"The Unvaccinated Are Looking Smarter Every Week"

[CanadaJohn]

I don't think my intelligence has been alter one bit as a result of anything to do with COVID and the vaccines. I've been fully vaccinated with the COVID shots since late May and last week I got the seasonal flu shot. Don't feel any different after the shots than before the shots, but then I've been getting the annual flu shot for decades and have never had the flu during that time.

I can remember times in the distance past when I've been sick and I can assure all that being sick is neither smart nor fun. Have to say that I credit the annual flu shot with my not having had the flu recently. And being part of a provincial health research group, I had blood tests in the summer that indicated my blood is loaded with COVID antibodies. The research couldn't determine if the COVID shot was responsible for the elevated COVID antibodies or if I had COVID previously and these are naturally occurring antibodies based on fighting the disease. I will presume the COVID vaccine did the trick, since I haven't even been remotely ill in years and being older would likely have known if I'd had COVID.

Bottom line, I'm not pleased with a lot of the ancillary actions/restrictions taken by government here related to COVID but I don't for a minute feel "dumb" for taking advantage of preventative vaccines when made available.

 

[Overitall]

A question for anyone reading it:

Is it a good thing to post information which you have not attempted to evaluate? {Ref. 6.a. above.]

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

We are a team on DP. We jointly evaluate information.

 

[Fledermaus]

Yep. I would picket it until your business was forced to close.

One antivaxxer won't do squat and the vaccinated will fill the one hole.

 

[eohrnberger]

It was sarcastic.

OK

Doing their own research = Reading some idiot website.



And those wouldn't be idiots "doing their own research".
Now would they?

No, they wouldn't be.

 

[Overitall]

One antivaxxer won't do squat and the vaccinated will fill the one hole.

I wouldn't underestimate boycott campaign.

One man awake,
Awakens another.
The second awakens
His next door brother.
The three awake can rouse a town
By turning
the whole place
Upside down
The many awake
Can cause such a fuss
It finally awakens the rest of us.
One man up,
With dawn in his eyes
Surely then
Multiplies

The antivaxxers also have the support of many of the vaccinated.

 

[Torus34]

I wouldn't underestimate boycott campaign.

One man awake,
Awakens another.
The second awakens
His next door brother.
The three awake can rouse a town
By turning
the whole place
Upside down
The many awake
Can cause such a fuss
It finally awakens the rest of us.
One man up,
With dawn in his eyes
Surely then
Multiplies

The antivaxxers also have the support of many of the vaccinated.

The poem is titled Awaken. It is attributed to Lawrence Tribble and has been put to music by Leeland.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

[Gaius46]

I think everyone is comfortable using google. As to reputable from disreputable. If someone cannot tell the difference between sites like cdc.gov, mayoclinic.org, hopkinsmedicine.org, and some nutjobs youtube video, then they are hopeless. Also, reputable sources will always cite the relevant studies and published work to backup their claims.

Anti-vaxxers are generally people that lack good critical thinking skills.

Talk to black people who had kin experimented on years ago about trusting government sources.

I don’t immediately trust government sources or blanket declarative statements from ANY sources. I only decided the mRNA vaccines were safe after reading up on the history of the technology and how the mRNA vaccines are supposed to work, vaccine specific safety issues and understanding the FDA approval process (to make sure they actually weren’t cutting corners).

Many people won’t go through that effort but they shouldn’t have to. They should be given specific, detailed but understandable to a general audience, information on the vaccines and not just glib one liners about safety.

Perfect case in point. Vaccines often take years - decades - to develop and get approved. To outsiders these took barely a year. People understandably have questions about that. Were those questions answered by anyone in detail in the mass media? Not that I saw. I saw no one talk about the fact that

- we’ve been studying and developing potential vaccines for SARS related viruses since 2005,

- orders of magnitude more money and labor were thrown at development of these vaccines than is normal speeding up development even further,

- Phase 1 and 2 trials were done simulatenously to speed up - without short cutting - the approval process

- There were literally millions of people volunteeringbfor Phase III trials - reseachers didn’t have to go begging for test subjects as is the more normal case and so they could gather in months data that normally takes years to acquire,

- while we don’t have long term safety data no vaccine prior has show side effects after a couple of months because vaccines are designed to be purged from the body quickly.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Another "kill the messenger" post. It gets old.

