The Valparaiso Beacons Fan Zone Forum

I hope the conservative media that says to be cautious about getting a Covid vaccine are sued by families who lose members because those family members don't get vaccinated. That is a crime.

 :rotfl:

Should people not be cautious when undergoing a medical procedure? There are indeed contraindications for certain people in receiving some vaccines, you know.

This is something you should talk to your doctor about, and thus, exercise a degree of caution.

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 08, 2021, 10:08:53 PM
Should people not be cautious when undergoing a medical procedure? There are indeed contraindications for certain people in receiving some vaccines, you know.

This is something you should talk to your doctor about, and thus, exercise a degree of caution.

Are people cautious when they are in an emergency room and the blood pressure is getting critical due having brain injury in a car accident?

It's obvious that those getting the vaccine who have no underlying conditions are no longer dying in hospitals while some younger people who are not vaccinated have died of Covid in hospitals.

Quote from: bbtds on July 09, 2021, 10:12:09 AM

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 08, 2021, 10:08:53 PM
Should people not be cautious when undergoing a medical procedure? There are indeed contraindications for certain people in receiving some vaccines, you know.

This is something you should talk to your doctor about, and thus, exercise a degree of caution.

Are people cautious when they are in an emergency room and the blood pressure is getting critical due having brain injury in a car accident?

It's obvious that those getting the vaccine who have no underlying conditions are no longer dying in hospitals while some younger people who are not vaccinated have died of Covid in hospitals.

Your first comment makes absolutely no sense and has me questioning if you have a brain injury.

Do you know what the word contraindication means and the implications?

And are you suggesting that there have not been any people who have been vaccinated for covid-19 who have nonetheless died from covid-19? Because of course this is incorrect.

People should talk to their doctor about it. It is really that simple. Please don't complicate it.

Quote from: bbtds on July 08, 2021, 05:06:39 AM
I hope the conservative media that says to be cautious about getting a Covid vaccine are sued by families who lose members because those family members don't get vaccinated. That is a crime.

In the same vein I hope that all those who have in the past supported gain of function research and then mislead the public by saying the lab leak theory was a conspiracy to cover their own asses should be prosecuted. Also those who have suppressed the use of repurposed drugs in support of big pharma greed. The wait until your lips turned blue approach to treating COVID-19 did not work and resulted in many deaths.

My nephew is in the hospital now, was sent home twice without any treatment other than the instructions to "breath deeply", take Tylenol and drink fluids, he now has pneumomediastinum and is on heparin and 4 liters of oxygen. They never even gave him a CT scan until this third time to the hospital. The CDC protocols for treating this virus have been garbage.

Thank goodness my doctor was more proactive or I probably would be dead.

Quote from: FWalum on July 11, 2021, 11:36:46 AM

Quote from: bbtds on July 08, 2021, 05:06:39 AM
I hope the conservative media that says to be cautious about getting a Covid vaccine are sued by families who lose members because those family members don't get vaccinated. That is a crime.

In the same vein I hope that all those who have in the past supported gain of function research and then mislead the public by saying the lab leak theory was a conspiracy to cover their own asses should be prosecuted. Also those who have suppressed the use of repurposed drugs in support of big pharma greed.

Yup.

Quote from: FWalum on July 11, 2021, 11:36:46 AM

Quote from: bbtds on July 08, 2021, 05:06:39 AM
I hope the conservative media that says to be cautious about getting a Covid vaccine are sued by families who lose members because those family members don't get vaccinated. That is a crime.

In the same vein I hope that all those who have in the past supported gain of function research and then mislead the public by saying the lab leak theory was a conspiracy to cover their own asses should be prosecuted. Also those who have suppressed the use of repurposed drugs in support of big pharma greed. The wait until your lips turned blue approach to treating COVID-19 did not work and resulted in many deaths.

My nephew is in the hospital now, was sent home twice without any treatment other than the instructions to "breath deeply", take Tylenol and drink fluids, he now has pneumomediastinum and is on heparin and 4 liters of oxygen. They never even gave him a CT scan until this third time to the hospital. The CDC protocols for treating this virus have been garbage.

Thank goodness my doctor was more proactive or I probably would be dead.

So you're not blaming your nephew's issues with getting the vaccine, correct?

I do see that there have been issues with the CDC guidelines for treating the people suffering from a very new virus. Has this not always been the case with new viruses.

How has the conservative media's advocating for people without complications (what should be discussed with a doctor) to NOT get a vaccine helped?

FWAlum - I am sorry to hear that your nephew has struggled so much and hope that he recovers quickly with no long term effects.

Quote from: bbtds on July 12, 2021, 10:43:43 AM

Quote from: FWalum on July 11, 2021, 11:36:46 AM

Quote from: bbtds on July 08, 2021, 05:06:39 AM
I hope the conservative media that says to be cautious about getting a Covid vaccine are sued by families who lose members because those family members don't get vaccinated. That is a crime.

In the same vein I hope that all those who have in the past supported gain of function research and then mislead the public by saying the lab leak theory was a conspiracy to cover their own asses should be prosecuted. Also those who have suppressed the use of repurposed drugs in support of big pharma greed. The wait until your lips turned blue approach to treating COVID-19 did not work and resulted in many deaths.

My nephew is in the hospital now, was sent home twice without any treatment other than the instructions to "breath deeply", take Tylenol and drink fluids, he now has pneumomediastinum and is on heparin and 4 liters of oxygen. They never even gave him a CT scan until this third time to the hospital. The CDC protocols for treating this virus have been garbage.

Thank goodness my doctor was more proactive or I probably would be dead.

So you're not blaming your nephew's issues with getting the vaccine, correct?

I do see that there have been issues with the CDC guidelines for treating the people suffering from a very new virus. Has this not always been the case with new viruses.

How has the conservative media's advocating for people without complications (what should be discussed with a doctor) to NOT get a vaccine helped?

The lowest vaccination rates in NWI are in northern Lake County (almost exclusively Democrats):

"Residents of northern Lake County are poised to suffer the most in a COVID-19 resurgence, since the average vaccination rate through Tuesday in Gary ZIP codes was just 28.9%, East Chicago was at 31.6%, and Hammond 35.5%. "It's shocking and bad. I don't understand it," Hammond Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr. said. "It seems to me the unvaccinated people are taking a big chance — they're risking their lives."

https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/most-nwi-communities-well-short-of-70-covid-19-vaccination-target/article_573537bc-0331-5c41-9d61-26da01cd55fb.html

For me, getting vaccinated was a no-brainer, given my age. Personal politics had nothing to do with it. If I was 25, maybe I would think differently, maybe I wouldn't. Who knows? The fact is I'm not 25, and I'm not going to judge the people who are. The vast majority of people in Gary and East Chicago are black and Hispanic. I don't know why they don't want to get vaccinated, but again, that's their business, not mine. Not everything in the world is about politics, my friend.

Bbtds,

Is the conservative media telling people to "be cautious" about getting the Covid vaccine, as you said in your first comment?

Or is the conservative media "advocating for people without complications (sic) to NOT get a vaccine," as you said in your second comment?

Please stop moving the goalposts.

And by the way, you mean "contraindications," not "complications."

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 12, 2021, 05:12:40 PM
Bbtds,

Is the conservative media telling people to "be cautious" about getting the Covid vaccine, as you said in your first comment?

Or is the conservative media "advocating for people without complications (sic) to NOT get a vaccine," as you said in your second comment?

Please stop moving the goalposts.

And by the way, you mean "contraindications," not "complications."

I have my TV remote preset to Fox News now. It doesn't stay there long but they did show a CPAC commentator saying "vaccinations are your choice and are certainly not proven." That last part of the comment is surely false. Missouri, 1 of the states with low vaccination rates, has the most deaths of people 30 to 50 who, at almost an 100% non-vaccinated rate, from Covid-19.

Bbtds,

Good, keep watching. It's more accurate than the junk you usually watch.

I'm asking what exactly is your argument. Is conservative media suggesting people should "be cautious" about getting the vaccine?

Or is it "advocating" for people to not get it?

There is a significant difference.

In my opinion, mainstream conservative news media is more typically suggesting that people exercise caution when getting the vaccine. This is an issue that is certainly subject to interpretation.

Such incomplete comments as those you quoted however should not be taken to mean that the individual making them necessarily intended to be understood as saying that vaccines have not been proven efficacious as a preventative measure against Covid-19 infection.

For instance, he or she having made the suggestion that vaccines are "not proven," may refer to the very legitimate concerns that the jury is largely still out regarding potential long-term side-effects associated with vaccine use, or the vaccine's potential to establish robust and truly long-lasting protection against virus contraction and symptom severity such that people will not require additional vaccinations in the future. 

Gotta' think critically.

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 12, 2021, 09:04:44 PM
Bbtds,

Good, keep watching. It's more accurate than the junk you usually watch.

I'm asking what exactly is your argument. Is conservative media suggesting people should "be cautious" about getting the vaccine?

Or is it "advocating" for people to not get it?

There are some on Fox News that are advocating not to get vaccinated simply because Dr. Fauci advocates for it. Dr. Fauci is not being political. He is a guy that disagreed with Trump and some of his statements. That is the only reason, not what you said which is think critically, that they won't get vaccinated. I had a conversation with someone in a doctor's office who took off their mask, weren't vaccinated, and explained that they didn't believe the so-called experts (Fauci). The receptionists heard me talking looked over and saw he took off his mask and told him he had to wear a mask because if not the nurse's duty would then be to call security. He stopped talking to me and completely shut up because he didn't want to miss his opportunity to see the doctor, who by the way qualifies as a "so-called expert" that advocates wearing a mask.

QuoteThere is a significant difference.

In my opinion, mainstream conservative news media is more typically suggesting that people exercise caution when getting the vaccine. This is an issue that is certainly subject to interpretation.

Such incomplete comments as those you quoted however should not be taken to mean that the individual making them necessarily intended to be understood as saying that vaccines have not been proven efficacious as a preventative measure against Covid-19 infection.

For instance, he or she having made the suggestion that vaccines are "not proven," may refer to the very legitimate concerns that the jury is largely still out regarding potential long-term side-effects associated with vaccine use, or the vaccine's potential to establish robust and truly long-lasting protection against virus contraction and symptom severity such that people will not require additional vaccinations in the future. 

Gotta' think critically.

Bbtds,

I'm reluctant to believe Fox News hosts are saying not to get the vaccine simply because Dr. Fauci says you should get it. They don't always have control over what their guests say, though. That's just how it goes.

But please provide some proof. If you can, I'll be happy to admit my suspicions were incorrect.

Perhaps they or their guests are saying people shouldn't get the vaccine only because Fauci says they should? This seems more likely.

I'm having a hard time understanding some of your comment. And I don't believe you fully understood my previous comment.

Your story about the guy at the doctor's office seems unrelated.

Listen, you need to relax a little. Fox News is not outright telling people not to get vaccinated. That isn't happening. But if you really believe that, I can't help you.

In all sincerity, do you mind me asking how old you are?

Quote from: bbtds on July 12, 2021, 10:43:43 AM
So you're not blaming your nephew's issues with getting the vaccine, correct?

I do see that there have been issues with the CDC guidelines for treating the people suffering from a very new virus. Has this not always been the case with new viruses.

How has the conservative media's advocating for people without complications (what should be discussed with a doctor) to NOT get a vaccine helped?

I am not blaming my nephew's illness on the vaccine, he is a 23 year old adult and had not gotten the vaccine. He is a highly educated double electrical and mechanical engineer and was concerned about the number of reactions reported in VAERS for myocarditis and pericarditis in young men and the unknown future affects on fertility. I know, I know, I know you are all thinking how stupid can you get, but if you look at the government statistics of people in his age group getting COVID and ending up in the hospital with pneumomediastinum it is virtually nil. He is still in the hospital on 6L of oxygen, Remdesivir and the blood thinner Lovinox.

As someone who works with health data for county health departments, what is happening with the VAERS database is pretty scary and I think that conservatives are much more likely to be skeptical of the government's vaccine push. From what I have seen the conservative media has only said that it is your choice to jab or not to jab. They certainly have talked more about the adverse reactions than the MSM but are not advocating people should NOT get the vaccine. What is hurting the government/medical establishment's pro-vaccine message is that they treat those who have questions like imbecilic conspiracy theorists. Statements like this from the DOL Government website does not help.

QuoteAre adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine recordable on the OSHA recordkeeping log?

DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers' vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904's recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency's position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.

They need to be more transparent and explain why VAERS is reporting that 9,049 deaths might have some link to the vaccines. They should explain that this is the first vaccine literally targeted at an older more susceptible population capable and more willing to report adverse reactions. They should explain that when you give a vaccine to a person in their mid 90's there is a relatively high probability that they might die of natural causes in the next couple of weeks. Instead of saying they didn't fund gain of function research when anyone with half a brain can see that they did, they should explain why they did the funding, believe it or not there are some legitimate reasons to do this research, but when you hide it you can start to look pretty shady. The Left needs to stop treating doctors and researchers who don't agree with the CDC and FDA with disdain and censorship. This type of censorship and refusal to even consider that some treatments other than the watchful waiting original protocol of the CDC, have lead to many doctor groups developing their own protocols, such as Local frontline doctors modify COVID treatment based on results (https://www.thedesertreview.com/health/local-frontline-doctors-modify-covid-treatment-based-on-results/article_9cdded9e-962f-11eb-a59a-f3e1151e98c3.html). Finally YouTube is allowing some debate (they had pulled down virtually all videos discussing certain drugs deemed misinformation) on repurposed drugs, see this debate Ivermectin: Pros vs Cons. Dr. Luis Garegnani and Dr. Pierre Kory Debate The Issue (https://youtu.be/DCpiHHG0R2k).

