Vaccine thread

[Satchmo]

4 minutes ago, bolt said:

https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak/

 

"Mounting evidence continues to show that COVID-19 may have originated from a lab in Wuhan, China."

And then, just a few weeks later...

 

US intelligence report on COVID-19 origins rejects some points raised by lab leak theory proponents

https://apnews.com/article/covid19-united-states-intelligence-china-23dcbde0be5638556739b564ece97027

 

I notice your article uses the words 'may have originated'.  Are you out to prove your point or mine?

 

Edited June 9 by Satchmo

[Bob Long]

Just now, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

Well duh, smoking gun, because it "may" have come from a lab.  Get with the program man!  

 

Ok let's assume it did. What would have changed?

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

Ok let's assume it did. What would have changed?

 

The timing of the release of 5G?  

[the destroyer of worlds]

4 minutes ago, bolt said:

https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak/

 

"Mounting evidence continues to show that COVID-19 may have originated from a lab in Wuhan, China."

QOP led committee. 

 

But there is a key word there.

 

M A Y

 

Again, none of that propaganda show trial committee hearing crap presented evidence like the lab was studying a genetic relative to the virus that started the pandemic.  They were studying coronaviruses, but those viruses are not genetically related to the virus that started the pandemic.  So again, no further than we have been in years.  

 

 

I'll take this review that has scholarly articles referenced.  

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9874793/

The origins of COVID‐19 pandemic: A brief overview

[Bob Long]

10 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

The timing of the release of 5G?  

 

Do you know tho, what do people think this would mean? 

 

Or is it just a blame thing? 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

Do you know tho, what do people think this would mean? 

 

Or is it just a blame thing? 

 

It's just another "aha, Fauci bad, science bad, all praise to God" argument.  

Any possibility at this stage still remains a possibility in the absence of irrefutable evidence, and so far there is no hard evidence that it was a scientific experiment gone rogue.

[Bob Long]

Just now, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

It's just another "aha, Fauci bad, science bad, all praise to God" argument.  

Any possibility at this stage still remains a possibility in the absence of irrefutable evidence, and so far there is no hard evidence that it was a scientific experiment gone rogue.

 

If the scientific consensus is eventually that it was from a lab, so be it. 

 

It doesn't support anything like 'fauci bad' or negate our response.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

If the scientific consensus is eventually that it was from a lab, so be it. 

 

It doesn't support anything like 'fauci bad' or negate our response.

 

But that's because you're thinking using logic.

 

Not sure how those guys are coming up with their argument, but logic doesn't seem to be the basis of it.

[Bob Long]

Just now, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

But that's because you're thinking using logic.

 

Not sure how those guys are coming up with their argument, but logic doesn't seem to be the basis of it.

 

Big pharma Fauci freak out.

[Xanlet]

On 6/8/2024 at 3:06 PM, Xanlet said:

"The vaccine reduced the virus load in the infected"

 

This is far from established, and there is significant evidence that the viral load in the noses of vaccinated and unvaccinated people are the same. In fact, as this paper indicates, there appears to be much more asymptomatic people who carry viral load in their noses among the vaccinated populations, suggesting that the vaccine can reduce a person's symptoms to nothing, while they still become infected and carry the virus in the same capacity as an unvaccinated person.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8992250/

 

(1."Vaccines reduce infection, severe disease, and death from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1]. Yet breakthrough cases occur, and this risk increases over time [2]. Reports predominantly from non-US settings suggest that viral loads from nasal swabs are similar among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals; other reports suggest that virus levels are lower in unvaccinated persons "

 

"There were no statistically significant differences in mean Ct values of vaccinated vs unvaccinated samples in either HYT (vaccinated 25.5 vs unvaccinated 25.4; P = .80) (Figure 1A) or UeS (vaccinated 23.1, unvaccinated 23.4; P = .54)" (Ct values refer to viral load)

 

"In our study, mean viral loads as measured by Ct value were similar for large numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the Delta variant surge, regardless of symptom status, at two distinct California testing sites."

 

There is another report that was referenced in National Geographic's article which concluded:

 

(2."Vaccination status had negligible effects on Ct values (d<0.2) for all age groups considered except those aged 0-11 years (Supplemental Table 2). In this group, there were very few vaccinated individuals (N=7), as would be expected because vaccines had not been approved for those 11 and under for most of our study period. Therefore, despite the significant effect size (d=0.79, p=0.0466), we do not believe our data strongly support the notion that vaccination status has a strong effect on Ct value in children under 12. When comparing Ct values between unvaccinated and vaccinated within males and females, negligible differences were observed (female: d=0.14, male: d=0.15; Supplemental Table 3)."

