The Covid-19 Jabs are an Insult to Real Vaccines - Look How Fast Their Efficacy Plummets.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: jerich0
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yep, I survived the coronavirus.. no shot needed, no vaccine required.

Cower in your undies, mate... get jabbed 5 times. See if it helps you..

You might consider that medical research and statistical analysis isn't based on your personal experience.

Medically, if he had the virus and survived, he doesn't need the vaccine. His natural immunity is better than any of the vaccines can provide, even if you believe all their numbers (which are flawed actually, but we don't need to go there.)

Maybe/maybe not.

Doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

No it's not "maybe/maybe not." Natural immunity is better than that provided by the vaccine. Why are you discounting the science?

The science increasingly indicates the opposite to be true for mild infection due to the way covid is evolving and differences in the way natural immunity provides a weaker but broader-spectrum protection but the vaccine targets a very narrow but stronger protection on the stable RBD spike protein part of the virus. Nature - 76% reinfection rate from Covid natural immunity in Manaus Brazil variant

Vaccine not very effective with SARS-CoV-2 variants B.1.351 and B.1.1.7

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants with mutations in key antibody epitopes has raised concerns that antigenic evolution could erode adaptive immunity elicited by prior infection or vaccination.

The susceptibility of immunity to viral evolution is shaped in part by the breadth of epitopes targeted by antibodies elicited by vaccination or natural infection. To investigate how human antibody responses to vaccines are influenced by viral mutations, we used deep mutational scanning to compare the specificity of polyclonal antibodies elicited by either two doses of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine or natural infection with SARS-CoV-2.

The neutralizing activity of vaccine-elicited antibodies was more targeted to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared to antibodies elicited by natural infection. However, within the RBD, binding of vaccine-elicited antibodies was more broadly distributed across epitopes compared to infection-elicited antibodies.

This greater binding breadth means that single RBD mutations have less impact on neutralization by vaccine sera compared to convalescent sera. Therefore, antibody immunity acquired by natural infection or different modes of vaccination may have a differing susceptibility to erosion by SARS-CoV-2 evolution.

Antibody differences in vaccine induced and infection induced Covid

The US has certainly turned it into a political rather than scientific debate and have been unique in the world by ignoring the role natural immunity can and has played and how it compares to vaccine in preventing hospitalisation or death. Dems were mandating people who had recovered need to get vaxxed prior to any evidence it was safe to do so (not aware of any large sample studies on this) and prior to any scientific studies showing it may provide a benefit.

I'm on the fence about which is better myself, a lot of the debate goes over my head and think natural immunity can be far superior if the RBD spike protein side of things mutates rendering the narrow vaccine induced immunity useless but there's no scientific consensus or clear evidence of which is more effective so far.

There's credible studies indicating natural is superior to vaccine induced and vice versa and still up for much study and debate but there is clear evidence the vaccine poses less than 10,000th of the risk of covid infection in those that haven't caught covid yet.

a reply to: bastion

In other words, science says our bodies are learning how to treat it like they the other seasonal coronaviruses we call colds.

a reply to: bastion

That actually supports my position. Nowhere did I claim people who already had the virus couldn't get reinfected. (People who have had the vaccine get infected too, as you know.)

The key point is that most of the people who get reinfected only suffer mild illness. The risk of serious illness or death is vanishingly small. Medical decisions are all about risk vs. risk. If your risk of serious illness and death is extremely small, there's no real reason to get the vaccine, and certainly no case for mandating it.

If we're following the science. (We're not, and never were.)

originally posted by: confiden

originally posted by: ScepticScot


Even 1% or less is a lot of people from the whole population.

And at a personal risk level if the choice is 1% unvaccinated or 0.1% vaccinated then it seems an easy choice.

But if you add the risk of vaccine injury back into the equation, is it still 0.1% total risk for the vaccinated ? If the risk is cumulative why bother with so many unknowns you are playing with fire..

The evidence suggests the risk of serious adverse reaction is negligible. The majority of people are far better off being vaccinated.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: jerich0
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yep, I survived the coronavirus.. no shot needed, no vaccine required.

Cower in your undies, mate... get jabbed 5 times. See if it helps you..

You might consider that medical research and statistical analysis isn't based on your personal experience.

