What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? (1 Viewer)

Max Power

Footballguy
They'll have to get a little lucky with the current Omicron variants and hope that one remains dominant for more than a month or two. Maybe also learn enough to determine what near-future mutations will look like, as is done with flu vaccines (with maybe ~50% hit rate). I still think that building a new vaccine on the Omicron "skeleton" will yield a more effective vaccine than always trying to catch the sharp details of the right-now variant. Research is ongoing.
If we already know BA5 is going to be the dominate strain by winter, we should be trying to get ahead of that one.  There are already articles that protection from original omicron isn't effective against BA.5, I struggle to see why we're trying to build out the original omicron variant vaccine still.  

 

Doug B

Footballguy
Yeah, but this is what people are annoyed about. The whole idea of the mandate was that the vaccine limited the spread.  Now that's out the window, but some places still have mandates in effect and even want people to get boosted even though there is no evidence boosting does anything in the 18-64 year group. 

It was only 8 months ago people supported removing the unvaccinated from the workplace in order to make everyone safer.  That genie doesn't go back in the bottle.  Especially when there was data that proved the theory invalid at the time, but was ignored because it wasn't mainstream. 
We can't expect society-level changes to stop and go on the dime. And at this point, whatever mandates remain have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Private mandate at a mom-&-pop shop? Can't do much about that. Mandate at a 200-person white-collar employer? Maybe could fight that ... is it worth it to the holdouts? Mandate at Boeing or Exxon or GM? Probably dropped like a hot potato by now.

 

Doug B

Footballguy
If we already know BA5 is going to be the dominate strain by winter, we should be trying to get ahead of that one. 
We don't know this. It's going to dominant, but when and for how long aren't known precisely.

There are already articles that protection from original omicron isn't effective against BA.5, I struggle to see why we're trying to build out the original omicron variant vaccine still. 
BA.5 can surely transmit at some level through people with natural immunity to BA.1 and BA.2. IMHO, that's not particularly problematic so long as the general infirmity rates don't spike. I think a lot of recent popular media articles about BA.5 are puffing it up to make it look like the next big society-affecting spike. I doubt that personally.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Max Power

Footballguy
We can't expect society-level changes to stop and go on the dime. And at this point, whatever mandates remain have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Private mandate at a mom-&-pop shop? Can't do much about that. Mandate at a 200-person white-collar employer? Maybe could fight that ... is it worth it to the holdouts? Mandate at Boeing or Exxon or GM? Probably dropped like a hot potato by now.
The federal government still has a paused mandate.  The DOD still has a mandate for all new recruits and is actively out processing active duty.  Some colleges still have mandates and even requiring boosters.  

These are the things that make people think covid is being manipulated. What science is a college following making teenagers get boosted?  Its political at that point.  

 

Max Power

Footballguy
We don't know this. It's going to dominant, but when and for how long aren't known precisely.

BA.5 can surely transmit at some level through people with natural immunity to BA.1 and BA.2. IMHO, that's not particularly problematic so long as the general infirmity rates don't spike. I think a lot of recent popular media articles about BA.5 are puffing it up to make it look like the next big society-affecting spike. I doubt that personally.
You're right, I'll say BA5 is currently the odds on favorite to be the dominate strain in fall/winter.  

Just yesterday the FDA told vaccine manufacturers to redesign their booster vaccines to target BA 4 and 5.  Its concerning to read that the FDA will also approve these new BA4/5 boosters against BA1 trial data which is essentially a different version of the vaccine.  

 

Doug B

Footballguy
Just yesterday the FDA told vaccine manufacturers to redesign their booster vaccines to target BA 4 and 5.  Its concerning to read that the FDA will also approve these new BA4/5 boosters against BA1 trial data which is essentially a different version of the vaccine.  
I think this is fine -- it's exactly the annual flu vaccine model. My baseline is that the mRNA vaccines are essentially harmless (Blood clots!, I know, I know. Seen the data and remain unmoved).

 

Max Power

Footballguy
I think this is fine -- it's exactly the annual flu vaccine model. My baseline is that the mRNA vaccines are essentially harmless (Blood clots!, I know, I know. Seen the data and remain unmoved).
And we're still giving out vaccines under an emergency use that in our population's eyes are basically yearly flu shots.  Might be time to reevaluate how we're using EUA.  This is part of what the article is touching on.  A year or two ago, comparing covid to the flu was faux pas. 

 

Doug B

Footballguy
And we're still giving out vaccines under an emergency use that in our population's eyes are basically yearly flu shots. 
Not a problem whatsoever IMHO.
 

Might be time to reevaluate how we're using EUA.  This is part of what the article is touching on. 
Agree -- but I think the current batch of vaccines should get summary full approval. IMHO, they're beyond proven at bare minimum for safety (don't care that they don't stop Omicron transmission cold).

 

A year or two ago, comparing COVID to the flu was faux pas. 
Things change ... and they SHOULD change. Expected to change. The ethic and suggestions of 2020 weren't expected to hold for all time. Unsure why this is pointed out as a problem.

Also, it's a little more nuanced than that. From a top-of-the-mountain population-wide view, there were times and circumstances where it was helpful and right to compare (not to say equate) COVID to the flu -- especially for transmission modeling, vaccine logistics, etc.

What was then -- and to an extent, still is -- offensive is to minimize someone's legitimate individual concerns about COVID by telling them "It's just the flu!" For someone you really know well who you can totally expect to skate through COVID ... sure, give 'em a little guff if they're being more careful than you think is reasonable ("Dude ... you can take the mask off to pump gas!"). But for strangers or for people that you don't know background about (e.g. the uber-careful double-masking coworker caring for a bed-ridden 90-year-old at home), lay off the flu comparisons.

 

CletiusMaximus

Footballguy
Sad how many people won't read for themselves and will instead buy into posts like this to make themselves feel assured.

Good luck, fellas. Sincerely. I can assure you, I am not your enemy, but your friend - even if I am guilty of not always being a good one. 