Let's talk about protocols for SARS-CoV-2 treatment. In the beginning of this pandemic the CDC and NIH basically said wait and watch, don't come to the doctor or hospital unless absolutely necessary. Even when you went to the hospital you were only given oxygen and Tylenol. Rogue doctors started using corticosteroids on severely ill patients despite the fact that this was strongly not advised by the CDC and NIH. Those two agencies later retracted that advise and corticosteroids are now the standard of care for severe cases. FDA has approved one drug, remdesivir (Veklury), for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients aged 12 years and older. Why haven't they approved any repurposed drugs such as Colchicine, Fluvoxamine, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin and Doxycycline. Are they protecting the MRNA vaccine Emergency Use Authorization? Even if these drugs where only effective in a small percentage of cases, how do these agencies advise against their usage??? Even that small percentage equates to large numbers when you are talking over 600,000 deaths.

If they want higher vaccine rates then be truthful, thoroughly explain the pros and cons, the good and the bad. Don't censor real experts Dr Bret Weinstein on Scientific censorship (https://youtu.be/N3Y2N_wJIhk). YouTube, Google, Facebook science fact-checkers' "pants on fire" lie (https://youtu.be/iTHWG4KzqkQ). Don't treat those with questions or speculation as idiots and doofuses. Watching Meet the Press and Face the Nation on Sunday, I couldn't believe how these people reacted to the vaccination percentages, they can't fathom how anyone could possibly question the efficacy of the government's vaccine push. Their inability to understand so much of the country amazes me.

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 13, 2021, 12:08:24 AMI'm having a hard time understanding some of your comment. And I don't believe you fully understood my previous comment.

Your story about the guy at the doctor's office seems unrelated.

You continue to tell me what you believe I understand, right?

I believe the guy in the doctor's office wants to put into action what he hears on conservative media which he may or may not truly understand. But when it comes to seeing a doctor he believes the doctor can help him but he doesn't believe in the experts (which is what the doctor truly is, an expert). The conservative media confuses this man in the doctor's office into spouting conservative BS while not truly understanding what not getting the vaccine is really about. He would say Fauci must be wrong because conservative media says what he is advocating is wrong.

Bbtds,

Honestly, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about much of the time.

And it is very evident you have not fully understood posts addressing topics that you persist in bringing up.

On an ever-increasing amount of occasions, multiple posters, including myself, have taken the time to provide truly irrefutable explanations as to why various assertions of yours are incorrect. Yet you persist in making many of them.

Personally, I will no longer bother arguing with you.

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 13, 2021, 06:41:13 PM
Bbtds,

Honestly, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about much of the time.

And it is very evident you have not fully understood posts addressing topics that you persist in bringing up.

On an ever-increasing amount of occasions, multiple posters, including myself, have taken the time to provide truly irrefutable explanations as to why various assertions of yours are incorrect. Yet you persist in making them many of them.

Personally, I will no longer bother to argue with you.

Because you really don't have an argument for a person who doesn't have any complications not to get a vaccine and he doesn't think critically like you asked to be done and just follows Trump blindly and hates whoever Trump hates.

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 13, 2021, 06:41:13 PM
Bbtds,

Honestly, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about much of the time.

And it is very evident you have not fully understood posts addressing topics that you persist in bringing up.

On an ever-increasing amount of occasions, multiple posters, including myself, have taken the time to provide truly irrefutable explanations as to why various assertions of yours are incorrect. Yet you persist in making many of them.

Personally, I will no longer bother arguing with you.

You once asked Bbtds how old he was. I get the impression from his posts that he is a freshman in high school.  He should read this High School Bioethics Project on ETHICS OF VACCINATIONS. Perhaps he will learn something.

https://med.nyu.edu/highschoolbioethics/sites/default/files/highschoolbioethics/EthicsofVaccinations_Module_0.pdf

Bbtds,

This topic will be the last thing I go back and forth with you about....

You began by complaining that mainstream conservative media is suggesting to its viewers that they should "be cautious" about getting the vaccine.

Your position quickly shifted into suggesting that mainstream conservative media is not only telling its viewers to exercise caution, but "advocating" for them not to get vaccinated.

Multiple times, I have asked you to clarify which of these two arguments you were willing to stand by. As far as I'm concerned, you have still failed to do so.

Now, however, you are making an unrelated argument: that I personally cannot justify why people without "complications (sic)" are not getting the vaccine.

For what I believe is the second or third time, you mean to say "contraindications," not "complications."

The sole argument I have made throughout this thread is that people should exercise caution when considering whether or not to get vaccinated by making this decision in consultation with their doctors. 

I have not said that people without contraindications are either justified or unjustified in ultimately deciding not to get the vaccine -- because it is none of my damn business one way or the other! We live in a free society. I do not have the right to decide for others what they should do when making medical decisions for themselves, and neither do you.

I have expressed skepticism about your claim that mainstream conservative media is more or less telling people not to get vaccinated. I have asked you to provide evidence that would address my skepticism, and you have failed to do so.

Bbtds, let's think good and hard about this one: Trump is very adamantly pro-vaccine....

So how can it be that conservatives "follow Trump blindly," as you suggest, but are also refusing to get vaccinated at an unacceptable rate, as you seem to suggest?

I'm not saying that conservatives do or do not "follow Trump blindly," only that these two ideas are not logically consistent with one another. Why bother arguing with someone who does not understand this?

Indeed, many of the arguments you have made on this thread and elsewhere are not logically consistent.

Thus, you frequently change your positions, attribute positions to others they have not actually taken, and lack logical consistency. In other threads, you have also repeatedly introduced already refuted criticisms.

You have proven to me you are incapable of serious argument.

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 13, 2021, 10:27:43 PMBbtds, let's think good and hard about this one: Trump is very adamantly pro-vaccine....

So how can it be that conservatives "follow Trump blindly," as you suggest, but are also refusing to get vaccinated at an unacceptable rate, as you seem to suggest?

I'm not saying that conservatives do or do not "follow Trump blindly," only that these two ideas are not logically consistent with one another. Why bother arguing with someone who does not understand this?

You're assuming Trump has been logically consistent and that is in no way a given. Trump does only what is good for Trump! Why do you think Trump doesn't dispute his own supporters and say "you're wrong about the vaccine!!!" Because he really doesn't care about those people.

This has just got to end!!!!

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=244915580776607&notif_id=1626063487353997&notif_t=watch_follower_video&ref=notif

If you truly believe that vaccines are good for those who have no reason to fear them then these statements must go!!!!

More COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths Last Week in US than COVID-19 Deaths

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/shock-report-covid-19-vaccine-deaths-last-week-us-covid-19-deaths/

1505 COVID deaths
2043 COVID vaccine deaths

From the article you posted:

"The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database contains information on unverified reports of adverse events (illnesses, health problems and/or symptoms) following immunization with US-licensed vaccines. Reports are accepted from anyone and can be submitted electronically at www.vaers.hhs.gov."

I agree with FWAlum's argument that these need to be examined, but your statement - which essentially argues that more people have died recently from being vaccinated than from COVID-19 - is not valid because it compares a highly verified figure with a highly unverified figure.

I also agree with several comments that if people have concerns about being vaccinated given their pre-existing conditions they should discuss it with their doctor...and recognize that their doctor is a trained medical expert, while others who offer their positions to them (neighbors, family members, those in internet chat rooms, pastors, etc., etc.) are not.

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 06:23:14 AM
More COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths Last Week in US than COVID-19 Deaths

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/shock-report-covid-19-vaccine-deaths-last-week-us-covid-19-deaths/

1505 COVID deaths
2043 COVID vaccine deaths

Gateway Pundit says it all. A very poor organization that only has one agenda.

Quote from: bbtds on July 14, 2021, 10:19:16 AM

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 06:23:14 AM
More COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths Last Week in US than COVID-19 Deaths

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/shock-report-covid-19-vaccine-deaths-last-week-us-covid-19-deaths/

1505 COVID deaths
2043 COVID vaccine deaths

Gateway Pundit says it all. A very poor organization that only has one agenda.

State run media (where 97% of employees vote Democrat) is in love with the CDC (another Democrat-controlled institution). Everything is filtered to insure that the Democrat Party is always shown in a positive light. If it's bad news that can't be refuted or masssaged or they can't assainnate the source's character, they simply don't report it. If it appears in social media, they cancel it. They never feed the sheep anything eye-opening. They'follow the Communist Communist Party model to a tee. 

So a very good friend of mine, also very conservative and unvaccinated, got Covid, went in the hospital yesterday, and just now was moved to the ICU.  We are praying.  He was a healthy 50 year old. God willing he will revert to a healthy state.

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 12:02:48 PM

Quote from: bbtds on July 14, 2021, 10:19:16 AM

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 06:23:14 AM
More COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths Last Week in US than COVID-19 Deaths

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/shock-report-covid-19-vaccine-deaths-last-week-us-covid-19-deaths/

1505 COVID deaths
2043 COVID vaccine deaths

Gateway Pundit says it all. A very poor organization that only has one agenda.

State run media (where 97% of employees vote Democrat) is in love with the CDC (another Democrat-controlled institution). Everything is filtered to insure that the Democrat Party is always shown in a positive light. If it's bad news that can't be refuted or masssaged or they can't assainnate the source's character, they simply don't report it. If it appears in social media, they cancel it. They never feed the sheep anything eye-opening. They'follow the Communist Communist Party model to a tee.

How do you believe this crap?

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 12:02:48 PM

Quote from: bbtds on July 14, 2021, 10:19:16 AM

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 06:23:14 AM
More COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths Last Week in US than COVID-19 Deaths

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/shock-report-covid-19-vaccine-deaths-last-week-us-covid-19-deaths/

1505 COVID deaths
2043 COVID vaccine deaths

Gateway Pundit says it all. A very poor organization that only has one agenda.

State run media (where 97% of employees vote Democrat) is in love with the CDC (another Democrat-controlled institution). Everything is filtered to insure that the Democrat Party is always shown in a positive light. If it's bad news that can't be refuted or masssaged or they can't assainnate the source's character, they simply don't report it. If it appears in social media, they cancel it. They never feed the sheep anything eye-opening. They'follow the Communist Communist Party model to a tee. 

it took me 30 seconds of web searching to come up with the following (this comes from Nebraska Medicine).

Reporting even unrelated deaths
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires health care providers to report any serious adverse event (including death) that happens after a COVID-19 vaccination – whether or not the provider thinks there is any link. The CDC says, "Health care providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination...regardless if the reporter thinks the vaccine caused the AE." AE stands for adverse event and includes death.

That means that if a vaccinated person drowns, gets in a car crash or is struck by lightning, their death must be reported to VAERS as an adverse event. Since we've vaccinated over 140 million people in the United States, many deaths will occur coincidentally after vaccination.

As of May 10, there have been 4,434 reports of death following a COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS. Doctors at the CDC review each reported death, looking at death certificates, autopsy and medical records. They have no reason to believe that COVID-19 vaccines cause death.

Reuters reported the same thing: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaers-deaths/fact-check-vaers-reported-vaccine-deaths-have-not-been-confirmed-or-deemed-causal-by-cdc-idUSL1N2MZ2H8

----------------------------------------------

I am all for investigating causes of death that may be related to the vaccine. But the report by gatewaypundit is totally misleading and completely irresponsible. It shows what a grossly biased organization this company is, with virtually no journalistic integrity. wh - are you going to dare say that you were wrong to post this - because posting this perpetuates grossly inaccurate information?

Quote from: bbtds on July 14, 2021, 02:34:39 PM

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 12:02:48 PM

Quote from: bbtds on July 14, 2021, 10:19:16 AM

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 06:23:14 AM
More COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths Last Week in US than COVID-19 Deaths

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/shock-report-covid-19-vaccine-deaths-last-week-us-covid-19-deaths/

1505 COVID deaths
2043 COVID vaccine deaths

Gateway Pundit says it all. A very poor organization that only has one agenda.

State run media (where 97% of employees vote Democrat) is in love with the CDC (another Democrat-controlled institution). Everything is filtered to insure that the Democrat Party is always shown in a positive light. If it's bad news that can't be refuted or masssaged or they can't assainnate the source's character, they simply don't report it. If it appears in social media, they cancel it. They never feed the sheep anything eye-opening. They'follow the Communist Communist Party model to a tee.

How do you believe this crap?

Why do think the claims you make on every controversial topic are constantly proven wrong by valpopal, JBC1824, and others?  You're regurgitating crap that Rachel Maddow and CNN or some other radical source told you. Think about it...

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 14, 2021, 04:27:55 PM

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 12:02:48 PM

Quote from: bbtds on July 14, 2021, 10:19:16 AM

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 06:23:14 AM
More COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths Last Week in US than COVID-19 Deaths

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/shock-report-covid-19-vaccine-deaths-last-week-us-covid-19-deaths/

1505 COVID deaths
2043 COVID vaccine deaths

Gateway Pundit says it all. A very poor organization that only has one agenda.

State run media (where 97% of employees vote Democrat) is in love with the CDC (another Democrat-controlled institution). Everything is filtered to insure that the Democrat Party is always shown in a positive light. If it's bad news that can't be refuted or masssaged or they can't assainnate the source's character, they simply don't report it. If it appears in social media, they cancel it. They never feed the sheep anything eye-opening. They'follow the Communist Communist Party model to a tee. 

it took me 30 seconds of web searching to come up with the following (this comes from Nebraska Medicine).

