PVS: Post Vaccination Syndrome (1 Viewer)

[Sparky Polastri]

Fwiw I enjoyed the convo with lurker

I enjoyed reading it. I thought he got strangely defensive when you started talking some details (I never thought there was any "chastising" going on, for example) but I could easily chalk that up to maybe his having his guard up from other experiences communicating with people about it all.

That could be a little on me. Because of a lot of the misinformation already presented in this thread I wanted to clarify.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Fwiw I enjoyed the convo with lurker

I enjoyed reading it. I thought he got strangely defensive when you started talking some details (I never thought there was any "chastising" going on, for example) but I could easily chalk that up to maybe his having his guard up from other experiences communicating with people about it all.

That could be a little on me. Because of a lot of the misinformation already presented in this thread I wanted to clarify.

Thank you. I thought you two had a good conversation. I didn't see it defensive at all. I thought you asked good questions and I thought they gave good answers.

I don't blame the poster for bailing given how they were treated here but I'm glad we got to have some discussion while it lasted.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This has also been an unfortunate reminder of why it's so difficult here to get new posters welcomed in.

Something I'd like to work on for future. Although it may not be fixable. Not sure.

 

[Nugget]

Last new poster I remember was e-mom. I hope Melvin is OK.

 

[LawFitz]

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some people, just leave this thread and never open it again? If it bothers you for the rest of us to consider and discuss the idea so much that you can't help but resort to being rude, just leave.

Is there a single person on this board that is saying "there is absolutely no way that the vaccine hurt anyone"?

Joe doesn't like people putting words in other posters mouths.

And there isn't a single vaccine in the history of vaccines that wasn't problematic for SOMEONE.

You are right. Let me rephrase...

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some an unreasonably large amount of people, just leave this thread and never open it again? Or otherwise, how about they at least not trigger and antagonize posters into catfights in order to stall and ultimately shutter the conversastion?

If you cannot be excellent... Be civil. Be respectful. It shouldn't be a lot to ask. SMH that it is, but here we are.

ETA: that last line was not meant for you, Sparky. You have been both civil and respectful. That was a generalized statement for the others that aren't.

 

[fatness]

This has also been an unfortunate reminder of why it's so difficult here to get new posters welcomed in.
Something I'd like to work on for future. Although it may not be fixable. Not sure.

I do have a couple ideas for how to possibly get new posters into the forums, if you could tell me where to direct them. I won't be able to send them in a timely manner, but I can send them.
And I started distrusting what lurker said early on, when he started making long posts that sounded at least partly pre-written, and when he started mis-representing objective information found elsewhere. But I don't think this topic lost you any new posters. I think the problem is more "how to interest new posters" than it is "how to not lose new posters".

 

[fatness]

You are right. Let me rephrase...

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some an unreasonably large amount of people, just leave this thread and never open it again? Or otherwise, how about they at least not trigger and antagonize posters into catfights in order to stall and ultimately shutter the conversastion?

You still want to ban opposing opinions and information from the topic? Or, failing that, to ask them not to post anything counter to the point of view being promoted?
You can do that on the internet, probably in lots of places. But it goes against what FBG forums do, and what FBG forum members are used to.
It's hard to believe you're even asking for that.

 

[LawFitz]

You are right. Let me rephrase...

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some an unreasonably large amount of people, just leave this thread and never open it again? Or otherwise, how about they at least not trigger and antagonize posters into catfights in order to stall and ultimately shutter the conversastion?

You still want to ban opposing opinions and information from the topic? Or, failing that, to ask them not to post anything counter to the point of view being promoted?
You can do that on the internet, probably in lots of places. But it goes against what FBG forums do, and what FBG forum members are used to.
It's hard to believe you're even asking for that.

Wow, talk about putting words in other people's mouths.

Yet another classic trigger attempt. All good, man. I see you.

 

[jhib]

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some people, just leave this thread and never open it again? If it bothers you for the rest of us to consider and discuss the idea so much that you can't help but resort to being rude, just leave.

Is there a single person on this board that is saying "there is absolutely no way that the vaccine hurt anyone"?

Joe doesn't like people putting words in other posters mouths.

And there isn't a single vaccine in the history of vaccines that wasn't problematic for SOMEONE.

You are right. Let me rephrase...

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some an unreasonably large amount of people, just leave this thread and never open it again? Or otherwise, how about they at least not trigger and antagonize posters into catfights in order to stall and ultimately shutter the conversastion?

If you cannot be excellent... Be civil. Be respectful. It shouldn't be a lot to ask. SMH that it is, but here we are.

ETA: that last line was not meant for you, Sparky. You have been both civil and respectful. That was a generalized statement for the others that aren't.

But an "unreasonably large amount" of people is a pretty subjective concept, don't you think? I mean, on one hand, nobody wants any vaccine to be problematic for any one person even, but that isn't a reasonable standard for any medical intervention. So we're back to percentages and risk/benefit calculations. If you were to ask for everyone who doesn't believe that the numbers don't overwhelmingly favor the benefit side of the equation for Covid vaccines to leave, I think you'd end up with a very quiet, boring thread.

 

[LawFitz]

If you were to ask for everyone who doesn't believe that the numbers don't overwhelmingly favor the benefit side of the equation for Covid vaccines to leave, I think you're going to have a very quiet, boring thread.

Is that what I said, or are you perhaps missing some context from the sentence that came just after that one?

