That's why you need experimental study of long-term effects.
Which are not necessary to conclusively say the vaccine is much safer than the infection, you may consider everybody that die because of lack of protection "disposable" but scientists and health professionals don't, which is why the vaccines (that have been used in humans longer than COVID has been infecting humans) allowed them to be used in the population. Specially because the probability that COVID could cause long-term or permanent health problems is 100% (because it already has).
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
The word "consensus" is used by politicians.
In science you are either right or wrong.
The term "scientific consensus" is a perfectly valid one, that reflects the general opinion based on the scientific evidence. This is necessary because in science everything is, at the end, wrong. The whole thing is trying to be the least wrong according to the best available data, people are not "right", their conclusions can be or not supported by data.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Nuclear power is a very useful and effective tool to end dependency on fossil fuels, but it requires proper care and transparency to safeguard the safety of the plants. Visits to the site by important officials are not by themselves bad, because they could mean the responsible people are listening to the demands of the local community, but if the most important factor to decide the reboot were just economical subsidies then they are pointless.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Well, at least we now know where the organizers draw the line between listening and ignoring the people, public health is not something of importance, but alcohol is.
Or, maybe is the people the one that draw the line, mildly annoyed by Olympic officials increasing the risk of the pandemic getting out of control, but completely outraged (and happy to express it without need of surveys) if they dare to sell alcohol to foreigners and not the general public.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
No, that is only the consensus in the MSM, and in certain people's imaginations.
Can you prove it by linking to respected scientific or medical organizations that say something different? because if not that is just projecting your personal opinion.
There is no coverage of "real" information, only people that refuse to accept scientific realities and that usually do so in a very wide spectrum of things, from climate change to vaccines. This strong bias is the reason why they even believe doctors and scientists would be hiding drugs and pushing dangerous vaccines to their own friends and family, just for money. Rational people easily understand this makes no sense.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
You cartel gets governments to suppress effective alternative prophylactics and treatments
Conspiracy theories with imaginary "proofs" and that can be easily debunked by reality (dexamethasone) are not of value. There are no suppresed prophylactics nor treatments. And nobody (apart from antivaxxers and anti-scientific conspiracy zealots) is spreading fear nor disinformation. The scientific consensus is clear, the vaccines are for the moment the best tool against the pandemic, safe and effective above anything that was expected last year and already demonstrated to protect people very efficiently around the world.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Vaccination is a very effective and safe preventive measure, but it will not stop infection on 100% of the cases, therefore testing is the bare minimum requisite for traveling. In cases like this (where an unlikely but still possible infection can spoil all plans made for the time after the trip) a period of quarantine before boarding the plane would be also necessary.
As long as people have contact with other people before and during the flight this is going to happen.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
Posted in: It's very problematic in an environment where people are vulnerable to peer pressure to get vaccinated. Similar problems are likely to emerge at companies, universities and other organizations when they start workplace inoculations. It is necessary to give more careful consideration to information handling. See in context
This is a complicated issue that can't be solved with cookie-cutter measures, a company where lots of people telework and that have close to no contact with clients do not need the same degree of protection than a public office or bank where yet unvaccinated vulnerable people need to go and do business, a list of unvaccinated people may be necessary for the second (so they are put in roles where they are not in contact with people) but not for the first.
Still, proper care of information handling should be a given, with or without any vaccination programs.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
There is no excuse, the experts concluded no spectators was the safest option, but the organizers have other priorities, so they went for other options that by definition are not the best for that purpose. Even if they said they would do it.
6 ( +10 / -4 )
This thing keeps happening so frequently that people should not be blamed from thinking it is actually fine to do it.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Sometimes it becomes so clear that the government have invalid priorities that there is not really anything that they could say to pretend otherwise. People have to avoid doing a lot of things, except when it benefits certain sponsors...
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Not only do the links contradict your statement , but they indicate a very serious problem. There is a narrative that is quashing and subverting alternate opinion and investigation.
No they don't even if you want to mis represent them as if they were. In the first it was not even about the scientific community, and in the second it is only describing the same situation that has always been the case, because neither journals are supposed to check every detail nor pre publication peer review is supposed to detect every problem ever. And specially it is not something that applies to any journal in particular, much less the Lancet. Once again, your sources do not support your mistaken conclusion.
If you haven’t realized that growing mistrust in the management and supporting data behind this “pandemic” is growing, then so be it.
No longer "the scientific community"? that is called moving the goal posts, and it is still irrelevant, people can disagree with scientific measures for many wrong reasons, specially when they don't have any scientific basis to defend that disagreement.
Please refrain from stating what is obvious. Retraction after you have been completely exposed for irresponsible and subversive behavior holds no moral high ground.
