COVID vaccines already up to 96x as deadly as Flu Vaccines, according to CDC's own data.

[Rafael Lao Wai]

He says a lot of sensible, well-informed things. He values good science. I hope I have a better understanding of physiology for having read him.
What Peat says and write is seems to be often oversimplified, taken out of context, and sometimes quire misrepresented. This is unfortunate.


There's plenty of confusion on this site, what withflat earthers, climate and moon-landing denial, as well as extreme anti-vax views. Some of it explicitly anti-science.
I wasn't specifically referring to that card.
You seem to have misquoted me - I didn't use the term 'confusionist' that you've put in quote marks.

Are you mixing me up with someone who has claimed that all the new vaccines are completely safe? I haven't said anything like that. I'm interested in getting things in perspective, and the stats are relevant.

Possibly I didn't make myself clear. It looks as though Australia has ordered more vaccine than it needs. I hope some of those doses will go to other countries where they will be put to good use.

Ray Peat has clearly said that there is no sign of a pandemic going on. How can that be interpreted as anything other than that he meant that there is no pandemic? How are we misinterpreting/ oversimplifying/ taking out of context what he said? I'm guessing your answer to this is that Ray isn't an expert...

What's up with the buzzwords? Anti- science, anti- vax, covid denial.

 

[Tim Lundeen]

Hmmm, so when someone has a different opinion than you, you're only response is to refer to the tired troll scenario ????

I come to RayPeat as a place to engage in open, logical & rational thinking, it seems times have changed.

Sorry, you are quite right!

 

[Tim Lundeen]

A big part of the problem is that we just don't have good data. We don't know how many people died from covid: instead, what we know is how many people died within 60 days of a positive covid test, or with symptoms consistent with covid. We don't know how many people died from all the consequences of lockdowns, versus covid.

We don't know how all the positive PCR tests relate to actual covid viral load. A PCR cycle count of 45 is multiplying the sample by 100 trillion, and is meaningless; a cycle count of 30 (1 million times multiplication) seems to correlate pretty well to having actual viral load. We just have positive PCR test counts, without knowing the cycle count, so they are meaningless.

For the vaccines, we don't know how many people died within 30 days of the vaccine, so we can compare it to normal death rates to evaluate short-term mortality risk -- and we need that by age and risk factors, obviously. Same for injuries. We don't know if the vaccines expose people to a higher risk of covid or other illness, for some period after the vaccination, by temporarily suppressing their immune system.

We don't know how effective the vaccines are for actually preventing covid deaths. There is a good paper on how the immune system responds to covid infection at Adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 - PubMed They review over 100 studies on the response of the immune system to covid. People who get really sick and perhaps die have a poor early immune response, and never create significant levels of virus-specific T cells. All of the vaccine trials were done with healthy people, who have well-functioning immune systems, and those people respond by making appropriate T-cells. But we don't know that the vaccines will have the same effect in people who are at high risk of getting really sick or dying from covid -- my reading is that a vaccine won't protect them, and will actually put them more at risk, but we don't know.

We don't know what protection the vaccines will provide in the longer run; there are already reports that they do not protect against the South African variant. We don't know if the vaccines will make some variants more deadly, because they recognize a restricted set of viral proteins, as compared to the broader range from natural immunity. There is a concern that vaccines could make some variants more deadly, or more infectious.

We don't know, obviously, what the long-term effects are from the vaccines, whether they improve overall health or cause reduced lifespan and/or increased rates of chronic illness.

However, we do know that there are treatments for covid that are extremely effective for people who need them. And we know there are things you can do to reduce the risk of serious illness.

You pays your money and takes your chances. I prefer to go with what's known, because it yields a satisfactory result, instead of what's unknown.

 

[tankasnowgod]

This sounds to me like it could have serious implications. If a decent number of people get the vaccine and are disqualified from donating blood, could it lead to blood supply shortages?
Or, perhaps just as bad, if they're allowed to go ahead and donate, would the blood supply be tainted?

It very well could. Here is the deferral list from the Red Cross-

Medication Deferral List

www.redcrossblood.org

As you can see, deferrals vary from a couple days in the case of blood thinners, to months for things like accuatane and finasteride, all the way to years/permanent for more serious medications. 12 months is the deferral for experimental medication, which is already on the high end, but that could always be expanded. At the very least, with over 90 Million Americans (basically 1/4th of the country's population) already taking this shot, and an aggressive campaign to get everyone else to take it, this could cause either a massive shortage in platelets/blood supply, and/or a massive tainting of available blood, especially over the next 12 months. I would have to assume most other countries are in a similar situation.

