The Vaccine

[Lurch]

Why would you post a non peer reviewed article from a quack who specializes in profiting from the ill informed?

https://www.gripeo.com/dr-steven-gundry/

Why would you post a link to a gripe and complaint website that allows someone to leave a review with no moderation or proof that you’ve actually had an experience with that business, doctor, individual, or company?

 

[the MfM]

Wonder how much he would have to pay to not be considered a quack?

 

[crazy4life]

@Bruce
This is why you have ZERO credibility in this thread. You have deleted dozens of posts in this thread because you said they were from political websites or websites that you do not personally approve of. Whatever that means. Then you post an article from BLINK NEWS in this thread and act like it is gospel which is in itself pretty comical. When someone posts a article that you do not agree with(no matter what reputable organization posts it) you automatically go on the offensive to prove that the poster or the postee is stupid, a quack or whatever the adjective of the day is. You post article upon article in this thread and are not called out on it or questioned the motives of the writer or publisher of said article. I read your posts and then read the relevant information and form my own opinion and keep it to myself. Read the article and post the relevant data showing that the data is incorrect. What you should not do is go to a gossip website and post negatives about the person while showing no data whatsoever to back up your claim. Call or write the American Heart Association and ask them why they would publish an abstract from a known quack. Show them your data and maybe they will retract the article or maybe they will think you are the quack. Either way you will have some credibility. Why do others not deserve the same treatment that you seem to demand for yourself.

 

[tabbibus]

I posted an article that was posted in the American Heart Association website. I think your question should be addressed to them.
Should be easy to get there email address and send then an email with your question. please post their reply here when you receive it.

It's an abstract from a poster at a conference. As preliminary as preliminary can get

 

[Bruce]

@crazy4life "Doctor" Gundry is widely recognized for practicing pseudoscience and operating scams. Typically journal publications have coauthors. In this instance it appears that what you linked to is a strange single author abstract. Perhaps there will be an actual publication in the future.

Looking at the abstract further, this abstract was published as part of a conference presentation on this topic.

The most telling point in the abstract may be the misspelling of the unusual PULS test as PLUS. Interestingly the https://pulstest.com/publications website for the test does not list any pulbicatications to support it use.

If you are interested in knowing more about "Doctor" Grundy a simple google search for his name will find multiple source disputing his false claims.

His BBB complaints are interesting as well. Gundry MD | Complaints | Better Business Bureau® Profile

My intention is not to attack you but I do hope that you will invest a little time in validating what you choose to believe. This is very early research if it should be considered research at all.

 

[crazy4life]

It's an abstract from a poster at a conference. As preliminary as preliminary can get

@crazy4life "Doctor" Gundry is widely recognized for practicing pseudoscience and operating scams. Typically journal publications have coauthors. In this instance it appears that what you linked to is a strange single author abstract. Perhaps there will be an actual publication in the future.

Looking at the abstract further, this abstract was published as part of a conference presentation on this topic.

The most telling point in the abstract may be the misspelling of the unusual PULS test as PLUS. Interestingly the https://pulstest.com/publications website for the test does not list any pulbicatications to support it use.

If you are interested in knowing more about "Doctor" Grundy a simple google search for his name will find multiple source disputing his false claims.

His BBB complaints are interesting as well. Gundry MD | Complaints | Better Business Bureau® Profile

My intention is not to attack you but I do hope that you will invest a little time in validating what you choose to believe. This is very early research if it should be considered research at all.

Never said i believe anything was just posting something that a 1 of my cardiologists sent me. Thought that was one of the purposes of this thread.

 

[Bruce]

1 of my cardiologists sent me

I would seriously consider a different cardiologist if he or she is sending such early information out to patients.

It is good to share and discuss information. Unfortunately during this pandemic there has been an overload of sharing disinformation which has harmed our country and those that have believed it.

 

[tabbibus]

Never said i believe anything was just posting something that a 1 of my cardiologists sent me. Thought that was one of the purposes of this thread.

And I'm just commenting on the source. I'm not saying anything about you personally.

On another note. Numbers are way down in the hospital. 26 covid total. 4 in the ICU. I hope it stays like this!

Sad stories still the norm though. I have a very young girl who will likely die. Her father died. And her mother is dying at another hospital.

 

[crazy4life]

I would seriously consider a different cardiologist if he or she is sending such early information out to patients.

It is good to share and discuss information. Unfortunately during this pandemic there has been an overload of sharing disinformation which has harmed our country and those that have believed it.

The hubris it must take to tell someone you know nothing about to seek a different doctor that you also know nothing about is astounding. You know nothing about about how this information was relayed to me or why. I would love to tell you what I think of your opinion but the Lord says to forgive those who not know what they are doing.

 

[crazy4life]

And I'm just commenting on the source. I'm not saying anything about you personally.

Understood.

 

[Bruce]

Sad stories still the norm though.

I have a mid forties friend who runs 5 and 10ks frequently with five kids that unfortunately did not get vaccinated and is in the ICU on a vent now. His vent was reduced from 100% to 70% today so maybe he will pull through although he is requiring dialysis.

Do you follow up with your patients after the leave the ICU? I am curious how those that were on vents are recovering?

 

[tabbibus]

I have a mid forties friend who runs 5 and 10ks frequently with five kids that unfortunately did not get vaccinated and is in the ICU on a vent now. His vent was reduced from 100% to 70% today so maybe he will pull through although he is requiring dialysis.

Do you follow up with your patients after the leave the ICU? I am curious how those that were on vents are recovering?