Medically, if he had the virus and survived, he doesn't need the vaccine. His natural immunity is better than any of the vaccines can provide, even if you believe all their numbers (which are flawed actually, but we don't need to go there.)

Maybe/maybe not.

Doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

No it's not "maybe/maybe not." Natural immunity is better than that provided by the vaccine. Why are you discounting the science?

You said his personal experience doesn't matter. It does. He has no need for the vaccine, just as he said.

1.Because we weren't talking about his personal choice to take the vaccine or not.

2. Because it isn't as simple as that

www.thelancet.com...(21)00407-0/fulltext

3. One does not preclude the other.

www.science.org...

Your first link doesn't work. Your second doesn't refute anything I said, so not sure what your point is there.

As far as personal choice goes, that's more or less all this is about at this point. Pretty much everyone who wants to get the vaccine has had it already. People who have already had Covid, like the poster you were replying to, don't need it and shouldn't be mandated to get it. For them, the risk of serious complications from Covid isn't high enough to make the risk of side effects from the vaccine worth it. That's the same reason children don't need it. You agree, don't you? You believe in the science?

Did you read the OP? Or even the title?

The topic of this thread is not personal choice.

Sure let's pretend side discussions don't happen in threads or that related information can't be legitimately discussed. If that's the out you were looking for, I'll allow you it. As usual I'll let you have the last word, I know that's important to folks like you around here. I don't wanna ruin your day. Nice dodge on following the science by the way. I guess you don't have to if it doesn't fit the narrative you want.

Don't worry nothing you say has any impact on the quality of my day.

No one saying it can't be discussed but since neither of us is in favour of vaccine mandates not sure what you think we might be discussing.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

99.98% of surviving for almost everyone ...

Obviously not true.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The evidence suggests the risk of serious adverse reaction is negligible. The majority of people are far better off being vaccinated.

How negligible is it when we have so many people here on ATS who know someone personally who's had serious adverse reactions?

I personally know two men who have suffered serious reactions shortly after vaccination. Both had strokes. One was in their 70's and the other in their 20's. Unfortunately, the one in their 70's died. There's no shortage of information and personal stories regarding these issues on ATS.

a reply to: face23785

Can you link to a study on severity of illness in natural immunity cases? Fairly sure your claim is correct and don't see any reason why a re-infection would pose a realistic risk of serious illness or death myself just haven't been able to find any scientific papers on the subject. 10% of those with mild Covid don't develop any immunity in the above studies so would still face the same risk of severe illness they did prior to Covid infection but outside that group I see no reason why they wouldn't have far better survival odds providing they're not over 75 or under 75 and severely immuno-comprimised.

I've tried searching a few journals this year but found nothing, AFAIK there haven't been any relative risk ratio studies measuring or assesing the risk of vaccine induced adverse health effects vs absolute risk posed by re-infection in those with natural immunity so very interested in reading any you know of.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: ScepticScot

The evidence suggests the risk of serious adverse reaction is negligible. The majority of people are far better off being vaccinated.

How negligible is it when we have so many people here on ATS who know someone personally who's had serious adverse reactions?

I personally know two men who have suffered serious reactions shortly after vaccination. Both had strokes. One was in their 70's and the other in their 20's. Unfortunately, the one in their 70's died. There's no shortage of information and personal stories regarding these issues on ATS.

There is a reason why they don't use personal anecdotes, particularly those on an anonymous conspiracy site, for research purposes.

a reply to: ScepticScot

There is a reason why they don't use personal anecdotes, particularly those on an anonymous conspiracy site, for research purposes.

I could easily say the same thing about everything you try to claim in this thread. There are actual studies that report the exact opposite of everything you've said here.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: ScepticScot

There is a reason why they don't use personal anecdotes, particularly those on an anonymous conspiracy site, for research purposes.

I could easily say the same thing about everything you try to claim in this thread. There are actual studies that report the exact opposite of everything you've said here.

I have linked studies.

Please feel free to do the same.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: rickymouse

The problem is that natural immunity is undectectible after 3 months using the flawed method in this study or warped methodology pfizer are using to push the booster when only the very elderly or very immuno-comprimised benefit from booster doses.