 

[sweetpeat]

@tankasnowgod I just looked this up on the Red Cross website:

"COVID-19 Vaccine and Blood Donor Eligibility Information
The Red Cross is following FDA blood donation eligibility guidance for those who receive a COVID-19 vaccination, and deferral times may vary depending on the type of vaccine an individual receives. If you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, you’ll need to provide the manufacturer name when you come to donate. Upon vaccination, you should receive a card or printout indicating what COVID-19 vaccine was received, and we encourage you to bring that card with you to your next donation. In most cases, there is no deferral time for individuals who received a COVID-19 vaccine as long as they are symptom free and feeling well at the time of donation. The following eligibility guidelines apply to each COVID-19 vaccine received, including boosters:

• There is no deferral time for eligible blood donors who are vaccinated with an inactivated or RNA based COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by AstraZeneca, Janssen/J&J, Moderna, Novavax, or Pfizer.
• Eligible blood donors who received a live attenuated COVID-19 vaccine or do not know what type of COVID-19 vaccine they received must wait two weeks before giving blood."

 

[tankasnowgod]

@tankasnowgod I just looked this up on the Red Cross website:

"COVID-19 Vaccine and Blood Donor Eligibility Information
The Red Cross is following FDA blood donation eligibility guidance for those who receive a COVID-19 vaccination, and deferral times may vary depending on the type of vaccine an individual receives. If you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, you’ll need to provide the manufacturer name when you come to donate. Upon vaccination, you should receive a card or printout indicating what COVID-19 vaccine was received, and we encourage you to bring that card with you to your next donation. In most cases, there is no deferral time for individuals who received a COVID-19 vaccine as long as they are symptom free and feeling well at the time of donation. The following eligibility guidelines apply to each COVID-19 vaccine received, including boosters:

• There is no deferral time for eligible blood donors who are vaccinated with an inactivated or RNA based COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by AstraZeneca, Janssen/J&J, Moderna, Novavax, or Pfizer.
• Eligible blood donors who received a live attenuated COVID-19 vaccine or do not know what type of COVID-19 vaccine they received must wait two weeks before giving blood."

So, basically, avoid getting a blood transfusion at all costs at this point. Not that blood transfusion were without risk before.

 

[Perry Staltic]

What's up with the buzzwords? Anti- science, anti- vax, covid denial.

It's the new marketing genre called science communication. First came climate communicators, now it's covid communicators. You can swap climate for covid in their communications and they sound exactly the same, eg, covid denier, climate denier.

 

[Giraffe]

We don't know how effective the vaccines are for actually preventing covid deaths. There is a good paper on how the immune system responds to covid infection at Adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 - PubMed They review over 100 studies on the response of the immune system to covid. People who get really sick and perhaps die have a poor early immune response, and never create significant levels of virus-specific T cells. All of the vaccine trials were done with healthy people, who have well-functioning immune systems, and those people respond by making appropriate T-cells. But we don't know that the vaccines will have the same effect in people who are at high risk of getting really sick or dying from covid -- my reading is that a vaccine won't protect them, and will actually put them more at risk, but we don't know.

This is my reading, too. (Thanks for linking the paper.) In people with a somewhat compromised immune system, a vaccine might (or not) give people a headstart, but people with a severely compromised immune system won't tolerate a vaccine.

This is what Dr. Michael Yeadon wrote:

Could vaccines be partly ineffective for other reasons? Indeed, vaccines are different from drugs in that their mode of action is indirect. Vaccines rely entirely on a functional immune system. However, those suffering from severe forms of COVID-19 have predominantly been shown to be either very old and/or very sick with a weakened immune system. A recent survey from Yale University highlighted that blood samples taken from severe COVID-19 patients were lacking dendritic cells – a fundamental trigger of immune response – by a factor of between two and four. A deficiency in these signalling cells would thus significantly delay the immune response, giving the virus the opportunity to replicate exponentially, and present the immune system with a radically different context: a propagated virus and inflammation disseminated throughout the body. A vaccine’s mode of action would be subject to the same delay. Although vaccines could be helpful for patients with mildly deficient immune systems, they would most likely not save very old patients with advanced immune senescence. Thus overconfidence in vaccine effectiveness for the very old could be a major risk, and mitigation treatments and immune boosting strategies should instead be contemplated..

