Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

~500,000 COVID deaths in the year prior to reaching 50% fully vaccinated in the US with over 70% in the most vulnerable demographic. ~400,000 deaths in the year since. The other telling statistic is that the severity ratios have remained consistent prior to and after the vaccine milestone, i.e. the same percentage of deaths/severe outcomes happen in the same demographics despite a greater vaccine utilization in the most vulnerable demographic. The long term concerning stat is that the ratio difference between unvaccinated COVID deaths and "breakthrough"deaths is declining rapidly.

---

These statistics only tell us what we should already know, i.e. that the Covid vaccine works like most others. If you look at flu vaccination rates, they're highest among people over 65. And lo and behold, the same age group still has the highest death rates. It's simply a function of age being the biggest risk factor. The closing of the gap between breakthrough and unvaccinated deaths happened largely for the same reason. The majority of Omicron deaths were among the elderly, compared to about one-third with Delta. None of this changes the fact that you were better off vaccinated no matter your age.

---

The point and worrisome statistic is that in the most vulnerable demographic and the most highly vaccinated segment, the overall reduction in severity and death is not materializing in a significantly different pattern pre and post vaccine introduction. It goes to what is the definition of "protect you from severe outcome"? If 50% was the target for vaccine efficacy under FDA instruction, we haven't reduced deaths in the most vulnerable and most vaccinated demographics by that amount.

---

50% was the target effectiveness of the vaccine itself. It more than met and surpassed that. Effectiveness in the general population or in particular demographic groups is a whole different measurement subject to a different set of variables (new strains, waning protection over time, etc.).

---

Vaccines, heck medicines in general, are intended to work in the real world not just the controlled study you conducted on a small population and claim "look at this 90% effectiveness". The demographics outside of the vulnerable segment perform tremendously against COVID without the vaccine. Any incremental benefit there would have been statistically small, with the real benefit being through limiting infection, but that's not materializing as anticipated. We are either reducing severe outcome and death where severe outcome and death is most prevalent with COVID or we are not. There's nothing else to measure success against, especially since stopping/slowing spread has come off the standard.

---

They are effective in the real world, but not enough to negate the reality of old age. No vaccine is going to do that.

---

The reality of old age is exactly why you develop a vaccine or any other medication that addresses the decline in various internal systems that occur due to aging or other comorbidity. This virus was never a real threat to the young and healthy.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Vaccines are tailored to the characteristics of the virus, not the comorbidities of the patient. The threat to the young and healthy was what it was; how "real" that is to you probably depends on your priorities. Personally I like a functioning healthcare system for myself and my family.

---

You know what I mean, but decided to bring up a straw man.

whiterock said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I just tested positive again, about 3 days ago.

Third or Fourth time since 2020.. I'm losing count.

It sucks to be sick, but the meds & treatments are working... just like always.

Meanwhile, my wife's uncle just died from Covid last week. He was triple jabbed and wore a mask everywhere... it didn't make any difference.

---

If I'm to believe four negative tests on two separate instances of symptoms, I've never caught it. I'm 62, double jabbed. Perhaps it's Type-O blood. Maybe it's high vitamin-D (outdoors enough to keep a year-round tan). And I fly and sales and meetings, and.... it's not lack of exposure.

weird. I almost have FOMO going on.

---

I have enough kids under my roof, that we are always getting everything that goes around.
Back in the day it was Avian flu and Swine flu... now it's Covid.
Just gotta learn to live with it.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Agreed. Smallpox was the number one killer of old folks in 2019.

---

Might have been, if it existed in the wild.

---

The smallpox vaccine is the very reason why it doesn't exist in the wild.

---

We're talking about two different things. If a disease is eradicated, the inherent effectiveness of the vaccine is no longer the issue. Of course that means people have to actually take it, and in the case of smallpox that often involved vaccine mandates. Probably not something that would go ever well here.

---

We're not talking about 2 different things. The medical authorities admit that the coronavirus vaccines do not prevent its spread. That's why their discussion about the vaccine has shifted from infection prevention to mitigating the effects of the infection instead. If you trust the CDC, the smallpox vaccine prevents, not mitigates, but prevents the smallpox infection in 95% of the vaccinated.

