Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Point taken,however,shouldn't the populous have been told about this at the very beginning in order to make an 'informed' choice on whether to have the vaccines or not? I have know people who have had Covid multiple times despite having had all their jabs.. Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread? Yes,the vulnerable should get the vaccines, healthy people have an immune system.." The population knew exactly how long had passed between the conception of these vaccines and their mass rollout. There is a consensus within the scientific community that all of these vaccines are inherently safe, due to the fact that the only component that hasn't got a long history of use is the (Inert) "covid 19" specific component. This is similar to McVities knowing that Blackcurrant Jaffa Cakes won't kill anyone after changing just one ingredient from the orange ones. The problem with the concept that "Healthy people have an immune system" is that your immune system "might" not cope in a timely fashion. I personally know several healthy people who have suffered long term damage from Covid, including a lass in her 30s who has permanent kidney damage which will require treatment for the rest of her life. Yes I know that "most" people have got through an infection with zero issues, I hardly had a temperature myself. The problem with a pandemic on this scale is that a tiny percentage of billions of people is still millions of people. Even though the vaccines didn't directly stop infected people from infecting others, they DID drastically reduce the spread by simply reducing the amount of time that people were infectious... it is very obvious that reducing the length of an infection will also reduce the opportunity for spread. Cal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Point taken,however,shouldn't the populous have been told about this at the very beginning in order to make an 'informed' choice on whether to have the vaccines or not? I have know people who have had Covid multiple times despite having had all their jabs.. Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread? Yes,the vulnerable should get the vaccines, healthy people have an immune system.." The vulnerable should get the vaccines and we have. No. 6 received 3 weeks ago. But do you not think others should get vaccine to ensure the vulnerable are not at risk...? Or is it every man, woman and child for themselves..? Not an argument, merely a question.. I have had family members refuse to have vaccine and have been very vocal about why should they worry bout anyone but themselves.. Needless to say, family members no longer seen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those who think that the lack of long term studies of COVID vaccines is an argument against them, just to point out that if we waited for long term studies, the huge advances in medicine we have seen over the last 100 years would all never have happened. Diseases that have all but been eliminated would still be killing us and life expectancies would not have advanced by 30-40 years in some instances. And besides, no drug company would invest in researching new drug development if they had to wait a generation for long term studies. The R&D cycle is already a disincentive." An experimental vaccine has never been rolled out this quickly and under these circumstances before. Flawed initial data from the trial period.those effected negatively kicked off the study as they couldn't complete the course. Funding of the fda the who the cdc all coning from big pahrma. Contamination of millions of vials of the vaccine. Pfizer's record of criminal activity and bribing doctors and health officials. Refusing to attend the European enquiry and explaining they had to move at the speed of science (thats a new one). Excessive profits made. Especially when they used our tax money for the development. The fact astrazenica has been made unavailable (what's the problem there?) The fact the vaccine manufacturers would not release ingredients for others to make it for the developing world We were told initially they were not after profit from this. The huge amount of excess deaths from non covid related illness now showing up and not being covered by main media Add to this the censoring by bbc msm etc of anything questioning the narrative Oh and finally the fact it doesn't stop you getting it or passing it on (another lie). Don't get me started on PayPal Pharma and the anti depressant scam proliferated using the war on drugs that Nixon established. Pharma knew full well natural psychedelic drugs actually worked and all they did was provide pills that didn't work and contributed to poor mental health Couple this with the fact some of our friends are jabbed others are not and we have seen no difference in how people have dealt with the infection. On this basis I wont be having one Which makes me a great person as I am happy for my dose and the flue shot to be used for some one more deserving. Peace and love family | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
" The vulnerable should get the vaccines and we have. No. 6 received 3 weeks ago. But do you not think others should get vaccine to ensure the vulnerable are not at risk...? Or is it every man, woman and child for themselves..? Not an argument, merely a question.. I have had family members refuse to have vaccine and have been very vocal about why should they worry bout anyone but themselves.. Needless to say, family members no longer seen." Bloody right it's every man, woman or child for themselves. Ever heard of my body, my choice?!  .
The vaccine STILL doesn't stop transmission so your argument is void.
But you go on and have fun meeting random strangers for sex on the internet (hopefully they won't lie about vaccination status) while you cut family members out of your life  .
For your sake, I hope these cut off family members were not the kind who would have looked out for you, should you ever need it, regardless of what choices you make medically. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Point taken,however,shouldn't the populous have been told about this at the very beginning in order to make an 'informed' choice on whether to have the vaccines or not? I have know people who have had Covid multiple times despite having had all their jabs.. Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread? Yes,the vulnerable should get the vaccines, healthy people have an immune system.. The population knew exactly how long had passed between the conception of these vaccines and their mass rollout. There is a consensus within the scientific community that all of these vaccines are inherently safe, due to the fact that the only component that hasn't got a long history of use is the (Inert) "covid 19" specific component. This is similar to McVities knowing that Blackcurrant Jaffa Cakes won't kill anyone after changing just one ingredient from the orange ones. The problem with the concept that "Healthy people have an immune system" is that your immune system "might" not cope in a timely fashion. I personally know several healthy people who have suffered long term damage from Covid, including a lass in her 30s who has permanent kidney damage which will require treatment for the rest of her life. Yes I know that "most" people have got through an infection with zero issues, I hardly had a temperature myself. The problem with a pandemic on this scale is that a tiny percentage of billions of people is still millions of people. Even though the vaccines didn't directly stop infected people from infecting others, they DID drastically reduce the spread by simply reducing the amount of time that people were infectious... it is very obvious that reducing the length of an infection will also reduce the opportunity for spread. Cal" This is the biggest load of tripe where the mRNA vaccine is concerned. It is an entirely new technology which has never successfully been rolled out as a vaccine before, for very good reasons - and it is not just about exchanging a simple ingredient to compare it to a traditional vaccine  . It is not about an inert part of the virus being injected into your body. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Point taken,however,shouldn't the populous have been told about this at the very beginning in order to make an 'informed' choice on whether to have the vaccines or not? I have know people who have had Covid multiple times despite having had all their jabs.. Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread? Yes,the vulnerable should get the vaccines, healthy people have an immune system.. The population knew exactly how long had passed between the conception of these vaccines and their mass rollout. There is a consensus within the scientific community that all of these vaccines are inherently safe, due to the fact that the only component that hasn't got a long history of use is the (Inert) "covid 19" specific component. This is similar to McVities knowing that Blackcurrant Jaffa Cakes won't kill anyone after changing just one ingredient from the orange ones. The problem with the concept that "Healthy people have an immune system" is that your immune system "might" not cope in a timely fashion. I personally know several healthy people who have suffered long term damage from Covid, including a lass in her 30s who has permanent kidney damage which will require treatment for the rest of her life. Yes I know that "most" people have got through an infection with zero issues, I hardly had a temperature myself. The problem with a pandemic on this scale is that a tiny percentage of billions of people is still millions of people. Even though the vaccines didn't directly stop infected people from infecting others, they DID drastically reduce the spread by simply reducing the amount of time that people were infectious... it is very obvious that reducing the length of an infection will also reduce the opportunity for spread. Cal"  . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thanks. I think the point is though many see the potential risk of Covid as less than the potential risk of the largely unknown effects of the vaccine. That's why I haven't vaccinated and have had covid twice and survived perfectly well thanks. " This is true for a lot of unvaxxed people I know. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"May be people should get on with the little bit of life we all have left young or old death won't be long I assure you " Or maybe just a night out in the pub with you would have me begging for a quick demise.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Point taken,however,shouldn't the populous have been told about this at the very beginning in order to make an 'informed' choice on whether to have the vaccines or not? I have know people who have had Covid multiple times despite having had all their jabs.. Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread? Yes,the vulnerable should get the vaccines, healthy people have an immune system.. The population knew exactly how long had passed between the conception of these vaccines and their mass rollout. There is a consensus within the scientific community that all of these vaccines are inherently safe, due to the fact that the only component that hasn't got a long history of use is the (Inert) "covid 19" specific component. This is similar to McVities knowing that Blackcurrant Jaffa Cakes won't kill anyone after changing just one ingredient from the orange ones. The problem with the concept that "Healthy people have an immune system" is that your immune system "might" not cope in a timely fashion. I personally know several healthy people who have suffered long term damage from Covid, including a lass in her 30s who has permanent kidney damage which will require treatment for the rest of her life. Yes I know that "most" people have got through an infection with zero issues, I hardly had a temperature myself. The problem with a pandemic on this scale is that a tiny percentage of billions of people is still millions of people. Even though the vaccines didn't directly stop infected people from infecting others, they DID drastically reduce the spread by simply reducing the amount of time that people were infectious... it is very obvious that reducing the length of an infection will also reduce the opportunity for spread. Cal This is the biggest load of tripe where the mRNA vaccine is concerned. It is an entirely new technology which has never successfully been rolled out as a vaccine before, for very good reasons - and it is not just about exchanging a simple ingredient to compare it to a traditional vaccine . It is not about an inert part of the virus being injected into your body. "The mRNA delivery system was initially developed in the 1970's and has been the focus of many cancer treatment trials in addition to other things including a Rabies vaccine. The big difference between the delopement of covid vaccines and most other drug development was that it was funded up-front by governments, where as usually there is much time wasted by trying to justify the funding to potential backers. Cal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do you have a source for that information, because I 100% certain I have not seem it.. " Have you considered using the "reply & quote option" so people know who you're talking to? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Point taken,however,shouldn't the populous have been told about this at the very beginning in order to make an 'informed' choice on whether to have the vaccines or not? I have know people who have had Covid multiple times despite having had all their jabs.. Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread? Yes,the vulnerable should get the vaccines, healthy people have an immune system.. The population knew exactly how long had passed between the conception of these vaccines and their mass rollout. There is a consensus within the scientific community that all of these vaccines are inherently safe, due to the fact that the only component that hasn't got a long history of use is the (Inert) "covid 19" specific component. This is similar to McVities knowing that Blackcurrant Jaffa Cakes won't kill anyone after changing just one ingredient from the orange ones. The problem with the concept that "Healthy people have an immune system" is that your immune system "might" not cope in a timely fashion. I personally know several healthy people who have suffered long term damage from Covid, including a lass in her 30s who has permanent kidney damage which will require treatment for the rest of her life. Yes I know that "most" people have got through an infection with zero issues, I hardly had a temperature myself. The problem with a pandemic on this scale is that a tiny percentage of billions of people is still millions of people. Even though the vaccines didn't directly stop infected people from infecting others, they DID drastically reduce the spread by simply reducing the amount of time that people were infectious... it is very obvious that reducing the length of an infection will also reduce the opportunity for spread. Cal This is the biggest load of tripe where the mRNA vaccine is concerned. It is an entirely new technology which has never successfully been rolled out as a vaccine before, for very good reasons - and it is not just about exchanging a simple ingredient to compare it to a traditional vaccine . It is not about an inert part of the virus being injected into your body.
The mRNA delivery system was initially developed in the 1970's and has been the focus of many cancer treatment trials in addition to other things including a Rabies vaccine.
The big difference between the delopement of covid vaccines and most other drug development was that it was funded up-front by governments, where as usually there is much time wasted by trying to justify the funding to potential backers.
Cal"Are you seriously comparing cancer treatment whereby a very sick person is treated for an ongoing, possibly terminal disease, willing to take on some serious adverse reactions in order to prolong their life to a vaccine, which is a preventive treatment used in perfectly healthy individuals?!
And where is that rabies mRNA vaccine? Which brings me back to my point - there were very valid reasons (serious adverse reactions) why this kind of technology hasn't been launched before, but lo and behold, a "pandemic" emerges (which kept our politicians partying while the rest of us were told to hide behind the sofa) and all of a sudden, within a few months a vaccine of this kind is safe?!
I don't buy it, I'm in agreement with RMmadness above, but I respect other people's choices for their body.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Point taken,however,shouldn't the populous have been told about this at the very beginning in order to make an 'informed' choice on whether to have the vaccines or not? I have know people who have had Covid multiple times despite having had all their jabs.. Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread? Yes,the vulnerable should get the vaccines, healthy people have an immune system.. The population knew exactly how long had passed between the conception of these vaccines and their mass rollout. There is a consensus within the scientific community that all of these vaccines are inherently safe, due to the fact that the only component that hasn't got a long history of use is the (Inert) "covid 19" specific component. This is similar to McVities knowing that Blackcurrant Jaffa Cakes won't kill anyone after changing just one ingredient from the orange ones. The problem with the concept that "Healthy people have an immune system" is that your immune system "might" not cope in a timely fashion. I personally know several healthy people who have suffered long term damage from Covid, including a lass in her 30s who has permanent kidney damage which will require treatment for the rest of her life. Yes I know that "most" people have got through an infection with zero issues, I hardly had a temperature myself. The problem with a pandemic on this scale is that a tiny percentage of billions of people is still millions of people. Even though the vaccines didn't directly stop infected people from infecting others, they DID drastically reduce the spread by simply reducing the amount of time that people were infectious... it is very obvious that reducing the length of an infection will also reduce the opportunity for spread. Cal This is the biggest load of tripe where the mRNA vaccine is concerned. It is an entirely new technology which has never successfully been rolled out as a vaccine before, for very good reasons - and it is not just about exchanging a simple ingredient to compare it to a traditional vaccine . It is not about an inert part of the virus being injected into your body.
The mRNA delivery system was initially developed in the 1970's and has been the focus of many cancer treatment trials in addition to other things including a Rabies vaccine.
The big difference between the delopement of covid vaccines and most other drug development was that it was funded up-front by governments, where as usually there is much time wasted by trying to justify the funding to potential backers.
Cal"Imagine being in a position where the government pays you to develop something and gives you freedom from investigation and prosecution if it doesn't work out right. Then allows you to make record profits from your product and persuade the medical profession to promote it to children who don't need it. Its farcical | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Point taken,however,shouldn't the populous have been told about this at the very beginning in order to make an 'informed' choice on whether to have the vaccines or not? I have know people who have had Covid multiple times despite having had all their jabs.. Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread? Yes,the vulnerable should get the vaccines, healthy people have an immune system.. The population knew exactly how long had passed between the conception of these vaccines and their mass rollout. There is a consensus within the scientific community that all of these vaccines are inherently safe, due to the fact that the only component that hasn't got a long history of use is the (Inert) "covid 19" specific component. This is similar to McVities knowing that Blackcurrant Jaffa Cakes won't kill anyone after changing just one ingredient from the orange ones. The problem with the concept that "Healthy people have an immune system" is that your immune system "might" not cope in a timely fashion. I personally know several healthy people who have suffered long term damage from Covid, including a lass in her 30s who has permanent kidney damage which will require treatment for the rest of her life. Yes I know that "most" people have got through an infection with zero issues, I hardly had a temperature myself. The problem with a pandemic on this scale is that a tiny percentage of billions of people is still millions of people. Even though the vaccines didn't directly stop infected people from infecting others, they DID drastically reduce the spread by simply reducing the amount of time that people were infectious... it is very obvious that reducing the length of an infection will also reduce the opportunity for spread. Cal This is the biggest load of tripe where the mRNA vaccine is concerned. It is an entirely new technology which has never successfully been rolled out as a vaccine before, for very good reasons - and it is not just about exchanging a simple ingredient to compare it to a traditional vaccine . It is not about an inert part of the virus being injected into your body.
The mRNA delivery system was initially developed in the 1970's and has been the focus of many cancer treatment trials in addition to other things including a Rabies vaccine.
The big difference between the delopement of covid vaccines and most other drug development was that it was funded up-front by governments, where as usually there is much time wasted by trying to justify the funding to potential backers.
Cal
Imagine being in a position where the government pays you to develop something and gives you freedom from investigation and prosecution if it doesn't work out right.
Then allows you to make record profits from your product and persuade the medical profession to promote it to children who don't need it.
