List of reasons people do not want to get the Covid vaccine.....

deirdre

Senior Member.
It's also turned out that for similar heart-related risks, an actual Covid infection is a lot worse than just the vaccination.
esp if his patients already had elevated heart risk.
Article:
These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk.


which according to this odd website, 11% is elevated
1637586037573.png




add:
Article:
The PULS Test and COVID-19
In the time of COVID-19, this type of testing is more important than ever before. Patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, compromised immune systems, and other chronic illnesses are at the highest risk of developing complications from the virus.

In a study of Chinese patients diagnosed with COVID-19, researchers found that there is a direct link between certain elevated biomarkers and patients who become critically ill from the virus.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
The risk of becomming sick as a healthy young person and the risk to get to the hospital is very small.
If it happens that you get Covid-19 they rather take medication or stay home sick.
I think a lot of people don't know what the risk actually is.
You can't stay home if you can't breathe.

Here's some current data from the state of Washington's department of health: https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Do...-tables/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf
SmartSelect_20211122-163931_Samsung Notes.jpg
This data is from February-October 2021.

The 30876+105390=136266 unvaccinated people age 12-34 who caught Covid had a 2614/136266=1.9% chance to end up in the hospital, that's 1 in 50 people in that age group.

The 20535 vaccinated people age 12-34 who caught Covid had a 103/20535=0.5% chance to end up in hospital, that's only 1 in 200.

And people not being vaccinated causes hospitals to fill up faster.
SmartSelect_20211122-163227_Samsung Notes.jpg
The difference is so huge because vaccinated people are also a lot less likely to catch (symptomatic) Covid.

We're going to have Covid patients hogging the ICU beds again this winter who needn't have been there this time because they could've gotten vaccinated.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
some would rather take medication when they are sick and dont want to take a shot when they are perfectly healthy. The risk of becoming sick as a healthy young person and the risk to get to the hospital is very small.
If it happens that you get Covid-19 they rather take medication or stay home sick.
In other words not taking something when you arent sick but healthy is for some people enough reason not to take a vaccine not even as a precaution.
You dont take something for a sickness or a virus you dont have. Rather take a cure at the moment you get sick and not beforehand.

I guess one argument people would make against that is that it's not just about taking it for oneself but also "taking one for the team" - ie, the population as a whole, in order to protect those more vulnerable and to speed the end of the pandemic: an argument from a position of selflessness and helping out.

(It's not an argument that would sway me - at least not at this stage - but I think if a young healthy person is living in the thick of it it's something to consider.)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
and to speed the end of the pandemic
they've been saying that for 2 years now and nothing we do is "ending" it. my state as very high vaccination rates (higher than i personally considered feasible based on flu vaccine rates etc) and the pandemic is still here.

but.. our hospitals are not overwhelmed. so if i get in car accident or fall off a cliff because i was drunk, i can feel good knowing i'll get adequate care without picking up a hospital staph infection (which are on the rise because of overwhelmed hospital staff), go septic and die.

Article:
The study, by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, highlights the broad toll the pandemic has taken. It found that rates of several types of hospital-acquired infections rose after the pandemic reached U.S. shores in 2020.
 

Itsme

Active Member
Here are the graphs related to the PULS story on the previous page of this thread. Anyone with sufficient knowledge to tell whether the three indicated biomarkers are expected to go up after vaccination? The 2nd bar in the bar graphs indicates levels "2 to 10 weeks after 2nd dose". I wonder if the 10 week values are at the low end of the corresponding error bars and the 2 week values at the high end.
FEtblJtXIAYCBux.jpg
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Here are the graphs related to the PULS story on the previous page
I'm wondering about the y-axis of the "above the norm" graphs: does "soluble Fas" going from 20 to 45 really mean it's increasing from 120% to 145%?
Why is he comparing averages and not change-per-patient?
How much is a comparably sick cohort that hasn't been vaccinated expected to get worse?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I'm wondering about the y-axis of the "above the norm" graphs: does "soluble Fas" going from 20 to 45 really mean it's increasing from 120% to 145%?
Why is he comparing averages and not change-per-patient?
How much is a comparably sick cohort that hasn't been vaccinated expected to get worse?
Look on the bright side.. 556 "patients" seems like alot for his clinics. so i'm going to assume they are at least encouraging their patients with heart disease to get vaccinated.
 

