Jump to content

CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk


Mrs Whiggins

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Looks like it is 90% effective for people who had chicken pox so I'll be getting it. WTF are you talking about?

 https://www.medicinenet.com/how_long_does_the_shingrix_vaccine_last/article.htm#:~:text=3%2F5-,How effective is the Shingrix vaccine%3F,first four years after vaccination.

Your ilk find it is 97+ ineffective. Here is your ilk:

Spoiler

You see, I am not anti-vaccine.  I am pro-health.  If vaccines were safe and effective, I would be on-board with the CDC’s (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) recommendations.  However, we are presently giving too many ineffective vaccines which contain toxic ingredients and do not work as advertised.

Perhaps I could stop writing about vaccines if the vaccine manufacturers would stop producing and marketing ineffective vaccines.   However, the fake news stories about ineffective vaccines still occur.  Whenever I see a fake news medical article, my writing juices get warmed up.

A recent article in the New York Times (10.25.17) got me going–it was titled, “CDC Panel Recommends a New Shingles Vaccine.”   The new vaccine—Shingrix—is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline for adults 50 and older.  The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is part of the CDC, now recommends Shingrix over the old shingles vaccine—Merck’s Zostavax.  Amazingly, the new recommendations now state that adults who have received the older shingles vaccine should now get the new one.

GlaxoSmithKline will have another blockbuster vaccine as the cost for Shingrix is estimated to be $280 for two doses and it will be recommended for every adult over the age of 50.  The article in the NYT states, “…clinical trials showed {Shingrix} to be about 98% effective for one year and 85% effective at preventing shingles for three years.”  Since one in three adult Americans will contact shingles at some point in their lives, a vaccine that is effective at preventing shingles would be good thing.

I have written about the failure of the older vaccine-Zostavax—for many years in both my blog posts and my Natural Way to Health Newsletter.  In those articles, I show you that Zostavax fails nearly 99% who take it. Naturally, anything that fails 99% who take it, should not be prescribed.

Let’s look at the Shingrix data.  I went to the Physicians Desk Reference information on Shingrix.  In section 14, the clinical trials used to get the vaccine approved are described.  There were 14,759 subjects aged 50 years and older who received two doses of either Shingrix or placebo.  In the NYT article, it was written that SHingrix was about 98% effective at preventing shingles for one year.  The PDR report stated that same thing.    If this vaccine was truly 98% effective, then I would have to seriously consider recommending Shingrix.

Here’s the actual data:

Six people out of 7,344 who received the two doses of Shingrix developed shingles—that is 0.08%.  210 out of 7,415 people who received the placebo became ill with shingles—that is 3%.  How do they get 98% efficacy out of these numbers? Again, I have written about how the Big Pharma Cartel manipulates statistics to make a poorly performing drug or therapy look better than it actually is by using the relative risk (RR).  Dividing .08% by 3% and subtracting from one provides the RR decline of nearly 98%.  However, the relative risk is an inaccurate statistical model that should never be used to make clinical decisions.  The more appropriate statistical model to determine if a drug or therapy should be used is the absolute risk reduction (ARR).

The ARR for this study can be calculated here:  3%-0.08%=2.9%.  Therefore, a more appropriate determination of the effectiveness of Shingrix is that it is 2.9% effective at preventing shingles for a median of 3.1 years (the length of the study).  And,  a true statement about Shingrix is that it takes 34 people to be vaccinated with Shingrix (1/2.9%) to prevent one case of shingles.  That means the drug failed 33 out of 34 who took it which is a 97% failure rate!

So, Shingrix is certainly better than Zostavax since Zostavax fails 99% who take it.

What an improvement.

And, all for only about $300.

If President Trump wants to truly drain the swamp, let’s start by getting rid of vaccines that fail nearly all who take them.  The shingles vaccines should be first on the list  of therapies that should be outlawed.

Yes, shingles is a horrible illness.  I had it a year ago.  A great treatment for shingles is ozone injections into the nerve root where shingles is occurring. It works nearly every time if it is done within a few days of the onset of the illness.  Also, taking vitamin C (5-10,000mg/day) and  L-lysine (1,000mg three times per day) helps.

Folks, I did not even get into the safety of Shingrix here as this blog post is too long.  This vaccine contains polysorbate 80 which is a substance that has been linked to anaphylactic reactions and has been shown to cause infertility in mammals as well as hormonal changes in rats.  Polysorbate 80 should not be injected into any living being.

Should you take a vaccine that fails 97% who take it?  I think not.  This is another perfect example of “Fake News!”

 

https://vaccineimpact.com/2017/dr-brownstein-new-shringrix-vaccine-for-shingles-fails-97-of-time/

you made your bed; now, lie in it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Your ilk find it is 97+ ineffective. Here is your ilk:

  Reveal hidden contents

You see, I am not anti-vaccine.  I am pro-health.  If vaccines were safe and effective, I would be on-board with the CDC’s (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) recommendations.  However, we are presently giving too many ineffective vaccines which contain toxic ingredients and do not work as advertised.