 

[jhib]

If you were to ask for everyone who doesn't believe that the numbers don't overwhelmingly favor the benefit side of the equation for Covid vaccines to leave, I think you're going to have a very quiet, boring thread.

Is that what I said, or are you perhaps missing some context from the sentence that came just after that one?

Kinda sounds like it.
You edited your earlier statement to suggest that people with a different opinion on a subjective matter leave, and then added the second option.
If the triggering/antagonizing part were your only actual problem, I'd think you wouldn't lead with the difference of opinion part.

 

[LawFitz]

You edited your earlier statement to suggest that people with a different opinion on a subjective matter leave, and then added the second option.

This was my original statement. Unedited, save for adding bolded text here for emphasis to prove my point. Context matters, bruh.

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some people, just leave this thread and never open it again? If it bothers you for the rest of us to consider and discuss the idea so much that you can't help but resort to being rude, just leave.

You ran off Lurker with these tactics. And now you and a few other guys are (re)setting your sights on me.

Like I said though... If this thread bothers you guys so much that you need to twist and bend into personal attacks, best if you just leave. But of course, your real intent seems to be to pick juvenile fights with the other side to distract and dissuade the conversation, so you won't. I see what you are doing and will try to summarily ignore you going forward. You and several others here are acting in bad faith. It's fairly obvious, and pretty sad.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Please drop the back and forth on who can be in the thread.

I understand the ask. From either side. Sometimes people want to have a thread that is mostly from their perspective. Whether it's something serious like this topic or something less serious like a fan of a team wanting their own thread.

In general, I think we're best to have the threads open to everyone. This forum is already mostly a pretty tight demographic. I worry a lot about bubbles and I don't think it serves us well to unreasonably limit opinions on either side.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This has also been an unfortunate reminder of why it's so difficult here to get new posters welcomed in.
Something I'd like to work on for future. Although it may not be fixable. Not sure.

I do have a couple ideas for how to possibly get new posters into the forums, if you could tell me where to direct them. I won't be able to send them in a timely manner, but I can send them.
And I started distrusting what lurker said early on, when he started making long posts that sounded at least partly pre-written, and when he started mis-representing objective information found elsewhere. But I don't think this topic lost you any new posters. I think the problem is more "how to interest new posters" than it is "how to not lose new posters".

Sure. You can PM them to me if you like or post them in a new thread and tag me.

I do think it's much more about how not to lose new posters though. This is an old forum. With tons of cliques and history and notebook material.

A new poster here can easily feel like the new kid at school and overwhelmed. I'd like to make the forum more welcoming where everyone, not just the aggressive people who have a personality that lets them push their way in, can be more included.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some people, just leave this thread and never open it again? If it bothers you for the rest of us to consider and discuss the idea so much that you can't help but resort to being rude, just leave.

Is there a single person on this board that is saying "there is absolutely no way that the vaccine hurt anyone"?

Joe doesn't like people putting words in other posters mouths.

And there isn't a single vaccine in the history of vaccines that wasn't problematic for SOMEONE.

You are right. Let me rephrase...

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some an unreasonably large amount of people, just leave this thread and never open it again? Or otherwise, how about they at least not trigger and antagonize posters into catfights in order to stall and ultimately shutter the conversastion?

If you cannot be excellent... Be civil. Be respectful. It shouldn't be a lot to ask. SMH that it is, but here we are.

ETA: that last line was not meant for you, Sparky. You have been both civil and respectful. That was a generalized statement for the others that aren't.

How is "unreasonably large amount of people" defined? What's the number?

 

[FarFromHome]

This has also been an unfortunate reminder of why it's so difficult here to get new posters welcomed in.

Something I'd like to work on for future. Although it may not be fixable. Not sure.

I'm old. I've lurked around message boards since they were born. I think this site does as good of job as I've seen. Thanks to you, your mods and the posters. Your NEVER gonna not have some issues. The overall vibe of this site is really quite remarkable. For me, when I feel like my feelings are getting involved i simply stay out of that thread. The Baltimore Bridge thread is a good example for me. Started to feel a little aggressive. I just went to other threads.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This has also been an unfortunate reminder of why it's so difficult here to get new posters welcomed in.

Something I'd like to work on for future. Although it may not be fixable. Not sure.

I'm old. I've lurked around message boards since they were born. I think this site does as good of job as I've seen. Thanks to you, your mods and the posters. Your NEVER gonna not have some issues. The overall vibe of this site is really quite remarkable. For me, when I feel like my feelings are getting involved i simply stay out of that thread. The Baltimore Bridge thread is a good example for me. Started to feel a little aggressive. I just went to other threads.

Thanks GB. It's a good place for discussion I think. Thanks for being part of it.

 

[jhib]

You ran off Lurker with these tactics. And now you and a few other guys are (re)setting your sights on me.

I most certainly did not run Lurker off and would be shocked if he reads through this conversation and feels I was one who treated him in any way that led to him leaving.

(In fact, the only even juvenile ribbing I gave to him was some good natured FBG humor at the end... he then showed he got the joke by leading off his last comment with the same joke although my own comment got deleted.)

This was my original statement. Unedited, save for adding bolded text here for emphasis to prove my point. Context matters, bruh.

Exactly. That was your original statement. Sparky reacted to the first part about vaccines being problematic for some people. You then revised it in your response to change that to "an unreasonable amount of people." I reacted to that change because I wasn't sure how it helped. You took offense and seem to want to focus on the part about rudeness instead.