RIP Jaylon Ferg. And Demaryius. And MBIII. And Tony Goose. And Shane Olivea. 😕🙏


What's the point of using these names in your post?  You claim to be seeking the truth and pretend you're taking the high road here, then make an appeal using these tragedies to support this unsubstantiated conspiracy BS? Meanwhile you leave the lie in your OP that this bat#### lunacy was "published" by the NIH.  Low-rent my friend.

fwiw - We now know that Jaylon Ferguson died of a fentanyl and cocaine overdose. RIP indeed

 

CletiusMaximus

Footballguy
you lost me in the first paragraph:

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies.
That tells me this is an opinion piece, not a clinical paper.  And, no offense to @LawFitz, I'm not really interested in reading more opinion pieces.

If you want to post something with emperical evidence about effectiveness of masks or shutdowns, free from partisan hackery and slanted language, I'm in...but the opening paragraph tells me this ain't it.


Perhaps you failed to notice that this opening sentence is supported by three (!) footnoted citations, as is common in a scientific study of this nature.  Please ignore that the references are to the authors own opinion pieces.

 

LawFitz

Footballguy
What's the point of using these names in your post?  You claim to be seeking the truth and pretend you're taking the high road here, then make an appeal using these tragedies to support this unsubstantiated conspiracy BS? Meanwhile you leave the lie in your OP that this bat#### lunacy was "published" by the NIH.  Low-rent my friend.

fwiw - We now know that Jaylon Ferguson died of a fentanyl and cocaine overdose. RIP indeed


Jaylon Ferguson info came out an hour ago. Until that point, it appeared to be yet another in a seemingly daily lengthening list of SADS cases.

My OP states:

"NIH website quietly published an article this past April that is a must read..."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/

publish

 verb

pub·lish | \ ˈpə-blish  \

published; publishing; publishes

Definition of publish

transitive verb

1a: to make generally known

b: to make public announcement of

2a: to disseminate to the public

b: to produce or release for distribution specifically : PRINT sense 2c

c: to issue the work of (an author)

intransitive verb

1: to put out an edition

2: to have one's work accepted for publication

 

Max Power

Footballguy
Agree -- but I think the current batch of vaccines should get summary full approval. IMHO, they're beyond proven at bare minimum for safety (don't care that they don't stop Omicron transmission cold).

 

Things change ... and they SHOULD change. Expected to change. The ethic and suggestions of 2020 weren't expected to hold for all time. Unsure why this is pointed out as a problem.

Also, it's a little more nuanced than that. From a top-of-the-mountain population-wide view, there were times and circumstances where it was helpful and right to compare (not to say equate) COVID to the flu -- especially for transmission modeling, vaccine logistics, etc.

What was then -- and to an extent, still is -- offensive is to minimize someone's legitimate individual concerns about COVID by telling them "It's just the flu!" For someone you really know well who you can totally expect to skate through COVID ... sure, give 'em a little guff if they're being more careful than you think is reasonable ("Dude ... you can take the mask off to pump gas!"). But for strangers or for people that you don't know background about (e.g. the uber-careful double-masking coworker caring for a bed-ridden 90-year-old at home), lay off the flu comparisons.
We don't know what the new boosters do and the FDA has basically given them a green light without trials.  You can just put me in the camp that doesn't like how that is going to be rolled out.  "We'll let you know how the trial data goes after you take the product." 

Part of the issue with covid/flu debate is the data collection and methods used during covid were flawed.  (again part of the concerns in the article)  We still don't have a good understanding of death from covid vs with covid.  Comparable numbers aren't there for the flu.  

I understand the being sensitive to others concerns part, so I agree you in that aspect.  

 

dkp993

Footballguy
Jaylon Ferguson info came out an hour ago. Until that point, it appeared to be yet another in a seemingly daily lengthening list of SADS cases.

My OP states:

"NIH website quietly published an article this past April that is a must read..."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/

publish

 verb

pub·lish | \ ˈpə-blish  \

published; publishing; publishes

Definition of publish

transitive verb

1a: to make generally known

b: to make public announcement of

2a: to disseminate to the public

b: to produce or release for distribution specifically : PRINT sense 2c

c: to issue the work of (an author)

intransitive verb

1: to put out an edition

2: to have one's work accepted for publication
Even if it has been SADS why are you applying that to this topic? For someone questioning (railing against) inaccurate medical information it’s pretty hypocritical to do the exact same thing in the same post.  

 

Herb

Footballguy
Sometimes it's tough to figure out who the "experts" are and know their motivations.  Some of the "experts" had people disinfecting their groceries and afraid to take packages into their house.  Faucci was suggesting people should wear goggles at one point.
These things were suggested early on, when no one was quite sure what we were dealing with. As more research was conducted,  these recommendations went away. This is what bothers me so much about these arguments. It's like you're supposed to stake out a position and defend it at all costs, completely oblivious to new information. 

As for identifying experts, find a trusted medical institution like the Mayo clinic, visit their website and find out what they recommend. Or ask your own primary care doctor. 

 

LawFitz

Footballguy
Even if it has been SADS why are you applying that to this topic? For someone questioning (railing against) inaccurate medical information it’s pretty hypocritical to do the exact same thing in the same post.  


There is quite a bit of speculation about a causal connection with increasing incidents of SADS, micro-clotting and the vaccine rollout. Time will tell if there's validity to that speculation.

 

CletiusMaximus

Footballguy
Jaylon Ferguson info came out an hour ago. Until that point, it appeared to be yet another in a seemingly daily lengthening list of SADS cases.


I asked for the reason you're appealing to these tragic deaths in the context of this post, even though we all know the reason. If you claim these deaths are caused by the vaccine, at least have the courage to own that offensive opinion.  If you don't have the decency to own it, I'd suggest you keep their names out of your posts.  

 

jm192

Footballguy
Sad how many people won't read for themselves and will instead buy into posts like this to make themselves feel assured.

Good luck, fellas. Sincerely. I can assure you, I am not your enemy, but your friend - even if I am guilty of not always being a good one. 

RIP Jaylon Ferg. And Demaryius. And MBIII. And Tony Goose. And Shane Olivea. 😕🙏
Read it.  It's a bunch of malarkey.  

