly, if there’s anything COVID-19 has taught me, it’s that I should have no scientific heroes.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

1,023 replies on “Norman Fenton: “It’s not p-hacking if you don’t use p-values.””

This is, in fact, standard frequentist statistics, whether you use a p-value or 95% confidence intervals calculated using some other statistical test….

One of the first things we illustrate in beginning state when inference is introduced is that the basic confidence intervals are obtained by inverting test statistics in the ‘non rejection region’, but that stresses the fact that those intervals are equivalent to the associated two-sided hypothesis tests — that’s the reason you can find statistically significant results from CIs just as you can with traditional tests, so be default significance levels and p-values are floating around.

Either the authors of the paper (and Fenton) forgot that, didn’t know it, or intentionally ignored it I can’t say with certainty, but I strongly suspect the “intentionally ignored it” option is the most likely of the three possibilities.

I am obviously not a scientist, so correct me if I’m wrong, but I would also ask about the value of comparing numbers of serious adverse events by themselves, reemphasizing your point that not all adverse events are equal. There are things that we know the vaccines cause; like temporary fever, local reactions. Even grade three of those, if not life threatening or very severe, would not necessarily be an argument against the vaccines; a couple of days high fever or temporary swelling of the injection site would not change the risk/benefit ratio.

What is the argument for that wholesale comparison to start with?

I would add that Prof. Fenton’s examples of SAEs seem far fetched.

Aren’t some of the arguments in favor of vaccines for preventing severe fevers? Provaxxers seem more like lawyers and activists to me than scientists yet they try to hide behind sophistry instead of persuade. This serves a red flag that you can’t trust them.

Actually you are a typical activist, not even knowing what FDA is doing.

Admittedly would champion transparency and an end to the revolving door vaccine mandates and bringing back full tort liability for vax manufacturers. If I had the time that would be my cause.

You are already an activist. Lots of statements without factual base. For instance vaccine manufacturrs has been sued multiple times, by Robert Kennedy Jr, no less. I want to know what “revolving door vaccine madate” is.

I missed a couple commas in that one. Went fast. FDA revolving door influences FDA officials to bend to Pharmaceutical company will so they can get that sweet Pfizer paycheck – a type of corruption that isn’t illegal.

FDA does not issue vaccine mandates, so you are still speaking rubbish.

No one said this. CDC publishes recommendations which most states adopt without serious inquiry. FDA approves drugs and serves as a revolving door to regulators who want a fatter paycheck.

Someone still issues the mandates. Are there revolting doors theres ?

@john labarge You do not understan whatt “federal contractor” means ? It do not mean every business in USA.

Why do you think skilled/well educated immunologists and top line vaccination specialists sound like lawyers? This to me, serves as a red flag that anti-vaxx promoters don’t have evidence to show vaccines don’t work.

I trust professional, credentialed, and respected health care workers.

Your banter, not so much. There is nothing truthful in what you say. This is what most here know.

There are a lot of actual lawyers arguing against the covid vax. Why do you respect the lawyerly skills of non-lawyers with a vested interest in the vaccine industry, over the lawyerly skills of actual lawyers without a dog in the fight?

Your comment is a good illustration of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, for your students.

@Ginny Stoner. And lawyers of course argue for fee, and drum for for business. Aveste interest, too.
@john labarge, It is known that vaccines can cause short term fevers. This is actually a solicited side effect.

Because when it serves them they argue the opposite of what they used to argue. Example – covid-19 death causation versus vaccine – adverse event causation. And here re fevers. The idea of the vaccine was to prevent yo from getting sick enough to have a fever (at least perhaps before goal posts moved) and now it’s acceptable.

“One person having three SAEs (renal failure, penis drops off, stroke) could be considered as serious as three people having a stroke; so, although some clinicians disagree, it is entirely reasonable to count SAEs separately.”

Well, there you go. Among their other failings, they fail to adjust their SAEs for gender.

Which lead to a question. If the pathologist discovers two knives sticking out of the chest of a deceased COVID patient during the autopsy, is that 2, 3 or 4 SAEs?

“Among their other failings, they fail to adjust their SAEs for gender.”

Professor Norman was a man until his penis dropped off, so the vaccine obviously adjusted for him. #NotAConfounder

Hmm. Maybe they can adjust the data by equating a vaccinated woman to a man with an SAE.

If they are pro-knife then the knives had nothing to do with, of course.

Thanks for this detailed deconstruction, Orac.

Love the cartoon at the top of ‘Forcing The Data To Confess’.
For those readers too young to know –
The science bon mot concerning data manipulation of:
“He/she tortured the data until it confessed.”
is very old. I first heard it from my mother in the late 1950s which caused a light bulb moment in my young skull.
.
RE – Fenton
As soon as they quote a CI they are using p-values.
That they’re citing a “95%” level just makes his claim all the more laughable.
Game over.

“the “Doshi paper” is not an example of p-hacking at all. They do not use p-values”

Peanut gallery, take notes: This is how to Sophistry for Pros. Next up: Sealioning like a Beachmaster.

Why are they all ignoring the lack of a background lit review in Doshi’s work? Doshi is obviously ignoring the independent and Pharma documentation done post-Phase 3. Rosenblum, et al, 2022, is an excellent example of safety data done over the first 6 months of use. (doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00054-8) There is absolutely NO attempt to compare the findings of the Phase-3 trials with recent papers on safety. This is a massive red flag that will stand out to any peer-reviewers and hopefully stop this trash from ever being published. I wouldn’t allow my peers to try to publish this, that’s for sure.

“There is absolutely NO attempt to compare the findings of the Phase-3 trials with recent papers on safety.”

I think Doshi was trying to make the point that the phase 3 trials resulted in far more AESI than reported and therefore should not have gotten the EUA in the first place.

Doshi was very selective with his AESIs, as Orac has explained. Regulatory agencies do no accept.p-hacking.

Back in 2021 Fraiman’s comments to the AP were pretty clearly anti-vax supporting with a load of paranoia and the standard anti-Pharma dogwhistles. (Posts misattribute statements to FDA advisory panel, By SOPHIA TULP, September 21, 2021)

“Demand the booster trials are large enough to find a reduction in hospitalization. Without this data, we, the medical establishment, cannot confidently call out anti-COVID vaccine activists who publicly claim the vaccines harm more than they save, especially in the young and healthy. The fact that we do not have the clinical evidence to say these activists are wrong should terrify us all.”

Fraiman clearly doesn’t know how trials work. Now he went back to post-justify his earlier nonsense.

If you get a Covid vaccine, go out to celebrate with lunch at Chipotle and a day later experience indigestion, intestinal gas, abdominal pain, bloating, cramping and diarrhea, that’s 6 SAEs right there.

I bet the vaccine trials hid a lot of that stuff.

I got 2 AZs and a Pfizer, and the AZs made me wanna violently upchuck at 2am†, so clearly I woulda been better off getting teh COVIDs.‡ Oddly the AVs aren’t counting up all the SAEs from that.

† Mind, so will a bottle of Scotch, if I don’t pace myself. Spinnies!

‡ Still entirely possible I will, seeing my countryfolk are all assholes.

It’s not cherry picking if you’r not picking actual cherries!!!!!!!

Funniest thing I’ve read all day. Thank you for the Friday hilarity.

“Doshi is obviously ignoring the independent and Pharma documentation done post-Phase 3…There is absolutely NO attempt to compare the findings of the Phase-3 trials with recent papers on safety.”

Attacking clinical vaccine trials for alleged failings while ignoring post-trial data is nothing new.

Antivaxers argue that Gardasil trials never demonstrated that the vaccine reduced cervical cancer rates. That complaint is absurd to begin with, since 1) cervical cancer commonly takes a number of years to develop after HPV infection and thus could not be established in the course of a vaccine trial, and 2) the trials did show a marked reduction in HPV infection among vaccine recipients, which was the specified goal. No HPV – virtually no chance of cervical cancer later on.

In the years since Gardasil approval, numerous studies have shown that the vaccine prevents the development of high-grade cancer precursor lesions (dysplasias), and there’s accumulating evidence demonstrating a drop in cervical cancer rates. Excellent safety has been established as well. Yet antivaxers have continued to ignore those findings in favor of attacking the vaccine trials.

“In the years since Gardasil approval, numerous studies have shown that the vaccine prevents the development of high-grade cancer precursor lesions (dysplasias), and there’s accumulating evidence demonstrating a drop in cervical cancer rates.”

So you say. And yet not a single study has conclusively proved that Gardasil is effective at keeping elephants out of the vegetable patch, so what is Big Pharma really hiding!

The post-trial data isn’t complete is slow to publish and doesn’t appear to be being monitored. Because persuasion is not necessary when you have mandates.

There are myocarditi reports, you rememeber. These came from post trial surveillance

And other countries acknowledged theses risks before we did and even shutdown certain vaccines for certain demographics. The US was late and less cautious.

But you claimed that there were no monitoring. An obvious falsehood.

@Orac labarge is lying and he’s using your site to push those lies.

“Regarding transmission, slowing transmission only affects hospitalization rates in the event of high severity. Even with the latest Omicron wave this isn’t bearing out in the data.”

These are absolute lies he can’t support with evidence, just his biased anti-vax logic.

This thread is ridiculous and I’m shutting down all notifications, since there is no way to block the anti-vax clowns.

Efficacy against infection is less than 50% with the current variants. https://www.healthdata.org/covid/covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-summary

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risk-of-vaccinated-covid-transmission-is-not-low/

Less than 50% efficacy means that with every interaction you are more likely than not to get infected. Interactions aren’t in a vacuums they are an infinite stream of events unless you stay home and in a bubble. That being the case the slowing of transmission is marginal https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risk-of-vaccinated-covid-transmission-is-not-low/ (indeed this author is pro-vaccine and admits it).

As for severity that also depends on truthfulness about cause of death/hospitalization (with versus from/for) and ability to determine vaccine status of those who haven’t provided it. I wonder do you think they assume vaccinated or unvaccinated status if not able to determine? Do you think it’s based on the population? What percentage of covid hospitalizations or deaths in the ‘unvaccinated’ are actually (perhaps conveniently) unknown status. Isn’t it odd that there isn’t an unknown category?

@ Jay Kanta:

I think that Orac has already shut the three trolls down by automod so you’re see old comments and/ or new MUCH less frequent ones.
Thankfully.

50% efficiency means that half of infections are prevented.
Data with boosters:
Chenchula S, Karunakaran P, Sharma S, Chavan M. Current evidence on efficacy of COVID-19 booster dose vaccination against the Omicron variant: A systematic review. J Med Virol. 2022 Jul;94(7):2969-2976. doi: 10.1002/jmv.27697. Epub 2022 Mar 14. PMID: 35246846; PMCID: PMC9088621.
Boosters are needed,because virus were allowed to spread

For those unfamiliar with Prof. Fenton, all you need to read by him is a blog post about his desire to order “American Muckraker: Rethinking Journalism for the 21st Century”, by “genuine investigative reporter James O’Keefe” to understand who we are dealing with….

“genuine investigative reporter James O’Keefe”

Oh lord. That explains so much about the low intelligence level of fenton’s posts.

O’Keefe is a smirking, privileged frat-boy bully bro in the mold of Tucker Carlson, or Trump, gloating over every act of social thuggery against the less powerful he can get away with. Having looked up Fenton’s cite of O’Keefe, and seen a sample of his other post topics, it’s clear he’s a right-wing/antivax conspiracy theory nut job (much further ‘out there’ than Doshi, fwiw). Framing such people as ‘dumb asses’, when they are more accurately labeled as ‘sick f***s’ is a smug misdiagnosis that obscures how pernicious they are.

He doesn’t force anyone to say what they say. That’s on them. I don’t know about theory. He reports actual conspiracies it appears to me.

Some people think that it is conspiracy, when other people do not agree with them. They may actually use their brains

O’Keefe** is one of the people Mike Adams may award money to for his fabulous “journalism”.
For a brief account of him and Project Veritas see Wikipedia; James O’Keefe.

** who is originally from very Blue Bergen County and Rutgers U.

One of the most powerful indications of vaccine fraud is the fact that the CDC, FDA and ACIP haven’t publicly acknowledged or attempted to explain the massive unprecedented increase in deaths and serious injuries reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines.

No one raising issues of potential vaccine danger has anything to prove. These vaccines have existed less than 2 years, and anyone who claims there is convincing proof of safety and efficacy is lying.

Even worse, the CDC, FDA, CIA, DOJ, SBA, TVA, NAS, all major medical centers and academic establishments, news media, physicians, epidemiologists and virtually the entirety of the general public have failed to acknowledge “the massive unprecedented increase in deaths and serious injuries” all around us due to Covid-19 vaccines.

It’s a coverup and conspiracy so unprecedentedly massive, it boggles the mind. Even though a few brave souls like Ginny are speaking out, we are doomed to human extinction in the near future.

Party on?, I say.

major medical centers and academic establishments, news media, physicians, epidemiologists and virtually the entirety of the general public have failed to acknowledge “the massive unprecedented increase in deaths and serious injuries” all around us due to Covid-19 vaccines.

Duh. The ones who aren’t involved in publishing fake studies are out hiding all the bodies.

Who are you trying to fool, Bacon? The vast majority of the “entirety of the general public” DON’T KNOW that more deaths and serious injuries have been reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines than from all other vaccines combined for the last 31 years. A lot of the employees of the the other places you mentioned don’t know either, but should.

Are you so utterly ridiculous that you don’t know why VAERS isn’t used for research?

It’s not meant to determine overall safety in a population, it’s intended to identify serious AE signals that indicate plausibility for response.

No research based on VAERS data is valid if it’s not just researching VAERS itself.

If you had a real education you’d know that.

So, your claim is there was a massive and unprecedented increase in VAERS reports that was not due to more vaccination, and it produced no signals? Or at most, just a few that were so unremarkable, they don’t warrant any change in vaccine policy? And we’re supposed to accept that on trust, from notorious liars with a product to sell?

Sure, that makes perfect sense to the average person with a few working brain cells.

I am unsure whether to be more worried about that or about the fact that Ginny failed to see that Dangerous Bacon was taking the piss.

We’ve gone over this before – you see a signal, and just like a Rorschach test, you immediately see the thing you expect to see.

Chris Preston, safer than what? Arsenic?

More serious injuries and deaths have been reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines in the last 19 months than from all other vaccines combined for the last 31 years.

Seems like you’re mocking all those people whose lives were lost or destroyed after COVID19 vaccines. The folks at the CDC probably are too–they sure as heck don’t feel a need to explain it.

“Seems like you’re mocking all those people whose lives were lost or destroyed after COVID19 vaccines.”

You horrible horrible troll, you have no evidence it was due to the vaccination. You don’t even have plausibility. You can’t get plausibility from a bad dataset.

Chris Preston, safer than what?

It’s pretty amusing that she hasn’t figured this one out yet.

@Ginny Stoner Reporting is a laegal requirement, rgaless of plausibility- This requirement resulted with more reports. And child morlality is much less than average, resulting again more reports.
You yourself seems quite brainwashed, repeating same thing without commenting explanations

Seems like you’re mocking all those people whose lives were lost or destroyed after COVID19 vaccines.

Not true (no surprise it isn’t true, since it’s a comment from you). That comment implies there is evidence the vaccine cast lives to be “lost or destroyed”, and no such proof exists: the evidence free assertions you (and greg, and labarge, and the other clowns who do the same thing) have no validity.

You are simply claiming there has been widespread harm to innumerable people (again, without evidence of that happening) and attempting to make a name for yourself from those “people”. That’s the scummy part.

You may know that – but you don’t know what that means. And the sad part is that you think that you do know.

Ginny asks ‘Chris Preston, safer than what?,

Safer than Ginny Stoner, that’s for sure.

All that antivaxxer noise is entirely without effect ?
And answer these points:
a) under EUA, reporting SAEs is a legal obligation..
b) Mortality of children is only 2% of average mortality

@Ginny Stoner:
massive increase of numbers is cause by:
a)making reporting SAEs legally mandatory
b) Vaccinating other pepole tah children (their mortality is 2% of average one).

You are incorrect about both those issues–I explain why here in the sections “Deaths involving COVID19” and “Age group comparison”. All age groups have had an unprecedented increase in VAERS reports. https://www.virginiastoner.com/cvax-risk

I’ve answered this before several times and I would appreciate it if you would read my response and stop repeating the same asked-and-answered questions over and over.

Repeat your argument there. “Unprecented” is not enough, try age adjustment.
And remember that under EUA, reporting SAEs is a lgal obligation.

Systems with broken incentive structures and monitoring systems aren’t necessarily a provable conspiracy. ??? is an explanation that doesn’t require proof of any conspiracy. We won’t find what we refuse to look for. Letting all those adverse reaction reports pile up without any public explanation whatsoever is refusing to look, probably because the incentives conspire to make it unnecessary for those that were able to coerce, mandate and corrupt. Or maybe they think they are so sophisticated that they don’t owe the public any explanation. Whatever the case trusting this setup is a fools errand indeed.

Eh, Bargy. Why is it that you always assume that some said system is corrupt. Pretty much how all antivaxxers start out, especially when they are convinced by properly corrupt anti vax champions.

Read some Orwell or look into how childhood vaccines are mandated or watch Fauci testify about Covid vax for toddlers or read the nova vax hearing or consider that the FDA wanted 75 years to disclose safety documents or look at the FDA revolving door. Or jus simply consider that the main company pushing it is a criminal , none of the companies are liable for harms as a practical matter and they are still pushing mandates of vaccines that don’t prevent infection or spread. For starters.

“or consider that the FDA wanted 75 years to disclose safety documents”

Thank you for lying again. None of the data is related to safety. It’s the background data that wasn’t released with the dataset for the Phase III trials. The safety data was already released with the research and is available to researchers.

You don’t even know what you’re talking about, except that you think there is a conspiracy. It goes right to the heart of why I think you’re a pathetic little troll.

Labarge doesn’t have any evidence — all his views are based on the fact that the results of studies aren’t what he “knows” they should be. In short — he is consistently dishonest.

Do yourself read Orwell.He has interesting conceot of goodthinkful.You are
definitely one.
Recommenation of COVID vaccination for chilren was mae by ACIP:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7045e1.htm
These safety documents are now being published. Any great revelations to report ?
You should hear the whole tesimony of Fauci, not ust selte parts o it,

Eh, Orwell was a novelist, you know, a writer of fiction. I dare say we should consider the x-files as true documentaries of paranormal events.

If you think a crime has been committed, report it to the police….oh, I forgot, the police are also corrupt, under the control of the global elite.

Utter shi-ite Bargey boy.

You think we have a crime for every type of corruption? That makes no sense.

Sometimes? It’s getting to the point where I have very much tired of his antics, and, more importantly, fear that my remaining regular commenters are getting tired of them too. See the part in my commenting policy about how “any commenting behavior that gets on Orac’s cybernetic nerves enough will run the risk of his taking some sort of action.”

https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/commenting-policy/

There are two other prolific commenters here who have reached that range as well.

Orac writes…

There are two other prolific commenters here who have reached that range as well.

I have a feeling that somewhere here I am being referenced, but let’s consider examples of some of Orac’s banishment rules in practice….

Harassment, hate speech, or threats of violence. Depending on the severity, these will almost always result in a permanent ban

Please note that Joel once threatened to beat me up and put me in the hospital; he wasn’t banned. In fact, after threatening me, he got Orac to ban me.

Excessive insults or nastiness. One more time, Orac is the final arbiter of what constitutes “excessive.”

Yes, and apparently the bar is set much lower for excessive insults and nastiness coming from the provaxxers here.

Repetitive misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories.

And, why hasn’t Orac banned himself?!

Comments that are nothing but grammar or spelling flames. These won’t get you banned unless you make a habit of them, but they will be deleted with extreme prejudice the moment Orac sees them.

One word: Aarno!

PS: No offense, and just making a point, Aarno. I have a feeling you’re the foremost immunology expert around here despite the language barrier.

Threadjacking. This is a behavior in which a commenter hijacks the comment thread to steer the discussion away from the topic at hand to an unrelated topic.

Yes, and Denice never periodically waltzes in with her ‘in other antivaxx news’ bit

All in all, Orac, must say your execution of the rules doesn’t leave a lot to be desired.

Guess what? I really don’t care if you approve of my comment policies or how I implement them. This blog has always been my hobby. If this blog ever ceases to be enjoyable for for me to keep publishing (and all good hobbies should be enjoyable—otherwise, why do them?), then it will end. Here’s a hint: I will not let trolls be the reason why this blog ceases to be enjoyable and ends.

If you don’t like how I run things, feel free to start your own blog or whine about how awful and hypocritical I supposedly am on Twitter or Instagram—or, more likely, Gab or Truth Social.

Greg that was hilarious. “Excessive insults or nastiness” — ha, Orac must have a very high tolerance for “excessive” when it comes to insults and nastiness. Can you imagine people talking to others in the way the regular commenters do here at a cocktail party or professional conference? Wouldn’t happen in civilized society.

Too bad Orac doesn’t feel the same about facts and evidence, since the 3 people in this comment section who don’t use insults or nastiness to make their points are tinkering on the edge of banishment.

@Greg I have never complained your spelling. I have claimed that your statements are wrong, and your answer is to repeat them. Not very good type of argument.

Sometimes corruption isn’t a crime.

Bargey, sometimes you make no sense at all.

It’s theoretically possible labarge was using corruption in the sense of a word being given a different meaning through consistent misuse. I doubt he knows of that meaning, but theoretically…

One of the most powerful indications of vaccine fraud is the fact that the CDC, FDA and ACIP haven’t publicly acknowledged or attempted to explain the massive unprecedented increase in deaths and serious injuries reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines.

So, you’ve still got nothing? Great. Help yourself to a breath mint on your way out.

“No one raising issues of potential vaccine danger has anything to prove”

Yes you do. Your own crappy theories are so full of gaping holes that only someone with an ego the size of a cow would be able to hand-wave them away. So, large ego, obsessive theory and a loud voice means a huge amount of personal validation is on the line. That’s why you guys move goal posts every time things get a little shaky.

You want to be right and you want to be a central part of WHY you are right.

Have you asked? Or do you expect them delivered to you, wrapped with a sparkly ribbon, on a silver salver? Surely a woman of your importance has been included in all of the internal meetings and analysis?

In other words, you don’t have any such analyses. Granted, I knew that before I asked, because there are none. It’s amazing how many people are just fine with that.

Why would I have any analyses? I don’t work for any of the organisations that might have them. I don’t keep a folder on my PC full of interesting studies to refute misinformed people on the internet, you aren’t really worth that serious an investment in time and you wouldn’t pay any attention to them anyway.

It’s your blindness to the holes in your logic that are morbidly fascinating. Like finding someone who still believes that the sun goes round the Earth.

Frankly, yes. They tried to force people to take this shit or lose their job. So yes I do expect transparency about the reactions and monitoring and all of it.

There is an analysis:
a) Reporting SAEs is a legal requirement under SAE
b) Mortality of children is 2% average mortality.

“No one raising issues of potential vaccine danger has anything to prove.”

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

I mean, seriously. An active enthusiastic NWO goosestepper like you honestly can’t think of a single reason why VAERS submissions might be increased RN for reasons entirely independent of the treatment itself? Where did you get your imagination from? Licked off a doorknob, like your awesome investigative skills?

Some men just want to watch the world burn. Whereas your Grand Old Party are gleefully burning it just so they can rule over the ashes. There is nothing and no-one they won’t target for destruction if its popular demonization aids them in that goal; and what could be a more convenient target for their maniac voters’ hatred and resentment than the dreadful social inconvenience of public health measures?

As a narcissist yourself, I know you understand—if not intellectually at a deep animal level—the unforgivably appalling insult to Self that is being told by anyone: “Don’t do that, it is bad for you and harmful to others.” And if you still need the full diagram drawn, stick a crayon up your ass and sit on it hard.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Exactly. That’s why those raising concerns about safety and efficacy don’t have to prove anything–because ‘safe and effective’ was asserted without evidence in the first place.

@NWO Cocksucker: “because ‘safe and effective’ was asserted without evidence in the first place”

P3 trials, shitwick. That’s their entire job: to field-test the treatment’s effectiveness and detect common AEs (around 1:10 to 1:10,000). Rare AEs (≤1:100,000) are detected via postmarket monitoring.

It is a profoundly sensible system that balances the cost of doing something against the cost of doing nothing at all, out here in the complicate messy real world where real people suffer and die from cruel disease every day, not the Mary-Sue universe you inhabit where everything and everyone behaves by your whim.

You know all this because you’ve been patiently told it multiple times by numerous people here. You deny it anyway because it contradicts your Truth, which is all you care about, because your Truth is You. You’re a narcissist, Ginny; a vampire parasite on humanity. An abuser knows an abuser, and I know you. So fuck you and die. The whole human race will be better off when your disease is extinct. Let us hope it is soon.

“It is a profoundly sensible system that balances the cost of doing something against the cost of doing nothing at all, out here in the complicate messy real world where real people suffer and die from cruel disease every day, not the Mary-Sue universe you inhabit where everything and everyone behaves by your whim. You know all this because you’ve been patiently told it multiple times by numerous people here.”

I’m sure I’ve never been told that before, here or anywhere else, and that Mary-Sue will verify that.

Why don’t you educate me by linking me to the top 2 studies you believe support the claims of safety and effectiveness for the COVID19 vaccines. How do they define “safe” and “effective”?

@NWO Breezeblock: “Why don’t you educate me by linking me to the top 2 studies you believe support the claims of safety and effectiveness for the COVID19 vaccines.”

No. No, I’m not playing your stupid game. I am not going to link P3 trial results and declare them valid, because I am not competent to make that assessment and neither are you. By pretending a level of competence which I know I don’t have, I would justify you in pretending yours.

So, what then do I know? Well, I know I can make some reasonable inferences. I can assume that the COVID vaccine trials and postmarket monitoring were run within an incredibly well tested, proven, mature framework—the same procedures and systems already used to test every other pharmaceutical product to ensure it is sufficiently safe and effective to be cleared for market.

I can infer that just because the testing and approval process was accelerated due to urgent need, that does not imply that corners were cut; quality can be maintained by investing exre money instead. I can also infer that is the most likely explanation, since 1. the pharma companies stand to make good money by getting their COVID products to market as quickly as possible, so can afford to spend money to make money, and 2. the whole world and every epidemologist on it is watching them like hawks, so the chances of them successfully pulling a grift or covering up seriously flawed results is pretty near zero. And while laws can make it difficult to prosecute company directors for company malfeasance, it is not impossible; and so I can infer that while pharma directors can be venal they are not completely stupid and will behave themselves under this global microscope, not least out of fear of public lynching.

I can also reasonably infer that in addition to the world’s governmental and NGO regulators and monitors, and every professional epidemologist alive, informed skeptical observers and critics like Dr Gorski would go thermonuclear if there was gross malfeasance occurring at the level you claim. It would be impossible to cover it up; far too many eyes, domestic and foreign, watching. And the fact that only you see it when they all don’t says that Occam’s Razor if by far the most likely solution.

I don’t work on personal expertise or personal belief. I work on personal trust, which I give sparingly and provisionally. Reading Dr G over the years, he has earned that trust; thus people he says are legit I will extend that trust to too. And as I read them I’ll crosscheck—I might not understand all their science speak, but I can infer from how they present themselves if they are on the level. And I’m a pretty fair detector of toxic people, being pretty fair toxic myself, so if any of them give me a bad vibe then I will revisit my previous assessment.

So either the people who say the COVID vaccine trials are valid really excellent con[wo]men all operating perfectly in unison for common cause (as if grifters won’t stab each other up to get ahead themselves), or they are on the level. Not perfect or infallible people, but educated and basically decent, and all checking each other’s homework. A web of trust that says, while I can never be 100% certain they are all legitimate and always correct, I can be 99.99% certain that any errors or fakes would be called out amongst themselves, so eventually any serious problems that do arise will self-correct. Which is, how science works.

However, before I permanently apply Occam’s Razor, let me cut a bitch.

I know you’re full of shit. You proudly present it. You invalidated yourself the moment you stated that you knew VAERS AE reports couldn’t be taken as valid, but went ahead and did it anyway to get a conclusion you want. Up to that point it was a tossup between honest amateur incompetence and willful calculated malice, and I was willing to accept either; you answered the question for me, and in doing so proved you didn’t give a shit about scientific processes or evidence, only about reinforcing and broadcasting what you already choose to believe. I also know you associate with other shits just like you, supporting and rebroadcasting them as well.

Now, if you all declared that your position is a fundamentally religious one, I’d have some respect for that. It wouldn’t make your claims any more correct, but it would show you are at least consistent and honest about the true nature of what you and your claims are.

But you don’t. You declare that you’re doing the real science, and it’s all the other science that contradicts you that is fake and wrong. But look, while I might not have the expertise to detect expertly hidden (yet somehow still gross) fraud in the legit science, I can see the fraud in yours—hell a blind man can—and I can infer the likely explanations for performing that fraud.

I mean, who’d benefit from large-scale pharma fraud covering up wildly dangerous vaccines? Lawyers and hangmen; that’s about it. Now, who benefits from large-scale antivax fraud? You, that’s who. Your ego, your wallet; your whole personal army. Same for Wakefield, Bigtree, Kirsch, et al. Your motivations are hanging out in the open for all to see, and the only people who choose not to see them are doing so for reasons that are obvious as well. Your behavior fits with Cluster B categorizations and into the Abuser category of the Abuser-Enabler-Victim trifecta. Whether or not you genuinely don’t see it yourself just tells me if you’re leaning toward narcissist or psychopath, but both treat other people just the same: as chattel resources to be exploited for your own personal profit and pleasure.

And that is why at this point, there is nothing you can say, no antivax propaganda you can criticize, no fellow antivaxxer you can denounce, that will disrupt the web of trust I have built for all of you: a web whose members I absolutely trust to serve their own self-interest, and will injure and kill others to do so with zero hesitation, zero compassion, zero guilt. You are transparent as glass, and I am 99.99% confident I can trust you to be you: a poisonous evil ahuman bitch.

So fuck your theatrics, Ginny Stoner, NWO Reporter, you fascist-champion cunt. The only good you will ever do this world and all the real humans in it is when you are dead and buried in the ground, as utterly forgotten as you are rotted now. And that goes for the rest of the toxic intellectual chubs reeking in here too. May you all die in a fire before you ever treat others as firewood.

I may have a venomous black heart, but at least I have one. /out

TRDR — Too Rude Didn’t Read. I made up that acronym just for you.

I pity the poor store clerk who doesn’t work fast enough for you, and when it’s finally your turn to check out, she’s greeted with “About time, Cocksucker.”

@Ginny Stoner.

As you keep asking for studies in support, no ones going to waste time on that for you, because you won’t understand them, won’t even read them so what’s the point….zilch, it’s all lost on you

The following website

sorryantivaxxer.com

Features antivaxxers who died because of their stupidly in listening to the likes of Ginny Stoned. All lifted from very own social media posts. Maybe Ginny stoned will feature there on day. Darwin at work there. Each time an AVXR dies, a superspreader is taken out of the gene pool. Ginny ought to be ashamed of her self, she’s far more deadly than the vaccines.

Vaccination doesn’t prevent and barely slows any spread. Your comment is ignorant.

TRDR — Too Rude Didn’t Read. I made up that acronym just for you.

Cue the Black Knight.

@Ginny Stoner I suggest that you do a Google Scholar (or Pubmed) search with COVID vaccine safety and pick two by yourself.
I liked this one:
Hause AM, Baggs J, Marquez P, Myers TR, Gee J, Su JR, Zhang B, Thompson D, Shimabukuro TT, Shay DK. COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Children Aged 5-11 Years – United States, November 3-December 19, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Dec 31;70(5152):1755-1760. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm705152a1. PMID: 34968370; PMCID: PMC8736274.
It is even based on VAERS data.

I think that we all already knew that you don’t feel that you have anything to prove. Your previous posts have already shown that in ‘detail’…

But, if you truly believed that – why did you spend all that time trying to convince us that you had actually proved your hypothesis?

One good thing about her blog is that hardly anyone reads it except for sceptics like us purely to scoff**

BUT other BS laden crocks of balderdash actually are read/ heard by large numbers of followers..
–RFK jr has reach ( see number of followers on CHD/ RFK twittesr/ CHD donations)-
they are pleased to note that Joe Rogan has read his Fauci confabulations/ book and that the latter’s shitload of followers may follow suit ( see CHD)
You can learn a lot about a person by the type of people who accept them ( see comment section following the post)
— Mike Adams claims he has millions of thralls as does Null- probably great exaggerations BUT
these dudes earn real money, live on estates/ ranches have warehouses/ tech and legal teams/ too much money
— Wakefield’s new registered “charity”, the Crystal Clear Film Foundation, shows close to 500K USD for the year
— Del has many followers and money via ICAN ( easy to find)

** Tucker Carlson’s huge audience includes about 40% of progressives who are probably hate watching

Oh yes, perfect, Denice Walter–remind everyone of the designated ‘alternative’ sources they should be paying attention to. Lol–so predictable.

You like plugging you blog don’t you. It’s all a cover up because you say so on your blog.

Ginny Stoner, or is that Stoned. You have to be, or else synaptic responses diminish to the point where you eventually falllll aaassslllllleeeeeeeppppppp. Snore.

It seemed like your first question to me was in good faith, and I answered it that way. But instead of engaging in more civil discussion, you start a string of playground insults against me.

Guess you figured out the true facts are never on your side, so ridicule and defamation is all you have. They should have covered that in training.

Ginny babe. Ahh, didums. 😉

To be honest, the only thing left when someone is entrenched is to take the piss. It’s all you are worth.

My questions to you were a trap, hence your answers.

Have a nice day, get painting.

Can you, at least answer these points:
a) under EUA, reporting SAEs is legally mandated
b) Mortality of children is ,only 2% of average mortality.
So, increase is fully expected.
You are an example of antivaxxer dishonesty and cowardice.

“One of the most powerful indications of vaccine fraud is the fact that the CDC, FDA and ACIP haven’t publicly acknowledged or attempted to explain the massive unprecedented increase in deaths and serious injuries reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines.”

Maybe that’s because there is no real increase in serious AEs?

doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.15072

Again, I ask our anti-vaxxer/paranoid conspiracy theorists why they think they know more than real scientists? Please answer.

Your cite doesn’t say what you claim it does.

“Conclusions and relevance: In interim analyses of surveillance of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, incidence of selected serious outcomes was not significantly higher 1 to 21 days postvaccination compared with 22 to 42 days postvaccination…”

You said: “Maybe that’s because there is no real increase in serious AEs?” It’s a ridiculous question, if it wasn’t intended to deceive.

Well, the anti-vaxxers/ woo-spreaders I survey think that they are superior to regular scientists and other professionals in oh, so many ways:
— they can see into the deepest, darkest secrets of the universe and have insight in the arcane workings of society including how others think, behave, interact and live
— they are not susceptible to propaganda and brain washing because of their astute reasoning, intelligence and sensitivity
— and usually, they claim superior morality as well as superior skills in many areas

You’ll notice how they often scoff at professionals/ experts like Orac, sceptics, well known scientists, commenters as inferior to them in all ways HOWEVER, I venture that this is a great, big PHAIL! As their person perception skills and self- evaluations are quite abysmal. People usually develop these skills in adolescence although not everyone gets that far thus, they may sound rather childish. And, OBVIOUSLY, their knowledge of the subject matter being discussed is poor so they are easy to trip up.

My guess is that they may have once aspired to scientific/ medical careers and didn’t get far so they have it in for people who did succeed. Orac is their worst nightmare.
I used to catalogue one of these loons’ faux pas which were often hilarious.

“…trolls and algorithms are particularly toxic, because their methods focus heavily on public humiliation and degradation of anyone who challenges the vaccine status quo. The public follows their lead on ‘appropriate’ behavior, which in this case is extremely divisive and unproductive.

“This is actually the best and only course of action available to vaccine industry trolls—they cannot engage in a civil, rational debate about the evidence, because the objective weight of the evidence is never on their side…”

https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2022/6/9/you-might-be-brainwashed-if

“Well, the anti-vaxxers/ woo-spreaders I survey think that they are superior to regular scientists and other professionals in oh, so many ways:”

I’m not saying it’s the n-word, but it’s the n-word.

Well, okay, they’re not all narcs. Some of them are psychopaths knowing scamming the neurotics and narcs. However, the odd paranoid schizophrenic aside, there is very little about these “influencers” that cannot be sufficiently explained by a Cluster B diagnosis.

I am legit surprised there isn’t a ton of published research on the psychopathology of antivax and altmed grift. Ought to be worth several good postgrad theses at the very least. They might only constitute a few percent of humanity but the damage they do to society is grossly disproportionate. Just ask the orange fuhrer and his foaming army of extremists, or the neo-Stalin now engineering genocide and mass starvation over in Ukraine.

@ has:

Research into anti-vax and CT believer psychology of personality has been progressing.
Two standouts are Hornsey (AUS) and K. Douglas ( UK)- there is also a Dutch guy. Others look at specific things like whether anti-vaxxers overestimate negative outcomes compared to average people ( they do).

Much of what I’ve seen reveals narcissism and paranoid style although not specific dxs. They focus more upon what affects them personally rather than society in general ( obviously) and they reject hierarchies of expertise – thus any anti-vax mother knows more about vaccine research/ autism than people who have doctorates in relevant fields ( we see that all of the time).

So how do we counteract their BS factory? Providing real world data doesn’t seem to do much as they can twist and obfuscate that so easily. Rather, we should concentrate upon their audience who are not necessarily so compromised. I like to show how they are:
— wrong in so many other basic things unrelated to the topic – it means that they haven’t learned / understood basic stuff and have problems with learning compared to average people including their audiences.
— I also show how they benefit monetarily/ via publicity from their activities : these scammers usually accuse SBM of being greedy and money hungry. I like to guide readers to their lifestyle- estates, raaaaanches, large net worths.

@Ginny Stoner You not know much anything do, do you ?
Serious side effects caused by vaccination are obviously more probably just after vaccination than weeks after it,

Oh my, I just took a look at your stupid blog, it’s hilarious.

You’re clearly not a scientist, despite having a little education in sociology and psychology. You are a lot crazy, though, and I hope your bar association reads your blog before ever relicensing you.

Seriously, you think VAERS reports are “underreported”. You have no real evidence of that except what the site says, but you think that the underreporting is ALL AEs, which is NOT what the VAERS page says, at all.

You also think everyone else is brainwashed, and that’s why they don’t agree with you. You’re paranoid and a bit delusional.

You’re clearly homophobic, as you failed to accurately portray transpeople. “Gender reassignment is used as a treatment for gender dysphoria—a psychological disorder where someone’s perception of their gender doesn’t match their biological gender. ”

This is a lie. Gender dysphoria is NOT the only reason for gender reassignment. Gender dysphoria USED to be the catch all, and most transpersons are NOT suffering from a psychological disorder. It’s likely that you already know this, but use it anyway. (doi: 10.3109/09540261.2015.1091293)

Overall I’d rate you as an incredibly horrible person that shouldn’t have access to the internet.

Her NWOReporter gives an interesting insight to her psyche, does she think the earth is flat?

I am very familiar with flat earthers, they display similar traits, especially the ‘everyone is brainwashed except me’ along with a complete lack of understanding of science.

It’s also noteworthy that all flat earthers are covid deniers and anti vaxxers.

How exactly do you get to the conclusion that you have nothing to prove?

I believe that every person that makes a statement, has the obligation to provide support for that statement (But only if they want to be taken seriously).

I do a lot of writing and I always provide evidence to support what I’m saying–or I tell people it is speculation. So do other people with integrity who write on this subject.

My point was, safety and effectiveness of these products has not been proven. That’s the hypocrisy of what you said.

What do you care if someone proposes something based purely on speculation? You can see for yourself the quality of the evidence or arguments.

Why don’t you help, and link me to the 2 studies you think are key in the question of safety and effectiveness of the COVID19 vaccines. How did they define “safe” and “effective”?

I always provide evidence to support what I’m saying

No you don’t. You make a statement that is asinine on the face of things, and “support” it by making another equally asinine statement.

Your lack of knowledge of statistics is rivaled only by the equally ignorant Greg and John labarge (and the other scummy anti-science loons). Judging from the comments from the medical people here your lack of knowledge of biology and the workings of vaccines is just as massive.

I’m incredibly impressed by the length and breadth of your expertise in insults. It’s no wonder a master of ridicule like you doesn’t bother with debating actual facts and evidence.

Ginny you’ve never presented facts (your comments about the numbers of deaths and injuries due to the vaccine are pure bullshit).

All in all I’d say you’ve been getting far more respect than a serial liar like you deserves.

This is funny–but not the first hilarity of it’s kind I’ve seen.

“Interpretation: Safety data from more than 298 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered in the first 6 months of the US vaccination programme show that most reported adverse events were mild and short in duration.”

Question: Who cares if there were more sore arms than deaths? Is a vaccine safe because there were more slight fevers than heart attacks?

I’ll add this one to my list of studies that looked at VAERS data, but failed to put the numbers in historical context. They didn’t forget due to incompetency–they deliberately didn’t do it, because telling people that more deaths and serious injuries have been reported to VAERS from the covid shots in the last 19 months than from all other vaccines combined for the last 31 years, tends to make people not want to take it.

Actually you cite one book, and just repeat your claim challenges you. Not very scientific

Greetings, RI Regulars! I’m baaacckkk! Orac, please fix the ‘Bieber’ thread, my comments are not getting through. Please and thank you!

Crap! I’ll post here.

Greetings, RI Regulars! I have returned from a fantastic weekend in Ottawa of peaceful, Freedom Fighters’ protests. Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!

Checking my inbox, I see have a message from Aarno. Wait! Has Aarno decided to cease his posing? Let’s see what he wrote…..

Have you not read may answers ? Fohse et al said TLR2 is upregulated. TLR2 and TLR9 start defense against DNA viruses, so defense against monkeypox (a DNA virus) or varizella zoster virus (another DNA virus) is not affected.

(Greg with sad face) Sigh! The posing continues.

Aarno, let’s go over Fohse et al….

Besides their effects on specific (adaptive) immune memory, certain vaccines such as Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine also induce long-term functional reprogramming of cells of the innate immune system. (Netea et al., 2020). This biological process is also termed trained immunity when it involves increased responsiveness, or innate immune tolerance when it is characterized by decreased cytokine production (Ifrim et al., 2014). Although these effects have been proven mainly for live attenuated vaccines, we sought to investigate whether the BNT162b2 vaccine might also induce effects on innate immune responses against different viral, bacterial and fungal stimuli. One of the trademarks of trained immunity is an elevated production of inflammatory cytokines following a secondary insult (Quintin et al., 2012). Surprisingly, the production of the monocyte-derived cytokines TNF-α, IL-1β and IL-1Ra tended to be lower after stimulation of PBMCs from vaccinated individuals with either the standard SARS-CoV-2 strain or heterologous Toll-like receptor ligands (Figures 1 and 2). TNF-α production (Figure 1B-1G) following stimulation with the TLR7/8 agonist R848 of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from volunteers was significantly decreased after the second vaccination (Figure 1C). The same trend was observed after stimulation with the TLR3 agonist poly I:C (Figure 1D), although the difference did not reach statistical significance. In contrast, the responses to the fungal pathogen Candida albicans were higher after the first dose of the vaccine (Figure 1G). The impact of the vaccination on IL-1β production was more limited (Figure 2A-2F), though the response to C. albicans was significantly increased (Figure 2F). The production of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-1Ra (Figure 2G-2L) was reduced in response to bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and C. albicans after the second vaccination (Figure 2K, 2L), which is another argument for a shift towards stronger inflammatory responses to fungal stimuli after vaccination. IL-6 responses were similarly decreased, though less pronounced (data not shown).

Summarizing Fohshe et al, they found diminished interferons for vacinees after stimulation with the standard SARS-COV-2 strains. This pointed to a general suppression of TLRs. Testing specifically with TLR 7/8 agonist R848 and the TLR3 agonist poly 1:C also yielded a diminished response and suggesting those TLRs were suppressed or down-regulated.

Testing with C. albicans fungus pathogen yielded an increased cytokines response. Fohse et al did not suggest that this pointed to an upregulation of TLR2; it was me that suggested it after learning that TLR2 is the main spotter for funguses. This article is saying as much…

https://www.jimmunol.org/content/172/6/3712#:~:text=Toll%2Dlike%20receptor%20(TLR),of%20TLR2%E2%88%92%2F%E2%88%92%20macrophages.

Aarno, you are saying TLR2 also spots DNA viruses? Fair enough, but note that Fohse et al did not address TLR9 which appears to be the main target TLR for DNA viruses. Testing for this would have have involved CpG ODNs – TLR9 agonist.

Considering the general diminished interferons response, it points to,overall, TLRs being suppressed or down-regulated. As a betting man, I would wager money that TLR9 was also down-regulated. Was it, Aarno? Better yet, for once, why don’t you stop taking inspirations from vintage Madonna and stop posing and tell me all the TLRs that were down and up-regulated. Again, Aarno, you made the claim.

By

Freedom! Freedom! Freedom

Greg means, of course

Fascism! Dishonesty1 Bigotry! Desire to commit crime without repercussions

What a disgusting vile person.

“What a disgusting vile person.”

It’s a narcissist, tweaking for attention. A genuine real-life untermench, as it lacks the critical thing that makes you human: empathy.

Love or hate; it doesn’t care which you give it. All it cares is that you feed it that lovely, lovely attention; and it will say whatever outrageous, manipulative, abusive thing generates the most. A compulsive master baiter.

A narcissist fears only two things: public embarrassment or being utterly ignored. You want to have an impact on that swollen scrotum that doesn’t make it bloat even more, pick one and stick at it. Otherwise you just give it what it wants, reinforcing its behavior.

A narcissist fears only two things: public embarrassment or being utterly ignored

Has, maybe public embarrassment. So, are you implicitly conceding you guys haven’t succeeded at that here?

‘Being utterly ignored’ is also a maybe. Let’s face it though, that won’t happen here; I am too damn powerful and irresistible! Look how for years you”ve been telling folks to ignore me, and they just end up ignoring you.

Tell you what, Has, I’ll make you guys a deal: you get Aarno to follow-up on his claim of which TLRs were up and down-regulated and I will graciously leave this blog forever. Orac won’t have to ban me for the 5th time; or, the sixth?! (Orac, can you please contact Management about getting someone in IT to fix this blog so it keeps a tally of how many times someone has been banned!).

Anyway, Has, this ‘narcissist’ has agreed to lay down at the altar for you guys to slay me. Aarno answers the question and I am gone. Am I not being extremely fair?!

I have returned from a fantastic weekend in Ottawa of peaceful, Freedom Fighters’ protests. Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!

So you’re one of those assholes. I didn’t think my opinion of you could get below rock bottom, but here we are.

Virus proteins (they form virion a.k.a virus particle)
Leoni V, Gianni T, Salvioli S, Campadelli-Fiume G. Herpes simplex virus glycoproteins gH/gL and gB bind Toll-like receptor 2, and soluble gH/gL is sufficient to activate NF-κB. J Virol. 2012 Jun;86(12):6555-62. doi: 10.1128/JVI.00295-12. Epub 2012 Apr 11. PMID: 22496225; PMCID: PMC3393584.

For the answer to (a), again, visit this link and read the section entitled “Deaths involving COVID19” under the heading “Reporting to VAERS is ‘required’?” https://www.virginiastoner.com/cvax-risk.

As for (b), you are claiming that only 2% of the children who would ordinarily die, died after COVID19 vaccination? So it saves 98% of lives–from what? Are you claiming 98% of children would have died ‘with COVID19″ without the shot? Cite please.

Once again, Ginny, you’re NOT a scientist and you aren’t remotely anything close to a scientist. You don’t know what you’re doing.

Sophistry. I see. So tell me, muster know it all, if you had a complicated, electronic system break down on your Learjet, would you go get some guy off the street with Google or a person who was specially trained for that system? They trained person was trained by (the horror!) other experts in a place with (the horror!) books and walks and lawns. He or she had to go earn EARN E-A-R-N (get it now?) that knowledge from folks who already had it.

He or she had to be told when his or her thinking was wrong and, critically, be accepting thereof to (the horror!) become an expert himself or herself. Otherwise, your complex system doesn’t get fixed. The worst doctors I know are the ones who clearly refused to abandon their egos in training. They’re incompetent, they push pills, they sell supplements and garbage, they are in business rather than healers. Had you survived some type of training program you would have joined their ranks.

Back to the jet- Ginny would be waving crystals at it and Greg would be telling the expert he or she is wrong and it’s actually the snozzleflugler-tlr2 that’s broken because “He knows better.”

Was it Carl Lewis who said: “Everyone wants to be a bodybuilder but no one wants to lift some heavy-ass weights.” Do yourselves a favor. Go get a REAL education or stop waxing intellectual on matters that you have no real understanding of. Go lift the weights and come back.

Go get a REAL education or stop waxing intellectual on matters that you have no real understanding of.

JLB’s gruntlike entries strike me as being more on the “waning intellectual” side.

a) Reporting SAEs is legally required under EUA. Reporting rules changed, so did the numbers
b) Child mortality is 2% of average mortality. So one would expect 50 times more death reports when average population is vaccinated instead of children,
Otherwise, you should repeat your agruments here. No one would like to boost your web stats.

Surprisingly, the production of the monocyte-derived cytokines TNF-α, IL-1β and IL-1Ra tended to be lower after stimulation of PBMCs from vaccinated individuals with either the standard SARS-CoV-2 strain

Reflect on that line from Fohse et al! I am really starting to think Bossche got it wrong. Innate immunity is compromised by Covid vaccination not because Spike vaccine antibodies are out-competing TLRS, but because TLRs are suppressed or down-regulated.

This point is significant because it may account for Bieber’s condition, monkeypox, Covid reinfections and Covid vacinees better outcomes against severe sickness. With suppressed TLRs people are at risk for all infections. Paradoxically, lower TLRs may also mitigate severe disease by inhibiting a hyper-vigilant innate response.

It is often said that vaccination work by stimulating the immune system; mRNA vaccination may actually work by inhibiting it, and notwithstanding talk of the influence of t-cells.

Go away, uneducated troll. You don’t know the first thing about science or immunology. You need to figure that out. Until you figure it out, you’re just a pathetic anti-vax troll that needs to be banned for your homophobia.

Quoting myself…

Reflect on that line from Fohse et al! I am really starting to think Bossche got it wrong. Innate immunity is compromised by Covid vaccination not because Spike vaccine antibodies are out-competing TLRS, but because TLRs are suppressed or down-regulated.

Bossche’s argues that mass vaccination during a pandemic with non-sterilizing vaccines will lead to escape variants. As an ‘antivaxxer’, I love Bossche for preaching that Covid vaccination will send us all to hell, and maybe it’s just academic that he might’ve gotten the non- sterilizing details wrong.

Still, in fairness I have to hold the error against him. There is something plain sneaky about him, after the fact, updating his theories with non-bindings antibodies when his prediction about Omicron did not pan out.

https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/like-a-virgin-untouched-forever

maybe it’s just academic that he might’ve gotten the non- sterilizing details wrong.

Or, maybe it isn’t. If innate immunity is impaired by Spike vaccine antibodies out competing PRRs such as TLRs then the simply fix is to stop vaccination. If it’s permanently impaired by the programmed suppression of TLRs, however, then there is no simply fix to be found. We will then have to rely on adaptive immunity and keep vaccinating.

Bossche is shocked and outraged that the vaccine pushers are doubling down on Omicron boosters? Perhaps he is simply not appreciating that we don’t have a choice. Of course the ‘we’ being vaccinees.

@Greg As I have said any number of times TLR2 (one recognising fungi) is upregulated.
TLR2 recognises RNA virus porteins, too. RNA recognition goes down and virus protein recognition up.

You still not get this one:
“The response of innate immune cells to TLR4 and TLR7/8 ligands was lower after BNT162b2 vaccination, while fungi-induced cytokine responses were stronger”
Fungi induced means TLR2
As I have said before, TLR2 responses to viral proteins,

You still not get this one:
“The response of innate immune cells to TLR4 and TLR7/8 ligands was lower after BNT162b2 vaccination, while fungi-induced cytokine responses were stronger”
Fungi induced means TLR2
As I have said before, TLR2 responses to viral proteins,

So, Aarno, after blowing up your insinuation about TLR9, you are back to hyping TLR2? Well, from the article below, it doesn’t sound like an up-regulated TLR2 will compensate for a down-regulated TLR9.

We are done with you for now, Aarno. I have learned enough from your posing.

5.3. TLR9
TLR9 was the first identified DNA sensor. It is localized in endosomes in a variety of cells including plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs), B cells, neutrophils, monocytes, and some non-immune cells [200,201]. TLR9 undergoes proteolytic cleavage of its ectodomain to recognize unmethylated cytosine–guanosine (CpG)-rich DNA derived from bacteria or viral genomic dsDNA [200,202,203,204].

As the primary DNA-sensing TLR, TLR9 has been implicated in the response to multiple poxvirus infections. For example, TLR9 depletion dramatically decreased mouse survival after ECTV infection, which required TLR9 expression in DCs [26]. TLR9 depletion in these mice abolished ECTV-induced DC maturation and IFNα production, highlighting the important role of TLR9 when controlling ECTV infection [26]. In this ECTV model, the TLR9-MyD88-IRF7 pathway was essential for proinflammatory cytokine expression in CD11c+ cells and for the recruitment of inflammatory monocytes to the draining lymph node [142].

In response to MVA infection, TLR9-deficient or MyD88-deficient murine cDCs showed decreased production of IFNα and IFNβ compared to wild type cDCs [145]. TLR9 has also been implicated in the host response to fowlpox virus and MYXV through the above-described MyD88 signal transduction cascade [205,206].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8301327/

Back in October 2021, I gave a lecture here on the ‘Ecological Fallacy’ thread on mRNA restrictive antibodies. JT opined with this. Now I am starting to appreciate the rebuttal even more.

Greg: Which specific cells of the innate immune system? Which, specific antigen presenting cells? What is the receptor? What is the co-stimulation signal? Which specific cells of the adaptive immune system? Which trafficking and homing signals are activated? Which ones are downregulated?

And where is your evidence that antigen spread is not taking place? Where are the papers?

@Greg TRL9 recognises DNA viruses. So COVID vaccines does not affect it:
The response of innate immune cells to TLR4 and TLR7/8 ligands was lower after BNT162b2 vaccination, while fungi-induced cytokine responses were stronger
Quite natural

Writer forgot that TLR2 is upregulated. (Their citation does mention it, but Fohse does.)
TLR2 recognises viral proteins

TLR9 does recognise RNA. So it ie not relevant to DNA viruses This was extent of my hyping.
TRL2 is relevant to SARS CoV2 virus:
Khan S, Shafiei MS, Longoria C, Schoggins JW, Savani RC, Zaki H. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein induces inflammation via TLR2-dependent activation of the NF-κB pathway. Elife. 2021 Dec 6;10:e68563. doi: 10.7554/eLife.68563. PMID: 34866574; PMCID: PMC8709575.
Actually, spike protein is involved.

Aarno, at this point I think you’re just helping this sociopath refine his lunacy so that it passes muster for less sophisticated distribution elsewhere.

@ Ginny Stoner

I actually found explanations for the increase in VAERS reporting:

“the huge number of VAERS reports following COVID-19 vaccination and relative paucity for other vaccines is likely mostly due to a reporting bias. For one, because the COVID-19 vaccines are or were at first authorized under an emergency use authorization, there are much broader reporting requirements for health care providers.

For the COVID-19 vaccines, health care providers are required by law to report any vaccine administration error; any serious adverse event following vaccination, regardless of the suspected cause; any case of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome; and any COVID-19 case that results in hospitalization or death.

In contrast, with all other vaccines, providers are only required to report select adverse events, including the so-called reportable events for each vaccine that occur within a certain time period after vaccination [my emphasis] [McDonald J (2021) Increase in COVID-19 VAERS Reports Due To Reporting Requirements, Intense Scrutiny of Widely Given Vaccines. http://www.factcheck.org].” Note. I found similar explanations of numerous other posts, including major newspapers.

Keep in mind that antivax websites have proliferated over the past two decades and encourage reporting to VAERS and that Trump’s conflicting messages concerning COVID and calling development of vaccine Operation Warpspeed heightened peoples focus.

