Breaking: Australian mom denied heart transplant due to her COVID-19 vaccination status

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Also you seem to want to divert from the importance of this story by engaging in the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals that you have admitted you have done on several occasions.

You have said this, using even the same wording, several times before.

You are using anti-vaxxer apologetics and denials of reality, as well as blaming the pharmaceutical companies for just doing what we all expect them to do.

I have nothing to apologise for on the other hand. I don't believe in magic vaccines and voodoo products. So your argument above is meaningless. On the other hand... You are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Did you just say that the pharmaceuticals are doing what we are expecting them to do?!?! Yes being involved in every scandal and cover up that exists!! Spot on!!

Every scandal and coverup?

So when some middle level manager embezzles his boss, or when some politician has an affair with an underage staffer, or some whacko right-wing terrorist organization blows-up or shoots-up the wrong target, they are all somehow the fault of big pharma?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Also you seem to want to divert from the importance of this story by engaging in the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals that you have admitted you have done on several occasions.

You have said this, using even the same wording, several times before.

You are using anti-vaxxer apologetics and denials of reality, as well as blaming the pharmaceutical companies for just doing what we all expect them to do.

I have nothing to apologise for on the other hand. I don't believe in magic vaccines and voodoo products. So your argument above is meaningless. On the other hand... You are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Did you just say that the pharmaceuticals are doing what we are expecting them to do?!?! Yes being involved in every scandal and cover up that exists!! Spot on!!

In that 30% effectiveness measured in the Cleveland Study, 30% more effective than what?

Ditto for that Moderna figure that you posted (even though I doubt that value), more effective than what?

Your have mixed up the studies.
Do some proper reading first.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Also you seem to want to divert from the importance of this story by engaging in the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals that you have admitted you have done on several occasions.

You have said this, using even the same wording, several times before.

You are using anti-vaxxer apologetics and denials of reality, as well as blaming the pharmaceutical companies for just doing what we all expect them to do.

I have nothing to apologise for on the other hand. I don't believe in magic vaccines and voodoo products. So your argument above is meaningless. On the other hand... You are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Did you just say that the pharmaceuticals are doing what we are expecting them to do?!?! Yes being involved in every scandal and cover up that exists!! Spot on!!

Every scandal and coverup?

So when some middle level manager embezzles his boss, or when some politician has an affair with an underage staffer, or some whacko right-wing terrorist organization blows-up or shoots-up the wrong target, they are all somehow the fault of big pharma?

Stop engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. And stop defending the pharmaceuticals.

It looks like the lunacy of the Covid campaign and this absurd campaign to have affected a large proportion of the human population to the point that a mother who needs a heart transplant cannot get it as she hasn't had the shots by Pfizer and Moderna.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Also you seem to want to divert from the importance of this story by engaging in the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals that you have admitted you have done on several occasions.

You have said this, using even the same wording, several times before.

You are using anti-vaxxer apologetics and denials of reality, as well as blaming the pharmaceutical companies for just doing what we all expect them to do.

I have nothing to apologise for on the other hand. I don't believe in magic vaccines and voodoo products. So your argument above is meaningless. On the other hand... You are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Did you just say that the pharmaceuticals are doing what we are expecting them to do?!?! Yes being involved in every scandal and cover up that exists!! Spot on!!

Every scandal and coverup?

So when some middle level manager embezzles his boss, or when some politician has an affair with an underage staffer, or some whacko right-wing terrorist organization blows-up or shoots-up the wrong target, they are all somehow the fault of big pharma?

Stop engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. And stop defending the pharmaceuticals.

It looks like the lunacy of the Covid campaign and this absurd campaign to have affected a large proportion of the human population to the point that a mother who needs a heart transplant cannot get it as she hasn't had the shots by Pfizer and Moderna.

If her immune system does not have at least some resistance to the pathogen, and she is exposed while taking the immunosupressants required to prevent her rejecting the transplant, she will most likely die. You do know that, don't you?

Her doctors do have a reason to not want to proceed with a transplant at this particular point in time.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Also you seem to want to divert from the importance of this story by engaging in the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals that you have admitted you have done on several occasions.

You have said this, using even the same wording, several times before.

You are using anti-vaxxer apologetics and denials of reality, as well as blaming the pharmaceutical companies for just doing what we all expect them to do.

I have nothing to apologise for on the other hand. I don't believe in magic vaccines and voodoo products. So your argument above is meaningless. On the other hand... You are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Did you just say that the pharmaceuticals are doing what we are expecting them to do?!?! Yes being involved in every scandal and cover up that exists!! Spot on!!

In that 30% effectiveness measured in the Cleveland Study, 30% more effective than what?

Ditto for that Moderna figure that you posted (even though I doubt that value), more effective than what?

Your have mixed up the studies.
Do some proper reading first.

This is the Cleveland Clinic study to which I was referring:

Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine

... and to which you responded and quoted that 30% effectiveness value for in this post.

Perhaps you are the one confused?



You still have not responded as to what it is 30% more effective than?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Also you seem to want to divert from the importance of this story by engaging in the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals that you have admitted you have done on several occasions.

You have said this, using even the same wording, several times before.

You are using anti-vaxxer apologetics and denials of reality, as well as blaming the pharmaceutical companies for just doing what we all expect them to do.