Stating that the eradication of the disease has nothing to do with the vaccine in the case of smallpox is sophistry.

---

The discussion about the vaccine has never shifted. If you look at the clinical trials, you'll see that it was tested to prevent symptomatic illness. It also turned out to be fairly good at preventing infection, averaging around 70% effectiveness in real world studies IIRC.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

~500,000 COVID deaths in the year prior to reaching 50% fully vaccinated in the US with over 70% in the most vulnerable demographic. ~400,000 deaths in the year since. The other telling statistic is that the severity ratios have remained consistent prior to and after the vaccine milestone, i.e. the same percentage of deaths/severe outcomes happen in the same demographics despite a greater vaccine utilization in the most vulnerable demographic. The long term concerning stat is that the ratio difference between unvaccinated COVID deaths and "breakthrough"deaths is declining rapidly.

---

These statistics only tell us what we should already know, i.e. that the Covid vaccine works like most others. If you look at flu vaccination rates, they're highest among people over 65. And lo and behold, the same age group still has the highest death rates. It's simply a function of age being the biggest risk factor. The closing of the gap between breakthrough and unvaccinated deaths happened largely for the same reason. The majority of Omicron deaths were among the elderly, compared to about one-third with Delta. None of this changes the fact that you were better off vaccinated no matter your age.

---

The point and worrisome statistic is that in the most vulnerable demographic and the most highly vaccinated segment, the overall reduction in severity and death is not materializing in a significantly different pattern pre and post vaccine introduction. It goes to what is the definition of "protect you from severe outcome"? If 50% was the target for vaccine efficacy under FDA instruction, we haven't reduced deaths in the most vulnerable and most vaccinated demographics by that amount.

---

50% was the target effectiveness of the vaccine itself. It more than met and surpassed that. Effectiveness in the general population or in particular demographic groups is a whole different measurement subject to a different set of variables (new strains, waning protection over time, etc.).

---

Vaccines, heck medicines in general, are intended to work in the real world not just the controlled study you conducted on a small population and claim "look at this 90% effectiveness". The demographics outside of the vulnerable segment perform tremendously against COVID without the vaccine. Any incremental benefit there would have been statistically small, with the real benefit being through limiting infection, but that's not materializing as anticipated. We are either reducing severe outcome and death where severe outcome and death is most prevalent with COVID or we are not. There's nothing else to measure success against, especially since stopping/slowing spread has come off the standard.

---

They are effective in the real world, but not enough to negate the reality of old age. No vaccine is going to do that.

---

The reality of old age is exactly why you develop a vaccine or any other medication that addresses the decline in various internal systems that occur due to aging or other comorbidity. This virus was never a real threat to the young and healthy.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Vaccines are tailored to the characteristics of the virus, not the comorbidities of the patient. The threat to the young and healthy was what it was; how "real" that is to you probably depends on your priorities. Personally I like a functioning healthcare system for myself and my family.

---

You know what I mean, but decided to bring up a straw man.

---

No, I don't.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Agreed. Smallpox was the number one killer of old folks in 2019.

---

Might have been, if it existed in the wild.

---

The smallpox vaccine is the very reason why it doesn't exist in the wild.

---

We're talking about two different things. If a disease is eradicated, the inherent effectiveness of the vaccine is no longer the issue. Of course that means people have to actually take it, and in the case of smallpox that often involved vaccine mandates. Probably not something that would go ever well here.

---

Sorry I meant polio.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/fauci-admits-covid-19-vaccines-protect-overly-well-infection

So according to Dr. Lockdown, the vaccines are therapeutics not vaccines.

DR. FAUCI: One of the things that's clear from the data [is] that even though vaccines - because of the high degree of transmissibility of this virus - don't protect overly well, as it were, against infection, they protect quite well against severe disease leading to hospitalization and death. And I believe that's the reason, Neil, why at my age, being vaccinated and boosted, even though it didn't protect me against infection, I feel confident that it made a major role in protecting me from progressing to severe disease. And that's very likely why I had a relatively mild course. So my message to people who seem confused because people who are vaccinated get infected - the answer is if you weren't vaccinated, the likelihood [is] you would have had [a] more severe course than you did have when you were vaccinated.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So according to Dr. Lockdown, the vaccines are therapeutics not vaccines.