Article linked here.

 

[Drareg]

Putting it into perspective,
- People frequently use contraceptive methods that are well-known to be less than 100% effective (abstinence being the only 100% reliable method).
- It's a lot easier to catch COVID-19.
- Ordinary day-to-day necessary activities risk exposure.
- Multiple methods of imperfect protection improve the odds.
- Reducing the rate of spread significantly can help get the pandemic under control and save many lives.
- Both wearing masks and getting vaccinated can play significant roles in reducing spread.

-vasectomy once the sperm is cleared out of the semen is close to 100%
-common cold coronaviruses are as easier to catch
-we are exposed to a multitude of pathogens daily.
-Multiple methods of imperfect protection also increase the odds of other illnesses being causes, see infections from mask wearing, imploring these odds is also delusional when we look at the odds of dying from covid in the general populace without comorbidity’s.
-reducing the PCR test to 35 cycles reduces the spread via accurate rate detection.
-Masks outside of n95 do little to nothing, we have covered this extensively on here.

We know little to nothing about the vaccines effectiveness and long term side effects, we can’t deduce what is reduction of cases when they are not clear on what PCR cycling they are now using, Peat has also being clear on the dangers of said vaccines via adjuvants, nano particles etc.

Your perspective is not grounded in science, it’s grounded in covid cultism.

 

[Drareg]

He says a lot of sensible, well-informed things. He values good science. I hope I have a better understanding of physiology for having read him.
What Peat says and write is seems to be often oversimplified, taken out of context, and sometimes quire misrepresented. This is unfortunate.


There's plenty of confusion on this site, what withflat earthers, climate and moon-landing denial, as well as extreme anti-vax views. Some of it explicitly anti-science.
I wasn't specifically referring to that card.
You seem to have misquoted me - I didn't use the term 'confusionist' that you've put in quote marks.

Are you mixing me up with someone who has claimed that all the new vaccines are completely safe? I haven't said anything like that. I'm interested in getting things in perspective, and the stats are relevant.

Possibly I didn't make myself clear. It looks as though Australia has ordered more vaccine than it needs. I hope some of those doses will go to other countries where they will be put to good use.

You need to spend time looking through the threads on here about Covid19, we have a multitude at this point that counters what you are implying.
Im taken back that you take flu vaccines, Peat isn’t wrong about adjuvants, read the evidence for yourself.

We don’t know how many lives were shortened by covid because of how they categorize deaths, also the use of mechanical ventilation.

You have not offered any evidence we can’t refute in said threads, you are offering opinions and encouraging the use of vaccines we know nothing about, no long term studies.

 

[tara]

- The protection of multiple methods is so slight their combined improvement is insignificant and not worth the cost

That is not the experience of those countries that have more successfully contained the pandemic.
Consider looking for info from those countries with very low rates of COVID fatalities. Ourworldindata covid pages have stats..
Quicker success at stopping spread is worth quite a lot compared with a year of (disruptive but not very effective) lockdown.

- The vaccines are not claimed to stop infection at all

AIUI, this is still being studied. There is some expectation or indication that lack of symptoms will at least reduce the spread.

- Efficacy of masks and these vaccines are unscientific talking points that are based on assertion, not facts and data.

There have been studies, there is some science. Since they are new, there are no long-term studies yet.
Inadequate science is best addressed by more or better science, not unfounded counter assertions.

Ray Peat has clearly said ...

Just looking at some of what he's said, I think Peat makes some good points about risks that those in power will misuse the pandemic situation for some potentially nasty - anti-human - ends. Also, wouldn't surprise me if some of his ideas on how to maintain basic metabolic health were really useful for being able to resolve infections when exposed. And he's made points about avoiding forced hyperventilation with pure oxygen (without CO2), and general tactics for immune health.

 

[tankasnowgod]

There have been studies, there is some science. Since they are new, there are no long-term studies yet.

Oh yes, there have been "studies." Never mind that those studies won't be complete until January 2023.

Since they are ongoing, it would be more technically correct to say "there have been some early results from ongoing studies."

There is also a good chance there was fraud-

More Problems With the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Data

Back in January, I wrote about some of the inherent problems with the new Pfizer-BioNtech mRNA COVID-19 'vaccine' code-named BNT162b2, and sold under the brand name Comirnaty. To quickly recap: -The drug is not really a vaccine but a gene-modifying therapy based on long-problematic mRNA...

anthonycolpo.com

You'll note that a similar number of subjects were excluded from the study for not receiving all their vaccination/placebo shots - as one would expect in a randomized study.

