If you haven't been vaccinated against COVID-19 yet, now would be a good time

[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1643795363]What state?[/QUOTE]

I am in Ohio. We have a 60% increase in cases over the last week, driven by Delta.

[QUOTE=Heisman2;1643798693]I am in Ohio. We have a 60% increase in cases over the last week, driven by Delta.[/QUOTE]

So where is it that 99% of the cases are from the unvaccinated..& how do you know..what test are they using for the Delta variant?

[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1643801433]So where is it that 99% of the cases are from the unvaccinated..& how do you know..what test are they using for the Delta variant?[/QUOTE]

Maybe I was not clear, 99% of the cases who are hospitalized are unvaccinated, and 99% of those die are unvaccinated. I heard on NPR today, I believe it came from the state health department. I have been at work all day so can I have a chance to look that up and find it's on a specific website. I do not know which specific tests are state lab is using, though I do imagine if one were to call they could probably find out. It's really simple to test the variants, though.

[QUOTE=Heisman2;1643801873]Maybe I was not clear, 99% of the cases who are hospitalized are unvaccinated, and 99% of those die are unvaccinated. I heard on NPR today, I believe it came from the state health department. I have been at work all day so can I have a chance to look that up and find it's on a specific website. I do not know which specific tests are state lab is using, though I do imagine if one were to call they could probably find out. It's really simple to test the variants, though.[/QUOTE]

I’d like to see documentation on that if you have a chance

Also if your source is NPR, I have bad news for you, in February they even did a piece that the vaccine itself is causing new mutations...so your statements are highly suspect

[QUOTE=Paul Kreul;1643808043]Also if your source is NPR, I have bad news for you, in February they even did a piece that the vaccine itself is causing new mutations...so your statements are highly suspect[/QUOTE]

The governor said it himself: [url]https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/dewine-ohio-covid-19-deaths-hospitalizations-2021-unvaccinated-7-26-2021[/url]. The data was released by the Ohio Department of Health: [url]https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/continuing-coverage/coronavirus/vaccinating-ohio/99-5-of-ohioans-who-have-died-from-covid-this-year-were-unvaccinated-according-to-odh-data[/url]

I agree NPR is not perfect though. They have had several suspect people discuss COVID-19 over the last several months. I like to think if they state a fact it's legit but that of course isn't a guarantee.

[QUOTE=Heisman2;1643808573]The governor said it himself: [url]https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/dewine-ohio-covid-19-deaths-hospitalizations-2021-unvaccinated-7-26-2021[/url]. The data was released by the Ohio Department of Health: [url]https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/continuing-coverage/coronavirus/vaccinating-ohio/99-5-of-ohioans-who-have-died-from-covid-this-year-were-unvaccinated-according-to-odh-data[/url]

I agree NPR is not perfect though. They have had several suspect people discuss COVID-19 over the last several months. I like to think if they state a fact it's legit but that of course isn't a guarantee.[/QUOTE]

Strange that this isn’t happening anywhere besides America. The propaganda has gotten to mind blowing levels.

Israel: 60% of severely ill Covid patients are fully vaccinated

[url]https://www.ynetnews.com/health_science/article/r1dg8d0ao[/url]

Iceland is having the same problem as Israel with most of their population vaxxed they are seeing an explosion of covid, mostly in the vaxxed.

Iceland: Vaccines do not work

Iceland has been a vaccine paradise: Some 90 percent of people between the ages of 40-70 and 98 percent of those over 70 are fully vaccinated. On June 26, it abolished all lockdown rules. "Thank you for this joint struggle," the Health Minister told citizens. Now the country could be heading for new lockdown restrictions for the next five, ten or fifteen years.

Data from Israel now show that people are seven times as likely to be infected after being vaccinated than if they have already recovered.

[url]https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.22.436441v1[/url]

India-
After seeing relatively good success in handling the COVID crisis with an emphasis on early treatments such as Ivermectin, India is all of a sudden seeing a surge in cases and deaths being attributed to the COVID-19 virus."

[url]https://luis46pr.wordpress.com/2021/05/13/whats-going-on-india-sees-surge-of-deaths-and-injuries-following-covid-19-vaccine-roll-out/[/url]


Everywhere you look the vaccines are causing variants..

[url]https://www.bitchute.com/video/1sW2u7iBamjS/[/url]


Ivermectin has shown to be almost a 100% cure rate..with zero side effects..and it’s been FDA approved for 40 yrs.