Its farcical "I beg to differ on your last comment. It's negligent at best, criminal at worst. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why should anyone else get the vaccines when the don't stop transmission? It's been admitted that they don't stop transmission yet wasn't that the major reason they pushed fir people to have them?" This thread has many inaccurate lines being peddled. 1 from yours was how the vaccines were explained to us - which was not to stop transmission between 1 person and another. They were largely to reduce the risks of death and serious illnesses/disability. Hospitals were overloaded, preventing treatment for other conditions too - a benefit of the vaccines was to reduce the burden as well as to help life to return to a more normal state, helping the economy restart. The vaccines, as others have explained, did reduce infectivity, including the period that people were infectious for and reduced viral load. Those weren't touted reasons to get vaccinated but added benefits. The vaccines have saved many lives and did allow society to return to activity. It wasn't just people with known conditions that died or suffered serious illnesses, so it would have been remiss to have just focused on them at that time. Long term research? If there's an emergency crisis, killing millions but millions of lives can be saved with immediate deployment of vaccines, who would argue for millions of lives to be lost needlessly. The impacts of Long Covid are enormous, both from a quality of life as well as financial perspective. Again, these people would have numbered far higher without preventative measures. Sitting back, as people died, expecting drug companies to soldier on for some unspecified longer term, as they ran research trials, was never going to happen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yep! Cemeteries have quite a few young, fit, healthy, vitamin enriched poor souls who fell to COVID or at least complications derived as a result of the virus. Then again, there are also many unvaccinated individuals walking about totally COVID free. So go figure.. " Thankfully that's why research runs statistical analysis, so that we can know the reality, rather than rely on fag packet anecdotal thinking etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thanks. I think the point is though many see the potential risk of Covid as less than the potential risk of the largely unknown effects of the vaccine. That's why I haven't vaccinated and have had covid twice and survived perfectly well thanks. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Point taken,however,shouldn't the populous have been told about this at the very beginning in order to make an 'informed' choice on whether to have the vaccines or not? I have know people who have had Covid multiple times despite having had all their jabs.. Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread? Yes,the vulnerable should get the vaccines, healthy people have an immune system.. The population knew exactly how long had passed between the conception of these vaccines and their mass rollout. There is a consensus within the scientific community that all of these vaccines are inherently safe, due to the fact that the only component that hasn't got a long history of use is the (Inert) "covid 19" specific component. This is similar to McVities knowing that Blackcurrant Jaffa Cakes won't kill anyone after changing just one ingredient from the orange ones. The problem with the concept that "Healthy people have an immune system" is that your immune system "might" not cope in a timely fashion. I personally know several healthy people who have suffered long term damage from Covid, including a lass in her 30s who has permanent kidney damage which will require treatment for the rest of her life. Yes I know that "most" people have got through an infection with zero issues, I hardly had a temperature myself. The problem with a pandemic on this scale is that a tiny percentage of billions of people is still millions of people. Even though the vaccines didn't directly stop infected people from infecting others, they DID drastically reduce the spread by simply reducing the amount of time that people were infectious... it is very obvious that reducing the length of an infection will also reduce the opportunity for spread. Cal" I stopped reading after you tried to equate a novel vaccine with jaffa cakes. Ffs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thanks all, lying in a hospital bed at the moment. Reading the virus forum has given me the best laugh of the day "Get well soon! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thanks. I think the point is though many see the potential risk of Covid as less than the potential risk of the largely unknown effects of the vaccine. That's why I haven't vaccinated and have had covid twice and survived perfectly well thanks. " I agree with this but only once we reached the milder strains of covid. Early on, I’ll take the vaccine thanks. Also regarding OP’s point, I’m sure he’s neglected to list the medicines that *haven’t* turned out okay - we don’t know them very well because we don’t use them now. The entire argument is very flimsy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"COVID is pretty much over We now have the basis for a vaccine for emerging viruses in the future.. Maybe the next one will have a much higher fatality rate so be thankful you may well have a choice. " ^ the gift covid gave us is the tools for future pandemics, mRNA design and delivery systems are as big an advent as the invention of penicillin. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Point taken,however,shouldn't the populous have been told about this at the very beginning in order to make an 'informed' choice on whether to have the vaccines or not? I have know people who have had Covid multiple times despite having had all their jabs.. Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread? Yes,the vulnerable should get the vaccines, healthy people have an immune system.. The population knew exactly how long had passed between the conception of these vaccines and their mass rollout. There is a consensus within the scientific community that all of these vaccines are inherently safe, due to the fact that the only component that hasn't got a long history of use is the (Inert) "covid 19" specific component. This is similar to McVities knowing that Blackcurrant Jaffa Cakes won't kill anyone after changing just one ingredient from the orange ones. The problem with the concept that "Healthy people have an immune system" is that your immune system "might" not cope in a timely fashion. I personally know several healthy people who have suffered long term damage from Covid, including a lass in her 30s who has permanent kidney damage which will require treatment for the rest of her life. Yes I know that "most" people have got through an infection with zero issues, I hardly had a temperature myself. The problem with a pandemic on this scale is that a tiny percentage of billions of people is still millions of people. Even though the vaccines didn't directly stop infected people from infecting others, they DID drastically reduce the spread by simply reducing the amount of time that people were infectious... it is very obvious that reducing the length of an infection will also reduce the opportunity for spread. Cal I stopped reading after you tried to equate a novel vaccine with jaffa cakes. Ffs. "Much rather talk about jaffa cakes than some of the nonsense on here. For me, it's either get the vaccine or don't. If you are unsure, chat to a medic. Maybe ask about the side effects of other medication you may be prescribed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Point taken,however,shouldn't the populous have been told about this at the very beginning in order to make an 'informed' choice on whether to have the vaccines or not? I have know people who have had Covid multiple times despite having had all their jabs.. Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread? Yes,the vulnerable should get the vaccines, healthy people have an immune system.. The population knew exactly how long had passed between the conception of these vaccines and their mass rollout. There is a consensus within the scientific community that all of these vaccines are inherently safe, due to the fact that the only component that hasn't got a long history of use is the (Inert) "covid 19" specific component. This is similar to McVities knowing that Blackcurrant Jaffa Cakes won't kill anyone after changing just one ingredient from the orange ones. The problem with the concept that "Healthy people have an immune system" is that your immune system "might" not cope in a timely fashion. I personally know several healthy people who have suffered long term damage from Covid, including a lass in her 30s who has permanent kidney damage which will require treatment for the rest of her life. Yes I know that "most" people have got through an infection with zero issues, I hardly had a temperature myself. The problem with a pandemic on this scale is that a tiny percentage of billions of people is still millions of people. Even though the vaccines didn't directly stop infected people from infecting others, they DID drastically reduce the spread by simply reducing the amount of time that people were infectious... it is very obvious that reducing the length of an infection will also reduce the opportunity for spread. Cal This is the biggest load of tripe where the mRNA vaccine is concerned. It is an entirely new technology which has never successfully been rolled out as a vaccine before, for very good reasons - and it is not just about exchanging a simple ingredient to compare it to a traditional vaccine . It is not about an inert part of the virus being injected into your body.
The mRNA delivery system was initially developed in the 1970's and has been the focus of many cancer treatment trials in addition to other things including a Rabies vaccine.
The big difference between the delopement of covid vaccines and most other drug development was that it was funded up-front by governments, where as usually there is much time wasted by trying to justify the funding to potential backers.
Cal
Are you seriously comparing cancer treatment whereby a very sick person is treated for an ongoing, possibly terminal disease, willing to take on some serious adverse reactions in order to prolong their life to a vaccine, which is a preventive treatment used in perfectly healthy individuals?!
And where is that rabies mRNA vaccine? Which brings me back to my point - there were very valid reasons (serious adverse reactions) why this kind of technology hasn't been launched before, but lo and behold, a "pandemic" emerges (which kept our politicians partying while the rest of us were told to hide behind the sofa) and all of a sudden, within a few months a vaccine of this kind is safe?!
I don't buy it, I'm in agreement with RMmadness above, but I respect other people's choices for their body.
"No I wasn't comparing cancer treatments to any other treatments I was saying that the mRNA technology had been under test and development for a long time, and that this long term testing had proven that the "technology" was safe.
I too have no issues with people taking their own choice whether to have a vaccine or not. What I dislike is people propagating misinformation... such as this 40+ year old invention being "brand new technology".
The rabies vaccines are still in the pipeline, but obviously are not high enough priority for the progressive funding that the covid vaccines got.
And yes, I used a jaffacake recipe as an analogy. I didn't realise that such abstract concepts would be so confusing.
Cal  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There’s a fuckton of blah on this forum but I was reading an interesting article earlier which said the bigger problems (such as long covid) are caused by microclots resulting from the spike proteins. If you think about it this helps to account for the reported clots/strokes resulting from vaccinations along with the more severe effects some experience from infection. I still honestly believe you’re better off vaccinated, but the understanding of the disease is still in its infancy and better treatments are being developed. We’re only in - what - the third year of this thing?" There's also developing evidence from neurology that the early strains of Covid that caused long covid symptoms and was multi-system, including neurological problems, not just respiratory, causes the same changes to the brain that dementia does. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thanks. I think the point is though many see the potential risk of Covid as less than the potential risk of the largely unknown effects of the vaccine. That's why I haven't vaccinated and have had covid twice and survived perfectly well thanks. I agree with this but only once we reached the milder strains of covid. Early on, I’ll take the vaccine thanks. Also regarding OP’s point, I’m sure he’s neglected to list the medicines that *haven’t* turned out okay - we don’t know them very well because we don’t use them now. The entire argument is very flimsy. " Agreed on your first point. But the vaccines also helped trained our immune systems which is why the virus also appears milder. It's like facing an enemy after wiping their tanks out. Still a threat but much less so. Although equally the more recent strains are not attacking multiple organs anymore and are more upper respiratory. The argument about long term studies is evidence-based though. Sure there are medicines that have been shown to have some long term side effects (steroids for example which are widely used but should not be used over the long run), but these are also drugs that are taken every day to manage chronic illnesses, unlike vaccines which are taken irregularly (eventually Covid will become a once a year jab like flu, maybe not as much since it doesn't evolve as quickly). But in the history of medicine, the vast majority of medicines/drugs show up side effects in the short run, particularly severe side effects. Almost two years (medium run) in to the vaccines, with billions of people having taken the vaccines multiple times, there are still only very rare severe examples of side effects, such as heart inflammation. These vaccines have proved to be the safest ever, largest ever, most successful medical intervention since antibiotics. Anyone who suggests otherwise simply isn't paying attention to the simple fact that whether they think it was properly tested or not, billions of people have now taken them, so in essence this is the biggest clinical trial ever done and it's worked. It's no longer a problem to me if people choose not to take the vaccine. We're in a different phase now and we have to live with it, but it's tiresome to me like the other poster has said that there is so much misinformation - it's become an art form. And i genuinely think these people just don't like being told what to do, or they just like a bit of drama. And whether it's the EU around Brexit, or Covid, or Trumpism, or some other crazy idea that it's all one big conspiracy by aliens disguised as the global liberal elite, it's often the same people - who in fact themselves are being manipulated by the conspiracy theorists or the alternative elite pretending they are acting for the people and making money out of it too. Good to remember Orwell's quote that "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug. "  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug. "Same here the amount of bullying and coercion was disgusting especially by certain people in the media, funny as fuck to be watching them backpedal now
Like I’ve said before the conned will never admit that were conned. Just so glad I went with my gut instinct and stood up to the bullies | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Vaccine effects will show in a generations time no doubt there’ll be some genetic mutation trend/patterns" Genetic mutations in what exactly? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Vaccine effects will show in a generations time no doubt there’ll be some genetic mutation trend/patterns Genetic mutations in what exactly?" Maybe they were watching the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? And they didn't realise it's fiction? At this point, after some things I have read on the forum, wouldn't really surprise me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug. "
Absolutely clueless. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug. "The "Excess Deaths" are being looked into, but it's a fair chance that a large proportion of the Excess Deaths that occurred in 2020-2021 are the result of a virus that had sparked a worldwide Pandemic. There has so far been no credible evidence to link any type of mass deaths to any of the vaccines. Cal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug.
The "Excess Deaths" are being looked into, but it's a fair chance that a large proportion of the Excess Deaths that occurred in 2020-2021 are the result of a virus that had sparked a worldwide Pandemic. There has so far been no credible evidence to link any type of mass deaths to any of the vaccines.
Cal"Of course none at all apart from the link with blood clots (astrazenica no longer available) Myocarditis and pericarditis which is proven. Figures are showing a huge increase in all these issues. However the powers that be havent made the link yet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug.
The "Excess Deaths" are being looked into, but it's a fair chance that a large proportion of the Excess Deaths that occurred in 2020-2021 are the result of a virus that had sparked a worldwide Pandemic. There has so far been no credible evidence to link any type of mass deaths to any of the vaccines.
Cal
Of course none at all apart from the link with blood clots (astrazenica no longer available)
Myocarditis and pericarditis which is proven. Figures are showing a huge increase in all these issues.
However the powers that be havent made the link yet.
"No, instances of these more severe side affects are extremely rare indeed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the powers that be havent made the link yet. " But you have? Why haven't you published your extensive data in a scientific journal yet? Honestly, the Dunning-Kruger effect on this forum is staggering. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the powers that be havent made the link yet. But you have? Why haven't you published your extensive data in a scientific journal yet? Honestly, the Dunning-Kruger effect on this forum is staggering." 
I have no need to publish anything it has all been available for some time for those that look properly. Most of my posts have had links to sources.
Peace and love brother | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug.
Absolutely clueless."Why are you being so patronising? I didn't have the vaccines either, purely on the basis that there was virtually zero post dose data for any of the vaccines.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug.
Absolutely clueless."What part of what I'd write is clueless? Confused by your comment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Myocarditis and pericarditis which is proven. Figures are showing a huge increase in all these issues. " What figures ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug.
Absolutely clueless.
Why are you being so patronising?
I didn't have the vaccines either, purely on the basis that there was virtually zero post dose data for any of the vaccines.."There is plenty of post dose data now. A few billion doses have been given now. While I believe everyone has the right not to have the vaccine. Posting pretty much 100% false information helps no one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug.
Absolutely clueless.
What part of what I'd write is clueless? Confused by your comment. "Pretty much all of it. I think the only bit that was true was that pfizer didn't test their vaccine for reducing transmission. Which is sensible since it never designed to do that. That it reduced transmission was an added bonus it was designed or tested to do this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug.
Absolutely clueless.
What part of what I'd write is clueless? Confused by your comment.
