Covid

Quote: Jukesays "Just happened to come across something half an hour ago whilst looking for something
Here's a post from a Zack Berman who is a data analyst and scientist who's been a brilliant voice of reason throughout this pandemic. His posts have been unbiased, informative and rational.

"I was going to do a deep dive into Dr. Robert Malone's recent appearance on the Joe Rogan Podcast. The problem is, there is 3 hours worth of material, and for every minute he says something demonstrably wrong (which is the majority of the things that come out of his mouth), that is five minutes minimum I have to spend looking up the source of his bull, getting my sources together, and writing a rebuttal. I just don't have the energy to do that right now.

So, instead, for those of you who find the man compelling, ask yourself why? Why are you so eager to take the word of one self-proclaimed expert over 99.9% of the other experts in the field? Do you know enough to validate his claims and arguments? Why do you take his claims as face value while actively dismissing the claims of the entirety of the virology and immunology communities?

If you've listened to the whole thing (god rest your souls), and have a question or point of contention with a particular part, I'll happily break it down. But I just don't have the willpower to listen to a man who has gotten functionally everything wrong over the last 2 years lie some more to a UFC commentator and comedian."

Here's just one rebuttal around the vaccine and risk subject

The problem he has is that he has no evidence to suggest that the vaccines are causing heart problems at the rate he is suggesting. Literally zero.

We know that the vaccines can cause myocarditis issues; predominately in younger men. The risk rate is about 10 per 100,000 men aged 16 to 29 [1]. The overall risk rate for everyone is 2 per 100,000 cases [1]. For comparison, the background rate of viral myocarditis would would expect in the general population is 1 per 100,000 people [2]. Compare that to myocarditis induced by COVID itself, which we estimate to be at 1200 per 100,000 people [3]. Effectively, the risk of myocarditis from COVID is 100x more than the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine.

In fact, we have even more detail than this. We know that the Moderna vaccine is most likely to cause heart problems in young men, and several countries have even paused Moderna vaccinations for young men, suggesting instead that they get Pfizer or another shot where possible (Moderna has 4-5x the risk of Pfizer when it comes to young men). However, if you ask any of these advisory bodies, given the choice between Moderna and no vaccination, they would pick Moderna every time. The math on the risk factors isn't even close. Worst case scenario, a Moderna shot to a 25 year old man is still 10x less risky than getting COVID at all.

Over 90% of all myocarditis cases brought on by the vaccine resolve in a matter of days, and 99.9% make a full recovery. To date, there are only 8 known cases of death associated with myocarditis linked to vaccination [2]. Compare that to COVID itself and the numbers aren't even close.

As you have already surmised, the impact of COVID itself is far more dangerous and risky than the vaccines. The global health community is closely tracking and reporting on the known risks of heart problems from the vaccines.

1.
Not sure how any of this contradicts what I posted earlier?. I have attached it again for your reference.

The Biden administration’s strategy to universally vaccinate in the middle of the pandemic is bad science and badly needs a reboot.

This strategy will likely prolong the most dangerous phase of the worst pandemic since 1918 and almost assuredly cause more harm than good – even as it undermines faith in the entire public health system.

Four flawed assumptions drive the Biden strategy. The first is that universal vaccination can eradicate the virus and secure economic recovery by achieving herd immunity throughout the country (and the world). However, the virus is now so deeply embedded in the world population that, unlike polio and smallpox, eradication is unachievable. SARS-CoV-2 and its myriad mutations will likely continually circulate, much like the common cold and influenza.

The second assumption is that the vaccines are (near) perfectly effective. However, our currently available vaccines are quite “leaky.” While good at preventing severe disease and death, they only reduce, not eliminate, the risk of infection, replication, and transmission. As a slide deck from the centres for Disease Control has revealed, even 100% acceptance of the current leaky vaccines combined with strict mask compliance will not stop the highly contagious Delta variant from spreading.

The third assumption is that the vaccines are safe. Yet scientists, physicians, and public health officials now recognize risks that are rare but by no means trivial. Known side effects include serious cardiac and thrombotic conditions, menstrual cycle disruptions, Bell’s Palsy, Guillain Barre syndrome, and anaphylaxis.

