[__ Science __ ] MUST WATCH: Global COVID Summit - Declaration IV - Restore Scientific Integrity

[Barbarian]

Do you mean "Gödel [demonstrated or proved] that...."?

Yes, he mathematically demonstrated the fact.

BTW, wasn't Gödel just one of the many, modern irrationalist fools (whom other irrationalist fools, out of reverence, like to call "philosophers") who claim that truth can/does contradict truth?

Actually, Kurt Gödel was not a "modernist." But I'd be pleased to see your proof that his incompleteness theorem is incorrect.

Gödel’s two incompleteness theorems are among the most important results in modern logic, and have deep implications for various issues. They concern the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories. The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F. According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent (assuming it is indeed consistent).

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Barbarian]

The guy that stamps his feet while accusing another of frothing. This is so comical.

When he gets angry, he starts calling names and making weird accusations. It's not surprising, and it's easy to see.

The guy that stamps his feet

Well, I can't actually see him do that, but his writing...

I have met many people ignorant and delusional enough to express their reverence for professional Darwinists by calling them, "scientists," and by calling their Darwinism, "science". Pathetically, those of them who exhibit the most fervent, despicable reverence for professional Darwinists are the professional Darwinists, themselves. It's no wonder that professional Darwinists so love, and consider it indispensable, at all costs, to have to themselves the reins on the power to subject children, through their compulsory government schools, to being regularly, defenselessly assaulted by the stultifying, brutalizing mental abuse that professional Darwinists love dishing out against their marks.

...definitely froths over.

This is so comical.

Sad, actually. Not just calling names and attributing weird things, he assumes beliefs I don't have. It's really sad. Notice that he actually did it to Kurt Godel, too. What did Kurt ever do to him?

 

[Barbarian]

This article has a rather balanced examination of religion doctrines and evolution:

Young Earth Creationism—The most literal reading of Genesis 1 holds that God created the world in six 24-hour days, because at the end of each period of creation “there was evening, and there was morning.” However, God created the Sun on the fourth day, so how could there be mornings and evenings in the first three days? Young Earth Creationists typically respond to this criticism in two ways: 1) the light in the first three days refer to the glory of God, or 2) the Sun became visible from the Earth’s perspective on the fourth day.

Young Earth Creationism also faces another weakness: modern science indicates that the Earth is around 4.6 billion years old, much older than the Young Earth Creationists’ claimed date of 4004 B.C. (from the calculation of Bishop James Ussher). A possible response from Young Earth Creationists is that God created the world with an appearance of age, just as God created Adam as an adult instead of a baby.

Gap Theory—One could easily modify Young Earth Creationism as follows: there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. In other words God created the heavens and earth billions of years ago, but the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days and took place 6000 years ago. This theory keeps the literal reading of Genesis 1, yet accounts for pre-Adamite civilizations and the fall of Satan.

The weakness of the Gap Theory is that it is an unnatural explanation. It seems like a desperate attempt to reconcile the six literal days with the 4.6 billion years of the Earth’s age. Moreover the six literal days of creation fail to match the geological data of ancient species, although a potential response is that Noah’s Flood changed all the geological strata that we observe today—an argument that many Young Earth Creationists espouse.

Progressive Creationism—This interpretation is also known as the “Day-Age Theory”. Under this theory God directly created the world without leaving anything to chance, but each “day” of creation is a long period of time instead of 24 hours. The Hebrew word “yom” could mean a day or a long interval of time, so translating “yom” as “age” is exegetically legitimate. It also provides a harmony between Genesis 1 and science.

One major source of criticism of Progressive Creationism is its claim that death occurred before the Fall of Man, whereas Genesis 3 asserts that death came as a result of sin. The typical response is two-fold. First animal death before the fall is consistent with the Bible; indeed God breathed air into Adam, so there is something special about humans. Second, we have to distinguish physical death from spiritual death, and the Fall of Man refers to spiritual death.

Theistic Evolution—Life evolved on Earth under the guidance of God. This interpretation unites creation with modern understandings of human origins. In contrast to atheistic evolution -- which faces the criticism of where the first cell came from or the low probability events in evolution -- theistic evolution allows for God’s intervention in the evolutionary process. Since the Bible is filled with stories of how God intervened in history, the providence of God in human evolution is a reasonable assertion.