I think it's sad how--when someone doesn't buy into and believe what you believe--you assume it's because they aren't capable of original thought.  The fact that I refuse to accept what you tell me to believe suggest I am capable of it.  

 

dkp993

Footballguy
There is quite a bit of speculation about a causal connection with increasing incidents of SADS, micro-clotting and the vaccine rollout. Time will tell if there's validity to that speculation.
EXACTLY. Speculation. Yet you casually implied something while railing against what you think is inaccurate or speculative science.  Can you see how you did exactly what you’re angry about?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Doug B

Footballguy
We don't know what the new boosters do and the FDA has basically given them a green light without trials.
We don't? How do you mean? I feel like I know -- they elicit an immune response to an early-variant COVID spike protein.

 

Dickies

Footballguy
This was dramatically demonstrated with the previously mentioned phony studies designed to indicate that hydroxy Chloroquine and Ivermectin were ineffective and too dangerous to use.[34,36,37] These fake studies resulted in millions of deaths and severe health disasters worldwide
The whole article is poorly-written nonsense that uses charged language that you would never find in a serious scientific paper.

 

jm192

Footballguy
I'd like to get to a point where you guys feel that we're listening to what you say and deciding it's wrong--rather than thinking I just refuse to even read it.  

Here's what I need from you.  Stop giving me posts from some random individual neurosurgeon, infectious disease doctor, endocrinologist, etc.  Show me consensus.  Find a statement from a group of (legitimate) medical professionals that says they as a whole believe what you  believe.  I'm talking IDSA, SCCM, AAFP, AAP, ACP, SHM, etc.  Spare the Front line critical care alliance or whatever.  

Why is it that by and large, doctors believe Covid is bad?  Why is that they believe vaccines are good?  And why is it that you believe you know better than they do?  What is their motivation to lie to you?  Do you think Pfizer is paying every physician in America? I'm here to tell you, I haven't seen a dime.  Want access to my bank statements?   Never mind, you're obviously smart enough to know I put my bribe money in the secret off-shore Swiss bank account.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dr_Zaius

Footballguy
We can't expect society-level changes to stop and go on the dime. And at this point, whatever mandates remain have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Private mandate at a mom-&-pop shop? Can't do much about that. Mandate at a 200-person white-collar employer? Maybe could fight that ... is it worth it to the holdouts? Mandate at Boeing or Exxon or GM? Probably dropped like a hot potato by now.
That's fair, but on the other end, there were many months during 2021 where things like >80% effectiveness against transmission was touted as well as vaccination as the end of the pandemic.  As that effectiveness number has dropped, the data have become more and more hard to come by.  UK NHS famously stopped publishing their weekly breakdown by vaccination status as omicron took over and the data started looking less good for vaccines.  Obviously the conspiracy folks had a field day with that, which is regrettable, but somewhat understandable.  What is the current effectiveness of the vaccine vs. transmission of BA.5.  50%, 20%?  Where do I find the data?  I think a lot of people in their mind are still thinking of the vaccine as 80%+ effective, and it's probably directly tied to messaging that has really not been updated at all in communication with the general public post-Delta.  I attended a concert with a vaccine mandate last month, and it just seemed like a pointless hassle to make people show their cards when they could be infectious anyway.

BA.5 can surely transmit at some level through people with natural immunity to BA.1 and BA.2. IMHO, that's not particularly problematic so long as the general infirmity rates don't spike. I think a lot of recent popular media articles about BA.5 are puffing it up to make it look like the next big society-affecting spike. I doubt that personally.
I agree with this and hope you are right.  I was glad to see that the fall booster will be based on the more recent strains.  The one thing that does kind of bother me is that other than ease, why are they going to base effectiveness on antibody titers?  Wouldn't a RCT with symptomatic, confirmed PCR infection as the metric be a better way to assess real world effectiveness?

The federal government still has a paused mandate.  The DOD still has a mandate for all new recruits and is actively out processing active duty.  Some colleges still have mandates and even requiring boosters.  

These are the things that make people think covid is being manipulated. What science is a college following making teenagers get boosted?  Its political at that point.  
As you've pointed out, mandatory boosters for low-risk people attending college, and vaccines for toddlers based on extremely limited effectiveness per the trial data seem pretty hard to square with solid science.

At a higher level view, I just went on the CDC website.  Obviously these are affected by testing levels, but according to the CDC, there were 32.2M cases in 2020, 34.5M cases in 2021, and 20.0M cases through 6/29/21.  So, we are on pace to have more cases in 2022 than in 2021.  This is with 89.6% of the 18+ population having at least 1 dose of a vaccine.  91.5% of the over 65 crowd are fully vaccinated, 70.2% having received at least one booster.  And yet, covid cases are 7X higher (~100,000 vs. ~13,000) going into July 4th than they were last year.  Thankfully, the vast majority of cases are less severe.  But still, don't we at some level have to ask ourselves more seriously what is going on?  Would anybody have predicted based on the data from the initial vaccine trials that almost two years after the rollout we'd have roughly 1% of the population getting covid each month?

 

Max Power

Footballguy
We don't? How do you mean? I feel like I know -- they elicit an immune response to an early-variant COVID spike protein.
Just because a booster elicits an immune response that isn't data for efficacy. How well will they work against BA5? We dont know, the trials they are going to look at are for BA1. Pretty crazy the FDA is saying that outloud.

We wont even know the trial data when they start passing out BA5 boosters. It could work for a week, 6weeks, 6 months, not at all. We dont know. We also cant assume its 100% safe either.

The initial vaccine protects against severe illness and death. The boosters aren't stopping people from getting covid, so maybe I just struggle to see what we're boosting. If anything it delay a person catching it for a couple months.

Unless were going down a rabbit hole of boosters every 8 weeks, but that's a train I'm staying far away from.

 

ICON211

Footballguy
These things were suggested early on, when no one was quite sure what we were dealing with. As more research was conducted,  these recommendations went away. This is what bothers me so much about these arguments. It's like you're supposed to stake out a position and defend it at all costs, completely oblivious to new information. 