I have nothing to apologise for on the other hand. I don't believe in magic vaccines and voodoo products. So your argument above is meaningless. On the other hand... You are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Did you just say that the pharmaceuticals are doing what we are expecting them to do?!?! Yes being involved in every scandal and cover up that exists!! Spot on!!

Every scandal and coverup?

So when some middle level manager embezzles his boss, or when some politician has an affair with an underage staffer, or some whacko right-wing terrorist organization blows-up or shoots-up the wrong target, they are all somehow the fault of big pharma?

Stop engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. And stop defending the pharmaceuticals.

It looks like the lunacy of the Covid campaign and this absurd campaign to have affected a large proportion of the human population to the point that a mother who needs a heart transplant cannot get it as she hasn't had the shots by Pfizer and Moderna.

If her immune system does not have at least some resistance to the pathogen, and she is exposed while taking the immunosupressants required to prevent her rejecting the transplant, she will most likely die. You do know that, don't you?

Her doctors do have a reason to not want to proceed with a transplant at this particular point in time.

Nonsensical arguments as heart transplants or any other transplants are not subject to vaccinations. If that was the case she must get injected with whatever shot exists for all other diseases.

And getting injected with the junk by Pfizer or Moderna doesn't prevent infection in most cases and doesn't necessarily prevent disease. Remember the absolute risk reduction is 0.84%

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Also you seem to want to divert from the importance of this story by engaging in the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals that you have admitted you have done on several occasions.

You have said this, using even the same wording, several times before.

You are using anti-vaxxer apologetics and denials of reality, as well as blaming the pharmaceutical companies for just doing what we all expect them to do.

I have nothing to apologise for on the other hand. I don't believe in magic vaccines and voodoo products. So your argument above is meaningless. On the other hand... You are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Did you just say that the pharmaceuticals are doing what we are expecting them to do?!?! Yes being involved in every scandal and cover up that exists!! Spot on!!

In that 30% effectiveness measured in the Cleveland Study, 30% more effective than what?

Ditto for that Moderna figure that you posted (even though I doubt that value), more effective than what?

Your have mixed up the studies.
Do some proper reading first.

This is the Cleveland Clinic study to which I was referring:

Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine

... and to which you responded and quoted that 30% effectiveness value for in this post.

Perhaps you are the one confused?

You still have not responded as to what it is 30% more effective than?

No I am not. I am aware of the study. But you have mixed the studies for once more. Look at the studies we have linked several times about absolute risk reduction and you will see they are miniscule. You are confusing relative risk reduction to absolute risk reduction.

For example the mRNA junk from Pfizer has an absolute risk reduction of 0.84%. You need to inject 119 people to prevent an infection. Great....

Most studies make reference to relative risk reduction by the way.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Also you seem to want to divert from the importance of this story by engaging in the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals that you have admitted you have done on several occasions.

You have said this, using even the same wording, several times before.

You are using anti-vaxxer apologetics and denials of reality, as well as blaming the pharmaceutical companies for just doing what we all expect them to do.

I have nothing to apologise for on the other hand. I don't believe in magic vaccines and voodoo products. So your argument above is meaningless. On the other hand... You are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Did you just say that the pharmaceuticals are doing what we are expecting them to do?!?! Yes being involved in every scandal and cover up that exists!! Spot on!!

Every scandal and coverup?

So when some middle level manager embezzles his boss, or when some politician has an affair with an underage staffer, or some whacko right-wing terrorist organization blows-up or shoots-up the wrong target, they are all somehow the fault of big pharma?

Stop engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. And stop defending the pharmaceuticals.

It looks like the lunacy of the Covid campaign and this absurd campaign to have affected a large proportion of the human population to the point that a mother who needs a heart transplant cannot get it as she hasn't had the shots by Pfizer and Moderna.

If her immune system does not have at least some resistance to the pathogen, and she is exposed while taking the immunosupressants required to prevent her rejecting the transplant, she will most likely die. You do know that, don't you?

Her doctors do have a reason to not want to proceed with a transplant at this particular point in time.

Nonsensical arguments as heart transplants or any other transplants are not subject to vaccinations. If that was the case she must get injected with whatever shot exists for all other diseases.

Yes. If any disease is all around her in epidemic proportions, and her immune system is not prepared for it, and they give her immune suppressants to prevent her from rejecting the transplant, and she catches the disease, it is a fairly sure thing that it will kill her.

If they don't give her immune suppressants, and she has a transplant, it's a fairly sure thing that she will die from rejection of the transplant.

So, the best thing is that if she is surviving right now, they defer doing the things that will surely kill her.

And getting injected with the junk by Pfizer or Moderna doesn't prevent infection in most cases and doesn't necessarily prevent disease.

The Cleveland Clinic study I previously re-posted said:

Summary Among 51011 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine booster was 30% effective in preventing infection, during the time when the virus strains dominant in the community were represented in the vaccine. (emphasis mine)

So, clearly, the Pfizer bivalent vaccine although not perfect is somewhat effective in preventing infection.

Remember the absolute risk reduction is 0.84%

Risk reduction from what?

What condition or scenario are they comparing the risk reduction and efficacy against? Hmmm?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Also you seem to want to divert from the importance of this story by engaging in the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals that you have admitted you have done on several occasions.

You have said this, using even the same wording, several times before.

You are using anti-vaxxer apologetics and denials of reality, as well as blaming the pharmaceutical companies for just doing what we all expect them to do.