Like I said though... If this thread bothers you guys so much that you need to twist and bend into personal attacks, best if you just leave. But of course, your real intent seems to be to pick juvenile fights with the other side to distract and dissuade the conversation, so you won't.

Since you are criticizing my conversation/debate style ("tactics"), I'll note that this is a common MO that I have observed here and in other Covid threads: you make two statements/present two ideas - like when you started this thread by bringing up an early study about PVS and then said your family members died of turbo cancer - and then act offended whenever someone chooses to focus on one of those ideas, especially when they strongly challenge them. Then instead of debating the idea and backing up your statements, you claim victim of pejoratives, personal attacks, juvenile fights, etc when it is the content of what you are posting that people are trying to address and clarify.

Please understand that the preceding paragraph was not meant as a personal attack, but a simple criticism of your debating technique.

You and several others here are acting in bad faith. It's fairly obvious, and pretty sad.

That feels like much more of a personal attack, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Battersbox]

And to be clear, I have no interest in debating the origins.

I'm only saying, as Forbes reported, sometimes things change that were once dismissed or denigrated as conspiracy theorie

Let's take a step back.

We can both agree that something could leak from a lab in two ways:

1. Something created or manipulated in a lab leaks.

2. Something naturally occurring being studied in a lab leaks.

Those are two different things. One of your sources says "lab manipulated" is a conspiracy theory. But to back that up, you've provided sources that seem to speak to #2, a lab leak.

I don't think those terms should be used interchangeably as you have.

The letter Forbes cites as calling out conspiracy theories also clearly says this "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." So they're saying #1 is conspiracy.

As far as I know, no one credible is saying COVID was made in a lab. That's in conspiracy theory territory. I'll take a source if you dispute that, though (the Forbes article you've sourced says this "...or was artificially created by researchers before it escaped—though the latter theory has been heavily contested by many experts.")

So, no, I'm not sure anything has changed on conspiracy theories related to COVID. All that's happened is conspiracy theorists have taken things out of context to play gotcha.

Spot On!

There is zero evidence this virus was created in a lab. People continue to try and figure out if it was even altered in a lab. There is a very little bit of evidence that leaves that a slight possibility, but it's not likely with what is known right now. The most likely scenarios are coming from infection out in the wild or infection while studying in the lab.

Whether it was created in a lab or altered in a lab doesn't matter. What matters is it likely escaped from the lab, which was in the realm of conspiracy theory for quite a long time whenever anyone suggested that.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to conflate the two issues (whether it was created in a lab, or just escaped because it was being studied/altered in a lab), people were still gaslit about the very idea it could have possibly been the responsibility of the folks working at that lab in Wuhan.

Me conflate? Good one!

As to "escape" from a lab and the shock/awe of that possibility. It's tough to empathize with that position knowing how prevalent the virus was found to be in a variety of animals out in the wild there. Read an article just a couple weeks ago about research on three other animals showing the virus has been in circulation among them for a long while prior to the outbreak.

I know our CIA is behind the "lab leak" theory now. However, I'm trying to figure out why it matters at all knowing how many different sources appear to have been carrying it at the time. Does it matter if it came from a person infected while researching vs from an animal? If one believes that, why does it matter?

The other thing that people might want to stop and consider is why it's been so hard to get info as part of the general public and supposedly so tough for our spy agencies to get info. Feels very coordinated if one wants to go that path doesn't it? That's as conspiratorual as I'll ever get on this as I simply don't believe the governments want us to know so we're never going to for certain.

The two most likely options have always been infected person studying it or caught from animal. Anyone saying either of those were conspiracies should not be listened to IMO.

It matters a great deal, because had this research not been happening in the first place, then the pandemic wouldn't have happened. Moreover, people lied or at least obfuscated about what was happening for quite a long time. It's still happening.

If you can't see why that matters that's either odd or dishonest. Saying 'oh we'll never know' may be correct, but it doesn't mean you get to dismiss that theories that make you uncomfortable.

Your belief is that the only way this happened was because the virus was being studied in a lab? This couldn't have happened in a way a bunch of other coronaviruses get to humans via consumption, bites etc?

I don't want to rekindle the lab-leak discussion in here since this thread is vaccine-focused, but I was offline for several days and wanted to answer.

Of course I don't believe the only way this could possibly have happened was because the virus was being studied in a lab. But to me, it's painfully obvious the start of this pandemic being within shouting distance of the Wuhan lab makes a natural jump from an unknown animal (via bite or anything else) a far too large a coincidence to entertain with any sincerity.

If you had to bet your life on whether or not the lab was involved and you said you'd bet it wasn't, I'd think you were insane.

 

[Battersbox]

Long Covid is being looked at. PVS + links to the vaccines not so much, unless you count studies funded and/or conducted by Big Pharma, which has a very long and dubious history of obfuscating truth to protect profit.

What do you think the meaningful distinction is between "PVS" and long covid?

Again, the world is researching this stuff. Ignore if you wish. I gave you a link that has 7 or 8 under their single umbrella, but yeah, no one is looking at it except the people that are.

Despite the snark, I appreciate the link.


I would like to see research on just potential vaccine damage rather than long covid though.

 

[Joe Bryant]

You ran off Lurker with these tactics. And now you and a few other guys are (re)setting your sights on me.

I most certainly did not run Lurker off and would be shocked if he reads through this conversation and feels I was one who treated him in any way that led to him leaving.

(In fact, the only even juvenile ribbing I gave to him was some good natured FBG humor at the end... he then showed he got the joke by leading off his last comment with the same joke although my own comment got deleted.)