The vaccine remains highly effective at reducing hospitalisation and deaths. I strongly advise asking your neurologist for their opinion and advice as you may be able to gain medical exemption from mandates or be at far, far higher risk of death from Covid than the general population.

IIRC you have epillepsy like myself, which comes with a far higher mortality rate from Covid than that faced by the general population. There's no increased risk of contracting it but if unlucky enough to be hospitalised with Covid the death rate is as high as 33% / 1 in 3 as severe cases cause status epilipticus in active epilepsy - though a good portion of those had hypertension and epilepsy.

For tonic-clonic/grand-mal seizures that aren't fully controlled with medication (such as mine) the fatality rate from covid infection is 12.5% / 1 in 8 with no associated co-morbidities as opposed to the 1.5/ 1 in 75 the general public face less than 1 in 1000 for under 50s.

Not trying to scare you, I'm not a Dr, strongly support personal choice and fully opposed to any mandates but if I'm remembering right (I'm terrible with names so may be confused) and if you have active epilepsy the vaccine benefits massively outweigh the risk of contracting Covid prior to vax providing AEDs don't interact with it.

If epileptic it's vital to speak to a neuro if seeking medical exemption from any mandate or thinking of getting vaccinated as in certain types of epillepsy or with certain anti-epileptic drugs the vaccine can reduce the seizure threshold or have interactions with sodium/valporaic acid based medication.

If chosing not to get vaxed they should be able to provide a lot of advice for home treatments to significantly reduce risk of status epilipticus/death if you have suspected/postive coronavirus like a paracetamol/co-codamol regime to keep on top of any fever, inflamation or vasco-constriction that is known to occur in moderate covid cases.

The biggest reason that the mortality rate is higher in epileptic people is that the action of the anti-epileptic meds actually makes you at more risk of certain infections like viruses. I read some actual scientific articles on that about twelve years ago after noticing I got sick ten fold more often when on the meds. I could not tolerate all five classes of the meds they tried on me so the neurologist said I should try to find food choices to keep it controlled. Got my genetics done and that really helped identify why I can't take those meds, I cannot metabolize them out of the body because I have very little of the enzymes to detox and excrete the chemistries. She told me what was happening and I took her advice, I had already noticed that cabbage and asparagus worked well to control the seizures before I was taken off the meds. If you cannot properly clear a medicine from your body it starts doing some awful stuff, It pushed my teeth up and they broke while I ate, and I almost lost my feet. Plus I had more seizure activity after a few months on a medicine than I had from the epilepsy. I am glad I went to her even though she was a hundred miles from here and we had to make the trip once a month. The blood tests she had done showed that the medicine was not clearing properly....she said she did not know why, but said I was too nice a guy to kill. I haven't seen her in over thirteen years now, I should go back before she retires and let her know what I found out and how I learned to control it with diet.

Because of my lack of enzymes to detox this kind of chemistry, I can use food science to control it, alternating the natural forms of four out of the five classes of meds she had prescribed and then quit because she was seeing what was happening. This will not work for most people who do not have these genetic mutations. The fifth type of medicine I could never find a food chemistry source for, and that one had the worst side effects of all, so I am not interested in that one.

The doping chemistry of the epileptic meds might help people with their epilepsy, but it will cause confusion of the immune system working properly just like some other kinds of meds do. So the immune system doesn't notice the virus right away then throws everything at it, which sucks, I know, I had that happen multiple times when on the meds, I got sick a lot on them. At least the Beta blockers only made me susceptable to pleuracy and bronchitis and walking pneumonia. They also gave me those when I was having really high blood pressure problems from one of those epileptic meds, but I did have problems with getting sick from Beta blockers years before that, I would take them when prescribed for my Tachychardia for a couple of months and get sicker than hell starting about a month into them but never put a relationship to beta blockers having something to do with that happening till about a few years ago. The reason why I quit every one of the four times is because I was having thinking problems, sometimes while driving I would do stupid things which might have led to an accident. After quitting, the problems went away within a week....that was way before the epilepsy happened, combined with the epilepsy meds the beta blockers effects were much worse so I quit those after about three months. The genetic reason I have tachychardia and hypoglycemia is related directly to me having severe reactions to two of the classes of the epileptic meds.