(https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v7.full-text)

 

Also, an analysis done between 68 countries and also between 2947 counties in the USA found no correlation between vaccination levels and reduction in Covid 19 cases:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/

(3."Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States"

 

So this all begs the question: if the vaccine definitively lowers viral loads and helps to prevent infection, why is there no clear signal of this in the data? Why does it appear viral loads are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated people? Why didn't highly vaccinated countries or counties have fewer cases than low vaccinated countries or counties? This would all seem to suggest that these vaccines do not lower viral loads or prevent infection.

 

Again, if the government is to mandate something, there should NOT be this amount of conflicting data. It should be clear and unequivocal. If anything, I would say the preponderance of evidence is against any significant effect of the vaccine against viral load or transmission.

 

12 hours ago, StrayDog said:

And governments are there to protect the safety of their people. A government mandate to try and ensure the safety of citizens takes precedent over individual desire. 

And sorry, but I'm not going to try and scroll back to find whichever post you're referring to. If you want to provide a link to it, I'll take a look.

I don't like being told "the government didn't force you to do anything, it was private businesses turning you away" when, in fact, it was governments forcing businesses to turn me away. They are private spaces open to the public, but the decision was taken out of the hands of the business and out of the hands of the public.

 

Again, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the vaccines do not halt the spread, so that begs the question: why bar the unvaccinated from public spaces? The vaccine is meant to help the person who got it, and as far as clogging up hospital beds, it was never young, fit people doing that.  In summary, there is literally zero reason why a young, healthy, unvaccinated person was barred from patronizing restaurants and sporting events. It was unequivocally a misuse of government authority.

 

From every conceivable angle, the vaccine passports were totally unjustified and a complete fiasco.

[UncleBen]

For those that claim the jab was a " vaccine " the 9th court ruled it was not.

 

https://www.todayville.com/calgary/federal-court-rules-covid-shots-dont-stop-transmission-of-virus-sides-with-anti-mandate-lawsuit/

 

 

 

The plaintiffs also asserted that the mRNA COVID shots are not “traditional” vaccines, in part because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) changed its definition of a “vaccine” in September 2021, from a product that “produce[s] immunity” to a “preparation” which “stimulate[s] the body’s immune response.”

“Their complaint’s crux is that the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ is not a vaccine,” Nelson explained. “’Traditional’ vaccines, Plaintiffs claim, should prevent transmission or provide immunity to those who get them. But the COVID-19 vaccine does neither.”

 

 

For the poster who claimed this drug went through all the right FDA testing requirements for approval ..dead wrong and it's why pharma wanted data hidden for 70 years.Everything was done at " warp speed".I don't know about some people but I sure as hell don't want to take any product that is rushed to market without fully being tested.They pulled the swine flu vax after 10 months because of deaths and injuries yet here we are with mountains of new data about deaths and injuries and not a peep except in the case of Astrazenica which was pulled.

 

"As LifeSiteNews has previously reported, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, affirmed during a European Union (EU) hearing that the pharma giant did not test the ability of its mRNA COVID-19 jabs to stop transmission of the virus, but pushed them through anyway to keep up with “the speed of science.”

 

Swine flu info I'm referring to.

 

 

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-apr-27-sci-swine-history27-story.html

 

 

"More than 500 people are thought to have developed Guillain-Barre syndrome after receiving the vaccine; 25 died. No one completely understands the causes of Guillain-Barre, but the condition can develop after a bout with infection or following surgery or vaccination. The federal government paid millions in damages to people or their families.:

 

Not much after this big pharma were given indemnity by the US gov

 

"Under the PREP Act, companies like Pfizer and Moderna have total immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines."

 

When they roll out the bird flu vax I hope everyone reviews the past instead of repeating it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Lock]

6 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

 

I don't like being told "the government didn't force you to do anything, it was private businesses turning you away" when, in fact, it was governments forcing businesses to turn me away. They are private spaces open to the public, but the decision was taken out of the hands of the business and out of the hands of the public.

