O/T Covid Vaccine mRNA

[frogmiller]

I don't think there would be much point. I suspect that his mind is as closed as yours and that he has grown to like having a little band of followers hanging on to his every pronouncement.

Some lawyers are overrated. Trust me on this.

Wow!

You can’t resist denouncing a professional can you. He’s brave enough to point his finger and stand up for what he believes.

He has put himself up for election, so did I and I was elected but you never answered my question. Have you ever stood for election and if so were you trusted enough to be elected ?

If not tell me, were you the school head boy or a prefect?

[KerrAvon]

Wow!

You can’t resist denouncing a professional can you. He’s brave enough to point his finger and stand up for what he believes.

He has put himself up for election, so did I and I was elected but you never answered my question. Have you ever stood for election and if so were you trusted enough to be elected ?

If not tell me, were you the school head boy or a prefect?

Are we not allowed to ‘denounce’ professionals now? Take a look back at the stuff that you have posted about Anthony Fauci on this thread. What where you doing then (that’s a rhetorical question – I know that you were simply regurgitating bolox that you found on Twitter).


This is the judgement in the case that Kennedy’s website wittered on about:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us...116248612.html

I appreciate that you aren’t a lawyer (or at least, I don’t think you are), but see if you can find anything in it that supports the claim on Kennedy's site that the court found that the covid vaccines prevented transmission.

[frogmiller]

Are we not allowed to ‘denounce’ professionals now? Take a look back at the stuff that you have posted about Anthony Fauci on this thread. What where you doing then (that’s a rhetorical question – I know that you were simply regurgitating bolox that you found on Twitter).


This is the judgement in the case that Kennedy’s website wittered on about:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us...116248612.html

I appreciate that you aren’t a lawyer (or at least, I don’t think you are), but see if you can find anything in it that supports the claim on Kennedy's site that the court found that the covid vaccines prevented transmission.

You do it to win arguments! You denounce anyone that does not agree with your narritive.

It's the same with polititions throught the world. Denounce then follow the narritive!

I'm certainly not a lawyer!

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...768-4/fulltext

Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1
However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2
regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.2
, 3
The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others, resulting in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”.4
Yet, the demonstration of COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients,5
requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA. Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.2,3,5–7 A recent investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of an outbreak of COVID-19 in a prison in Texas showed the equal presence of infectious virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.6
Similarly, researchers in California observed no major differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx, even in those with proven asymptomatic infection.7
Thus, the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered, and that vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated populations.
I declare no competing interests.

[Eternal Optimist]

...https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...768-4/fulltext...

Tricky one here - he swears by The Lancet.

Unless it's Pfake news...

[KerrAvon]

Tricky one here - he swears by The Lancet.

Unless it's Pfake news...

Isn't a bit tricky for you? You have previously dismissed the Lancet because Vanguard holds shares in its publisher’s parent company or some such ridiculous reason. Are you suddenly a fan when you discover that they have said something that you want to believe?

Did you take a look at the judgement in the LA case. Doesn’t it bother you that the write up on RFK’s website (he’s a lawyer don’t you know!) bears only a passing resemblance to the reality of the situation?

[Eternal Optimist]

Isn't a bit tricky for you? You have previously dismissed the Lancet because Vanguard holds shares in its publisher’s parent company or some such ridiculous reason. Are you suddenly a fan when you discover that they have said something that you want to believe?...

As I said, tricky one here. Do you believe this particular article?

...Doesn’t it bother you that the write up on RFK’s website (he’s a lawyer don’t you know!) bears only a passing resemblance to the reality of the situation?

If you think your opinion outweighs that of RFK Jr., that's your problem.

[KerrAvon]

As I said, tricky one here. Do you believe this particular article?

I believe in its existence - I've read it.