Reporting even unrelated deaths
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires health care providers to report any serious adverse event (including death) that happens after a COVID-19 vaccination – whether or not the provider thinks there is any link. The CDC says, "Health care providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination...regardless if the reporter thinks the vaccine caused the AE." AE stands for adverse event and includes death.

That means that if a vaccinated person drowns, gets in a car crash or is struck by lightning, their death must be reported to VAERS as an adverse event. Since we've vaccinated over 140 million people in the United States, many deaths will occur coincidentally after vaccination.

As of May 10, there have been 4,434 reports of death following a COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS. Doctors at the CDC review each reported death, looking at death certificates, autopsy and medical records. They have no reason to believe that COVID-19 vaccines cause death.

Reuters reported the same thing: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaers-deaths/fact-check-vaers-reported-vaccine-deaths-have-not-been-confirmed-or-deemed-causal-by-cdc-idUSL1N2MZ2H8

----------------------------------------------

I am all for investigating causes of death that may be related to the vaccine. But the report by gatewaypundit is totally misleading and completely irresponsible. It shows what a grossly biased organization this company is, with virtually no journalistic integrity. wh - are you going to dare say that you were wrong to post this - because posting this perpetuates grossly inaccurate information?

You had me interested until I got to the bold print, and then your point lost all credibility. Thanks for playing.

Quote from: bbtds on July 14, 2021, 04:48:13 AM
This has just got to end!!!!

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=244915580776607&notif_id=1626063487353997&notif_t=watch_follower_video&ref=notif

If you truly believe that vaccines are good for those who have no reason to fear them then these statements must go!!!!

At first glance I found this video to be very very troubling. I am not a Lauren Boebert fan, I find her political methods to be very divisive. I am certainly right of center and have a conceal carry permit, but I don't find her aggressive politics palatable. However, that Facebook video is just garbage. Did you actually watch her full speech at CPAC? It had nothing to do with vaccinations or COVID in general. She was railing about the stimulus checks and the extra unemployment money. I hate it when either party uses click bait like that to get a reaction from their base which is exactly what they did to you bbtds.

I generally try to do some research on both sides or hypotheses before I come to a conclusion, but it seems that you haven't really critically read my posts or looked at any of the embedded links. I'll give you another chance. Here is a link to a discussion about the Indian Bar Association suing the WHO (https://youtu.be/WenJhxVWekU) alleging that the WHO actively engaged in disinformation and censorship on the use of Ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2. They allege that this resulted in many deaths. I bet you haven't heard about that one in the MSM.

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 04:59:25 PM

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 14, 2021, 04:27:55 PM

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 12:02:48 PM

Quote from: bbtds on July 14, 2021, 10:19:16 AM

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 06:23:14 AM
More COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths Last Week in US than COVID-19 Deaths

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/shock-report-covid-19-vaccine-deaths-last-week-us-covid-19-deaths/

1505 COVID deaths
2043 COVID vaccine deaths

Gateway Pundit says it all. A very poor organization that only has one agenda.

State run media (where 97% of employees vote Democrat) is in love with the CDC (another Democrat-controlled institution). Everything is filtered to insure that the Democrat Party is always shown in a positive light. If it's bad news that can't be refuted or masssaged or they can't assainnate the source's character, they simply don't report it. If it appears in social media, they cancel it. They never feed the sheep anything eye-opening. They'follow the Communist Communist Party model to a tee. 

it took me 30 seconds of web searching to come up with the following (this comes from Nebraska Medicine).

Reporting even unrelated deaths
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires health care providers to report any serious adverse event (including death) that happens after a COVID-19 vaccination – whether or not the provider thinks there is any link. The CDC says, "Health care providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination...regardless if the reporter thinks the vaccine caused the AE." AE stands for adverse event and includes death.

That means that if a vaccinated person drowns, gets in a car crash or is struck by lightning, their death must be reported to VAERS as an adverse event. Since we've vaccinated over 140 million people in the United States, many deaths will occur coincidentally after vaccination.

As of May 10, there have been 4,434 reports of death following a COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS. Doctors at the CDC review each reported death, looking at death certificates, autopsy and medical records. They have no reason to believe that COVID-19 vaccines cause death.

Reuters reported the same thing: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaers-deaths/fact-check-vaers-reported-vaccine-deaths-have-not-been-confirmed-or-deemed-causal-by-cdc-idUSL1N2MZ2H8

----------------------------------------------

I am all for investigating causes of death that may be related to the vaccine. But the report by gatewaypundit is totally misleading and completely irresponsible. It shows what a grossly biased organization this company is, with virtually no journalistic integrity. wh - are you going to dare say that you were wrong to post this - because posting this perpetuates grossly inaccurate information?

You had me interested until I got to the bold print, and then your point lost all credibility. Thanks for playing.

Once again, wh, you have trouble dealing with actual facts and detail that disagree with the narrative that you desire (much like Trump). What in the bold print do you find not credible?

Quote from: FWalum on July 14, 2021, 05:38:01 PM

Quote from: bbtds on July 14, 2021, 04:48:13 AM
This has just got to end!!!!

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=244915580776607&notif_id=1626063487353997&notif_t=watch_follower_video&ref=notif

If you truly believe that vaccines are good for those who have no reason to fear them then these statements must go!!!!

At first glance I found this video to be very very troubling. I am not a Lauren Boebert fan, I find her political methods to be very divisive. I am certainly right of center and have a conceal carry permit, but I don't find her aggressive politics palatable. However, that Facebook video is just garbage. Did you actually watch her full speech at CPAC? It had nothing to do with vaccinations or COVID in general. She was railing about the stimulus checks and the extra unemployment money. I hate it when either party uses click bait like that to get a reaction from their base which is exactly what they did to you bbtds.

I generally try to do some research on both sides or hypotheses before I come to a conclusion, but it seems that you haven't really critically read my posts or looked at any of the embedded links. I'll give you another chance. Here is a link to a discussion about the Indian Bar Association suing the WHO (https://youtu.be/WenJhxVWekU) alleging that the WHO actively engaged in disinformation and censorship on the use of Ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2. They allege that this resulted in many deaths. I bet you haven't heard about that one in the MSM.

So you believe the premise that turning off CNN and voting Republican will eliminate the Delta variant. Tell me how that happens.

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 04:59:25 PM

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 14, 2021, 04:27:55 PM

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 12:02:48 PM

Quote from: bbtds on July 14, 2021, 10:19:16 AM

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 06:23:14 AM
More COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths Last Week in US than COVID-19 Deaths

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/shock-report-covid-19-vaccine-deaths-last-week-us-covid-19-deaths/

1505 COVID deaths
2043 COVID vaccine deaths

Gateway Pundit says it all. A very poor organization that only has one agenda.

State run media (where 97% of employees vote Democrat) is in love with the CDC (another Democrat-controlled institution). Everything is filtered to insure that the Democrat Party is always shown in a positive light. If it's bad news that can't be refuted or masssaged or they can't assainnate the source's character, they simply don't report it. If it appears in social media, they cancel it. They never feed the sheep anything eye-opening. They'follow the Communist Communist Party model to a tee. 

it took me 30 seconds of web searching to come up with the following (this comes from Nebraska Medicine).

Reporting even unrelated deaths
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires health care providers to report any serious adverse event (including death) that happens after a COVID-19 vaccination – whether or not the provider thinks there is any link. The CDC says, "Health care providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination...regardless if the reporter thinks the vaccine caused the AE." AE stands for adverse event and includes death.

That means that if a vaccinated person drowns, gets in a car crash or is struck by lightning, their death must be reported to VAERS as an adverse event. Since we've vaccinated over 140 million people in the United States, many deaths will occur coincidentally after vaccination.

As of May 10, there have been 4,434 reports of death following a COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS. Doctors at the CDC review each reported death, looking at death certificates, autopsy and medical records. They have no reason to believe that COVID-19 vaccines cause death.

Reuters reported the same thing: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaers-deaths/fact-check-vaers-reported-vaccine-deaths-have-not-been-confirmed-or-deemed-causal-by-cdc-idUSL1N2MZ2H8

----------------------------------------------

I am all for investigating causes of death that may be related to the vaccine. But the report by gatewaypundit is totally misleading and completely irresponsible. It shows what a grossly biased organization this company is, with virtually no journalistic integrity. wh - are you going to dare say that you were wrong to post this - because posting this perpetuates grossly inaccurate information?

You had me interested until I got to the bold print, and then your point lost all credibility. Thanks for playing.

Vu84v2 is at least partially correct on this one, wh.

He is right to point out that many deaths have occurred after vaccination as a matter of coincidence and not necessarily causality. The Gateway Pundit's failure to highlight this fact and making the statement that "there were more Covid vaccine deaths in the United States last week than Covid deaths in the United States last week," are very egregious errors.

And these errors truly do have the potential to cause harm to the Gateway Pundit's readers.

I'm reluctant to believe healthcare providers or any person would make a report to VAERS in the case that someone died from a lighting strike after being vaccinated, but the standard for reporting explicitly states that providers are "required to report" into the VAERS system "adverse events regardless of causality."

https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html

Not an expert on this issue, but it seems to me this would include drownings and car accident related deaths.

Would be happy to be proven incorrect in my suspicions and ultimately become better informed. An interesting matter of detail.

FWalum,

The whole issue surrounding Ivermectin is something everyone should check out.

And the DarkHorse Podcast is amazing! If you haven't already, please do yourself a favor and listen.

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 14, 2021, 06:02:19 PM

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 04:59:25 PM

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 14, 2021, 04:27:55 PM

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 12:02:48 PM

Quote from: bbtds on July 14, 2021, 10:19:16 AM

Quote from: wh on July 14, 2021, 06:23:14 AM
More COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths Last Week in US than COVID-19 Deaths

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/shock-report-covid-19-vaccine-deaths-last-week-us-covid-19-deaths/

1505 COVID deaths
2043 COVID vaccine deaths

Gateway Pundit says it all. A very poor organization that only has one agenda.

State run media (where 97% of employees vote Democrat) is in love with the CDC (another Democrat-controlled institution). Everything is filtered to insure that the Democrat Party is always shown in a positive light. If it's bad news that can't be refuted or masssaged or they can't assainnate the source's character, they simply don't report it. If it appears in social media, they cancel it. They never feed the sheep anything eye-opening. They'follow the Communist Communist Party model to a tee. 

it took me 30 seconds of web searching to come up with the following (this comes from Nebraska Medicine).

Reporting even unrelated deaths
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires health care providers to report any serious adverse event (including death) that happens after a COVID-19 vaccination – whether or not the provider thinks there is any link. The CDC says, "Health care providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination...regardless if the reporter thinks the vaccine caused the AE." AE stands for adverse event and includes death.

That means that if a vaccinated person drowns, gets in a car crash or is struck by lightning, their death must be reported to VAERS as an adverse event. Since we've vaccinated over 140 million people in the United States, many deaths will occur coincidentally after vaccination.

As of May 10, there have been 4,434 reports of death following a COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS. Doctors at the CDC review each reported death, looking at death certificates, autopsy and medical records. They have no reason to believe that COVID-19 vaccines cause death.

Reuters reported the same thing: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaers-deaths/fact-check-vaers-reported-vaccine-deaths-have-not-been-confirmed-or-deemed-causal-by-cdc-idUSL1N2MZ2H8

----------------------------------------------

I am all for investigating causes of death that may be related to the vaccine. But the report by gatewaypundit is totally misleading and completely irresponsible. It shows what a grossly biased organization this company is, with virtually no journalistic integrity. wh - are you going to dare say that you were wrong to post this - because posting this perpetuates grossly inaccurate information?

You had me interested until I got to the bold print, and then your point lost all credibility. Thanks for playing.

Once again, wh, you have trouble dealing with actual facts and detail that disagree with the narrative that you desire (much like Trump). What in the bold print do you find not credible?

"That means that if a vaccinated person drowns, gets in a car crash or is struck by lightning, their death must be reported to VAERS as an adverse event."

Find out how many of the reported 4000+ COVID vaccine deaths did the reports tie to lightening strikes, drownings, and car crashes, and get back with me. After you learn there are none, I'll be happy to accept any similarly ridiculous claim you can verify. Who knows, maybe someone reported that Uncle Charlie getting robbed and murdered in the clinic parking lot after getting vaccinated was a COVID vaccine death because he never would have been there if not for getting vaccinated.

It shouldn't be this hard to have a serious conversation.

You are missing most of the point. People who were vaccinated, but died due to any other medical cause (including cancer, alzheimers, etc.), would also be counted - but should not be considered as deaths that were due to COVID. I think that if you look at the expected number of deaths versus the number of people vaccinated, controlling for age, you will find no effect from the vaccine itself. Of course, I imagine that if I were to do that and show those results you would still deny it.

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 14, 2021, 04:27:55 PMit took me 30 seconds of web searching to come up with the following (this comes from Nebraska Medicine).

Reporting even unrelated deaths
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires health care providers to report any serious adverse event (including death) that happens after a COVID-19 vaccination – whether or not the provider thinks there is any link. The CDC says, "Health care providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination...regardless if the reporter thinks the vaccine caused the AE." AE stands for adverse event and includes death.

That means that if a vaccinated person drowns, gets in a car crash or is struck by lightning, their death must be reported to VAERS as an adverse event. Since we've vaccinated over 140 million people in the United States, many deaths will occur coincidentally after vaccination.

As of May 10, there have been 4,434 reports of death following a COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS. Doctors at the CDC review each reported death, looking at death certificates, autopsy and medical records. They have no reason to believe that COVID-19 vaccines cause death.

