Instead of banning certain members...

[fooferdoggie]

Perhaps the only intelligent post I've seen from "the other side".

right the other side thats what you call science and fact?

 

[m@Robertson]

Wrong. It would depend on what type of information you wished to extract.

Yeah sure if you just want to extract some stories. Or see if something happening to your patient has ever happened to others. But generalizing across a population or generating statistical results? Thats a level of mistake you can expect from schoolchildren. The good news is they are early on in their education and can be taught.

 

[Handlebars]

Anecdotally, from a HCP: What I have personally seen is that many triple-vaxed young adults have gotten the virus as many as three times in six months. It was clear to me that neither previous infection with Omicron (rev. 1, at least) nor vaccination provided much protection against BA1, BA3, etc. And yeah, that absolutely got my attention. It's not weird to be suspicious about that.

At the same time, I'm following these folks personally very closely-- some of them REALLY closely. I see them more often, and for longer sometimes, than their GPs, who rotate through Student Health or HMOs. None of them are 'dropping like flies.' Some 3x or 4x vaxed older friends who had breakthroughs have longer recoveries than others-- one friend of mine in his late 50s is only hiking 70% as far as he did 5 years ago on the same trail, but it's only been a couple of months, and he keeps seeing steady improvement. But the young people are doing pretty well. I've only heard of one triple-vaxed young athlete who wasn't able to return to competition last semester after infection.

At the same time, I want to know more about the unvaccinated people who are supposedly not getting infected. Are they testing as frequently as the vaccinated cohort? Because here's the other confounding factor: You often have to test three, four, five times to test positive for Omicron. It would make sense to me that unvaccinated folks are more likely to only test when they have to-- say, as part of a study, or for work, or entering the hospital for something else, etc.-- while vaccinated folks are more like to test more frequently. Though I do not know that, it's just an educated guess.

One trouble with the propaganda is that people who do not want to take the vaccines are painted with broad brush, fired from work, etc. I'm unvaxxed and have not been ill at all.When I felt a suggestion of a cold possibly coming on, I treated it as infection and by the next day all was clear. I treated by my usual routine for possible colds, which is to use baby aspirator with body temperature water to clear nasal passages until completely free flow-through from one side and out the other. I take an aspirin and go to bed. If I get one cold per decade I'm perhaps overestimating. I also took one dose of ivermectin each of the few times I thought I might be coming down with an infection.

I was super masked when they told us to not wear a mask. I gradually reduced the layering until now I never wear one.

I also feel like we shouldn't ignore the EU's position: They're not so sure about a fourth shot, they wonder about 'tiring out' the immune system. If you're someone like me, with a weird-ass immune system, I'd take that seriously.

Good thinking. Looking at the Ontario data, which shows the boostered are at about double the cases compared to the fully vaxxed..it does look like some damage is being done.

One-size-fits-all medicine has almost killed me on several occasions.

And when it's being administered by parking lot tent newbs doing thousands per day......NOPE.
As an "aside", I've been subjected to improper shot placement by MDs repeatedly, and seen them do it to children, injecting into the wrong butt muscle. I had always thought that it was normal for such shots to feel like you got kicked by a horse, producing pain all the way down to the toes.

 

[Handlebars]

Yeah sure if you just want to extract some stories. Or see if something happening to your patient has ever happened to others. But generalizing across a population or generating statistical results? Thats a level of mistake you can expect from schoolchildren. The good news is they are early on in their education and can be taught.

Not only those. You simply went too far.

 

[Handlebars]

right the other side thats what you call science and fact?

You're one of the reasons I say that, fooofie.

 

[Handlebars]

Yeah sure if you just want to extract some stories. Or see if something happening to your patient has ever happened to others. But generalizing across a population or generating statistical results? Thats a level of mistake you can expect from schoolchildren. The good news is they are early on in their education and can be taught.

So, what would you think if a supply of many many anecdotal reports corresponded well to consensus expert opinion or measured facts, again and again? What reasons would you possibly give for that?

 

[fooferdoggie]

You're one of the reasons I say that, fooofie.

but it still on you to be on the How shall I put it?? fact denier? science skeptic?

 

[Handlebars]

Scientists are skeptics, generally, so "yes". Science Skeptic is OK. Thanks foofie!.

 

[tomjasz]

abortion is murder.

But military weapons kill children and no one seems ready to do a F-ing thing.

Sister Joan Chittister explained why being against abortion doesn't mean you're pro-life.

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

 

[Handlebars]

Says the neonazi support guy whose Prez sends many tens of billions $ to the machine:

But military weapons kill children and no one seems ready to do a F-ing thing.

 

[m@Robertson]

So, what would you think if a supply of many many anecdotal reports corresponded well to consensus expert opinion or measured facts, again and again? What reasons would you possibly give for that?

You lack basic understanding of scientific method and why the conclusions you are drawing are garbage as a result. That misunderstanding is at an extremely fundamental level if you consider what you just described as anything useful in a population. There's a right and wrong way to draw valid conclusions and as I noted what you are describing is wrong at an extremely basic level.

