5 ms·

'all evidence points at the treatment being better than the disease'. I had it and have Dr. letter that says so. I now have sterilizing immunity. The jab does

'all evidence points at the treatment being better than the disease'. I had it and have Dr. letter that says so. I now have sterilizing immunity. The jab does not provide sterilizing immunity, so it is not better for me nor my family. I am not jabbed, and will not get jabbed. While I am just one, I invalidate your use of the word 'all'.

fer 5y ago
> I had it and have Dr. letter that says so. I now have sterilizing immunity. No, you don't, nobody has, 'sterilizing immunity' doesn't exist as you seem to think it does [0]. I seriously doubt a doctor would write 'sterilizing immunity' in such a letter, so I assume that's your reasoning. > so it is not better for me nor my family. It actually is [1]. Even if you had it, you're still better off having the jab. > I am not jabbed, and will not get jabbed. You just sound like someone that can't be convinced of things. Talk to your doctor. > While I am just one, I invalidate your use of the word 'all'. Yeah, like seatbelt doesn't save 100%. Luckily one data point doesn't count as evidence when we're talking about statistics. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/sterilizing-immunity-myth-covid-19-vaccines/620023/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...
- landemva 5y ago
  I have talked to my Dr. 'you're still better off having the jab.' You are not my Dr. Supposedly vaccine reporting of harm is about 1%, though it would seem to be difficult to verify if it is 1% or 3%. 52 dead infants have been reported. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/baby-of-fully-vaccinated-mom-dies-after-being-born-bleeding-from-mouth-nose-vaers-report/?source=patrick.net https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/baby-of-fully-vaccinated-m... It is not better, and not for 'all'.
  - fer 5y ago
    > I have talked to my Dr. Then imagined things in your head. No doctor will write what you suggest. > You are not my Dr. Nobody said I am.
  - nl 5y ago
    > vaccine reporting of harm is about 1% What on earth is that piece of random rumourmongering based on? I felt horrible for ~24 hours after my second Pfizer shot. If that counts as hard then sure, 1% is believable. If it is actually harmful side effects than that is total nonsense. 1% is a huge, huge number of people.
    - fer 5y ago
      It's based on antivax nonsense. Now he edited and linked to a site (which is banned everywhere in social media precisely for spreading COVID-19 misinformation) that takes raw data from VAERS at face value without any adjustment for prevalence or comorbidities. They could as well link vaccine shots to trampoline accidents if only VAERS collected such data. I'm all for open data, but antivaxxers without the minimal understanding of statistics extrapolating VAERS data makes me wonder if it's a good idea.
      - walterbell 5y ago
        If VAERS numbers were reduced for co-morbidities, then US Covid deaths would be reduced by ~90% when co-morbidities were excluded, https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-94-percent-covid-among-caus/fact-check-94-of-individuals-with-additional-causes-of-death-still-had-covid-19-idUSKBN25U2IO https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-94-percent-covi... There is also the issue of VAERS being under-reported, which can be estimated by using other sources of health surveillance, like the HMO-driven Vaccine Safety Datalink.
jjeaff 5y ago
I have seen little evidence that having previously had COVID gives you sterilizing immunity. Some evidence it gives you better immunity than the vaccine but now more evidence coming out that points to the vaccine being better.
- walterbell 5y ago
  Here are 100+ studies to that effect, https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/ https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-n...
  - fer 5y ago
    I'm not sure what I'm looking at. > Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity. They advocate for infection having the same status as vaccination, which is reasonable, and the policies, at least in the west and in the countries I'm familiar with, they take previous infection into account. > Again, the Marek’s disease in chickens and the vaccination situation explains what we are potentially facing with these leaky vaccines Then they mention Marek's disease in a gross (yet common) misunderstanding of the causes of such scenario. Luckily, humans aren't stacked up onto each other in direct contact 24/7. > This follow-up chart is the most updated and comprehensive library list of 139 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and allow you to draw your own conclusion. OK, let's go through a few: 1. Results are unbelievable (0 reinfections among +1000 people who expose themselves daily) but the methodology seems solid otherwise. No complaints. 2. In vitro, small sample. 3. Conveniently skips "When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated," 4. Doesn't even talk about COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity. 5. Shows that vaccine antibody titers wane faster than natural immunity. Interesting given that previous studies from the list focus on how T/B-cell response is much better measure than antibody levels. Kinda moving goalposts, but OK. 6. Shows 1/10 reinfection rate among infected vs infection rate among general population (since the study is from February 2021, I'd say that's roughly 90% unvaccinated). Doesn't compare against vaccines, which was the original point of the list? Funnily it directly disproves the unbelievable numbers of study 1, and this looks equally solid. 7. Says previously infected may not need a second dose (conveniently skips that they may need one). 8. Doesn't compare with anything. 9. Titers at 5 months after infection, hardly interesting. 10. Immunoglobulin levels, 2020, hardly interesting, doesn't compare with anything.. From this point the list seems to decrease in relevance to the point, just showing that infection gives some immunity, which is hardly what anyone is arguing. Some just talk about measles (55), others about possible cross immunity (85, 109), but overall it feels more like a vague Google search than a curated list of anything.