Pretty much all of it. I think the only bit that was true was that pfizer didn't test their vaccine for reducing transmission. Which is sensible since it never designed to do that. That it reduced transmission was an added bonus it was designed or tested to do this."Pfizer didn’t admit to the eu that they didn’t test for transmission in their trials. They confirmed they didn’t. It was all clearly in their trial protocol. They were testing on the efficacy in reducing primary infection (ie from the virus) and not secondary infection (ie transmission). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those who think that the lack of long term studies of COVID vaccines is an argument against them, just to point out that if we waited for long term studies, the huge advances in medicine we have seen over the last 100 years would all never have happened. Diseases that have all but been eliminated would still be killing us and life expectancies would not have advanced by 30-40 years in some instances. And besides, no drug company would invest in researching new drug development if they had to wait a generation for long term studies. The R&D cycle is already a disincentive. An experimental vaccine has never been rolled out this quickly and under these circumstances before. Flawed initial data from the trial period.those effected negatively kicked off the study as they couldn't complete the course. Funding of the fda the who the cdc all coning from big pahrma. Contamination of millions of vials of the vaccine. Pfizer's record of criminal activity and bribing doctors and health officials. Refusing to attend the European enquiry and explaining they had to move at the speed of science (thats a new one). Excessive profits made. Especially when they used our tax money for the development. The fact astrazenica has been made unavailable (what's the problem there?) The fact the vaccine manufacturers would not release ingredients for others to make it for the developing world We were told initially they were not after profit from this. The huge amount of excess deaths from non covid related illness now showing up and not being covered by main media Add to this the censoring by bbc msm etc of anything questioning the narrative Oh and finally the fact it doesn't stop you getting it or passing it on (another lie). Don't get me started on PayPal Pharma and the anti depressant scam proliferated using the war on drugs that Nixon established. Pharma knew full well natural psychedelic drugs actually worked and all they did was provide pills that didn't work and contributed to poor mental health Couple this with the fact some of our friends are jabbed others are not and we have seen no difference in how people have dealt with the infection. On this basis I wont be having one Which makes me a great person as I am happy for my dose and the flue shot to be used for some one more deserving. Peace and love family " Well said, i just wished more people would wake up and see for themselves, and stop been sheep. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those who think that the lack of long term studies of COVID vaccines is an argument against them, just to point out that if we waited for long term studies, the huge advances in medicine we have seen over the last 100 years would all never have happened. Diseases that have all but been eliminated would still be killing us and life expectancies would not have advanced by 30-40 years in some instances. And besides, no drug company would invest in researching new drug development if they had to wait a generation for long term studies. The R&D cycle is already a disincentive. An experimental vaccine has never been rolled out this quickly and under these circumstances before. Flawed initial data from the trial period.those effected negatively kicked off the study as they couldn't complete the course. Funding of the fda the who the cdc all coning from big pahrma. Contamination of millions of vials of the vaccine. Pfizer's record of criminal activity and bribing doctors and health officials. Refusing to attend the European enquiry and explaining they had to move at the speed of science (thats a new one). Excessive profits made. Especially when they used our tax money for the development. The fact astrazenica has been made unavailable (what's the problem there?) The fact the vaccine manufacturers would not release ingredients for others to make it for the developing world We were told initially they were not after profit from this. The huge amount of excess deaths from non covid related illness now showing up and not being covered by main media Add to this the censoring by bbc msm etc of anything questioning the narrative Oh and finally the fact it doesn't stop you getting it or passing it on (another lie). Don't get me started on PayPal Pharma and the anti depressant scam proliferated using the war on drugs that Nixon established. Pharma knew full well natural psychedelic drugs actually worked and all they did was provide pills that didn't work and contributed to poor mental health Couple this with the fact some of our friends are jabbed others are not and we have seen no difference in how people have dealt with the infection. On this basis I wont be having one Which makes me a great person as I am happy for my dose and the flue shot to be used for some one more deserving. Peace and love family Well said, i just wished more people would wake up and see for themselves, and stop been sheep. " Sheep How very 2021 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those who think that the lack of long term studies of COVID vaccines is an argument against them, just to point out that if we waited for long term studies, the huge advances in medicine we have seen over the last 100 years would all never have happened. Diseases that have all but been eliminated would still be killing us and life expectancies would not have advanced by 30-40 years in some instances. And besides, no drug company would invest in researching new drug development if they had to wait a generation for long term studies. The R&D cycle is already a disincentive. An experimental vaccine has never been rolled out this quickly and under these circumstances before. Flawed initial data from the trial period.those effected negatively kicked off the study as they couldn't complete the course. Funding of the fda the who the cdc all coning from big pahrma. Contamination of millions of vials of the vaccine. Pfizer's record of criminal activity and bribing doctors and health officials. Refusing to attend the European enquiry and explaining they had to move at the speed of science (thats a new one). Excessive profits made. Especially when they used our tax money for the development. The fact astrazenica has been made unavailable (what's the problem there?) The fact the vaccine manufacturers would not release ingredients for others to make it for the developing world We were told initially they were not after profit from this. The huge amount of excess deaths from non covid related illness now showing up and not being covered by main media Add to this the censoring by bbc msm etc of anything questioning the narrative Oh and finally the fact it doesn't stop you getting it or passing it on (another lie). Don't get me started on PayPal Pharma and the anti depressant scam proliferated using the war on drugs that Nixon established. Pharma knew full well natural psychedelic drugs actually worked and all they did was provide pills that didn't work and contributed to poor mental health Couple this with the fact some of our friends are jabbed others are not and we have seen no difference in how people have dealt with the infection. On this basis I wont be having one Which makes me a great person as I am happy for my dose and the flue shot to be used for some one more deserving. Peace and love family Well said, i just wished more people would wake up and see for themselves, and stop been sheep. Sheep How very 2021 "Why don't they all just flock off. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No medicine, vaccines included, are without risk nor side-effects. They are, after all, DRUGS. The point is, medicines are a risk vs benefit trade-off. If you don't accept the risk, don't take the medicine, it's as simple as that." But with ALL other vaccines the threshold of safety is 1or2 adverse reactions per million before they get pulled all the covid jabs have a much higher incidence of adverse effects than the threshold | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug.
Absolutely clueless.
What part of what I'd write is clueless? Confused by your comment.
Pretty much all of it. I think the only bit that was true was that pfizer didn't test their vaccine for reducing transmission. Which is sensible since it never designed to do that. That it reduced transmission was an added bonus it was designed or tested to do this."All of what I stated is true. So you are stating the vaccine has not been found in breast feeding mothers milk, that there no issues with male under 40s with heart attacks etc etc....do research. Sadly its all true. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug.
Absolutely clueless.
What part of what I'd write is clueless? Confused by your comment.
Pretty much all of it. I think the only bit that was true was that pfizer didn't test their vaccine for reducing transmission. Which is sensible since it never designed to do that. That it reduced transmission was an added bonus it was designed or tested to do this.
All of what I stated is true. So you are stating the vaccine has not been found in breast feeding mothers milk, that there no issues with male under 40s with heart attacks etc etc....do research. Sadly its all true. "Sorry but your comments are indeed clueless. Furthermore, research doesn't mean reading a few articles on the web that confirm your own beliefs. Research and scientific study is the rigorous application of empirical methods that themselves requires skill and training over many years to understand how to use. There are too many amateur researchers - who also seem to be the vaccine or covid deniers - who quote widely discredited so called scientists,(who by the way are often failed scientists with a grudge or opportunists trying to make money from fear and ignorance) as if they are gospel. Forgive me if you have a PhD or if you've edited or published scientific papers or journals, but the lack of understanding of the definition of research and science in some posts is self-evident in the way the word is thrown around to justify arguments with a reverse intellectual snobbery overiding any sense of partiality or absence of bias so critical to scientific rigour. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the powers that be havent made the link yet. But you have? Why haven't you published your extensive data in a scientific journal yet? Honestly, the Dunning-Kruger effect on this forum is staggering." Dunning-Kruger effect - This, 100% | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the powers that be havent made the link yet. But you have? Why haven't you published your extensive data in a scientific journal yet? Honestly, the Dunning-Kruger effect on this forum is staggering. Dunning-Kruger effect - This, 100%" At this point they might as well rename the virus secion: Dunning-Kruger. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug.
Absolutely clueless.
What part of what I'd write is clueless? Confused by your comment.
Pretty much all of it. I think the only bit that was true was that pfizer didn't test their vaccine for reducing transmission. Which is sensible since it never designed to do that. That it reduced transmission was an added bonus it was designed or tested to do this.
All of what I stated is true. So you are stating the vaccine has not been found in breast feeding mothers milk, that there no issues with male under 40s with heart attacks etc etc....do research. Sadly its all true.
Sorry but your comments are indeed clueless. Furthermore, research doesn't mean reading a few articles on the web that confirm your own beliefs. Research and scientific study is the rigorous application of empirical methods that themselves requires skill and training over many years to understand how to use. There are too many amateur researchers - who also seem to be the vaccine or covid deniers - who quote widely discredited so called scientists,(who by the way are often failed scientists with a grudge or opportunists trying to make money from fear and ignorance) as if they are gospel. Forgive me if you have a PhD or if you've edited or published scientific papers or journals, but the lack of understanding of the definition of research and science in some posts is self-evident in the way the word is thrown around to justify arguments with a reverse intellectual snobbery overiding any sense of partiality or absence of bias so critical to scientific rigour."Clearly you have issues with anyone that states what is actually happening in the real world. You opinion that I am clueless is unfounded with zero comment on anything that I have said. Did you know there is actually a UK parliament committee debate on the safety of the vaccines? It's happening now. Are these people clueless as they do not fit your viewpoint? Report after report around the world from Malaysia to the USA are highlighting the same things. Denmark are not giving covid jabs to males under certain age groups, as are florida. It is a fact that there are unexplained excess deaths round the world and another fact that in the UK that there is a rise in heart issues causing deaths. So if by stating these facts I am clueless then I bow down to your superior knowledge. Have a lovely day sir. I shall go back to my vegetative clueless state of living | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug.
Absolutely clueless.
What part of what I'd write is clueless? Confused by your comment.
Pretty much all of it. I think the only bit that was true was that pfizer didn't test their vaccine for reducing transmission. Which is sensible since it never designed to do that. That it reduced transmission was an added bonus it was designed or tested to do this.
All of what I stated is true. So you are stating the vaccine has not been found in breast feeding mothers milk, that there no issues with male under 40s with heart attacks etc etc....do research. Sadly its all true. "Yes, it is true that for a couple of days after being given a vaccine, it can be detected in minute amounts in breast milk. On the other hand though, ingestion of these vaccines has neither an adverse effect or any medicinal one. If you research data on heart health in younger people, you will find that there has been on average a 2% increase year on year of under 40s. This has been the trend since 1999, so not linked to the vaccines used since 2020. There is evidence from medical studies recently published (by the British Heart Foundation) showing that some younger age groups are at a small risk of Myocarditis after a covid vaccine, but that this is "very rare" and significantly less likely than the risk of Myocarditis from covid itself. The studies showed that the Moderna vaccine was the worst culprit with 68 cases per million doses. Studies also commented that this is actually a common side effect of vaccines as a whole. "Research published in April 2022 shows that there is no greater risk of developing heart inflammation after a Covid-19 vaccine than after other common vaccines, including the flu jab." Cal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So if by stating these facts I am clueless then I bow down to your superior knowledge. Have a lovely day sir. I shall go back to my vegetative clueless state of living "Facts have indisputable evidenced anything else is rumour and hearsay. I don't see much in the way if evidence to support your words | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Point taken,however,shouldn't the populous have been told about this at the very beginning in order to make an 'informed' choice on whether to have the vaccines or not? I have know people who have had Covid multiple times despite having had all their jabs.. Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread? Yes,the vulnerable should get the vaccines, healthy people have an immune system.. The vulnerable should get the vaccines and we have. No. 6 received 3 weeks ago. But do you not think others should get vaccine to ensure the vulnerable are not at risk...? Or is it every man, woman and child for themselves..? Not an argument, merely a question.. I have had family members refuse to have vaccine and have been very vocal about why should they worry bout anyone but themselves.. Needless to say, family members no longer seen." The jab does nothing to stop transmission. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Point taken,however,shouldn't the populous have been told about this at the very beginning in order to make an 'informed' choice on whether to have the vaccines or not? I have know people who have had Covid multiple times despite having had all their jabs.. Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread? Yes,the vulnerable should get the vaccines, healthy people have an immune system.. The vulnerable should get the vaccines and we have. No. 6 received 3 weeks ago. But do you not think others should get vaccine to ensure the vulnerable are not at risk...? Or is it every man, woman and child for themselves..? Not an argument, merely a question.. I have had family members refuse to have vaccine and have been very vocal about why should they worry bout anyone but themselves.. Needless to say, family members no longer seen. The jab does nothing to stop transmission. " That's a bit misleading by omission of certain info. It seems a jabbed person who is infected sheds a similar amount as an unjabbed person. However... A jabbed person is less likely to get infected - so they literally cannot transmit it in that case. (Source: the BMJ.) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread?" Current NHS booster adverts that I have seen in the last few weeks also (falsely) claim the jab will stop the spread, this is despite it being admitted by the manufacturers. "The population knew exactly how long had passed between the conception of these vaccines and their mass rollout. There is a consensus within the scientific community that all of these vaccines are inherently safe, due to the fact that the only component that hasn't got a long history of use is the (Inert) "covid 19" specific component. This is similar to McVities knowing that Blackcurrant Jaffa Cakes won't kill anyone after changing just one ingredient from the orange ones." Wrong on so many levels. There is no 'consensus' the jabs are safe. mRNA technology is not new, there are mentions of it from 1953 for example. there were (and still are) huge problems with triggered immune responses, it wasn't until 2005 that the test rats and mice started surviving for example. Also, if they are 'safe', why is the American health insurance company OneAmerica reporting a 40% rise in 'post pandemic' deaths in the 18-64 age range? "Even though the vaccines didn't directly stop infected people from infecting others, they DID drastically reduce the spread by simply reducing the amount of time that people were infectious... it is very obvious that reducing the length of an infection will also reduce the opportunity for spread. Cal" Wrong. very wrong. To quote a peer reviewed and published article from nih dot gov.Blaylock RL. COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167. it has been proven that the vaccinated asymptomatic person has a nasopharyngeal titer of the virus as high as an infected unvaccinated person. If the purpose of the vaccine mandate is to prevent viral spread among the hospital staff and patients, then it is the vaccinated who present the greatest risk of transmission, not the unvaccinated. The difference is that a sick unvaccinated person would not go to work, the asymptomatic vaccinated spreader will. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread? Current NHS booster adverts that I have seen in the last few weeks also (falsely) claim the jab will stop the spread, this is despite it being admitted by the manufacturers. The population knew exactly how long had passed between the conception of these vaccines and their mass rollout. There is a consensus within the scientific community that all of these vaccines are inherently safe, due to the fact that the only component that hasn't got a long history of use is the (Inert) "covid 19" specific component. This is similar to McVities knowing that Blackcurrant Jaffa Cakes won't kill anyone after changing just one ingredient from the orange ones. Wrong on so many levels. There is no 'consensus' the jabs are safe. mRNA technology is not new, there are mentions of it from 1953 for example. there were (and still are) huge problems with triggered immune responses, it wasn't until 2005 that the test rats and mice started surviving for example. Also, if they are 'safe', why is the American health insurance company OneAmerica reporting a 40% rise in 'post pandemic' deaths in the 18-64 age range? Even though the vaccines didn't directly stop infected people from infecting others, they DID drastically reduce the spread by simply reducing the amount of time that people were infectious... it is very obvious that reducing the length of an infection will also reduce the opportunity for spread. Cal Wrong. very wrong. To quote a peer reviewed and published article from nih dot gov.Blaylock RL. COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167. it has been proven that the vaccinated asymptomatic person has a nasopharyngeal titer of the virus as high as an infected unvaccinated person. If the purpose of the vaccine mandate is to prevent viral spread among the hospital staff and patients, then it is the vaccinated who present the greatest risk of transmission, not the unvaccinated. The difference is that a sick unvaccinated person would not go to work, the asymptomatic vaccinated spreader will. " What is a nasopharyngeal titer? Winston | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug.
Absolutely clueless.
What part of what I'd write is clueless? Confused by your comment.
Pretty much all of it. I think the only bit that was true was that pfizer didn't test their vaccine for reducing transmission. Which is sensible since it never designed to do that. That it reduced transmission was an added bonus it was designed or tested to do this.
All of what I stated is true. So you are stating the vaccine has not been found in breast feeding mothers milk, that there no issues with male under 40s with heart attacks etc etc....do research. Sadly its all true.
Yes, it is true that for a couple of days after being given a vaccine, it can be detected in minute amounts in breast milk. On the other hand though, ingestion of these vaccines has neither an adverse effect or any medicinal one.
If you research data on heart health in younger people, you will find that there has been on average a 2% increase year on year of under 40s. This has been the trend since 1999, so not linked to the vaccines used since 2020.
There is evidence from medical studies recently published (by the British Heart Foundation) showing that some younger age groups are at a small risk of Myocarditis after a covid vaccine, but that this is "very rare" and significantly less likely than the risk of Myocarditis from covid itself. The studies showed that the Moderna vaccine was the worst culprit with 68 cases per million doses.
Studies also commented that this is actually a common side effect of vaccines as a whole. "Research published in April 2022 shows that there is no greater risk of developing heart inflammation after a Covid-19 vaccine than after other common vaccines, including the flu jab."