And I explained in previous exchanges the flaw in interpreting a VAERS report as anything more than a suspicion and also explained why the mRNA covid vaccines are NOT experimental vaccines:

“VAERS

Just because someone believes they were injured by a vaccine doesn’t make it so. Same problem with VAERS. I realize that you refuse to even consider/understand the Logical Fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, that is assuming that something follows something else was caused by it. As I’ve written several times, on average 2,300 Americans have a heart attack every day. So, if someone gets a vaccine and a couple days later has a heart attack, could be the vaccine and could be, quite simply, they would have had the heart attack without the vaccine. The CDC has teams who investigate every VAERS reported serious adverse events and, of course, a heart attack would be one. They get hold of the person’s medical records, including autopsies. So, for instance, they find out he/she was scheduled for bypass surgery because of over 90% stenosis of major coronary arteries and had had a previous heart attack, maybe quite obese and a smoker. They also look at per capita heart attacks prior to introduction of vaccine. And they also look at the Vaccine Safety Datalink, an almost real-time link to around 12 million Americans. And we have credible information that anti-vax websites are encouraging people to post on VAERS, even lying, though they don’t openly say so. Since one can post anonymously, basically, people can post whatever they want.
Just a simple make-believe analogy. Imagine that due to a shortage of breakfast cereals, only one was available for a month or so, say, Cheerios (I eat Cheerios regularly). Now imagine following massive increases in sales of Cheerios, reports came in to VAERS of heart attacks since they followed person’s change of diet. Would someone now believe Cheerios increases risk of heart attacks?
Another analogy, imagine a crime where the police bring in 20 people for questioning. Someone with your “mentality” would automatically assume most, if not all, were guilty. Or, if you were on a jury, you would assume guilt and ignore the defense. And, though an anecdote, years ago an Australian woman was found guilty of murdering her child. No evidence she was a bad mother; but she showed no emotion when testifying. She and husband were camping in a tent when they woke up to find baby gone. She showed no emotion simply because she belonged to a fundamentalist sect which believe Jesus decides everything, so, though she loved her baby, she was serene knowing Jesus had taken it. Well, several years later someone came across a pile of bones from wild dogs and among them were those of a human baby and the site was only a short distance from where the woman had camped. Finally, she was released. The point is people like you don’t really listen to the evidence but focus on some things, either totally irrelevant or biased. I can find on the internet cites blaming everything on Jews, cites pushing QAnon, racists websites, some with well-written papers, based on cherry-picking of data and even twisting/distorting.
And, I have NEVER denied that vaccines can have serious adverse reactions, only that compared to their benefits, such reactions are rare.
Just one example. Smallpox came in waves, endemic; but then explosive epidemic. During an epidemic in Europe killed a minimum of 25 – 30% of population. We also know that the vaccine killed between 1 and 2 per million vaccinated. Just for simplicity, lets assume major epidemic every 10 years, and use lower stats of deaths and higher of vaccine-associated deaths, so, in 10 years vaccine would kill 20 people and save 250,000 people and a MORON like you would focus on the 20, also ignoring possibility that some of them, if not vaccinated, would have died from the actual virus. While COVID not as deadly by far as smallpox, counting deaths, hospitalizations, long covid, the actually reported and verified serious adverse events and a few deaths far outweighed by the deaths, hospitalizations, and long covid prevented. But, you, in your infinite wisdom based on cherry-picking web searches, ignore the science and by now overwhelming data on the effectiveness of the vaccine (not perfect) and the minuscule numbers of serious adverse events just keep making a fool of yourself.”

“mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines
Experimental/Rushed?

I did a search of PubMed, National Library of Medicine’s online database for mRNA, mRNA vaccines, and Spike protein. My search was before 2020 to ensure any possibility of papers on current COVID-19 pandemic not included:

For mRNA, going back to 1960s when first discovered = 658,015 results
For mRNA vaccines = 83 results
For Spike Protein = 16,359 results

So, prior to Pandemic we knew a hell of a lot about mRNA and Spike Protein and some research on mRNA vaccines. In fact, vaccines had already been developed, but once developed the pandemics of SARS and MERS died out, so impossible to conduct phase 3:

Kirtikumar C. Badgujar et al. (2020 Sep). Vaccine development against coronavirus (2003 to present) – An overview, recent advances, current scenario, opportunities and challenges. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Review; ; 14(5): 1361–1376.

Yen‑Der Li et al. (2020 Dec 20). Coronavirus vaccine development: from SARS and MERS to COVID-19. Journal of Biomedical Science; 27(1): 104.

So, warped speed? FDA approval requires four steps: animal studies, phase 1 (testing various doses for adverse events), phase 2 (based on phase 1, smaller range of doses for immune response and adverse events), phase 3 large placebo-controlled double-blinded randomized trials. Normally each phase is completed, written up, and submitted to FDA. In turn, FDA takes its time, approves, then next phase. Under warped speed, Moderna and Pfizer ran animal studies, phase 1, and phase 2 overlapping, began phase 3 before FDA approved first three. So, the risk was ONLY to those who volunteered for the Phase 3 clinical trial. I was one of them. The FDA gave Emergency Usage Authorization after they had reviewed first three phase and Phase 3 had a minimum of two-months follow-up for each and every volunteer after the 2nd shot. And these studies were published in peer-reviewed journal, New England Journal of Medicine, the Moderna vaccine trial had 30,420 volunteers (Baden, 2020) and the Pfizer vaccine trial had 43,548 participants (Polack, 2020):

L.R. Baden et al. (2020 Dec 30). [Moderna] Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine.

Fernando P. Polack et al. (2020 Dec 31). [Pfizer] Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine

Everything we know about immune system, vaccines, etc. clearly finds that if a serious adverse events is going to occur, it will be within a few weeks of vaccination, so two months follow-up quite adequate. However, I won’t completely reject the possibility of some extremely rare serious adverse event; but compared to the literally millions of lives saved, millions of hospitalizations prevented, etc. sad, if happens; but no one in their right mind would sacrifices millions for, perhaps, a dozen or two dozen. And the few serious adverse events so far from COVID vaccines; e.g., myocarditis, have almost all resolved with no long-term problems and keep in mind that the actual virus causes the same in much much large numbers.

Finally, Orac, comments by me and others have clearly explained that VAERS reports are “suspected vaccine-caused adverse events”. Together with Vaccine-Safety Datalink and teams investigating serious adverse events reported to VAERS, in essence, only a minuscule number of serious adverse events were caused by the two mRNA vaccines and a mass of peer-reviewed journal articles, reports from FDA, CDC, WHO, and numerous other nations health authorities have found the two to be highly effective with minuscule risk of serious adverse events, data now having followed the two vaccines for well over a year.

Just to be clear, I repeat, mRNA Covid-19 vaccines are NOT experimental since they have gone through ALL required FDA phases. And, I won’t bother giving references; but valid studies have found the current vaccines to confer a significant level of cross-immunity, including to Omicron.

And if I were required to get a booster every 3 – 6 months, so what? Better than the disease. In fact, I was hoping an Omicron booster would be out by end of March.”

What you found are not “explanations” for the massive increase in VAERS reports–you’ve found “hypotheses.” I’ve heard several hypotheses–I just haven’t seen any evidence to support them. Your comment was no exception.

You’re hilarious, little anti-vaxxer. And that’s all you are, an anti-vaxxer.

You have no evidence that increased VAERS reports are real, just your stupid bias (and it is incredibly STUPID). You’re not a scientist, you have no evidence and you ignore the evidence presented.

Go away, little clown, you’re outgunned by educated people here.

Please. Ginny was exactly correct. All you did was label and Ad hominem. Clearly she’s not outgunned by you.

No, Ginny wasn’t close to correct and her use of invalid datasets is obvious to anyone with experience in human statistical analysis. We already know you have zero education in science, despite your attempts to attack science at every opportunity.

You are just like her, devoid of awareness of your own limitations.

I just haven’t seen any evidence to support them.

Interesting that you use that line when you don’t have any evidence to support your claims of massive harm from the vaccine (your repeated lies don’t count as evidence).

What you found are not “explanations”…you’ve found “hypotheses.”

LOL, little narc, your echolalia is projecting like IMAX.

You have a hypothesis, too. Try to explain why Joel is wrong,
And if you compare to childhood vaccines, remember child mortality

What do you make of this? Post COVID-19 infection was not associated with either myocarditis (aHR 1.08; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.56) or pericarditis (aHR 0.53; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.13). We did not observe an increased incidence of neither pericarditis nor myocarditis in adult patients recovering from COVID-19 infection.(https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2219/htm) It would seem that these ailments are specific to the covid-19 vaccine but not covid-19.

1) mdpi is a low tier journal that will publish just about anything.
2) That doesn’t say pericarditis and myocarditis aren’t caused by COVID, it is saying it isn’t a large factor in LONG COVID. You left off the two sentences before your cherry picked bit that explained that pericarditis and myocarditis are serious events caused by COVID. The language used is clearly poor, but you’re so biased you don’t know how to read it.

Which anti-vax blog told you to use that paper?

Or: “…
mRNA vaccines promote sustained synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The spike protein is neurotoxic, and it impairs DNA repair mechanisms.

Suppression of type I interferon responses results in impaired innate immunity.

The mRNA vaccines potentially cause increased risk to infectious diseases and cancer.

Codon optimization results in G-rich mRNA that has unpredictable complex effects.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X

You can start with “sustained synthesis”. Author (Stephanie Seneff, no less) cited a paper about half life of modified. Is is about 100 hr.This is hardly sustained.
So cite somebody else, or cited authors directly. Seneff is very misleading.

@ Ginny Stoner

In a previous set of exchanges you referred to a paper on your website”

Stoner V (2022 Jun 9). You might be brainwashed if… — Virginia Stoner Writing & Art https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2022/6/9/you-might-be-brainwashed-if :

“Eight years in academia . . . I don’t mean to imply that all experts and professors and such were brainwashed about vaccines—I’m sure a few knew their real purpose—to keep humanity sick, weak and obedient. . . A key symptom of brainwashing is, unfortunately, the inability to recognize it in ourselves, and in other brainwashed people. This is especially true when the brainwashing is so longstanding and widespread, it’s literally “normal.”

So, basically, according to you, the overwhelming majority of medical doctors, nurses, immunologists, microbiologists, epidemiologists, etc. around the world, since the overwhelming majority support vaccines, are ALL brainwashed. Brainwashing carried out through both textbooks and lectures. So, please, please EXPLAIN HOW YOU MANAGED TO AVOID BEING BRAINWASHED. AND SINCE YOU WRITE: “the inability to recognize it in ourselves,” how do you know you are NOT brainwashed??

And why would you believe that the overwhelming majority would want to keep humanity sick, weak and obedient? Are you, per chance, a medicated paranoid schizophrenic???

Should I discard ALL my textbooks and books on immunology, microbiology, virology, epidemiology, etc.???

That’s a great question. As you can see from my post, I didn’t avoid being brainwashed–I was definitely completely brainwashed. So you’re really asking how I broke free of it.

That’s complicated, and I can’t say I have a great answer. For some reason, I became able to objectively question things I have always deeply believed to be true.

You said once you read the book Dissolving Illusions, and you wrote a critique of the authors’ polio theory, I believe–but you didn’t address any of the historical mortality data which shows that deaths from common diseases declined by 98% before most vaccines even existed. I haven’t seen anyone refute that mortality data.

When you can confront the evidence in Graph 31 at this link of US deaths from common diseases, without bringing up any other diseases or extraneous issues other than the evidence presented, it would be a step in the right direction. https://dissolvingillusions.com/graphs-images/

“I became able to objectively question things I have always deeply believed to be true.”

HAHAHAHAHA, you’re not objective, you’re more biased than anyone else here except for Greg, your little anti-vaxxer buddy.

You don’t know what you don’t know, you can’t even explain the biases inherent in VAERS data for a new vaccine.

By the way, Suzanne Humphries is a con-artist that thinks homeopathy works.

So what if the VAERs data is biased? It still should be explained thoroughly and publicly. Without coercion and corruption it would be necessary.

“It still should be explained thoroughly and publicly.”

Why? You’ll just ignore the explanation and insert your own biases by claiming they are lying and avoiding.

You can gaslight all you like, but we’re going to point out you’re just a dishonest troll.

I’m sorry, you don’t get access to non-anonymized data. There is no need for the entirety of the data for standard safety and efficacy research.

Keep showing me you’re nothing but an uneducated anti-vaxxer.

VAERS should indeed discussed publicly, with explanation that it does not prove causality. Where is coercion ?

@Ginny Stoner You forget the part “VAERS data does not show causality”. Try to evaluate signal over background.

@ Ginny Stoner

Yep, deaths decreased significantly; but, for example, prior to measles vaccine, when US population was half what it is today, 1950s, one million kids got measles every year, 50,000 were hospitalized, about 500 died, and about 1,000 developed permanent disabilities; e.g., blindness. Rubella, on the whole is a mild disease; but prior to vaccine, for instance, in 1965, pregnant women got it resulting in about 20,000 miscarriages and stillbirths, another 10,000 born with various disabilities; e.g., blindness, deafness, seizure disorders, called congenital rubella syndrome. Prior to mumps vaccine almost ALL kids got it resulting in about 5% losing hearing in one ear, percentage regained after some time; but many permanently deaf and if adult male got it, resulted in sterility. Polio was actually on the rise, prior to vaccine over 17,000 permanently paralyzed and some deaths. Rotavirus before vaccine resulted in 50,000 infants hospitalized yearly. Only a few deaths; but I don’t think most parents would be happy seeing their new infant hooked up to rehydration equipment, etc. So, if you only count deaths, they were going down; but count suffering and disabilities, vaccines ended them. Suffering, none of the vaccine-prevented diseases were pleasant to experience, most quite unpleasant week to 10 days. And, one more thing, measles actually suppressed immune system, so kids experienced more infections, etc. for about six months.

In 1950s, at least for majority of middle class white families, mothers were housewives, so if kids got sick, were there. In addition, if infected when in school, missed school.

You write concerning Suzanne Humphries “Dissolving Illusions”: “you wrote a critique of the authors’ polio theory, I believe” Nope, I tore apart what she wrote about polio, including extensive reference list. Joel A. Harrison (2018 Nov 10). Wrong About Polio: A Review of Suzanne Humphries, MD and Roman Bystrianyk’s “Dissolving Illusions” Part 1 (the long version). Science-Based Medicine.

I could do the same for each and every chapter in her book. You have already clearly shown that despite what people write about the limitations with VAERS, you choose to believe otherwise.

You write: “For some reason, I became able to objectively question things I have always deeply believed to be true.”

So, how do you know you “objectively question things?” To be objective there has to be some external criteria; otherwise, it is your “subjective” opinion. My external criteria is over 40 years of studying infectious diseases, their history (dozens of books and thousands of papers), immunology (basis of how vaccines work), microbiology, and epidemiology. So, what external criteria do you use?

SO, just to summarize, you assume that deaths are the only valid criteria for deciding if vaccines are valuable; but, you ignore suffering, hospitalizations, disabilities, vulnerability to additional infections, and even loss of school time and/or work time. I guess permanently paralyzed, blind, deaf, seizure disorders, etc. now important? The mRNA covid vaccines do prevent deaths; but even more so they prevent severe suffering and hospitalizations.

As I’ve written numerous times and so have others, you are an extremely deluded sick individual, don’t even know what objective means.

Naturally acquired childhood febrile diseases like measles are known to decrease the risk of certain cancers in adulthood. Further, there is no compelling evidence that preventing a mild childhood febrile disease improves the health of the population.

Why is there no evidence? Because it’s incredibly obvious that children are much LESS healthy today than they were before the explosion of the childhood vaccine schedule in the mid-1980s. You’d have to be a crazy corrupt researcher to try to pull off a study like that in favor of your farma funders.

“Why is there no evidence? Because it’s incredibly obvious that children are much LESS healthy today than they were before the explosion of the childhood vaccine schedule in the mid-1980s.”

You keep making these outlandish claims but never have any evidence to support them. You do know that when you make a claim you need to provide evidence for it, right? Evidence, as in data, supported by studies, not your hollow “it’s obvious” bullshit.

The fact that you never have any valid evidence is the reason you’re rightfully viewed as a dishonest moron.

@ Ginny Stoner

As usual, you give your absurd opinion without any credible references. You also ignore any other possible explanations for health problems; e.g., fossil fuel toxins in air and water, processed foods, high sugar, low fiber, etc., and less physical exercise (when I was in public school, President Kennedy’s Physical Fitness Council existed, literals we had one hour PE five days per week, many schools do not and nowadays kids spend vast amounts of time in front of computers, so obesity is up). Yep, focus on one thing without credible references and ignore everything else. Besides, a number of other factors; e.g., as medical science advances more infants are kept alive, including low birthweight and, especially, very low birthweight, the latter almost always with some health problems/disabilities.

But, despite the above, give credible references regarding kids less healthy today than prior to 1980s.

You are an utterly filthy liar, Ginny. Fark off. You and your lies aren’t welcome here.

“Naturally acquired childhood febrile diseases like measles are known to decrease the risk of certain cancers in adulthood. ”

FOAD.

Why is there no evidence? Because it’s incredibly obvious that children are much LESS healthy today

Emphasis mine. So what you’re saying is that it ought to be a piece of piss for you to present the mountain of evidence to make your case; whereupon you will be rightly taken seriously and lauded as a champion for public health, not mocked and vilified for being an attention-whoring pestilence with only delusions of competence in place of a clue.

Seriously, fuck off, NWO Jackbootlicker, and stay fucked off far, far away. You will never be part of any solution when you don’t even recognize the problem in the mirror.

Where you get that measles prevents cancer bit ? It is assuredly not a known fact.
Perhaps you read more than one book. It would widen your mind

Basic virology training. BASIC, tells me that having replicating virus left in your body raises the risk of cancers later in life, not the other way around. I don’t even need to look that one up. You really are out of your element.

Where you get that measles prevents cancer bit ?

Vaccine-strain measles has been on the radar as an oncolytic immunotherapy for a while now, but I doubt that’s whatever is bubbling around in Gindo’s cranium. (Nor do I think she was referring to the case reports of remission of Burkitt’s lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease that got the ball rolling.)

We still see rubella stillbirths in the population coming from places like Guatemala and El Salvador. We had one two or three weeks back. I guess we want to be more like those countries, right? Very “natural” living there. Lots of “natural” lead flying around.

“Are you, per chance, a medicated paranoid schizophrenic???”

Paranoid narcissist. There’s no cure that. Only behavioral training, as you would a dog.

Ginny drags out the old “vaccines didn’t save us” ploy, arguing that deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases declined markedly before the vaccines were introduced.*

She may want to acquaint herself with a diseases called measles.

Measles killed a million people annually (many of them children) around the world as recently as 1990. Then effective measles vaccination campaigns took hold, and annual deaths dropped dramatically (an estimated 23 million+ lives were saved by measles vaccination in the past two decades). Then vaccination rates started declining, and guess what? Measles deaths have begun rising again.

“In 2018, cases surged to an estimated 10 million worldwide, with 140,000 deaths, a 58% increase since 2016. In rich countries, scattered measles outbreaks are fuelled by people refusing to vaccinate their children. But in poor countries, the problems are health systems so broken and underfunded that it is nigh-on impossible to deliver the vaccine to people who need it. The DRC’s flood of cases shows why measles will keep flaring up despite efforts to control it. And the situation will only worsen with the COVID-19 pandemic: more than 20 countries have already suspended measles vaccination campaigns as healthcare workers scramble to deal with coronavirus.”

http://nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01011-6

More recent data shows the measles mortality rate up 50% since the pandemic began keeping more children from getting their vaccinations.

*I’ve never understood why antivaxers are so focused on deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases, ignoring paralysis, blindness, deafness, birth defects, extended immune suppression and other complications among survivors, never mind the misery of being sick for a prolonged period with these diseases. Is it because antivaxers think the death numbers are manageable and can be shunted aside, at least in developed countries? Or does it reflect a severe deficit in human empathy? Probably both.

I notice you continually send people to your own 3rd grade level web site for “explanations”, never to anywhere legitimate. That alone shows there is no support for your claims.

@ Ginny Stoner

As you have made absolutely clear, your definition of brainwashing is anyone who disagrees with you and your definition of objectivity is whatever your subjective opinion agrees with.

Unfortunately, you represent a large, hopefully not majority, of Americans; i.e., incapable of critical thinking, relying on logical fallacies, lack of understanding of science and scientific methodology and subscribing to paranoid conspiracy theories. Whether QAnon believers, Holocaust Deniers, Racists, etc, etc. all refuse to enter into a real dialogue, to accept even remote possibility they could be wrong. Almost all subscribing to closed circle reinforcing communities and see anyone that disagrees with them as part of some conspiracy. Of course, you go to the extreme and basically view yourself as the litmus test, the criteria, the expert to base your positions on.

Amusing if such didn’t result in people often voting against and acting against their own and others best interests.

And you ignore what I wrote about vaccines don’t just prevent death; but suffering, hospitalizations and disabilities in this nation and actually all of the aforementioned and many deaths in developing nations.

You are so incredibly dishonest.

Assuming you are right about most childhood vaccines, it looks to me like your analyses or science is incomplete because it doesn’t study long term effects on the immune system. Without that study at the system level it’s unclear that vaccines are perfectly safe or even worth it in many instances. And I’m confident that the industry and its defenders aren’t interested in those answers. Where I guess childhood vaccines have an apparent advantage is efficacy. As far as I can tell no such advantage inures to the Covid-19 vaccines and the obstruction of efforts to really understand such are a negative indicator – at least to me. I may not be a vaccinologist but I’ve had to ferret out enough bullshit in my life (both as a lawyer and engineer) to hit the pause button here.

The antivax label doesn’t bother me if that’s all you got, why waste types on it?

It’s like John doesn’t know that the mammalian immune system is constantly being studied in universities all around the world by researchers who are looking at all kinds of interesting questions about the function of every single tiny pathway. Any and all of which could be impacted by vaccination or post-exposure immunity. (“Could be impacted” includes being impacted in a beneficial way, John.)

Maybe you should read the table of contents and abstracts of some journals so you actually know what research is happening.

Do a Google Scholar search with vaccine long term. There is 60 yaer study:
Aronson NE, Santosham M, Comstock GW, et al. Long-term Efficacy of BCG Vaccine in American Indians and Alaska Natives: A 60-Year Follow-up Study. JAMA. 2004;291(17):2086–2091. doi:10.1001/jama.291.17.2086

:

I may not be a vaccinologist

True, you’re far from having any knowledge about vaccines.

but I’ve had to ferret out enough bullshit

Clearly you haven’t, since your comments are nothing but bullshit.

in my life (both as a lawyer and engineer) to hit the pause button here.

You don’t really expect people to believe you’ve been a lawyer and an engineer do you? The fact that you demonstrate zero logic in your comments casts doubt on your lawyer claim. I know that engineers get minimal statistics in their education, but your lack of understanding of even introductory (non-major) level statistics really casts doubt on the engineering stuff.

Labarge to me, after having his lack of statistical knowledge pointed out.

Ok bullshitter.

Ok. List your history of stat courses, then I’ll list mine. Otherwise GFY.

So labarge uses “engineer” to mean “software engineer”. And with

Life long learner with immense curiosity

he lies on his LinkedIn bio (he seems immune to learning anything). Interesting.

I’ve never understood why antivaxers are so focused on deaths

Simple misdirection: “Deaths were already dropping before vaccines were introduced” = “Vaccines don’t reduce deaths” = “Vaccines are useless.”

Is it because antivaxers think the death numbers are manageable and can be shunted aside, at least in developed countries? Or does it reflect a severe deficit in human empathy?

You still don’t understand what you’re dealing with, do you? Narcissists, mate. Obligate abusers. They don’t—can’t—care about anything or anyone except Self. They don’t possess the neural wiring for it.

But whereas a psychopath (another empathy-free creature) will abuse you because they can, the narcissist will abuse you because they must; their insatiable ego requires human sacrifice. Thus a few dead and crippled children here and there are the completely acceptable price for their being Right.

And should those deaths grow to a level that threatens to disrupt their successful feeding ritual, no problem; they will simply deny it entirely. Narcissistic Truth is whatever the narcissist says it is, at the moment they say it.

Your mistake is to puzzle “How can a human being think and behave like that?” A common flaw: your theory of mind is modeled after yourself, an empathetic creature, so you struggle to fit them into that, instead of realizing they do not fit and accept them for what they are: something genuinely new, different, alien.

“their insatiable ego requires human sacrifice”

In Ginny’s case, her ego requires frequent posting of links to her website, which consists of her talking to and enthusiastically agreeing with herself. I hear she originally had a website visitor counter, which was removed after being stuck on 2 for several years.*

*Kay and Greg quickly got bored.

Kay and Greg quickly got bored

Nah, Dangerous One, I agree with just about everything Ginny writes. What I am bored with is arguing with BSers; for this reason, around here, I mainly ask questions and make statements.

Is it trolling? Maybe! But, isn’t this entire blog one big trollfest?!

PS: Ginny, peeps to you for being a true warrior.

Thanks Greg, I really appreciate that. Same to you.

Civil, rational debate is never “trolling,” IMO. I only put paid industry trolls in that category, since they are the most dangerous of all the troll species. They are everywhere, infesting the internet like a plague, especially when it comes to precious vaccines.

Do you know that aumentation is actually considering other peoples argument, not saying that they are BS, but proving it.

@ Dangerous Bacon

Yep, you are absolutely right, outside US deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases high and some rising. However, my point was simply that death is NOT the only measure of value of vaccines. They prevent suffering, hospitalizations, and disabilities. So far, no response from Ginny.

“They prevent suffering, hospitalizations, and disabilities.”

No, they don’t. You can’t present any convincing evidence they do.

Are children healthier now than they were in 1985 with the vaccine schedule exploded? No.

You’re full of it, and if I had a nickle for every time you’ve accused me of your own misbehavior, I’d be rich. Your integrity is ZIP.

Where are your favorite 2 studies showing that the COVID19 vaccines are safe and effective? You don’t even have that, and you have no idea how they defined “safe” and “effective”–or you don’t want to admit the truth about it.

“Are children healthier now than they were in 1985 with the vaccine schedule exploded? No.”

What a stupid statement, as usual. There is absolutely no evidence for this claim and no definition of “healthier” would ever lend itself to your attempt to conclude something like that.

What a pathetic attempt.

This is a true statement. But there are a lot of causes for it, not the least of which is poor diet advice by the FDA, a war on fat and welcoming of sugar, roundup (glyphosate) and many other confounding misdeeds albeit by the same corrupt health establishment in the US. What other countries are currently vaccinating toddlers?

It really depends what healthier means here. Child and infant mortality dropped in these years, so if “healthier” means “less deaths,” yes, it improved.https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/healthitBACKUPJan6-17/HealthITArchive/images/mchb_child_mortality_pub.pdf

For several other indications – like obesity – it likely got worse, but if her argument is “vaccines cause obesity”, citation needed. For some other things – like autism – there’s a question whether diagnosing and treating children that previously would be undetected means children are healthier or less healthy.

She’s going by what her leaders told her, and her leaders lie, as our host previously demonstrated. https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2019/08/12/sickest-generation/

Dorit I didn’t see any of my ‘leaders’ there. I don’t think I’ve ever seen or will see any of my ‘leaders’ mentioned here.

You are aware the CDC refuses to do any studies comparing the overall health of fully vaccinated and fully unvaccinated children. You’re probably aware of why, and that it is not the bogus pseudo-ethical excuse the CDC gives.

There’s no evidence vaccines improve health, period. You can’t point to the mere avoidance of a typically mild childhood disease (if in fact it was avoided and not simply re-named) and claim it as a public health victory.

Yes, I know the vaccine industry has been doing it for years, and lying through their teeth about pretty much everything for the last 200 years, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a cartoon.

@Ginny: “You are aware the CDC refuses to do any studies comparing the overall health of fully vaccinated and fully unvaccinated children. You’re probably aware of why, and that it is not the bogus pseudo-ethical excuse the CDC gives.”

Repeating the talking points from your anti-vax cult leaders only solidifies our view of you as a stupid person. I don’t know why you can’t understand why self-selected populations as a dataset destroys the validity of measuring something as complex as “health”. You’re too dumb to even define “health” across a randomized population. Figure it out, child, you’re NOT educated in science.

You are aware the CDC refuses to do any studies comparing the overall health of fully vaccinated and fully unvaccinated children.

I know you are completely illiterate when it comes to statistics but this is astounding. You can’t ethically choose children to vacc and not vacc and follow the groups. You can’t use self-selected groups of children (those who are vaccinated vs those who are not vaccinated) for any study — self selected samples are worthless for statistical work. My freshmen could explain those concepts to you (not that you would understand them).

You aren’t viewed as a serial liar and essentially evil person because you don’t understand things: you’re viewed that way because even after getting repeated explanations you repeat the same tired lies and misrepresentations in poorly veiled attempts to drive traffic to your poorly written blog.

You are aware the CDC refuses to do any studies comparing the overall health of fully vaccinated and fully unvaccinated children.

Do get back once you’ve figured out the sample sizes needed to corner that windmill. And don’t settle for 80% power.

The CDC lacks curiosity unless it’s having to do with a study that shows vaccine good!

Labarge spewed:

The CDC lacks curiosity unless it’s having to do with a study that shows vaccine good!

There are many reasons that is a stupid statement, the most obvious being it’s impossible to know prior to running the study and analyzing the data what will be shown.

Unless you’re one of the ignorati like he and Ginny: they “know” things are true despite not having any supporting evidence at all.

@ Narad:

re how many subjects needed

Didn’t Jain et al ( 2015) study a huge number** of pairs of brothers where the elder was dxed with ASD vs NT x differing vaccination status? She found IIRC that 7% of younger siblings also would be dxed if the elder had ASD whether or not they were vaccinated whereas only !% were dxed if the elder was not dxed, vaccinated or not. Easy to make a chart.

** perhaps 80K or more total Ss

Who promotes sugar (what avice against sugary drinks ?)? Arteriosclrosis is fat on arteries. Where does it come. FDA does not give dietary advice, USDA oes.

@Ginny Stoner There are actually studies comparing health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children. CDC refuses to do study that leaves children unvaccinated, and antivaxxers do want that, probably well knowing that this is unethical would not be done.
For instance, there are KiGGS studies:
Schmitz R, Poethko-Müller C, Reiter S, Schlaud M. Vaccination status and health in children and adolescents: findings of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS). Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011 Feb;108(7):99-104. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0099. Epub 2011 Feb 18. PMID: 21412506; PMCID: PMC3057555.,
These are based on questionnaires, so parents’ opinion count

You see that the pro-vaxxers use circular logic to avoid having control groups for vaccines right? You must be able to see that?

Who promotes sugar (what avice against sugary drinks ?)?

JLB is doubtlessly running on purest ketone bodies and looking for an aftermarket kit to run a glucose flare stack off the top of his head.

Sure, Aarno–vaccines are safe and effective and save lives; therefore, no one can investigate whether vaccines are safe and effective and save lives–it would be unethical. It makes perfect sense for an industry that has almost no liability for deaths and injuries caused by its products, and their captured regulators.

Oh, wait–the CDC is looking out for us, right? That’s why they lie and tell us there were no Spanish flu vaccines, when in fact millions were distributed to military, residents of state institutions, and employees of large corporations, in that historic ‘deadly pandemic’ that bears a striking similarity to COVID19. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2022/3/12/spanish-flu-swine-flu-covid19-and-perpetual-vaccine-lies

When I first started looking into the massive increase in deaths and serious injuries reported to VAERS from the CCOVID19 vaccines, I didn’t think it was an intentional genocide–there were too many other easier ways to kill people.

I’ve changed my mind, esp. after discovering the CDC is blatantly lying about the non-existence of Spanish Flu vaccines, and seeing the extensive pseudo-scholarly propaganda published to reinforce that lie.

Oh, wait–the CDC is looking out for us, right? That’s why they lie and tell us there were no Spanish flu vaccines….

The funny thing is that I can in fact imagine Gindo’s believing that this is a sound inferential bridge, its plain use as some sort of reverse cognitive vacuum cleaner notwithstanding.

@Ginny Stoner and john labarge Did you notice I did give a citation a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated ? So these studies are possible.
Study shows, that unvaccinated has more infectios diseases, as one would expect. All clinical trials and follow up studies say same thing. So leaving children purposefully unvaccinate is indeed unethical.
When a new vaccine is approved theren woul be placebo control, do you not know that ?

@Ginny Stoner There were no Spanish flu vaccine. Obviously, because nobody did know even existence viruses then. There was vacciine against bacterial pathogen somebody though caused the disease.
As for genocide, where are the corpses ?

Aarno, why are you perpetuating the dangerous lie that Spanish flu vaccines didn’t exist, when the evidence proving their existence, which you didn’t address at all, was put right in front of your face?

@Ginny Stoner To repeat there were no Spanish fle vaccine, there were Hib vaccine, because this bacterium was believe to cause flu (its scientific name is Haemophilus influenzae). It actually helped, because o sequlae.

A 2010 paper by J.M. Eyler, published in the journal of the Office of the US Surgeon General and the US Public Health Service, described many different vaccines developed to prevent and cure Spanish flu. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00333549101250S306

These vaccines were based on the now-discredited theory that a bacteria called Pfeiffer’s Bacillus caused the flu. They were administered to millions, including military, employees of large corporations, and residents of state institutions. Medical journals published glowing reviews of the vaccines, regardless of their composition.

On the other hand, an internet profile using the name Aarno keeps repeating that there were no Spanish flu vaccines, so he must be right.

why are you perpetuating the dangerous lie that Spanish flu vaccines didn’t exist

Who ordered the pie with inchoate histrionics, anchovy, and mushroom?

As a nomenclatural matter, some might describe Rosenow’s preparation as a serum, Gindo.

Not that it matters, as there were plenty of vaccines for Pfeiffer’s bacillus.

Didn’t Jain et al ( 2015) study a huge number** of pairs of brothers where the elder was dxed with ASD vs NT x differing vaccination status?

Yes. I set this one aside a few days ago just because I found the prose to be . . . claustrophobic.

You said it yourself: there were vaccine against Pfeffer’s bacillus (that is, Haemophilus influenzae). That is, a Hib vaccine. Flu vaccine is against flu virus.

So Aarno, you are saying there were no Spanish flu vaccines, even though several vaccines were developed that were said to prevent or cure Spanish flu, and these vaccines were administered to millions of people based on the assurance they would prevent or cure Spanish flu, and even though numerous studies were published in medical journals extolling the effectiveness of these vaccines in preventing and curing Spanish flu.

You think that because science has concluded since then that the vaccines could not have prevented Spanish flu because Pfeiffer’s Bacillus doesn’t cause it. Therefore, the Spanish flu vaccines didn’t actually exist and no one is lying about it.

Interesting idea, but probably not raise-worthy because it really puts the integrity of the entire field of medical science in a questionable light. But it was there already, so no big deal I guess.

Interesting idea, but probably not raise-worthy because it really puts the integrity of the entire field of medical science in a questionable light.

Yah, I’m sure that this dangerous lie century-old event is going shake modern medicine to its foundations any day now.

@Ginny Stoner There are, of course, vaccinated/unvaccinated studies. Like:
Schmitz R, Poethko-Müller C, Reiter S, Schlaud M. Vaccination status and health in children and adolescents: findings of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS). Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011 Feb;108(7):99-104. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0099. Epub 2011 Feb 18. PMID: 21412506; PMCID: PMC3057555.
You seems to forget this one

“…shake modern medicine to its foundations”? Why would it?

Just because the resemblances between Spanish flu and COVID19 are uncanny–a sudden announcement of impending doom from an invisible enemy; restrictions on public gatherings; school and church closures; masking requirements, and millions of vaccines?

Just because now, 100 years later, the CDC is brazenly lying and claiming Spanish flu vaccines didn’t exist, and a vast network of disinformation is set up to protect that lie, so carefully that 99% of the population believes Spanish flu vaccines didn’t exist, and anyone who claims otherwise is a crazy conspiracy theorist?

“Why worry?” — Alfred E. Neuman

In other anti-vaccine news, diphtheria is making a comeback in Australia. Two children, aged 2 and 6, have been admitted to hospital with diphtheria of the throat. One is in intensive care. These are the first cases of diphtheria of the throat in NSW for a century. Neither child was vaccinated.

Meryl Dorey and her rabid band of nutcases at the used-to-be AVN can be proud of this milestone achievement.

When I want analysis of medical topics, I always look to a software engineer to provide that.

“During the 1920s, 100,000 to 200,000 cases of diphtheria (140 to 150 cases per 100,000 population) and 13,000 to 15,000 deaths were reported each year. After diphtheria toxoid-containing vaccines became available in the 1940s, the number of cases gradually declined to about 19,000 in 1945 (15 cases per 100,000 population). A more rapid decrease began with implementation of a universal childhood vaccination program which included diphtheria toxoid-containing vaccines beginning in the late 1940s.

From 1996 through 2018, 14 cases of diphtheria were reported in the United States, an average of less than 1 per year. One fatal case occurred in a 63-year-old male returning to the United States from a country with endemic diphtheria disease.”

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/dip.html#:~:text=From%201996%20through%202018%2C%2014,country%20with%20endemic%20diphtheria%20disease.

Hard to tell because the graph shows deaths per 100,000–the only way they seem immediately inconsistent is that the CDC says “diphtheria toxoid-containing vaccines” became available in the 1940s, and the graph says the first vaccine was introduced in 1920. (The CDC also says there were no Spanish flu vaccines, so it’s not like they are exactly reliable about stuff like that.)

The CDC, as usual, is vague as to the trend of declining deaths, other than mentioning “the 1920s” and “the 1940s”. I didn’t see a chart of the mortality data to compare, but the immediate question is, was the vaccine the CDC mentioned the FIRST diphtheria vaccine or a later one.

CDC says this:
After diphtheria toxoid-containing vaccines became available in the 1940s, the number of cases gradually declined to about 19,000 in 1945 (15 cases per 100,000 population)
This is quite specific actually
Friedrich Loeffler was the first person to cultivate C. diphtheriae in 1884.[35] He used Koch’s postulates to prove association between C. diphtheriae and diphtheria. He also showed that the bacillus produces an exotoxin. So cause of diphtheria was known in 1920s.
In 1890, Shibasaburo Kitasato and Emil von Behring immunized guinea pigs with heat-treated diphtheria toxin.
Successful treatment of human patients with horse-derived antitoxin began in 1894, after production and quantification of antitoxin had been optimized. Von Behring won the first Nobel Prize in medicine in 1901 for his work on diphtheria.
In 1926, Alexander Thomas Glenny increased the effectiveness of diphtheria toxoid (a modified version of the toxin used for vaccination) by treating it with aluminum salts
Widespread vaccination pushed cases in the United States down from 4.4 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1932 to 2.0 in 1937. In Nazi Germany, where authorities preferred treatment and isolation over vaccination (until about 1939–41), cases rose over the same period from 6.1 to 9.6 per 100,000 inhabitants.

Hard to tell because the graph shows deaths per 100,000

You can’t divide by 10?

Ginny, you seem to be under the misapprehension that death is the only measurement used to show the benefits of vaccination.

To put it into an analogy that you’ll ignore, you can reduce the deaths due to road traffic accidents by improving medical care and ambulance response times. However, the best way is to reduce the number of accidents in the first place. Why is it better? Well, having metal pins in your legs is better than being crippled for the rest of your life, but not having broken your legs in the first place is better than both.

So, improve medical care and reduce the number of incidents. Sounds good. Except to the people who use the improvement in medical care to claim that reducing the number of accidents hasn’t made a difference.

No, I don’t have that misapprehension. You seem to be under the misapprehension that vaccines have no iatrogenic effects like all other medical treatments.

This issue is a cost-benefit analysis. Show me a cost-benefit analysis with REAL NUMBERS, not vague drivel like “safe and effective”.

Show me the evidence that vaccines create a healthier population. Such evidence does not exist, as the CDC refuses to conduct research comparing completely unvaccinated and vaccinated populations.

There are lots of safety studies available, and some one have been cited too. Some one of them analyse VAERS data actually an give actual numbers. Perhaps you should comment these, or do Google Scholar search by yourself
When you claim that vaccines did not save us, you always cite eath numbers. Start citing case numbers, for instance.
There is data from Germany:
Schmitz R, Poethko-Müller C, Reiter S, Schlaud M. Vaccination status and health in children and adolescents: findings of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS). Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011 Feb;108(7):99-104. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0099. Epub 2011 Feb 18. PMID: 21412506; PMCID: PMC3057555.
Vaccination prevents infectious diseases, as it should, thus making people healhier.
You should really stop believing that conspiracy theory.

Wait! Are vaccines the real cause behind my lack of desire to go jogging and my longing for a good sausage and egg sandwich?

So why, oh great wise one, is diphtheria raising its ugly head again?, anything to do with growing anti vaxx beliefs and falling vaccinated rates?.

How about smallpox?, eradicated by vaccines. Polio?, pertussis? . These Victorian era diseases were very prominent, now you don’t hear of them?

I wonder why?

So, if you get renal failure and then your penis drops off that should be two SAEs, not one.

That’s very close to a Health Deranger “rap” lyric, IIRC.

The urgency of Covid, similar to HIV/AIDS a couple decades ago, tends to bring out the odd quirks and psychological issues of many researchers you previously didn’t realize had such wackiness beneath the surface. The difference in compassion to the HIV/AIDS ‘skeptic era’ is that social media amplified and accelerated the effect.

Joel, here is the information you didn’t know about research showing that natural infection with childhood febrile diseases like measles and chickenpox is associated with lower cancer risks in adulthood. You’re welcome.

— A Swiss study found that adults are significantly protected against non-breast cancers — genital, prostate, gastrointestinal, skin, lung, ear-nose-throat, and others — if they contracted measles, rubella or chickenpox earlier in life: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9824838/

— Chicken pox and reduced rates of brain cancer in adulthood:
https://www.bcm.edu/…/chicken-pox-may-reduce-risk-of…

— Mumps and reduced rates of ovarian cancer:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10552-010-9546-1

— Measles and reduced risk of lymphomas
https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/dis/

It takes very little effort to discover that Ginny’s “evidence” for vaccine-preventable diseases having a protective effect against cancer is either badly flawed (i.e. dependent on a survey in the case of chickenpox), refuted by other research that she, um, forgot to mention, or ignores vaccine-preventable diseases that greatly increase the risk of cancer, like human papillomavirus infection.

A couple of informative cites:

http://cris.tau.ac.il/en/publications/mumps-virus-and-ovarian-cancer

https://www.newswise.com/factcheck/debunking-the-myth-that-measles-is-benign-and-even-beneficial/?article_id=712929

Physicians For Misinformed Consent also forgot to inform readers that patients with cancer who are immunosuppressed can be at serious risk if they contract measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases, something that’s far more likely if their close contacts include the unvaccinated.

Playground insults don’t mean anything except you’re at a loss for logical arguments, Bacon.

Do you seriously think anyone with a few working brain cells could read those studies and articles, and say, “Gee, Mr. Bacon was obviously right–we shouldn’t pay any attention to the research indicating that mild childhood diseases may prevent cancers later in life.”

The Baylor link wasn’t there anymore but I found this one – https://neurosciencenews.com/glioma-brain-cancer-chicken-pox-3942/

‘Playground insults’ is what these extremely sophisticated scientists and doctors do here ?

I don’t know john — why don’t you and the other liars you associate with try presenting things based on fact and real research rather than your silly evidence-free gut feelings or political views.

When your “evidence” is pre-K level you’ve dug yourself into a hole at the start: the responses you’ve been getting are really more dignified than you deserve.

I am not a scientist nor a doctor, so I get to insult people.

Bargy boy on his ‘they are all corrupt cept me’ campaign

Your link start with:
Summary: UPDATE – Researchers have determined that those with a history of chicken pox infection have a 21% reduced risk of developing glioma brain cancer. The researchers hope that, in the future, the chicken pox vaccine may be able to be applied to brain cancer research.
Why to infect people with chickenpox if vaccine has same effect ?

Having had chicken pox myself, that’s good to know. Mind you, will be having the shingles vaccine once I am 70. Had shingles for the first time 2 years ago, absolutely agonising, felt like my skin was being taken off with sandpaper then having a blowtorch applied.

A Swiss study found that adults are significantly protected against non-breast cancers — genital, prostate, gastrointestinal, skin, lung, ear-nose-throat, and others — if they contracted measles, rubella or chickenpox earlier in life

Ah, Medical Hypothesis, vintage 1998. This one barely manages to limp its way out of the abstract.

“The present study was designed to investigate the hypothesis that febrile infectious childhood diseases (FICDs) are associated with a lower cancer risk in adulthood, since biographical considerations are of great importance in anthroposophic medicine.”

Yu-Chen Chen et al (and there are a lot of et als) have a paper published earlier this year, “Does Covid-19 Vaccination Cause Storage Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms?” and concluded it does.

“The OAB (overactive bladder) group faced significantly greater changes in OABSS-urgency (p = 0.003), OABSS-frequency (p = 0.025), and total OABSS (p = 0.014) after vaccination compared to those observed in the non-OAB group.”

However, this is an obvious example of pee-hacking.

So I actually went and read the Fraimen, Doshi et al paper, and looked at the tables in the appendix. As the stats stuff above about confidence intervals and such is just gibberish to me, but I think I noticed a couple other issues that at least raised questions to my layperson’s eye, and I want to run them past the RI audience for a medscience read:

A)
The thing that caught my eye was something neither Orac or Dr, Howard have noted, the raw data in tables 3 and 4 (pp. 16-17) showing the tallies of “Serious AESIs” for Pfizer and Moderna respectively. Most of these show what appear (again) to my lay brain very small numbers for trials with 10s of thousands of subjects.

E.g (combining the totals for Pfizer and Moderna, which comes to treatment and placebo arms of ~37,000 subjects each):
Arthritis V=3, P=1
Diarrhea V=3, P=1.
Hyperglycemia V=2, P=1
Pancreatitis V=3, P= 0
Psychosis V=2, P=1
Thyroiditis V=1, P=0

So i ask the scientists, can you really make any kind of conclusion based on an accumulation of such small differences between small numbers?

B)
Prior comments establish that the comparison between reports corresponding to the AESI list on one hand, and hospitalizations on the other is an apples and oranges mis-match based on at least two factors, but I may have something else to add. First, those two factors
1) As Prof.Reiss noted above, while minor “adverse events” have been screened out, that doesn’t mean the ones that make it through the filter are equivalent in severity to hospitalization for COVID;
2) As Dr. Howard notes over at SBM, while adverse affects from the vaccine will mostly show up quickly and thus be captured within the short duration of the trial, prevention of COVID hospitalizations would not necessarily have peaked at all in that population during that time period. “the benefits of a vaccine can take many months, even decades to accumulate.”

However, isn’t there also a third mis-match, in that we presumably know COVID hospitalizations are indeed the result of COVID (by virtue of the patients being tested, yes?), while we don’t know the adverse events cataloged were due to the vaccine? Isn’t there a post hoc “correlation is not causality” issue here? Going back to that table of AESIs, how do we imagine that psychosis, hyperglycemia or arthritis might be products of a COVID vaccine? There are only a handful of categories in the table that have as many as 10 total events reported across both arms of both trials, and/or show a notable difference between vax and placebo:
Cholecystitis V=8, P=2
Colitis/Enteritis V=7, P=4
Acute respiratory distress syndrome V=9, P=5
Coagulation disorder V=36, P=23
Other forms of acute cardiac injury V=42, p=38

The numbers for the first three still seem pretty small, the next two seem to be pretty vaguely defined categories, and the numbers for ‘other forms of acute cardiac injury” don’t seem different enough from treatment to placebo to draw much of a conclusion. But, more to the point: it strikes me despite the handwaving of the lists showing over 100 types of SAEs included and excluded, the bulk of the supposed “risk assessment” due to the mRNA vaccines comes down to these few diagnoses.

Professor Reiss also wrote, “What is the argument for that wholesale comparison to start with?” Now, coming from an an academic field far from medical science, with quite different norms, I’m kinda flabbergasted that Fraiman, Doshi et al don’t address that at all, and their critics don’t go right to that fact in questioning the paper’s legitimacy. if an argument like this was going to presented in my field (it has many names, but I’ll opt for ‘qualitative media studies’ here), instead of hiding behind numbers expressed as percentages of aggregate totals, and given there are so few categories of significant divergence, you’d need to provide two things: 1) Some qualitative explanation of how you gauged the severity of each of these things to be equivalent to the severity of a COVID hospitalization (no, the mere fact they’re all on a check list doesn’t get you there, E.g. We know COVID kills. Since the biggest chunk of that alleged risk difference is found in the Coagulation Disorder category you’d have to be explicit about exactly what that means, and how dangerous it is. 2) A theoretical framework for assessing the plausibility that each of these things might be caused by the specific vaccines in question vs. some other explanation — not proof of causation, just an educated guess. E.g. I didn’t know what cholecystitis is so I Googled and found it’s generally caused by gall stones, so unless you can explain how that might, just might mind you, be connected to a jab, I’m going to be skeptical.

Shifting gears… Another norm you’d typically find in media studies debates applies to critics of an argument, who would be expected not just to point to methodological error in argument (e.g. statistical hijinks) but to offer a plausible alternative explanation of any phenomena observed. For example, while i might question whether the difference between 3 reports of diarrhea among 37,000 vaxed vs. 1 report of diarrhea among 37,000 placebo is a reliable indicator of anything, I still wonder how it is that these small differences occur most often toward the vaxed side, accumulating into a number that adds up feeding the authors calculation of relative risk. Is there something in the method the RCTs used to record adverse events, or the method the authors of the paper used to translate those to their AESI categories, that might introduce a small bias toward the vaxed side? Forgive me if the following laypersons guesses are off base… It occurs to me first that the trial participants wouldn’t be perfectly blinded, since the vaccines have common short-term side effects and the placebos wouldn’t. That is, if the shot lays you low with an achey injection site for a couple days, you’ll be pretty sure which trial arm you’re in, yes? Could that affect how you report your “adverse effects”? I also wonder if some of those “serious adverse events” after a COVID shot could be knock-on behavioral effects of the side effects rather than biological effects of the jabs. By that i mean something like, you have to stay home from work because the shot whacked you down, which disrupts your routine and instead of doing your usual lunch or dinner, you order out some spicy food that majorly doesn’t agree with you, so you report abdominal pain that gets coded as colitis/enteritis? Yes, I’m just asking questions here, but sincerely… Just asking questions isn’t always “Just Asking Questions®”.

For A: You are correct that those numbers are very small and generally one would not want to draw conclusions from them alone. But those numbers might be useful for hypothesis generation, where they are used as a starting point for further study.
Whether one chooses to do that would probably depend on understanding the mechanism of action 1) of the treatment and 2) of these AEs – if there is an existing reason to think that these things might be related, then it might be worth looking into more.
If, however, there isn’t a reasonable mechanism that relates these two things, at such a low count, then it’s probably just the statistical noise of humans.

As for your last question: I haven’t ever done a placebo-controlled clinical trial, but when I studied them in grad school one of the (newer) standards was that you ask all your participants to fill out a survey at the end including questions where you ask them which arm they thought they were in – basically checking your blinding. This is important because if the responses show that most people figured out what arm they were in it really changes your analysis (because then the placebo affect is a huge confounder).
I don’t know if these trial participants were asked this before they were unblinded (but it is likely).

A couple of simple questions for Ginny.
1/ could be asked 2 ways
A/ Since the beginning of the vaccine programme, do you expect all recipients to be still alive and/or in good health.
B/ For the same period from the beginning of the vaccine programme to now, assuming no vaccine actually carried out, how many people would be expected to die of (in example) heart attacks, strokes, pneumonia etc.

2/ On your very informative blog, you include a table suggesting just over 1 million deaths due to covid, over 1 and a half million deaths due to the vaccines.
A/ where were the bodies?
B/ the source for the vaccine figures
C/ do you know any ‘victims’ on a personal level.

And finally, you relevant qualifications and hands on experience.

If you would be so kind.

1A: No
1B: See graph 31 at this link of US mortality rates from various infectious diseases from 1900 to 1965. https://dissolvingillusions.com/graphs-images/

2 The table suggests a wide range of estimates of deaths and serious injury from COVID19 vaccines.

2A: Quite a few of the bodies are hiding on the CDC’s list of “Deaths involving COVID19” — https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2022/2/26/how-to-hide-thousands-of-vaccine-deaths-in-plain-sight-lj6nf

2B: Sources are all contained at the link above.

2C: NA

3: Bio info is on the About page of my site.

BTW, in college, there was one very enlightened professor who believed that all education and qualification info should be omitted in published papers–that forces the reader to evaluate the evidence presented on its own merits. It was not a popular view. Lol.

What the fellas asked for was in her bio. She should retype it?

Yep. To prove your arguments by citing yourself is not very cobvincing.

Actually, your education background shows. Only an ignoramus will always cite a same book.
Wide range of estimates is a bad thing. Would you believe some someon who gives a wide range estimates of your length ?
There is comment about diphtheria vaccine and diphtheria deaths earlier in this thread. Shows a wuite oppisite effect.
Number Covid deaths reported by VAERS is a million, because number of total deaths reported is muc less

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “Joel, here is the information you didn’t know about research showing that natural infection with childhood febrile diseases like measles and chickenpox is associated with lower cancer risks in adulthood. You’re welcome.”

Let’s go through the articles you linked to.

The first article is in journal Medical Hypotheses (Albonico, 1998). Only a couple of libraries in the entire United States subscribe it. First, until 2010 articles were NOT even peer-reviewed, so just the editor, Roger Dobson, decided. Let’s look at what the long-time editor writes: “the content may be much more speculative than is allowed by the pre-publication screening where ideas must pass verification . . . Naturally enough, this means that the papers in Medical Hypothesis are exactly that: hypotheses (Dobson, 2008).”

What you don’t understand and refuse to understand is that even if an article meets scientific standards and gets published, it can still be wrong, which is why various forms of replication, additional studies are needed. Take, for instance, the gold standard of research, Placebo-Controlled Double-Blinded Randomized Trials. Imagine you blindly randomized one hundred kids, half boys, half girls, into two equal groups. Would you always get 25 boys, 25 girls in each group? Nope. Even rarely you could end up with all boys in one group and all girls in the other. Based on the binomial distribution, we know the probabilities of each distribution; e.g. 50-50, 60-40, etc. This is what statistical significance means, simply the probability that the randomization process ended in one or more variables/factors that independent of the studied variable(s) influenced the outcome. Note. the paper you link to, published in 1998, has NOT resulted in follow-up studies. I own and have read a book that summarizes 100 articles published in Medical Hypotheses. Book title: “Death Can Be Cured And 99 Other Medical Hypotheses”. And, yep, over its 50 year history a very few of its papers led to medical advances, less than 1%.

The next article you link to has title: “History of chicken pox may reduce risk of brain cancer later in life (Baylor College of Medicine, 2016; Amirian, 2016).” I guess you don’t understand the word “may” and the article ends with “In the future, scientists may be able to apply the chicken pox vaccine to brain cancer research”. So, the vaccine may actually also reduce risk of brain cancer later in life and glioma and other types of brain tumors are a small percentage of cancers experienced and according to National Statistics, actually the rates are going down (National Cancer Institute). Given high rates of vaccination, how do you interpret this? Normally intelligent people would interpret that vaccinations are possibly actually contributing to the decrease. Note, I have stats for various cancers going back decades.

The next article you link to has title: “Mumps and ovarian cancer/ modern interpretation of an historic association.” It concludes with: “There are many limitations of this study, not the least of which was the difficulty of obtaining specimens from individuals with mumps parotitis which limited the size of this study. The samples we obtained were collected between 2000 and 2008 in various public health agencies and were stored under variable conditions (Table 1). Although mumps is now reportable in many regions, we have no way of knowing whether the cases that come to public health attention are representative of mumps infection in the community or a more selected group. Information on precisely when during the course of the infection the samples were collected was limited, and titer data were available from only two sites (London and Edinburgh). Because of the anonymized nature of the case and control specimens, we were unable to correct for potential confounders, other than age and gender. Age could be a key confounder, since we previously reported that anti-MUC1 antibody levels may decline with age . . . The epidemiology of mumps parotitis has obviously changed dramatically in the last 40 years. Mumps parotitis was a very common illness in infants and children prior to 1970. With now close to universal vaccination except in the third world, mumps has become a disease of adults who were either born too early for routine vaccination or who have lost immunity after vaccination. For this reason, inferences about the consequences of parotitis on MUC1 immunity based on observations from the specimens tested here may not be generalizable to what might have occurred with childhood infection before vaccination programs began. . . . Prior to vaccination, mumps was generally a mild illness but could have serious sequelae including orchitis and sterility, meningitis and deafness, and pancreatitis. [My Emphasis]” So, they admit significant limitations to their study, which, you, of course, ignore.

The final paper you refer to is just an opinion piece by Physicians for Informed Consent. According to Media Bias?Fact Check: “Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information; therefore, fact-checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. Overall, we rate Physicians for Informed Consent a quackery level pseudoscience website based on promoting and publishing false and misleading information regarding vaccines (Media Bias; see also Skeptical Raptor, 2017, 2019).

So, as usual, you search the web for anything that confirms your illogical, unscientific beliefs. What you don’t understand, almost everything, is that with millions of papers/studies, one can almost always find one or two that confirm ones beliefs. As an example I have a book, “The Bell Curve” that makes case that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites. The book has literally been sliced apart for its cherry-picked old poorly done studies; but this doesn’t stop racists and their respective websites from citing it. After all, one of its authors, Richard J Herrnstein, is a tenured professor at Harvard. And I could bet I could find other tenured professors at various universities who also are racists. Of course, they don’t consider themselves racists, just honest scholars, “honest” despite cherry-picking confirmation bias. Two excellent refutations of book are by Gould, 1996 and Tucker, 1994.

The bottom line is that you, in your immense ignorance and bias, fail to understand that one can almost always find studies to back ones opinions. Some/many with poor methodologies; but even some with good methodologies; but, as I wrote above, randomization resulted in one or more variables/factors that independently influenced results, which is why some forms of replication necessary. I realize you will ignore what I write because, as I wrote before you know you aren’t brainwashed and you are objective. Of course, your definition of brainwashing is anyone who disagrees with you and your criteria for being objective is you SUBJECTIVE OPINION, a circular argument.

So, I had nothing better to do this afternoon after reading/studying immunology and microbiology this morning, so, still, to some extent a waste of my time; but, hopefully, others following this exchange can use some of my comments for later exchanges with intellectually dishonest/mentally disturbed commenters.

References:

Albonico HU et al. (1998). Febril infectious childhood diseases in the history of cancer patients and matched controls. Medical Hypotheses; 51: 315-320.