I have nothing to apologise for on the other hand. I don't believe in magic vaccines and voodoo products. So your argument above is meaningless. On the other hand... You are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Did you just say that the pharmaceuticals are doing what we are expecting them to do?!?! Yes being involved in every scandal and cover up that exists!! Spot on!!

Every scandal and coverup?

So when some middle level manager embezzles his boss, or when some politician has an affair with an underage staffer, or some whacko right-wing terrorist organization blows-up or shoots-up the wrong target, they are all somehow the fault of big pharma?

Stop engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. And stop defending the pharmaceuticals.

It looks like the lunacy of the Covid campaign and this absurd campaign to have affected a large proportion of the human population to the point that a mother who needs a heart transplant cannot get it as she hasn't had the shots by Pfizer and Moderna.

If her immune system does not have at least some resistance to the pathogen, and she is exposed while taking the immunosupressants required to prevent her rejecting the transplant, she will most likely die. You do know that, don't you?

Her doctors do have a reason to not want to proceed with a transplant at this particular point in time.

Nonsensical arguments as heart transplants or any other transplants are not subject to vaccinations. If that was the case she must get injected with whatever shot exists for all other diseases.

Yes. If any disease is all around her in epidemic proportions, and her immune system is not prepared for it, and they give her immune suppressants to prevent her from rejecting the transplant, and she catches the disease, it is a fairly sure thing that it will kill her.

If they don't give her immune suppressants, and she has a transplant, it's a fairly sure thing that she will die from rejection of the transplant.

So, the best thing is that if she is surviving right now, they defer doing the things that will surely kill her.

And getting injected with the junk by Pfizer or Moderna doesn't prevent infection in most cases and doesn't necessarily prevent disease.

The Cleveland Clinic study I previously re-posted said:

Summary Among 51011 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine booster was 30% effective in preventing infection, during the time when the virus strains dominant in the community were represented in the vaccine. (emphasis mine)

So, clearly, the Pfizer bivalent vaccine although not perfect is somewhat effective in preventing infection.

Remember the absolute risk reduction is 0.84%

Risk reduction from what?

What condition or scenario are they comparing the risk reduction and efficacy against? Hmmm?

Look at it up on the web. Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. The studies you see online are talking relative risk reduction.

I will argue again that the absolute risk reduction is extremely low. For example you had to 'vaccinate' 119 individuals to prevent one infection with the Pfizer junk. That's the absolute risk reduction.


You are also assuming that she hasn't been exposed to the virus which is likely not to be true after 3+ years of exposure of the human population. And we know the comparisons between natural immunity and the junk from Pfizer and Moderna. One is superior to the other by all metrics.

Coming back to the topic of the transplant the story has created a good backlash given the absurd reason claimed in refusing the surgery for the woman which is certainly going to really in death if she doesn't get it.

You also forget that the mRNA products are notorious for creating heart conditions to healthy people and exacerbating heart conditions for those who have them. They are great risks too and given the woman has heart failure.

Overall the reasons given by the Australian 'experts' are laughable. You really need to be a vaccine apologist and a vaccine campaign zealot to come up with this crap.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Also you seem to want to divert from the importance of this story by engaging in the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals that you have admitted you have done on several occasions.

You have said this, using even the same wording, several times before.

You are using anti-vaxxer apologetics and denials of reality, as well as blaming the pharmaceutical companies for just doing what we all expect them to do.

I have nothing to apologise for on the other hand. I don't believe in magic vaccines and voodoo products. So your argument above is meaningless. On the other hand... You are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Did you just say that the pharmaceuticals are doing what we are expecting them to do?!?! Yes being involved in every scandal and cover up that exists!! Spot on!!

Every scandal and coverup?

So when some middle level manager embezzles his boss, or when some politician has an affair with an underage staffer, or some whacko right-wing terrorist organization blows-up or shoots-up the wrong target, they are all somehow the fault of big pharma?

Stop engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. And stop defending the pharmaceuticals.

It looks like the lunacy of the Covid campaign and this absurd campaign to have affected a large proportion of the human population to the point that a mother who needs a heart transplant cannot get it as she hasn't had the shots by Pfizer and Moderna.

If her immune system does not have at least some resistance to the pathogen, and she is exposed while taking the immunosupressants required to prevent her rejecting the transplant, she will most likely die. You do know that, don't you?

Her doctors do have a reason to not want to proceed with a transplant at this particular point in time.

Nonsensical arguments as heart transplants or any other transplants are not subject to vaccinations. If that was the case she must get injected with whatever shot exists for all other diseases.

Yes. If any disease is all around her in epidemic proportions, and her immune system is not prepared for it, and they give her immune suppressants to prevent her from rejecting the transplant, and she catches the disease, it is a fairly sure thing that it will kill her.

If they don't give her immune suppressants, and she has a transplant, it's a fairly sure thing that she will die from rejection of the transplant.

So, the best thing is that if she is surviving right now, they defer doing the things that will surely kill her.

And getting injected with the junk by Pfizer or Moderna doesn't prevent infection in most cases and doesn't necessarily prevent disease.

The Cleveland Clinic study I previously re-posted said:

Summary Among 51011 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine booster was 30% effective in preventing infection, during the time when the virus strains dominant in the community were represented in the vaccine. (emphasis mine)

So, clearly, the Pfizer bivalent vaccine although not perfect is somewhat effective in preventing infection.

Remember the absolute risk reduction is 0.84%

Risk reduction from what?

