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]

935 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.

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

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.

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….

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuJQSAiODqI

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.

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.

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!