A weakness of theistic evolution is that evolution is by chance, whereas creation is by design. More precisely the mutation of genes occurs randomly, and natural selection makes the fittest genes survive. Hence the open question is whether God plays an active role in the random mutation process, and if not, did God simply have the divine foreknowledge that the long sequence of random mutations would eventually lead to homo sapiens?

Statistics on the public’s view of these interpretations of Genesis 1 differ across denominations. A Pew Forum survey in 2013 found that 64% of white evangelicals and 50% of black Protestants believe that humans existed in the present form since the beginning of time, but only 31% of Hispanic Catholics, 26% of white Catholics, and 15% of white mainline Protestants hold the same view. A further breakdown among white mainline Protestants shows that 36% believe that a Supreme Being guided evolution, and another 36% say that evolution is due to natural processes.

stanfordvoxclara.com - stanfordvoxclara Resources and Information.

stanfordvoxclara.com is your first and best source for all of the information you’re looking for. From general topics to more of what you would expect to find here, stanfordvoxclara.com has it all. We hope you find what you are searching for!

www.stanfordvoxclara.com

Nevertheless the article can be criticized in several ways. First it does not consider the "virtual history" doctrine of YE creationist Gerald Aardsma, who sees the evidence of vast ages and evolution as a sort of backstory, with the real history starting a few thousand years ago. It's a little like the "apparent age" doctrine, without imputing deceptiveness to God.

The second error is that long before evolutionary theory, orthodox Christians recognized that divine providence can work equally effectively by necessity or by contingency. Hence, God can use even random processes to effect His will.

IDers have some ideas about this. Some of them, like Michael Denton, see the "designer" "front loading" the universe so that it will produce things according to the design. Others, like Michael Behe, see the universe as mostly natural, with God stepping in here and there to make it work as He intends.

Lastly, it ignores that the "literal" (meaning "what it actually says") in De Genesi ad litteram did not mean literal 24 hour days. So early theologians were not convinced that the "days" of Genesis were 24 hour periods, or even periods of time at all. Augustine thought they represented different aspects of creation. The allusion to the (then believed) elements of earth, air, and water, with fire (let there be light) symbolizing the act of creation by God, seems to make that clear.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I’m more interested in why people think a bunch of people in nondescript lab coats in a stage setting, means they are truthful in their claims about COVID.

Who thinks that? And also, do you think that someone not wearing a lab coat means he/she is truthful in his/her claims?

Especially when the website for the supposed Global COVID Summit fails to provide many thousands of signatories for their “Declaration.”

According to you, what does that entail?

Scientific integrity has nothing to with it because it isn’t at all scientific; it’s purposeful misinformation and disinformation from a handful of people.

Wait...is someone supposed to choose how and what to think based on whether you choose to call something "scientific" or "unscientific"?

In the text on the page of the Rumble video linked in the OP of this thread, you can read as follows:

This corrupt alliance has compromised the integrity of our most prestigious medical societies to which we belong, generating an illusion of scientific consensus by substituting truth with propaganda. This alliance continues to advance unscientific claims by censoring data, and intimidating and firing doctors and scientists for simply publishing actual clinical results or treating their patients with proven, life-saving medicine.

As you can see, those about whom you are complaining, and whom you are calling "the supposed Global COVID Summit," are using the same sort of language in their complaint against people who think like you as you are using in your complaint against them. You say call what they are saying "not at all scientific," and "purposeful misinformation and disinformation"; and they, just the same, call the output of those whom you respect, "unscientific," and "propaganda". So, if you are not impressed by them calling "unscientific" what you call "scientific," then why would you imagine that anyone would be impressed because you call something "scientific" or "unscientific"?

 

[Barbarian]

In the text on the page of the Rumble video linked in the OP of this thread, you can read as follows:

As you can see, those about whom you are complaining, and whom you are calling "the supposed Global COVID Summit," are using the same sort of language in their complaint against people who think like you as you are using in your complaint against them. You say call what they are saying "not at all scientific," and "purposeful misinformation and disinformation"; and they, just the same, call the output of those whom you respect, "unscientific," and "propaganda". So, if you are not impressed by them calling "unscientific" what you call "scientific," then why would you imagine that anyone would be impressed because you call something "scientific" or "unscientific"?

