The state agency alleges Nass claimed that "there may be things in these vaccines that the government wants to inject in us," and suggested that vaccinations of children are being encouraged "for some other nefarious reason."
The Maine Board of Licensure Wednesday ... ordered her to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation by a board-selected psychologist.
Brodie Allen said
07:51 AM Apr 30, 2022
dorian wrote:
Mike Harding wrote:
That article would be written by this woman, would it?:
The state agency alleges Nass claimed that "there may be things in these vaccines that the government wants to inject in us," and suggested that vaccinations of children are being encouraged "for some other nefarious reason."
The Maine Board of Licensure Wednesday ... ordered her to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation by a board-selected psychologist.
Tend to agree, but why the hysteria when a contra opinion is exercised.
there's certainly a lot of things to be answered - including the
Fauchi distortions to the truth. and the useless WHO edicts.
Interesting to watch as time goes on.
Santa said
08:07 AM Apr 30, 2022
Brodie Allen wrote:
For those that accused me of being "selfish" when I posted
that the vaccinated were carriers no better than the un-vaccinated
-- Edited by dorian on Saturday 30th of April 2022 06:36:26 PM
msg said
06:20 PM Apr 30, 2022
One or two things about Quackwatch. (and most other websites) Who are the people? Not much about them on the website.
What makes them anymore knowledgeable than thousands of others on the web with MD after their name? Even if they had thousands of testamonials, what is to say they are correct? or is this just crowd acceptance?
Another question you might ask your self. "How and who funds them" What are their motives?
Were they funded to come up with proof that a certain answer/explanation supports a certain point of view ?
How do you test the validity of this particular view?
Good luck everyone.
At least, give someone else with a different point of view, a polite rebuttal and not the ill considered "rubbish"
dorian said
06:57 PM Apr 30, 2022
msg wrote:
One or two things about Quackwatch. (and most other websites) Who are the people? Not much about them on the website.
Look under "About Dr. Barrett" on the home page. Knock yourself out.
Santa said
07:12 PM Apr 30, 2022
dorian wrote:
msg wrote:
One or two things about Quackwatch. (and most other websites) Who are the people? Not much about them on the website.
Look under "About Dr. Barrett" on the home page. Knock yourself out.
"The kicker for childhood vaccines: the New York state Department of Health study of vaccine efficacy in children. After 2 months, efficacy in the 5-11 year olds had fallen to 12%. In other words, 7 out of 8 vaccinated kids derived no benefit after 2 months, only risk. The data were derived from 365,000 children, and apparently there was no way CDC could spin them, or 12% was the best spin they could put on the data. This report is a huge obstacle to universal child vaccinations. They cabal cannot surmount it."
"The numbers for protection from infection are more reliable. Vaccine effectiveness against infection in the older children decreased to 51 percent from 66 percent. But in the younger children, it dropped sharply to just 12 percent from 68 percent."
This is the explanation she ignored:
The numbers change drastically between ages 11 and 12. During the week ending Jan. 30, the vaccine's effectiveness against infection was 67 percent in 12-year-olds but just 11 percent in 11-year-old children.
'The difference between the two age groups is striking,' said Florian Krammer, an immunologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
The biological difference between the two ages is likely to be minimal, but while 12-year-old children got 30 micrograms of the vaccine -- the same dose given to adults-- children who were 11 received only 10 micrograms, he noted.
'This is super interesting because it would almost suggest that it's the dose that makes the difference,' he added. 'The question is how to fix that.'
dorian said
09:16 PM Apr 30, 2022
Reading Nass's piece has turned out to be an education, but not in the way that Nass intended. Instead it has served to illuminate the methods used by people like her to manipulate information and data to serve their own ends.
Here she is cherry-picking statistics from a medical study:
"Everyone in the world must have heard the term 'myocarditis' by now, and knows that it is a vaccine injury. A lot of people also know that CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said post-vaccination myocarditis was extremely 'rare but mild,' except it isn't and she lied. The rate of myocarditis she cited is at least 10 times too low. About 1 in 2000 young men aged 18-24 sought care for this diagnosis after getting their second mRNA shot".
