GOLFMK8
GOLFMK7
GOLFMK6
GOLFMKV

The COVID19 SCAMdemic... Biden Moves To Outlaw Acorns, Limit Squirrel Immigration

JC_451

Autocross Champion
Location
NJ, one of the nice parts.
Car(s)
2017 GTI Sport
Delta 8 is a less psychoactive THC molecule.

It's like weed-lite supposedly, but it is a concentrate derivative that has to be manufactured. It can be produced from CBD. There's lots of information out there if you're curious.

K2 isn't actually Marijuana or a derivative. It's a "spice " blend and is generally regarded to be bad news/for total wastos only.

Edit: confusing language removed
 
Last edited:

torga

Autocross Champion
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'11 GTI
K2 isn't actually Marijuana or a derivative. It's a "spice " blend and is generally regarded to be bad news/for total wastos only.

Spice is actually a geriatric and awareness spectrum narcotic and can only be found on the planet Arrakis. I have studies to prove it. Big government doesn't want people knowing this.
 

oddspyke

Autocross Champion
Location
Delaware
Car(s)
2016 GTI, 2018 ZL1
Spice is actually a geriatric and awareness spectrum narcotic and can only be found on the planet Arrakis. I have studies to prove it. Big government doesn't want people knowing this.
5nnivr.jpg
 

cb1111

Newbie
Location
Virginia, USA
GTIfan should be banned for posting that, even if he did delete it immediately after
And you should be banned for asking that, joke or not

You guys are absolute jackasses for doxxing someone because you disagree with them. Get a fucking life

Zrick must be living in your heads rent free. I wonder how much sleep you've lost because of him
There is absolutely zero excuse for doxxing somebody - here or elsewhere...

I didn't realize that he actually posted something.
 

torga

Autocross Champion
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'11 GTI
Meshing the previous subject and the Dune subject, from an old Sleep tack called Giza Butler.

"The Kiefsatz Hasherach now takes the Bong Jabbar
Rifftual commences 'round the tree stump altar
Bong Water of Life anoints the Muad'Doob messiah."
😂
 

torga

Autocross Champion
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'11 GTI
1632170692135.png
 

zrickety

The Fixer
Location
Unknown
Car(s)
VW GTI
How did your wife get infected - does she work in healthcare or the service industry?

The evidence seems to suggest that natural immunity is limited... although there could be something to natural immunity *and* one of the mRna vaccines. Since you are not vaccinated and only have antibodies from Covid A from around December, most likely your natural protection has seriously waned (not to mention, may have very limited efficacy against COVID Delta). I though you lived in the South - Texas or Florida, right?

I've noticed that with COVID, unlike other viruses, people do seem to get sicker when they are exposed to larger concentrations of the virus. Other viruses, it doesn't seem to matter how much of the virus you're exposed to. If you recall, one of the doctors in Wuhan China that was one of the first persons to become "famous" by being infected with COVID... if you recall, he at least appeared to be a healthy, younger doctor. His hospital was besieged with COVID cases, so he was exposed to a very heavy viral load (I presume, since China covers everything up). He ended up dying. Btw, just google it, his name was Dr Li Wenliang. Also, as far as my comment on viruses, I was thinking about viruses such as the flu and chickenpox, for ex. Whether you get a heavy dose or small does, it doesn't seem to matter as much. At any rate, I did some googling on that Wuhan Doctor that China tried to cover up, because it always stuck out to me that so many people (like you and your family) had somewhat mild cases of COVID, while others have had much more severe cases. I wondered if Dr Li's viral load of COVID had something to do with his dying.

I ended up finding a NY Times article on the subject (see below). It does seem to confirm my suspicions... it is though Dr Li died of COVID (partially) due to the very high viral load he received from early exposure to large amounts of infected Wuhan patients:



I also remember reading an article about a vaccinated couple in their 60's that took a vacation to Mississippi (from IL). Well, MS is one of the worst states in the union for infection rates and transmission levels.... meaning, you have a better chance of not only getting infected, but receiving a larger viral load, as well. Well, Candace Ayers, 66, double vaccinated in March, died of COVID Delta in early September.
Natural immunity is 27x better than the 'effective' vaccines, so I'M GOOD.
Projected to last years vs 6 months with the jab.
 

zrickety

The Fixer
Location
Unknown
Car(s)
VW GTI
They disparage your natural immunity because they can't make billions on it.
 

MagicMK

Drag Racing Champion
Location
PA
This isn't true. Although antibodies wane over time, the memory stays in the B-cells for a lifetime. So his body will recognize the virus and know how to respond.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9

Natural immunity in general is said to be 13x more effective than the vaccine:


Study referenced in that video:



https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Yes, there is threat of the virus mutating rapidly and diminishing the effectiveness of natural immunity, which is why mass vaccination with a leaky and ineffective vaccine (by normal standards) is dangerous. However, what we have to keep in mind is that sars-cov2 is very similar to other coronaviruses we've encountered in our lifetime. Because of this, an estimated 50% of the US population already has pre-existing immunity to COVID with no prior exposure to the virus or vaccine:



https://www.news-medical.net/news/2...immunity-to-SARS-CoV-2-claim-researchers.aspx

All of the evidence points to natural immunity being highly effective and robust.

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:

medRxiv (pronounced "med-archive") is an Internet site distributing unpublished eprints about health sciences. It distributes complete but unpublished manuscripts in the areas of medicine, clinical research, and related health sciences without charge to the reader.

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.

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections​

Sivan Gazit, Roei Shlezinger, Galit Perez, Roni Lotan, Asaf Peretz, Amir Ben-Tov, Dani Cohen, Khitam Muhsen, Gabriel Chodick, Tal Patalon
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.



Abstract​

Background Reports of waning vaccine-induced immunity against COVID-19 have begun to surface. With that, the comparable long-term protection conferred by previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear.
Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study comparing three groups: (1)SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who received a two-dose regimen of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, (2)previously infected individuals who have not been vaccinated, and (3)previously infected and single dose vaccinated individuals. Three multivariate logistic regression models were applied. In all models we evaluated four outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic disease, COVID-19-related hospitalization and death. The follow-up period of June 1 to August 14, 2021, when the Delta variant was dominant in Israel.

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?

Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.
 

Subliminal

Autocross Champion
Location
Vegas
Car(s)
Slow FWD VW Hatch
i see some of the posts in this thread and just scratch my head wondering what some of you hope to achieve

with as much effort you tards put into arguing in this thread you could've cured COVID by now
 

Subliminal

Autocross Champion
Location
Vegas
Car(s)
Slow FWD VW Hatch
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?
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 :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

it is quite entertaining tho
 
Last edited:

zrickety

The Fixer
Location
Unknown
Car(s)
VW GTI
@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.
 

zrickety

The Fixer
Location
Unknown
Car(s)
VW GTI
Top