General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Harry Stoddard
The Rational National
comments

Comments by "Harry Stoddard" (@HarryS77) on "Howard Stern Versus Joe Rogan On Vaccines" video.

@carlitaticconi6655 All the side effects you listed are usually treatable and are more common in people who get covid. If you're doing a risk assessment, getting the vaccine is much safer than getting covid.
34
@carlitaticconi6655 The risk for those side effects is literally a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent.
34
@forgottenredemption4970 Yep, it's estimated you have a 1 in 100 chance of getting into a fatal crash in your lifetime, a 1% chance. The risk of vaccine side effects is around 0.0001% to 0.000025%, depending on which side effect.
33
@carlitaticconi6655 VAERS doesn't under represent; it potentially over represents. You can't take VAERS numbers at face value. Each reported case requires further investigation to determine if there's a causal link to the vaccine. It's important that those cases are reported, but they don't determine cause-and-effect.
31
@carlitaticconi6655 The good faith effort to establish safety was the phase 3 trials that each vaccine went through.
26
Tuesday April The right threw a huge fit about improving nutrition in schools.
23
@carlitaticconi6655 Odds of Dying - National Safety Council: motor vehicle crash 1 in 107 Blood clots: "The incidence of VITT among persons younger than 50 years of age was 1:50,000" (Pavord, NEJM). Ie ~0.00002%. Incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in vaccine recipients is about 1 to 2 in 100,000 (Diaz, JAMA).
18
Don't forget that AOC wants to take your cheeseburgers away.
11
@carlitaticconi6655 Better safety data? These are perhaps the most monitored vaccines we have. We have data on millions of people taking it with very few complications. If you're not satisfied of the vaccine's safety at this point, you're never going to be.
8
@carlitaticconi6655 Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting, NEJM "Results: In the vaccination analysis, the vaccinated and control groups each included a mean of 884,828 persons. Vaccination was most strongly associated with an elevated risk of myocarditis (risk ratio, 3.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55 to 12.44; risk difference, 2.7 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.6), lymphadenopathy (risk ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 2.05 to 2.78; risk difference, 78.4 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 64.1 to 89.3), appendicitis (risk ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.01; risk difference, 5.0 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 0.3 to 9.9), and herpes zoster infection (risk ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.73; risk difference, 15.8 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 8.2 to 24.2). SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a substantially increased risk of myocarditis (risk ratio, 18.28; 95% CI, 3.95 to 25.12; risk difference, 11.0 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 5.6 to 15.8) and of additional serious adverse events, including pericarditis, arrhythmia, deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, intracranial hemorrhage, and thrombocytopenia. Conclusion: In this study in a nationwide mass vaccination setting, the BNT162b2 vaccine was not associated with an elevated risk of most of the adverse events examined. The vaccine was associated with an excess risk of myocarditis (1 to 5 events per 100,000 persons). The risk of this potentially serious adverse event and of many other serious adverse events was substantially increased after SARS-CoV-2 infection." In other words, the most prevalent negative side effect was myocarditis, which has an incidence of about 0.00001% (risk ratio 3.24), which most people recover from, and which is more common in covid patients (RR 18.28).
7
@Nackdad Bill Maher's another weirdo who thinks people won't get sick if they eat a "healthy" diet.
6
@cosmosofinfinity Um, no. Anarchy rules. Hobbes blows.
5
@robfulco4739 I guess the entirety of the medical profession is simple-minded for taking the value of human life seriously and understanding the outsized impact even a small death rate can have with so many getting sick. You know better than them.
4
@twoshedsjohnson8540 Can we get a citation for the fact that the vaccine doesn't prevent the spread of the virus? Because it sounds like you're doing what a lot of other people are doing—you heard that vaccinated people can spread the virus as easily as the unvaccinated (though some studies dispute this), and you turn that statement in your head into ALL vaccinated people spread the virus, and that's not true. To spread the virus, a person has to first contract the virus. A vaccinated person is much less likely to contract the virus. So a vaccinated person is much less likely to get sick in the first place, and therefore less likely to spread the infection. They CAN spread it, but they're also far LESS LIKELY to. Moreover, several studies show that the viral load in vaccinated people decreases faster, meaning they have a amaller window for spreading it, and are again less likely to spread it.