As for identifying experts, find a trusted medical institution like the Mayo clinic, visit their website and find out what they recommend. Or ask your own primary care doctor. 
Yes, the things I mentioned were early, but any "expert" in viruses should have known (and probably did know) that COVID was not even remotely likely to spread in such ways.  Some of the same "experts" were talking about death rates in excess of 20% and even after it was known that was not even close to accurate the fear mongering was still used to justify widespread shut downs and school closures.  This fear mongering from the media and their experts is how you get a poll where over 30% of the people questioned thought that 50% of COVID infections result in hospitalization.

I do not deny that COVID exists and is dangerous to some people, but the info that has been presented to the public by the media, "experts", and the CDC has been largely inaccurate and sometimes intentionally distorted from the beginning and still continues.

 

Doug B

Footballguy
This was dramatically demonstrated with the previously mentioned phony studies designed to indicate that hydroxy Chloroquine and Ivermectin were ineffective and too dangerous to use.[34,36,37] These fake studies resulted in millions of deaths and severe health disasters worldwide
The whole article is poorly-written nonsense that uses charged language that you would never find in a serious scientific paper.
... but the inline citations are on point  :chefskiss: 

 

LawFitz

Footballguy
I'd like to get to a point where you guys feel that we're listening to what you say and deciding it's wrong--rather than thinking I just refuse to even read it.  

Here's what I need from you.  Stop giving me posts from some random individual neurosurgeon, infectious disease doctor, endocrinologist, etc.  Show me consensus.  Find a statement from a group of (legitimate) medical professionals that says they as a whole believe what you  believe.  I'm talking IDSA, SCCM, AAFP, AAP, ACP, SHM, etc.  Spare the Front line critical care alliance or whatever.  

Why is it that by and large, doctors believe Covid is bad?  Why is that they believe vaccines are good?  And why is it that you believe you know better than they do?  What is their motivation to lie to you?  Do you think Pfizer is paying every physician in America? I'm here to tell you, I haven't seen a dime.  Want access to my bank statements?   Never mind, you're obviously smart enough to know I put my bribe money in the secret off-shore Swiss bank account.


Why are there so many doctors around the world who have not just risked, but knowingly derailed (hopefully temporarily) their careers in order to blow whistles? 

E.g. This guy points out how problematic the vaccine data was that supported vaccine mandates. I suspect he's been turned into a pariah for doing so. Any and all voices countering the Pharma-Industrial narrative are being severely punished. That is disturbing. And un-American.

https://rumble.com/v1aoeoo-must-see-dr-paul-alexander-informing-about-the-lies-about-covid-and-vaccine.html

 

LawFitz

Footballguy
... but the inline citations are on point  :chefskiss: 


https://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=13919

Book Review: The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health

By THOMAS J. DILORENZO

In his must-read new book, The Real Anthony Fauci, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. describes how journalist Liam Scheff chronicled Fauci’s “secretive experiments on hundreds of HIV-positive foster children at Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC) in New York City and numerous sister facilities in New York and six other states between 1988 and 2002” (p. 245). He describes in detail how “Fauci’s NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) and his Big Pharma partners turned Black and Hispanic foster kids into lab rats, subjecting them to torture and abuse in a grim parade of unsupervised drug and vaccine studies” (p. 246).

The real Anthony Fauci was a greedy egomaniac hell bent on creating an image of himself as the savior of the world during the AIDS crisis while generating billions in profits for his pharmaceutical industry “partners.” The “partners” would then share some of the loot with Fauci and others in various ways, including sharing in patent rights, the “revolving door” of very highly paid jobs for former government bureaucrats, paying multimillion dollar “user fees” to the NIAID, distributing shares of stock, etc.

The pharmaceutical industry “remunerated Incarnation Children’s Center ... for supplying children for the tests,” writes Kennedy. The “tests” involved giving the children experimental drugs that were “toxic—they’re known to cause genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage, and fatal skin disorders” (p. 246). Torture is not too strong a word to describe what happened to these children. “If the children refuse the drugs,” says Kennedy, “they’re held down and force fed. If the children continue to resist, they’re taken to Columbia Presbyterian hospital, where a surgeon puts a plastic tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. From then on, the drugs are injected directly into their stomachs” (p. 246). This wasn’t science fiction or a sick horror movie, says Kennedy, but Fauci-funded “AIDS research.”

Many of these children died as a result of the “research.” Investigative journalist Vera Sharav, who spent years investigating all of this, told Kennedy that Fauci “just brushed all those dead babies under the rug. They were collateral damage in his career ambitions.” She said that at least 80 children died from Fauci’s drug torture chamber in the Manhattan foster home alone.

You probably never heard of this, but the BBC produced a documentary of “the savage barbarity of Dr. Fauci’s science projects” in 2004 entitled “Guinea Pig Kids.” A BBC investigative journalist said in the documentary that “I found the mass graves at Gate of Heaven cemetery in Hawthorne, New York.... I couldn’t believe my eyes. It was a very large pit with AstroTurf thrown over it.... Under it one could see dozens of plain wooden coffins ... there may have been 100 of them” (p. 247).

The New York City Administration of Child Services commissioned a four-year investigation of Fauci’s Dr. Mengele–style “experiments” and found that eighty of the 532 children who participated in Fauci’s “clinical trials” died and twenty-five died while enrolled in a medication trial (p. 251). By 2003 Fauci’s NIAID was running 10,906 clinical trials involving children in ninety countries (p. 257). Today Fauci, his longtime vaccine-manufacturing billionaire partner Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the World Economic Forum are desperately campaigning to have every child in the world—even infants—injected with their latest “vaccine.” These are the same people who have publicly fantasized about all humans someday having an implanted “digital ID” in their bodies to achieve their goal of “transhumanism.” They say they want a digital ID implanted into everyone for purposes of government monitoring of all human behavior by some kind of super, international government institution. (Where is James Bond when we need him?)

