myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Coronavirus
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 281, 282, 283 ... 331, 332, 333  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MikeLaRonde



Joined: 11 Jun 2001
Posts: 443

PostPosted: Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here it is again folks. My post from maybe 2 mos ago, on that fateful page 2 buried thread created by Jimmy McGrath's alter-ego, "monkeyface".

mlaronde wrote:
mac wrote:
Yesterday, more than 500,000 new people contracted the virus, more in the US than in any other country.

Golly. that's a lot. I wonder how you know?

I don't suppose those blasted RT-PCR tests were used to pull this figure out of a hat? You know, the ones with the 95% false positive rates, when you crank up the amplification cycle high enough (anything over 28 is testing for practically nothing.. yet a mind blowing 45 cycles has been often used for the purpose of exaggerating the "cases" to justify a "pandemic").

Comments on both sides here.
https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

For anyone wondering if 28 or 35 is more realistic, consider that the lower threshold has been used to determine "breakthrough" cases (here, they want the stats to be lower)

It was nearly a year ago when I first read about third-party labs trying to confirm "positive" tests, only to find influenza 'A' or flu 'B', at most. Is it any wonder that the CDC finally just admitted that this EXPERIMENTAL test
is being discontinued because it can't tell the difference between the mythical SARS-Cov-2 and the flu or common cold?

Quote:

After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only.
...
CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.

https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html

Gee what a coincidence, the symptoms are usually the same as well.

If only I could have invented such a fixable, pervert-able test, which can be used to fool, subvert and conquer most of humanity, you know what I would have got as a reward? A freaking Nobel prize.

R.I.P.
Dr. Kary B. Mullis

Nice going, but we sure wish you hadn't. We really didn't need to find a needle in a stack of manure.
And we wonder why you died mysteriously in 2019 ...

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1993/mullis/facts/


mac wrote:
Like I said, you can’t fix stupid. Especially stupid and drunk.

Quote:
Public Health England reports that RT-PCR assays show a specificity of over 95%, meaning that up to 5% of cases are false positives. The impact of false positive results includes risk of overestimating the COVID-19 incidence, the demand on track and trace, and the extent of asymptomatic infection.


5% false positive becomes 97% false positive—right after the third drink and visiting bitchute.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Goodwind



Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 297
Location: On water

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

His is a covid study not from the CDC, not from the big pharma, but from Greg Abbott's anti-mask and anti-vaccine mandate State of Texas.

COVID-19 Cases And Deaths by Vaccination Status
Texas Department of State Health Services
November 8, 2021

1. From September 4 through October 1, 2021:
• Unvaccinated people were 13 times more likely to become infected with COVID-19 than fully
vaccinated people.
• Unvaccinated people were 20 times more likely to experience COVID-19-associated
death than fully vaccinated people.

2. Vaccination had a strong protective effect on infections and deaths among people of all ages. The protective impact on infections was consistent across adult age groups and even greater in people
ages 12 to 17 years. The protective impact on COVID-19 deaths, which was high for all age groups, varied more widely. In the September time frame, unvaccinated people in their 40s were 55 times more likely to die from COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated people of the same age.
Unvaccinated people aged 75 years and older were 12 times more likely to die than their vaccinated counterparts

3. Overall, regardless of vaccination status, people in Texas were four to five times more likely to become infected with COVID-19 or suffer a COVID-19-associated death while the Delta variant was
prevalent in Texas (August 2021) compared with a period before the Delta variant became
prevalent (April 2021).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWMkeMA3sfA

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/Cases-and-Deaths-by-Vaccination-Status-11082021.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17041
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mikey likes this guy—who died before covid, but had some whacky right wing ideas.

Quote:
An offbeat, chatty, restless and unconventional chemist, Mullis defied the stereotype of the Nobel Prize winner. He was drunk the morning he won the prestigious prize, he once admitted, and in response to the news, went surfing near his La Jolla apartment.