---

Debunked.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/sterilizing-immunity-myth-covid-19-vaccines/620023/

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So according to Dr. Lockdown, the vaccines are therapeutics not vaccines.

---

Debunked.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/sterilizing-immunity-myth-covid-19-vaccines/620023/

---

You never told us about all those people dying of smallpox and polio these days.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

So according to Dr. Lockdown, the vaccines are therapeutics not vaccines.

---

Debunked.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/sterilizing-immunity-myth-covid-19-vaccines/620023/

---

You never told us about all those people dying of smallpox and polio these days.

---

There's nothing in the definition of a vaccine that requires it to eradicate the disease. Smallpox and polio vaccines have the benefit of long-lasting immunity because surviving the disease itself has a similar benefit. That's not currently possible or expected with Covid.

Pfizer introduced it as preventing Covid.

Indoor mask mandates return for the San Diego Unified School District schools and offices as COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations tick up in the county. https://t.co/fR4cVYU7V7

— ABC News (@ABC) July 18, 2022

Bauctalk said:

---

Pfizer introduced it as preventing Covid.

---

It did a great job preventing the version of COVID it was designed to prevent:

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bauctalk said:

---

Pfizer introduced it as preventing Covid.

---

It did a great job preventing the version of COVID it was designed to prevent:

---

Tell that to all the people that died after getting vaxxed. #95%

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Bauctalk said:

---

Pfizer introduced it as preventing Covid.

---

It did a great job preventing the version of COVID it was designed to prevent:

---

Tell that to all the people that died after getting vaxxed. #95%

---

Sure. Hi, people who died after getting vaccinated, the vaccine did an outstanding job of preventing infection for the COVID variant that it targeted. Too bad it was not as effective with later variants.

And then there's Australia, where vaccination has worked, as promised, to end the pandemic.

Alex Berenson
Jul 19

Australia should have been the world's ultimate public health and Covid vaccine success story - the nail in the coffin for Team Reality and the Great Barrington Declaration.
Australia did just what the Bill Gates-funded gurus wanted.
It locked down early and hard and stayed that way for almost two years. It closed its borders and responded to local outbreaks with even tougher restrictions. Australian police used drones and automated license plate readers to check if people were more than a few miles from their homes.

The restrictions largely "worked." (Putting aside their cost to civil liberties, education, and mental health, of course, since those don't matter to Covid fanatics.) Through the fall of 2021, Australia had few Sars-Cov-2 infections and almost no Covid deaths.
(Faith in science! It's a thing)



When Covid vaccines became available, Australia took an equally aggressive stance. The country's six states segregated unvaccinated people, barring them from shopping, going to restaurants, and even entering libraries. States also forced Covid shots on many workers as a condition of employment, making up to 75 percent of workers get jabs.

Australians did not universally support the rules. Thousands of anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown protestors jammed Melbourne and other major Australian cities last fall.

Still, despite Australia's reputation as an outpost of rugged individualism, it is actually more like Canada than the United States. Polls routinely showed that a majority of Australians supported the restrictions and were pleased with their government's overall response to the coronavirus.

In fact, during the spring and summer of 2021, most Australians were primarily concerned that they did not have enough access to vaccines. More than 95 percent of Australians 16 and over ultimately took the shots - mostly Pfizer's mRNA jabs. The acceptance extended to boosters, which nearly 70 percent of Australian adults have received.

And for almost two years, the elite media have held Australia up rapturously as an example of how the United States should have behaved and how many lives lockdowns and vaccines could have saved (never mind that Western European countries, which had lockdowns and Covid vaccination rates similar to Australia's, have death counts similar to America's.)

In May, the New York Times asked:
What went right in Australia and wrong in the United States?
For the standard slide-show presentation, it looks obvious: Australia restricted travel and personal interaction until vaccinations were widely available, then maximized vaccine uptake, prioritizing people who were most vulnerable before gradually opening up the country again.
(Cultures of trust, even better than anti-virals!)




But now Australia's Covid success story has a new ending - and it may hold very hard lessons for vaccine advocates.