This was my original statement. Unedited, save for adding bolded text here for emphasis to prove my point. Context matters, bruh.

Exactly. That was your original statement. Sparky reacted to the first part about vaccines being problematic for some people. You then revised it in your response to change that to "an unreasonable amount of people." I reacted to that change because I wasn't sure how it helped. You took offense and seem to want to focus on the part about rudeness instead.

Like I said though... If this thread bothers you guys so much that you need to twist and bend into personal attacks, best if you just leave. But of course, your real intent seems to be to pick juvenile fights with the other side to distract and dissuade the conversation, so you won't.

Since you are criticizing my conversation/debate style ("tactics"), I'll note that this is a common MO that I have observed here and in other Covid threads: you make two statements/present two ideas - like when you started this thread by bringing up an early study about PVS and then said your family members died of turbo cancer - and then act offended whenever someone chooses to focus on one of those ideas, especially when they strongly challenge them. Then instead of debating the idea and backing up your statements, you claim victim of pejoratives, personal attacks, juvenile fights, etc when it is the content of what you are posting that people are trying to address and clarify.

Please understand that the preceding paragraph was not meant as a personal attack, but a simple criticism of your debating technique.

You and several others here are acting in bad faith. It's fairly obvious, and pretty sad.

That feels like much more of a personal attack, but maybe that's just me.

Both of you please drop it. I think we all understand your positions.

 

[LawFitz]

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some people, just leave this thread and never open it again? If it bothers you for the rest of us to consider and discuss the idea so much that you can't help but resort to being rude, just leave.

Is there a single person on this board that is saying "there is absolutely no way that the vaccine hurt anyone"?

Joe doesn't like people putting words in other posters mouths.

And there isn't a single vaccine in the history of vaccines that wasn't problematic for SOMEONE.

You are right. Let me rephrase...

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some an unreasonably large amount of people, just leave this thread and never open it again? Or otherwise, how about they at least not trigger and antagonize posters into catfights in order to stall and ultimately shutter the conversastion?

If you cannot be excellent... Be civil. Be respectful. It shouldn't be a lot to ask. SMH that it is, but here we are.

ETA: that last line was not meant for you, Sparky. You have been both civil and respectful. That was a generalized statement for the others that aren't.

How is "unreasonably large amount of people" defined? What's the number?

Well more than what you and others argue to be acceptable collateral damage.

In my suspicion, the damage that's been done isn't even remotely close to being accurately quantified by 'The Science,' if the symptoms that so many have experienced/are experiencing are

a. indeed causally related to the vaxxes themselves, and
b. harbingers of more severe outcomes to come as reflections of permanently-compromised immune systems - a key proclimation of the anti-COVID-vax-technology crowd.

If the above is even somewhat true, unreasonably large could easily be catastrophically large. I don't know, and obviously hope not. We shall see over time. Or perhaps we won't if the Medical-Industrial Complex continues to succeed crafting a culture of demonization of anyone who questions The(ir) Science.

 

[Joe Schmo]

Well more than what you and others argue to be acceptable collateral damage.

In my suspicion, the damage that's been done isn't even remotely close to being accurately quantified by 'The Science,' if the symptoms that so many have experienced/are experiencing are

a. indeed causally related to the vaxxes themselves, and
b. harbingers of more severe outcomes to come as reflections of permanently-compromised immune systems - a key proclimation of the anti-COVID-vax-technology crowd.

If the above is even somewhat true, unreasonably large could easily be catastrophically large. I don't know, and obviously hope not. We shall see over time. Or perhaps we won't if the Medical-Industrial Complex continues to succeed crafting a culture of demonization of anyone who questions The(ir) Science.

Do you have any verifiable links for any of these assertions? If not "The Science", what are you relying on for your claims?

 

[LawFitz]

I'm going to leave you guys with this though. Helping was my intention, but this isn't the venue for the way I wanted to do that.

Obviously I hope you change your mind and don't leave. Experiences like yours should be shared and explored - not just here, but everywhere. People can choose for themselves whether to accept what you say or not. I know many of us here appreciate what you've brought to this discussion. Thank you.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I would like to see research on just potential vaccine damage rather than long covid though.

Good luck. This would require finding people who have gotten the vaccines and never had COVID and enough of them to be able to get meaningful measures.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some people, just leave this thread and never open it again? If it bothers you for the rest of us to consider and discuss the idea so much that you can't help but resort to being rude, just leave.

Is there a single person on this board that is saying "there is absolutely no way that the vaccine hurt anyone"?

Joe doesn't like people putting words in other posters mouths.

And there isn't a single vaccine in the history of vaccines that wasn't problematic for SOMEONE.

You are right. Let me rephrase...

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some an unreasonably large amount of people, just leave this thread and never open it again? Or otherwise, how about they at least not trigger and antagonize posters into catfights in order to stall and ultimately shutter the conversastion?

If you cannot be excellent... Be civil. Be respectful. It shouldn't be a lot to ask. SMH that it is, but here we are.

ETA: that last line was not meant for you, Sparky. You have been both civil and respectful. That was a generalized statement for the others that aren't.

How is "unreasonably large amount of people" defined? What's the number?

Well more than what you and others argue to be acceptable collateral damage.

In my suspicion, the damage that's been done isn't even remotely close to being accurately quantified by 'The Science,' if the symptoms that so many have experienced/are experiencing are

a. indeed causally related to the vaxxes themselves, and
b. harbingers of more severe outcomes to come as reflections of permanently-compromised immune systems - a key proclimation of the anti-COVID-vax-technology crowd.

