patrick.net

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.

DeficitHawk says

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

Completely understandable, appreciate you sharing. And very sorry to hear about those you have some knowledge of who died. And very glad to hear yourself and your family are doing ok. My sisters and parents all got at least one dose of one of the shots you mentioned. So far none of them have had any health issues, and I hope it stays that way.

So it sounds like between the two of us we have a fair variety of mixed results. I would be interested to know more details of the people you know who died regarding their health. My friends grandfather was old, definitely had some shaking in his hands, but don't know of anything else. My massage therapist has some pretty bad sinus issues, and smokes. Her husband I mentioned the cancer. I believe he was also fairly overweight. My upstairs neighbor is a bit on the heavier side, but not obese by any means. She is very active, and does not know the meaning of organic.

The thing that bothers me about my family, is I have to hope their health remains intact. I don't have to hope when it comes to my family, because we got sick, and not taking experimental shots, already know the long term outcome.

Patrick says

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.

At the risk of deep diving on something that I dont really care about, I still think you are misinterpreting the results of this study, and the language in the text from the article is (intentionally?) misleading.

Am I correct to say that from the 400 vax+infected and the 400 nonvax infected, the results are:
Vax Group: 22 Omicron, 378 Non Omicron (Total 400 infected)
NonVaxGroup: 3 Omicron, 397 Non Omicron (Total 400 infected)

Thats how I interpret the article. Indeed, Omicron is prevalent at a 7x higher rate in the vax group than in the non vax group and thats the headline result for the misleading article. But this does NOT mean vax group is more susceptible omicron than non vax group. it means the vax group gets preferentially less non-omicron type so the fraction of omicron in the infected-vax population is higher than in the infected-non-vax population.

seems like slight of hand based on the sample consisting of only infected individuals, with a misleading way to cast numerically accurate results.

Since you asked me to, I spent some time searching for OAS articles and I found lots. Several say it is hypothetically possible, but no data existed for covid strains to support it. One shows antigen data supporting that if you got covid shot, your antibodies will be tailored to covid rather than non-covid (common cold) coronaviruses, but not specific to covid strain. I did not find any that support the headline result of this misleading article.

Is your interpretation of the data (numerically) from the article you linked the same as mine?

DeficitHawk says

Am I correct to say that from the 400 vax+infected and the 400 nonvax infected, the results are:
Vax Group: 22 Omicron, 378 Non Omicron (Total 400 infected)
NonVaxGroup: 3 Omicron, 397 Non Omicron (Total 400 infected)

Cite source.

Where are you pulling this data from? The Internet was made with hyperlinks in mind. Demonstrate you can properly use it. Tired of this. You can make any claim you want, how are you forming your opinion?

richwicks says

Cite source.

Directly from the article patrick linked above, the sample description, and the percentages listed. I just put it in numbers instead of percentages.

Point im trying to make is that this study sample consists entirely of infected individuals, separated by vax status. So the question it can answer is "what is the prevalence of different strains in vax vs non vax infected populations?".... It can not answer the question "Are vax or non vax people more likely to get omicron infections?" yet the headline of the article implies it addresses the latter.

In percentages like this:

Vax Group: 5.4%Omicron, 94.6% Non Omicron (Total 100% infected)
NonVaxGroup: 0.7% Omicron, 99.3% Non Omicron (Total 100% infected)

One of the original tweets about negative efficacy of the vaxx was 10 months ago, but I don't know how to search for it on https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson

10 months ago

Alex Berenson: "Vaccine efficacy has turned negative, meaning vaccinated people are more likely to catch Omicron about 24 weeks out after full vaccination...The vaccines are not just not controlling infection or transmission, but actually accelerating infection and transmission."

Some similar articles (boy, it is hard to wade through all the articles that fellate the CDC and shit on anyone who dares to doubt):

https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/negative-vaccine-effectiveness-against-omicron-it-can-happen-but-not-always-bc101c242c51

For Omicron, compared to no vaccine, mRNA vaccine effectiveness was –38% at 120–179 days and –42% at 180–239 days after the second dose...

https://dailysceptic.org/archive/vaccine-effectiveness-hits-as-low-as-minus-300-as-ukhsa-announces-it-will-no-longer-publish-the-data/

Patrick, will you please address my analysis of the article you posted? Do you agree? or where was my error?

I contend that the title of that article was misleading, and that the study did not conclude what the headline said, based on the sample and results.

This all makes sense when you consider that documentation of failure is a threat to $100 billion in toxxine revenue, not to mention the credibility of those who forced the toxxine on us.

Let me look...

