patrick.net

DeficitHawk says

Mell, nearly every comment you put says "math doesnt lie"... i also am pretty capable at doing math. The issue isnt how to do the math, its what dataset you trust to use for the analysis and avoiding the use of apples vs. oranges in analysis... Do you think all countries have equal reporting probability for deaths and cause of death? do they have the same prevalance rates of the same strains? Did their waves of infection coincide with the same treatment options becoming available? Do you think comparing two different countries outcomes in a cherry picked way like this without developing methods to account for all those differences in the dataset is just "math doesnt lie"?

Math can very much mislead to wrong conclusions if you do this sort of thing.

Again, I'm not disputing the initial rise in antibodies and the reduced symptomatic infection risk for 3-6 months, I'm showing you that the outcome is worse over time, worse with each booster. If at all countries in Africa would be at a disadvantage wrt treatments and many other technical details, yet they vastly outperform the US (partially cause the US banned ivermectin). The "endpoints" you are looking at don't matter, only deaths and serious cripplings over the mid to long term matter, how can anyone not agree with it. At the best you could flatten the curve for a very short time, but we all know that mass vaccinating during a pandemic will cause far more deaths in the long run due to ADE

"Can anyone find some Democrats willing to debate on patrick.net?"

Lol. Good luck with that :)

mell says

The "endpoints" you are looking at don't matter, only deaths and serious cripplings over the mid to long term matter,

WE've seen serious infections and side effects out to about 250 days in that one study, adn the vaccines overwhelmingly reduce severe infecton and have few side effects. but I agree this is not 'long term' enough to remove all doubts. One has to start to extrapolate on what likely side effects may present in the future etc, adn we wont have the data on that for a long time, I agree with that. Thats why I dont think the risk/benefit is there for mandating vaccines

But if you are saying the data are already that outcomes with vaccine during the pandemic are WORSE than they would have been without, I dont know how you are reaching that conclusion, at least not from the studies I've shared with you. Im not going to spend the time digging into the Africa data. Im filing that under the 'not enough roi for me to make the effort' category. But if you can do a good job distilling your analysis and taking into account the concerns I raised above, I'd give it a read.

DeficitHawk says

mell says

The "endpoints" you are looking at don't matter, only deaths and serious cripplings over the mid to long term matter,

WE've seen serious infections and side effects out to about 250 days in that one study, adn the vaccines overwhelmingly reduce severe infecton and have few side effects. but I agree this is not 'long term' enough to remove all doubts. One has to start to extrapolate on what likely side effects may present in the future etc, adn we wont have the data on that for a long time, I agree with that. Thats why I dont think the risk/benefit is there for mandating vaccines

But if you are saying the data are already that outcomes with vaccine during the pandemic are WORSE than they would have been without, I dont know how you are reaching that conclusion, at least not from the studies I've shared with you. Im not going to spend the time digging into ...

Fair enough. I spent some time researching it and also have a medical background, but ultimately people have to dig into it if they want clear answers. Ioannidis, Kulldorf, Risch are good MDs/statisticians to start with and check out their work on covid stats

cisTits says

mell says

also have a medical background

I have 7 PhDs and 11 Masters, myself.

Haha it's true though. Now that doesn't mean shit these days, but a little anatomy, biology, biochemistry and statistics can't hurt

DeficitHawk says

Patrick says

What if, say, 0.1 percent of vaxx recipients died or were severely injured, yet the government kept denying it?

This would be a high rate of side effects, only acceptable if the severity of the disease is higher still. covid is probably higher than 0.1 percent, but only by a few times, and I'd want a better risk/benefit in a vaccine.

What's worse is that the deaths and myocarditis from the vaxx are disproportionately in the young, who have exceptionally low risk from the virus itself. The risk of death from the virus, while not that different from flu, goes up exponentially with age, with almost all virus deaths being among people who are quite likely to die in the next year anyway.

Entire countries, Germany for example, could not find even one healthy child who died from the virus in that country.

To "vaccinate" children and young adults in the military for something which they have no measurable risk of dying from and thereby increase their risk of dying many times, is nothing but criminal.