Cal"A recent study in Israel has shown being infected with covid and not vaccinated has no effect on rates of myocarditis and pericarditis which is fantastic news. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so glad i didn’t go for the jab, as all the injuries far outweigh the health good. i’m a believer that it’s everyone’s personal choice. although it has now narrowed down the people i can play with as i only play with people who chose not to get it like myself. so if there’s any unvaccinated on here ladies add me as your a true soul x " How would someone be able to prove to you that they haven’t been jabbed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so glad i didn’t go for the jab, as all the injuries far outweigh the health good. i’m a believer that it’s everyone’s personal choice. although it has now narrowed down the people i can play with as i only play with people who chose not to get it like myself. so if there’s any unvaccinated on here ladies add me as your a true soul x How would someone be able to prove to you that they haven’t been jabbed? " I do feel there's a flaw in the plan. Can't. Quite. Put. My. Finger. On. It........ Winston | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so glad i didn’t go for the jab, as all the injuries far outweigh the health good. i’m a believer that it’s everyone’s personal choice. although it has now narrowed down the people i can play with as i only play with people who chose not to get it like myself. so if there’s any unvaccinated on here ladies add me as your a true soul x How would someone be able to prove to you that they haven’t been jabbed? " You mean you don't know about the florescent eyes during full moon ? Foolproof way of checking for the vaxxed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so glad i didn’t go for the jab, as all the injuries far outweigh the health good. i’m a believer that it’s everyone’s personal choice. although it has now narrowed down the people i can play with as i only play with people who chose not to get it like myself. so if there’s any unvaccinated on here ladies add me as your a true soul x How would someone be able to prove to you that they haven’t been jabbed? You mean you don't know about the florescent eyes during full moon ? Foolproof way of checking for the vaxxed" Thats why I wear sunglasses.
Winston | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so glad i didn’t go for the jab, as all the injuries far outweigh the health good. i’m a believer that it’s everyone’s personal choice. although it has now narrowed down the people i can play with as i only play with people who chose not to get it like myself. so if there’s any unvaccinated on here ladies add me as your a true soul x How would someone be able to prove to you that they haven’t been jabbed? You mean you don't know about the florescent eyes during full moon ? Foolproof way of checking for the vaxxed Thats why I wear sunglasses.
Winston "https://youtu.be/X2LTL8KgKv8 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so glad i didn’t go for the jab, as all the injuries far outweigh the health good. i’m a believer that it’s everyone’s personal choice. although it has now narrowed down the people i can play with as i only play with people who chose not to get it like myself. so if there’s any unvaccinated on here ladies add me as your a true soul x How would someone be able to prove to you that they haven’t been jabbed? You mean you don't know about the florescent eyes during full moon ? Foolproof way of checking for the vaxxed Thats why I wear sunglasses.
Winston
https://youtu.be/X2LTL8KgKv8"Bwahahahahaha. 
Winston | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What is a nasopharyngeal titer? Winston " A comparison of samples from the nasopharyngeal lining. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those who think that the lack of long term studies of COVID vaccines is an argument against them, just to point out that if we waited for long term studies, the huge advances in medicine we have seen over the last 100 years would all never have happened. Diseases that have all but been eliminated would still be killing us and life expectancies would not have advanced by 30-40 years in some instances. And besides, no drug company would invest in researching new drug development if they had to wait a generation for long term studies. The R&D cycle is already a disincentive." keep rolling up those sleeves then | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug.
Absolutely clueless.
What part of what I'd write is clueless? Confused by your comment.
Pretty much all of it. I think the only bit that was true was that pfizer didn't test their vaccine for reducing transmission. Which is sensible since it never designed to do that. That it reduced transmission was an added bonus it was designed or tested to do this.
All of what I stated is true. So you are stating the vaccine has not been found in breast feeding mothers milk, that there no issues with male under 40s with heart attacks etc etc....do research. Sadly its all true.
Yes, it is true that for a couple of days after being given a vaccine, it can be detected in minute amounts in breast milk. On the other hand though, ingestion of these vaccines has neither an adverse effect or any medicinal one.
If you research data on heart health in younger people, you will find that there has been on average a 2% increase year on year of under 40s. This has been the trend since 1999, so not linked to the vaccines used since 2020.
There is evidence from medical studies recently published (by the British Heart Foundation) showing that some younger age groups are at a small risk of Myocarditis after a covid vaccine, but that this is "very rare" and significantly less likely than the risk of Myocarditis from covid itself. The studies showed that the Moderna vaccine was the worst culprit with 68 cases per million doses.
Studies also commented that this is actually a common side effect of vaccines as a whole. "Research published in April 2022 shows that there is no greater risk of developing heart inflammation after a Covid-19 vaccine than after other common vaccines, including the flu jab."
Cal
A recent study in Israel has shown being infected with covid and not vaccinated has no effect on rates of myocarditis and pericarditis which is fantastic news. "A quick look about indicates more than a dozen different studies showing that myocarditis is much more likely after a covid infection | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so glad i didn’t go for the jab, as all the injuries far outweigh the health good. i’m a believer that it’s everyone’s personal choice. although it has now narrowed down the people i can play with as i only play with people who chose not to get it like myself. so if there’s any unvaccinated on here ladies add me as your a true soul x " can I ask why it makes a difference if they have been vaccinated or not? As surely it makes no difference | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so glad i didn’t go for the jab, as all the injuries far outweigh the health good. i’m a believer that it’s everyone’s personal choice. although it has now narrowed down the people i can play with as i only play with people who chose not to get it like myself. so if there’s any unvaccinated on here ladies add me as your a true soul x can I ask why it makes a difference if they have been vaccinated or not? As surely it makes no difference " I suspect that the "pure bloods" want to make sure they don't absorb any vaccines through their penises, those spike proteins are very sharp and can easily poke their way through a condom. Cal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so glad i didn’t go for the jab, as all the injuries far outweigh the health good. i’m a believer that it’s everyone’s personal choice. although it has now narrowed down the people i can play with as i only play with people who chose not to get it like myself. so if there’s any unvaccinated on here ladies add me as your a true soul x can I ask why it makes a difference if they have been vaccinated or not? As surely it makes no difference I suspect that the "pure bloods" want to make sure they don't absorb any vaccines through their penises, those spike proteins are very sharp and can easily poke their way through a condom. Cal" I guess that's why they're called "spike" proteins.
I've never made that connection before, thanks Cal.
Winston | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so glad i didn’t go for the jab, as all the injuries far outweigh the health good. i’m a believer that it’s everyone’s personal choice. although it has now narrowed down the people i can play with as i only play with people who chose not to get it like myself. so if there’s any unvaccinated on here ladies add me as your a true soul x can I ask why it makes a difference if they have been vaccinated or not? As surely it makes no difference I suspect that the "pure bloods" want to make sure they don't absorb any vaccines through their penises, those spike proteins are very sharp and can easily poke their way through a condom. Cal I guess that's why they're called "spike" proteins.
I've never made that connection before, thanks Cal.
Winston "The men, especially, don't need to read scientific literature, once these spikes and penis dangers are so clear. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so glad i didn’t go for the jab, as all the injuries far outweigh the health good. i’m a believer that it’s everyone’s personal choice. although it has now narrowed down the people i can play with as i only play with people who chose not to get it like myself. so if there’s any unvaccinated on here ladies add me as your a true soul x can I ask why it makes a difference if they have been vaccinated or not? As surely it makes no difference I suspect that the "pure bloods" want to make sure they don't absorb any vaccines through their penises, those spike proteins are very sharp and can easily poke their way through a condom. Cal I guess that's why they're called "spike" proteins.
I've never made that connection before, thanks Cal.
Winston
The men, especially, don't need to read scientific literature, once these spikes and penis dangers are so clear. "Must be why the ladies don't like it in the eyes...... Must be a Hell of a job getting it out of the hair too, all those barbs getting tangled up. Winston | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"so glad i didn’t go for the jab, as all the injuries far outweigh the health good. i’m a believer that it’s everyone’s personal choice. although it has now narrowed down the people i can play with as i only play with people who chose not to get it like myself. so if there’s any unvaccinated on here ladies add me as your a true soul x can I ask why it makes a difference if they have been vaccinated or not? As surely it makes no difference I suspect that the "pure bloods" want to make sure they don't absorb any vaccines through their penises, those spike proteins are very sharp and can easily poke their way through a condom. Cal I guess that's why they're called "spike" proteins.
I've never made that connection before, thanks Cal.
Winston
The men, especially, don't need to read scientific literature, once these spikes and penis dangers are so clear.
Must be why the ladies don't like it in the eyes......
Must be a Hell of a job getting it out of the hair too, all those barbs getting tangled up.
Winston "Ahh now I understand | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These vaccines were rushed out. That's why the shit is hitting the fan now. We were told the vaccine was safe for pregnant ladies, turns out the vaccine has been found in the milk of breast feeding mothers, there is now a world wide phenomenon of excess deaths from Australia to Europe...all unexplained. Main cause of excess deaths are heart issues. Myocarditis and pericarditis an issue. All these issues are now being linked to the up take on the vaccine. See you tube official UK government channel and Andrew Bridgend and eu committee investigations. Deaths acutely felt in the males under 40 category. Pfizer admitted to the eu that they had not tested the vaccine for transmission but happily let givernments round the world tell people that the vaccines stopped the spread. The whole situation needs investigated. Sadly those that took the drug will argue blue in the face that its correct despite evidence to the contrary, nobody likes to admit they were duped. Have a happy day and I'm blood glad that despite being bullied by work, friends and family I stood firm and did not take the drug.
Absolutely clueless.
What part of what I'd write is clueless? Confused by your comment.
Pretty much all of it. I think the only bit that was true was that pfizer didn't test their vaccine for reducing transmission. Which is sensible since it never designed to do that. That it reduced transmission was an added bonus it was designed or tested to do this.
All of what I stated is true. So you are stating the vaccine has not been found in breast feeding mothers milk, that there no issues with male under 40s with heart attacks etc etc....do research. Sadly its all true.
Sorry but your comments are indeed clueless. Furthermore, research doesn't mean reading a few articles on the web that confirm your own beliefs. Research and scientific study is the rigorous application of empirical methods that themselves requires skill and training over many years to understand how to use. There are too many amateur researchers - who also seem to be the vaccine or covid deniers - who quote widely discredited so called scientists,(who by the way are often failed scientists with a grudge or opportunists trying to make money from fear and ignorance) as if they are gospel. Forgive me if you have a PhD or if you've edited or published scientific papers or journals, but the lack of understanding of the definition of research and science in some posts is self-evident in the way the word is thrown around to justify arguments with a reverse intellectual snobbery overiding any sense of partiality or absence of bias so critical to scientific rigour."What scientific rigour was there for any of the vaccines when they were rolled out? There was virtually zero post dose data let alone long term studies.. But hey ,you were told by Government its OK and will protect you..My god, the very same people were conducting bio/chemical experiments on the populous of this country from the 50's to late 70's and almost certainly beyond..The Government is about the last people I'd trust with anything-period! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wrong. very wrong. To quote a peer reviewed and published article from nih dot gov.Blaylock RL. COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167. " Have you actually read that "paper"? It's batshit crazy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wrong. very wrong. To quote a peer reviewed and published article from nih dot gov.Blaylock RL. COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167. Have you actually read that "paper"? It's batshit crazy "Batshit crazy or you don't understand it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wrong. very wrong. To quote a peer reviewed and published article from nih dot gov.Blaylock RL. COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167. Only read the 1st half yes I would say bat shit crazy isn't a million miles away. Regardless of if you agree with the report the way it is written is very amateurish and even at undergraduate level it would considered poor. Have you actually read that "paper"? It's batshit crazy
Batshit crazy or you don't understand it? " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wrong. very wrong. To quote a peer reviewed and published article from nih dot gov.Blaylock RL. COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167. Have you actually read that "paper"? It's batshit crazy
Batshit crazy or you don't understand it? "It's a badly written stream of opinion and conspiracy junk published in a low impact open access journal. The citations are ridiculous, it's like the reviewers didn't even read it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wrong. very wrong. To quote a peer reviewed and published article from nih dot gov.Blaylock RL. COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167. Have you actually read that "paper"? It's batshit crazy
Batshit crazy or you don't understand it?
It's a badly written stream of opinion and conspiracy junk published in a low impact open access journal. The citations are ridiculous, it's like the reviewers didn't even read it."I concur with that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wrong. very wrong. To quote a peer reviewed and published article from nih dot gov.Blaylock RL. COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167. Have you actually read that "paper"? It's batshit crazy
Batshit crazy or you don't understand it?
It's a badly written stream of opinion and conspiracy junk published in a low impact open access journal. The citations are ridiculous, it's like the reviewers didn't even read it."Or just doesn't fit with confirmation bias Perhaps? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wrong. very wrong. To quote a peer reviewed and published article from nih dot gov.Blaylock RL. COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167. Have you actually read that "paper"? It's batshit crazy
Batshit crazy or you don't understand it?
It's a badly written stream of opinion and conspiracy junk published in a low impact open access journal. The citations are ridiculous, it's like the reviewers didn't even read it.
Or just doesn't fit with confirmation bias Perhaps?"My 8 year old son could write a better scientific paper than this. I think you're projecting your own confirmation bias on others! Honestly, it's a joke paper, as the other posters said, it's tirade of misinformation and opinion, designed to suck fools in, nothing more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wrong. very wrong. To quote a peer reviewed and published article from nih dot gov.Blaylock RL. COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167. Have you actually read that "paper"? It's batshit crazy
Batshit crazy or you don't understand it?
It's a badly written stream of opinion and conspiracy junk published in a low impact open access journal. The citations are ridiculous, it's like the reviewers didn't even read it.
Or just doesn't fit with confirmation bias Perhaps?
My 8 year old son could write a better scientific paper than this. I think you're projecting your own confirmation bias on others! Honestly, it's a joke paper, as the other posters said, it's tirade of misinformation and opinion, designed to suck fools in, nothing more. "'A tirade of misinformation' yet 'peer' reviewed..Oh well, I'll take your word for it.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wrong. very wrong. To quote a peer reviewed and published article from nih dot gov.Blaylock RL. COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167. Have you actually read that "paper"? It's batshit crazy
Batshit crazy or you don't understand it?
It's a badly written stream of opinion and conspiracy junk published in a low impact open access journal. The citations are ridiculous, it's like the reviewers didn't even read it.
Or just doesn't fit with confirmation bias Perhaps?
My 8 year old son could write a better scientific paper than this. I think you're projecting your own confirmation bias on others! Honestly, it's a joke paper, as the other posters said, it's tirade of misinformation and opinion, designed to suck fools in, nothing more. "So you are calling it a joke just because it does not conform to your way of thinking? Have you read the whole thing? Have you researched the writer? Have you read his other papers on that site and elsewhere? Do you know his qualifications in the field? Are YOU qualified to ridicule a peer reviewed and published author? For that matter, what are your qualifications in viral testing, infection control, adverse reaction treatment, clinical diagnosis and patient care? Do you know the difference between RT-qPCR and ddPCR or the meaning of pos/neg anti-N, IgM or IgG.. do you know what ELISA is and how it is used? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wrong. very wrong. To quote a peer reviewed and published article from nih dot gov.Blaylock RL. COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167. Have you actually read that "paper"? It's batshit crazy
Batshit crazy or you don't understand it?
It's a badly written stream of opinion and conspiracy junk published in a low impact open access journal. The citations are ridiculous, it's like the reviewers didn't even read it.
Or just doesn't fit with confirmation bias Perhaps?
My 8 year old son could write a better scientific paper than this. I think you're projecting your own confirmation bias on others! Honestly, it's a joke paper, as the other posters said, it's tirade of misinformation and opinion, designed to suck fools in, nothing more.
So you are calling it a joke just because it does not conform to your way of thinking?
Have you read the whole thing? Have you researched the writer? Have you read his other papers on that site and elsewhere? Do you know his qualifications in the field? Are YOU qualified to ridicule a peer reviewed and published author?
For that matter, what are your qualifications in viral testing, infection control, adverse reaction treatment, clinical diagnosis and patient care?
