Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "New syndrome" video.

 @styracosaurusqvt4841 And why wouldn't they? It's not like they think they have enough money yet.
15
That's not a disease. 😉
8
@readtherealanthonyfaucibyr6444 ?? "The" author? Of what? The study is authored by a number of MDs and PhDs.
5
@richvid9814 Did you read it? I bet you don't like reading.
4
Not in Europe anymore. I don't think vaccination is being recommended to anyone under 50, or urged under 70.
3
If you are fine, thank your lucky stars, don't take any more boosters if you're worried and believe more boosters are wrong for you, and don't look back. Don't regret your past choices. If this had harmed you, you would know. Most people will be all right. Before COVID, vaccines were always held to a much higher safety and efficacy standard. In the past, developments like these led to immediate withdrawal. There was never a mass vaccination mandate. That's the scandal.
2
@readtherealanthonyfaucibyr6444 Oh I see. I'm sorry!
2
Read the paper. See if you think it's a fair presentation. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was withdrawn due to one case of Guillain Barre Syndrome per 100,000 innoculations. It was treated as scandalous. I never met a soul who had any reaction to any flu shot. Why would I have? I am not in the health care field.
2
To determine what is happening, honest and careful researchers will need to do a multivariate analysis. This is neither easy to do, nor likely to be completed anytime soon. The timelines we have concerning vaccination followed by health issues are producing a safety signal. This is not conclusive, of course, but given the Precautionary Principle, it needs to be heeded. It's a moral imperative to investigate. At least you admit you are guessing. This is true. You are. Why you are is anyone's guess, but I won't venture . . .
2
I don't watch anyone talk and believe what they say. I read the studies carefully, all by myself. I learned how in law school, and majoring in mathematics and in philosophy of science prior to that.
1
Except that the vaccine doesn't prevent infection. It simply does not. You don't know whether these issues are "dose dependent," whether the "dose" comes from transmission of the illness or repeated exposure to the vaccine or both. You don't know because no one does.
1
@hughshepherd6596 At least take a look at the study, will you? Man, will AI run circles around you -- you won't read now. You won't even look at printed matter.
1
That is not yet known. Did you read the paper? 🤔
1
Read the paper. It's from Yale. I never take anyone's word, especially not in the media . . . but then, I know how to read technical material.
1
@billgreen8966 What context is lacking? You assert that these EUA vaccines have "saved tens of millions." What is your source for that? It's a phrase that's been repeated many times, hence you want to hear it repeated again? It is only now that some epidemiological researchers have conceded that the "lockdowns" may have cost more lives than we realized. The real problem is that we don't have definitive answers yet --- concerning the risks and benefits of any of the mitigation measures employed so far. And the people who should know better are refusing to concede the limits of their current knowledge, or to show the basic honesty and intellectual curiosity and integrity needed to answer these questions. We should know a lot more than we do by now. A lot of unexplained -- or inadequately investigated -- data has been accumulating. Did severe COVID spare Africa? Did countries that declined to approve mRNA-type vaccines have better outcomes? Why have some studies shown that those who received more boosters have also contracted more COVID? Why are so many vaccinated and boosted people dying of COVID now? (Or are they simply dying with COVID?) Previous vaccines have been withdrawn upon determining that one potentially fatal side effect per 100,000 doses was present. This is because under the Precautionary Principle, the burden of proof is on the proponent of a vaccine to prove safety and efficacy, not on the patient to justify his reluctance. That's the right context. Moreover, these vaccines were forced on people. That's unethical. You can see what was written about the anthrax vaccines for a rational discussion. "Context" has become just another phrase. You forgot "nuance." That's big now, too.
1
@billgreen8966 I wonder if my very cogent, factual reply was shadowed. Soften us up to believe in AI.
1
@billgreen8966 I don't have an audience. I don't tend my channel, nor do I intend to. You didn't respond to my points. This isn't a job for me. No one pays me.
1
@billgreen8966 I'm the one who did take a broad view. Do you pay attention to what other countries did? Three of the BRICS authorized no mRNA vaccines, and Africa is largely unvaccinated. What were their results and why? Any ideas about what they did right or wrong? Shows how little we know.
1
@billgreen8966 I said no such thing. If coherent posts I have made are not visible, that's not on me. That's what social media algorithms do, and we all know why.
1
@billgreen8966 In the past, no vaccine with this poor of a safety profile had been allowed to be distributed. Actually, I don't agree with that, either: I think that informed consent is the right policy. Obviously, the danger of an illness, the efficacy of a vaccine against it, and the risk of the vaccines are factors for individuals to consider. Obviously, no vaccine this flawed should ever be mandated. I don't think it should be withdrawn except for minors.
