Trucking Companies And COVID Vaccine

There may be aspects of modern medical science that will appear laughable to scientists in the future, but there are also aspects that will be respected by them, just the same as the many aspects of past medical science that are respected by today's scientists.

What makes the difference is whether that aspect was based on a proper understanding of cause and effect and/or actually achieved the desired result.

No scientist two hundred years in the future is going to laugh at today's doctors for being capable of creating and sucessfully implanting artificial hearts into other humans.

Your experience will offer you nothing in being able to understand the behavior and risk factors of certain diseases or the efficacy and risks of certain treatments for those diseases other than how it may indirectly help guide your ability to utilize your faculties of reason while interpreting the actual science involved, which is the only means of understanding it.

There's very little increased risk of any threatening side effect in the vaccinated population compared to the unvaccinated, and of course a much higher risk of many threatening 'side effects' of the disease itself compared to being vaccinated.

...

Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting

OK, I went back and looked at the study you referenced. I don't agree with your conclusion, and the study doesn't support it. You said that there is very little risk of being vaccinated compared to being unvaccinated. The study didn't compare it that way, but rather compared the vaccinated with those that developed a SARS-CoV-2 infection (and presumably were unvaccinated). Go back and look at it, it's repeated over and over again. Also, if you look at the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the study, it specifically says "no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection". However, if you've already had the infection (and millions of people already have), then the results of this study do not apply to you. For the record, I've already had the infection.

Not only that, but the facts on the ground in Israel don't support getting the vaccine based on this study either. Hospitals there are reporting that a large number of cases are in the vaccinated (https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/08/20/1029628471/highly-vaccinated-israel-is-seeing-a-dramatic-surge-in-new-covid-cases-heres-why). The study you cited mentions that "[v]accination was most strongly associated with an elevated risk of myocarditis", so the shot is not risk-free.

Now, if I, as a layman non-scientist can poke holes in this study, imagine what a trained scientist can do?

So if the vaccine doesn't prevent infection and hospitalization (particularly with the Delta variant, see NPR article), and is associated with an increased risk of myocarditis among other things (from the study), then why on earth would I subject myself to the shot when I've already had the infection and thus have natural immunity which may be at least as good, if not better than the shot? (See https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dr-makary-says-natural-immunity-is-more-effective-then-vaccine-immunity/ar-AAMX3sM and https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/good-news-mild-covid-19-induces-lasting-antibody-protection/)

No, you won't convince me to take the shot. And the government, employers, etc. won't coerce or force me into it either.

We can debate statistics or interpretations endlessly, but we do not know if any of the stats they're giving us are real or fabricated. There's a better way to understand what is happening here and who to trust.

I believe censorship is the key to understanding this entire scenario. People who are telling the truth do not need to:

• Censor people
• Silence or threaten dissenters
• Stomp on the God-given rights and freedoms of the people
• Violate the Constitution or the Nuremberg Code
• Change the literal definition of things like 'herd immunity' or 'vaccine' to fit their needs
• Change the way we designate the primary cause of death
• Demonize anyone questioning their conclusions or motives
• Flood the media 24/7 with one-sided propaganda

The truth stands on its own. Maintaining a lie takes a lot of work. If you're lying, you simply can not afford to let people question you or the truth will come to light.

Folks, we're not just talking about censoring everyday people. We're talking about medical professors at places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Standford, and Oxford. We're talking about Nobel-prize winning epidemiologists. We're talking about tens of thousands of medical professionals all over the world who signed a petition expressing strong disagreement with the current narrative.

The most important thing you must understand about people who censor others is that they do not value any opinions outside of their own. No one is allowed to disagree about anything. So you may be on their side at the moment, but they are not on your side. They act as Gods, they expect us to serve them unconditionally. They're coming for us now, but once they use you to get to us, they'll come for you. Who will be there to protect you? No one.

So if you're on the side of people who are committing the crimes listed above then you had better wake up before it's too late! You're on the wrong side of this thing.

Honest people with good information and good intentions do not need to commit crimes in order to protect the truth.

This is not about your health.

Folks, I know the media tries to make it look like a massive portion of the U.S. has had the vax, but that is absolutely not the case. Best estimates are that maybe 30% of U.S. have had the jab.