Amirian (2016). History of chickenpox in glioma risk: a report from the glioma international case–control study (GICC). Cancer Medicine.

Baylor College of Medicine (2016 Mar 30). History of chicken pox may reduce risk of brain cancer later in life. MedicalXpress.

Cramer (2010 Aug). Mumps and ovarian cancer/ modern interpretation of an historic association.

Dobson R (2008). Death Can Be Cured And 99 Other Medical Hypotheses.

Gorski D (2010 Mar 15). Is there a role for speculative journals like Medical Hypotheses in the scientific literature? Science-Based Medicine.

Gould SJ (1996). The Mismeasure of Man.

Herrstein RJ & Murray C (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.

Media Bias/Fact Check. Physicians for Informed Consent.

National Cancer Institute. Annual Report to the Nation 2021: National Trends in Rates of New Cancer Cases Infographic.

Skeptical Raptor (2017 Mar 15). Physicians for Informed Consent – another radical anti-vaccine group.

Skeptical Raptor (2019 Jul 30). Physicians for Informed Consent — VAERS-loving anti-vaccine group.

Tucker WH (1994). The Science and Politics of Racial Research.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: ““Quoting me: They prevent suffering, hospitalizations, and disabilities.” You: No, they don’t. You can’t present any convincing evidence they do. . . Where are your favorite 2 studies showing that the COVID19 vaccines are safe and effective? You don’t even have that, and you have no idea how they defined “safe” and “effective”–or you don’t want to admit the truth about it.”

Actually, I could list dozens of studies; but I’ll give the one I was a volunteer in the Moderna study [Baden LR et al (2020 Dec 30). Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-Cov-2 Vaccine. The New England Journal of Medicine].:

“The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group) . . . Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group . . severe Covid-19 as defined by one of the following criteria: respiratory rate of 30 or more breaths per minute; heart rate at or exceeding 125 beats per minute; oxygen saturation at 93% or less while the participant was breathing ambient air at sea level or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen below 300 mm Hg; respiratory failure; acute respiratory distress syndrome; evidence of shock (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure <60 mm Hg, or a need for vasopressors); clinically significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; admission to an intensive care unit; or death..”

Note that the study was based on two months follow-up after each patient had received both shots and, just as with their defining of severity, they defined safety. The study is available free online, so you can read it, though I doubt you will. So, all 30 severe cases, including one death were in the placebo group. And they have published follow-ups up to two years with almost all severe cases in the placebo group. I won’t bother giving all the follow-up studies because nothing will change your warped intellectually dishonest mind.

So, you write: “you have no idea how they defined “safe” and “effective”–or you don’t want to admit the truth about it.”

Yep, needing hospitalization and the list of severe symptoms certainly not measures of effectiveness. As for my two favorite studies. What a stupid question. I don’t choose one or two studies as favorites, simply the more well-done studies, the stronger the science and I have downloaded and read well over 1,000 published studies since COVID-19 started. Just how SICK are you???

Joel, do you think bad vaccine research practices to achieve desired results ever happen?

“So, all 30 severe cases, including one death were in the placebo group. And they have published follow-ups up to two years with almost all severe cases in the placebo group.”

If Moderna’s findings are true and representative of real life, how do you explain the fact that hundreds of deaths involving COVID19 are being reported to VAERS each month from people who received COVID19 vaccines? https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2022/2/26/how-to-hide-thousands-of-vaccine-deaths-in-plain-sight-lj6nf

Note the issue of VAERS reports not proving the vaccine caused the injury is irrelevant here–since we know they died ‘with COVID19’ and we know they received the c-vax, which is the issue here of ‘safety and efficacy’.

Stop pushing your stupid blog. You are not a scientist and your analysis of research and evidence is biased and usually incredibly stupid and wrong by massive degrees from what a real scientist would do.

YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST.

I’m puzzled why you think people who are not “scientists” are incapable of understanding science, acquiring knowledge in science, research design and data analysis, and are incapable of evaluating evidence using reason and logic.

Don’t project your own weaknesses onto others.

@Ginny: You’re the reason I don’t think people outside of science and uneducated in science are capable of doing or understanding research.

You are example #1. You don’t understand anything about validity of datasets. You think you do, which is your fatal flaw and why no one with any education will ever take you seriously. You come across as a complete and utter amateur with delusions of adequacy.

You also have multiple psychiatric disorders that I think you should see a professional about.

Ginny stoner

@Ginny Stoner.

As you quite clearly note, according to your informative blog, all VAERS reports are under reported and deaths/injuries due to vaccines are 10x worse, in essence you would HAVE to expect all recipients to be still alive and healthy, otherwise there should be no reports. I find it quite ironic that on the tables and graphs you lift from the CDC and VAERS still include the disclaimer ‘adverse events do not necessarily mean they were due to vaccines’…yet you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

As a retired computer engineer, I am as unqualified as yourself in all things medical, so my comments are as a layperson , much like yourself. However qualifications and direct experience in these matters are a requisite, a good indicator of hands on, hard earned knowledge. Orac is a well respected practitioner in his field of work, there are other commentors here also have these requisite attributes, experience and qualifications. Me and you know Jack Shit in relation. Your poo pooing of these requisites and your theory of ‘brainwashing’ is pathetic, it’s your comfort blanket. According to you, the vast majority of the global population are brainwashed…yeah, right.

I asked you the question whether you expected all vaccine recipients to be alive, or in contrast , how many people are expected to die of certain conditions. You didn’t answer adequately on the second contrasting question.

As a layman, I apply my thinking in to the value of VAERS. As a British citizen (you know, those what speak proper in inglish), I am not familiar with VAERS, but am a little in the UK Yellow Card reporting. Before covid, I had no idea of the existence of these reporting systems. So, we have new drugs (vaccines) that went through clinical trials, but we need to know if there are issues after general public roll out. How do we find out. Well I expect by comparison, historical background data. Next I suppose compared to reporting any and all medical reports post vaccine. So, in example, historically, death following heart attacks. If these numbers were say 10,000 a year and there was a significant jump, say 12,000, then this needs investigation. But, if similar numbers, then no concern.

So, here’s the value of VAERS and Yellow Card. Both open to all to submit (and abuse), most mild expected events won’t get reported. If there was no suspicion that events were due to xxx vaccine, these will not be reported. To my eyes, VAERS and yellow card is an early warning light but not a true and detailed resource, certainly not anything you can base any weight on. Here’s a thing, our Yellow card reporting, release a weekly update in a downloadable tabled document format of up to date reports. They are quite detailed, listing a whole plethora of conditions and outcomes (deaths, hospitalisation or other medical interventions). Reading off these conditions ( in full medical language that goes over my head), I found some very interesting conditions reported. gonorrhea, syphilis, thrush, bone fractures, lacerations, suicides and even ‘previous medical condition much improved’, yup, all caused by vaccines.

I asked about the bodies, by your numbers, we would notice, but we don’t. In fact we only notice fewer deaths and serious illness post vaccine rollout, now there’s a coincidence!. I knew plenty of people infected, unfortunately 2 who died. I know shitloads of people vaccinated, almost no one not vaccinated but no one who suffered more than the usual mild reactions. By your numbers, I should.

For me, it’s a question of trust. I trust my doctor, I trust doctors, nurses and surgeons whom I have been in the care of and indeed saved my life. I trust them because they have the qualifications, knowledge and experience. You have no trust, no qualifications, no knowledge, no experience. In fact you have no influence ( except those you have most likely influenced in person). In which case, you are a danger to the public health of those around you. shame on you.

Stick to art, stop wasting your time. Your world is scary one for you due to you convincing yourself because of your lack of expertise in an area you know nothing about.

Have a nice day.

“I’m puzzled why you think people who are not “scientists” are incapable of understanding science, acquiring knowledge in science, research design and data analysis, and are incapable of evaluating evidence using reason and logic.”

Ginny’s performance here doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the layman “scientist” concept. It’s been like watching a person with no flying experience trying to land a 747 while eating a watermelon and streaming movies on Netflix.

Sure, there are people without advanced science degrees who can master basic scientific principles through self-education. But it requires a non-fanatical mindset and good critical thinking skills, neither of which Ginny possesses.

@ Stoner – I’m puzzled

Good lord. This is the most Anon / bizarre / PR thing I ever read.

Evaluate and let it be known how great your data is for the world, please.

That you are puzzled is so perfect and correct. You don’t know a thing about professional / scientific works. Your data analysis capability is about zero. Your rhetoric is almost 2. You shouldn’t teach ever.

I will teach this as corruption. Thank you for making it so clear.

There is a difference between representations/interpretations of the science/data and the science/data. Those of us that that don’t trust the vaccine don’t trust the former.

Furlong says, “I will teach this as corruption.”

As long as your students are free to explore all my writing, teach it “as” whatever you like–I’m hopeful young people are capable of sounder reason than you are.

I would love to know what your students really think of your integrity.

BTW, Furlong–if you are going to teach any of my work “as corruption,” I’d suggest you throw in a few lessons in slander and libel as well.

“I find it quite ironic that on the tables and graphs you lift from the CDC and VAERS still include the disclaimer ‘adverse events do not necessarily mean they were due to vaccines’…yet you refuse to acknowledge that fact.”

Lift? All my charts and graphs are my own work, liar.

I acknowledge that VAERS reports don’t prove the vaccine caused the injury about 12 times on my CVax Risk page, liar–in text, graphics and notes, starting in the introduction.

I stopped reading at the second lie, troll.

BTW, Furlong–if you are going to teach any of my work “as corruption,” I’d suggest you throw in a few lessons in slander and libel as well.

Pro, se! Pro, se!

Lawyerin’ ain’t nothin’ compared with statistamifyin’, Gindo. It’ll be a blast.

Those of us that that don’t trust the vaccine don’t trust the former

So the fact that you don’t understand it and don’t understand the studies means you get to say it’s all a scam and the vaccine is killing millions of people

You, Ginny, and the other dishonest clowns are pathetic.

Wrong bases. The fact that the people pushing it have lied and moved goalposts continuously, the fact that the manufacturers aren’t responsible for injuries and wait for it – that the efficacy is probably less than 50% at this point.

and wait for it – that the efficacy [sic ] is probably less than 50% at this point [sic ]

So, VE just randomly changes over time? Or are you referring to a slice of the pediatric data? I’ll give you a hint either way:

Halving the number of cases is not a bad thing, Potatohead.

@john labarge Goalposts were about herd immunity. This depends on infectivity. So number changes.
Because virus were allowed to spread, boosters are needed. Efficacy is higher than 50% with them.

@john labarge Indeed, slow the spread:
Cuadros DF, Miller FD, Awad S, Coule P, MacKinnon NJ. Analysis of Vaccination Rates and New COVID-19 Infections by US County, July-August 2021. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(2):e2147915. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.47915

“Note the issue of VAERS reports not proving the vaccine caused the injury is irrelevant here–since we know they died ‘with COVID19’ and we know they received the c-vax, which is the issue here of ‘safety and efficacy’.”

This is just biased nonsense and is NOT scientific in the least. You have a serious problem and you can’t even recognize it. It’s really obvious to everyone with any scientific background.

I don’t think you even know the difference between “efficacy” and effectiveness. What you’re whining about is effectiveness, not efficacy.

And it has nothing to do with safety. You can’t determine population level safety through VAERS reports, the data isn’t valid for that. You don’t seem to understand that there are many here that have expertise far beyond what you might even recognize as expertise because you don’t know what you don’t know and you don’t even care that you don’t know. It’s just standard Dunning-Kruger type behavior.

Clinical trials are double blinded. Investigator does not who got the vaccine. so he or she cannot shill for funer
As for reports Moderna trial has tens of thousands participants. If you vaccinate hundred millions, you obviously get more reports

Joel, do you think bad vaccine research practices to achieve desired results ever happen?

So, you insinuate some such nebulous happening with Baden et al. and then just drop it favor of that proven winner, spamming your site and ending with a non sequitur? I thought you had “acquir[ed] knowledge in science, research design and data analysis.

@ Ginny Stoner

Let’s go through the articles you linked to.

The first article is in journal Medical Hypotheses (Albonico, 1998). Only a couple of libraries in the entire United States subscribe it. First, until 2010 articles were NOT even peer-reviewed, so just the editor, Roger Dobson, decided. Let’s look at what the long-time editor writes: “the content may be much more speculative than is allowed by the pre-publication screening where ideas must pass verification . . . Naturally enough, this means that the papers in Medical Hypothesis are exactly that: hypotheses (Dobson, 2008).”

What you don’t understand and refuse to understand is that even if an article meets scientific standards and gets published, it can still be wrong, which is why various forms of replication, additional studies are needed. Take, for instance, the gold standard of research, Placebo-Controlled Double-Blinded Randomized Trials. Imagine you blindly randomized one hundred kids, half boys, half girls, into two equal groups. Would you always get 25 boys, 25 girls in each group? Nope. Even rarely you could end up with all boys in one group and all girls in the other. Based on the binomial distribution, we know the probabilities of each distribution; e.g. 50-50, 60-40, etc. This is what statistical significance means, simply the probability that the randomization process ended in one or more variables/factors that independent of the studied variable(s) influenced the outcome. Note. the paper you link to, published in 1998, has NOT resulted in follow-up studies. I own and have read a book that summarizes 100 articles published in Medical Hypotheses. Book title: “Death Can Be Cured And 99 Other Medical Hypotheses”. And, yep, over its 50 year history a very few of its papers led to medical advances, less than 1%.

The next article you link to has title: “History of chicken pox may reduce risk of brain cancer later in life (Baylor College of Medicine, 2016; Amirian, 2016).” I guess you don’t understand the word “may” and the article ends with “In the future, scientists may be able to apply the chicken pox vaccine to brain cancer research”. So, the vaccine may actually also reduce risk of brain cancer later in life and glioma and other types of brain tumors are a small percentage of cancers experienced and according to National Statistics, actually the rates are going down (National Cancer Institute). Given high rates of vaccination, how do you interpret this? Normally intelligent people would interpret that vaccinations are possibly actually contributing to the decrease. Note, I have stats for various cancers going back decades.

The next article you link to has title: “Mumps and ovarian cancer/ modern interpretation of an historic association.” It concludes with: “There are many limitations of this study, not the least of which was the difficulty of obtaining specimens from individuals with mumps parotitis which limited the size of this study. The samples we obtained were collected between 2000 and 2008 in various public health agencies and were stored under variable conditions (Table 1). Although mumps is now reportable in many regions, we have no way of knowing whether the cases that come to public health attention are representative of mumps infection in the community or a more selected group. Information on precisely when during the course of the infection the samples were collected was limited, and titer data were available from only two sites (London and Edinburgh). Because of the anonymized nature of the case and control specimens, we were unable to correct for potential confounders, other than age and gender. Age could be a key confounder, since we previously reported that anti-MUC1 antibody levels may decline with age . . . The epidemiology of mumps parotitis has obviously changed dramatically in the last 40 years. Mumps parotitis was a very common illness in infants and children prior to 1970. With now close to universal vaccination except in the third world, mumps has become a disease of adults who were either born too early for routine vaccination or who have lost immunity after vaccination. For this reason, inferences about the consequences of parotitis on MUC1 immunity based on observations from the specimens tested here may not be generalizable to what might have occurred with childhood infection before vaccination programs began. . . . Prior to vaccination, mumps was generally a mild illness but could have serious sequelae including orchitis and sterility, meningitis and deafness, and pancreatitis. [My Emphasis]” So, they admit significant limitations to their study, which, you, of course, ignore.

The final paper you refer to is just an opinion piece by Physicians for Informed Consent. According to Media Bias?Fact Check: “Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information; therefore, fact-checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. Overall, we rate Physicians for Informed Consent a quackery level pseudoscience website based on promoting and publishing false and misleading information regarding vaccines (Media Bias; see also Skeptical Raptor, 2017, 2019).

So, as usual, you search the web for anything that confirms your illogical, unscientific beliefs. What you don’t understand, almost everything, is that with millions of papers/studies, one can almost always find one or two that confirm ones beliefs. As an example I have a book, “The Bell Curve” that makes case that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites. The book has literally been sliced apart for its cherry-picked old poorly done studies; but this doesn’t stop racists and their respective websites from citing it. After all, one of its authors, Richard J Herrnstein, is a tenured professor at Harvard. And I could bet I could find other tenured professors at various universities who also are racists. Of course, they don’t consider themselves racists, just honest scholars, “honest” despite cherry-picking confirmation bias. Two excellent refutations of book are by Gould, 1996 and Tucker, 1994.

The bottom line is that you, in your immense ignorance and bias, fail to understand that one can almost always find studies to back ones opinions. Some/many with poor methodologies; but even some with good methodologies; but, as I wrote above, randomization resulted in one or more variables/factors that independently influenced results, which is why some forms of replication necessary. I realize you will ignore what I write because, as I wrote before you know you aren’t brainwashed and you are objective. Of course, your definition of brainwashing is anyone who disagrees with you and your criteria for being objective is you SUBJECTIVE OPINION, a circular argument.

References:

Albonico HU et al. (1998). Febril infectious childhood diseases in the history of cancer patients and matched controls. Medical Hypotheses; 51: 315-320.

Amirian (2016). History of chickenpox in glioma risk: a report from the glioma international case–control study (GICC). Cancer Medicine.

Baylor College of Medicine (2016 Mar 30). History of chicken pox may reduce risk of brain cancer later in life. MedicalXpress.

Cramer (2010 Aug). Mumps and ovarian cancer/ modern interpretation of an historic association.

Dobson R (2008). Death Can Be Cured And 99 Other Medical Hypotheses.

Gorski D (2010 Mar 15). Is there a role for speculative journals like Medical Hypotheses in the scientific literature? Science-Based Medicine.

Gould SJ (1996). The Mismeasure of Man.

Herrstein RJ & Murray C (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.

Media Bias/Fact Check. Physicians for Informed Consent.

National Cancer Institute. Annual Report to the Nation 2021: National Trends in Rates of New Cancer Cases Infographic.

Skeptical Raptor (2017 Mar 15). Physicians for Informed Consent – another radical anti-vaccine group.

Skeptical Raptor (2019 Jul 30). Physicians for Informed Consent — VAERS-loving anti-vaccine group.

Tucker WH (1994). The Science and Politics of Racial Research.

Apparently the Deep State was not successful in assassinating Carrie Madej, the osteopath who exposed tentacles in Covid-19 vaccines.

The update is courtesy of the Health Deranger, who reports that vaccines were not behind the small plane crash that put her in the hospital (she reportedly will be released soon), except maybe they were:

“Note that civilian aviation has a very good safety track record overall, that is until the vaccine clot shots started causing pilots to lose consciousness and crash their planes. However, vaccines are clearly not the culprit in this crash. This appears to be something related to the fuel composition, fuel lines, or other mechanical causes. However, we won’t know for sure unless an investigation is conducted and allowed to be carried out without the truth being covered up. We don’t have much faith that the NTSB will do an honest job on this, since they are controlled by the same corrupt federal government that’s trying to carry out genocide with vaccines…
Stay away from small aircraft, and avoid showing up anywhere in public where the time and location of your arrival is known in advance. These are very dangerous times, and people are being targeted for assassination.”

“The vaccine deep state will stop at nothing to silence the truth.”

At the very least, don’t let mechanics with Pfizer tattoos service your airplane.

“This appears to be something related to the fuel composition, fuel lines, or other mechanical causes.”

Thanks Mike. At least you’ve ruled out an electrical fault.

Not necessarily. As has been amusingly demonstrated, vaccines magnetize you. And, well, electricity, magnetism, electromagnetism and, uh, quantum entanglement, and before you know it the pistons move in the wrong direction, the wrong plug sparks, and you are forced to make an unscheduled landing. Unless there’s lightning nearby, in which case you are accelerated to Mach 5. Avoid flying over the LHC if vaccinated or you may find yourself flying to Arcturus. Keep an emergency supply of air and food onboard, just in case.

Ha ha. Medical Hypotheses has published Gary Null’s “research” over the years including recently when he wrote up his de-aging study.

Trolls will never quote the following:
in STAT, 6-23-22
Covid vaccines prevented an estimated 20M deaths in the year following their release, said first co-author, Oliver Watson of Imperial College London and London School of
Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

That’s not CAUSED, it’s PREVENTED

@ Ginny Stoner

Despite Orac writing several articles explaining why VAERS is NOT “proof” of anything, despite myself and others writing detailed comments, you refuse to even consider that reports to VAERS are just “suspicions” based on Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

You write: “Note the issue of VAERS reports not proving the vaccine caused the injury is irrelevant here–since we know they died ‘with COVID19’ and we know they received the c-vax, which is the issue here of ‘safety and efficacy’.”

NOPE, we know that VAERS received a report which the CDC investigated. For instance, some of the reports of death to VAERS simply said following vaccinations died of heart attack; but as I explained and you are TOO STUPID to understand, on average 2,300 Americans have heart attacks every day, so, obviously, some heart attacks will follow vaccinations, will follow eating Cheerios, will follow lots of things.

As I’ve written before, YOU ARE EITHER INCREDIBLY INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST AND/OR REALLY STUPID. PROBABLY A COMBINATION.

And as for your writing “You’re Welcome”, WOW! Why would I thank you for posting links to four papers, two which weren’t even “valid”, one that hinted the chicken pox vaccine might also prevent cancers and one that included explanations why their findings might NOT be valid.

And you write this to Dangerous Bacon: “Do you seriously think anyone with a few working brain cells could read those studies and articles, and say, “Gee, Mr. Bacon was obviously right–we shouldn’t pay any attention to the research indicating that mild childhood diseases may prevent cancers later in life.””

Anyone with a working brain would understand what I and others have written, namely, the studies you referred to didn’t “prove” anything and that if one searches the internet, given there are literally 10s of thousands of studies, one can always find a few that either were poorly done or by random chance found something that was NOT replicated. Of course, almost everyone following this blog knows that the one without a working brain is YOU.

KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF!

In other words, Joel:

1) You have no idea why hundreds of deaths are being reported to VAERS each month on behalf of people who were vaccinated for COVID19 but died with COVID19, except:

a) The medical professional or relative who reported the death was lying; or
b) It doesn’t matter because the vaccines are safe and effective and save lives.

2) Published, peer-reviewed research studies only matter if they are favorable to vaccination, especially if they are accompanied by additional evidence that is not published in a peer-reviewed journal, which is automatically wrong if it’s unfavorable to vaccination and isn’t published in a peer-reviewed journal.

3) Although you were previously unaware of any evidence that natural infection with typically mild childhood fever-inducing diseases such as measles and chickenpox may actually be beneficial to health, now that you’ve been made aware of it you don’t care, because vaccines are safe and effective and save lives.

But I’m the dishonest and/or stupid one. Right, Joel.

“a) The medical professional or relative who reported the death was lying; or
b) It doesn’t matter because the vaccines are safe and effective and save lives.”

This is an example of a simple mind that can’t comprehend anything other than black and white.

They are REQUIRED to report deaths within a certain amount of time to a vaccine. That doesn’t mean the death had anything to do with the vaccine.

Why don’t you think about how increased surveillance and attention increases the number of reports to VAERS? You can see the effect with MMR and Wakefraud. Oh, wait, YOU can’t see that, you don’t know how and your bias wouldn’t even let you make proper sense of it.

There is no interval for death, so the “certain amount of time” doesn’t apply.

https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination.pdf

What Ginny fails to understand is there MUST be huge UNDERreporting of deaths to VAERS from Covid vaccines. Based on pure chance alone, the number of deaths reported should be much higher, even if the temporal proximity is limited to 17 days (which was the average in the VAERS database for Covid vaccines earlier this year).

But I’m the dishonest and/or stupid one. Right, Joel.

Yes. Simples. Get a grip. Shit happens, people die all the time, eventually you will. Get vaccinated. 😉

This is correct and along the lines of my
??? contention. The sad part here is that they were able to use coercion and mandate instead of persuasion and markets to sell their ‘vaccine’ and we may never know. For persuasion: what’s the base rate of the grouping of related conditions versus those in the vaccinated. Or demonstrate that the CDC safety surveillance is sufficient. Write a blog about how it all is working so well. It seems to me that it narrows based on specific diagnoses and specific vaccines (even when the vaccines are similar such as mRNA) to the extent anyone is monitoring it at all. They don’t even seem to be unstressed in safety or efficacy for toddlers.

This is not persuasive. Prove a lack of causation. Exclaiming “there is no proof!” is just standing next to a bloody knife and dead body and well ???..

@ EVERYONE

I submitted a comment over 12 hours ago that, when I checked this morning, had not posted, so I submitted it again and then it posted twice. Wonder if anyone else has had the same experience. Oh well.

@ Dr Joel:

Yes, it’s happened a few times but what’s more likely is that a comment looks as if it didn’t go through so it’s hard to tell if it did or not so I hold off re-commenting.

@ Denise Walter

I held off for over 12 hours and then resubmitted, almost immediately posted both. Not the first time. So, resubmit somehow triggered posting of previous submission. Weird???

By the way, what do you think of Ginny Stoner? Maybe we should start a petition to get Biden to appoint her head of CDC? or President’s Science Advisor? LOL?

@ Dr Joel:

LOL is correct.
We should be careful because she might make animated videos of her detractors as she did for Orac ( on NWO Reporter) which I’m sure caused that gentleman a few sleepless nights- not because of the quality of her critiques but because of the animation/ vocal effects which are horrifying enough on their own and look and sound nothing like Dr DG.

I did, a couple of days ago. Given that ‘nonce’ is British slang, I thought it was a hack of some kind at first.

Did you get complainr about nonce failure ?

I was getting them a few months ago. They shouldn’t be leaking to this side.

Yup, it happens all the time to me. I won’t see comments I have written or new comments by other folks, and it usually takes about a day to show up. I always assumed that it was an issue with my browser (telling me to stop arguing and go do something else), but maybe it’s WordPress weirdness?

It is a WordPress thing. Every time I submit a comment, I can’t see it for several hours*. I also often can’t see comments other people make until several hours after they are made. This also leads to clicking on Recent Comments at the bottom of the page taking me to an empty space in the comment list. Changing browsers does not help.

*The exception is the first comment I make on opening the page. That one comes up, but if I navigate away and come back, then the comment is gone.

My guess is that’s probably more of a Cloudflare issue, and emptying the cache and force-reloading the page often helps.

It’s more likely some corrupt code in WordPress failing authentication of a new user, so not affecting any more instances once successfully authenticated. Clearing cache, browsing history, temp disabling plugins or useing another browser may prove effective.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “1) You have no idea why hundreds of deaths are being reported to VAERS each month on behalf of people who were vaccinated for COVID19 but died with COVID19, except:”

People die of heart attacks, strokes, people suffer from cardiomyelitis, GI problems, etc. without having been vaccinated. As I explained, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, which you continue to ignore. Also, besides I gave several reasons why increased reporting to VAERS, one more: Why do so many people believe in QAnon? Just because people believe in something doesn’t make it true.

You write: “The medical professional or relative who reported the death was lying”

Nope, not lying; but encouraged by the government to report any deaths and other serious adverse events following within certain period of time vaccinations; but doesn’t mean vaccinations caused. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. As I explained and you continue to ignore, on average 2,300 Americans have a heart attack every single day, so, some by shear coincidence will have them following vaccinations, just as some will have them after eating Cheerios. CDC does thorough investigations, including accessing autopsies, medical records, etc.

You write: “Published, peer-reviewed research studies only matter if they are favorable to vaccination, especially if they are accompanied by additional evidence that is not published in a peer-reviewed journal, which is automatically wrong if it’s unfavorable to vaccination and isn’t published in a peer-reviewed journal.”

NOPE, over the years there have been numerous peer-reviewed published studies focusing on vaccine adverse events. Latest on myocarditis, especially in young men; but other studies have found that myocarditis much higher from actual COVID; but the studies on vaccinations and covid have led to some hesitation to vaccinate a subgroup, though the risk from vaccinations is very low, it is real and published in peer-review journals, etc.

You write: “Although you were previously unaware of any evidence that natural infection with typically mild childhood fever-inducing diseases such as measles and chickenpox may actually be beneficial to health, now that you’ve been made aware of it you don’t care, because vaccines are safe and effective and save lives.”

As I made clear and you, in your IMMENSE STUPIDITY, ignore, not even understanding the word “may” which also implies “may not” and the fact the study article ends with “In the future, scientists may be able to apply the chicken pox vaccine to brain cancer research”. So, the vaccine may actually also reduce risk of brain cancer later in life and glioma and other types of brain tumors are a small percentage of cancers experienced and according to National Statistics, actually the rates are going down (National Cancer Institute). Given high rates of vaccination, how do you interpret this? Normally intelligent people would interpret that vaccinations are possibly actually contributing to the decrease. Note, I have stats for various cancers going back decades.”

And I repeat for the umpteenth time, you give NO indication you understand immunology, microbiology, virology, epidemiology, etc. But, of course, like Trump, you consider yourself an intuitive genius. LOL

STOP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF

I’m tired of your dishonest debating, childish name-calling, baseless and rude insults, and avoidance of every important issue that comes up that reflects poorly on vaccination.

I’m tired of wasting time on your defamatory BS.

@ Ginny Stoner

Typical. You didn’t address a single point I made. Points that clearly undermined claims made by you.

YOU REALLY ARE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST AND TOO STUPID TO REALIZE JUST HOW STUPID YOU ARE.

“I’m tired of your dishonest debating”

You could slice the irony with a knife and serve it at a Brownstone Institute cookout.

Lack of self-awareness, thy name is Stoner.

What do you know about debating, Bacon? Every time I raise an issue you can’t answer, you disappear.

Just because you return again elsewhere with an insulting comment doesn’t mean you won–it just means you chickened out again.

What do you know about debating, Bacon?

Gindo, there is no debate, your tedious repetition of “VAERS! VAERS! VAERS!” and “It’s at my site!” notwithstanding. If you’re unable to counter Joel’s points, it’s not his fault.

avoidance of every important issue that comes up that reflects poorly on vaccination.

Yeah, that hasn’t happened. All of your “issues” are really bullshit, people have tried to explain why to you, and you don’t listen, simply repeat the same empty claims.

Someplace you asked why “non scientists” can’t be expected to be able to comment on science. It was pointed out to you that they aren’t, but understanding does sometime does require deeper knowledge and education. Your degrees, whatever they might be in, don’t give you any ability to judge data, and you’ve clearly never put in any effort to gain an understanding. Hence — your views are identified for what they are: crap.

Ginny: “You have no idea why hundreds of deaths are being reported to VAERS each month on behalf of people who were vaccinated for COVID19 but died with COVID19”

What does this gobbledygook even mean? Loads of people are reporting Covid deaths to VAERS as supposedly being caused by the vaccines? If this is the case and not one of your many fantasies, it demonstrates how little they understand about how VAERS is supposed to function, not to mention a lack of comprehension about how vaccines work. Or are they (and you) confabulating cases where patients died of Covid-19 but reports to VAERS blame vaccines, with the cause of death (gotta be the vaccines) allegedly being covered up through a wide-ranging conspiracy of hospital pathologists* and medical examiners?

Earth to Ginny: The incidence of Covid-19 deaths based on recent statistics is 17 times higher in the unvaccinated compared to those who got two shots and a booster.

http://scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-compare-covid-deaths-for-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people/

*I’ve made vast amounts of $$$ this way but don’t tell anyone.

“What does this gobbledygook even mean? Loads of people are reporting Covid deaths to VAERS as supposedly being caused by the vaccines?”

It’s simple: Hundreds of deaths are being reported to VAERS each month following COVID19 vaccination, in which the deceased had symptoms indicating the presence of confirmed or presumed COVID19. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2022/2/26/how-to-hide-thousands-of-vaccine-deaths-in-plain-sight-lj6nf

I don’t know what role the vaccines played in the death or the diagnosis, if any–I’m just documenting that:
1) The deceased died “with COVID19” according to the CDC’s definition; and
2) The deceased was vaccinated for COVID19.

It’s also my guess that VAERS has been abused by anti vaxxers to attempt to inflate adverse reaction reports. Given that their numbers are small, hardly makes a difference. I have seen anti vaxxers encouraging acolytes to do so via social media. Social media has a lot to answer for, this is how the likes of Ginny become antagonists.

But the numbers aren’t that small. And I don’t believe it’s a vast anti-vax conspiracy to submit fake reports, do you?

“And I don’t believe it’s a vast anti-vax conspiracy to submit fake reports, do you?”

No one said that you moronic clown. What is said is that the reports aren’t linked to causation, they aren’t put there because of causation, they are put there because they are linked by TIME to an adverse event and doctors are legally obligated to report them. That, along with the knowledge that these are new and primarily for adults, is why reports increased.

You have no evidence of causation, just your normal stupid conspiracy theory based biases.

Not a ‘vast’ anti vax conspiracy to abuse VAERS, yes. But it’s been done. Antivaxxers like to LIE as well as twist the truth. Anti vaxxers are unchecked murderers. Many of us are sick of seeing these fools trying to force their whack job blue whale sized bollocks on others, and it has consequences…some people, no, lots of people have died because of it. So if we get rude, insulting and angry, it’s because the likes of bargey, stoned and grudge just go too far.

Naff off.

With the vociferous exchanges on this thread, perhaps it’s time for my, ‘Welcome to Shill University’. For those who missed it: here!

It’s the first day of Shill University, and all the unscrupulous, shameful students who aspire to be pharma shills are waiting in the packed auditorium as they chatter with excitement. Shortly, a middle-aged man slides in from a side-door in the front, and he walks towards the lecture podium. He stops, surveys the room, and calmly begins to speak,

“Welcome to Shill University. It takes a special calling to become a pharma shill, and I will be frank; most of you don’t have it. Most of you will fail this course. To pass the course you must always abide by three simple rules.”

He now begins to bark…

“First, you must always portray vaccines in a positive light and promote them at all cost! Second, should you have to concede anything negative or detrimental about vaccines, only do so because you have absolutely no choice and not conceding would make matters worse! Finally, when conceding anything negative about vaccines, always concede the bare minimum and always find ways to make things seem more positive than they are!”

Still loud….

“Everything you will be taught here extends from these three simple rules! The denials, obfuscations, strawman and red-herrings, ad homs, personal insults, and the bald face lies… Everything!

Back to being calm…

“For the few of you who are able to defeat your most mortal enemy, your conscience, and abide by the three rules, you will pass the course and become successful pharma shills. Good luck everyone! I’ll give you a moment to reflect.”

The room is now markedly quieter, and a feeling of nervousness has swept over the students. Will they be able to defeat their conscience and follow the three rules? Will they succeed at becoming pharma shills?!

Remember Christine’s description of her brave mama, the only person in an auditorium full of cowed medical students who dared challenge the Medical School Overlord when he commanded them to never speak ill of vaccines?

In my day, we were never lectured like this. It wasn’t necessary, given the enormous amounts of cash, luxury cars, exotic vacations and nubile companions showered on us by our Pharma Benefactors.

@ Greg

I really think you should try to develop a personal relationship with Ginny Stoner. You two would make a perfect couple.

As I’ve written in previous comments, one can find many peer-reviewed published medical journal articles on adverse events attributed to vaccines; but anyone who actually understands immunology, microbiology, virology, epidemiology, and the history of vaccine-preventable diseases understands that nothing is perfect; however, the benefits of vaccines; e.g., avoiding suffering, hospitalizations, permanent disabilities, and death far outweigh the rare; but real serious adverse events and some of these actually much higher from the natural microbes.

Anyone who really understands vaccines and vaccine history understands that vaccines, together with safe water, safe food, etc. have been a major contributor to increases in life-expectancy and decreases in disabilities. Unfortunately, past decades have seen increases in junk food, sugar, and obesity, increases in toxins in air and water, decreases in exercise, so, prior to current pandemic, for first time in decades, life-expectancy is actually going down.

As with your soulmate Ginny, you have NEVER given the least inkling that you actually understand anything about vaccines, now they work, their history, etc. Oh well.

You and Ginny should look up Dunning-Kruger, perfect description of the two of you.

As I’ve written in previous comments, one can find many peer-reviewed published medical journal articles on adverse events attributed to vaccines; but anyone who actually understands immunology, microbiology, virology, epidemiology, and the history of vaccine-preventable diseases understands that nothing is perfect; however, the benefits of vaccines; e.g., avoiding suffering, hospitalizations, permanent disabilities, and death far outweigh the rare; but real serious adverse events and some of these actually much higher from the natural microbes.

I keep suggesting that the provaxx brigade are pitiful not so much because they seek to bs us, ‘antivaxxers’, but because they seek to bs themselves. This is why ‘antivaxxers’ cause them so much ire. It’s not so much that we won’t accept their bs, but our very existence as objectors is a hit to their desire to fool themselves and attain some semblance of calm.

Read here the points made by me, Ginny, John Labarge, Kay, Indie Rebel and other ‘antivaxxers’. You may not necessarily agree with them, but it is easy to see that they are coming from a position of conviction. We sincerely believe our concerns and criticisms are legitimate, and we are never trying to bs ourselves.

Provaxxers counter that as scientists and researchers they are less likely to adopt rigid, dogmatic positions as antivaxxers? They realize nothing is a 100% with science, so they temper their language with more nuance arguments? Yes — keep bs’ing yourselves!

PS: Joel, with your vast knowledge of immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, and so on, I notice you still haven’t addressed Dr Williams’ argument that suppression of the TLRs could explain monkeypox. Won’t you be so kind and do?!

@ Greg

You write: “Read here the points made by me, Ginny, John Labarge, Kay, Indie Rebel and other ‘antivaxxers’. You may not necessarily agree with them, but it is easy to see that they are coming from a position of conviction. We sincerely believe our concerns and criticisms are legitimate, and we are never trying to bs ourselves.”

“A position of conviction.” YIKES. So, Ku Klux Klan are sincere in their racism. Nazis in their antisemitism. QAnon believers, etc. Anyone who forms a “sincere” belief, regardless of what they base it on???

As for science, it is a methodology. It is NOT a religion. It does NOT claim absolute certainty; but at some point as “objectively” obtained knowledge builds one has to take a position. Based on overwhelming knowledge of immunology, microbiology, virology, epidemiology, and history of vaccine-preventable diseases, anyone with an open mind will understand that vaccines work and that the risks from vaccines, though real; but rare, are outweighed by the much much greater benefits.

I have been downloading articles on Monkeypox; but haven’t had time to CAREFULLY read them, so, as opposed to people like you who form opinions based on ignorance, I won’t write anything until I have found the time to learn about monkeypox. However, I do know what Toll Like Receptors (TLR) are. Do you?

In addition, whatever I write, would have NO effect on you. You are asking for info not to modify/change your “beliefs”; but just to continue with your comments intended more to irritate people than to enter into a real dialogue.

No opinion on monkey pox. I don’t trust that the representations are objective re Covid-19 vaccines. Indeed the toddler vaccines illustrate that the knowledge is less than scientific as well. Even giving it the benefit of the doubt, the body of knowledge will grow over them few years. Mandating them at this stage is wrong and fascistic. State and media companies and medical boards coming together to censor doctors who are critical of them are both hallmarks of fascism and indications that this is not about science.

I have been downloading articles on Monkeypox; but haven’t had time to CAREFULLY read them, so, as opposed to people like you who form opinions based on ignorance

Joel, any idea how long it will take you to get up to scratch on monkeypox and when I can expect a response from you?

@Narad

You are good at tracing my footprints on this blog, so I will ask a favour. In October 2021 on the ‘Ecological Fallacy’ thread, I discussed the suppression of TLRs. Yet, I jumped on that thread only after chasing Doug (or Dean?) who wouldn’t answer my question about the original antigenic sin. What was the previous thread? For the life of it, I am trying to figure out the genesis of my inspiration.

@Greg You keep forgetting upregulating of TLR2. It is activated by viral proteins
Monkey pox is DNA virus. DNA is recognised by TLR9 (not affected by mRNA vaccines). Viral proteins are recognised by TRL2, which is upregulated.

Viral proteins are recognised by TRL2, which is upregulated.

TLR2 is upregulated, Aarno? Fohse et al are also suggesting that TLRs 7 and 8 that respond to ssRNA are down-regulated as well as TLR4 that has been shown to directly respond to the Spike protein of Covid-2.

Now Aarno, I know you have a tendency to challenge everything I say, so maybe I will appeal directly to Orac to interfere. Oh, Orac! Can you please explain to Aarno that three is great than one and it’s actually three times greater?!

Sit tight and wait for Orac, Aarno. I am sure we can proceed after he follows up.

@Greg None of TLRs related to DNA viruses are downegulated. TLR9 recognises viral DNA and is not downregulated.

You are good at tracing my footprints on this blog, so I will ask a favour

Sure. Every time you say “the original antigenic sin,” you look even dumber than usual. HTH.

Quoting myself…

I keep suggesting that the provaxx brigade are pitiful not so much because they seek to bs us, ‘antivaxxers’, but because they seek to bs themselves. This is why ‘antivaxxers’ cause them so much ire. It’s not so much that we won’t accept their bs, but our very existence as objectors is a hit to their desire to fool themselves and attain some semblance of calm.

This is a very important point for understanding why debate with the provaxx brigade is so hopeless. ‘Antivaxxers’ are hoping that if they make their reasonable arguments to provaxxers then maybe provaxxers will see the light and come around to the ‘antivaxxers’’ position, or, at a minimum, concede the points. Provaxxers, however, have no pretense of doing this. For the provaxxers, the hope is to rebut with enough BS that it completely exhausts the ‘antivaxxers’ and forces them to give up or surrender.

Yet, the provaxers are not expecting the sort of surrender such as the one they are getting from the lemme masses who, for instance, accepts the BS that we’ve always had 1 in 30 neuro-impaired kids and it is only the ‘fraudster’, Wakefield, who is starting to get some to think otherwise. The provaxxers realize that seasoned antivaxxers are way too smart for that.

Instead, what the provaxxers are ultimately hoping for is to smack these antivaxxers around with sufficient BS that the antivaxxers will start considering that it would be wiser or safer to bury their objections and side with the provaxxers. ‘Yes, vaccine may not be perfect, but the benefits far outweighs the risks.’ Essentially, it is a surrender where the antivaxxers start becoming like the provaxxers; trying to BS themselves.

We see examples of this type of surrender with disability agencies such as Autism Speaks. Autism Speaks started off by detailing the harrowing side of autism and calling for a cure. However, after being bludgeoned with barrages of criticisms that they were ableist monsters who were perpetuating negative stereotypes about autism, they gave up. They have now come around to the perspective that autism is just a different way of being that should be celebrated and not cured. Autism Speaks has learned to BS itself.

Do you think hat your argument about TLRs and monkeypox ia reasonable ? Check what TRLs are involved in recognition of DNA viruses.

Well Greg, you’ve demonstrated something you’re even worse at than understanding science and statistics. Your writing is as shit-poor as Ginny’s. Not surprising though — you’ve posted enough to indicate that you’ve failed at every step of your education.

@ Ginny Stoner

You probably just don’t understand; but in almost all my comments addressed to you I literally quote something you said, then I address it, then I quote something else you said, then I address it and my responses often include several references, seldom to something I wrote; but to other valid sources. However, when I do refer to something I wrote; e.g., critique of Humphries book, it includes often a reference list of many sources, sometimes more than 100. This is how one enters into an honest dialogue, literally responding to points made by the other person. I realize that this is beyond your ability to understand. Oh well.

And you really should try to establish some sort of relationship with Greg outside of this blog. Two people perfectly suited for each other. Two people who attack vaccines without the most basic of understanding of the science that underlie them and their history. For instance, as Chris Preston wrote above:

““During the 1920s, 100,000 to 200,000 cases of diphtheria (140 to 150 cases per 100,000 population) and 13,000 to 15,000 deaths were reported each year. After diphtheria toxoid-containing vaccines became available in the 1940s, the number of cases gradually declined to about 19,000 in 1945 (15 cases per 100,000 population). A more rapid decrease began with implementation of a universal childhood vaccination program which included diphtheria toxoid-containing vaccines beginning in the late 1940s.”

And, as I explained, polio was on the rise in the early 1950s, then the vaccine and polio cases plummeted. And smallpox killed 25% of an entire population every few years, including between 2 and 3 hundred million in the 20th Century in Third World, then WHO campaign 1967 to 1979 and smallpox disappeared from the planet. It had already disappeared from US because of mass immunization. You ignore all this as well as having NO understanding of how vaccines work, etc. I’ve written this several times and you just ignore.

Why do you keep posting here when you JUST KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF???

There are plenty of pro vax arguments made here that don’t resort to sophistry. Joel makes a bunch. But just ? and screaming ‘your not a scientist!’ Is not persuasive.

It should be though.

If you think that someone with no education, training or experience in a particular field can, with a little reading, speak on an equivalent level to someone who does, then why are there elite soldiers, world renowned architects, sought after chefs, Nobel prize winning physicists?

Anti-vaxxers aren’t even amateur scientists, they aren’t interested in the field enough to learn everything about It. They are solid bundles of focused, motivated reasoning. Only following the trails and people that tell them what they want to hear. If you have even the slightest amount of expertise in something, then you should understand that you are better at that thing that someone who’s read a few books and thinks the government is out to kill them.

You don’t have to assume that scientists don’t get it wrong. Just that big mouths down the pub need to have their opinions taken with a pinch of salt.

@ NumberWang:

But you know, people who study anti-vaxxers and CT believers ( re personaity qualities) have found that they do not recognise hierarchies of expertise so slightly educated anti-vax mothers** may be superior to researchers who focus upon vaccines/ autism etc. Of course, most people don’t agree: usually even kids understand that all people are not equal in knowledge or ability
In addition, they feel as though they are not common but something special, rules don’t apply. They value the natural and the pure as well as freedom.

** see some of the usual suspects blithely critique Dr Fauci or Orac

The term antivaxxer is largely meaningless at this point. If you are against mandating covid-19 vaccines specifically, then most people here label you antivaxxer. The science on that vaccine is far from clear.

Joel, just a hey hey, I appreciate reading lists provided and the quite reasonable explanation to those who are invested in promoting ignorance. Here we are, the internet allows the production of fuck bad opinion. Weird day but .. . I keep reading your posts and lists of value reading. Thanks again. And Orac for the platform.

Surprise, surprise! So, they are indeed finding a correlation with monkeypox and Covid vaccination.

Wait! We are also being reminded that correlation does not prove causation? Of course!

The organisation said people have been identifying patterns in Covid-19 data and arriving at the wrong conclusion.

“Don’t confuse correlation and causation. Because two trends happen at the same time does not mean they are related.

“Proving causation requires research. Scientists are continually studying the safety and effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines and have not found that they cause monkeypox,” WHO said

https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2022-07-08-is-there-a-link-between-covid-19-vaccines-and-monkeypox/

Correction. Correlation proves causation when used to show vaccines good. Such as deaths and hospitalization with Covid, but not when used to show vaccines bad, such as deaths and hospitalizations of those vaccinated with Covid.

@ johnlabarge

Dishonest as usual. There have been placebo-controlled double-blinded randomized clinical trials and there have been cohort studies, neither based on correlation. And we also understand the immune system and how vaccines work, something you don’t. I realize that you are too dishonest to try to learn; but for others I suggest an excellent intro to immunology, about 160 pages, extremely well-written: Lauren Sompayrac’s “How the Immune System Works (6th Edition)”, inexpensive on Amazon.com

It is NOT science that separate us, it is your dishonesty, making claims without even really researching the subject.

While I am quite knowledgeable about the sciences underlying vaccines, there have been other subjects that caught my attention, so I did the research, not finding blogs; but using, for instance, Google Scholar and PubMed, and various combinations of search words. And NOT reading a couple, three papers; but dozens, intentionally looking at both sides if they exist.

What claim have I made other than here the prudent step is to distrust authority?

,Correlation proves causation when used to show vaccines good.

No john (and, by proxy, greg): correlation alone does not mean anything, and never does it imply causation by itself. It may indicate a relationship, it may not. A correlation that is not significant for one sample size may be judge significant for a larger sample. As a very simple example you can even find significant correlations when there is a relationship that is not-linear: if you take data from a parabolic relationship, with predictors symmetric about the vertex, the correlation will be zero. If it is not symmetrically spaced it’s non-zero.

If you’re talking about relationships between categorical quantities you should be saying “association” — but again, sample size.

We know why you and greg lie about the implications of correlations: it’s a mixture of your lack of knowledge of statistics and your dishonest leaps to take things you don’t understand and use them to attack vaccines. What isn’t clear is why, after you have your errors pointed out, you ignore them and continue your lies. My guess that behavior is simply down to the type of person you choose to be.

The concept of correlation is one of the most abused concepts in the vaccine industry.

Establishing correlation is the first step toward establishing cause–because causation always includes correlation. If there is no correlation, then there is no causation and no need to investigate further.

As Johnlabarge pointed out, in the vaccine industry, correlation proves or at least “suggests” causation when it indicates vaccines are good. But if it indicates vaccines are bad, it’s dismissed as a concern.

That’s foolish because correlation may indicate causation, although it doesn’t necessarily. If there is any reasonable chance the correlation indicates causation re the covid shots, it needs to be investigated urgently–this is a life and death matter.

But it won’t be because the vaccine industry and its captured regulators are corrupt to the core and know the shot is devastating lives right and left.

Exactly. Correlation is anything but proof of lack of causation. It is evidence of causation. Sometimes there is evidence for things that aren’t true.

But what VAERs shows is a lot of correlation. Which makes the indicator and the need for caution and investigation that much more important. It should be part of a weekly/monthly public briefing with answers why or why not correlated events aren’t causal.

Establishing correlation is the first step toward establishing cause–because causation always includes correlation.

Nope.

Ok explain what Part is wrong then. Seems like your sophistisizing here but let’s hear it.

Seems like we are into semantics from reading the math stack exchange. From an English and logic perspective – perhaps not as precise as Math terminology causation implies correlation. From a Math nerd perspective where correlation is a function and not a logical observation then yeah there are many exceptions and different terms to use (relation dependence) to be more precise. Bottom line is there is some relationship if there is causation. Observing relationships over and over again as has been done with VAERs, particularly if you classify the conditions less narrowly indicates relationships (absence a vast anti-vax conspiracy to fraudulently report which I assume some of you believe in – e.g. all reports are just like the Hulk reference) between certain conditions (circulatory typically) and the mRNA vaccines. That does not imply by itself that the vaccines caused these conditions. Older individuals and people with chronic conditions are amongst the most likely to get vaccinated – and there is also a relationship between age and these conditions. But when you start to see young people have heart attacks above the base rate or get myocarditis and pericarditis when they are perfectly fit – again above the base rate – that’s a problem for the vax narrative – (some of which, but not all of which has been acknowledged). Time and transparency is the key to unraveling the truth. What was a safe and effective vaccine in the Netherlands for an 18 year old at the beginning is no longer deemed so (the US feels differently for some reason). There hasn’t been enough time or transparency and that’s the problem. And that’s why I DGAF if you call me an antivaxxer. I’m proud of it. It’s the right move in this situation.

Yes. And I challenge you to translate that gobbledygook into English.

If a vaccine is causing death or serious injury, deaths and serious injuries will increase as vaccination increases–a positive correlation. Period.

Yes. And I challenge you to translate that gobbledygook into English.

What part did you not understand, Ms. Universal Quantifier?

Narad you didn’t provide an example of a situation in vaccinology when causation does not include correlation–because there are none. Nor did you summarize that gobbledygook you posted in English, because you can’t.

Establishing correlation is the first step toward establishing cause–because causation always includes correlation. If there is no correlation, then there is no causation and no need to investigate further.

Nope. Maybe you should take a course in statistics.

Of course vaccine safety is not based on correlation. There are actually clinical trials, which is different thing
Antivaxxers love correlations. There are indeed correlation when there are causation. but there are not always causation when there are correlation.

@ Greg

Have you ever studies, even read, books on statistics, epidemiology, research methodology? Nope.

A classic correlation study found in France a strong correlation between storks and number of children. Reason, storks mainly in countryside and farm/rural families had more children, so storks had nothing to do with it. I’m sure you will disagree.

Surprise, surprise! So, they are indeed finding a correlation with monkeypox and Covid vaccination.

Which “they” would that be, jizzrag? It’s not in the story that you dredged up, and it’s not in its link to the WHO tweet.

Leave it up to Gerg to not read past the headline….

Or answer a direct question. This place really needs a killfile again.

Sorry, Narad, the WHO’s tweet can be seen as them conceding a correlation despite it being unclear who the third party, or parties are who are bringing the correlation to their attention. I am guessing that with the fallout of the lab leak cover-up, they are wisely choosing not to go down that road again with monkeypox and Covid vaccination.

@ Greg

You write: “the WHO’s tweet can be seen as them conceding a correlation despite it being unclear who the third party, or parties are who are bringing the correlation to their attention.”

The South African article you linked to stated: “This comes after misleading claims were circulated on social media suggesting vaccines contributed to the monkeypox outbreak in certain countries.”
https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2022-07-08-is-there-a-link-between-covid-19-vaccines-and-monkeypox/

So, WHO not conceding even a correlation; but informing public that social media claims are NOT science, often not even rational. And the “third party” is social media. Did you miss this???

I suppose Greg’s filosophy is something like: “If I read something, it says what I want it to say.”

Joel writes…

So, WHO not conceding even a correlation; but informing public that social media claims are NOT science, often not even rational. And the “third party” is social media. Did you miss this???
</blockquote

Let's read the entire tweet again, Joel, and pay attention to this…

The organisation said people have been identifying patterns in Covid-19 data and arriving at the wrong conclusion.

“Don’t confuse correlation and causation. Because two trends happen at the same time does not mean they are related.

Please explain to me, Joel, the rationale of the WHO cautioning against people analyzing Covid data and confusing correlation of monkeypox and Covid vaccination with causation if there is no actual correlation?

I will admit that the tweet is quite cryptic. It has a feel of the WHO hedging its bet. Who can blame them with the stakes so high!

Please explain to me, Joel, the rationale of the WHO cautioning against people analyzing Covid data and confusing correlation of monkeypox and Covid vaccination with causation if there is no actual correlation?

Spurious correlation dickhead. Correlations between variables can occur in large data sets despite no relationship being present – even when there is no linear relationship present, which is the only type of relationship correlation deals with. Maybe, if you’d ever had any statistics, you’d know that. They don’t want people like you data dredging looking for any correlation and then saying “Aha, told you”.

Because they know just how dishonest people like you are, and how stupid the people who listen to you are.

Of course spurious correlation is a thing. But is there a mechanism whereby the vaccine could cause an illness that looks similar or are we just exclaiming ?? spurious! Spurious!

But is there a mechanism whereby the vaccine could cause an illness that looks similar

You’d have to show that possibility first. Even then, a correlation might not indicate cause and effect between the things you’re interested in.

You really don’t know shit about statistics do you?

Why not check the possibility before dismissing the correlation? Otherwise we just circularly assert that there is no evidence. This is my problem with the whole provax setup in a nutshell. Circular proof of safety and efficacy. Eliminating control groups because we think we’ve proved the thing the control groups were there for. On and on.

Spurious correlation dickhead. Correlations between variables can occur in large data sets despite no relationship being present – even when there is no linear relationship present, which is the only type of relationship correlation deals with. Maybe, if you’d ever had any statistics, you’d know that. They don’t want people like you data dredging looking for any correlation and then saying “Aha, told you”.

John Labarge, ‘idw’ is quite confusing here, and I suspect deliberately so. What he or she is trying to say is a correlation may appear between two variables with there not actually being one. The apparent correlation may in fact be the result of a confounding third variable.

For example, it might be the case that the data reveals that 95% of the monkeypox cases are among the vaccinated. Is that proof of a correlation, and is it suggestive that Covid vaccination is causing monkeypox? Not necessarily. It could be the case that Gays who are more affected by monkeypox are more likely to be vaccinated, perhaps over 95%, and being Gay is the confounding variable that is contributing to the false correlation between Covid vaccination and monkeypox.

Now, I suspect ‘idw’ doesn’t desire to provide such a simply account because it would expose what you say as true: it’s is not fair to scream ‘spurious’ at all correlations that you don’t like. You have to prove them.

Proving spurious correlations involves controlling for possible confounding variables. With our example, it would involve showing that unvaxxed Gay people are just as likely to catch monkeypox as vaxxed Gay people. Yet, with the stakes so high, it’s quite understandable that ‘idw’ would just choose to scream ‘spurious’.

I understand the the notion of spurious correlation and believe it’s very plausible. However, I disagree with assuming spurious correlation without looking into it. If I understand right some folks peg monkey pox as elated to shingles in some way which does have an apparent association.

If I understand right some folks peg monkey pox as elated to shingles in some way which does have an apparent associatio

Yes, John, and shingles cases are also exploding following Covid vaccination, and the suggestion is the vaccines are awakening the dormant varicella-zoster virus. Yet, we know shingles is not monkeypox because monkeypox cases are being confirmed through sequencing.

I believe the clue that they are both DNA viruses account for the apparent association. With mRNA vaccination, TLR9, the prime sensor of DNA viruses, has been down-regulated. With this, vacinees are thus more susceptible to DNA infections than other infections

Indeed, Aarno has pointed out that the RNA pathogens sensor TLR2 has been upregulated and suggesting better protection against RNA pathogens. Yet, even here, there is an overall down regulation of RNA sensors with TLR 4, 7 and 8 also being down-regulated. I consider this is the reason we are seeing more Covid reinfections from newer strains. It’s not so much that the strains are escaping the vaccines and adaptive immunity, but an impaired innate system is not as skilled at recognizing more novel strains.