3
@juliopinal2256 Do you have a source for the 11k number? Don't cite VAERS, for reasons that have already been discussed.
3
@robfulco4739 Notice how I never once referenced talking heads on tv? I cited the scientific literature. If you don't believe in science and scientific consensus, there's zero reason to argue with you. You're not even operating on a sane level. As for the countries, obviously my point wasn't to generate an exhaustive list, but to name a handful off the top of my head to show that your statement "other countries aren't masking their kids" was false. America isn't alone in requiring masks in school. I didn't even think it was worthwhile to address the problem of teaching kids to be afraid of raindrops, you hyperventilating weenie.
3
@RobertHDaGod Where're you getting the idea that "they've never been able to isolate the covid virus"? The virus was isolated shortly after the outbreak and its complete genome published. How do you not know this? I could cite multiple papers that isolated the virus. For that matter, why don't anti-vaxxers know that the J&J vaccine is a regular old viral vector vaccine?
3
@robfulco4739 "Other countries are not masking their kids." Canada is. France is. Germany is. Spain is. Belgium is. Australia is. Do you even bother to double check anything, or are you just content to let absolute nonsense churn around in your head unfiltered? Do you never have a moment where you think, Man, I ought to see if that thought I had is actually true?
3
@nikhilnewse3318 The polio vaccine isn't 100% effective. A vaccine doesn't need to be 100% effective to be a useful public health measure. The vaccines were around 90% effective against alpha (born out by trials and by large, real world studies) and about 60-70% effective against delta, more than sufficient to be considered effective. There's literally no data to support the notion that covid vaccines are 0% effective. Can we get a citation for billions being immune to the flu?
3
@jessejennings3828 The covid vaccines aren't experimental. They all successfully completed phase 3 trials. Glad I could clear that up for you.
3
@abelincoln7346 I'm not sure what you're saying. You don't lose your natural antibodies if you get vaccinated. If anything, studies indicate that those who've gotten over covid and followed up with one dose of vaccine have the greatest protection from reinfection.
2
@Randummm Nature, PubMed, NEJM, JAMA, Lancet, and other medical/science journals. What facebook page or vitamin website are you getting your information from?
2
@RobertHDaGod I'm sorry you got triggered by the phrase "fact check." If you can't look at the evidence the article provides, which shows that the claims in the video you mentioned aren't remotely true, I can understand it might be too painful for you. How you weirdos become hyper skeptical of everything but accept with total incredulity things like random, unsubstantiated, obviously erroneous videos on sites like bitchute is just astounding. You can even look up the court documents and see that what the video claims is obviously false. The CMOH is responding to its lack of evidence relating to the statute King was later found guilty of violating and compelled to pay a citation for. Court documents state, "The Provincial Court proceeding is about the December 5, 2020 enforcement of the law..., not the rationale for the law." In other words, the CMOH successfully argued that it couldn't be compelled to provide evidence that was legally relevant to the case; the evidence King subpoenaed was irrelevant, the court found. I already cited several examples of scientists isolating the virus and publishing their findings. I can cite more. Are you really going to believe a sketchy, hysterical bitchute video over an abundance of scientific material? Come on dude, this is sad.
2
@michaelbolchunas1271 Trump ended that nutrition program as soon as he got into office. If your kid is still bemoaning their school lunch, they're about as stupid as you are. Conservatives rallying behind school lunches—lunches which had always been a catchall for the least desirable food you could eat—is just the rock bottom in the downward race to defend the status quo.
2
@coryjacobs7855 🙄
2
@tuberroot1112 AP reports, "The paper does not conclude that fully vaccinated healthcare workers carry 251 times the viral load of the virus compared to unvaccinated healthcare workers. Rather, it concludes that “viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020.” "It adds that it found no correlation between vaccine-induced neutralizing antibody levels, and viral loads or developing symptoms. "The viral load does decrease faster in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individual, meaning that the vaccinated are thought to be contagious for a shorter period of time, according to the CDC. "“This study is about the Delta variant and explaining ‘breakthrough cases’ among vaccinated healthcare workers because of the Delta variant,” Ngo said. “There is no focus on unvaccinated versus the vaccinated cases.”" In other words the study you mention, which of course you didn't bother reading, is about the greater infectivity of Delta in breakthrough cases. I wish people would apply the same level of skepticism toward memes, tweets, and facebook posts that they have for MSM.
