Hacker News Reader

Comment by buscoquadnary | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

A lot of people believe that mental problems are all caused by disembodied souls of people from the planet Teegeeack, brought here by Xenu of the Galactic Confederation in spacegoing DC-10s and blown up by A-bombs in Hawaii.

I agree with your overall point but at this time there are, thankfully, few believers of Scientology. Hopefully at some point in the future encountering an anti-vaxer will be as rare as encountering a Scientologist.

Explain how the COVID vaccine which does not 1) Prevent becoming infected with COVID, 2) Does not prevent spreading COVID to others, 3) Does not prevent COVID symptoms is a vaccine again? Also using the CDC definition that was specifically changed because the COVID vaccine didn't meet the definition of vaccine doesn't count.

Additionally how about we don't just jump to lumping huge numbers of people into out groups to feel better about ourselves and create divisiveness? Or go to Reddit where you can cheer on people dying.

https://yournews.com/2022/07/11/2375584/emails-confirm-why-c...

Vaccines have never been expected to have 100% efficacy except by the under-informed. Just off the top of my head I can list typhoid, dengue and malaria as diseases that have vaccines with fairly low efficacy rates.

I have no medical expertise but I do know that overwhelmingly those who do have expertise took the “vaccine” and the booster shots. It does not matter to me what word you use to denote the COVID vaccine. I do hope anti-vaxers become rare. They are a menace and are incredibly selfish and self-centered.

Do you think the vaccine lowers the probability that a person will die from an infection?

Is there a recent randomized controlled trial covering the period where recent strains were dominant which I could reference in order to get an idea?

That is not a vaccine. No one calls corticosteroids or antibiotics vaccines yet both meet the definition of lowering the probability someone will dies from an infection. So does taking care of yourself, getting exercise, eating a healthy diet, not sitting still all day, and a large swath of other things none of which are called vaccines.

My google medical degree defines a vaccine as:

"a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease."

Steriods and antibodies don't meet this definition. No vaccine has a 100% success rate, so reducing symptoms doesn't make it not a vaccine.

"I saw that movie, thought it was bullshit" -Chris Moltisanti

25 years ago I predicted that seat belts will cause an increase in fatalities and hospitalizations for trauma. I also predicted that people will blame this on car crashes as proof that we needed laws requiring them.

See how silly this line of reasoning is when you don't feel bothered by a need to provide data or statistics?

That’s true.

But the difference between the COVID vaccines and seatbelts is the data — hence why you hear that argument about COVID vaccines, but not seatbelts.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/thailand-study-of-young-a...

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/here-is-the-data-behind-a...

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/doctors-in-canada-are-dyi...

Counterpoint, Steve Kirsch is an absolute moron who has lost the plot.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/steve-ki...

The Thailand paper has been making the rounds among many people.

Eg, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ekTR0w2M9-U

Also, that link doesn’t address the data in those links. You seem to be making an ad hominem.

Has anyone compared excess mortality between highly vaccinated countries vs countries with low uptake?

Low uptake countries maybe have worse medical systems and younger populations, so you'd some controls for that.

I think excess mortality by its nature accounts for this. And you can compare similar age groups.

Fortunately, it should be possible to determine which is true, since there is a very large control group in the form of people who have opted not to be vaccinated.

I find the cognitive dissonance that goes into thinking that the vaccine for a virus must be causing the increased rate of effects from an actual infection to be fascinating.

If you're really that surprised by this, then you might want to look into topics like Original Antigenic Sin and vaccine-enhanced disease, especially antibody-dependant enhancement, which is the reason that previous vaccine candidates for coronaviruses (which would be a huge market, given how many old people have died from them each year, historically) haven't progressed beyond animal trials.

If the spike is toxic and widely distributed in the body from the vaccine, it seems plausible.

Especially if the spike protein produced by the vaccines has been modified to be more stable (pseudouridine vs uridine) and therefore more immunogenic (toxic), and is present in significantly larger (orders of magnitude larger) quantities.

How did you feel about mask mandates and lockdowns?

Felt like they were ineffective and that the Barrington recommendations were a better approach to follow, especially as time went on and more data on the nature of it emerged.

To be fair, we documented it happening in real time -

https://austingwalters.com/covid-19-vaccine-deaths-being-cod...

UK government was counting gene therapy (“vaccine”) deaths as covid19 deaths. Which I mean, kinda?

Regarding the fatalities, yes obviously part of them are from the gene therapy. The question was were they primarily from the gene therapy.

https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/

It turns out all the predictions people were making about the gene therapy risks came to pass. I was credited by many of the “anti-vax” crowd for discovering the first real trend of this happening in the US cdc data (led to a lot of death threats and what not).

After my blog and people picked it up, the CDC did a major edit to the data -

https://austingwalters.com/changes-in-the-cdc-counts-of-deat...

The only time I’d seen that in the 2 years I had been monitoring it (I tracked the data from 2019 - 2021). No idea why, but tracked what changed.

Anyway, to your point. All of those were predicted by people who knew how the gene therapy worked (I did take bioengineering classes, and knew mRNA was highly experimental), as well as those monitoring data (where I primarily worked from). The data is frankly overwhelming in one area, but it’s difficult for people to admit what Obama put so well…

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1517239870875447297

It’s an experiment. We didn’t know the long term effects (still don’t), but the fact it caused heart damage (“rarely”) still means it probably happens a lot, but won’t be discovered for a while. That said Covid19 spike proteins are believed to be the cause; so the gene therapy and the disease both likely cause the heart damage. The thing with the gene therapy is the proteins were produced rapidly and we didn’t / don’t know how long it lasts or the rate. So it could cause more damage, imo evidence supports it was more damaging.

To what degree do you think improper administration played a roll? If the mrna was only delivered into muscle tissue and not the circulatory system, all the spike proteins and their damage would be isolated to the muscle tissue. Autoimmune effects would still be present, but would be with infection as well.

We didn't / don't even know the proper dosage for the vaccine...

Personally, I stick to the research on mRNA technology prior to 2020 -- it doesn't work effectively and carries a lot of risk.

Some basic unanswered questions:

- How long does the mRNA last inside the cells? i.e. how long will your body produce spike proteins?

- What's the appropriate quantity of proteins to produce a decent immune response?

- In a batch of "vaccines" what's the quality and density of mRNA being injected into cells?

- What are the long-term risks of creating proteins in this manner? (5, 10, 20 years out)

- My wife was recommended the COVID19 vaccine when pregnant (in 2021) - what was the risk profile? It took a decade to learn that for the other vaccines (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/vaccines-during-p...)

Just to point out how crazy that last point is... They recommend it on the CDC website (been recommending the vaccine since 2021):

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommend...

Yet, here's a paper published Aug 10, 2022:

> Overall, studies monitoring people who have received covid-19 vaccines during pregnancy have not identified any pregnancy specific safety concerns. Additional information on non-mRNA vaccines, vaccination early in pregnancy, and longer term outcomes in infants are needed. To collect this information, vaccination during pregnancy must be prioritized in vaccine research.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35948352/

Here's another one from May 3, 2022:

> Pregnant women were largely excluded from initial clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines; however, they have since been included as part of the routine roll-out of these vaccines.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9061132/

People / "Experts" know what they are doing and it's a massive experiment.

And once again a comment where the "smartest person in the room" is making claims far out of their level of understanding. You're easily swayed by charlatans, use that to find your blind spots because they'll catch up to you. Probably already have.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com