 

[Handlebars]

You lack basic understanding of scientific method and why the conclusions you are drawing are garbage as a result. That misunderstanding is at an extremely fundamental level if you consider what you just described as anything useful in a population. There's a right and wrong way to draw valid conclusions and as I noted what you are describing is wrong at an extremely basic level.

What conclusions did I wrongly draw? I asked you a totally valid question. Please be specific.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Scientists are skeptics, generally, so "yes". Science Skeptic is OK. Thanks foofie!.

well that went over your head I guess.

 

[PatriciaK]

Arrivederci, thread... Does no good to ignore trolls when the entire thread becomes filled with responses to them from folks who just can't stop poking . I think my time is better spent elsewhere...

 

[DavidRvR]

Young men have more blood flowing through the biceps. The "vaccine" is not to be injected into a vein. The health care " professional" is supposed to draw the plunger back to check for blood ( few are doing this).

This is prevalent in all age groups

 

[DavidRvR]

Get off google and start looking into the test subjects used in trials... Every single one died so they stopped using them and switch to something else .. Its been a while but I believe it was ferrets ..

 

[DavidRvR]

Arrivederci, thread... Does no good to ignore trolls when the entire thread becomes filled with responses to them from folks who just can't stop poking . I think my time is better spent elsewhere...

Its Not poking ... again its a discussion.. choose to Be or Not to Be. ITs just as easy to skip over ... Last point is subjective.

 

[Gordon71]

Anecdotally, from a HCP: What I have personally seen is that many triple-vaxed young adults have gotten the virus as many as three times in six months. It was clear to me that neither previous infection with Omicron (rev. 1, at least) nor vaccination provided much protection against BA1, BA3, etc. And yeah, that absolutely got my attention. It's not weird to be suspicious about that.

At the same time, I'm following these folks personally very closely-- some of them REALLY closely. I see them more often, and for longer sometimes, than their GPs, who rotate through Student Health or HMOs. None of them are 'dropping like flies.' Some 3x or 4x vaxed older friends who had breakthroughs have longer recoveries than others-- one friend of mine in his late 50s is only hiking 70% as far as he did 5 years ago on the same trail, but it's only been a couple of months, and he keeps seeing steady improvement. But the young people are doing pretty well. I've only heard of one triple-vaxed young athlete who wasn't able to return to competition last semester after infection.

At the same time, I want to know more about the unvaccinated people who are supposedly not getting infected. Are they testing as frequently as the vaccinated cohort? Because here's the other confounding factor: You often have to test three, four, five times to test positive for Omicron. It would make sense to me that unvaccinated folks are more likely to only test when they have to-- say, as part of a study, or for work, or entering the hospital for something else, etc.-- while vaccinated folks are more like to test more frequently. Though I do not know that, it's just an educated guess.

I also feel like we shouldn't ignore the EU's position: They're not so sure about a fourth shot, they wonder about 'tiring out' the immune system. If you're someone like me, with a weird-ass immune system, I'd take that seriously.

I did feel pretty wiped out late this winter and spring, after my third shot, and I had laryngitis for three months! Vaccine reaction? Breakthrough infection? I'll never know. But I've been feeling really strong the last few weeks, and my times are looking real good for my long, steep climbs!

I'd consider a fourth shot, just not anytime soon, and I hope there's a different vaccine available, something more broad spectrum. What seems logical to me: It's probably not a good idea to continue hammering your immune system, either with vaccines or infections, in exactly the same place. Don't let yourself get worn down into a weakened state-- and I think that also means avoiding heavy exercise if you aren't feeling well, either from vax side effects or the infection. (I did hear one news spot that said you SHOULD exercise right after getting vaccinated, which seemed really weird to me -- wish I had better intel on that!) But the cases I see that relapse are generally athletes who went right back out on the field or partiers who returned to near-blackout drinking immediately.

Most people I know are completely healthy after four shots. No one besides me, that I know, felt weaker after the third. I also don't know of a single serious case in anyone who had four shots. Maybe it's happening somewhere, but I've never seen or heard of it. That still doesn't mean that we should all get four shots no matter what. One-size-fits-all medicine has almost killed me on several occasions.

I've had the 2 moderma plus one boost. Thought about another boost but then heard there was a one coming out that is omicron specific so decided to wait on that one. As far as I know I've never had it or if I did it had 0 symptoms. Haven't had anything else either like flu or a cold since before all this began so I guess I'm doing things right. I do have a collection of tests they sent to me but haven't had to use any of them so far.

 

[Handlebars]

You lack basic understanding of scientific method and why the conclusions you are drawing are garbage as a result. That misunderstanding is at an extremely fundamental level if you consider what you just described as anything useful in a population. There's a right and wrong way to draw valid conclusions and as I noted what you are describing is wrong at an extremely basic level.

If you do not know the difference between a question and a conclusion, you've got serious problems understanding scientific and logical matters, bud.

 

[Handlebars]

For the edification of m@Robertson:
wiki:
" When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine. Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method. Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[2][3]"