[url]https://ivmmeta.com[/url]

Why anyone would take the vaccines at this point is completely illogical

Edit-repped for coming through with the links.

HOLE-LEE-FUK..Of course all the new deaths and cases are from the unvaccinated..


Vaccinated people now being tested at 28 PCR cycles, which almost guarantees a “negative” covid result. New evidence has emerged to suggest that people who get injected for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) are being administered a different PCR test than people who are not injected, making it appear

Test the unvaccinated at 43-45 cycles = 96.5% FALSE positives. But now they will test VACCINATED people at 28 cycles and poof! The vaccine magically works because the false positives come down. Really? Born yesterday but very early in a.m.”

[url]https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/lab-biosafety-guidelines.html#specimen-packing-shipping[/url]

Where in that last CDC link does it say they are using different cycle count thresholds for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals? I agree 28 seems a bit low but 43-45 seems much too high.

Your above posted biorxiv link is interesting but as they show in figure 1 the differential effects between people with and without history of COVID-19 disappear ~30 days after the second vaccine. They allude to figure 1 B showing differential T cell responses but it doesn't show that.

The issue with the Israeli data regarding % vaccinated or not and serious infection is the same as the issue with the Ohio data I posted. For example, if everybody was fully vaccinated you could say 100% of serious infections are from fully vaccinated people, which sounds scary without context. If Israel is mostly fully vaccinated then even if a small percentage of fully vaccinated people get a serious infection, a potentially larger absolutely number (but not relative percentage) of fully vaccinated people will get serious infections than unvaccinated. What is more informative is the percentage of fully vaccinated and not-fully vaccinated who are getting serious infections.

A large Ivermectin study was just recently retracted by the way. There is still not legit data to my knowledge that supports ivermectin:
- retracted study: [url]https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns[/url]
- actual published literature: [url]https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839[/url]

I'm not going to be able to go through stuff as rigorously for the next few days as I have other things to focus on; please don't spend a lot of time on detailed responses anticipating me to respond in kind (I do like your posts as they require me to think critically, but I just don't have time to continue this debate in this fashion).

[QUOTE=Heisman2;1643817123]Where in that last CDC link does it say they are using different cycle count thresholds for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals? I agree 28 seems a bit low but 43-45 seems much too high.

Your above posted biorxiv link is interesting but as they show in figure 1 the differential effects between people with and without history of COVID-19 disappear ~30 days after the second vaccine. They allude to figure 1 B showing differential T cell responses but it doesn't show that.

The issue with the Israeli data regarding % vaccinated or not and serious infection is the same as the issue with the Ohio data I posted. For example, if everybody was fully vaccinated you could say 100% of serious infections are from fully vaccinated people, which sounds scary without context. If Israel is mostly fully vaccinated then even if a small percentage of fully vaccinated people get a serious infection, a potentially larger absolutely number (but not relative percentage) of fully vaccinated people will get serious infections than unvaccinated. What is more informative is the percentage of fully vaccinated and not-fully vaccinated who are getting serious infections.

A large Ivermectin study was just recently retracted by the way. There is still not legit data to my knowledge that supports ivermectin:
- retracted study: [url]https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns[/url]
- actual published literature: [url]https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab591/6310839[/url]

I'm not going to be able to go through stuff as rigorously for the next few days as I have other things to focus on; please don't spend a lot of time on detailed responses anticipating me to respond in kind (I do like your posts as they require me to think critically, but I just don't have time to continue this debate in this fashion).[/QUOTE]


In the link under ..”See Guidance for SARS-CoV-2 Point-of-Care and Rapid Testing | CDC for more information”.

Also, somehow I knew out of the 70 studies on Ivermectin you’d pick that one lol...as your article argues..”right wingers”. Are you serious?

No legit data for ivermectin..? What?


Ivermectin for Covid-19: Real Time Meta Analysis of 60 Studies:

[url]https://ivmmeta.com[/url]

A Continuation of a Timeline of Ivermectin-Related Events in the COVID-19 Pandemic [June 30, 2021]

[url]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352853743_A_Continuation_of_a_Timeline_of_Ivermectin-Related_Events_in_the_COVID-19_Pandemic_June_30_2021[/url]

I already posted info on ivermectin success in India, &Mexico..

Ivermectin and the odds of hospitalization due to COVID-19: evidence from a quasi-experimental analysis based on a public intervention in Mexico City (June 2021) - large data set shows 52%-76% reduction in hospitalizationsBut some are wondering if the ramping up of COVID “vaccines” is the cause behind these recent surges.

