I'm back to saying NO again.

Stuff like this gives cause for pause:
https://childrenshealthdefense...-elderly-than-covid/
A re-analysis of data from the Israeli Health Ministry concluded Pfizer’s COVID vaccine killed “about 40 times more (elderly) people than the disease itself would have killed” during a recent five-week vaccination period

...and then there's this too:
https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed...vid-variants-exposed
Horowitz: The big lie behind the panic over COVID ‘variants’ exposed

I would trust no "news" from a site with Robert Kennedy, Jr. featured prominently on it.

I'm in no hurry whatsoever. Too much crap needs to get sorted out.

quote:

Originally posted by clayflingythingy:
I would trust no "news" from a site with Robert Kennedy, Jr. featured prominently on it.

Not many sites out there that can be trusted which adds to the confusion and dilemma.

quote:

Originally posted by clayflingythingy:
I would trust no "news" from a site with Robert Kennedy, Jr. featured prominently on it.

And I bet you chew up and gooble down about everything that comes out Fauci and his cronies mouth's too.

After all they have been pushing their vaccine relentlessly for months everywhere.

And those who are not ready to buy into it are getting labeled as dangerous, waco extremists anti vaxxers.

I do not follow Kennedy Jr. but from some articles I have read. I have liked the content. And not just about the experiment treatment for C19, but on the "whole program."

Bald1, please read the primary literature on this topic if you’re serious about learning more. Even a review of the primary literature.
Just the first line in one of the links you posted had an obvious bias. That’s not science, that’s opinion, and I’m not reading further to see if they even cite a legit source.

As said, I’m perfectly comfortable with folks sitting back and waiting vs lining up for the shot.

quote:

Originally posted by irreverent:
Bald1, please read the primary literature on this topic if you’re serious about learning more. Even a review of the primary literature.

Aren't primary literature articles almost always written by the drug company researchers?

I may have mentioned it before but regardless I'll repeat it here.

The first cancer drug I was put on was fairly new and considered second generation with advertised faster positive results. Within the first week I was hospitalized for 8.5 days in the ICU as the recommended dosage almost killed me. Adjustments were made and I ended up on 1/4 the manufacturer's recommended adult dosage. Several months later I developed a significant side effect (plural effusion requiring multiple thoracentesis procedures as well as my being on supplemental O2 24x7). None of the literature had any mention of this side effect. I was finally switched to a first generation drug after my pulmonologist convinced the oncology staff that the chemotherapy was the culprit. Now five years later the current literature shows plural effusion as a side effect in 18% of patients.

So with this new mRNA technique for Moderna and Pfizer Covid19 drugs, and limited observational time with those inoculated, color me skeptical about the accuracy and completeness of current primary literature.

Where can I find reliable, current hard data published about the incidence rate of confirmed second infections with Covid-19 ?

quote:

So with this new mRNA technique for Moderna and Pfizer Covid19 drugs, and limited observational time with those inoculated, color me skeptical about the accuracy and completeness of current primary literature.

Yep... we won't know about any possible long-term side-effects, maybe for a long while.
Everyone has to make a risk assessment based on available information.
Disclosure: my wife has had both doses of the Pfizer vaccine, so far without side-effects; I have not had the shot. I'm not saying I won't... I just haven't yet.

quote:

Aren't primary literature articles almost always written by the drug company researchers?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No. Articles appearing in Journals that are academic in nature and peer reviewed are to be trusted. If you are a physician promoting a drug you must disclose your possible conficts of interest.

quote:

Articles appearing in Journals that are academic in nature and peer reviewed are to be trusted.

Seriously...

There have been plenty of Articles re: COVID 'appearing in Journals that are academic in nature and peer reviewed' that have been SPECTACULARLY Wrong!

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Articles appearing in Journals that are academic in nature and peer reviewed are to be trusted.

Seriously...

There have been plenty of Articles re: COVID 'appearing in Journals that are academic in nature and peer reviewed' that have been SPECTACULARLY Wrong!

Please share. I myself have been published articles in peer reviewed journals- in the field I was in. Some journals are tier 1, some aren’t. You need to know what you’re looking at, and unfortunately there’s been so much hype built up over this that it can be hard to discern what to believe. Which is why I suggested primary literature, and reviews. Scientific research is fluid and ongoing- they are trying their best to share the information that they are coming up with. COVID-19 has only been in public knowledge for a little over a year and I’m sure there are many scientists that are working on studies as we speak to refute or corroborate other papers that have already been published. Looking at primary literature means you are also looking at the n’s and the methods and drawing your own conclusions based on those n’s and methods.

[quote]Some journals are tier 1, some aren’t. You need to know what you’re looking at, and unfortunately there’s been so much hype built up over this that it can be hard to discern what to believe.
^^^^^^^^
Thank you for adding that clarification. That article in Cosmo is not exactly peer reviewed. Those that have published in Tier 1 Journals know what you are talking about. Academicians know where to submit articles so they will be published. Not to pick on Medscape, but there are articles there that would not stand the test of time.

So Arizona has opened up vaccinations to those 55 and older, so my wife and I now qualify. We couldn’t possibly get an appointment, as the 50,000 slots were grabbed in under two hours, and the website kept locking up.

Academic anyway, at least for me, as the mRNA shots are contra indicated for those of us with autoimmune disorders.

My wife had her first dose last week . I had mine yesterday . We both lived through it ..

quote:

Originally posted by irreverent:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Articles appearing in Journals that are academic in nature and peer reviewed are to be trusted.

Seriously...

