Nonpartisan sources Covid/'vax' science...please...

First, I'm not anti vaccine - my whole family (myself included) have had the Johnson&Johnson shot...

...but that was before I started coming across a lot of the actual science, much of which is unfortunately being either scrubbed or politicized.

The problem is that my husband is driving me crazy!
No matter what I 'bring to the table' regarding actual facts and figures, if it comes from either side of the political divide, he says it's biased and won't even look at it!

And now he has accused me of going "down a rabbit hole", when all I am trying to do is get him to understand that lies 'are' being told, and people are being driven toward 'buying' into regular Covid-19 booster shots, which at the least they don't need and at the worst could be actively harmful.

If it were only me I could let the whole thing go and just let him do whatever he wants to do....

...The problem is, our 23 year old daughter will always take his side, and his choice to remain ignorant in all this could very well end up having a negative impact on her well-being.

At any rate, the above, is all just background to the primary point of this thread, which is meant to be:

a 'place' for people to post links to nonpartisan sources of Covid/'vax' science Thank you!

originally posted by: lostgirl
First, I'm not anti vaccine - my whole family (myself included) have had the Johnson&Johnson shot...

...but that was before I started coming across a lot of the actual science, much of which is unfortunately being either scrubbed or politicized.

The problem is that my husband is driving me crazy!
No matter what I 'bring to the table' regarding actual facts and figures, if it comes from either side of the political divide, he says it's biased and won't even look at it!

[...]

I'll check on the J&J one, but from the manufacturers own press releases on their vaccines:

These risks, uncertainties, and other factors include, among others: the fact that there has never been a commercial product utilizing mRNA technology approved for use

Moderna

Pfizer

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine has not been approved or licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) for use in individuals 16 years of age and older

So at least these 2 have not been approved nor licensed and state there has never been anything mRNA approved by the FDA.

a reply to: lostgirl

As far as I can find J&J hasn't even applied for FDA approval. They don't seem to have a rolling BLA (biologics license application) with the FDA at all....so there's that.

a reply to: lostgirl
How do you determine the science presented as real or not..I recall recent info produced by someones version of science that proclaimed we were all magnetic, and had 6 months to live.

I'm just asking a serious question, not throwing any shade.

HERE IS A 100% POLITICS-FREE Covid-19 VACCINE

RUSSIA developed a vaccine because it wants the citizens there to live long productive lives, serving the communist party.

The vaccine is rated well: scitechdaily.com...

a reply to: lostgirl

University of Pennsylvania review on mRNA vaccines(pdf)

EVIDENCE SUMMARY
There are no specific guidelines for use of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines or contraindications to mRNA vaccines.
No large trials of any mRNA vaccine have been completed yet.
The only evidence on safety of mRNA vaccines comes from small phase I and phase II trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, with
follow-up typically less than two months.
Systemic adverse events such as fatigue, muscle aches, headache, and chills are common.
Severe systemic adverse events were reported by 5 to 10 percent of trial subjects.
Localized adverse events such as pain at the injection side are common.
Both systemic and local adverse events usually are resolved within one or two days.
The rate and severity of adverse events appears to be higher for the second dose of vaccine than for the first.
Higher vaccine doses appear to increase the rate and severity of adverse events.
Larger trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are in progress, with results expected in mid-2021.
There is not sufficient evidence to support any conclusions on the comparative safety of different mRNA vaccines.
Direct evidence on the comparative safety of mRNA vaccines and other vaccines is lacking

If you can read Japanese. Here's the leaked biodistribution study from Pfizer to the Japanese government

www.docdroid.net...

Apparently, it seems to imply

showed lipid nanoparticles from the vaccine did not stay in the deltoid muscle where they were injected as the vaccine’s developers claimed would happen, but circulated throughout the body and accumulated in large concentrations in organs and tissues, including the spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands and  — in “quite high concentrations” — in the ovaries.