There is absolutely no chance this country can operate under any sort of mandate because the system will collapse. They've tried it in other countries and it falls apart quickly. They simply don't have the numbers to do it. Here's a great example:

Yahoo Finance did a poll asking how many people would avoid going to a restaurant if they required a vaccination card. There were 31,000 respondents and 80% said they would avoid that restaurant. That jives very well with the estimate that 70% of us are not vaxxed. You know 70% of us would avoid that restaurant, plus a portion of those who are vaxxed do not support mandates for the rest of us and would avoid those restaurants on principle.

Here's another example. They have vaccine mandates in France for restaurants. The restaurants are absolutely empty, and the French people have decided to host "picnics" in the middle of the street outside of restaurants. So the streets are jammed full of people picnicking on their own food while sitting outside of empty restaurants. Can you imagine being a restaurant owner who is bleeding money with empty seats and 20 feet outside of your restaurant the streets are packed with people eating???

I love it!

Check out the video from France: French Picnics Avoid Restaurants

How long do you think that can last?

Hold the line! Do not cave to mandates of any sort. We are the massive majority. Do not let mainstream media fool you!

By the way, I live in New York, so I'm in the worst state in the country right now. God Bless the Good Guys because they took down our Governor! But this war is far from over.

Its important to remember from a statistical standpoint, that open source polls on sites like Yahoo are often cursed with a horrible failure rate. People are much more likely to respond to those sorts of polls if they are angered about the topic. People who are vaccinated aren't as likely to have a visceral reaction in regards to a restaurant or business requiring the jab. Statisticians would call that type of poll invalid due to heavy rates of confirmation bias.

Do I see widespread mandates being successful in the US? Nope. Do I think the vaccination rate of adults in the US is 30%? Also nope. I'm going to guesstimate the real number of 18 and overs is closer to the 40-45% rate.. and I cannot fathom it ever getting much higher than 55%. The first half of that is just based on actual data and numbers-- I live in a swing state that is probably one of the best states to use as an example of what people are likely to do when there isn't hard core pressure on either side of the divide. The second half is just common sense when it comes to human behavior-- coupled with the typical vaccination rates for other "adult" vaccines such as the flu, pneumonia, and shingles. (Flu averages a compliance rate of about 49%, Shingles is 38% and falling due to the Varicella vaccine being more and more prevalent in childhood, Pneumonia is around 29% overall, with a jump up into the 65% rate in adults over 65).

The study didn't compare it that way, but rather compared the vaccinated with those that developed a SARS-CoV-2 infection (and presumably were unvaccinated).

That's incorrect. It was made clear at the very beginning (the abstract) that they performed two separate analyses, neither of which compare what you just said.

"For each potential adverse event, in a population of persons with no previous diagnosis of that event, we individually matched vaccinated persons to unvaccinated persons according to sociodemographic and clinical variables."

"To place these results in context, we performed a similar analysis involving SARS-CoV-2–infected persons matched to uninfected persons."

That's why in the results there are two separate sets of data: "Vaccination Analysis", and "SARS-CoV-2 Infection Analysis".

According to their data derived from hundreds of thousands of cases, the most potentially serious side effects from the vaccine have less chance of occuring than what's apparently the risk of dying from using aspirin. And they're much more likely to occur from contracting the virus itself, alongside much worse adversities. This particular study excluded previous infection before vaccination to ensure "side effects" of the virus itself weren't misattributed as being caused by the vaccine. Other studies with different purposes have shown that some side effects of vaccination might be slightly higher if the person had previously been infected. That's why it's always best to consult with actual doctors about medical decisions, since you might have individual risk factors.

The vaccines seem to be less effective against the delta variant which didn't exist at the time they were created, but the data from Israel also shows the vaccines still offer much more protection against serious cases of hospitalization than being unvaccinated, as the news article you linked to made clear. There are also contrasting studies suggesting natural immunity might in fact offer less protection, especially against a different variant, but my focus here was on the science on the actual risks of adverse side effects from vaccination.

According to their data derived from hundreds of thousands of cases, the most potentially serious side effects from the vaccine have less chance of occuring than what's apparently the risk of dying from using aspirin.