The fact that we aren't seeing names and credentials for these "summiteers" is telling. I happen to have done graduate work in immunology, and I ran an immunization/allergy clinic for the AF for a number of years. And what I'm reading from them is not very accurate. I understand why people who have spent a lifetime in the field would be unhappy with those guys.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Free had said:

Especially when the website for the supposed Global COVID Summit fails to provide many thousands of signatories for their “Declaration.”

So, I asked him:

According to you, what does that entail?

Then, you said to me:

The fact that we aren't seeing names and credentials for these "summiteers" is telling.

Saying that it "is telling" is the same thing as saying that it entails. And, I've already, in my previous post, asked what, according to Free's and your ilk, it entails. IOW, what, according to your ilk, is it telling you?

Why, then, would you reply to that post by merely telling me that it "is telling," without telling me what, according to you, it "is telling"? You don't need to repeat that it entails/is telling; rather, the question you've not answered is what, according to you, does it entail/what, according to you, is it telling?

 

[Free]

Who thinks that?

The person who posted the video and at least one other who supported it.

And also, do you think that someone not wearing a lab coat means he/she is truthful in his/her claims?

Of course not. That clearly is not the claim I am making.

According to you, what does that entail?

Your question doesn't make sense based on my statement you quote. You may not understand what "entail" means--from Mirriam-Webster: "to impose, involve, or imply as a necessary accompaniment or result".

Wait...is someone supposed to choose how and what to think based on whether you choose to call something "scientific" or "unscientific"?

Of course not. It just gives them something to consider.

In the text on the page of the Rumble video linked in the OP of this thread, you can read as follows:

As you can see, those about whom you are complaining, and whom you are calling "the supposed Global COVID Summit," are using the same sort of language in their complaint against people who think like you as you are using in your complaint against them. You say call what they are saying "not at all scientific," and "purposeful misinformation and disinformation"; and they, just the same, call the output of those whom you respect, "unscientific," and "propaganda". So, if you are not impressed by them calling "unscientific" what you call "scientific," then why would you imagine that anyone would be impressed because you call something "scientific" or "unscientific"?

Rumble. lol As if it's a legitimate source for anything. When it involves things relating to science, it matters what science says. When a video purports to be speaking about some of the science of COVID, yet good reasons exist as to why the video and the "scientists" are likely all fake, and when this huge supposed list of signatories is non-existent and the relatively few profiles they show could easily have been found randomly on the web, then chances are high that the video exists only for propaganda purposes and has little to no actual science.

It's just basic reasoning and common sense; I'm not trying to impress anyone.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The person who posted the video and at least one other who supported it.

Quote them thinking that, and provide a link to them thinking that.

Of course not. That clearly is not the claim I am making.

Did someone say you are making it?

Your question doesn't make sense based on my statement you quote. You may not understand what "entail" means--from Mirriam-Webster: "to impose, involve, or imply as a necessary accompaniment or result".

You mentioned the fact that the document they have posted does not list thousands of names, so I asked you what, according to you, that fact entails. So, here, are you trying to tell me that that fact does not entail anything? If it does not entail anything, then you've inferred nothing from it. Why should anyone care, then, that the document does not list thousands of names? And why, then, did you bother to bring up that fact, if it is of no consequence?

Of course not. It just gives them something to consider.

Since anybody can call "scientific" whatever they want to call "scientific," and can call "unscientific" whatever they want to call "unscientific," how is your calling what you want to call "scientific"/"unscientific" something that needs to be considered?

Rumble. lol As if it's a legitimate source for anything.

But, whether or not it is legitimate, it was the source from which I quoted the text which I quoted. So, what's your "point"?

When it involves things relating to science, it matters what science says.

IOW, it matters to you what those whom you choose to call "science" say. But so what? All you're accomplishing is to show that it's as easy for you to call "science" whatever you want to call "science" as it is for someone to put on a lab coat.

 

[Free]

Quote them thinking that, and provide a link to them thinking that.

Since you can read, I suggest starting with the first post.

You mentioned the fact that the document they have posted does not list thousands of names, so I asked you what, according to you, that fact entails. So, here, are you trying to tell me that that fact does not entail anything? If it does not entail anything, then you've inferred nothing from it. Why should anyone care, then, that the document does not list thousands of names? And why, then, did you bother to bring up that fact, if it is of no consequence?

