Getting My Covid Vaccine

[Opo]

1 hour ago, Yarco said:

This info is widely available by doing a basic Google search

By their question they don't believe the Google. 

So I doubt these types of answers work. 

[alan2102]

6 hours ago, Consept said:

What would be key to this argument is if there is actual evidence that vaccines are linked to autism. Wakefield himself said something along the lines that he couldn't see a link but he should be able to investigate it. 

Do you have any evidence on the link? 

The issue is Wakefield's character and behavior, and the concerted effort to slander him -- NOT whether or not vaccines are linked to autism. They may very well  not be linked to autism, but to conduct a campaign of hysterical defamation against someone asking the question is... [you finish that sentence].

The link I posted speaks for itself on this subject. Check it out.  

[SolarWarden]

5 hours ago, Opo said:

By their question they don't believe the Google. 

Lol. 

As I have questions about this vaccin I feel like I am automatically labeled as a antivaxxer here on the forum. 

7 hours ago, Yarco said:

This info is widely available by doing a basic Google search

The big scary-sounding things below are mostly lipids (fat.) You can look them up individually on Wikipedia to verify they aren't heavy metals or toxic chemicals.

Ingredients for Pfizer

Medicinal ingredient

mRNA

Non-medicinal ingredients

ALC-0315 = ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate)

ALC-0159 = 2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide

1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine

cholesterol

dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate

monobasic potassium phosphate

potassium chloride

sodium chloride

sucrose

water for injection

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/vaccines/pfizer-biontech.html#a1.1

Thanks.

I guess Pfizer will be my choice when I take the vaccine and recommend one to others.

Edited May 3, 2021 by SolarWarden

[Ananta]

16 minutes ago, SolarWarden said:

I guess Pfizer will be my choice when I take the vaccine and recommend one to others.

You may not have a choice. In my area the only vaccine available when I got mine was Moderna. It was that or nothing.

[Opo]

22 minutes ago, SolarWarden said:

Lol. 

As I have questions about this vaccin I feel like I am automatically labeled as a antivaxxer here on the forum. 

 

On 30/04/2021 at 3:06 PM, SolarWarden said:

Does anyone know a real scientific ingredient list of the covid vaccines?

How do we know that pfizer and moderna doesn't contain any heavy metals?

Are you aware that this question implies that there is a real list and a fake one? 

[Hardkill]

There is more bad news now. Reaching ‘Herd Immunity’ Is Unlikely in the U.S., Experts Now Believe.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/health/covid-herd-immunity-vaccine.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

Very sad and worrisome.

Also, the coronavirus cases and related deaths are now skyrocketing in big countries like Brazil and India

Edited May 3, 2021 by Hardkill

[SolarWarden]

@Ananta Then Moderna should suffice. We have Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Apparently Astra-zeneca is only given to people aged 65 and over.

45 minutes ago, Opo said:

 

Are you aware that this question implies that there is a real list and a fake one? 

Ok, I see it.  It is my mistake for making the post sound that way. I just wanted a list that Yarco provided. English is not my native language. 

[Space Coyote]

11 hours ago, alan2102 said:

Are you sure?  I'm not.

NB: I am not anti-vax. Or pro-vax. I'm an interested onlooker. Maybe slightly biased in favor of vaccination, but open-minded with no fixed position.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-significant-jump-reported-injuries-deaths-after-covid-vaccine/
 "VAERS data released today showed 118,902 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 3,544 deaths and 12,619 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and April 23, 2021"

See also:

https://thefallingdarkness.com/7766-dead-330218-injuries-european-database-of-adverse-drug-reactions-for-covid-19-vaccines/

..................................

Further:  Not all vaccines are created equal. The West's rather weird mRNA stuff is not looking all that good on the safety front. Meanwhile, Russia's Sputnik V vaccine may be the safest by a large margin:

https://twitter.com/alan2102z/status/1387905806989987844
 

I am.