2
@tuberroot1112 Was it a July 2021 Lancet study, "Decreased infectivity following vaccination," which found: "These results suggest that BNT162b2 is moderately to highly effective in reducing infectivity, via preventing infection and through reducing viral shedding." Must've been a different one.
2
@red-baitingswine8816 Eg wiki: Marik was lead author of a journal article on the efficacy of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, which had been provisionally accepted for publication by a Frontiers Media journal in early 2021, but which was subsequently rejected on account of what the publisher said were "a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance" meaning that the article did "not offer an objective [or] balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19". Oops
2
@StoicContrarian You will be shocked to learn that 3 < 600k.
1
@charlesandrews2360 How dare people...eat? Uh...
1
@ptolemyauletesxii8642 The argument isn't that it SHOULD be mandatory because others are—only that it is not unprecedented to have mandatory vaccines.
1
@ptolemyauletesxii8642 I can assure you I've seen many anti-vaxxers act as if this is the first ever mandatory vaccine and they're not to be told what to do anyway. They're just hard and fast aginners. But let's assume what you're saying is correct. We know these anti-vaxxer arguments don't hold up. The vaccines have been tested and proven safe and effective. They aren't "experimental." Covid has killed 4.55m people so far, 600k in the US alone. It would be one thing if they decried the scope of the mandate, including things like restaurants, stores, and recreational spaces. But they would be (and are) outraged at the prospect of mandatory vaccination for things like travel, school and work (the latter being less common I would guess because most people are already inoculated because of school mandates).
1
@ptolemyauletesxii8642 I also don't think the argument for mandatory vaccination makes a false argument from tradition. When people cite an earlier regime of mandatory vaccination, they aren't invoking the tradition of vaccination like someone might invoke the traditions of marriage or sati. They're referring to the effectiveness of the practice. This is common practice in policymaking. Because we know mandatory vaccination is an effective public health intervention, and because we have good evidence that the covid vaccines are reliable, at least for now, we should adopt mandatory vaccination. (That's the argument as I see it; I'm not taking a position.) An argument from tradition implies that we don't have good evidence or arguments for why a thing should be a certain way. Our advocacy derives merely from the thing's status as tradition. That's simply not the case with routine vaccination. We have lots of evidence to support it.
1
@alwayslernin4400 False. The vaccine does prevent the spread of the virus.
1
@ptolemyauletesxii8642 I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this point, and I've already explained why in a fairly succinct fashion. I think you're just trying to play a little semantic game, but it's tedious and pedantic—the worst kind of pedantic: incorrect.
1
@ptolemyauletesxii8642 You missed the part where I already explained why.
1
@abelincoln7346 He was director of the NIAID, which is an institute within the NIH. Clearly, YOU do not know what you're talking about. But we already knew that. Fauci had no official involvement in AZT being approved and used. It was a safe and effective treatment and is still prescribed today. It didn't kill people, as you claimed.
1
@muthafukajones1513 "A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine." VAERS is always going to overrepresent the data. When actual investigations are conducted on those reports, only a few have been found to actually be caused by the vaccine. If you're taking the VAERS number at face and then thinking it must be even higher, you don't know how VAERS works. It explicitly says it does not establish causality.
1
@ptolemyauletesxii8642 Lol, I'm not reading that prolix piffle. I already stated, succinctly, how you're misusing the appeal to tradition fallacy by purposely misconstruing the argument for mandatory vaccination. If you don't like that, it's your problem. Go take an intro to philosophy class or something.
1
@ptolemyauletesxii8642 If you had anything interesting to say, I'd read it. Pedantry—especially when it can't be bothered to be correct—isn't worth anyone's time. I think you know you're not arguing against a position anyone actually takes when you call the argument for mandatory vaccination an appeal to tradition. It's not. It's an appeal to an effective public health policy. No one—literally no one—thinks we should have mandatory covid vaccination merely because we've already made certain vaccines mandatory in certain contexts. If you want to flatter yourself by pummeling a position no one takes, you're welcome to do so, but it's pointless. Am I surprised that a wannabe lojik nerd with a classical pfp doesn't know what they're talking about? No, not really.