Another charming fact about Fauci that Kennedy discuses is that Fauci has also funded (with your hard-earned tax dollars) experiments where Beagle puppies had their heads locked into cages where they could be eaten to death by flies. He also gave University of Pittsburgh “researchers” $400,000 to “graft the scalps of aborted fetuses onto living mice and rats” (p. 253). Not exactly the type of job one would expect a good Jesuit Catholic schoolboy like Anthony Fauci to have. Fauci is a Catholic in the same sense that abortion worshipper Joe Biden is a Catholic.

The man is in reality “a sociopath who has pushed science into the realm of sadism” writes Kennedy (p. 253). Who else but a criminal sociopath would have any involvement at all in such things? (Or for that matter in dropping atomic bombs on helpless Japanese civilians; firebombing entire European cities occupied by civilians; lobbing thousands of artillery shells a day on your own country’s cities also occupied only by civilians, i.e., Atlanta, Charleston, and Vicksburg during 1861–65; killing four hundred thousand Filipinos for refusing to be occupied and conquered by your government; mass murdering fifty thousand Plains Indians “to make way for the railroads,” as General Sherman once announced, etc., etc. ad infinitum? But I digress).

The Lying Man

Government bureaucrats love crises like wars, hurricanes, depressions, pandemics, etc. because in times of crises millions of average citizens become childlike, their IQs seem to be cut in half (at least), and they beg for a substitute mommy and daddy to protect them, their new mommy and daddy being the state. All of a sudden they are willing to abandon all of their civil liberties and embrace totalitarianism like a drowning man embraces the side of a lifeboat. This is exactly the behavior of millions of Americans since March of 2020.

The absence of a crisis, on the other hand, creates a crisis for government bureaucrats. To the bureaucrat there is a crisis crisis whenever there is no real crisis. It is imperative, therefore, that every government bureaucrat becomes a hysteric who is constantly trying to alarm the public with the perception of a crisis or an impending crisis. He is professional liar, in other words, and can rely on the socialist indoctrination organs known as “the media” to hype his crises. After all, it’s perceptions that count in politics, not reality.

Fauci is no more than your ordinary, run-of-the-mill bureaucratic crisis monger and serial liar, as Kennedy documents in chapter 11, “Hyping Phony Epidemics: Crying Wolf.” Early in his government career Fauci was involved in promoting hysteria over what was called the “swine flu.” NIAID and its pharmaceutical industry puppet masters told Congress and the White House that the swine flu was the same strain of virus that caused the infamous 1918 Spanish flu epidemic that is said to have killed 50 million people worldwide. The government poured money into Fauci’s NIAID and Big Pharma made big bucks by getting President Ford (in 1976) to give them $135 million to supposedly inoculate 140 million Americans. In the end, writes Kennedy, “the actual number of pandemic swine flu casualties in 1976 was not 1 million but 1” (p. 358).

Patients injured by the experimental swine flu vaccine filed 1,604 lawsuits forcing the government to pay out over $80 million in damages and incur tens of millions in legal fees. Kennedy hits the nail on the head when he concludes that “At the dawn of Dr. Fauci’s career, he learned that both pandemics and fake pandemics provide an opportunity to expand the bureaucracy’s power and to multiply the wealth of its pharma partners” (p. 360, emphasis added).

Then there was the 2005 “bird flu” hysteria where Fauci once again predicted “unprecedented carnage.” This time he partnered with Bill Gates and hired the now disgraced and discredited British conman statistician Neil Ferguson to construct “models” that predicted up to 150 million people could die from the bird flu. In the end, about 100 people died from it, and most probably had comorbidities that were the real causes of death. That was after President Bush asked Congress for $1.2 billion for Big Pharma to come up with another of its experimental vaccines.

The 2009 Hong Kong swine flu caper was a carbon copy of the earlier ones. Fauci promised to “fast track” a vaccine once again, and the media dutifully poured on the government-sponsored hysteria.

By the Fall of 2009 thousands of Americans were complaining about devastating side effects of the new Fauci shot. Fauci promised the public that Big Pharma’s new drug was “perfectly safe” but in reality there was “an explosion of grave side effects, including miscarriages, narcolepsy, and febrile convulsions” as well as “severe neurological injuries, paralysis from Guillian-Barre syndrome ... and cataplexy” as well as brain damage (p. 365). Some things never change. The epidemic never materialized and “As usual, there was no investigation of Dr. Fauci or the other medical officials who choreographed this multi-billion-dollar fraud” (p. 366). Congress would never “investigate” it because too many fingers would be pointed at them for funding the whole charade. They just collect their millions in “campaign contributions” from Big Pharma as a form of kickback for the millions in taxpayer dollars given to these corporations and then move on to the next phony health crisis for which they will also take no responsibility.

In 2016 Fauci diverted billions from taxpayer-funded research on malaria, influenza, and tuberculosis to his newest scam, the “zika virus.” Right on cue, he enriched his Big Pharma partners with $2 billion to produce yet another vaccine to prevent microcephaly, a supposed effect of the zika virus. In the end, there were fifteen cases of the virus in the US and none of them was associated with microcephaly. “Dengue fever” was another Fauci scam in that same year that funneled additional billions to Big Pharma with—surprise!—the exact same scenarios and results.

In every single instance, Kennedy writes, Fauci and others at National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention load up the committees that vote for permission to market all of these experimental drugs with people who have Big Pharma connections or who are current executives for one or another pharmaceutical company. It is all rigged, all permeated by mountains of lies repeated over and over by the lying lapdog media which pockets millions or billions in advertising revenue from Big Pharma. (Have you watched network television lately?). It is not about public (or private) health at all, but to make more billions for Big Pharma, to bloat the NIAID budget even more than it already is, while throwing a few crumbs to Big Pharma’s supporting cast of house pets in the “public health” bureaucracy and academic world. They fully intend to keep this racket going forever—even if it kills you.

THOMAS J. DILORENZO is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, and former Professor of Economics at Loyola University in Maryland.

 

jm192

Footballguy
Why are there so many doctors around the world who have not just risked, but knowingly derailed (hopefully temporarily) their careers in order to blow whistles? 

