13 ms·

I donno. Seems like white blood cells are kinda important. We have a huge number of interactions with bacteria and viruses and all sorts of microorganisms. Hu

I donno. Seems like white blood cells are kinda important. We have a huge number of interactions with bacteria and viruses and all sorts of microorganisms. Hundreds? Thousands times a day? Scratches in the kitchen while preparing food, for example, floods our body with stuff that white blood cells are required to deal with. Giving up some of the ability to deal with those for a small reduction in the symptoms associated with a specific disease doesn't seem like a useful trade off.

dangerlibrary 4y ago
Over a million people, in the U.S. alone, died in under two years after being infected with this virus. Even granting the unlikely possibility that this mouse model is reflective of the immune response in humans, whatever other microorganisms people were encountering were demonstrably less dangerous than SARS-CoV-2. Unless you know of some other highly infectious microorganism that rapidly spread to hundreds of millions of people and killed 1-2% of those it infected?
- taolegal 4y ago
  > Even granting the genuinely unlikely possibility that this mouse model is reflective of the immune response in humans, whatever other microorganisms people were encountering were demonstrably less dangerous than SARS-CoV-2. The mouse model is apparently enough for the new booster.
  - peter422 4y ago
    So they ran the phase 2/3 trial in >1000 humans for fun? The problem with anti-vaxxers is you just imagine a world in which everything is underhanded and a conspiracy when all the science and data is out there in the open, just ignored.
    - taolegal 4y ago
      Anti-vax? You have no clue what my beliefs are on this, I'm not anti-vaccine. I remember just last year the Biden administration forced through the booster shots (after a propaganda campaign predicated one & done, that then extended into mandates, which Biden, Pelosi & others said were never on the table or illegal, later to be proven unconstitutional by the supreme court). Senior officials at the FDA resigned over the insufficient evidence of efficacy. Not only was it unclear that they should be approved for seniors, they just opened it up to everyone. It's only gotten worse now. It's not even remotely clear to me that the average healthy person (not on the standard American diet, chronically ill with the typical stuff like diabetes & obesity) needs upwards of 4 vaccines, and counting, for a virus that's much more attenuated & practically everyone has some form of immunity at this point. Also: to answer your question, from what I can tell the studies haven't shown efficacy. They only show that antibodies rose, which we know isn't absolute proof of efficacy with regards to infection or disease.
      - peter422 4y ago
        I never said the trials showed efficacy, though there are multiple high quality trials which do show serious benefits of 3rd/4th shots in various age groups. I just say they ran human trials, which your comment implied they didn’t. Also: - no good evidence the virus is attenuated (lower hospitalizations/mortality likely driven by increased population immunity) - a lot of FDA/CDC officials agreed with the decision too, and I think on the whole were proved right to offer to the booster to older populations before all the studies were completed. - nobody is forcing you to get the 3rd/4th shots, why do you want to prevent other people from getting them if they want them? You are sooo sure they are bad?
        taolegal 4y ago
        Sure let people get them voluntarily. My point is that all this irrational exuberance is very clearly precipitously eroding trust in public health authority & science generally.
        peter422 4y ago
    - spookthesunset 4y ago
      It doesn’t require a conspiracy to think something is majorly wrong with how the last 2.5 years were handled. Everybody played to their incentives and thought they were doing the right thing. The outcome was a complete disaster and a horrific overreaction. But people thought they were doing the right thing. It’s kind of like a modern engineering failure. It takes multiple failures to bring down complex, redundant systems. That is what happened here. > when all the science and data is out there in the open, just ignored. I lost count of the number of times somebody yelled or called me “dangerous” for showing this data. Most of the public data goes directly against the narrative people like to push. It gets tossed right into the “conspiracy” bin. Virtually nothing about our response was based on science or data.