Do you know the difference between RT-qPCR and ddPCR or the meaning of pos/neg anti-N, IgM or IgG.. do you know what ELISA is and how it is used?
"It is badly written even ignoring the content. If an undergraduate presented that paper they wouldn't be marked very highly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wrong. very wrong. To quote a peer reviewed and published article from nih dot gov.Blaylock RL. COVID UPDATE: What is the truth? Surg Neurol Int 2022;13:167. Have you actually read that "paper"? It's batshit crazy
Batshit crazy or you don't understand it?
It's a badly written stream of opinion and conspiracy junk published in a low impact open access journal. The citations are ridiculous, it's like the reviewers didn't even read it.
Or just doesn't fit with confirmation bias Perhaps?"Or does fit with your confirmation bias perhaps? Goes both ways. Winston | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 'A tirade of misinformation' yet 'peer' reviewed..Oh well, I'll take your word for it.." Tell me you don't have much experience in reading and reviewing scientific literature without telling me...etc etc. It ain't exactly the NEJM, is it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you know the difference between RT-qPCR and ddPCR or the meaning of pos/neg anti-N, IgM or IgG.. do you know what ELISA is and how it is used? " Yes, thanks. Although my lab mainly deals with sequencing these days. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So are there any factual long term study reports available yet or are we still going around on the same vitriolic opinion based roundabout where polar biased opposites slag each other incessantly and no one is any of the wiser?" Each of the vaccine manufacturers have got reports as to the performance and safety of their offering "so far", but whist they may cover up to two and a half years of data, some people wouldn't consider this to be "long term" stating that usually a drug undergoes at least ten years of testing before reaching the market. Cal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you know the difference between RT-qPCR and ddPCR or the meaning of pos/neg anti-N, IgM or IgG.. do you know what ELISA is and how it is used? Yes, thanks. Although my lab mainly deals with sequencing these days. " Given the context of the question and the thread, particularly regarding the part where ratios are talked about, anyone who really is involved with lab work would know that sequencing is the wrong test. It tells you specific variant, not quantity... hence why ELISA was specified (although I did leave the subtype method up to the reader). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you know the difference between RT-qPCR and ddPCR or the meaning of pos/neg anti-N, IgM or IgG.. do you know what ELISA is and how it is used? Yes, thanks. Although my lab mainly deals with sequencing these days. Given the context of the question and the thread, particularly regarding the part where ratios are talked about, anyone who really is involved with lab work would know that sequencing is the wrong test. It tells you specific variant, not quantity... hence why ELISA was specified (although I did leave the subtype method up to the reader). " I don't think he said that the sequencing was "covid related" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes, thanks. Although my lab mainly deals with sequencing these days. Given the context of the question and the thread, particularly regarding the part where ratios are talked about, anyone who really is involved with lab work would know that sequencing is the wrong test. It tells you specific variant, not quantity... hence why ELISA was specified (although I did leave the subtype method up to the reader). " Staggering projection there, champ. Don't know what this has to do with that pitiful paper. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I don't think he said that the sequencing was "covid related"" Exactly. I was asked if I knew the difference between some basic molecular and serological techniques. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I don't think he said that the sequencing was "covid related" Exactly. I was asked if I knew the difference between some basic molecular and serological techniques. " Typical virus forum response unfortunately. Get asked a question, answer it. Answer is totally ignored or at best misunderstood and you end up being called out for your lack of knowledge. When all you did was correctly answer the question asked. Winston | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you know the difference between RT-qPCR and ddPCR or the meaning of pos/neg anti-N, IgM or IgG.. do you know what ELISA is and how it is used? Yes, thanks. Although my lab mainly deals with sequencing these days. Given the context of the question and the thread, particularly regarding the part where ratios are talked about, anyone who really is involved with lab work would know that sequencing is the wrong test. It tells you specific variant, not quantity... hence why ELISA was specified (although I did leave the subtype method up to the reader). I don't think he said that the sequencing was "covid related"" Given that all those techniques are valid for anything with DNA/RNA my comment that sequencing does not give you quantities stands. (Since one of the subjects objected to in the quoted paper is that there is no difference in nasopharyngeal viral load) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I don't think he said that the sequencing was "covid related" Exactly. I was asked if I knew the difference between some basic molecular and serological techniques. " You were also asked if you had researched the author, read previous papers and what your qualifications were on the subject.. which you ignored. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I don't think he said that the sequencing was "covid related" Exactly. I was asked if I knew the difference between some basic molecular and serological techniques. You were also asked if you had researched the author, read previous papers and what your qualifications were on the subject.. which you ignored." May I ask you the same questions? Thanks. Winston | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Given that all those techniques are valid for anything with DNA/RNA my comment that sequencing does not give you quantities stands. (Since one of the subjects objected to in the quoted paper is that there is no difference in nasopharyngeal viral load)" Yeah, still doesn't change the fact that I do sequencing and quantitative PCR in my lab. Hang on, why didn't you just cite the primary literature rather than that pitiful review? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You were also asked if you had researched the author, read previous papers and what your qualifications were on the subject.. which you ignored." I don't need to justify my qualifications to you, sunshine. You held up Blaylock in some bizarre appeal to authority fallacy and rightly got called out | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Given that all those techniques are valid for anything with DNA/RNA my comment that sequencing does not give you quantities stands. (Since one of the subjects objected to in the quoted paper is that there is no difference in nasopharyngeal viral load) Yeah, still doesn't change the fact that I do sequencing and quantitative PCR in my lab. Hang on, why didn't you just cite the primary literature rather than that pitiful review? " When you say 'my lab' do you mean a genuine, real lab full of test tubes, bunsen burners, litmus paper, safety goggles and all that type of malarkey or a chemistry set in your shed. I've got little gas cylinders in my shed but only use them for burning s not for global medical scientific advancement, unless eradicating pesky s count. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Given that all those techniques are valid for anything with DNA/RNA my comment that sequencing does not give you quantities stands. (Since one of the subjects objected to in the quoted paper is that there is no difference in nasopharyngeal viral load) Yeah, still doesn't change the fact that I do sequencing and quantitative PCR in my lab. Hang on, why didn't you just cite the primary literature rather than that pitiful review? When you say 'my lab' do you mean a genuine, real lab full of test tubes, bunsen burners, litmus paper, safety goggles and all that type of malarkey or a chemistry set in your shed. I've got little gas cylinders in my shed but only use them for burning s not for global medical scientific advancement, unless eradicating pesky s count. "For some reason the word w e e d s won't print. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You were also asked if you had researched the author, read previous papers and what your qualifications were on the subject.. which you ignored. I don't need to justify my qualifications to you, sunshine. You held up Blaylock in some bizarre appeal to authority fallacy and rightly got called out" You are arguing against published authors, several of them being world renowned and acknowledged leaders in their field, so are you doing so from layman's understanding (which is fine, some of our biggest breakthroughs have come about that way) or are you holding certification or other qualifications in the subjects? You seem to be very defensive about it though. As for the paper. Simply dismissing as 'badly written' or 'its crap' is not sufficient for rebuttal. What exactly do you disagree with and what is your evidence for doing so? For the record I disagree with some parts of it and have been in direct communication with the author to defend his position. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe it's your tone and attitude causing the defensive nature?" If you choose to read it a way it is not intended, I can't help that... that is purely on whoever decides that anything I put is intended as confrontation or anything other than presenting facts. If anyone has the attitude, it's those who are dismissing out of hand and ignoring the science and facts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not for me thanks, perfectly content with my healthy lifestyle and vitamin supplements. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You are arguing against published authors, several of them being world renowned and acknowledged leaders in their field, so are you doing so from layman's understanding (which is fine, some of our biggest breakthroughs have come about that way) or are you holding certification or other qualifications in the subjects? You seem to be very defensive about it though. As for the paper. Simply dismissing as 'badly written' or 'its crap' is not sufficient for rebuttal. What exactly do you disagree with and what is your evidence for doing so? For the record I disagree with some parts of it and have been in direct communication with the author to defend his position." Sigh, this is fruitless. Happy to examine cycle thresholds and titers but this paper is beyond a joke. The fact that you can't see it speaks volumes. Amateurs | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" When you say 'my lab' do you mean a genuine, real lab full of test tubes, bunsen burners, litmus paper, safety goggles and all that type of malarkey or a chemistry set in your shed. I've got little gas cylinders in my shed but only use them for burning s not for global medical scientific advancement, unless eradicating pesky s count. "An actual lab. But sadly, we RA'd Bunsen burners out of existence. Molecular biology is quite dull on the surface - pipetting small volumes of clear colourless liquids into clear colourless liquids is apparently all we do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You were also asked if you had researched the author, read previous papers and what your qualifications were on the subject.. which you ignored. I don't need to justify my qualifications to you, sunshine. You held up Blaylock in some bizarre appeal to authority fallacy and rightly got called out You are arguing against published authors, several of them being world renowned and acknowledged leaders in their field, so are you doing so from layman's understanding (which is fine, some of our biggest breakthroughs have come about that way) or are you holding certification or other qualifications in the subjects? You seem to be very defensive about it though. As for the paper. Simply dismissing as 'badly written' or 'its crap' is not sufficient for rebuttal. What exactly do you disagree with and what is your evidence for doing so? For the record I disagree with some parts of it and have been in direct communication with the author to defend his position." Just wondering when you might deign to answer my questions. A few posts up. ^^^ Thanks. Winston | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You are arguing against published authors, several of them being world renowned and acknowledged leaders in their field, so are you doing so from layman's understanding (which is fine, some of our biggest breakthroughs have come about that way) or are you holding certification or other qualifications in the subjects? You seem to be very defensive about it though. As for the paper. Simply dismissing as 'badly written' or 'its crap' is not sufficient for rebuttal. What exactly do you disagree with and what is your evidence for doing so? For the record I disagree with some parts of it and have been in direct communication with the author to defend his position. Sigh, this is fruitless. Happy to examine cycle thresholds and titers but this paper is beyond a joke. The fact that you can't see it speaks volumes. Amateurs "actually, the fact you aren't willing (or able) to articulate problematic sections and give actual reasons as to why you do not agree is the joke. It is after all the basis of scientific debate to counter a conclusion with evidence that might not have been considered (or even available) when the paper was written. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" actually, the fact you aren't willing (or able) to articulate problematic sections and give actual reasons as to why you do not agree is the joke. It is after all the basis of scientific debate to counter a conclusion with evidence that might not have been considered (or even available) when the paper was written. " I don't think you're remotely qualified to understand the problems with the paper. It posits no hypothesis, no primary empirical data, and is merely opinion. It might as well cite Wikipedia (would actually be preferable to the sources it does cite). You're also shifting the burden of proof. Embarrassing. I'm playing pigeon chess here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
" When you say 'my lab' do you mean a genuine, real lab full of test tubes, bunsen burners, litmus paper, safety goggles and all that type of malarkey or a chemistry set in your shed. I've got little gas cylinders in my shed but only use them for burning s not for global medical scientific advancement, unless eradicating pesky s count.
An actual lab. But sadly, we RA'd Bunsen burners out of existence. Molecular biology is quite dull on the surface - pipetting small volumes of clear colourless liquids into clear colourless liquids is apparently all we do.": Whatever it is you do, bunsen burners or not, keep up the good work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" actually, the fact you aren't willing (or able) to articulate problematic sections and give actual reasons as to why you do not agree is the joke. It is after all the basis of scientific debate to counter a conclusion with evidence that might not have been considered (or even available) when the paper was written. " Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" actually, the fact you aren't willing (or able) to articulate problematic sections and give actual reasons as to why you do not agree is the joke. It is after all the basis of scientific debate to counter a conclusion with evidence that might not have been considered (or even available) when the paper was written. Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. " You prove your own statements.. All you keep doing is trying to discredit others continually on the basis of your own beliefs.. Your own beliefs are fuck all more than a hypothesis, just the same as the people who you continually try to discredit... if you don't have categorical proof of what you keep bleating I'd suggest you keep your patronising trap shut.. Thanks.x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. " Ok, thank you for the reply.. are you reading the same document I am? you said "27 studies and no reference" the paper quotes 30 studies and gives citations. you said "[4] is buy his book". 4 on the list of citations is 4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008;19 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]... which is not even the same topic you claim. Your breakdown of the passage along with your comments in square brackets. There is no such passage in the document.. indeed a document search for the term 'cytokine storm' [which you quote] is not present in the entire paper, neither is 'sputum' nor is 'ironically', there is one use of the word ironic, which is not used in the context you attribute it. Are you creatively presenting the document to underline your position while ignoring facts? Also, your square bracket nit pick on his use of the word 'ventilator' is unnecessary. Both the American health providers and the NHS refer to the devices as ventilators. Furthermore, for the nearest I can find in the document for your claimed quotes, there are citations, despite your[citation needed]. Don't get me wrong, there are errors that the technical editor should have picked up, they do not however detract from the actual points made and your (rather clumsy) attempt to mislead just marks you as someone not to take seriously in future. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. Ok, thank you for the reply.. are you reading the same document I am? you said "27 studies and no reference" the paper quotes 30 studies and gives citations. you said "[4] is buy his book". 4 on the list of citations is 4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008;19 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]... which is not even the same topic you claim. Your breakdown of the passage along with your comments in square brackets. There is no such passage in the document.. indeed a document search for the term 'cytokine storm' [which you quote] is not present in the entire paper, neither is 'sputum' nor is 'ironically', there is one use of the word ironic, which is not used in the context you attribute it. Are you creatively presenting the document to underline your position while ignoring facts? Also, your square bracket nit pick on his use of the word 'ventilator' is unnecessary. Both the American health providers and the NHS refer to the devices as ventilators. Furthermore, for the nearest I can find in the document for your claimed quotes, there are citations, despite your[citation needed]. Don't get me wrong, there are errors that the technical editor should have picked up, they do not however detract from the actual points made and your (rather clumsy) attempt to mislead just marks you as someone not to take seriously in future." May I ask what your qualifications/experience/expertise in this field is? Thanks. Winston | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. Ok, thank you for the reply.. are you reading the same document I am? you said "27 studies and no reference" the paper quotes 30 studies and gives citations. you said "[4] is buy his book". 4 on the list of citations is 4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008;19 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]... which is not even the same topic you claim. Your breakdown of the passage along with your comments in square brackets. There is no such passage in the document.. indeed a document search for the term 'cytokine storm' [which you quote] is not present in the entire paper, neither is 'sputum' nor is 'ironically', there is one use of the word ironic, which is not used in the context you attribute it. Are you creatively presenting the document to underline your position while ignoring facts? Also, your square bracket nit pick on his use of the word 'ventilator' is unnecessary. Both the American health providers and the NHS refer to the devices as ventilators. Furthermore, for the nearest I can find in the document for your claimed quotes, there are citations, despite your[citation needed]. Don't get me wrong, there are errors that the technical editor should have picked up, they do not however detract from the actual points made and your (rather clumsy) attempt to mislead just marks you as someone not to take seriously in future. May I ask what your qualifications/experience/expertise in this field is? Thanks. Winston " Since you are focusing on that rather than the 'creative interpretation ' of the poster I was responding to... I have certification in field testing from the MoD and WHO up to silver command level, I have lab certification in sequencing and blotting. I have MoD, WHO and UKHSA certification in NBC containment and cleanup to instructor level (of which biohazard and viral outbreaks are a huge part). I also carry certification in medical storage and transport and am a current (although I need to recertify within the next two months) as a vaccine adverse reaction responder. Why, what are your relevant qualifications/experience in the field? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Very simply there are millions of deaths due to covid world wide…there would have been alot more world wide without a vaccine. A lot of misinformation from all parties, when dealing with a huge crisis very difficult to make 100 % decisions, when time is a factor and doing nothing isnt a option. " Yes and no. There are millions of deaths attributed to covid, whether or not covid was the primary cause or significant contributing factor is a matter of debate since, the inclusion of those who died while under a presumptive positive (I.e. WITH covid rather than FROM covid) such as the guy who died falling from a ladder three weeks after a positive test, or my own brother who died after the NHS refused to treat him properly after a car accident, never tested positive, had clear blood work and still was counted as a covid death. I disagree that the jabs have reduced the death rate. The theory behind it is sound IF a whole (inert) virus was used and not just the spike protein. The focus on one part of the virus is the reason that antibodies created from the jab have trouble or outright fail to recognise variants (despite sharing between 96 and 98% of the RNA, depending on variant) while antibodies from SARS-cov1 still recognise and provide protection against SARS-cov2 (which shares approx 88% of the RNA). Yes, there is a lot of misinformation, on both sides of the issue. Which is why when looking at opinions you need to read what is being said properly, check all sources, check conclusions against other work in the field and check the funding source. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. Ok, thank you for the reply.. are you reading the same document I am? you said "27 studies and no reference" the paper quotes 30 studies and gives citations. you said "[4] is buy his book". 4 on the list of citations is 4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008;19 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]... which is not even the same topic you claim. Your breakdown of the passage along with your comments in square brackets. There is no such passage in the document.. indeed a document search for the term 'cytokine storm' [which you quote] is not present in the entire paper, neither is 'sputum' nor is 'ironically', there is one use of the word ironic, which is not used in the context you attribute it. Are you creatively presenting the document to underline your position while ignoring facts? Also, your square bracket nit pick on his use of the word 'ventilator' is unnecessary. Both the American health providers and the NHS refer to the devices as ventilators. Furthermore, for the nearest I can find in the document for your claimed quotes, there are citations, despite your[citation needed]. Don't get me wrong, there are errors that the technical editor should have picked up, they do not however detract from the actual points made and your (rather clumsy) attempt to mislead just marks you as someone not to take seriously in future. May I ask what your qualifications/experience/expertise in this field is? Thanks. Winston Since you are focusing on that rather than the 'creative interpretation ' of the poster I was responding to... I have certification in field testing from the MoD and WHO up to silver command level, I have lab certification in sequencing and blotting. I have MoD, WHO and UKHSA certification in NBC containment and cleanup to instructor level (of which biohazard and viral outbreaks are a huge part). I also carry certification in medical storage and transport and am a current (although I need to recertify within the next two months) as a vaccine adverse reaction responder. Why, what are your relevant qualifications/experience in the field?" I'm not the one positioning themselves as an expert and calling into question other people's experiences/qualifications in the field, as you did. Thought it worthwhile levelling the playing field. Seems a tad one sided and bullish to question someone's expertise while not clarifying your own.
