Antivaccine nonsense History Holocaust

The “Nuremberg Code” gambit

Antivaxxers love to claim that vaccine mandates (especially COVID-19 vaccine mandates) violate the Nuremberg Code. As usual, they have no idea what they are talking about.

If there’s one thing antivaxxers love, it’s citing the Nuremberg Code. We’ve seen it (and I’ve discussed it here) many times before, coming from antivaxxers as diverse in their level of fanaticism as Mike Adams, who has all but called for “Nuremberg-style” trials for pro-vaccine physicians and scientists; washed up comedian Rob Schneider; the grande dame of the antivaccine movement, Barbara Loe Fisher; our recent acquaintance, “holistic” cardiologist Joel Kahn; Phil Valentine; VAXXED “documentarian” Del Bigtree; and disgraced antivax physician from the Cleveland Clinic, Daniel Neides. The examples go on and on and on. Antivaxxers invoke the Nuremberg Code so often that I’ve started calling their doing so the “Nuremberg Code gambit.” That’s why, every so often, I feel the need to revisit this topic and explain why the way antivaxxers invoke the Nuremberg Code against vaccines reveals a poor understanding of history and is a thinly disguised (actually undisguised) Godwin.

So what is the Nuremberg Code? The Nuremberg Code is a set of principles for human subjects research that published in 1947 as part of USA vs. Brandt et al (also often called the Doctors’ Trial) as one result of the Nuremberg Trials. The trial involved doctors who had been involved in Nazi human experimentation and mass murder disguised as euthanasia.Of the 23 defendants, seven were acquitted, while seven were sentenced to death. The rest received prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment.

There are ten points to the code, which was published in the section of the verdict entitled “Permissible medical experiments”:

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.[13]
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

The Nuremberg Code remains one of the foundations of medical ethics with respect to human subjects research. It is, however, old and has been largely supplanted, for practical purposes, by newer statements of human research ethics. It is certainly true, though, that these newer statements (which I’ll discuss in a moment) echo many of the points of the Nuremberg Code; it’s just that they go beyond it.

This brings me to Tim Noakes, who Tweeted the other day:

But where’s the reference to the Nuremberg Code? Patience. A certain person known to the blog quote-Tweeted the above Tweet, leading Tim Noakes to respond:

And there you have it! The appeal to the Nuremberg Code, or, as I now call it, the “Nuremberg Code gambit.”

Tim Noakes is someone whom I had heard of but never directly encountered before. He’s a conspiracy theorist, as described in Rational Wiki:

Timothy David Noakes (1949–) is a South African exercise physiologist, conspiracy theorist, anti-sugar campaigner, low-carb high-fat advocate and cholesterol denialist, best known for his opposition to mainstream dieting advice. Noakes has been accused of promoting dangerous and false information about vaccines and “outrageous, unproven claims about disease prevention.”[1][2][3]

Noakes endorses a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet, often referred to as the “Banting” or “Noakes” diet. Medical experts have criticized the diet as being “not based on good science“.[4] The Noakes diet forbids all grains, most kinds of fruit and refined sugars.[5]

His book Lore of Nutrition was described by paediatrician Alastair McAlpine as “an extraordinarily heady mix of conspiracy theory, bad science, bad writing, and persecution complex“.[6]

What I hadn’t known before is that Noakes has a long history of antivaccine stylings, which was pointed out to me in a reply:

I shouldn’t have been surprised. (Actually, I wasn’t, at least not much.) But what about the Nuremberg Code? First, the Nuremberg Code only applies to human experimentation. Notice how each of the ten points of the Nuremberg Code mentions “the experiment” or “experimental” treatments. The Code is not about medical treatment, only medical experimentation involving human subjects.

I can’t help but note that if no “coercion” whatsoever were ever allowed for any medical test or treatment, then PKU tests for infants would be horrifically unethical, as would school vaccine mandates, and, well…I like the way Greg thinks:

Of course, antivaxxers would probably agree that no health tests or interventions whatsoever should ever be mandated for anything.

So what is the “Nuremberg Code gambit” all about? Basically, it’s one form of a favorite antivaccine trope, the appeal to “informed consent” and the claim that any vaccine mandate whatsoever violates “informed consent,” coupled with a confusion of research and treatment. Many of you have probably heard the antivaccine propaganda line that the COVID-19 vaccines are “experimental gene therapy.” You also probably know that none of the current COVID-19 vaccines, be they from Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson, have yet been granted full FDA approval. They’ve all been distributed under an emergency use authorization (EUA), while full FDA approval is being sought. As a result, because of law and regulation, in the US they must be referred to as “investigational” and can’t be represented as “safe and effective.”

This classification, however is a legal, not a scientific classification. To be granted an EUA, all of the current vaccines underwent phase 1, 2, and 3 testing, the last of which involved tens of thousands of patients in phase 3 clinical trials. Since then, hundreds of millions of doses of these vaccines have been administered with an excellent safety record. From a scientific standpoint, they are not really “experimental” or “investigational” any more. It is only legally that they are “investigational” or “experimental.” From a scientific and medical standpoint, they are now legitimate medical preventative treatments, even if they do not yet have full FDA approval.This is one reason why I really hope that the various vaccines achieve full FDA approval soon, as this will make it much harder for antivaxxers to use this particular trope as effectively.

The second part of the Nuremberg Code gambit is the deceptive appeal to “informed consent.” Of course, as I like to point out, while antivaxxers like to think they are really advocating for informed consent (and probably actually do think that), in practice, what they are advocating for is something that I like to refer to as “misinformed refusal.” It’s an antivaccine trope that I’ve been dealing with at least 16 years, if not longer. Here’s the idea. Antivaxxers vastly exaggerate the risks of vaccines and even make up risks (e.g., autism, autoimmune disease, sudden infant death syndrome) that are not at all supported by science. At the same time, they deny or downplay the benefits of vaccines, portraying them as largely ineffective or claiming that “natural” immunity from the disease is far superior to vaccine-induced immunity. Thus, if a parent listens to the antivaccine narrative about the risk-benefit profile of vaccines, she will believe that the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits. She might even believe that vaccines are not only ineffective, but dangerous, deadly even. That’s where my term “misinformed refusal” comes in. It’s the refusal of vaccines based on misinformation that portrays a falsely negative risk-benefit ratio.

As an aside, I can’t resist mentioning that the original gambit that Noakes used, in which he basically asked why someone who is vaccinated against COVID-19 should be afraid of the unvaccinated. It is, as has been described, well:

Basically, this is yet another example of dichotomous thinking. If a vaccine isn’t absolutely 100% safe, it’s dangerous, toxin-laden crap. If a vaccine is not 100% effective at preventing the disease that it’s designed to prevent, it’s utterly useless. Any vaccine failure at all is evidence to them that they are correct. In the age of COVID-19, this is why they constantly harp on “breakthrough cases” of the disease in the vaccinated. No vaccine is 100% effective, of course. So in the middle of a pandemic, as vaccines roll out, there will always be vaccine failures. What has to be examined is the risk of getting the disease in the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated. Utterly unsurprisingly, it turns out that, since the vaccines have rolled out and reached a significant part of the population (but not sufficiently large to result in herd immunity), COVID-19 has become a “pandemic of the unvaccinated“:

COVID-19 cases are continuing to spike in communities where vaccination rates are low, leading to what CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, called “a pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

Walensky reported sobering numbers during a news conference Friday: The most recent 7-day average of new COVID-19 cases was more than 26,300, up 70% from the previous week. The average of daily deaths is now 211 – an increase of 26%.