 These articles are a complete misuse of the VAERS database. It is an incredibly noisy system that requires stacticaly trained experts to interpret.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/may/03/vaers-governments-vaccine-safety-database-critical/

Quote

VAERS is designed as an open system, where anyone can submit a report, and the reports are widely accessible. The reports are not verified, and incomplete VAERS data is often used in conjunction with false claims about vaccine safety.

................................

VAERS accepts all of these reports, regardless of the plausibility of the vaccine causing the event or the clinical seriousness of the event.

3, 500  claims in an online unverified form that someone died for any reason soon after taking a vaccine is not the same of there being 3;500 deaths due to vaccination. The point of VAERS is to get a heads up on what we need to take a closer look, we have and the result are: 

To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines

Quote

 

FDA requires vaccination providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS.

Reports of death to VAERS following vaccination do not necessarily mean the vaccine caused the death.

CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.

CDC, FDA, and other federal partners will continue to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Over 230 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through April 26, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 3,848 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA physicians review each case report of death as soon as notified and CDC requests medical records to further assess reports. A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths

 

The data in context is evidence of us having incredible safe vaccines against covid. 

[alan2102]

6 minutes ago, Space Coyote said:

3, 500  claims in an online unverified form that someone died for any reason soon after taking a vaccine is not the same of there being 3;500 deaths due to vaccination.

6 minutes ago, Space Coyote said:

 

9 hours ago, Consept said:

 

Yes, Space Coyote, of course that is true. We obviously lack GOOD DATA -- and indeed that is the real point. We do not know that these vaccines are dangerous, nor do we know that they are safe. Too early, and since they were rushed into application without trial, all we're doing now is crappy post-marketing surveillance. One does one's best with what one has. What one has IS, after all, all one has.  

For you to imply that  you KNOW, one way or other, is ridiculous.

"To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines."

VAERS itself does not "detect" anything. Humans do.  They rely on data to detect things. Further, there can be disagreement as to what the data indicate; this guy (quoted above) has an opinion; others may disagree.  Further, since we agree that VAERS data is crappy, there is obviously no way to come to a final conclusion on this matter.

(Did I really have to write all that?)

 

[Space Coyote]

Quote

 Further, since we agree that VAERS data is crappy, there is obviously no way to come to a final conclusion on this matter.

No I never said VAERS data is crappy I said it is noisy but it works extremely well at it's intended purpose. The link above I already gave has multiple examples of how well it works in conjunction with all the other tools we have at our disposable.  You keep acting like VAERS is the only tool in the box.  VAERS is not the tool used to render a final conclusion, all the other tools and data however are.   

Quote

 without trial, all we're doing now is crappy post-marketing surveillance. 

False.  100% not true.  Emergency authorization doesn't mean without trial, that is a myth. Even an EUA still requires trials to be completed , and they were as of November for the pfizer for example. Further trials have concluded with the same result as the trials used for the EUA, even more trials are on going etc. etc. WE are NOT just doing post-marketing surveillance, YOU are choosing to misuse a surveillance tool to justify a narrative of "we don't know enough about these vaccine".  Ya if I missed the biggest news story of Nov. 2020 (which was again pfizer completing the trials you say weren't done,) and keep trying to use the wrong tools for the job I might think that too. 

[alan2102]

1 hour ago, Space Coyote said:

"I never said VAERS data is crappy I said it is noisy" -- I would say that is a distinction without a difference, but that would be wrong. It is not even a distinction!

By "without trials" you know what I'm talking about, or should. There was no time for proper trials. Yes, those 3-month thingies -- a joke. No properly  controlled long-term trials have been conducted, nor could there have been, since no time.  We're flying half-blind. And there's a fair argument for the abbreviated "trials", given the urgency of the crisis. But to pretend that we have good trial data, as you do, is inexcusable. You're starting to sound like Pfizer PR dept.

Yes, this is post-marketing surveillance, and a crappy kind at that.

You might want to venture out from the self-styled "fact check" sites, which are generally poor and, paradoxically, are usually written with a distinct slant that discloses the very NON-objectivity of the writer(s). "Politifact" is no exception.