Since December, when the Omicron variant arrived, Australia has had an unending Covid wave. And after falling in April and May, infections, hospitalizations, and deaths are soaring again as Australia, which is in the Southern Hemisphere, enters its winter.




Of course, Australia's overall Covid death toll relative to the size of its population is still far lower than the United States or Western European countries.

But for the last several months it has had more deaths per-capita, and nearly all those people are vaccinated. In the last six weeks, 656 people have died of Covid in New South Wales, Australia's largest state. More than 85 percent were vaccinated, and most of them had been boosted.

Even more concerning, Australia has also had a large increase in non-Covid deaths. During the first three months of 2022, Australia had almost 20 percent more deaths than normal. Even excluding Covid deaths, deaths were almost 10 percent above normal. Figures for April and May from Victoria, its second-largest state, suggest excess deaths have risen even further since then and may be running 30 percent above normal - a stunningly high level.

It is hard to overstate what the unspooling crisis in Australia may mean for vaccine and lockdown advocates. Because it so successfully contained Covid in 2020 and 2021 and then used mRNA and DNA/AAV vaccines so aggressively, Australia is a near-perfect test case for what Omicron and future variants will do to a population that was mass vaccinated before being exposed to Covid.



Clearly, the vaccines have failed. The question now is how long the Omicron wave will last, and how many deaths Australia may have by year-end. The rise in overall mortality is also telling, because the excuses that public health advocates have offered in other countries - health-care delays or "long Covid" - do not apply in Australia.
For now, Australian national and state governments continue to push boosters - and to publish honest data showing just how poorly the shots are working.
No points for guessing whether the honesty or the booster campaigns are likely to end first.

Old vaccines often don't work as well against new viral strains. It will be interesting to see a couple of things going forward:

1. How long can anti-vaxxers pretend not to know this?

2. What will be the new narrative in a few months when Omicron vaccines come out and work as expected?

Just like Jan. 6. You keep missing the point. It is not that any serious person doubts the vaccines have some efficacy. It's the bull**** we were fed about how they would work and the myriad things the "experts" misled us about. #95%

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just like Jan. 6. You keep missing the point. It is not that any serious person doubts the vaccines have some efficacy. It's the bull**** we were fed about how they would work and the myriad things the "experts" misled us about. #95%

---

The bull**** you've been fed is that the vaccines promised more than they delivered. 95% effective means 5% ineffective. You see evidence of the 5%, and you're shocked every time because the people you trust are telling you to be shocked. Those people are re-writing the narrative (and they will do it again...just watch).

Boom.

whiterock said:

---

Boom.

---

This should be fun. Let's go ahead and follow your tweet back to the source and see what the research says. What do you want to bet it's the opposite of what you're claiming?

Makary links a letter from a Japanese doctor, Kenji Yamamoto, to the editors of Virology Journal. It contains no new research but describes the findings of a Swedish study by Peter Nordstrom et al., published by The Lancet in February 2022. According to Yamamoto, Covid vaccination reduces immune function and creates a major risk of inflammatory infections in vaccinated patients who undergo surgery. Boosters should therefore be discontinued.

Yamamoto provides a citation and link to the Nordstrom article. Here's what the actual study says about vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency -- nothing. Not one word. It shows that the vaccines are 90+ percent effective after 15-30 days and ~50-60 percent effective after 180 days. According to the authors, "the results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster."

Boom.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Boom.

---

This should be fun. Let's go ahead and follow your tweet back to the source and see what the research says. What do you want to bet it's the opposite of what you're claiming?

Makary links a letter from a Japanese doctor, Kenji Yamamoto, to the editors of Virology Journal. It contains no new research but describes the findings of a Swedish study by Peter Nordstrom et al., published by The Lancet in February 2022. According to Yamamoto, Covid vaccination reduces immune function and creates a major risk of inflammatory infections in vaccinated patients who undergo surgery. Boosters should therefore be discontinued.

Yamamoto provides a citation and link to the Nordstrom article. Here's what the actual study says about vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency -- nothing. Not one word. It shows that the vaccines are 90+ percent effective after 15-30 days and ~50-60 percent effective after 180 days. According to the authors, "the results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster."