Itsme

Active Member
Some interesting background info on the PULS test:

Its website summarizes and links to a clinical evaluation of the PULS test.

This clinical evaluation consisted of nothing more than asking cardiologists whether the test could be helpful in determining risk and treatment for their patients:
A Web‐based survey of cardiology, internal medicine, family practice, and obstetrics/gynecology physicians (n = 206) was conducted to assess the CHDRAclinical impact. Each physician was shown 3 clinical vignettes representing community‐based cohort participants randomly selected from 8 total vignettes. For each, the physicians assessed the individual's CHD risk and selected preferred therapies based on the individual's comorbidities, physical examination, and laboratory results. The individual's CHDRA score was then provided and the physicians were queried for changes to their initial treatment plans.

The writers of this survey based "clinical evaluation" were tied to a company called Aviir, Inc.
The authors disclose the following financial relationships: Drs. Hytopoulos, Beggs, Harrington, and French, and Ms. Tirupsur were employees of Aviir, Inc. Dr. Solomon was a consultant to Aviir, Inc. Dr. Quertermous has an ownership interest in Aviir, Inc.

Aviir, Inc no longer exists, but it's CEO, Douglas Harrington, is the Executive Chairman and Founder of the Predictive Health Diagnostics Company, which is the company that sells the PULS test...

Grundy has used PULS test results before, in a poster presentation to sell his ideas of the benefits of a lectin avoidance diet.
 

Itsme

Active Member
In advance i want to say this first : i respect everyones freedom and opinion. I wont judge people for their own personal choices.
Here is another down to earth reason why some dont take the vaccine.

- some would rather take medication when they are sick and dont want to take a shot when they are perfectly healthy. The risk of becomming sick as a healthy young person and the risk to get to the hospital is very small.
If it happens that you get Covid-19 they rather take medication or stay home sick.
In other words not taking something when you arent sick but healthy is for some people enough reason not to take a vaccine not even as a precaution.
You dont take something for a sickness or a virus you dont have. Rather take a cure at the moment you get sick and not beforehand.

Nothing to do with conspiracy but more a down to earth explenation for some.
I know many healthy people think this way. They eat healthy and give their body regular workouts to prevent illness.

But at the same time they deny their immune system a workout to prevent the virus from overwhelming it. Such a immune system workout currently is the only effective thing on offer in health care. Waiting to get sick will leave you with no other option than hoping your immune system will get rid of the virus and at the same time will not overreact, while the damage done by the virus in the process will be limited.
 

Itsme

Active Member
But still:
"People with heart disease or stroke – or for that matter, risk factors for heart disease and stroke – are at much greater risk from the virus than they are from the vaccine,"
Source
"People with heart disease or stroke – or for that matter, risk factors for heart disease and stroke – are at much greater risk from the virus than they are from the vaccine," he said. That's why the AHA encourages people with cardiovascular risk factors, heart disease or a history of heart attack or stroke to get vaccinated "as soon as possible."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Leifer

Senior Member.
Last edited:

FatPhil

Active Member
Hm. Circulation seems reputable enough:


But reading Dr Gundry's wikipedia he comes in for a fair bit of stick for promoting "quackery and pseudoscience".

(I wonder if this one and the previous two posts should be moved to 'current Covid events' rather than this thread?)

Sorry if I'm being a bit thread-drifty, but I encountered a news story about twitter scare-blocking links to a paper by the AHA, did my own research, and finally found my way back to this thread. So here's a little update just on that paper.

Alt-right flap: "Twitter Slaps 'Unsafe' Label On American Heart Association mRNA Vaccine Warning" https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/...erican-heart-association-mrna-vaccine-warning (screenshot of twitter's scare block here: https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-p...bile/public/inline-images/FFnY15LVEAIwfCq.png , it's just the usual "identified .. as spammy or unsafe", nothing specific).