Perhaps I could stop writing about vaccines if the vaccine manufacturers would stop producing and marketing ineffective vaccines.   However, the fake news stories about ineffective vaccines still occur.  Whenever I see a fake news medical article, my writing juices get warmed up.

A recent article in the New York Times (10.25.17) got me going–it was titled, “CDC Panel Recommends a New Shingles Vaccine.”   The new vaccine—Shingrix—is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline for adults 50 and older.  The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is part of the CDC, now recommends Shingrix over the old shingles vaccine—Merck’s Zostavax.  Amazingly, the new recommendations now state that adults who have received the older shingles vaccine should now get the new one.

GlaxoSmithKline will have another blockbuster vaccine as the cost for Shingrix is estimated to be $280 for two doses and it will be recommended for every adult over the age of 50.  The article in the NYT states, “…clinical trials showed {Shingrix} to be about 98% effective for one year and 85% effective at preventing shingles for three years.”  Since one in three adult Americans will contact shingles at some point in their lives, a vaccine that is effective at preventing shingles would be good thing.

I have written about the failure of the older vaccine-Zostavax—for many years in both my blog posts and my Natural Way to Health Newsletter.  In those articles, I show you that Zostavax fails nearly 99% who take it. Naturally, anything that fails 99% who take it, should not be prescribed.

Let’s look at the Shingrix data.  I went to the Physicians Desk Reference information on Shingrix.  In section 14, the clinical trials used to get the vaccine approved are described.  There were 14,759 subjects aged 50 years and older who received two doses of either Shingrix or placebo.  In the NYT article, it was written that SHingrix was about 98% effective at preventing shingles for one year.  The PDR report stated that same thing.    If this vaccine was truly 98% effective, then I would have to seriously consider recommending Shingrix.

Here’s the actual data:

Six people out of 7,344 who received the two doses of Shingrix developed shingles—that is 0.08%.  210 out of 7,415 people who received the placebo became ill with shingles—that is 3%.  How do they get 98% efficacy out of these numbers? Again, I have written about how the Big Pharma Cartel manipulates statistics to make a poorly performing drug or therapy look better than it actually is by using the relative risk (RR).  Dividing .08% by 3% and subtracting from one provides the RR decline of nearly 98%.  However, the relative risk is an inaccurate statistical model that should never be used to make clinical decisions.  The more appropriate statistical model to determine if a drug or therapy should be used is the absolute risk reduction (ARR).

The ARR for this study can be calculated here:  3%-0.08%=2.9%.  Therefore, a more appropriate determination of the effectiveness of Shingrix is that it is 2.9% effective at preventing shingles for a median of 3.1 years (the length of the study).  And,  a true statement about Shingrix is that it takes 34 people to be vaccinated with Shingrix (1/2.9%) to prevent one case of shingles.  That means the drug failed 33 out of 34 who took it which is a 97% failure rate!

So, Shingrix is certainly better than Zostavax since Zostavax fails 99% who take it.

What an improvement.

And, all for only about $300.

If President Trump wants to truly drain the swamp, let’s start by getting rid of vaccines that fail nearly all who take them.  The shingles vaccines should be first on the list  of therapies that should be outlawed.

Yes, shingles is a horrible illness.  I had it a year ago.  A great treatment for shingles is ozone injections into the nerve root where shingles is occurring. It works nearly every time if it is done within a few days of the onset of the illness.  Also, taking vitamin C (5-10,000mg/day) and  L-lysine (1,000mg three times per day) helps.

Folks, I did not even get into the safety of Shingrix here as this blog post is too long.  This vaccine contains polysorbate 80 which is a substance that has been linked to anaphylactic reactions and has been shown to cause infertility in mammals as well as hormonal changes in rats.  Polysorbate 80 should not be injected into any living being.

Should you take a vaccine that fails 97% who take it?  I think not.  This is another perfect example of “Fake News!”

 

https://vaccineimpact.com/2017/dr-brownstein-new-shringrix-vaccine-for-shingles-fails-97-of-time/

you made your bed; now, lie in it. 

 

I'm pro vaccine and pro my body my choice. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Well, a lot of people feel like shit after taking it. For instance, my 16 yr old son who had covid got the shot so he wouldn't be quarantined from football if exposed. Stupid he felt pressure to get a shot he didn't need but he didn't want to potentially miss a game. Well, he got sick as fuck for 3 days after 1st Pfizer shot. He ended up missing 2 days of school and  2 practices . That's pretty common people feeling ill after the 1st or 2nd shot. Why go through that if you already have natural immunity? 

I'm having a hard time believing your son plays football, because he sounds like a huge pussy.  Is he a punter?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Let's just be clear that science has very little to do with the exchange playing out here.

It has everything to do with it.  What could be more scientific, than malfunctioning brains and misfiring synapses being distilled down to 0s and 1s, translated and spit back out for our entertainment?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Well, a lot of people feel like shit after taking it. For instance, my 16 yr old son who had covid got the shot so he wouldn't be quarantined from football if exposed. Stupid he felt pressure to get a shot he didn't need but he didn't want to potentially miss a game. Well, he got sick as fuck for 3 days after 1st Pfizer shot. He ended up missing 2 days of school and  2 practices . That's pretty common people feeling ill after the 1st or 2nd shot. Why go through that if you already have natural immunity? 