 

Again, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the vaccines do not halt the spread, so that begs the question: why bar the unvaccinated from public spaces? The vaccine is meant to help the person who got it, and as far as clogging up hospital beds, it was never young, fit people doing that.  In summary, there is literally zero reason why a young, healthy, unvaccinated person was barred from patronizing restaurants and sporting events. It was unequivocally a misuse of government authority.

 

From every conceivable angle, the vaccine passports were totally unjustified and a complete fiasco.

 

The keyword here is "halt". Halt implies stop. That's not what the vaccine was meant to do. The vaccine was meant to slow the spread. There's a massive difference there.

 

For the record, I think the government could have done much better, but I also think too many people had this false idea that the virus was supposed to be some brick wall against the virus because word of mouth tends to obscure details.

Edited June 10 by The Lock

[UncleBen]

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

The keyword here is "halt". Halt implies stop. That's not what the vaccine was meant to do. The vaccine was meant to slow the spread. There's a massive difference there.

Do we need to post actual video of officials saying you wouldn't get covid or transmit it if you took the jab ? There are lots out there.

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, UncleBen said:

Do we need to post actual video of officials saying you wouldn't get covid or transmit it if you took the jab ? There are lots out there.

 

Yes, please do.

 

There's lots out there so this should be easy for you. If it says "slow" though or anything of the like, then that means you misheard it.

Edited June 10 by The Lock

[Xanlet]

3 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

The keyword here is "halt". Halt implies stop. That's not what the vaccine was meant to do. The vaccine was meant to slow the spread. There's a massive difference there.

I refer you to my post which I just quoted for StrayDog which cites 3 sources to show that the viral load is not lessened in vaccinated people and that across huge numbers of countries and US counties, there is no correlation between a slow of case growth and vaccination levels.

[The Lock]

17 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

I refer you to my post which I just quoted for StrayDog which cites 3 sources to show that the viral load is not lessened in vaccinated people and that across huge numbers of countries and US counties, there is no correlation between a slow of case growth and vaccination levels.

 

So from your first link...

Vaccines reduce infection, severe disease, and death from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1]. Yet breakthrough cases occur, and this risk increases over time 

 

This supports what I said with it slowing, not halting the virus.

 

Your 2nd link appears to be about how the Delta virus changed to make itself able to be transmitted through vaccinated people, etc. This makes sense because that's what viruses do: they mutate. Again, the vaccination still slowed the spread, just a new vaccine needed to be made against the new mutation.

 

Your 3rd link appears to be about how vaccination is different throughout the world; thus, less correlation between vaccinations and the virus.

 

I'm assuming you looked at 3 titles and went "I got you! MUAHAHAHA!"... and didn't read them?

Edited June 10 by The Lock

[UncleBen]

7 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

Yes, please do.

 

There's lots out there so this should be easy for you. If it says "slow" though or anything of the like, then that means you misheard 

One of many ..how many do you want me to post?

 

"Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick, and that it’s not just in the clinical trials but it’s also in real-world data,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky told Rachel Maddow on Monday, March 29. Walensky was describing the results of a new CDC study of vaccinated Americans, which found that they not only had very high resistance to COVID-19, but also to asymptomatic infections of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – and, by extension, are very unlikely to spread it to other people."

 

 

 

https://fortune.com/2021/04/01/its-official-vaccinated-people-dont-transmit-covid-19/

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, UncleBen said:

One of many ..how many do you want me to post?

 

"Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick, and that it’s not just in the clinical trials but it’s also in real-world data,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky told Rachel Maddow on Monday, March 29. Walensky was describing the results of a new CDC study of vaccinated Americans, which found that they not only had very high resistance to COVID-19, but also to asymptomatic infections of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – and, by extension, are very unlikely to spread it to other people."

 

 

 

https://fortune.com/2021/04/01/its-official-vaccinated-people-dont-transmit-covid-19/

 

Where's the actual video? You promised an actual video. Instead you give me an article behind a paywall.

 

But, look at the wording anyway... "suggest", "unlikely".... doesn't mean halt. It means slow`

Edited June 10 by The Lock

[The Lock]

I shouldn't be exerting my energy here too much tonight, but I'll pop in in the next couple of days to further answer things.

 

Just make sure you actually understand what "proof" you're giving. What wording are they using? If they just use words like "unlikely", that's not saying it'll stop the spread.

[UncleBen]

6 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

Where's the actual video? You promised an actual video. Instead you give me an article behind a paywall.