If you peruse https://patrick.net/post/1340336/2021-07-29-thread-for-vax-deaths-maimings you can find plenty of people who suddenly died young, where the vaxx is the obvious culprit. Example, https://www.tmz.com/2022/10/08/us-rep-sean-casten-teen-daughter-gwen-died-heart-cardiac-arrhythmia/

Not to mention Gavin Newsom and Justin Bieber's Bell's Palsy and many other celebs who obviously had vaxx-induced problems:

https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/society-must-be-defen-estrated

DeficitHawk says

But this type of statement you make seems to be made along with a narrative that "covid doesnt kill, only vaccines kill", and that narrative is not true.

I never said that.

The flu kills more kids than covid. You would expect after the kill off of all the old people the last couple of years that overall mortality would drop. But it hasn't. Instead of the people you say , " would have been expected to die from other causes in the next 5-10 years.... " have been replaced by a younger group of deaths. SADS is not exactly new, but it has gone from killing 69 people a year to 69 people a day.

I do agree that the extra mortality from March 2020 to March 2022 was caused by the Wuhan.

DeficitHawk says

I disagree, because I think vaccine mandates ARE within their authority, and its a judgement call on a case by case basis based severity/efficacy/safety....

Again with the false equivalence. The Covid jab is NOT a vaccine, but rather an experimental biological agent. Pfizer tried to seal the results of their developmental studies for 75 years to hide negative results. ALL mandates were on the experimental shots, since the only FDA approved Covid shot was not made available. Doctors were prohibited from using known treatments like HCQ and Ivermectin, drugs with no more side effects than aspirin. However, the expensive and dangerous Remdesivir was approved as a treatment. Doctors and other qualified researchers that had a different opinion on the safety or effectiveness of the Covid jab were severely censored and threatened. All this leads credence to Fauci et al pushing the jab and Remedisvir for Pharma profit alone, with no concern about safety or effectiveness.

to be honest, there are democrats out there that openly can't stand what's going on. It's starting to become slightly trendy in entertainment now (Bill Maher etc). But on the flip side, you can list a good 2 dozen major stories/incidents that they were totally lied to about. If they haven't seen the light by now, they are hopeless.

theoakman says

there are democrats out there that openly can't stand what's going on

I hope you are correct, but I am just seeing the willfully ignorant. It seems the Tulsi Gabbards are rather rare.

theoakman says

there are democrats out there that openly can't stand what's going on.

I have seen several anti-toxxine messages in San Francisco on walls and sidewalks, and just yesterday saw a banner over highway 101 inside SF which read "defund big pharma".

Nice that they're not all zombies up there.

DeficitHawk says

adn the vaccines overwhelmingly reduce severe infecton and have few side effects

No. My wife had really nasty side effects. Enough so she didn't even get her 2nd shot. We did life insurance blood test during this time. Best medical they've see on a client and that's not a joke. Vaccine destroyed her for 4-5 months. No other mitigating factor.

Also. I don't know of one person unvaccinated since the vaccine came out that got covid. Everyone vaccinated in the last 18 months I know got covid. No one died. Half didn't know they had it and it was a work test. I don't have 30 friends. I have 1k+. I know prominent people. I'm married to one.

Covid WILL go down as the biggest medical fraud in all of our lifetimes. And that's accounting for AIDS. That was just for the gays. Fauci should be shot while he's hung. This cannot happen again.

Gonna ramble. Do you have kids? It's fucked up a generation of kids over a damn sinus infection. I want to be as cordial as possible, but it has changed the future of my children. That's not okay. At all. You're basically saying it is. You're wrong. 100%. Mell is right with the math. I have seen the side effect first hand. Ignored every lock down protocol. Traveled. Tested for covid. Never been sick enough to slow me down. Covid is a fucking joke. I get sick of people stiiiiiiiiillllllllll hyping it up.

Several of the posts above are highlighting one or another example of facial paralysis or sympoms supposedly linked to a vaccine.

The trouble with those examples (for me to reach any conclusion from them) is that I am not in a position to verify whether those cases were caused by a vaccine or not, whether the person even GOT the vaccine, and what the prevalence of those symptoms/conditions is in the non vaccinated population.