On the other hand, there may be no hope at all trying to research the vaccine space, which seems to be uniquely littered with idiots, ideologues, shills, liars and whatnot. The pro-vaxxers are damn near as bad as the anti-vaxxers, and that says a great deal.

[Space Coyote]

Quote

"I never said VAERS data is crappy I said it is noisy" -- I would say that is a distinction without a difference, but that would be wrong. It is not even a distinction!

"Noise" is an actual statistical concept that can be quantified. "Crappy" is your personal subjective unquantifiable opinion. Not the same thing not by a long shot. That you don't know the difference yet want to speak on this subject that is inexcusable. The high level of noise is a functional of the high amount of data collected, difficult to short thought but it also helps catch real cases sooner than a less noisy system would.  Noisy is not "bad" in this context it a know tradeoff vs a more filtered less noisy but also less sensitive system. 

Quote

Yes, this is post-marketing surveillance, and a crappy kind at that.

Agin crappy is your personal subjective unquantifiable opinion. That "crappy" system successfully detected a one in amillion blood clotting issue with the J&J vaccine. Not crappy in my opinion.   To repeat being able to detected it such a low case number is why we willingly knowingly intentionally accept the high noise level of the VAERS.  The tradeoffs seems to be working just fine.  You keep saying the hammer is crappy because you keep trying to drive a screw with it, not its function. 

Quote

By "without trials" you know what I'm talking about, or should

No I don't. It your job for you to write what you mean, you chose to use hyperbolic alarmist language and still are. No one has pointed out methodological flaws in these studies worth of using scary quotes around the word trial as you have. No point outing "no long term studies" and using scary quotes when discussing existing trials are not the same thing, it is misleading. We don't have good long term data, we do have "good" (again subjective opinion) continuously improving short term data. 

Quote

On the other hand, there may be no hope at all trying to research the vaccine space, which seems to be uniquely littered with idiots, ideologues, shills, liars and whatnot. 

My suggestion to fix that problem start with the man in the mirror. I should not in fact accept "no trials" as a reasonable way of saying "no long term trials" as you claim I should. You on the other hand should in fact know what is meant by "noise" in the statistical since. 

This is not a vaccine stance by the way. It is about basic communication standards for scientific works under no circumstances do I find it be acceptable to say "no trials"  if the reality is "multiple trials but no long trials" or "trials but trials I don't thrust for x and y reason".  To that end this is my last post to you,  like I said basic communication standards If we can't agree on this we effectively speak two different languages.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Space Coyote
minor edit/last paragraph

[Consept]

14 hours ago, alan2102 said:

The issue is Wakefield's character and behavior, and the concerted effort to slander him -- NOT whether or not vaccines are linked to autism. They may very well  not be linked to autism, but to conduct a campaign of hysterical defamation against someone asking the question is... [you finish that sentence].

The link I posted speaks for itself on this subject. Check it out.  

It depends, lets say for example you agree that there is no evidence for a link to autism, none has been found so its not a stretch, and lets say Wakefield agrees, which he also has. Then it follows that his character is highly questionable, not so much for doing the research itself but from his actions apart from the research. Actions such as championing Anti-vaxxers and 'documentaries' such Vaxxed which are is basically anti-vax propaganda and doesnt have any scientific merit. 

As well, the implication is that this is just a scientist asking the hard questions and was thrown out of the medical establishment because of that, but this is not the case, there is a solid paper trail in which Wakefield stood to profit specifically from the mmr - autism link - https://www.medpagetoday.com/pediatrics/vaccines/24293

Even now he does speaking arrangements and is paid well by anti-vaxxers to legitimise the position, if he was being honest he wouldnt do this, as he would say that there isnt actually a link. 

So is the defamation justified, i would say yes, if someones profiting off research that was thrown out and that they cant even say the conclusions are true then that would lead me to question the persons character. 

This is an interesting video - 

 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Consept

[Blackhawk]

People are so paranoid.

Who cares. Just take the vaccine and stop caring and thinking about it. There's so much bigger things to worry about than potential microscopic risks with a vaccine.

[Mannyb]

7 hours ago, Blackhawk said:

People are so paranoid.