“There is a clear message that’s coming through: This is becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Walensky said. “We are seeing outbreaks in parts of the country where we’re seeing low vaccination coverage.”


“Unvaccinated Americans account for virtually all recent COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths,” said Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator. “Each COVID-19 death is tragic, and those happening now are even more tragic because they are preventable.”

More than 99% of recent deaths were among the unvaccinated, infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci said earlier this month on NBC’s Meet the Press, while Walensky noted on Friday that unvaccinated people accounted for over 97% of hospitalizations.

Basically, Noakes’ “Why are the vaccinated afraid of the unvaccinated?” gambit is an old one that I’ve heard from antivaxxers as long as I’ve been paying attention to the antivaccine movement.

Let’s finish, though, by circling back to the Nuremberg Code gambit. As I said before, the Nuremberg Code, as important as it was historically, has largely been supplanted by the Belmont Report (published in 1976) and the Declaration of Helsinki. The Belmont Report, for instance, goes beyond the Nuremberg Code by delineating the boundaries between medical practice and research. It also rests on basic ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, while emphasizing the importance of voluntariness (as the Nuremberg Code), a detailed discussion of benefits and risks (informed consent), and the selection of subjects. The Declaration of Helsinki, last updated in 2013, is similar, but goes into much more detail about informed consent. It also addresses the ethics of the use of placebos, post-trial provisions, and the dissemination of results. It even addresses the use of unproven interventions in clinical practice outside of clinical trials.

More “sophisticated” antivaxxers mention other provisions:

I just discussed the Belmont Report. But what about 42 US Code 1395? When I saw that, at first I thought she was referring to the Common Rule (more on what the Common Rule is in a moment). I was actually mistaken. 42 US Code 1395 states:

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer or employee of any institution, agency, or person providing health services; or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or operation of any such institution, agency, or person.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, § 1801, as added Pub. L. 89–97, title I, § 102(a), July 30, 1965, 79 Stat. 291.)

This is part of the law that created Medicare, actually, and the federal government is doing nothing of the sort by encouraging COVID-19 vaccination. In fact, one problem with the US is that it will likely be all but impossible to institute the sorts of vaccine requirements that would keep people safe, such as requirements for COVID-19 vaccination if you want to attend crowded concerts or fly commercial airlines. We won’t be France or Germany. The states, not the federal government, govern the practice of medicine.

But what about the Common Rule? Basically, it’s the operationalization of the principles of the Belmont Report and the Declaration of Helsinki into regulations governing human subjects research carried out by the federal government, institutions that receive federal funding, and pharmaceutical and device companies seeking FDA approval for their products. It requires Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and oversight of human subjects research, among other requirements for ethical human research and lays out the requirements for informed consent, as well as for research compliance by institutions. In effect, the Common Rule lays out the standard of ethics that govern not just human subjects research funded by the federal government or subject to FDA regulation for FDA approval, but in essence nearly all human subjects research. Almost all US academic institutions require their researchers to adhere to the Common Rule regardless of funding sources.

So why do antivaxxers always mention the Nuremberg Code and never the Belmont Report, Declaration of Helsinki, or the Common Rule when claiming that vaccine mandates somehow violate informed consent in human subjects research? (Never mind that COVID-19 vaccines do not violate informed consent or any of those documents describing the ethical principles of human subjects research.) The reason is simple. Neither the Belmont Report, the Declaration of Helsinki, nor the Common Rule were written or promulgated in response to Nazi war crimes. The Nuremberg Code, on the other hand, was written as part of the verdict of the Doctors trial at Nuremberg.

The simple reason that antivaxxers point to “informed consent” for (or, as I like to call it, misinformed refusal of) vaccines along with the Nuremberg Code is because it’s a Godwin. It not-so-subtly compares physicians and vaccine advocates to Nazis. That’s its one and only major purpose.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

132 replies on “The “Nuremberg Code” gambit”

Well, maybe I am A bit cynical but why not refer to the “Code Of Hammurabi”?

@ Julian Frost
Here in Canada we have been quite successful in exporting real nutters to the USA (Hi Senator Cruz), perhaps name nice research institution in the USA might like him?

No thank you we are quite full up here! Send him to Australia where he can fight it out with the banana lady FreeLee (the fruitarian).
Or maybe not, the last thing the rest of us need is for any of those extreme diet people to get any more attention.

That use of s. 1395 was extremely strange. It seems such a poor match.

I think the other things about the more modern sources is that antivaccine activists want to invoke the more charged term “experiment”, rather than the modern idea of research, which has more positive connotations and that they like to use for themselves.

That’s in addition, not instead, of your points, which I think are spot on.

Some people are uncomfortable with compulsory vaccinations. Evoking the Nuremberg Code is a stretch, but buck vs. bell and Tuskegee trials were not that long ago either. Many people are skeptical of the vaccines today because they reference these historical horrors. Humans have survived diseases far worse than covid in the past, and many have a deep distrust of what the medical establishment and political figures or celebrities tell them.

I know Orac and his pals desperately want everyone to get vaccinated or make life extremely difficult for unvaccinated people if they refuse, but there are about 20% of Americans who are adamant about never getting a covid vaccine. The fight is really going to ramp up when kids under 12 years old will be forced to get this vaccine. History is watching.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether mandates are good policy, and whether they are ethical. There are actually arguments you can make on that.

Needing to reach to Nuremberg trials – or to a lesser degree Buck and Tuskegee, very different situations – is a warning that the speaker is anti-vaccine, or was at least somewhat influenced by arguments that came from anti-vaccine sources.

Humanity survived diseases worst than COVID. At the cost of many people dying. Today, we have a choice and can act to prevent deaths and harms from disease. If you find yourself arguing against preventing deaths and harms, you may want to ask yourself some serious questions.


The fight is really going to ramp up when kids under 12 years old will be forced to get this vaccine.

Forced? Really? No one is being forced.

History is watching.

Has history ever vindicated antivaxxers? How about this, know anyone who had smallpox? Perhaps the reason people get to hold idiotic positions is because enough people in the past didn’t.

Unvaccinated kids will be required to wear masks and maybe not allowed to participate in normal activities if the pro-vaccine zealots have their way. Never mind that the fatality rate amongst young children is about 0.0004%.

COVID-19 is a serious disease mainly for immunocompromised and elderly people but nobody is developing blistering pustules like smallpox. The Spanish Flu killed maybe 50 million people and many victims were young and healthy. We need to put this pandemic into context and accept the fact that the majority of infected people will be just fine, vaxxed or not.

Nick, can you please provide a citation for your 0.0004%?

Also, that was the death rate (not infection or long-term side effects or anything else rate) for a time period in which children have not been in high-contact situations. Why do you think this rate would remain the same when the infection rate goes up when all those kids go back to school unmasked?

Unvaccinated people are not asked to wear a mask and not engage in crowded environments to punish them but to keep them safe. And you can tell that’s true because those requested actions are applied to everyone who is unvaccinated, for any reason including medical.


We need to put this pandemic into context and accept the fact that the majority of infected people will be just fine, vaxxed or not.

Tell that to India, Brazil, etc. Your talking point is so March 2020. I guess all the research and news from the past 16 months is just part of the scaremongering psyop, huh? Why are you even here? Up your game bruh. Meme recombination in those fever swamps must be producing new misinfo of interest. Bring it.