Duh! the problem is when you try to hold the responsibility of the retraction in a Journal when it acted exactly as the system is designed to do. Do you also blame the police when they catch a criminal after he does something illegal instead of keeping everybody under vigilance 24/7 just in case?
Do you want to know what is actually an example of unethical, irresponsible behaviour? presenting incomplete/misleading information to exaggerate the risks of vaccines and trying to disguise the actual risk from the COVID infection just to justify not giving people the freedom to vaccinate even if they have a very high risk of death from COVID.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
It was depressing reading the original article when her body was found by the search party including family members, good that the criminal has been caught, and hopefully justice will be fast and since he already did another serious crime be kept the rest of his life in prison.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
It's not just the spike protein, but also the lipid nanoparticles that accumulate at high concentrations. Natural infection does not produce such lipid nanoparticle.
"high concentrations"? sorry but imaginary things are not facts, there is no evidence whatsoever that the lipids even accumulate, much less in anything above barely detectable levels, if you have to use false information to defend your point it would be better just to give up already.
Robert Malone has exactly zero evidence that points to anything pathogenic going on, in science that is the only thing that matters, not who is saying something but based on what, the problem with people used to religious beliefs is thinking "important" people can just make up things without any evidence and it has to become dogma, science is the opposite.
The public is being mislead now, not before, because no expert ever assume the local delivery to be perfect, trace amounts are going to disperse from the site and that has no biological importance, Bridle also has zero information that indicates pathology, it only indicates something completely expected, normal and innocuous according to the evidence from millions of people already vaccinated.
Once again, if you have to use a debunked document mis-characterized to make it appear as if it is related to the IM delivery of the vaccine to prove your point, you are already accepting that you are wrong.
"Research shows that spike proteins (here) remain stuck to the cell surface around the injection site and do not travel to other parts of the body via the bloodstream, they added. The 1% of the vaccine that does reach the bloodstream is destroyed by liver enzymes."
The study co-author, David Walt (here), denied this. “Bridle is taking our results and completely misinterpreting them,” he wrote in an email to Reuters.
“We can confirm the document does not make any reference to spike proteins from the vaccine resulting in dangerous toxins that linger in the body – this claim is incorrect”, the spokesperson said.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
Expecting companies that are solely driven by their profits (else they would have already done something) to change and become ecologically responsible without any incentives (specially negative) is not going to lead anywhere.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Except that the above statement is incorrect. There is a serious problem .
Neither of your links even contradict the statement. There will always be people that disagree, specially if they are not scientifically inclined, doctors and nurses are not by default part of the scientific community. So it is understandable that they can't understand the process of originating and evaluating information of primary sources as a scientist is trained to.
The second is again describing the same misconception you have, Journals are not the ones that hold the responsibility to vouch for the raw data from the studies, and peer review is not perfect, retractions are expected and desirable, because they mean the science is working as it is supposed to be. A maxim of science is that post publication peer review is more important that pre publication, because things that can escape 2-3 reviewers are not so easily missed by the whole world scientific community.
The journal would be responsible if it is notified of problems and do not retract the articles (or takes years to do it), this obviously did not happen here.
3 ( +9 / -6 )
No, they try to uncover scientific data covered up by big pharma. Instead of relying on pharma funded hit pieces, people should make up their own minds:
As demonstrated they use false information repeatedly in their campaings against all vaccines, even after it is demonstrated as false to them, lying on purpose to convince other people you are right is not a valid way to do it and why this organization is qualified as a source of disinformation.
Anyway, it doesn't make much sense to force people to take an investigational vaccine that has only been authorized for emergency use
If the vaccine lowers the risk of complications (including long term) and death of course it makes sure. Believing the whole scientific and medical community is trying to deceive people in order to make them (including their own family and friends) use supposedly unsafe vaccines is a nonsense conspiracy, it is only believable to people that put money above the lives of their "loved" ones, but any rational people can easily see it has no merit.
You never produced evidence that say the vaccines cause even a fraction of the accumulation of spike protein compared with the natural infection, according to your reasoning the vaccine (with its much smaller content) is even more necessary because it helps preventing the virus from causing much more of the protein (and live viruses) to circulate and accumulate all around the body.
-3 ( +3 / -6 )
What is the value of WHO?
They couldn't prevent the spread of Covid because of their concern for China.
How exactly do you think this could have been done by an organization that was completely defanged over 10 years ago? There is nothing the WHO could have done to threaten China in order to force cooperation, or any other country.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Australia bet for a slow roll out of vaccines since they demonstrated they could control outbreaks, but the appearance of variants can make that bet extremely dangerous.
2 ( +5 / -3 )
I would listen to these guys before the Lancet, WHO and CDC combined.