[url]https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/r93g4/[/url]

COVID Deaths Plunge After Mexico City Introduces Ivermectin"

[url]https://principia-scientific.com/covid-deaths-plunge-after-mexico-city-introduces-ivermectin/[/url]

Horowitz: The censorship of ivermectin is the biggest story of COVID
OP-ED

[url]https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-the-censorship-of-ivermectin-is-the-biggest-story-of-covid[/url]

Ivermectin - Peer Reviewed Meta Analysis (23rd June) - Safe and Effective COVID treatment

[url]https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2021&issue=08000&article=00007[/url]

Co-author of the definitive meta-analysis of ivermectin for COVID explains how a Lancet journal sat on it for 3 months, then rejected it, after it had passed 4 peer reviewers

[url]https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/scandal-of-the-suppressed-case-for-ivermectin/[/url]

Ivermectin tablets to be distributed among Uttarakhand residents to prevent Covid, says state govt

[url]https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/coronavirus-outbreak/story/ivermectin-tablet-uttarakhand-residents-prevent-covid-govt-1801863-2021-05-12?__twitter_impression=true&s=09[/url]

Zimbabwe approves use of ivermectin to treat Covid-19I

[url]https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/africa/2021-06-27-zimbabwe-approves-use-of-ivermectin-to-treat-covid-19/[/url]



Meanwhile, the WHO also changed testing for the vaccinated..WTF!!!

WHO lowers cycle threshold count for those that have been vaccinated

WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05
Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2

[url]https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-IVD-users-2020-05[/url]


Memo from the beginning of the year where the WHO indicates cycle rate adjustment may be necessary for accurate testing.


You cannot make this chit up. What bullchit!!!

Meanwhile..
Covid: Ivermectin to be studied as possible treatment in UK

[url]https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57570377[/url]

Effects of Ivermectin in Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial”

[url]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149291821002010[/url]


“A group of scientists claim drug, Ivermectin, could end the pandemic-- unsurprisingly FDA won't approve”

[url]https://medlifestyle.news/2021/05/09/a-group-of-scientists-claim-drug-ivermectin-could-end-the-pandemic/[/url]

Yet another study confirming the effectiveness of Ivermectin. This new double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled study showed a whopping 2.62x reduction in COV2 infection vs controlled group. At this point we should be asking, Who is going to prison for crimes against humanity. Sickening.

[url]https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1[/url]

There won’t ever be a long term effects study for the vaccines, because Pfizer and Moderna both unblinded their studies after three months and offered the vaccine to the control group that had received the placebo. Double blind studies are the gold standard for establishing causation, and now we will never have that medium or long term data. So when they say, “There’s no evidence that mRNA vaccines cause [bad thing that vaccinated people are experiencing]” that’s why. They avoided the opportunity to create the evidence.

I do not see anything about PCR cycle counts in the link under ”See Guidance for SARS-CoV-2 Point-of-Care and Rapid Testing | CDC for more information”. I wouldn't expect it to be there as point-of-care and rapid testing doesn't use PCR.

I fully acknowledge ivermectin shows promise and deserves further study. Thankfully as you pointed out there are ongoing trials that will show if it really is effective or not. As it stands though with the retraction of that prior study the data overall do not overwhelmingly show a positive benefit; collectively the data seem much more neutral when examined critically: [url]https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/954681#vp_1[/url]

I will happily promote ivermectin if the larger better-designed trials demonstrate efficacy.

6 month efficacy/safety data indicate the vaccines are safe/effective: [url]https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1[/url] - I acknowledge this is a preprint.

We definitely do not need long-term double blinded trials to determine vaccine safely. In this situation it's not ethical to do that. If we needed those types of trials then we never would have determined the more rare side effects caused by vaccines in the past that were not found in the trials initially (the ones that occur at a frequency of say <1/10,000, which are generally not picked up in the trials). Post-trial surveillance when vaccines are given on a wider scale pick up these more rare side-effects. That's why some of the vaccines for COVID-19 were paused temporarily to examine the link with myocarditis.

[QUOTE=Heisman2;1643837923]I do not see anything about PCR cycle counts in the link under ”See Guidance for SARS-CoV-2 Point-of-Care and Rapid Testing | CDC for more information”. I wouldn't expect it to be there as point-of-care and rapid testing doesn't use PCR.