If the above is even somewhat true, unreasonably large could easily be catastrophically large. I don't know, and obviously hope not. We shall see over time. Or perhaps we won't if the Medical-Industrial Complex continues to succeed crafting a culture of demonization of anyone who questions The(ir) Science.

Seems very much like a "I'm not sure. I'll tell you when I see it" sort of answer. Not really helpful at all outside of sensationalizing things. Was hoping for more than the "in theory" sort of vague answers. Do you have any idea what the average number of people who get complications from other vaccines is?

 

[LawFitz]

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some people, just leave this thread and never open it again? If it bothers you for the rest of us to consider and discuss the idea so much that you can't help but resort to being rude, just leave.

Is there a single person on this board that is saying "there is absolutely no way that the vaccine hurt anyone"?

Joe doesn't like people putting words in other posters mouths.

And there isn't a single vaccine in the history of vaccines that wasn't problematic for SOMEONE.

You are right. Let me rephrase...

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some an unreasonably large amount of people, just leave this thread and never open it again? Or otherwise, how about they at least not trigger and antagonize posters into catfights in order to stall and ultimately shutter the conversastion?

If you cannot be excellent... Be civil. Be respectful. It shouldn't be a lot to ask. SMH that it is, but here we are.

ETA: that last line was not meant for you, Sparky. You have been both civil and respectful. That was a generalized statement for the others that aren't.

How is "unreasonably large amount of people" defined? What's the number?

Well more than what you and others argue to be acceptable collateral damage.

In my suspicion, the damage that's been done isn't even remotely close to being accurately quantified by 'The Science,' if the symptoms that so many have experienced/are experiencing are

a. indeed causally related to the vaxxes themselves, and
b. harbingers of more severe outcomes to come as reflections of permanently-compromised immune systems - a key proclimation of the anti-COVID-vax-technology crowd.

If the above is even somewhat true, unreasonably large could easily be catastrophically large. I don't know, and obviously hope not. We shall see over time. Or perhaps we won't if the Medical-Industrial Complex continues to succeed crafting a culture of demonization of anyone who questions The(ir) Science.

Seems very much like a "I'm not sure. I'll tell you when I see it" sort of answer. Not really helpful at all outside of sensationalizing things. Was hoping for more than the "in theory" sort of vague answers. Do you have any idea what the average number of people who get complications from other vaccines is?

Rotoshield (a rotovirus) vaccine was taken off the market in 1999 after being shown to harm 1 in 10,000-30,000.

I don't think we are even close to understanding the full and long-term effects/ramifications/consequences of mRNA/DNA-vector/Spike-protein technology. These are not like traditional vaccines. They are novel technologies. I believe the ratio of harm is orders of magnitude higher than 1 in 10,000 - and that the vast majority of those who have been harmed are in denial or have been denied.

 

[RCon]

I believe the ratio of harm is orders of magnitude higher than 1 in 10,000

Do you have any actual science or data to back this up?

 

[Mitchie]

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some people, just leave this thread and never open it again? If it bothers you for the rest of us to consider and discuss the idea so much that you can't help but resort to being rude, just leave.

Is there a single person on this board that is saying "there is absolutely no way that the vaccine hurt anyone"?

Joe doesn't like people putting words in other posters mouths.

And there isn't a single vaccine in the history of vaccines that wasn't problematic for SOMEONE.

You are right. Let me rephrase...

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some an unreasonably large amount of people, just leave this thread and never open it again? Or otherwise, how about they at least not trigger and antagonize posters into catfights in order to stall and ultimately shutter the conversastion?

If you cannot be excellent... Be civil. Be respectful. It shouldn't be a lot to ask. SMH that it is, but here we are.

ETA: that last line was not meant for you, Sparky. You have been both civil and respectful. That was a generalized statement for the others that aren't.

How is "unreasonably large amount of people" defined? What's the number?

Well more than what you and others argue to be acceptable collateral damage.

In my suspicion, the damage that's been done isn't even remotely close to being accurately quantified by 'The Science,' if the symptoms that so many have experienced/are experiencing are

a. indeed causally related to the vaxxes themselves, and
b. harbingers of more severe outcomes to come as reflections of permanently-compromised immune systems - a key proclimation of the anti-COVID-vax-technology crowd.

If the above is even somewhat true, unreasonably large could easily be catastrophically large. I don't know, and obviously hope not. We shall see over time. Or perhaps we won't if the Medical-Industrial Complex continues to succeed crafting a culture of demonization of anyone who questions The(ir) Science.

Seems very much like a "I'm not sure. I'll tell you when I see it" sort of answer. Not really helpful at all outside of sensationalizing things. Was hoping for more than the "in theory" sort of vague answers. Do you have any idea what the average number of people who get complications from other vaccines is?

Rotoshield (a rotovirus) vaccine was taken off the market in 1999 after being shown to harm 1 in 10,000-30,000.

I don't think we are even close to understanding the full and long-term effects/ramifications/consequences of mRNA/DNA-vector/Spike-protein technology. These are not like traditional vaccines. They are novel technologies. I believe the ratio of harm is orders of magnitude higher than 1 in 10,000 - and that the vast majority of those who have been harmed are in denial or have been denied.

These are not novel, they're based on work that's gone back decades, posted link earlier so not gonna dig it up again

 

[fatness]

I believe the ratio of harm is orders of magnitude higher than 1 in 10,000 - and that the vast majority of those who have been harmed are in denial or have been denied.

