Prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease IS NOT equivalent to immunity. Therefore, those who are getting jabbed aren't getting a vaccine.

Algor

Well-known member
I've seen some evidence that suggests it may be more than just mildly symptomatic as well. Regardless, no one with any critical thinking skills would want to get jabbed so they can get sick. That just doesn't make any sense at all.
Right. You get jabbed so you avoid getting sick, and avoid transmitting disease to the vulneable. So far, the bulk of the evince is that it actually works.
I think the greater point is in noting that none of these companies are claiming that these gene therapies can provide anyone with immunity.
I think they are claiming that the injection works at preventing clinical disease.
I don't see how they can measure it when they're giving it to the general population.
You measure immunogenicity by looking at antibody titres and T cell responsiveness before and after the injection.
Same goes for the efficacy numbers we've been seeing lately claiming "95% eficacy", and PCR tests being used to diagnose people with Covid 19. Perhaps when they've been able to finish clinical trials, and analyze the data, we'll be able to see what's really happening.
Threy have finished a whole pack of clinical trials. I agree though that more data is always better.
The important thing to note is that they are not claiming anyone will be immunized by their gene therapies.
What they ARE claiming is that it reduces clinical disease. And it does seem to.
The more important point is in noting that when it is killing people right after they are injected, it's time to stop injecting people.
You could say that of any drug. Excess mortality tracks to about 1.3 x reported Covid-19 related mortality prior to the jabs being available, and has dropped like a stone in highly inocculated areas, so it is pretty clear that Covid-19 is doing something, and so is the jab. Exvcess mortality is a number that is very very hard to fake or manipulate.
When they claim that you need to get tested to find out if you have the virus, it's not wo
Why not?
I think to claim it is mildly pathogenic is an exaggeration. There seem to be more than a few strains, some are more contagious than others. From what I've read the Wuhan strain was quite lethal, yet not all that contagious at all.
Everything is relative. I assure you, Covid-19 is much MORE lethal than many viruses. And like I say, excess mortality tracks clinical infection rate.
Here's what Pfizer claims in their documents submitted to the FDA for approval:

“A PHASE 1/2/3, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, RANDOMIZED, OBSERVER-BLIND, DOSE-FINDING STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, IMMUNOGENICITY, AND EFFICACY OF SARS-COV-2RNA VACCINE CANDIDATES AGAINST COVID-19 IN HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS.”

On page 67, we find a warning about potential adverse effects of the vaccine. The term “study intervention” is used instead of the more common "vaccination". “Environmental exposure” means contact with elements of the vaccine other than by injection.

Warning of adverse effect: “A female is found to be pregnant while being exposed or having been exposed to study intervention due to environmental exposure. Below are examples of environmental exposure during pregnancy:”

“A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact.”

“A male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception.”

These warnings, from the vaccine manufacturer, Pfizer imply that women can be harmed by breathing in, or contacting by skin, the vaccine as it moves from person to person.
No, hold it. Those are mandatory reporting guidelines to assess POTENTIAL dangers. These always err on the side of caution. They do not imply anything that you are saying. Seriously, this is plain silly. The Pfizer and moderna vaccines are not self spreading: that's an entirely different technology, and frankly, if you don't see the difference between a stabilised mRNA vaccine that does not permanently alter the genetic makeup of the recipient and one that does, I'm not sure I can help you farther. I'd suggest you read a basic text on cell and molecular biology and get back to me. You are making some pretty wild claims, which is perhaps understandable, given that many people are, on all sides of this issue.

WRT mortality, EXCESS mortality rose, and tracks Covid 19related mortality. Excess mortality is based on numbers of dead people in a week THIS year, as opposed to the numbers of dead people, on average, for the same calendar week of the last 5-10 years. Since mortality figures are public, it is really hard to fake that data. It is true (in my opinion) that Covod related mortality has been over counted, but the fact that most people died had co-morbidities could also be said of breast cancer, prostate cancer and pneumococcal pneumonia. People often die of multiple things, but Covid-19 has been a major contributor to excess mortality. It is really really obvious, and if you doubt it, talk to an ICU nurse or any inpatient physician. I see this stuff with my own eyes. It's real.

Anyway, nuff said. Not gonna beat this horse.
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Well-known member
Right. You get jabbed so you avoid getting sick, and avoid transmitting disease to the vulneable. So far, the bulk of the evince is that it actually works.
These pharmaceutical companies all maintain that they lessen symptoms, yet there are perfectly healthy people going to the hospital. That's not a lessening of symptoms. That's antibody dependent enhancement which is the exact opposite of the goal.
I think they are claiming that the injection works at preventing clinical disease.