So there is a mechanism. Enough to investigate whether the correlation is indeed spurious or not.

And, I’ve been writing a lot about infections but what about cancer?

Here is Fohse et al again…

One of the trademarks of trained immunity is an elevated production of inflammatory cytokines following a secondary insult (Quintin et al., 2012). Surprisingly, the production of the monocyte-derived cytokines TNF-α, IL-1β and IL-1Ra tended to be lower after stimulation of PBMCs from vaccinated individuals with either the standard SARS-CoV-2 strain

And, what type of cytokine is TNF- alpha?

Tumour Necrosis Factor alpha (TNF alpha), is an inflammatory cytokine produced by macrophages/monocytes during acute inflammation and is responsible for a diverse range of signalling events within cells, leading to necrosis or apoptosis. The protein is also important for resistance to infection and cancers.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10891884/

@john labarge monkeypox and COVID are not similar, and COVID vaccines do not cause COVID, either
Monkeypox diagnosis is based on monkeypox DNA.
@Greg *None of TLRs related to DNA virus recognition are downregulated”.Try to get this

@aarno a thing that you never said is not true and another thing that you never said is not true.

So there is a mechanism. Enough to investigate whether the correlation is indeed spurious or not.

Note to labarge: greg’s dishonest comment asserting a mechanism doesn’t mean there is one.

Note to labarge: greg’s dishonest comment asserting a mechanism doesn’t mean there is one.

Of course you can control for confounders, JohnLabarge. I suspect Idw is hinting that just about any correlation can be dismissed under the argument that some unknown confounder might be causing it. The link between increasing vaccines and increasing cases of autism is an example.

This article does an excellent job detailing the concerns about mRNA vaccination including highlighting the problem of suppression of the TLRs, but pay attention to this…

A seminal paper by Karikó et al. (2005) demonstrated through a series of in vitro experiments that a simple modification to the mRNA such that all uridines were replaced with pseudouridine could dramatically reduce innate immune activation against exogenous mRNA. Andries et al. (2015) later discovered that 1-methylpseudouridine as a replacement for uridine was even more effective than pseudouridine and could essentially abolish the TLR response to the mRNA, preventing the activation of blood-derived dendritic cells. This modification is applied in both the mRNA vaccines on the market (Park et al., 2021).

So, Kariko et al first discovered the recipe for shutting down the TLRs for successful deliverance of RNA to cells. The recipe involved shutting down TLR3, 7 and 8. Andries et al perfected it, and Park et al confirmed that it was followed for Covid-2 mRNA vaccines.

Yet, examing Pfizer’s brew, Föhse et al are suggesting it is TLR4, 7 and 8 that are down-regulated, and TLR2 is upregulated. What?! TLR4 instead of TLR3, and who called for the upregulation of TLR2?! Further, with monkeypox and shingles, the evidence is also pointing to the down-regulation of TLR9!

What is going on?! Could it be that Kariko et al and Andries et al weren’t full aware of the recipes they were brewing?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X

idw’ is quite confusing here, and I suspect deliberately so. What he or she is trying to say is a correlation may appear between two variables with there not actually being one. The apparent correlation may in fact be the result of a confounding third variable.

Not at all — your lack of understanding, and lack of honesty, are your responsibility, not mine.

@Greg There is a paper about vaccinia virus (another poxvirus):
Zhu J, Martinez J, Huang X, Yang Y. Innate immunity against vaccinia virus is mediated by TLR2 and requires TLR-independent production of IFN-beta. Blood. 2007 Jan 15;109(2):619-25. doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-06-027136. Epub 2006 Sep 14. PMID: 16973959; PMCID: PMC1785085.
You notice that it is again TLR2.

Further, with monkeypox and shingles, the evidence is also pointing to the down-regulation of TLR9!

Pfizer’s brew recipe for shutting down the TLRs mainly involve the methylation of RNA/DNA where the RNA will be perceived as self. TLR9 mainly respond to unmethylated DNA, so it’s understandably that there would be Impairment of this TLR. What’s quite not understandably is why there would be trained immunity for monkeypox unmethylated DNA

@Greg The paper considered only binding of modified RNA to TLRs not even downregulating). Monkeypox is a DNA virus. Viral proteins bind to TLR2.

I did a brief search but couldn’t find whether higher percentage of monkeypox infected were vaccinated than the vaccinated population in the regions where monkeypox has spread. I can see this being the case if the answer is not good for the vaccine, but I also have an open mind and cannot link monkeypox to the vaccine just yet. That’s where my trust of the medical-industrial-complex is at. If there is a relationship I’m pretty sure that would be silenced by the media or worse).

@Greg Do you understand that viruses suppress immune system ?
About TLR9 and monkeypox:
Samuelsson C, Hausmann J, Lauterbach H, Schmidt M, Akira S, Wagner H, Chaplin P, Suter M, O’Keeffe M, Hochrein H. Survival of lethal poxvirus infection in mice depends on TLR9, and therapeutic vaccination provides protection. J Clin Invest. 2008 May;118(5):1776-84. doi: 10.1172/JCI33940. PMID: 18398511; PMCID: PMC2289795.

Greg, you dishonest, foolish clown.
From the article you linked:

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has dismissed claims of a link between Covid-19 vaccinations and the monkeypox outbreak.

This comes after misleading claims were circulated on social media suggesting vaccines contributed to the monkeypox outbreak in certain countries.

The organisation said there was no evidence of a link between the two.

Yet again, an antivaxxer posts an article assuming it supports their bulldust, only for it to refute them.

They’ve dismissed them until which time they admit their plausibility in the future similar to lab leak?

I don’t know about you, Julian, but I sure am tired of the obvious nonsense about how labs are run from people who don’t even know how to take off a pair of gloves.

@ johnlabarge

Something else you don’t understand. For instance, linear regression equations and binomial correlation are just algebraic transformations of each other. Linear multiple regression equations algebraic transformation of partial correlation equations. But the two equations are applied differently, based on design of study.

Crikey Joel, that lot went over my head, but alas it will bargey boy as well. At least I can say ‘I don’t understand’ and not ‘SOPHISTRY’

For instance, linear regression equations and binomial correlation are just algebraic transformations of each other.

The slope and correlation in simple linear regression are simple functions of each other. The intercept plays no role — but then, without an intercept, Pearson correlation is meaningless.

labarge: from your link (note the numbers)

However, now that approximately 87% of eligible Ontarians are fully vaccinated (compared to 3% partially vaccinated and 10% unvaccinated) this comparison is no longer appropriate and may be misleading.

Do you understand how percentages work? I doubt it.

Yes as do most people. And that’s why the data wouldn’t be misleading at all. Indeed they like to say things like your 10x more likely to die of covid if unvaccinated etc. Those are misleading if we are playing the misleading game. The reason they are misleading is that they don’t share the actual number.

Where you get that claim that vaccinated people are ten times more probably to die because of COVID ? “They” are indeed saying very strange things.

It’s an example of misleading propagandist representations of statistics. The coefficient isn’t the point.

@john labarge I indeed can believe that an antivaxxer produce such a statistics

Yes as do most people. And that’s why the data wouldn’t be misleading at all

Where would the percentages come from if it isn’t the data? Don’t give one of your asinine conspiracy-based answers.

If there is no plausibility then vaccines make no sense. The whole reason for a vaccine is indeed a long term effect on the immune system. And those are studied when trying to prove efficacy. If long term effects are implausible then vaccines have no value because they do nothing.

Do you really think that’s an argument?

Vaccination (or infection) is like adding another photo to the ‘Ten Most Wanted” list. It doesn’t change how the search is conducted, it just gives law enforcement another face to keep an eye out for.

Actually, I never made any argument. My point was that I thought your argument was ill phrased.

Long term effect caused by vaccines is to create immune memory (memory B cells) They are very specific to the pathogen.
Did you read the Wikipedia article ? Do read it, and do Google Scholar search with vaccine long term safety

Of course. That’s the point. It’s called immune memory. That’s the whole point of vaccines.

If you want to act like this is some kind of gotcha then the karmic tax is picking up 10 pieces of trash or planting something.

Only inasmuch as people have denied that there could be long term issues with a vaccine is it a gotcha. That’s all I’m getting at. The point of a vaccine is a long term change to immune memory and contrary to the antivax label, I think that vaccines make sense in some cases. Bottom line is there is not enough time in enough people to know the long term consequences of the covid-19 vaccine. What I have seen people argue (and I’m paraphrasing) is that long term negativer consequences aren’t plausible. I don’t think we know enough (or scientists know enough) to make that assertions just yet.

@ Julian Frost & Greg

I submitted a comment that already covers what your comment said, namely, “misleading claims on social media.” So, my comment was redundant; but nice to know I’m not senile yet?

What is fascinating is how Greg scours the internet to find papers, either doesn’t understand them, ignores that one can always find just about anything on the internet (preliminary studies, some well-done but not replicated and others poorly done, also ignore qualifying remarks in paper) and why does he cite some newspaper e.g., Nikanjeni, 2022, rather than the actual, for instance, WHO piece, which the paper links to?

The Föhse paper he cites included 16 volunteers and concluded with:

“In conclusion, our data show that the BNT162b2 vaccine induces effects on both the adaptive and the innate branch of immunity and that these effects are different for various SARS-CoV-2 strains. Intriguingly, the BNT162b2 vaccine induces reprogramming of innate immune responses as well, and this needs to be taken into account: in combination with strong adaptive immune responses, THIS COULD CONTRIBUTE TO A MORE BALANCED INFLAMMATORY REACTION DURING COVID-19 INFECTION, OR IT MAY CONTRIBUTE TO A DIMINISHED INNATE RESPONSE TOWARDS THE VIRUS [My Emphasis]. BNT162b2 vaccine is clearly protective against COVID-19, but the duration of this protection is not yet known, and one could envisage future generations of the vaccine incorporating this knowledge to improve the range and duration of the protection. OUR FINDINGS NEED TO BE CONFIRMED BY CONDUCTING LARGE COHORT-STUDIES WITH POPULATIONS WITH DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS [My Emphasis], while further studies should examine the potential interactions between BNT162b2 and other vaccines.”

In addition, the article has NOT been published, not peer-reviewed (Föhse, 2021); but posted on a website that state: “preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.” It was posted May 6, 2021, so still not published in peer-reviewed journal.

So, Greg missed that “could contribute to a more balanced inflammatory reaction” and “findings need to be confirmed by conducting larger cohort-studies with populations with diverse backgrounds” and hasn’t yet been published.

A more recent paper by Föhse reviews “trained immunity” and does NOT indicate that current mRNA covid vaccines affect negatively innate responses to other pathogens (Geckin, 2022). So, despite Greg being a jerk, sometimes it gets me to update/find new stuff on internet, etc.

Is Greg really an antivaxxers or just some SICKO who has nothing better to do than irritate/provoke others???

References:

Föhse FK et al. (2021 May 6 medRxiv). The BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 reprograms both adaptive and 2 innate immune responses.

Geckin B, Föhse FK et al. (2022). Trained-immunity: implications for vaccination. Current Opinion in Immunology; 77: 102190.

Nkanjeni U (2022 Jul 8). Is there a link between Covid-19 vaccines and monkeypox? TimesLIVE. http://www.timeslive.co.za

Joel, everything is caused by the vaccines. Monkey pox, recent hepatitis in children, athletes dying, bird flu and even the bengals losing Super Bowl.

@ Vicintheshed

You left out aging and dying. If I had NEVER been vaccinated I would have the constitution of a 20 year old. I’m almost 76.?

Joel, this is what Geckin B et al had to say about Sars Covid-2 vaccination and trained immunity….

Trained immunity-based approaches during COVID-19
The SARS-CoV-2 virus emerged at the end of 2019 and evolved into a pandemic with grave consequences at a worldwide scale. While development, testing, production, and distribution of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were very successful, more than a year was needed to accomplish that in the developed countries, while a much longer period of time was necessary to be able to distribute them in the developing world. Because in the beginning of the pandemic it was unclear whether development of successful vaccines could be accomplished, it has been hypothesized that trained-immunity-based vaccines might have a protective role against COVID-19 and act as a ‘bridge vaccination’. Among the trials performed, only a few have been published so far, and the results of most others are still expected. In one RCT in elderly, BCG vaccination of elderly in the Netherlands did not reduce the total number of COVID-19 infections, although it improved the serological response after infection [71••]. In contrast, a BCG revaccination trial in Greece reduced the total number of COVID-19 cases [72]. The cause of this difference is unclear, although it may be hypothesized that differences between populations, or the fact that these two populations had different BCG vaccination histories at birth may be potential explanations. Importantly, neither of the two studies had enough power to draw any conclusions on the impact of BCG on COVID-19 severity. Results of BCG vaccination effect on SARS-CoV-2 infection in animal models have been also contradictory, with both positive effects and no impact being reported 73, 74, 75. On the other hand, the adjuvanted zoster vaccine Shingrix has been suggested to have protective effects against COVID-19 severity which are attributed at least partly to trained immunity [76•]. More results of RCTs with BCG, the recombinant BCG vaccine VPM1002 and MMR will come available during 2022, and those will hopefully provide more clarity regarding the clinical and immunological effects of trained immunity-inducing vaccines on COVID-19 (NCT04327206, NCT04537663, NCT04351685 and NCT04333732).

Now, how any of that has anything to do with what you wrote, Joel?

A more recent paper by Föhse reviews “trained immunity” and does NOT indicate that current mRNA covid vaccines affect negatively innate responses to other pathogens

@ Greg

Just how SICK are you. Nothing in what you quoted said anything about other vaccines affecting COVID negatively and are you incapable of giving detailed references, which I do, so that anyone wanting to read them can simply cut and paste the titles.

As I wrote, I’m NOT sure if you really are antivax or just post comments to irritate/provoke people, which would be evidence that you really are SICK.

Contrarians exist. It’s not the facts that counts, it’s the challenge, they aren’t necessarily anti this anti that. Contrarians purposely oppose the responses for sport. Still, irresponsible nevertheless

@ Greg

Oh, Geckin B was the paper I used; but same conclusion, nothing it said indicated COVID vaccines negatively affect immune response. But neither it nor Föhse indicated COVID vaccines negatively affect innate immunity.

YOU ARE REALLY SICK SICK SICK

@ Greg

You remind me of a book I read years ago that discussed how J Edgar Hoover, Head of American FBI, obsessed about trying to prove Einstein was a communist. He finally found a woman in a mental hospital who when interviewed claimed she had been present at a communist meeting where Einstein was present. Only problem is she got the address of meeting totally wrong and date, date because Einstein was documented somewhere else at time. Despite this, Hoover placed her interview in the file he had on Einstein. Didn’t matter how invalid it was if it confirmed what he wanted to believe. That is what you and other antivaxxers do, search high and low to find anything that confirms your rigid beliefs and ignore when pointed out the flaws in what you’ve found. You wouldn’t be related to J Edgar Hoover would you???

I suggest you read the book:

Fred Jerome “The Einstein File: The FBI’s Secreet War Against the World’s Most Famous Scientist”

If you don’t need to persuade and instead can rely on coercion (mandates) there is no need to spend effort trying to convince the public of safety indeed the jabs themselves only need to be safe ‘enough’. Thus the choices of PEG and LNPs as ingredients.

Thus the choices of PEG and LNPs as ingredients.

It’s kind of sad that JLB seems to think that wearing his recycling on his sleeve passes unnoticed.

Perhaps nothing is. Even the reduction hospitalizations since Omicron is less dangerous.

Actually reduction of severity is mainly caused by the fact that many people have been immunized.

How do you know that? The control group was eliminated. You have no way of knowing that. I don’t know whether that is a conspiracy or a convenience. Either way it stands for the proposition that no one really knows for sure.

There is a paper about it:
Chapman LAC, Barnard RC, Russell TW, Abbott S, van Zandvoort K, Davies NG, Kucharski AJ. Unexposed populations and potential COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths in European countries as per data up to 21 November 2021. Euro Surveill. 2022 Jan;27(1):2101038. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.1.2101038. PMID: 34991776; PMCID: PMC8739340.
Control group is not eliminated. There are many unvaccinated people.

@ johnlabarge

You don’t like mandate. So, should we abolish any type of quarantine for people returning from area with serious epidemic? How about laws against drinking and driving? Even if the current Omicron is less deadly, people are being hospitalized and some dying, others developing long covid. And so far even the original covid vaccine confers protection from Omicron and Delta, not protection against being infected; but against hospitalization and some deaths. Protection NOT as good as against original serotypes; but still quite good. So, we live in communities. Rights have to be balanced with responsibilities. One responsibility is to NOT infect others. Another is to NOT burden healthcare systems unnecessarily. You have shown over and over your ignorance about vaccines and infections. But just because we have mandates doesn’t mean we shouldn’t explain why, except in your ignorant biased mind.

Mandates exist because some arseholes don’t care about others, only themselves.

@ johnlabarge

I’ve actually written this numerous times; but one more time. Profits say nothing about whether a product is beneficial, harmful, or somewhere in between. Tobacco companies make a profit. Companies providing fresh fruits and vegetables make a profit. And on and on it goes. You continue to ignore the overwhelming research of the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines and honest research of the rare, albeit serious adverse condition. Serious adverse conditions that happen far more often from the actual covid virus.

One can aways debate how much profit is reasonable; but, again, this says nothing about the product. Right now insulin prices have skyrocketed in US, despite production costs not having gone up significantly. So, does the profits made from insulin prove in your sick mind that insulin shouldn’t be used?

Why do you continue to display your asinine ignorance?

No, it is people infecting others. Your health is not my problem, so I do not take vaccine. Guess how many times I have heard this ?

@john labarge Vaccines are preventing infection:
Prasad N, Derado G, Nanduri SA, Reses HE, Dubendris H, Wong E, Soe MM, Li Q, Dollard P, Bagchi S, Edwards J, Shang N, Budnitz D, Bell J, Verani JR, Benin A, Link-Gelles R, Jernigan J, Pilishvili T. Effectiveness of a COVID-19 Additional Primary or Booster Vaccine Dose in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Nursing Home Residents During Widespread Circulation of the Omicron Variant – United States, February 14-March 27, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022 May 6;71(18):633-637. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7118a4. PMID: 35511708; PMCID: PMC9098239.
“Crude weekly confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection rates declined across all vaccination groups during the study period (Figure); however, rates of infection among residents with an additional or booster dose were consistently lower than those among residents with primary series vaccination only or among unvaccinated residents.”
Sadly, booster doses are needed. Virus has been allowed to spread and mutate,

I’ll answer here rather than get enmeshed in the nesting structure
what Orac July 12, 2 am said.

Agreed. Sometimes they’re just too much and I’ll stay away from those threads. Remember when the two anti-vax mothers of autistics carried on for weeks and interfered with thread development? They were rather sickening- obviously angry and aggressive to SBM supporters.
It may be rash to ban this group totally- unless if they promote violence, racism or other despicable traits- but perhaps you might put them on hold– slow down the comments’ appearance or another arcane maintenance manoeuvre which I am not familiar with. Put them on pause?
Of course, their comments often inspire good responses from the regulars which are always readable- including Joel’s ( and others’) exasperation. Or near here, Narad’s link about correlation/ causation.

They’ve already been put on automoderate, as between them they have flooded multiple comment sections. It’s also funny how they obsess on the part about nastiness but ignore the part about “repetitive misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories,” which is all they post. Truth be told, I have been more than lenient and patient compared the to vast majority of bloggers.

https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/commenting-policy/

They only focus on how people are “mean” or dismissive of their nonsense and never address the content, many of my comments were tests of their personalities. I’m not even sure they are 3 different individuals.

2 + 2 = 4

On a simple question like this there is one way to be right. (Well, except for mathematicians who enjoy playing with alternative axioms for arithmetic, but that is a digression.) It is therefore not surprising that those that are right tend to sound alike, with differences in the details and not the broader conclusions, because medicine and biology are messier than arithmetic.

By contrast, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong: 2+2=6.873, etc. Yet our current crop of loons all hone to same set of wrongs, only differing on tone. They are both unoriginal and uncreative, which is unforgivable, and boring.

They need to up their game. Entertain us!

“Conspiracy theory” is not an evidentiary claim, it’s just an insult. “Misinformation” and “disinformation are claims that need to be supported by objective evidence, e.g., a quote, followed by evidence of falsity, or intentional falsity–otherwise it’s just baseless defamation.There’s plenty of that here–when you’re stumping for vaccines, that’s the best weapon available.

It’s your blog, and can be your echo chamber if you want. No one who questions the vaccine agenda is treated respectfully here, and there’s plenty of irrational insolence. Again, when the facts aren’t on your side, that’s all you’ve got.

Again, when the facts aren’t on your side, that’s all you’ve got.

True, the facts are not on your side. When your “evidence” is misuse of VAERS data and your lack of knowledge, the stuff you put out is bound to be wrong.

Your only consistency is never being correct.

john, if the only defense you can muster for comments you and ginny make is based on symbols, even you should realize that those comments aren’t worth shit. Your dishonesty and lack of knowledge are shining bright: your integrity and understanding are, as always, non-existent.

re “nastiness”

although I admit that some regulars say pretty awful things in response to trolls ( and I am not critical of them because it is usually in response) but trolls ( anti-vaxxers, contrarians, alties etc) start out with invective, insult and blame against SBM supporters in general. Regulars have been accused of criminal or highly unethical activities usually along the lines of “destroying children” or being shills for pharma in need of a Nuremburg style investigation.. One anti-vaxxer here “predicted” that some of us would wind up in wheelchairs and memory care facilities- I guess -as retribution for our many sins.

I know where they get these ideas:
anti-vax/ alt med web sites stir up hatred by ‘uncovering’ the dastardly deeds of pharma, governments and individuals like Dr Fauci or other PH spokespeople.
Del’s and RFK’s sites as well as NN and PRN indulge in these fantasy accusations on a daily basis.

@ johnlabarge

You write: “The vaccine isn’t preventing infection.”

Did you know that about 25 – 30% of people test with nasopharyngeal swabs gave staphylococcus aureus? Did you know that 25 – 30% of people tested have clostridium difficile in their GI tract? Both could be serious if our immune systems did not keep them in check. In fact, our skin, our intestines, our mouths, ALL have potentially serious microbes; but most of us do quite well. Bottom line is that finding nasopharyngeal swab evidence of COVID in vaccinated people means very little. As long as their immune systems do their job, they will NOT get seriously sick, be hospitalized, or die. And there is good evidence that, though they do transmit some viruses, many are dead, sub particles, and fewer. So, when they mention cases from testing, means very little; but you don’t care. I’m sure you will ignore what I just wrote and continue to make a fool of yourself.

If your correct no one who is vaccinated should be getting symptomatic infection or at the very least be hospitalized. I’m pretty sure that isn’t the case though.

@ johnlarbarge

You write: “If your correct no one who is vaccinated should be getting symptomatic infection or at the very least be hospitalized. I’m pretty sure that isn’t the case though.”

Not me, not anyone has claimed that the vaccines provide 100% effectiveness. The point is and you ignore it that the risk of serious illness, hospitalization, and death following vaccines is minuscule compared to the risk from the actual virus. If one used your logic, not only would we not vaccinate people, for instance, we wouldn’t use antibiotics for infections because they don’t always work and sometimes cause anaphylaxis. Keep in mind that sometimes infections resolve on their own.

Do you know what a bullet proof vest is? Well, they protect against many types of ammunition; but not all, so, I guess not worth wearing them?

The world isn’t black and white. YOU JUST KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF.

Another thing is that “no one should get infection”. Do you understand procents ? Even if somebody get infection, it does not mean that everybody get one. There are numbers between 0 and 100, you know,

Two orders of magnitude better than the US? (They just reached 10,000 deaths a week or two ago.)

If you believe the numbers here, sure. And Australia is also less than 1/10th the population.

@john labarge So all mical recors are fabricated in Australiab ?

If you believe the numbers here, sure.

I guess you shouldn’t have asked the question in the first place. Trying to slither out of the situation is always awkward.

How are things looking in heavily vaccinated Australia?

Australia: 428 deaths/million
USA: 3170 deaths/million

@ Dr Joel:

What you say as does Aarno above.
Yet I keep hearing the same BS from alties/ anti-vaxxers/ contrarians: vaccines don’t work, people are still getting sick, even the Dark Lord himself, Fauci got infected.

There are unable to process concepts like lessening infections, cutting hospital rates, lowering death rates and other measures that illustrate how vaccines improve people’s lives so that a once out-of-control pandemic that killed thousands daily has been somewhat tamed.
It’s a great example of black-and-white thinking and the Nirvana fallacy: if it ain’t perfect, it’s crap.

Long ago, when I studied children’s cognitive, social and personality development, it was always noted how black-and-white thinking usually evolves into more realistic, nuanced thought as kids grew up. Our prof noted that this is not true for everyone.

In other news:
— RI cleans up quite nicely with automod! Thanks, Orac.
— altie CTs about the new telescope- it’s a space cannon and the images are only projections from an old kaleidoscope
— Del Bigtree is featured at Freedom Fest 2022 broadcasting live from Las Vegas at 2pm EDT/ 11 PDT today; other performers are shown at Freedom Fest 2022’s eponymous website. Worth a look. One comedian will make us laugh, but not in a good way and others are totally expected because of their libertarianism or conservativism. A few I am sad to see.
They list the stars first and then about 200 also-rans.

Thing is that provax health officials apparently want to recommend or even mandate for all without regards to risk reward- in some cases with very little study to back up these recommendations. So they are applying black and white thinking in the other direction (vaccine always good!). This is not true either. Regarding transmission, slowing transmission only affects hospitalization rates in the event of high severity. Even with the latest Omicron wave this isn’t bearing out in the data. Slow transmission will still make its rounds in the end; hence even if the vaccine is slowing transmission by say 50%, everyone is still going to get it. (Indeed it would seem that this slowing and vaccine filtering could make for more mutation, not less.) Also vaccines always have risks and the world health bodies are apparently not in agreement about those risks at the moment.

No reality-based person ever says, ” vaccine ( sic) always good”. Never.

Benefits are always weighed against risks however small. Vaccines are tested before being approved and then are monitored for safety. Also, some vaccines are not appropriate even if the risk is low such as why get vaccinated for yellow fever if you live in a place where it is not seen. A person who had measles doesn’t need a vaccine for it. Two countries may have differing vaccine schedules for children based on their separate risk analyses. Certain vaccines are appropriate for war zones or work with animals .

HOWEVER people who have been given misinformation about vaccines’ risks cannot
really understand risk / benefit of vaccines. If you think a vaccine will cause autism or that the risk of CV events is multiplied many times, how can you make a meaningful decision?

From your linked article:

“But some researchers think it’s time to add another common one [side effect] to the list: temporary menstrual changes. . . . The study authors cautioned, though, that the percentages do not necessarily represent the rate of menstrual changes in the general population, since people who observed a difference were more likely to participate. The survey’s aim was simply to provide evidence for future studies, not to establish cause and effect.”

“It’s not yet understood why menstrual changes happen after vaccination. Tingen said the answer will likely stem from the overlap between the immune system and endocrine system, which plays a role in reproduction.”

Good point: Clinical trials don’t even ask about changes in menstruation. Not surprising, given that most of the people running them are men. It never even occurred to them it might be a side effect.

That’s a good critique. Doctors should be mor curious about vax reactions in general.

Dr mobeen has a good talk on YouTube reviewing a peer reviewed study showing that the vaccines aren’t effective against symptomatic omicron for more than 3 months and protection against severe disease also wanes faster than unvaccinated infection. He’s no antivax we. He’s just honest.

He’s no antivax we [sic ]. He’s just honest.

Honestly incompetent, that is: FLCCC and ivermectin, comin’ right up.

It’s kewl that yall are on a first-name basis, though.

He’s not FLCCC. He supports Ivermectin because of the mechanism of action. Dude is vaccinated and boosted and has had covid twice now.

“”Clinical trials don’t even ask about changes in menstruation. Not surprising, given that most of the people running them are men.””

-Umm, we have a train to catch..

-And I just got vaccinated and wouldn’t want to bleed all over the seats.

from labarge:

He’s [referring to Dr. Mobeen] no antivax we. He’s just honest.

Apparently, to labarge, ‘honest’ has a different meaning than it does to almost everyone else, as the comment from mobeen on a youtube video indicates:

“The COVID-19 pandemic is over — well, at least for the countries that have adopted the broad distribution and use of ivermectin for the prevention and early management of COVID-19.”

Try to find legitimate sources john, not the asinine flat out wrong BS you’re famous for.

Are you alleging that it was Dr. Mobeen that wrote that comment? If so please link to it, if not then I don’t understand the point.

He’s not FLCCC.

From the bottom of my heart, go fuck yourself.

He supports Ivermectin because of the mechanism of action.

Really? Well, I’ll be gobsmacked. Now, what, pray tell, is that “mechanism”?

The stars are slightly more successful also-rans, and will soon transition to has-beens. This is nature’s way of making room for the next generation of also-rans. The anti-vax ecology is quite small.

Right. It explains why anti- vax has to appear with right wing/ libertarians/ CT believers.
Mike Adams also switched over to this type of messaging.

It explains why anti- vax has to appear with right wing/ libertarians/ CT believers.

As labarge, greg, ginny, and the rest demonstrate, to be anti-vax you need to be low on the education and thinking scale, and that intersects quite strongly with right wing/conspiracy groups. Those things are requirements for libertarian “thought”.

Ooops!
I left out that Del’s show is available at @highwire talk

He walks an actual high wire** ( with expert guidance and safety measures)

Drs Malone, Kory and Urso appear. Malone: we have to stop vaccines.

Novak Djokovic is idolised for his vaccine refusal

** I figured out why he always wears a vest: to hide excess weight

Del, who has no medical or any other credentials, always lectures his audience about “clean” living, organic foods, avoiding toxins, “chemicals” / vaccines and ridicules people with serious conditions who are in danger because of Covid, saying that it’s their own faults. His alt med ideas include not accepting “vaccinated” blood when he was nearly bleeding to death.
Orac has covered him in detail, including quotes.

If you present yourself as being incredibly healthy, you shouldn’t have to hide evidence of being visibly overweight. He makes a lot of money, he can afford
an exercise coach.

Greg The paper considered only binding of modified RNA to TLRs not even downregulating). Monkeypox is a DNA virus. Viral proteins bind to TLR2.

I’ll also post here rather than also getting enmeshed in nesting structure.

Aarno, your comment is very helpful. So, am I to understand that mRNA vaccination design involves ablating the TLRs by essentially changing the RNA code to methylate the RNA, and, second, it also involves the up and down-regulation of TLRs for targeted effects?

am I to understand that mRNA vaccination design involves ablating the TLRs

Oh, dear, it thinks it’s learned a new word.

MRNA will bind to TLRs and activate innate immune system. It will produce spike protein. which will activate adaptive immune system
If mRNA vaccines really suppress immune system, they would not confer immunity against SARS CoV 2, a RNA virus (Fohse et al checked antibody production). They certainly not ablate TLRs (check meaning of the word). Will they up and downregulate longer than longer than two weeks (time period in Fohse et al)

When all else fails…

Some readers have trouble comprehending risk / benefit analyses concerning vaccines, so here is another way to look at it.
I love to fly in planes and once nearly took lessons to fly ( long story) BUT
every flight carries a risk of a crash which would therefore be a risk of death or of serious injury.
Yet people fly because it’s useful for business, social events or recreation, understanding that the chances of a crash are extremely small** and the chances of a successful flight are great. Benefits clearly outweigh risks.

Every flight’s risks are not the same but procedures help make flying safer: plane maintenance, radio communication, technical innovations, inspections by official agencies on a schedule.
Similarly vaccines are tested and monitored for serious adverse events even after they are released for general use.

HOWEVER flights and vaccines have commonalities besides being quite safe with rare negative outcomes:
they are not something you do every day***.
PLUS you do not have control once you “sign up” for a vaccine or a flight. It becomes beyond your control.
So a flight is actually safer than auto travel but it feels more dangerous just as a vaccine may feel less safe than OTC meds ( which can have worse side effects)

Some of the ways anti-vax proselytisers scare people is to exaggerate or expand the risks and under-estimate or deny the benefits.

** odds of death in a crash are about 1 in 10 or 11 million but I actually knew someone who died in a crash
*** odds of dying in a car crash are about 1 in 5000

I understand the concept. But I don’t trust the official numbers on either side. All the math in the world won’t save you if you can’t get an accurate count.

Let’s suppose that someone is manipulating the numbers or that it’s just too difficult to accurately assess numbers in the real world.
You can’t believe that NOTHING happened in early 2020 that endangered lives all over the world. People became devastatingly ill and died. Hospitals were overwhelmed. Illness spread rapidly to places not originally involved.

Over time, we saw that efforts to control spread worked. Gradually, some restrictions were lifted. Then, vaccines were developed that helped. Over the initial year, I checked numbers every day because I lived in one of the first epicenters: you could see gradual change. There have been waves of infection as the virus mutated but addition vaccines were added. We see that different countries/ locales do better or worse because of their response to the virus and other factors ( how rural or urban they are, how rich or poor, etc).All of these data are available. Are they all perfect and unimpeachable? NO. But they give us a good idea generally AND real world events show us as well ( number of people in hospitals etc).

Do you really think that governmental officials wanted to shut down huge, financially successful cities and keep people out of businesses and schools? Who wanted that? It was a necessity to try to cut down spread. Also, about vaccines: why do you think that we have no perfect vaccines against flu and no real ones yet against the common cold? Because viruses change.

In 2020, Covid-19 spread around the world to populations who had no immunity. That’s why so many people became ill so quickly. Earlier this century, H1N1 spread very rapidly amongst younger people- my cousin, an architecture student got very ill. Older people were alive in 1976 and may have had some immunity because of an epidemic then.

There are no perfect solutions and no perfect answers BUT we can do smarter things to deal with the virus. We can look to Australia and NZ as well as S. Korea and Japan…

You can’t believe that NOTHING happened in early 2020 that endangered lives all over the world.

You would think so, but never underestimate the willingness of these clowns to seek out explanations that match their political/social mindsets, as I and others in our department learned over the last 1.5 years.

One of our colleagues has two Ph.Ds, one in physics, one in applied mathematics. He came here years ago from the Soviet Union. During the first year of the pandemic he refused to believe there was a pandemic: deaths were “over-estimated” due to some [never clear to us] conspiracy. He still holds that, after his sister died from covid and he was sick enough to be out for 9 months. Like labarge, Ginny, and the rest of their ilk who post here, he denies everything to do with the problem and the vaccines, even though [unlike them] he’d be capable of understanding the issues if he were to study them.

Seems like black and white thinking to me. We could have had a bad covid year and at the same time its danger overestimated, particularly now in 2022 as compared to 2020. Indeed Dr. Birx alluded to deliberate overestimation of fatality (again not claiming a conspiracy just biasing data this way or that way). It’s mere convenience that pro-vaxxers go with those deliberately cautious numbers when trying to sell the vaccine whilst ignoring VAERs based on similar logic…(lack of causation).

Seems like black and white thinking to me.

Spare me john. Your ignorance and bullshit allegations about the vaccines and general public health reactions are just as, if not more, stupid. Your constant attempts to use VAERS as though it were valuable, vetted, data, collected in a useful way, is astoundingly foolish.

There is enough data there that the magnitude of valuable, vetted data, is still likely to outpace any other vaccine since the system’s inception.

Well the vaccines are working so well at stopping the spread that quad vaxxed Fauci and quad vaxxed Biden both just got Covid. Don’t forget your 5th booster, that will be the one.

You do not get it, do you ? Vaccines are not 100% effective, so somebody vaccinated could get the virus. Point is, most of them did not.

There is enough data there that the magnitude of valuable, vetted data

You have no idea what data is (hint: it isn’t what you continue to refer to).

Where is the actual risk/benefit analysis for COVID19 vaccines with NUMBERS? The CDC, FDA and ACIP have never published such an analysis, correct? If they have, kindly link us.

@ Ginny Stoner

Crawl back under your rock you IGNORANT MORON.

Dear Joel,

I simply asked for the risk/benefit analysis for COVID19 vaccines, which “some readers have trouble comprehending.” Turns out it doesn’t exist–and I’m an IGNORANT MORON for asking. Makes perfect sense in a cartoon world.

It took me all of ten seconds to find a risk-benefit analysis, with numbers, published by the CDC.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-07/05-COVID-Rosenblum-508.pdf

Example: looking at the incidence of myocarditis cases reported in connection with a million mRNA Covid-19 vaccinations, in the group considered most at risk for myocarditis:

Males 18-29 Years

9,600 COVID-19 cases prevented
300 hospitalizations prevented
60 ICU admissions prevented
3 deaths prevented*
22-27 myocarditis cases

Once in awhile it’s hard to tell if Ginny’s ignorance stems from laziness or deliberate dishonesty. But not this time.

*We can anticipate her gleefully jumping on the projection of “only” 3 deaths from Covid-19 prevented by vaccination, in comparison to 22-27 expected myocarditis cases (the vast majority of which could be expected to resolve readily). That would require hand-waving away many thousands of Covid-19 cases (accompanied by a substantial incidence of long Covid with attendant misery), 300 hospitalizations, dozens of ICU admissions and whatever permanent complications stem from them. Because to a true antivaxer, death is the only measure worth talking about (and is a relatively “low” number that can be swept under the rug – that is, if one is a sociopath).

This discussion is nearly a year old and dealing with the delta and original variants. How is it applicable now?

@ Dangerous Bacon

Thanks; however, Ginny will ignore it. And there is one other point. Without vaccinations case loads would have been much greater, hospitals would have been overwhelmed as in beginning of pandemic and, yep, higher number of deaths.

Basic elements of a risk/benefit analysis:

1) The risk of death or serious injury from the vaccine is X.
2) The risk of death or serious injury from the disease is X.
3) The probability that the vaccine will prevent death or serious injury from the disease is X.

The paper you linked to contains none of this basic information–it only contains a few pieces of it. What’s more, some of those pieces are quite frightening and not indicative of a safe vaccine.

This ‘risk/benefit analysis’ satisfies you? You must have low standards, Bacon.

My reply didn’t survive moderation. Will try again, in case it was accidental.

A basic risk benefit analysis requires, at minimum:
1) The probability of serious injury or death from vaccination;
2) The probability of serious injury or death from the disease;
3) The probability that the vaccine will prevent serious injury or death from the disease.

The paper Bacon linked didn’t provide this basic info–just a few bits and pieces of it. What’s more, some of those bits and pieces are very worrying.

This risk/benefit “discussion” is not even close to a risk/benefit analysis.

Typical evasions.

It’s akin to antivaxers claiming that there are no studies about whether vaccines cause X. Then when they’re given multiple examples of research that refutes the idea that vaccines cause X, excuses are found as to why the studies are not valid because they didn’t look at certain parameters, didn’t drag the study out far enough etc. etc. Or they change the subject to demand “vaxed/unvaxed” studies that also exist, just not the kind they claim to want.

You said: “Where is the actual risk/benefit analysis for COVID19 vaccines with NUMBERS? The CDC, FDA and ACIP have never published such an analysis, correct?”

You were wrong. Again. Admit it and move on.

Who do you think you’re fooling, Bacon? A risk/benefit “discussion” that contains only a few pieces of the essential elements of a risk/benefit analysis is NOT a risk/benefit analysis. Nor does it even purport to be one, hence, the title.

I guess you had to give it a shot–because admitting there are no risk/benefit analyses is pretty damning.

My reply didn’t survive moderation. Will try again, in case it was accidental.

“I don’t even realize that I’m in the automod queue.” Razor-sharp as always, Gindo. You must be a delightful visitor — elbow your way in, rummage for food, cop a squat and plug the toilet, and you can be on your merry way.

All things you ask are well known
a) COVID has caused million deaths
b) There arre 8 deaths cause dby vaccines
c) You could do Google Scholar search of COVID vaccine asymptomatic

Here is Bossche again explaining that it is suppressed, non-sterilizing, immunity that is also triggering these new outbreaks such as monkeypox. He believes the constant battering of Covid infections is causing T-cells to become exhausted, and they are unable to ward off other infections.

Yet, if this is so, why are we first seeing outbreaks of monkeypox and shingles and not more contagious ones such as measles and pertussis? The answer is immunity is not being hampered by exhausted T-cells but by the specific down-regulation of certain TLRs. The main DNA sensor, TLR9, has been down-regulated and this is contributing to the surge of monkeypox and shingles cases.

Other TLRs that detect other pathogens has also been down-regulated, but there are more of them to ward off infections such as measles and whopping cough.

https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/videos-and-interviews/geert-vanden-boscche-covid-mass-vaccination-triggering-new-pandemics-and-epidemics

@ Greg

So, why do you trust Boscche? Because you understand immunology and because, as I do, you don’t rely on one source; but did your own research to find other similar claims?

I doubt it. Simply Boscche confirms what your rigid, uninformed, bias wants to believe.

Did you ever consider simply that Monkeypox belongs to a family of microbes that most people have NOT experienced, so the adaptive immune system is naive to them? Did you ever consider that the mode of transmission is quite different between, for instance, measles, an airborne infection, from Monkeypox that requires direct contact? So, TLRs don’t need to be suppressed; but simply our immune system has no memory of such infections and the activated parts are for airborne infections.

In any case, KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF.

Since the provax side always seems to accuse the anti-vax side of grift and confirmation bias (not denying that this exists in the antivax camp when they go too far) I’d sure love to know if they have any skepticism about those taking the pharma company backed pro-vax narrative. Isn’t there any bias on that side or is that all perfect?

Younthin that everybodu who believes that vaccines work is paid by pharma ? This would be awful lot of monery. They may some thinking involved, you know.

I don’t claim that all vaccines don’t work myself. But wrt the Covid vaccines, they don’t have to be. They are brainwashed by people who are paid by pharma in some way.

I don’t claim that all vaccines don’t work myself. But wrt the Covid vaccines, they don’t have to be. They are brainwashed by people who are paid by pharma in some way.

There you have it: your vaccines have been brainwashed. It’s dastardly, all right.

Did you ever consider simply that Monkeypox belongs to a family of microbes that most people have NOT experienced, so the adaptive immune system is naive to them

Well it shouldn’t be naive for shingles, we have experience with chickenpox. I am sticking with the down-regulation of TLR9.

I heard they were tinkering with it in Wuhan. Not kidding.

That makes perfect sense, since China doesn’t have any cases. Why were you in Wuhan? Did you bicycle?

Did you ever consider simply that Monkeypox belongs to a family of microbes that most people have NOT experienced, so the adaptive immune system is naive to them

Well it shouldn’t be naive for shingles, we have experience with chickenpox. I am sticking with the down-regulation of TLR9.

This one is almost magical, just like the scent of flowers blowing from the garden. Gerg has conquered the question “What should I say” with “Inject something apropos of nothing.”

A strong entry for when the greatest, garbled hits are collected for entombment in a time capsule.

<

blockquote>Did you ever consider simply that Monkeypox belongs to a family of microbes that most people have NOT experienced, so the adaptive immune system is naive to them

Well it shouldn’t be naive for shingles, we have experience with chickenpox.

Um, Gerg? Chickenpox is a herpesvirus. Monkeypox is not.

Yes, Narad, and notice how Joel’s account cannot explain shingles, an infection that’s also on the rise and that we have had previous immune experience with. If his explanation accounts for the rise in monkeypox cases, it certainly doesn’t account for the rise with shingles cases. My explanation that it is the suppression of TLR9, the prime TLR that keeps DNA infections in check, that is the culprit accounts for both.

Where do you get suppression of TLR9 ? Fohse did not mention it.

Or there’s a much, much simpler answer, Greg.
We (the global community) still vaccinate against measles and pertussis (whooping cough). We (the global community) do not vaccinate against smallpox anymore (and smallpox vaccination provides protection against related orthopox viruses like monkeypox).

That’s right, it’s vaccines! Other vaccines. Has nothing to do with COVID or TLRs and way more to do with things like climate change, habitat loss, increased international travel and a declining proportion of the population that has any lingering immunity to pox viruses.

Monkeypox outbreaks have actually been on the rise for years (back before 2010). This is just the largest outbreak outside of Africa, hence the media coverage.

That’s right, it’s vaccines! Other vaccines. Has nothing to do with COVID or TLRs and way more to do with things like climate change, habitat loss, increased international travel and a declining proportion of the population that has any lingering immunity to pox viruses.

JT, and what better way to lend credence to those potential causes than doing the thing that is so simply: show that there is no correlation between monkeypox and Covid vaccines. Until them, JT, I am looking at the TLRs.

Also, JT, in October when I brought up the suppression of immunity by mRNA vaccination, you asked..

Greg: Which specific cells of the innate immune system? Which, specific antigen presenting cells? What is the receptor? What is the co-stimulation signal? Which specific cells of the adaptive immune system? Which trafficking and homing signals are activated? Which ones are downregulated?

JT, I am starting to think you should go first.

“show that there is no correlation between monkeypox and Covid vaccines.”

What about “Monkeypox outbreaks have actually been on the rise for years (back before 2010)” did you not understand? Monkeypox as a human pathogen has been known since 1970s. Therefore, not COVID.

And no, I will not do your homework for you, Greg. You made the claim of “immune suppression”. You back that up with specifics and evidence, and not just one person’s papers. A diversity of sources. If you can’t then you have to admit that either you don’t understand much about the immune system (in which case you should enroll in some university classes to learn) or that the immune suppression you’re talking about doesn’t exist.

You are a broken record of misanthropy.

Greg: show that there is no correlation between monkeypox and Covid vaccines.”

JT: what about “Monkeypox outbreaks have actually been on the rise for years (back before 2010)” did you not understand? Monkeypox as a human pathogen has been known since 1970s. Therefore, not COVID

Oh! – the absolute petulence.

And no, I will not do your homework for you, Greg

JT, and what use are you then if I can’t even count on your dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s expertise. Sad 😔.

And, I say, showing no correlation between monkeypox and Covid vaccination would go a long way in lending credence to those potential causes

Of course, a correlation (statistically significant correlation) would mean nothing either, except to people like you who don’t understand what correlation is (it is not evidence of causation).

You anti-science folks keep setting things up in attempts to tip things your way: if there isn’t a correlation you will dream up a reason for that, and if there is you tout is as evidence of cause and effect. Your lack of knowledge coupled with your lack of integrity out you.

correlation seems to be the only statistical term greg knows (or perhaps spell). He should learn what it means and what it doesn’t. (Greg learn? Never happen.)

You anti-science folks keep setting things up in attempts to tip things your way: if there isn’t a correlation you will dream up a reason for that, and if there is you tout is as evidence of cause and effect. Your lack of knowledge coupled with your lack of integrity out you.

‘Idw’, I will never understand why you drug dealers have to make things so hard on yourselves. Can we please have a ‘antivaxxer’/provaxxer heart to heart?!

Ok, here it is; sooner or later the correlation will get out and you guys are going to be in deep, deep poo-poo for apparently trying to hide it. You think you have it bad with one late pharma check? It will be like a decade worth of late checks!

‘Idw’, it would make sense to fess up to the correlation and even if you have to spew crap to dismiss it. Yes, tell the public that correlation does not prove causation. Heck, you could even spin monkeypox in a more positive light! Tell people that the rashes are like having a cool tattoos and with the added bonus that they don’t last forever.

Idw, learn from the lab-leak mess and get ahead of this monkeypox mess. Is this not sensible advice coming from this ‘vile, unrepentant antivaxxer’?!

‘Idw’, I will never understand

He can’t say that he ‘hasn’t been told’. Just more slovenliness.

lab-leak mess …

The one that studies indicate didn’t happen?

sooner or later the correlation will get out and you guys are going to be in deep, deep poo-poo for apparently trying to hide it.

As noted several times, you have no fucking clue what correlation indicates. I’m surprised you’re able to spell it.

The difference between is greg is based on two things: you’re a congenital liar who doesn’t understand anything about statistics, and I’m neither.

That’s right, it’s vaccines! Other vaccines. Has nothing to do with COVID or TLRs and way more to do with things like climate change, habitat loss, increased international travel and a declining proportion of the population that has any lingering immunity to pox viruses.

And, I say, showing no correlation between monkeypox and Covid vaccination would go a long way in lending credence to those potential causes. Don’t you agree, JT? Until then, I am still looking at the TLRs.

Anyway, here is another party who is also looking at Covid vaccines where shingles is concerned.

According to European Medicines Agency recommendations, frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible. The decrease in immunity can be caused by several factors such as N1-methylpseudouridine, the spike protein, lipid nanoparticles, antibody-dependent enhancement, and the original antigenic stimulus. These clinical alterations may explain the association reported between COVID-19 vaccination and shingles. As a safety measure, further booster vaccinations should be

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9167431/

Also, JT, back in October 2021 when I first argued that mRNA vaccination was harming the immune system, you responded with this…

Greg: Which specific cells of the innate immune system? Which, specific antigen presenting cells? What is the receptor? What is the co-stimulation signal? Which specific cells of the adaptive immune system? Which trafficking and homing signals are activated? Which ones are downregulated?

JT, care to go first?!

Anyway, here is another party who is also looking at Covid vaccines where shingles is concerned.

Well, of course the opinion of a specialist in repairing varicose veins in a second-tier pay-to-play OA journal is powerful stuff (“[i]n conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination is a major risk factor for infections in critically ill patients”), but perhaps a glance at the actual Lancet paper is warranted.

In summary, our results suggest a substantial waning of vaccine protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity across all subgroups, but with variations related to vaccine types and schedules. By contrast, protection against severe COVID-19 was better maintained for up to 9 months of follow-up, although some waning became evident after more than 4 months. These findings might have implications for vaccination strategies and public health by strengthening the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster, where the priority should be specific populations who are at higher risk of severe consequences of COVID-19 due to weaker and more rapidly waning vaccine-elicited immunogenicity.

Sense a theme developing? I would go on to the “European Medicines Agency recommendations,” but Yamamoto’s citation is to the ECDC [“(c)losing the immunity gap with the primary vaccination series (i.e. vaccinating those who have not yet completed the primary series) for all eligible individuals should remain the current priority of COVID-19 vaccination programmes in the EU/EEA”], what he actually wrote notwithstanding. And that is from last September.

The EMA does have something to say, though.

The CHMP recommended extending the use of COVID-19 vaccine Spikevax (elasomeran / COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (nucleoside-modified)) as a booster in adolescents from 12 to 17 years of age. The committee also endorsed updating the product information to state that stability has been demonstrated for 12 months when Spikevax is stored under certain conditions. The CHMP also recommended approving a new manufacturing site for the finished product in Madrid, Spain.

You’re slovenly, Gerg.

Thanks, Aarno. I know that that’s what it’s supposed to be, but the EMA is only mentioned twice, once as reference 118 and once on page three.

From Yamato…..

The decrease in immunity is caused by several factors. First, N1-methylpseudouridine is used as a substitute for uracil in the genetic code. The modified protein may induce the activation of regulatory T cells, resulting in decreased cellular immunity [4]. Thereby, the spike proteins do not immediately decay following the administration of mRNA vaccines. The spike proteins present on exosomes circulate throughout the body for more than 4 months [5].

Nevermind what this is saying about adverse events brought on by the longevity of spike proteins in the body after vaccination, but could it also accounts for high Covid breakthroughs and reinfectionS? Imagine T-regs detecting methylated vaccine RNA as self and telling other immune cells to stand down, but what will happen when those T-regs encounter the real Covid RNA that is similar but unmethylated. Will train immunity also kick in and the T-regs will similarly instruct other immune cells to stand down?

Of course, I am only considering this explanation for Covid reinfections and not for the rise of monkeypox. As explained, monkeypox was previously a very rare disease that wasn’t easy to contract; that we are now experiencing a pandemic of it is pointing squarely at the TLRs. TLR9!

Yamato actually makes false statement about papes cited.
First how can activaion of T cells reduce immunity ? Besides of that, immunogenity mRNA have been prove multiple times.
Secondly he speaks about spike protein in exosomes. Being presnt is key word there.

Imagine T-regs detecting methylated vaccine RNA as self and telling other immune cells to stand down

🙄 Where do you assume that this would occur?

Here is Fohse et al again….

Although the concentrations of IFN-α were below the detection limit of the assay for most of the stimuli, we observed a significant reduction in the production if IFN-α secreted after stimulation with poly I:C and R848 after the administration of the second dose of the vaccine (Figure 1H, 1I). This may hamper the initial innate immune response against the virus, as defects in TLR7 have been shown to result in and increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in young males (Van Der Made et al., 2020). These results collectively demonstrate that the effects of the BNT162b2 vaccine go beyond the adaptive immune system and can also modulate innate immune responses.

What is the significance of this? It is suggesting that repeat vaccination may severely hamper innate immunity and blast open the door to reinfections.

Counting antibodies to brag about boosters is pointless. Antibodies don’t last. We need strong innate immunity to guard against reinfections and novel strains.

PS: Two of my ‘antivaxx’ heroes are having a dispute and it is saddening me. Malone is now saying that it is the widescale infections that are driving the vaccine resistant strains and not mass vaccination in itself. Though I disagree with Bossche about why the vaccines are non-sterilizing, I fully agree with him that it is the selection pressure from mass vaccination creates that is driving the vaccine resistant strains.

And, Australia is currently reeling from a twindemic of Covid and the Flu? Well, here is Fohse et al again…

The effect of the BNT162b2 vaccination on innate immune responses may also indicate a potential to interfere with the responses to other vaccinations, as known for other vaccines to be as ‘vaccine interference’ (Lum et al., 2010; Nolan et al., 2008; Vajo, Tamas, Sinka, & Jankovics, 2010)

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/covid-admissions-reach-record-high-in-australia-amid-twindemic/ar-AAZWjwg

“Against the virus” means SARS CoV 2, of course.It is RNA virus, monkeypox is DNA virus. Fohse measured antibodies, too. Immune response was not hampered.
Last year’s flu season was very mild, do you remember that ?

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “A basic risk benefit analysis requires, at minimum:
1) The probability of serious injury or death from vaccination;
2) The probability of serious injury or death from the disease;
3) The probability that the vaccine will prevent serious injury or death from the disease.”

Yep, but you rely on VAERS. In fact, basically, everything you posted on your website relies on VAERS. Orac, myself, and numerous others have overwhelmingly refuted your reliance on VAERS. So, based on Vaccine Safety Datalink, other CDC studies, WHO, Swedish, Canadian, etc etc. safety systems, the serious adverse events from mRNA Covid vaccines are extremely low, and, even them; e.g., myocarditis, thrombosis, are far less than from the actual disease. And we have numerous placebo-control trials of the vaccines, even more cohort studies, not only comparing deaths; but hospitalization, some long covid studies, etc. And they ALL find the vaccine prevents significant amounts of serious injury and death. I won’t bother giving references to even some of the studies as you will ignore and continue to display your MORONIC BELIEFS. MORONIC BELIEFS THAT EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU ARE BRAINWASHED, BASICALLY WHATEVER YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE YOU CLAIM TO BE OBJECTIVE; BUT THE CRITERION FOR YOUR OBJECTIVITY IS YOUR SUBJECTIVE BELIEF YOU ARE RIGHT. YOU ARE AN EXTREMELY STUPID AND DISTURBED INDIVIDUAL.

VAERs is undeniable in that the magnitude of reports outstrips years of prior vaccination. Just with regard to pure magnitude there is a signal there.

I’ve never published any kind of risk/benefit analysis–and never would, since the entire vaccine paradigm is fundamentally flawed, and no vaccine has any benefit.

I don’t get your complaint, Joel. I use VAERS data to estimate vaccine risk because it’s the only vaccine injury data freely available to the public. It also has the advantage of being update frequently, which is important when hundreds of vaccine deaths and serious injuries are being reported to VAERS each month. If anyone doesn’t think it’s important, they can simply ignore it.

All I do on my site is use basic math to estimate the probability of death or serious injury from COVID19 vaccination. I don’t talk much anywhere about “what the data means”–I just inform people of the data because VAERS is “our nation’s early warning system for vaccine safety,” according to the CDC.

That said, the conspiracy to conceal the massive increase in VAERS reports is obviously suspicious. We should have multiple analyses from the CDC and ACIP by now of the reasons for the massive increase in VAERS reports–instead there are none. Every CDC/ACIP analysis that looks at VAERS data intentionally avoids putting COVID19 vaccine data in historical context, so the massive increase in VAERS reports remains hidden from the public.

All I do on my site is use basic math to estimate the probability of death or serious injury from COVID19 vaccination.

You should have that palilalia checked out.
/

Ah, I missed this before. Behold:

That said, the conspiracy to conceal the massive increase in VAERS reports is obviously suspicious.

It’s like begging the cart before the horse, or something. The old man the boat.

Why does it have to be a conspiracy necessarily? It could just be lack of incentive to go against the popular kids with the same result.

If by “go against the popular kids” you mean destroy their own careers, then it’s possible, but self-interest or duress doesn’t mean it’s not a conspiracy.

Every study that has looked at VAERS data re COVID19 vaccines has omitted any comparison with historical VAERS data–IMO, that doesn’t happen without agreement, whether the agreement is based on duress or corruption or whatever.

@jiohn labarge Popular kids ? Who are they ?
@Ginny Stoner Read this:
Gee J, Marquez P, Su J, Calvert GM, Liu R, Myers T, Nair N, Martin S, Clark T, Markowitz L, Lindsey N, Zhang B, Licata C, Jazwa A, Sotir M, Shimabukuro T. First Month of COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Monitoring – United States, December 14, 2020-January 13, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Feb 26;70(8):283-288. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7008e3. PMID: 33630816; PMCID: PMC8344985.
The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, VAERS analyses are based on passive surveillance, and reporting biases are possible, both from underreporting because of lack of awareness or compliance with reporting requirements as well as from stimulated reporting related to increased awareness.