1
@abelincoln7346 The ingredients are posted on the CDC website. If you're referring to the travesty of granting patent protection to the vaccines, I'm right there with you. Doctors and advocacy groups have been calling for the US and other countries to lift patents as a first step toward ensuring vaccine equity. It's not only the moral thing to do; vaccinating the Global South will reduce the chance of further dangerous mutations in the virus. Information sharing could also lead to better, more stable vaccines. Drug makers being greedy ghouls doesn't mean the vaccine isn't safe and effective.
1
@abelincoln7346 I haven't really paid attention to Fauci. I don't know why you're obsessed with him. It's weird. Regardless, he doesn't appear to've lied during the AIDS crisis. AZT was an effective drug. It didn't kill people. Fauci didn't have anything to do with its implementation anyway. He wasn't part of the FDA. We do know that the vaccines are safe and effective. I'm not refusing to look at alternative treatments. I'm looking at the data and studies for things like ivermectin, and there's nothing there to justify their use. Moreover, ivermectin studies have been plagued with high profile cases of fraud, as the Elgazzar and Argentina studies, which skewed early opinions and reviews. When reviews like the Cochrane review take risk of bias into account, ivermectin's benefit is uncertain. Recently, the Together trial has shown promise for fluvoxamine, but it still needs to undergo peer-review. It also showed no benefit from ivermectin.
1
@abelincoln7346 As happy as I am to see you embrace the anarcho-communist critique of compelled labor under threat of deprivation as a form of modern slavery, you aren't getting there through a rational, evidence-based approach. There've been lots of studies on the safety and efficacy of the vaccines—I've probably cited a few already—on top of the clinical trials they all had to pass. You may not LIKE what those studies have to say, but uh, like, facts don't care about your feelings or something. On the other hand, there isn't quality evidence supporting ivermectin. The two most optimistic studies were both fraudulent. The remainder, when controlled for quality and risk of bias, as in the Cochrane review (which you should read), don't support prophylactic use of ivermectin. The largest and best study to date, the Together study, also could not find a significant benefit associated with ivermectin. You may not LIKE that the abundance of data fails to support ivermectin, because you've already decided it's a miracle cure that's being suppressed by big pharma and their puppet Fauci, but that's too bad. Pending other studies, like PRINCIPLE, that's the conclusion the best evidence leads us to. I'll also state again that for all the problems with big pharma, and the elevation of profit over need generally, you can't conclude from those problems that therefore the vaccine is neither safe nor effective. One simply does not follow from the other.
1
@ptolemyauletesxii8642 I'm glad you can admit you were wrong.
1
@ptolemyauletesxii8642 That's nice. Kind of weird that you persisted in making counterarguments to a position you conceded no one holds. But you do you.
1
@abelincoln7346 Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't pointed to any studies that commit the error you're referring to, and you haven't explained why that's relevant. I'm sorry the science isn't on your side. I'm sorry you're in denial.
1
@abelincoln7346 What are you even talking about? Stop the childish innuendo. State in plain, direct language what you're talking about and provide at least one example. This shouldn't be hard. When I say that ivermectin isn't supported by the data, I'm able to cite studies and reviews and state why they point to that (at least provisional) conclusion. The fact that you can't do the same is revealing. Whenever I point out that the science doesn't support what you're claiming, you either slither off to some other talking point or say that it's all just a hoax, the science is lying and paid for by big pharma (apparently you aren't aware that COIs have to be stated), which is incredibly dishonest and lazy. Also wtf are you taling about, "identity politics"? You don't even know what identity politics is 🤣🤣
1
@anthonycaserta4215 Yep, lifetime mb. Thanks for the gracious correction.
1
@coryjacobs7855 I know what how? I can't read your mind.
1
@timjansen7694 The government is trying to control us—that's the nature of government. It just happens that some of the things it imposes—like seatbelts and vaccines—make sense for other reasons and happen to inordinately provoke the ire of patriots and freedom lovers more than, say, mass incarceration, law enforcement, indoctrination in schools, etc—things for which they express not apathy but total approval.