Yes, my mother went to teacher’s college (1932-36) with a young woman who had had smallpox as a child. (Perhaps her parents were the anti-vaxxers of her day.) This young woman had terrible scars on her face from her bout with smallpox. After graduation, she was repeatedly denied teaching positions because those doing the hiring were worried that she would “scare the kids.” Needless to say, discrimination against people with disabilities was not illegal back then. That young teacher’s parents either had no idea of the problems she’d face getting employment in her chosen field, or waved it away as unimportant.

@ Arthur – I think an ultimatum of vaccinate with this yet to be approved by the FDA, experimental vaccine or a person can’t work would fit the definition of coercion. And yes, a court of law would still deem ALL the Covid 19 vaccines as experimental.

coercion – the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. Coercion is mentioned in Nuremberg rule #1.

Utilitarianism has it’s limits.


Utilitarianism has it’s limits.

What do you think cost-benefit analysis is? OIC, for every decision you make, you simply deduce the right call from first principles, your logic being impeccable.

You don’t want vaccination to be a condition of employment, but you’re completely fine with possibly exposing others. I guess you don’t agree with mask mandates either because coercion.

Stop being a child and eat your vegetables.

I think an ultimatum of vaccinate with this yet to be approved by the FDA, experimental vaccine or a person can’t work would fit the definition of coercion. And yes, a court of law would still deem ALL the Covid 19 vaccines as experimental.

“Legal Ouija board” is not a particularly sensible position while assuming your own predicate, Natalie. In any event, what makes you think your fantasy court would need to reach that question in the first place, rather than just pointing to the PREP Act declaration, granting summary judgment, and calling it a day? Try to put together at least two letters at a time.

Coercion is mentioned in Nuremberg rule #1.



Nick, can you please provide a citation for your 0.0004%?

Takes one minute to look this stuff up.

Here’s stats from Sweden where they kept schools open.

“Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Among the 1.95 million children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”

@ Narad – Hi Cheeky. I hope this ends up in the right place. You write, “Legal Ouija board” is not a particularly sensible position” Ok. That’s funny.

I had to look up the PREP Act. So, if a person has an adverse reaction to any of the treatments to include vaccines, they have no recourse. They’re basically on their own. Wow, that really stinks! Thanks for the clarification.

“The declaration provides immunity from liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims:

of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions

determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency

to entities and individuals involved in the development, manufacture, testing, distribution, administration, and use of such countermeasures”

@Arthur Dent
You mentioned that we should talk to India to get a proper perspective on the “pandemic.” Well guess what? We did. And India told us that their Covid deaths have plummetted by 80% since they got OFF the vaccine, and back ON to Ivermectin. You can search a source suited to your liking yourself, but here are just a few that I could find:

Apparently, even the Indian Bar Association agrees!

^ Backstory to this:

But you probably don’t have any need for the opinions of those misinformed brown people, right? They must have internalized their oppression. Afrerall, anyone who opposes the vaccine must be a racist!

P.S. – … notice you’re not hearing much from the main-scream media or C.ovid N.ightmare N.etwork about India’s crisis anymore? This might be why.


Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Among the 1.95 million children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.

That’s a population ICU admission rate. You realize the infection fatality rate is conditional on infection.

@Arthur Dent

That’s a population ICU admission rate. You realize the infection fatality rate is conditional on infection.

Nice deflection but irrelevant.

From the article

No child with Covid-19 died.

How do you calculate “infection fatality rate” without fatalities???


But you probably don’t have any need for the opinions of those misinformed brown people, right? They must have internalized their oppression. Afrerall, anyone who opposes the vaccine must be a racist!

P.S. – … notice you’re not hearing much from the main-scream media or C.ovid N.ightmare N.etwork about India’s crisis anymore? This might be why.

Just, wow. When did ethnicity enter into the conversation? Projection?

If all you antivaxxers spent more time familiarizing youself with the literature instead of coming up with cute phrases like “main-scream media” I bet you’d have learned something in the past 18 mos.

Also, your attempts at humor are cringe.


Nice deflection but irrelevant.

My mistake. I should have said population ICU admission rate. From the sample in paper, if there were indeed no deaths, then the sample rate is 0. However, there is the Rule of Three in statistics.

In statistical analysis, the rule of three states that if a certain event did not occur in a sample with n subjects, the interval from 0 to 3/n is a 95% confidence interval for the rate of occurrences in the population. When n is greater than 30, this is a good approximation of results from more sensitive tests. For example, a pain-relief drug is tested on 1500 human subjects, and no adverse event is recorded. From the rule of three, it can be concluded with 95% confidence that fewer than 1 person in 500 (or 3/1500) will experience an adverse event. By symmetry, for only successes, the 95% confidence interval is [1−3/n,1].

Without an estimate of the number of infections and in light of the above, you cannot assume that the population IFR is 0.

Of course, Dave, you likely think this to be some hocus pocus.

@Cuckoo4cocoapuffs As for PREP act, has secretary of health declared health emergency ? Wait for it.

@Shanice Williams India is having vaccination drive:
Best ivermectin trial seems to be a quite stupid fraud:
Data was behind password, which was 1234. Quite typical
If ivermectin is such a wonder drug, why such tricks are needed. Why just make a good well powered study.
We actually have it soon:

@Shanice Williams Israel 5130000 vaccinated and 7400 breaktrough cases. So efficiency is 99.9%. Kay West, not a provaccine, provided the link to data
Btw do not cite juornos. They never give a proiper link

As for PREP act, has secretary of health declared health emergency ?

Remember, you’re talking to someone who thinks the FDA can mandate vaccinations.


For some reason these people are fine with forced medical procedures and forced medicating. I bet they were perfectly fine with one child policy in china. They can justify anything.

1) The vaccine is not 100% effective. So unvaccinated people DO pose a risk to the vaccinated.

Notice how they try to blame “unvaccinated” for any issues that the “vaccinated” might have. But logically if the ‘vaccinated” can be infected then the “vaccinated” pose a right to other “vaccinated”.

And finally, the fact that they don’t check people for antibodies makes it clear that this isn’t about science.

Have you noticed that argument is always that vaccinated should not be afraid of unvaccinated. Thus answer is why this happens As for vaccinated, it is much more unprobable that they have the disease.
Speak about forced medication when it happens.
There is no need to test antibodies so this not happen. Not to mention that testing everybody will bring in false positives,


Again with the forced. No one is being forced. I guess you never use seatbelts and never fly since you don’t like being forced. You are absolutely free to go about your life unvaccinated, but don’t expect there to be no consequences from your decision. Stop being a child and eat your vegetables.

Dave, you are correct. Vaccinated people can be a threat to other vaccinated people. There’s a difference though, vaccinated people have done everything they can to reduce the chances of being harmed or doing harm. Deliberately unvaccinated people haven’t.

It’s the difference between checking your chute before a jump and still getting hurt, versus, pushing someone out of the ‘plane before they put the chute on in the first place.

Also, if you’ve ever used the phrase ‘my house, my rules’, or had a job, then you’ve already lost any moral authority to complain about having to do something in order to get something.

Yeah, but the problem @NumberWang? The problem is that these vaccines DON’T WORK, hence the near-majority of the infected being fully vaccinated at this point:

^ -> Similar:

And don’t give me that “delta variant” crap… the whole phenomenon of variants is INTRINSIC to the nature of cold viruses, of which the Corona virus is one, which is why we haven’t been able to create an effective vaccine for the common cold – not without SEVERE side-effects and antibody-dependent enhancement. You’re destroying your own immune-system; don’t take us with you. You don’t have a right to impose severe medical risks onto other people just because YOU’Re a hypochondriac!!!