Aarno I covered that study in a paper I wrote in May 2021:

“I found only one paper that mentioned VAERS death reports re COVID-19 vaccines. The lead author was Julianne Gee, from the CDC’s COVID-19 Response Team, and the paper concerned safety monitoring during the first month (December 14 to January 13). We are told, in the Summary:

“’Monitoring … indicates reassuring safety profiles for COVID-19 vaccines. … No unusual or unexpected reporting patterns were detected.’

“The authors said 113 deaths were reported to VAERS that month from the COVID-19 vaccines. Incredibly, they never compared that number to historical VAERS averages or trends…just kidding. Of course they compared it, realized it was shockingly higher than the historical average of 12 deaths per month, and decided not to mention it. Never let science interfere with good vaccine marketing.”

Here’s the paper I covered it in. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2021/5/4/the-deadly-covid-19-vaccine-coverup

@Ginny Stoner Perpaps they noticed that compulsatory reporting would increase number of reports ?
If you check deaths reported to VAERS, statistics match normal cases of deaths. Never let facts intefere your lawsuit

You do not comment these points:
a) Under EUA, reporting is mandatory
b) Child mortality is 2% of average one (it you speak about chilhood vaccines). Wite your argument here,if you have one.

You should be fired–all you ever do is repeat the same asked-and-answered BS points over and over again, and you never address the answers. I guess there’s a market for Dollar Store trolls.

<

blockquote> All I do on my site is use basic math to estimate the probability of death or serious injury from COVID19 vaccination.

<

blockquote>

Basic math, shitty writing, and a result completely devoid of honesty and accuracy. Quite the combination.

@ Ginny Stoner

It isn’t worth giving a detailed response because Orac, myself, and many others have and you continue to ignore them. As for availability of VAERS data, so what? Newspapers give names of people brought in by police for questioning, does that mean all or most are guilty? As I wrote, you base your position and your website on VAERS. If you admitted VAERS is NOT a valid dataset for determining vaccine causation, you would have to accept that everything you’ve written is WRONG! So, KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF.

@ johnlabarge

You write: “VAERs is undeniable in that the magnitude of reports outstrips years of prior vaccination. Just with regard to pure magnitude there is a signal there.”

NOPE. First, the mRNA vaccines are NOT experimental. I won’t repeat what I’ve already written; however, people were led to believe so. Second, our own government, FDA, basically ordered physicians to report any conditions following vaccines within a period of time. Third, Trump’s waffling about seriousness of COVID contributed. Fourth, antivax websites have proliferated over the past decade and they encourage people to report to VAERS. As I’ve written many times, on any given day about 2,300 Americans have heart attacks. So, with the aforementioned, if more reports of heart attacks were made to VAERS, what would this mean? To you, caused by vaccines; but to CDC if investigating found average number following vaccines same as before and also autopsies, medical records, found clear evidence of high risk of heart attack regardless, then not vaccines. And you and Ginny continue to ignore numerous studies showing vaccines have save high number of lives.

Years ago, a man reported his car had been attacked and his wife murdered. He told police by Blacks. Police, in their usual brutal manner, rounded up literally 100s of Blacks; however, it was the white man who murdered his wife. Based on your mentality, since 100s of Blacks rounded up, must have been them. Maybe not a good analogy; but the bottom line is that the number of VAERS reports doesn’t automatically reflect any real vaccine problem.

But, of course, you, in your immense biased ignorance, will just keep commenting.

If the massive increase in VAERS reports is nothing to worry about, why haven’t the CDC or ACIP written about it? Why would they conceal something if it is clearly nothing to worry about?

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “If the massive increase in VAERS reports is nothing to worry about, why haven’t the CDC or ACIP written about it? Why would they conceal something if it is clearly nothing to worry about?”

The CDC VAERS website includes a number of downloadable brochures, etc. that explain its “Limitations and Usefulness”.

And you can find a great article by Jessica McDonald (2021 Dec 22). Increase in COVID-19 VAERS Reports Due To Reporting Requirements, Intense Scrutiny of Widely Given Vaccines. FactCheck.org.

And numerous newspapers have also explained the limitations and usefulness of VAERS.

From another easily found article online: “It’s well known that the introduction of new shots and intense media coverage of vaccination stimulate VAERS reporting. This isn’t a post-COVID-19 rationalization either; reports of adverse events increased following the introduction of the HPV vaccine in 2006 and the H1N1 flu shot in 2009, to cite two examples. Additionally, more than seven billion COVID vaccine doses have been administered around the world. Most other vaccines, in contrast, are administered to select age groups or at-risk demographics.”

Cameron English (2021 Nov 4). COVID Vaccine Safety And VAERS: 4 Common Questions Answered. American Council on Science and Health.

You can also check out CDC’s pages “Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination (updated July 20, 2022) and at end it gives links to other pages., including page: “Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines (updated July 20, 2022:

The CDC probably hasn’t specifically written about it because so many other credible sources have; but, they do make it clear its limitations. Just one more example of how you see the world in extremes of black and white. And I and others realize that NOTHING will change your SICK MIND

The only part of your comment that addresses the question is this:

“The CDC probably hasn’t specifically written about it because so many other credible sources have.”

Where are your links? I’m aware of only one source that has mentioned the massive increase in VAERS reports, and it’s certainly not credible; it also didn’t analyze anything of course, just hypothesized excuses for the CDC concealment, like you’ve done here.

The only part of your comment that addresses the question is this

You didn’t post a question, you posted a conclusion with extraneous question marks.

2 questions for you: Pretend a new design of baby swing comes on the market. Within the first year, more deaths and serious injuries are reported to the Consumer Protection Agency in connection with this baby swing than from all other baby swings combined for the last 30 years.

1 — Is it reasonable not to do any analyses of the reasons for the massive increase in reports of serious injury and death?
2 — Is it reasonable not to inform the public of the massive increase?

Let’s extend your analogy, Ginny.
Suppose your scenario occurs. A huge number of deaths and injuries are reported, but there are no death certificates to back up these claims of death. Suppose also that many of the stories of deaths contain elements that are, quite frankly, implausible. Suppose also that there are confirmed cases of deaths, but they turned out to be caused by other things, not by the baby swing.
VAERS reports are hearsay. They are not even required to have death certificates attached. Anyone can report a death or injury to VAERS. You have been told over and over that VAERS is useless to determine causation, and yet you continue to use it.

They are hearsay, but in many instances could constitute extremely reliable hearsay – such as where doctors fill them out or they happen close to the incident. Letting them pile up and shrugging it off is also not an indicator of reliability. As for plausibility with new drugs everything is implausible until it isn’t anymore. Just ask someone who is addicted to non-addictive opioids.

“ They are hearsay, but in many instances could constitute extremely reliable hearsay ”

No — that’s not how hearsay works. it doesn’t magically become reliable data, despite how much you liars want it to do.

Yes that’s how hearsay works. Peruse the federal rules of evidence.

Just ask someone who is addicted to non-addictive opioids.

You really nead a Ouija board with this one. I’m going to go with his having heard of tramadol, the crappiest analgesia ever.

Yes that’s how hearsay works. Peruse the federal rules of evidence.

JFC you are stupid. Rules of law are not in play when you are talking about using said hearsay in statistical analysis.

Perhaps you’re right by they are when approximated when trying to determine what’s true in the face of extreme bias.

Perhaps you’re right by they are when approximated when trying to determine what’s true in the face of extreme bias.

Try putting whatever you’re trying to say into a sentence.

VAERS reports are not hearsay, but they do not prove causality. Proximity does not prove it either, though it is one requirement of causality.

Autocorrect is a menace. Perhaps you’re right (about hearsay being black and white wrt statistics). However when trying to determine the truth – as anyone considering the establishment narrative re Covid may be trying to do (hopefully at this point) – and given the exceptional bias in that narrative to a point where it has been wrong repeatedly (masks in schools, herd immunity, vax preventing spread in any meaningful way in the real world) these sorts of considerations are relevant as it can make the facts (which appear to toss out VAERs reports without any meaningful analysis) on which the statistics are based look questionable. And indeed they most definitely are questionable with regards to every single aspect risk of disease, risk of vaccine, effectiveness of vaccine, effectiveness of masks. And particularly now with the Omi-waves. Sweden has declassified the disease already so there is considerable diversity in approach and a good chance that the establishment (mostly corny-ist) in the US/Canada and other places with outside Pharma influence is off base by a considerable amount.

@john labarge Being wrong ?
Herd immunity depends infectivity. If a pahogen comes more infectous, more people are required for it
Mask mandates work, if people obey them.
Vaccines prevent spread of COVID, perhaps you should cite a paper on this matter.

Your counter doesn’t work, Julian, and Ginny’s point is rock solid. Regardless of many of the baby swing injuries being unverified, it would be downright unconscionable not to account for the huge increase in reports. No other product but vaccines would be given such a pass.

You’re saying it’s fine not to investigate the massive increase in VAERS reports because they are “hearsay”? Or are you assuming it has been investigated, but you think it’s okay to keep the results a secret?

Reports of baby swing injuries are hearsay. But you’re saying the massive increase in baby swing injuries should be investigated (so we know what the death certs say and what the circumstances were, etc.).

Not clear why you think these situations should be treated differently, if that’s what you’re saying.

Reports of baby swing injuries are hearsay. But you’re saying the massive increase in [reports of] baby swing injuries should be investigated

What makes you think investigators are not looking at the reorts?

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “1 — Is it reasonable not to do any analyses of the reasons for the massive increase in reports of serious injury and death?
2 — Is it reasonable not to inform the public of the massive increase?”

Yep, it is reasonable to analyze the reasons for the increase in reports; but if it turns out that they aren’t valid (which is what CDC does with VAERS reports, investigates them), it is NOT reasonable to inform the public of the massive increase. One more example of your STUPID ILLOGIC.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “I just inform people of the data because VAERS is “our nation’s early warning system for vaccine safety,” according to the CDC”

Dishonest as usual. From the CDC page on VAERS: “VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of possible health problems—also called “adverse events”—after vaccination. As an early warning system, VAERS cannot prove that a vaccine caused a problem. Specifically, a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event. But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed. . . . VAERS welcomes all reports, regardless of seriousness, and regardless of how likely the vaccine may have been to have caused the adverse event.”

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/index.html

So, you ignore that “early warning” doesn’t mean “proof”, just suspect. As I’ve mentioned several times, just because police bring in several people for questioning and their names released to press, so available, doesn’t mean a single one is guilty.

CRAWL BACK UNDER YOUR ROCK.

You’re either a liar or willfully blind, Joel

There’s some white-hot irony for you.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “You’re either a liar or willfully blind, Joel–since the documentation proving that VAERS is “our nation’s early warning system for vaccine safety” according to the CDC is right at the top of my CVax Risk page”

Who gives a shit what is on your website. I cited what was on CDC website, which you, in your infinite dishonesty, took one sentence out of context

Did you put CDC’s statement that VAERS reports do not prove causality there, too.

Yes–it’s mentioned approximately 12 times on my CVax Risk Page, in text, graphics and notes, and worded in various ways for clarity.

I’ve only covered this about a half-dozen times before, so I can understand why your still confused about it.

So next thing is understand what that statement means. Check expected mortality rate of vaccinated people.
Robert Kennedy Jr did that. 20% of deaths reported to VAERS listed heart disease as a cause. Check general mortality data for difference.

I even say in the same sentence that reports to VAERS don’t prove the vaccine caused the injury.

“Although reports to VAERS don’t prove the vaccine caused the injury, VAERS is “the nation’s early warning system” of vaccine danger, so this information is relevant to informed consent.”

Suddenly it’s clear why you make so many false and defamatory allegations against me–you haven’t looked at a damn thing I’ve sent you. Seriously man, that quote from an ACIP presentation is right in the intro of my page, which I’ve posted before–we’ve had this convo before. And after all that, you can’t even have glanced at the page. Just, wow.

“no vaccine has any benefit.”

Ginny Stoner

This quote will no doubt be useful on future occasions when Ginny is Just Asking Questions.

By all means, spread the word. Vaccines have been a dangerous con for the last 200 years, ever since Mr. Jenner decided to inject people with horse pus and call it “medicine.” The more people who figure it out, the better.

BTW, did you ever figure out why the CDC is brazenly lying about the millions of Spanish flu vaccines, claiming they didn’t exist? I remember how you believed them until I informed you of the facts–just wondering if you’ve give the issue any thought since then.

BTW, did you ever figure out why the CDC is brazenly lying about the millions of Spanish flu vaccines, claiming they didn’t exist?

Perhaps you should try bitching to them, Gindo, rather than perseverating here? The worst thing that could happen is that they laugh themselves silly.

Horse pus ? Cowpox is a disease of cows, and pus indicate bacteria. This is obviously rubbish. Jenner was a doctor.
As I have said multiple times:
a) Flu vaccine is a vaccine against flu.
b) Hib vaccine is a vaccine against M influenzae.
So CDC is not lying. There was Hib vaccine, was tried against Spanish flu.

BTW, did you ever figure out why the CDC is brazenly lying about the millions of Spanish flu vaccines, claiming they didn’t exist?

There were no vaccines against influenza viruses used during the Spanish flu pandemic, as the virus was not discovered as the cause of influenza until 1933.

Instead there were a large number of vaccines against bacteria, most against what was then called Bacillus influenzae, employed during the pandemic.

The CDC was correct that there was no vaccine available for influenza. All the vaccines targeted other organisms.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862332/

That’s FALSE. The facts about Spanish flu vaccines were published in a 2010 paper in the journal of the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General and the U.S. Public Health Service. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00333549101250S306

Millions of vaccines that purported to prevent and cure Spanish Flu were administered to military, residents of state institutions, employees of large corporations, and others.

“The fate of Pfeiffer’s bacillus as the probable cause of influenza is reflected in the use of vaccines in the United States during the pandemic of 1918–1919. […] Those who already had a vaccine in hand were quick off the mark to promote their vaccines as sure preventives or cures for influenza. Drug manufacturers aggressively promoted their stock vaccines for colds, grippe, and flu. These vaccines were of undisclosed composition. […] Preexisting vaccines of undisclosed composition were also endorsed by physicians such as M.J. Exner, who actively promoted in newspaper interviews and testimonials the vaccine developed some six years earlier by his colleague, Ellis Bonime. […] His vaccine was claimed to prevent pneumonia, influenza, and blood poisoning.”

Author Eyler goes on to describe some of the major new vaccines developed to prevent and cure Spanish Flu–all based on the since-discredited idea that Pfeiffer’s Bacillus caused flu.

You’re promoting the CDC’s blatant Spanish Flu vaccine lies.

This comment neatly encapsulates the shallowness of your understanding of biology. Just because someone asserted their preparation was a vaccine for influenza, does not make it a vaccine for influenza. It can only be a vaccine if it targets the organism or a protein produced by the organism. Targeting a completely different organism that is not causing the disease is not a vaccine for influenza.

What was created was a lot of vaccines for common bacteria.

Chris Preston said: “Just because someone asserted their preparation was a vaccine for influenza, does not make it a vaccine for influenza.”

Correct–it makes it a vaccine that purported to be for influenza. Millions of these vaccines that claimed to prevent or cure Spanish Flu were administered to a trusting public. Studies published in medical journals extolled the effectiveness of these vaccines in preventing or curing Spanish Flu.

The fact that the medical industry has since discredited the idea that Pfeiffer’s Bacillus causes flu doesn’t retroactively change that. Lol.

According to the CDC: “With no vaccine to protect against influenza infection and no antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections that can be associated with influenza infections, control efforts worldwide were limited to non-pharmaceutical interventions…”

The CDC also says: “Influenza vaccines did not exist at the time, and even antibiotics had not been developed yet. […] doctors were left with few treatment options other than supportive care.”

These statements both clearly deny the existence of vaccines altogether, and there are more examples.

I’ve written all about this before and laid out the evidence both of the CDC’s claim of no vaccines, and the false claim that the vaccines accidentally saved lives, which Wikipedia promotes. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2022/3/12/spanish-flu-swine-flu-covid19-and-perpetual-vaccine-lies

So it is medical industry that resolved H influenzae does not cause flu ?
Taubenberger JK, Hultin JV, Morens DM. Discovery and characterization of the 1918 pandemic influenza virus in historical context. Antivir Ther. 2007;12(4 Pt B):581-91. PMID: 17944266; PMCID: PMC2391305.
Vaccine that is purported to protect against Spanish flu is not same as a vaccine that protects against it (what CDC says)

All you are doing with your mention of “Spanish Flu viruses” is muddying the waters. The medical industry thought a bacteria cause the flu. They developed vaccines based on that theory, and administered them to millions, claiming they would prevent or cure Spanish Flu.

This paper will give you a better understanding of what “virus” meant 100 years ago–it didn’t mean what you think it did. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2022/2/7/the-bizarre-etymology-of-virus-plus-how-many-pounds-of-virus-does-the-average-human-contain

I have no idea what you’re perseverating about, since I’ve never posted anything concerning “Spanish flu vaccines”.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “Vaccines have been a dangerous con for the last 200 years, ever since Mr. Jenner decided to inject people with horse pus and call it “medicine.” The more people who figure it out, the better.”

Yep, what a con. Just in 20th Century smallpox killed around 300 million in 3rd world. Then WHO began vaccine campaign and, since smallpox only has humans as it reservoir, within decade smallpox ceased to exist. And at Jenner’s time, smallpox killed minimum of 25 – 30% of population.

YOU REALLY ARE SICK, MENTALLY DISTURBED.

I won’t bother with Spanish flu vaccine since just one more of your DELUSIONS.

@ Ginny Stoner

Your reasoning is circular. Basically, you claim something, then you back it up with your claiming something. You live in a world of fantasy and delusion. You don’t even know the history of smallpox, let alone the other vaccine-preventable diseases. You don’t know how the immune system works, thus, you don’t know how vaccines work.

YOU ARE SICK SICK SICK

By the way, I did give reference to an article that clearly stated the FDA and CDC encouraged doctors to report any adverse events following covid vaccine to VAERS. So, FDA and CDC directly responsible for some of the increased reporting.

YOU ARE SICK SICK SICK

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “Your facts are wrong; hence, your conclusions are wrong, and so is your self-righteous condemnation of me.”

YOU REALLY ARE DELUSIONAL. YOU NEED HELP; BUT AS I LEARNED LONG AGO, THE MORE MENTALLY DISTURBED SOMEONE IS, THE LESS THEY ARE AWARE OF IT.

I suppose it must seem that way to someone who has never read any of my work, and who is so attached to the teat of vaccination that he believes every bit of propaganda he’s ever ingested that way.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “I suppose it must seem that way to someone who has never read any of my work, and who is so attached to the teat of vaccination that he believes every bit of propaganda he’s ever ingested that way.”

Yep, you rely on yourself. Yep, history of smallpox, propaganda, even newspaper articles from 200 years ago.

DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR. YOU ARE SICK SICK SICK

I suppose it must seem that way to someone who has never read any of my work

I have read your abysmal work. Wading through the shitty organization and lack of evidence is tiring, and the blatant misuse of numbers (it’s clear you don’t know what you’re doing, or care about it) is just sad. Did you even finish high school?

You’ve read my work…and yet you can’t muster a single logical argument based on the evidence presented–all you can muster are playground insults. I’m sorry, dear–I didn’t realize you were ‘special.’

Special? No, just better off in the education and integrity departments than you and your ilk. I understand the numbers ginny, which you don’t. I know the vaers reports are not useful for what you claim they are — that’s your major point in your dishonest work. The second major point is your repeated assumption (present even if not stated) that since these anecdotes come in after there are claims of vaccinations they are due to the vaccinations. That’s your sub-high school level bit of stupidity. Don’t feel bad, you’re not alone: labarge and greg are guilty of the same lack of understanding and dishonesty.

But in the end it is your almost universial lack of knowledge of science and statistics that makes you wrong all the time — and your refusal to consider facts. Your shitty writing is just your added bonus.

Oh, no–you’re delusional too, as well as obnoxious, arrogant, deceptive, and woefully uninformed? Kudos to your strength in the face of adversity, Idlewild.

Special? No, just better off in the education and integrity departments than you and your ilk.

That’s Ginny’s way of resorting to calling you a r—rd.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “Vaccines have been a dangerous con for the last 200 years, ever since Mr. Jenner decided to inject people with horse pus”

As Aarno Syvänen explained, Jenner used cowpox sores. Don’t you know the difference between horses and cows? And if you really read up on Jenner, it would have been overwhelmingly clear he used cowpox. By the way, do you even know what pus is? It’s mainly dead neutrophils. Neutrophils are part of the innate immune system roaming the blood. When they receive a chemical message, chemokine, that a microbial invasion has occurred, they head for the spot and kill as many invaders as possible; however, they have short lives, thus pus. Pus also contains dead bodily cells and dead invaders, etc. which is why those who received Jenner’s vaccine responded with their adaptive immune systems recognizing cowpox, which was very close in identity to smallpox, and so our adaptive immune system, antibodies and t-cells, instead of taking around 10 days to recognize and respond, develops memory cells that recognize and respond almost immediately.

In any case, I suggest you visit a local zoo and ask the zoo keeper to tell you which animal is a horse and which is a cow or you could just visit a local ranch😋

I’ve had the smallpox vaccine three times. Once as an infant. In 1968 it was required for traveling abroad when I went to Europe for the summer. And in 1975 I got a job teaching aboard US Navy Ships in the Pacific and got it again. And so far I haven’t starting mooing like a cow or neighing like a horse. LOL

Ed Jenner used HORSE PUS. Here’s some more evidence for you not to bother to read.

“More”? Whatever.

You’re a moron, Ginny, Vaccination: A Curse notwithstanding (thanks for the page cite, BTW). Of course Jenner “used” horse pus: he thought cowpox came from horses. This has bugger all to do with smallpox vaccination, for which he initially “used” Sarah Nelms.

Jenner just could not use horse pus. Cowpox is a disease of cows.
Perhaps vaccination curse is not reliable source.

Perhaps you should actually read Dr. Amerige’s vintage booklet about Mr. Jenner’s vaccines before you comment. It’s all of 38 pages, and it explains why so many doctors were opposed to vaccination, before the AMA sent them back to science kindergarten.

Perhaps you should read some other material ? Pus is a result of bacterial infection, viral infection does not cause it.
AMA cannot take away anybodys medical license. Even medical boards seems to have problems there.

It’s ceaselessly hilarious to me how much power you think the AMA has over us. They are basically useless in my daily work and do little to nothing to help us when we really need it. I hasn’t given them a thought in months until I read this comment.

It’s your state medical regulators that have power over you, Yeti–you just don’t see it until your medical opinion conflicts with edicts from the masters.

For example, I was just reading a ruling suspending a doctor in Maine for prescribing a drug that wasn’t approved for use with covid.

It does seem a bit weird, since doctors prescribe drugs for off-label use all the time. Maybe it’s a fabricated case to scare other doctors from wandering off the covid reservation.

For example, I was just reading a ruling suspending a doctor in Maine for prescribing a drug that wasn’t approved for use with covid.

Who would that be, Gindo? Because if it’s Nass, she lied to a pharmacist to obtain IVM.

Hey, looks like the WHO has declared monkeypox a global health emergency! I am just starting to think how long until we see a 180 and backpedalling from such alarmist language.

Will people like me be branded ableist monsters for always picking on people will pus filled postules? Will there be call for acceptance for people with monkeypox? Will we have a Celebrate Monkeypox Day?

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/know-monkeypox-global-emergency-declared-213600282.html

The important thing to remember about the current monkeypox outbreak is two strange things are occurring; the virus is spreading widely in non-endemic countries, and it has changed its mode of transmission where it’s spreading from people to people rather than from animals to people.

On the latter point, there are essentially two possibilities why it would change its mode of transmission. First, the virus has mutated to it become more contagious to people. Yet, why would this radical transformation occur if it was never spreading widely among human populations?

The second possibility is the host’s immunity has changed and making them more vulnerable to monkeypox. At this stage in the game I believe it should be crystal clear of how I feel about this possibility.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/monkeypox-spreading-among-people-us-144503902.html

You of course get it all backwards. First a radcial transformation happens, and then it can more easily infect humans (it, of course, circulate widely among monkeys). Youn sitll do not understand that monkeypox is DNA virus.
Perhaps you do not know that autism is not a infectious disease.

@ Greg

As usual, you display your biased ignorance. First, mutations occur all the time, don’t need to have many different people involved. Second, actually monkey pox has been infecting humans for many decades. The smallpox vaccine protected against it; but most people today either received a smallpox vaccine long ago, so its protection is waning or younger people never received the smallpox vaccine. And most cases today first involved someone directly infected from an animal.

There is an excellent, well-reference article that I’m sure you won’t read:

Wikipedia. Monkeypox

As with Ginny, please explain, given your antivax position, how smallpox, a disease that killed 100s of millions of people, disappeared from the planet after a decades long WHO vaccine campaign? Nothing else changed in third world nations.

KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF

Here you go, Joel. See graphs 2-9 at this link, which show smallpox mortality data from various places in the US, England and Whales.

Without exception, they show that smallpox vaccination did nothing to reduce smallpox mortality–if anything, they did just the opposite. https://dissolvingillusions.com/graphs-images/

If you have any smallpox mortality data to refute this, I’m interested. If all you have is ad hominem attacks against the authors, or opinions about the vaccine saving us from smallpox, I’m not interested because it’s irrelevant.

And for some reasons, smallpox did disappear after vaccination campaign-You should really find some other reaing mateial

Isn’t it interesting how some people assume that monkeypox changed the most common mode of transmission rather than considering that this might be an artifact of better surveillance in developed countries that are looking for a disease compared with developing countries that don’t have the same resources and so mild cases went unrecognized?

It’s almost like some people are unfamiliar with things like disease ecology, the One Health approach to infectious disease research and prevention, as well as epidemiology, virology and immunology.

Isn’t it interesting how some people assume that monkeypox changed the most common mode of transmission rather than considering that this might be an artifact of better surveillance in developed countries that are looking for a disease compared with developing countries that don’t have the same resources and so mild cases went unrecognized?

JT, what was the mode of transmission for the previous outbreak of monkeypox in the US, a developed country with good disease surveillance?

WRT monkeypox I can’t say whether the vaccine is a cause in fact or not I don’t have the background. What I can say with certainty is that the media has wildly blown it out of proportion. Five deaths globally something like 16k cases and pretty isolated to men who have sex with men and their close contacts. Seems like the media hysteria click/money machine run rampant. Same grift of which many here accuse the more prevalent anti-vaxxers.

Five deaths globally something like 16k cases and pretty isolated to men who have sex with men and their close contacts.

Yeah, screw them.

@ Ginny Stoner

So, you base your position that Jenner used pus from a horse on a book written in 1895 by an antivaxxer: C.W. Amerige (1895). A Vaccination Curse

Yet, ignore what Jenner himself wrote and just about every book ever written on smallpox, namely, he used a cow named Blossom.

Just one more example how you believe the exception proves the rule, if you find someone who agrees with you, must be right; but you ignore doing a thorough investigation.

Just type in Google “Edward Jenner AND Blossom”. You will find numerous papers or go to library and get book on smallpox. Oops! I forgot, you don’t do such things because whatever confirms your ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY AND INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY IS ALL YOU NEED.

Actually, the pus was taken from Sarah Nelmes, a dairy maid, who, in turn was infected by a cow.

From Jenner: CASE XVII.–The more accurately to observe the progress of the infection I selected a healthy boy, about eight years old, for the purpose of inoculation for the cow-pox. The matter was taken from a sore on the hand of a dairymaid [Footnote: From the sore on the hand of Sarah Nelmes. See the preceding case.], who was infected by her master’s cows, and it was inserted, on the 14th of May, 1796, into the arm of the boy by means of two superficial incisions, barely penetrating the cutis, each about half an inch long.

You can find THE THREE ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS ON VACCINATION AGAINST SMALLPOX BY EDWARD JENNER at:

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cphl/history/articles/jenner.htm#paperIII

Which was from site called vaccine curse. Perhaps Jnner’s original papers are more reliable source.

At least it’s clear you didn’t break your pattern of never reading the evidence I send you.

If the PDF weren’t bloated and poorly scanned, you’d likely be drawing more ridicule, Gindo.

“Lol.”

I will grant (1) that equination was used and (2) that John Baron’s “Life of Jenner” is reputed to claim that Jenner was a fan.

It’s not surprising that Ginny’s trusted source on Jenner claimed that vaccination killed more people than “war, pestilence and famine”.

Antivaxers – still crazy after all these years.

@ Narad and Ginny Stoner

Well, Narad, you and Ginny are partially right. Thanks to you, I used “equitation” to do my search. Didn’t know this word. The first vaccination by Jenner of 8-year-old James Phipps was from sore on milkmaid Sarah Nelmes and Jenner continued to do this; but he also then sometimes took pus from horses. He actually believed smallpox originated with horses, then passed on to cows; but he also believed that horse pox lacked certain elements, thus a weaker vaccine. In any case, for once, though she relied on an 1895 book by an antivaxxer, Ginny was partially correct, Jenner used both vaccines. I found a fascinating article, available for free online:

José Esparza , Livia Schrick , Clarissa R. Damaso , Andreas Nitsche (2017 Nov 11). Equination (inoculation of horsepox): An early alternative to vaccination (inoculation of cowpox) and the potential role of horsepox virus in the origin of the smallpox vaccine. Vaccine; 35: 7222-7230.

I’ll se if I can find John Baron’s “Life of Jenner.”

In any case, even almost 76, still learning things. So, once again, Ginny Stoner was finally partially right about something, though not entirely because she claims the vaccine was only horsepox when Jenner used both, though cowpox first.

I typed in “equination” but my computer sometimes automatically changes what I type. This time to equitation. I forget sometimes to double check and correct these. Oh well. Most of the time the spelling checker does the right thing.

I found a free copy of John Baron’s (1838). The life of Edward Jenner….

Groovy. I lost steam after a while.

@ Narad and Ginny Stoner

Just want to make it clear. I was partially wrong because I only believed Jenner used cowpox. He used both cowpox and horsepox during his career. Ginny was also partially wrong in that she claimed Jenner only used horsepox. Again he used both. Plus Ginny based her position on an antivaxxer. Mine was based on extensive readings, including Jenner’s papers; but I guess I missed in his papers that he also mentioned use of horsepox. Bottom line, I have NO problem admitting when I am wrong. In fact, I relish it. Means I still can learn and have an open mind. I doubt Ginny even understands this.

And I also learned a new word: “equination”

@ Ginny Stoner

Actually doesn’t matter whether Jenner used pus from cows or horse. What is important, and you are TOO STUPID to recognize, a disease that once killed 100s of millions of people, because it only had a human reservoir, no longer exists. And the final blow was the WHO campaign that went from one third world nation to another. Nothing else changed in these nations at the time that could explain how a disease that had ravished mankind for over a millennium came to an end after only a decade.

If it was a choice between a serious disease and getting pus from an animal, I would NOT hesitate.

Did you know that a treatment for a serious case of Clostridium Difficile involves using fecal transplants? Well, if I had uncontrollable bloody diarrhea, again, I wouldn’t hesitate.
Association for Processionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. Fecal transplants: A new Clostridium difficile treatment option.

Of course, if there were a “more pleasant” treatment that was equally effective, I would opt for it.

You’re claiming Mr. Jenner’s vaccines, which were often simply diluted horse pus, worked, and you would welcome the opportunity to take one? Wow!

I provided mortality data showing the ‘more advanced’ smallpox vaccines did not work in another comment. So let’s see your data showing they worked, and showing Mr. Jenner’s horse pus was health-giving.

Jenner was a physician, and did not use horse pus. He used vaccinia virus
Smallpox vaccines eradicated smallpox, can you comment that.
There is a history of smallpox:
Krylova O, Earn DJD. Patterns of smallpox mortality in London, England, over three centuries. PLoS Biol. 2020 Dec 21;18(12):e3000506. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000506. PMID: 33347440; PMCID: PMC7751884.
There is a mention that vaccination records were poor until the end of 19th century, so your data is not very good.
You will notice that compulsory vaccination made an effec.

Sigh. So tell us, Ginny, where did smallpox go? More importantly, what cased it to go?

Why did mortality from all once-deadly diseases decline by over 95% BEFORE most vaccines even existed, Yeti? Why did mortality decline for diseases like scarlet fever, for which there has never been a vaccine?

It happened due to vast improvements in nutrition, sanitation and living conditions in the industrialized world.

There is no mortality data to support the idea that any vaccine for any disease saved lives. That perception is routinely manipulated by omitting data more than 10 years or so older than the vaccine.

Go to this link look at the mortality graphs for various diseases, you’ll see. Look at the photos of living conditions 150 years ago, so you understand historical living conditions, which are quite shocking.
https://dissolvingillusions.com/graphs-images/

Why did mortality decline for diseases like scarlet fever, for which there has never been a vaccine?

That’s some pretty trite shit, Gindo.

It happened due to [sic ] vast improvements in nutrition, sanitation and living conditions in the industrialized world antibiotics.

FTFY. Did five-years-olds vastly improve their handwashing and handkerchief habits as well? It’s not as though group A strep has magically disappeared.

Go to this link look at the mortality graphs for various diseases, you’ll see. Look at the photos of living conditions 150 years ago, so you understand historical living conditions, which are quite shocking.
https://dissolvingillusions.com/graphs-images/

You are now just repeating your failures. HTH. HAND. FOADIAF.

There is daa about smallpox mortality:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-0289.2011.00599.x
Go to figure 1 and notice effect of vaccination
Besides, you have not explaine where smallpox went.
Epidemical polio is a quite new thing:
Trevelyan B, Smallman-Raynor M, Cliff AD. The Spatial Dynamics of Poliomyelitis in the United States: From Epidemic Emergence to Vaccine-Induced Retreat, 1910-1971. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2005 Jun;95(2):269-293. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.2005.00460.x. PMID: 16741562; PMCID: PMC1473032.
Go to figure 1 and notice vaccine effect.
Diphtheria antitoxin in has been around since 1894, tetanus one since 1897 Tetanus vaccine was invented 1924

Antivaxers obsessed with VAERS (when they’re not fulminating about PUS) might be interested (or not) to know that other vaccine post-marketing surveillance systems exist and are used to investigate questions regarding vaccine safety.

I just completed a brief continuing medical education assignment on the question of whether Covid-19 vaccination causes appendicitis. Seems that out of over 43,000 Pfizer vaccine clinical trial participants, there were 8 appendicitis cases in the vaccinated group compared to 4 cases in the placebo group (oo, twice the risk!). However there’s been no consistent finding of any elevated appendicitis risk in the vaccinated on followup. A large-scale review in Denmark reported no increased risk, likewise a study using Vaccine Safety Datalink data, covering millions of vaccine doses.

So, potential safety signals are looked into. But never enough to satisfy diehard antivaxers.

*a suggested mechanism for how Covid-19 vaccines might cause appendicitis is lymphoid stimulation leading to enlarged lymph nodes and potential appendiceal obstruction. A problem with this theory is that you could postulate such an effect for virtually any vaccine (not to mention lymphoid hyperplasia caused by many other factors), but supporting evidence is lacking. I have personally examined thousands of appendices and can’t recall ever seeing luminal narrowing/obstruction of periappendiceal lymph nodes as a result of benign lymph node hyperplasia.

Perhaps you yourself could analyse your VAERS data better. Make of statistics of reported death causes. Compare these to mortality reports. Are there any difference ?

<Link us to the data for the number of vaccines administered and the number of serious injuries and deaths, so we can calculate mathematical risk.

Oh, great, Ginny’s imaginary collaborator is back.

@ Ginny Stoner

In your IMMENSE STUPIDITY you fail to understand that no FLU vaccine was made. The fact that they made vaccines for a bacterial infection because they really didn’t even know at the time what a virus was doesn’t change things. Years ago they thought leukemia was an infection because at the time they had started to see increased white blood cells with infections; but, of course, leukemia is a cancer of white blood cells. So, though they didn’t have antibiotics at the time, if they had, and treated leukemia with antibiotics it would have done nothing. So, would you then claim that they had treated cancers with antibiotics???

I repeat, YOU STUPID STUPID MORON, no vaccine was made against flu. They might have called it a flu vaccine; but calling leukemia an infectious disease doesn’t make it so. You read into things what your predetermined bias against vaccines tells you to.

And, even if the vaccines for the 1918 flu pandemic was based actually on flu had failed; but based on technology from that time, so what? Early cancer treatments failed, so does that mean we shouldn’t use later ones based on advances in science? Early organ transplants failed, so does that mean we shouldn’t perform organ transplants?

So, once again, in 1918 they didn’t know what a virus was, though some suspected, so made a vaccine against a bacteria; but even if it had been a vaccine against the actual flu virus, if it didn’t work, based on early technology/science, so what?

@ Ginny Stoner

And you continue to ignore explaining the end of smallpox if it wasn’t the vaccine.

@ Ginny Stoner

You may be right that vaccines have played a roll in current deaths; but not the way you think. Overwhelming expertise around the world credit vaccines as the major contributor to increases in life-expectancy, in 1927 it was two billion, now around eight billion. With this increase, the amount of CO2 being created has increased enormously, thus contributing to global warming with droughts, intense storms, etc. Plus the toxins in fossil fuels cause increased deaths and disabilities. If our population was less than half its current size global warming would lie in the distant future, water shortages would not exist or be far less, premature deaths and disabilities from fossil fuel toxins would be much less.

So, vaccines partially responsible because major contributor to huge population increase. However, though without vaccines world population would be far less than half current numbers, many would be disfigured, blind, deaf, mentally retarded, seizure disorders, disabled/crippled, etc. And good chance neither of us would exist; but we, of course, wouldn’t know it.😋

So, maybe you are right, vaccines have contributed to current world problems, just not directly.

1) During the Spanish Flu pandemic, millions of vaccines were administered the population that purported to prevent and/or cure Spanish Flu. They were based on the theory that a bacteria caused the flu.
2) Subsequently, the medical industry discredited the idea that a bacteria causes the flu, and claimed it was caused by a virus instead.
3) Therefore, there were no vaccines for Spanish Flu. And the CDC isn’t lying when it makes the claim that, “With no vaccine to protect against influenza infection and no antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections that can be associated with influenza infections, control efforts worldwide were limited to non-pharmaceutical interventions…”

I can’t believe there are several people here making this argument. Surely they can’t be doing it with a straight face, but there’s no way to know on the internet.

The CDC also says, “Influenza vaccines did not exist at the time, and even antibiotics had not been developed yet. […] doctors were left with few treatment options other than supportive care.”

Are vaccines a “non-pharmaceutical intervention”?
Are vaccines “supportive care”?
If not, proof of the CDC’s lies about Spanish Flu vaccines is indisputable.

@ Ginny Stoner

You continue to display your IMMENSE STUPIDITY. First, influenza virus was obtained from corpses from the pandemic in the 1990s, so we know it was a virus. Second, you continue to ignore that calling something a flu vaccine when it wasn’t, since at the time they didn’t know about viruses and just guessed the disease was caused by a bacteria, isn’t a lie, just simply a mistake. And you ignore that focusing on medical science from 100 years ago is just plain MORONIC. As I wrote, since first transplants failed, based on your mentality, we shouldn’t be doing transplants. Since first treatments for cancer failed, we shouldn’t be treating cancer. Given the science at the time, they did the best they could given the horrors of the 1918 pandemic.

It really isn’t worth responding to an IDIOT LIKE YOU; but, given I am long retired and have time on my hands,

@ Dr Joel:

Just keep on doing what you’re doing. You provide detailed SB information with sources.
Of course, I doubt that your work will affect anti-vaxxers and other scoffers BUT you do educate the regulars as well as people “on the fence”. Regulars and newbies can use your formats to instruct others, including in RL.

I just thought about this:
the nay sayers who infect RI as well as more famous alties and woo-meisters** may not respond to Orac’s and his regulars’ material/ methods and then argue with you because they have little or no experience with
formal education that addresses research and theories in medical/ psychological science.
So when their read Orac or you, they are lost. They don’t realise they have a problem because they’ve never experienced examples of GOOD research and explication before***. They can’t self-critique because they haven’t the ability to do so.

Also, I really enjoy your invective towards appropriate ( i.e clueless) targets. Many regulars contribute different ways of supporting SBM: your own includes insults. Why be kind and considerate to conspiracy mongers whose bad ideas might affect others’ health ?

** with a few exceptions like doctors who abandon SBM
*** a good reason to show alties’ poor education backgrounds and obvious problems with language, reason and common sense

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “Do you talk to people this way at professional conferences and parties, Joel?”

Since you have made it absolutely clear that you don’t understand even the basics of immunology, nor have you actually studied the history of vaccine-preventable diseases, just found cherry-picked confirmation of your uninformed, unscientific bias, I really doubt you would be at any professional conference. And if you were, no one would take you seriously.

You didn’t answer the question. Let me answer it for you: you don’t talk to anyone you interact with in person the way you talk to me on the internet. No one does in civil society.

FYI, there is no requirement that attendees of a professional conference agree with the official narrative that you subscribe to. Although it wouldn’t surprise me if you headed up a committee to make it so.

Your comments would be far more interesting without all the insults. To be honest I think some of the info you share here is informative and helpful in seeing another side of the debate. Just consider (and Idw too who seems to be more weighted on the insult side) leaving out the insults. To me the insults are an indication of extreme bias to the point where it’s untrustworthy – something like challenging someone’s religion.
FWIW.

john, try not to continually lie about covid and the vaccines. Try telling the truth once in a while — that might garner you a little respect. Right now you deserve none (nor do ginny, greg, …)

Ah yes, Idw is so very scientific he/she thinks everyone who disagrees with him/her is a lying. Another faith-based rationale. But that seems to be what may have become of Science™.

Ah yes, Idw is so very scientific he/she thinks everyone who disagrees with him/her is a lying.

John, your comments about the statistics of all this have been pure bullshit lies. I can tell, from the people who deal with the science here, that their view about your vaccine comments are also lies. Your repeated comments about VAERS being useful for things you want to use them for are also lies as has been repeatedly pointed out.

It isn’t that you disagree: from posts a year or so ago I disagree strongly with his views about PETA and the impact of agriculture (animal agriculture specifically) on climate change, but I don’t believe he his lying: he using the data in a different light. That isn’t what you’re doing: you are pretending to be interested in open discussion but refuse to look at the points made against you.

So again: stop lying and try to be an honest broker. I know you won’t, but there’s always hope (I guess).

Yeah, it’s a bit over the top to post insults in ALL CAPS. It’d suffice to use italics to characterize Ginny’s immense stupidity.*

*I enjoy her references to “my work”, as though it was peer-reviewed published research, rather than bizarre antivax ravings on a website no one pays attention to.

Dedicated vaccine promoters can’t engage in civil, rational debate, because the true facts–when you dig deep enough–are never on the side of vaccination.

People who shill for vaccines online (of which there are many) are trained to use insults, degradation, and false and defamatory allegations against anyone who questions the vaccine paradigm. Anyone with eyes open can observe this strategy in action wherever anti-vax comments are still allowed in a pro-vax forum (a quickly shrinking corner of the web).

On the other hand, it’s rare I see anyone opposed to vaccination using childish names and insults to ‘make a point,’ and I see frequent discussions about the importance of remaining civil and evidence-based in comments.

People who shill for vaccines online (of which there are many) are trained to use insults…

You are getting more delusional with every post. (Not an insult, a perfectly accurate description of you views.)

Dedicateed antivaxxer always lies, and sells supplements, or invests to lawsuis. Other bug is endless repetition of same claims

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “The CDC also says, “Influenza vaccines did not exist at the time, and even antibiotics had not been developed yet. […] doctors were left with few treatment options other than supportive care.”

A vaccine is named after the microbe it protects against. Measles vaccine is made with attenuated measles virus to create memory B and T-cells for measles, only measles. Diphtheria vaccine is made from Diphtheria bacteria, etc. So, the 1918 vaccines may have been called flu vaccines; but they weren’t made from flu and didn’t protect from flu. If today, someone claimed that the flu vaccine was a COVID vaccine, it would be wrong, though both are viruses. Vaccine has to be accurately named after the microbe it is focused on.

How about poor analogy. Imagine someone is convicted of a crime and executed. Then DNA totally exonerates them and even finds the true culprit. Given your mentality, if DAs office said he/she was innocent, you would call them liars because of conviction and execution. Wouldn’t matter if later evidence exonerated them. The 1918 vaccines were NOT flu vaccines, even if at the time people hoped they were.

You write: “Are vaccines a “non-pharmaceutical intervention”?
Are vaccines “supportive care”?
If not, proof of the CDC’s lies about Spanish Flu vaccines is indisputable.”

According to the FDA: “The FDA defines a drug, in part, as “intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease” and “articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.” Refer to section 201(g) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The definition also includes components of drugs, such as active pharmaceutical ingredients.”

So, they are a “pharmaceutical intervention”. “Supportive”, yep, they support your immune systems ability to fend off a disease. How does this make CDC’s discussion of 1918 vaccine a lie?

And once more, explain how smallpox would literally killed 100s of millions of people, disappeared from the planet after slightly more than a 10 year WHO vaccination campaign in the Third World. Nothing else changed. Explain it! ! !

Just for clarification–you are claiming the CDC’s 2 statements above, that Spanish Flu vaccines didn’t exist, are true.

The CDC doesn’t tell people anywhere about the vaccines that were administered to millions of people during the Spanish Flu. I gather you don’t consider that a lie by omission, either.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “Just for clarification–you are claiming the CDC’s 2 statements above, that Spanish Flu vaccines didn’t exist, are true.?

Yep, Spanish Flu vaccines didn’t exist. Just because people at the time thought the vaccines were for Spanish Flu doesn’t make it so. I’ve explained over and over again; but you really are TOO STUPID to understand. If someone said they were using penicillin as an antiviral, they too would be wrong as penicillin only works against bacteria. And on and on it goes; but only an IDIOT like you would obsess on what was or wasn’t said about vaccines from 100 years ago. Even if you were right and you’re not, doesn’t change the fact that vaccine science and our knowledge of immunology has grown exponentially.

KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF. YOU REALLY ARE GOOD AT IT.

Just for clarification–you are claiming the CDC’s 2 statements above, that Spanish Flu vaccines didn’t exist, are true.

Are you asserting that the four humors do exist according to some, any arbitrary metric, somewhere, Gindo? You’re leaving out a lot of horseshit (except for your own), after all.

Is R well ordered? Who shaves the barber? You’re not good at this.

@ Ginny Stoner

And for the umpteenth time, since you don’t believe in vaccines, explain how smallpox which literally killed 100s of millions of people, disappeared from the planet after slightly more than a 10 year WHO vaccination campaign in the Third World. Nothing else changed. Explain it! ! !
Oh, and as for what I would say if someone like you appeared at a scientific conference, I wouldn’t have to say anything as so many others would beat me to the punch.😋

Better nutrition and sanitation. The death rate started declining before vaccination. Smallpox never really disappeared but got renamed monkeypox. Or Covid-19.

And look!, there’s something shiny over there.

That’s doubtful–no one has even approached rudeness toward me at any professional conference I’ve ever attended, and I’ve never seen it happen to anyone else, either. It’s extremely rare that I meet anyone as rude as you in real life. You are horribly obnoxious, even by internet standards. Maybe I was sheltered, since there are obviously a bunch just like you here.

@ Ginny Stoner

So, calling anyone who disagrees with you “brainwashed” is OK??? And calling me a “liar” is OK???

Did you actually attend any professional public health conferences, immunology conferences, microbiology conferences, epidemiology conferences? If so, did you publicly present your antivax position and, if so, when others addressed it with science, did you just continue with your absurd moronic position?

And, why are you focusing on what I called you instead of addressing the issue of vaccines? Once more since you don’t believe in vaccines, explain how smallpox which literally killed 100s of millions of people, disappeared from the planet after slightly more than a 10 year WHO vaccination campaign in the Third World. Nothing else changed. Explain it! ! !

YOU ARE A MENTALLY DISTURBED INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST MORON.

You might not like being called such; but given you do not understand the basics of immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, nor any evidence you actually studied the history of vaccine-preventable diseases, the above is an accurate description of you. And cherry picking a few papers/books is NOT actually studying the subject.

Where can I find these professional conferences you attend, where the attendees publicly ridicule one another as”morons” and “idiots,” and accuse one another of being “mentally ill”? Sounds like quite a show.

That’s doubtful–no one has even approached rudeness toward me at any professional conference I’ve ever attended

What’s your “profession,” Ginny, and which were those conferences?

I have long admired the quality of the material on this site, the many debates, the wit and the wisdom but I am often left wondering why any aggressive, hurtful and insulting name calling etc is tolerated and permitted.

It distracts from the quality of the material and I struggle to understand how anyone could argue in defence of it. The contributors on here are clearly highly intelligent, well researched individuals in many disciplines who have sufficient talent and expertise to argue their case without resorting to insults and what is clearly anger driven responses.

I myself have learned a lot. People of varying levels of intelligence and different viewpoints visit this site and respectful debate/discussion is undoubtedly very healthy, even when contributors disagree, but why the need for all the insults?

Joel Harrison a regular contributor on here in a 2016 article gave us insight and put it in a nutshell when he said…………………………………..

“The purpose of my latest article is to show that ad hominem arguments not only represent a false logic; but a desperate act by those incapable of logically and scientifically supporting their position. And not only are they a desperate act; but a clear display of unethical behaviour, attacking the messenger rather than the message.”

@ Wendy Stephen

Yep, it would be an ad hominem attack if it stood alone; but I guess you missed that I often write detailed rebuttals to people who just ignore. If someone posts 2 + 2 = 5 and I explain carefully, giving examples such as 1 1 1 1 put together and count, that 2 + 2 = 4 and they continue to post their position, yep, show ignorance. Ginny Stoner continues to base her position on VAERS despite several well-written papers by Orac, detailed comments by me, including detailed references. And Ginny has stated that anyone who disagrees with her is “brainwashed”, she has called me a “liar” and she claims she approaches things “objectively”; but “objective” means one can back their position with science. Ginny doesn’t have minimal knowledge of immunology, microbiology, history of vaccine-prevented diseases, or epidemiology, she does knows she is right and cherry picks things that confirm her biases. Apparently, just as with her, rather than addressing my detailed comments with science, you focus on my reaction to her. Doesn’t surprise me, coming from you.

Copy and paste an example of someplace I did any of that. You can’t, because there are none. You just lied again, by making false generalizations about my work and claiming they’re true.

Did you write about this ‘exasperation’ exception to the logical fallacy of ad hominem in your article? Kindly post the link where I can find the following quote–it’s surely the clearest example of brazen hypocrisy I’ve seen in a long while.

“The purpose of my latest article is to show that ad hominem arguments not only represent a false logic; but a desperate act by those incapable of logically and scientifically supporting their position. And not only are they a desperate act; but a clear display of unethical behaviour, attacking the messenger rather than the message.”

@ rs

Thanks! TONE TROLL. Even at 76 thanks to you and others I can still learn new things every day. And as I wrote in other comment, I begin dialogue with only addressing what others, antivaxxers, claim; but, after a time, obvious they aren’t interested in entering into a real dialogue, just repeating their unscientific irrational claims over and over.

I fully agree with what Wendy wrote except this…

I have long admired the quality of the material on this site, the many debates, the wit and the wisdom

Even without their desperate ad-homs and insults, it’s clear as day that Orac’s sycophants’ arguments and Orac’s own arguments are nothing more than poorly disguised gaslighting.

Well not RI but from your other blog, but here is a perfect example. Everything you write here follows the exact same template.

Wendy, I kindly ask that you to read Orac’s article and state whether you honestly feel it has ‘quality’ and it is not gaslighting. To assist you, I have included a link from the Spectator on the same subject.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-lab-leak-hypothesis-for-the-origin-of-sars-cov-2/

https://spectator.com.au/2022/07/has-the-lab-leak-theory-really-been-disproved/

“None of this is to say that the lab leak hypothesis is impossible, or even homeopathy-level improbable. As I mentioned once, lab leaks of pathogens have occurred before, although none have lead to a global pandemic. Rather, conspiracy theorists simply tended to assume that because lab leak was possible that implied that it was equally likely as a natural origin, when the preponderance of evidence has long suggested the conclusion that a lab leak origin for this pandemic is incredibly unlikely. ”

Moron says what? Shut up, Greg, you’re incapable of reading beyond your irrational anti-vax bias.

Well no Greg, not gaslighting. You (and labarge, and ginny) however, are continually dishonest and uninformed. A little education would help you (possibly) but you all seem immune to education.

Well not RI but from your other blog, but here is a perfect example. Everything you write here follows the exact same template.

Wendy, I kindly ask that you to read Orac’s article and state whether you honestly feel it has ‘quality’ and it is not gaslighting. To assist you, I have included a link from the Spectator on the same subject.

I see that Gerg is back to his demanding-to-be-banned routine. I must say that he really deserves to be spared the aggravation of having to come by.

@ Wendy Stephen

While I have included various quotes on ad hominem arguments in papers I wrote, I don’t remember the one you cite. According to you it was six years ago. Please give a detailed reference; e.g., title of paper, complete date, and URL.

If it is a quote by me, I’m curious how you have it from six years ago???

How many studies have actually studied the Autism link? And how many potential ingredients and/or mechanism have been studied? Not that many. As a result no one knows.

@johnlabarge So you have no evidence and there is no evidence that shows vaccines are even correlated with autism.

You can GFY for trying to lie about it. There is no correlation.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpn.2021.12.011

Again, you need to learn that YOU are not a scientist, you don’t get to tell me what exists in the research and what doesn’t. You’re just an anti-vax cultist programmed to lie.

@john labarge Check Google Scholar for paper. “Vaccine autism” returns 40200 hits.

Many children with injuries that include autism have received compensated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)–it’s just that autism, a behavioral diagnosis, was not the injury ruled to be entitled to compensation.

This investigation was published in a peer-reviewed law journal in 2011, and found 83 cases of acknowledged vaccine-induced brain damage that included autism among VICP cases.
http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr

This investigation was published in a peer-reviewed law journal in 2011

PELR is edited by law students.

@Ginny Stoner Actually VICP compensated “autism like symptoms”, It ineed ruled that vaccines do not cause autism, thus no compensation.

Aarno there is no VICP ruling that vaccines don’t cause autism (as if any court would be competent to do that anyway).

Autism is a psychological diagnosis, not a medical one–there is no physical test for it. Vaccines can cause brain damage, which in turn can result in a diagnosis of autism. The actual vaccine injury that is compensated is the physical injury, brain damage.

A. While it’s true that VICP never said “vaccines don’t cause autism,” It did say that “In none of the rulings since the test cases has a special master or judge found any merit in an allegation that any vaccine can cause autism.” (p. 9) https://www.skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/JM-Mini-OMnibus-NVICP.pdf

And explained that two of the cases most commonly used by anti-vaccine activists to pretend otherwise were compensated for table injuries.

B. I addressed the misleading article by Holland et al. in some detail here. And as pointed out by Narad, it was not peer reviewed. Students read it. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1464&context=mjlst

C. Studies in millions looked at whether vaccines cause autism. They came up negatively consistently. At this point, if anti-vaccine activists want to claim otherwise, they need to bring valid human evidence. Because with many large, well controlled human studies going the other way – including a recent one with an unvaccinated group: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m18-2101 – the side that wants to deny the evidence needs to bring some.

What’s Poul Thorsen up to these days, Dorit? The vax team has known exactly where he is ever since he was put on the OIG’s list of Most Wanted Fugitives years ago. He’s even published professional papers since then, as I recall. Why no interest in bringing Thorsen to court? Lol.

“From approximately February 2004 until February 2010, Poul Thorsen executed a scheme to steal grant money awarded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC had awarded grant money to Denmark for research involving infant disabilities, autism, genetic disorders, and fetal alcohol syndrome. CDC awarded the grant to fund studies of the relationship between autism and the exposure to vaccines, the relationship between cerebral palsy and infection during pregnancy, and the relationship between developmental outcomes and fetal alcohol exposure.”

https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/poul-thorsen/

Dorit, you are essentially claiming the #ABV defense — anything but the vaccines as the reason why 83 children with acknowledge vaccine-induced brain damage had autism. Not very convincing.

Peer review isn’t relevant at all, in a logical sense–it’s more an appeal to authority. Either the evidence presented is sound, or it isn’t.

Just to clarify, Dorit Reiss, my question about Thorsen wasn’t rhetorical snark. The vaccine community cites autism studies all the time that the grant money Thorsen is alleged to have stolen was supposed to have funded.

They fall back on the fact that a number of other authors were involved. So what? If Thorsen was corrupt, they could be, too.

Please advise why Thorsen has never been brought to trial after all these years, even though his location is known. Is it a legal problem?

A. Note the deflection. Poul Thorsen, for those unfamiliar, is a Danish researcher who probably embezzled research grants. Probably, since no trial occurred. It would be great if he was extradited and tried. It doesn’t affect the research on vaccines and autism, even the Danish studies on them; he was not lead or senior author on any of those studies, and there’s nothing showing a problem with the rest of the large team that did them. He’s not even on the team that did the last study. Raising his name is a common deflection by anti-vaccine activists of the fact that the data is against them. https://vaxopedia.org/2017/10/15/who-is-poul-thorsen/

B. “All studies are funded by big Pharma” is another misleading trope. https://vaxopedia.org/2020/09/19/the-vaccine-studies-that-arent-funded-by-big-pharma/

C. Note that my response and sources directly address the anti-vaccine claims about the cases, including addressing what the cases actually said, and the anti-vaccine activists did not counter that.