Perhaps, but necessary. American Thinker has been discredited as a viable source of information multiple times, including using discredited sources to push the Big Lie, something they themselves acknowledged.

Faced with a lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems, Lifson acknowledged that the site had relied upon "discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories".[8] The American Thinker likewise admitted that its election claims were "completely false and have no basis in fact" and that "it was wrong for us to publish these false statements."[9]

American Thinker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Noodlegawd]

1. I was checking Google News, as I do each morning.

2. When I saw this headline in the "Health" section, I was intrigued.

3. It is in the October 16 edition of American Thinker. (I do not know how to link. Sorry!)

4. If you have an open mind on this controversial topic, you may wish to read the article.

5. I commend Google News for publishing it.

a. I am guessing that some people are accusing it of spreading "misinformation."

b. I assume that this article is banned on social media.

6. I was completely vaccinated in August, for I wanted my vaccine passport.

a. I, of course, do not know how accurate the article is.

b. But I do think that saying this is the pandemic of the unvaccinated may need rethinking.

I stopped at "It has been shown now that the vaccinated equally catch and spread the virus."

That's complete bullshit right out of the gate.

 

[Overitall]

The poem is titled Awaken. It is attributed to Lawrence Tribble and has been put to music by Leeland.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

My bad for not attributing credit to the author. Thanks.

 

[Overitall]

Perhaps, but necessary. American Thinker has been discredited as a viable source of information multiple times, including using discredited sources to push the Big Lie, something they themselves acknowledged.

Faced with a lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems, Lifson acknowledged that the site had relied upon "discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories".[8] The American Thinker likewise admitted that its election claims were "completely false and have no basis in fact" and that "it was wrong for us to publish these false statements."[9]

American Thinker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While that may be true it's also true for other sources that have gained widespread acceptance by the public. You don't have to accept the American Thinker as a reliable source due to its past misinformation, but the fact remains that people see articles like the one of the OP written by an MD and you can't reasonably dismiss what he says until you look under the hood. I consider that to be intellectual dishonesty caused by bias. JS.

 

[Lycanthrope]

While that may be true it's also true for other sources that have gained widespread acceptance by the public. You don't have to accept the American Thinker as a reliable source due to its past misinformation, but the fact remains that people see articles like the one of the OP written by an MD and you can't reasonably dismiss what he says until you look under the hood. I consider that to be intellectual dishonesty caused by bias. JS.

And that's a fair point - each article/claim needs to be examined on its own merits.

From what I've seen, American Thinker is by and large a conservative blog with multiple op-ed pieces. Again, that doesn't justify a blanket dismissal of their opinions, just good to have that context when evaluating their claims. It is to their credit that they acknowledged their error in relying on discredited sources to claim Trump was cheated. A lot of media (both sides) wouldn't have made such a retraction.

Disclaimer: yes, liberal media needs to undergo the same scrutiny.

 

[Mustachio]

1. I was checking Google News, as I do each morning.

2. When I saw this headline in the "Health" section, I was intrigued.

3. It is in the October 16 edition of American Thinker. (I do not know how to link. Sorry!)

4. If you have an open mind on this controversial topic, you may wish to read the article.

5. I commend Google News for publishing it.

a. I am guessing that some people are accusing it of spreading "misinformation."

b. I assume that this article is banned on social media.

6. I was completely vaccinated in August, for I wanted my vaccine passport.

a. I, of course, do not know how accurate the article is.

b. But I do think that saying this is the pandemic of the unvaccinated may need rethinking.

Are the unvaccinated purchasing monocles? That’s a smart look.

 

[Torus34]

My bad for not attributing credit to the author. Thanks.

Hi again.

I got your back.

Best wishes to you and yours.

 

[JasperL]

I know you say and believe that, but I wonder how much effort you actually put into digging through the info contained in the links. For instance in the first one you'll find this:

Are you claiming that the study done by the Public Health depts. of Madison and Dane County are "garbage"? Have you even bothered to look it up?