If you do good on the epilepsy meds, stick with them. The reasons for my intolerances are rare to most people, it is not actually an allergy, it is to do with metabolism.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: ScepticScot

The evidence suggests the risk of serious adverse reaction is negligible. The majority of people are far better off being vaccinated.

How negligible is it when we have so many people here on ATS who know someone personally who's had serious adverse reactions?

I personally know two men who have suffered serious reactions shortly after vaccination. Both had strokes. One was in their 70's and the other in their 20's. Unfortunately, the one in their 70's died. There's no shortage of information and personal stories regarding these issues on ATS.

Out of how many millions, though?

'Real' vaccines are s*** too . Ask any parent of a child with autism . Tptb want to control us and want us dead , they are more in a hurry now apparently reply to: carewemust

a reply to: ScepticScot

For starters, we know there is a serious problem with Myocarditis and Pericarditis developing mostly in men after they've been vaccinated, which is why the FDA approval for the Pfizer vaccine required an additional 5 year study of the problem along with the approval.

FDA Approves First COVID-19 Vaccine

The FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have monitoring systems in place to ensure that any safety concerns continue to be identified and evaluated in a timely manner. In addition, the FDA is requiring the company to conduct postmarketing studies to further assess the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination with Comirnaty.

www.fda.gov...


It's also another reason why a few countries have stopped the use of the Moderna vaccines in age groups from 18 - 30.

Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna COVID-19 vaccine

www.reuters.com...

This is just two sources on the particular subject of Myocarditis, but there are many others that talk about other problems out there.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: ScepticScot

For starters, we know there is a serious problem with Myocarditis and Pericarditis developing mostly in men after they've been vaccinated, which is why the FDA approval for the Pfizer vaccine required an additional 5 year study of the problem along with the approval.

FDA Approves First COVID-19 Vaccine

The FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have monitoring systems in place to ensure that any safety concerns continue to be identified and evaluated in a timely manner. In addition, the FDA is requiring the company to conduct postmarketing studies to further assess the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination with Comirnaty.

www.fda.gov...


It's also another reason why a few countries have stopped the use of the Moderna vaccines in age groups from 18 - 30.

Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna COVID-19 vaccine

www.reuters.com...

This is just two sources on the particular subject of Myocarditis, but there are many others that talk about other problems out there.

So your links show that the FDA has fully approved a Vaccine and that a few countries aren't using 1 particular vaccine for a particular low risk sub set of the population.

How does that

report the exact opposite of everything you've said here.

edit on 25-10-2021 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: face23785

Can you link to a study on severity of illness in natural immunity cases? Fairly sure your claim is correct and don't see any reason why a re-infection would pose a realistic risk of serious illness or death myself just haven't been able to find any scientific papers on the subject. 10% of those with mild Covid don't develop any immunity in the above studies so would still face the same risk of severe illness they did prior to Covid infection but outside that group I see no reason why they wouldn't have far better survival odds providing they're not over 75 or under 75 and severely immuno-comprimised.

I've tried searching a few journals this year but found nothing, AFAIK there haven't been any relative risk ratio studies measuring or assesing the risk of vaccine induced adverse health effects vs absolute risk posed by re-infection in those with natural immunity so very interested in reading any you know of.

Here's one that was specifically done on the delta variant.

Here's a summary of it on Johns Hopkins' website:

Summary of Main Findings Overall, infections were very rare in all of the groups studied, and only 1.5% or less of study participants were infected in any of the analysis groups, regardless of how immunity was derived; there were no deaths in any group.

Model 1 compared 16,215 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=19, 0.12%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 8 in the vaccine arm and 1 in the natural immunity arm.

Model 2 compared 46,035 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups, and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=640, 1.4%) were 6-fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=108, 0.23%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 21 in the vaccine arm and 4 in the natural immunity arm.

Model 3 compared 14,029 people in both the natural immunity and infection-vaccine groups and found that cases in the infection-vaccine group (n=20, 0.14%) had about half the risk of experiencing a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=37, 0.26%). There was one hospitalization in the natural immunity group.

Again, the key takeaway here is that the risk in the natural immunity group is so small that even though the risk of complications from the vaccine is also small, it's not worth it.

You don't take a risk, even a small one, to protect yourself against something that's also a vanishingly small risk.