Boom.

---

talk about out of context. The Nordstrom article describes waning efficiency and suggests repeating boosters to stop the dynamic. Then we have the other links (like below) which warns that repeating boosters is a terrible idea.
https://www.voanews.com/a/eu-drug-regulator-warns-against-overuse-of-covid-booster-shots/6395174.html

repeatedly boosting to stop known decline in protection is destroying immune systems, with a vaccine with a 1-5000 serious complication rate.
https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/07/20/severe-adverse-reaction-covid-vaccination-germany/

And that's not 1-5000...once. That's 1 in 5000 for each jab, times...how ever many jabs one receives.....a mid 6-digit number for a disease which is no longer causing serious disease at an alarming rate.

Cost-benefit is slipping away from you on this one.......

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Boom.

---

This should be fun. Let's go ahead and follow your tweet back to the source and see what the research says. What do you want to bet it's the opposite of what you're claiming?

Makary links a letter from a Japanese doctor, Kenji Yamamoto, to the editors of Virology Journal. It contains no new research but describes the findings of a Swedish study by Peter Nordstrom et al., published by The Lancet in February 2022. According to Yamamoto, Covid vaccination reduces immune function and creates a major risk of inflammatory infections in vaccinated patients who undergo surgery. Boosters should therefore be discontinued.

Yamamoto provides a citation and link to the Nordstrom article. Here's what the actual study says about vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency -- nothing. Not one word. It shows that the vaccines are 90+ percent effective after 15-30 days and ~50-60 percent effective after 180 days. According to the authors, "the results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster."

Boom.

---

talk about out of context. The Nordstrom article describes waning efficiency and suggests repeating boosters to stop the dynamic. Then we have the other links (like below) which warns that repeating boosters is a terrible idea.
https://www.voanews.com/a/eu-drug-regulator-warns-against-overuse-of-covid-booster-shots/6395174.html

repeatedly boosting to stop known decline in protection is destroying immune systems, with a vaccine with a 1-5000 serious complication rate.
https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/07/20/severe-adverse-reaction-covid-vaccination-germany/

And that's not 1-5000...once. That's 1 in 5000 for each jab, times...how ever many jabs one receives.....a mid 6-digit number for a disease which is no longer causing serious disease at an alarming rate.

Cost-benefit is slipping away from you on this one.......

---

Again, I'm quoting the source that you referenced. I don't know how that would be "out of context."

Your new source is concerned with the possibility of immune fatigue after four or five doses in a short period. I share that concern, although you should realize that it's hypothetical and by no means unique to Covid. Other vaccines have prompted similar speculation. That's very different from claiming there's proof of immune deficiency, much less serious immune deficiency, caused by a vaccine. I've long suspected, as the EMA representative suggests, that an annual dose will prove to be the best policy. It's possible to be skeptical of constant boosting every few months without resorting to fear-mongering and misinformation.

Which brings us to your final claim, regarding the German Health Ministry tweet. It's obvious from the story that this is another "VAERS fallacy." The government is encouraging people to self-report adverse events following vaccination so it can analyze them and identify risks. This is no indication of what reactions the vaccine caused or how often it caused them. The information is being taken out of context to promote fear where it's not warranted.

double vaxed
double boosted

got Covid anyway

"science"??

It was one year ago today that Biden said this quote: "You're not going to get covid if you have these vaccinations."

Today, Biden tested positive for covid. pic.twitter.com/Q1BcBQaEXH

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 21, 2022

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Boom.

---

This should be fun. Let's go ahead and follow your tweet back to the source and see what the research says. What do you want to bet it's the opposite of what you're claiming?

Makary links a letter from a Japanese doctor, Kenji Yamamoto, to the editors of Virology Journal. It contains no new research but describes the findings of a Swedish study by Peter Nordstrom et al., published by The Lancet in February 2022. According to Yamamoto, Covid vaccination reduces immune function and creates a major risk of inflammatory infections in vaccinated patients who undergo surgery. Boosters should therefore be discontinued.