Really? Because I know of four people that have died from the vaccine. Four. I also have two classmates from high school that were rushed to the ICU after having extreme reactions within 10 minutes of getting it. I come from a small town with only 176 people in my class and I don't even keep up with anyone. I just heard it through Facebook.

So, four deaths and two dangerous reactions just from the tiny group of people I know, which isn't much. I don't know anyone who died from aspirin or had to be rushed to the hospital after taking it, do you?

We'll see how well this statement about aspirin ages when the truth comes out about how many people were injured or killed by it.

Your experience will offer you nothing in being able to understand the behavior and risk factors of certain diseases or the efficacy and risks of certain treatments for those diseases other than how it may indirectly help guide your ability to utilize your faculties of reason while interpreting the actual science involved, which is the only means of understanding it.

I may have some general curiosity regarding viruses and diseases, but I don't really have to "understand" every mechanism in my life. I know that flipping a switch upward will turn on lights in my room, and I can use this light safely and efficiently without any degrees in electricity. All I need experience, not understanding :-) The same thing is with viruses - my experience includes knowledge of my own infections, of how my friends had it, of what helped them feel better, and what made it worse. Still no "understanding," but a solid knowledge that, for example, eating garlic, onion and ginger helps having fewer colds and recovering faster. My own experience proves it, and I do not need any scholarship to back it. So in this sense your statement is incorrect - experience can offer everything, depending on what you need.

So in this sense your statement is incorrect - experience can offer everything, depending on what you need.

Another place you see this all the time is in sports. Coaches and athletes often know what nutrition and fitness principles work for decades before scientists can figure out why. In fact, it is not uncommon for science to declare a statement to be false because they can't prove why it's true.

Most people have absolutely no idea how much of our life is being manipulated by false science, or how much science they keep from us in the quest for profit and control.

The educational system loves to convince us we know nothing if we didn't learn it in college. If you don't have a degree, you should shut up and defer to an "expert". What a pile of garbage. It's 2021. You can learn pretty much anything online today, and it doesn't have to come from the establishment. In fact, that's one of the most powerful aspects of educating yourself.

According to their data derived from hundreds of thousands of cases, the most potentially serious side effects from the vaccine have less chance of occuring than what's apparently the risk of dying from using aspirin.

Really? Because I know of four people that have died from the vaccine. Four. I also have two classmates from high school that were rushed to the ICU after having extreme reactions within 10 minutes of getting it. I come from a small town with only 176 people in my class and I don't even keep up with anyone. I just heard it through Facebook.

So, four deaths and two dangerous reactions just from the tiny group of people I know, which isn't much. I don't know anyone who died from aspirin or had to be rushed to the hospital after taking it, do you?

We'll see how well this statement about aspirin ages when the truth comes out about how many people were injured or killed by it.

I do know of someone (actually, lots of someones) who have either been rushed to the hospital due to aspirin, or cannot take it because of the risks in taking it. Got asthma? Then you probably shouldn't take aspirin (salicylic acid is often a catalyst for attacks). Got a bleeding disorder? Then you probably shouldn't take aspirin (anti-coagulant). Heavy drinker? Better avoid aspirin.

Aspirin isn't the benign medication that folks seem to think it is. The only drug in existence with more people who should not take it.. is penicillin

As to the other in regards to aspirin vs. vaxx.... eh, I'll defer on that one until we have better data in about 5 years.

The elephant in the room is this:

If you are on the left, you favor group think and collectivism. Everyone should be together and doing the same thing. You supported masks, shutdowns, and now the vax. It's about the group. Has nothing to do with science. You can lie to yourself and say it's about science or saving people. But really it's just ideology.

Let's not forget some famous blunders of group think; the Salem witch trials, 110 million deaths from communism and socialism, the Holocaust.

If you are on the right and or libertarian, you favor logic and individualism. You didn't accept masks, shutdowns and the vax as the only solutions. But, ultimately it's up to the individual to decide. Freedom is more valuable than feelings. We can say it's because of science and data but the truth is that logic dictates that the risk of loss of personal freedom outweighs any potential benefits of it.

When asked why I wouldn't mask, shut down or vax, the honest response is "I choose not to."