Citations required for – the vaccines don’t work (your implication is that they do nothing), severe medical risks, destruction of immune system.

The higher the number of vaccinated people, the higher the proportion of cases that are amongst the vaccinated. You know? 0% vaccinated, all cases are in unvaccinated population. 100% vaccinated, all cases in vaccinated population. Given that vulnerable populations are fairly highly vaccinated and hoping that your ability to think independently hasn’t atrophied too much, can you work out the implications for data regarding cases vs vaccinated status?

From India so had to [email protected] is full of it. Ivermectin has been mostly abandoned by sane doctors. We are chasing and queuing up for vaccines. Unfortunately we have more than our fair share of nuts, alternative “medicine” quacks and assorted kooks to ensure a sufficiency of idiotic articles and court filings

It’s all about INTENT. Our intent is not to study you or deprive you of lifesaving care to “See what course the disease will take in vivo.” Quite the opposite, guy. I want you and every patient I see in the clinic to get the shot so I DON’T see you in the ER or ICU. Your choice, not mine. What’s more, I want you yo get the shot so that you’re wishful-thinking “Mild course” of COVID which comes with days of asymptomatic spread doesn’t land others in the ER or ICU. Your choice, not theirs. Your choices have consequences, fella.

Humans have survived diseases far worse than covid in the past

A former microbiology teacher had a blog post about this, recently: Les grandes Epidémies and pandémies
(article in French, English sources at the end)

Knowing him, I don’t think his point is that laisser-faire is a good strategy..

An interesting point which keep coming is that, after a lot of these deadly epidemics, came a lot of upheavals and changes in the affected societies. Changes in the pre-existing power balances, holes in the social structures which had to be filled or bypassed.

I wonder how much the covid denialists are aware of that and actually more frightened of the possibility of social changes than of the illness itself.

Thanks, a nice summary and epidemics/pandemics I had never heard of, especially the cholera ones . On estime à 1 million de morts du choléra pendant les 6 pandémies qui se sont déroulées successivement de 1817 à 1923! I knew it was endemic but that’s all.

Both my mother and father lived through the Spanish Flu pandemic. I don’t remember either ever mentioning it but with cholora, Asian flu, polio, measles and who-knows-what other horrors sweeping across continents it may have just blended in.

I think they only mention Nuremberg because it’s the only one their low info targets have heard of.

Link above for JustaTech. 👆

Sorry even lower than I thought: 0.000002% 😂

“Of 3,105 deaths from all causes among the 12 million or so people under 18 in England between March 2020 and February 2021, 25 were attributable to COVID-19 — a rate of about 2 for every million people in this age range. None had asthma or type-1 diabetes, the authors note, and about half had conditions that put them at a higher risk than healthy children of dying from any cause.”

Virus is gonna virus. 🦠

Yes, I realize it’s only England but rate is similar to other countries I believe.

Aaand that wasn’t the fatality rate either – oops. Quick google search without reading the full article. But fatality rate is still less than 1%.

You didn’t read the Nature news item, or the actual three preprints? (All from the Harwood shop.)

Nick: “Sorry even lower than I thought: 0.000002%”

Not important. You are missing the risk of infected kids passing on the infection to their parents, grandparents, and also to their teachers and others. Kids are a reservoir that can amplify the spread of the virus in the population and increase the risk of more troublesome variants emerging.

We have lots of restrictive laws on the books to protect public health. We require treatment for TB. We restrict the driving privileges of alcoholics. We take away the right to own firearms for convicted felons. Vaccination against a disease that has killed >1/2 million (in US), especially when the vaccine is proven to have minuscule risk, is quite reasonable and appropriate.

And did you look at the time period? Oh, look at that, mostly while children and young adults were not in school! Which kept the infection rate down (as it was supposed to).

And how about this bit: “The team found that, of 6,338 hospital admissions for COVID-19, 259 children and young people required treatment in paediatric intensive-care units.”

More than 6 thousand children were admitted to the hospital for COVID-19. That’s a lot of very sick children, again, during a time when kids mostly weren’t in school, so infection rates were lower.

Your death rate is incorrectly calculated and meaningless.

As for the “about half had conditions that put them at a higher risk than healthy children of dying from any cause.” Does that mean that you don’t think sick kids deserve to be protected from a deadly, infectious virus? Do they don’t deserve to live just as much as anyone else?


Here are three glaring errors in your comments:

1) Ypu quoted the population fatality ratio, not the infection fatality ratio.
2) It ignores morbidity, hospitalisations, and ICU admissions.
3) It ignores spread of infection to the wider population.

And that spread can include their own parents and grandparents some of whom have a IFR as high as 15%

” This classification, however is a legal, not a scientific, classification” : Orac.

As if that would stop anti-vaxxers!
It benefits them to blur the lines between the two areas so that they can claim that vaccine supporters are somehow at fault.
Anti-vaxxers like Del and RFKjr try to gain legal rulings any way they can so that it appears that they are in the right scientifically. ( also citing legal rulings in Italy or Japan)
Suing opponents is part of alties’ MO as we know from many legal attack on sceptics and SBM- it is PR when you can’t find any legitimate research to support your ideas as Dr Barrett, Brian Deer, Wikipedia and others know only too well

I think it’s been mentioned before on RI, but part of the attraction in invoking Nuremberg for antivaxers is the fantasy that immunization supporters will one day be brought up en masse in crimes against humanity tribunals, to be sentenced to lengthy prison terms or death, along with large $$$ settlements being paid to anyone who alleges a vaccine injury.

It’s surprising that antivaccine advocates haven’t already convened their own pseudo-court, in the manner of the farcical International Monsanto Tribunal aimed at genetic modification technology and its developers.*

Nick is ever so right about how humanity has survived much worse than Covid-19. Why, plague only killed about one-third of the population in the Middle Ages, and humanity happily marched onwards. Given such pleasant outcomes, it’s bewildering why any public health measures are undertaken.

*Like anti-GMOers, antivaxers could hold their tribunal at the Hague, or if they’re unable to book space there, the Quality Inn in downtown Davenport, Iowa.

Or at the Four Seasons Total Landscaping?
(though actually those folks – not the ones who held the press conference there – seem pretty sensible).

1) The vaccine is not 100% effective. So unvaccinated people DO pose a risk to the vaccinated.

This is hilarious. So what’s the point of the vaccine then?

Also, why do I have to risk getting blood clots or myocarditis just because the vaccine you chose to take doesn’t work?

Please learn about how herd immunity actually works and try again. Also, unless you’re a fifteen year old male, your odds of myocarditis are so low they can’t even be calculated. If you are? You’re still more likely to get attacked by an alligator and far more likely to die in a car wreck. Get a life and stop making controlling this pandemic harder on those of us with genuine desire to help others. Go back to plastering every toilet stall with “Look up! What are they spraying?!” leaflets if you don’t want to be part of the solution.

I thought you were more likely to get attacked by an alligator than die of Covid, if you’re a 15 or under with no immuno-compromising conditions. 😆 Seems you ignore that side of the correlation when it doesn’t suit your purposes.

Point of vaccination is that 95% is much better than 0% . I bet you prefer 19/20 probability to win to zero probability.

Dave says – “This is hilarious. So what’s the point of the vaccine then?”

Ooooh. So much stupid! Bet you were kicking yourself when you clicked post on that one.