I said: 'Especially when the website for the supposed Global COVID Summit fails to provide many thousands of signatories for their “Declaration.”'

You asked: "According to you, what does that entail?"

That's asking: "According to you, what does that involve?"

So, if I'm saying that someone failed to provide evidence of a truth claim, and you ask what that involves, then your question doesn't make sense. I just end up repeating myself since it involves them failing to provide evidence of a truth claim.

Since anybody can call "scientific" whatever they want to call "scientific," and can call "unscientific" whatever they want to call "unscientific," how is your calling what you want to call "scientific"/"unscientific" something that needs to be considered?

First, we can't call whatever we want scientific or unscientific. Second, I've already provided the answer--the Global COVID Summit appears to be fake. It is an unreliable source and so cannot be trusted to be providing accurate scientific information. This is pretty basic reasoning.

But, whether or not it is legitimate, it was the source from which I quoted the text which I quoted. So, what's your "point"?

So, if the source isn't legitimate, all that matters is that it was the source you quoted to try and prove a point? Do you see the problem here?

IOW, it matters to you what those whom you choose to call "science" say. But so what? All you're accomplishing is to show that it's as easy for you to call "science" whatever you want to call "science" as it is for someone to put on a lab coat.

Yet there is some simple reasoning I provided.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

You said something silly:

I’m more interested in why people think a bunch of people in nondescript lab coats in a stage setting, means they are truthful in their claims about COVID.

So, I asked you who (which people?) think what you are saying "people think".

You responded:

The person who posted the video and at least one other who supported it.

I can't see that the people to whom you're referring actually think what you are accusing them of thinking. So, I asked you to please quote JLB and seve in the act of thinking what you are claiming they think.

Surprise, surprise! You give me no quotation(s) of either of them thinking what you have accused them of thinking. Why is that?

Since you can read, I suggest starting with the first post.

Since I can read, why don't you provide the quotations I've requested you to provide, so that I can read them thinking "a bunch of people in nondescript lab coats in a stage setting, means they are truthful in their claims about COVID"? In the first post, I certainly can't find anyone thinking what you say they're thinking.

Now, since you obviously think someone's not wearing a lab coat means he/she is truthful, why do you think that?

So, if I'm saying that someone failed to provide evidence of a truth claim, and you ask what that involves, then your question doesn't make sense. I just end up repeating myself since it involves them failing to provide evidence of a truth claim.

You hadn't said anything about anyone failing to provide evidence of a truth claim. Rather, you were whining about the fact that the list they have posted does not have thousands of names on it. I can quote you doing so:

I’m more interested in why people think a bunch of people in nondescript lab coats in a stage setting, means they are truthful in their claims about COVID. Especially when the website for the supposed Global COVID Summit fails to provide many thousands of signatories for their “Declaration.” Scientific integrity has nothing to with it because it isn’t at all scientific; it’s purposeful misinformation and disinformation from a handful of people.

Here, your paucity of attention has tripped you up:

So, if the source isn't legitimate, all that matters is that it was the source you quoted to try and prove a point? Do you see the problem here?

Wait....what point are you saying I was trying to prove? All I had said was that I had got the excerpt I was quoting from the Rumble page to which the OP of this thread had linked:

In the text on the page of the Rumble video linked in the OP of this thread, you can read as follows:

I claimed that a Rumble page is the source from whence I was quoting what I was quoting. Do you not believe that claim? Do you not believe that I was really quoting from where I said I was quoting from?

Here, in case you do not, I'll give you the link (though it's already given in this thread's OP, as I already told you): https://rumble.com/v14esx4-must-wat...laration-iv-restore-scientific-integrity.html

Now do you believe my claim that I was quoting from a Rumble page?

You were immediately triggered into a fit by seeing the name, "Rumble," that you completely failed to see (or, at least, are pretending to not have seen) what I was saying about the text I was quoting.

Yet there is some simple reasoning I provided.

I've not seen you provide any reasoning. I've seen you provide what you are pleased to call "reasoning".

First, we can't call whatever we want scientific or unscientific.

LOL

Obviously you can, and do. Duh.

Second, I've already provided the answer--the Global COVID Summit appears to be fake.

You appear to be fake.

It is an unreliable source and so cannot be trusted to be providing accurate scientific information.