No, the hack article didn't link to the study, and I'm not paying $5 to read the rest of what that site has to say about it. If it was a legitimate site, the author links to the study. Or to a source that doesn't have a paywall. Just for example, he could have linked to the U of W website. The link to the study is in the opening paragraph, and the source is free. Or even better, link to the study itself, so I don't have to work to find it and read it. Here's that link: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v3

OK, so let's look at the study. Remember, this is the claim, quoting from the American Thinker [sic]: "It has been shown now that the vaccinated equally catch and spread the virus."

And if you read the study, you will see this:

"Importantly, our study was not designed to estimate the rate of infection despite vaccination, but rather to determine whether individuals infected despite vaccination could have high viral loads consistent with the potential to transmit SARS-CoV-2."

In other words, the researchers note that their study wasn't designed to and could not test whether vaccination affected the rate of infection, and the hack author misrepresented the study and its conclusions. This was entirely predictable - see above.

Worse, you don't need the statement in the paper to know this. The limitation is obvious before you read the disclaimer because the researchers start with a sample of positive tests, and the VAST majority of those positive tests are symptomatic, whether vaccinated or not. Well, we all know that BTIs - breakthrough infections - are possible with Delta, and so the study looked at those who had a BTI, then determined that those not protected by the vaccine (i.e. were infected, and with symptoms) had high viral loads. That's interesting, I guess, but it tells us NOTHING about the vaccine's effectiveness against infection or spread, other than the vaccine isn't 100% effective against Delta, which we knew.

So the author is either dumb as box of Trump campaign MAGA hats, or a liar, or both. And American Thinker [sic] hired this dumbass to write an article, or they hired him because they knew he'd lie his ass off. Do I care if he's a moron or a liar? No.

When they hear people like yourself calling medical professionals "quacks" because they present an alternative viewpoint than one you favor....

I called him a quack because he chose to link to garbage websites, which is a common tactic of idiots and hacks. Then I checked the study he referenced, and he's a liar or a moron (or both, obviously). It's not that he has an alternative viewpoint, but that he has to lie to present that viewpoint, and that's what we see over and over and over and over. If the author was informed, and could make his case with legitimate sources, he would not link indirectly to a study that very EXPLICITLY rejects his conclusion of the results.

 

[JasperL]

While that may be true it's also true for other sources that have gained widespread acceptance by the public. You don't have to accept the American Thinker as a reliable source due to its past misinformation, but the fact remains that people see articles like the one of the OP written by an MD and you can't reasonably dismiss what he says until you look under the hood. I consider that to be intellectual dishonesty caused by bias. JS.

Here's the problem - sites like that rely on people NOT checking under the hood, and they're right probably 99% of the time. It's a garbage website. I'd say the onus is on anyone relying on American Thinker [sic] to do the checking before linking it here.

 

[JasperL]

And that's a fair point - each article/claim needs to be examined on its own merits.

From what I've seen, American Thinker is by and large a conservative blog with multiple op-ed pieces. Again, that doesn't justify a blanket dismissal of their opinions, just good to have that context when evaluating their claims. It is to their credit that they acknowledged their error in relying on discredited sources to claim Trump was cheated. A lot of media (both sides) wouldn't have made such a retraction.

Disclaimer: yes, liberal media needs to undergo the same scrutiny.

No, it's not to their credit. They were facing a massive lawsuit by Dominion, and so retracted their claim, that they knew as baseless BS, to avoid that lawsuit and paying crippling damages. They retracted the claims because they were forced to retract it, and they were forced to because they knew their original claims were libelous.

 

[Lycanthrope]

No, it's not to their credit. They were facing a massive lawsuit by Dominion, and so retracted their claim, that they knew as baseless BS, to avoid that lawsuit and paying crippling damages. They retracted the claims because they were forced to retract it, and they were forced to because they knew their original claims were libelous.

I get it. Just trying to circumvent the inevitable "BUT LIBRULZ" deflection.

 

[JasperL]

I agree with you. And the odds are really quite good that the mRNA vaccines will behave like every other vaccine we've ever developed. The problem is lots of people don't know that. They don't know the history of vaccines and their safety and likely many people, who aren't doctors or scientists or immunologists and just don't know any better, put vaccines in the same bucket as drugs that have shown serious side effects years later.