      - peter422 4y ago
        > Virtually nothing about our response was based on science or data. Virtually nothing? So the thousands and thousands of studies on vaccines, treatments, mask policies, vaccine policies, school policies, air filtration techniques, etc, etc… those were just done for no reason? To say we live in an imperfect society with imperfect leaders and imperfect citizens is a fair point. Incorrect decisions were and continue to be made for political reasons or religious reasons or whatever else. That’s what happens in an imperfect society. To say “virtually nothing” about the response is based on data is just ridiculous. Again, anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists make up a world where decisions are made in secret for suspicious reasons when generally all the data and arguments are out in the open and are just ignored.
        spookthesunset 4y ago
        > anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists Are all the highly esteemed professors, scientists, politicians, healthcare workers, and researchers who signed the great barrington declaration anti-vaxx conspiracy theorists? Do you have any idea how many people in real life yelled at me and called me incredibly nasty things for suggesting that maybe, just maybe this myopic fixation on Covid was going to have some serious long term effects and maybe, just maybe we are overreacting? You can’t speak against the narrative. Speaking out against what we did was and still is career suicide if you are in healthcare, science or research. There has been a continual incredibly strong push to label anything that goes against “the narrative” as misinformation, “anti-whatever”. Speaking out as a member of the medical/science community gets you blacklisted. Beware of any research that got published in the heat of this mess—there were strong incentives to only publish research that supported “the narrative”.
    - omniglottal 4y ago
      Do not make such assumptions - it is against the guidelines and is abusive to the notion that we can engage in dialogue here in good faith.
- omniglottal 4y ago
  Why not plural microorganismS? Although a neglible increase of mortality across countless events where broad-acting immunity protects us may be outside your ability to calculate, it's still readily applicable to recognize that a lot of straw exists on a camel's back without simply studying just the one which broke it. An overall increase in mortality from all causes is congruent with valid scientific theory and is a hypothesis worth evaluating without eschewing existing data. Your question is unneccessarily leading with false premises by which you define the answer without accepting the known truth. If you're looking for just one organism which would need to spread, then you're looking in the wrong place for how, i.e., people were killed by myocarditis, or inability to stay nourished while suffering vaccine-induced side effects, including inability to defend with the same metabolic fervor from the flu.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mabbo 4y ago
But the thing is we ran a massive experiment on this called "The covid-19 pandemic". What we saw was no serious increase in mortality for the immunized, and a significant increase in mortality for the non-immunized. Seems like the data from that experiment should be taken into consideration when deciding if the tradeoff is worthwhile, right?
- origin_path 4y ago
  Two problems: 1. That wasn't a controlled experiment. Observational data < RCTs. 2. You are mixing up mortality and mortality attributed to COVID. It's a common error. For overall mortality the picture is far less clear. For example in the Pfizer trials there were more deaths overall in the vaccinated arm than the unvaccinated arm i.e. RCT evidence = no mortality benefit. Also, we now have excess deaths above the expected baseline for long periods in 2022, which is unprecedented. Governments are highly reluctant to split these deaths out by vaccine status, but the increase seems mostly attributed to heart and blood clotting related deaths. So the data from the "experiment" is not obviously positive.