1
@red-baitingswine8816 Take your meds grandpa.
1
@red-baitingswine8816 Can you cite evidence from credible, peer-reviewed sources that supports your position?
1
@echo5226 Can you call yourself free when your boss or manager orders you do to something or else you're fired?
1
@red-baitingswine8816 lmao "substantive" I'll tak that to mean you can't cite anything.
1
@red-baitingswine8816 False. So false 🤣🤣
1
@red-baitingswine8816 Don't get mad at me because you couldn't write clearly. Thanks for admitting that I don't need to take you seriously.
1
@red-baitingswine8816 Please cite credible, preferably peer-reviewed sources for why I'm wrong.
1
@red-baitingswine8816 So, no credible sources? Like I said, I can't take that seriously. Lmfao at citing Dark Horse.
1
@grumpygnome9316 Your body sheds the vaccine components within a few weeks. All that remains is your immune response.
1
@red-baitingswine8816 ffs it's right there in the comment: "a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance"
1
@abelincoln7346 No, I understand what that means. Can you stop stalling and respond to the question I asked?
1
@abelincoln7346 I repeated it several times already. I'm muting you, troll.
1
@colinsilver7033 Nope.
1
@krinka1458 You're actually making it into a better analogy. Yes, there are cynical actors, like insurance companies, who take advantage of beneficial practices for their own gain, but that doesn't negate the benefit of those practices. Seat belts do save lives. The vaccine does save lives even though we have a messed up economic and healthcare system which allows pharmaceutical and insurance companies to profit from the vaccine at the expense of many, particularly in the global south. The correct response is not to jettison life-saving practices, like seat belts or vaccines, but to push to reorganize these practices along decommodified, egalitarian, and cooperative lines. Engaging in antisocial behavior, like refusing vaccination, should be understood to exclude one from social activities. Actions have consequences, and one can't violate a compact with social health while expecting the benefits of social life. The fact that you think this is tyranny only demonstrates what a coddled life you've lived.
1
@terjeoseberg990 That study seems to implicate long covid symptoms like brain fog. It suggests that covid can cause cognitive deficits. It doesn't attempt to determine whether contracting covid is associated with lower iq (which is absurd on its face). I don't think it's wise to demonize those with different cognitive abilities in order to score a point against people who may have perfectly average iqs (for whatever that's worth) but who will themselves into being irrational aginners.
1
@doncannon9835 The CDC posts the full ingredient list for all the covid vaccines. If you don't know what's in them, that's only your own fault.
1
@doncannon9835 It's not unknown though. Vaccines don't manifest side effects years later.
1
We should mandate that people lose weight. Hey, don't tell me to take a vaccine. That's tyranny!
1
@fulcrum2951 Good thing you've never had to take the Hippocratic oath.
1
@tuberroot1112 There's a number of problems here. 1) The history of thalidomide. Thalidomide was not approved for use in the US when it was released. It was discovered to cause birth defects during trials. 2) Thalidomide isn't a vaccine, and its development can't be compared to the covid vaccines or any vaccine. Unlike thalidomide and other drugs, vaccines are administered infrequently and cleared by the body within a few weeks. They can't build up in the body over a long period of daily use, triggering side effects down the road. Allergic reactions and side effects manifest between 15 minutes and a few months, not years. 3) The vaccines all underwent successful phase 3 trials, with tens of thousands of participants. Since then, they've been closely monitored for emerging side effects, which have been rare, including myocarditis and blood clots in about 1 in 50k to 1 in 100k. Thalidomide is the reason drugs like the covid vaccine have to undergo trials to prove they're safe and effective. 4) A drug is technically experimental until it completes its trials. The fact that the FDA's usual vaccine approval process takes longer (about 1 year) than it does to issue an EUA is more a bureaucratic than a scientific way of determining whether a drug is or is not experimental. If a drug proves to be safe and effective, it's not experimental. It's proven. 5) The Pfizer vaccine is fully approved, so I'm guessing you accept that at least it is safe and effective.