The study consisted of a "a cohort of 153,438 adolescents and adults (12 to 39 years old) who were covered by KPNW and were vaccinated with at least one dose of an mRNA vaccine between December 18th 2020 and October 16th 2021. The cohort was followed for up to 30 days after their second dose of an mRNA vaccine to identify encounters for myocarditis, pericarditis or myopericarditis."
The researchers found 16 cases "who met the confirmed or probable CDC case definition for acute myocarditis or pericarditis". That's about 1 in 10,000.
8 people in the 18-24 age group were affected. Statistically, for males who had a second dose, this was calculated as 537.1 cases per million, or about 1 in 2000. However, note that the number of cases in the 25-29 age group is 0, which Nass neglected to mention.
The researchers extrapolate the data to smooth out the bumps in the statistics. Their numbers are 1 in 10,000 for those people who received a second dose, and 1 in 5000 for males who received the second dose.
"In our patients ages 12-39 years old who received a second dose of vaccine (n=146,785), we estimated a risk of 95.4 cases of myopericarditis per million second doses administered. In males who received a second dose (n=66,533) we estimated a rate of 195.4 cases of myopericarditis per million second doses.
The study did not say whether any patient died. I expect not, otherwise it would have been a significant feature of the report.
Brodie Allen said
08:34 PM May 2, 2022
Who the hell is merryl cartis if thats the spell..
Nothing to do with my post.
It was a message and extensive debate from Dr Mercola.
Was the link broken?
dorian said
03:11 AM May 3, 2022
Brodie Allen wrote:
Who the hell is merryl cartis if thats the spell..
Nothing to do with my post.
It was a message and extensive debate from Dr Mercola.
Was the link broken?
Yes, it's broken. When I cut and paste your link, it now redirects to ...
Previously it redirected to Meryl Nass's piece, which I subsequently could no longer find. It appears that Mercola's articles live for 48 hours before they disappear.
For those that accused me of being "selfish" when I posted
that the vaccinated were carriers no better than the un-vaccinated
so why the exclusions from some businesses.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/04/28/covid-persists.aspx?ui=3c2b59dc29e4854063d2fbc2ac289d88cdb95882f20c01311f6276793ba3a7b2&sd=20210622&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20220428&mid=DM1154106&rid=1474057392
-- Edited by Brodie Allen on Friday 29th of April 2022 07:28:23 PM
That article would be written by this woman, would it?:
Maine Physician Suspended for COVID Misinformation
Ian
Yep!
Alternate opinion not allowed. Time is exposing the misinformation right enough.
And not as you think.
Crazy lefties only survive with censorship.
-- Edited by Brodie Allen on Friday 29th of April 2022 07:33:08 PM
Yep, it does look like she's a conspiracy nutter:
The state agency alleges Nass claimed that "there may be things in these vaccines that the government wants to inject in us," and suggested that vaccinations of children are being encouraged "for some other nefarious reason."
The Maine Board of Licensure Wednesday ... ordered her to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation by a board-selected psychologist.
Tend to agree, but why the hysteria when a contra opinion is exercised.
there's certainly a lot of things to be answered - including the
Fauchi distortions to the truth. and the useless WHO edicts.
Interesting to watch as time goes on.
Anything Mercola posts is rubbish, aimed at the gullible and uninformed among us.
https://www.mercola.com/
Search results for "Mercola" at Quackwatch:
https://quackwatch.org/?s&_sf_s=mercola
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) warning letter to Dr Mercola:
https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2021/05/16105053/mercola_warning_letter_2021.pdf
Dr. Joseph Mercola Ordered to Stop Illegal Claims:
https://quackwatch.org/11ind/mercola/
How to Spot a Quacky Web Site:
https://quackwatch.org/related/quackweb/
Search results for "Mercola" at respectfulinsolence.com:
https://respectfulinsolence.com/?s=mercola
-- Edited by dorian on Saturday 30th of April 2022 06:36:26 PM
What makes them anymore knowledgeable than thousands of others on the web with MD after their name? Even if they had thousands of testamonials, what is to say they are correct? or is this just crowd acceptance?
Another question you might ask your self. "How and who funds them" What are their motives?