The study looks like a serious piece of work that has been published in a respected journal. It’s findings, however, are something of an outlier in that multiple studies have made contrary findings. Whether that represents quirks in the methodology used, I wouldn’t like to say without digging into it in a manner that would take far longer than I am willing or able to spare.

https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8112/3/10/103

This is a meta study from 2023, which drew on 31 studies, which means that it is based on a large sample size and multiple methods, which is likely to enhance its reliability. It is also more recent than the Lancet study, which means that it was written when the dynamics of the SARS-COV-2 virus would be better understood. For that reason I prefer its findings, the key ones of which are described in the abstract in this way:

From PubMed and Embase, 31 studies were included describing the impact of original wild-type COVID-19 vaccines on disease transmission or viral load. Overall, study results showed the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 transmission (range 16–95%), regardless of vaccine type or number of doses. The effect was apparent, but less pronounced against omicron (range 24–95% for pre-omicron variants versus 16–31% for omicron). Results from viral load studies were supportive, showing SARS-CoV-2 infections in vaccinated individuals had higher Ct values, suggesting lower viral load, compared to infections among the unvaccinated. Based on these findings, well-timed vaccination programs may help reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission—even in the omicron era. Whether better-matched vaccines can improve effectiveness against transmission in the omicron era needs further study.

If you think your opinion outweighs that of RFK Jr., that's your problem.

And you think that because he’s a lawyer or because he says things that you want to believe?

You have avoided answering my question – Doesn’t it bother you that the write up on RFK’s website (he’s a lawyer don’t you know!) bears only a passing resemblance to the reality of the situation?

I have put up a link to the judgement in the LA case – the actual words of the judges – why do you think that RFK’s website misrepresents those words?

[Eternal Optimist]

...You have previously dismissed the Lancet because Vanguard holds shares in its publisher’s parent company or some such ridiculous reason...

It's Blackrock - the people who are gleefully supplying weapons to anyone with the money to pay.

Supporting businesses that profit from death and destruction is definitely NOT what I do. The fact that you're happy to ignore these vile actions speaks volumes about the depth of your compassion.

[KerrAvon]

It's Blackrock - the people who are gleefully supplying weapons to anyone with the money to pay.

Supporting businesses that profit from death and destruction is definitely NOT what I do. The fact that you're happy to ignore these vile actions speaks volumes about the depth of your compassion.

You seem to have gone off at a bit of a tangent there.

BlackRock is a wealth management company. They invest money on behalf of investors. I have no doubt that they invest in companies involved in the arms trade, but so do a host of other companies involved in investment such as insurers and pension providers.

I assume that they’re singled out for the opprobrium of conspiracy theorist's because they are so big?

[KerrAvon]

You do it to win arguments! You denounce anyone that does not agree with your narritive.

It's the same with polititions throught the world. Denounce then follow the narritive!

I'm certainly not a lawyer!

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...768-4/fulltext

Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1
However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2
regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.2
, 3
The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others, resulting in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”.4
Yet, the demonstration of COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients,5
requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA. Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.2,3,5–7 A recent investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of an outbreak of COVID-19 in a prison in Texas showed the equal presence of infectious virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.6
Similarly, researchers in California observed no major differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx, even in those with proven asymptomatic infection.7
Thus, the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered, and that vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated populations.
I declare no competing interests.

If I disagree with a view expressed by someone or consider them to be unreliable for another reason, I will say so if I’m engaged in a discussion. Isn't that part of the point of a message board? If you wish to interpret that as me seeking to win an argument, so be it. Isn't that what you are doing with your endless Twitter links?

The pandemic and the use of the covid vaccines was unprecedented for obvious reasons and the science scrabbled to keep up. It is inevitable that there would be differing views as that science developed. In a quick search, I’ve turned up:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10073587/

While we observed VOC-specific immune-escape, especially by Omicron, and waning over time since immunization, vaccination remained associated with a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2-transmission.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-02138-x

Analyzing SARS-CoV-2 surveillance data from December 2021 to May 2022 across 35 California state prisons with a predominately male population, we estimate that unvaccinated Omicron cases had a 36% (95% confidence interval (CI): 31–42%) risk of transmitting infection to close contacts, as compared to a 28% (25–31%) risk among vaccinated cases.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8451182/

We provide empirical evidence suggesting that vaccination may reduce transmission by showing that vaccination of health care workers is associated with a decrease in documented cases of Covid-19 among members of their households.