It all adds to credibility, yes?
Winston | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. Ok, thank you for the reply.. are you reading the same document I am? you said "27 studies and no reference" the paper quotes 30 studies and gives citations. you said "[4] is buy his book". 4 on the list of citations is 4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008;19 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]... which is not even the same topic you claim. Your breakdown of the passage along with your comments in square brackets. There is no such passage in the document.. indeed a document search for the term 'cytokine storm' [which you quote] is not present in the entire paper, neither is 'sputum' nor is 'ironically', there is one use of the word ironic, which is not used in the context you attribute it. Are you creatively presenting the document to underline your position while ignoring facts? Also, your square bracket nit pick on his use of the word 'ventilator' is unnecessary. Both the American health providers and the NHS refer to the devices as ventilators. Furthermore, for the nearest I can find in the document for your claimed quotes, there are citations, despite your[citation needed]. Don't get me wrong, there are errors that the technical editor should have picked up, they do not however detract from the actual points made and your (rather clumsy) attempt to mislead just marks you as someone not to take seriously in future. May I ask what your qualifications/experience/expertise in this field is? Thanks. Winston Since you are focusing on that rather than the 'creative interpretation ' of the poster I was responding to... I have certification in field testing from the MoD and WHO up to silver command level, I have lab certification in sequencing and blotting. I have MoD, WHO and UKHSA certification in NBC containment and cleanup to instructor level (of which biohazard and viral outbreaks are a huge part). I also carry certification in medical storage and transport and am a current (although I need to recertify within the next two months) as a vaccine adverse reaction responder. Why, what are your relevant qualifications/experience in the field? I'm not the one positioning themselves as an expert and calling into question other people's experiences/qualifications in the field, as you did. Thought it worthwhile levelling the playing field. Seems a tad one sided and bullish to question someone's expertise while not clarifying your own.
It all adds to credibility, yes?
Winston"Yet you are questioning and rubbishing opinions without giving your credentials. Plus, the person I asked regarding their qualifications refused to answer.. make of that what you will. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. Ok, thank you for the reply.. are you reading the same document I am? you said "27 studies and no reference" the paper quotes 30 studies and gives citations. you said "[4] is buy his book". 4 on the list of citations is 4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008;19 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]... which is not even the same topic you claim. Your breakdown of the passage along with your comments in square brackets. There is no such passage in the document.. indeed a document search for the term 'cytokine storm' [which you quote] is not present in the entire paper, neither is 'sputum' nor is 'ironically', there is one use of the word ironic, which is not used in the context you attribute it. Are you creatively presenting the document to underline your position while ignoring facts? Also, your square bracket nit pick on his use of the word 'ventilator' is unnecessary. Both the American health providers and the NHS refer to the devices as ventilators. Furthermore, for the nearest I can find in the document for your claimed quotes, there are citations, despite your[citation needed]. Don't get me wrong, there are errors that the technical editor should have picked up, they do not however detract from the actual points made and your (rather clumsy) attempt to mislead just marks you as someone not to take seriously in future. May I ask what your qualifications/experience/expertise in this field is? Thanks. Winston Since you are focusing on that rather than the 'creative interpretation ' of the poster I was responding to... I have certification in field testing from the MoD and WHO up to silver command level, I have lab certification in sequencing and blotting. I have MoD, WHO and UKHSA certification in NBC containment and cleanup to instructor level (of which biohazard and viral outbreaks are a huge part). I also carry certification in medical storage and transport and am a current (although I need to recertify within the next two months) as a vaccine adverse reaction responder. Why, what are your relevant qualifications/experience in the field? I'm not the one positioning themselves as an expert and calling into question other people's experiences/qualifications in the field, as you did. Thought it worthwhile levelling the playing field. Seems a tad one sided and bullish to question someone's expertise while not clarifying your own.
It all adds to credibility, yes?
Winston
Yet you are questioning and rubbishing opinions without giving your credentials.
Plus, the person I asked regarding their qualifications refused to answer.. make of that what you will."Maybe some folks would rather not discuss their qualifications / job title on a sex site. It probably wouldn't be much of a stretch for some half wit to try to trace them or some form of name and shame. I wouldn't disclose my job title and qualifications on FAB or any social media site. Each to their own I suppose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wouldn't disclose my job title and qualifications on FAB or any social media site" Sense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Very simply there are millions of deaths due to covid world wide…there would have been alot more world wide without a vaccine. A lot of misinformation from all parties, when dealing with a huge crisis very difficult to make 100 % decisions, when time is a factor and doing nothing isnt a option. Yes and no. There are millions of deaths attributed to covid, whether or not covid was the primary cause or significant contributing factor is a matter of debate since, the inclusion of those who died while under a presumptive positive (I.e. WITH covid rather than FROM covid) such as the guy who died falling from a ladder three weeks after a positive test, or my own brother who died after the NHS refused to treat him properly after a car accident, never tested positive, had clear blood work and still was counted as a covid death. I disagree that the jabs have reduced the death rate. The theory behind it is sound IF a whole (inert) virus was used and not just the spike protein. The focus on one part of the virus is the reason that antibodies created from the jab have trouble or outright fail to recognise variants (despite sharing between 96 and 98% of the RNA, depending on variant) while antibodies from SARS-cov1 still recognise and provide protection against SARS-cov2 (which shares approx 88% of the RNA). Yes, there is a lot of misinformation, on both sides of the issue. Which is why when looking at opinions you need to read what is being said properly, check all sources, check conclusions against other work in the field and check the funding source." Two issue 1. The spike protein is enough of an antigen to stimulate an antibody response. Their effectiveness is decreasing over time and , yes, intranasal or core vaccines will be needed soon to keep up with new variants. But bottom line - these Spike vaccines have saved lives. 2. Heaven forbid- thank God only about 3-4000 people got SARS1- it’s an absolute beast of a pathogen- if it was as transmissible as SARS 2/ Covid we could have been looking at devastating levels of loss of life. SARS1 is a pathogen that has a very high mortality - there are not that many people alive with antibodies to SARS 1 and those that do have severe morbidities | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. Ok, thank you for the reply.. are you reading the same document I am? you said "27 studies and no reference" the paper quotes 30 studies and gives citations. you said "[4] is buy his book". 4 on the list of citations is 4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008;19 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]... which is not even the same topic you claim. Your breakdown of the passage along with your comments in square brackets. There is no such passage in the document.. indeed a document search for the term 'cytokine storm' [which you quote] is not present in the entire paper, neither is 'sputum' nor is 'ironically', there is one use of the word ironic, which is not used in the context you attribute it. Are you creatively presenting the document to underline your position while ignoring facts? Also, your square bracket nit pick on his use of the word 'ventilator' is unnecessary. Both the American health providers and the NHS refer to the devices as ventilators. Furthermore, for the nearest I can find in the document for your claimed quotes, there are citations, despite your[citation needed]. Don't get me wrong, there are errors that the technical editor should have picked up, they do not however detract from the actual points made and your (rather clumsy) attempt to mislead just marks you as someone not to take seriously in future. May I ask what your qualifications/experience/expertise in this field is? Thanks. Winston Since you are focusing on that rather than the 'creative interpretation ' of the poster I was responding to... I have certification in field testing from the MoD and WHO up to silver command level, I have lab certification in sequencing and blotting. I have MoD, WHO and UKHSA certification in NBC containment and cleanup to instructor level (of which biohazard and viral outbreaks are a huge part). I also carry certification in medical storage and transport and am a current (although I need to recertify within the next two months) as a vaccine adverse reaction responder. Why, what are your relevant qualifications/experience in the field? I'm not the one positioning themselves as an expert and calling into question other people's experiences/qualifications in the field, as you did. Thought it worthwhile levelling the playing field. Seems a tad one sided and bullish to question someone's expertise while not clarifying your own.
It all adds to credibility, yes?
Winston
Yet you are questioning and rubbishing opinions without giving your credentials.
Plus, the person I asked regarding their qualifications refused to answer.. make of that what you will.
Maybe some folks would rather not discuss their qualifications / job title on a sex site.
It probably wouldn't be much of a stretch for some half wit to try to trace them or some form of name and shame.
I wouldn't disclose my job title and qualifications on FAB or any social media site.
Each to their own I suppose. "So why ask others to do something they are not prepared to do themselves... very much double standards there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Very simply there are millions of deaths due to covid world wide…there would have been alot more world wide without a vaccine. A lot of misinformation from all parties, when dealing with a huge crisis very difficult to make 100 % decisions, when time is a factor and doing nothing isnt a option. Yes and no. There are millions of deaths attributed to covid, whether or not covid was the primary cause or significant contributing factor is a matter of debate since, the inclusion of those who died while under a presumptive positive (I.e. WITH covid rather than FROM covid) such as the guy who died falling from a ladder three weeks after a positive test, or my own brother who died after the NHS refused to treat him properly after a car accident, never tested positive, had clear blood work and still was counted as a covid death. I disagree that the jabs have reduced the death rate. The theory behind it is sound IF a whole (inert) virus was used and not just the spike protein. The focus on one part of the virus is the reason that antibodies created from the jab have trouble or outright fail to recognise variants (despite sharing between 96 and 98% of the RNA, depending on variant) while antibodies from SARS-cov1 still recognise and provide protection against SARS-cov2 (which shares approx 88% of the RNA). Yes, there is a lot of misinformation, on both sides of the issue. Which is why when looking at opinions you need to read what is being said properly, check all sources, check conclusions against other work in the field and check the funding source. Two issue 1. The spike protein is enough of an antigen to stimulate an antibody response. Their effectiveness is decreasing over time and , yes, intranasal or core vaccines will be needed soon to keep up with new variants. But bottom line - these Spike vaccines have saved lives. 2. Heaven forbid- thank God only about 3-4000 people got SARS1- it’s an absolute beast of a pathogen- if it was as transmissible as SARS 2/ Covid we could have been looking at devastating levels of loss of life. SARS1 is a pathogen that has a very high mortality - there are not that many people alive with antibodies to SARS 1 and those that do have severe morbidities " 1. No, it's not. Identifying a virus by a single feature is akin to identifying a car from a piece of broken indicator light. It can be done but you need far more of it to make the identification, plus, your recognition becomes irrelevant much more quickly. 2. Your figures are wrong. 8,098 people are 'confirmed' as having had SARS-cov1. Plus the participants of the trial (there was an abortive attempt to use animal coronavirus vaccines in humans which failed to get regulatory approval) show enhanced resistance to SARS-cov2, despite (as said before) the two viruses sharing no more than 88% (depending on variant) of their RNA, although they do have a very high sequence similarity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. Ok, thank you for the reply.. are you reading the same document I am? you said "27 studies and no reference" the paper quotes 30 studies and gives citations. you said "[4] is buy his book". 4 on the list of citations is 4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008;19 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]... which is not even the same topic you claim. Your breakdown of the passage along with your comments in square brackets. There is no such passage in the document.. indeed a document search for the term 'cytokine storm' [which you quote] is not present in the entire paper, neither is 'sputum' nor is 'ironically', there is one use of the word ironic, which is not used in the context you attribute it. Are you creatively presenting the document to underline your position while ignoring facts? Also, your square bracket nit pick on his use of the word 'ventilator' is unnecessary. Both the American health providers and the NHS refer to the devices as ventilators. Furthermore, for the nearest I can find in the document for your claimed quotes, there are citations, despite your[citation needed]. Don't get me wrong, there are errors that the technical editor should have picked up, they do not however detract from the actual points made and your (rather clumsy) attempt to mislead just marks you as someone not to take seriously in future. May I ask what your qualifications/experience/expertise in this field is? Thanks. Winston Since you are focusing on that rather than the 'creative interpretation ' of the poster I was responding to... I have certification in field testing from the MoD and WHO up to silver command level, I have lab certification in sequencing and blotting. I have MoD, WHO and UKHSA certification in NBC containment and cleanup to instructor level (of which biohazard and viral outbreaks are a huge part). I also carry certification in medical storage and transport and am a current (although I need to recertify within the next two months) as a vaccine adverse reaction responder. Why, what are your relevant qualifications/experience in the field? I'm not the one positioning themselves as an expert and calling into question other people's experiences/qualifications in the field, as you did. Thought it worthwhile levelling the playing field. Seems a tad one sided and bullish to question someone's expertise while not clarifying your own.
It all adds to credibility, yes?
Winston
Yet you are questioning and rubbishing opinions without giving your credentials.
Plus, the person I asked regarding their qualifications refused to answer.. make of that what you will."If someone refers to "the vaccine" (singular) what credentials do i need to say there's more than one? If someone suggests 5 vaccines is a joke, what credentials do i need to point out there's more than one iteration of the virus? If someone demands 10 years records of the vaccines, what credentials do I need to say that's impossible? If someone suggests Malone invented mRNA vaccines what credentials do I need to say that's incorrect? If someone says xyz data is on such and such a website, what credentials do I need to look at that website and say "no it doesnt" Shrugs... Winston | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. Ok, thank you for the reply.. are you reading the same document I am? you said "27 studies and no reference" the paper quotes 30 studies and gives citations. you said "[4] is buy his book". 4 on the list of citations is 4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008;19 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]... which is not even the same topic you claim. Your breakdown of the passage along with your comments in square brackets. There is no such passage in the document.. indeed a document search for the term 'cytokine storm' [which you quote] is not present in the entire paper, neither is 'sputum' nor is 'ironically', there is one use of the word ironic, which is not used in the context you attribute it. Are you creatively presenting the document to underline your position while ignoring facts? Also, your square bracket nit pick on his use of the word 'ventilator' is unnecessary. Both the American health providers and the NHS refer to the devices as ventilators. Furthermore, for the nearest I can find in the document for your claimed quotes, there are citations, despite your[citation needed]. Don't get me wrong, there are errors that the technical editor should have picked up, they do not however detract from the actual points made and your (rather clumsy) attempt to mislead just marks you as someone not to take seriously in future. May I ask what your qualifications/experience/expertise in this field is? Thanks. Winston Since you are focusing on that rather than the 'creative interpretation ' of the poster I was responding to... I have certification in field testing from the MoD and WHO up to silver command level, I have lab certification in sequencing and blotting. I have MoD, WHO and UKHSA certification in NBC containment and cleanup to instructor level (of which biohazard and viral outbreaks are a huge part). I also carry certification in medical storage and transport and am a current (although I need to recertify within the next two months) as a vaccine adverse reaction responder. Why, what are your relevant qualifications/experience in the field? I'm not the one positioning themselves as an expert and calling into question other people's experiences/qualifications in the field, as you did. Thought it worthwhile levelling the playing field. Seems a tad one sided and bullish to question someone's expertise while not clarifying your own.