Control group studies are the standard way to separate these factors, and 'double blinding' is the standard way to avoid reporting bias in the result. But when I read the available double blind control group studies, the do NOT pick up the high rate of vaccine injuries people are alluding to.

Patrick estimates 0.1% serious injury or death from these vaccines. But the control group double blind study I shared here had zero deaths attributable to the vaccine out of 15000 people ( <0.007%), though there were side effects like bells palsy at 0.03% higher in the vaccine group vs the control group.

So who should I believe? the double blind control group study? or the people I dont know on a chat group posting anecdotes about justin bieber?

DeficitHawk says

The trouble with those examples (for me to reach any conclusion from them) is that I am not in a position to verify whether those cases were caused by a vaccine or not, whether the person even GOT the vaccine, and what the prevalence of those symptoms/conditions is in the non vaccinated population.

I'm not vaccinated. My wife did it behind my back and she regrets it to this day. And not that it's my right to control her. No second shot, no boosters. I don't have a period. Try going every other week with one. Same happened to many of her peers that were vaccinated. This is not an isolated incident. It happened to many people/women I know.

You cannot just say it wasn't a controlled, double blinded blah blah. It happened to people. Women specifically. We know of other side effects.

I'm only one person, so I get your point, but no vaccine. No covid. Everyone in the last 9 months or so I know that tested positive for covid were all vaccinated. I hung out with them with active cases in close proximity. Still no covid. And I'm not talking 5 people. I'm talking 100+ that I personally know had covid around me.

A controlled study is to give schools and big pharma federal money. Has nothing to do with actual science. There's no incentive to actually study anything and find a solution. It's to keep getting more money. I thought this was obvious?

DeficitHawk says

So who should I believe?

Can you see a pattern of lies emanating from official sources?

Remember when Biden said "You won't catch covid if you get this injection!" and then he got covid. And Fauci, Bourla, and Walensky saying the same thing and then also catching it?

Did you ever hear any of them apologize and admit they lied?

Who funded the study you referred to? Fauci's NIH? Do you see any possible self-censorship going on by people who want their funding to continue?

Conversely, have you actually looked through the several thousand incidents listed https://patrick.net/post/1340336/2021-07-29-thread-for-vax-deaths-maimings? Do you think that many deaths and injuries are just coincidence?

My wife and I know of one death on our circle we are are sure is from the vaxx, and one case of myocarditis. This, and the rise in sudden deaths after the introduction of the vaxx, convinces me that the actual rate of death and maiming is far higher than what is officially reported.

WookieMan says

A controlled study is to give schools and big pharma federal money. Has nothing to do with actual science. There's no incentive to actually study anything and find a solution. It's to keep getting more money. I thought this was obvious?

I think here's a fundamental difference between you and me. You can tell me if I am right in this characterization.

I am more inclined to want controlled studies and large statistical sampling, and I dont have an underlying mistrust of the institutions that are generating that information. Anecdotal information makes me think "Hey, whats going on here, maybe I should look into that by reading a control group study"... but it doesnt make me say "hey the control group study was wrong".

You are more inclined to distrust such institutions and disregard the results, and make extrapolations from personal experience.

Also not to put words in Mells mouth, but when Mell reads the same report as I do, he gets a different conclusion than I do, and I think it also amounts to not trusting the researchers ability to characterize and attribute symptoms, and he is accepting only the conclusions that can be reached by the unmistakable diagnosis of death. So he looks at total dead in the study. Since there werent enough to be statistically significant, he concludes the study has no meaningful result. Where as when I read that study I accept the researchers were able to diagnose symptoms of covid and tell the difference between a car crash and a vaccine side effect, and reach the conclusion that the vaccine has high efficacy for preventing severe covid symptoms. Mell can tell me whether I am characterizing his thinking correctly.

Anyway in some sense this is all just background information for the decisions we all have to make. Maybe you dont want to get the vaccine because you are healthy, in a low risk group, and dont want 0.03% chance of temporary facial paralysis. Maybe you are 80 years old and diabetic, or in some other high risk category thinking 0.03% chance of temporary facial paralysis is the least bad think going on in your life right now and you dont want to die of covid. Or maybe you are healthy but you interact with a high risk person, so you accept the risk of side effects. People will make their decisions.