DeficitHawk says

Point im trying to make is that this study sample consists entirely of infected individuals, separated by vax status. So the question it can answer is "what is the prevalence of different strains in vax vs non vax infected populations?".... It can not answer the question "Are vax or non vax people more likely to get omicron infections?" yet the headline of the article implies it addresses the latter.

In percentages like this:

Vax Group: 5.4%Omicron, 94.6% Non Omicron (Total 100% infected)
NonVaxGroup: 0.7% Omicron, 99.3% Non Omicron (Total 100% infected)

What it's saying is that vaxxed people who are infected are more likely to be infected with Omicron than non-vaxxed infected people are, but does not say anything about the overall infection rate. It's looking only at infected people.

This is consistent with other reports that it is the vaxxed who are getting infected at higher rates than non-vaxxed people, as expected by OAS and as predicted by people like Nobel Prizer winner Luc Montagnier and Dutch immunologist Geert Vanden Bossche, who both said that it was known that running a massive vaccination campaign during a pandemic is counterproductive and would select for variants which would make the vaccinated more likely to get infected.

The title, "Get Vaxxed? You Might Be 8 Times More Likely Than Non-Vaxxed To Catch South African Variant" is not exactly false.

When comparing already-infected vaxxed and already-infected unvaxxed, the vaxxed were 8 times more likely to have caught Omicron, the South African variant.

Though I see what you're saying in that it does not talk about the probability of being infected overall as a function of being vaxxed. I contend that the probability of being infected is indeed much higher if you have been vaxxed.

So I'm saying that to even find 400 vaxxed infected and the 400 nonvaxxed infected, they needed to look through many more non-vaxxed people, because the non-vaxxed are less likely to get infected.

This is also consistent with pretty much every public figure who is known to be vaxxed then subsequently getting sick: Biden, Pfauci, Bourla, Walensky, etc.

Patrick says

DeficitHawk says

Point im trying to make is that this study sample consists entirely of infected individuals, separated by vax status. So the question it can answer is "what is the prevalence of different strains in vax vs non vax infected populations?".... It can not answer the question "Are vax or non vax people more likely to get omicron infections?" yet the headline of the article implies it addresses the latter.

In percentages like this:

Vax Group: 5.4%Omicron, 94.6% Non Omicron (Total 100% infected)
NonVaxGroup: 0.7% Omicron, 99.3% Non Omicron (Total 100% infected)

What it's saying is that vaxxed people who are infected are more likely to be infected with Omicron than non-vaxxed infected people are, but does not say anything about the overall infection rate. It's looking only at infected people.

This is consistent with other reports...

Patrick says

The title, "Get Vaxxed? You Might Be 8 Times More Likely Than Non-Vaxxed To Catch South African Variant" is not exactly false.

When comparing already-infected vaxxed and already-infected unvaxxed, the vaxxed were 8 times more likely to have caught Omicron, the South African variant.

Though I see what you're saying in that it does not talk about the probability of being infected overall as a function of being vaxxed. I contend that the probability of being infected is indeed much higher if you have been vaxxed.

Patrick says

So I'm saying that to even find 400 vaxxed infected and the 400 nonvaxxed infected, they needed to look through many more non-vaxxed people, because the non-vaxxed are less likely to get infected.

This is also consistent with pretty much every public figure who is known to be vaxxed then subsequently getting sick: Biden, Pfauci, Bourla, Walensky, etc.

@Patrick's point about not revealing the proportion of infected (jabbed or unjabbed) relative to the entire population in each group is, and I say this as a formally trained statistician, profoundly misleading. For example, if in the jabbed group of say 10,000 people 2,000 people contract Wuhan, whereas in the non-jabbed group of 10,000, only 200 contract Wuhan, then on it's face, the jabbed are 10X more likely to contract Wuhan than the unjabbed, precisely because (and this has been well known for over 50 years) natural immunity focuses on as many loci on the invading virus as possible (spike, nucleocapsid, etc.).

Now if we just express the percentages of who was infected by what variant, COMPLETELY EXCLUDING THE ABSOLUTE NUMBERS OF THOSE INFECTED RELATIVE TO THE TOTAL SAMPLE SIZE IN EACH GROUP, and we just report the percentages, we have completely missed the forest for the trees.

@DeficitHawk - this is where you are naive (a more polite way of saying that you are ignorant). You only see what is said or claimed, not what has been withheld (lies of omission, as the example above) or how the data have been misrepresented. Surely (and I'm not calling you Shirley) you've heard the expression "Lies, damned lies, and statistics?" Statistics can be used to fool the naive and ignorant, but as someone versed in statistics, I can recognize the ways in which they have been manipulated.