What condition or scenario are they comparing the risk reduction and efficacy against? Hmmm?

Look at it up on the web. Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. The studies you see online are talking relative risk reduction.

Relative to what?

I will argue again that the absolute risk reduction is extremely low. For example you had to 'vaccinate' 119 individuals to prevent one infection with the Pfizer junk. That's the absolute risk reduction.

You are also assuming that she hasn't been exposed to the virus which is likely not to be true after 3+ years of exposure of the human population. And we know the comparisons between natural immunity and the junk from Pfizer and Moderna. One is superior to the other by all metrics.

What of those who have obtained 'natural immunity' and are unvaccinated, but still catch COVID multiple times?

It is clear that 'natural immunity' is ineffective in protecting against the disease and for preventing transmission.

There are people on ATS who have attested to this failure of 'natural immunity'.

Coming back to the topic of the transplant the story has created a good backlash given the absurd reason claimed in refusing the surgery for the woman which is certainly going to really in death if she doesn't get it.

You also forget that the mRNA products are notorious for creating heart conditions to healthy people and exacerbating heart conditions for those who have them. They are great risks too and given the woman has heart failure.

Myocarditis and pericarditis are the only heart conditions associated with the mRNA vaccines, and are very rare adverse reactions. They are also caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus (and also by number of other viruses), but are not as rare in that case.

Overall the reasons given by the Australian 'experts' are laughable. You really need to be a vaccine apologist and a vaccine campaign zealot to come up with this crap.

Yeah, her doctors and surgeons want her to die, so they won't get paid for the very expensive (lucrative to them) transplant surgery, don't ya think?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Also you seem to want to divert from the importance of this story by engaging in the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals that you have admitted you have done on several occasions.

You have said this, using even the same wording, several times before.

You are using anti-vaxxer apologetics and denials of reality, as well as blaming the pharmaceutical companies for just doing what we all expect them to do.

I have nothing to apologise for on the other hand. I don't believe in magic vaccines and voodoo products. So your argument above is meaningless. On the other hand... You are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Did you just say that the pharmaceuticals are doing what we are expecting them to do?!?! Yes being involved in every scandal and cover up that exists!! Spot on!!

Every scandal and coverup?

So when some middle level manager embezzles his boss, or when some politician has an affair with an underage staffer, or some whacko right-wing terrorist organization blows-up or shoots-up the wrong target, they are all somehow the fault of big pharma?

Stop engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. And stop defending the pharmaceuticals.

It looks like the lunacy of the Covid campaign and this absurd campaign to have affected a large proportion of the human population to the point that a mother who needs a heart transplant cannot get it as she hasn't had the shots by Pfizer and Moderna.

If her immune system does not have at least some resistance to the pathogen, and she is exposed while taking the immunosupressants required to prevent her rejecting the transplant, she will most likely die. You do know that, don't you?

Her doctors do have a reason to not want to proceed with a transplant at this particular point in time.

Nonsensical arguments as heart transplants or any other transplants are not subject to vaccinations. If that was the case she must get injected with whatever shot exists for all other diseases.

Yes. If any disease is all around her in epidemic proportions, and her immune system is not prepared for it, and they give her immune suppressants to prevent her from rejecting the transplant, and she catches the disease, it is a fairly sure thing that it will kill her.

If they don't give her immune suppressants, and she has a transplant, it's a fairly sure thing that she will die from rejection of the transplant.

So, the best thing is that if she is surviving right now, they defer doing the things that will surely kill her.

And getting injected with the junk by Pfizer or Moderna doesn't prevent infection in most cases and doesn't necessarily prevent disease.

The Cleveland Clinic study I previously re-posted said:

Summary Among 51011 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine booster was 30% effective in preventing infection, during the time when the virus strains dominant in the community were represented in the vaccine. (emphasis mine)

So, clearly, the Pfizer bivalent vaccine although not perfect is somewhat effective in preventing infection.

Remember the absolute risk reduction is 0.84%

Risk reduction from what?

What condition or scenario are they comparing the risk reduction and efficacy against? Hmmm?

Look at it up on the web. Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. The studies you see online are talking relative risk reduction.

Relative to what?

I will argue again that the absolute risk reduction is extremely low. For example you had to 'vaccinate' 119 individuals to prevent one infection with the Pfizer junk. That's the absolute risk reduction.

You are also assuming that she hasn't been exposed to the virus which is likely not to be true after 3+ years of exposure of the human population. And we know the comparisons between natural immunity and the junk from Pfizer and Moderna. One is superior to the other by all metrics.

What of those who have obtained 'natural immunity' and are unvaccinated, but still catch COVID multiple times?

It is clear that 'natural immunity' is ineffective in protecting against the disease and for preventing transmission.

There are people on ATS who have attested to this failure of 'natural immunity'.

Coming back to the topic of the transplant the story has created a good backlash given the absurd reason claimed in refusing the surgery for the woman which is certainly going to really in death if she doesn't get it.

You also forget that the mRNA products are notorious for creating heart conditions to healthy people and exacerbating heart conditions for those who have them. They are great risks too and given the woman has heart failure.

Myocarditis and pericarditis are the only heart conditions associated with the mRNA vaccines, and are very rare adverse reactions. They are also caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus (and also by number of other viruses), but are not as rare in that case.