I dont support mandates, but I dont support hanging those who do.

Hey DeficitHawk:

1. Do you think farts are funny?
2. Do you think news stories like these are funny?
https://patrick.net/post/1325136/2019-06-15-passenger-found-guilty-of-masturbating
https://patrick.net/post/1227218/2013-07-19-pizzeria-owner-denies-masturbating-in
3. Do you love reading stories like this one: https://patrick.net/post/1338348/2021-03-05-yet-still-another-school-kid-gets-lucky
4. Do you desire to retire in Caligulan Splendor someday?
5. Do you think we are in a housing bubble?

DeficitHawk says

I dont support mandates, but I dont support hanging those who do.

I don't support the hanging of people who merely support mandates.

I support the hanging of those who abused their power to impose mandates of the experimental injection.

Speech should be protected, but mass violations of fundamental human rights should be punished.

Ideally, serious and widespread discussion of hanging those who egregiously violated the Nuremberg Code will be enough to discourage future violations, but some actual hangings may be necessary to make the point. The fact that we are discussing hangings is a step toward protecting all of humanity from Pfizer and people like Pfauci.

zzyzzx says

Hey DeficitHawk:

1. Do you think farts are funny?
2. Do you think news stories like these are funny?
https://patrick.net/post/1325136/2019-06-15-passenger-found-guilty-of-masturbating
https://patrick.net/post/1227218/2013-07-19-pizzeria-owner-denies-masturbating-in
3. Do you love reading stories like this one: https://patrick.net/post/1338348/2021-03-05-yet-still-another-school-kid-gets-lucky
4. Do you desire to retire in Caligulan Splendor someday?
5. Do you think we are in a housing bubble?

Yes to all. though I acknowledge 4 might not happen. 5 is beginning to correct.

I posted a while back on this, but if DH wants a concrete example of demonstrated fraud/collusion between pharma, government, and research institutions, he should look into the case of ulcers and how the work of Dr. Barry Marshall was suppressed for years because it would kill the billion dollar pharma profits from selling drugs to lower acid levels in the stomach.

Marshall couldn't get his research published that showed H. pylori, not food or stress, caused ulcers. He ultimately drank a culture of H. Pylori, got ulcers, and then cured himself with antibiotics. Both Marshall and Warren were ultimately awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize for their discovery. This was only after over a decade of censorship and suppression (they discovered H. Pylori in 1982) - it wasn't until the late 1990's that their work was finally acknowledged as correct. What about all the institutional bias that shut them out for almost 2 decades? Just TRUST THE SCIENCE, and suffer ulcers chronically for decades, so pharma can profit.

I'll have to side with some of the other patnetters - DH is naive. That's OK, I was too, but eventually I had to shed it and become more critical both for myself and ultimately my family's well-being.

I feel the same way. I used to be naive, and now I'm older and I think wiser. It's kind of like losing a religion. You feel adrift and yet you can't just go back.

Science researchers used to seem 100% good, but now I see that medical research is extremely political and that results that impact profits are suppressed, as in the H. pylori story above.

There was a similar story about the doctor who discovered that a baby aspirin a day had better results than expensive anti-cholesterol drugs. He had a very hard time getting his research known and accepted.

Patrick says

There was a similar story about the doctor who discovered that a baby aspirin a day had better results than expensive anti-cholesterol drugs. He had a very hard time getting his research known and accepted.

I dont dispute that it is hard for drugs to get approval if there is no money to be made off of them. Thats true.

Medical community uses control group studies which are extremely expensive as the standard for approving a drug for use. No one will fund such research unless they stand to profit from the outcome. Totally true.

You could imagine public funding to drive control group studies on non-profitable drugs... that may have some significant public benefit. but it would be expensive and we'd have to pay for it. (see my username....)

@DeficitHawk I know there are a lot of responses on here, but wondering if you got to read mine, and would mind reciprocating?

DeficitHawk says

It may be constructive for us to talk about where we get our information, and how we vet it. We may not agree who's realty is the alternate one.