Reuters reported the same thing: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaers-deaths/fact-check-vaers-reported-vaccine-deaths-have-not-been-confirmed-or-deemed-causal-by-cdc-idUSL1N2MZ2H8

----------------------------------------------

I am all for investigating causes of death that may be related to the vaccine. But the report by gatewaypundit is totally misleading and completely irresponsible. It shows what a grossly biased organization this company is, with virtually no journalistic integrity. wh - are you going to dare say that you were wrong to post this - because posting this perpetuates grossly inaccurate information?

I am going to call bulls#@% on both sides of this one. You are both misrepresenting how VAERS works and what is reported. As I said in my previous post:

QuoteThey need to be more transparent and explain why VAERS is reporting that 9,049 deaths might have some link to the vaccines. They should explain that this is the first vaccine literally targeted at an older more susceptible population capable and more willing to report adverse reactions. They should explain that when you give a vaccine to a person in their mid 90's there is a relatively high probability that they might die of natural causes in the next couple of weeks.

In the database I downloaded from mid June, no one is dying of lightning strikes and no one would report such a thing unless there was some adverse reaction that might have contributed. I found two drownings where it was reported that the person had recently gotten the vaccine and reported not feeling well before going surfing and the other was swimming in a pool the day after getting the vaccine. There are 2 reports of people being involved in car accidents that may have caused their death, both had recently gotten the vaccine and reported confusion or dizziness after the vaccine. You stated that the CDC reviews each death, that is true, but they are currently months if not years behind in investigating. 203 deaths in a year was the previous high. This year, if current trends hold, they will be looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of 17,000 deaths to investigate. Speculating about the true number of related deaths is just that, speculation.

Here are the actual requirements for reporting Adverse Reactions from the HHS website:

QuoteVAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences. Anyone can submit a report to VAERS, including parents and patients.

Healthcare providers are required by law to report to VAERS:

Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination that occurs within the specified time period after vaccinations
An adverse event listed by the vaccine manufacturer as a contraindication to further doses of the vaccine

Healthcare providers are strongly encouraged to report to VAERS:

Any adverse event that occurs after the administration of a vaccine licensed in the United States, whether it is or is not clear that a vaccine caused the adverse event
Vaccine administration errors

Vaccine manufacturers are required to report to VAERS all adverse events that come to their attention.

Note that Healthcare Providers are only required to report the reactions that are in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination.

vu84v2 you seem to think that many more events are reported than should be reported. Actually some statisticians including HHS believe that VAERS is underreported. Here is what the HHS says on their website:

QuoteWhen reviewing data from VAERS, please keep in mind the following limitations:
VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected, but require a report to be filed to VAERS. VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.

"Underreporting" is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes.

A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.

wh, many of the reported deaths are coincidental so the Gateway Pundit article is just sensationalism. Reading the reports they sound something like this: Patient expired 3 days after first vaccination.  Did not present to our facility for care after vaccination; did not have any adverse reactions during vaccination waiting period.  Per the Medical examiner, patient passed away at his residence, and his death was not related to the COVID vaccine.

Quote from: bbtds on July 14, 2021, 06:15:36 PM

Quote from: FWalum on July 14, 2021, 05:38:01 PM

Quote from: bbtds on July 14, 2021, 04:48:13 AM
This has just got to end!!!!

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=244915580776607&notif_id=1626063487353997&notif_t=watch_follower_video&ref=notif

If you truly believe that vaccines are good for those who have no reason to fear them then these statements must go!!!!

At first glance I found this video to be very very troubling. I am not a Lauren Boebert fan, I find her political methods to be very divisive. I am certainly right of center and have a conceal carry permit, but I don't find her aggressive politics palatable. However, that Facebook video is just garbage. Did you actually watch her full speech at CPAC? It had nothing to do with vaccinations or COVID in general. She was railing about the stimulus checks and the extra unemployment money. I hate it when either party uses click bait like that to get a reaction from their base which is exactly what they did to you bbtds.

I generally try to do some research on both sides or hypotheses before I come to a conclusion, but it seems that you haven't really critically read my posts or looked at any of the embedded links. I'll give you another chance. Here is a link to a discussion about the Indian Bar Association suing the WHO (https://youtu.be/WenJhxVWekU) alleging that the WHO actively engaged in disinformation and censorship on the use of Ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2. They allege that this resulted in many deaths. I bet you haven't heard about that one in the MSM.

So you believe the premise that turning off CNN and voting Republican will eliminate the Delta variant. Tell me how that happens.

What??? How did you come up with that from anything I have said in this thread. If you were trying to be funny I have to tell you that I did chuckle a bit.

Quote from: FWalum on July 14, 2021, 11:53:05 PM

Quote from: bbtds on July 14, 2021, 06:15:36 PM

Quote from: FWalum on July 14, 2021, 05:38:01 PM

Quote from: bbtds on July 14, 2021, 04:48:13 AM
This has just got to end!!!!

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=244915580776607&notif_id=1626063487353997&notif_t=watch_follower_video&ref=notif

If you truly believe that vaccines are good for those who have no reason to fear them then these statements must go!!!!

At first glance I found this video to be very very troubling. I am not a Lauren Boebert fan, I find her political methods to be very divisive. I am certainly right of center and have a conceal carry permit, but I don't find her aggressive politics palatable. However, that Facebook video is just garbage. Did you actually watch her full speech at CPAC? It had nothing to do with vaccinations or COVID in general. She was railing about the stimulus checks and the extra unemployment money. I hate it when either party uses click bait like that to get a reaction from their base which is exactly what they did to you bbtds.

I generally try to do some research on both sides or hypotheses before I come to a conclusion, but it seems that you haven't really critically read my posts or looked at any of the embedded links. I'll give you another chance. Here is a link to a discussion about the Indian Bar Association suing the WHO (https://youtu.be/WenJhxVWekU) alleging that the WHO actively engaged in disinformation and censorship on the use of Ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2. They allege that this resulted in many deaths. I bet you haven't heard about that one in the MSM.

So you believe the premise that turning off CNN and voting Republican will eliminate the Delta variant. Tell me how that happens.

What??? How did you come up with that from anything I have said in this thread. If you were trying to be funny I have to tell you that I did chuckle a bit.

You certainly aren't as easy to fluster and anger as the others. Bravo!

Although she did use the words and that must end!

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 14, 2021, 07:39:25 PM
FWalum,

The whole issue surrounding Ivermectin is something everyone should check out.

And the DarkHorse Podcast is amazing! If you haven't already, please do yourself a favor and listen.

You really are falling into a deep dark hole that the conservative media has set up for the Trumpists.

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 14, 2021, 11:31:37 PMOf course, I imagine that if I were to do that and show those results you would still deny it.

Of course! It would be a very Trump like move.

FWAlum - Thank you for your posting above. I have a great deal of respect for those that dig into the detail and I see your points regarding the inability to draw conclusions one way or another from a passive reporting system. I generally stated that the data supports that there are no greater occurrences of death due to the COVID-19 vaccines and it seems that the more accurate statement is that the data cannot reliably show whether there are any relationships between COVID-19 vaccines and deaths. Nonetheless, I stand by my prior statements that the report from gatewaypundit is incredibly misleading and thus grossly irresponsible.

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 15, 2021, 08:58:52 AM
FWAlum - Thank you for your posting above. I have a great deal of respect for those that dig into the detail and I see your points regarding the inability to draw conclusions one way or another from a passive reporting system. I generally stated that the data supports that there are no greater occurrences of death due to the COVID-19 vaccines and it seems that the more accurate statement is that the data cannot reliably show whether there are any relationships between COVID-19 vaccines and deaths. Nonetheless, I stand by my prior statements that the report from gatewaypundit is incredibly misleading and thus grossly irresponsible.

I agree with you. My concern is that we loose sight of the significant data when we don't look at things rationally and with objectivity. Even if 10-20% of these adverse reactions are truly caused by these novel vaccines it still is a significant number and should be rigorously debated in the scientific community.

Quote from: bbtds on July 15, 2021, 04:59:28 AM

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 14, 2021, 07:39:25 PM
FWalum,

The whole issue surrounding Ivermectin is something everyone should check out.

And the DarkHorse Podcast is amazing! If you haven't already, please do yourself a favor and listen.

You really are falling into a deep dark hole that the conservative media has set up for the Trumpists.

Really bbtds??? You turn everything into a politically charged repartee. Am I suppose to have some witty retort? Well here it is from the July/August 2021 Edition of American Journal of Therapeutics (obviously a
very Trumpist peer reviewed journal) Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines (https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx)
Since I doubt you will read it, let me put their conclusions here:

QuoteConclusions:
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

New COVID hospitalizations in the UK, where 53% are completely vaxxed:

July 16, 2021 717
July 16, 2020 166

Paul

Quote from: 78crusader on July 16, 2021, 03:22:37 PM
New COVID hospitalizations in the UK, where 53% are completely vaxxed:

July 16, 2021 717
July 16, 2020 166

Paul

I have no idea regarding the intent of this post. There are many factors (examples: virus mutation, precautions mandated, precautions followed, travel) that make looking at numbers like this in isolation extremely dangerous.

My point was -

Vaccines may well have long term efficacy. But numbers like this do not help to make that case.

Paul

(None of the information in this assuredly imperfect breakdown is meant to be taken as medical advice. When making serious decisions about your health, you should talk to your doctor.)

78crusader,

Let me begin by saying this, I tend to be extremely skeptical of conventional medicine....

Our World in Data seems to show different figures, while still demonstrating an increase in the number of covid hospitalizations presently in the UK as compared with this time last year. The rate of increase is not nearly as pronounced however.

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-hospitalizations

Very important context/additional information would be needed before any conclusions could be drawn.

For instance, was testing less available in the UK in July of 2020, such that the number of covid cases associated with hospitalization would have been underrepresented then? This information is widely available; I just don't feel like looking it up. It isn't central to the point I'm trying to make really.

People were also advised earlier during the pandemic to stay at home rather than go to the hospital unless symptoms became severe. This could be another important factor.

Furthermore, does the increase in hospitalizations reflect only the natural spread of the virus? Vaccination itself is not a guarantee against virus contraction.

There are also ebbs and flows in case rates and hospitalizations. We commonly hear of a "spike" in cases or hospitalizations in a particular part of the world.

On their own, those numbers really are meaningless.

I believe a somewhat better observational indicator of whether or not the vaccines are effective would be to compare vaccination rates to the rates of covid diagnosis across locations. After all, you cannot be hospitalized from covid or die from it, unless you contract it in the first place.

And when you compare vaccination rates to disease frequency between the states, higher vaccination rates are evidently associated with lower rates of disease.

The states with higher vaccination rates currently tend to have lower case rates and the states with lower vaccination rates typically have higher case rates.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/vaccines/international

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days

The best indicators of vaccine success remain the real-world studies whereas by design they do a better job controlling for all of the variables than simpler observations like the ones we've discussed can. Studies do show us the vaccines are highly effective.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0514-covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness.html

And vaccine effectiveness has been confirmed by overseas data from studies with no ties to either the CDC or any pharmaceutical companies.

https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.21.2100438

However, are there legitimate questions about whether or not covid vaccines will provide protection against newly evolved strains and potential vaccine side-effects, particularly long-term ones? Yes, there are. The jury is very much still out on all of this.

Also, have other, readily available and effective treatments for covid been marginalized so the drug companies could increase profits? It is my opinion this is true. 

COVID-19 cases in the US:

July 16, 2020 78,389
July 16, 2021 76,324

I don't know if the vaccines only have short term efficacy. However, these numbers are very hard to ignore.

Paul

Quote from: 78crusader on July 16, 2021, 09:26:05 PM
COVID-19 cases in the US:

July 16, 2020 78,389
July 16, 2021 76,324

I don't know if the vaccines only have short term efficacy. However, these numbers are very hard to ignore.

Paul

Is the COVID-19 virus the same today as it was one year ago? No, the Delta variant is much more virulent.

How many cases, hospitalizations and deaths are associated with vaccinated versus unvaccinated people? It seems like cases and hospitalizations are far more prevalent for unvaccinated people (see reports in the last few weeks from Maryland, North Carolina and Los Angeles County).

If people are just looking at numbers reported like those in 78crusader's post, it is scary how they acquire and process information in their lives.

Frankly, the work that Pfizer, Moderna and J&J have done to create vaccines that have strong efficacy not only against the original version of the virus, but also the recent variants, is truly amazing.

I agree with the supporting detail from JBC1824 regarding the efficacy of the vaccine. To the points that were raised at the end:

However, are there legitimate questions about whether or not covid vaccines will provide protection against newly evolved strains ==> this, of course, is impossible to answer because doing so would require accurately predicting how a virus would evolve and how such variants take hold. That said, it is pretty amazing that the vaccines continue to be effective against these new variants.

However, are there legitimate questions about potential vaccine side-effects, particularly long-term ones? Yes, there are. The jury is very much still out on all of this. ==> Ok, I will grant that this is not 100% (what is certain?)...but it seems that a wide range of true experts have verified this as best they can (and continue to do so). There was a report from several months ago that was cited today that 12 people are creating ~60% of the misinformation on the internet about the vaccines. None of these people has any educational, research or practical experience with immunology, public health, infectious diseases, etc. (note that 12 people seem to span the political spectrum - so this is not intended to be a political statement). Beyond that, what alternative do you propose?