That's one way to say that people not reporting harm are examples of people being harmed.

 

[LawFitz]

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some people, just leave this thread and never open it again? If it bothers you for the rest of us to consider and discuss the idea so much that you can't help but resort to being rude, just leave.

Is there a single person on this board that is saying "there is absolutely no way that the vaccine hurt anyone"?

Joe doesn't like people putting words in other posters mouths.

And there isn't a single vaccine in the history of vaccines that wasn't problematic for SOMEONE.

You are right. Let me rephrase...

How about all those who don't want to consider that the Covid vaxxes (not all vaxxes) could have been problematic for some an unreasonably large amount of people, just leave this thread and never open it again? Or otherwise, how about they at least not trigger and antagonize posters into catfights in order to stall and ultimately shutter the conversastion?

If you cannot be excellent... Be civil. Be respectful. It shouldn't be a lot to ask. SMH that it is, but here we are.

ETA: that last line was not meant for you, Sparky. You have been both civil and respectful. That was a generalized statement for the others that aren't.

How is "unreasonably large amount of people" defined? What's the number?

Well more than what you and others argue to be acceptable collateral damage.

In my suspicion, the damage that's been done isn't even remotely close to being accurately quantified by 'The Science,' if the symptoms that so many have experienced/are experiencing are

a. indeed causally related to the vaxxes themselves, and
b. harbingers of more severe outcomes to come as reflections of permanently-compromised immune systems - a key proclimation of the anti-COVID-vax-technology crowd.

If the above is even somewhat true, unreasonably large could easily be catastrophically large. I don't know, and obviously hope not. We shall see over time. Or perhaps we won't if the Medical-Industrial Complex continues to succeed crafting a culture of demonization of anyone who questions The(ir) Science.

Seems very much like a "I'm not sure. I'll tell you when I see it" sort of answer. Not really helpful at all outside of sensationalizing things. Was hoping for more than the "in theory" sort of vague answers. Do you have any idea what the average number of people who get complications from other vaccines is?

Rotoshield (a rotovirus) vaccine was taken off the market in 1999 after being shown to harm 1 in 10,000-30,000.

I don't think we are even close to understanding the full and long-term effects/ramifications/consequences of mRNA/DNA-vector/Spike-protein technology. These are not like traditional vaccines. They are novel technologies. I believe the ratio of harm is orders of magnitude higher than 1 in 10,000 - and that the vast majority of those who have been harmed are in denial or have been denied.

These are not novel, they're based on work that's gone back decades, posted link earlier so not gonna dig it up again

They had never been approved for human use until Covid.

 

[turnjose7]

I most certainly did not run Lurker off and would be shocked if he reads through this conversation and feels I was one who treated him in any way that led to him leaving.

(In fact, the only even juvenile ribbing I gave to him was some good natured FBG humor at the end... he then showed he got the joke by leading off his last comment with the same joke although my own comment got deleted.)

You were cool man. I got the joke and shook my head . Lots of "my last post here" stuff. I kind of knew it wasn't after i posted it, but it was too late to delete in good faith. What are you gonna do.......

I'm going to leave you guys with this though. Helping was my intention, but this isn't the venue for the way I wanted to do that. It's ok, pretty normal reaction to what I've said. No ill will towards anyone regardless of how my time here ended.

Two tests, TAT (thrombin antithrombin) and a test to measure VEGF. @Sparky Polastri can confirm or refute these tests if he desires, that will carry more weight here than me. They can be ordered very simply by a pcp, or yourself through quest lab.

If you get covid, a covid vaccine and suspect something isn't right and all other tests are clear these could show irregularities if there's an issue related to clotting, or your vasculature in general. Best advice i can give and I'll get off my soap box and let everyone get back to having the discussion.

I'll leave things at that.

Why do you think these tests have any utility at all? Neither has a role in clinical medicine, probably because they aren't useful clinical tests. Seems like a bad idea to advocate for these over a well-established test with very well understood clinical significance like d-dimer.

 

[Scoresman]

Well more than what you and others argue to be acceptable collateral damage.

In my suspicion, the damage that's been done isn't even remotely close to being accurately quantified by 'The Science,' if the symptoms that so many have experienced/are experiencing are

a. indeed causally related to the vaxxes themselves, and
b. harbingers of more severe outcomes to come as reflections of permanently-compromised immune systems - a key proclimation of the anti-COVID-vax-technology crowd.

If the above is even somewhat true, unreasonably large could easily be catastrophically large. I don't know, and obviously hope not. We shall see over time. Or perhaps we won't if the Medical-Industrial Complex continues to succeed crafting a culture of demonization of anyone who questions The(ir) Science.

Do you have any verifiable links for any of these assertions? If not "The Science", what are you relying on for your claims?

I believe the ratio of harm is orders of magnitude higher than 1 in 10,000

Do you have any actual science or data to back this up?

Bump. I think this is part of the frustration with these topics/threads. Assertions get made and requests to back it up are ignored.

I thought when the political forum was active, there was a rule to back up claims with links. I dont know why it should be any different for this.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

my question was ignored as well.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Well more than what you and others argue to be acceptable collateral damage.

In my suspicion, the damage that's been done isn't even remotely close to being accurately quantified by 'The Science,' if the symptoms that so many have experienced/are experiencing are

a. indeed causally related to the vaxxes themselves, and
b. harbingers of more severe outcomes to come as reflections of permanently-compromised immune systems - a key proclimation of the anti-COVID-vax-technology crowd.