I agree with you that we should agree on sources, but I disagree on what your sources are and what you consider reliable.

We just went through what was called a pandemic which had a 99.98% survivability rate. It wasn't a pandemic, this was a lie. Our government and its media lied to us. They are not reliable sources.

What do you consider reliable sources? Our lying media, or your lying ears and eyes?

I do not see you as sincere, but I will treat you this way for a while. I do not think you are honest. We will see.

NuttBoxer says

Interested in how your experience compares?

Yes, I am having a hard time keeping up with all the various responses, sorry I missed replying to yours.

I got the J&J shot in around June 2021. I had a mild ache in my shoulder afterwards, no other symptoms. My mom, wife, sister, BIL got moderna or phizer 2 dose, and some of them said thye felt sick like 'cold symptoms' after getting the 2nd dose. Eventually I got a 2nd dose of J&J and a moderna booster, and felt soreness around the injection site with those too.

I recently had Covid in fall 2022... when omicron was the dominant version. It was like a cold, I isolated and tested until my test strips were negative before returning to work.

I do not have any close friends who died of covid. I know 1 person who was a co worker I did not know well who died of it. and through a colleague know of 3 more that were his family members. His descriptions of the manner of their death was unsettling to me. He told me they were not vaccinated.

So thats my personal experience with it. Id say vaccines geared towards the original strains may have helped me avoid the original strain, but did not prevent infection with omicron. Omicron symptoms were not too bad for me.

DeficitHawk says

Id say vaccines geared towards the original strains may have helped me avoid the original strain, but did not prevent infection with omicron.

Yes, but not only that, there are papers showing that getting the original vaxx makes you ~4x more likely to catch other strains, because the original vaxx trains the immune system to respond in the same way to every S protein (called "Original Antigenic Sin") and not to respond to the 20 or so other proteins in the virus, in particular not to the nucleocapsid protein, which is relatively invariant.

So people who had a natural infection (without any vaxx) have an immune system which makes antibodies against all of the protein components instead of just one obsolete one, and are less likely to get subsequent variants than vaxxed people are.

This makes vaxxed people the most probable carriers and spreaders of new variants.

Patrick says

there are papers showing that getting the original vaxx makes you ~4x more likely to catch other strains

got a link?

Let me look.

Sorry, it was 8 times more likely, not 4:

https://www.technocracy.news/get-vaxxed-you-might-be-8-times-more-likely-than-non-vaxxed-to-catch-south-african-variant/

A study from Tel Aviv University found that a South African variant of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus affects people vaccinated with the Pfizer shot more than unvaccinated people.

The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, indicated that the B.1.351 variant of the virus was found eight times more in individuals who were vaccinated—or 5.4 percent against 0.7 percent—against those who were not vaccinated. Clalit Health Services, a top Israeli health-care provider, also helped in the study.

I remember reading several other paper abstracts which had similar conclusions.

Original Antigenic Sin is a well-known problem with vaccines.

Hey question for people.

During the initial phases of the pandemic, before there were vaccines, and before the best standards of care evolved, and before the death rates were really known... there was a few months where we were in various stages of lockdowns with critical business operating.

I got to wondering: how high would the death rate from the disease need to be before people in critical businesses decided they didnt want to take the risk... grocery stores close because staff go on strike, towns and cities go without critical supplies, and one thing leads to another and societal collapse into cannibal anarchy ensues.

I didnt really know what the answer was... but my guess was something like 5-10% fatality rate would cause this outcome, especially if it affects working age adults.

Anyone have a guess?

Be careful to distinguish between infection fatality rate and case fatality rate.

The infection fatality rate for the original and most dangerous Wuhan Virus was somewhere between 0.1% and 0.3%.

But case fatality rates are usually 10x higher, because a case is someone already sick enough to present themselves to a doctor.

Patrick says

A study from Tel Aviv University found that a South African variant of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus affects people vaccinated with the Pfizer shot more than unvaccinated people.