Overall the reasons given by the Australian 'experts' are laughable. You really need to be a vaccine apologist and a vaccine campaign zealot to come up with this crap.

Yeah, her doctors and surgeons want her to die, so they won't get paid for the very expensive (lucrative to them) transplant surgery, don't ya think?

Good questions but your arguments are in state of confusion as you haven't even read the basics of how the clinical phase trials are conducted.

Myocarditis and pericarditis are not the only conditions associated with the mRNA products. You are mistaken. And they are not as rare as you think. This is the official narrative.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Also you seem to want to divert from the importance of this story by engaging in the usual vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality as well as defending the pharmaceuticals that you have admitted you have done on several occasions.

You have said this, using even the same wording, several times before.

You are using anti-vaxxer apologetics and denials of reality, as well as blaming the pharmaceutical companies for just doing what we all expect them to do.

I have nothing to apologise for on the other hand. I don't believe in magic vaccines and voodoo products. So your argument above is meaningless. On the other hand... You are engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

Did you just say that the pharmaceuticals are doing what we are expecting them to do?!?! Yes being involved in every scandal and cover up that exists!! Spot on!!

Every scandal and coverup?

So when some middle level manager embezzles his boss, or when some politician has an affair with an underage staffer, or some whacko right-wing terrorist organization blows-up or shoots-up the wrong target, they are all somehow the fault of big pharma?

Stop engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. And stop defending the pharmaceuticals.

It looks like the lunacy of the Covid campaign and this absurd campaign to have affected a large proportion of the human population to the point that a mother who needs a heart transplant cannot get it as she hasn't had the shots by Pfizer and Moderna.

If her immune system does not have at least some resistance to the pathogen, and she is exposed while taking the immunosupressants required to prevent her rejecting the transplant, she will most likely die. You do know that, don't you?

Her doctors do have a reason to not want to proceed with a transplant at this particular point in time.

Nonsensical arguments as heart transplants or any other transplants are not subject to vaccinations. If that was the case she must get injected with whatever shot exists for all other diseases.

Yes. If any disease is all around her in epidemic proportions, and her immune system is not prepared for it, and they give her immune suppressants to prevent her from rejecting the transplant, and she catches the disease, it is a fairly sure thing that it will kill her.

If they don't give her immune suppressants, and she has a transplant, it's a fairly sure thing that she will die from rejection of the transplant.

So, the best thing is that if she is surviving right now, they defer doing the things that will surely kill her.

And getting injected with the junk by Pfizer or Moderna doesn't prevent infection in most cases and doesn't necessarily prevent disease.

The Cleveland Clinic study I previously re-posted said:

Summary Among 51011 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine booster was 30% effective in preventing infection, during the time when the virus strains dominant in the community were represented in the vaccine. (emphasis mine)

So, clearly, the Pfizer bivalent vaccine although not perfect is somewhat effective in preventing infection.

Remember the absolute risk reduction is 0.84%

Risk reduction from what?

What condition or scenario are they comparing the risk reduction and efficacy against? Hmmm?

Look at it up on the web. Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. The studies you see online are talking relative risk reduction.

Relative to what?

I will argue again that the absolute risk reduction is extremely low. For example you had to 'vaccinate' 119 individuals to prevent one infection with the Pfizer junk. That's the absolute risk reduction.

You are also assuming that she hasn't been exposed to the virus which is likely not to be true after 3+ years of exposure of the human population. And we know the comparisons between natural immunity and the junk from Pfizer and Moderna. One is superior to the other by all metrics.

What of those who have obtained 'natural immunity' and are unvaccinated, but still catch COVID multiple times?

It is clear that 'natural immunity' is ineffective in protecting against the disease and for preventing transmission.

There are people on ATS who have attested to this failure of 'natural immunity'.

Coming back to the topic of the transplant the story has created a good backlash given the absurd reason claimed in refusing the surgery for the woman which is certainly going to really in death if she doesn't get it.

You also forget that the mRNA products are notorious for creating heart conditions to healthy people and exacerbating heart conditions for those who have them. They are great risks too and given the woman has heart failure.

Myocarditis and pericarditis are the only heart conditions associated with the mRNA vaccines, and are very rare adverse reactions. They are also caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus (and also by number of other viruses), but are not as rare in that case.

Overall the reasons given by the Australian 'experts' are laughable. You really need to be a vaccine apologist and a vaccine campaign zealot to come up with this crap.

Yeah, her doctors and surgeons want her to die, so they won't get paid for the very expensive (lucrative to them) transplant surgery, don't ya think?

Natural immunity is superior to vaccinations and not ineffective as you have called it. Superior by all metrics. You need some basic reading and not peddling a dogma that had collapsed long time ago.

Actually there is no comparison between natural immunity and vaccine induced immunity. In the guest case you come into contact with the virus and in secund case not even close. Through instructions your cells are trying to product a spike like protein for which you can make an immune response. The two responses are fundamentally different.

I don't see why you are making attempts to present this matter as funny in your last paragraph. There is nothing funny,and yes, a refusal by the doctors will certainly result in the death of the woman. The doctors in this case have no basis for their argument which has created a good backlash. These operations are not subject vaccination status and never have been.

I remember how you have misunderstood herd immunity and have claimed that it could be achieved through vaccinations. When in fact vaccinations font prevent transmission and infection. Remember you need to vaccinate 119 individuals to prevent one infection with the Pfizer shots.

Now you have made claims about natural immunity...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Every scandal and coverup?