Who funded those studies?

Is something preventing you from, y’know, reading them?

you are essentially claiming the #ABV defense

Ms. “I’m not wrong about anything” seems not to understand that hashtags don’t magically work wherever they’re plopped out.

Dorit Reiss said: “Note the deflection.” I did note your defection.

The question is why has Thorsen never been tried, when everyone knows exactly where he is? Is there some legal problem, other than not wanting him to be questioned under oath about the autism/vaccine research he and others allegedly conducted with the money he allegedly stole?

How would you know if there are any problems with the research–you didn’t see any obvious traces in the write-up? Call me a cynic, but I don’t think someone who is willing to embezzle millions from research with life-and-death implications for children would have any problem with falsifying data or whatever tricks were needed to cover it up.

@Ginny Stoner As Dorit said Thorsen was not involved studies Dorit cited.
Drop stuies were Thorsen was involved, if you want (though he was not a lead author),

That’s doubtful–no one has even approached rudeness toward me at any professional conference I’ve ever attended,

Probably because nobody can stand talking to you.

You’ve never attended a professional conference, you’re not a professional. Stop pretending, you’re just a clown and everyone would say it right to you if you tried to insert yourself in any professional proceedings.

You’ve never attended a professional conference, you’re not a professional.

Gindo is a Texas-based lawyer who purports to specialize in family law. I don’t know that her P.O. Box–based practice extends further than child-support collections.

@ Ginny Stoner

I’m sure you forget that in our first exchanges I simply addressed what you wrote, explaining, including referring to what Orac wrote and others, that you were and are wrong about VAERS,etc; but you ignore what I, Orac, and literally thousands of papers say about VAERS because you know you are right. And you know you are right, not by having studied immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, history of vaccine-preventable diseases; but right just as Trump didn’t actually study issues; but relied on his “intuitive genius”, so when it was obvious you were both certain you were right; but not based on any actual understanding of the topics, my descriptions of you were and are accurate. And I’ve NEVER seen anyone at any conference I attended ever both make claims like yours, then totally ignore responses by others, just repeating their claims without any supporting evidence.

Those are all lies, Joel–because yes, you are most definitely a liar. You lie like a rug–a dirty one that lies again every time it’s shaken out. You even lie to yourself about lying.

You can pretty much just take everything you said and reverse it–because that’s what you did. It’s called projection when it’s unintentional, and lying when it’s not.

I’ve refuted every single one of your false claims about the miracles of vaccination. You’ve just continued to ignore the evidence, because if you didn’t, your entire world view would collapse like the house of cards it is.

You have not answered any claims.You jus repeat same hin endlessly. Do ou not even notice hat ?

Those are all lies, Joel–because yes, you are most definitely a liar. You lie like a rug–a dirty one that lies again every time it’s shaken out. You even lie to yourself about lying.

Ginny, your swinishness is long past its sell-by date.

Copy and paste something I said that I am “wrong about VAERS, etc.”

Um, you showed up here for the express purpose of being wrong about VAERS. Perhaps you should hire LaBilge as a personal secretary or something. He seems to have an ideal temperament. I mean, you’ll have to install a shower or something after he pedals over in the heat and all that, but think of it as an investment. Kids pawns will love him, after one or another of their fashions.

@ Wendy Stephen

For over a decade you continue to post comments on various blogs regarding your daughters unilateral loss of hearing following getting Urabe mumps vaccine. Among your comments you wrote that unilateral loss of hearing did NOT occur following Jeryl-Lynn mumps vaccine; but you were wrong. There were cases though fewer. And you ignore the possibility that a genetic susceptibility to mumps could have been the cause. Since about 5% of kids who were infected with mumps had unilateral hearing loss, though many eventually regained most or all, not impossible that an attenuated mumps vaccine would cause such in those most susceptible. However, the British board accepted that the Urabe vaccine was responsible for your daughters unilateral hearing loss, so your complaint is they didn’t pay you compensation for it because they set a minimum disability standard and unilateral hearing loss is considered a 20% disability. So, I agreed with you that, given they accepted that vaccine caused your daughter hearing loss, they should have paid. However, not the entire sum; but a lesser sum for a lesser disability. Of course, you will disagree. However, my question is why are you still posting over a decade later about this? I wonder if your bitterness and frustration have had a negative effect on your daughter and other children? And your persistence can be seen as an antivaxxer. I don’t remember you once ever explaining that you believe in vaccines; but understand that they can cause rare serious adverse events, that your daughter suffered from one of these and your complaint isn’t against vaccines; but that she wasn’t given the appropriate compensation.

However, recently you posted the following to another of Orac’s papers.“Some further significant scientific research needs to be completed which strongly points to a link between MMR/MR and ASD”.

https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2022/07/22/novavax-and-moth-cells-the-latest-antivax-fear-mongering/#comments

Taking the position that “scientific research … strongly points to a link between MMR/MR and ASD [Autism Spectrum Disorders] makes it clear that you are an antivaxxer. There is literally overwhelming scientific evidence, thousands of different research papers from all over the world, that there is NO link. There are even numerous papers showing changes in brain structure that had to have developed prior to birth, thus prior to getting the vaccine. And there are videos of kids displaying signs of ASD prior to getting vaccines. I won’t bother typing out a list of such papers because, given your rigid continuous comments on Urabe without any mention that you support vaccines, you have finally proven you are an antivaxxer. And calling you an antivaxxer is an ad hominem attack, a justified one, because it shows your rigid unscientific mind. Also, supported by your comment about ad hominem attacks which ignores they were imbedded in clear well-argued comments addressing Ginny Stoner’s unscientific rigid position on vaccines and ignoring that Ginny also used ad hominem attacks, such as calling people “brainwashed”. How is “brainwashed” different from “stupid”? And she did call me a “liar”. I guess if someone you support, a fellow antivaxxer attacks people, that is OK; but if they are attacked, not OK.

RE changes in brain structure prior to birth

Right. Lots of them. In fact, we knew about this even before Andy W’s infamous study.
Briefly:
multiple avenues of research converge on this: animal studies, study of mothers’ illness/ med use during gestation, post mortem ( pre and post natal), imagery studies ( also pre and post), genetic investigation, observation of infants, studies of physiognomic features etc.
Some researchers began in 1980! Or 1990.

Parts of the brain most implicated in ASD develop between the first and third trimester. People with this condition are more likely to have less developed, smaller and worse connected cells in a specific part of the PFC. Autistic people have many more cells which occurs before birth: you don’t grow new cells later. Connections between cells are also less functional. The area of concern processes language and social information which characterises ASD. Some autists lack connection to specific brain regions of relevance.

Researchers of note include Eric Courchesne, Sally Ozonoff and Ed Lein. The first two have easy to access videos of their lectures ( see esp Corchesne at Rutgers 2 hpurs +).Also studies of facial differences in people with ASD ( based on degree of ASD) as the face develops conjointly with the brain

@ Ginny Stoner

And for the umpteenth time, since you don’t believe in vaccines, explain how smallpox which literally killed 100s of millions of people, disappeared from the planet after slightly more than a 10 year WHO vaccination campaign in the Third World. Nothing else changed. Explain it! ! !

@Joel

“Yep, it would be an ad hominem attack if it stood alone; but I guess you missed that I often write detailed rebuttals to people who just ignore”.

From your own 2016 article……………………….

“Unfortunately, antivaccinationists, in their zeal, when they cannot logically and/or scientifically refute evidence, resort all too often to personal attacks. These attacks include impugning people’s integrity, innuendo, hearsay, guilt by association, and several other approaches, which, in my opinion, says more about the accusers, especially their inability to reason, to logically and/or scientifically approach evidence as well as their own lack of integrity, decency, and civility. Antivaccinationist ad hominem attacks are acts of desperation by those who believe they have some absolute truth; but are incapable of supporting it through scholarship, science, logic and common sense.”

Are you now saying that the interpretations you placed on others using ad hominem attacks would not apply if they were used as part of a detailed rebuttal ie. not as stand alone events?

Is it only certain individuals in certain circumstances (in your opinion) using ad hominem attacks who have “an inability to reason, to logically and /or scientifically approach evidence” while displaying a “lack of integrity, decency and civility”?

Does the “act of desperation” you attributed to ad hominem attacks apply overall or again, does that change to suit the circumstances?

Likewise is it always the case that those resorting to ad hominem attacks are incapable of supporting absolute truth through “scholarship, science logic and common sense” or is that subject to change in certain circumstances (in your opinion) also?

@ Wendy Stephen

While I have included various quotes on ad hominem arguments in papers I wrote, I don’t remember the one you cite. According to you it was six years ago. Please give a detailed reference; e.g., title of paper, complete date, and URL.

You write: “Are you now saying that the interpretations you placed on others using ad hominem attacks would not apply if they were used as part of a detailed rebuttal ie. not as stand alone events??

Yep. And not something I’m now saying, but have always maintained. If someone clearly addresses something I wrote using science and, hopefully, including valid references and then includes calling me something negative, that is acceptable. But you ignore the fact that, for instance, Ginny Stoner, never refers to any immunology, microbiology, etc., any valid science, and keeps promoting VAERS, despite besides what I wrote, including referenced papers, and a couple of papers written by Orac. Ginny continues to claim vaccines have done nothing positive; but refuses to answer my question about smallpox, a disease that killed 300 million in the 20th century and hundreds of millions more over a millennium, disappeared after only a 10-year WHO vaccine campaign; yet, continues to call me a liar. Why can’t she answer a simple question?

If you actually go back through my many comments above you will notice that almost ALL contain discussions of the science underlying vaccines. Sometimes 500 words or more with one or two short bits of ad hominem.

So, I repeat, please give the actual detailed reference to where you claim to have found what I wrote about ad hominem attacks. Otherwise, I’ll just consider you to be DISHONEST.

Also, interesting how you once again address ad hominem attacks and avoid responding to my clearly attacking your claim that MMR vaccine associated with ASD.

@ Dangerous Bacon

My favorite Kosher pork. 😋 Where do you find your cartoons? As always you come up with both valid and often entertaining contributions.

@ Everyone

Just to make it clear, despite provocations; i.e., being called “brainwashed, a liar, etc” and refusals to address what I write with valid science, my comments would be better if I did NOT use ad hominem attacks, even if they are accurate; i.e., a commenter clearly making claims without any understanding of the actual science and/or repeating over and over the same refuted claims. Take Ginny Stoner. Besides stating anyone who disagrees with her is brainwashed, which means, for example, that Orac with a PhD in immunology and over 60 peer-reviewed publication is “brainwashed” because of what he writes about VAERS and vaccines, she claims to be objective; but objectivity requires some outside reference, not ones own subjective belief one is right, thus, one is objective. Following her illogic, everyone is objective.

In any case, again, though my ad hominem attacks are interspersed with clear addressing of the issues, I will attempt to refrain; but it is difficult with someone like Ginny Stoner who believes she is 100 correct without any understanding of the underlying sciences, namely, like Donald Trump, she considers herself an “intuitive genius” who doesn’t need to study any issue; but simply knows, maybe based on a limited cherry-picked basis. And besides calling people brainwashed, Ginny also calls people liars. Her definition of a liar is anyone who disagrees with.

And, as opposed to Stoner and others like her, I am quite willing to change my position if new valid studies come out. Not one study, though it will peak my focus, because one study, even a well done one can be wrong. Why? Take a balanced coin and toss it 10 times. Will it always come out 5 heads and 5 tails? Nope. Well, in a placebo-controlled double-blind randomized clinical trial, the randomization, no matter now well done, can end up with one group having more of one or more unmeasured variables; e.g., genetic predispositions, that can affect the outcome. However, if done on large samples, less of a problem; but I always look for more similar studies; but I am willing to change my mind and have in the past. Why? Simply because I choose to base my position on valid science, not “intuitive genius”, not some rigid bias. I can give just one example. When I was an undergrad and later, it was believed that ulcers were caused by stress and, thus, were treated with psychotherapy and diet; but an Australian in 1982 found a bacteria in people’s stomachs, helicobacter pylori, that caused almost all ulcers. I read the article when it came out. Did not automatically accept it; but after a few more studies, did. Note prior to this it was believed bacteria could not survive stomach acid; but helicobacter pylori has mechanisms to do this. Read Wikipedia. Helicobacter pylori

In any case, I repeat that, though calling someone Intellectually Dishonest when they continue to NOT address directly points i make, etc. may seem like ad hominem attacks; they are valid. Check out most of my comments above. I begin by actually cutting and pasting something someone said, then directly addressing it.

@ johnlabarge

The only valid science is research published in peer-reviewed journals and FDA/CDC. And what makes it valid science is the methods section. Something an idiot like you would NOT understand. Why do you keep making a fool of yourself???

You’re very gullible, John.

I don’t think gullible is the right word. He already knows vaccines are incredibly dangerous so he doesn’t need to be persuaded of that. He’s simply grasping at straws for anything he thinks supports his view.

Orac asks the right question.

Now about John.
He is obviously intelligent and has succeeded in relatively difficult areas: law and software. Not everyone can.

However, like many educated people he assumes that he can just turn his attention to a new area and understand it well enough to criticise it well.
Many doctors turn to woo/ altie BS despite their education and training in medicine as well as in basic science. Linus Pauling made important discoveries in medicine but still was entranced by unrealistic ideas about megavitamin therapy. Similarly, Luc Montagnier’s fall. Drs Malone, McCollough and Vanden Bossche are experts in difficult fields but each one ventured into new ones to become Covid contrarians .

When you study a field formally, you follow guidance from current experts in that area who map out curricula and questions of interest for students. Your law professor knows what is important and fill in details for students who haven’t the same broad reading and practical experience that s/he has.You get the whole picture not a detailed snapshot as you develop.

When contrarians like anti-vaxxers or natural health proselytisers study, they focus on something that interests them greatly without the context of background material or history. They construct theories in a biased fashion because they don’t know the whole field well enough. An anti-vax mother constructs elaborate hypotheses about GI events and how ingested substances affect the brain, damaging it, without understanding that there is not easy access to the brain and why that is . Another may talk about vaccines weakening the BBB but leaves out research that shows ASDs’ signs appear prior to most vaccine administration even in utero.

Centuries ago, a literate person who was intelligent could venture into new fields because there were not detailed and experimentally illustrated results. Technology was practically non-existent. Life sciences have expanded prodigiously since the mid twentieth century. Researchers specialise in increasingly minute areas of inquiry and while it’s possible to get a good general idea of different subjects, you can’t be an expert in all of them.
Some of the scam artists I survey attempt to do exactly that in order to gain new followers: they are experts in everything – health, economics, politics, art etc. They’re not. It’s easy to spot their attempts to fool their audiences and expand their CVs unrealistically. I could give many examples how they misquote or distort general knowledge in a field to suit their own aims.

Does it mean that only experts can discuss topics? No, but caution is warranted. It’s highly unlikely that a non-expert can overturn the work of many scientists/ scholars worldwide for decades.

@Denice:
I’m not sure I’d support your first comment about labarge — there’s really no evidence for that.

For the experts in field A becoming cranks in field B: add Serge Lang (mathematician) to that, with his repeated denials that HIV causes AIDS.

I should add that alties refer to the state of affairs I describe as the ” cult of the expert”. We know from research that anti-vax and CT believers do not recognise hierarchies of expertise- anyone can be the next Galileo.

Covid-19 vaccines are dangerous.

Provide verifiable evidence (the shit you have posted in the past is neither, as has been pointed out, evidence nor verifiable).

@john labarge You are saying that demanding evidence is gaslighting ? It i actually a normal part of conversation.

@ johnlabarge

Nope, people submitting to VAERS aren’t lying; however, they are making the logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Look it up MORON. And actually there are some reports that have found antivaxxers have anonymously posted scores of VAERS reports.

Where are these alleged “reports”? Who are these “antivaxxers”–doctors, nurses, people who took the vaccines?

Why is there no published analysis from the CDC, FDA or ACIP of the massive increase in serious injuries and deaths reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines?

@ Ginny Stoner

So, why don’t police departments write up reports of how many people they bring in as suspect? Orac, myself, and several others have explained over and over again why VAERS is only a list of suspects. Because you are so intellectually dishonest, that is, refuse to admit you are wrong, you just obsess by asking questions that are worthless.

The CDC has written articles about VAERS in general, which I referred to in previous comments; but, of course, you ignored them.

Crawl back under your rock

I’m not wrong about anything

Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem is only going to take you so far, Ginny.

What about claiming that only vaccine providers report SAEs, only during first 30 minutues ? This is rich, even from you.

labarge: twitter can be considered many things, but a reliable source of information it isn’t — certainly not for things like this. That’s what you don’t get: anecdotes, even if you believe them the person has a medical issue there is no evidence at all that it’s cause can be assigned to any specific thing that preceded it. The very next response to the tweet you posted says it best (bolded portion my emphasis).

He doesn’t specify which vaccine from which manufacturer, nor does he provide evidence that the vaccine caused his condition. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Can we say everyone who claims to have a medical issue is lying? Probably not. Can we say that they know it was caused by a vaccine? Without any supporting medical evidence — yes, we can say they are lying. They don’t know it: they’ve likely been convinced it has to be true by sources of falsehoods and misinformation like you.

The leading cause of ‘coincidence’ it would seem these days…of course it’s never the vaccine causing it. All coincidence always.

@ johnlabarge

You really are a DISHONEST IDIOT. All or none in your mind. Well, the CDC website lists serious adverse events that were both reported to VAERS and investigated, with the investigations find caused by the vaccine, though the number of such serious adverse events was small.

As usual, you post a couple of really empty sentences, without any supporting documents, etc.

I’m curious? Are you a high school dropout or did you actually even attend a little college?

The leading cause of ‘coincidence’ it would seem these days

This was a favored mantra at AoA back in the day, although better executed.

The leading cause of ‘coincidence’ it would seem these days…of course it’s never the vaccine causing it. All coincidence always.

Is it an inability to read for understanding or a simple dedication to dishonesty about vaccines that makes you write things like that?

You keep implying that because someone claims they were harmed by the covid 19 vaccine(s) they must have been harmed. That is not true — again, anecdotes, especially those given up voluntarily, are not data. We don’t know if the people who report them really have a problem, and if they do there is no way of knowing what the root cause might be.

What causes people like you, Greg, Ginny, … to be so amazingly uninformed and wrong about these things?

“The leading cause of ‘coincidence’ it would seem these days…of course it’s never the vaccine causing it.”

Strawman. Not to mention projection in reverse.

In the demented universe of hard-core antivaxers, it’s always the vaccine that caused “it”, no matter what “it” is, even if there’s no logical mechanism that could explain the alleged connection, there’s no greater incidence in vaccinated populations and no matter how long the event occurred after vaccination.

Harriet Hall has co-authored a children’s book on rudiments of critical thinking. It might be in a form simple enough for John to grasp.

Sounds like the woman who said “no jabby-jabby for me!”, then contracted Covid-19 and died.

Technically she was right about the “no jabby-jabby for me” bit.

@ Wendy Stephen

Though you continue to ignore my request and actually Ginny Stoner’s as well to give the reference, URL to what you claim is a quote by me, which can be interpreted as you being dishonest, from the quote you claim I made:

“Unfortunately, antivaccinationists, in their zeal, when they cannot logically and/or scientifically refute evidence, resort all too often to personal attacks. These attacks include impugning people’s integrity, innuendo, hearsay, guilt by association, and several other approaches, which, in my opinion, says more about the accusers, especially their inability to reason, to logically and/or scientifically approach evidence as well as their own lack of integrity, decency, and civility. Antivaccinationist ad hominem attacks are acts of desperation by those who believe they have some absolute truth; but are incapable of supporting it through scholarship, science, logic and common sense.”

I guess you failed to notice or ignore that I make clear the use of ad hominem attacks is by those who “are incapable of supporting it through scholarship, science, logic and common sense.”

And you ignore that I clearly pointed out in a comment that I literally cut and paste a quote from an antivaxxer and directly address it with science, including references. In fact, when I addressed Ginny Stoner’s use of VAERS I not only included several references; but some were to papers written by Orac. So Ginny calls me a liar for stating what Orac stated, though with a better written paper.

And you have NOT addressed any of my many points; but just focus on ad hominem. So, as far as I’m concerned your refusal to give the reference to alleged quote by me on ad hominem attacks and your ignoring, not addressing, any of the many points I made above, makes you just as INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST as Ginny.

And, by the way, your continuous posting about your daughter’s unilateral hearing loss following Urabe Mumps vaccine seems to reflect more anger at not receiving the compensation, that is, your focus is on money. I wonder if you would be posting comments had you received the compensation or NO compensation had been offered at all??? And I discussed in a previous exchange that I thought public funds should support ALL children with disabilities at a high level, so kids that lost hearing to mumps would be well supported. You never responded, just more proof that your obsession is simply you, and you alone, not receiving compensation. An obsession lasting more than a decade. And I asked you how your daughter was doing; e.g., in school, getting driver’s license, etc. I have an extremely close old friend of 40 years who is unilaterally deaf; yet, it hasn’t affected her life. She became a nurse, worked on a hospital ship, has always had a driver’s license, when younger skiing in Switzerland, Vermont, etc. went on to get a PhD and has had extremely well-paid jobs working in the private sector on research projects. So, while always best to have all ones senses fully working, unilateral hearing loss doesn’t hinder one from being successful, from having a good, satisfying life. So, how is your daughter doing? If she is doing OK, then just more proof of your greed, your obsession with not receiving compensation.

@ johnlabarge

So, you found a paper posted by its author. No peer review. No nothing. Just one person’s opinion, posted by him. I suggest you look at Wikipedia. Alex Berenson. Section on Covid 19 Pandemic.

Not once have you ever given the least info why you consider yourself capable of evaluating anything written about infectious diseases, vaccines, etc. yet, if you find anything, cherry-picked, confirming your bias, you post it. You ignore that by now there are literally thousands of other papers that don’t agree. Well, I can find people who believe someone who DNA found innocent of a crime, still believe to be guilty. In a world of seven billion with the ease of posting on line, I can find the most absurd claims.

Why do you keep MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF???

Wut are you talking about? I’m referring to healthcare providers stopping reports of hospitalizations for Covid based on vaccination status. Also many of them are reporting those for whom they can’t verify such status as unvaccinated. This is shady as the majority of the population is actually vaccinated.

You should, of course, give a link. I notice a hint of wide health provider conspiracy..

I did not mean an article by Berenson. Perhaps somebody has actually studied the matter, or a new regulation has been given, Cite these.

Never mind how many fallacious arguments that “article” tossed out there, it also defeated its own central argument by admitting most of these deaths are in OLDER adults. It’s the single most vulnerable group…for covid and death in general.

@ Ginny Stoner

INFORMED CONSENT EXISTS

It is required by law since 1987 that before being given any vaccine that the recipient receive a VACCINE INFORMATION STATEMENT (VIS). You can find ALL the current CDC Vaccine Information Statements at CDC Current VISs:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/current-vis.html

You can download all of them or scroll down and download for each specific vaccine.

Note they include mild adverse events AND rare serious adverse events, who should either not be vaccinated or delay vaccination and clear instructions for reporting any adverse event following vaccination. After reading statement, recipient is asked to sign an informed consent form.

And the VACCINE INFORMATION STATEMENT IS NOT BASED ON RAW VAERS DATA; BUT CDC INVESTIGATIONS OF VAERS REPORTS, VACCINE-SAFETY DATALINK, ETC. See CDC Vaccine Safety at:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/index.html

AS FOR VAERS, WOULD YOU WANT POLICE AND/OR DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO GIVE NUMBERS OF HOW MANY PEOPLE BROUGHT IN FOR QUESTIONING OR JUST THOSE FOUND GUILTY???

The doctrine of Informed Consent exists here in Scotland but sadly, on many occasions, has not been complied with despite what the law says! It doesn’t follow that due process is carried out as it should be.

The general practice in the School Immunisation Campaign was for the consent form to be included with a pre formatted NHS Scotland information pamphlet (relevant to the specific vaccine) and not the Patient Information Leaflet. The PIL is produced by the manufacturer of the product and includes an instruction that the ‘patient’ read the entire document before vaccination takes place.

With the help of my MP I raised the issue of why the PIL was not issued prior to vaccination in compliance with the manufacturer’s instructions, with the Scottish Government. These are some of the reasons they supplied for not complying with what was lawfully required and with holding the PIL until after vaccination had taken place………………………

(a) the fact that the PIL was currently sealed in the vaccine package and it was “not possible to split the pack to produce the PIL ahead of vaccination”

(b) the fact that producing additional copies of the PIL would have “additional cost” and “have it’s own risks” in guaranteeing that the correct PIL for the vaccine was distributed

(c) the fact that “providing hard copies of PIL’s ahead of the point of vaccination would put the Scottish approach out of line not only with the approach to vaccination programmes across the UK , but would also set vaccines apart from all other medicines where this information is provided at the point of administration”

The notorious Scottish case, Montgomery vs Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] clarified exactly what is required in law to engage informed consent but despite this, research conducted by Queen Mary University of London reported on a sharp increase in the number of claims against the NHS due to failure to obtain Informed Consent in 2020.

https://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/2020/smd/sharp-rise-in-nhs-negligence-claims-for-lack-of-informed-consent–.html

The law is very clear on what is required to make the process legal but it doesn’t follow just because the law is clear, that the correct legal process to engage informed consent is always being complied with. The Queen Mary University research, at least where the UK is concerned, evidences the fact that it is not!

The issue isn’t whether or not Informed Consent exists in law (because it definitely does) but whether or not it is being lawfully complied with.

Wendy is arguing that not providing a manufacturer’s leaflet to patients means they are not giving informed consent to vaccination, which is untrue.

https://www.nhsinform.scot/care-support-and-rights/health-rights/communication-and-consent/young-people-immunisations-and-consent

http://publichealthscotland.scot/our-areas-of-work/immunisations/routine-immunisations/immunisations-by-vaccine/hpv-immunisations/education-resources/consent/

The “notorious case” Wendy cites had nothing to do with vaccination (it related to a birth injury), and the link she provides doesn’t mention vaccination either.

@ Dangerous Bacon

The legal requirements as defined in law to satisfy what is required to engage informed consent applies in the UK to any or all medical procedures, treatments, interventions etc.

The case of Montgomery, as you correctly state, was not in respect of a vaccine but the law which was clarified and defined in that case and laid down in the Judgement has been the benchmark relied upon since then to define what is legally required to engage Informed Consent ie the legal definition of Informed Consent determined in that case wasn’t case specific to the injured party or their injury.

Prior to Montgomery the law re Informed Consent was defined in another notorious case, Chester v Afshar [2005] 1 AC 134 which was in respect of a lady with a spinal injury.

Both cases have been extensively quoted and relied upon in many other cases involving all manner of treatments,/medical interventions alleging failure to obtain informed consent.

The fact that Montgomery isn’t in respect of a vaccine injury is irrelevant, what counts is that the doctrine of informed consent was lawfully defined to be used thereafter as a benchmark for determining informed consent.

“This case has provided us with the opportunity, not only to confirm… [that the need for informed consent was firmly part of English law], but also to make it clear that the same principles apply in Scotland”.

[Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (July 2014) Paragraph 107]

And yes, in the circumstances I described ie Schools with holding the PIL for vaccines until after the event (and in some cases I’m told not issuing it at all) and seeking consent with a glossy pre formatted pamphlet prepared by NHS Scotland (instead of the PIL) and with regard to the findings in Montgomery I’d say that this system isn’t meeting the requirements laid down in law to secure Informed Consent. The PIL contains relevant information which is not included in the NHS pamplets accompanying the consent forms.

In addition, failure to provide an opportunity to read the PIL prior to vaccination goes against manufacturers instructions which, for most vaccines, advise the patient to ……………

“Read all of this leaflet carefully before you start receiving this vaccine”

So, you concede that there is informed consent obtained for vaccine recipients in Scotland, just not in the form of a manufacturer’s product insert.

Why you think that a drug company will inform patients better than a government health agency is a mystery, especially since it’s part of the antivaxer creed that Pharma lies about everything.*

*wonder if there’s something in Wendy’s preferred drug company insert, similar to the U.S. vaccine package inserts that list a bunch of potential side effects for legal CYA purposes, but which have never been demonstrated to be vaccine-linked. Antivaxers love to pretend that Pharma package inserts are the gospel when it comes to vaccines.

@ Wendy Stephen

As I wrote above, you have made it absolutely clear that you keep posting because you didn’t receive compensation. You refuse to explain how the unilateral hearing loss affected or hasn’t affected your daughter’s life. You haven’t explained how or if her hearing loss added any expenses to raising her, so, for you, the compensation would have simply been a windfall. And finally you claim, against overwhelming evidence, that there is evidence that MMR causes autism.

Quite frankly, you are FULL OF SHIT

@Joel

“And finally you claim, against overwhelming evidence, that there is evidence that MMR causes autism”

You really have to make my day and evidence this! If by chance you are relying on this quote from one of my posts (to evidence your accusation), then I suggest you go back and read it over a few times.(A dozen might do it)

“At that time I was advised by our solicitors that………….
“Some further significant scientific research needs to be completed which strongly points to a link between MMR/MR and ASD”

Note, it was the solicitor who said that to me, it is not something I said!

And as I have explained many, many times before, compensation is awarded to the injured person not a relative unless the individual is under 18 years, and or lacks capacity (or the individual is deceased) so I was never going to be the recipient of a “windfall”.

Just for my own satisfaction, why do you assume my daughter wasn’t compensated for a vaccine induced injury because I keep posting comments?

@ Wendy Stephen

First, why did you even include what your solicitor said?
Second, if included, why didn’t you state you disagree and support vaccines?
Third, whether the money went to you or your daughter, why do you continue to post comments over a decade later?
Fourth, as I made clear, while I think, given committee agreed to Urabe caused your daughters unilateral hearing loss, you should have received a portion of the total compensation, I’ve asked over and over how it affected your daughter. As I wrote and you ignore, I personally have a long-time close friend of 40 years who has unilateral hearing loss from mumps which hasn’t affected her life, and also did a search and found that unilateral hearing loss for most people does not have a significant effect on their lives.
Fifth, you gave a quote on ad hominem attacks allegedly by me from 2016; but despite my asking several times to give the actual reference, you ignore
Sixth, and your dishonesty is blatant in that you focus on the ad hominem attacks in some of my comments, a few words in comments focusing on actual vaccine and/or pandemic issues, not addressing any of them.

To summarize, your continued posting of comments comes across as anti vaccine and an anger that you or your daughter didn’t receive compensation, regardless of whether the compensation was necessary or not.

Bottom line, your continued posting of comments contributes to antivaxxers.

YOU ARE A TRULY DISHONEST DESPICABLE PERSON

I looked over the Pfizer VIS: https://www.fda.gov/media/153716/download

It’s woefully inadequate. The first serious omission is any mention that the vaccines could result in death days or weeks after the vaccine, from causes other than an allergic reaction. Deaths of this kind comprise the majority of VAERS reports.

Mention of the risk of serious injury was almost absent–even though more serious injuries have been reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines than from all other vaccines combined for the last 31 years.

Also notable is the predictable complete absence of data of any kind–any actual numbers for risks, nothing resembling a risk-benefit analysis.

The “Benefits” Section is very strange–this is the section in its entirety:

“The vaccine has been shown to prevent COVID-19.
“The duration of protection against COVID-19 is currently unknown.”

Wow–really persuasive list of benefits. What’s more, it’s not true. It sounds like Walensky’s lies a year ago claiming the vaccines would prevent transmission.

@ Ginny Stoner

You write: “The first serious omission is any mention that the vaccines could result in death days or weeks after the vaccine, from causes other than an allergic reaction. Deaths of this kind comprise the majority of VAERS reports.

So, despite what everyone, including Orac and CDC explanations of VAERS, you still refer to it. YOU ARE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST AND STUPID ON STEROIDS

It also fails to mention that it might turn you purple and enable time travel in your car. There’s just as much proof for those “side effects” as for the list you gave.

According to the CDC and ACIP, VAERS is “the nation’s early warning system for vaccine safety.”

We know that more serious injuries and deaths have been reported to VAERS from the COVID19 vaccines in the last 21 month than from all other vaccines combined for the last 31 years.

Link us to the evidence that the massive increase in VAERS reports is not due to a more dangerous than usual vaccine.

“According to the CDC and ACIP, VAERS is “the nation’s early warning system for vaccine safety.”

Ginny neglected to mention this (from the CDC):

“VAERS accepts reports of adverse events that occur following vaccination. Anyone, including healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public, can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS even if they are not sure if the vaccine was the cause. In some situations, reporting to VAERS is required of healthcare providers and vaccine manufacturers.
VAERS reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Reports to VAERS can also be biased. As a result, there are limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.”

ACIP provides a similar description that includes VAERS’ limitations.

http://cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-06/03-COVID-Shimabukuro-508.pdf

Why do you omit this information, Ginny? Seems dishonest.

I didn’t forget anything. On my CVax Risk page, I reference the fact that VAERS reports don’t prove the vaccine caused the injury 12 or 13 times, in text, notes and graphics, using several different wordings to facilitate understanding. That’s been discussed here about 100 times or so.

Problem is you continually open your bacon fat mouth before reading or thinking; or, you are yet another lying liar. That means you really are Dangerous Bacon, at a fire ant kind of level. https://www.virginiastoner.com/cvax-risk

Still waiting for a link to the evidence that the massive increase in serious injuries and deaths reported to VAERS is not due to an exceptionally dangerous vaccine.

Oh, wait, I forgot–there are no links to blind trust. You’d think that would bother trolls, true believers, and other lying liars, but, no.

We [sic ] know that more serious injuries and deaths have been reported to VAERS….

That’s the fifth iteration, BTW.

@Ginny Stoner I am again giving this link:
Reporting Rates for VAERS Death Reports Following COVID-19 Vaccination, December 14, 2020-November 17, 2021
View ORCID ProfileBrendan Day, David Menschik, Deborah Thompson, Christopher Jankosky, John Su, Pedro Moro, Craig Zinderman, Kerry Welsh, Narayan Nair
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.05.22274695
“Conclusion Reporting rates for death events were lower than the expected all-cause mortality rates. Trends in reporting rates reflected known trends in background mortality rates. These findings do not suggest an association between vaccination and overall increased mortality.”

The first serious omission is any mention that the vaccines could result in death days or weeks forever after the vaccine,

FTFY, bug-eyed freak.

@ Dangerous Bacon

You write: “Why do you omit this information, Ginny? Seems dishonest.”

Ginny Stoner is an extremely mentally disturbed individual. Maybe not a perfect description; but she suffers from delusions of grandeur. Namely, she believes she is a “genius” who, despite any understanding of the sciences underlying vaccines, knows she is right. She wrote that everyone who disagrees with her is brainwashed, thus, the overwhelming majority of scientists, public health experts, etc. are all brainwashed. And she wrote that she applies an objective approach; but objective means based on some external criteria, not just cherry-picking one or two papers. For her being objective is basically knowing she is right, a circular argument. Bottom line, yep, in some way she is dishonest; but if she were to admit she is wrong, for instance, about VAERS, her entire self-concept, self-esteem would collapse.

As I wrote further above, I have NEVER based my self-concept on being right all of the time. In fact, I relish learning, in some cases, I was wrong, because it reinforces my belief that I base my positions on science and if later science finds earlier science wrong, partially or wholly, it is the scientific method I rely on.

While RI has its share of nutty antivaxers, none (to my knowledge) have admitted to being germ theory deniers.*

The same can’t be said for a number of prominent AVers, like the ones who have signed on to (ex) Dr. Thomas Cowan’s virus challenge (whoopee, another “challenge” from the world of alt-loonery!).

Cowan et al propose that five virology labs around the world agree to accept and test patient specimens from people infected (or not known to be infected) with influenza and Covid-19 viruses, and if they can’t show to Cowan et al’s satisfaction that pathogenic viruses have been isolated from them, that’ll prove…well, that viruses don’t cause human disease!

http://drtomcowan.com/blogs/blog/settling-the-virus-debate-statement

Unlike antivax “challenges” of the past, Cowan’s group isn’t dangling monetary awards for meeting its terms. The labs are supposed to lay out their own funds and time, to convince a bunch of pseudo-professionals to abandon germ theory denial, a hopeless proposition.

In addition to Cowan, the “challengers” include Kelly Brogan and a motley crew of what seem to be mostly American and Canadian denialists (one has written a book revealing that Covid-19 vaccination is related to the Mark of the Beast).

*it wouldn’t be surprising if one or more fit this description.

Excellent link. Cowan says “After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses”, we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory.”

Why is reconsidering virus theory even slightly controversial (scientifically speaking, not financially)? If the scientific evidence to support virus theory is sound, there wouldn’t be any concerns.

Remember, the medical industry was wrong for decades about what caused the flu–claiming it was caused by a particular bacteria. If no doctors had ever questioned that pronouncement, we’d be talking about SARS-COV-2 bacteria today, not viruses.

@Ginny Stoner Remember polio and smallpox ? There are antivirals, too. There are results against war against viruses
I guess “medical industry” mean MDs, Richard Shope, who identified the cause of swine flu was one.
Just doubting is not enough. You must give evidence, too.

If no doctors had ever questioned that pronouncement, we’d be talking about SARS-COV-2 bacteria today, not viruses.

Gindo, please explain in your own words how imaging of viruses works.

While RI has its share of nutty antivaxers, none (to my knowledge) have admitted to being germ theory deniers.*

And, speaking of which Dangerous One, here is a heated debate between Drs Kaufman and Mikovitch on the very subject.

No Dangerous, I don’t consider myself nutty and I am not a germ theory denialist, but maybe both sides have a point. Maybe we can prove virus existence by the expression of them after they hijack cells, but not by Kosh principle of showing a completely isolated, naked viral genome that is not part of a hijacked cell.

So, if the standoff is occurring because of an outdated definition, shouldn’t it be changed? Would it be the first time in science we accept something without being able to locate it? For instance, doesn’t quantum mechanics preach predictions rather than absolutes?

PS: Despite Orac muzzling me with his auto-mod, I am still eager to entertain the discussion of monkeypox and TLRs

https://www.bitchute.com/video/oXLqKCVQWIPC/

You invented “Kosh principle”. I give you a homework: find the right term.
Viruses cannot be grown independently, because they replicate only inside the cells. Cell culture is necessary because of their very nature.

@ Dangerous Bacon

“Why you think that a drug company will inform patients better than a government health agency is a mystery, especially since it’s part of the antivaxer creed that Pharma lies about everything”.

It’s not a question of me thinking that the drug company “will inform patients better” the reality is that the PIL contains the most comprehensive detailed information on the product which is not all conveyed to the patient in a flimsy health agency produced pamphlet, used as a substitute.

Montgomery clearly defined that cherry picking which of the available information associated with a treatment/procedure should be relayed to the patient does not comply with the law for Informed Consent.

“Antivaxers love to pretend that Pharma package inserts are the gospel when it comes to vaccines.”

The opinion of the anti vaxxers is an irrelevancy, gospel or otherwise, the law requires that all available information in respect of a product/procedure be provided to the patient before treatment commences and the PIL is the most detailed comprehensive source of information with regard to medicinal products.

The PIL is provided at the time of vaccination/afterwards (though I understand not always) but that does not comply with what is required to engage Informed Consent.

Incidentally, I absolutely agree that, as with most medicinal products, potential ADR’s will be included in the PIL probably at the behest of a legal team and which have not been demonstrated to be product linked.

It doesn’t change the fact that where the law requires full disclosure of information involving a medicinal product, in order to engage Informed Consent, the PIL contains all the currently available relevant information.

“It doesn’t change the fact that where the law requires full disclosure of information involving a medicinal product, in order to engage Informed Consent, the PIL contains all the currently available relevant information.”

The problem is, your definition of informed consent re vaccination exists in your head and not in law, established medical practice or even common sense. It’s like something out of Alice in Wonderland.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

Since you’re not (according to you) antivaccine, please share with us which vaccines you support and recommend people get for themselves and their children.

@ Dangerous Bacon

“The problem is, your definition of informed consent re vaccination exists in your head and not in law, established medical practice or even common sense. It’s like something out of Alice in Wonderland.”

What I have written on here re Informed consent has been drawn from the Judgement in the case of Montgomery/Chester vs Afshar and professional legal sites discussing the findings etc.

I haven’t defined Informed Consent the courts did.

If someone like Professor Reiss was to say that some aspect of what I have said on the subject of UK law/Montgomery/PIL/informed consent etc etc was incorrect then I would happily concede and acknowledge my errors.

“Since you’re not (according to you) antivaccine, please share with us which vaccines you support and recommend people get for themselves and their children.”

Firstly, I would never, ever recommend to anyone that they have a vaccine. That is a personal choice which I respect but similarly I have never advised anyone not to have a vaccine or spoken out against a vaccine (other than the Pluserix form of MMR which injured my daughter).

I also acknowledge that there are (like it or not) some contraindications to some individuals with certain medical backgrounds receiving live vaccines etc so it would be pretty foolhardy, if not dangerous in some situations for me or anyone like me to recommend vaccines to anyone

One of my relatives is not allowed the flu vaccine because of a serious egg allergy he is contraindicated for it. He can however have other vaccines with no problem.

It does not follow that I am against vaccination because I won’t provide a blanket endorsement for all vaccines for everyone and issue recommendations blindly.

If you were to say to me do you support use of the MMR vaccine then my answer would be yes (obviously my daughter had it ) as long as the Urabe containing versions are not involved.

I state freely that if Urabe ever re appeared in a vaccine I would do my utmost to argue against it based on my research and personal experience.

The court case you keep citing re informed consent has nothing to do with vaccination and did not rule that providing a drug company insert to patients is the only valid way to obtain consent. Citing false precedents is dishonest.

Congrats on saying you back MMR, but really – out of all the vaccines on the pediatric and adult schedules or otherwise recommended by health professionals, you can only come up with one?

But you’re not antivaccine. Oh no.

@Joel

“First, why did you even include what your solicitor said?”

If this is your way of apologising for erroneously attributing a comment to me when it was actually said by my solicitor, you need to try harder.

“Second, if included, why didn’t you state you disagree and support vaccines?”

Why would I need to do that when I have made my position on both of these issues crystal clear, over and over……..and over.

“Third, whether the money went to you or your daughter, why do you continue to post comments over a decade later?”

The historical facts relating to Urabe/MMR litigation etc etc remain so whether or not my daughter was compensated or not.

“Fifth, you gave a quote on ad hominem attacks allegedly by me from 2016; but despite my asking several times to give the actual reference, you ignore”

You may be fooling everyone else on here re your apparent lack of recall as to where the article I quoted from was published, but you are not fooling me.

I doubt you would forget that the Executive Director of the site had you reprimanded for not following blog policies and at my request had all posts by you (following the article) removed for your offensive and derogatory comments towards me. (For which I could have gone much further)

“Sixth, and your dishonesty is blatant in that you focus on the ad hominem attacks in some of my comments, a few words in comments focusing on actual vaccine and/or pandemic issues, not addressing any of them.”
I’m really not sufficiently qualified to comment on pandemic issues therefore I don’t go there.

“To summarize, your continued posting of comments comes across as anti vaccine and an anger that you or your daughter didn’t receive compensation, regardless of whether the compensation was necessary or not.”

That my comments come across as “anti vaccine” is merely your opinion. For years now I have challenged you to evidence one single occasion, comment or action which supports your many accusations that I am an anti vaxxer and you have not done so.

“YOU ARE A TRULY DISHONEST DESPICABLE PERSON”

Thought you’d turned over a new leaf?

Vaccines for Covid made a little sense for approximately 4 months. From when they were introduced til the data on delta indicated they were ineffective. At this point they make no sense. Other issues re vaccines need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. But the industrial complex’s overboard compromise of data and science indicates a propensity to lie about other products. So whilst one may not be antivax pre this Covid vax debacle one can certainly take time to reevaluate now.

johnlabarge: “Vaccines for Covid made a little sense for approximately 4 months. From when they were introduced til the data on delta indicated they were ineffective. At this point they make no sense.”

Except the data showed no such thing.

Two dose (Moderna) vaccine effectiveness was 86.7% (95% confidence interval 84.3% to 88.7%) against infection with the delta variant, 98.4% (96.9% to 99.1%) against alpha, 90.4% (73.9% to 96.5%) against mu, 96-98% against other identified variants, and 79.9% (76.9% to 82.5%) against unidentified variants (that is, specimens that failed sequencing). Vaccine effectiveness against hospital admission with the delta variant was 97.5% (92.7% to 99.2%). Vaccine effectiveness against infection with the delta variant declined from 94.1% (90.5% to 96.3%) 14-60 days after vaccination to 80.0% (70.2% to 86.6%) 151-180 days after vaccination. Waning was less pronounced for non-delta variants. Vaccine effectiveness against delta infection was lower among people aged ≥65 years (75.2%, 59.6% to 84.8%) than those aged 18-64 years (87.9%, 85.5% to 89.9%). One dose vaccine effectiveness was 77.0% (60.7% to 86.5%) against infection with delta.”

Even taking into account vaccine effectiveness diminishing over time, that’s still a lot of remaining protection against the delta variant.

To use labargeian phraseology, the Church of Antivax depends on spreading lies and hoping nobody notices.

“So whilst one may not be antivax pre this Covid vax debacle one can certainly take time to reevaluate now.”

Meaning that you weren’t antivax before (doubtful), but you are now? Thanks for the belated admission.

John, you can’t learn until you take your fingers out of your ears and stop chanting la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you.

This data is all cooked though see the footnotes.

Explain why you believe it to be cooked. If you understand the article you should be able to do that.

But the industrial complex’s overboard compromise of data and science

You keep saying things like that but never provide any proof. What, exactly, is your statistical background that (you think) makes you able to make such statements?

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: ““First, why did you even include what your solicitor said?”
If this is your way of apologising for erroneously attributing a comment to me when it was actually said by my solicitor, you need to try harder.”

You really are STUPID. If someone quotes someone else and doesn’t qualify their quote, then any reasonably intelligent person would assume they support the quote.

You write: ““Second, if included, why didn’t you state you disagree and support vaccines?” Why would I need to do that when I have made my position on both of these issues crystal clear, over and over……..and over.

First, you haven’t made your position crystal clear and second, people’s positions change. Finally, as I wrote above and your are TOO STUPID to understand, why would you include a quote of something you disagree with without making it crystal clear?

You write: ““Third, whether the money went to you or your daughter, why do you continue to post comments over a decade later?” The historical facts relating to Urabe/MMR litigation etc etc remain so whether or not my daughter was compensated or not.

The historical facts are that Urabe was taken off the market in England in early 1990s. The committee ruled that it caused your daughter’s unilateral hearing loss, so why continue to dwell on it? Again, your response is just one more example of your dishonesty and stupidity. And your recent comment on informed consent, looking for every minor problem, indicates a negative view on vaccination.

You write: ““Fifth, you gave a quote on ad hominem attacks allegedly by me from 2016; but despite my asking several times to give the actual reference, you ignore” You may be fooling everyone else on here re your apparent lack of recall as to where the article I quoted from was published, but you are not fooling me.

I guess you missed that Ginny Stoner also requested a reference; but I have written over the past two decades well over 50 papers on various topics, not just vaccines and the fact you refuse to simply give the reference says more about you than me. If someone asked me for a reference to anything I wrote, i would not hesitate to give it. I am not fooling you because you are a fool. And you ignore that I pointed out that your focus on my ad hominem attacks just shows how dishonest you are, ignoring all the points i made that were on topic.

Your comment just gives more evidence of how INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST AND STUPID YOU ARE.

@Joel

“Again, your response is just one more example of your dishonesty and stupidity. And your recent comment on informed consent, looking for every minor problem, indicates a negative view on vaccination.”

What I have raised re Informed Consent isn’t a case of “looking for every minor problem” it’s an accurate account of what is legally required to secure Informed Consent as defined by UK law.

How does respecting and relaying what is required in law to engage Informed Consent translate into me having a negative view on vaccination?

You have long used your own rules and tests to determine that I am an anti vaxxer and conveyed that message to others when I am not. I have asked you to evidence one deed, comment or action by me which supports your accusation that I am an anti vaxxer and I’m still waiting. (So is everyone else)

Accusing me of having a negative view on vaccination purely because I entered into a debate on what the law in the UK requires to ensure Informed Consent is a desperate act designed to persuade others on here that I am an anti vaxxer.

Once again, I am not.

Anyone who commits any heresy against the church of vax here is considered an anti-vaxxer.

Anybody who speaks about church of vax is an antivaxxer. He knows nothing about science nor religion.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “That my comments come across as “anti vaccine” is merely your opinion. For years now I have challenged you to evidence one single occasion, comment or action which supports your many accusations that I am an anti vaxxer and you have not done so.”

You have continuously complained about the Urabe Mumps vaccine. Never have you stated that you see this as an exception and made clear that you support vaccines. So, nope you haven’t directly stated you are anti-vaccines; but anyone following your comments, comments that never state your support for vaccines, can easily infer that you have problems with vaccines. And your recent critique of vaccine information brochures just adds to it.

And I repeat, something you are too stupid to understand, if someone posts a quote from someone else in their comment, any normal person will assume because they support the quote. If you notice in my comments, if I quote someone, I then either support what they said and refute it.

And I repeat for the umpteenth time that you were wrong about the Jeryl Lynn Mumps vaccine not being associated with unilateral hearing loss, though fewer than the Urabe vaccine. And about 5% of mumps cases experienced unilateral hearing loss, many eventually regained some or all of their hearing; but a number didn’t, a number exponentially higher than the few reported cases for Urabe and Jeryl Lynn mumps vaccines.

In 1955 the first polio vaccine became available. It was produced by five different companies. One company, Cutter Industries, did a really shitty job and results were about 200 kids paralyzed and 10 died. So, why don’t you post comment after comment about the Cutter Industries vaccine; but be sure you don’t then mention that the remainder of the polio vaccines were highly successful and, in the US, we went from over 17,000 cases of paralysis to zero in around 10 years. Just keep mentioning the Cutter Industry cases and nothing more.

Or as many antivaccinationists have written, despite polio vaccine, cases of paralysis in kids have continued, as if polio were the only cause. However, even counting all the other cases of paralysis, for instance in India, and after the polio vaccine campaign the total number of paralysis cases from all other causes plummeted; but not mentioned by them.

And once more, for the umpteenth time, give the reference for my quote on ad hominem attacks. But, as I also mentioned above, even your quote explained OK to use if someone doesn’t actually address the science, something I do.

YOU ARE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST AND STUPID, SO KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF. YOU ARE IN GOOD COMPANY WITH JOHNLABARGE, GREG, GINNY STONER AND OTHERS. OR JUST CRAWL BACK INTO YOUR HOLE

@ Wendy Stephen

Why don’t you crawl back into your hole. Nope, the pamphlet given to people for informed consent doesn’t give every detail of info. I guess to be accurate they should be given a 50 page or even longer document that explains mRNA vaccines, explains clinical trials, explains recording of adverse events, explains all the international studies that have found the vaccine significantly reduces hospitalizations, deaths, etc. Given you have made it absolutely clear that you look for every excuse to attack vaccines, even if given a 50 page document, which most would refuse to read, you would find something else.

And I left out of my last comment reiterating that you were wrong claiming no cases of unilateral hearing loss from Jeryl Lynn mumps vaccine.

Just admit it, your major motivation for posting comments on various blogs is your daughter not receiving 120,000 pounds compensation, decided over a decade ago for a vaccine given your daughter three decades ago and removed from British market shortly thereafter.

While I am sorry for your daughter’s unilateral hearing loss, though probably had little to no effect on her life, I feel sorry for her having a truly sick mother like you.

@ johnlabarge

You write: “Vaccines for Covid made a little sense for approximately 4 months. From when they were introduced til the data on delta indicated they were ineffective. At this point they make no sense”

Ineffective? According to numerous international and American studies, while vaccines don’t protect against infection with Delta, they still provide significant protection against severe illness, hospitalization and death. Infection means entered body only. So, as I’ve written before, many have staph aureus in their nasal cavities, clostridium difficile in their intestines, and many other potentially harmful microbes on and in our bodies. While some vaccines provide almost 100% protection, many others many reduce significantly risk of severe disease.

Check out recent CDC summary of COVID and COVID Vaccine “Rates of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Vaccination Status’ at:

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status

YOU JUST CONTINUE TO MAKE A FOOL OF YOURSELF.

@ johnlabarge

You write: “The data they are using to make those claims is highly suspect.”

Based on what? Just one more stupid comment by you. And I could link to websites for Finland, Sweden, Canada, Israel, South Korea and many more, all showing that the vaccines have prevented a significant number of serious cases, hospitalizations, and death. I guess ALL would be suspect in your sick moronic asinine mind.

You have NEVER given the least indication that you understand how vaccines work, typical of morons like you

Already wrote in comments. They are presuming unvaxxed status in populations that are mostly vaccinated. And now they aren’t even reporting hospitalization based on vax status. See the footnotes.

If you read the footnotes, unvaccinated person was one whose vaccination status as not verified. There are of course still many unvaxxed persons

The data is suspect. I don’t have data. Those in control are making it dirty.

Who are they ?

That’s what makes the conspiracy labarge keeps ranting about so tough: the definition of “they” changes with every telling.

Pronouns always change in definition; that’s how English works. In this case it’s the folks publishing the biased data.

Pronouns always change in definition; that’s how English works.

In a sense, but that’s not the point here. The point here is that clowns like you use “they” in a dishonestly vague way so that you rarely name any person or group, and when you do you change the reference when your lie is pointed out.

In this case it’s the folks publishing the biased data.

Perfect example of being dishonestly vague — especially since this removes from you the requirement to support your assertion that the data is biased, or explain how it is biased, or how you know, or what on what expertise your comment is based.

The data they are using to make those claims is highly suspect.

The main thing “suspect” here is between your ears. It’s bad enough that you’ve taken to interjecting dumb remarks into the Wendy–Joel exchange.

The data they are using to make those claims is highly suspect.

Let’s see. You’ve said clinical trials are just someone’s opinion and you believe the VAERS postings are legitimate data and claim they prove the vaccines aren’t safe — in both cases without given any backing explanations

Both of those things are 100% wrong, and now we can add your assessment of the official data as highly suspect to the list of things you’ve said that are complete crap.

No one said clinical trials are just someone’s opinion. VAERs is legitimate data. The amount of VAERs reports bring serious questions about the safety of the vaccines. In relation to their protection they are not safe. The official data is biased in favor of vaccination. See the footnotes by the CDC – unverified vaccination status means they classify you as unvaccinated in the data. See the policy of the CDC positive PCR and a sniffle means covid goes on the death certificate means it’s counted as a covid death even if it’s a motorcycle accident. https://cbs12.com/news/local/man-who-died-in-motorcycle-crash-counted-as-covid-19-death-in-florida-report. You have your hulk anecdote and I have my motorcycle accident.

“VAERs is legitimate data. ”

No, it is not, but then we know you have 0 understanding of the meaning of the word data and even less integrity.

IDW says the CDC and FDA have been wasting millions of tax dollars on an illegitimate enterprise for the last 31 years (VAERS). That’s a serious accusation.

VAERs is legitimate data.

It’s impressive that you think it’s a plural.

@ Wendy Stephen

A few simple questions:

Did you get the Moderna or Pfizer mRNA covid vaccine? One or both shots? If so, did you get a booster? Or did you get one of the other covid vaccines? If so, which one?
Did any of your kids get the above?
In the past have you regularly gotten the annual flu vaccine?
Did any of your kids get the above?

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “I have asked you to evidence one deed, comment or action by me which supports your accusation that I am an anti vaxxer and I’m still waiting. (So is everyone else). Accusing me of having a negative view on vaccination purely because I entered into a debate on what the law in the UK requires to ensure Informed Consent is a desperate act designed to persuade others on here that I am an anti vaxxer. Once again, I am not.”

First, “(So is everyone else).” Really, you are now speaking for EVERYONE ELSE. As I’ve written, you are SICK.

As for discussing failing of current informed consent forms, you could simply have included something like: “While the current forms do not follow the law and they should, I want to make it absolutely clear that I support vaccines and encourage people to get them.” Or something to that effect. In essence, people who are on the edge can read into your comment that authorities are hiding something Of course, understanding my last sentence is beyond you intelligence.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “I doubt you would forget that the Executive Director of the site had you reprimanded for not following blog policies and at my request had all posts by you (following the article) removed for your offensive and derogatory comments towards me. (For which I could have gone much further)”

First, it was one comment by me that offended you. I thought you had posted on another blog and you had not, it had just linked to you. Second, she sent me the entire exchange between us. I still have it. Third, I continued to post on their blog, Every Child By Two and received NO criticisms from her either before exchange with you or after exchange with you. Fourth, the director is overly sensitive since their blog represents an organization that meets with members of Congress, and so they try to avoid any controversy. Fourth, they posted a number of my papers supporting vaccines on their website. Since then, they have changed name to Vaccinate Your Family and one can still find my papers.

She didn’t remove exchange because of complaint by you, though your complaint drew her attention to my comment, she did it because of politics of being an organization that lobbies Congress. You really do suffer from delusions of grandeur. In reality, you are an INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, STUPID, MORON.

And you still haven’t even given reference to quote you posted, claiming by me, even though almost everyone else who posts comments on this blog either gives links in comment or if requested give them.