If the above is even somewhat true, unreasonably large could easily be catastrophically large. I don't know, and obviously hope not. We shall see over time. Or perhaps we won't if the Medical-Industrial Complex continues to succeed crafting a culture of demonization of anyone who questions The(ir) Science.

Do you have any verifiable links for any of these assertions? If not "The Science", what are you relying on for your claims?

I believe the ratio of harm is orders of magnitude higher than 1 in 10,000

Do you have any actual science or data to back this up?

Bump. I think this is part of the frustration with these topics/threads. Assertions get made and requests to back it up are ignored.

I thought when the political forum was active, there was a rule to back up claims with links. I dont know why it should be any different for this.

Who cares? If someone doesn't want to answer your question, then move on. You act like he's on trial here. It's just a message board man.

 

[Battersbox]

I would like to see research on just potential vaccine damage rather than long covid though.

Good luck. This would require finding people who have gotten the vaccines and never had COVID and enough of them to be able to get meaningful measures.

I hope the irony of just how spectacularly the vaccines failed to prevent EVERYONE from contracting the virus prevents us from having a control group isn't lost on anyone.

 

[sho nuff]

A few thoughts, then need to get on with my day...

Assertions of belief are not the same as assertions of fact. Context and words matter.

There are new sherriffs in and coming into town. Robert Kennedy is now head of HHS. Jay Bhattacharya has been nominated to head the NIH, hopefully to be confirmed soon. These are huge appointments for the side of those seeking truth in this matter.

And at least three US states are looking into banning Covid vaccines as I type this.

Banning vaccines because of feelings and without factual support shouldn’t be celebrated.

 

[LawFitz]

A few thoughts, then need to get on with my day...

Assertions of belief are not the same as assertions of fact. Context and words matter.

There are new sherriffs in and coming into town. Robert Kennedy is now head of HHS. Jay Bhattacharya has been nominated to head the NIH, hopefully to be confirmed soon. These are huge appointments for the side of those seeking truth in this matter.

And at least three US states are looking into banning Covid vaccines as I type this.

Banning vaccines because of feelings and without factual support shouldn’t be celebrated.

Neither should a system that actively manipulated factual support. Hopefully that changes soon.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

A few thoughts, then need to get on with my day...

Assertions of belief are not the same as assertions of fact. Context and words matter.

There are new sherriffs in and coming into town. Robert Kennedy is now head of HHS. Jay Bhattacharya has been nominated to head the NIH, hopefully to be confirmed soon. These are huge appointments for the side of those seeking truth in this matter.

And at least three US states are looking into banning Covid vaccines as I type this.

which 3?

 

[LawFitz]

A few thoughts, then need to get on with my day...

Assertions of belief are not the same as assertions of fact. Context and words matter.

There are new sherriffs in and coming into town. Robert Kennedy is now head of HHS. Jay Bhattacharya has been nominated to head the NIH, hopefully to be confirmed soon. These are huge appointments for the side of those seeking truth in this matter.

And at least three US states are looking into banning Covid vaccines as I type this.

which 3?

Idaho, Montana, Florida. For now.

 

[LawFitz]

Here's a fantastic resource that I recently came across for anyone that has been affected by Covid-vax injury...

React19.org

Science-based support for people suffering from long-term COVID-19 vaccine effects.

www.react19.org

 

[sho nuff]

A few thoughts, then need to get on with my day...

Assertions of belief are not the same as assertions of fact. Context and words matter.

There are new sherriffs in and coming into town. Robert Kennedy is now head of HHS. Jay Bhattacharya has been nominated to head the NIH, hopefully to be confirmed soon. These are huge appointments for the side of those seeking truth in this matter.

And at least three US states are looking into banning Covid vaccines as I type this.

Banning vaccines because of feelings and without factual support shouldn’t be celebrated.

Neither should a system that actively manipulated factual support. Hopefully that changes soon.

And which system is that? Care to back that up?

 

[Joe Schmo]

1

A few thoughts, then need to get on with my day...

Assertions of belief are not the same as assertions of fact. Context and words matter.

There are new sherriffs in and coming into town. Robert Kennedy is now head of HHS. Jay Bhattacharya has been nominated to head the NIH, hopefully to be confirmed soon. These are huge appointments for the side of those seeking truth in this matter.

And at least three US states are looking into banning Covid vaccines as I type this.

And all three states are using erroneous information to guide their decisions. This is why calling out misinformation and requiring posters to cite to their assertions is of keen importance.

Letter from Fla Surgeon Gen Lapado re: lack of safety for mnra vax

Response Peter Mark Director FDA
In response to the question regarding potential genotoxicity of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines:.... On first principle, it is quite implausible that theresidual small DNA fragments located in the cytosol could find their way into the nucleus through thenuclear membrane present in intact cells and then be incorporated into chromosomal DNA.2
=========================================================================================
Regarding concern for possible integration of the residual DNA fragments into reproductive cells: Please see the response to the first question above regarding the implausibility that the minute amounts of small DNA fragments present could find their way into the nucleus of these cells.
========================================================================================
Perpetuating references to this information about residual DNA without placing it within the context of the manufacturing process is misleading. Therefore, we hope the following general explanation of the manufacturing process for these vaccines will be helpful.

 

[Joe Schmo]

Montana legislation didn't pass, btw. https://dailyinterlake.com/news/2025/feb/21/house-votes-down-bill-to-ban-mrna-vaccines/

 

[Joe Schmo]

Here's a fantastic resource that I recently came across for anyone that has been affected by Covid-vax injury...