You measure immunogenicity by looking at antibody titres and T cell responsiveness before and after the injection.
The general population isn't doing that.
Threy have finished a whole pack of clinical trials. I agree though that more data is always better.

What they ARE claiming is that it reduces clinical disease. And it does seem to.
If by reducing disease, you mean they're dead; sure. Dead people don't feel a thing.
You could say that of any drug. Excess mortality tracks to about 1.3 x reported Covid-19 related mortality prior to the jabs being available, and has dropped like a stone in highly inocculated areas,
That's not what the CDC data suggests at all. Places like New York where everyone is getting jabbed aren't seeing drops compared to places like Texas and Florida where there are no lines to get jabbed at all.
so it is pretty clear that Covid-19 is doing something, and so is the jab.
To say that it's pretty clear it's doing something isn't clear at all.
Exvcess mortality is a number that is very very hard to fake or manipulate.
It's quite easy to simply record a death as Covid 19 rather than the flu, pneumonia, etc. Given that they are financially incentivized to do this, only worsens the problem.
Because people who aren't sick or showing any signs of sickness aren't sick. Waiting for a PCR test that isn't designed for diagnostic purposes only spotlights that this is a scam. The manufacturers, including the inventor, admit this fact. When we add to this the fact that these same people have pointed out that anything over 35 cycles is meaningless, while governments are cycling above 37 and even over 45 in some places, there is no pandemic. There is no such thing as asymptomatic Covid 19
Everything is relative. I assure you, Covid-19 is much MORE lethal than many viruses.
I can assure you that it is nowhere as lethal as cancer, heart disease, TB, not to mention poor lifestyle choices which compromise the immune system. This is a virus that targets the elderly who are already sick and would have died within a few months anyways. The problem is that we now have people in their teens dying after being injected. People under 50 are not at any real risk of dying from this and there is no reason to inject them in the first place.
And like I say, excess mortality tracks clinical infection rate.
There is no excess mortality. Compared to 2015 deaths are down.
No, hold it. Those are mandatory reporting guidelines to assess POTENTIAL dangers. These always err on the side of caution.
They're not fabricated out of thin air. There's good reason for them to note these dangers. The problem is that those getting jabbed aren't being notified. They are not being given informed consent. Experimenting on human beings without their informed consent is a violation of the Geneva Convention.
They do not imply anything that you are saying.
They imply exactly what I'm saying. I quoted them and supplied you with a link to back up that claim.
Seriously, this is plain silly. The Pfizer and moderna vaccines are not self spreading: that's an entirely different technology,
The pharmaceutical companies themselves are the ones who are making these claims. The fact that it's a completely new experimental gene therapy that no one really knows what it might do, yet could have the potential to spread through viral shedding is the issue, not that it's a different technology that has been around for quite a while.
 

Algor

Well-known member
These pharmaceutical companies all maintain that they lessen symptoms, yet there are perfectly healthy people going to the hospital. That's not a lessening of symptoms. That's antibody dependent enhancement which is the exact opposite of the goal.

The general population isn't doing that.

If by reducing disease, you mean they're dead; sure. Dead people don't feel a thing.

That's not what the CDC data suggests at all. Places like New York where everyone is getting jabbed aren't seeing drops compared to places like Texas and Florida where there are no lines to get jabbed at all.

To say that it's pretty clear it's doing something isn't clear at all.

It's quite easy to simply record a death as Covid 19 rather than the flu, pneumonia, etc. Given that they are financially incentivized to do this, only worsens the problem.

Because people who aren't sick or showing any signs of sickness aren't sick. Waiting for a PCR test that isn't designed for diagnostic purposes only spotlights that this is a scam. The manufacturers, including the inventor, admit this fact. When we add to this the fact that these same people have pointed out that anything over 35 cycles is meaningless, while governments are cycling above 37 and even over 45 in some places, there is no pandemic. There is no such thing as asymptomatic Covid 19

I can assure you that it is nowhere as lethal as cancer, heart disease, TB, not to mention poor lifestyle choices which compromise the immune system. This is a virus that targets the elderly who are already sick and would have died within a few months anyways. The problem is that we now have people in their teens dying after being injected. People under 50 are not at any real risk of dying from this and there is no reason to inject them in the first place.

There is no excess mortality. Compared to 2015 deaths are down.

They're not fabricated out of thin air. There's good reason for them to note these dangers. The problem is that those getting jabbed aren't being notified. They are not being given informed consent. Experimenting on human beings without their informed consent is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

They imply exactly what I'm saying. I quoted them and supplied you with a link to back up that claim.