That's what you assert. But so what? Obviously no one owes it to you to take your assertion for it that you are speaking truth, and that you are not an unreliable source, in saying such things as that.

This is pretty basic reasoning.

That's what you call it when you sit there making your assertions: "reasoning". I've, thus far, not seen you engaged in any reasoning.

 

[JLB]

You said something silly:



So, I asked you who (which people?) think what you are saying "people think".

You responded:



I can't see that the people to whom you're referring actually think what you are accusing them of thinking. So, I asked you to please quote JLB and seve in the act of thinking what you are claiming they think.

Surprise, surprise! You give me no quotation(s) of either of them thinking what you have accused them of thinking. Why is that?



Since I can read, why don't you provide the quotations I've requested you to provide, so that I can read them thinking "a bunch of people in nondescript lab coats in a stage setting, means they are truthful in their claims about COVID"? In the first post, I certainly can't find anyone thinking what you say they're thinking.

Now, since you obviously think someone's not wearing a lab coat means he/she is truthful, why do you think that?



You hadn't said anything about anyone failing to provide evidence of a truth claim. Rather, you were whining about the fact that the list they have posted does not have thousands of names on it. I can quote you doing so:



Here, your paucity of attention has tripped you up:



Wait....what point are you saying I was trying to prove? All I had said was that I had got the excerpt I was quoting from the Rumble page to which the OP of this thread had linked:



I claimed that a Rumble page is the source from whence I was quoting what I was quoting. Do you not believe that claim? Do you not believe that I was really quoting from where I said I was quoting from?

Here, in case you do not, I'll give you the link (though it's already given in this thread's OP, as I already told you): https://rumble.com/v14esx4-must-wat...laration-iv-restore-scientific-integrity.html

Now do you believe my claim that I was quoting from a Rumble page?

You were immediately triggered into a fit by seeing the name, "Rumble," that you completely failed to see (or, at least, are pretending to not have seen) what I was saying about the text I was quoting.



I've not seen you provide any reasoning. I've seen you provide what you are pleased to call "reasoning".



LOL

Obviously you can, and do. Duh.



You appear to be fake.



That's what you assert. But so what? Obviously no one owes it to you to take your assertion for it that you are speaking truth, and that you are not an unreliable source, in saying such things as that.



That's what you call it when you sit there making your assertions: "reasoning". I've, thus far, not seen you engaged in any reasoning.

He has chosen to close his ears to the truth.

 

[Free]

You said something silly:



So, I asked you who (which people?) think what you are saying "people think".

You responded:



I can't see that the people to whom you're referring actually think what you are accusing them of thinking. So, I asked you to please quote JLB and seve in the act of thinking what you are claiming they think.

Surprise, surprise! You give me no quotation(s) of either of them thinking what you have accused them of thinking. Why is that?



Since I can read, why don't you provide the quotations I've requested you to provide, so that I can read them thinking "a bunch of people in nondescript lab coats in a stage setting, means they are truthful in their claims about COVID"? In the first post, I certainly can't find anyone thinking what you say they're thinking.

Start by reading the first post.

Now, since you obviously think someone's not wearing a lab coat means he/she is truthful, why do you think that?

As I stated earlier, that is clearly not an argument I am making. Even when I first stated that, you replied, "Did someone say you are making it?" You implied it the first time and here it is explicitly stated. It's like you're trying to sound logical but it's not really working.

This is very simple reasoning: I am referring to a group of miscellaneous people in nondescript lab coats, making certain, supposedly scientific claims, from a website that fails to provide its supposed list of 17,000 scientists. As I stated at the start of the thread, when I see the vast majority of doctors give presentations, they aren't wearing lab coats (I only say a vast majority because I can't remember even one). But in no way should someone logically conclude from that that I "obviously think someone's not wearing a lab coat means he/she is truthful." I am simply making an argument based on the specific video in the OP.

You hadn't said anything about anyone failing to provide evidence of a truth claim. Rather, you were whining about the fact that the list they have posted does not have thousands of names on it. I can quote you doing so:



Here, your paucity of attention has tripped you up:

Again, simple reasoning has failed you.

Wait....what point are you saying I was trying to prove? All I had said was that I had got the excerpt I was quoting from the Rumble page to which the OP of this thread had linked:



I claimed that a Rumble page is the source from whence I was quoting what I was quoting. Do you not believe that claim? Do you not believe that I was really quoting from where I said I was quoting from?