Acclaimed as his technique was, Mullis was highly criticized for other theories, notably his suggestion that HIV did not cause AIDS, which he once wrote was “one hell of a mistake.” It was a notion that cost him some credibility among his scientific peers, as did his conviction that global warming was a hoax and that ozone damage was an illusion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17041
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2021 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can’t make this shit up. The GOP goes all in on don’t trust science.

Quote:
By ANTHONY IZAGUIRRE
Associated Press

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Republicans fighting President Joe Biden’s coronavirus vaccine mandates are wielding a new weapon against the White House rules: natural immunity. This week, Florida wrote natural immunity into state law as GOP lawmakers elsewhere are pushing similar measures to sidestep vaccine mandates. Lawsuits over the mandates have also begun leaning on the idea. Conservative federal lawmakers have implored regulators to consider natural immunity when formulating mandates. The argument is that a person who has recovered from the virus has enough immunity and antibodies to not need COVID-19 vaccines, and it has been invoked time and time again in recent weeks by Republicans as a sort of stand-in for vaccines.

AP
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MikeLaRonde



Joined: 11 Jun 2001
Posts: 443

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I sincerely hope the casual reader notices that IF "monkeyface" were really a separate person, he would have replied weeks ago in defense of his supposed unique identity.

Who's really making this shit up, coward McGrath? We all (i.e. everyone except Mac, Real-human, and wsurfer) know your M.O. which is to regurgitate with vitriol the narrative from CNN. Go finger yourself, NWO sponsored NGO oily discharge!

to everyone else, I strongly suggest that you do the ONLY TEST THAT MATTERS: All-Cause Mortality vs. Vaccination Rates. The suggested test subject data are Israel and Scotland.

mac wrote:
You can’t make this shit up. The GOP goes all in on don’t trust science.

Quote:
By ANTHONY IZAGUIRRE
Associated Press

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Republicans fighting President Joe Biden’s coronavirus vaccine mandates are wielding a new weapon against the White House rules: natural immunity. This week, Florida wrote natural immunity into state law as GOP lawmakers elsewhere are pushing similar measures to sidestep vaccine mandates. Lawsuits over the mandates have also begun leaning on the idea. Conservative federal lawmakers have implored regulators to consider natural immunity when formulating mandates. The argument is that a person who has recovered from the virus has enough immunity and antibodies to not need COVID-19 vaccines, and it has been invoked time and time again in recent weeks by Republicans as a sort of stand-in for vaccines.

AP
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17041
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The NYT coverage of Covid, with a healthy, not paranoid, touch of skepticism has been particularly insightful. I don't know how to copy the graphs, but the text is very interesting.

Quote:
Travelers in Houston on Saturday.Christopher Lee for The New York Times
Again? Alas.
A month ago, Covid-19 cases had begun to rise in a few parts of New England and the Mountain West. But they were still falling in most northern parts of the U.S., as well as in Canada.

That pattern seemed to suggest that a nationwide cold-weather Covid surge was unlikely anytime soon. The prediction models collected by the C.D.C. agreed: They projected continuing declines in U.S. Covid cases during November.

Instead, cases have surged about 30 percent this month.


Chart shows 7-day daily average.Source: New York Times database
It is a maddening development. Almost two years after Covid began spreading, it is still here, again creating anxiety as Americans prepare to gather for the holidays. Today’s newsletter will try to help you make sense of the pre-Thanksgiving surge.

The mystery of Covid
The seemingly obvious explanation for the recent rise in cases is the weather. As temperatures have dropped, more activities have moved indoors, where the Covid virus tends to spread. And the weather surely plays some role in the surge.

But I mentioned Canada above — along with the cold-weather parts of the U.S. where caseloads were not rising a month ago — for a reason. If the weather were really the dominant cause, the recent Covid patterns would look different. They would more closely match temperature patterns.

As unsatisfying as this is, the full explanation for the surge remains unclear. There is still much more that scientists do not know about how this virus spreads than they do know, as Michael Osterholm, a University of Minnesota epidemiologist, has been saying for months.

Media coverage and expert commentary too often fails to acknowledge this point. We offer tidy explanations for the virus’s ups and downs — like weather, school calendars, mask habits, even sporting events — when reality is messier. (Here are some detailed examples.)

