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

[zrickety]

i love the fact that you call out their source by quoting from a source that you don't even provide yourself

i googled the quote for shits n giggles who do i find out this mysterious source is? good ole wikipedia

it is quite entertaining tho

Wikipedia is a cruel joke. Anyone can edit, Jay even says he used to.

 

[Subliminal]

Wikipedia is a cruel joke. Anyone can edit, Jay even says he used to.

i've edited wikipedia pages for accuracy before... i notated my birthdate as the greatest day in history for humanity

 

[MagicMK]

You're looking at viral load the wrong way. But, regardless, if load matters wouldn't it be dangerous to take a vaccine that turns your cells into a spike protein factory? It's the spike protein that causes the cardiovascular issues and is thus one of the more deadly aspects of the virus. The other being the cyto storm that the wild virus itself can cause.

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.

he study co-author, David Walt (here), denied this. “Bridle is taking our results and completely misinterpreting them,” he wrote in an email to Reuters.

Walt said the study (here) found tiny concentrations of the spike protein in the first five days following vaccination, which showed that the body was producing the protein as intended.

Crucially, these spike proteins declined in the subsequent weeks, and no spike proteins were detected after the second injection. This is because the individuals developed antibodies to remove the antigen from the bloodstream, creating an immune response exactly as the vaccine was designed to do.

The tiny quantities measured in the bloodstream of vaccinated people were not toxic, Walt explained. By contrast, people who catch the coronavirus and become infected with COVID-19 can develop high levels of the spike protein that can cause adverse effects.

He added: “The most important message is over 400 million doses of the mRNA vaccine have been administered with negligible serious consequences.  It is incredibly safe.”

 

[Subliminal]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440066783348551681

he's got a point

 

[MagicMK]

i love the fact that you call out their source by quoting from a source that you don't even provide yourself

i googled the quote for shits n giggles who do i find out this mysterious source is? good ole wikipedia

it is quite entertaining tho

Okay, you're being deliberately difficult. I knew there was an issue with MedRxIV, but didn't know exactly what it was. Do you deny that article is NOT peer reviewed, and that it does NOT provide any actual stats about the population under study? Tell me, how many "participants" were in that study he quoted? Give me a number... I'll wait. Also, just because you can edit Wikipedia, doesn't mean it's unreliable. It's peer reviewed. I believe certain people have higher levels of trust on Wikipedia. So, if you made an erroneous change just for the hell of it... that change would likely be detected very quickly, the change deleted, and your ability to edit future Wikipedia articles (at least under that account or email) would be diminished.

So, you STILL don't believe me about MedRxIV being garbage? Here, read this... it's an advertisement for MedRxIV (ie - it's "open source" meaning pretty much anyone can submit anything that is not peer reviewed):

Now accepting direct submissions from your bioRxiv and medRxiv preprints​

July 28, 2021 Susan Hepp Open Science Preprints
2

Image credit
bioRxiv and medRxiv logos by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
*This blog post has been adapted from Iain Hrynaszkiewicz’s original work entitled ‘Extending support for preprint Sharing‘ which was published on the Official PLOS Blog on July 27, 2021*
Whether you are a graduate student about to submit your first environmental science manuscript or a tenured publishing veteran, let’s face it: the submission process always seems to take more time than it ought to. For those of us who are champions of Open Science, we spend additional time submitting our manuscripts as preprints in order to broadly disseminate our research and solicit feedback from peers to improve our work. Given the reality of our limited time as researchers, PLOS is especially excited to announce our new partnership with bioRxiv and medRxiv, where authors can submit their manuscripts to our journals directly from these trusted preprint servers.
As an Open Access publisher, PLOS has long encouraged preprint posting while considering the demands and time constraints of busy researchers. PLOS journals already submit manuscripts to select preprint servers on behalf of interested authors as an opt-in service. Now all PLOS journals – including our newest PLOS Climate, PLOS Water, and PLOS Sustainability & Transformation journals – welcome submissions directly from bioRxiv and/or medRxiv. In this way, we aim to make life a little easier for researchers who already contribute to Open Science by giving back a bit of their valuable time to write grants, perform experiments, or spend time with loved ones.

 

[MagicMK]

i've edited wikipedia pages for accuracy before... i notated my birthdate as the greatest day in history for humanity

Okay, then make an edit on something right now and we'll see how long your edit lasts. See if you can prove your supposed point. I've linked the Wiki article about the VW GTI MK5. Please edit it to state that the MK5 was designed by German VW Engineer Hans von Badhombre. Tell me when you're edit is viewable and please cut and paste it in your response.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk5

 

[zrickety]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1439962421700009992

 

[Subliminal]

Okay, you're being deliberately difficult. I knew there was an issue with MedRxIV, but didn't know exactly what it was. Do you deny that article is NOT peer reviewed, and that it does NOT provide any actual stats about the population under study? Tell me, how many "participants" were in that study he quoted? Give me a number... I'll wait. Also, just because you can edit Wikipedia, doesn't mean it's unreliable. It's peer reviewed. I believe certain people have higher levels of trust on Wikipedia. So, if you made an erroneous change just for the hell of it... that change would likely be detected very quickly, the change deleted, and your ability to edit future Wikipedia articles (at least under that account or email) would be diminished.

So, you STILL don't believe me about MedRxIV being garbage? Here, read this... it's an advertisement for MedRxIV (ie - it's "open source" meaning pretty much anyone can submit anything that is not peer reviewed):

Okay, then make an edit on something right now and we'll see how long your edit lasts. See if you can prove your supposed point. I've linked the Wiki article about the VW GTI MK5. Please edit it to state that the MK5 was designed by German VW Engineer Hans von Badhombre. Tell me when you're edit is viewable and please cut and paste it in your response.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk5

lol, dumbass.
i wasnt arguing with you. im pointing and laughing

 

[Hungry4hops]

 

[MagicMK]

@MagicMK they are published before peer review. Does not mean they will not be reviewed. Even still, peer review is not a gold standard. Data is data.

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.

 

[MagicMK]

lol, dumbass.
im wasnt arguing with you. im pointing and laughing

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....

 

[Strange Mud]

They can go back to NJ. 6-8k for property taxes is normal up there

My property taxes are like $1100 a year. Well, septic, and CoOp for electric helps keep the cost down too.

9Kin CT...i do have some property and a nice house though. Small town volunteer FD, No trash p/up, nice school system. My house is undervalued.

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?

Magic,

your facts are not going to change most peoples mind. just have fun with this thread.

Mud

 

[Unreal1]

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?

No one said they don't meet requirements for publication. That's just something you made up. I also provided numerous sources, here's another:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03696-9

You can believe whatever you want though, idc.

And yes, I'm aware it says vaccines can further enhance protection. But, at what cost? Every time your body is exposed to the spike you increase your risk of complications. How much more protection does one need when their natural immunity is already 13x more effective than the mRNA shots that are "working as planned'.

If they came up with a vaccine that was 13x more effective than the current ones you people would be jumping for joy.

 

[Subliminal]

View attachment 225975

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

 

[Escape Hatch]

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.

Way to move the goal post there guy.