The pharmaceutical companies themselves are the ones who are making these claims. The fact that it's a completely new experimental gene therapy that no one really knows what it might do, yet could have the potential to spread through viral shedding is the issue, not that it's a different technology that has been around for quite a while.

The idea that Covid-19 does not produce excess mortality is seriously incorrect, without equivocation. I could go through every single one of your objections and point out why they are either wrong or irrelevant, but I think you should compare the public statistics on excess deaths with your bald and entirely incorrect assertion that there is no excess mortality, and ask yourself whether your own knowledge and sources of information are a reliable guide in this specific arena.
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Well-known member

The idea that Covid-19 does not produce excess mortality is seriously incorrect, without equivocation. I could go through every single one of your objections and point out why they are either wrong or irrelevant, but I think you should compare the public statistics on excess deaths with your bald and entirely incorrect assertion that there is no excess mortality, and ask yourself whether your own knowledge and sources of information are a reliable guide in this specific arena.
I'm relying upon data from the CDC,WHO, NIH, FDA, and the pharmaceutical companies themselves. I've supplied the links in a number of threads already.

The bottom line is that I don't trust any government entity that takes money from Big Pharma, owns patents on medicines, vaccines, etc. from Big Pharma. It's a blatant conflict of interest.

When five people die, they're supposed to get a black box warning. When 50 people die they take it off the market. We're well past those number, and everyone is looking the other way. That shouldn't come as any big surprise.
 

Algor

Well-known member
I'm relying upon data from the CDC,WHO, NIH, FDA, and the pharmaceutical companies themselves. I've supplied the links in a number of threads already.

The bottom line is that I don't trust any government entity that takes money from Big Pharma, owns patents on medicines, vaccines, etc. from Big Pharma. It's a blatant conflict of interest.

When five people die, they're supposed to get a black box warning. When 50 people die they take it off the market. We're well past those number, and everyone is looking the other way. That shouldn't come as any big surprise.
What you are doing is choosing to rely on some publications but not others, ignoring well established data, and making inferences as you please, irrespective of their supportability by the same rules by which the data was obtained. You may as we be blowing bubbles in bath water.

The Covid-19 mRNA inoculations are demonstrably immunogenic, and effective at reducing morbidity and mortality, have been evaluated and implemented legally, and moreover there is good evidence that they reduce EXCESS mortality. You have asserted to the contrary but your assertions (eg the inoculations are not immunogenic , that there is no Covid-19 excess mortality) are demonstrably wrong. You should question your capacity to evaluate this particular area.
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Well-known member
What you are doing is choosing to rely on some publications but not others, ignoring well established data, and making inferences as you please, irrespective of their supportability by the same rules by which the data was obtained. You may as we be blowing bubbles in bath water.

The Covid-19 mRNA inoculations are demonstrably immunogenic, and effective at reducing morbidity and mortality, have been evaluated and implemented legally, and moreover there is good evidence that they reduce EXCESS mortality. You have asserted to the contrary but your assertions (eg the inoculations are not immunogenic , that there is no Covid-19 excess mortality) are demonstrably wrong. You should question your capacity to evaluate this particular area.
They never even used a purified sample, nor have they ever isolated a complete sequence other than by computer modeling. There is no evidence to prove that the virus is even causing people to get sick. The Salk inst. just showed that they can do just as much damage without a virus, just using the spike protein. Given that this is what the mRNA gene therapies are doing, it looks like this is a great way to make people sick.

The bottom line is that they aren't claiming their shots will provide anyone with immunity. More importantly, there really is no better immunity than natural herd immunity for lifelong protection.
 

Algor

Well-known member
They never even used a purified sample, nor have they ever isolated a complete sequence other than by computer modeling.
This is not important, and this:
There is no evidence to prove that the virus is even causing people to get sick.

is bunk.

The Salk inst. just showed that they can do just as much damage without a virus, just using the spike protein.


This is irrelevant and so is this :
Given that this is what the mRNA gene therapies are doing, it looks like this is a great way to make people sick.

The bottom line is that they aren't claiming their shots will provide anyone with immunity.
They are claiming that the innoculation is immunogenic and efficacious. There is abundant data to support both claims.