Were they funded to come up with proof that a certain answer/explanation supports a certain point of view ?
How do you test the validity of this particular view?
Good luck everyone.
At least, give someone else with a different point of view, a polite rebuttal and not the ill considered "rubbish"
Look under "About Dr. Barrett" on the home page. Knock yourself out.
This is Meryl Nass's piece:
https://merylnass.substack.com/p/covid-persists-but-the-covid-vaccine?s=w
This is just one point she made:
"The kicker for childhood vaccines: the New York state Department of Health study of vaccine efficacy in children. After 2 months, efficacy in the 5-11 year olds had fallen to 12%. In other words, 7 out of 8 vaccinated kids derived no benefit after 2 months, only risk. The data were derived from 365,000 children, and apparently there was no way CDC could spin them, or 12% was the best spin they could put on the data. This report is a huge obstacle to universal child vaccinations. They cabal cannot surmount it."
This was the article she was referring to:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220228153539/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/28/health/pfizer-vaccine-kids.html
This is the paragraph she seized on:
"The numbers for protection from infection are more reliable. Vaccine effectiveness against infection in the older children decreased to 51 percent from 66 percent. But in the younger children, it dropped sharply to just 12 percent from 68 percent."
This is the explanation she ignored:
The numbers change drastically between ages 11 and 12. During the week ending Jan. 30, the vaccine's effectiveness against infection was 67 percent in 12-year-olds but just 11 percent in 11-year-old children.
'The difference between the two age groups is striking,' said Florian Krammer, an immunologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
The biological difference between the two ages is likely to be minimal, but while 12-year-old children got 30 micrograms of the vaccine -- the same dose given to adults-- children who were 11 received only 10 micrograms, he noted.
'This is super interesting because it would almost suggest that it's the dose that makes the difference,' he added. 'The question is how to fix that.'
Reading Nass's piece has turned out to be an education, but not in the way that Nass intended. Instead it has served to illuminate the methods used by people like her to manipulate information and data to serve their own ends.
Here she is cherry-picking statistics from a medical study:
"Everyone in the world must have heard the term 'myocarditis' by now, and knows that it is a vaccine injury. A lot of people also know that CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said post-vaccination myocarditis was extremely 'rare but mild,' except it isn't and she lied. The rate of myocarditis she cited is at least 10 times too low. About 1 in 2000 young men aged 18-24 sought care for this diagnosis after getting their second mRNA shot".
The study consisted of a "a cohort of 153,438 adolescents and adults (12 to 39 years old) who were covered by KPNW and were vaccinated with at least one dose of an mRNA vaccine between December 18th 2020 and October 16th 2021. The cohort was followed for up to 30 days after their second dose of an mRNA vaccine to identify encounters for myocarditis, pericarditis or myopericarditis."
The researchers found 16 cases "who met the confirmed or probable CDC case definition for acute myocarditis or pericarditis". That's about 1 in 10,000.
Here is their actual paper:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268209v1.full.pdf
8 people in the 18-24 age group were affected. Statistically, for males who had a second dose, this was calculated as 537.1 cases per million, or about 1 in 2000. However, note that the number of cases in the 25-29 age group is 0, which Nass neglected to mention.
The researchers extrapolate the data to smooth out the bumps in the statistics. Their numbers are 1 in 10,000 for those people who received a second dose, and 1 in 5000 for males who received the second dose.
"In our patients ages 12-39 years old who received a second dose of vaccine (n=146,785), we estimated a risk of 95.4 cases of myopericarditis per million second doses administered. In males who received a second dose (n=66,533) we estimated a rate of 195.4 cases of myopericarditis per million second doses.
The study did not say whether any patient died. I expect not, otherwise it would have been a significant feature of the report.
Nothing to do with my post.
It was a message and extensive debate from Dr Mercola.
Was the link broken?
Yes, it's broken. When I cut and paste your link, it now redirects to ...
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/05/02/10-things-to-eliminate-for-better-health.aspx
Previously it redirected to Meryl Nass's piece, which I subsequently could no longer find. It appears that Mercola's articles live for 48 hours before they disappear.
How's your picture going?
It's bitter and twisted. Not long to go ...