So did countries that used the Sputnik vaccine believing the Russian scientists evaluation of the efficacy, then it came out the data that supposedly leads to that conclusion is full of problems and its unreliable.
Completely agree. All three of these organizations are no longer credible.
Except of course for all the scientific community that have no problem with either of them, specially the Lancet, since anybody even remotely involved with science know that retractions are an inevitable part of scientific publications (and that letters are not scientific reports). Only people that don't understand what is the role of the scientific publications and who is actually responsible for the integrity and veracity of the data mistakenly think journal routinely corroborate raw data.
4 ( +9 / -5 )
the mRNA vaccines quickly leave the injection site, with the lipid nanoparticles spreading throughout the body and accumulating in the ovaries, brain, spleen....
A small fraction of the vaccine, not the whole thing and this is expected and has no real importance, specially when compared with the viral infection where this process is multiplied hugely because of not only the protein is distributed and accumates, but replicating viruses do, which means cells get infected around the body and continuously produce it,
If you are healthy, the infection will have no or little effect; but we do not yet know the long-term effects of the vaccines.
The vaccine has much less negative effects than the infection proved scientifically, and the viral infection is simply much more likely to produce long term effects, even if only because it already produces them. The chance that COVID-19 produces permanent effects is already 100%.
This “Variant” development was expected. Especially under an overblown emergency that allowed the opportunity for EUA medicines to be deployed by opportunists.
The scientific consensus is the opposite, lack of access to vaccines is a much more likely explanation for the emergence of variants, because immune people interrupt transmission and make the development of variants hugely less likely, specially compared with failed medication that have demonstrated to be useless like HCQ.
Even the most promising studies about ivermectin fall short of the effects that vaccines have protecting immunized people, and the difference is that vaccines have not contradicting studies that show a much lower effect like happens with ivermectin.
5 ( +10 / -5 )
Quite interesting read but probably will be strongly disliked by people that refuse to recognize the value of science.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
That troubles Alix Mayer, the president of the California chapter of Children's Health Defense, which is skeptical of the vaccination effort.
The organization is not skeptical of vaccination efforts, it is a famous antivaxxer radical group that promotes all kinds of false information that endanger the public as long as they can oppose all and every kind of vaccines.
-3 ( +3 / -6 )
Easy prey to intimidate others, he took the video himself, in secret, uploaded it without permission and was profiting from it.
It would be much more interesting to see when they prosecute people that take videos from sources allowed to film (like the TV) and put it for others to see without receiving any money. The damage to the victims is the same but it is very likely the people responsible can't be accused so easily.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
More contagious, but not more deadly to the infected:
When talking about populations more contagious means more deadly, even with the same fatality rates, because it will produce more infected people and therefore more fatal victims,
Until his papers get retracted, these are just pharma-sponsored whining...unlike the numerous convictions of pharma companies for falsifying data, bribing officials,....
The data he produced is false, not being retracted do not change that, duplicated figures, falsified ethical approvals, analysis giving impossible results, that is enough to completely tarnish his name in science, as it is happened, threatening to sue the people that found the problems is an extra that convinced the scientific community that his interest is not science.
Raoult's group has tested thousands of people, and he found that those who recovered from Covid19 were more unlikely to get reinfected than a fully vaccinated person.
Terribly sorry but just you saying they did something or found anything has no objective value, unless properly curated data validated by professionals that have not dozens over dozens of papers with confirmed falsifications this is completely irrelevant information. For all we know he is again manipulating the information or producing it from his imagination.
5 ( +10 / -5 )
Good luck with the protests but since the Japanese government has made clear it will not listen to their own people that is against holding the games there is no chance they will listen to other countries so they can be treated fairly.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
So far, the natural infection appears to be slightly more effective than vaccines (according to Didier Raoult and others), and I suspect this difference will only increase as more variants appear.
Any data to support this? I mean, Raoult has demonstrated to not be above fabricating or manipulating data so it fits with whatever he wants to say (as demonstrated with close to 100 papers with false data recently discovered), so the minimum necessary would be independent studies that show this.
And obviously the huge difference with the vaccines is that getting infected comes with much greater risks in the first place. This would make previous infectious not efficient at preventing problems, even if they were more effective than the vaccines.
Or as the article have very clearly written.
Scientists agree that the best defense against the Delta variant is to get a full two-dose vaccination against coronavirus.
3 ( +9 / -6 )
It is obvious the Japanese government is not planning to use it anytime soon, still dealing with heavy lag while distributing the others vaccines available, it is much better that it is used when necessary than just sit in a freezer until it is expired.
Obviously it is donated to countries where Japanese interests are most important, but as long as people get protection the world in general is benefited.
2 ( +4 / -2 )