Review of mRNA vaccine literature from 2017

Potential safety concerns that are likely to be evaluated in future preclinical and clinical studies include local and systemic inflammation, the biodistribution and persistence of expressed immunogen, stimulation of auto-reactive antibodies and potential toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components. A possible concern could be that some mRNA-based vaccine platforms54,166 induce potent type I interferon responses, which have been associated not only with inflammation but also potentially with autoimmunity167,168. Thus, identification of individuals at an increased risk of autoimmune reactions before mRNA vaccination may allow reasonable precautions to be taken. Another potential safety issue could derive from the presence of extracellular RNA during mRNA vaccination. Extracellular naked RNA has been shown to increase the permeability of tightly packed endothelial cells and may thus contribute to oedema169. Another study showed that extracellular RNA promoted blood coagulation and pathological thrombus formation170

Covid-19 RNA based vaccines and the risk of prion disease

Development of new vaccine technology has been plagued with problems in the past. The current RNA based SARSCoV-2 vaccines were approved in the US using an emergency order without extensive long term safety testing. In
this paper the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was evaluated for the potential to induce prion-based disease in vaccine
recipients. The RNA sequence of the vaccine as well as the spike protein target interaction were analyzed for the
potential to convert intracellular RNA binding proteins TAR DNA binding protein (TDP-43) and Fused in Sarcoma
(FUS) into their pathologic prion conformations. The results indicate that the vaccine RNA has specific sequences
that may induce TDP-43 and FUS to fold into their pathologic prion confirmations. In the current analysis a total
of sixteen UG tandem repeats (ΨGΨG) were identified and additional UG (ΨG) rich sequences were identified. Two
GGΨA sequences were found. Potential G Quadruplex sequences are possibly present but a more sophisticated
computer program is needed to verify these. Furthermore, the spike protein, created by the translation of the vaccine
RNA, binds angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a zinc containing enzyme. This interaction has the potential
to increase intracellular zinc. Zinc ions have been shown to cause the transformation of TDP-43 to its pathologic
prion configuration. The folding of TDP-43 and FUS into their pathologic prion confirmations is known to cause
ALS, front temporal lobar degeneration, Alzheimer’s disease and other neurological degenerative diseases. The
enclosed finding as well as additional potential risks leads the author to believe that regulatory approval of the
RNA based vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 was premature and that the vaccine may cause much more harm than benefit.

a reply to: lostgirl

You could always start with the study done by the Cleveland Clinic that concluded, without any ambiguity, that people who have had and recovered from COVID-19 gain zero advantages in fighting off reinfection by getting vaccinated--the naturally derived immunity is strong enough (and lasts at least 10 months).

Then you can point to all of the politicians and medical experts, like Dr. Fauci, Biden, et al., who are saying that every person who has not been vaccinated should get it.

That contradiction right there negates their mantra of "follow the science," and should show him that we can't trust these intensely pro-vaccination people at this point. There is nothing for the Cleveland Clinic--one of the highest-regarded medical facilities in the nation--to gain from putting out a biased study, no would they put out a study that they were not exceptionally confident with its accuracy.

Here is a thread that I did on that very study going on two months ago. Hope that helps.

ETA: Maybe you need to have your daughter read this thread directly

Honestly, the scientific process itself has been heavily corrupted.

So, even sources that may appear to be non-politicized.. could still be intentionally (or unintentionally) fraudulent.

The issue here is that many determine the veracity and validity of information based solely on the source. If its coming from a place that people trust, it will not be questioned. If its coming from a place that people dont trust, it will never be believed.

Meaning, a heavily politicized source may be completely accurate in a specific situation. And, perhaps the key isnt "political vs non-political," but in educating people how to spot everything from errors in methodology to outright fraud.

A few practices I like to advocate:

1) Come up with one criticism of how the specific research/study/experiment had an error in the premise and one identification of an error made (even something as basic as a typo). Ive yet to encounter anything that didnt have at least one of these flaws. Once that practice has been established, we can extrapolate it further into actual improvements that could be made as well as exploring how a given error might impact downstream results.