Yamamoto provides a citation and link to the Nordstrom article. Here's what the actual study says about vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency -- nothing. Not one word. It shows that the vaccines are 90+ percent effective after 15-30 days and ~50-60 percent effective after 180 days. According to the authors, "the results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster."

Boom.

---

repeatedly boosting to stop known decline in protection is destroying immune systems, with a vaccine with a 1-5000 serious complication rate.
https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/07/20/severe-adverse-reaction-covid-vaccination-germany/

---

Big pharma has to be aware of this yet they're still pushing for it and making record profits.

Getting through to Sam isn't so much about presenting facts, it's his mind not willing to accept the harsh reality that those he's supposed to trust are gaming the system for profit and power.

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Boom.

---

This should be fun. Let's go ahead and follow your tweet back to the source and see what the research says. What do you want to bet it's the opposite of what you're claiming?

Makary links a letter from a Japanese doctor, Kenji Yamamoto, to the editors of Virology Journal. It contains no new research but describes the findings of a Swedish study by Peter Nordstrom et al., published by The Lancet in February 2022. According to Yamamoto, Covid vaccination reduces immune function and creates a major risk of inflammatory infections in vaccinated patients who undergo surgery. Boosters should therefore be discontinued.

Yamamoto provides a citation and link to the Nordstrom article. Here's what the actual study says about vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency -- nothing. Not one word. It shows that the vaccines are 90+ percent effective after 15-30 days and ~50-60 percent effective after 180 days. According to the authors, "the results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster."

Boom.

---

repeatedly boosting to stop known decline in protection is destroying immune systems, with a vaccine with a 1-5000 serious complication rate.
https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/07/20/severe-adverse-reaction-covid-vaccination-germany/

---

Big pharma has to be aware of this yet they're still pushing for it and making record profits.

Getting through to Sam isn't so much about presenting facts, it's his mind not willing to accept the harsh reality that those he's supposed to trust are gaming the system for profit and power.

---

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Logical Fallacies 101.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Boom.

---

This should be fun. Let's go ahead and follow your tweet back to the source and see what the research says. What do you want to bet it's the opposite of what you're claiming?

Makary links a letter from a Japanese doctor, Kenji Yamamoto, to the editors of Virology Journal. It contains no new research but describes the findings of a Swedish study by Peter Nordstrom et al., published by The Lancet in February 2022. According to Yamamoto, Covid vaccination reduces immune function and creates a major risk of inflammatory infections in vaccinated patients who undergo surgery. Boosters should therefore be discontinued.

Yamamoto provides a citation and link to the Nordstrom article. Here's what the actual study says about vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency -- nothing. Not one word. It shows that the vaccines are 90+ percent effective after 15-30 days and ~50-60 percent effective after 180 days. According to the authors, "the results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster."

Boom.

---

repeatedly boosting to stop known decline in protection is destroying immune systems, with a vaccine with a 1-5000 serious complication rate.
https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/07/20/severe-adverse-reaction-covid-vaccination-germany/

---

Big pharma has to be aware of this yet they're still pushing for it and making record profits.

Getting through to Sam isn't so much about presenting facts, it's his mind not willing to accept the harsh reality that those he's supposed to trust are gaming the system for profit and power.

---

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Logical Fallacies 101.

---

Your unerring penchant for projection is a predictable as sunshine in the morning.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Boom.

---

This should be fun. Let's go ahead and follow your tweet back to the source and see what the research says. What do you want to bet it's the opposite of what you're claiming?

Makary links a letter from a Japanese doctor, Kenji Yamamoto, to the editors of Virology Journal. It contains no new research but describes the findings of a Swedish study by Peter Nordstrom et al., published by The Lancet in February 2022. According to Yamamoto, Covid vaccination reduces immune function and creates a major risk of inflammatory infections in vaccinated patients who undergo surgery. Boosters should therefore be discontinued.

Yamamoto provides a citation and link to the Nordstrom article. Here's what the actual study says about vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency -- nothing. Not one word. It shows that the vaccines are 90+ percent effective after 15-30 days and ~50-60 percent effective after 180 days. According to the authors, "the results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster."

Boom.