It all adds to credibility, yes?
Winston
Yet you are questioning and rubbishing opinions without giving your credentials.
Plus, the person I asked regarding their qualifications refused to answer.. make of that what you will.
If someone refers to "the vaccine" (singular) what credentials do i need to say there's more than one?
If someone suggests 5 vaccines is a joke, what credentials do i need to point out there's more than one iteration of the virus?
If someone demands 10 years records of the vaccines, what credentials do I need to say that's impossible?
If someone suggests Malone invented mRNA vaccines what credentials do I need to say that's incorrect?
If someone says xyz data is on such and such a website, what credentials do I need to look at that website and say "no it doesnt"
Shrugs...
Winston
"And if someone points out 'the vaccine' or 'the jab' is a catch all. Or if someone points out that there is between 2% and 4% (depending on variant) difference in the RNA of the variants, and that a sars vaccine (animal approved NOT human) can detect a SARS-cov2 infection with a far greater RNA spread. What about people disregarding a 60 year safety record in human use medicine for a cheap and effective treatment that already existed? And then deriding qualified medical professionals? Malone was part of the team that invented and developed it. 'He invented' is a contraction and used to emphasis that he would, by default know more about the technology than nearly anyone else who wasn't also on the team. That means that you, or me if we disagreed with him without firm evidence would more than likely be totally wrong. Data verification is something everyone should do as a matter of course. It doesn't mean that a single search of a single website contains the correct answer either... hell, look at the ONS data, it is constantly being revised as even they don't get the count right, or sources that contribute mess it up. I do see the point you are making though, it is ok for someone unqualified to argue with knowledge on the subject as long as Winston disagrees with the qualified one.. double standards from you again considering your posts above. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. Ok, thank you for the reply.. are you reading the same document I am? you said "27 studies and no reference" the paper quotes 30 studies and gives citations. you said "[4] is buy his book". 4 on the list of citations is 4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008;19 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]... which is not even the same topic you claim. Your breakdown of the passage along with your comments in square brackets. There is no such passage in the document.. indeed a document search for the term 'cytokine storm' [which you quote] is not present in the entire paper, neither is 'sputum' nor is 'ironically', there is one use of the word ironic, which is not used in the context you attribute it. Are you creatively presenting the document to underline your position while ignoring facts? Also, your square bracket nit pick on his use of the word 'ventilator' is unnecessary. Both the American health providers and the NHS refer to the devices as ventilators. Furthermore, for the nearest I can find in the document for your claimed quotes, there are citations, despite your[citation needed]. Don't get me wrong, there are errors that the technical editor should have picked up, they do not however detract from the actual points made and your (rather clumsy) attempt to mislead just marks you as someone not to take seriously in future. May I ask what your qualifications/experience/expertise in this field is? Thanks. Winston Since you are focusing on that rather than the 'creative interpretation ' of the poster I was responding to... I have certification in field testing from the MoD and WHO up to silver command level, I have lab certification in sequencing and blotting. I have MoD, WHO and UKHSA certification in NBC containment and cleanup to instructor level (of which biohazard and viral outbreaks are a huge part). I also carry certification in medical storage and transport and am a current (although I need to recertify within the next two months) as a vaccine adverse reaction responder. Why, what are your relevant qualifications/experience in the field? I'm not the one positioning themselves as an expert and calling into question other people's experiences/qualifications in the field, as you did. Thought it worthwhile levelling the playing field. Seems a tad one sided and bullish to question someone's expertise while not clarifying your own.
It all adds to credibility, yes?
Winston
Yet you are questioning and rubbishing opinions without giving your credentials.
Plus, the person I asked regarding their qualifications refused to answer.. make of that what you will.
Maybe some folks would rather not discuss their qualifications / job title on a sex site.
It probably wouldn't be much of a stretch for some half wit to try to trace them or some form of name and shame.
I wouldn't disclose my job title and qualifications on FAB or any social media site.
Each to their own I suppose.
So why ask others to do something they are not prepared to do themselves... very much double standards there."Is this response for me? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. Ok, thank you for the reply.. are you reading the same document I am? you said "27 studies and no reference" the paper quotes 30 studies and gives citations. you said "[4] is buy his book". 4 on the list of citations is 4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008;19 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]... which is not even the same topic you claim. Your breakdown of the passage along with your comments in square brackets. There is no such passage in the document.. indeed a document search for the term 'cytokine storm' [which you quote] is not present in the entire paper, neither is 'sputum' nor is 'ironically', there is one use of the word ironic, which is not used in the context you attribute it. Are you creatively presenting the document to underline your position while ignoring facts? Also, your square bracket nit pick on his use of the word 'ventilator' is unnecessary. Both the American health providers and the NHS refer to the devices as ventilators. Furthermore, for the nearest I can find in the document for your claimed quotes, there are citations, despite your[citation needed]. Don't get me wrong, there are errors that the technical editor should have picked up, they do not however detract from the actual points made and your (rather clumsy) attempt to mislead just marks you as someone not to take seriously in future. May I ask what your qualifications/experience/expertise in this field is? Thanks. Winston Since you are focusing on that rather than the 'creative interpretation ' of the poster I was responding to... I have certification in field testing from the MoD and WHO up to silver command level, I have lab certification in sequencing and blotting. I have MoD, WHO and UKHSA certification in NBC containment and cleanup to instructor level (of which biohazard and viral outbreaks are a huge part). I also carry certification in medical storage and transport and am a current (although I need to recertify within the next two months) as a vaccine adverse reaction responder. Why, what are your relevant qualifications/experience in the field? I'm not the one positioning themselves as an expert and calling into question other people's experiences/qualifications in the field, as you did. Thought it worthwhile levelling the playing field. Seems a tad one sided and bullish to question someone's expertise while not clarifying your own.
It all adds to credibility, yes?
Winston
Yet you are questioning and rubbishing opinions without giving your credentials.
Plus, the person I asked regarding their qualifications refused to answer.. make of that what you will.
If someone refers to "the vaccine" (singular) what credentials do i need to say there's more than one?
If someone suggests 5 vaccines is a joke, what credentials do i need to point out there's more than one iteration of the virus?
If someone demands 10 years records of the vaccines, what credentials do I need to say that's impossible?
If someone suggests Malone invented mRNA vaccines what credentials do I need to say that's incorrect?
If someone says xyz data is on such and such a website, what credentials do I need to look at that website and say "no it doesnt"
Shrugs...
Winston
And if someone points out 'the vaccine' or 'the jab' is a catch all.
Or if someone points out that there is between 2% and 4% (depending on variant) difference in the RNA of the variants, and that a sars vaccine (animal approved NOT human) can detect a SARS-cov2 infection with a far greater RNA spread.
What about people disregarding a 60 year safety record in human use medicine for a cheap and effective treatment that already existed? And then deriding qualified medical professionals?
Malone was part of the team that invented and developed it. 'He invented' is a contraction and used to emphasis that he would, by default know more about the technology than nearly anyone else who wasn't also on the team. That means that you, or me if we disagreed with him without firm evidence would more than likely be totally wrong.
Data verification is something everyone should do as a matter of course. It doesn't mean that a single search of a single website contains the correct answer either... hell, look at the ONS data, it is constantly being revised as even they don't get the count right, or sources that contribute mess it up.
I do see the point you are making though, it is ok for someone unqualified to argue with knowledge on the subject as long as Winston disagrees with the qualified one.. double standards from you again considering your posts above."Malone was part of the team that invented mRNA vaccines? Methinks Katalin Karikó, PhD and Drew Weissman, MD, PhD might have something to say about that. Apart from anything else, During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Are you citing Ivermectin as a credible and cheap treatment for Covid, because that ship has long since sailed. Winston | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It all adds to credibility, yes? Winston Yet you are questioning and rubbishing opinions without giving your credentials. Plus, the person I asked regarding their qualifications refused to answer.. make of that what you will." Credentials and credibility lol It's a swingers site where a lot of men can't even be honest about simple things like marital status or whether they're straight or bi and you seriously expect us to believe someone claiming to be an "expert" on anything? Opinions maybe, facts .. nah Now that's funny... The forums are meant to be fun anyway ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. Ok, thank you for the reply.. are you reading the same document I am? you said "27 studies and no reference" the paper quotes 30 studies and gives citations. you said "[4] is buy his book". 4 on the list of citations is 4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008;19 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]... which is not even the same topic you claim. Your breakdown of the passage along with your comments in square brackets. There is no such passage in the document.. indeed a document search for the term 'cytokine storm' [which you quote] is not present in the entire paper, neither is 'sputum' nor is 'ironically', there is one use of the word ironic, which is not used in the context you attribute it. Are you creatively presenting the document to underline your position while ignoring facts? Also, your square bracket nit pick on his use of the word 'ventilator' is unnecessary. Both the American health providers and the NHS refer to the devices as ventilators. Furthermore, for the nearest I can find in the document for your claimed quotes, there are citations, despite your[citation needed]. Don't get me wrong, there are errors that the technical editor should have picked up, they do not however detract from the actual points made and your (rather clumsy) attempt to mislead just marks you as someone not to take seriously in future. May I ask what your qualifications/experience/expertise in this field is? Thanks. Winston Since you are focusing on that rather than the 'creative interpretation ' of the poster I was responding to... I have certification in field testing from the MoD and WHO up to silver command level, I have lab certification in sequencing and blotting. I have MoD, WHO and UKHSA certification in NBC containment and cleanup to instructor level (of which biohazard and viral outbreaks are a huge part). I also carry certification in medical storage and transport and am a current (although I need to recertify within the next two months) as a vaccine adverse reaction responder. Why, what are your relevant qualifications/experience in the field? I'm not the one positioning themselves as an expert and calling into question other people's experiences/qualifications in the field, as you did. Thought it worthwhile levelling the playing field. Seems a tad one sided and bullish to question someone's expertise while not clarifying your own.
It all adds to credibility, yes?
Winston
Yet you are questioning and rubbishing opinions without giving your credentials.
Plus, the person I asked regarding their qualifications refused to answer.. make of that what you will.
If someone refers to "the vaccine" (singular) what credentials do i need to say there's more than one?
If someone suggests 5 vaccines is a joke, what credentials do i need to point out there's more than one iteration of the virus?
If someone demands 10 years records of the vaccines, what credentials do I need to say that's impossible?
If someone suggests Malone invented mRNA vaccines what credentials do I need to say that's incorrect?
If someone says xyz data is on such and such a website, what credentials do I need to look at that website and say "no it doesnt"
Shrugs...
Winston
And if someone points out 'the vaccine' or 'the jab' is a catch all.
Or if someone points out that there is between 2% and 4% (depending on variant) difference in the RNA of the variants, and that a sars vaccine (animal approved NOT human) can detect a SARS-cov2 infection with a far greater RNA spread.
What about people disregarding a 60 year safety record in human use medicine for a cheap and effective treatment that already existed? And then deriding qualified medical professionals?
Malone was part of the team that invented and developed it. 'He invented' is a contraction and used to emphasis that he would, by default know more about the technology than nearly anyone else who wasn't also on the team. That means that you, or me if we disagreed with him without firm evidence would more than likely be totally wrong.
Data verification is something everyone should do as a matter of course. It doesn't mean that a single search of a single website contains the correct answer either... hell, look at the ONS data, it is constantly being revised as even they don't get the count right, or sources that contribute mess it up.
I do see the point you are making though, it is ok for someone unqualified to argue with knowledge on the subject as long as Winston disagrees with the qualified one.. double standards from you again considering your posts above.
Malone was part of the team that invented mRNA vaccines? Methinks Katalin Karikó, PhD and Drew Weissman, MD, PhD might have something to say about that.
Apart from anything else, During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
Are you citing Ivermectin as a credible and cheap treatment for Covid, because that ship has long since sailed.
Winston
"Interesting how you emphasise the qualifications of the others.. but not the one you are told to dislike. Also interesting how you call his claims 'misinformation', particularly as big pharma themselves have acknowledged them, particularly the effectiveness. Yes I am, you must know it has a long and safe record of use in humans as you knew what i was talking about. As for that ship has sailed, why then does India (for example) use it routinely in their ziverado prevention and treatment kits.. or has it sailed because you've been told what to think and didn't check, double check and check again efficacy studies. Or are you taking all your information on it from the highly unethical smear pieces that big pharma used to attempt to discredit? The ones where terminally ill patients were given huge overdoses, the resulting murders then used to justify why it was being cast aside. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Very simply there are millions of deaths due to covid world wide…there would have been alot more world wide without a vaccine. A lot of misinformation from all parties, when dealing with a huge crisis very difficult to make 100 % decisions, when time is a factor and doing nothing isnt a option. Yes and no. There are millions of deaths attributed to covid, whether or not covid was the primary cause or significant contributing factor is a matter of debate since, the inclusion of those who died while under a presumptive positive (I.e. WITH covid rather than FROM covid) such as the guy who died falling from a ladder three weeks after a positive test, or my own brother who died after the NHS refused to treat him properly after a car accident, never tested positive, had clear blood work and still was counted as a covid death. I disagree that the jabs have reduced the death rate. The theory behind it is sound IF a whole (inert) virus was used and not just the spike protein. The focus on one part of the virus is the reason that antibodies created from the jab have trouble or outright fail to recognise variants (despite sharing between 96 and 98% of the RNA, depending on variant) while antibodies from SARS-cov1 still recognise and provide protection against SARS-cov2 (which shares approx 88% of the RNA). Yes, there is a lot of misinformation, on both sides of the issue. Which is why when looking at opinions you need to read what is being said properly, check all sources, check conclusions against other work in the field and check the funding source. Two issue 1. The spike protein is enough of an antigen to stimulate an antibody response. Their effectiveness is decreasing over time and , yes, intranasal or core vaccines will be needed soon to keep up with new variants. But bottom line - these Spike vaccines have saved lives. 2. Heaven forbid- thank God only about 3-4000 people got SARS1- it’s an absolute beast of a pathogen- if it was as transmissible as SARS 2/ Covid we could have been looking at devastating levels of loss of life. SARS1 is a pathogen that has a very high mortality - there are not that many people alive with antibodies to SARS 1 and those that do have severe morbidities 1. No, it's not. Identifying a virus by a single feature is akin to identifying a car from a piece of broken indicator light. It can be done but you need far more of it to make the identification, plus, your recognition becomes irrelevant much more quickly. 2. Your figures are wrong. 8,098 people are 'confirmed' as having had SARS-cov1. Plus the participants of the trial (there was an abortive attempt to use animal coronavirus vaccines in humans which failed to get regulatory approval) show enhanced resistance to SARS-cov2, despite (as said before) the two viruses sharing no more than 88% (depending on variant) of their RNA, although they do have a very high sequence similarity. " 1. Using an indicator light to explain immunology is not how science should be explain. You don’t need a big antigen to trigger an immune response and this immune response has been effective in saving lives. 2. Granted there were more SARS1 cases but you were giving the impression SARS1 antibodies are widespread. The more likely candidates for a good vaccine are 1. One that elicits a good mucosal response- SARS 1 poss not a good candidate as it effects lower lungs 2. A pan coronavirus vaccine( US military already well underway) to cover all future sabre coronavirus’s viruses RNA vaccines will become redundant in time but they are all we have at the moment and are saving lives | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. Ok, thank you for the reply.. are you reading the same document I am? you said "27 studies and no reference" the paper quotes 30 studies and gives citations. you said "[4] is buy his book". 4 on the list of citations is 4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008;19 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]... which is not even the same topic you claim. Your breakdown of the passage along with your comments in square brackets. There is no such passage in the document.. indeed a document search for the term 'cytokine storm' [which you quote] is not present in the entire paper, neither is 'sputum' nor is 'ironically', there is one use of the word ironic, which is not used in the context you attribute it. Are you creatively presenting the document to underline your position while ignoring facts? Also, your square bracket nit pick on his use of the word 'ventilator' is unnecessary. Both the American health providers and the NHS refer to the devices as ventilators. Furthermore, for the nearest I can find in the document for your claimed quotes, there are citations, despite your[citation needed]. Don't get me wrong, there are errors that the technical editor should have picked up, they do not however detract from the actual points made and your (rather clumsy) attempt to mislead just marks you as someone not to take seriously in future. May I ask what your qualifications/experience/expertise in this field is? Thanks. Winston Since you are focusing on that rather than the 'creative interpretation ' of the poster I was responding to... I have certification in field testing from the MoD and WHO up to silver command level, I have lab certification in sequencing and blotting. I have MoD, WHO and UKHSA certification in NBC containment and cleanup to instructor level (of which biohazard and viral outbreaks are a huge part). I also carry certification in medical storage and transport and am a current (although I need to recertify within the next two months) as a vaccine adverse reaction responder. Why, what are your relevant qualifications/experience in the field? I'm not the one positioning themselves as an expert and calling into question other people's experiences/qualifications in the field, as you did. Thought it worthwhile levelling the playing field. Seems a tad one sided and bullish to question someone's expertise while not clarifying your own.