So when some middle level manager embezzles his boss, or when some politician has an affair with an underage staffer, or some whacko right-wing terrorist organization blows-up or shoots-up the wrong target, they are all somehow the fault of big pharma?

Stop engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. And stop defending the pharmaceuticals.

It looks like the lunacy of the Covid campaign and this absurd campaign to have affected a large proportion of the human population to the point that a mother who needs a heart transplant cannot get it as she hasn't had the shots by Pfizer and Moderna.

If her immune system does not have at least some resistance to the pathogen, and she is exposed while taking the immunosupressants required to prevent her rejecting the transplant, she will most likely die. You do know that, don't you?

Her doctors do have a reason to not want to proceed with a transplant at this particular point in time.

Nonsensical arguments as heart transplants or any other transplants are not subject to vaccinations. If that was the case she must get injected with whatever shot exists for all other diseases.

Yes. If any disease is all around her in epidemic proportions, and her immune system is not prepared for it, and they give her immune suppressants to prevent her from rejecting the transplant, and she catches the disease, it is a fairly sure thing that it will kill her.

If they don't give her immune suppressants, and she has a transplant, it's a fairly sure thing that she will die from rejection of the transplant.

So, the best thing is that if she is surviving right now, they defer doing the things that will surely kill her.

And getting injected with the junk by Pfizer or Moderna doesn't prevent infection in most cases and doesn't necessarily prevent disease.

The Cleveland Clinic study I previously re-posted said:

Summary Among 51011 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine booster was 30% effective in preventing infection, during the time when the virus strains dominant in the community were represented in the vaccine. (emphasis mine)

So, clearly, the Pfizer bivalent vaccine although not perfect is somewhat effective in preventing infection.

Remember the absolute risk reduction is 0.84%

Risk reduction from what?

What condition or scenario are they comparing the risk reduction and efficacy against? Hmmm?

Look at it up on the web. Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. The studies you see online are talking relative risk reduction.

Relative to what?

I will argue again that the absolute risk reduction is extremely low. For example you had to 'vaccinate' 119 individuals to prevent one infection with the Pfizer junk. That's the absolute risk reduction.

You are also assuming that she hasn't been exposed to the virus which is likely not to be true after 3+ years of exposure of the human population. And we know the comparisons between natural immunity and the junk from Pfizer and Moderna. One is superior to the other by all metrics.

What of those who have obtained 'natural immunity' and are unvaccinated, but still catch COVID multiple times?

It is clear that 'natural immunity' is ineffective in protecting against the disease and for preventing transmission.

There are people on ATS who have attested to this failure of 'natural immunity'.

Coming back to the topic of the transplant the story has created a good backlash given the absurd reason claimed in refusing the surgery for the woman which is certainly going to really in death if she doesn't get it.

You also forget that the mRNA products are notorious for creating heart conditions to healthy people and exacerbating heart conditions for those who have them. They are great risks too and given the woman has heart failure.

Myocarditis and pericarditis are the only heart conditions associated with the mRNA vaccines, and are very rare adverse reactions. They are also caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus (and also by number of other viruses), but are not as rare in that case.

Overall the reasons given by the Australian 'experts' are laughable. You really need to be a vaccine apologist and a vaccine campaign zealot to come up with this crap.

Yeah, her doctors and surgeons want her to die, so they won't get paid for the very expensive (lucrative to them) transplant surgery, don't ya think?

Good questions but your arguments are in state of confusion as you haven't even read the basics of how the clinical phase trials are conducted.

But I have read how clinical phase trials are conducted (in fact, you know the papers that I have posted in support of my arguments. Procedural methods are usually clearly stated in such papers).

And you still haven't answered what the 'relative' values are relative to.

Also, there is an additional indicator that your line of reasoning regarding absolute and relative values is questionable. Absolute values should have a higher range of results than relative values, and therefore absolute values should be larger numbers, representing bigger differences, than relative values. In the argument you posted here, you suggested that absolute values were smaller than relative values.

Myocarditis and pericarditis are not the only conditions associated with the mRNA products. You are mistaken. And they are not as rare as you think. This is the official narrative.

And where do you get your statistics from, that lead you to believe that conditions caused by the vaccines aren't as rare as I think (and how could you even know what I think, LOL).

There are no credible alternate statistics to the official ones (that also happen to support the official narrative). If you have an alternate credible source of statistics, please post a link to them.

a reply to: chr0naut

And you still haven't answered what the 'relative' values are relative to.

Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints

A relative value of 95% effective does translate into an increase of all cause mortality rate. You got this far in science, yet relative and absolute values is still a bit of a mud pit to play in?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

Every scandal and coverup?

So when some middle level manager embezzles his boss, or when some politician has an affair with an underage staffer, or some whacko right-wing terrorist organization blows-up or shoots-up the wrong target, they are all somehow the fault of big pharma?

Stop engaging in vaccine apologetics and denialism of reality. And stop defending the pharmaceuticals.

It looks like the lunacy of the Covid campaign and this absurd campaign to have affected a large proportion of the human population to the point that a mother who needs a heart transplant cannot get it as she hasn't had the shots by Pfizer and Moderna.

If her immune system does not have at least some resistance to the pathogen, and she is exposed while taking the immunosupressants required to prevent her rejecting the transplant, she will most likely die. You do know that, don't you?

