Alfred001

I've been reading up on bacground rates, which is used as an argument to dismiss an association between the vaccines and specific adverse events and here's what bothers me about the argument: The argument is, ok, let's calculate the expected rate of some adverse event (meaning how often does it happen in the general population), we calculate it and find that it's X and now let's see how many instances among the vaccinated and it's always waaaay less than the background rate and this is used to back up the idea that the vax isn't causing that adverse event. My objection is, if the background rate is a well calculated, reliable figure, shouldn't the rate among the vaccinated be at least in the neighborhood rather than waaaaay lower? EDIT: I guess the answer to the question could be underreporting in the vaccinated group. People either figure the adverse event is not caused by the vax so they don't report or they simply don't bother reporting.

I can't edit my post for some reason, so I'll add here: Well, turns out the doctor in the video is NOT a reliable source. Still, I'm curious about whether that particular claim checks out.

Yes, please. As the moderator said, if you want to argue the evidence dispassionately and in a civil manner, please engage, if you don't, please just go to some other thread. I'm not looking for personal insult matches. If that's your goal, just don't post, PLEASE.

For anyone interested in debating this dispassionately (and if you're not and just want to hurl insults, please just go to some other thread), what about this: At the 14 minute mark the guy in the video says 195 million people vaccinated annually for the flu, 20-30 deaths reported. So why have the COVID vaccines racked up 4k death reports after 160 million doses? Right about what??? What claim have I made?

Yeah, a childish need to be right, not at all a concern about my health, I'm just here to be argumentative.

Don't try to follow logic, you're no good at it. You wrote a 7 point post and over half of them bore in no way on the discussion at hand lol

But I'm not right now and I work from home and frankly don't leave the house much and never without a mask, so until I'm 50 or my life circumstances change in such a way that I become a reasonably likely spreader I'm going to be concerned with healthy 32 year olds.

? This was my point: But the question here is what is the number of young, fit, healthy people who have died from COVID vs vaccine deaths (if there be any), not what is the number of total COVID deaths? I doubt many of those COVID deaths were people younger than 50 and with no comorbidities. What is yours?

I meant in terms of demographics, not virus type.

#1 Well, this is not a figure, but I would like to see specific figures if anyone has them. What % of young people infected end up hospitalized now? #2 Wtf, who mentioned any coverup??? Can people not conceive that someone wants to examine the evidence before making a decision without being a q anon truther? Maybe that's much to expect at a place where people celebrate the death of their political opponents with glee and get likes for it 🤮 #3 But the question here is what is the number of young, fit, healthy people who have died from COVID vs vaccine deaths (if there be any), not what is the number of total COVID deaths? I doubt many of those COVID deaths were people younger than 50 and with no comorbidities.

Are you crazy? Your post is right there for everyone to see. Let me repeat it You bet the numbers of AE for non-vaccinated people are comparable to vaccinated. In other words, you don't know. But... You're literally making stuff up. Not to mention that you accuse me of "continuing to misread" the math, meanwhile I didn't bring any math up. I named the number of AE that have been reported for the vaccines. What math am I misreading? You're talking about things that don't exist in the thread.

Either make an argument or don't spam the thread.

I don't understand, first you say you don't know the numbers for AEs of COVID patients, then you say the math isn't hard. Was that a bluff, a joke, am I halucinating??? On a science forum, OF ALL PLACES, I can't believe I'm encountered with this kind of an attitude and I can't understand why you're so opposed to considering the evidence.

To revive this topic, here's data from VAERS on adverse events: https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=CAT&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19 4k deaths, 3.8k life-threatening adverse events, 12k hospitalizations etc. Now, I understand around 160 million people in the US have taken at least one dose. With that many vaccinations, these adverse events could be coincidental, but I want to hear comments. What do you guys think is the explanation? Have the deaths been investigated for possible causality? And so forth...

Once everyone has been vaccinated, is it to be expected that COVID will simply die off in lieu of any further hosts or will it be forever bouncing around like the flu, opportunistically infecting the odd unvaccinated person or the 5% of the vaccinated (as the vaccines are supposed to be 95% effective) whose defenses it manages to get past?