17.44 mark .Surgeon General states it clearly..how many dozens more you want ?

 

1

[The Lock]

2 minutes ago, UncleBen said:

17.44 mark .Surgeon General states it clearly..how many dozens more you want ?

 

1

 

Again, he said "reduce the chance". He does not say "stop". It's about the slow of the virus, not halting.

 

The way you seem to listen to English, I swear you'd hear the word bruise and think someone was dying.

Edited June 10 by The Lock

[Xanlet]

5 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

So from your first link...

Vaccines reduce infection, severe disease, and death from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1]. Yet breakthrough cases occur, and this risk increases over time 

 

This supports what I said with it slowing, not halting the virus.

 

Your 2nd link is about how the Delta virus changed to make itself able to be transmitted through vaccinated people, etc. This makes sense because that's what viruses do: they mutate. Again, the vaccination still slowed the spread, just a new vaccine needed to be made against the new mutation.

 

Your 3rd link is about how vaccination is different throughout the world; thus, less correlation between vaccinations and the virus.

 

I'm assuming you looked at 3 titles and went "I got you! MUAHAHAHA!"... and didn't read them?

You have not addressed the actual findings in those papers. The viral load has been found to be the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

 

And yes, by the time a variant has been sequenced, and a vaccine manufactured, the virus at large will be mutated and different from the strain in the vaccine. That supports the idea that the vaccines do not slow the spread.

 

The fact that vaccination is different across the world is ideal to explore whether the vaccine is useful in slowing the spread. If you think the vaccine helps to lower cases, than in highly vaccinated places there should be a slower growth of cases and in places with low vaccination, there should be a higher growth of cases, right?

 

The finding was that there is no correlation. That is devastating to the case that vaccines slow the growth, because such a feature of the vaccine literally does not show up in the data, and HUGE data sets were used. There is simply no signal there that they slow the spread.

[The Lock]

2 hours ago, Xanlet said:

You have not addressed the actual findings in those papers. The viral load has been found to be the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

 

And yes, by the time a variant has been sequenced, and a vaccine manufactured, the virus at large will be mutated and different from the strain in the vaccine. That supports the idea that the vaccines do not slow the spread.

 

The fact that vaccination is different across the world is ideal to explore whether the vaccine is useful in slowing the spread. If you think the vaccine helps to lower cases, than in highly vaccinated places there should be a slower growth of cases and in places with low vaccination, there should be a higher growth of cases, right?

 

The finding was that there is no correlation. That is devastating to the case that vaccines slow the growth, because such a feature of the vaccine literally does not show up in the data, and HUGE data sets were used. There is simply no signal there that they slow the spread.

 

If you wear body armor, does it stop you from dying entirely? No. It doesn't, right? It can prevent some deaths, but it's not going to prevent all deaths. It depends on where the bullet gets struck. Think of the bullets as the virus and think of the vaccine as wearing body armor. Would you prefer to be shot at with or without body armor? What chance do you prefer?

 

Now think about what would happen if the vaccine didn't happen at all. We would have seen more mutations. We would have seen more infections. The vaccine slowed the virus from mutating because there would be less people to mutate inside of. The vaccine was never meant to stop the mutating, but it would have slowed that.

 

As far as your last couple of paragraphs, I'm going to have to look into things further before replying. I have a feeling you're missing things though. Different parts of the world did their vaccinations differently and the virus itself, through mutations, would be different in different parts of the world, meaning the vaccination is going to vary anyway. There also would be different growth rates with different populations due to population density, living conditions, covid distancing policies, etc, not just with whether people are vaccinated or not.

Edited June 10 by The Lock

[UncleBen]

19 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I shouldn't be exerting my energy here too much tonight, but I'll pop in in the next couple of days to further answer things.

 

Just make sure you actually understand what "proof" you're giving. What wording are they using? If they just use words like "unlikely", that's not saying it'll stop the spread.

Or the CDC spokeswoman saying your jabbed so ditch your mask and don't worry shot the 6ft rule and life is good now that your jabbed ..total BS

 

 

[The Lock]

3 minutes ago, UncleBen said:

Or the CDC spokeswoman saying your jabbed so ditch your mask and don't worry shot the 6ft rule and life is good now that your jabbed ..total BS

 

 

 

Again, doesn't say it's going to stop the disease. Is shows PERCENTAGES (meaning not fully halting) of the effectiveness of the vaccine at that time. Slowing, not halting.