Also, have other readily available and effective treatments for covid been marginalized so the drug companies could increase profits? It is my opinion this is true. ==> While you are entitled to your opinion, you nor I know whether this is true or false. Even if it were to be true (which I doubt to the degree that you seem to imply), it does not change whether people should get vaccinated. As previous a previous poster said (perhaps you), talk with your doctor and rely heavily on him or her to make valid recommendations for you based on your health history and his or her knowledge of the vaccines.

Vu84v2,

On the important stuff, we are on the same page on this issue.

As to the "legitimate questions" I raised, these are not criticisms, they are just reality. And they should not be interpreted as anything else.

Yes, very few things are certain. Heck, according to some leftists even mathematical certainty isn't so certain, and math more generally is racist!

Of course it is true that well-intentioned people who are far better judges of such things than you or I have decided and continue to decide that the harm profile of the vaccines insofar as it is understood is acceptable.

I am not proposing anything.

I have only stated that which I understand to be true, and I have drawn a clear distinction between this and what is my opinion. Don't unnecessarily complicate things.

I believe FWalum was the first to touch on Ivermectin specifically. He brought up some really good information. My opinion is based on the information available to me about Ivermectin and its usefulness in treating covid and how this relates to the emergency use authorization given to the vaccines. Basically, if Ivermectin was considered an effective means of treating covid, the vaccines would never have been eligible for emergency use.

Ivermectin is also no longer covered under patent, and therefore drug companies don't stand to gain much from its widespread use against covid, including its potential use as a prophylactic.

If you're curious about this issue, you really need to watch both of the following videos:

https://youtu.be/zfqxCkJw0Rk

https://youtu.be/zL9TUjJVoZo

I have not said people should not get vaccinated. I have repeatedly said people should talk to their doctor when deciding whether or not to get vaccinated.

"As reported earlier the CDC-linked VAERS website released its weekly numbers last Friday.

The website has now recorded 11,140 reported deaths from the COVID vaccine in the United States. This is up from 9,125 reported deaths from the COVID-19 vaccinations total from last week."

So, that's 2015 more deaths last week from COVID - that weren't caused by COVID. Have I got that right?

This, again, is incredibly misleading and dangerous information - and stating it in this manner is grossly irresponsible. These are reported deaths of people who have been vaccinated. While such relationships should be investigated, there is no causal relationship that has been found and most events are likely coincidental (see FWAlum's post on the prior page of this thread - and he is an expert in this area).

What do you hope to gain by posting such grossly irresponsible statements?

To be fair, I think wh is just trying to understand the issue better. Could be wrong. Anyway, I don't believe this is necessarily the easiest thing in the world to understand. Otherwise, multiple ppl on this forum wouldn't be struggling.

"Grossly irresponsible?" This is a bit overstated, no?

How many realistically look at this forum, especially this part of the forum? And if these people are then making their medical decisions based solely on what any of us say, well, I wouldn't really know what to say in this case. Not a good idea.

I agree with vu84v2 that looking at some of the previous posts on this topic, FWAlum's in particular, will likely be helpful. Everything that needed to be said on this issue already has been.

But it really boils down to the fact that "correlation is not causation," as vu84v2 has correctly suggested at least a few times. This is one of the most critical concepts to understanding data.

EXCLUSIVE: More Evidence Leaked from China on the Deliberate Release of COVID-19 by the Chinese Military

"It was specifically designed to be highly contagious, but often asymptomatic, have low lethality, but produce uncontrollable variants and possessing characteristics providing plausible deniability as a bioweapon."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/report-deliberate-release-covid-19-chinese-military/

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 22, 2021, 10:24:21 PM
This, again, is incredibly misleading and dangerous information - and stating it in this manner is grossly irresponsible. These are reported deaths of people who have been vaccinated. While such relationships should be investigated, there is no causal relationship that has been found and most events are likely coincidental (see FWAlum's post on the prior page of this thread - and he is an expert in this area).

What do you hope to gain by posting such grossly irresponsible statements?

Remind us... What is the real number again? Is it still 0, or whatever you claimed earlier?

First off, I got vaccinated, and I'm glad I did. At my age, the risk of dying from COVID is far greater than the risk of dying from the vaccine. I'm also not concerned about possible harmful long term side effects, given that I'm at about 9 or 10p on the life clock. I've also been vocal in encouraging fellow baby boomer friends and family members to get vaccinated.

That said, I can see where those in my children's and grandchildren's generations would naturally be more leery, given that the chance of a healthy child or adult dying from COVID is almost nil. IMO the CDC is exacerbating the problem by essentially claiming that there is ZERO risk of dying from the vaccine and poo-pooing 100% of 9000+ death claims. That simply isn't believable. There isn't a vaccine in history that would make such a bizarre claim.

So, what is the truth? Is it 0, is it 9000, or is it something in between? Are there possible long term side effects that will make otherwise healthy people rue the day they got vaccinated, or are there not? Thus, is the credibility problem the CDC has created for itself. The "irresponsibility" of reporting "misinformation" does not lie in reposting an article that accurately quotes a publicly reported government statistic that 9000+ deaths COULD be connected to the COVID vaccine. The irresponsibility is in the CDC's fantastic counter claim that NO ONE, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME has died from the vaccine.

Alabama Republican Gov. Ivey says 'start blaming the unvaccinated folks' for rise in Covid cases

"Folks are supposed to have common sense. But it's time to start blaming the unvaccinated folks, not the regular folks. It's the unvaccinated folks that are letting us down," Ivey told reporters in Birmingham.

Alabama is the least vaccinated state in the country, with roughly 33.9% of residents fully vaccinated, according to data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Average daily Covid-19 cases in Alabama are nearly double what they were a week ago, and more than four times higher than they were two weeks ago.

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 23, 2021, 04:27:29 AMBut it really boils down to the fact that "correlation is not causation," as vu84v2 has correctly suggested at least a few times. This is one of the most critical concepts to understanding data.

Very well said. Once again my main concern is that everyone, scientists included, seem to be gravitating towards one pole or the other, leaving no one in the middle to rationally and objectively review and research for the good of humanity. For example, I found a recent interview with a MD and PHD, external analyst for the World Health Organization, and an expert in analysis of medical evidence, to be very concerning when this was said about Ivermectin, and I quote "I've never seen such a huge body of evidence being ignored. Many of the recommendations that are made on guideline panels that I have been involved with are based on far less evidence, recommendations in favor".

People are dying, I don't care if they have been vaccinated or not. There seems to be this crazy blame game going on that only the unvaccinated are dying and they deserve what is coming to them... really? Stories written like 'It's too late': Alabama doctor shares final moments of Covid patients, urges vaccination (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/it-s-too-late-alabama-doctor-shares-final-moments-covid-n1274659). I wonder if she tried this protocol FLCCCA Treatment Protocols for COVID-19 (https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FLCCC-Alliance-MATHplus-Protocol-ENGLISH.pdf), probably not because the CDC, FDA and NIH haven't approved the use of many of these drugs for the treatment of COVID-19. Try everything and anything, this shouldn't have anything to do with politics.

The dominant media are pushing a narrative that white Republicans are the main constituency reluctant to receive vaccinations. However, they seem to be overlooking a revealing statistic. According to the CDC, among racial groups African Americans are the group lagging in vaccinations. As of this week, 48% of the total population of Whites have received at least one dose. (Almost 70% of the adult population in the United States have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.) On the other hand, only 36% of the total population of Blacks have received at least one dose. "White people received a higher share of vaccinations compared to their share of cases in most states reporting data."


This is not a political issue. The statistics do not vary much from Republican-led states or Democrat-led states. In fact, an example of Democrat-controlled states are as follows: California 60%-45%, -15% among Blacks; New York 52%-37%, -15% among Blacks; Connecticut 64%-44%, -20% among Blacks; Wisconsin 50%-33%, -17% among Blacks. In the District of Columbia, 33% of Black people have received vaccinations, while they make up 56% of cases, 71% of deaths. For those interested, Indiana 45%-34%, -11% among Blacks.


The irresponsible narrative by much of the media has attempted to point at Republicans as culprits; however, African Americans are the most reliable Democrat base and the most reluctant to get vaccinated. A health crisis should be a unifying event and not be politicized by anyone in the media. 

Quote from: FWalum on July 23, 2021, 10:17:33 AM

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 23, 2021, 04:27:29 AMBut it really boils down to the fact that "correlation is not causation," as vu84v2 has correctly suggested at least a few times. This is one of the most critical concepts to understanding data.

Try everything and anything, this shouldn't have anything to do with politics.

This is a bit of a rant, but I think I was able to connect a few dots....

The reason everything and anything hasn't been tried yet and very likely never will be isn't because of politics really.

It's because covid is the endless gold mine the pharmaceutical companies could never have imagined: a virus that mutates into new variants at such a rate that in all likelihood everyone will have to receive a new vaccine every couple of years. It simply couldn't be more perfect.

Thus, there is an incredibly powerful financial disincentive regarding whether to investigate existing medications (most no longer under patent, including Ivermectin) being used for other purposes as potential covid therapeutics and/or prophylactics.

If there is less or essentially no money to be made accomplishing something one way, be assured that the pharmaceutical companies will try to do it another -- even if this means a much less perfect "solution" in the end and many additional lives being lost because of it.

The greed of the pharmaceutical companies cannot possibly be overstated. And the control they have over research and development of medications and vaccines is enormous. If there's not a will, there's not a way. And in this case there is no will.

Part of the reason there is such an outcry for everyone to get vaccinated from the media is because high vaccination rates benefit the pharmaceutical companies.

Don't believe this is true? Pay close attention to the series of commercials in between news segments next time you tune in. You're bound to see an ad for one pharmaceutical company or another's new antidepressant, etc.

Another reason why you can be certain this is indeed a piece of the overall puzzle is that on the news there is no mention whatsoever of the risk illegal immigration poses to the proliferation of covid in this country. And illegal immigartion, mind you, is more out of control than it has ever been thanks especially to Kamala Harris, whereas everyone knows Joe Biden is not running a GD thing. Kamala was also ceremoniously tapped to handle the border crisis by Biden.

Anyway, if the media were solely intent on convincing everyone to take covid seriously and get vaccinated so that we might achieve herd immunity and save lives, they would be relentlessly hounding the "Biden" administration about this issue.

I'm pretty sure remdesivir is the only medication that has been officially approved for treating covid patients.

And to the surprise of no one, remdesivir is still under patent protection!

The following except from wikipedia's page on remdesivir is also tremendously revealing,

"According to international experts from the British Medical Journal, remdesivir 'probably has no important effect on the need for mechanical ventilation and may have little or no effect on the length of hospital stay'. Because of the high price, the authors point out that remdesivir may divert funds and efforts away from other treatments against COVID‑19.[24][25]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remdesivir

Wait, so you're telling me remdesivir is under patent and expensive? Who could have guessed?

Another great thing for the pharmaceutical companies about remdesvir is that it isn't very effective and therefore won't jeopardize vaccine profits. Aferall, if there's a highly effective treatment, there would be a lot less of a reason for everyone to get vaccinated every few years for the rest of their lives.

Remdesivir simply could not be more perfect! Under patent, expensive, and doesn't work.

And think about that quote from the wiki excerpt a little more....

International experts from one of the most highly respected medical journals in the world were asking for this ineffective and expensive drug not to be given priority over other potentially more effective treatments. Has there been any meaningful follow up in response to this? It's awfully unlikely.

To quote the democrat congresswoman representing the fifth district of Minnesota, Ilhan Omar, "it's all about the Benjamins."

However, I don't mean this with any of the same anti-semetic connotations Omar did. Not just a POC; she's also a POS.

Valpopal,

That is such an excellent point of criticism about the media's coverage.

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 23, 2021, 01:36:37 PM

Quote from: FWalum on July 23, 2021, 10:17:33 AM

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 23, 2021, 04:27:29 AMBut it really boils down to the fact that "correlation is not causation," as vu84v2 has correctly suggested at least a few times. This is one of the most critical concepts to understanding data.

Try everything and anything, this shouldn't have anything to do with politics.

This is a bit of a rant, but I think I was able to connect a few dots....

The reason everything and anything hasn't been tried yet and very likely never will be isn't because of politics really.

It's because covid is the endless gold mine the pharmaceutical companies could never have imagined: a virus that mutates into new variants at such a rate that in all likelihood everyone will have to receive a new vaccine every couple of years. It simply couldn't be more perfect.

Thus, there is an incredibly powerful financial disincentive regarding whether to investigate existing medications (most no longer under patent, including Ivermectin) being used for other purposes as potential covid therapeutics and/or prophylactics.

If there is less or essentially no money to be made accomplishing something one way, be assured that the pharmaceutical companies will try to do it another -- even if this means a much less perfect "solution" in the end and many additional lives being lost because of it.

The greed of the pharmaceutical companies cannot possibly be overstated. And the control they have over research and development of medications and vaccines is enormous. If there's not a will, there's not a way. And in this case there is no will.

Part of the reason there is such an outcry for everyone to get vaccinated from the media is because high vaccination rates benefit the pharmaceutical companies.

Don't believe this is true? Pay close attention to the series of commercials in between news segments next time you tune in. You're bound to see an ad for one pharmaceutical company or another's new antidepressant, etc.

Another reason why you can be certain this is indeed a piece of the overall puzzle is that on the news there is no mention whatsoever of the risk illegal immigration poses to the proliferation of covid in this country. And illegal immigartion, mind you, is more out of control than it has ever been thanks especially to Kamala Harris, whereas everyone knows Joe Biden is not running a GD thing. Kamala was also ceremoniously tapped to handle the border crisis by Biden.