I fully acknowledge ivermectin shows promise and deserves further study. Thankfully as you pointed out there are ongoing trials that will show if it really is effective or not. As it stands though with the retraction of that prior study the data overall do not overwhelmingly show a positive benefit; collectively the data seem much more neutral when examined critically: [url]https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/954681#vp_1[/url]

I will happily promote ivermectin if the larger better-designed trials demonstrate efficacy.

6 month efficacy/safety data indicate the vaccines are safe/effective: [url]https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1[/url] - I acknowledge this is a preprint.

We definitely do not need long-term double blinded trials to determine vaccine safely. In this situation it's not ethical to do that. If we needed those types of trials then we never would have determined the more rare side effects caused by vaccines in the past that were not found in the trials initially (the ones that occur at a frequency of say <1/10,000, which are generally not picked up in the trials). Post-trial surveillance when vaccines are given on a wider scale pick up these more rare side-effects. That's why some of the vaccines for COVID-19 were paused temporarily to examine the link with myocarditis.[/QUOTE]

You have to be kidding..? Antigenic shift (mutation) is a common normal biological function. Even though Cronavirus are considered more stable in this regard than flu/virus, nevertheless inevitably will occur within large population infection spread. This is precisely why vaccines have little to no chance of effectiveness for Corona type viruses. History has proven this true over and over. Corna vaccines are notoriously problematic ( mostly due to rapid weakening) and have never been successful.

6 months is nowhere near enough time to show safety & effectiveness. It takes 5+ years to develop vaccines. The fact so many came out within months using emergency authorization doesn't make much sense. If scientists were capable of such efficiency, why hasn't it been utilized for other diseases and viruses? Record speed indicates a higher risk of mistakes as well.
Also, if the virus was fully isolated, where are all the cures/treatments? Oh yeah. The CDC and other agencies claimed the same treatments they now endorse or claim have validity were ineffective when proposed last year.
There's validity that the vaccine itself is causing mutations. Even NPR than an article about that in February.
So what's better: insisting everyone wash their hands before touching their face and using effective treatments or using an experimental vaccine that is causing more mutations?
Viruses are living organisms that adapt to survive. Giving the vaccine to the weakest people first was actually stupid. Because it's easier for a virus to mutate in someone with a weak immune system then a strong one.

Also..
“WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.”

Seems to say to do that right there.

Mutations definitely do occur but thus far the vaccines seem to be working against the various strains to prevent severe illness. As more mutations occur booster shots will hopefully incorporate them. Alternatively, hopefully as mutations occur the virus becomes less pathogenic to the point where we eventually do not need to worry about it more than a typical cold.

It normally takes many years to study a vaccine because it takes a long time to have enough cases in the general population to be able to prove effectiveness. With COVID-19 so widespread they were able to speed up that part dramatically; that’s the main reason things were done so much more quickly. That’s also why it’s not done so quickly with any other illness; none of the other illnesses are as close to as widespread as this one.
We have fully isolated many viruses without effective cures/treatments. As time goes on we get more data and develop better treatments.

I haven’t seen any data to suggest the virus is causing mutations. Giving the vaccine to people with a weak immune system was a good idea to protect them. We do have data that immunocompromised people harbor more mutations; that has nothing to do with the vaccine, that has to do with the fact that they do not clear the virus well from their body. The vaccine aids clearance of the virus before it can replicate a lot; this will decrease the opportunity for mutations. You’re probably referring to this NPR article: [url]https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965703047/vaccines-could-drive-the-evolution-of-more-covid-19-mutants[/url] - it’s a theoretical risk with no evidence this has occurred to generate a more pathogenic variant that eludes the vaccine (to my knowledge).

That WHO guidance statement does not say anything about using different cycle thresholds for vaccinated and unvaccinated. It correctly says a higher viral load leads to a lower cycle threshold. It also correctly says if test results do not match correspond to the clinical presentation then one should retest. This does not in any way insinuate a different cycle threshold should be used for vaccinated and unvaccinated.

I’m gonna keep this to one post a day, feel free to continue this thread if you’d like but I’m not sure anyone else is reading this so I may bow out soon.

The most vaccinated areas are those that are having the most amount of new mutations..that’s not a coincidence. India was doing great with ivermectin, then when the WHO forced them to use the vaccine, mutations/cases/deaths skyrocketed.