Did you know that a bullet proof vest wont protect you against bullets from every gun? Or if someone aims at your head? Now, Dave, whats the point of the vest then?

“The vaccine is not 100% effective. So unvaccinated people DO pose a risk to the vaccinated.” Please tell me that Alastair McAlpine does not have an actual medical degree. That is one of the stupidest things I’ve read in…hours, sadly. It’s middle-school level argumentation.

The psychic jolt when one exits Natural News or mercola dot com for the real world can be…unsettling.

@ DB:
Oh, I know!
How about yesterday’s ” self-assembling magnetic biocircuitry interfaces … DNA hydrogel.” or florid tales of CHAOS! Food shortages, vaccine death camps, power grid failures, gun seizures…..
I’ve been reading Elena Ferrante’s Neapolitan novels and her tales of fledgling feminists amongst apprentice Mafiosi in the 1960s seem much reasonable and timely than Mikey’s scenarios.

This is how some antivaxxers practice ethics.

Not only do they not choose to get vaccinated, they don’t want the vaccinated to choose not to associate with them. Similar to the ethics of some freeze peaches. They can say whatever hateful nonsense they want and you MUST listen to them.

Things will be so much better when our giant reptile overloads swoop in from outer space to claim their own. It’ll be utopia, well for 98% of us. Letting them devour only 2% is a small price to pay for their beneficence. If the truth were known, they probably deserve it anyway.

Been mentioned in passing but referencing Nuremberg is not merely going Godwin.
I have seen way too many posts about Nuremberg Trials 2.0 sometimes with explicit references to hanging those who give vaccines, vaccine researchers or sometimes even those with the audacity to merely report the facts.
Parts of the AV cult are being groomed to commit terrorist acts.


That’s the frightening part. These conspiracy peddlers lob rhetorical bombs and hope one of the faithful gets wound up enough to lash out, and if there’s a backlash, it proves their lunatic rants. Availability bias on steroids.

“They” are out to silence us!
One of the flock gets wound up and acts.
Authorities clamp down.
See, “They” ARE out to silence us.
Rinse, repeat.

It is terrorism, stochastic terrorism.

Only a week or so ago, I heard Judy Mikovits and Del Bigtree ( @ high wire talk) confabulate a scenario involving Dr Fauci and other officials dragged off in handcuffs after a tribunal for all the world to see!.
I imagine Orac and company are next! *

Judy Mikovits has truly jumped the shark and headed down the rabbit hole since her eviction from the Whittemore Peterson Institute.

Just to mangle a couple of metaphors.

Why are these ppl so desperate to “Lock up” everyone and put everyone on trial? Seems like putting that energy into enriching ones own life would be better spent…

@Daniel Pyron

Parts of the AV cult are being groomed to commit terrorist acts.

Please tell us more. I can’t resist a good conspiracy theory.

comments such as:

“You are missing the risk of infected kids passing on the infection to their parents, grandparents, and also to their teachers and others. Kids are a reservoir that can amplify the spread of the virus in the population and increase the risk of more troublesome variants emerging”

Totally unscientific garbage…show me some peer reviewed studies that demonstrate that the vaccinated do not spread virus? None of the vaccines stop transmission.

Also, please show me some peer reviewed studies that children are “reservoirs” that “amplify” the spread?

For that matter, show me the science behind virus amplification?


You forgot to include the studies @ProtonDoug was asking for.
We are all waiting with bated breath.


Asked and answered below. You must pay attention in class, champ. Pop quiz tomorrow.


Protons are composed of quarks.
Doug’s proton is composed of quacks.

Onto the corrections:

No one has claimed the vaccinated cannot transmit the virus so that’s a strawman.
The vaccines may not STOP tranmission but they do REDUCE transmission rates so another strawman.
The number of infected people does indeed increase exponentially without restrictions, lockdowns and vaccines. Or did you mean something else by “amplification”?
Children do spread the virus though at a lower rate than adults.
(July 20th, 2021)

“Most children who become infected with the COVID-19 virus have no symptoms, or they have milder symptoms such as low-grade fever, fatigue, and cough. Early studies suggested that children do not contribute much to the spread of coronavirus. But more recent studies raise concerns that children could be capable of spreading the infection.

Though the recent studies varied in their methods, their findings were similar: infected children had as much, or more, coronavirus in their upper respiratory tracts as infected adults.

The amount of virus found in children — their viral load — was not correlated with the severity of their symptoms. In other words, more virus did not mean more severe symptoms.

Finding high amounts of viral genetic material — these studies measured viral RNA, not live virus — in kids does not prove that children are infectious. However, the presence of high viral loads in infected children does increase the concern that children, even those without symptoms, could readily spread the infection to others”

Actually @BillyJoe, they HAVE claimed that vaccines block transmission!

It’s literally in the title of their article. See? And that’s no two-bit publication. And yet, even as “the vaccine community” can’t get its story straight on these very basic questions, you still sit back and wonder why some of us are still skeptical!

P.S. – I love how all your media pundits and political personalities COMPLETELY flip-flopped on whether they’d be getting the vaccine, which changed as soon as Kamala Harris took office. What happened, did you forget? Is your acquired Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect that terminal?

Shanice. The title of your link says ‘vaccines block MOST transmission’. MOST. Not all.

BillyJoe said that the vaccines reduce transmission.

Apart from BillyJoe being a bit more cautious, same thing.

I love how all your media pundits and political personalities COMPLETELY flip-flopped on whether they’d be getting the vaccine, which changed as soon as Kamala Harris took office. What happened, did you forget?

Um, yeah.
Publication of the results of the clinical trials for these vaccines. This is that happened.

Before that, it was just some country leader going all gossipy about how HIS vaccine was a game changer, and how HIS daughter took it and she is Okay.
(my bad, wrong country leader, I keep mixing them up. Politicians. Always looking for taking credit, pulling the cover to themselves)

The full quote of Kamala Harris sentence is very precise on which people she was regarding as trustful.
In short, she never denied the FDA authority in deciding if a vaccine is good for use. As long as no politician tried to meddle with the decision.
One politician, at least, famously did try to meddle with these decisions.

@ NumberWang:

“MOST.. Not all”

AND, we’ve been hearing that since the vaccines were first initiated – e.g. 94% or 96% effective” never 100%. Or it covers, 80% of a new variant. Never 100%

More recently, even Dr Fauci said that breakthrough infections are expected to happen because there is not total, 100% coverage. Thus, people can test positive for the delta variant doesn’t mean that the vaccine is failing, it’s just not 100% effective,. Nothing is. But it’s very effective at preventing serious illness and death.

As you wish.

“Estimated vaccine effectiveness for the study outcomes at days 14 through 20 after the first dose and at 7 or more days after the second dose was as follows: for documented infection, 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40 to 51) and 92% (95% CI, 88 to 95)”

If you are not being infected by the virus, you cannot pass it on.

It turns out efficacy is a bit less for the delta variant, but still very useful.

Lupus is a better fit. Truly, It’s almost never amyloidosis. Have you people absorbed no knowledge in your internship here? Cutthroat, go wax my motor bike.

Georgia summer camp outbreak last year.

Resulting household transmission.

This retrospective study showed that the efficient transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from school-age children and adolescents to household members led to the hospitalization of adults with secondary cases of Covid-19. In households in which transmission occurred, half the household contacts were infected.

That was the original strain circulating last summer, not Delta.

Amplification is the increase in Reff and Reff > 1 is growth, exponential growth.