This same argument applies to children and healthy young adults. Mandating them to get the vaccine is irresponsible and NOT following the science.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: face23785

Can you link to a study on severity of illness in natural immunity cases? Fairly sure your claim is correct and don't see any reason why a re-infection would pose a realistic risk of serious illness or death myself just haven't been able to find any scientific papers on the subject. 10% of those with mild Covid don't develop any immunity in the above studies so would still face the same risk of severe illness they did prior to Covid infection but outside that group I see no reason why they wouldn't have far better survival odds providing they're not over 75 or under 75 and severely immuno-comprimised.

I've tried searching a few journals this year but found nothing, AFAIK there haven't been any relative risk ratio studies measuring or assesing the risk of vaccine induced adverse health effects vs absolute risk posed by re-infection in those with natural immunity so very interested in reading any you know of.

Here's one that was specifically done on the delta variant.

Here's a summary of it on Johns Hopkins' website:

Summary of Main Findings Overall, infections were very rare in all of the groups studied, and only 1.5% or less of study participants were infected in any of the analysis groups, regardless of how immunity was derived; there were no deaths in any group.

Model 1 compared 16,215 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=19, 0.12%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 8 in the vaccine arm and 1 in the natural immunity arm.

Model 2 compared 46,035 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups, and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=640, 1.4%) were 6-fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=108, 0.23%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 21 in the vaccine arm and 4 in the natural immunity arm.

Model 3 compared 14,029 people in both the natural immunity and infection-vaccine groups and found that cases in the infection-vaccine group (n=20, 0.14%) had about half the risk of experiencing a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=37, 0.26%). There was one hospitalization in the natural immunity group.

Again, the key takeaway here is that the risk in the natural immunity group is so small that even though the risk of complications from the vaccine is also small, it's not worth it.

You don't take a risk, even a small one, to protect yourself against something that's also a vanishingly small risk.

This same argument applies to children and healthy young adults. Mandating them to get the vaccine is irresponsible and NOT following the science.

Sorry I can't see where in your link it saysy the risk from being vaccinated outweighs the benefits if previously infected?

It does say this

Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

edit on 25-10-2021 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)

a reply to: ScepticScot

First of all, serious adverse events to the vaccine are not negligible as you try to claim...

Dr. Lee’s experience does not comport with your agencies’ claims of safety regarding COVID-19 vaccines. She has been an ICU physician and surgeon for over 15 years and, in that time, has not seen vaccine injuries at the rate she has seen from COVID-19 vaccines.

Dr. Lee did not reach out about redness at the injection site. The injuries she is observing include entirely healthy individuals suffering serious, often fatal, injuries including transverse myelitis resulting in quadriplegia, pneumocystis
pneumonia, multi-system organ failure, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, post-partum hemorrhagic shock and septic shock, and disseminated CMV and CMV viremia.

Dr. Lee’s clinical observations are particularly troubling because, as she explains, “it appears statistically improbable that any one physician should witness this many Covid-19 vaccine injuries if the federal health authority claims regarding Covid-19 vaccine safety were accurate” and that she has “spoken with colleagues who have also had similar experiences."

The entire letter detailing "some" of the problems this doctor has witnessed and treated is included in the link below:

www.sirillp.com...

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: ScepticScot

First of all, serious adverse events to the vaccine are not negligible as you try to claim...

Dr. Lee’s experience does not comport with your agencies’ claims of safety regarding COVID-19 vaccines. She has been an ICU physician and surgeon for over 15 years and, in that time, has not seen vaccine injuries at the rate she has seen from COVID-19 vaccines.

Dr. Lee did not reach out about redness at the injection site. The injuries she is observing include entirely healthy individuals suffering serious, often fatal, injuries including transverse myelitis resulting in quadriplegia, pneumocystis
pneumonia, multi-system organ failure, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, post-partum hemorrhagic shock and septic shock, and disseminated CMV and CMV viremia.

Dr. Lee’s clinical observations are particularly troubling because, as she explains, “it appears statistically improbable that any one physician should witness this many Covid-19 vaccine injuries if the federal health authority claims regarding Covid-19 vaccine safety were accurate” and that she has “spoken with colleagues who have also had similar experiences."

The entire letter detailing "some" of the problems this doctor has witnessed and treated is included in the link below:

www.sirillp.com...

Your link is from October 20?