Unknown side effects which virologists fear may emerge include existential reproductive risks, additional autoimmune conditions, and various forms of disease enhancement, i.e., the vaccines can make people more vulnerable to reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 or reactivation of latent viral infections and associated diseases such as shingles. With good reason, the FDA has yet to approve the vaccines now administered under Emergency Use Authorization.

The failure of the fourth “durability” assumption is the most alarming and perplexing. It now appears our current vaccines are likely to offer a mere 180-day window of protection – a decided lack of durability underscored by scientific evidence from Israel and confirmed by Pfizer, the Department of Health and Human Services, and other countries.

Here, we are already being warned of the need for universal “booster” shots at six-month intervals for the foreseeable future. The obvious broader point that militates for individual vaccine choice is that repeated vaccinations, each with a small risk, can add up to a big risk.

It’s an arms race with the virus.

The most important reason why a universal vaccination strategy is imprudent tracks to the collective risk associated with how the virus responds when replicating in vaccinated individuals. Here, basic virology and evolutionary genetics tell us the goal of any virus is to infect and replicate in as many people as possible. A virus can’t efficiently spread if, like with Ebola, it quickly kills its hosts.

The clear historical tendency for viruses crossing over from one species to another is to evolve in a way that makes them both more infectious and less pathogenic over time. However, a universal vaccination policy deployed in the middle of a pandemic can turn this normal Darwinian taming process into a dangerous vaccine arms race.

The essence of this arms race is this: The more people you vaccinate, the greater the number of vaccine-resistant mutations you are likely to get, the less durable the vaccines will become, ever more powerful vaccines will have to be developed, and individuals will be exposed to more and more risk.

Science tells us here that today’s vaccines, which use novel gene therapy technologies, generate powerful antigens that direct the immune system to attack specific components of the virus. Thus, when the virus infects a person with a “leaky” vaccination, the viral progeny will be selected to escape or resist the effects of the vaccine.

If the entire population has been trained via a universal vaccination strategy to have the same basic immune response, then once a viral escape mutant is selected, it will rapidly spread through the entire population – whether vaccinated or not.

A far more optimal strategy is to vaccinate only the most vulnerable. This will limit the amount of vaccine-resistant mutations and thereby slow, if not halt, the current vaccine arms race.

Fortunately, those most vulnerable represent a relatively small number; and these cohorts have already achieved high levels of vaccine acceptance. They include senior citizens, for whom the risk of serious disease or death increases exponentially with age, and those with significant comorbidities such as obesity, lung, and heart disease.

For much of the rest of the population, there’s nothing to fear but fear of the virus itself. This is particularly true if we have lawful outpatient access to a growing nal of scientifically proven prophylactics and therapeutics.

For example, there has been much controversy over ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Yet, with the emergence of a growing body of scientific evidence, we can be assured these two medicines are safe and effective in prophylaxis and early treatment when administered under a physician’s supervision. Numerous other useful treatments range from famotidine/celecoxib, fluvoxamine, and apixaban to various anti-inflammatory steroids, Vitamin D, and zinc.

The broader goal when administering these agents is to moderate symptoms and take death off the table, particularly for the unvaccinated. Unlike vaccines, these agents are generally not dependent on specific viral properties or mutations but instead mitigate or treat the inflammatory symptoms of the disease itself. (Pfizer is now actively marketing its own antiviral therapeutic – tacit admission Pfizer’s own vaccine is incapable of eradicating the virus.)

We are not “anti-vax.” One of us (Dr. Malone) invented the core mRNA technology being used by Pfizer and Moderna to produce their vaccines and has spent his entire professional career developing and advancing novel vaccine technologies, vaccines, and other medical countermeasures. The other (Mr. Navarro) played a key role at the Trump White House in jumpstarting Operation Warp Speed and ensuring timely delivery of the vaccines.

We are simply saying that just because you have a big vaccine hammer, it is not necessarily wise to use it for every nail. The American people deserve better than a universal vaccination strategy under the flag of bad science and enforced through authoritarian measures.