Variants arise from replication (within a host) so more replication (possibly evidenced by higher peak viral load for Delta) and more hosts increase the chance that a VOC results.

So we’re going to lock down entire countries, destroy businesses and livelihoods, and sacrifice ALL other medical needs (look at the way that cancer patients were treated through this ordeal: in order to reserve space (that wasn’t used) for patients (who weren’t there, or told to go home); patients who (unless they’re OVER average life-expectancy age: had a LESS THAN 1% chance of dying from a disease that is only SLIGHTLY more deadly (depending on age) than the vaccine your ilk are trying to push; a vaccine with an adverse reaction rate that is several orders of magnitude above ANY (actual) vaccine in history?

Gee, are ALL these doctors lying about their patients dying, or loved-ones talking about their family dying, or videos of people with Guillain-Barre syndrome just faking it? Why would you lock-down for a <1% death rate, but then MANDATE an injection with a <1% death rate? At this point, I think we should be locking-down to save us from the VACCINE. (Really, gene therapy)


You’ve already said that, Shanice. Full caps don’t make it any less stupid.


Calm down, relax, I gather this is very emotional for you. And before you go spouting off sexism, I couldn’t care less about you being she/he/they. Maybe you shouldn’t be here since this is obviously raising your blood pressure. You see how I posted some links regarding kids and transmission? Do it like that. You’re gonna get through this. Just like @Dave. You CAN work through your fear.

1) Cancer patients have continued to be treated throughout the pandemic. Maybe not as fast as before, but they are extremely vulnerable, so I don’t blame any of them for choosing to delay treatment until infection rates in their areas are lower.

2) COVID-19 is to the common cold what a horsefly bite is to a shark bite. We might use the word “bite” in both cases, but they’re not the same thing at all.

3) you might not be aware of this, but in science it often takes decades of laying the groundwork before a new method or technology is ready for human trials. The mRNA vaccines weren’t cooked up overnight, people had been working on them for years.

4) ” vaccine with an adverse reaction rate that is several orders of magnitude above ANY (actual) vaccine in history?” Uh, yeah no. The smallpox vaccine, the one that eliminated smallpox from the world and is the reason we don’t have to vaccinate against smallpox anymore? It had nasty side effects and directly killed ~1 in 1 million people. None of the many, different COVID vaccines have a safety profile anywhere near that bad. (There are many different COVID-19 vaccines, using different technologies developed in different countries. It’s not just one vaccine.)

It’s OK to be scared of needles. It’s a very common fear and phobia, and it’s nothing to be ashamed of. Just tell the person at the clinic that you’re not good with shots and they’ll do all kinds of things to make you feel better, like let you lie down for your shot, make sure you don’t see any needles, talk you though it, and let you rest afterwards.

@Shanice Williams
There are much less lockdowns nowadays, have you notice ? Herd immunity caused by vaccines help. Strange that you oppose them, and push ivermectin instead.
You think that old people should die ? That is very bad. Do you thinking change when you are old ?
You cannot vaccinate against common cold, because it is caused by hundred of viruses.

@Justa Tech
Thank you for the information, that example you gave for me about the Smallpox vaccine was news to me. I didn’t know that.
I’ve been vaccinated for everything else. I’ve literally never opposed vaccines in my life, and thought that people who oppose the attenuated virus variety were as cuckoo as you do. Like, exactly as cuckoo. But you said it yourself – these treatments take YEARS to lay the proper groundwork for, and obviously when I asked for “long term studies” that was a red herring, because we can’t have them yet – which was exactly the point. I don’t like being lumped-in with “anti-vaxxers” as a whole because I don’t consider this injection to be a vaccine proper. And yes, I know there are more than one manufacturer of the covid shot, and more than one type – the other is a viral vector variety, one of which is produced by AstraZeneca, and is DNA-based instead of mRNA. I’m aware of that.

I’m not just gonna take something because the government tells me to. You listen to the sources that YOU like, and I listen to the sources that make sense to me, and I really think this is what it always will and always has come down to (though I have looked through links that have been provided to me on this conversation, and always will). It’s apparent to me that the drug companies have an agenda, the media whom they sponsor have an agenda, and when you (as a group) make unequivocal pronouncements on this forum that the vaccine is “safe and effective” – even though the author of the article itself, for which we’re commenting ON, admitted that legally they can’t claim that (Ctrl-F and you’ll find where it is) – then it can look to some people like you’re a part of that agenda! Whether you realize it or not. You pay attention to the research YOU want to pay attention to, and in your mind, anyone who opposes any vaccine (or anything calling it a vaccine) for any reason, is automatically wrong. It’s a dogma all of its own that you (again, as a group) possess.

Here’s “reliable source” ABC news, reporting that Bill Gates’ oral vaccine now accounts for more Polio cases than from the wild virus. Here it is! I’m not making this up or imagining it, and I myself was surprised to learn this:

He’s also made statements about how we’re going to solve the “overpopulation problem” using vaccines, among other things. I know the argument is going to be that better health+higher education rates (esp among women) = population reduction, as as happened in multiple countries. I heard him make the case. But it still makes you wonder! People like that don’t ALWAYS have your best interest at heart. The government doesn’t ALWAYS tell you the truth. And it’s coming to light that Dr. Fauci applied for patents to this type of mRNA vaccine “for the flu” (which coronavirus is), and was REJECTED in the past because the patent office said (paraphrasing) that “any treatment promising the reduction of symptoms does not qualify as a vaccine.” And yet, that is precisely what these drug companies are telling us mRNA and Viral Vector DNA shots do! They MIGHT reduce the most severe symptoms. Ok, yeah! Sure. I’m not in denial that they can work that way.

That doesn’t mean we should be mandating them to children, who we’ve been told from the BEGINNING are posed very little risk from the disease itself. And if the argument is that “we have to vaccinate the kids, to protect grandma…” Don’t you see a problem with that? Kind of like we’re willing to experiment on, and possible sacrifice the young, for the sake of the old? Don’t they have a right to live THEIR lives? I mean really – these boomer vampires gotta go. How long do we have to keep them on life-support? How much do we have to give up so they can have a few more years? They’ve already bankrupted our governments and passed the debt onto future generations… I’m not putting MY kids in the line of fire so that a vaccine that DOESN’T promise to stop transmission can possible cause them to endup like Maddie de Garay – who was part of your wonderful CLINICAL TRIALS… Look her up! I guess she is faking it too…

Here are the patent documents coming to light. I want you all to take a look at it. Please debunk it! I want you to. This is where I’m getting my information on that, so I’m sharing my source with you. I want to see if what this man is saying is really true:

(It’s long and dry, so I apologize for that – but I feel like some of the people in this forum might actually like that! That’s a compliment).

Thank you ALL for the time and attention you’ve paid to my questions and rants. I appreciate it. Now, I have some research to do myself.

Oh, and Aarno Syvänen? Look at freaking AUSTRALIA when you want to tell me about “much less lockdowns” nowadays.

They are using this as a COMPLETE political-domination opportunity, which has been happening all over the world. Don’t tell me for a second that politicians and drug companies never abuse their power, ok? And NO, it is not the responsibility of the young to sacrifice themselves for the old. When the MEDIAN age of death from covid infection is ABOVE LIFE-EXPECTANCY, then yeah – those people have lived THEIR lives, and we’re not gonna experiment on kids to potentially extend them. Let us live ours.