1
@Christmas-dg5xc Also note that "the best meta analysis on ivermectin" derives much of its positive conclusion from the Elgazzar preprint which was pulled after being exposed for fabricating data. Dr Andrew Hill, who led the meta analysis, writes, "Our meta-analysis of survival for ivermectin had to be retracted after one of the main studies was suspected of medical fraud. With the revised version, there is no statistically significant survival benefit for ivermectin. So the original version should not be quoted." So much for that.
1
@robfulco4739 The surge is happening in areas where vaccination rates are lowest and fewer people are wearing masks etc. Can't really say those measures aren't working when they are working for the people who're using them.
1
@robfulco4739 I don't care about your anecdote or what a random EMT (not a doctor btw) might have said. Data is what matters. I don't watch the news for covid info; I try to read peer-reviewed studies, to the extent that I can understand them. If 100% of people were vaccinated, 100% of people in the hospital would be vaccinated. That statistic doesn't mean anything unless you have context, eg knowing the number of people in the hospital, comparing it to the population, etc.
1
@robfulco4739 1.6% is the percent, not the number, which is 600k in the US alone. I don't think your pay raise analogy works in any regard, but a 600k raise doesn't sound too bad.
1
@Christmas-dg5xc Nurse John Campbell must not have noticed the clinical trial in India which found that ivermectin showed no significant benefit. Weird how when larger, more rigorous studies are conducted, ivermectin's benefits evaporate.
1
@carlitaticconi6655 Carlita, I can't help but notice that as you're complaining about people following dogma over science you haven't replied to the fact that I provided you with scientific studies that dispute what you claimed without evidence.
1
@robinsss Why did you type this?
1
@tuberroot1112 "Getting full FDA approval for a vaccine is a time consuming process that can take up to 10 months under normal circumstances." Forbes I'm not confounding anything. The vaccines went through Phase I, II, and III trials, which established their safety and efficacy. That's the entire point of having trials. The vaccine had to demonstrate that it was BOTH safe and effective. You're not understanding that the side effects of a vaccine are quite different from a drug like thalidomide. According to Paul Goepfert, director of the Vaccine Research Clinic at University of Alabama at Birmingham, "Vaccines are just designed to deliver a payload and then are quickly eliminated by the body,” Goepfert said. “This is particularly true of the mRNA vaccines. mRNA degrades incredibly rapidly. You wouldn’t expect any of these vaccines to have any long-term side effects. And in fact, this has never occurred with any vaccine. [...] “The side effects that we see occur early on, and that’s it,” Goepfert said. “In virtually all cases, vaccine side effects are seen within the first two months after rollout.” ("Three things to know about the longterm side effects of covid vaccines," uab.edu). Indeed, that's exactly what's happened. Rare but serious side effects and allergic reaction have all happened within minutes to weeks of taking the vaccine, not a year later. The mRNA platform isn't "totally novel." It'd been in development for 30 years and had been through Phase II trials as a cancer vaccine. Moreover, the J&J vaccine uses a viral vector; it's not an mRNA vaccine.
1
@RobertHDaGod Viral vector vaccines have been in use for decades. The virus has been isolated. I don't know why you keep repeating this long-debunked conspiracy theory. And we don't have A complete covid genome. We have dozens. The definition of vaccines hasn't changed. You just don't understand what they are.
1
@jeanetteeastman1638 Mb. As someone who wholly sympathizes with the desire not to have routine animal testing, it was more than warranted in this case.
1
@jeanetteeastman1638 "Due to the urgent need for a vaccine in a surging pandemic, Pfizer and Moderna were given approval to simultaneously test their vaccines on animals while they were conducting Phase 1 trials on humans. The vaccines were tested on mice and macaques. “They overlapped preclinical studies with the early phases of the trials,” said Dr. William Moss, executive director for the International Vaccine Access Center at Johns Hopkins University. “In fact one of the reasons we are even talking about vaccines now just 10 months later is that some of the phases in which vaccine development normally occurs were overlapped rather than done sequentially." AP The vaccines underwent animal trials. Why can't vaccine paranoiacs take two seconds to look up the information they credulously take for fact? I guess I answered my own question.
1
@abelincoln7346 I'm saying that "no studies included covid survivors in the vaccine" doesn't mean anything to me. It's barely a coherent thought. What does "covid survivors in the vaccine" even mean? In vaccine trials? In studies of vaccine side effects? Are you mad that the researchers didn't dunk covid survivors in vats of vaccine? If you cite an example of a study that you think ignores covid patients and explain why that matters in that particular case, I might have a better idea of what you're trying to say. So far, I'm not sure even you know what you're trying to say.