There have been plenty of Articles re: COVID 'appearing in Journals that are academic in nature and peer reviewed' that have been SPECTACULARLY Wrong!

Please share. I myself have been published articles in peer reviewed journals- in the field I was in. Some journals are tier 1, some aren’t. You need to know what you’re looking at, and unfortunately there’s been so much hype built up over this that it can be hard to discern what to believe. Which is why I suggested primary literature, and reviews. Scientific research is fluid and ongoing- they are trying their best to share the information that they are coming up with. COVID-19 has only been in public knowledge for a little over a year and I’m sure there are many scientists that are working on studies as we speak to refute or corroborate other papers that have already been published. Looking at primary literature means you are also looking at the n’s and the methods and drawing your own conclusions based on those n’s and methods.

These days, I read even the NEJM with a jaundiced eye. It used to be the best, but competition for good research and the holy $$ affect every scientific publication. Still it is better than most.

RMD

Here is Dr Levy's free e-book on vitamin's that will support a strong immune system:

https://rvr.medfoxpub.com/

Part of the reasons for resistance to vaccinations (from The Wall Street Journal).
(The same article was posted in the other general COVID-19 thread, but because this one is more narrowly focused on the vaccines and as there may be others besides me who seldom open that one, here it is again.)
==========================================================

Russia Targets Vaccines, U.S. Says

Websites push false information on safety and efficacy, according to State Department

BY MICHAEL R. GORDON AND DUSTIN VOLZ

Russian intelligence agencies have mounted a campaign to undermine confidence in Pfizer Inc.’s and other Western vaccines, using online publications that in recent months have questioned the vaccines’ development and safety, U.S. officials said.

An official with the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which monitors foreign disinformation efforts, identified four publications that he said have served as fronts for Russian intelligence.

The websites played up the vaccines’ risk of side effects, questioned their efficacy and said the U.S. had rushed the Pfizer vaccine through the approval process, among other false or misleading claims.

Though the outlets’ readership is small, U.S. officials say they inject false narratives that can be amplified by other Russian and international media.

“We can say these outlets are directly linked to Russian intelligence services,” the Global Engagement Center official said of the sites behind the disinformation campaign. “They’re all foreign-owned, based outside of the United States. They vary a lot in their reach, their tone, their audience, but they’re all part of the Russian propaganda and disinformation ecosystem.”

In addition, Russian state media and government Twitter accounts have made overt efforts to raise concerns about the cost and safety of the Pfizer vaccine in what experts outside the U.S. government say is an effort to promote Russia’s rival Sputnik V vaccine.

“The emphasis on denigrating Pfizer is likely due to its status as the first vaccine besides Sputnik V to see mass use, resulting in a greater potential threat to Sputnik’s market dominance,” says a coming report by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, an organization that focuses on the danger that authoritarian governments pose to democracies and that is part of the German Marshall Fund, a U.S. think tank.

The foreign efforts to sow doubts about the vaccine exploit deep-seated anxieties about the efficacy and side effects of vaccines that were already prevalent in some communities in the U.S. and internationally. Concern about side effects is a major reason for vaccine hesitancy, according to U.S. Census Bureau data made public last month.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied that Russian intelligence agencies were orchestrating articles against Western vaccines and said U.S. officials were mischaracterizing the broad international debate over vaccines as a Russian plot.

“It’s nonsense. Russian special services have nothing to do with any criticism against vaccines,” Mr. Peskov said in a phone interview from Moscow. “If we treat every negative publication against the Sputnik V vaccine as a result of efforts by American special services, then we will go crazy because we see it every day, every hour and in every Anglo-Saxon media.”

The State Department GEC official said that four publications had direct links to Russian intelligence and were used by the Russian government to mislead international opinion on a range of issues.

New Eastern Outlook and Oriental Review, the official said, are directed and controlled by the SVR, or Russia’s foreign intelligence service. They present themselves as academic publications and are aimed at the Middle East, Asia and Africa, offering comment on the U.S.’s role in the world. The State Department said in August that New Eastern Outlook was linked to “statefunded institutions” in Russia.

Another publication, News Front, is guided by the FSB, a security service that succeeded the KGB, the official said. In August, the State Department was less explicit, saying that News Front reportedly had ties to Russia security services and Kremlin funding.

Rebel Inside, the fourth publication, has been controlled by the GRU, which is an intelligence directorate of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff. It covered riots and protests and now appears dormant, the GEC official said.

A State Department spokesman didn’t provide specific evidence linking the publications to Russian intelligence but said the assessment was “a result of a joint interagency conclusion.”

“Russian intelligence services bear direct responsibility for using these four platforms to spread propaganda and lies,” the spokesman said.

News Front, New Eastern Outlook and Oriental Review didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Social-media accounts affiliated with the four websites have largely been removed from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube and Pinterest, though some non-English-language accounts remained active earlier this year.

LINK

Got my first shot two days ago, and it's kind of kicking my ass. Major fatigue, body aches, headache.

From what I hear, I'm in the minority. Most people are tolerating it very well. Flu shots do this to me sometimes, so I'm not terribly surprised.

I expect I'll be back to normal in a day or two.

quote:

Originally posted by fwbulldog:
Got my first shot two days ago, and it's kind of kicking my ass. Major fatigue, body aches, headache.

From what I hear, I'm in the minority. Most people are tolerating it very well. Flu shots do this to me sometimes, so I'm not terribly surprised.
I expect I'll be back to normal in a day or two.

The second shot kicked mine. Pins driven into the joints and beaten flat with fatigue. That lasted two days. My wife’s second went four
days.