I’ve had the AZ vaxx number one, and due for the second in four week’s time. I don’t buy a lot of the anti-vaxx stuff that is on the net. The proponents all seem to have other barrows to push – Malone being one of them, who feels he has been poorly recognised for some quite simple earlier work he did which required much development by a range of others and who, after not completing his PhD, had an unimpressive set of pharma jobs that went nowhere. He is notably bitter and twisted over this and seems to want to discredit the vaxx, although sometimes more than others, depending on to whom he is speaking.

Data just out from Israel and some US tracking studies of 3000-4000 people look at declining immunity over time with the vaxxes, and this is the main story, not any impued ADE put into it the reportage by misinterpeting anti-vaxxers writing their own drama-queen headlines. Of course susceptibility to Delta will be present in those who have a lower immunity from a vaxx given a year ago, especially as the immunity produced by the vaxx is not as specific to Delta variant as it is to Alpha variant. Just what epidemiological studies is Malone drawing on for his conclusions? Nothing much, I suspect. Another panic merchant. So many of them twist the data to suit their own ends, producing a lot of misinterpretation of it. Best to look at the original studies.

A high level of numeracy and basic statistics, logic and science training goes so far.
But at some point, assessing the truth of claims about the minute interactions of the immune system during a pandemic? It isn’t even one discipline. It’s multiple disciplines each requiring years of study under the tutelage of a small handful of experts.
With this thing, it’s likely that many of the decisions being made would, in normal times be highly contentious.
These are not normal times.

Well outlined, Arky. I’m with Mater (and I think Rosie is too) in wanting to hear all sides of any debate, but I’m with my own understandings when I look at the materials put up to support each side, i.e. the actual data and then the studies (good or bad) that emerge from the data. I am extremely suspicious of too much ‘modelling’ due to poor input data and flawed assumptions, in all fields of endeavour, epidemiology, economics or matters climatic. Thus I apply the same strictures to Covid as I do with climate change. With that I find that the hypothesis, the input data and the results do not test well against empirical reality.

The empirical reality of the millions of doses of vaxx show relatively few instances of problems given the huge numbers of what epidemiologists call the ‘exposed’ in any examination of the vaxxes – now, pace, I know that some people die and some deleterious reactions occur to the various vaxxes, and in times that are not those which Arky suggests today we may have more reason to pause and take stock. I hope to see some better and improved vaxxes down the line, as well as treatments. But so far, the good of the vaxxes seems to outweigh the bad, by a very large margin. And that’s my margin call.

for clarity …’with climate change, I apply the same strictures etc…. ‘ For Covid I have a similar critique of some of the modelling construction and its usage of data. But the empirical data regarding the utility and general safety of the Covid Vaxx stacks up, whereas with ‘climate change’ the empirical data does not support the modelling, unless it is politically contaminated (Met Office, J-curve anyone?), often quite deliberately, nor does empirical evidence (sunspots for instance, Pacific Oscillation etc, stratosphere indicator) seem to support the CO2 hypothesis.

Anyone with a critical intelligence who wants to throw their hat in the ring is, as Arky suggests, pretty much on the same ground as most others. We all form our own opinions. Way to go, imho.

https://rumble.com/vfhysl-covid-19-mrna-bioweapon-ivermectin-and-the-importance-of-vitamin-d-dr.-ryan.html

Arky, I agree with you. One thing I’d add is that most people really don’t realise just how much science has changed since big funding by governments and interest groups have entered the equation. Nor do they seem to realise that scientists are just as likely to see what they want to see as everyone else. Whether that’s because of their own political leanings, beliefs, ego or funding sources, the more public and political the particular area, the more likely these things play into it. There is no neutral ground. We’ve tried to turn ‘the science’ into a god and he has wobbly legs.

Everyone cherry-picks. Some here are quick to jump on anything from Children’s Health Defense or The Highwire because they are anti-vax groups. But most of their stuff is backed by legit scientific research. They cherry-pick the stuff that supports their theories. So does the ABC, BBC and any other group you care to name. You can’t rubbish their findings and then hug the BBC-reported stuff as if one is ‘better’, more ‘scientific’ or less cherry-picked. (eg. BBC Health Department is funded by Gates.)