@ Wendy Stephen

I found an exchange I made with Every Child By Two concerning comments to you (Feb 26, 2017):

“Hi:

Wendy Stephen posted another comment on AOA and challenged me to prove that she had posted a comment on whale.to, so I found it and you can read the comment I submitted to AOA, basically a mea culpa that could have been corrected long ago if she had checked for herself. I have NO problem admitting my errors. I saw her comment on whale.to and when writing comments for a blog, sometimes respond too quickly. In any case, you can read what I wrote. But if this was the basis for her complaint, had you passed it on to me, I would have rechecked the comment on whale.to and realized and corrected my error long ago. Plus, since I do not work for ECBT, it was my error and mine alone. However, I have now re-read the entire exchange of comments, first having put it in chronological order, and I stand by everything else I wrote. There were a couple of phrases I could modify; but they weren’t that bad. I think you should consider reposting the complete exchange after I have changed the whale.to comment to whale.to reposted her comment and, perhaps, modify a few phrases. I don’t like censorship. And Rosalyn Carter has been the wife of a politician for many years and experienced far worse. I have a lot of respect for both her and her husband, maybe the best ex-president we have ever had, and find it hard to believe she would be so thin-skinned and have such contempt for free speech, for people’s right to express their opinion, even if on a blog of an organization she founded, especially given I am not an employee of ECBT.”

Response from Every Child By Two:

“Hi Dr. Harrison,

I’m sorry for taking so long to get back. Things have been hectic for reasons that are probably more than you need. I understand why you’re frustrated. But I also understand ECBT’s concern, which is basically, not letting the anti vaccine activists draw all their efforts – they do more things. We need to counter the antis, but ECBT is a small organization and can’t focus just on that.

Anyway, I would hate to lose your contributions”

So, they would hate to lose my contributions.

Smoke and mirrors again Joel?

And you do know where your quotes on ad hominem attacks came from in my earlier posts!

To be clear the complaint went as follows.

You said in the ECBT posts (nothing to do with AoA)

“In any case, since you cite and post on a website that promotes antisemitism and other conspiracy theories, who cherry picks articles, some when read that don’t even support his position, and also Namaste, a magazine run by someone who promotes spiritual values and vitamin cures, etc., but especially when I mentioned that whale.to is an antisemite, you didn’t even comment, so I’ll have to assume you agree with him???”

My complaint included(but was not limited to)…………………..

“I wish to make it absolutely clear that I have NEVER posted any material on the whale.to website. There is no truth in this accusation at all and Joel’s assumption is highly offensive to me. I directed him in the course of our exchanges, to one article on the whale.to website (which he had told me he was having difficulty obtaining) purely because I could not find a link to it anywhere else. In the same way as Joel has jumped to an unjust and untrue assumption (he provided no proof or supporting evidence) that I am an antivacinationist, he has also assumed a connection between myself and the whale.to website which doesn’t exist and labelled me unjustly as something I am not. His accusations are entirely untrue and not what one expects from a professional. I have never communicated with the whale.to website.”

In the reply from Ms Pisani………………….

“I apologize for the delay however our staff is out for the holiday. Joel Harrison does not work for Every Child By Two and his
Posts and comments do not reflect our views. We did however reprimand him for not following the blog policies and made adjustments to his comments. If you would like we can remove all the comments …please advise if you wish for us to do so.”

And despite your pleadings to have the posts reinstated as you didn’t like “censorship” they were all removed at my request.

@ Wendy Stephen

By the way, I’m not the only one who finds you delusional. You wrote to Dangerous Bacon: “The PIL is provided at the time of vaccination/afterwards (though I understand not always) but that does not comply with what is required to engage Informed Consent.”

And Dangerous Bacon replied: “The problem is, your definition of informed consent re vaccination exists in your head and not in law, established medical practice or even common sense. It’s like something out of Alice in Wonderland. . . Since you’re not (according to you) antivaccine, please share with us which vaccines you support and recommend people get for themselves and their children.”

So, someone else thinks you read your biased warped mind into things and implies that he also gets the impression from your many comments that you are antivax. I asked about you, your kids, and mRNA covid vaccine and flu vaccines and he asked which vaccine you recommend for people and children; but no answer from you.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “Smoke and mirrors again Joel? And you do know where your quotes on ad hominem attacks came from in my earlier posts!”

No, I don’t remember; but even if I did, everyone else who posts either includes the reference or when asked supplies it. Not you, so how do we know it is even a legitimate quote from me? Why is it so difficult for you to simply include in a comment the reference?

And you continue to ignore that the quote: ““The purpose of my latest article is to show that ad hominem arguments not only represent a false logic; but a desperate act by those incapable of logically and scientifically supporting their position,” makes it clear that I am attacking ad hominem arguments when used without any attempt at logically and scientifically supporting a position. As I’ve written and you continue in your immense dishonesty to continue to ignore that I wasn’t attacking an ad hominem argument per se, that is a few words here and there contained in a comment that clearly focuses on topic. YOU ARE INCREDIBLY DISHONEST.

You write: “I doubt you would forget that the Executive Director of the site had you reprimanded for not following blog policies and at my request had all posts by you (following the article) removed for your offensive and derogatory comments towards me. (For which I could have gone much further)”

So, as I posted, I admitted: “Wendy Stephen posted another comment on AOA and challenged me to prove that she had posted a comment on whale.to, so I found it and you can read the comment I submitted to AOA, basically a mea culpa that could have been corrected long ago if she had checked for herself. I have NO problem admitting my errors. I saw her comment on whale.to and when writing comments for a blog, sometimes respond too quickly. In any case, you can read what I wrote. But if this was the basis for her complaint, had you passed it on to me, I would have rechecked the comment on whale.to and realized and corrected my error long ago. Plus, since I do not work for ECBT, it was my error and mine alone.”

However, as you now admit your contact with ECBT only discussed my error in thinking you posted on whale.to, not my offensive and derogatory comments towards you. And you could have simply posted a comment correcting me and, as I did, I would have double checked, and admitted I was wrong. So, just one more example of how you jump from one point to many points without any proof.

And here is the comment I posted on Age of Autism: “Wendy Stephen claims she is not anti vaccine and in her comments on Every Child By Two gave an excellent description of ALL the benefits, the protection to kids, that vaccines confer. However, she continued to emphasize what happened to her daughter and no matter how many times I agreed that rare serious risks can occur and that the British government should have done much more to help her daughter, she just kept on. That is what antivaccinationists do, the claim they are not against vaccines, just want them safer; but when asked how safe, it seems never enough. Well, I think even the Urabe vaccine’s 1/125 risk for a benign condition and protection against a number of other conditions is safe and if the Jeryl Lynn had not existed, I and I think most rational people would opt for it. As for Wendy, she may not be anti vaccine, just a mother so obsessed with her daughter’s problem that she can’t stop focusing on it. However, if she said she saved the comments from ECBT, so if she reads them carefully, she will see that I was on her side, despite my error regarding whale.to. Shame she didn’t just either check it out herself or ask me for the link; but no use crying over spilt milk, I admitted my error and apologized in an earlier comment. (Feb 27, 2017). at: https://www.ageofautism.com/2017/02/best-of-princess-pharma-and-the-pea.html

Note. “That is what antivaccinationists do, they claim they are not against vaccines, just want them safer; but when asked how safe, it seems never enough.”

You write: “And despite your pleadings to have the posts reinstated as you didn’t like “censorship” they were all removed at my request.”

Yep, Amy did remove the entire exchange, which one of ECBT employees, Rich Greenaway, who through multiple phone conversations we became friends, now deceased, told me in confidence he totally disagreed with. And Amy did e-mail me the entire exchange which I have kept. Amy runs a small organization with herself and three employees, so she can do what she wants, even if it is unethical to censor an entire exchange. Orac allows Ginny, Greg, johnlabarge, you and others to continue to post, despite just how wrong you are. He has blocked only a few people who just went too far, not once; but over and over again; but even they were allowed back on. So, Amy probably did remove the entire exchange at your request; but that speaks poorly of both you and Amy.

And you fail to admit that you were wrong about the Jeryl Lynn mumps vaccine not causing unilateral hearing loss. Cases were found, though fewer than from the Urabe vaccine. And you ignore that 5% of mumps cases suffered unilateral hearing losses, though many eventually regained, so it is possible that the few who experienced such losses from the vaccine, due to some genetic predisposition, may have suffered the loss from the actual disease. I wonder what you would be doing if before getting you daughter vaccinated she suffered from mumps and unilateral hearing loss. I wrote that I think society should devote far more resources to helping ALL children with disabilities with no reply from you.

Dangerous Bacon pointed out your delusional interpretation of vaccine consent forms. And as I mentioned, some people could read into your critique of the forms as government is hiding problems with vaccines. You don’t even understand how this would be possible

I’ve asked over and over how your daughter is doing and pointed out that a friend of 40 years has unilateral hearing loss from around 4 years of age from mumps, and has had a long and successful life. No comment from you. And you claim you are not antivax; but Dangerous Bacon asked which vaccines you support and I asked the following, no answer from you:

A few simple questions:
Did you get the Moderna or Pfizer mRNA covid vaccine? One or both shots? If so, did you get a booster? Or did you get one of the other covid vaccines? If so, which one?
Did any of your kids get the above?
In the past have you regularly gotten the annual flu vaccine?
Did any of your kids get the above?

So, just to summarize:

You refuse to do such a simple thing as post reference to my alleged quote on ad hominem arguments
You refuse to admit that the quote you gave specifically mentions ad hominem arguments wrong only when used to avoid actually addressing issues
You finally admit that it was only one error by me, an error I admitted on a comment on Age of Autism and an error I would have also admitted on ECBT had you explained in a comment on Every Child By Two. I have NO problem admitting when I am wrong, something you are apparently incapable of.
You were wrong about Vaccine Consent forms.
You refuse to discuss how your daughter is doing and ignore what I wrote that unilateral hearing loss, according to both a friend and web search does NOT significantly affect peoples lives.
You ignore that I have supported you when it came to receiving compensation, simply because committee attributed your daughter’s hearing loss to Urabe vaccine, so they should have paid, though less for a 20% disability
And if you really are not antivax, you refuse to understand that repeating over and over what happened to your daughter without then stating that, for instance, even the Urabe mumps vaccine prevented exponentially more cases of unilateral hearing loss, so many would see your comments as a warning against vaccines.
And you claim you are not antivax; but refuse to even name vaccines you and/or you children have received in past few years.

So, here is, based on ALL of the above, an ad hominem, though valid, attack on you: YOU ARE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST AND STUPID

I am 76 years old. I don’t own a TV. I devote most of my day reading on topics related to public health, infectious diseases, and vaccines. Though I took courses years ago, I am currently reading a new edition of an undergraduate immunology textbook (probably 6th or 7th I’ve read over the years) and an undergraduate microbiology textbook (again probably 6th or 7th I’ve read over the years) and I found on YouTube free undergraduate courses in both topics, so every day devote about three hours to the two, then read latest on COVID-19, including numerous articles on what is known about the virus; e.g., 14 Open reading frames, etc. Rest of day read on history, economics, politics, etc.

The undergraduate microbiology textbook has my name in the Acknowledgements because the author sent me a free copy of an earlier edition in return as I read it I made editorial notes and proof-reading and e-mailed over 100 pages to them, did this for two editions and now reading the next edition. What do you know about immunology, microbiology, history and current status of vaccine preventable diseases, and epidemiology? I have devoted a life-time to them and nope, never worked for pharmaceutical industry nor do I own their stocks.

@Joel: “ So, here is, based on ALL of the above, an ad hominem, though valid, attack on you: YOU ARE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST AND STUPID”

Correction: That is not an ad hominem. Ad hominem would be saying “You are wrong because you are intellectually dishonest and stupid.”

Whereas you said “You are intellectually dishonest and stupid.”

Stated alone, this would be merely a personal opinion and a bit of an insult; however, as you also qualified it with an extensive and fully testable dissection of Ms Stephens’ intellectual dishonesty and stupidity in action becomes elevated to a summary statement of fact.

Sorry to take you to task like this, but if we are going to criticize these incompetent lying antivaxxers for their own incompetent lying words, it is only right and proper we make every practical effort to be correct and precise in ours. HTH.

@ Joel
Firstly, since you went straight to the very article in this post you clearly know what my source was for the quote and for some reason have just been making out you didn’t, but for everyone else on here I’ll go along with the nonsense and tell you what you already know, here’s the link to the site …..

https://shotofprevention.com/2016/12/14/attacks-on-journalist-brian-deer-based-on-poor-scholarship-unethical-behavior/

Unfortunately and for some obscure reason the link to the actual paper on the site no longer works (good job I downloaded it with the appendices) so you might want to explain to everyone why that is. Both your article and the comments are gone!

Secondly, since I have been so congenial in providing you with the source of your article please state where I said Jeryl Lynn did not cause deafness and your source for saying that it did.

Thirdly, you stated “some people could read into your critique of the forms as government is hiding problems with vaccines”.
Yes they could, and given that the government DOES actually give out the PIL only not as instructed and not in compliance with the doctrine of Informed Consent would you not agree that the way round that possibility is to give it out prior to vaccination? That way no one could read into the current practices that the Government is hiding problems with vaccines. Problem solved all round.

Fourthly, I’ve told you this before but I’m happy to repeat myself on it. My “kids” are in their 30’s and 40’s and therefore adults in their own right and it would be wholly inappropriate, to say nothing of an unacceptable invasion of their privacy, for me to be discussing any aspect of their vaccination status on a blog site. This does not mean they are anti vaxxers so don’t go reading it as such.

Fifthly, I’m overjoyed that your friend who has unilateral deafness has a wonderful life and isn’t significantly impacted by it but a quick internet search for medical scientific papers on the subject coupled with the high amounts of compensation awarded for the loss of hearing in one ear in UK courts suggest that it’s a much more serious disability than you make it out to be. (Happy to provide Judgements with awards)

Sixthly, I am grateful to you for supporting the fact my daughter qualified for compensation.

Seventhly, you stated this……………..
“You finally admit that it was only one error by me, an error I admitted on a comment on Age of Autism and an error I would have also admitted on ECBT had you explained in a comment on Every Child By Two”

No, I do not. It wasn’t about you erroneously saying I submitted material to whale (which would have been an honest and entirely acceptable mistake) it was about the disgusting jump you made on the back of that mistaken belief as to my character. Your comments would not have been removed for a simple error and I would not have requested that they were, for a mere mistake it was far more than that.

Finally, you state………………………..
“And if you really are not antivax, you refuse to understand that repeating over and over what happened to your daughter without then stating that, for instance, even the Urabe mumps vaccine prevented exponentially more cases of unilateral hearing loss, so many would see your comments as a warning against vaccines.”

I have previously supported you on many aspects of mumps vaccination (on here) ie the fact that the rate of mumps meningitis was significantly lowered when vaccination was introduced etc. I have endorsed Jeryl Lynn. You appear to be more intent on squashing the truth and the facts re Urabe not because they aren’t accurate or scientifically/medically/ legally disproved but to assuage your fears that their very existence could be seen by many as a warning against vaccines.

Now I get it, your insistence that I was after a windfall in compensation, that my daughter wasn’t compensated isn’t because you believe it to be the truth but because you NEED it to be the truth. According to your thinking, a win would go some way to endorsing the fact that the Pluserix MMR vaccine was problematic and potentially act as a warning against vaccines. Got it!

for everyone else on here

You really ought to drop that affectation and reflect on why anyone but Joel really would give a shit about this painfully low S/N exchange.

@ Wendy Stephen

I forgot one more example of your incredible dishonesty. You cited your lawyer’s belief that MMR caused ASD, cited it without any comment by you. So, any normal person could easily believe you supported it. If I had done the same and someone pointed it out, I would immediately admit my error and then explain whether I supported the quote or disagreed with it, and include an explanation of whichever position I took. YOU ARE INCREDIBLY DISHONEST AND STUPID

“I forgot one more example of your incredible dishonesty. You cited your lawyer’s belief that MMR caused ASD, cited it without any comment by you. So, any normal person could easily believe you supported it. If I had done the same and someone pointed it out, I would immediately admit my error and then explain whether I supported the quote or disagreed with it, and include an explanation of whichever position I took. YOU ARE INCREDIBLY DISHONEST AND STUPID”

For real ?

I quoted my lawyer as part of a post and marked it clearly as that. Is this another of ‘Joel’s rules’ designed specifically for me or is everyone else required, when using a quote, to subsequently say whether or not they are in agreement with it?

Don’t think so.

There was no error. It was my lawyer’s statement not mine. And I made nothing of it in any regard.

I would have been dishonest had I not clearly identified it to source and the only “error” which occurred was yours in pouncing on it and mistakenly attributing it to me.

This loooong-running discussion has yielded quotes that will stand the test of time on the Antivax Wall of Shame.

“The data is suspect. I don’t have data.” – johnlabarge

“You’ve never read my work”
“I’m not wrong about anything”
“You are horribly obnoxious, even by internet standards.”
“Ed Jenner used HORSE PUS”

and of course:

“no vaccine has any benefit”

Ginny Stoner

Other perseverating antivaxers in the thread have, alas, given us nothing memorable. There’s still time though.

@ Ginny Stoner

So, you quote yourself. Wow, delusions of grandeur, mentally deranged. You are amusing.

I realize that, at least according to you, the mass of international studies showing overall effectiveness and safety of mRNA covid vaccines are by “brainwashed” people and, of course, together with your “immense” knowledge of molecular biology, that is mRNA and research going back three decades on mRNA, well, YOU ARE AN AMUSING NUTCASE.

There comes a point where brainwashing crosses the line into corruption, once blind trust becomes untenable. As I pointed out in my post, which you have no viable defense to, you are a lying liar. In part as a result of your lies, people’s lives are being destroyed, including the lives of children.

You don’t amuse me, you disgust me.

You have facilitated a genocide…

Once again you serial liar: where are the bodies? How, across the entire world, has there not been anyone coming forward with evidence (not the lies you repeatedly peddle, those lies so bad you have to refer to your own shitty blog to cite) of such a “genocide”?

Your continued goal to make a name for yourself on the graves of those you believe have been killed show you for the POS you are.

“Where are the bodies?” Wow, you’re really sheltered. I thought the reports of insurers that death claims have massively increased, and all the reports of young athletes and children dying suddenly was mainstream, but maybe that’s only ‘alternative’ mainstream.

The strangest one was the recent deaths of several young, healthy doctors in Canada, 3 at the same hospital, within the span of a few weeks. This reportedly followed a new wave of required boosters. https://thecovidblog.com/2022/07/28/ontario-healthcare-workers-pester-government-into-allowing-fourth-injections-for-all-adults-then-four-doctors-three-at-same-hospital-system-die-suddenly-of-abv/

Anyone care to figure out the pre-covid-vax odds of 3 young, healthy doctors at the same hospital dying within the span of a few weeks?

Yeah. One of the things that makes me sure these countless bodies don’t exist is that many countries, starting with Russia, would jump all over that political hay to trash the West.

We know ginny’s and labarge’s claims are bullshit because, well, they come from ginny and labarge. It’s pretty vile that they try to score points on the “rebels who know the truth” side by making up massive numbers of people killed and injured by vaccines when there’s no evidence for those numbers, but that’s what they do.

Regarding ginny’s assertion:

Trillium Health Partners, the hospital system that employed the doctors, responded to the claim online, saying in a statement that was also posted on Twitter: “The rumour circulating on social media is simply not true. Their passings were not related to the COVID-19 vaccine. We ask to please respect their families’ privacy during this difficult time.”
[I will not give the names here]

- one died after he was diagnosed with stage 4 gastric cancer signet ring adenocarcinoma almost a year earlier, according to a GoFundMe campaign set up by his wife, who plans to create a scholarship fund in his name. He died on July 19.
- another was “seriously ill” before he died, according to an outgoing message for his medical office, which is now closed. He had reportedly joined Trillium Health almost 40 years ago and was one of the founding members of the neurology department. He died on July 18. His obituary, published on Aug. 5, said that he died “after a courageous battle with cancer.”
– The third died of lung cancer after a “year-long battle,” according to his obituary. He died on July 17.

The fourth doctor she lies about apparently died of cardiac failure while he was on a run. The assertion that the vaccine was to blame started with someone who said “anyone healthy enough to run a marathon will not have heart issues”

The original articles named the doctors. I didn’t include the names so ginny couldn’t use them to contact and harass grieving families.

There’s no “14 doctors” at all as labarge claims (she may be able to find them herself, although I doubt she’s smart enough for that).

I don’t know how people grow up to be so empty of honesty, integrity, and basic decency as greg, ginny, and labarge, but they did. I really don’t know how they can stand to live that way, but they seem to enjoy it.

Wait so the hospital system that forced the booster says there’s nothing wrong with the booster? Well then nothing to see there…

Naturally, the cause is always ABV. The author spoke to the hospital himself and documented what they said in the article.

Taking those 3 deaths at one hospital, along with the other 3 confirmed deaths of young, seemingly healthy Canadian doctors within the span of a few weeks, what are the odds of that?

What are the odds of all 6 doctors, even if all were in poor health (which they were not–several were accomplished athletes), dying within the span of a few weeks?

Either way, it’s terrifying, and creepy that all anyone in control of vaccine policy will say is ABV–there’s no need to even ask, that’s always what the reason given will be.

what are the odds of that?

More irony from someone asserting that SARS-CoV-2 boosters would magically turn deadly in a single hospital.

The fourth doctor she lies about apparently died of cardiac failure while he was on a run.

Finally, Jim Fixx’s death can be pinned on vaccines.

@Ginny Stoner Trillium Health system disagrees with your author. So perhaps he spoke to hospital but did not report tthe facts ?

Taking those 3 deaths at one hospital, along with the other 3 confirmed deaths of young, seemingly healthy Canadian doctors within the span of a few weeks, what are the odds of that?

They weren’t healthy ginny. Either

you didn’t read what the article reported about them, or
you simply choose to continue your lying

Based on your history here the lying option is by far the more likely option, just as it is with labarge and greg.

Wait so the hospital system that forced the booster says there’s nothing wrong with the booster? Well then nothing to see there…

This is why you’re considered such a joke: you ignore the serious health issues the doctors had, and continue to lie about 14 in total who died.

I’m sure your site is a rich source of quotes, but I have limited tolerance for demented ravings.

Just for the hell of it I did a search for “Ginny Stoner quotes”, and this was the first that came up:

“‎Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see.”

Turns out Google mistakenly directed me to “Funny Stoner Quotes”.
Hemp alone couldn’t explain Ginny’s output, unless it was heavily laced with PCP.

That’s why you couldn’t come up with any actual quotes from my “output” to support your bogus claim, right? Every time I respond to one of your BS comments with evidence, you ignore it–just like you did here, again. Only a lying liar treats genocide like some kind of game or joke, Bad Bacon.

You claimed that that only vaccine providers report adverse effects, and only during 30 first minutes This is rreally funny

Only a lying liar treats genocide…

Only a complete shitbag (like you ginny) dimineshes the meaning of genocide by falsely claiming one is going on. There seems to be no bottom to how disgusting a person you are.

Forget Wall of Shame. You should push those champion antivaxxer quotes onto CafePress mugs and start selling them (at cost) to all the medical professionals who clean up their consequences every working day. Cos if they can’t also laugh amidst all that death and misery, they will not survive it either. And it’ll make a good talking point too.

No one has clean data. That’s pretty well known.

No, it’s not known. It’s asserted by people like you, although you don’t have any evidence at all to back up your assertions.

And, again, since you in particular have repeatedly demonstrated you have no idea what counts as data (and you refuse to explain your statistical knowledge even though you dismiss all of the studies), there is no reason at all to take this comment as anything other than a line of bullshit from a politically and socially motivated anti-science anti-vaccine loser.

My assertions are 1) the pharma/provaxxers are deep in confirmation bias 2) You can’t trust pharma when it comes to anything 3) the government creates this situation through a regulatory revolving door and owned politicians and that 4) because of this you can’t trust the covid-19 vaccine. The evidence for these assertions are all over the place. Provaxxers assume that all deaths with covid are caused by covid and would have been vaccine prevented. This is false. Pharma (short for large pharmaceutical companies/medical industrial complex) is one of the most corrupt institutions to ever have existed with fines and a current addiction crises. The government permitted this to go on (and yes probably most governments around the world) because they are bribed by big pharma both at the political level and regulatory level and were so bold as to put in mandates for pharma products this time. And finally the vaccine has shown not to be effective at a minimum against the current variants and yet it’s being pushed and forced still. But to the same provaxxers where all folks dying with covid are causal no vaccine reaction is every causal. It’s always ABV. I’d go so far as to say that younger health people need to get their heads examined before they participate in this vaccination campaign.

Thank you for clearly and concisely stating your argument.
But…

Provaxxers assume that all deaths with covid are caused by covid and would have been vaccine prevented.

No we don’t. And you should never presume to say what other people are thinking.

The government permitted this to go on…because they are bribed by big pharma both at the political level and regulatory level…

I find this implausible. The sums of money required to do this would wipe out any gains from it.

And finally the vaccine has shown not to be effective at a minimum against the current variants…

Effectiveness is relative. The vaccines still provide some protection.

Bravo labarge — your whinge about “big pharma” bribing governments all over the world is your most deranged comment yet — especially the part where you claim the evidence is everywhere and don’t supply a damn bit of it.

I don’t see why anyone would find this implausible. It happens over and over again in the US. Why wouldn’t it be able to happen in other countries. You’re Naive if you don’t think Pharma companies yield influence over France and Israel, for example. Bribery is not only done with money if you prefer a different term – undue influence.

It’s always ABV.

He’s like a little bird, eating whatever Gindo regurgitates.

Do you know that there is Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ? It reduces Medicaid drug prices, in tune of 228 billion. How this can happen, if big pharma has bribed the government ? (When you are in it, check who opposes then bill, It is not the government.)
Actually, Big Pharma is very much disliked in political circles. They spend lot of money to prevent this, withoutt any result.

I don’t see why anyone would find this implausible. It happens over and over again in the US. Why wouldn’t it be able to happen in other countries. You’re Naive if you don’t think Pharma companies yield influence over France and Israel, for example. Bribery is not only done with money if you prefer a different term – undue influence.

Nope, no evidence, just more BS from a monomaniacal conspiracy dick.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “Firstly, since you went straight to the very article in this post you clearly know what my source was for the quote and for some reason have just been making out you didn’t, but for everyone else on here I’ll go along with the nonsense and tell you what you already know, here’s the link to the site …..”

You really are STUPID. I cut and pasted the quote you posted: ““The purpose of my latest article is to show that ad hominem arguments not only represent a false logic; but a desperate act by those incapable of logically and scientifically supporting their position.” And you continue to ignore the part that specifically makes it clear that it is an ad hominem argument when someone doesn’t actually “logically and scientifically support their position.”
And second, as I wrote, I always either automatically give reference or if don’t, when asked give it and, in this case, Ginny Stoner also requested the reference, so finally you give it; but premise it with a lie or just plain stupidity.

Unfortunately, when Every Child By Two changed to Vaccinate Your Family, they did repost several of my papers (note may be possible to find on the wayback machine?); but the man responsible, a great guy, Rich Greenaway, died, so this particular paper wasn’t reposted; but at least your link got the title right, finally: Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH (2016 Dec 6). Expert Commentary Series: Ad Hominem Attacks Against Investigative Journalist Brian Deer: A Clear Example of Antivaccinationists’ Inability to Address the Issues, Poor Scholarship, and Just Plain Unethical Behavior.

For those interested, you can find several of my articles that Every Child By Two posted that Rich did repost before his tragic death at: https://vaccinateyourfamily.org/expert-commentary/

You write: “Secondly, since I have been so congenial in providing you with the source of your article please state where I said Jeryl Lynn did not cause deafness and your source for saying that it did.

Wendy Stephen
says:
June 19, 2022 at 4:36 am

Now, now, Joel you’re being a bit disingenuous here. Pluserix was introduced into the UK in October 1988 with the Urabe mumps strain onboard. A month or so later the MMR II brand of vaccine (Merck today but MSD back then) was marketed in the UK containing the Jeryl Lynn mumps strain (which didn’t have the same problematic issues) was introduced alongside Pluserix (and Immravax at the beginning of 1990).
[ https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2022/06/13/kirsch-met-old-school-antivaxxer-andrew-wakefield/ ]

“Both mumps strains have previously been reported to cause deafness. [Stewart BJA, Prabhu PU (1993). Reports of sensorineural deafness after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Archives of Diseases in Childhood; 69: 153-154.

Note that prior to the above quote by you, mention of unilateral hearing loss was made. I’m not going to cut and paste every single quote. And what a despicable person you are claiming you are being “congenial” by finally giving a simple reference that both I and Ginny Stoner requested. You are one SICK person.

As for your third point, Dangerous Bacon already responded to it. By the way, do you have any expertise in law? If not, how can you be certain you are not reading into it your own bias?

You write: “Fourthly, I’ve told you this before but I’m happy to repeat myself on it. My “kids” are in their 30’s and 40’s and therefore adults in their own right and it would be wholly inappropriate, to say nothing of an unacceptable invasion of their privacy, for me to be discussing any aspect of their vaccination status on a blog site. This does not mean they are anti vaxxers so don’t go reading it as such.”

So, you could have mentioned the childhood vaccines given them AND YOU CERTAINLY COULD ANSWER WHICH VACCINES YOU HAVE RECEIVED LATELY. WHAT IS YOUR MORONIC EXCUSE FOR NOT DOING THIS? And I don’t remember you mentioning your kids in their 30s and 40s; but I already assume so; but how is mentioning getting a vaccine an invasion of privacy?

You write: “Seventhly, you stated this……………..
“You finally admit that it was only one error by me, an error I admitted on a comment on Age of Autism and an error I would have also admitted on ECBT had you explained in a comment on Every Child By Two”
No, I do not. It wasn’t about you erroneously saying I submitted material to whale (which would have been an honest and entirely acceptable mistake) it was about the disgusting jump you made on the back of that mistaken belief as to my character. Your comments would not have been removed for a simple error and I would not have requested that they were, for a mere mistake it was far more than that.

I guess I should have posted above why I overreacted to finding your article on whale.to From my comments on Age of Autism: “I also pointed out that she had posted on whale.to, a website, among other things, notorious for its anti-semitism, including posting the complete Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious bogus antisemitic book.”

Also: “You are correct, you didn’t actually post a comment on whale.to. I apologize; however, whale.to did repost one of your comments and if you had checked it out, you would have discovered it, then simply made it clear that he had reposted without your permission and then could have posted a comment making clear that you do not wish to be associated with him in any manner. So, whether you like it or not, your comment is on whale.to. If I found that he had posted anything by me, I would be extremely angry. . . And, again, I apologize for not looking more carefully at the post of your article on whale.to; however, if you had checked it out, you could have pointed out in a comment that it was a repost and I would have long ago corrected what I said. So, my not reading it more carefully makes it mainly my error; but your not even bothering to check says something about you. If you told me you found something by me on a website, I would certainly have checked it out.”

So, in several comments on Age of Autism I admitted i was wrong and apologized; but you could have nipped it in the bud by posting an earlier comment. And you continue to dwell on it. Well, I think that is great because it gives me a chance to over and over explain how I have NO problem admitting when I’m wrong. Something i doubt you are capable of.
Note you can find our entire exchange at: https://www.ageofautism.com/2017/02/best-of-princess-pharma-and-the-pea.html

So, you think because Every Child By Two unethically removed an entire exchange of comments, rather than one or two, that it proves anything. It doesn’t; but, based on our current exchanges, I am now going to give what I believe to be an accurate description of you. Please feel free to contact Orac and complain to him. Who knows? Maybe he will block me for a period of time. I wouldn’t mind. I don’t post comments in any belief they will get you to change, even finally give the vaccines you have received, that is, if you really support vaccines; but to give ammunition to other open-minded reasonable people. This takes time from other things I want to do; e.g., read a pile of books before I depart this world. At 76 could die tomorrow or live another 10 – 20 years; but I have a pile of hundreds of books to read.

So, here is what I think is a valid accurate description of you:

YOU ARE AN INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST STUPID ASSHOLE.

let me repeat, just in case it doesn’t sink in:

YOU ARE AN INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST STUPID ASSHOLE.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “I have previously supported you on many aspects of mumps vaccination (on here) ie the fact that the rate of mumps meningitis was significantly lowered when vaccination was introduced etc. I have endorsed Jeryl Lynn. You appear to be more intent on squashing the truth and the facts re Urabe not because they aren’t accurate or scientifically/medically/ legally disproved but to assuage your fears that their very existence could be seen by many as a warning against vaccines.”

I admit that it is possible that on some comments you have mentioned reduced mumps meningitis when vaccination introduced and you endorsed the Jeryl Lynn; but what you, in your IMMENSE STUPIDITY, fail to understand is that when you post comment after comment about Urabe Mumps vaccine without clearly explaining your support for vaccines that people forget earlier comments and/or people new to this blog won’t be aware of it. In either case, your many comments play into the hands of antivaxxers.

And you still fail to accept that when you posted a quote from your lawyer about MMR and ASD that people will believe it is something you support. Why else would you cite it? As I’ve written over and over, if I were to quote someone, I would make clear either that I support what they say or I don’t and so would most reasonable people.

And another viewer agrees with me, see directly above:
has
says:
August 7, 2022 at 2:15 am

And we are still waiting for which vaccines YOU RECEIVED OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS AND WHICH VACCINES YOU ENDORSE, NOT JUST A COMMENT OR TWO ABOUT JERYL LYNN.

So, I repeat and please complain to Orac.

YOU ARE AN INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, STUPID, ASSHOLE

Let me add my name to the list.
Which vaccines have you taken in the past few years?

Any Covid? Flu? Shingles? Any common for adults?

If you support vaccines there are some you support.

I’ll bite. I did Yellow Fever, Hep A, Hep B Typhoid and Rabies in 2015 before a trip to South Africa. I don’t do flu shots as last time I got one I got sick and they generally aren’t effective.

Hi Denise

Yep, it would be nice if Wendy told us which vaccines she has received in the past few years; but, though she may eventually, I doubt she will.

I feel like I am wasting the little precious time I have left writing comments. Though I may be wrong once-in-a-while, overwhelmingly I think I am right on target???

Greg is just a jerk who posts to provoke/irritate people.

johnlabarge is just stupid, finds one thing that confirms his antivax, anti-pandemic position and paraphrases it.

Ginny Stoner is just plain NUTS, almost amusing;

but Wendy is someone who ignores much of what others write, then twists, distorts, and takes out of context the remainder and sticks to her position. She claims she is NOT antivaxxer; but she certainly is NOT pro-vaccines. And, as far as I can tell, she gives ammunition to antivaxxers.

What do you think???

Imagine being neither pro nor anti vaccine, but worrying about the details of the specific vaccine and disease. Crazy.

Imagine being neither pro nor anti vaccine, but worrying about the details of the specific vaccine and disease. Crazy.

Imagine making questions based on science and understanding rather than your purely bullshit conspiracy theories and lack of understanding.

But working to understand things requires, well, work, and you’ve shown you have no interest in that.

Greg is just a jerk who posts to provoke/irritate people.

Actually, Joel, I am on the verge of tapping out where this long-lasting thread is concerned. Truth is, i am now facing great anxiety and doubt after committing the same sin that you guys are often guilty of; I dismissed ideas and opinions out of hand. Could there be something to germ theory denialism?! Is there really such a thing as a virus?!

There is actually evidence for germ theory. You have electron micrograph of any number of viruses

@ Joel

“She claims she is NOT antivaxxer; but she certainly is NOT pro-vaccines. And, as far as I can tell, she gives ammunition to antivaxxers.”

Yip, I’m a real favourite of the anti vaxxers since I took part in a newspaper story by Brian Deer in September 2020.

Apology accepted in advance.

What that association says is that you turned against Wakefield after having been one of his acolytes, and supplied Deer with inside information, supposedly having backed away from the all-encompassing rejection of vaccines Wakefield’s supporters were known for.

And yet here you are, years later, refusing to specify a single commonly administered pediatric or adult vaccine that you’d recommend (noting Wendy’s previous dodge of being OK with a particular mumps vaccine that would rarely be given on its own, rather than endorsing the MMR).

So, how about it? Should parents have their children immunized with the MMR? Rotavirus vaccine? Vaccinated against polio? Hepatitis B? Are you in favor of vaccination against shingles, pneumonia, influenza and Covid-19?

It shouldn’t be that hard to drag an answer out of you.

@ Wendy Stephen

Yep, I read Brian Deer’s article; but, in your continued IMMENSE STUPIDITY, you think one example as opposed to literally hundreds of recent comments proves anything. As I’ve explained and you are just TOO STUPID to understand, your comments give ammunition to antivaxxers. Do you really think that people following this blog or other places you have posted comments would have read Brian Deer’s article? Someone who is pro-vax, someone who is intelligent and honest would make sure it was clear continuously that they support vaccines. STUPID STUPID STUPID
As opposed to you, I encourage honest debate, so I suggest you include in a comment the complete reference to Brian Deer’s article, title, date, source, and link. At least some monitoring this exchange may actually read it; but it won’t change most minds that your many, most, comments can be used by antivaxxers.

In addition, if you are provaccines, why can’t you answer a simple question as to what vaccines you have received in the past few years and which ones you encourage others to get? And you continue to display your utter DISHONEST STUPIDITY by not simply admitting it was a mistake including your lawyer’s MMR causes ASD in a comment without making it clear either you support or disagree with it.

And you proved beyond a shadow of a doubt just how STUPID you are when you claimed I copied the quote from my article, when it was exactly the quote you posted. And you proved your dishonesty and stupidity by not simply giving the reference. Based on the reference I found my article. And you showed again how STUPID you are when you failed to acknowledge that even the quote by me made clear that it was an ad hominem attack ONLY if it didn’t include logic and science. And on and on its goes.

So, let me summarize once more my opinion of you based on all of the above and more: YOU ARE AN INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST STUPID ASSHOLE.

@ Dr Joel:

I have a feeling that you will ‘be around’ for a long time!

re Orac’s scoffing guests:
the three people you mention are not uneducated, having at least a BA/ BS ( Greg) and law degrees ( the others) as well as a computer degree ( john).

So they’re not intellectually deficient or learning disabled if they were able to get that far: most people DON’T get that far.

Rather, they refuse to accept material/ data that contradicts their beliefs which are not grounded in data. Orac often says that anti-vax belief is more like a religion based on faith – what do those Christians say?- on what is not seen.
Imagine trying to convince a creationist about evolution: you could show them fossils in a musem, films of how animals adapt in the wild a la Darwin and genetic research that shows distances between various animals’ genomes. They won’t accept any of it because the Word is more important to them: it IS their identity.

I also doubt that most anti-vaxxers are mentally ill but they may have some anomalies in personality and thought such as those described by psychologists who study them:
they believe that they are special, not common and ahead of others. They don’t accept hierarchies of expertise thinking themselves instead equal to- or usually- superior to real experts. How many anti-vaxxers/ woo-meisters/ Covid denialists insult Drs Fauci, Offit, Hotez or Orac regularly?
Studies show tendencies towards narcissism and paranoia ( although not dx of these conditions). They also overestimate negative outcomes and value personal outcomes over community ones.

Can you teach people like these? I don’t know. Television and internet news has been describing how Covid spreads and infects people and how to avoid it for over two years yet
millions listen to jerks like Mike, Gary, RFK jr, Del etc.
Bad thinking can be a choice.

@ Denise

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I do NOT consider myself super intelligent, and certainly not in the same league as Drs Fauci, Offit, Hotez or Orac. I just do my best to apply the intelligence I have, which includes multiple courses in Philosophy of Science (basically how we make causal arguments), numerous courses in research methodologies and statistics, studying immunology, microbiology, and the current history and status of vaccine-preventable diseases. And sometimes I get it wrong; but have NO problem admitting this. So, basically compared to the above, I am second string; but second string on the super bowl champion is all right by me.

My one problem is my temper. I first try to civilly exchange comments with antivaxxers and others; but after awhile, when they ignore what I write, and I don’t expect them to necessarily agree, just comment that what I said has gotten them to think through their position, I lose it.

Wendy Stephen did a great job in assisting Brian Deer in bringing down Andrew Wakefield; but the fact they found Wakefield totally dishonest and a fraud, doesn’t clearly indicate she is a strong vaccine supporter. In addition, as I have, you, Has, and Dangerous Bacon, a simple request to tell us which vaccines she has received in the past few years and which she endorses, she refuses. When I point out that when quoting something she should give the reference, she refused several times. When I pointed out that including a quote from her lawyer that MMR causes ASD without making clear she disagrees with, allows people to think she may support it. And when I point out that if she really is pro-vaccine, then she should explain it over and over, not post comments that could be assumed by antivaxxers to support their position; but, as opposed to my willingness to admit when I am wrong, even over the most trivial things, she won’t admit it. So, I applaud her helping Brian Deer; but almost all of her numerous posts contain NO support for vaccines. So, I lose my temper. Not good. Oh well.

One hypothesis is that she is neither antivax nor pro-vax, just someone incapable of really developing a logical, scientific position???

@ Wendy Stephen

One last point about Brian Deer’s article. It refers to your cooperation with his investigation from 15 years ago, so, people change. Maybe you were pro-vax then; but doesn’t say anything about 15 years later and even then helping Deer investigate Andrew Wakefield doesn’t mean you were pro-vaccines, simply that you didn’t like Wakefield’s dishonesty and his extreme anti-vax position. I realize that MORONS like you see the world in black and white; but reality usually lies somewhere in between. Even Wakefield wasn’t really anti-vax, he simply wanted to make a fortune selling single measles vaccines by undermining the MMR.

Really?? More than enough said!

From Dangerous Bacon…………………..
“noting Wendy’s previous dodge of being OK with a particular mumps vaccine that would rarely be given on its own, rather than endorsing the MMR” [8/8/22].

Previously from Dangerous Bacon…………..
“Congrats on saying you back MMR” [6/8/22]

From Joel Harrison…………………

“Even Wakefield wasn’t really anti-vax…”

Your date is wrong (the first comment in this thread wasn’t until July 1), but yes, you did indicate support for the MMR, also slyly slipping in a statement about how your lawyer had connected the MMR with autism. Apologies for forgetting that.

Still – you’re preening at having backed a single vaccine out of the sixteen or so routinely recommended for children and adults, while spouting a line of drivel that includes nonsense about alleged lack of informed consent for vaccination and how that supposedly makes it reasonable for people to think the government is “hiding problems with vaccines”.

Straight out of the antivax playbook.

You need to be a bit more subtle, like the antivax pediatricians (i.e. Paul Thomas and Jay Gordon) who’ve professed support for a limited number of vaccines (not just one), while similarly engaging in antivax scaremongering that influences parents to avoid vaccines for their kids altogether.

As Joel might say if he believed in italics, dishonest.

Wendy, what happened after you gathered information for Brian Deer and (at the time) seemed to repudiate the more extreme views of antivaccine parents you associated with? What brought you back into the antivax fold? Did vaccination advocates fail to give you the praise and attention you felt you deserved?

Yes – I’m curious, as well; I have watched a couple of colleagues lose all mooring to reality during covid. Folks who used to be indifferent to vaccines now asking if any of them are safe. No offense to subspecialists like our noble host but, thankfully, they are both subspecialists in fields where they can’t do a lot of direct damage in this regard. That said, the one routinely tells anyone who will listen not to vaccinate his or her child against covid due to some imperceptibly-small risk of myocarditis with one of the vaccines we never used in our region.

Many people will simply see “Doctor” and assume he is speaking with authority even though he is a neuro-radiologist who rode the pandemic out at home doing reads in his pajamas. I often wondered if this phenomenon is something Bacon hints at – “Where’s MY praise?” He didn’t earn adulation being in the trenches with us through this nightmare so he gets it by telling people who are desperate for any authority figure to tell them something they want to hear…something they want to hear.

The other guy is at least honest enough to admit he was just angry that his elective procedure caseload and, consequently, his revenue tanked when the hospital cancelled all of them. Any time he sees a covid screening or vaccination mandate by the system he doesn’t see a threat to patients’ health from a faulty vaccine, he sees $$ that can’t walk into the OR if they fail those requirements.

“I have watched a couple of colleagues lose all mooring to reality during covid. Folks who used to be indifferent to vaccines now asking if any of them are safe.”

It’s about time. It’s time to see the entire fraudulent vaccine paradigm fall.

Naturally, it has never occurred to you that your colleagues may be right. Nor, I assume, have you ever sat down with them and discussed the evidence at length. Why? It’s merely a global life-and-death issue.

Stymied by your own hubris. You’re not alone, you have plenty of company.

You should probably prepare for an increase in the already very high suicide rate among doctors, when they realize how many lives they’ve destroyed with the COVID19 vaccines. That is, if they don’t die first because they were among the unfortunate true believers who took them.

This. I only thought the vaccine schedules for kids aggressive due to the CDC being a money printing machine in this regard (pharma says recommend; cdc recommends; states adopt as policy -millions more likely unnecessary doses sold). Oh and the flu shot being essentially a scam. That was my prior feeling on the whole vaccine machine. Now I wonder to what extent any/all were ever really safe or effective.

Apparently Denmark doesn’t think it’s wise to vaccinate kids under 18 anymore.

@Ginny Stoner You speak about your million corpses ? it is this kind of claims that cause problems. But they are just taken out of hat.
@john labarge You could cite an official announcement concerning childhood vaccinations.

Vaccines are not money minting machine for CDC. It does not sell vaccines it buys them

@john labarge. You forget to say “against COVID” . A quite doffrence.

@ Wendy Stephen

The quote you gave from me on ad hominem arguments. Whether I recognized the source or not, certainly others following this blog would not. However, in either case, honest commenters, when giving quotations, almost always give the reference and if they don’t, when asked, do. I asked and so did Ginny Stoner; yet, you refused several times before finally giving it.

And, though you see the world in black and white, numerous people, in the news, in books, etc. have gone from extremely conservative/right-wing to liberal even socialist and vice verse and also everything in between, that is, some conservative beliefs and some liberal. Even in religion, people have converted from Judaism to Christianity, from Christianity to Judaism, from Judaism to Islam, from Islam to Judaism, from Christianity to Islam, Buddhism, etc. And even such converts can be to extreme orthodox versions or more modest versions. In other words, people change. Citing one article by Brian Deer of your cooperation in investigation against Andrew Wakefield from over 15 years ago doesn’t say what you current position is on vaccines or, as mentioned above, even your position on vaccines then. And you could also support/believe in some vaccines; but not others. The fact that you refuse to answer what vaccines you have received over the past few years and which ones you endorse/support just continuation of your INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY AND STUPIDITY, STUPIDITY BECAUSE YOU THINK PEOPLE WILL JUST IGNORE THIS AND TAKE YOUR WORD.

@ Wendy Stephen

It isn’t worth responding to you. You obviously either really don’t understand what I write, thus STUPID, and/or you don’t want to understand what I write, thus DISHONEST.
In either case, YOU ARE A STUPID, DISHONEST, ASSHOLE

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “Previously from Dangerous Bacon…………..
“Congrats on saying you back MMR” [6/8/22]
As I’ve written umpteen times, posting once or twice support for a vaccine doesn’t compensate for hundreds of other posts that could be used by antivaxxers. In addition, even if you were to post over and over that you support MMR, doesn’t say if that is the only vaccine you support.

From Joel Harrison…………………
“Even Wakefield wasn’t really anti-vax…”

Nope, in the beginning Wakefield probably wasn’t antivax, just trying to make money; but since then he has become the darling of antivaxxers, attending their conventions, etc.

YOU ARE A STUPID, DISHONEST, ASSHOLE

Does anyone have an extra copy of the antivax playbook? I lost mine…

@ Everyone

As you have probably noticed, Wendy Stephen has no problem pointing out over and over again any mistakes I’ve made, even though I readily admitted them; yet, even for something as trivial as giving a reference to a quote by me, not only standard practice; but to ensure that others following this exchange also can find the source, she balked, though finally after refusing several times, gave the reference. Quite simply Stephen readily attacks others; but even on trivial matters refuses to take responsibility.

Is Stephen pro or anti vaccines? She claims she is not anti vaccines and notes that on rare occasions she has supported MMR. However, this doesn’t say whether she supports any other vaccines or ignores that her continuous posting of comments about the Urabe vaccine that “caused” her daughter’s unilateral hearing loss can be seen by antivaxxers as attack on vaccines in general. If she wants to and wanted to make clear that she is NOT antivax, her comments should include something like: “The Urabe strain mumps virus used in the MMR unfortunately did cause rare unilateral loss of hearing; but still prevented exponentially more unilateral hearing losses from the actual mumps, around 5%, and, now with change to Jeryl Lyn strain mumps virus, the odds of unilateral hearing loss is extremely extremely rare, so the benefits of the current MMR are overwhelming. However, as I continue to write, I think the commission that admitted that the Urabe caused my daughter’s unilateral hearing loss; yet, refused any compensation was WRONG and I will continue to remind people of just how wrong/unfair they were.”

And when accused of being antivax or, at least giving ammunition to antivaxxers, she draws attention to her major helping Brian Deer with evidence that overwhelmingly found Andrew Wakefield to be a dishonest fraud, which I APPLAUD. You can find the article at: Brian Deer (2020 Sep 5). “The double agent who brought down the anti-vaccine fanatics.” The Daily Mail. Just cut and paste the title into Google search. But, on re-reading Deer’s article I noticed something:

“The brand of MMR that Wendy’s daughter had received (discontinued in 1992) contained a strain of live mumps virus called Urabe AM9. In rare cases, this was sporadically causing complications of mumps — the very problem it was meant to prevent. In Wendy’s daughter’s case, it had caused permanent deafness in one ear. ‘I have obviously got a lot more material,’ Wendy wrote to me. ‘I merely ask if there is anything at all, as a journalist with an established interest in MMR, you can do to highlight the plight of the forgotten children who do have merit in their cases.’ . . Wakefield emailed her. ‘I am most impressed by your tenaciousness and resourcefulness,’ he flattered her, referring to her posts on websites about Urabe. He said that he wanted her help on a ‘chronology’ of that saga; he had spotted a campaigning opportunity. Wendy was thrilled. She was, at heart, a mother defending her child — and ‘I have plans for these people,’ he told her of those who licensed the two withdrawn brands of MMR. ‘I intend to make assure their place in History [sic]. I will not rest while injustice continues.’ But he didn’t do any of that. He didn’t help her at all. His interest in Urabe wasn’t to aid parents but to concoct a preposterous conspiracy theory.”

So, did Stephen begin to help Brian Deer because of her opposition to antivaxxers or her anger at being betrayed by Andrew Wakefield? Quite simply just one more example of her obsession with the Urabe mumps vaccine and her daughter’s unilateral hearing loss. I should remind the reader that on numerous occasions I supported Stephen in her complaint about not receiving compensation; but I also emphasized that I think ALL children with disabilities and their families should be helped at much higher levels than currently. After all, for instance, unilateral hearing loss from either the mumps vaccine or mumps is still unilateral hearing loss, considered a 20% disability. No comment from Stephen. So, it seems that her continuous comments over a decade after commission denial of compensation and 30 years after her daughter’s unilateral hearing loss has nothing to do with being pro or anti vaccine, just an “obsessive compulsive” behavior. Fascinating that according to Deer she was a psychiatric nurse. As the say goes: “doctor heal thyself”.

In any case, her continued refusal to say which vaccines she has received during the recent past and which vaccines she endorses, I think nails it; that is, she may NOT be anti-vaccine; but certainly isn’t a strong advocate for them. And, once more, her continuous comments potentially give ammunition to antivaxxers and her refusal to admit even trivial errors in her comments says a lot about her.

Please, anyone who reads this, not you Wendy Stephen, but some independent source, let me know if you disagree and why. As I have explained over and over, if I made a mistake, I am quite willing to admit it.

@Dangerous Bacon

“Your date is wrong (the first comment in this thread wasn’t until July 1), but yes, you did indicate support for the MMR, also slyly slipping in a statement about how your lawyer had connected the MMR with autism. Apologies for forgetting that.”

What I stated was, that on 6th August, you said, ““Congrats on saying you back MMR” and 48 hrs later on 8th august you said” “noting Wendy’s previous dodge of being OK with a particular mumps vaccine that would rarely be given on its own, rather than endorsing the MMR”

What’s the problem with my dates?

Your style is very reminiscent of Joel’s as are your mistakes, maybe you should spend less time with him.

And as for this bit…… “how your lawyer had connected the MMR with autism.”

Have you read the quote? In your haste to challenge me and desire to shout me down, you have misread the quote. (as did Joel funnily enough)

The lawyer did not say what you said they did.

What the lawyer said was “needs to be completed” ie future tense/not yet done/taken place/not yet the case/….got it!

There can be very few people who don’t know that the UK litigation failed because they couldn’t connect the MMR with autism! Someone erroneously saying that the lawyer HAD made a connection between MMR and autism on the back of a quote which doesn’t say that, would ordinarily (on here) be labelled stupid, dishonest, (maybe even moron) but absolutely, positively, anti vaxxer.

Finally, remember this bit re Informed Consent?

“The problem is, your definition of informed consent re vaccination exists in your head and not in law, established medical practice or even common sense. It’s like something out of Alice in Wonderland.”

You may be interested in this, a form to obtain Informed Consent for Covid vaccine dated 23/8/22 …………………..

INFORMED CONSENT FOR ADMINISTRATION OF COVID-19 VACCINE

This consent form contains important information to help you decide whether to have the Covid-19 vaccine. Please read carefully and ask any questions before you sign.

“READ EXHIBIT A, FACT SHEET FOR PATIENTS FROM VACCINE MANUFACTURER BEFORE SIGNING CONSENT.”
informed consent for administration of covid-19 vaccine
https://www.centrastate.com › sites › 2021/08

Guess the state of New Jersey’s definition of what is required to secure Informed Consent for vaccination isn’t based in law, good medical practice or common sense and straight out of Alice in Wonderland too, huh?

And as for Humpty Dumpty………….I’ll return the sentiment.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

What’s the problem with my dates?

Slashed dates are mm/dd/yyyy in the U.S., not dd/mm/yyyy. Simple misunderstanding.

@Joel

Oh wow, I’m reeling from shock! Joel has applauded me AND he’s almost (but not quite) conceded that I’m not an anti vaxxer!! He ruined the moment by saying I’m “not a strong advocate for them”.

If by that you mean that I refuse to issue a blanket recommendation for all vaccines (explained all this before but never mind) you would be correct. I have previously explained (a) I never advise anyone to have vaccines because even the most pro vaccine advocate must surely concede that vaccines come with contraindications for some groups who should not receive them (I have a family member who cannot have certain vaccines because of an egg allergy) (b) I never tell anyone not to have vaccines, I believe that to be a personal choice and refuse to comment if I’m ever asked.

And as for this bit……………………….

“her continuous comments potentially give ammunition to antivaxxers”

Wasn’t it you who said……………. “Even Wakefield wasn’t really anti-vax…”

Don’t think anything I’ve ever posted comes close to that!

And then there’s this bit……………………………..

“her refusal to admit even trivial errors in her comments says a lot about her.”

References/examples for errors and refusals to correct, please?

Let me put a question to you which if you’re as learned as you say you are should make you stop and think.
You may be aware that here in the UK reports are appearing in the media of awards being made to families in respect of covid 19 vaccine injuries. Do you consider their actions to be anti vax in that they are circulating material which reinforces the fact that vaccines are not always entirely safe and can have serious consequences or is that a ‘Joel rule’ specifically reserved for me?
Is it only my family story which you view to be providing “ammunition” to the anti vaxxers or do you view anyone publicising a VDPS award to be assisting anti vaxxers?

Would you say this could be “seen by antivaxxers as attack on vaccines in general”?.

Again, is it only a ‘Joel rule’ for me?

And then we have this bit…………………….

“Quite simply Stephen readily attacks others; but even on trivial matters refuses to take responsibility.”
Source/examples please, Joel.

Although this post started off on a more pleasant note I have to say things have slipped a little with the repeated use of my surname when referring to me.

I think that says a lot.

@ Wendy Stephen

It isn’t worth responding to you. But, all the same, first, doesn’t matter that your lawyer’s quote was for the future, it still was posted by you without any support or rejection.

You write: “(a) I never advise anyone to have vaccines because even the most pro vaccine advocate must surely concede that vaccines come with contraindications for some groups who should not receive them (I have a family member who cannot have certain vaccines because of an egg allergy) (b) I never tell anyone not to have vaccines, I believe that to be a personal choice and refuse to comment if I’m ever asked.”

Maybe at some time you mentioned the above and maybe not; but it would have been quite simple to include it in this exchange, e.g., about egg allergies; but as a retired nurse, believing vaccines ONLY a personal choice and refusing to even comment if asked says a lot. And if someone had an egg allergy, I would explain to them that they could decide not to take that particular vaccines; but would still encourage them to get others. Actually for egg allergies, the CDC writes the following: “Recommendations for flu vaccination of persons with egg allergy have not changed since the 2018-2019 flu season. CDC recommends: “Persons with a history of egg allergy who have experienced only hives after exposure to egg should receive flu vaccine. Any licensed and recommended flu vaccine (i.e., any form of IIV or RIV) that is otherwise appropriate for the recipient’s age and health status may be used.
Persons who report having had reactions to egg involving symptoms other than hives, such as angioedema, respiratory distress, lightheadedness, or recurrent emesis; or who required epinephrine or another emergency medical intervention, may similarly receive any licensed and recommended flu vaccine (i.e., any form of IIV or RIV) that is otherwise appropriate for the recipient’s age and health status. The selected vaccine should be administered in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting (including, but not necessarily limited to hospitals, clinics, health departments, and physician offices). Vaccine administration should be supervised by a health care provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic conditions.
A previous severe allergic reaction to flu vaccine, regardless of the component suspected of being responsible for the reaction, is a contraindication to future receipt of the vaccine.” [CDC.Flu Vaccine and People with Egg Allergies]

So, many with egg allergies can still safely get the flu vaccine and flu is not fun, at best can miss school or work for a week or more, miserable, many hospitalized and an average in US of around 30,000 deaths per year. So, you wouldn’t even explain how, for instance, flu vaccine can prevent the aforementioned. I’m so glad you retired as a nurse. I don’t know any nurses who don’t try to help people avoid illness. And I was an adjunct professor for a time at a nursing school.