fer 5y ago

> I had it and have Dr. letter that says so. I now have sterilizing immunity. No, you don't, nobody has, 'sterilizing immunity' doesn't exist as you seem to think it does [0]. I seriously doubt a doctor would write 'sterilizing immunity' in such a letter, so I assume that's your reasoning. > so it is not better for me nor my family. It actually is [1]. Even if you had it, you're still better off having the jab. > I am not jabbed, and will not get jabbed. You just sound like someone that can't be convinced of things. Talk to your doctor. > While I am just one, I invalidate your use of the word 'all'. Yeah, like seatbelt doesn't save 100%. Luckily one data point doesn't count as evidence when we're talking about statistics. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/sterilizing-immunity-myth-covid-19-vaccines/620023/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...

landemva 5y ago
I have talked to my Dr. 'you're still better off having the jab.' You are not my Dr. Supposedly vaccine reporting of harm is about 1%, though it would seem to be difficult to verify if it is 1% or 3%. 52 dead infants have been reported. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/baby-of-fully-vaccinated-mom-dies-after-being-born-bleeding-from-mouth-nose-vaers-report/?source=patrick.net https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/baby-of-fully-vaccinated-m... It is not better, and not for 'all'.
- fer 5y ago
  > I have talked to my Dr. Then imagined things in your head. No doctor will write what you suggest. > You are not my Dr. Nobody said I am.
- nl 5y ago
  > vaccine reporting of harm is about 1% What on earth is that piece of random rumourmongering based on? I felt horrible for ~24 hours after my second Pfizer shot. If that counts as hard then sure, 1% is believable. If it is actually harmful side effects than that is total nonsense. 1% is a huge, huge number of people.
  - fer 5y ago
    It's based on antivax nonsense. Now he edited and linked to a site (which is banned everywhere in social media precisely for spreading COVID-19 misinformation) that takes raw data from VAERS at face value without any adjustment for prevalence or comorbidities. They could as well link vaccine shots to trampoline accidents if only VAERS collected such data. I'm all for open data, but antivaxxers without the minimal understanding of statistics extrapolating VAERS data makes me wonder if it's a good idea.
    - walterbell 5y ago
      If VAERS numbers were reduced for co-morbidities, then US Covid deaths would be reduced by ~90% when co-morbidities were excluded, https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-94-percent-covid-among-caus/fact-check-94-of-individuals-with-additional-causes-of-death-still-had-covid-19-idUSKBN25U2IO https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-94-percent-covi... There is also the issue of VAERS being under-reported, which can be estimated by using other sources of health surveillance, like the HMO-driven Vaccine Safety Datalink.

jjeaff 5y ago

I have seen little evidence that having previously had COVID gives you sterilizing immunity. Some evidence it gives you better immunity than the vaccine but now more evidence coming out that points to the vaccine being better.

walterbell 5y ago
Here are 100+ studies to that effect, https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/ https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-n...
- fer 5y ago
  I'm not sure what I'm looking at. > Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity. They advocate for infection having the same status as vaccination, which is reasonable, and the policies, at least in the west and in the countries I'm familiar with, they take previous infection into account. > Again, the Marek’s disease in chickens and the vaccination situation explains what we are potentially facing with these leaky vaccines Then they mention Marek's disease in a gross (yet common) misunderstanding of the causes of such scenario. Luckily, humans aren't stacked up onto each other in direct contact 24/7. > This follow-up chart is the most updated and comprehensive library list of 139 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and allow you to draw your own conclusion. OK, let's go through a few: 1. Results are unbelievable (0 reinfections among +1000 people who expose themselves daily) but the methodology seems solid otherwise. No complaints. 2. In vitro, small sample. 3. Conveniently skips "When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated," 4. Doesn't even talk about COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity. 5. Shows that vaccine antibody titers wane faster than natural immunity. Interesting given that previous studies from the list focus on how T/B-cell response is much better measure than antibody levels. Kinda moving goalposts, but OK. 6. Shows 1/10 reinfection rate among infected vs infection rate among general population (since the study is from February 2021, I'd say that's roughly 90% unvaccinated). Doesn't compare against vaccines, which was the original point of the list? Funnily it directly disproves the unbelievable numbers of study 1, and this looks equally solid. 7. Says previously infected may not need a second dose (conveniently skips that they may need one). 8. Doesn't compare with anything. 9. Titers at 5 months after infection, hardly interesting. 10. Immunoglobulin levels, 2020, hardly interesting, doesn't compare with anything.. From this point the list seems to decrease in relevance to the point, just showing that infection gives some immunity, which is hardly what anyone is arguing. Some just talk about measles (55), others about possible cross immunity (85, 109), but overall it feels more like a vague Google search than a curated list of anything.