  - ttpphd 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - logic_beats_pro 4y ago
      As you see in the article, this is a mathematical model which indicates vaccines saved 20,000,000 lives. It is completely unprovable and only serves as a nice sounding talking point. I also could claim 20,000,000 lives were saved by natural immunity. Or vitamin D from sunshine. Or the placebo effect. All of those mentioned are also not provable.
      - blackbear_ 4y ago
        Do you have specific reasons not to believe the model and/or data in that article, beyond "all models are wrong by definition"?
dragontamer 4y ago
You're welcome to post the other pandemics that occurred in 2020 through 2022. Flu was practically wiped out for example. COVID19 was more fit, and many people were taking precautions (ie: masks) that also hampered the spread of Flu. If mRNA vaccines really inhibited general immune response to other viruses / bacteria, it should be demonstrable. Just line up the number of people who died / got sick of non-COVID19 diseases in 2020 through 2022 and compare them to the COVID19 vaccine patients, stratified for age/sex/race.
- zionic 4y ago
  >Just line up the number of people who died / got sick of non-COVID19 diseases in 2020 This is _extremely_ difficult to do, as a mix of both incentive structures and poor policy lead to any death with a positive PCR test being counted as a COVID death. It's practically impossible now to go back and figure out how many were _actually_ "killed by COVID" vs "died _with_ COVID".
  - peter422 4y ago
    Most people who had covid and died probably wouldn’t have died so quickly if they didn’t have covid. Why you do the mental gymnastics to pretend this isn’t true is so baffling.
    - spookthesunset 4y ago
      I’m sure George Floyd would have lived a little longer if he wasn’t Covid positive when he died. It doesn’t matter anyway. The data required to support our mitigations stopped mattering a long long time ago. ..Sometime back when the “4% kill rate” predicted by the imperial college paper turned out to be very very wrong and when all those temporary military hospital things got closed because they weren’t being used. That might have been a good time to reevaluate what the fuck we were doing but instead of celebrating the fact that Covid wasn’t nearly as bad as predicted we just doubled down for a year and a half more instead. Honestly it’s best to just take the numbers at face value and assume any overcount is balanced by undercounts.
manwe150 4y ago
As another commented pointed out, we have hundreds of millions of data points in people now post-vaccination and post-boosters, which haven’t detected a problem, and only 12 here in mice, that the authors suggest warrants further study. Which hypothesis are you saying has “no data”?
- junofan 4y ago
  It took only 12 mice to find unexpected effects? How was the vaccine tested again?
  - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
    > It took only 12 That's a very small sample size. Also, it's mice.
  - yojo 4y ago
    You’d be amazed at the number of unexpected effects I could find studying just a single mouse! Having a small number data points means that a single outlier can impact your results. And since “no results” typically doesn’t get published, the rare events end up disproportionately represented in journals. The smaller the sample size, the more likely the “effect” you’re seeing is just random chance.
- FollowingTheDao 4y ago
  It is hard to see a problem if you are not looking for it or if the cause is distant from the reaction. An Example: My friend had undiagnosed alpha gal for months because the anaphylactic reaction happened to him more than 12 hours after eating red meat so they did not know the connection. Is Long Covid actually not from COVID but from this weekend immune system having to fight off old latent viruses it once had not problem with?
canoebuilder 4y ago
I donno. Seems like white blood cells are kinda important. Relevant: https://nitter.ca/AlexBerenson/status/1568951911084072960#m https://nitter.ca/AlexBerenson/status/1568951911084072960#m