---

repeatedly boosting to stop known decline in protection is destroying immune systems, with a vaccine with a 1-5000 serious complication rate.
https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/07/20/severe-adverse-reaction-covid-vaccination-germany/

---

Big pharma has to be aware of this yet they're still pushing for it and making record profits.

Getting through to Sam isn't so much about presenting facts, it's his mind not willing to accept the harsh reality that those he's supposed to trust are gaming the system for profit and power.

---

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Logical Fallacies 101.

---

Your unerring penchant for projection is a predictable as sunshine in the morning.

---

At least we can agree that the sun shines in the morning. You're learning.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Boom.

---

This should be fun. Let's go ahead and follow your tweet back to the source and see what the research says. What do you want to bet it's the opposite of what you're claiming?

Makary links a letter from a Japanese doctor, Kenji Yamamoto, to the editors of Virology Journal. It contains no new research but describes the findings of a Swedish study by Peter Nordstrom et al., published by The Lancet in February 2022. According to Yamamoto, Covid vaccination reduces immune function and creates a major risk of inflammatory infections in vaccinated patients who undergo surgery. Boosters should therefore be discontinued.

Yamamoto provides a citation and link to the Nordstrom article. Here's what the actual study says about vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency -- nothing. Not one word. It shows that the vaccines are 90+ percent effective after 15-30 days and ~50-60 percent effective after 180 days. According to the authors, "the results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster."

Boom.

---

repeatedly boosting to stop known decline in protection is destroying immune systems, with a vaccine with a 1-5000 serious complication rate.
https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/07/20/severe-adverse-reaction-covid-vaccination-germany/

---

Big pharma has to be aware of this yet they're still pushing for it and making record profits.

Getting through to Sam isn't so much about presenting facts, it's his mind not willing to accept the harsh reality that those he's supposed to trust are gaming the system for profit and power.

---

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Logical Fallacies 101.

---

Your unerring penchant for projection is a predictable as sunshine in the morning.

---

At least we can agree that the sun shines in the morning. You're learning.

---

If only Sam would!

The vaccine type is/was a problem. That's what is playing out. There is a lost perspective from the expectations, and some are trying to defend something that will continue to disappoint.

When you design a vaccine based upon recognition of a small component of a virus versus the actual virus (or at least more genetic detail), it's going to be less effective against variants and mutations. I think that's proven to be a strategic mistake and has hindered vaccine effectiveness.

It was already near impossible to have an effective vaccine against coronaviruses, primarily because of the upper respiratory nature of them. A vaccine built around a lab created antigen of a piece of the spike protein meant our immune system was looking for something very specific to fight. One alteration to an amino acid, which is a simple not complex variation, and the immune system loses its vaccine induced advantage.

This even plays out with our flu vaccines because we use lab created inactivated viral pieces versus live attenuated. Chosen for safety and production expediency primarily. While it contains many more antigen identifiers than the COVID vaccine, mutations trick it regularly and why it sits around 50% effectiveness. Influenza is much more genetically complex than COVID.

With the mRNA vaccine they took a small sliver of the spike protein of one variant and used that as the antigen. Sure our immune system responded well to primary variants, but the highly infectious coronavirus moved way faster, and since our immune system wasn't given the full story on the virus, it doesn't recognize many of the latest. Again, safety and expediency has played a large role in this outcome. That's the overhanging politics/bureaucracy that's there.

What happened with boosters isn't that the vaccine was any better, but the immune system was "hyped" up thanks to a vaccine and was ready to respond faster. As it settled in over time the immune system did too and couldn't respond as fast, especially for those most vulnerable and in need of having their immune system primed. But continuing to falsely "hype" immune systems has a negative impact as many studies have shown.

The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).

Masks outside are absurd. This has been known for a long time. But masks are really about democrat allegiance now. They’re MAGA hats for neurotic libs. https://t.co/oMtg3XL45B

— Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) July 21, 2022

ATL Bear said:

---

The vaccine type is/was a problem. That's what is playing out. There is a lost perspective from the expectations, and some are trying to defend something that will continue to disappoint.

When you design a vaccine based upon recognition of a small component of a virus versus the actual virus (or at least more genetic detail), it's going to be less effective against variants and mutations. I think that's proven to be a strategic mistake and has hindered vaccine effectiveness.

It was already near impossible to have an effective vaccine against coronaviruses, primarily because of the upper respiratory nature of them. A vaccine built around a lab created antigen of a piece of the spike protein meant our immune system was looking for something very specific to fight. One alteration to an amino acid, which is a simple not complex variation, and the immune system loses its vaccine induced advantage.

This even plays out with our flu vaccines because we use lab created inactivated viral pieces versus live attenuated. Chosen for safety and production expediency primarily. While it contains many more antigen identifiers than the COVID vaccine, mutations trick it regularly and why it sits around 50% effectiveness. Influenza is much more genetically complex than COVID.

With the mRNA vaccine they took a small sliver of the spike protein of one variant and used that as the antigen. Sure our immune system responded well to primary variants, but the highly infectious coronavirus moved way faster, and since our immune system wasn't given the full story on the virus, it doesn't recognize many of the latest. Again, safety and expediency has played a large role in this outcome. That's the overhanging politics/bureaucracy that's there.

What happened with boosters isn't that the vaccine was any better, but the immune system was "hyped" up thanks to a vaccine and was ready to respond faster. As it settled in over time the immune system did too and couldn't respond as fast, especially for those most vulnerable and in need of having their immune system primed. But continuing to falsely "hype" immune systems has a negative impact as many studies have shown.

The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).

---

Exactly and well said. Too many are wed to a binary framework that disavows nuance. It is possible that the vaccines were not as effective as promised and better than nothing (in most cases), but too many are wed to binary tribal talking points.

ATL Bear said:

---

The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).

---

The elephant in the room is extreme profit and mass fear based advertising driving it.

ATL Bear said:

---

The vaccine type is/was a problem. That's what is playing out. There is a lost perspective from the expectations, and some are trying to defend something that will continue to disappoint.

When you design a vaccine based upon recognition of a small component of a virus versus the actual virus (or at least more genetic detail), it's going to be less effective against variants and mutations. I think that's proven to be a strategic mistake and has hindered vaccine effectiveness.

It was already near impossible to have an effective vaccine against coronaviruses, primarily because of the upper respiratory nature of them. A vaccine built around a lab created antigen of a piece of the spike protein meant our immune system was looking for something very specific to fight. One alteration to an amino acid, which is a simple not complex variation, and the immune system loses its vaccine induced advantage.

This even plays out with our flu vaccines because we use lab created inactivated viral pieces versus live attenuated. Chosen for safety and production expediency primarily. While it contains many more antigen identifiers than the COVID vaccine, mutations trick it regularly and why it sits around 50% effectiveness. Influenza is much more genetically complex than COVID.

With the mRNA vaccine they took a small sliver of the spike protein of one variant and used that as the antigen. Sure our immune system responded well to primary variants, but the highly infectious coronavirus moved way faster, and since our immune system wasn't given the full story on the virus, it doesn't recognize many of the latest. Again, safety and expediency has played a large role in this outcome. That's the overhanging politics/bureaucracy that's there.

What happened with boosters isn't that the vaccine was any better, but the immune system was "hyped" up thanks to a vaccine and was ready to respond faster. As it settled in over time the immune system did too and couldn't respond as fast, especially for those most vulnerable and in need of having their immune system primed. But continuing to falsely "hype" immune systems has a negative impact as many studies have shown.

The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).

---

They're doing the work they need to do as far as improving the vaccines and exploring other strategies. Normally this would be uncontroversial. The limitations of the current vaccines aren't shocking to anyone who's followed the science. But anti-vaxxers reliably seize on every new factoid and misrepresent it as proof the vaccines are a total failure. This is what prolongs the debate and leads to the necessary rebuttals that you may perceive as cheer-leading.

Fauci’s Pension Will Be Bigger Than Biden’s Annual Salary, Largest In Federal History https://t.co/nME4n0hSqy pic.twitter.com/gY7NM5hhFV

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) July 22, 2022

Louisville, Kentucky is returning a mask mandate for its kids in schools. Absolute insanity. Even red state residents aren’t safe from anti-science blue city insanity. https://t.co/geGS8RY2ev

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) July 23, 2022