The bad news about the virus’s unpredictability is that surges can sneak up on us: The lack of a Covid increase across most of northern North America a month ago was not as reassuring as it may have seemed.

The good news is that the virus can also surprise in pleasant ways. This winter, cases are not guaranteed to keep rising. Keep in mind that they peaked in early January last winter, before plummeting about 75 percent by late February. In coming weeks, I’d encourage you to ignore most Covid prognostications. Nobody knows what will happen next.

In the meantime, how should you think about the rising number of cases?

Zero point zero
For most people, the vaccines remain remarkably effective at turning Covid into a manageable illness that’s less dangerous than some everyday activities.

The main dividing line is age. In Minnesota, which publishes detailed Covid data, the death rate for fully vaccinated people under 50 during the Delta surge this year was 0.0 per 100,000 — meaning, so few people died that the rate rounds to zero.

Washington State is another place that publishes statistics by age and vaccination status. In its most recent report, Washington did not even include a death rate for fully vaccinated residents under 65. It was too low to be meaningful.

Hospitalization rates are also very low for vaccinated people under 65. In Minnesota during the Delta surge, the average weekly hospitalization rate for vaccinated residents between 18 and 49 was about 1 per 100,000.


Source: Minnesota Department of Health
To put that in perspective, I looked up data for some other medical problems. During a typical week in the U.S., nearly 3 people per 100,000 visit an emergency room because of a bicycle crash. The rate for vehicle crashes is about 20 per 100,000.

Covid is the threat on many of our minds. But for most people under 65, the virus may present less risk than a car trip to visit relatives this week. “The vaccination, I think, changes everything,” Dustin Johnston, 40, a photographer in Michigan who plans to gather with family, told The Times.

In need of protection
The situation is more frightening for older people, especially those in their 80s and 90s. For the oldest age groups, Covid presents a real risk even after vaccination. It appears to be more dangerous than a typical flu and much more dangerous than time spent riding in a vehicle, based on C.D.C. data.

As a result, older Americans need protection during a surge. (The same is also true of a small percentage of younger people with specific vulnerabilities to Covid, like organ-transplant recipients.) The most effective way to protect vulnerable people is through vaccination — not only of them but also of others who might infect them.

Children 5 and older, who are now eligible for vaccines, are an example. Covid remains overwhelmingly mild for them. But vaccinated children are less likely to infect other people than unvaccinated children, and a mild Covid case in a child can turn into a deadly case for an elderly grandparent.


Reagan Allison, 8, and her mother, Michelle Allison, getting a shot in Michigan this month.Emily Elconin for The New York Times

The argument for booster shots can be similar. Most younger and middle-aged adults who have received two Covid vaccine shots remain highly protected from severe illness (as these charts show). But the vaccines do seem to wane enough to make people more susceptible to a mild infection they could pass on to a vulnerable person. All Americans age 18 and up are now eligible for booster shots if their most recent shot was at least six month ago.

When discussion of boosters started a few months ago, I was somewhat skeptical, because the evidence of their benefit for most individuals was thin. Their communal value now seems clear, though. I recently got a booster shot, mostly because I will be spending time with older relatives in the coming weeks. The case for booster shots among people over 65 is even stronger.

If you’re anxious about the risks of your Thanksgiving gathering to older people, I’d offer three pieces of advice. One, insist that anybody in your house be fully vaccinated if eligible. Two, encourage people to get tested — either at a testing center or with an at-home rapid test — before coming. Three, once the day arrives, try to put aside your Covid anxiety and enjoy the holiday.


Data from different places is quite different, but the article seems correct that we don't always understand why. Today's Seattle Times reports that cases among children are rising rapidly in Washington.

Anecdotes don't prove much. A very dear friend's daughter, a nurse, is still recovering from a severe case of Covid, despite being vaccinated. Nothing works perfectly, the answers lie not in parsing anecdotes, but in looking at the data and trends.