The vaccine being used today is not an actual vaccine by conventional definition, it is radically brand new experimental mRNA encoding and transcription programming, so the obvious reality is, it has not been tested long enough to understand safety or efficacy -- Plain and simple

To show statistical significance for a virus of this type, a vaccine must show efficacy, (save lives, Period.) However, when the overall death rate is between 0.2 and 0.5 %, there will be little to no benefit. In other words, SARS-COV-2 virus is far too weak right now to show a vaccine effectiveness rate numerically, at population scale.

Pfizer and Moderna both unblinded their studies after three months and offered the vaccine to the control group that had received the placebo. Double blind studies are the gold standard for establishing causation, and now we will never have that medium or long term data. So when they say, “There’s no evidence that mRNA vaccines cause [bad thing that vaccinated people are experiencing]” that’s why. They avoided the opportunity to create the evidence

In regards to the WHO MEMO, It is implicitly stating that if your positive PCR test does not correlate with the clinical picture of the patient, it could well be because the cycle threshold was too high for the viral load of the patient.

You see this piece of text:

“Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.”

What do you think that manual adjustment refers to?

[QUOTE=EliKoehn;1643538223]Incidentally I woke up with a mildly sore throat and have wanted to sleep all day - though the fatigue is most likely attributable to heavy squats on a deficit, which tend to wipe me out anyway.

Hmm, I will consider it. I hate needles and faint every time I get stuck. The last time I got my blood drawn I was out cold for longer than normal and the nurse couldn't bring me back; when I came to the rest of the floor was involved in trying to wake me up. Felt terrible and oxygen-starved the whole day. I realize getting covid is a bigger deal but in my decision making metric, it plays a part when those at greatest risk are already vaccinated.

However, if I did get sick, I would get tested and if positive would quarantine.[/QUOTE]

I had my first shot yesterday and it may help to know that the needle is really thin. I seriously didn’t even feel it and they had to tell me «you are finished and can leave»

I don’t have an issue with needles but I never had the experience of not even feeling it before.

Paul Kreul, with worldwide travel the mutations are going all over the place; it's not really possible to correlate them with the vaccine.

I disagree about the testing for long enough; the trials were done as expected without any shortcuts. Again, they were done quickly due to high prevalence of the disease. The safety parts were not compromised.

A vaccine doesn't have to save lives to be effective. If it decreases morbidity (ie, hospitalizations that don't lead to death, long-lasting symptoms, etc) then it is also effective. If we just went by mortality and the 0.2 vs 0.5% numbers were accurate, then if 10,000 people with the vaccine were compared to 10,000 people without it the number of deaths would be 20 vs 50; that would be statistically significant.

You can create evidence without double blind trials, and in this case long-lasting double blind trials are not ethical. If the only evidence for science that counted was double blind trials then essentially the entire field of epidemiology would be eliminated, all observational and prospective cohort studies would be eliminated, etc. Yet, they prove informative, as long as limitations are understood.

Regarding the WHO memo, that statement is more for patients who have a false negative. If you have a patient who you think may have COVID-19, but the test is negative, then reconsider (ie, perhaps you got a poor quality sample so the test was negative). You wouldn't know this presumably as you do not do this clinically but when we send samples for PCR we do not tell the lab the symptoms or anything (ie, vaccination status) about the patient. The lab runs all samples the same and report a positive or negative result. The lab does not report the cycle threshold. There is literally no chance for the vaccination status or symptoms of the patient to influence the cycle count threshold used to determine a positive or negative result.

[QUOTE=Heisman2;1643908403]
I disagree about the testing for long enough; the trials were done as expected without any shortcuts. Again, they were done quickly due to high prevalence of the disease. The safety parts were not compromised.
[/QUOTE]And yet it still does not have FDA full approval for use - just "emergency" ok.

[QUOTE=CommitmentRulz;1643908633]And yet it still does not have FDA full approval for use - just "emergency" ok.[/QUOTE]

That's because they have to evaluate all of the data that has been collected regarding it. They have to look at pretty much everything, that takes a long time. It's also includes all the post surveillance data. FDA approval is expected in the coming months, no later than January for Pfizer from what I have read. If you and everyone else want to wait for FDA approval to then feel it is safe then by all means that is your choice.

[QUOTE=Heisman2;1643908403]Paul Kreul, with worldwide travel the mutations are going all over the place; it's not really possible to correlate them with the vaccine.

I disagree about the testing for long enough; the trials were done as expected without any shortcuts. Again, they were done quickly due to high prevalence of the disease. The safety parts were not compromised.