Here, in case you do not, I'll give you the link (though it's already given in this thread's OP, as I already told you): https://rumble.com/v14esx4-must-wat...laration-iv-restore-scientific-integrity.html

Now do you believe my claim that I was quoting from a Rumble page?

You were immediately triggered into a fit by seeing the name, "Rumble," that you completely failed to see (or, at least, are pretending to not have seen) what I was saying about the text I was quoting.



I've not seen you provide any reasoning. I've seen you provide what you are pleased to call "reasoning".



LOL

Obviously you can, and do. Duh.



You appear to be fake.



That's what you assert. But so what? Obviously no one owes it to you to take your assertion for it that you are speaking truth, and that you are not an unreliable source, in saying such things as that.



That's what you call it when you sit there making your assertions: "reasoning". I've, thus far, not seen you engaged in any reasoning.

I'm done discussing this with you. You're obviously trying to be all logical but you're not and this is going to go nowhere worthwhile.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Start by reading the first post.

Like I told you when you asked me before, I already read it. Were you expecting a cracker, Polly?

By having read it, I can see that you are lying in your accusation of JLB and seve. And by your continuing failure to provide quotations of them thinking what you are accusing them of thinking, you are advertising that you know you are lying about them.

As I stated earlier, that is clearly not an argument I am making.

Far be it from me to call anything you've said, "an argument". It does not appear that you are making any argument(s) in this forum.

But in no way should someone logically conclude from that that I "obviously think someone's not wearing a lab coat means he/she is truthful."

Do you want me to quote you thinking that? Then, first, just quote those guys thinking the asinine thing you are accusing them of thinking.

I am simply making an argument based on the specific video in the OP.

So far, you've made no argument. Instead, you—based on nothing—falsely accused certain persons of thinking something they do not appear to think.

 

[Barbarian]

It's a common PR stunt to promote a "global summit" and "thousands of (whatever experts imagined)" but no names or credentials.

Who would fall for stuff like that?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I don't reject sound science. 17,000 doctors -- a small percentage of doctors -- can be both political and wrong.

Rumble and YouTube are filled with nonsensical information? Want a video of Bigfoot? Go there.

If God spoke the truth through a donkey, shouldn’t you be willing to learn the truth from any source? Do you believe what is says solely because the “authority you trust” says it?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

And explain why it is still experimental. It is no more dangerous than the average vaccine. Have you heard of the situation of Benjamin Franklin? He refused to vaccinate his son because he thought the vaccine was dangerous. His son got the illness and died. Ben wrote that he wished he had been forced to vaccinate his son, and he advised all parents to have their kids get the vaccine.

You need to read the doctors reports of the detrimental results of those jabs. It is way more harmful than vaccines (which it is not.) I repeat, you doubt Christianity. Try doubting something else for a change.

I work in neurology and we have more new neurological cases since the jabs came out than any year since I’ve worked there. If one understands what happens when that spike RNA is injected, it makes perfect sense.

 

[Barbarian]

You need to read the doctors reports of the detrimental results of those jabs.

I've taken a look at the reports. Adverse reactions are quite rare. For the Pfizer vaccine testing:

Serious adverse events were defined as any untoward medical occurrence that resulted in death, was life-threatening, required inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, or resulted in persistent disability/incapacity. The proportions of participants who reported at least 1 serious adverse event were 0.6% in the vaccine group and 0.5% in the placebo group.

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Reactions & Adverse Events | CDC

Information about reactions and adverse events reported by recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine

www.cdc.gov

Pretty hard to make anything of data like that. Serious reactions in the placebo group were almost as many as in people who actually got the vaccination.

I work in neurology and we have more new neurological cases since the jabs came out than any year since I’ve worked there.

Millions of Americans got mild cases of COVID-19; and yes, we're going to be seeing consequences of those infections for a long time. One of the more common consequences is neurological dysfunction.

March 23, 2021 -- Cognitive dysfunction, sometimes called “brain fog,”tops the list of neurologic complaints in patients with long-haul COVID-19 whose illness wasn't severe enough for them to be hospitalized, new research shows.

But brain fog isn’t the only problem, the study found.

Researchers, who tracked 100 non-hospitalized patients with long-haul COVID-19 from May to November found 85% reported four or more neurologic symptoms.