You really can't blame them. Yeah you can say they should learn but this stuff is rocket science and most of what's written about vaccine safety, aside from glib statements like "vaccines are safe, trust us" is not written for general populations. We have don't a shit job of educating people.

To be fair, the MAGA contingent has deliberately muddied the waters. The best case is the people on the right didn't do their own work before spreading false claims, that they knew were false or were just ignorant about, that they could have known were false if they, say, called up someone at CDC or FDA, someone on the review panel, and had a discussion with them about vaccine safety, etc.

 

[Overitall]

No, the hack article didn't link to the study, and I'm not paying $5 to read the rest of what that site has to say about it. If it was a legitimate site, the author links to the study. Or to a source that doesn't have a paywall. Just for example, he could have linked to the U of W website. The link to the study is in the opening paragraph, and the source is free. Or even better, link to the study itself, so I don't have to work to find it and read it. Here's that link: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v3

OK, so let's look at the study. Remember, this is the claim, quoting from the American Thinker [sic]: "It has been shown now that the vaccinated equally catch and spread the virus."

And if you read the study, you will see this:

"Importantly, our study was not designed to estimate the rate of infection despite vaccination, but rather to determine whether individuals infected despite vaccination could have high viral loads consistent with the potential to transmit SARS-CoV-2."

In other words, the researchers note that their study wasn't designed to and could not test whether vaccination affected the rate of infection, and the hack author misrepresented the study and its conclusions. This was entirely predictable - see above.

Worse, you don't need the statement in the paper to know this. The limitation is obvious before you read the disclaimer because the researchers start with a sample of positive tests, and the VAST majority of those positive tests are symptomatic, whether vaccinated or not. Well, we all know that BTIs - breakthrough infections - are possible with Delta, and so the study looked at those who had a BTI, then determined that those not protected by the vaccine (i.e. were infected, and with symptoms) had high viral loads. That's interesting, I guess, but it tells us NOTHING about the vaccine's effectiveness against infection or spread, other than the vaccine isn't 100% effective against Delta, which we knew.

So the author is either dumb as box of Trump campaign MAGA hats, or a liar, or both. And American Thinker [sic] hired this dumbass to write an article, or they hired him because they knew he'd lie his ass off. Do I care if he's a moron or a liar? No.


I called him a quack because he chose to link to garbage websites, which is a common tactic of idiots and hacks. Then I checked the study he referenced, and he's a liar or a moron (or both, obviously). It's not that he has an alternative viewpoint, but that he has to lie to present that viewpoint, and that's what we see over and over and over and over. If the author was informed, and could make his case with legitimate sources, he would not link indirectly to a study that very EXPLICITLY rejects his conclusion of the results.

I'm reading this from your citatation:

Using PCR threshold cycle (Ct) data from a single large contract laboratory, we show that individuals in Wisconsin, USA had similar viral loads in nasal swabs, irrespective of vaccine status, during a time of high and increasing prevalence of the Delta variant

That statement seems to support the authors statement of "It has been shown now that the vaccinated equally catch and spread the virus."

I looked a few times and could not find your quotation from the study.

In any case your endeavor to dig deeper is what I expect and respect.

 

[Lycanthrope]

No, the hack article didn't link to the study, and I'm not paying $5 to read the rest of what that site has to say about it. If it was a legitimate site, the author links to the study. Or to a source that doesn't have a paywall. Just for example, he could have linked to the U of W website. The link to the study is in the opening paragraph, and the source is free. Or even better, link to the study itself, so I don't have to work to find it and read it. Here's that link: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v3

OK, so let's look at the study. Remember, this is the claim, quoting from the American Thinker [sic]: "It has been shown now that the vaccinated equally catch and spread the virus."

And if you read the study, you will see this:

"Importantly, our study was not designed to estimate the rate of infection despite vaccination, but rather to determine whether individuals infected despite vaccination could have high viral loads consistent with the potential to transmit SARS-CoV-2."

