The COVID19 SCAMdemic... WW3 Is 2 Days Away - Another Distraction From This Administration's Epic Fails

[Subliminal]

Really, the ad hominem? You're calling me dumb while arguing that MedRxIV articles are credible and it's really ME who is the dumb person for pointing out a wikipedia summary of MedRxIV articles which YOU have yet to provide one single iota of evidence that ANYTHING in that Wikipedia article is wrong. Yes, I'm the dumbass, riggghhttt....

again, i wasn't arguing anything.

the fact i've had to explain this twice now further supports the evidence that you are a dumbass

 

[Escape Hatch]

who do you think the mandate effects the most?
poor black & latino communities have some of the lowest vaccination rates

good luck telling the poor black community they have no reason not to 100% trust the government forcing something onto them

And then telling them they are too ignorant to get an ID so they cannot have voter ID laws because they supress their vote.

 

[Unreal1]

There are two different arguments there. I believe viral load is a factor in many serious infections. I used Dr Li from Wuhan as an example - a young doctor in seemingly good health that ended up dying from COVID variant A. Setting that aside, you're also arguing about the vaccine being dangerous due to the creation of spike proteins. See below. I've highlighted the important parts. You're quoting junk science from non-peer reviewed sources. I'm not even saying that to be critical of you for quoting it, but I am saying that people are being deliberately mislead by people (some with medical backgrounds) that should know better. If the spike proteins created by the vaccine that is now in hundreds of millions of people around the world is truly dangerous... then why is there not a single peer reviewed article with scientific evidence of this danger? Why are UNVACCINATED people dying of the COVID spike proteins in their lungs, yet there is no evidence of anyone dying from the COVID vaccine... which you contend creates dangerous levels of spike proteins. I did not see it in the article I posted, below, but I did see a doctor on a news program debunk this claim, as well... he stated (as I recall) that the spike created from the vaccine are different than the spikes created by the COVID disease. The spikes created by the vaccine are harmless. They have to be created in order to trigger a proper immune response and to "teach" the person's immune system to battle the spike protein in real/natural COVID. See below.

Already been through this before. The only difference between mRNA spike and wild is that mRNA version does not fuse cells. Other than that, they are identical. Thus, their behavior will be identical as well, minus that missing attribute. You cannot create a spike that's genetically identical and have it operate in an entirely different manner.

The spike is deemed to be safe on the sole basis that it remains localized to the injection site. If it remains localized, it is absolutely safe. If it circulates through the body, it is no different other than not being able to fuse cells. That said, there are already studies showing that the mRNA spike can and has circulated.

 

[Hungry4hops]

who do you think the mandate effects the most? poor black & latino communities have some of the lowest vaccination rates

good luck telling the poor black community they have no reason not to 100% trust the government forcing something onto them

Lol I'm not pro mandate, and I don't trust the government. But I have friends and family in medical and scientific fields and I trust them. So I got the shot and I didn't even cry!

 

[Unreal1]

Listen, I hate Donald Trump - HATE.

That explains a lot.

 

[cb1111]

Okay, allow me to point out a problem with you *only* citing articles from this MedRxIV... I noticed that Zrick was citing them as well. I read a few of their articles and was not impressed. So, I decided to do a quick google on MedRxIV, and here is what I found:



Unpublished eprints... so, in other words, NOT peer reviewed.

Sooo... they are not peer reviewed, BUT, I did actually read the entire first article you cited. The one that allegedly concluded that natural immunity has greater efficacy than mRna vaccine immunity. I can see why these articles do not meet the standards for publication. I'm not trying to be truculent here, just because the article does not agree to my viewpoint. I'm open to reading actual research that may differ from other research I've read... the problem with THAT article though, is it provides almost no supporting evidence... of anything. You did read it as well, correct? Okay, so, see below where I've highlighted. It says "we've conducted a restrospective observational study..." well, that means, that they only OBSERVED things, not actually entered individuals into an actual scientific medical trial/study that controls for variables. Okay, setting that aside for a second... notice that this "observational study" never mentions the size of the population it's studying! Are they looking at ten thousand people from Israel, or just ten people altogether? Also, Israel had a very high level of its population vaccinated... so there are less examples of unvaccinated persons, let alone persons that were infected that also chose not to be vaccinated. I'm in agreement that some of the science *does* appear to show that a 2 dose mRna vaccine *and* natural immunity from an infection may provide greater efficacy than just the vaccine, alone.