Give me a break, guys. We’ve NEVER locked anything down for 124 deaths before, or in some instances, “one new case.” This is RIDICULOUS – especially when you consider that states with little to no lockdown had LOWER deaths and lower infection-rates than states that destroyed entire families’ livelihoods…

If you don’t understand why this type of thing causes us to be skeptical of the “cure” proffered by the same governments perpetrating this tyranny, then YOU @NumberWang are the one who doesn’t know who to think for himself. Thanks.

Well, its fine to distrust big Pharma and governments. Pretty healthy attitude. What isn’t healthy is deciding to give your unquestioning faith to people without qualifications or experience just because they are clever enough to tick the right boxes for you.

Delta peak viral load ~1000x the original strain.

Very interesting paper making various estimates of the number of virions.

The last paragraph.

Establishing estimates for the total number and mass of SARS-CoV-2 virions in infected individuals allows us to connect together various aspects of the pandemic, from immunology to evolution, and to highlight emerging patterns and relationships not obviously evident. Having better quantitative information on the process of infection at the cellular level, the intrahost level, and the interhost level will hopefully empower researchers with better tools to combat the spread of COVID-19 and to understand its evolution, including the rise of variants of concern.

Well that was a fascinating scroll. I think reasonable people can debate what public health measures to implement in any given crisis. What you folks seem to keep forgetting is that we had ZERO data on this thing when it started. It was, by definition, de novo. Drastic measures were warranted unless you’re a nihilist. As your crowd is also fond of pointing out, we couldn’t trust anything coming out of China in terms of what we were dealing with. You can’t have it both ways but you seem to love to try…

I think that science provides the data but the choice of action is moral and political. The ideal response is predicated on your idea of what the ideal end result should be and your definition of greater good and greater harm.

I could imagine a society where survival of the fittest was a major, guiding, morally embedded principle. That hypothetical society would probably have a policy of letting disease run wild and would look at our current actions in bemusement.

Very interesting paper making various estimates of the number of virions.

Not to mention the 167 numerator.

The problem is the anti-science brigade think that because, in their opinion, vaccines don’t have robust science behind them then giving people vaccines is akin to enrolling someone in an experiment without their permission. Of course, we know this is ridiculous and not based on facts, but the anti-science brigade do enroll a lot of people in this mentality and that affects vaccination rates.

Now you’re straw-manning us. Most of the people commenting on this article are skeptical of ONE type of medical intervention, which is a newly – and swiftly – developed mRNA injection, for which there haven’t been any long-term studies because it hasn’t been around long enough. Its development had been stunted in the past because people with actual brains realized that the common cold varies too much from year to year, which is why it is almost impossible to create a “cure” for it – and why the flu shots that you (undoubtedly) get when that season rolls around are merely a “guess” from the year before.

Where’s your science? Where’d it go…. WHOOP! I just stole it. I’ve captured the science now!

Show us some long-term, peer-reviewed studies that prove

1) The Spike-Protein does not leave the injection site
2) The mRNA injection does not effect fertility in developing adults
3) The blood clots formed by damage to the blood vessels poses less of a risk to under-15 or under-12 than COVID itself

How many under-15 children have died from Covid, who didn’t have Leukemia or some other very serious co-morbidity? You have the science. I’d like to borrow some more.

P.S. – I’d like for you to tell me how this medical professional, whose arguments actually make sense, is somehow anti-science. I’ve gotten some of my information from him:

Anybody? ^

How many under-15 children have died from Covid, who didn’t have Leukemia or some other very serious co-morbidity?

Yeah, screw them.


Bitchute? Really? Where are the links to the research? Can’t you summarize the argument with references?

You and your ilk keep saying long-term. How much time do you need? There are a significant number of people fully vaccinated >6 mos, is that not long enough? Do you need a year? Two years? How much time will convince you? How long do you think you can remain unvaccinated and not get infected?

You appear to believe that the risks from vaccination > the risks from infection. Show us your evidence. Podcasts and videos don’t count.

“How many under-15 children have died from Covid, who didn’t have Leukemia or some other very serious co-morbidity?”

Are you seriously suggesting that sick kids don’t deserve a chance at life? That is messed up, Shanice. That is some super cruel eugenics nonsense and I really hope you think about that and why you said it and what it says about your worldview.

I’d like for you to tell me how this medical professional, whose arguments actually make sense, is somehow anti-science.

A casual search for Sucharit Bhakdi yields pretty much nothing but cranks cranking. Emeritus syndrome at best.

I’ve gotten some of my information from him

You also got some of your “information” from Joanne “Tip Jar” Nova.

Sucharit Bhakdi? Yes, he is a winner of the prestigious Das Goldene Brett vorm Kopf Award.

In the COVID-19 space, his wins so far include claiming that COVID-19 is fake, despite the more than 4 million deaths around the world, and that COVID-19 vaccines will decimate the population. There is so far no evidence of that happening.

He was once a proper scientist (I can’t see anywhere that he actually practiced medicine), but 8 years after he retired he has become a crank.

Looks like you could learn how to hand weed your University Campus at the same time.

Yet again, Orac wrote about spike protein:
a) spike protein indeed leaves the injection site
b) concentration in blood is picograms and is cleared after a week
c) if this amount of spiuke protein is deadly, SARS CoV 2, which contains spike protein, would be 100 % fatal.
Generally, I notice that you think that COVID virus is not a big deal but spike protein is absolutely terrible. How this is possible ? Every COVID virus particle contains many spike proteins.
As for fertility, COVID does not cause infertility, so a part of would cause it either.
There is data about children and COVID:
Children under 2 years are another risk group. You think they should die too, like children with leukemia ? You are a really disgusting person,.

@Narad Yeah, exactly. We can’t stop the ENTIRE WORLD for the weakest among us. Sorry. You love evolution so much? Well guess what – nature selected them OUT. People die sometimes.

@Arthur Dent
Long-term studies incorporate MULTIPLE YEARS, and in children especially, include observation of a drug, treatment or other research object through the developmental cycle, including puberty. 6 months, bro? Are you TRYING to pretend like you actually believe that’s long enough? Would you take these kind of drastic measures for any other similarly deadly malady… like obesity or diabeeetis?

Are you seriously suggesting that we should risk MAKING healthy kids sick in order to save a few people who passed their average life-expectancy already, or were going to die anyway from terminal leukemia anyway? That is messed up, JustaTech. You need to seriously examine your worldview.

And don’t talk to me about the evils of eugenics. I’m a black woman. Planned Parenthood was INVENTED to get rid of us!

I’m sure you still support abortion, though… because the unborn don’t deserve their chance at life, right?

Oh my. It’s sad when you see someone don their own chains and call it freedom.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should risk MAKING healthy kids sick in order to save a few people who passed their average life-expectancy already, or were going to die anyway from terminal leukemia anyway?

So much wrong to unpack here.
1) The harms of COVID-19, even in healthy children, are far greater than the hypothetical harms of the vaccine.
2) With modern treatments, leukaemia patients can survive for years and even make full recoveries. Your attitude to them sickens me.
You are a typical antivaxxer. For you, it’s all about “me! me! me!” and to hell with everyone else.

And don’t talk to me about the evils of eugenics. I’m a black woman. Planned Parenthood was INVENTED to get rid of us!

Yah. No. The rest of your whining is simply pitiful.


Well guess what – nature selected them OUT. People die sometimes.

Wow, you really are a terrible person.

Would you take these kind of drastic measures for any other similarly deadly malady

And ignorant too, try reading up on the polio vaccine.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should risk MAKING healthy kids sick in order to save a few people who passed their average life-expectancy already, or were going to die anyway from terminal leukemia anyway?