Searching for the DOI lead quickly to: "Abstract linking COVID-19 vaccines to heart trouble risk earns expression of concern" -- https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11...art-trouble-risk-earns-expression-of-concern/
And of course, the name and journal immediately rang a bell from this thread. So, there you go, even the AHA aren't so happy with the paper now.
 

NorCal Dave

Active Member
There is some sort of Big Pharma conspiracy!

On this topic, I spent some time with 2 pharmacist friends a couple of weeks back. One is semi-retired (works the local hospital on a fill in basis) and the other has their own small boutique pharmacy. The retired one is a dear friend of 15+ years who says they are not anti-vax, but, found the movie “Vaxxed” very compelling and has not been vaccinated because they are currently taking a MAB (monoclonal antibody) drug for something. My youngest is a med-chem person and tells me that MABs tend to lower one’s immune response, so making one more at risk for COVID (?!). Please correct me if I’m wrong on this.

The boutique pharmacist has been filling lots of Ivermectin (human version) and other Rx’s for various COVID cures.

They discussed a new treatment coming out that was prescribed with some sort of old time generic drug. Bottom line is they think there may be many generic treatments out there that don’t net Big Pharma a nice prophet and so are brushed aside.

Not saying I agree, it was just one of those “fly on the wall” moments, where I heard how they thought.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
My youngest is a med-chem person and tells me that MABs tend to lower one’s immune response, so making one more at risk for COVID (?!).
Well, vaccines are supposed to trigger an immune response, so they may not work simultaneously with MABs? If you're on immune suppressants, advice is to talk to your doctor if you can schedule to go off them for a week, and have the vaccination then.

But I'm sure a doctor who has actually seen the patient has better advice than I do!
 

FatPhil

Active Member
it isnt a paper. it's just an abstract with no back up data provided.

Technically true, thanks for the correction from a precision perspective.

However, the sole purpose of an abstract is to represent the paper, and therefore I think it's not unjustified to project some estimations of worth from the part to the whole. If he can't even get the simplified summary right, what hope has he with the difficult part?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
the sole purpose of an abstract is to represent the paper
In this case, it's an abstract for a conference submission.
Typically, conferences select presentations based on the abstract, and then set a separate deadline for the paper that is to go into the volume of conference proceedings. This does not constitute peer review.
 

NorCal Dave

Active Member
Well, vaccines are supposed to trigger an immune response, so they may not work simultaneously with MABs? If you're on immune suppressants, advice is to talk to your doctor if you can schedule to go off them for a week, and have the vaccination then.

But I'm sure a doctor who has actually seen the patient has better advice than I do!
I wouldn't know either, but I should have been more clear: This person had no intention of getting a vaccine, even before starting on the MAB. We have had extensive, and shall we say spirited, discussions about Andrew Wakefield's film, Vaxxed. This is an otherwise non-conspiratorial person.

As related to this tread, my friend feels that after 30+ years as a pharmacist, Big Pharma too often will roll out something new and possibly unproven only to have to pull it latter, with something like "fen-phen" as an example. All the while, ignoring potentially useful, but generic and out of patent drugs that already exist for financial reasons. It's not a completely unreasoned position, but one that, I think, can be taken too far. Such as in this case where one ends up with something like:

"Big Pharma is suppressing the usefulness of generic Ivermectin, so they can sell their new and unproven mRNA vaccine".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenfluramine/phentermine
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
All the while, ignoring potentially useful, but generic and out of patent drugs that already exist for financial reasons
You can't pull out-of-patent drugs off the market because anyone can produce them. It's up to physians to prescribe them.

The problem is that these things cut both ways: in the beginning synthetic insulin was much more expensive to produce than pig insulin, but had less side effects. Give people get the synth, and complain about the price; give people the pig insulin, and they sue you if they happen to suffer from a side effect. (Current insulin prices in the US are shameless, though, from what I hear.)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
As related to this tread, my friend feels that after 30+ years as a pharmacist, Big Pharma too often will roll out something new and possibly unproven only to have to pull it latter, with something like "fen-phen" as an example. All the while, ignoring potentially useful, but generic and out of patent drugs that already exist for financial reasons. It's not a completely unreasoned position, but one that, I think, can be taken too far. Such as in this case where one ends up with something like:

"Big Pharma is suppressing the usefulness of generic Ivermectin, so they can sell their new and unproven mRNA vaccine".

that's weird, as a pharmacist (ie your friend) , i would think he would understand the difference between proactive (vaccines) and reactive (i'm already sick) medical interventions. He's comparing apples and oranges.

and Andrew Wakeman falsified his data. There is no argument for that.
 