Now for the conclusion of that article. I noticed a bit of "switch a roo" in the Conclusion vs the Title of the article. The title of the articles suggest that it's comparing Natural COVID Immunity due to infection vs Immunity via mRna vaccine (2 dose). Part of the problem in the conclusion is, if you pay close attention, that the article considers "natural immunity" to actually be *one shot* of the mRna vaccine PLUS an infection. That is misleading. The authors of this epaper are not comparing natural immunity (by itself) with NO vaccine vs COVID Delta.... they are comparing natural immunity PLUS vaccine. So, again, in the CONCLUSION... it starts out by stating their *observational study* "demonstrates"... that "natural immunity" confers longer lasting and stronger protection. Then, in the second sentence of the CONCLUSION it tells you what they mean by "natural immunity." Notice that by "natural immunity," they used a group of Israelis that were *previously infected with COVID* AND *given a single does of the vaccine.* That is NOT what Zrick is arguing and it does not appear to be what you are arguing, either... you're both stating that natural immunity ALONE is stronger than the vaccine.

Did you realize that when you linked that article?

Of course he did, but by conveniently overlooking facts, they can continue to push their agenda.

 

[Unreal1]

View attachment 225975

That assumes they intentionally released a dangerous vaccine. I'll just speak for myself, but that hasn't been the argument I'm making.

The vaccine was made weeks after the genetic sequence of the virus was made available. No one knew it was the spike protein causing cardiovascular issues until late 2020 - early 2021.

 

[Subliminal]

Lol I'm not pro mandate, and I don't trust the government. But I have friends and family in medical and scientific fields and I trust them. So I got the shot and I didn't even cry!

you're missing the point. they're not "giving" it to poor people, they're forcing them to take it via threat of them losing their job when they're already struggling to make ends meet

 

[Hungry4hops]

you're missing the point. they're not "giving" it to poor people, they're forcing them to take it via threat of them losing the paycheck they survive on week to week

I think you're missing the point of the meme. Which has nothing to do with mandates.

 

[Subliminal]

I think you're missing the point of the meme. Which has nothing to do with mandates.

well then you're missing out on the overall bigger picture

 

[cb1111]

Okay, Zrick... show me *any* of unpublished/non-peer reviewed articles on MedRxIV that you've previously posted that mention anything negative about the vaccines and THEN show me where that article was actually published after being peer reviewed. I've noticed you've used them quite a lot. You have a rather large database of articles to find just ONE that was peer reviewed and then later published. There may be one, but if so, I'd be interested in reading it. I'm less interested in reading unpublished/lightly researched articles provided by potentially partisan individuals with a conflict of interest. Even if a person has a conflict of interest, if that person can get his or her stuff published AFTER being peer reviewed, then I'll read it.

Listen, I hate Donald Trump - HATE. If you found a peer reviewed scientific article on COVID that Trump wrote... I'd still read it... if it was peer reviewed.

The statement that an article is most likely accurate before it has been peer reviewed yet is absurd.

zricky can post an article that he, anotero and unreal know everything there is to know about COVID. Once peer reviewed (by everyone here who has a functioning brain cell) that article will be proven to be bullshit - ergo, the article was wrong.

 

[Hungry4hops]

well then you're missing out on the overall bigger picture

Nah. I'm sorry my little picture triggered you tho.

 

[Subliminal]

Nah. I'm sorry my little picture triggered you tho.

lol thats ok you wanna try to hurl your little insults at me. you're probably just embarrassed that you made a fool out of yourself, so no offense taken

 

[Unreal1]

Scientists from the University of Ottawa, Canada, have recently estimated the prevalence of myocarditis/pericarditis in individuals recently immunized with mRNA-based coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. The analysis reveals a prevalence of 10 myopericarditis cases for every 10,000 vaccine doses. The study is currently available on the medRxiv* preprint server.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/2...-vaccines-re-evaluated-in-Canadian-study.aspx

Another pre-print study, so I guess that means the largest cardiovascular center in Canada is now putting out "junk science".

 

[anotero]

I may very well be in the class of September '21. I just noticed complete loss of smell last night, and can only taste the strongest flavors -- still feeling 100% fine outside of these inconveniences. I guess here's my "booster shot".

It's a sign to try out some spicy food for the flava!!