Thanks for the Tucker talking point. Do you even know how life expectancy is defined? That’s expectancy at birth you’re comparing to. And are you aware that the 5-year survial rate for childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia is ~90%? No where near terminal.

You, Shanice, have NO IDEA what you are talking about and are hopelessly beyond redemption. Good luck to you personally against Delta and whatever may come after. I guess that some of the people that may have been KILLED by the BS you are spreading does not weigh on your conscience, if you have any.

The anti-vax/ “anti-science brigade” is probably gearing up for the eventuality of mandates because a few harbingers of that have ALREADY appeared in the past month: **
— health care workers/ other employees who opposed vaccination at a Houston hospital lost their case – they were fired or had to resign
— a federal judge upheld Indiana University’s vaccine requirement for students

In light of the fact that Covid vaccines haven’t yet reached full regulatory approval, this hints that more universities and employers may follow suit when approval comes.
Anti-vaxxers/ alties/ woo-meisters that I survey are working tirelessly to frighten people about the dangers of these vaccines because they know that many who are hesitant NOW will feel/ behave differently when full approval comes and/ or their institution/ boss says that they must be vaccinated in order to continue at school or work.

** I’m sure that Prof Dorit can present this 100 times better than I can so perhaps she will!

It’s typical cherry-picking and nuttery, including the dopey suggestion that immunity from Covid-19 is best achieved by getting sick with the disease and risking serious injury and death from it.

Hodgkinson, who apparently has ambitions to be the British Sharyl Attkisson, has a history of blaming SIDS on vaccination and being an HIV/AIDS denialist, which might make one doubt his credibility on medical/scientific issues. Or you can just do a search of reliable sources to debunk his claims about Covid-19 vaccination.


You mentioned ivermectin in a reply, so I thought I’d add this

From the abstract

In recent years, several reports of apparent failures in the treatment of human schistosomes and nematodes have been published. Although the interpretation and the implications of these studies are still being debated, they have led to an increased awareness of the potential problem of anthelmintic resistance (AR) in the treatment and control of human helminths.

So as antivaxxers are now fond to point out the selective pressure from vaccines, mass administration of an antihelminth, ivermectin, comes with its own risk of unintended consequences.

Earlier, many promoters of hydroxychloroquine insisted on azithromycin being a necessary part of the cocktail. Same problem.

So the flavor of the week does not come for free. Have the promoters of ivermectin over vaccines not considered the long-term effects of mass administration and attempted a cost-benefit analysis? Or is that too utilitarian because vaccines are just bad no matter what?

@ Arthur Dent

So the flavor of the week does not come for free. Have the promoters of ivermectin over vaccines not considered the long-term effects of mass administration

To emphasize, even more so as IVM (and HCQ/azithromycin before) are touted as prophylactics (“it should be given EARLY”, was the mantra).
Meaning, not just popping a few pills during a few days when infected, but taking one regularly, every day or week, for all of 2020, 2021 and all the incoming years where the virus is still around..
And also meaning, not just given it to infected people, but to, ultimately, close to everybody around.

Talk about maintaining selection pressure.
Compared to that, the current antibiotic overuse looks like a restrained affair.

re IVM and HCQ as prophylactics

Right. I listened to a Mike Adams broadcast yesterday wherein he advocates for “preppers” to stock up on these two meds, even suggesting earlier that the horse paste version of IVM is a better buy than rx pills..
Other anti-vaxxers and alties sing the praises of these drugs and contrast their safety in contradistinction to vaccines so much that I imagine that their followers might also buy and try them.
A well known woo-meister often says, “I won’t tell you what [ a particular vitamin, food, etc ] does, look it up yourself” because he doesn’t want to be held responsible but then, you will see and hear dozens of references to that particular substance on his website, in articles, in broadcasts as he castigates SBM treatments.
In other words, he’s a weasel…

@ Denice

even suggesting earlier that the horse paste version of IVM is a better buy

As I may have already said here or there, we French have the expression “to take a horse’s remedy” (“un remède de cheval”), meaning to go for a tough concoction to cure whatever ails the patient. With in the subtext, all that entails in term of side effects..
In short, oh, it’s going to work, but you are in for a rough ride.

I would never have quite thought that people will go for a literal horse’s remedy.
(although minus the “it’s going to work” part).

It’s quite bizarre, coming from the alt-med crowd. Vitamin megadoses, herbal remedies, I understand the appeal, at least it’s congruent with the natural fallacy underpinning lot of their rhetoric, but a Big Pharma drug in a formulation meant for an animal bigger and tougher than humans?

Bonus points for irrationality if, at the same time, these people are advocating for treating infections from bacteria or fungi not with antibiotics but with garlic or such. Extra bonus points if they treat actual parasitic infections with “natural remedies”.

“Have the promoters of ivermectin over vaccines not considered the long-term effects of mass administration and attempted a cost-benefit analysis? ”

I’m going to guess no, because most of the people who promote ivermectin or HCQ don’t live in places where those are essential medications. Mike Adams doesn’t have to worry about river blindness, for example.

I will leave as an exercise to the readers the comparison of the latitudes where ivermectin and HCQ are essential medications and the latitudes that are home to the people pushing these drugs for COVID-19, and historical relationships therein.

Everyone should run on over to NN to check on preparedness, namely Mike’s “Full list of 50 items for survival and victory”*.

I have 24 of the necessary items.** Unfortunately I lack colloidal silver, manuka honey, ivermectin, “hydroxy” (HCQ?) and artemesinin in my medicine chest.

If I have to I can drink water out of the pond (blurgh), while using fishing tackle to catch carp and whatever else might be living in there.

*that is, unless you’re one of the tens of millions in the U.S. about to die from toxic vaccines.
**most crucially, I live in a red state.

It’s ironic that those items you mention will be totally unavailable in the event of Mikey’s predicted collapse of civilisation. He’d be better off producing a pamphlet on how to make HCQ from dead leaves and spite.

That’s why you gotta stockpile now. Keep a big stash of ivermectin horse paste, preferably buried underground so vaccine death squads can’t confiscate it.

The Guardian reports today, “Republican lawmakers across more than a dozen states are working to limit the powers of local health departments in ways experts say is likely to lead to “preventable tragedies” during disease outbreaks.”

These legislative attacks on public health are being pushed by ALEC, which has provided templates for the bills being proposed or, in some cases, already passed.

For those who appreciate irony — or the conspiracy-minded one way or another — I shall note again that the pharmaceutical industry has been one of ALEC’s major sources of funds.

“For those who appreciate irony — or the conspiracy-minded one way or another”

Ok, meemaw, thanks for trying,. I couldn’t have say it better myself. Can anyone imagine an actual organic life form trying to make it though the day in that state? And make a believable shaky cam vid of it? I did not think so.

I find it interesting, and amusing, that several particularly obtuse anti-vaxx troll nyms start and stop posting comments at almost exactly the same time. It isn’t the first time, though the nyms do mutate. I’m sure that it’s nothing more than a coincidence.


It’s fun to engage. We get to see if there’s a new conspiracy variant of interest. They’re working overtime now. I’m <1 mo here, so y’all probably don’t see much new.

I like the fact that Orac leaves most of the dumpster fires up. For a bunch of freethinkers, AVers are mighty quick to ban and delete, in my short experience.

Want to respond to Orac? Here's your chance. Leave a reply! Just make sure that you've read the Comment Policy (link located in the main menu in the upper right hand corner of the page) first if you're new here!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.