NorCal Dave

Active Member
You can't pull out-of-patent drugs off the market because anyone can produce them. It's up to physians to prescribe them.
Agreed*, and because of that they cost a lot less, at least in the States. My friend's former pharmacy dealt largely in generics and thinks that Big Pharma will always try to come up with a new drug with a higher price and profit margin, even if there is something generic that already works.

I don't think the argument really works. New drugs are often improvements and/or the result of new research and/or new understandings of how things work. And lots of generic drugs that are useful are prescribed all the time. And while this thread is probably not the place to discuss drug pricing, regardless if something is generic or under-patent, nobody is making them for free. Generics can be cheaper and still profitable, because in part, the manufacture is not trying to recoup the massive investment it takes to get a new drug to market.

Again, I'm trying to explain what I think this person's conspiratorial mindset is about the vaccines.

*I suppose the FDA, or your German equivalent, could revoke their approval of a drug, such that it can't be sold or prescribed?
that's weird, as a pharmacist (ie your friend) , i would think he would understand the difference between proactive (vaccines) and reactive (i'm already sick) medical interventions. He's comparing apples and oranges.
I'm not saying it makes sense, just that, as I said above, it seems the thinking goes "If there are probably generic therapeutics (think low profit margin) that can help with COVID, why is Big Pharma and the government foisting these new-fangled and unproven vaccines on us if not for financial reasons?"
and Andrew Wakeman falsified his data. There is no argument for that.
The film Vaxxed is almost worse. Could probably use it's own thread.

On a vaccine side note, the wife and I got our Moderna boosters (#3) mid day Saturday and by Sunday morning it hit pretty hard. Didn't feel like doing anything. Some chills and really good body aches, above and beyond the normal "I'm old and busted" aches and pains. I almost took a nap, which is not something I do. As of now, Sunday evening, having a cocktail and still moving veeeery slow.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
On a vaccine side note, the wife and I got our Moderna boosters (#3) mid day Saturday and by Sunday morning it hit pretty hard. Didn't feel like doing anything. Some chills and really good body aches, above and beyond the normal "I'm old and busted" aches and pains. I almost took a nap, which is not something I do. As of now, Sunday evening, having a cocktail and still moving veeeery slow.

when did you get your second dose? all the elders i know who got their Moderna boosters had no effects. but they all got their second doses (Moderna) by like March.
wondering if it is time between shots, or maybe as they are all over 65 if maybe their immune systems aren't as robust so dont react as strongly to the vaccine. ?? (of course i read this is only the case for some older people, not all of them.)

How was your wife?
 

NorCal Dave

Active Member
when did you get your second dose? all the elders i know who got their Moderna boosters had no effects. but they all got their second doses (Moderna) by like March.
wondering if it is time between shots, or maybe as they are all over 65 if maybe their immune systems aren't as robust so dont react as strongly to the vaccine. ?? (of course i read this is only the case for some older people, not all of them.)

How was your wife?
We got our first 2 Moderna in March and April of this year. I'll be 58 in January and the wife is 54 and felt about like I did, so maybe in our mid/late 50's we have still have enough immune system left to make us feel bad for a day.:rolleyes: Unfortunately, I'm driving her down to the airport (Sacramento) tomorrow morning for business travel, so hopefully it will have passed by then and she'll be alright.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
*I suppose the FDA, or your German equivalent, could revoke their approval of a drug, such that it can't be sold or prescribed?
Yes, that happens, but usually for a reason.

One reason is that a better alternative becomes available. (Since 2011, by German law, new medication can't cost more than existing older medication, unless the manufacturer can show that it's also better.)