dangerlibrary 4y ago

Over a million people, in the U.S. alone, died in under two years after being infected with this virus. Even granting the unlikely possibility that this mouse model is reflective of the immune response in humans, whatever other microorganisms people were encountering were demonstrably less dangerous than SARS-CoV-2. Unless you know of some other highly infectious microorganism that rapidly spread to hundreds of millions of people and killed 1-2% of those it infected?

taolegal 4y ago
> Even granting the genuinely unlikely possibility that this mouse model is reflective of the immune response in humans, whatever other microorganisms people were encountering were demonstrably less dangerous than SARS-CoV-2. The mouse model is apparently enough for the new booster.
- peter422 4y ago
  So they ran the phase 2/3 trial in >1000 humans for fun? The problem with anti-vaxxers is you just imagine a world in which everything is underhanded and a conspiracy when all the science and data is out there in the open, just ignored.
  - taolegal 4y ago
    Anti-vax? You have no clue what my beliefs are on this, I'm not anti-vaccine. I remember just last year the Biden administration forced through the booster shots (after a propaganda campaign predicated one & done, that then extended into mandates, which Biden, Pelosi & others said were never on the table or illegal, later to be proven unconstitutional by the supreme court). Senior officials at the FDA resigned over the insufficient evidence of efficacy. Not only was it unclear that they should be approved for seniors, they just opened it up to everyone. It's only gotten worse now. It's not even remotely clear to me that the average healthy person (not on the standard American diet, chronically ill with the typical stuff like diabetes & obesity) needs upwards of 4 vaccines, and counting, for a virus that's much more attenuated & practically everyone has some form of immunity at this point. Also: to answer your question, from what I can tell the studies haven't shown efficacy. They only show that antibodies rose, which we know isn't absolute proof of efficacy with regards to infection or disease.
    - peter422 4y ago
      I never said the trials showed efficacy, though there are multiple high quality trials which do show serious benefits of 3rd/4th shots in various age groups. I just say they ran human trials, which your comment implied they didn’t. Also: - no good evidence the virus is attenuated (lower hospitalizations/mortality likely driven by increased population immunity) - a lot of FDA/CDC officials agreed with the decision too, and I think on the whole were proved right to offer to the booster to older populations before all the studies were completed. - nobody is forcing you to get the 3rd/4th shots, why do you want to prevent other people from getting them if they want them? You are sooo sure they are bad?
      - taolegal 4y ago
        Sure let people get them voluntarily. My point is that all this irrational exuberance is very clearly precipitously eroding trust in public health authority & science generally.
        peter422 4y ago
  - spookthesunset 4y ago
    It doesn’t require a conspiracy to think something is majorly wrong with how the last 2.5 years were handled. Everybody played to their incentives and thought they were doing the right thing. The outcome was a complete disaster and a horrific overreaction. But people thought they were doing the right thing. It’s kind of like a modern engineering failure. It takes multiple failures to bring down complex, redundant systems. That is what happened here. > when all the science and data is out there in the open, just ignored. I lost count of the number of times somebody yelled or called me “dangerous” for showing this data. Most of the public data goes directly against the narrative people like to push. It gets tossed right into the “conspiracy” bin. Virtually nothing about our response was based on science or data.
    - peter422 4y ago
      > Virtually nothing about our response was based on science or data. Virtually nothing? So the thousands and thousands of studies on vaccines, treatments, mask policies, vaccine policies, school policies, air filtration techniques, etc, etc… those were just done for no reason? To say we live in an imperfect society with imperfect leaders and imperfect citizens is a fair point. Incorrect decisions were and continue to be made for political reasons or religious reasons or whatever else. That’s what happens in an imperfect society. To say “virtually nothing” about the response is based on data is just ridiculous. Again, anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists make up a world where decisions are made in secret for suspicious reasons when generally all the data and arguments are out in the open and are just ignored.
      - spookthesunset 4y ago
        > anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists Are all the highly esteemed professors, scientists, politicians, healthcare workers, and researchers who signed the great barrington declaration anti-vaxx conspiracy theorists? Do you have any idea how many people in real life yelled at me and called me incredibly nasty things for suggesting that maybe, just maybe this myopic fixation on Covid was going to have some serious long term effects and maybe, just maybe we are overreacting? You can’t speak against the narrative. Speaking out against what we did was and still is career suicide if you are in healthcare, science or research. There has been a continual incredibly strong push to label anything that goes against “the narrative” as misinformation, “anti-whatever”. Speaking out as a member of the medical/science community gets you blacklisted. Beware of any research that got published in the heat of this mess—there were strong incentives to only publish research that supported “the narrative”.
  - omniglottal 4y ago
    Do not make such assumptions - it is against the guidelines and is abusive to the notion that we can engage in dialogue here in good faith.
omniglottal 4y ago
Why not plural microorganismS? Although a neglible increase of mortality across countless events where broad-acting immunity protects us may be outside your ability to calculate, it's still readily applicable to recognize that a lot of straw exists on a camel's back without simply studying just the one which broke it. An overall increase in mortality from all causes is congruent with valid scientific theory and is a hypothesis worth evaluating without eschewing existing data. Your question is unneccessarily leading with false premises by which you define the answer without accepting the known truth. If you're looking for just one organism which would need to spread, then you're looking in the wrong place for how, i.e., people were killed by myocarditis, or inability to stay nourished while suffering vaccine-induced side effects, including inability to defend with the same metabolic fervor from the flu.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mabbo 4y ago

But the thing is we ran a massive experiment on this called "The covid-19 pandemic". What we saw was no serious increase in mortality for the immunized, and a significant increase in mortality for the non-immunized. Seems like the data from that experiment should be taken into consideration when deciding if the tradeoff is worthwhile, right?