Science is about data and story. We don’t argue about the data, we just argue about the story.

What we know about infection, transmission, viruses, retroviruses, vaccines, immune systems – is actually not much. We speculate and build a narrative around what we see, but we don’t know a lot. Over time, God willing, we learn.

From Adam’s Cat. Definitely a worthwhile video…

Also Rosie, you see what HD has done here? Thoughtful insight to give a clue as the content/context. No doubt some of your links are worthwhile but a wall of them with little preamble is very scrollable.

HD says:
August 19, 2021 at 8:34 pm
I thought this was interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0nAqgQafhQ

This fellow alleges Israel is three months ahead of everywhere else in terms of vaccination. Currently 65% of the population double vaccinated for a period of greater than three months. Surprisingly this sub-population makes up %65 of the hospital patients currently hospitalised with corona.

Whereas the recovered sub-population is roughly 9.5% of the population, however at present only make up 2% of those currently hospitalised. There’s another 1% recovered, vaccinated and hospitalised, however the sequence of events for this population is not clear.

Essentially natural immunity appears ( recovered people now ill again) appears to be far superior protection versus vaccinated persons, three months later. Hence, in reference to my post earlier today, being previously infected by Alpha strain results in antibodies that are perhaps four fold or more as protective as the $2 jobs conferred by vaccines when it comes to Delta.

Three months post vaccine, just as likely to get sick and hospitalised with Delta as an unvaccinated person. What is being put spruiked by the media about vaccinated means less chance of death and lesser severity of infection- well apparently conditionally for three months. Thereafter just as likely to be sic enough to be hospitalised. As pointed out in the video, do people really want a lifetime of regular medical interventions with booster shots?

Factoring in the 30% of people that can respond effectively to Corona with pre-existing antibodies to a formerly encountered corona relative, the whatever percent that are “molecularly inaccessible” to the virus due to genetic diversity and the fact that for most persons the illness is rather mild, seems to me corona was never and will never be the monster people have been led to believe it is.

Going off these Israeli numbers, if you do get sick a second time and end up in hospital, having been never vaccinated in the first place when infected- you are seriously unlucky.

Pharmaceutical companies have powerful well versed strategies for dealing with people who critisise their products.

E.g:

Merck made a “hit list” of doctors who criticized Vioxx, according to testimony in a Vioxx class action case in Australia. The list, emailed between Merck employees, contained doctors’ names with the labels “neutralise,” “neutralised” or “discredit” next to them.

The allegations come on the heels of revelations that Merck created a fake medical journal — the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine — in which to publish studies about Vioxx; and paid ghostwriters to draft articles about the drug.

The court was told that James Fries, professor of medicine at Stanford University, wrote to the then Merck head Ray Gilmartin in October 2000 to complain about the treatment of some of his researchers who had criticised the drug.

“Even worse were allegations of Merck damage control by intimidation,” he wrote, … “This has happened to at least eight (clinical) investigators

The likes of notafan, and lizzie at this point know this is exactly how this industry rolls – one giant corrupt smearing, discrediting, face smashing mega-revenue generating apparatus. So engaging in the exact same strategic behaviour against this Malone fellow in the sudden campaign to discredit him, as always happens in this industry when people come out against billion dollar new revenue streams is pretty seedy.

Pharma companies own many editors and admin staff in the biggest journals, they control much of who does and doesn’t get published.

If they can’t buy them, they simply do things like pay the biggest scientific journal publisher in the world, to create fake journals for them.

Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of [Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.[

Some known fake ‘journals’ willfully published by Elsevier for pharma companies:

Australasian Journal of General Practice
Australasian Journal of Neurology
Australasian Journal of Cardiology
Australasian Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
Australasian Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine
Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine

These companies and their ‘marketing’ departments, have infinite money and do whatever is necessary to influence the world to accept their hundred million dollar product streams. From standard corruption of everyone remotely involved in medicine and public health, to creating vast fake realities with ‘marketing’ campaigns that are outright fraud, to lying and hiding the data they have about their products from regulatory bodies (which ironically are riddled with their guys), to campaigns to destroy and discredit anybody who published negative results about their products, to amazing schemes such as buying entire health practices simply to gain access to one single highly regarded GP who is employed by that practice.

There is absolutely a culture of mafia-like corruption in pharmaceuticals, the smaller and more naive the country the less capable it is of fending off the corruption when a Pfizer or Merck determine they want a product to enter that market. The caricature of the Gordon Gecko style money-at-all-costs culture in trading is real in this industry and far, far worse.

Here’s a review article looking at the possible adverse effects of the mRNA vaccines

https://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dpbhnvgov/content/Boards/BOH/Meetings/2021/SENEFF~1.PDF

It’s the most comprehensive one I’ve found. I can’t say how credible the authors or the journal are, but there are 10 pages of references to other papers, and so quite checkable for someone with access and the necessary knowledge.

I’m about a third through it and struggling a bit, although I can understand the general meaning.

But the intro is simple enough to understand, and horrifying enough to wonder what has possessed our politicians.

Development of mRNA vaccines against infectious disease is unprecedented in many ways. In a 2018 publication sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, vaccines were divided into three categories: Simple, Complex, and Unprecedented (Young et al., 2018). Simple and Complex vaccines represented standard and modified applications of existing vaccine technologies. Unprecedented represents a category of vaccine against a disease for which there has never before been a suitable vaccine. Vaccines against HIV and malaria are examples. As their analysis indicates, depicted in Figure 1, unprecedented vaccines are expected to take 12.5 years to develop. Even more ominously, they have a 5% estimated chance of making it through Phase II trials (assessing efficacy) and, of that 5%, a 40% chance of making it through Phase III trials (assessing population benefit). In other words, an unprecedented vaccine was predicted to have a 2% probability of success at the stage of a Phase III clinical trial. As the authors bluntly put it, there is a “low probability of success, especially for unprecedented vaccines.” (Young et al., 2018)

And this is the reference so you can check.

Young, R., Bekele, T., Gunn, A., Chapman, N., Chowdhary, V., Corrigan, K., … Yamey, G. (2018). Developing New Health Technologies for Neglected Diseases: A Pipeline Portfolio Review and Cost Model. Gates Open Res 2:23. https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.12817.2.

Here’s a quote from Young et al.

Unprecedented vaccines. In addition to sub-classifying vaccine candidates into “simple” and “complex,” we added “unprecedented vaccines” as a third vaccine candidate category. We assigned candidate vaccines for HIV, TB, and malaria to this third sub-category, which we considered as unprecedented as current platforms have not led to suitable vaccines. We assumed that vaccines targeting each of these diseases would require the development of innovative platforms and a better understanding of the basic biology and of immune protection. The assumptions for unprecedented vaccines were provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which used the P2I v.1 assumptions for complex vaccines as a starting point. As shown in Table 2, the assumptions for unprecedented vaccines are the same as for complex vaccines, with two exceptions. In the P2I v.2 model, unprecedented vaccines have a lower probability of success in phases II and III than complex vaccines (in phase II, 5% for unprecedented vaccines versus 22% for complex vaccines; in phase III, 40% probability of success for unprecedented vaccines versus 64% for complex vaccines). These probability rates for unprecedented vaccines (5% in phase II, 40% in phase III), provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, were based on around 10–25 data points per estimated value (these data were from both the Foundation portfolio and publicly available sources). These lower probabilities of success compared with complex vaccines reflect the Foundation’s real world experience of trying to develop highly effective vaccines against HIV, TB, and malaria.

The discussion on ADE, adjuvants and autoimmunity is making my hair curl.

Anyone forcing these vaccines onto people without having a solid refutation of the questions raised in this article are acting with criminal disregard, if not actually committing crimes against humanity.