Mile Laronde is too young to remember the scourge of polio, and too lazy, drunk, and callous to actually do any homework from reputable sites about public health and what vaccines have meant in saving billions of lives. The perfect target for the GOP. Resentment is all you need.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coachg



Joined: 10 Sep 2000
Posts: 3244

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mlaronde wrote:

I. Don't get vaxxed (FAIL)
II. don't allow your parents or grandparents to get a "booster" (mixed reaction = GOOD)
III. Now pretty please DONT VAX THE KIDS!!!


Vaxed, Boostered & kids Vaxed. Now able to do trips to Tenerife, Portugal, Germany & Italy.

Coachg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20654

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know Dr. Mercola is a supplement pusher, but that doesn't make his research null and void. The same absolute vs relative benefit trick used by Big Pharma in this covid context has been used for decades by Big Pharma to fool people, including many doctors, into believing that:
Dietary cholesterol, high serum cholesterol, saturated fats, and much more are harmful;

complex carbs are healthful;

statins are a good idea for the population at large;

drugs are required in order to raise our HDL, lower our triglycerides, combat hay fever, reverse Type 2 diabetes, lower our blood pressure, etc;

metformin is innocuous (when virtually all the research shows that it negates the benefits of exercise);

and on and on and on and on and on.

Mercola is saying below that the same deliberately misleading BS applies to vaccine research. DUH! We've known for decades that almost all pharmaceutical research papers are WRITTEN BY THE COMPANIES THAT MAKE THE DRUG, not by the "legitimate" physicians who conducted the research. The whistleblowers get no more grants, and often lose all credibility due to attacks like we see in this forum every day when someone challenges leftist ideology.

The following is by far one of the LEAST belligerent and as usual well-referenced examples of Mercola's scores of blasts at the vaccine racket, as he would say. None of us in this forum is qualified to say definitively that his LONG series of daily "vax blasts" (my term) are wrong, and many extremely qualified epidemiologists and front-line covid treatment and research physicians are in general agreement with his central theme.

I don't have the time to read them and verify his hundreds of references, but he and emerging data lend a lot of credibility to his story. Maybe even more convincing is that both the federal government and Big Tech literally, outright CENSOR Mercola's entire series. We wouldn't see them at all ... or be able to decide for ourselves who's right ... if he didn't have a 48-hour window in which to exercise his First Amendment rights (that's why I have to reprint his article in full rather than just link to it). I've added quotation marks and Italics for the reading impaired and anyone tempted to deliberately and falsely attribute content to me.

"How COVID-19 Jab Benefits Are Exaggerated
Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked
November 23, 2021
Download PDF
Previous Next
covid 19 jab benefits exaggerated
STORY AT-A-GLANCE

One of the most commonly used tricks to make a drug look more effective than it is in a real-world setting is to conflate absolute and relative risk reduction. While AstraZeneca boasted a relative reduction of 100%, the absolute reduction was 0.01%. For the Pfizer shot, the relative risk reduction was initially 95%, but the absolute risk reduction was only 0.84%
In AstraZeneca’s trial, only 0.04% of people in the vaccine group, and 0.88% in the placebo group were infected with SARS-CoV-2. When the background risk of infection is that low, even a 100% absolute risk reduction becomes near-meaningless
Research shows the majority of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in obese COVID-19 patients are autoimmune and not neutralizing. This means that if you’re obese, you’re at risk of developing autoimmune problems if you get the natural infection. You’re also at higher risk of a serious infection, as the antibodies your body produces are not the neutralizing kind that kill the virus. Does the same hold true for antibodies made in response to the COVID jab?
At nearly 72%, Vermont has the highest rate of “fully vaccinated” residents in the country, yet COVID cases are suddenly surging to new heights. During the first week of November 2021, cases increased by 42%. The hospital admission rate for fully vaccinated patients increased by 8%, while the admission rate for those who were not fully vaccinated decreased by 15%. Local health authorities blame the surge on the highly infectious delta variant, which would be odd if true, since the first delta case in Vermont was detected back in mid-May
Data from physician assistant Deborah Conrad show vaccinated people — counting anyone who got one or more shots, regardless of time since the injection — are nine times more likely to be hospitalized than the unvaccinated
In a November 12, 2021, blog post,1 Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., reviews how the benefits of the COVID-19 shots have been exaggerated by the drug companies and misrepresented to the public by an uncritical media. She has previously given many lectures on how the drug companies conflated absolute and relative risks for statin drugs.2