origin_path 4y ago
Two problems: 1. That wasn't a controlled experiment. Observational data < RCTs. 2. You are mixing up mortality and mortality attributed to COVID. It's a common error. For overall mortality the picture is far less clear. For example in the Pfizer trials there were more deaths overall in the vaccinated arm than the unvaccinated arm i.e. RCT evidence = no mortality benefit. Also, we now have excess deaths above the expected baseline for long periods in 2022, which is unprecedented. Governments are highly reluctant to split these deaths out by vaccine status, but the increase seems mostly attributed to heart and blood clotting related deaths. So the data from the "experiment" is not obviously positive.
- ttpphd 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - logic_beats_pro 4y ago
    As you see in the article, this is a mathematical model which indicates vaccines saved 20,000,000 lives. It is completely unprovable and only serves as a nice sounding talking point. I also could claim 20,000,000 lives were saved by natural immunity. Or vitamin D from sunshine. Or the placebo effect. All of those mentioned are also not provable.
    - blackbear_ 4y ago
      Do you have specific reasons not to believe the model and/or data in that article, beyond "all models are wrong by definition"?

dragontamer 4y ago

You're welcome to post the other pandemics that occurred in 2020 through 2022. Flu was practically wiped out for example. COVID19 was more fit, and many people were taking precautions (ie: masks) that also hampered the spread of Flu. If mRNA vaccines really inhibited general immune response to other viruses / bacteria, it should be demonstrable. Just line up the number of people who died / got sick of non-COVID19 diseases in 2020 through 2022 and compare them to the COVID19 vaccine patients, stratified for age/sex/race.

zionic 4y ago
>Just line up the number of people who died / got sick of non-COVID19 diseases in 2020 This is _extremely_ difficult to do, as a mix of both incentive structures and poor policy lead to any death with a positive PCR test being counted as a COVID death. It's practically impossible now to go back and figure out how many were _actually_ "killed by COVID" vs "died _with_ COVID".
- peter422 4y ago
  Most people who had covid and died probably wouldn’t have died so quickly if they didn’t have covid. Why you do the mental gymnastics to pretend this isn’t true is so baffling.
  - spookthesunset 4y ago
    I’m sure George Floyd would have lived a little longer if he wasn’t Covid positive when he died. It doesn’t matter anyway. The data required to support our mitigations stopped mattering a long long time ago. ..Sometime back when the “4% kill rate” predicted by the imperial college paper turned out to be very very wrong and when all those temporary military hospital things got closed because they weren’t being used. That might have been a good time to reevaluate what the fuck we were doing but instead of celebrating the fact that Covid wasn’t nearly as bad as predicted we just doubled down for a year and a half more instead. Honestly it’s best to just take the numbers at face value and assume any overcount is balanced by undercounts.

manwe150 4y ago

As another commented pointed out, we have hundreds of millions of data points in people now post-vaccination and post-boosters, which haven’t detected a problem, and only 12 here in mice, that the authors suggest warrants further study. Which hypothesis are you saying has “no data”?

junofan 4y ago
It took only 12 mice to find unexpected effects? How was the vaccine tested again?
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  > It took only 12 That's a very small sample size. Also, it's mice.
- yojo 4y ago
  You’d be amazed at the number of unexpected effects I could find studying just a single mouse! Having a small number data points means that a single outlier can impact your results. And since “no results” typically doesn’t get published, the rare events end up disproportionately represented in journals. The smaller the sample size, the more likely the “effect” you’re seeing is just random chance.
FollowingTheDao 4y ago
It is hard to see a problem if you are not looking for it or if the cause is distant from the reaction. An Example: My friend had undiagnosed alpha gal for months because the anaphylactic reaction happened to him more than 12 hours after eating red meat so they did not know the connection. Is Long Covid actually not from COVID but from this weekend immune system having to fight off old latent viruses it once had not problem with?

canoebuilder 4y ago

I donno. Seems like white blood cells are kinda important. Relevant: https://nitter.ca/AlexBerenson/status/1568951911084072960#m https://nitter.ca/AlexBerenson/status/1568951911084072960#m