A vaccine doesn't have to save lives to be effective. If it decreases morbidity (ie, hospitalizations that don't lead to death, long-lasting symptoms, etc) then it is also effective. If we just went by mortality and the 0.2 vs 0.5% numbers were accurate, then if 10,000 people with the vaccine were compared to 10,000 people without it the number of deaths would be 20 vs 50; that would be statistically significant.

You can create evidence without double blind trials, and in this case long-lasting double blind trials are not ethical. If the only evidence for science that counted was double blind trials then essentially the entire field of epidemiology would be eliminated, all observational and prospective cohort studies would be eliminated, etc. Yet, they prove informative, as long as limitations are understood.

Regarding the WHO memo, that statement is more for patients who have a false negative. If you have a patient who you think may have COVID-19, but the test is negative, then reconsider (ie, perhaps you got a poor quality sample so the test was negative). You wouldn't know this presumably as you do not do this clinically but when we send samples for PCR we do not tell the lab the symptoms or anything (ie, vaccination status) about the patient. The lab runs all samples the same and report a positive or negative result. The lab does not report the cycle threshold. There is literally no chance for the vaccination status or symptoms of the patient to influence the cycle count threshold used to determine a positive or negative result.[/QUOTE]

False. After 50 deaths, under FDA guidelines vaccine es are pulled in the testing period..you are the long term test. Remember, Pfizer and Moderna both unblinded their studies after three months and offered the vaccine to the control group that had received the placebo.

Normal approval process is 3-5 years of animal trials, followed by 3-5 years of human trials. Every previous mRNa "vaccine" candidate was withdrawn before or during animal trials due to lack of efficacy combined with serious safety concerns

And yes, it is the vaccinated that are becoming sick, I see this constantly with CODE BLUE’S on the hour from those that have taken the jab..


They showed that after administration of the vaccine, the innate immune response to other immune system triggers like other viruses, bacteria and fungi was changed in complex ways. Evidence also showed that once the adaptive immune response to COVID “wears off” basically, it could make people more susceptible to more serious illness from COVID infection (not to mention other things) due to these innate immune system changes.

[url]https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.03.21256520v1[/url]

Using this PCR test on a massive scale to diagnose a disease, is neither logical nor precedented. In the clinical setting a PCR test is used to confirm a diagnosis for patients that present with symptoms. The most liberal use, not connected with a diagnosis, is screening for MRSA, but even in those cases there are narrow criteria of who should be swabbed, and evidence has emerged that isolating just colonized patients has no clear benefits.
With covid, not only do we have a massive industry, testing healthy people, but they test EVERYONE that comes into acute care, regardless of presenting complaints. Chest pain? Covid test! GI Bleed? Covid test! CVA? Covid test! You get the picture. What follows from this is a very hyper-inflated case count, and a hyper-inflated-death count. All the while they are placing patients with no symptoms of a respiratory virus that test positive in the same departments as real covid patients with respiratory disease.
This is a real problem from a nosocomial infection perspective.
Secondly, while I suspect that the techniques employed in regulatory FDA labs is of highest caliber, I do not think they are in downstream labs whose objective is to process a large quantity of swabs they are inundated with.

At this point we will just have to agree to disagree. For anyone else who's reading this, I assure you, if people were dropping like flies after getting the vaccine and it was in any way linked to the vaccine, it would be a massive news story and everyone would hear about it.

I've made all the points I think I can make, so I will stop engaging in this thread.

[QUOTE=Heisman2;1643924303]At this point we will just have to agree to disagree. For anyone else who's reading this, I assure you, if people were dropping like flies after getting the vaccine and it was in any way linked to the vaccine, it would be a massive news story and everyone would hear about it.

I've made all the points I think I can make, so I will stop engaging in this thread.[/QUOTE]

It’s not about “dropping like flies” right now. The effects will take 3-4 yrs to show effectiveness. Every animal in Covid tests either died of suffered severe neurological issues within 6 months. The latency between our immune system & that of an animals is approximately 2-3 yrs.

There is absolutely ZERO reason to be vaccinated & hundreds of reasons not to. You can still catch & transmitt Covid. To say that having being vaccinated one is less likely to die or suffer hospitalization, is completely assured. Covid is already at a 99.98% survival rate.

I don´t believe in covid.

Personally its a no for me. Where I live we haven't had a case is ages. No one has Died from it where I live and it has been no issue. We have no evidence on any adverse effects in humans. Sterilization or anything else.

I am pro choice, If you want to get it then go for it. If I am forced to get it if I was in the military still I would. If I am forced to get it to go to the gym I will.