In other words, the researchers note that their study wasn't designed to and could not test whether vaccination affected the rate of infection, and the hack author misrepresented the study and its conclusions. This was entirely predictable - see above.

Worse, you don't need the statement in the paper to know this. The limitation is obvious before you read the disclaimer because the researchers start with a sample of positive tests, and the VAST majority of those positive tests are symptomatic, whether vaccinated or not. Well, we all know that BTIs - breakthrough infections - are possible with Delta, and so the study looked at those who had a BTI, then determined that those not protected by the vaccine (i.e. were infected, and with symptoms) had high viral loads. That's interesting, I guess, but it tells us NOTHING about the vaccine's effectiveness against infection or spread, other than the vaccine isn't 100% effective against Delta, which we knew.

So the author is either dumb as box of Trump campaign MAGA hats, or a liar, or both. And American Thinker [sic] hired this dumbass to write an article, or they hired him because they knew he'd lie his ass off. Do I care if he's a moron or a liar? No.


I called him a quack because he chose to link to garbage websites, which is a common tactic of idiots and hacks. Then I checked the study he referenced, and he's a liar or a moron (or both, obviously). It's not that he has an alternative viewpoint, but that he has to lie to present that viewpoint, and that's what we see over and over and over and over. If the author was informed, and could make his case with legitimate sources, he would not link indirectly to a study that very EXPLICITLY rejects his conclusion of the results.

Thank you for taking the time to critique that. Respect.

 

[Overitall]

Here's the problem - sites like that rely on people NOT checking under the hood, and they're right probably 99% of the time. It's a garbage website. I'd say the onus is on anyone relying on American Thinker [sic] to do the checking before linking it here.

That's a fair point, but so is this from the OP:

"But I do think that saying this is the pandemic of the unvaccinated may need rethinking."

Obviously the author of the OP has some limitations which I only helped by providing the link missing from the OP. I noted at the time that it contained numerous links which would require further digging to determine by implication the accuracy of the claims. Instead of complaining about the source (American Thinker) which is a logical fallacy, one can do one of two things -- ignore the thread or attempt to debunk the claims -- as you attempted to do in your previous post I responded to.

 

[Visbek]

Perfect case in point. Vaccines often take years - decades - to develop and get approved. To outsiders these took barely a year. People understandably have questions about that. Were those questions answered by anyone in detail in the mass media?

Yes. A small informal sampling:

Luck, foresight and science: How an unheralded team developed a COVID-19 vaccine in record time

Credit for Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine belongs in part to discoveries dating back 15 years. The team behind it was inspired by two infant deaths.

www.usatoday.com

8 myths about the Covid-19 vaccine -- Dr. Wen explains | CNN

CNN Medical Analyst Dr. Leana Wen shares how you can address misconceptions about the Covid-19 vaccine when you hear them from friends and neighbors. Dispel myths with these facts.

www.cnn.com

Why the astonishing vaccine rollout broke the speed record | CNN

Barry R. Bloom reflects on the creation and approval of the Covid-19 vaccine--and the skepticism that has followed it. Though it seems this vaccine has been quickly created, it could not have been without the huge amount of planning and research already underway before this new coronavirus was...

edition.cnn.com

COVID-19 vaccine: Scientists credit collaboration, prior research for speedy development

It typically takes years for scientists to create vaccines. In this case, it took months. So how did it happen so fast?

abc7chicago.com

Ten reasons why we got Covid-19 vaccines so quickly without 'cutting corners' | Adam Finn

Speedy rollout is thanks to a combination of foresight, hard work and lucky breaks, says Prof Adam Finn

www.theguardian.com

Oxford vaccine: How did they make it so quickly?