"It's the first of its kind study on neurological symptoms appearing in patients non-hospitalized," senior author Igor Koralnik, MD, professor of neurology at Northwestern University in Chicago told Medscape.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Overview

COVID-19 is a new type of coronavirus that causes mild to severe cases. Here’s a quick guide on how to spot symptoms, risk factors, prevent spread of the disease, and find out what to do if you think you have it.

www.webmd.com

Getting vaccinated isn't just about saving your life; it's about avoiding long term consequences, of which (as you suggest) neurological symptoms are one of the more common.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I've taken a look at the reports. Adverse reactions are quite rare. For the Pfizer vaccine testing:

Serious adverse events were defined as any untoward medical occurrence that resulted in death, was life-threatening, required inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, or resulted in persistent disability/incapacity. The proportions of participants who reported at least 1 serious adverse event were 0.6% in the vaccine group and 0.5% in the placebo group.

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Reactions & Adverse Events | CDC

Information about reactions and adverse events reported by recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine

www.cdc.gov

Pretty hard to make anything of data like that. Serious reactions in the placebo group were almost as many as in people who actually got the vaccination.


Millions of Americans got mild cases of COVID-19; and yes, we're going to be seeing consequences of those infections for a long time. One of the more common consequences is neurological dysfunction.

March 23, 2021 -- Cognitive dysfunction, sometimes called “brain fog,”tops the list of neurologic complaints in patients with long-haul COVID-19 whose illness wasn't severe enough for them to be hospitalized, new research shows.

But brain fog isn’t the only problem, the study found.

Researchers, who tracked 100 non-hospitalized patients with long-haul COVID-19 from May to November found 85% reported four or more neurologic symptoms.

"It's the first of its kind study on neurological symptoms appearing in patients non-hospitalized," senior author Igor Koralnik, MD, professor of neurology at Northwestern University in Chicago told Medscape.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Overview

COVID-19 is a new type of coronavirus that causes mild to severe cases. Here’s a quick guide on how to spot symptoms, risk factors, prevent spread of the disease, and find out what to do if you think you have it.

www.webmd.com

Getting vaccinated isn't just about saving your life; it's about avoiding long term consequences, of which (as you suggest) neurological symptoms are one of the more common.

No, the neurological consequences of the covid years hit only when the shots came out. There are so many more adverse effects than vaccines it’s hard to be denied except by those who don’t want to believe it.

But those who deny it are just about impossible to reach.

 

[Free]

No, the neurological consequences of the covid years hit only when the shots came out. There are so many more adverse effects than vaccines it’s hard to be denied except by those who don’t want to believe it.

As has been stated many times, correlation does not equal causation. It could very well be, and would be more likely, that COVID is a cause rather than, or even in addition to, the vaccines. To just default to the vaccines is unscientific.

As the literature shows, there is a lot of overlap between the symptoms of COVID and adverse reactions to vaccines, except that they're much more likely to occur from infection than from the vaccines. And, scientifically, that is what we should expect.

But those who deny it are just about impossible to reach.

I have mostly seen denial go one way--the denial of the potential for serious consequences of having had COVID by the anti-vaxxers. Most, if not all, of those I have seen who accept the seriousness of COVID also acknowledge the potential of negative side effects from vaccines.

 

[Barbarian]

No, the neurological consequences of the covid years hit only when the shots came out.

As you see, the years that there were many minor COVID-19 infections, there was a large increase in the number of neurological disorders in people who had been infected. That's the increase you were seeing:

Cognitive dysfunction, sometimes called “brain fog,”tops the list of neurologic complaints in patients with long-haul COVID-19 whose illness wasn't severe enough for them to be hospitalized, new research shows.

But brain fog isn’t the only problem, the study found.

Researchers, who tracked 100 non-hospitalized patients with long-haul COVID-19 from May to November found 85% reported four or more neurologic symptoms.
ibid

It was, as many physicians reported, found frequently in the unvaccinated who had relatively mild cases of COVID-19. This is another reason why vaccinations were important. COVID-19 vaccines are very effective in preventing those symptoms. Unfortunately, a lot of people were infected before vaccines were available, and many people afterwards, were influenced by the anti-vaxxers. Many of those people will suffer neurologic symptoms, perhaps permanently.