E.g. This guy points out how problematic the vaccine data was that supported vaccine mandates. I suspect he's been turned into a pariah for doing so. Any and all voices countering the Pharma-Industrial narrative are being severely punished. That is disturbing. And un-American.

https://rumble.com/v1aoeoo-must-see-dr-paul-alexander-informing-about-the-lies-about-covid-and-vaccine.html
I think they've risked their careers because they're not very wise (and because they think they're smarter than everyone else).  

Again, I asked for major medical organizations, societies, or associations.  You provided me 1 doctor from Rumble.  I'm not sure where the disconnect is.  

If you want to convince me, provide me with what I ask.  

 

LawFitz

Footballguy
I think they've risked their careers because they're not very wise (and because they think they're smarter than everyone else).  

Again, I asked for major medical organizations, societies, or associations.  You provided me 1 doctor from Rumble.  I'm not sure where the disconnect is.  

If you want to convince me, provide me with what I ask.  


I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to inform people about those who disagree with you.

And I'm curious to hear your counter thoughts to see if you can convince me that there's nothing to be alarmed about. Thanks for sharing your opinions and reactions. Sorry if I've elevated your blood pressure during this process.

 

Doug B

Footballguy
The initial vaccine protects against severe illness and death. The boosters aren't stopping people from getting covid, so maybe I just struggle to see what we're boosting. If anything it delay a person catching it for a couple months.

Unless were going down a rabbit hole of boosters every 8 weeks, but that's a train I'm staying far away from.
To me, the bolded is worth quite a lot.

Not that the end effects of the diseases are the same, but: Do you remember how HIV patients had to deal with their disease in, say, the early 1990s? Exhaustive, exacting multi-pill regimens taken daily. At the time, that was the best that could be done -- but research continued apace to build a better mounsetrap. Today, there are several single-daily-pill therapeutics available for HIV management.

I expect COVID management to be much like this. In the short term, researchers will grasp at straws every 6-18 months as new variants continue to emerge. Twice-annual (or more) boosters help people buy time. Eventually, the vaccines improve enough (to include nasal vaccines, which will be important in winning the fight vs COVID) so that we only have to get a shot annually -- maybe even less often.

 

Doug B

Footballguy
I attended a concert with a vaccine mandate last month, and it just seemed like a pointless hassle to make people show their cards when they could be infectious anyway.
Just as an aside: My wife and I attended a some public events in summer and fall 2021 (and a museum exhibit in March 2022) that "required proof of vaccination". All but one never actually asked to be shown the vaccination card -- we'd brought the cards for nothing.

 

Dr_Zaius

Footballguy
Just as an aside: My wife and I attended a some public events in summer and fall 2021 (and a museum exhibit in March 2022) that "required proof of vaccination". All but one never actually asked to be shown the vaccination card -- we'd brought the cards for nothing.
Interesting.  At the 2 events I attended with the requirement, there was a separate checkpoint before the ticket checkpoint where you had to show a photo ID and a vaccine card (or photo of vaccine card).  No idea if they would catch if you were using a doctored card or a card with someone else's name on it, but they were definitely checking everyone.  As another aside, the one event only announced the mandate like 5 days before the show, which I thought was fairly poor form.  Didn't affect us, but I'm sure some people were ticked.

 

Doug B

Footballguy
I was glad to see that the fall booster will be based on the more recent strains.  The one thing that does kind of bother me is that other than ease, why are they going to base effectiveness on antibody titers?  Wouldn't a RCT with symptomatic, confirmed PCR infection as the metric be a better way to assess real world effectiveness?
I'll defer to @Terminalxylem, @gianmarco, @ProstheticRGK@growlers and the other medical FBGs for a more learned discussion on these points. But I'll offer a layman's take.

The individual virions of Delta replicate FAST -- over 1,200 times faster than early strains. As I understand it, original Omicron was far faster than Delta, and the newer Omicron variants are faster still. The upshot: Without a biotechnological breakthrough -- focused right now on nasal vaccines to get to the immediate source of COVID infection -- the ship has sailed on straight-up preventing COVID infection.

The first several hundred thousand Omicron BA.5 virions are going to get their foothold and they're going to replicate for a few hours while your memory B and T cells are getting their shoes on. BA.5 is just that fast -- like Master Po & Grasshopper, a boosted immune system just can't grab that pebble. Still, before long, your adaptive immune system will run out of bubble gum and will proceed to open a can on the replicating BA.5 virions. But enough spread has already occurred that it's likely you'll still have symptoms. Almost certainly nothingburger symptoms, but you're likely to be aware of them.

So. With those facts on the ground, what you want to get the vaccine to do is elicit a robust immune reaction. Transmission blockage isn't on the table. A vaccine in 2022, IMHO, can credibly be scored pass/fail on the humoral antibody titers alone.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Max Power

Footballguy
To me, the bolded is worth quite a lot.

Not that the end effects of the diseases are the same, but: Do you remember how HIV patients had to deal with their disease in, say, the early 1990s? Exhaustive, exacting multi-pill regimens taken daily. At the time, that was the best that could be done -- but research continued apace to build a better mounsetrap. Today, there are several single-daily-pill therapeutics available for HIV management.

I expect COVID management to be much like this. In the short term, researchers will grasp at straws every 6-18 months as new variants continue to emerge. Twice-annual (or more) boosters help people buy time. Eventually, the vaccines improve enough (to include nasal vaccines, which will be important in winning the fight vs COVID) so that we only have to get a shot annually -- maybe even less often.
I'm the other end of the spectrum for the bolded. I dont see a delay in catching covid to be worth additional risks and unknown long term issues. 

Granted I hope we find a vaccine that stops transmission one day. We aren't there yet and I think what frustrates people is hearing people in authority say with authority what we need to do to get through the pandemic and then be wrong. 

Take Fauci... 4 shots. Double boosted. Catches covid and then goes on Paxlovid which has no efficacy studies for the vaccinated. Gets a covid rebound off paxlovid that is "very rare" but yet becoming very typical. He's now on a second treatment of paxlovid and has said he credits paxlovid for keeping him out of the hospital. NOT his 4 shots, but the unproven Paxlovid drug.