Your post is based on a false premise, and your child's anger at perceived stupidity is misplaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

israel isn't really that highly vaxxed anymore.  they got way out ahead of everyone at the jump but have been pretty level since the end of march.  most of western europe is ahead of them now. 

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2021-09-13&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=People+vaccinated+(by+dose)&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=ISR~PRT~ESP~ITA~GBR~FRA~IRL~CHN~NOR~CAN~DNK~FIN~BEL~NLD

 

and keep in mind that delta, being more infectious than OG or prior variants, requires higher levels of immunity in the population to get to herd immunity. 

Edited by elfenix
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Genco said:

Because ER treatment and ICU beds are finite resources?

Ding, ding, ding!

 

5 hours ago, lmao said:

Having antibodies from prior infection doesn't count for some reason. 

I've said it before. I had COVID in March 2020, confirmed by antibodies test in late April. By December, I no longer had any antibodies in my system. There's no telling how long they'd been gone. And also really hard to say if there was any lingering immunity.

 

3 hours ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Or I don't need it because my natural immu nity is stronger than the vax alone. It's a pretty simple concept. I don't ingest or inject meds I don't need. What's the point? Now if I hadn't had covid I'd get it. Fauci can even verbalize a reason for me to get it. 

You've been saying this long enough in this thread that you might no longer have antibodies. When did you allegedly have COVID? I think they're pretty sure immunity does not last forever with this. And as long as people insist on fucking around and finding out, COVID-19 ain't going anywhere.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

The NYPD is in the same boat as the LAPD.  Lots of officers going to be without a job shortly.  Fucking idiots the lot of them.

https://time.com/6092508/nypd-low-covid-19-vaccination-rate/


When push comes to shove I doubt many quit their relatively high-paying jobs to go be truckers or whatever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Cool.  How do you feel about abortion?

Ngapa Why Would You Do This To Me GIF

5 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:


When push comes to shove I doubt many quit their relatively high-paying jobs to go be truckers or whatever. 

right? I mean, there may be a few who wanted a way out but if there a perks to be had they're not going to give them up because of a shot. and if they do, fuck em. good luck out there.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you just can't get beyond the stupidity of not taken a proven vaccine.  No matter what the fucking excuse is, the stupidity costs lives to some small degree, but allows a lot of folks to become debilitated.  Plus I assume a lot of the same folks that won't get the vaccine probably are not very well insured.  So the extra bonus of pissing money away unnecessarily to try to save the stupid, is just the cherry on top.  Not to mention the folks who die from non-covid related things like heart attacks.

Sadly a buddy of mine's girlfriend's mom when from face timing 3 days ago, to "get things in order."  Sad that it was unnecessary, and everything I said above applies.

A friend of my wife who refuses to get vaccinated was actually complaining to her the other day, "That the vaccinated folks are the ones spreading the disease."  Which honestly is indeed partially correct.  OF course why should smart people have to stay home and hurt the economy and live shitty lives when they were the smart ones?  The logic is just well... the sort of logic you get from folks who won't take a free vaccine that will help them, protect their fellow citizens, and help the economy.  But NOOoooooo... "i saw on facebook" moronic musings are the "real" smart sources...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wife's former coworker, an aging Cajun (no, really) who can't reason her way out of a 4-way stop, refused to get vaccinated.  Last week, she went off radar.  Didn't show up to work, nobody could find her, the clues were unmistakable.  Eventually her daughter called in to say she had covid, but no other information.  Last night, cardiac arrest.  Still alive, because she was in the ICU when it happened, but talk about fuck around and find out.  Way to go, Myra.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Still alive, because she was in the ICU when it happened, but talk about fuck around and find out.  Way to go, Myra.

So the machine is still on, Myra?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pancho said:

giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47ivwrewf01vrkotaowd

Wow.

I am allergic to Betadine. The last surgery I had was a bit of a nightmare due to the reaction I had. I hate to think what would happen if I gargled with the stuff. Probably anaphylactic shock.

 

For the ISDs facing a Ken Paxton lawsuit: no worries, Mrs. Whiggins, who is not a lawyer, advises that you simply have your 'people' create a report saying that you didn't do whatever it is the AG says you did and you'll be fine. Not guilty by reason of the AG set precedent. That'll be tree-fiddy and put it on my student's lunch card, thank you.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Wow.

I am allergic to Betadine. The last surgery I had was a bit of a nightmare due to the reaction I had. I hate to think what would happen if I gargled with the stuff. Probably anaphylactic shock.

 

For the ISDs facing a Ken Paxton lawsuit: no worries, Mrs. Whiggins, who is not a lawyer, advises that you simply have your 'people' create a report saying that you didn't do whatever it is the AG says you did and you'll be fine. Not guilty by reason of the AG set precedent. That'll be tree-fiddy and put it on my student's lunch card, thank you.

I’m allergic to it as well.  Close to home and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...