Anyway, if the media were solely intent on convincing everyone to take covid seriously and get vaccinated so that we might achieve herd immunity and save lives, they would be relentlessly hounding the "Biden" administration about this issue.

I'm pretty sure remdesivir is the only medication that has been officially approved for treating covid patients.

And to the surprise of no one, remdesivir is still under patent protection!

The following except from wikipedia's page on remdesivir is also tremendously revealing,

"According to international experts from the British Medical Journal, remdesivir 'probably has no important effect on the need for mechanical ventilation and may have little or no effect on the length of hospital stay'. Because of the high price, the authors point out that remdesivir may divert funds and efforts away from other treatments against COVID‑19.[24][25]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remdesivir

Wait, so you're telling me remdesivir is under patent and expensive? Who could have guessed?

Another great thing for the pharmaceutical companies about remdesvir is that it isn't very effective and therefore won't jeopardize vaccine profits. Aferall, if there's a highly effective treatment, there would be a lot less of a reason for everyone to get vaccinated every few years for the rest of their lives.

Remdesivir simply could not be more perfect! Under patent, expensive, and doesn't work.

And think about that quote from the wiki excerpt a little more....

International experts from one of the most highly respected medical journals in the world were asking for this ineffective and expensive drug not to be given priority over other potentially more effective treatments.

Has there been any meaningful follow up by the pharmaceutical companies in response to this? It's awfully unlikely. And there is of course no humane excuse for such disgusting greed and negligence.

To quote the democrat congresswoman representing the fifth district of Minnesota, Ilhan Omar, "it's all about the Benjamins."

However, I don't mean this with any of the same anti-semetic connotations Omar did. Not just a POC; she's also a POS.

I can almost feel the mental conflict overload bbtds is experiencing about now. He knows you're right, but has no choice but to reject it out of hand. I believe the pseudo sciences call it cognitive dissonance.

Quote from: wh on July 23, 2021, 09:03:01 AM
EXCLUSIVE: More Evidence Leaked from China on the Deliberate Release of COVID-19 by the Chinese Military

"It was specifically designed to be highly contagious, but often asymptomatic, have low lethality, but produce uncontrollable variants and possessing characteristics providing plausible deniability as a bioweapon."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/07/report-deliberate-release-covid-19-chinese-military/

Would not be surprised.

To the several posters who seem to feel the need to incessantly flood this web site with conspiracy theories and their political ideologies: you need to get off of the Qanon and far right wing webs sites and get a life.

To any and all who may stumble across these incessant posts: these posters do not in any way represent the views of Valparaiso University and the university's community. Likewise, I and many others do not speak for the university and its community. If you are interested in Valparaiso University, please contact the appropriate sources within the university.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/chris-christie-unvaccinated-people-don-t-want-to-be-indoctrinated-by-government/ar-AAMzgk5?ocid=msedgntp

Chris Christie: Unvaccinated people don't want to be 'indoctrinated' by government

The Republican said he recently spent time with a conservative friend who he said told him that he doesn't "want the government telling me what I have to do."

"These folks do not respond to be ordered to do those things. It's a sort of libertarian response to this," Christie said. "I walked him through the facts of this and he said, 'OK, I'm going to go get vaccinated.' That's what we need to do."

I say that if you die, and this is happening and will happen again and again in the future, because you needed to have it explained to you because you didn't want to be "indoctrinated by the government" you are just sad and stupid. So be it if that is the way you want to end your life.

 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/meghan-mccain-condemns-man-who-confronted-tucker-carlson/ar-AAMzPZI?ocid=msedgntp

Meghan McCain Condemns Man Who Confronted Tucker Carlson

"If you think accosting a public figure while they're shopping for fishing gear with their family on vacation is somehow accomplishing something or changing anyone's hearts or minds—you're a hypocrite and have totally lost the plot," said McCain, who is a panel member of the daytime talk show The View, in a tweet on Monday.

McCain appeared to be referencing a video from a Montana fly fishing shop that surfaced in an Instagram post on Monday that shows the poster, Dan Bailey, accusing the host of Tucker Carlson Tonight of "kill[ing]" people with vaccine misinformation and supporting "extreme racism." He also calls the Fox News host "the worst human being known to man."

In the clip, Carlson responds to Bailey quietly saying "I appreciate that" before laughing when he sees he is being recorded on camera.

How about Fox News takes Tucker Carlson off the air before more people die. No, no need to accost him on a vacation.

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 26, 2021, 09:16:00 AM
To the several posters who seem to feel the need to incessantly flood this web site with conspiracy theories and their political ideologies: you need to get off of the Qanon and far right wing webs sites and get a life.

To any and all who may stumble across these incessant posts: these posters do not in any way represent the views of Valparaiso University and the university's community. Likewise, I and many others do not speak for the university and its community. If you are interested in Valparaiso University, please contact the appropriate sources within the university.

There's nothing about these posts that the 55-60% of legal voters who voted for President Trump wouldn't agree with. They are grassroots, mainstream views.

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 26, 2021, 09:16:00 AM
To the several posters who seem to feel the need to incessantly flood this web site with conspiracy theories and their political ideologies: you need to get off of the Qanon and far right wing webs sites and get a life.

To any and all who may stumble across these incessant posts: these posters do not in any way represent the views of Valparaiso University and the university's community. Likewise, I and many others do not speak for the university and its community. If you are interested in Valparaiso University, please contact the appropriate sources within the university.

Get a load of this guy.

Hardly ever right about anything. Always insists on saying something.

And what a typical "liberal," essentially bemoaning free speech. Just Sayin could not be more correct to point this out.

No one thinks individual posters' posts here represent the views of Valparaiso University. Give me a break.

And if you don't speak for the university and its community, stop speaking for it by making such declarations about what the posts on this forum do and do not represent from the university's perspective. 

I really don't understand the point of your little Valpo purity test. You apparently thought it was a bad idea when wh supposedly did it. Why would you then do it yourself? This is more than a little hypocritical.

Are you suggesting Just Sayin in particular is claiming to speak for the university? I must have missed where he said this. LOL.

Anyways....

Vu84v2 would apparently have us believe that my previous comments about the pharmaceutical industry are conspiracy theories.

These comments generally assert that the pharmaceutical industry does not hold people's health and welfare as its primary focus; exerts enormous corrupting influence over medical research, development, and drug approval; and that remdesivir being the only medication to have received approval by the FDA for the treatment of covid patients is itself an indicator of corruption.

So, was I right or was I wrong? Are these just conspiracy theories akin to QAnon, as vu84v2 has insinuated?

I will begin by explaining how drugs manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry are considered for approval by the FDA.

The FDA makes its decisions on whether or not to approve drugs for use in the treatment of various conditions based on the voting recommendations of advisory committees comprised of relevant experts which review evidence presented to them by pharmaceutical companies seeking approval.

Preexisting financial conflicts of interest do not necessarily exclude expert individuals from sitting on advisory committees as part of the FDA's drug approval process, and the FDA depends entirely on these individuals to personally disclose any industry ties.

There have been many documented instances of the FDA failing to note preexisting conflicts of interest for expert members of these advisory committees.

The FDA itself does no investigation whatsoever of whether participating members of the committees are forthcoming in declaring their industry ties/conflicts of interest.

Often what happens, though, is that the veneer of unbiased advisory is somewhat maintained because the experts sitting on the advisory committees will receive their industry payments only after a drug has been reviewed and received approval from the FDA. 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/hidden-conflicts-pharma-payments-fda-advisers-after-drug-approvals-spark-ethical

Members of advisory committees can reasonably expect to be favored with varying forms of payments and reimbursement after giving favorable reviews of corresponding drugs to the FDA.

Indeed, evidence has been documented of "widespread" payments or research support by pharmaceutical companies to expert advisory committee members after these members have already voted in favor of the company's drugs.

The industry's financial support of an individual expert's research allows for career advancement opportunities, direct payment for his or her research efforts, and the development of greater professional influence.

These "pay-later conflicts of interest," as they are called, are not policed by the FDA and are infrequently made note of at all.

One fairly recent analysis by the peer-reviewed academic journal Science found that between 2008 and 2014, of the 107 physicians who sat on advisory committees advising the FDA on whether or not to approve 28 select drugs that a significant majority of these physicians later received payments from these drugs' developers. These payments ranged from a few thousand dollars to over a million dollars.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA), the EU's version of the FDA, does not have a policy regarding whether industry payments can be made to expert committee advisors after they have sat on a advisory committee, but the EMA at least bans participation of individuals where conflicts of interest have been found to exist prior to any potential participation.

And unlike the FDA, the EMA also conducts its own thorough investigations of potential advisors looking for preexisting conflicts of interests; it does not simply rely on these individuals for self-disclosure.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/hidden-conflicts-pharma-payments-fda-advisers-after-drug-approvals-spark-ethical

Thus, the pharmaceutical industry in the United States is indeed guilty of corrupting the process of drug approval in absolute terms and when judged by a reasonable standard.

This is not where this story ends however....

Due to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) passed by congress in 1992, the pharmaceutical industry also pays for 75% of the FDA's total budget for the drug review process.

This act was passed in order to expedite the drug review process in the U.S. as this process was considered at the time to be overly time-consuming when compared to that for many European countries. However, PDUFA found its additional funding for the FDA as to quicken the FDA's drug review process by enlisting the pharmaceutical industry to pay the associated costs through "new drug application fees."

As a result, when a pharmaceutical company files an application for a new drug's review by the FDA, this filing comes with a fee that ultimately serves to pay for the review process.

Therefore, all of those individuals who do some form of work as part of the FDA's drug approval process would not get paid for their work if not for industry money— creating a truly "systemic" conflict of interest.

Damningly, in a 2007 open letter sent to congress, 22 academic experts, former FDA officials, as well as others wrote that the manner in which the FDA was being funded for 75% of its total review budget by the pharmaceutical industry, "may appear to save the taxpayers money, but at an unacceptable cost to public health."

https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2016/12/fda-depends-on-industry-funding-money-comes-with-strings-attached/

What are some of the results of this clear corruption committed and paid for by the pharmaceutical industry? For one thing, Harvard University professor Mark Rodwin presented evidence in an article published in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics in 2013 showing that approximately 90% of the new drugs approved by the FDA over the past 30 years were essentially no more effective than drugs previously approved for the treatment of the same conditions. 

This evidently does not serve patients well in terms of health/medical expenditures whereas new drugs receiving FDA approval are placed under patent protection and therefore are automatically far more expensive than many older medications for the same conditions.

Unfortunately, the bar regarding what it takes for a drug to be considered meaningfully effective by the FDA is set similarly low for when the FDA considers whether or not a given drug is safe for consumer use.

One in five drugs approved by the FDA results in serious harm being caused to patients taking it; juxtapose this with only one in ten approved drugs providing a significant benefit compared to already existing medications.

Thus, with every new medication's approval by the FDA, the chance of this medication causing significant harm to patients is double the chance of it significantly benefiting patients.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2298140

https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/risky-drugs-why-fda-cannot-be-trusted

The pharmaceutical industry also routinely delays the expiration date of drug patents by only slighting modifying a drug's chemical composition, and not necessarily the therapeutic ingredients. These changes may be as insignificant as "adding a stripe" to a pill's exterior.

A 2018 study published in the Journal of Law and Biosciences showed 78% of new patents granted to drugs by the FDA over the past decade were essentially already on the market.

https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/5/3/590/5232981

That the pharmaceutical companies would pursue extensions of patents for already existing medications in this way demonstrates industry greed; that the FDA would kowtow before the industry in this way and at such an alarming rate helps to demonstrate the extent to which the the industry has indeed corrupted the FDA.

On a related note, the pharmaceutical industry curries favor in government through its lobbying efforts. The industry tops the charts on lobbying spending with yearly contributions totaling hundreds of millions of dollars to "senior legislators in Congress involved in drafting health care laws and state committees that opposed or supported key referenda on drug pricing and regulation." These contributions include those to presidential and congressional electoral candidates campaign efforts.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7054854/

The pharmaceutical industry has had to pay tens of billions of dollars in order to settle credible allegations of hiding dangerous side effects; inappropriately promoting drugs for off-label, non-FDA approved uses; the defrauding of Medicare and Medicaid; as well as for other reasons.

Yet, this is just the "cost of doing business" for the pharmaceutical industry as their overall drug sales bring in far more money than the industry is forced to hand over in its various settlements.

https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/migration/2311.pdf

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/hidden-conflicts-pharma-payments-fda-advisers-after-drug-approvals-spark-ethical

Harvard University Professor of Medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine Arnold Seymour Relman summed up the state of affairs regarding medicine in the United States in 2002 by making the following statement in his highly-praised critique of the pharmaceutical industry's influence,

"The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126053/#ref15

Remdesivir is the only medication that has thus far received FDA approval for treating covid patients.

The extent to which the FDA's approval process for drugs has been corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry has already been throughly established.

Is it a coincidence then that remdesivir is under patent, highly expensive and thus very lucrative, and minimally effective if not ineffective in the treatment of covid patients, which also serves to preserve the market for vaccines?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remdesivir

Are we to also conclude it is just a coincidence that Ivermectin — which is no longer under patent protection, is inexpensive, and has proven efficacy in treating covid patients — has not received FDA approval of its own?

The most significant evidence of Ivermectin's effectiveness comes from a meta-analysis reviewing dozens of randomized controlled trials (the gold standard of research) that was published in a peer-reviewed American medical journal earlier this year. 

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

In the greater context of the rampant corrupting influence of the pharmaceutical industry, if someone believes all of these to simply be coincidences, he or she evidently needs to get a clue. I could go into far greater detail on how the pharmaceutical industry is responsible for the corruption of research and development specifically, and may still do so, but for now I rest my case.