You write: “Oh wow, I’m reeling from shock! Joel has applauded me AND he’s almost (but not quite) conceded that I’m not an anti vaxxer!! He ruined the moment by saying I’m “not a strong advocate for them”.

I did applaud your helping Brian Deer; but made it clear that your motives may not have been in support of vaccines; but simply because Wakefield betrayed his promises to you. People do things for a variety of motives. Doesn’t change the help you gave; but reinforces my opinion of you, simply obsessed with your daughter’s unilateral hearing loss, not even indicating when asked if you care about other kids who suffered same hearing loss from natural mumps.

You write: “You may be aware that here in the UK reports are appearing in the media of awards being made to families in respect of covid 19 vaccine injuries. Do you consider their actions to be anti vax in that they are circulating material which reinforces the fact that vaccines are not always entirely safe and can have serious consequences or is that a ‘Joel rule’ specifically reserved for me?
Is it only my family story which you view to be providing “ammunition” to the anti vaxxers or do you view anyone publicising a VDPS award to be assisting anti vaxxers?”

I have NO problem admitting that even the best of vaccines can have rare serious side-effects. The difference between me and you is that when I write such I also explain that the benefits outweigh by far the rare serious adverse events. The number of verified serious adverse risks from the covid vaccines is minuscule compared to the number of serious cases, hospitalizations, deaths, and long covid. But thanks for this, another example of your negative view of vaccines, emphasizing rare adverse events and not the exponentially greater benefits.

You write: “References/examples for errors and refusals to correct, please?”

One blatant is claiming that I posted the quote from my article that you posted from the article when I just cut and pasted it. Another is your several refusals to give the reference to it, finally doing it as if you were doing me a favor when, in effect, you were allowing anyone viewing this exchange to access it. Including a reference is a no-brainer for most people. And again, your posting of your lawyer’s comment MMR causes ASD without qualifying it, gives the impression you support it. I repeat, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that there is NOT a link between MMR and ASD. Posting a quote without any context is simply wrong.

And again, just to make absolutely clear, Brian Deer’s article emphasized how much you helped; but also that your motivations were the same as always, your focus on the Urabe vaccine, in this case that Wakefield betrayed you, not because of his antivax position.

And I repeat, at the time Wakefield may NOT have been anti vaccination just wanting to profit from a monovalent measles vaccines by undermining the MMR. However, he lost his job, moved to United States, Austin, Texas, started with partners an alternative medicine clinic; but left shortly thereafter and continues with a substantial income mainly from giving talks at antivaccinationist conventions. So, is he antivax or just publicly acts it to make money? Results are the same, he reinforces antivax beliefs.

And finally, three others besides myself have requested you tell us which vaccines you have received over the past few years. A simple question. But you refuse. What do you have to hide. Fascinating how you continue to ignore much of what I and others write, twist, distort, and take out of context what I have wrote. And you continue to cite early quotes from me that I qualified in later quotes.

“The selected vaccine should be administered in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting (including, but not necessarily limited to hospitals, clinics, health departments, and physician offices). Vaccine administration should be supervised by a health care provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic conditions.”

Risk anaphylactic shock all for a vax that’s on average less than 50% effective and do so on a yearly basis? Nutty.

@ johnlabarge

You write: ““The selected vaccine should be administered in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting (including, but not necessarily limited to hospitals, clinics, health departments, and physician offices). Vaccine administration should be supervised by a health care provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic conditions.”

As usual, you don’t know what you are talking about. First, the vaccine, even with Omicron variant is highly effective at preventing severe disease, not perfect, but less effective at preventing mild disease. Second, the risk of anaphylaxis is extremely small; but almost all vaccines are given either at clinics or doctors offices where epipens are available. So, health care staff can recognize and manage severe allergic conditions. In fact, where I got the covid vaccine, we were required to wait 30 minutes afterwards and where I got the booster, the same.

Why do you keep making a fool of yourself?

That a persoon would be so brainwashed by vax propaganda that they would risk needing an a epipen shot for ‘vax’ that is barely effective if at all (probably not) is the epitome of vax cult worship.

Point is of course, is that vaccine is quite effective. You have admitted you have no data.

@Joel

You have avoided answering my question………………

I didn’t ask you if you had a problem admitting that the best of vaccines can have rare side effects, I asked you if it is “only my family story which you view to be providing “ammunition” to the anti vaxxers or do you view anyone publicising a VDPS award to be assisting anti vaxxers?”

I asked if it was a “Joel rule” reserved specifically for me. So what’s your answer?

Then you said………………………

“And again, your posting of your lawyer’s comment MMR causes ASD without qualifying it, gives the impression you support it. I repeat, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that there is NOT a link between MMR and ASD. Posting a quote without any context is simply wrong.”

You and Dangerous Bacon are not reading the quote correctly. The lawyer did not say that “MMR causes ASD” and I will reuse material I posted to Dangerous Bacon earlier…………………

“There can be very few people who don’t know that the UK litigation failed because they couldn’t connect the MMR with autism! Someone erroneously saying that the lawyer HAD made a connection between MMR and autism on the back of a quote which doesn’t say that, would ordinarily (on here) be labelled stupid, dishonest, (maybe even moron) but absolutely, positively, anti vaxxer”.

You need to rethink this.

For a man who is big on apologies and concessions why is it that when you concede any aspect of what I have posted you use very nebulous responses instead of directly apologising and acknowledging.

Example 1………… “Maybe at some time you mentioned the above and maybe not”
Example 2…………. “I admit that it is possible that on some comments you have mentioned reduced mumps meningitis when vaccination introduced and you endorsed the Jeryl Lynn”

You know full well that I did on both occasions so why the problem in acknowledging that? Why so many double standards for me? Why all the ‘Joel Rules’ why all the ‘tests’ to determine whether or not I’m pro vax or anti vax?

On to the next bit…………………….now you say “Wakefield may NOT have been anti vaccination”

What you previously said was……………. “Even Wakefield wasn’t really anti-vax…”

Spot the difference?

@ Wendy Stephen

Oops! I wrote I was adjunct professor at nursing school. Nope, was adjunct staff involved in both teaching and research. And the school had active programs to get people in rural areas and inner cities vaccinated and promoted through courses and such programs vaccines. So, I expect you will mention I claimed adjunct professor, ignoring that I immediately corrected it.

@ johnlabarge

I should have mentioned that I got the Moderna Covid mRNA booster at Costco. Administered by two nurses with epipens on table and required to sit in chairs near table for 30 minutes.

You’re kidding yourself. The influence and corruption of Pharma is so epic that there was an opiate crisis in the United States and a TV series made about it.

If the phama bribed the goverment, why there are many opioid cases against it ?
As for opiods, everyone knows they are addictive.They were indeed false marketing, but this is not bribing

The influence and corruption of Pharma is so epic that there was an opiate crisis in the United States and a TV series made about it.

Two, at least. I guess Big pHARMa’s tendrils don’t reach into the entertainment industry.

Alice in Wonderland rides again.

To refresh Wendy’s memory – she claimed that Scotland was depriving patients of informed consent to be vaccinated because they weren’t receiving a manufacturer’s insert, despite the fact that Scottish health care providers obtain informed consent by other means.
In a feeble attempt to prop up this crank claim, Wendy now points to what she claims is official New Jersey state policy re informed consent. Which it isn’t. The site she links to (I had to dig up the Covid-19 vaccine info from a separate site link) is that of one health care provider in New Jersey_ which gives patients a manufacturer’s insert as well as its own consent form. This has nothing to do with official state policy, or with what occurs in Scotland.

Sloppiness or more dishonesty on Wendy’s part? You decide.

Wendy is also repeating that she can’t recommend vaccines because, gee, some patients might have contraindications to receiving them. How silly. Vaccine advocates do not insist that everyone must receive vaccines regardless of patient status (that’s the kind of nonsense repeated by antivaxers ad nauseum). Saying one supports a vaccine or vaccines is not tantamount to declaring that everyone must get them under all conceivable circumstances.

To make it easier for Wendy, here’s the question, rephrased: assuming there are no allergies or other medical contraindications to receiving them, which vaccines on the current pediatric and adult schedules (or otherwise recommended by public health experts) do you support and recommend that people get for themselves and their children?

If you can’t or won’t answer that question in a straightforward manner, or refuse to support any vaccine other than MMR (which you did in a backhanded way, while repeating multiple antivaccine tropes), then it becomes even more obvious that you’re an antivaxer.

@ Dangerous Bacon

“To refresh Wendy’s memory – she claimed that Scotland was depriving patients of informed consent to be vaccinated because they weren’t receiving a manufacturer’s insert, despite the fact that Scottish health care providers obtain informed consent by other means”

Not true. Scottish healthcare providers are obtaining “consent” to vaccination but Informed Consent as defined in law requires that all available current information re the vaccine be provided to the patient PRIOR to vaccination and the most efficient way of doing that, is via the PIL. Your statement that Scottish children weren’t receiving the manufacturers insert (as I have stated over and over) is incorrect. For the most part they DO receive it, only AFTER receiving the vaccine which is not compliant with what is required for Informed Consent.

Would you like to comment, not on why they don’t get the PIL, (because they do) but on why they only get it afterwards and not as recommended?

Don’t you see a difference between “recommending” a vaccine and supporting vaccines? Once again, I would never, ever issue a blanket recommendation for vaccines for the reasons I have already disclosed. With the exception of the Pluserix MMR I wouldn’t issue a blanket condemnation of vaccines either. I would never recommend that someone has a vaccine, that’s a personal choice specific to the individual. I do support vaccination but I also support personal choice as to whether or not someone has them. I do not make the jump that you two invariably do in immediately labelling someone anti vax if for some reason they do not have a specific vaccine.

You should also bear in mind that the UK system is different to that in the US. Here the JCVI determines the specifics of who all should receive a certain vaccine which is then implemented by the NHS. That means that vaccine schedules are defined by age cohorts and underlying specific medical conditions. I am aware that letters inviting local people for pneumococcal vaccine are doing the rounds but I will not receive one because I am not in the age range and don’t have the underlying medical conditions.

I won’t have the vaccine not because I’m an anti vaxxer but because I don’t qualify as is the situation with a number of vaccines ie the shingles vaccine, again I am not in the age range to have the vaccine.

You and Joel have some weird ‘tests’ for what makes an individual an anti vaxxer which differs significantly from the true definition. You appear to suggest that any and all dissemination of vaccine related events, experiences,facts, opinions which do not portray vaccination in a positive light is the work of an anti vaxxer.

I have already posed a question to Joel and I will ask you something similar. Some children in the UK and elsewhere suffered narcolepsy after Pandemrix vaccine for which they received compensation. Coverage of those stories reached the media. Do you consider the parties to be anti vaxxers in saying my child was injured by the vaccine and received compensation?

(That portrays vaccination in a negative light)

The feeling I have is that your definition of an anti vaxxer has been concocted between the two of you specifically for me because I won’t adopt your thinking, dump all logic and reality and tell the world that all vaccines are a wonderful thing and everyone should have them. I take the view that the only vaccine decisions which concern me are the choices I make with regard to the vaccines I have.

More dodging and ducking, not to mention perseveration.

Others on RI and elsewhere have noted that people who express antivax views while vehemently denying they are antivaccine or even proclaiming they are “100% pro-vaccine”*, mostly go silent when asked which if any vaccines they recommend.

It’s what you might call a “tell”.

Denice earlier in this thread directed the following comment at you:

“Let me add my name to the list.
Which vaccines have you taken in the past few years?

Any Covid? Flu? Shingles? Any common for adults?

If you support vaccines there are some you support.”

It’s not a “weird test” as you put it – it’s common sense that someone who has objections to some aspect of vaccine policy (however logical or illogical they may be) but isn’t antivaccine overall, would willingly share what vaccines they support.

I can understand someone who’s been harmed by a vaccine (or thinks that’s the case) developing a prejudice against vaccines in general. Using deception and dishonesty to lobby others to fear vaccination is not excusable.

*in this camp are RFK Jr. and James Lyons-Weiler, both hardcore antivaxers who pretend to be pro-vaccine. Lyons-Weiler has proclaimed himself “an objective, pro-vaccine rational scientist” while continually promoting lurid antivax tropes and even calling vaccines “filthy, nasty vials of toxic sludge”.

@ Dangerous Bacon

“Using deception and dishonesty to lobby others to fear vaccination is not excusable”.

Firstly, I absolutely agree with you 100%.

That said, I have never used deception and dishonesty to lobby others to fear vaccination. If my true story of how my daughter was injured by the Pluserix vaccine offends you that’s one thing but there’s no deception or dishonesty in any aspect of the story.

The fact that my daughter was found to be vaccine injured may make you uneasy but it’s true.

If my lawful portrayal of what constitutes Informed Consent offends you then again that’s one thing but nothing I have written here on that topic has been challenged by anyone other than you and Joel despite my invitation to do so and an offer to retract and apologise if I am proven wrong.

Writing about the legal interpretation for informed consent and how some current practices in vaccination campaigns here in Scotland are not complying with it correctly isn’t dishonest or a deception.

Your wrongful interpretation of my lawyers comment that MMR caused autism would be a good example of someone using deception and dishonesty to lobby for others to fear vaccination (were it a true account of what was said)……………but that’s not what was said and it wasn’t me who said it!

That ‘s a bit of a “tell”!

“Others on RI and elsewhere have noted that people who express antivax views while vehemently denying they are antivaccine or even proclaiming they are “100% pro-vaccine”*, mostly go silent when asked which if any vaccines they recommend.”

I have explained to you over and over that I will never “recommend” vaccines to anyone else and my reasons for adopting that stance. Refusing to recommend vaccines is not an indication that someone is an anti vaxxer.

Denice asked me…………….

“If you support vaccines there are some you support.”

On 11th August in a reply to you, I confirmed……………

“I do support vaccination”

Now, with regard to this bit……………………

“More dodging and ducking, not to mention perseveration”

Why are you and Joel both dodging my question which requires a yes/no answer. I put this to Joel earlier. (Update, it’s twice for both of you now)

“Both of you, (for you it’s twice) haven’t answered whether or not you view families distributing the fact that they have received an award in respect of a vaccine induced injury from the VDPS as anti vax for spreading material that portrays vaccination in a negative light?”

No one is ganging up on poor Wendy for refusing to specify which vaccines she (allegedly) supports. Others who pretend support for vaccination while spreading antivax memes have been similarly challenged to back up that “support” with concrete recommendations for specific vaccines. Almost always they go silent, or duck and evade as Wendy has.

I answered Wendy’s question earlier.

To repeat: it’s understandable that someone who’s been harmed by a vaccine (or believes that’s the case), or describes that happening to a family member would preach against vaccines. What’s inexcusable is for that person to use deception and misinformation to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about vaccination – as Wendy has, with all her fact-free nattering about lack of informed consent and how it’s allegedly reasonable for parents to fear vaccines based on such nonsense. “Distributing fact” is fine: distributing lies is not.

Sorry Wendy doesn’t like my answer.

Thanks to Wendy, I now have an Association earworm.

Who’s posting out from under her basement
Spreading a meme that’s farcically wrong
Who’s bending down to fart out a non-fact
Everyone knows it’s Wendy

Cause Wendy has antivax ties
Revealed when she’s telling lies

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “I didn’t ask you if you had a problem admitting that the best of vaccines can have rare side effects, I asked you if it is “only my family story which you view to be providing “ammunition” to the anti vaxxers or do you view anyone publicising a VDPS award to be assisting anti vaxxers?” I asked if it was a “Joel rule” reserved specifically for me. So what’s your answer?

The point is, and as usual you avoid it, that you are the one who has been posting numerous comments on this and other blogs, so it is your comments that are most noticeable. It is you who focuses on the rare, albeit serious, unilateral hearing loss that your daughter suffered from the Urabe vaccine. And it is you who seldom if ever includes any mention that overall vaccines prevent exponentially more serious problems. And you didn’t even support my statement that society should give better support to all families with disabled children. Yep, rare unilateral hearing loss from Urabe vaccine; but 5% of kids with natural mumps also suffered various versions of unilateral hearing loss, exponentially more than from the Urabe vaccine. Just another example of how everything centers around you and your kids. I care about ALL children

You write, quoting me: ““And again, your posting of your lawyer’s comment MMR causes ASD without qualifying it, gives the impression you support it. I repeat, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that there is NOT a link between MMR and ASD. Posting a quote without any context is simply wrong.”

You write:

“You and Dangerous Bacon are not reading the quote correctly. The lawyer did not say that “MMR causes ASD” and I will reuse material I posted to Dangerous Bacon earlier…………………
“There can be very few people who don’t know that the UK litigation failed because they couldn’t connect the MMR with autism! Someone erroneously saying that the lawyer HAD made a connection between MMR and autism on the back of a quote which doesn’t say that, would ordinarily (on here) be labelled stupid, dishonest, (maybe even moron) but absolutely, positively, anti vaxxer”. “At that time I was advised by our solicitors that………….

Your lawyers quote “doesn’t say that?”

Your actual quote of your lawyer from a previous exchange was: “At that time I was advised by our solicitors that…………. “Some further significant scientific research needs to be completed which strongly points to a link between MMR/MR and ASD” https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2022/07/22/novavax-and-moth-cells-the-latest-antivax-fear-mongering/#comments

“strongly points to a link between MMR/MR and ASD” Wow! I would say anyone reading that quote would read it as your lawyers believing there is a strong link. Just how STUPID are you?

I have pointed this out numerous times, that including a quote without qualifying it with your opinion, can easily be seen as an endorsement.
So, finally at the very end of this long exchange of comments, over 970, you mentioned the above to Dangerous Bacon. So, literally you refused to deal with my pointing out numerous times problems with quoting others without any explanation of your position, until the very end. Again, your lawyers quote: “Some further significant scientific research needs to be completed which strongly points to a link between MMR/MR and ASD”

“Strongly points to a link”. Yikes, if that isn’t going against an overwhelming mass of evidence that there is no link, what is and you quoted it without saying, for instance, you disagree with your lawyer. Just one more example of how incredibly DISHONEST you are.

You write: “On to the next bit…………………….now you say “Wakefield may NOT have been anti vaccination” What you previously said was……………. “Even Wakefield wasn’t really anti-vax…” Spot the difference?

And, as usual, you ignore that I followed up with:
” Nope, in the beginning Wakefield probably wasn’t antivax, just trying to make money; but since then he has become the darling of antivaxxers, attending their conventions, etc.”
“And I repeat, at the time Wakefield may NOT have been anti vaccination just wanting to profit from a monovalent measles vaccines by undermining the MMR. However, he lost his job, moved to United States, Austin, Texas, started with partners an alternative medicine clinic; but left shortly thereafter and continues with a substantial income mainly from giving talks at antivaccinationist conventions. So, is he antivax or just publicly acts it to make money? Results are the same, he reinforces antivax beliefs.”

Typical of you to ignore any later comments by me if you can find earlier ones, especially when my earlier one about Wakefield implied his position at the time you made his acquaintance, not his later position which I then explained.

And finally you emphasized that I applauded your extensive help to Brian Deer which led to his articles totally proving Wakefield was a fraud; but you ignored that I also pointed out your motivation wasn’t because you opposed his antivax views; but because he betrayed his promise to you to deal with Urabe vaccine and even used Urabe vaccine for his own position. Quite simply, based on Brian Deer’s article and your subsequent multiple comments, everything is about you and your daughter, not about being against antivaxxers, etc. And not about caring about anyone else.

So, as usual, you avoid points I make, ignore when I correct them, distort, twist, and take out of context, etc. Though it fits you perfectly, I will omit the A word; but you are an EXTREMELY DISHONEST PERSON.

I repeat; YOU ARE AN EXTREMELY DISHONEST PERSON

@ Joel

“You write: “I didn’t ask you if you had a problem admitting that the best of vaccines can have rare side effects, I asked you if it is “only my family story which you view to be providing “ammunition” to the anti vaxxers or do you view anyone publicising a VDPS award to be assisting anti vaxxers?” I asked if it was a “Joel rule” reserved specifically for me. So what’s your answer?”

I’m still asking and you haven’t provided an answer, you’ve merely gone off topic as you did the last time I asked.

It requires a yes/no answer! Do you consider the stories circulating in the press by relatives of those compensated at the VDPS (for Covid vaccine injuries) the act of an anti vaxxer?

And please refrain from placing an interpretation on what my lawyer said instead of accepting what he actually said. Your guesswork in anticipating what the lawyer believed and how readers might interpret it all, calls for the operation of his mind and theirs, something you are ill equipped to do .

Just admit you got the quote wrong right from the off. First, you erroneously ascribed it to me then you and Dangerous Bacon stated that the lawyer said there was a link between MMR and autism neither of which is accurate. Between you, you have probably relayed more anti vax sentiments and provided more ammunition in this thread than I ever have.

Instead of grilling me maybe somebody should be wondering about you two?

And as for your attempts at wriggling out of your comment re Wakefield, firstly in attempting to alter what you’d originally said and giving it different meaning and then justifying the alteration with some convoluted story on how things changed over time.

Need I say more.

@ Wendy Stephen

It is SO OBVIOUS that you either don’t understand what I write, thus EXTREMELY STUPID and/or don’t want to understand what I write, thus EXTREMELY DISHONEST. Basically, I think you are both. And Dangerous Bacon has also clearly shown the above. So, KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF. And it takes a lot of effort not to use the A-word to describe you as it is quite accurate

@Joel

You’re right, I don’t understand half of what you write or why you would write it, so if that makes me stupid, so be it. I’m happy to go with that.

However, for as stupid as I may be, I didn’t write this…………………….“Even Wakefield wasn’t really anti-vax” and I don’t resort to name calling when I’m losing an argument.

And it’s me who’s making a fool of myself……..????

The similarities between you and Dangerous Bacon are quite staggering (right down to your errors) and the invention of pro vax/anti vax tests and rules specially for me, so it would come as no surprise to me that you mention him as your supporter.

Both of you, (for you it’s twice) haven’t answered whether or not you view families distributing the fact that they have received an award in respect of a vaccine induced injury from the VDPS as anti vax for spreading material that portrays vaccination in a negative light?

It’s a yes/no answer.

Your quest re vaccination is not to enter into earnest debate and discussion but to use every means at your disposal to shout down anything and everything you perceive to be anti vaccination whether or not it actually is and irrespective of the facts. You have zero consideration for the fact that (a) someone can have vaccines but take issue with a particular one (b) someone may not have every vaccine not because they avoid it but because they are not scheduled to have them according to the healthy authorities (c) some individuals may be advised by the health authorities that they are contraindicated for certain vaccines/repeat doses due to adverse events with previous ones.

That’s the reality and it doesn’t make anyone anti vax.

To quote Dr John Clements, a vaccine safety expert at the World Health Organisation:
“There is no perfectly safe or completely effective vaccine, but we all benefit from them”.

@ Wendy Stephen

It is SO OBVIOUS that you either don’t understand what I write, thus EXTREMELY STUPID and/or don’t want to understand what I write, thus EXTREMELY DISHONEST. Basically, I think you are both. And Dangerous Bacon has also clearly shown the above. So, KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF. And it takes a lot of effort not to use the A-word to describe you as it is quite accurate

@ Wendy Stephen

It is obvious that nothing I write will get you to admit even the most trivial error; e.g., not giving a reference to a quote or including a quote in a comment without stating your position on it, nor admitting that you helped Brian Deer bring down Andrew Wakefield, not because you disagreed with his role in creating antivaxxers; but simply because he betrayed your trust. And, as I’ve pointed out, you continue to ask questions that I have answered in one or more previous comments. And you also reject Dangerous Bacon and ignore Denise Walter and Has. I would bet that even if another half dozen totally independent followers of this exchange were to support all or most of my comments, you would simply reject them as well, even if Orac chimed in.

On the other hand, if some independents comments and/or Orac pointed out one or more flaws in some of my comments, I would take them seriously, and, if, on reflection I found them correct, I would readily admit it.

What would be great; but will never happen is if a committee of 10 or more totally independent people, perhaps, university students and faculty were to carefully review this and a previous exchange between us. I would bet even then you would reject it. I wouldn’t. As I’ve written, my self-esteem, my sense of self, is not built on being right all of the time, though based on my over 40 years of education, training, and experience I usually am right, if wrong on anything, I have NO problem admitting and changing; but given how you ignore what I write, pick and choose a few sentences, ignoring the rest of the paragraph or following paragraph, etc, I doubt you ever would.

So feel free to keep on commenting, a waste of effort given no independent group to evaluate it.

@Dangerous Bacon

“I answered Wendy’s question earlier.

To repeat: it’s understandable that someone who’s been harmed by a vaccine (or believes that’s the case), or describes that happening to a family member would preach against vaccines.”

Neither you nor Joel has answered the question.

You were both asked (three times now) if in your opinion someone who has received an award by the VDPS and subsequently conveyed that outcome in the media (ie that the vaccine has been found to have caused injury) is an anti vaxxer?

It’s a yes/ no answer.

The fact that you think it’s “understandable” that someone who is vaccine injured “or believes that’s the case would “preach against vaccines” doesn’t answer the question.
Unless of course this your convoluted way of saying ‘yes’ ie someone conveying an accurate account of an award at the VDPS would be preaching against vaccines and ergo is an anti vaxxer but you don’t want to say so directly and as a concession say it would be “understandable”.

@ Joel

I think “independent” observers, would find that, I have provided a link to the article, I am not required to comment on the substance of a quote but to merely correctly reference it (which I did), and that you have concocted your own interpretation of my actions in the absence of any evidence or proof to support it.

“I would bet that even if another half dozen totally independent followers of this exchange were to support all or most of my comments, you would simply reject them as well, even if Orac chimed in.”

Is it worth pointing out that they have chosen not to, but if in any circumstances Orac did, then I would respect that and heed it. Personally, I think he’s to be applauded for allowing the discussion on some very opposing viewpoints.

@ Wendy Stephen

I explained several times above; but you ignore, that I have nothing against people telling about serious adverse reactions caused by a vaccine or any other medical treatment (note that one can easily find adverse reactions to vaccines on CDC website, FDA website, British websites, Canadian, WHO, etc. etc); however, if they do as you and repeat it over and over in comments on various blogs without ever mentioning that it was a rare event and that the vaccine or medical treatment conferred exponentially better outcomes, yep, I have a problem. As I have written, you could have mentioned that natural mumps causes 5% of kids to have unilateral hearing problems compared to a few cases out of millions of vaccines and that, given the odds, event the Urabe mumps vaccine was well worth getting. Then you could have included that the Jeryl Lynn mumps vaccine had far fewer adverse reactions. But you just continue to post comment after comment about what happened to your daughter. Especially given you are a nurse, so supposedly your training taught you that any medical intervention has both positives and potential negatives. So, nope, not a yes and no answer; but depends. Something you seem incapable of understanding, that is, that things aren’t always black and white. And not understanding that things aren’t always black and white a clear indication that you are STUPID.

And it is clear that you helped Brian Deer, not because you opposed Wakefield’s antivax stuff; but because he broke his promise to you and it is clear from your multiple posts that they are simply because your daughter didn’t receive compensation. Not a word about the benefits of vaccines, well once or twice a quickie about MMR, lost in multiple comments.

And you continue to write: “However, for as stupid as I may be, I didn’t write this…………………….“Even Wakefield wasn’t really anti-vax” and I don’t resort to name calling when I’m losing an argument.”

First, it wasn’t stupid, Wakefield may not have been anti-vax early on, just wanting to undermine MMR vaccine so he could make a fortune on his monovalent measles vaccine; but he clearly is antivax nowadays. I gave additional information that clearly indicated this. I explained this clearly several times and you rejected it. As far as you are concerned once someone gives any type of info they cannot add anything regardless of how valid. And that is just plain STUPID AND DISHONEST. Nope, not name calling; but an accurate depiction. Just an analogy. People have been convicted of serious crimes and imprisoned in US and some States legally are obliged to look at new evidence only within six months of conviction. After that, regardless of how strong the evidence, they can ignore it and allow an innocent person to rot in prison. I guess that would be all right with you.

And, again, you refuse to even concede that not giving references to quotes and not including a quote without clarifying your position are wrong.

So, calling you STUPID and DISHONEST is not name calling; but an accurate description of who you are.

As I wrote, this is a waste of time because you refuse to even concede on trivial issues and to accept that the world isn’t black and white.

@ Wendy Stephen

Just to be clear, I repeat: The world isn’t in black and white. Asking for a yes/no isn’t always a valid question. The fact that you over and over ask for yes/no on every issue indicates that you are STUPID.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “You were both asked (three times now) if in your opinion someone who has received an award by the VDPS and subsequently conveyed that outcome in the media (ie that the vaccine has been found to have caused injury) is an anti vaxxer?
It’s a yes/ no answer.”

On occasion in US in newspapers and TV news there have been reports of severe adverse events, usually in discussion of a lawsuit. However, though not always, at least here, the reports also interview an infectious disease/vaccine expert who concurs with the rare adverse event; but also explains the benefits of the vaccine in question. I don’t know how it is in UK. However, the overwhelming majority of people posting about severe adverse events, in my experience, do so on rabid antivax websites such as Age of Autism. Thus, exaggerating risk and coupling with antivax websites that exaggerate risks, downplay risk/severity of disease, and downplay benefits of vaccines. In my experience and I asked a few colleagues, you are the only one who posts umpteen comments on various blogs, almost always focusing only on your daughter’s unilateral hearing loss from Urabe mumps vaccine. And you have done this for over a decade since she didn’t receive compensation and 30 years since it happened and, as I’ve written over and over, almost never have you mentioned either the exponentially higher risk of hearing loss from actual mumps and/or the high level of protection the vaccine accords and I can’t remember you ever mentioned other vaccines than MMR. Even if you did, would be lost in the umpteen other comments. So, as I’ve said numerous times and you ignore, your continuous focus on a vaccine injury gives ammunition to antivaxxers. And knowing why you went against Wakefield, not because of his antivax research, etc.; but because he broke a promise to you, says it all.

So, I have no problem with people being interviewed when receiving award for a vaccine injury. I accept that though the benefits from vaccines are exponentially greater than the risks, rare risks do occur. I don’t live in a black and white world. And, if you remember, I support that, when the commission ruled that the Urabe vaccine caused your daughter’s hearing loss, she should have received compensation, though less than the max given unilateral hearing loss doesn’t cause total disability.

So, I repeat again, many things are NOT black and white, so, not “a yes/no answer”; but people who want the world to be seen in black and white are STUPID and that is you.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “I am not required to comment on the substance of a quote but to merely correctly reference it (which I did)”

Just how STUPID are you??? If you quote someone in one of your comments, if you don’t say otherwise, it says you support the quote. Just how STUPID are you???

Please explain why you would include a quote that you don’t support and don’t explain this?

@ Joel

“I explained several times above; but you ignore, that I have nothing against people telling about serious adverse reactions caused by a vaccine or any other medical treatment”

Doesn’t even start to answer the question, Joel. You having nothing against “people telling about serious adverse reactions” doesn’t answer whether or not you (and Dangerous Bacon) would say that VDPS award winners in circulating news of an award for a vaccine induced injury were anti vaxxers (the news doesn’t reflect vaccines in a purely positive light which is part of your argument for what makes an anti vaxxer!) Yes or no?

And as for this bit……………………..

“As I have written, you could have mentioned that natural mumps causes 5% of kids to have unilateral hearing problems compared to a few cases out of millions of vaccines and that, given the odds, event the Urabe mumps vaccine was well worth getting.”

Your argument falls down on the passing mention of a “few” kids having unilateral hearing loss versus 5% of kids following naturally occurring mumps infection. Get back to me when you have a percentage for Urabe induced unilateral hearing loss to do a straight comparison and I’ll hear you then.

And as for Urabe containing MMR being “well worth getting”!

You have always made the Urabe problem specific to my daughter but I think it worth mentioning that there were many others with different types of neurological injury within the UK MMR litigation which were never litigated because of the collapse of the ASD/IBD part. I doubt many would agree it was well worth getting since we could all have had a safer alternative in the form of MMR II and more likely than not, avoided the injuries sustained.

The guesstimate for the rate of Urabe vaccine induced mumps meningitis was said to be 1 case per 100 000 doses but the reality was very different. A transcript from a Japanese court case included a very different rate……………

“On 17th September, 1989, Dr. O, Maebashi Medical Association, reported at a Gunma District meeting of the Japan Pediatric Society that 3 children out of 1800 who took MMR vaccination developed aseptic meningitis in Maebashi City, between April and June of the same year”

The Urabe vaccine was “well worth getting”………..really Joel? You might want to revisit that statement with consideration for the fact that MMR II didn’t have a similar problem. Consider it also against the fact that prior to it being introduced in the UK, it had been removed from use in Canada. Consider also that Japan alerted other countries (including the UK) to the problems they were encountering with Urabe and how some prefectures had ceased using it in 1989 and yet the UK kept using it until 1992.

Yip, it surely was the bargain of the year! Only someone not directly affected by it would think it well worth while!!

With regard to your multiple assertions that my posts are simply because my “daughter didn’t receive compensation” ……………….you really sure about that Joel? You have absolutely no idea what the outcome of the case was so why are you creating the impression you do? Just as you made up fanciful unsubstantiated accounts of my other actions so too, are you fabricating explanations for my posts to suit your agenda.

And then there’s this bit .

“The fact that you over and over ask for yes/no on every issue indicates that you are STUPID”.

“Every issue” Joel? It’s actually one direct issue asked multiple times of you and Dangerous Bacon which remains unanswered for some obscure reason.

How about setting aside all the other distractions and just answering the question?

Nothing to do with “rabid anti vax websites”, exaggerating risks”, downplaying the benefits of vaccination etc etc etc

You having “no problem” with people being interviewed after receiving an award doesn’t answer whether or not you view that to be the actions of an anti vaxxer?

Based on your previous posts and the ‘Joel rules’ previously applied to me, the answer has got to be yes but rather than do what you do ie hypothesise as to the correct answer, I asked you directly and gave you an opportunity to represent yourself.

Now, following your ‘rules’ I would be entitled to just make up my own mind on the answer and spread an unsubstantiated, untruthful conclusion just as you have done over and over to me re my actions, beliefs, motivations and lifestyle.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “Doesn’t even start to answer the question, Joel. You having nothing against “people telling about serious adverse reactions” doesn’t answer whether or not you (and Dangerous Bacon) would say that VDPS award winners in circulating news of an award for a vaccine induced injury were anti vaxxers (the news doesn’t reflect vaccines in a purely positive light which is part of your argument for what makes an anti vaxxer!) Yes or no?”

I made it absolutely clear that i didn’t assume those interviewed on the news, etc were antivaxxers; but those who posted articles and/or comments, depending on what they wrote, on antivax blogs such as Age of Autism, Safe Minds, National Vaccine Information Center, Children’s Defense Fund, etc. would have to be as STUPID as you not to realize they were posting and supporting rabid antivax blogs. Don’t you understand English?

You write: “Your argument falls down on the passing mention of a “few” kids having unilateral hearing loss versus 5% of kids following naturally occurring mumps infection. Get back to me when you have a percentage for Urabe induced unilateral hearing loss to do a straight comparison and I’ll hear you then.”

“Case Reports, Case Series, and Uncontrolled Observational Studies

A 7-year-old girl who had audiometry 2 years earlier for an unstated reason developed total deafness in the left ear 11 days after an injection of MMR. This was not preceded by any symptoms such as dizziness or earache. There was no recovery of hearing (Nabe-Nielsen and Walter, 1988a,b). A 3-year-old girl was evaluated because of bilateral deafness. At the age of 15 months she received MMR. Ten days later, she developed high fever, headache, ataxia, and irritability, which lasted several days. Nystagmus was noted. She recovered spontaneously, but soon after she was noted to have hearing impairment. On evaluation at the age of 3 years, she had moderate to severe bilateral, unremitting sensorineural deafness (Brodsky and Stanievich, 1985).”

[National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 1994. Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Causality. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.]

Note. that in a thorough search of Google and PubMed, all I could find was a few case reports. Above is an example of Thorough search. So, the numbers are far too small in comparison with the 4 – 5 % from natural mumps. It is highly unlikely that no papers, reviews, etc. have found higher figures if they existed.

You write: “You have always made the Urabe problem specific to my daughter but I think it worth mentioning that there were many others with different types of neurological injury within the UK MMR litigation which were never litigated because of the collapse of the ASD/IBD part. I doubt many would agree it was well worth getting since we could all have had a safer alternative in the form of MMR II and more likely than not, avoided the injuries sustained.”

I agree that the Jeryl Lyn mumps vaccine was safer; but the Urabe was still much safer than the actual disease. And one could argue how soon the data confirmed this, Yep, maybe they could/should have switched earlier; but as I made absolutely clear in previous exchanges, production and distribution of Jeryl Lyn was involved. And once again, despite everything Urabe was far better than getting natural mumps.

Let’s look at aseptic meningitis. There are tons of studies concerning mumps, mumps vaccines and aseptic meningitis, including a thorough review in the above National Academies of Sciences book. I also have a bunch of articles; but here is one:

“One of the most frequent complications of natural mumps infection is aseptic meningitis, which occurs in up to 10% of individuals not only in children, but also in adults. Aseptic meningitis is a self-limiting disease characterized by the sudden onset of fever with signs and symptoms of meningeal involvement as evidenced by changes in cerebrospinal fluid, including pleocytosis, and an absence of bacteria. Treatment is symptomatic and the majority of patients recover within 1 week.

Prior to 1989, worldwide passive postmarketing surveillance data indicated that vaccination-related mumps meningitis occurred after fewer than 1 in 100,000 vaccine doses. Active surveillance data disclosed an incidence of Urabe strain vaccine-related meningitis of approximately 1 in 233,000 doses . . . The first reports suggesting a relationship between Urabe containing mumps vaccines and the occurrence of aseptic meningitis appeared in 1989, with eight cases of virally confirmed postvaccine aseptic meningitis in Canada, with an estimated incidence of 1/62,000 doses administered.” According to this paper “It is clear from the available data that rates of postvaccine aseptic meningitis vary according to the vaccine strain.”

So, up to 10% from natural compared with 0.000004 or 0.00002 from Urabe vaccine. So, actually it isn’t even just the Urabe vaccine; but the strain. [Marie-Claude Bonnet et al. (2006 Nov 30). Mumps vaccine virus strains and aseptic meningitis. Vaccine; 24: 7037-7045.]

Here’s another: “The incidence of aseptic meningitis was 13/1051 (1.24%)
in patients with symptomatic natural mumps infection and was estimated to be 0.7–1.1% of overall infection in considering asymptomatic infection, and 10/21,465 (0.05%) in vaccine recipients. Although aseptic meningitis is a clear side effect of the mumps vaccine, the incidence is considerably lower than among those with symptomatic natural infection. Our results provide an informative data for consideration to resume mumps vaccine as a part of routine immunization schedule for Japanese children. . . The Japanese national MMR vaccine originally consisted of the Urabe strain and the Japanese government reported a risk of aseptic meningitis with the national MMR vaccine of one case in 500–1000 recipients. Aseptic meningitis was also reported, but with a lower incidence, after vaccination with MMR vaccines produced by four independent manufacturers. For a different batch of MMR vaccine, which included the Urabe strain andwas produced by the same manufacturer, the incidence of aseptic meningitis was less than 1/10,000, suggesting different characteristics compared with the original strain included in the initial Japanese national MMR
vaccine.”

I won’t compute the stats; but it is obvious that natural mumps cases were much higher and again, Urabe vaccine, though always significantly lower, also a range.
[Takao Nagai et al. (2007). A comparative study of the incidence of aseptic meningitis in symptomatic natural mumps patients and monovalent mumps vaccine recipients in Japan. Vaccine; 25: 2742-2747.]

I have another 1/2 dozen papers just about mumps and aseptic meningitis and 585 on mumps, and, yep, don’t disagree that Jeryl Lyn was safer.

You write: “With regard to your multiple assertions that my posts are simply because my “daughter didn’t receive compensation” ……………….you really sure about that Joel? You have absolutely no idea what the outcome of the case was so why are you creating the impression you do?

From our exchange at Every Child By Two:

You wrote: “Under this system you can have ,(as is the case with my daughter) a situation whereby the system acknowledges vaccine damage in an applicant but they are denied financial assistance (I have to word it that way, because the VDPS are strict on saying it is not compensation) because they do not view them to be sufficiently disabled. In short, if acknowledged vaccine damage is not guaged by them to be in excess of 60% of a disablement, the applicant is denied payment irrespective. I have had the support of our MP for many years in fighting this situation.

It was acknowledged by the Secretary of State with responsibility for the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme here in the UK that, on the balance of probability (the test required in the UK to satisfy the VDPS criteria) in respect of my daughter that “on the balance of probabilities it is more likely than not, that the sensorineural deafnes of the left ear was caused by the MMR vaccine” They also added …….” It has been accepted that, on balance of probability vaccination has caused/contributed to Katie Stephen’s disablement. The overall evidence suggests that the MMR vaccine given, which contained the Urabe strain of attenuated mumps virus was biologically capable of causing sensorineural deafness. This vaccine was subsequently removed from use”

And you have repeated the above in various comments on various blogs.

And you continue to ignore that I answered your question that the reason I focus on your comments is you are the only one I know of who has posted literally 100s of comments over a decade mainly focusing on your daughter’s hearing loss and not receiving compensation, on the Urabe vaccine, seldom if ever even mentioning compared to natural mumps, etc. And no, DISHONEST MORON, I’m not going to cut and paste dozens of comments by you.

As for “‘Joel rules’ previously applied to me.”

In your SICK MIND. Not my rules; but logic, science, etc. Just another STUPID comment by you.

As I’ve written over and over, it is your obsession with your daughter’s unilateral hearing loss caused by the Urabe vaccine that drives your comments, 100s over the years, that is why I respond to you. As you are well aware, starting with Every Child By Two I have agreed that, given it was determined the Urabe was responsible, that she should have received compensation; but when you over and over continue with this, people following your comments, especially antivaxxers can use your comments as ammunition. You refuse to even consider this.

And you continue to display your STUPID DISHONESTY regarding not giving a reference to a quote by me and posting what you lawyer wrote without stating whether you agree or disagree.

And even Brian Deer’s article made clear that you help undermine Andrew Wakefield, not because of his contributing to antivaxxers; but because he betrayed your trust. Just another example of your malignant narcissism of focusing purely on yourself and your kids. Which you made clear, for instance, when I suggested we need to increase support to all children with disabilities and their families, not just vaccine-associated cases. After all, even with mumps, exponentially more cases. No comment from you.

YOU ARE NOT ONLY STUPID AND DISHONEST; BUT DESPICABLE, SOMEONE WHO REFUSES TO ADMIT EVEN THE MOST TRIVIAL OF MISTAKES.

How long do the spike protein and mRNA stay in the body? Seems it depends on when you last looked at the CDC website.

@ Wendy Stephen

One more report of hearing loss after mumps vaccine: “There have been nine reports of sensorineural hearing loss after measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) immunisation. In three cases the deafness was unrelated to MMR immunisation. In six cases the cause was unknown and MMR remained a possible aetiology. Any risk associated with attenuated viruses must be weighed against the risks of the natural diseases. Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) immunisation was introduced in the UK in October 1988. To date six million doses of vaccine have been distributed.” [Stewart (1993). Reports of sensorineural deafness after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation.Archives of Disease in Childhood; 69: 153-154]

So 6/6,000,000 = 0.000001 Far far far less than the 4 – 5 % from natural mumps. And since the paper was accepted March 1993, means based on data before, some probably after Urabe abandoned for Jeryl Lyn; but wouldn’t change much

@ Joel

“I agree that the Jeryl Lyn mumps vaccine was safer; but the Urabe was still much safer than the actual disease. And one could argue how soon the data confirmed this, Yep, maybe they could/should have switched earlier; but as I made absolutely clear in previous exchanges, production and distribution of Jeryl Lyn was involved”.

You don’t think that the use of MMR II, containing Jeryl Lynn between 1979 and 1988 in the US was proof enough that it didn’t have the same problems as the Urabe containing MMR’s? (for which it had to be removed from use )

MMR II was used for 9 years in the US before the UK introduced it, surely that, and the significant number of doses administered, evidence the fact that it was safer. MMR II had also been marketed in several other countries before being introduced into the UK ie Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands Germany France and Italy.

So this was the position when the UK introduced MMR vaccine, the MMR II brand had been extensively used for years with no serious reports of adverse events, Pluserix had already been removed from use in Canada for causing aseptic meningitis. The question isn’t about “switching” brands after MMR was marketed, it’s about why with that background, we in the UK didn’t all get MMR II from the off which, with it’s extensive use in many countries, had evidenced the fact it did not have the same risks.

The real question must surely be, how with that background ie causing mumps meningitis In Canada Pluserix met the requirements in the Medicines Act for a licence here in the UK.

And although your individual case reports are very interesting (some of which you got from me) they don’t give me what I asked for ie a direct contrasting percentage of vaccine induced deafness caused by Urabe containing MMR vaccine with that occurring after naturally occurring mumps.

I’ll concede that it’s probably not out there hence the reason you’re not finding it.

You quoted…………(Ps You didn’t say if you agreed with this quote!)

“Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) immunisation was introduced in the UK in October 1988. To date six million doses of vaccine have been distributed.”

Since it was acknowledged that during the problematic period 1988-1992 the vaccine(s) associated with deafness/neurological problems/and or mumps meningitis was Urabe AM 9 containing Pluserix and Immravax then calculations as to rate of risk should have been based not on the total amount of all brands of MMR vaccine administered, but only on the figure for those two. Six million was the total amount of “MMR” distributed not the total amount of the problematic Urabe containing brands.

Eleven months after the launch of the MMR in the UK ten cases of mumps meningitis were reported at the Committee for the Safety of Medicines with the rate calculated against a total MMR uptake of 2.5m doses. Immravax wasn’t marketed at that point and MMR II didn’t ( then or now), have the problem so the risk based on 10 cases should have been calculated against the total number of Pluserix vaccines administered alone.

In Japan the MMR vaccine administered contained Urabe AM 9 (no Jeryl Lynn) which gave a more accurate figure for the rate of AM .

“Based on this, the citizens group independently calculated an occurrence rate of 1 person in 490. This demonstrates that the actual occurrence rate for side effects is over two times that announced by the Health and Welfare Ministry. Because the occurrence of side effects was greater than that originally anticipated the use of the MMR vaccine was discontinued”.

[How the Freedom of Information Act Became Law in Japan

MIYAKE Hiroshi, Attorney Steering Committee member of Citizens ’ Movement Seeking a Freedom of Information Act Director of the Japan Civil Liberties Union Managing Director of Japan Information Clearinghouse May 24, 2002]

The practice of assessing risk against the total number of all MMR vaccines administered doesn’t give the true risk for deafness and or mumps meningitis associated with the Urabe strain in order to contrast that with naturally occurring mumps rates.

@ Wendy Stephen

If the total number of cases of unilateral hearing loss weren’t just for the Urabe then it was even less; but in any case I gave the the number you requested and on and on you go. We’ve gone over the timing numerous times, and as I’ve made clear, your comments, over and over, are based on your malignant narcissism. Only you and your kids count and you betrayed Wakefield, not because of his contributing to antivaccination; but because he betrayed you.

Feel free to comment over and over. You can’t even admit you were wrong to post your lawyer’s comment. You can’t admit you were wrong to post a quote by me without giving the reference. I went back through our exchanges years ago on Every Child By Two and found several times when you suggested a article, which I read, that I admitted I was wrong and I’ve done it hear. YOU ARE A DESPICABLE EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING

@ Joel

“If the total number of cases of unilateral hearing loss weren’t just for the Urabe then it was even less; but in any case I gave the the number you requested and on and on you go”

Joel, take some time and think about this.

Once again, …………….Urabe was only in 2 of the 3 brands used ie Jerly Lynn containing MMR II didn’t have the problems of mumps meningitis and or sensorineural deafness. (Note, positive endorsement for MMR II there Joel)

In one specific time frame between October 1988 (MMR launch in the UK) and September 1989, ten cases of mumps meningitis were reported to the CSM.

Neither Immravax nor MMR II caused the problem of the mumps meningitis reported in September 1989 therefore at that time, the risk should have been quantified like this……………. 10 cases of mumps meningitis were reported on the back of “x” number of Pluserix vaccines having been administered, NOT against the total figure of MMR administered for all brands. That skews the rate of the risk.

How could the risk be accurately quantified since the reported cases were offset against the entire figure for all MMR’s given?

By the time Stewart and Prabhu published (1993) who knows what percentage of the 6m doses were made up of Pluserix, Immravax and MMR II so how would you work out the risk for sensorineural deafness /mumps meningitis against the total number of Urabe containing MMR’s? Someone offered the MMR II brand didn’t have the same risk re mumps meningitis and sensorineural neural deafness as someone offered Pluserix. (Hold it, is that another endorsement for MMR II)

The actual risk of mumps meningitis /deafness was more likely than not, higher than the risk you calculated. The risk might have been even higher if the maths had only included the total number of Pluserix administered.

Ten cases of Mumps meningitis sounds trivial against 2.5m doses of “MMR” but what if the 10 cases had to be pitched against 500,000 doses of Urabe (that’s a guesstimate as an example) containing Pluserix only, wouldn’t you agree that changes the risk significantly?

@ Wendy Stephen

Why do you keep bringing up what happened over 30 years ago? I’m sure I could dredge up many things that happened decades ago. Why can’t you emphasize that the new MMR is excellent? Why can’t you discuss positive advances in public health and why vaccines are important and why the benefits exponentially outweigh the risks? Why? Because you are at heart an antivaxxer that can mainly attack vaccines by dredging up the past. Well, you were a psychiatric nurse. I could dredge up how mental hospitals and psychiatric facilities years ago brutalized patients, so, must apply to you. In fact, I think it probably does???

YOU ARE SICK

@ Wendy Stephen

I have never disagreed that a switch to Jeryl Lyn could/should have occurred sooner; however, I have also emphasized that even the Urabe vaccine caused only a very few cases of hearing loss compared to 5% from natural mumps and also fewer cases of mumps meningitis, also called aseptic meningitis, than from natural mumps. And I also have emphasized that mumps meningitis is a benign condition. Benign doesn’t mean no symptoms, no suffering; but, on the whole, no serious lasting conditions or death. Most cases of mumps meningitis stayed home for a week or so. Some were hospitalized with treatment mainly rehydration and, yep, an infinitesimal few died from the vaccine and also more from natural mumps; but people have died from the common cold, very very few. So, again, even the Urabe mumps vaccine caused far fewer cases of a benign condition. Keep in mind that almost all kids got mumps.

As I’ve said over and over, I don’t live in a perfect world, extremes of black and white. I look at extensive studies to find if any treatment, vaccine, etc confers a much greater benefit than risk, including risk from the natural disease. And I look at advances in technology, FDA approval requirements (much higher for vaccines), and not problems from many decades ago. And I accept sadly that even the best of interventions, whether vaccines or other, sometimes have adverse outcomes.

I was among the first cohort to get the Salk vaccine in 1955. I lived in area that probably got the Cutter vaccine that actually caused about 200 cases of paralysis and 10 deaths. I could have been one of them and I shudder when I think about it. And I could also be the many more who got the Cutter vaccine and were protected against polio. The Cutter vaccine was not a problem with polio vaccine; but a totally incompetent production process; but only a few lots were problematic. However, prior to the polio vaccine, at the time, close to 20,000 cases of permanent paralysis occurred every year. I knew kids with steel braces or in wheel chairs and even met a man in later 1980s who had been in iron lung since early 1950s. The Salk vaccine reduced cases by far more than half, nothing else can explain this and finally the oral Sabin vaccine reduced natural cases to zero; but caused around half dozen, so 10,000 vs half dozen. Please play this up. Finally, a new killed version of polio vaccine was developed that was 99+% effective and was switched to with NO more polio cases in US. And, just to point out, Sven Gard, a Swedish scientist, developed at same time as Salk a killed polio vaccine that was 99+% effective and did not cause any serious problems. So, why didn’t the US switch to this? Arrogance in believing only Americans could develop an effective vaccine, so, yep, cases of polio during Salk vaccine and even the few each year from the Sabin vaccine could have been prevented. And though books make Salk a hero, he was a very good lab rat who proved there was only three strains of polio so vaccine possible. He was not a microbiologist, not an infectious disease expert, not a virologist, and not an epidemiologist and I won’t go into details, except he was warned about the catastrophic production at the Cutter plant by his second in command, Julius Youngner and ignored him. Probably because he was caught up in the euphoria of the success of the clinical trials; but during the clinical trials each batch of vaccine was tested by company, by Salk, and by FDA; but when use began, only tested by company. STUPID. So, please write comments on the Cutter incident, without qualifying how’s and why’s and don’t mention how polio was brought to an end by the vaccine. So, notice I can write about the Cutter incident and not using Sven Gard’s version; but I also include how vaccine reduced and finally ended polio.

Years ago I met a man with a heart transplant who ran marathons. When I met him the transplant was 20 years earlier. Yet, the first heart transplants ended in failure. So, I suggest you post comments only focusing on the first heart transplants. Don’t mention advances and how many people were given a decade or even more of life

Seat belts reduce deaths and serious injury by about 50%; but they also have caused rib fractures, bruised kidney, a few ruptured bladders, and even one documented death. So, please, write comment after comment about the aforementioned and don’t mention the exponentially greater number of deaths and serious injuries prevented by seatbelts.

@ Wendy Stephen

I have already said that overall the Jeryl Lynn was safer, much safer. However, imagine that 100 cases of unilateral deafness were reported and it was known from Urabe vaccine and that the Urabe vaccine was only given to 1 million kids, 100 / 1,000,000 = 0.0001. In other word, compared to up to 5% hearing loss from actual mumps, still far far fewer cases and there is no way such cases would not have been reported. And, again, regardless of your speculation on how many actual cases of mumps meningitis from Urabe vaccine, on the whole, it is a benign condition, and stats would exist for the number of hospitalized cases, though not by vaccine and we know there were far fewer cases following vaccinations than from the actual mumps. And even if we assumed, again, that only 1 million kids got the Urabe, the total number of cases much much smaller than from actual mumps. Yep, the Jeryl Lynn was a much better vaccine and one can obsess about how and why it wasn’t recognized earlier; but this was 30 years ago. The only reason you continue to post is to give the impression to readers that things haven’t changed, that vaccines are still dangerous. You are so incredibly antivax, STUPID and DISHONEST.

You write: “Ten cases of Mumps meningitis sounds trivial against 2.5m doses of “MMR” but what if the 10 cases had to be pitched against 500,000 doses of Urabe (that’s a guesstimate as an example) containing Pluserix only, wouldn’t you agree that changes the risk significantly?”

10 / 500,000 = 0.00002

“Before the MMR vaccine was introduced in 1988, more than 8 out of every 10 people in the UK developed mumps. Mumps used to cause about 1200 hospital admissions each year in England and Wales. It was the most common cause of both viral meningitis and acquired deafness in children.”
[Oxford Vaccine Group (2022 Jun 9). Mumps. Vaccine Knowledge Project.]

Note, hospitalized! ! ! So, if 10 hospitalized, not just cases, still far less than 1200 and you are just speculating. Always speculating to make the worst case scenario.

But you fail to address that you helped Brian Deer solely because Wakefield betrayed your trust. And you fail to admit even the most trivial of mistakes; e.g., not giving reference to quote by me and posting your lawyer’s statement without qualifying it, while I have NEVER had a problem admitting when wrong. I went back through our exchange at Every Child By Two and found several comments where I admitted being wrong. So, you continue to dredge up something that happened over 30 years ago. You continue to speculate and twist to come up with worst case scenarios; but even then, the Urabe was much safer than actual mumps. And you ignore that I have agreed that the Jeryl Lyn would have been a much better choice. In addition, you don’t seem to be able to do the simplest math.

So, once again you prove beyond any doubt that you are antivax, STUPID, AND DISHONEST.

@ Wendy Stephen

Will you stop making a fool of yourself and wasting my time. I am an old man trying to fill my time in a positive manner. I am currently reading the latest editions of an immunology textbook and a microbiology textbook. In addition, I have found free undergraduate courses in both subjects on YouTube and been following them. I am reading sixth book on what went wrong during pandemic. I am reading articles on COVID-19. And I am reading on other subjects. Responding to a DISHONEST, STUPID, MALIGNANT NARCISSISTIC ANTI-VAXXER takes what little time I have left away. Each time you post I try not to respond, realizing that no matter how clearly I point out just how STUPID you are, you will ignore and continue.

@ Wendy Stephen

And you ignore what I wrote about dredging up early problems with polio vaccine, heart transplants, and current risks from seatbelts. So, why don’t you focus on them as well? You are a very DISTURBED INDIVIDUAL who keeps dredging up something from 30 years ago. Either you are just completely psychiatrically disturbed and stupid, or it is your way of promoting antivaccinationists.

Comments are closed.

Discover more from RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading