Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder what your opinion is! Please read the article first (it’s in the Atlantic! Safe for Democrats!) and let me know.
First, unlike the poster I was responding to (not you by the way) I don’t try and express my opinions and simultaneously do so by hiding behind some passive aggressive rhetoric. I read the article earlier. The large preponderance of the scientific evidence is not consistent with the vaccine causing cancers in large numbers. But assuming there are some cases where this is true, what you fail to share is that mathematical modeling has projected that Covid vaccines have saved upwards of 20 million lives in 1 year (https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...n-lives-1-year) So if you want to put the article in proper context, you need to share the known/estimated benefits of vaccines. It’s clear that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh any known costs. Of course you already know this is true. I agree that the Atlantic is safe for Democrats….I am a subscriber. I’m surprised you would read it…has to be pretty toxic for you.
First, unlike the poster I was responding to (not you by the way) I don’t try and express my opinions and simultaneously do so by hiding behind some passive aggressive rhetoric. I read the article earlier. The large preponderance of the scientific evidence is not consistent with the vaccine causing cancers in large numbers. But assuming there are some cases where this is true, what you fail to share is that mathematical modeling has projected that Covid vaccines have saved upwards of 20 million lives in 1 year (https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...n-lives-1-year) So if you want to put the article in proper context, you need to share the known/estimated benefits of vaccines. It’s clear that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh any known costs. Of course you already know this is true. I agree that the Atlantic is safe for Democrats….I am a subscriber. I’m surprised you would read it…has to be pretty toxic for you.
Thank you for the opinion. It’s good that you recognize some forms of cancer maybe a side effect of vaccination and we can proceed to quibble over how “rare” it is and whether it’s worth it.
PS they’re referencing a mathematical model done by affiliates of Bill Gates. It’s very simple, they assume vaccines save lives at X% (something they cannot do as we don’t have any RCTs with all-cause mortality endpoints), they then assume excess deaths are due to COVID, and finally they assumed vaccines reduced infections. But it’s really all assumptions and calculations from those assumptions. No attempt to justify if their model was correct or not. But then that was never the point. It was intended to be published in the Lancet so lay articles can misreport that a model is reality - eg vaccines saved all those lives.
Don’t confuse a model for actual science.
The funding of them
Quote:
Schmidt Science Fellowship in partnership with the Rhodes Trust; WHO; UK Medical Research Council; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; National Institute for Health Research; and Community Jameel.
From what I have been reading, the jab can cause cancers that were in remission to come back aggressively AND cause new aggressive cancers.
Good one. I know of a young woman who thinks she won`t be able to have children if she gets the vaccine. In a country where half of the population doesn`t accept Evolution as fact, I'm certainly not surprised by this kind of anti-science foolishness. At least 5 anti-vax radio talk show hosts died from Covid.
Good one. I know of a young woman who thinks she won`t be able to have children if she gets the vaccine. In a country where half of the population doesn`t accept Evolution as fact, I'm certainly not surprised by this kind of anti-science foolishness. At least 5 anti-vax radio talk show hosts died from Covid.
Evolution is not a fact it’s a scientific theory. To accept it as a fact would be not only unscientific but ignorant of basic definitions of words.
First, unlike the poster I was responding to (not you by the way) I don’t try and express my opinions and simultaneously do so by hiding behind some passive aggressive rhetoric. I read the article earlier. The large preponderance of the scientific evidence is not consistent with the vaccine causing cancers in large numbers. But assuming there are some cases where this is true, what you fail to share is that mathematical modeling has projected that Covid vaccines have saved upwards of 20 million lives in 1 year (https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...n-lives-1-year) So if you want to put the article in proper context, you need to share the known/estimated benefits of vaccines. It’s clear that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh any known costs. Of course you already know this is true. I agree that the Atlantic is safe for Democrats….I am a subscriber. I’m surprised you would read it…has to be pretty toxic for you.
What you said about me is NOT true. I do not hide, and when I have an opinion and choose to express it, I state it openly and honestly and even sometimes very bluntly, but I am just VERY tired of stating the same opinions over and over again.
And regarding this specific thread, I do NOT have any opinion because I am not educated enough to have one as far as whether the vaccines cause cancer or make existing cancers worse or anything like that. I do, however, think that the vaccines MIGHT be dangerous.
Also, btw, another of my opinions is that I think that you are VERY rude.
There. Is that clear enough for you?
Last edited by katharsis; 09-25-2022 at 06:52 AM..
What you said about me is NOT true. I do not hide, and when I have an opinion and choose to express it, I state it openly and honestly and even sometimes very bluntly, but I am just VERY tired of stating the same opinions over and over again.
And regarding this specific thread, I do NOT have any opinion because I am not educated enough to have one as far as whether the vaccines cause cancer or make existing cancers worse or anything like that. I do, however, think that the vaccines MIGHT be dangerous.
Also, btw, another of my opinions is that I think that you are VERY rude.
There. Is that clear enough for you?
I never said you weren’t clear. I said you were passive aggressive in presenting your opinions. I understand exactly where you stand.
Thank you for the opinion. It’s good that you recognize some forms of cancer maybe a side effect of vaccination and we can proceed to quibble over how “rare” it is and whether it’s worth it.
PS they’re referencing a mathematical model done by affiliates of Bill Gates. It’s very simple, they assume vaccines save lives at X% (something they cannot do as we don’t have any RCTs with all-cause mortality endpoints), they then assume excess deaths are due to COVID, and finally they assumed vaccines reduced infections. But it’s really all assumptions and calculations from those assumptions. No attempt to justify if their model was correct or not. But then that was never the point. It was intended to be published in the Lancet so lay articles can misreport that a model is reality - eg vaccines saved all those lives.
Don’t confuse a model for actual science.
The funding of them
I’m not an epidemiologist, so I can’t assess every statistical model with much (any) authority. What I can say is that there are a number of models that appear to present very similar results. You can do the same searches on line that I have. Well established, legitimate journals vet, evaluate, review submissions for publication…they have every interest in presenting credible results. Your statement “No attempt to justify if their model was correct or not. But then that was never the point. It was intended to be published in the Lancet so lay articles can misreport that a model is reality” is silly.
In general , I have a lot of confidence in the systems, professional/academic scientists, institutions, regulators that have served the public pretty darn well in the development of pharmaceutical products. The idea that there are individuals/corporations/government entities that have conspired to harm the public for financial gain (or otherwise) makes little sense to me….the same thing could have been said for any the development of many (maybe all) of the drugs, medical procedures, prosthetics, etc. developed earlier. I’m sure there are complications associated with the current vaccine. Are some of them serious….almost certainly. The evidence, however, is very clear that the benefits have enormously outweighed the costs.
I never said you weren’t clear. I said you were passive aggressive in presenting your opinions. I understand exactly where you stand.
Okay, but perhaps what you consider to be passive-aggressive is what I consider to be an attempt at being more polite and diplomatic than what my response would be if I did not edit it?
In any case, I am now willing to let this subject drop because I do not want to derail this thread.
I’m not an epidemiologist, so I can’t assess every statistical model with much (any) authority. What I can say is that there are a number of models that appear to present very similar results. You can do the same searches on line that I have. Well established, legitimate journals vet, evaluate, review submissions for publication…they have every interest in presenting credible results. Your statement “No attempt to justify if their model was correct or not. But then that was never the point. It was intended to be published in the Lancet so lay articles can misreport that a model is reality” is silly.
In general , I have a lot of confidence in the systems, professional/academic scientists, institutions, regulators that have served the public pretty darn well in the development of pharmaceutical products. The idea that there are individuals/corporations/government entities that have conspired to harm the public for financial gain (or otherwise) makes little sense to me….the same thing could have been said for any the development of many (maybe all) of the drugs, medical procedures, prosthetics, etc. developed earlier. I’m sure there are complications associated with the current vaccine. Are some of them serious….almost certainly. The evidence, however, is very clear that the benefits have enormously outweighed the costs.
They’re just models. Ultimate test of a model is see if our results match that in nature to validate the model.
There are no way to validate these models since we don’t have a time machine to re run the pandemic. Since these models are unverifiable, they’re outside the realm of science and just really a commercial for the vaccines paid for by the orgs that profit from them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know of a young woman who thinks she won`t be able to have children if she gets the vaccine. In a country where half of the population doesn`t accept Evolution as fact, I'm certainly not surprised by this kind of anti-science foolishness. At least 5 anti-vax radio talk show hosts died from Covid.