Another reason is that previously unknown risks come to light, and alternate treatments are available. For example, clobutinol was used as a cough supressant since the 1960s. Clobutinol was in 2007 determined to cause cardiac arrhythmia in some patients, and now you can't buy it any more.

Last year, it was determined that the production process for some a
ngiotensin II receptor blockers can also generate nitrosamines, which is a cancer risk; manufacturers have to prove that their medication is free of these, or lose its approval.

In all of these decisions, comparisons are important.
No medication is 100% safe and 100% effective, but the approved medications are supposed to be better than the alternative.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Pete Tar Wiki's List Of Common Misconceptions. General Discussion 16
Mathias Olsen Partially Debunked: List of Monsanto Employees in Government Conspiracy Theories 30
Oxymoron Debunked: 9/11: Flight 77 "suspicious" Passenger list 9/11 328
Oxymoron Leaked: Drone Kill List: Authority to kill American citizens has no geographic limit Conspiracy Theories 11
Twenty2AcaciaAve The Prof/Engineer list that truthers always talk about. 9/11 47
Clock List of 9/11 threads on Metabunk General Discussion 0
MikeC Resource: airliner list by serial number Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Mick West Debunked: Environmental Working Group’s ‘Dirty Dozen’ List Science and Pseudoscience 6
Mat Reasons to believe in Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Rory Claim: adverse reactions in Covid vaccine trials are not being recorded Coronavirus COVID-19 69
P Claim: 75 Deaths of athletes in Five Months are Because of COVID-19 vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 11
trevor COVID vaccine and VAERS discussion Coronavirus COVID-19 43
Rory Claim: Covid vaccines contains self-aware aluminum parasites Coronavirus COVID-19 44
T Claim: Offguardian article claiming that Covid PCR testing is flawed and not reliable Coronavirus COVID-19 8
P Friend has fallen into COVID-conspiracies Coronavirus COVID-19 95
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Mick West Are 99% of COVID-19 Deaths Among the Unvaccinated? Coronavirus COVID-19 43
Peter Finnish politician on possible Covid Vaccine Genocide Coronavirus COVID-19 12
D Claim: Videos of people exhaling vape smoke through a mask, demonstrate masks as useless against a virus.. Coronavirus COVID-19 42
P Need Debunking: "Experimental Vaccine Death Rate for Israel's Elderly 40 Times Higher Than COVID-19 Deaths" Coronavirus COVID-19 7
G Claim: China refused to hand "key data" to WHO delegation during the recent investigation in Wuhan Coronavirus COVID-19 29
Oystein Report: "23 die in Norway after receiving Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine" (NY Post) Coronavirus COVID-19 9
JMartJr Covid Stimulus Bill mandates UFO Disclosure UFOs and Aliens 5
A.G. Explained: Covid-19 research with pre-2020 dates in Google search results Coronavirus COVID-19 4
Mick West Explained: "Disappearing needles" in Covid Vaccinations Coronavirus COVID-19 1
Adam Taylor A Plug for "You Can Know Things" Coronavirus COVID-19 0
B Covid hoaxer and anti vaxxer’s son, speaks out. Coronavirus COVID-19 1
A Needs Debunking: Proposed COVID Vaccine will become part of our DNA, make us programmable Coronavirus COVID-19 37
Shade sitter Claim: Covid vaccine gives you "Serpent" DNA/marks you 666 Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Arugula Claim: Only 6% of COVID deaths are "real" - the rest died due to comorbidities Coronavirus COVID-19 12
Mendel The E-PAI report on the Origins of COVID-19 Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Dingo Claim: U.S. Covid-19 Deaths are being Artificially Inflated Coronavirus COVID-19 38
omaehamoushindeiru Claim:Natural Covid-19 broke out of Wuhan lab (not man-made) Coronavirus COVID-19 72
Dan Wilson Claim:HIV Protein Sequences in Covid-19 (report withdrawn by authors) & other "man made" claims Coronavirus COVID-19 32
Arugula COVID-19 Coronavirus current events Coronavirus COVID-19 1006
Related Articles





































Related Articles

Top