React19.org

Science-based support for people suffering from long-term COVID-19 vaccine effects.

www.react19.org

Nice merch store they have:
https://react19-store.printify.me/products

 

[msudaisy26]

Well more than what you and others argue to be acceptable collateral damage.

In my suspicion, the damage that's been done isn't even remotely close to being accurately quantified by 'The Science,' if the symptoms that so many have experienced/are experiencing are

a. indeed causally related to the vaxxes themselves, and
b. harbingers of more severe outcomes to come as reflections of permanently-compromised immune systems - a key proclimation of the anti-COVID-vax-technology crowd.

If the above is even somewhat true, unreasonably large could easily be catastrophically large. I don't know, and obviously hope not. We shall see over time. Or perhaps we won't if the Medical-Industrial Complex continues to succeed crafting a culture of demonization of anyone who questions The(ir) Science.

Do you have any verifiable links for any of these assertions? If not "The Science", what are you relying on for your claims?

I believe the ratio of harm is orders of magnitude higher than 1 in 10,000

Do you have any actual science or data to back this up?

Bump. I think this is part of the frustration with these topics/threads. Assertions get made and requests to back it up are ignored.

I thought when the political forum was active, there was a rule to back up claims with links. I dont know why it should be any different for this.

Who cares? If someone doesn't want to answer your question, then move on. You act like he's on trial here. It's just a message board man.

No it is just common courtesy, especially when that person started the thread and has asked people to have open mind and listen to different ideas and answers, but dodges the questions posed to him.

It is what ruins the discussion.

 

[TheAristocrat]

Principal McVicker will get to the bottom of this

 

[Joe Schmo]

Idaho legislation debate
The bill seeks to place a 10-year moratorium on the administration of “human gene therapy products,” which includes in the definition, “nucleic acids, such as plasmids and in vitro transcribed ribonucleic acid (RNA).”
The broad medical and scientific community does not consider mRNA vaccines a kind of gene therapy, according to Guy Palmer, the regents professor of pathology and infectious disease and senior director of global health at Washington State University.
“It’s conflating two different things,” Palmer told the Idaho Press regarding the bill.
Gene therapy uses a process of gene editing, which is the intentional effort to permanently change the gene of an individual, Palmer said in a phone interview. Gene editing can be used to treat disorders in which a single gene has a defect, such as cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease.
Gene therapy does come with some higher risks, Palmer said, but it’s usually tolerated in serious conditions where the disease may be worse than the potential side-effects.
The mRNA vaccines deliver what’s called messenger RNA to a cell, and the RNA teaches the cell to make a protein, which triggers an immune response inside the body.
“They don’t change your genes,” Palmer said. “It’s not just a low risk, it’s zero risk. mRNA vaccines cannot change your genetics.”
==============================================================================
The mRNA technology has been around since around the 1970s, but a major breakthrough in providing it to humans without major side effects happened about 15 years ago, Palmer said.

=====================================================================================================
“This is actually the most-studied vaccine ever developed, contrary to what some people have said,” Palmer said, “just because of the way it was rolled out to millions of people and those individuals were tracked very carefully.”

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Well more than what you and others argue to be acceptable collateral damage.

In my suspicion, the damage that's been done isn't even remotely close to being accurately quantified by 'The Science,' if the symptoms that so many have experienced/are experiencing are

a. indeed causally related to the vaxxes themselves, and
b. harbingers of more severe outcomes to come as reflections of permanently-compromised immune systems - a key proclimation of the anti-COVID-vax-technology crowd.

If the above is even somewhat true, unreasonably large could easily be catastrophically large. I don't know, and obviously hope not. We shall see over time. Or perhaps we won't if the Medical-Industrial Complex continues to succeed crafting a culture of demonization of anyone who questions The(ir) Science.

Do you have any verifiable links for any of these assertions? If not "The Science", what are you relying on for your claims?

I believe the ratio of harm is orders of magnitude higher than 1 in 10,000

Do you have any actual science or data to back this up?

Bump. I think this is part of the frustration with these topics/threads. Assertions get made and requests to back it up are ignored.

I thought when the political forum was active, there was a rule to back up claims with links. I dont know why it should be any different for this.

Who cares? If someone doesn't want to answer your question, then move on. You act like he's on trial here. It's just a message board man.

No it is just common courtesy, especially when that person started the thread and has asked people to have open mind and listen to different ideas and answers, but dodges the questions posed to him.

It is what ruins the discussion.

People answer what they’re comfortable answering. These discussions have happened for years around here. It then turns into a debate over what an acceptable link is. I almost always walk away before engaging in the same nonsense that’s happened over and over.

Refusing to answer a question doesn’t ruin discussion. Perhaps there’s no discussion left if we’ve reached that point.

This is one of those borderline political subjects where I bet no one here has or will change their mind on vaccines no matter what anyone posts. Again, it’s just a forum man.

 

[uwillbsoon]

A few thoughts, then need to get on with my day...

Assertions of belief are not the same as assertions of fact. Context and words matter.

There are new sherriffs in and coming into town. Robert Kennedy is now head of HHS. Jay Bhattacharya has been nominated to head the NIH, hopefully to be confirmed soon. These are huge appointments for the side of those seeking truth in this matter.

And at least three US states are looking into banning Covid vaccines as I type this.

To clarify, you trust a lawyer who makes money on class action suits over scientists?