1
@abelincoln7346 Again, I don't know what specifically you're referring to if you never cite anything that "they" do. What I am certain of is that the study I cited included people infected with covid, so I don't know how your comment is relevant without further elaboration. If anyone's moving the goal post and changing topics, it's you.
1
@abelincoln7346 Sure, explain away. Provide the names of the studies in question, and state the reason why it matters. As I already pointed out, the study I cited did take people infected with covid into account.
1
@zodglubby Wow, kids accustomed to eating junk food all the time threw fits. I'm shocked. We should just keep feeding them crap then.
1
@DavidJones-ct7fw Who?
1
@joshelliott4451 Who's recommending monthly shots? Even if natural immunity were a hundred times better, the point of a vaccine is to keep you from getting sick and reduce the likelihood of serious symptoms if you do get sick.
1
@terjeoseberg990 I replied to this in another thread, but that study doesn't say that people with low iqs get covid more often. It says that long covid can impair cognitive function. It's ironic that you're posting a quote about low iq apparently without having bothered to read or understand what you're quoting.
1
@ginadean5696 Joe Rogan is a dummy who gives far too much credence to strident proponents of unproven treatments. That's the exact opposite of critical thinking. The notion that vitamin C boosts the immune system was started by Linus Pauling, but research doesn't really back that up, especially not against covid. I can't find any data to suggest that raw fruits and vegetables are more beneficial for immune health than cooked ones.
1
@nategin9009 I don't know, I've seen some of your takes lol.
1
@nategin9009 How many people have died from the covid vaccine? The right loves dictators. Spare me the hollow rhetoric about individual freedom.
1
@thomasmcmenamin5436 Next time, maybe take the time it took to type that comment to just search the answer. You'll avoid looking like a complete tosser. Glenn Beck: "It starts with carrots and french fries, over apples, and then it moves into butter, and soon it becomes a shove. Because if you won't do the right thing when you're being gently prodded, they, of course, will -- well, they'll have to become a little forceful. It's for your own good. There's more. We're not to the “friots” yet." Rush Limbaugh: "it won't be long, after that call -- she talked about what food she's going to fix and how she's going to prepare it and where she's going to get it -- that woman will be reported to Michelle Obama. In the not-too-distant future, monitors assigned by the White House to listen to this show will have to report that woman because she is going to be considered a part of the obesity problem in the United States.” ____ "Republican lawmakers reportedly plan to demand the suspension of first lady Michelle Obama's school lunch program in order to avoid a government shutdown, an ultimatum that follows follows a sustained conservative media campaign against her anti-obesity efforts. According to The New York Times, congressional Republicans plan “to scale back Michelle Obama's school-lunch nutrition mandates and curtail some clean water regulations in a $1 trillion spending bill that would avert” a government shutdown on December 11. Republicans have staked their ground against a program the Times describes as an attempt to “improve school nutrition by reducing the sodium content and increasing the percentage of whole grains in school lunches.” How Conservative Media's Attacks On Michelle Obama's Anti-Obesity Efforts May Lead To A Government Shutdown
1
@abelincoln7346 lol what? You don't have a clue what you're talking about. The NEJM study that I cited explicitly says, "To place these results in context, we performed a similar analysis involving SARS-CoV-2–infected persons matched to uninfected persons." So yes, the studies do take covid survivors into account. The entire point of that study was to assess the potential risk ratio of the vaccine for various side effects against both the normal risk and the risks posed by covid infection. Next time, take a minute to read what you're arguing against before mashing the keyboard.
1
@michaelbolchunas1271 I went to school in the 90s. "Real lunch" lol.
1
@michaelbolchunas1271 Yeah, that's okay once in a while, but that's not real food you can eat day in and day out. You're also way overstating the quality of the food. It was crap.
1
@abelincoln7346 AZT was an effective drug. It didn't kill people. It's still prescribed today in combination with other drugs. Fauci didn't play a major role in recommending AZT anyway. He worked at NIAID, not the FDA.
1