2) We must understand that meta-data surveys serve our needs better as jumping off points for actual experiments and research rather than being conflated with them.

3) Nurture the notion that media articles do not equate to science and research. The best example of this recently is the whole "95%+ of hospitalized patients are unvaccinated." When this first started making the rounds, the source was literally the media who claimed they went over the data, but never actually showed their work or hard data. The CDC themselves said that they didnt want to make hard conclusions because it could be immensely misleading.

4) This then leads into verifying data trail integrity. Data aggregates (like worldometer) have seen a huge rise in use with little to no oversight on the actual integrity of the data trail. This is absolutely imperative, but also requires substantial work. We must verify that every step of the data collection is accurate.

5) The last bit would be comparisons of like vs like. Its become an embedded habit to, say, compare "2020 covid deaths in NY" vs "2020 covid deaths in Italy." This is a flawed premise.

The more meaningful approach is to compare general deaths in NY vs previous years deaths in NY and then use that delta.

A real world scenario with this: Lets take Sweden (nobody is talking about it anymore, so check out how they are doing..). Instead of comparing covid deaths vs surrounding regions, its substantially more meaningful to compare general deaths in Sweden to previous annual general deaths. By doing this, we not only remove one unreliable variable from the calculation ("covid" anything), we also get a much clearer picture of how a given year actually compares to other years.

I think these approaches are significantly more useful than trying to find a source that is universally reliable, politicized or not.

a reply to: lostgirl

I know this is going to tweak a lot of people on a conspiracy site, but the answer is going to depend on what you consider to be “partisan”.

Basically, every modern country has a public health system that is functionally equivalent to the FDA in the US. Their charter is to set the standards for what kind of medicines can be used by the public and to enforce those standards. When it comes to vaccines, for example, they prescribe the different safety and efficacy trials that candidate vaccines have to go through and what the criteria will be for judging whether they pass those trials. They also set up the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System to keep track of what happens after a vaccine is released for large scale use.

As a result, the public health agency of a given country is always going to have the most extensive and most up to date information on any particular illness and the efforts to control it. Simply put, nobody else has either the responsibility, authority, or resources to collect, analyze, and disseminate public health information on the same scale.

If you consider them to be partisan, and reject their information accordingly, there probably is no way to avoid going down a rabbit hole.

Reality is a b***h, and cognitive dissonance is one helluva drug.

WARNING: Libtard who does not know how to express himself in a thoughtful, mature manner and must resort to profanity.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You could always start with the study done by the Cleveland Clinic that concluded, without any ambiguity, that people who have had and recovered from COVID-19 gain zero advantages in fighting off reinfection by getting vaccinated--the naturally derived immunity is strong enough (and lasts at least 10 months).

And here is where it gets murky, up here, they were saying that those who had the initial strain, were recently, in some cases being reinfected by Delta, and having a rougher time. Even vaxxed "may" still catch Delta, but to lesser degree's..and round, and round we go.

originally posted by: incoserv
Reality is a b***h, and cognitive dissonance is one helluva drug.

WARNING: Libtard who does not know how to express himself in a thoughtful, mature manner and must resort to profanity.

LOL...that dude is such a bi7ch....he sucked at comedy and sucks as a person in general.

a reply to: lostgirl

Here is a PDF that links to several scientific papers on the Covid MRNA gene therapy.

www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org...

The site itself has numerous scientific studies and is run by a vaccinologist that works in the University of Quelth Ontario and teaches vaccinology there.

You cant get much more credible than this.

a reply to: vonclod

Well, let's do a compare and contrast from a span of literally 3 weeks, and how much the message can change.

Here is an article from Healthline that discusses the concern about getting the Delta variant if you've already been infected:

PfizerTrusted Source, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines work well against the variants, including delta, especially when it comes to preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death.

(That's not the point of what I'm showing, I just wanted to show that for some who may see irony in juxtaposition to what's being said now)

Okay, for the real point (my emphasis added):

Immunity after a previous infection “is highly variable from one person to the next — it may be barely present and not last for long for some persons,” said Dr. Richard A. Martinello, a Yale Medicine infectious diseases specialist and associate professor at Yale School of Medicine.