Her doctors do have a reason to not want to proceed with a transplant at this particular point in time.

Nonsensical arguments as heart transplants or any other transplants are not subject to vaccinations. If that was the case she must get injected with whatever shot exists for all other diseases.

Yes. If any disease is all around her in epidemic proportions, and her immune system is not prepared for it, and they give her immune suppressants to prevent her from rejecting the transplant, and she catches the disease, it is a fairly sure thing that it will kill her.

If they don't give her immune suppressants, and she has a transplant, it's a fairly sure thing that she will die from rejection of the transplant.

So, the best thing is that if she is surviving right now, they defer doing the things that will surely kill her.

And getting injected with the junk by Pfizer or Moderna doesn't prevent infection in most cases and doesn't necessarily prevent disease.

The Cleveland Clinic study I previously re-posted said:

Summary Among 51011 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine booster was 30% effective in preventing infection, during the time when the virus strains dominant in the community were represented in the vaccine. (emphasis mine)

So, clearly, the Pfizer bivalent vaccine although not perfect is somewhat effective in preventing infection.

Remember the absolute risk reduction is 0.84%

Risk reduction from what?

What condition or scenario are they comparing the risk reduction and efficacy against? Hmmm?

Look at it up on the web. Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. The studies you see online are talking relative risk reduction.

Relative to what?

I will argue again that the absolute risk reduction is extremely low. For example you had to 'vaccinate' 119 individuals to prevent one infection with the Pfizer junk. That's the absolute risk reduction.

You are also assuming that she hasn't been exposed to the virus which is likely not to be true after 3+ years of exposure of the human population. And we know the comparisons between natural immunity and the junk from Pfizer and Moderna. One is superior to the other by all metrics.

What of those who have obtained 'natural immunity' and are unvaccinated, but still catch COVID multiple times?

It is clear that 'natural immunity' is ineffective in protecting against the disease and for preventing transmission.

There are people on ATS who have attested to this failure of 'natural immunity'.

Coming back to the topic of the transplant the story has created a good backlash given the absurd reason claimed in refusing the surgery for the woman which is certainly going to really in death if she doesn't get it.

You also forget that the mRNA products are notorious for creating heart conditions to healthy people and exacerbating heart conditions for those who have them. They are great risks too and given the woman has heart failure.

Myocarditis and pericarditis are the only heart conditions associated with the mRNA vaccines, and are very rare adverse reactions. They are also caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus (and also by number of other viruses), but are not as rare in that case.

Overall the reasons given by the Australian 'experts' are laughable. You really need to be a vaccine apologist and a vaccine campaign zealot to come up with this crap.

Yeah, her doctors and surgeons want her to die, so they won't get paid for the very expensive (lucrative to them) transplant surgery, don't ya think?

Good questions but your arguments are in state of confusion as you haven't even read the basics of how the clinical phase trials are conducted.

But I have read how clinical phase trials are conducted (in fact, you know the papers that I have posted in support of my arguments. Procedural methods are usually clearly stated in such papers).

And you still haven't answered what the 'relative' values are relative to.

Also, there is an additional indicator that your line of reasoning regarding absolute and relative values is questionable. Absolute values should have a higher range of results than relative values, and therefore absolute values should be larger numbers, representing bigger differences, than relative values. In the argument you posted here, you suggested that absolute values were smaller than relative values.

Myocarditis and pericarditis are not the only conditions associated with the mRNA products. You are mistaken. And they are not as rare as you think. This is the official narrative.

And where do you get your statistics from, that lead you to believe that conditions caused by the vaccines aren't as rare as I think (and how could you even know what I think, LOL).

There are no credible alternate statistics to the official ones (that also happen to support the official narrative). If you have an alternate credible source of statistics, please post a link to them.

You can have a look what relative risk reduction means in comparison to absolute risk reduction.

I will argue again that the absolute risk reduction is extremely low. For example you had to 'vaccinate' 119 individuals to prevent one infection with the Pfizer junk. That's the absolute risk reduction.

The rest of your text shows that you haven't understood yet what we are talking about and that I have used official sources. Official sources aren't the most reliable but even by their own version of reality it shows clearly the problem.

a reply to: chr0naut

Also, there is an additional indicator that your line of reasoning regarding absolute and relative values is questionable. Absolute values should have a higher range of results than relative values, and therefore absolute values should be larger numbers, representing bigger differences, than relative values. In the argument you posted here, you suggested that absolute values were smaller than relative values.

Clearly you haven't done any reading and you don't know what you are talking about.

The absolute risk reduction is very low in comparison to the relative risk reduction. Given that it is the relative risk reduction used to convince the public about how effective these vaccines are anyone can see their deceptive tactics when nowhere is mentioned you need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent an infection with the mRNA products by Pfizer.

I am really doubtful on why 1 infection is prevented whole the rest 118 individuals cannot be protected from infection. It maybe something else in the end and even that one prevention could be attributed to something else other than vaccine.

You should stop trusting official sources blindly and some critical thinking won't harm you. You should also stop engaging in vaccine apologetics and defending of the pharmaceuticals.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: chr0naut

And you still haven't answered what the 'relative' values are relative to.

Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints

A relative value of 95% effective does translate into an increase of all cause mortality rate.

No, there is no direct mathematical or causal link between the two things. They are two different things.

The effectiveness value is a measure of how the vaccine is expected to perform in a preventative manner in an ideal situation and is a mathematical construct.