This is our go to guy for covid and he needs 4 shots and two rounds of antivirals to stay out of the hospital. Now why would any covid cautious person not want to follow the Fauci plan?

Get boosted. When that doesnt work... paxlovid (even though it probably doesnt work in the vaccinated)... This is getting ridiculous. 

 

jm192

Footballguy
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to inform people about those who disagree with you.

And I'm curious to hear your counter thoughts to see if you can convince me that there's nothing to be alarmed about. Thanks for sharing your opinions and reactions. Sorry if I've elevated your blood pressure during this process.
My counter thoughts are that NONE of the major medical organizations agree with you or the individual doctors you continue to cite.  It's amazing how this Neurosurgeon is so smart and right--but the American Association of Neurological Surgeons don't agree with him.  Surely if he's so smart and so right--he'd have convinced the rest of these smart people--and there would be consensus among them.  And there is consensus.  99.99% of physicians regardless of specialty disagree with you.  

But keep posting youtube videos of 1 random doctor arguing against the grain.  Very compelling.  

 

Doug B

Footballguy
Take Fauci... 4 shots. Double boosted. Catches covid and then goes on Paxlovid which has no efficacy studies for the vaccinated. Gets a covid rebound off paxlovid that is "very rare" but yet becoming very typical. He's now on a second treatment of paxlovid and has said he credits paxlovid for keeping him out of the hospital. NOT his 4 shots, but the unproven Paxlovid drug.

This is our go to guy for covid and he needs 4 shots and two rounds of antivirals to stay out of the hospital. Now why would any covid cautious person not want to follow the Fauci plan?
This reads backwards to me. It looks to me like the prophylactics and the Paxlovid (maybe**) did do their job. Fauci is still upright and wasn't apparently fighting for his life in an ICU or something like that. I don't expect Fauci to be immune to COVID any more than I'd expect General Patton to be bulletproof.

First things first -- the man is 81 years old. Regarding COVID, Fauci's already way behind the 8-ball.

Keeping in mind that I consider transmission blockage to be a lost cause, there is no issue to me with someone -- including Dr. Fauci -- getting infected with COVID. There's nothing more to read into it, no conclusions to draw. I'm sure he's caught his share of colds and stomach bugs over the years. In 2022, that's how pervasive COVID is and how readily an infection can take root. There's no value judgment to be made. Warren Buffet misplaces his wallet sometimes -- it doesn't mean he doesn't know jack about making money.

** I don't know enough about Paxlovid to credit it one way or the other. It may well be that for an octogenerian, your Paxlovid effectiveness window is very short. So maybe a fifty-something like me can take Paxlovid 48 hours after symptoms and still have it help me, whereas an 80-year-old like Fauci needs to get a dose with 12 hours or something.

 

Dr_Zaius

Footballguy
I'll defer to @Terminalxylem, @gianmarco, @ProstheticRGK@growlers and the other medical FBGs for a more learned discussion on these points. But I'll offer a layman's take.

The individual virions of Delta replicate FAST -- over 1,200 times faster than early strains. As I understand it, original Omicron was far faster than Delta, and the newer Omicron variants are faster still. The upshot: Without a biotechnological breakthrough -- focused right now on nasal vaccines to get to the immediate source of COVID infection -- the ship has sailed on straight-up preventing COVID infection.

The first several hundred thousand Omicron BA.5 virions are going to get their foothold and they're going to replicate for a few hours while your memory B and T cells are getting their shoes on. BA.5 is just that fast -- like Master Po & Grasshopper, a boosted immune system just can't grab that pebble. Still, before long, your adaptive immune system will run out of bubble gum and will proceed to open a can on the replicating BA.5 virions. But enough spread has already occurred that it's likely you'll still have symptoms. Almost certainly nothingburger symptoms, but you're likely to be aware of them.

So. With those facts on the ground, what you want to get the vaccine to do is elicit a robust immune reaction. Transmission blockage isn't on the table. A vaccine in 2022, IMHO, can credibly be scored pass/fail on the humoral antibody titers alone.
Thanks for pinging some of the medical folk, as I would be very much interested in their take.  Hopefully they don't  :scared:  from the thread in general.  I'm an interested layman, so anything I say has to be taken with a grain of salt.

I will say though, that I deal with complex systems through my job, and I need to look at data, determine causation, etc., etc.  And over my career I've learned to be extremely leery of using a proxy for what you really care about.  It's always tempting to say "this thing that we can measure easily will tell us all that we need to know."  And then you realize there's some subtle interaction that makes it a bad proxy in certain cases and you get unexpected results.  Not trying to say that's what's going on, because again, it's not my field, but to me if you want to know if you will prevent, say, hospitalization, measure hospitalization.  Don't measure something you think is correlated with hospitalization. 

 

Doug B

Footballguy
I'm the other end of the spectrum for the bolded. I dont see a delay in catching covid to be worth additional risks and unknown long term issues.
Understood. I feel that the bolded items barely exist (nothing alarms me about the clot data I've seen), and make decisions accordingly.

 

LawFitz

Footballguy
Posted these facts in the Civil Discussion Covid thread in July, 2021. Was then routinely called out by many of the same posters in this thread for posting "misinformation" with these claims. This post aged better than their call-outs from my perspective. Feel free to disagree with that assertion...

Fact: statistically, the odds of a severe Covid outcome are microscopic in my demographic - 43 yr old, blood O+ with no known underlying health issues.

Fact: there are many prophylactic measures that significantly reduce any person's risk of a severe Covid outcome, namely adequate vitamin D, C and Zinc levels pre-infection, and/or decades-proven safe generic medications such as hydroxy-chloroquine (taken with zinc) and ivermectin during the early infection phase.