It all adds to credibility, yes?
Winston
Yet you are questioning and rubbishing opinions without giving your credentials.
Plus, the person I asked regarding their qualifications refused to answer.. make of that what you will.
If someone refers to "the vaccine" (singular) what credentials do i need to say there's more than one?
If someone suggests 5 vaccines is a joke, what credentials do i need to point out there's more than one iteration of the virus?
If someone demands 10 years records of the vaccines, what credentials do I need to say that's impossible?
If someone suggests Malone invented mRNA vaccines what credentials do I need to say that's incorrect?
If someone says xyz data is on such and such a website, what credentials do I need to look at that website and say "no it doesnt"
Shrugs...
Winston
And if someone points out 'the vaccine' or 'the jab' is a catch all.
Or if someone points out that there is between 2% and 4% (depending on variant) difference in the RNA of the variants, and that a sars vaccine (animal approved NOT human) can detect a SARS-cov2 infection with a far greater RNA spread.
What about people disregarding a 60 year safety record in human use medicine for a cheap and effective treatment that already existed? And then deriding qualified medical professionals?
Malone was part of the team that invented and developed it. 'He invented' is a contraction and used to emphasis that he would, by default know more about the technology than nearly anyone else who wasn't also on the team. That means that you, or me if we disagreed with him without firm evidence would more than likely be totally wrong.
Data verification is something everyone should do as a matter of course. It doesn't mean that a single search of a single website contains the correct answer either... hell, look at the ONS data, it is constantly being revised as even they don't get the count right, or sources that contribute mess it up.
I do see the point you are making though, it is ok for someone unqualified to argue with knowledge on the subject as long as Winston disagrees with the qualified one.. double standards from you again considering your posts above.
Malone was part of the team that invented mRNA vaccines? Methinks Katalin Karikó, PhD and Drew Weissman, MD, PhD might have something to say about that.
Apart from anything else, During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
Are you citing Ivermectin as a credible and cheap treatment for Covid, because that ship has long since sailed.
Winston
Interesting how you emphasise the qualifications of the others.. but not the one you are told to dislike.
Also interesting how you call his claims 'misinformation', particularly as big pharma themselves have acknowledged them, particularly the effectiveness.
Yes I am, you must know it has a long and safe record of use in humans as you knew what i was talking about. As for that ship has sailed, why then does India (for example) use it routinely in their ziverado prevention and treatment kits.. or has it sailed because you've been told what to think and didn't check, double check and check again efficacy studies.
Or are you taking all your information on it from the highly unethical smear pieces that big pharma used to attempt to discredit? The ones where terminally ill patients were given huge overdoses, the resulting murders then used to justify why it was being cast aside."No one told me to dislike Malone. Bit of projection there.
I intensely dislike liars, particularly those who attempt to take credit for the work of others.
And those who blatantly "exagerate" their academic qualifications, especially those who do it for financial gain.
Winston
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. Ok, thank you for the reply.. are you reading the same document I am? you said "27 studies and no reference" the paper quotes 30 studies and gives citations. you said "[4] is buy his book". 4 on the list of citations is 4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008;19 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]... which is not even the same topic you claim. Your breakdown of the passage along with your comments in square brackets. There is no such passage in the document.. indeed a document search for the term 'cytokine storm' [which you quote] is not present in the entire paper, neither is 'sputum' nor is 'ironically', there is one use of the word ironic, which is not used in the context you attribute it. Are you creatively presenting the document to underline your position while ignoring facts? Also, your square bracket nit pick on his use of the word 'ventilator' is unnecessary. Both the American health providers and the NHS refer to the devices as ventilators. Furthermore, for the nearest I can find in the document for your claimed quotes, there are citations, despite your[citation needed]. Don't get me wrong, there are errors that the technical editor should have picked up, they do not however detract from the actual points made and your (rather clumsy) attempt to mislead just marks you as someone not to take seriously in future. May I ask what your qualifications/experience/expertise in this field is? Thanks. Winston Since you are focusing on that rather than the 'creative interpretation ' of the poster I was responding to... I have certification in field testing from the MoD and WHO up to silver command level, I have lab certification in sequencing and blotting. I have MoD, WHO and UKHSA certification in NBC containment and cleanup to instructor level (of which biohazard and viral outbreaks are a huge part). I also carry certification in medical storage and transport and am a current (although I need to recertify within the next two months) as a vaccine adverse reaction responder. Why, what are your relevant qualifications/experience in the field? I'm not the one positioning themselves as an expert and calling into question other people's experiences/qualifications in the field, as you did. Thought it worthwhile levelling the playing field. Seems a tad one sided and bullish to question someone's expertise while not clarifying your own.
It all adds to credibility, yes?
Winston
Yet you are questioning and rubbishing opinions without giving your credentials.
Plus, the person I asked regarding their qualifications refused to answer.. make of that what you will.
If someone refers to "the vaccine" (singular) what credentials do i need to say there's more than one?
If someone suggests 5 vaccines is a joke, what credentials do i need to point out there's more than one iteration of the virus?
If someone demands 10 years records of the vaccines, what credentials do I need to say that's impossible?
If someone suggests Malone invented mRNA vaccines what credentials do I need to say that's incorrect?
If someone says xyz data is on such and such a website, what credentials do I need to look at that website and say "no it doesnt"
Shrugs...
Winston
And if someone points out 'the vaccine' or 'the jab' is a catch all.
Or if someone points out that there is between 2% and 4% (depending on variant) difference in the RNA of the variants, and that a sars vaccine (animal approved NOT human) can detect a SARS-cov2 infection with a far greater RNA spread.
What about people disregarding a 60 year safety record in human use medicine for a cheap and effective treatment that already existed? And then deriding qualified medical professionals?
Malone was part of the team that invented and developed it. 'He invented' is a contraction and used to emphasis that he would, by default know more about the technology than nearly anyone else who wasn't also on the team. That means that you, or me if we disagreed with him without firm evidence would more than likely be totally wrong.
Data verification is something everyone should do as a matter of course. It doesn't mean that a single search of a single website contains the correct answer either... hell, look at the ONS data, it is constantly being revised as even they don't get the count right, or sources that contribute mess it up.
I do see the point you are making though, it is ok for someone unqualified to argue with knowledge on the subject as long as Winston disagrees with the qualified one.. double standards from you again considering your posts above.
Malone was part of the team that invented mRNA vaccines? Methinks Katalin Karikó, PhD and Drew Weissman, MD, PhD might have something to say about that.
Apart from anything else, During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
Are you citing Ivermectin as a credible and cheap treatment for Covid, because that ship has long since sailed.
Winston
Interesting how you emphasise the qualifications of the others.. but not the one you are told to dislike.
Also interesting how you call his claims 'misinformation', particularly as big pharma themselves have acknowledged them, particularly the effectiveness.
Yes I am, you must know it has a long and safe record of use in humans as you knew what i was talking about. As for that ship has sailed, why then does India (for example) use it routinely in their ziverado prevention and treatment kits.. or has it sailed because you've been told what to think and didn't check, double check and check again efficacy studies.
Or are you taking all your information on it from the highly unethical smear pieces that big pharma used to attempt to discredit? The ones where terminally ill patients were given huge overdoses, the resulting murders then used to justify why it was being cast aside.
No one told me to dislike Malone. Bit of projection there.
I intensely dislike liars, particularly those who attempt to take credit for the work of others.
And those who blatantly "exagerate" their academic qualifications, especially those who do it for financial gain.
Winston
"That describes Pfizer brilliantly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I intensely dislike liars, particularly those who attempt to take credit for the work of others. And those who blatantly "exagerate" their academic qualifications, especially those who do it for financial gain. Winston " Spot on sir | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ok, I'll bite: "In fact, in 27 studies conducted all over the world, Ivermectin drastically cut the death rate from COVID-19, even in the most severe and advanced cases.[4]" What's reference 4? 4. Ausman JI, Blaylock RL. The China Virus. What is the Truth? Available from: https://www.amazon.com. Twenty seven studies (no reference) + buy his book. Beautiful. "Studies [which studies?] of patients at this cytokine storm stage have shown that their breath [?sputum. Clumsy wording] contains no live [lol] viruses [citation needed]. Thus, wearing a mask is useless [citation needed], and it impairs the patient’s ability to get sufficient oxygen [citation needed]. Ironically [wow], putting these patients on a ventilator (respirator) dramatically increases the death rate [citation needed]. It’s thought that by using positive [CPAP?] pressure to force the lung to work, the ventilator further damages the already severely damaged lungs [citation needed]." Whew. Genuinely, all you've got is "prove me wrong" + argument from authority. Embarrassing. Ok, thank you for the reply.. are you reading the same document I am? you said "27 studies and no reference" the paper quotes 30 studies and gives citations. you said "[4] is buy his book". 4 on the list of citations is 4. Beder A, Buyukkocak U, Sabuncuoglu H, Keskil ZA, Keskil S. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008;19 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]... which is not even the same topic you claim. Your breakdown of the passage along with your comments in square brackets. There is no such passage in the document.. indeed a document search for the term 'cytokine storm' [which you quote] is not present in the entire paper, neither is 'sputum' nor is 'ironically', there is one use of the word ironic, which is not used in the context you attribute it. Are you creatively presenting the document to underline your position while ignoring facts? Also, your square bracket nit pick on his use of the word 'ventilator' is unnecessary. Both the American health providers and the NHS refer to the devices as ventilators. Furthermore, for the nearest I can find in the document for your claimed quotes, there are citations, despite your[citation needed]. Don't get me wrong, there are errors that the technical editor should have picked up, they do not however detract from the actual points made and your (rather clumsy) attempt to mislead just marks you as someone not to take seriously in future. May I ask what your qualifications/experience/expertise in this field is? Thanks. Winston Since you are focusing on that rather than the 'creative interpretation ' of the poster I was responding to... I have certification in field testing from the MoD and WHO up to silver command level, I have lab certification in sequencing and blotting. I have MoD, WHO and UKHSA certification in NBC containment and cleanup to instructor level (of which biohazard and viral outbreaks are a huge part). I also carry certification in medical storage and transport and am a current (although I need to recertify within the next two months) as a vaccine adverse reaction responder. Why, what are your relevant qualifications/experience in the field? I'm not the one positioning themselves as an expert and calling into question other people's experiences/qualifications in the field, as you did. Thought it worthwhile levelling the playing field. Seems a tad one sided and bullish to question someone's expertise while not clarifying your own.
It all adds to credibility, yes?
Winston
Yet you are questioning and rubbishing opinions without giving your credentials.
Plus, the person I asked regarding their qualifications refused to answer.. make of that what you will.
If someone refers to "the vaccine" (singular) what credentials do i need to say there's more than one?
If someone suggests 5 vaccines is a joke, what credentials do i need to point out there's more than one iteration of the virus?
If someone demands 10 years records of the vaccines, what credentials do I need to say that's impossible?
If someone suggests Malone invented mRNA vaccines what credentials do I need to say that's incorrect?
If someone says xyz data is on such and such a website, what credentials do I need to look at that website and say "no it doesnt"
Shrugs...
Winston
And if someone points out 'the vaccine' or 'the jab' is a catch all.
Or if someone points out that there is between 2% and 4% (depending on variant) difference in the RNA of the variants, and that a sars vaccine (animal approved NOT human) can detect a SARS-cov2 infection with a far greater RNA spread.
What about people disregarding a 60 year safety record in human use medicine for a cheap and effective treatment that already existed? And then deriding qualified medical professionals?
Malone was part of the team that invented and developed it. 'He invented' is a contraction and used to emphasis that he would, by default know more about the technology than nearly anyone else who wasn't also on the team. That means that you, or me if we disagreed with him without firm evidence would more than likely be totally wrong.
Data verification is something everyone should do as a matter of course. It doesn't mean that a single search of a single website contains the correct answer either... hell, look at the ONS data, it is constantly being revised as even they don't get the count right, or sources that contribute mess it up.
I do see the point you are making though, it is ok for someone unqualified to argue with knowledge on the subject as long as Winston disagrees with the qualified one.. double standards from you again considering your posts above.
Malone was part of the team that invented mRNA vaccines? Methinks Katalin Karikó, PhD and Drew Weissman, MD, PhD might have something to say about that.
Apart from anything else, During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
Are you citing Ivermectin as a credible and cheap treatment for Covid, because that ship has long since sailed.
Winston
Interesting how you emphasise the qualifications of the others.. but not the one you are told to dislike.
Also interesting how you call his claims 'misinformation', particularly as big pharma themselves have acknowledged them, particularly the effectiveness.
Yes I am, you must know it has a long and safe record of use in humans as you knew what i was talking about. As for that ship has sailed, why then does India (for example) use it routinely in their ziverado prevention and treatment kits.. or has it sailed because you've been told what to think and didn't check, double check and check again efficacy studies.
Or are you taking all your information on it from the highly unethical smear pieces that big pharma used to attempt to discredit? The ones where terminally ill patients were given huge overdoses, the resulting murders then used to justify why it was being cast aside.
No one told me to dislike Malone. Bit of projection there.
I intensely dislike liars, particularly those who attempt to take credit for the work of others.
And those who blatantly "exagerate" their academic qualifications, especially those who do it for financial gain.
Winston
That describes Pfizer brilliantly "Im not convinced Pfizer exagerate their academic qualifications. Winston | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"Point taken,however,shouldn't the populous have been told about this at the very beginning in order to make an 'informed' choice on whether to have the vaccines or not? I have know people who have had Covid multiple times despite having had all their jabs.. Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread? Yes,the vulnerable should get the vaccines, healthy people have an immune system.." nobody ever said it stop you getting it. just that it would reduce the severity of the symptoms if you did get it! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Point taken,however,shouldn't the populous have been told about this at the very beginning in order to make an 'informed' choice on whether to have the vaccines or not? I have know people who have had Covid multiple times despite having had all their jabs.. Remember them telling people Getting the Jabs will stop the spread? Yes,the vulnerable should get the vaccines, healthy people have an immune system.. nobody ever said it stop you getting it. just that it would reduce the severity of the symptoms if you did get it! " False. Happened a lot actually. Then the back tracking started. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