Good fortune and scientific brilliance were behind the Covid-19 vaccine being developed so quickly.

www.bbc.com

How the Moderna Covid-19 mRNA vaccine was made so quickly

As the delta Covid variant spreads, Moderna co-founder Noubar Afeyan explains how his company was able to deploy an mRNA vaccine in less a year.

www.cnbc.com

NIH

A glimpse into NIH’s years-long effort to be ready to develop coronavirus vaccines quickly — research that sped the development of COVID-19 vaccines.

covid19.nih.gov

Bishop T.D. Jakes hosts conversation with COVID-19 vaccine experts, including Dr. Fauci

Fauci repeatedly reinforced that no shortcuts were taken in developing the COVID-19 vaccines and that safety and effectiveness is determined by independent scientists before FDA grants approval.

www.fox4news.com

It may have gotten a bit lost in the mix -- after all, a new conspiracy theory appears almost every week, and the vaccine started rolling out around the time of Biden's inauguration. But for the most part, yes, they explained how the COVID vaccines were developed so fast compared to other drugs, and emphasized how no one cut any corners.

The problem is that lies and misinformation often travel faster than the correction; this is a well-documented problem of modern communication and media. It's also why autocrats like Trump, Putin and Bolsonaro can get away with spewing so many lies, with so few consequences, even when those lies are blatant and easily disproven.

 

[Overitall]

Yes. A small informal sampling:

Luck, foresight and science: How an unheralded team developed a COVID-19 vaccine in record time

Credit for Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine belongs in part to discoveries dating back 15 years. The team behind it was inspired by two infant deaths.

www.usatoday.com

8 myths about the Covid-19 vaccine -- Dr. Wen explains | CNN

CNN Medical Analyst Dr. Leana Wen shares how you can address misconceptions about the Covid-19 vaccine when you hear them from friends and neighbors. Dispel myths with these facts.

www.cnn.com

Why the astonishing vaccine rollout broke the speed record | CNN

Barry R. Bloom reflects on the creation and approval of the Covid-19 vaccine--and the skepticism that has followed it. Though it seems this vaccine has been quickly created, it could not have been without the huge amount of planning and research already underway before this new coronavirus was...

edition.cnn.com

COVID-19 vaccine: Scientists credit collaboration, prior research for speedy development

It typically takes years for scientists to create vaccines. In this case, it took months. So how did it happen so fast?

abc7chicago.com

Ten reasons why we got Covid-19 vaccines so quickly without 'cutting corners' | Adam Finn

Speedy rollout is thanks to a combination of foresight, hard work and lucky breaks, says Prof Adam Finn

www.theguardian.com

Oxford vaccine: How did they make it so quickly?

Good fortune and scientific brilliance were behind the Covid-19 vaccine being developed so quickly.

www.bbc.com

How the Moderna Covid-19 mRNA vaccine was made so quickly

As the delta Covid variant spreads, Moderna co-founder Noubar Afeyan explains how his company was able to deploy an mRNA vaccine in less a year.

www.cnbc.com

NIH

A glimpse into NIH’s years-long effort to be ready to develop coronavirus vaccines quickly — research that sped the development of COVID-19 vaccines.

covid19.nih.gov

Bishop T.D. Jakes hosts conversation with COVID-19 vaccine experts, including Dr. Fauci

Fauci repeatedly reinforced that no shortcuts were taken in developing the COVID-19 vaccines and that safety and effectiveness is determined by independent scientists before FDA grants approval.

www.fox4news.com

It may have gotten a bit lost in the mix -- after all, a new conspiracy theory appears almost every week, and the vaccine started rolling out around the time of Biden's inauguration. But for the most part, yes, they explained how the COVID vaccines were developed so fast compared to other drugs, and emphasized how no one cut any corners.

The problem is that lies and misinformation often travel faster than the correction; this is a well-documented problem of modern communication and media. It's also why autocrats like Trump, Putin and Bolsonaro can get away with spewing so many lies, with so few consequences, even when those lies are blatant and easily disproven.

It didn't help to have Biden and Harris sowing distrust of a "Trump vaccine". It's not like he actually was responsible for the research and production of any of the vaccines. Yet the damage they caused could not easily be undone and they didn't even apologize for it.

 

[Visbek]

OK, so let's look at the study. Remember, this is the claim, quoting from the American Thinker [sic]: "It has been shown now that the vaccinated equally catch and spread the virus."

And if you read the study, you will see this....

Sadly, this type of deliberate misrepresentation is a common tactic among anti-vaxxers (and other science deniers, especially climate change deniers).

Even more sadly is that, as noted above, lies travel faster than the corrections in today's environment.