Thus, I have asserted nothing that could could reasonably be characterized as a conspiracy theory.

So again, vu84v2 is hardly ever right about anything, but always insists on saying something.

The rate of his assertions being proven incorrect is surpassed only by that of bbtds.

Quote from: wh on July 26, 2021, 07:49:10 PM

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 26, 2021, 09:16:00 AM
To the several posters who seem to feel the need to incessantly flood this web site with conspiracy theories and their political ideologies: you need to get off of the Qanon and far right wing webs sites and get a life.

To any and all who may stumble across these incessant posts: these posters do not in any way represent the views of Valparaiso University and the university's community. Likewise, I and many others do not speak for the university and its community. If you are interested in Valparaiso University, please contact the appropriate sources within the university.

There's nothing about these posts that the 55-60% of legal voters who voted for President Trump wouldn't agree with. They are grassroots, mainstream views.

This is the type of complete BS that I was referrring to. Heck, Fox News wouldn't even report this level of BS. But regardless, you nor I speak for the university.

And as I stated before, January 20, 2025 is the first day that Donald Trump can be President again. You can state all the lies and BS that Donald Trump spews, but nothing will change that fact. I hope that you find a way to mentally cope with reality.

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 26, 2021, 07:59:13 PMNo one thinks individual posters' posts here represent the views of Valparaiso University. Give me a break.

All I know is YOU, JBC1824, do a lot of telling people what they are exactly thinking and I don't know how you always know what everybody else is thinking and that can be a dangerous thing. I think you should stop right now or face some consequences. YOU, do not suddenly own this message board.

JBC1824 - I never said that the concerns that you raised about the pharmaceutical industry did not have some level of validity. When you consider how several drug companies were catalysts for the opioid crisis, it would be pretty hard to refute such concerns. The points originally made by FWAlum about drugs for treating people with COVID that were elaborated on by you also seem to be worth learning more about. So why should we trust the pharmaceutical companies with the vaccine? Yeah - because the difference is that their scientists and employees are putting it in their own bodies. I played golf with a rep from Pfizer (who seemed to be clearly Republican and worked out regularly with a Valpo player who transferred) and he said he would never put anything in his body that he did not feel was safe. I cannot confirm what he said (how could I?), but their employees are taking the vaccines.

Other points made in all of these posts from the three of you are conspiracy theories: 55-60% of voters voted for Trump? That is complete garbage with no supporting evidence...but it is consistent with the Trump philosophy of "if you are going to lie, just keep making the lie bigger."

Quote from: bbtds on July 26, 2021, 09:00:06 PM

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 26, 2021, 07:59:13 PMNo one thinks individual posters' posts here represent the views of Valparaiso University. Give me a break.

All I know is YOU, JBC1824, do a lot of telling people what they are exactly thinking and I don't know how you always know what everybody else is thinking and that can be a dangerous thing. I think you should stop right now or face some consequences. YOU, do not suddenly own this message board.

bbts - That fundamentally hits the nail on the head. I know that I do not own this message board - but want it to reflect Valparaiso University as a community that welcomes people of all political persuasions (and would prefer that everybody refrain from political posts). wh, JBC1824, and JustSayin seem to lack that level of maturity. Instead, they want to extend Steve Bannon's premise that you fight your assumed enemy by flooding the zone with sh%t (notice that Bannon had no regard for validity).

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 26, 2021, 08:39:55 PM

Quote from: wh on July 26, 2021, 07:49:10 PM

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 26, 2021, 09:16:00 AM
To the several posters who seem to feel the need to incessantly flood this web site with conspiracy theories and their political ideologies: you need to get off of the Qanon and far right wing webs sites and get a life.

To any and all who may stumble across these incessant posts: these posters do not in any way represent the views of Valparaiso University and the university's community. Likewise, I and many others do not speak for the university and its community. If you are interested in Valparaiso University, please contact the appropriate sources within the university.

There's nothing about these posts that the 55-60% of legal voters who voted for President Trump wouldn't agree with. They are grassroots, mainstream views.

This is the type of complete BS that I was referrring to. Heck, Fox News wouldn't even report this level of BS. But regardless, you nor I speak for the university.

And as I stated before, January 20, 2025 is the first day that Donald Trump can be President again. You can state all the lies and BS that Donald Trump spews, but nothing will change that fact. I hope that you find a way to mentally cope with reality.

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 26, 2021, 08:39:55 PM

Quote from: wh on July 26, 2021, 07:49:10 PM

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 26, 2021, 09:16:00 AM
To the several posters who seem to feel the need to incessantly flood this web site with conspiracy theories and their political ideologies: you need to get off of the Qanon and far right wing webs sites and get a life.

To any and all who may stumble across these incessant posts: these posters do not in any way represent the views of Valparaiso University and the university's community. Likewise, I and many others do not speak for the university and its community. If you are interested in Valparaiso University, please contact the appropriate sources within the university.

There's nothing about these posts that the 55-60% of legal voters who voted for President Trump wouldn't agree with. They are grassroots, mainstream views.

This is the type of complete BS that I was referrring to. Heck, Fox News wouldn't even report this level of BS. But regardless, you nor I speak for the university.

And as I stated before, January 20, 2025 is the first day that Donald Trump can be President again. You can state all the lies and BS that Donald Trump spews, but nothing will change that fact. I hope that you find a way to mentally cope with reality.

Fox News organization has a major credibility problem with conservatives. Little head pats from people like you just adds fuel to the fire.

Or perhaps many conservatives reject credible reporting if it conflicts with their desired narrative/outcome. They also reject court rulings by judges of all political persuasions that conflict with their desired narrative/outcomes or Republican elected officials who have a moral compass.

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 26, 2021, 07:59:13 PMThus, I have asserted nothing that could could reasonably be characterized as a conspiracy theory.

So again, vu84v2 is hardly ever right about anything, but always insists on saying something.

The rate of his assertions being proven incorrect is surpassed only by that of bbtds.

YOU, JBC1824, need to stop this now. YOU are only trying to inflate your own ego. Stop telling us what we think! And making personal insults. It doesn't help your credibility at all.

Vu84v2,

I never suggested we should not "trust" the vaccines, only that a degree of caution should be exercised. Your story about having played a round of golf with a Pfizer rep is irrelevant.

Please explain to me as best you can which of the posts I have made explicitly pushes a conspiracy theory. I did not say 55-60% of voters voted for Trump, mind you.

And you, yourself, would seem to struggle with welcoming people of all political persuasions, as you have repeatedly called for the political discussion here to be quashed. If you were welcoming of the expression of diverging viewpoints, why would you want the discussion to stop?

Maturity? Representing one's political views in a public space has absolutely nothing to do with maturity or immaturity. I would however suggest that it is a bit immature that you would continue to assert things to be true on a public forum that are not, such as you having characterized posts I have made as conspiracy theories. Again, please point out to me which posts.

Bbtds,

Here's another little thinking exercise for you:

Do you believe the posts on this forum are representative of Valparaiso University's official viewpoints? Vu84v2 is on record as having said they are not. I obviously don't believe they are. So who exactly is it that we are to understand believes this? Can you point to one instance of someone having made a post on this forum indicating that this is their belief? Tons of posts have been made, but I have yet to see a single one that would indicate this.

What exactly are you suggesting when you say I will "face some consequences?" I must insist that you explain yourself further. You have made a very general statement that could reasonably be interpreted as threatening.

I have not claimed to own this message board, nor do I believe this to be the case. But wait! Excuse me, bbtds, I thought telling people what they are thinking can be "dangerous" and is deserving of "consequences?"

Again, you are committing the gravest of sins: telling someone else what they think! I readily admit that I enjoy being right. This is obvious to anyone who has been paying attention. However, my primary motivation for going on as I do is that I thoroughly enjoy researching topics and developing arguments. Doing this allows me to become better informed on important matters and is excellent mental exercise.

And why should I or anyone else not point out that someone doesn't know what they are talking about when they repeatedly make false assertions? Take the time to know what you are talking about, and only say things you know to be true. Otherwise, you should very reasonably expect to receive some blowback.

Quote from: JBC1824 on July 27, 2021, 07:59:13 AM
Vu84v2,

I never suggested we should not "trust" the vaccines, only that a degree of caution should be exercised. Your story about having played a round of golf with a Pfizer rep is irrelevant.

Please explain to me as best you can which of the posts I have made explicitly pushes a conspiracy theory. I did not say 55-60% of voters voted for Trump, mind you.

And you, yourself, would seem to struggle with welcoming people of all political persuasions, as you have repeatedly called for the political discussion here to be quashed. If you were welcoming of the expression of diverging viewpoints, why would you want the discussion to stop?

Maturity? Representing one's political views in a public space has absolutely nothing to do with maturity or immaturity. I would however suggest that it is a bit immature that you would continue to assert things to be true on a public forum that are not, such as you having characterized posts I have made as conspiracy theories. Again, please point out to me which posts.

JBC1824 - Fair questions...so let me try to answer:

-You make a good point that you have not said that people should not trust the vaccines, but you have stated that pharmaceutical companies themselves are not trustworthy. Admittedly, this was with some good justification, but I wondered if I was reading a post from a socialist advocating for government control of companies.
-I agree that my encounter with a Pfizer rep is not very relevant - though it was interesting to talk to someone with one of the vaccine companies who also had connections to a Valpo basketball issue. The point that I guess I was trying to make is that it says something for vaccine safety if the company's employees take the vaccine.
-While I am not going to go back and review every post, I do not recall you personally posting any conspiracy theories. I do think that some of the information that you have posted has been used by others  (not here) to try to justify conspiracy theories - but that, of course, is not on you.
-However, JustSayin and wh have posted conspiracy theories. The "55-60%" comment is directly from wh.

Now the last topic of posting political comments on this web site. First, you once claimed that I initiated political discussions on here - but that is not true and I challenged you to find any cases where I did. I intentionally avoid doing so.

Why do I get concerned about there being a litany of political and subsequently vitriolic posts on this web site? 1. It is the top discussion web site on Valpo's marquee sport. 2. If you do a Valparaiso University related search, this site comes up as one of the highest ranked results. For example, the following are this web sites's rank when I search on the various criteria: Valparaiso University Sports (15th), Valparaiso University Chat Room (8th), Valparaiso University Forum (1st). Potential students and their parents can come across all of these political posts and develop impressions of the university which are not true.

Do I feel that someone (the administrator) should quash posting all of this political material? No, and you will never find me saying that in any of my posts. I realize that this is unrealistic, but I would hope that people can act like adults and avoid posting things that they may agree with, but paint Valpo as anything other than welcoming people from all political persuasions. Given that my hopes are unrealistic because wh, JustSayin, and (to a lesser degree) you cannot restrain yourselves from all of the political posting, I find myself with the highly undesirable task of trying to make sure that discussions look balanced (and as I have stated before, I have far better things to do - so I am not going to go and spend hours researching some topics). The best environment for a university is one in which all views are welcome and respected and posting that any groups (liberals, conservatives, independents/moderates) are evil, unwelcome, etc. does not promote that environment.

Have I felt that there have been posts that should be removed? Yes, but these are specific to several posts over the last several years from wh that are grossly sexist (see his recent post about women as leaders) and racist (see his posts from several years ago regarding muslims).

Vu84v2,

I really don't understand why anyone would believe I am advocating for socialism. You are also evidently confusing socialism with communism. Socialism does not entail government control, but instead community control. Communism is when the state or government exerts control.

What I am advocating for is honest and reasonable oversight from our government, apart from the corrupting influence of hundreds of millions of lobbying dollars spent on a yearly basis.

For example, a more sincere effort being made to investigate conflicts of interest for experts sitting on FDA advisory committees, such as that exemplified by the EMA in Europe.

I'm also advocating for the pharmaceutical industry to no longer be responsible for funding 75% of the FDA's operations related to drug approval.

And I'm advocating for an overall situation which does not leave us in the current predicament we are in where each new drug that receives FDA approval is twice as likely to cause significant harm as significant benefit to people taking it. How truly insane this is cannot be overstated.

So is any of what I am advocating for in any way unreasonable?

I don't necessarily agree with your point that pharmaceutical industry employees willingly taking an industry product is suggestive of this product's safety. As we have seen, the medical literature has been corrupted, and thus, not even doctors can be expected to discern between truth and untruth. How are we to then expect industry employees to be able to do so? Of course some will know what the truth is, but I would suspect most won't. 

Then you should not have suggested I did post conspiracy theories.

I don't believe I have claimed that you initiated political discussion, only that you readily entered into it. There is a difference.

Again, I have not seen any evidence, here or elsewhere, that would suggest to me that people are confusing individual posts here with the university's official viewpoints. Furthermore, the political posts I have made here represent only mainstream conservative viewpoints and are very often matter of fact material.

I agree that you do not necessarily wish that an administrator would quash our political postings, but instead you wish we would do this ourselves. Have you not implored all of us to stop of our own accords?

Listen, man. Free speech is incredibly important. Anywhere that free speech flourishes is a treasure, including here. We have hashed out a lot of crap and arrived at some truths that are very important to understand. I have learned a lot, and I hope others have, too.

It is a shame you don't have the time to research things. Perhaps if this were the case, you would be correct more often.

I have not said or suggested that liberals are evil, unwelcome, etc., only that they are wrong and very demonstrably so.

I agree that wh's posts about women in leadership roles could reasonably be thought of as being sexist. And I was critical of him for this.

First, Islam is a religion and not a race. I'm curious what wh may have said about muslims that you believe is prejudiced? Where can I find these comments if they have not been removed?