There was nothing self righteous about my attitude, nor anything that justified the hostility with which you responded. There are plenty people who responded here and save for one other person, you were the only one who couldn't do it in civil fashion. But anyway, let's drop it, I would rather get more good information than debate whether you should respond to people politely on internet forums.

I'm genuinely curious as to what the cause is for the hostility? I've asked for information in the interest of educating myself, am I not allowed to hear all the evidence before making a decision?

I work from home so during this whole ordeal the world's been having with COVID, I've been blissfully and irresponsibly ignoring it, but now I've been called up to take the Pfizer vaccine, so I actually have to educate myself a bit. I've been watching this video on data from Israel about side effects associated with the Pfizer vaccine (which I'll link to at the bottom) and they mention severe side effects (but don't specify beyond that), albeit very rare. Now, I'm thinking, the vaccine has at this point been tested on a large number of people, but without long term followup, whereas the virus has been "tested" on an enormous amount of people and been given a decent amount of time to see what happens longish-term, so perhaps data on the virus is more reliable. My understanding is that for anyone younger than 60 with no comborbidities, any kind of problems from the virus are extremely rare. So should the decision here come down to what is rarer - serious vaccine side effects or bad outcomes from the virus? I suppose there's the additional danger of a more lethal mutation of the virus appearing which the vaccine might potentially protect from. Is my reasoning here sound? What do you think I should do and why?

When a person is infected, survives and develops immunity, can they still transmit the disease to others? If no, how long after the infection before the person becomes a non-transmitter? I assume this varies, but what are some general timeframes?

I did the search and it seems like this approach of programming T cells was already in use in fighting cancer before the big announcement from the Scottish team. So what did those guys exactly innovate and does this has prospects of being a cure or just a therapy?

There was that report I think earlier this year about a team of Scottish researchers who'd, IIRC, reprogrammed t-cells to attack only cancer cells and cured cancer in mice. Have there been any new developments on that?

TL DR: Is there anyone here knowledgeable about endocrinology, specifically hormone receptors, blocking them and upregulation? I'm wondering if you could tell me what is known about how receptor blockers cause regulation, specifically how long must you block a receptor in order to induce that response and how you might avoid that. THE LONG STORY: This relates to a potential anti-hair loss drug that runs into a problem related to this. The story is this: Clascoterone is being developed as a potential drug for treating male pattern baldness under the name Breezula (CB-03-01). Male pattern baldness progresses through DHT activating the androgen receptors (AR) in hair follicles, which over time makes the follicle go dormant. CB binds to androgen receptors so that DHT can't, preventing it from exerting its deleterious effect. Phase II trial data for CB shows that it is very effective up to the 6 month mark and then it stops working. People in the hairloss community have been speculating as to why that is and one hypothesis has been that, after 6 months of consistently blocking the ARs, AR upregulation is induced. Assuming it is so, is there some way to avoid that happening? If not for this problem, CB would be a great treatment for hairloss. Would cycling off the drug before AR upregulation is induced work? Say, taking it for 5 months then going off it and then back on? Basically, I'm hoping there's someone here knowledgeable about this who might have some ideas about how this might be avoided. Do you think there's an alternative explanation, other than AR upregulation?

If I understand the argument correctly, it's that if you compare a set of all whole numbers to a set of all whole + half numbers, when you look at each set up to number 2, set 1 would be 1 and 2 (and 0?) and set 2 would be 1/2, 1, 1 1/2 and 2 - so set 2 has more numbers, but that's only if you look up to 2. If you look at the whole sets the size of each is infinite, so neither is bigger than the other. What am I missing here?

All the typical weirdnesses of QM - the double slit experiment, observation collapsing the wave function etc. - are they still regarded as mysteries that need to be resolved, or is the view now that that's just how the universe is and there is no explanation beyond that?

Have there been any great scientists since the 20th century who were religious? And I mean religious in the conventional sense of believing in some major religion, not religious in the kind of unorthodox way Einstein was.