More importantly, there really is no better immunity than natural herd immunity for lifelong protection.
The problem with this approach is the marked and irrefutable excess mortality encountered if you achieve herd immunity without inoculation. That really is the long and the short of it: vulnerable populations have massive mortality without inoculation. Note: I think the civic response to Covid-19 has been destructive and misguided in many ways. I do not support prolonged lock downs, as I think these have had public health ramifications that we will feel for a generation. But the mRNA based inoculations are, so far, an unmitigated triumph of biotechnology. We’ll see if that pans out in the long run. I’m optimistic. I also have no personal financial or professional interest in saying so, BTW. To the contrary, I could make more money by encouraging mistrust.
 

Algor

Well-known member
Then I'll save myself any further wasted time and place you on "ignore". Thanks for the heads up. Go with God. Be blessed.
That's one way to deal with being serially wrong. First you claim it isn't immunogenic, then you claim it isn't effective, then you claim there is no excess mortality, you make up a hazard that has never been shown to exist, claim that the virus has never been shown to be pathogenic, and all of this you don't know and can't see the difference, by your own admission, between a therapy wherein a sequence stably persists in a cell and one in which it does not.

There's all kinds of good reasons for distrusting government and institutions and industry, and the notion that testing standards were politically driven is very supportable, but there is no excuse for making stuff up, repeating stuff you don't understand, and assuming things are so simple that any keyboard warrior can work them out from first principles. Medicine, biology and epidemiology don't work that way. Educate yourself.
 
Last edited:

evoguy313

Active member
IOW - tell me that you are ignorant of how the immune system works without coming out and saying so.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a vaccine is “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” Immunity, in turn, is defined as “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”
Let's try that again, with emphasis:

"According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a vaccine is “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” Immunity, in turn, is defined as “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”"

Did you look up "infection"? It seems not:

"An infection occurs when germs enter the body, increase in number, and cause a reaction of the body."

If you are immune to something, you can still become infected by that pathogen. The "reaction" caused by infection - an immune response - dictates the outcome to a large extent. If you have already gone through a primary immune response, and if your immune system is working correctly, your response to re-exposure is to rapidly undergo clonal expansion of the appropriate immune cells and start churning out antibodies and/or cytotoxic T-cells. This usually allows you to clear the pathogen without becoming ill, or at least not as ill the first time around.

Being immune to something does not mean you have some sort of invisible shield around you.

Unlike real vaccines, which use an antigen of the disease you’re trying to prevent,

LOL!
No no no - most vaccines use antigens from the pathogens that cause a disease - you really should have read up on basic immune system concepts.
'Real' vaccines sometimes use killed or weakened pathogens, or they use parts of pathogens, or they can use altered compounds that the pathogen produces (e.g., toxoids for tetanus) that act as antigens.
The mRNA vaccines avoid having to deal with the pathogens at all. Which you would understand if you had the requisite background knowledge.
the COVID-19 injections contain synthetic RNA fragments encapsulated in a nanolipid carrier compound, the sole purpose of which is to lessen clinical symptoms associated with the S-1 spike protein, not the actual virus.
Very nice paraphrase!
They do not actually impart immunity or inhibit transmissibility of the disease. In other words, they are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected.

:rolleyes: :unsure: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

Um.... OK Mr.Wizard - please explain to us all how the tetanus vaccine ' imparts immunity or inhibit transmissibility' of tetanus.

Like I wrote - tell me that you are ignorant of how the immune system works without coming out and saying so.
 
Last edited:

evoguy313

Active member
I've had cancer, but did some research and discovered how cancer cells function. Cancer prevents cellular death from oxygen deprivation. The caveat is that the more an environment becomes anaerobic the more cancer thrives; it's a catch 22 if one doesn't do anything to stop it. The simple fix is to move one's ph to a more alkaline level, and oxygenate the system. Viruses, harmful bacteria, parasites, and most especially cancer cannot live in an oxygenated environment.
So, your "research" consisted of reading dopey anti-BIG MEDICINE sites, I see.

This is amazing.
1. Cancerous tumors are actually pretty well vascularized - one of the diagnostic characteristics of malignancies is their ability to 'grow their own' blood vessels.
2. The alkaline nonsense comes from in vitro observations made a century ago that some hack read about and ran with. The acidity was related to the cells relying on lactate fermentation because they were in a petri dish. You cannot alkalize your body. You have multiple buffer systems in you that PREVENT alterations of pH. You would know this if you read non-woo websites/books by hacks and charlatans, or had taken some biology.

Viruses can "live" in the air, there are harmful bacteria that are aerobic, nearly ALL parasites and cancer cells use oxygen.

As most such folk, you are way too confident in your lack of genuine understanding of these issues.

And you are very condescending on top of it - Darwin had folks like you pegged:


“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge....”​


― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
 
Top