84:

QuoteI find myself with the highly undesirable task of trying to make sure that discussions look balanced

Arrogant and condescending remark. How progressive of you.
Who appointed you The Guardian of Woke?

JustSayin and JBC1924: Why do you post incessant political material on a university sports forum that focuses on its basketball program?

Yes...I realize that Islam is not a race, but a religion Nonetheless, here is one of the vile posts from wh (see thread started in December, 2015).

wh said: How incredibly weak we have become as Americans that we placate a minority of people with a vile, bigoted, fundamentally evil belief system. It makes me feel dirty just contemplating it.

And another from a thread in November, 2015 (in reference to discussions on the Paris terrorist attacks)

wh said: At times like this I like to think back to happier times - when the world was at peace and "Islam" was just a religion and not a Satanic geo-political force hell-bent on destroying mankind and ushering in the Anti-Christ.

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 28, 2021, 07:04:47 AM
JustSayin and JBC1924: Why do you post incessant political material on a university sports forum that focuses on its basketball program?

An off-topic thread by its nature is not related to the VU basketball program.

It reads on this forum:

General Off Topic
Discuss politics, pop culture and any other non-sports topics here

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 28, 2021, 07:18:53 AM
Yes...I realize that Islam is not a race, but a religion Nonetheless, here is one of the vile posts from wh (see thread started in December, 2015).

wh said: How incredibly weak we have become as Americans that we placate a minority of people with a vile, bigoted, fundamentally evil belief system. It makes me feel dirty just contemplating it.

And another from a thread in November, 2015 (in reference to discussions on the Paris terrorist attacks)

wh said: At times like this I like to think back to happier times - when the world was at peace and "Islam" was just a religion and not a Satanic geo-political force hell-bent on destroying mankind and ushering in the Anti-Christ.

If you think someone's post is sexist or islamaphobic, the appropriate response is not to censor it but to allow it to remain so that it can shine as an example for everyone to see and to make up their own mind whether they agree with you.  If a post is truly as vile as you think it is, it seems important for everyone to know who the culprit is rather than to shut down free speech. Free speech is not always pretty and we don't need do-gooder liberals like you arbitrarily deciding what speech is correct and what speech is incorrect. That's arrogant and condescending and as is typical throughout history with people like you on the left, tyrannical.

Quote from: Just Sayin on July 28, 2021, 07:30:41 AM

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 28, 2021, 07:04:47 AM
JustSayin and JBC1924: Why do you post incessant political material on a university sports forum that focuses on its basketball program?

An off-topic thread by its nature is not related to the VU basketball program.

It reads on this forum:

General Off Topic
Discuss politics, pop culture and any other non-sports topics here

It is funny how, for you, discuss means posting endless 'copy and pastes' from far right wing web sites. To his or her credit, JBC1824 discusses and builds arguments - albeit arguments that often use sources in which he or she agrees (confirmation bias).

It is also funny how you did not respond to my questions regarding your affiliation with the university. Your responses to any questions seem to always be insults rather than intelligent responses.

I am all for free speech, but in this context there are two problems.

1. No one here puts their actual name on their posts and thus they do not need to consider the consequences of the things that they say. Indeed, you said that it is important that everyone know who the culprit is - but people hide behind their screen names. (I personally would welcome using actual names and there are several people on this forum who know who I am)
2. As I have said before, this is a web site that to a degree represents the university. The university should be an environment that welcomes people from the range of the political spectrum as long as all can be respectful. It should not be an environment that in any way condones sexism, islamaphobia, hatred of any religion, etc. People who exercise their free speech need to recognize that free speech comes with responsibility.

Blah, blah, blah.

Back on ignore.

Quote from: Just Sayin on July 28, 2021, 08:56:57 AM
Blah, blah, blah.

Back on ignore.

I guess that you are not capable of responding to arguments that free speech requires responsibility and accountability.

Just popping in to reenforce that looking at VAERS Data as evidence of anything is not a good idea.

It's a wide net that collects everything that then gets weeded through. It's the like FBI Tip Line, A lot of noise, little signal.  Every time someone who has recently gotten a vaccine has another medical issue shortly after it can get entered BUT we don't know their medical history or just the prevalence rate. Like for instance, if we know that X Medical issue has an occurrence rate of a certain amount of times in a certain population we would expect that a certain amount of people in that population who got the vaccine to have that occur. You have to look for medical instances that are abnormal for that population/health condition or occurring at higher than average rate that would be expected.

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 28, 2021, 08:26:55 AM
I am all for free speech, but in this context there are two problems.

1. No one here puts their actual name on their posts and thus they do not need to consider the consequences of the things that they say. Indeed, you said that it is important that everyone know who the culprit is - but people hide behind their screen names. (I personally would welcome using actual names and there are several people on this forum who know who I am)
2. As I have said before, this is a web site that to a degree represents the university. The university should be an environment that welcomes people from the range of the political spectrum as long as all can be respectful. It should not be an environment that in any way condones sexism, islamaphobia, hatred of any religion, etc. People who exercise their free speech need to recognize that free speech comes with responsibility.

Since I often focus on the First Amendment as a priority and criticize five fields—government, newspapers, network news, social media, and academia—for falling short in supporting free speech or for sometimes actively undermining this principle, I want to be positive this time and compliment the message board's administration for thus far honoring free speech by those expressing opinions across an entire spectrum of politics or philosophies. The leeway given posters on this board would be difficult to maintain in the current atmosphere at many organizations or institutions representing the five fields mentioned above.   

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 28, 2021, 07:55:58 AM

Quote from: Just Sayin on July 28, 2021, 07:30:41 AM

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 28, 2021, 07:04:47 AM
JustSayin and JBC1924: Why do you post incessant political material on a university sports forum that focuses on its basketball program?

An off-topic thread by its nature is not related to the VU basketball program.

It reads on this forum:

General Off Topic
Discuss politics, pop culture and any other non-sports topics here

It is funny how, for you, discuss means posting endless 'copy and pastes' from far right wing web sites. To his or her credit, JBC1824 discusses and builds arguments - albeit arguments that often use sources in which he or she agrees (confirmation bias).

It is also funny how you did not respond to my questions regarding your affiliation with the university. Your responses to any questions seem to always be insults rather than intelligent responses.

I almost laughed out loud.

To say the sources I have used when building my arguments are suggestive of confirmation bias is nonsense.

And if you believe I'm mistaken, please point out to me which of these sources is evidence of my confirmation bias.

For example, was it confirmation bias for me to bring up the U.S. Justice Department's records illustrating the Wall Street Journal has accepted millions of dollars from the official propaganda department of the Chinese Communist Party?

Was it confirmation bias for me to reference the specifics of the The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which you incorrectly characterized as mostly benefiting the wealthy?

Was it confirmation bias to recount the facts related to the progression of hostilities between the U.S. and North Korea, the subsequent cooling of tensions, and then the following facts as objective indicators of the beneficial results of Trump's handling of the situation:

"Since this normalization in relations between the U.S. and North Korea, North Korea has not test-launched another ICBM; it has not conducted additional nuclear weapons testing; it has not fired additional test missiles over the Japanese archipelago, terrorizing the Japanese; North Korea released the three American detainees it held; and North Korea has refrained from explicitly threatening The United States."

Was it confirmation bias to accurately report the results of a study conducted by a professor associated with Harvard University's Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, a law professor and someone with no "skin in the game," published in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics revealing that over recent decades one in five drugs approved by the FDA resulted in serious harm to patients while only one in ten provided significant benefit?

Or was it confirmation bias for me to suggest that one of if not the most comprehensive study to date evaluating Ivermectin for the treatment covid patients, which is a published, peer-reviewed study, a meta-analysis based solely on randomized controlled trials ("the gold standard for research,") that demonstrates a clear benefit to covid patients, is indeed evidence for the effectiveness of Ivermectin?

Perhaps you would have also liked for me to cite maybe the second largest study on the topic, only slightly smaller in terms of overall patients, also a meta-analysis, and published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Open Forum Infectious Diseases, which is publishing product of Oxford University Press. This study also demonstrated a clear benefit to Ivermectin's use in treating patients with covid.

https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214

You would seem to believe there are sources just as credible and matter of fact as some of those I have cited, which would refute or at the very least sufficiently counter the points I have made. This is of course not true.

The sources and types of information I have utilized in making my arguments are truly some of the most factual, credible, non-partisan, unbiased, etc. that were relevant and available. That you have apparently not understood this speaks volumes.

Your banal, surface-level commentary does little to advance the discussions on this forum aside from, with few exceptions, portraying false premises for other posters to then argue against and correct.

For goodness sakes, you did not know the difference between socialism and communism.

You are a pretender.

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 28, 2021, 08:26:55 AM
I am all for free speech, but in this context there are two problems.

1. No one here puts their actual name on their posts and thus they do not need to consider the consequences of the things that they say. Indeed, you said that it is important that everyone know who the culprit is - but people hide behind their screen names. (I personally would welcome using actual names and there are several people on this forum who know who I am)
2. As I have said before, this is a web site that to a degree represents the university. The university should be an environment that welcomes people from the range of the political spectrum as long as all can be respectful. It should not be an environment that in any way condones sexism, islamaphobia, hatred of any religion, etc. People who exercise their free speech need to recognize that free speech comes with responsibility.

There are important limitations to free speech that have been determined by Supreme Court rulings.

These do not and should not include perceived anonymity and perceived responsibility in any context, let alone any place which intentionally functions as public forum for commentary, expression of ideas, and debate.

Posters on this forum are more accountable than your comments acknowledge. I routinely take into consideration the potential consequences associated with the things I write. For one, the moderators of this forum reserve the right to censor individual posts as well as posters.

And if I were to post something beyond the pale, I am confident my IP address would very easily be tracked by police departments, etc., to identify me and hold me accountable according to the law.

Then, there is the possibility that another poster could find him or herself motivated to somehow discover my personal information, do harm to me, and/or "dox" me. It is not in anyway unreasonable to think that in certain instances the average person could discover the personal information of posters on this forum based on the information available here. Trust me.

You are using sloppy and largely misleading language when you say this forum "represents" the university in the way you mean this. It would be far more accurate to say this forum, or the comments posted here, are partially reflective of the university's community's views. Again, this forum operates independent of the university, and thus, the university specific "environment" does not extend so far as to include the forum.

It is also incorrect to suggest this forum's environment in any way has condoned sexism, islamaphobia, etc. An individual poster's posts do not necessarily represent the overall forum environment. You must consider how wh's posts were received by the forum community. I would guess they were not received well at all, as was the case with his sexist posts. Thus, the environment would seemingly have done the exact opposite of condone these things.

As for wh's comments specifically, I believe they likely undermined any intent he may have had to raise concerns about Islam in one form or another.

However, absolutely everyone should take the time to read the Quran, and in my opinion pay particularly close attention when reading chapters eight and nine. Then, you can come to your own conclusions. I will refrain from quoting any of its passages here.

I will only add the Quran is very different from the Bible.


As long as all can be respectful, you say?

Was it respectful when you first applied wh's little Valpo purity test to Just Sayin, something which you thought was below-the-belt when wh did it?

Was it respectful the second time you did it?

And was it terribly respectful when you called Just Sayin's overall viewpoint "exceedingly narrow-minded?"

You obviously struggle to follow your own rules at times, vu84v2.

Quote from: vu84v2 on July 28, 2021, 08:26:55 AM
I am all for free speech, but in this context there are two problems.

1. No one here puts their actual name on their posts and thus they do not need to consider the consequences of the things that they say. Indeed, you said that it is important that everyone know who the culprit is - but people hide behind their screen names. (I personally would welcome using actual names and there are several people on this forum who know who I am)
2. As I have said before, this is a web site that to a degree represents the university. The university should be an environment that welcomes people from the range of the political spectrum as long as all can be respectful. It should not be an environment that in any way condones sexism, islamaphobia, hatred of any religion, etc. People who exercise their free speech need to recognize that free speech comes with responsibility.

You are casting aspersions based on a flawed set of criteria. For example, the comment I made contrasting male and female CEO effectiveness was a paraphrase from Jordan Peterson's comments from an interview with a radical feminist journalist. I have included it to hopefully raise your awareness level high enough to have an intelligent discussion. His argument is fact based. If you disagree with it, present facts that counter it. That's how honest debate works.

Here's how honest debate doesn't work - using deflection psychology (e.g., calling me a bigot or conspiracy theorist), done not to dispute my point, but to assassinate my character. Secondly, you are not the arbiter of truth. You are the arbiter of "your truth," as leftists like to say. Leftist truth lives in shifting sand. It's more radical than it was even 10 years ago, and it will be more radical yet 10 years from now. It is agenda laden truth, as defined by those who see the United States as fundamentally unfair and hopelessly flawed. Their goal is not to build on success of a great nation, but to burn the house down and start over with a much better foundation - Marxism.

"Shifting sand" truth is fully in place in our university system and is slowly but surely replacing traditional truth in K-12. One time students, mesmerized by the subtle allure of Marxist ideology, now control the media, the education system, Hollywood, big tech, government, even big business. Whole segments of the population have been radicalized through Marxist-based degree programs like gender studies.

As a conservative who sees our nation as the greatest in the history of the world, a nation that has worked hard to overcome the evils of its past long before the principles of Marxism became mainstream, I reject "shifting sand" truth. I embrace traditional truth as defined Biblically and established in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Finally, and I do mean finally, you labeling me as a bigot according to "your truth" is in itself a Marxist tactic as defined in Rule No.13, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Apology accepted.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&feature=share