Fact: mRNA vaccines are still experimental biotechnologies. Their long-term safety among humans is still very much TBD. They have been researched for 2+ decades among lab animals and have yet to be proven safe in long-term studies, or released to the public until now, despite having huge swathes of potentially game-changing medical applications, should they be proven safe. Why not? Studies of mRNA vaxxes have actually proven quite harmful in long-term effects on animals, with initial efficacy against targeted viruses, but later displaying extremely adverse immune system responses to variant viruses down the line in inoculated groups.

Fact: Covid vaxxes still don't have true FDA approval and were only released on emergency exemption. These emergency-use, experimental vaxxes are now being pushed on everyone despite the suspect longer-term animal studies, even upon those populations with near-zero risk of severe Covid outcomes. This despite mounting evidence that vaxxes individuals can still carry and submit the disease, albeit at some fully-TBD smaller rate of transmissivity.

Fact: in half a year of tracking, there have been more reported adverse outcomes on the VAERS system relating to Covid vaxxes than for all other vaccines combined over the 30+ yrs of data on that platform.

Fact: the last 18 mos has witnessed nearly all aspects of the pandemic becoming highly red-blue political, including legitimate and extremely concerning questions over mRNA vaccine development, history, efficacy and safety being routinely silenced by liberal media and social media titans.

 

SeniorVBDStudent

Footballguy
Thread Summary to date:

1. Blaylock has endorsed views inconsistent with the scientific consensus, including that food additives such as aspartame and monosodium glutamate (MSG) are excitotoxic in normal doses.

2. The last 18 mos has witnessed nearly all aspects of the pandemic becoming highly red-blue political, including legitimate and extremely concerning questions over mRNA vaccine development, history, efficacy and safety being routinely silenced by liberal media and social media titans.

Who knew the liberal elite had implemented a systematic campaign to protect Chinese Take Out?  Bastages.

 

Max Power

Footballguy
This reads backwards to me. It looks to me like the prophylactics and the Paxlovid (maybe**) did do their job. Fauci is still upright and wasn't apparently fighting for his life in an ICU or something like that. I don't expect Fauci to be immune to COVID any more than I'd expect General Patton to be bulletproof.

First things first -- the man is 81 years old. Regarding COVID, Fauci's already way behind the 8-ball.

Keeping in mind that I consider transmission blockage to be a lost cause, there is no issue to me with someone -- including Dr. Fauci -- getting infected with COVID. There's nothing more to read into it, no conclusions to draw. I'm sure he's caught his share of colds and stomach bugs over the years. In 2022, that's how pervasive COVID is and how readily an infection can take root. There's no value judgment to be made. Warren Buffet misplaces his wallet sometimes -- it doesn't mean he doesn't know jack about making money.

** I don't know enough about Paxlovid to credit it one way or the other. It may well be that for an octogenerian, your Paxlovid effectiveness window is very short. So maybe a fifty-something like me can take Paxlovid 48 hours after symptoms and still have it help me, whereas an 80-year-old like Fauci needs to get a dose with 12 hours or something.
When studies are showing Paxlovid doesn't have a statistical benefit in the low risk vaccinated population, I'm not sure how Fauci can claim that kept him out of the hospital.

Wouldnt that be the 4 vaccines he took?

I'm all for Fauci being as careful as he can be, but we're literally telling people to get boosted to prevent severe disease, but also take this paxlovid to prevent severe disease as well. How are people supposed to know which one is the hero? 

 

Doug B

Footballguy
When studies are showing Paxlovid doesn't have a statistical benefit in the low risk vaccinated population, I'm not sure how Fauci can claim that kept him out of the hospital.

Wouldnt that be the 4 vaccines he took?

I'm all for Fauci being as careful as he can be, but we're literally telling people to get boosted to prevent severe disease, but also take this paxlovid to prevent severe disease as well. How are people supposed to know which one is the hero? 
The hero? IMHO, it doesn't matter. Throw everything you've got at it.

I doubt Paxlovid does harm. If it's merely ineffective -- or else impractical to dose/time correctly -- those issues will come out in the wash. Likely outcome one or more therapeutics yet to come will outperform and replace Paxlovid.

EDIT: Forgot to mention -- Fauci is not part of the low-risk vaccinated population. I don't care if the dude does Ironmans every weekend and can match prime Lance Armstrong's doped VO₂ max -- dude is 81.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Terminalxylem

Footballguy
Sometimes it's tough to figure out who the "experts" are and know their motivations.  Some of the "experts" had people disinfecting their groceries and afraid to take packages into their house.  Faucci was suggesting people should wear goggles at one point.

I think the best approach to this was to read about viruses in general and coronaviruses specifically and try to read articles and data from both widely accepted and dissenting sources and then make decisions for yourself.  Lots of people either don't have the time or don't want to do that and will just accept what the media or the CDC tell them blindly. 
Although people were taking the potential for transmission to an extreme, I don’t recall the CDC, WHO or infectious disease experts claiming the measures you’re describing were mandatory. But early in the pandemic, we didn’t know all the ways the virus was transmitted. In the absence of definitive evidence, what do you believe should had be said about appropriate precautions?

FTR, many (most?) healthcare facilities still recommend goggles when caring for covid patients.

And while it’s never bad to educate oneself, it’s unreasonable to expect the general public to sift through the data and decide for themselves. Compare our cases, deaths and vaccination rates to countries where expert advice was followed more closely, and you’ll see the downside of expecting the public to become internet-accredited virologists.

 

ICON211

Footballguy
And while it’s never bad to educate oneself, it’s unreasonable to expect the general public to sift through the data and decide for themselves. 
Agreed, which is why it's important for the media, the CDC and their experts to be credible and provide relevant, meaningful information.  I've just lost a lot of faith and trust in the media and the CDC due to COVID after trying to do my own research.

 

sho nuff

Footballguy
Posted these facts in the Civil Discussion Covid thread in July, 2021. Was then routinely called out by many of the same posters in this thread for posting "misinformation" with these claims. This post aged better than their call-outs from my perspective. Feel free to disagree with that assertion...
Did you just bump a post pimping HCQ and ivermectin and you still think thats a good thing?

Do you admit those are both ineffective?

Seems an assertion calling much of that misinformation is spot on accurate.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top