Wait... I read that article and it says "The study looked at 400 people who received at least one shot of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and had contracted the COVID-19 variant and compared them to the same number of people who were infected and unvaccinated. "

Does this mean that the sample is 400 infected+Vaccinated people compared against 400 infected+Unvaccinated people, adn compared the prevelance of south african strain vs. original strain? Im having trouble interpreting the meaning hear. If I take that at face value, all it says is that the vaccinated people were less likely to get the original strain. Do you have the link to the paper?

Yes, I am ignoring some of the red flags in this article... CCP virus name, not peer reviewed... I'll set those aside for now adn focus on the data :-)

Edit: If I am understanding the samples correctly, this DOES suggest that the vaccine has less efficacy vs Omicron than it has against the original strains. but it does NOT say that a vaccinated person is more susceptible to getting Omicron than an unvaccinated person.

DeficitHawk says

Eventually I got a 2nd dose of J&J and a moderna booster, and felt soreness around the injection site with those too.

I recently had Covid in fall 2022... when omicron was the dominant version. It was like a cold, I isolated and tested until my test strips were negative before returning to work.

So you agree that the vax doesn't work to stop infection?

DeficitHawk says

You could imagine public funding to drive control group studies on non-profitable drugs... that may have some significant public benefit. but it would be expensive and we'd have to pay for it.

We do have a public funding system to do research on non-profitable drugs, but the purse is mostly controlled by Pfauci.

People who do research know better than to come out with any results that contract the little tyrant. Thus the zillions of papers which say contradictory things like "wow, a lot of people are getting myocarditis, but go get the vaxx anyway, it's the best thing ever!"

Two more notes about why I lost trust in most "scientific" research:

1. I worked at Harvard Medical School as a lab technician for six months after college. One of the post docs in my lab was caught sprinkling dirt in the test tubes of another post doc's experiment. I could not believe the childishness of the people doing research at Harvard. Ego was literally everything to them.

2. I have a relative who is a fairly well-known medical researcher and gets flown around the world for "conferences" at which he is supposed to say why the research done by the sponsor of his trip is valid, so that the FDA will have "evidence" for approving some new and profitable drug. I was shocked that the conflict of interest is that open and routine. Very nice vacations though!

DeficitHawk says

Yes, I am ignoring some of the red flags in this article... CCP virus name, not peer reviewed... I'll set those aside for now adn focus on the data

My point is that there are many such articles.

That one took me just a minute or two to find, and was not the original one I first remembered that said 4x increased infection risk. I think that was from https://alexberenson.substack.com/ or his Twitter feed.

But patrick that article doesnt conclude what you said it concludes. It only allows the conclusion that Omicron evades the vaccine better than original strain. It doesnt say vaccinated people are more likely to get omicron than unvaccinated people. (if I understood the samples correctly per the description in the article)

DeficitHawk says

Id say vaccines geared towards the original strains may have helped me avoid the original strain, but did not prevent infection with omicron. Omicron symptoms were not too bad for me.

But how do you know?

It was said of the original COVID-19 that many cases were "asymptomatic" and we must mask and distance to stop the spread. There were still many "breakthrough" cases.

At this point it is obvious that the vax does NOT stop transmission and there is no way to prove that, "it would have been worse if I weren't Vaxxed."

DeficitHawk says

how high would the death rate from the disease need to be before people in critical businesses decided they didnt want to take the risk...

Bodies on the street.

Onvacation says

So you agree that the back doesn't work to stop infection?

I agree that the original strain vaccines dont work as well on Omicron. yes. that was my personal anecdotal experience, and its also what the article Patrick shared says.

Its also what studies from 'my side of the aisle' also say.

DeficitHawk says

But patrick that article doesnt conclude what you said it concludes. It only allows the conclusion that Omicron evades the vaccine better than original strain. It doesnt say vaccinated people are more likely to get omicron than unvaccinated people. (if I understood the samples correctly per the description in the article)

It does say this:

The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, indicated that the B.1.351 variant of the virus was found eight times more in individuals who were vaccinated—or 5.4 percent against 0.7 percent—against those who were not vaccinated.

So it supports my claim that it's the primarily the vaxxed who are carrying and spreading disease, because of OAS.

But like I said, I found that article with just a minute or two of searching. There are others which show that the vaxxed are more likely to catch new variants because of OAS.