I have a few. Recovery is a bear

 

[tabbibus]

Saw this the other day and though it was a good visual representation of what we've talked about here

 

[jlcj7]

M

View attachment 167542

Saw this the other day and though it was a good visual representation of what we've talked about here

Maybe I’m confused by the image above but what is this saying? Seems to say there are very few people vaccinated vs unvaccinated and slightly more unvaccinated end up in the hospital. I’m sure I am missing a very simple point but curious nonetheless.

 

[Bruce]

@jlcj7, the point of the graphic is that many people focus on this part pointing out the number of vaccinated people who have been sick or hospitalized



While ignoring the bigger picture that with ~80% of adults vaccinated the rate of illness is much lower among the vaccinated majority than among the unvaccinated minority.



I wish that the dot counts were more representative of actual CoVID case data. For example in my state of Arkansas 88% of hospitalizations are among the unvaccinated. To reflect that accurately there would be less than 2 vaccinated dots in the hospitalized circle.

 

[Julian]

Got my Moderna booster today. Zero side effects. Actually forgot I got it and only thought about it when my wife asked if I had any side effects.

 

[MidnightRider]

@MidnightRider, reading your comment I do not see how those sentences apply to the quoted CDC charts which are a small fraction of the data provided by CDC. Especially since one chart breaks out the data by age groups.

As for vaccinating kids the best evidence is that the risk from vaccination is far lower than that of not vaccinating. Beyond that there are practical benefits such as my vaccinated kids not needing to test after exposure to attend school. Of course practical benefits vary by area.

I get your point but the chart that includes the 14x has the age ranges right there.

Averages are used to describe everything in the world. They aren’t always the most representative measure, but that’s on the end user to have a grasp of what goes into an average. How far do we need to dumb things down because the average person doesn’t want to pay attention in 7th grade math?

It would be more dishonest to start picking and choosing what you include and exclude in that number vs just including everyone.

To interpret the data this way that is so skewed by the elderly and also leaving out all data of those under 18. Just because under 18 can't and/or haven't got the vaccine resulting in lower vax numbers doesn't mean they aren't still part of the unvaccinated data set when making a conclusion about risk for all persons. Shows a bias to messaging they are trying to send out. I get it, they're the CDC and they want to convince people to get vaccinated, fair, but it ends up feeling underhanded and bias in my opinion. When you are trying to show a risk of dying for all persons of all groups, why leave out an entire group of under 18? Because the death percentage is so low it would skew the risk conclusion, but at the same time leave in all the 65+ which also skews the risk conclusion in the opposite direction. Sorry can't help but see the bias in presenting a conclusion to the data in this way.

I get using averages with the 18 and above, but how can you say its an average of an entire person group when you leave out a large data set of persons?

I know you would call out a thread post that did the opposite of this and leaves out the over 65+ and say that the death risk was a low x%. But when the CDC does it on the opposite end you think its fine because it supports your messaging.

I just feel there has been a misuse of data since the beginning of this pandemic to paint a picture that support wide broad stroke actions and solutions that don't make sense in all cases when you break the data down and can devise more strategic and sensible actions, solutions, and decisions.

 

[swatski]

To interpret the data this way that is so skewed by the elderly and also leaving out all data of those under 18. Just because under 18 can't and/or haven't got the vaccine resulting in lower vax numbers doesn't mean they aren't still part of the unvaccinated data set when making a conclusion about risk for all persons. Shows a bias to messaging they are trying to send out. I get it, they're the CDC and they want to convince people to get vaccinated, fair, but it ends up feeling underhanded and bias in my opinion. When you are trying to show a risk of dying for all persons of all groups, why leave out an entire group of under 18? Because the death percentage is so low it would skew the risk conclusion, but at the same time leave in all the 65+ which also skews the risk conclusion in the opposite direction. Sorry can't help but see the bias in presenting a conclusion to the data in this way.

I get using averages with the 18 and above, but how can you say its an average of an entire person group when you leave out a large data set of persons?

I know you would call out a thread post that did the opposite of this and leaves out the over 65+ and say that the death risk was a low x%. But when the CDC does it on the opposite end you think its fine because it supports your messaging.

I just feel there has been a misuse of data since the beginning of this pandemic to paint a picture that support wide broad stroke actions and solutions that don't make sense in all cases when you break the data down and can devise more strategic and sensible actions, solutions, and decisions.

I feel so amused logging in here, every two weeks or so, and seeing this thread going strong!

Quick question: do you get your kids vaccinated?

If yes - Why?

Do you ask all those questions, before hand? What are the answers?

I'm assuming you demand the answers, don't you???

--

 

[swatski]

We just went through (the bullshit) process of collecting/pursuing /providing the records for our kids to be eligible to participate in school (high school) swim club, and a marching band; NONE SPECIFIC TO COVID, yet, the amount of documentation of medical clearance required for them to participate in school sports appears disproportionately larger, as compared to what most of us adults need to do to continue to be eligible to do our jobs.

I should start a thread!

--

 

[Bruce]

@MidnightRider, I now understand that your concern is that the CDC left children out of their vaccinated vs unvaccinated age group chart. I expect that occurred due to a lack of data for comparison. From a practical perspective the lines for a 0-17 group would not be visible as they would be covered by the vaccinated lines for age groups under 65. The CDC does report on under 18s in other charts where they have relevant data.

This chart is for Arkansas and does not include vaccination status but the position of the 0 to 10 and 11 to 17 groups concerns me. For reference 78.7% of active cases and 88.1% of hospitalizations in Arkansas are among the unvaccinated.