But take a look at the figures for those excluded due to "other important protocol deviations," which I've highlighted. No specific reasons for exclusion are provided for the folks in this vague category, which makes it a great place for researchers to pull a Study 329-style swifty. Cominarty recipients who experienced negative outcomes could easily have been "excluded" from the study and slotted into this nebulous category, hence favourably skewing the final efficacy and safety analyses.

Lo and behold, we see 311 Cominarty subjects excluded from the study for unnamed "other important protocol deviations," but only 61 in the placebo group. No explanation, of course, is provided for this striking difference.

In fact, the 250-person difference between the drug and placebo groups dwarfed the total number of COVID cases recorded in the study. In a study with only 170 total COVID-19 diagnoses, and only 6 deaths, a 250-person difference in exclusions for no specific reason could have had a huge impact on the study's results.

Did Pfizer inappropriately exclude a significant number of positive COVID-19 cases, serious adverse effects and/or deaths among Cominarty subjects using the "other important protocol deviations" category?

We don't know, but given the company's long history of criminal dishonesty it's a possibility we simply cannot rule out.

Doshii's report- https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download#page=18

With that 250 person discrepancy in "ejected cases," it's possible to make that "95% effective" rate completely disappear. It's even possible that the Pfizer vaccine caused a 91% increase in COVID 19 cases, compared to the control group.

Be honest for a second...... you really don't think Pfizer would be capable of fraud in this type of study when there are potentially tens of billions of dollars on the line? In his article, Colpo even details Pfizer's history of doing exactly that.

 

[Missenger]

Aren't they committing fraud exactly because nobody's dared bothered suing over fake vaccine trials?

 

[Tim Lundeen]

And... it turns out the Pfizer vaccine might not even work very well.

Out-of-the-park article by Colpo. It’s entirely possible that their vaunted 95% efficacy is actually closer to 0.

Did Pfizer fudge the results of their covid vaccine study?

In the meantime, people get vaccinated thinking it protects them, but in fact may be doing nothing good.

"A number of participants will also inevitably be removed from the study by researchers due to protocol violations, such as missing scheduled clinical visits or not taking or receiving the full treatment as instructed.

"This is normal and to be expected.

"What is not acceptable is when researchers exploit this phenomenon in order to skew the results in favour of their sponsor's/employer's drug. And make no mistake, this does happen.”

More Problems With the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Data

 

[RealNeat]

Looks like questioning the narrative and making a fool out of health authorities is now an underlying condition. Nothing to see here.

 

[Giraffe]

The AstraZeneca jab is pretty much finished and has spooked even the die-hard pro-vaxx crowd about the other vaccines as well.

AstraZeneca is back. EMA - the very same agency that approved the substance in the first place - has now come to the conclusion that it is save. In Germany many healthcare workers (on one occassion it was more then 50%) didn't make it to their appointment for the first shot. I am sure they will be very relieved if they get a second chance. [/irony]

 

[bk_]

In the Pfizer drug insert I found they are including this lipid (ALC-0315) which resembles a non-classic eicosanoid in structure (note the open cyclic structures, presence of hydroxyl and ester groups). The stated purpose of it is a lipid nanoparticle for drug delivery of mRNA material. I also suspect it serves the purpose of an inflammatory adjuvant.

This is quite alarming in and of itself as eicosanoids are implicated in chronic inflammation, fertility issues, and allergic responses. Hence this may explain the large painful rashes that many are seeing at the injection site.

Note that prostaglandins are a subset of eiosanoids of which Ray Peat has mentioned should be minimized for optimal health.

In adults, prostaglandins are known to be involved in many of the harmful effects of inflammation. They are formed from the polyunsaturated fats, linoleic acid and arachidonic acid, which we are unable to synthesize ourselves, so the adult’s exposure to the prostaglandins is influence by diet.

source: Regeneration and degeneration. Ray Peat, 2012.

 

[Tim Lundeen]

Yes, that lipid induces a strong inflammatory response.

Interview with Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Kruger

 

[Giraffe]

Yes, that lipid induces a strong inflammatory response.

Interview with Dr. Vanessa Schmidt-Kruger

This was a very important interview. Cool that there is a transcript in English. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Luann]

Great work, @tankasnowgod
very helpful