Who cares. Just take the vaccine and stop caring and thinking about it. There's so much bigger things to worry about than potential microscopic risks with a vaccine.

People are paranoid about COVID and many other things indeed ? 

I care ✋?Why take the vaccine? Why stop caring? I seldom think about it tho.. I just don’t know why it’s recommended. What if bigger risks start arising with time? Why trust the same system that’s causing so much disease with our health? 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Mannyb

[Tetcher]

48 minutes ago, Mannyb said:

People are paranoid about COVID and many other things indeed ? 

I care ✋?Why take the vaccine? Why stop caring? I seldom think about it tho.. I just don’t know why it’s recommended. What if bigger risks start arising with time? Why trust the same system that’s causing so much disease with our health? 

It's recommended to kill the virus from circulating basically according to pro-vaxxers. Apparently it worked in Israel they vaccinated everyone and the number of active cases is down to ~1K starting from ~80K during the vaccination campaign. In the UK it went from 2M during vaccination campaign to 60K today.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Tetcher

[Mannyb]

23 minutes ago, Tetcher said:

It's recommended to kill the virus from circulating basically according to pro-vaxxers. Apparently it worked in Israel they vaccinated everyone and the number of active cases is down to ~1K starting from ~80K during the vaccination campaign. In the UK it went from 2M during vaccination campaign to 60K today.

“Apparently” as you say. What about natural immunity and stronger immune systems? Why not get healthier instead? Why are people getting donuts for being vaccinated? Why over sanitation? The only person I know who had a severe case was obese and is now fine. It just doesn’t feel right. People love our myths about heroes and rebels yet they all comply with all of what seems to be disingenuous ? 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Mannyb

[Forestluv]

13 minutes ago, Mannyb said:

What about natural immunity and stronger immune systems? 

Because in the covid context, natural immunity would involve mass illness, disease, overwhelmed healthcare system, economic turmoil and death. There may be some benefits to going the 'natural' route, yet there is also a big price to pay.

13 minutes ago, Mannyb said:

Why are people getting donuts for being vaccinated? 

An unhealthy occurrence does not make an associated occurrence unhealthy. I've run road races in which free beer was given out at the finish. It is unhealthy to drink beer after a road race, yet that unhealthy occurrence does not make running unhealthy. It wouldn't make sense to say that running is unhealthy because alcohol was served at the finish line. Rather, running is healthy so let's serve something healthy at the finish line like orange juice, rather than beer. 

13 minutes ago, Mannyb said:

The only person I know who had a severe case was obese and is now fine. 

And the only person I know who got rabies is now fine. . . 

[Mannyb]

@Forestluv Glad to know they’re fine :), that’s my point, more than 99% healthy people are fine as far as I’m aware. And even unhealthy people I know (and that’s most people nowadays) are fine, the only one I mentioned was extremely unhealthy and made it through.
 

Would there be really be mass upheaval if the healthier ones don’t get a vaccine? ? I along with many doctors question that assumption. Many would actually go for that approach, and these are the one I tend to trust since they have always gone against the current trend of illness management. Why trust the ones that led us into the mess the world is in? 
 

As for the donuts, I’m not talking about occurrences. I’m simply questioning the motives and interests behind all that. Why do the health practitioners I trust question the vaccine and the big corps that are causing illness support it and incentivize people to keep being ill ? ? 78% of people admited with COVID are obese (not surprising since 1 person in 2 is obese nowadays). Metabolic dysfunction is the real driver of this pandemic. But hey just trust processed food companies, the media, and big pharma as if they’ve been helpful to humanity. Everyone I know including myself has MOSTLY only been done harm by these institutions. 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Mannyb

[Opo]

@Mannyb A lot of people end up with organ damage. 

But let's assume that's not the case and most of the people are fine where you live. 

In India Covid mutated and became stronger. You can watch videos of 10 year olds laying on the floor like they are passed out. (they can't go anywhere because the hospitals are full) 

Which means it's now dangerous for healthy people. 

That's why you should take the vaccine. It won't make you immune from Indian version but it will make the effects a lot weaker.