A small study led by researchers at the University of Oxford found that people who produced weaker immune responses may be more at risk for reinfection from new variants.

But in most cases, the immunity conferred from the previous infection appears to provide good protection against severe illness.

So, with all of this evidence that shows that previous infections produce immunity similar to, if not better than, vaccination, why does the government still want EVERY PERSON VACCINATED? It's completely against the science.

So now we jump to today's story from NPR: Va ccinated People Can Spread Delta Variant, Suggests Data Behind The CDC Mask Advice:

The study details an outbreak that started July 3 in Provincetown, Mass., involving 469 cases. It found that three-quarters of cases occurred in fully vaccinated people. Massachusetts has a high rate of vaccination: about 69% among eligible adults in the state at the time of the study.

It also found no significant different in the viral load present in the breakthrough infections occurring in fully vaccinated people and the other cases, suggesting the viral load of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with the coronavirus is similar.

This is a problem for the official narrative that is being touted (and now will see a slow shift in wording to walk back their lies) because the MAJORITY of infections--at the 3:1 ratio--are in FULLY VACCINATED PEOPLE. And, to make it worse, they are seeing the same viral load in fully-vaccinated people versus unvaccinated people who have been previously infected with COVID-19.

What this speaks to in a 69%-vaccinated area is that, to be frank, your vaccination is NOT very effective, and it doesn't give you any more protection from a severe infection than does having immunity from a previous COVID infection and recovery.

This cannot be sugar-coated, and quite frankly, I'm surprised that they released this information. It also speaks to the point that there were other factors, not just vaccination, that lead to the decline of positive COVID cases and the ability to reopen many aspects of our economy.

The good news is that the vaccines continue to be highly effective against the virus in preventing hospitalization and death. For instance, three studies from Canada, Singapore and Scotland have found that the Pfizer vaccine provides more than 90% protection against hospitalization and death.

This is also good news for those of us with naturally derived immunity from a previous infection, which is how we know the immune system to work and is not a surprise for a thinking person. Yet we STILL see the government and policy-makers ignoring the reality that previously infected people are just as protected (if not better, according to some studies) than fully vaccinated individuals.

originally posted by: carewemust
HERE IS A 100% POLITICS-FREE Covid-19 VACCINE

RUSSIA developed a vaccine because it wants the citizens there to live long productive lives, serving the communist party.

The vaccine is rated well: scitechdaily.com...

Care! Russia is not communist now! Communism went away in 1989. Our congress is more socialist, probably communist, than Russia is...

a reply to: SlapMonkey
Thanks so much for your responses, I appreciate the link to your thread on the Cleveland Clinic study, as I had missed that when you first posted it!

And also, thank you for all the info in this second post, especially the link to the NPR story.

a reply to: enament

Thank you very much for the link to the Canadian Covid Care Alliance!!

That page makes a very good resource, as it hits the main points of concern and backs up those points with links to the research.

originally posted by: lostgirl
a 'place' for people to post links to nonpartisan sources of Covid/'vax' science Thank you!

It seems to me you are asking for the impossible. All sources are always partisan/biased. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying to you.

You simply have to learn how to read with discernment, be willing to read the actual studies and data yourself, and - I know this is hard - decide for yourself.

The only other option is to try to find someone you feel that you can trust to do the heavy lifting for you.

a reply to: lostgirl

How's it going with convincing the hubby?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Funny you should ask - He has refused to discuss the issue anymore!

It's getting harder, because our daily newspaper is so full of 'news' about all the hospitals being full of Delta variant cases...

But I am continuing to collect data, and have managed to voice a few information 'bombs', which may have sunk in.

Here's a link to a good nonpartisan source (I think it's a blog, but he links his research)...

Covid/Vax & consequences

...actually it might be more accurate to say the guy is 'anti'partisan, as he blames both Trump & Biden for the whole vaccine mess!

Thanks for asking about the hubby!