1
@billgreen8966 I've posted no videos. So, what are you getting from my videos? I have none.
1
@billgreen8966 You lied about my position. Why should I interact with you? Blocked from my feed.
1
@billgreen8966 And I was just censored, for making a Socratic point about awareness of the limits of knowledge.
1
The idea was to describe the syndrome, not determine its frequency. They are trying to find out something about those who have it.
1
@timothywebber7404 I just reread the Discussion. This is precisely how you begin to probe the existence of a syndrome. It is analogous to case studies, where a careful description alerts us to what is possible, and may merit further investigation. It doesn't tell us anything about prevalence, or really anything else from which we can make any generalizations. What control group do you envision? There is no independent variable here except vaccination, which is correlated with the onset of certain symptoms within a one to eight day period. Once they define a constellation of symptoms that people who never interacted with one another independently report, would you recommend they try to find unvaccinated people experiencing the same symptoms and investigate them? I agree.
1
@timothywebber7404 In law, to illustrate the difference between probative evidence and proof (sufficient to meet a given standard, like "beyond reasonable doubt"), our evidence professor used to say, "a brick is not a wall." Nor does it have to be, to be a brick.
1
@timothywebber7404 Correct. And?
1
@timothywebber7404 Perhaps the rush to vaccinate people with pre-existing comorbidities should not have been done? Is that a possibility? Did the clinical trials that led to EUA have any such people in them? Have they been followed since? You know, it is going to be very difficult to figure out the contribution of vaccines and the contribution of COVID and COVID exposure to these syndromes. Among other things, people were pushed to get vaccinated after recovering from COVID. No one tested any vaccines on this population, either. Multivariate analysis is needed, and to do it right, researchers have to do it honestly. It takes impeccable ethics and careful judgment. Do you have faith in the system to do that? I have my doubts. The money isn't there, for one thing. There is a doctor on YouTube who removed every post that mentioned "multivariate analysis" --- even though such analysis might show that the vaccines are safer than they appear to be so far. This doctor is a tool. How many more are like him?
1
How common this syndrome is was not a research question. The point was to describe the syndrome, based on what those who researchers can determine actually have it, have to say about it. The pre-print gives a very detailed description of the symptoms those people are experiencing, including their severity and persistence through time. Is there some reason to lie, when the link is right there?
1
@davidyoung6331 Read the paper. It's from Yale.
1
@davidyoung6331 Thanks for that. I hope your patients know.
1
@davidyoung6331 Or they just didn't tell you. For the last time, Campbell is not the source of this information. He is reporting on a study. And yes, its source does have some bearing on its credibility. It is not a guarantee of its having been well done, but it certainly increases the chances. I go to good doctors, so this exchange is puzzling, to say the least.
1
@davidyoung6331 Drbeen Medical Lectures addresses all the points you've raised in detail --- by showing exactly what the study says. Reading and thinking should suffice.
1
So read the d*mned paper.
1
They aren't.
1
The study wasn't designed to determine the frequency of the syndrome. It was designed to understand the symptoms of those who do indeed have it, to try to find out more about it and to help them. Crazy, I know.
1
Read the paper. It's the severity and onset that matter. It's totally plausible, given that people who have had the infection commonly experience it for two to twelve weeks after getting better, even if their COVID was quite mild. WHO does not recommend doing any sort of work-up for "long COVID" before 12 weeks post infection.
1
It is going to be very difficult to figure out the contribution of vaccines and the contribution of COVID and COVID exposure to these syndromes. Among other things, people were pushed to get vaccinated after recovering from COVID(!!!) No one tested any vaccines on this population. Multivariate analysis is needed, and to do it right, researchers have to do it honestly. It takes impeccable ethics and careful judgment. Do you have faith in the system to do that? There was a doctor on YouTube who removed every post that mentioned "multivariate analysis." How many more are like him?
1
Well, it could be from exposure to COVID itself. We've all been exposed, and it is a cytotoxic virus all by itself, without having its most reactogenic protein injected into you.
1
There is growing evidence that "long COVID" syndromes can arise from any type of encounter with the spike protein of the virus, whether through innoculation or transmission. No one is saying that only vaccines can cause this -- that would be ridiculous. We were being told, however, that only COVID infection can. Oopsie.
1
Fine. Then read the d*mned paper. Uh, you can read a research paper . . . Right?
1