All cause mortality is the numbers of people who die from all sorts of identified causes (one of which is COVID-19).

You got this far in science, yet relative and absolute values is still a bit of a mud pit to play in?

I got quite far in science, and did quite well in the subject of relativistic physics. I am fairly sure I know what the term "relative" means.

LOL.

You, however, have still not yet even explained what the relative values are relative to. And additionally you have totally confused argument about relativism with a misinterpretation of all cause mortality.

To give you an idea about the effectiveness calculations there is this fairly good article from the New York Times, which includes some actual calculations with values from the Pfizer effectiveness study, which you can verify mathematically and from which you should be able to understand what is going on.

I have a short video which I believe illustrates well the regard which I give to your previous post:

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: chr0naut

And you still haven't answered what the 'relative' values are relative to.

Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints

A relative value of 95% effective does translate into an increase of all cause mortality rate.

No, there is no direct mathematical or causal link between the two things. They are two different things.

The effectiveness value is a measure of how the vaccine is expected to perform in a preventative manner in an ideal situation and is a mathematical construct.

All cause mortality is the numbers of people who die from all sorts of identified causes (one of which is COVID-19).

You got this far in science, yet relative and absolute values is still a bit of a mud pit to play in?

I got quite far in science, and did quite well in the subject of relativistic physics. I am fairly sure I know what the term "relative" means.

LOL.

You, however, have still not yet even explained what the relative values are relative to. And additionally you have totally confused argument about relativism with a misinterpretation of all cause mortality.

To give you an idea about the effectiveness calculations there is this fairly good article from the New York Times, which includes some actual calculations with values from the Pfizer effectiveness study, which you can verify mathematically and from which you should be able to understand what is going on.

I have a short video which I believe illustrates well the regard which I give to your previous post:

You need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent 1 infection with the product from Pfizer. Almost zero effectiveness in preventing infection.

I didn't know you were a physicist too!

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: chr0naut

And you still haven't answered what the 'relative' values are relative to.

Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints

A relative value of 95% effective does translate into an increase of all cause mortality rate.

No, there is no direct mathematical or causal link between the two things. They are two different things.

The effectiveness value is a measure of how the vaccine is expected to perform in a preventative manner in an ideal situation and is a mathematical construct.

All cause mortality is the numbers of people who die from all sorts of identified causes (one of which is COVID-19).

You got this far in science, yet relative and absolute values is still a bit of a mud pit to play in?

I got quite far in science, and did quite well in the subject of relativistic physics. I am fairly sure I know what the term "relative" means.

LOL.

You, however, have still not yet even explained what the relative values are relative to. And additionally you have totally confused argument about relativism with a misinterpretation of all cause mortality.

To give you an idea about the effectiveness calculations there is this fairly good article from the New York Times, which includes some actual calculations with values from the Pfizer effectiveness study, which you can verify mathematically and from which you should be able to understand what is going on.

I have a short video which I believe illustrates well the regard which I give to your previous post:

You need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent 1 infection with the product from Pfizer. Almost zero effectiveness in preventing infection.

I didn't know you were a physicist too!

I tried to find out where you sourced those numbers, and it appears to be an online misinterpretation of this New England Journal of Medicine study.

In the study out of 21,720 who received the vaccine, only 8 became infected with COVID-19 and this was compared against 21,728 in the study who received a placebo, a group which had 162 cases of COVID-19 by the end of the study.

This means that 0.0368% were not protected by the vaccine, compared to 0.7456% who were not protected by the placebo (i.e: any resistance to the disease assumes either natural immunity, or quite different levels of exposure).

Notice that this is not a measurement of who were protected, but it is a measurement of those who were clearly not protected in either case.

In a comparison between the two percentages, there were 19.316 times more percentage points that were not protected by the placebo, as compared to the vaccine.

This website that purports to comment on the paper.

Not only does the website get its math fairly wrong (probably by successive rounding errors), it also speaks of a comparison between percentage values (comparing the relationship of one direct value to another would be a relative value) as if it were an absolute value. They subtracted one percentage value from the other and called that an "absolute value"!

Nowhere in the article do they ever seem to discuss that the values that they are using for their calculations are not the efficacy values in either situation, but are examples of where the vaccines or otherwise have failed to prevent disease.

Additionally, The article also ignores the conclusions that were in the paper, which concludes that the overall efficacy of the vaccine is 95% (with an error margin of plus or minus 3.85%), across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions.

When a website or commentator draws conclusions from a paper that are different than those expressed in the paper, you can be fairly sure that someone, either the paper's authors or the external commentators, are drastically wrong. In this case, the credibility of the paper far exceeds that of the commentators.

I am also not tenured, having left academia decades ago. So I have a background in university level astrophysics, but I am hardly that by occupation. I have other degrees and certificates too. Just means I misspent my youth prostrate to the higher mind. LOL. Lots of people do.

Sounds like she is too much of a risk. There are plenty of others in need for a transplant that don't have comorbidities, such as unneeded risk from viral exposure.

It is no different than someone lacking any other important vaccine.

FACT: The COVID-19 vaccine cannot make you sick with COVID-19. COVID-19 vaccines teach your immune system to recognize and fight the virus that causes COVID-19. Sometimes this process can cause symptoms, such as fever and chills. These symptoms are normal and are signs that the body is building protection against the virus that causes COVID-19.

^Always good to inject some fact into these conversations