Demasi was a respected Australian science presenter at ABC television until she produced a Catalyst report on the dangers of Wi-Fi and cellphones. In the wake of the controversy it raised, she and 11 of her staff members were axed and the episode retracted.3 That was 2016. Today, Demasi is one of the few professional journalists seeking and publishing the truth about COVID-19.

Absolute Versus Relative Risk Reduction

In her post, Demasi highlights one of the most commonly used tricks in the book — conflating absolute and relative risk reduction. As noted by Demasi, AstraZeneca and Australia’s health minister, Greg Hunt, claimed the AstraZeneca injection offered “100% protection” against COVID-19 death. How did they get this number? Demasi explains:4

“In the trial5 of 23,848 subjects ... there was one death in the placebo group and no deaths in the vaccinated group. One less death out of a total of one, indeed was a relative reduction of 100%, but the absolute reduction was 0.01%.”

Similarly, Pfizer’s COVID shot was said to be 95% effective against the infection, but this too is the relative risk reduction, not the absolute reduction. The absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s shot was a meager 0.84%.

It’s worth noting that an incredibly low number of people were infected in the first place. Only 8 out of 18,198 vaccine recipients developed COVID symptoms (0.04%), and 162 of the 18,325 in the placebo group (0.88%).

Since your risk of COVID was minuscule to begin with, even if the shot was able to reduce your absolute risk by 100%, it would still be trivial in real-world terms.

According to Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Harding Centre for Risk Literacy at the Max Planck Institute, only quoting the relative risk reduction is a “sin” against transparent communication, as it can be used as a “deliberate tactic to manipulate or persuade people.” Demasi also quotes John Ioannidis, professor at Stanford University, who told her:6

“This is not happening just for vaccines. Over many decades, RRR [relative risk reduction] has been the dominant way of communicating results of clinical trials. Almost always, RRR looks nicer than absolute risk reductions.”

Demasi continues:7

“When asked if there was any justification for misleading the public about the vaccine’s benefits to encourage uptake, Prof Ioannidis rejected the notion.

‘I don't see how one can increase uptake by using misleading information. I am all in favor of increasing uptake, but this needs to use complete information, otherwise sooner or later incomplete information will lead to misunderstandings and will backfire,’ says Ioannidis.

The way authorities have communicated risk to the public, is likely to have misled and distorted the public’s perception of the vaccine’s benefit and underplayed the harms. This, in essence, is a violation of the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent.”

US Health Authorities Have Misrepresented the Data

U.S. health authorities, like Australia’s, are guilty of misrepresenting the data to the public. In February 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Rochelle Walensky co-wrote a JAMA paper8 which stated that “Clinical trials have shown that the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. are highly effective against COVID-19 infection, severe illness and death.”

Alas, “there were too few deaths recorded in the controlled trials at the time to arrive at such a conclusion,” Demasi writes.9 This observation was made by professor Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, during Sen. Ron Johnson’s Expert Panel on Federal Vaccine Mandates, November 1, 2021.10 During that roundtable discussion, Doshi stated that:

“The trials did not show a reduction in deaths, even for COVID deaths ... Those who claimed the trials showed that the vaccines were highly effective in saving lives were wrong. The trials did not demonstrate this.”

Indeed, the six-month follow-up of Pfizer’s trial showed 15 deaths in the vaccine group and 14 deaths in the placebo group. Then, during the open label phase, after Pfizer decided to eliminate the placebo group by offering the actual shot to everyone who wanted it, another five deaths occurred in the vaccine group.

Two of those five had originally been in the placebo group, and had taken the shot in the open label phase. So, in the end, what we have are 20 deaths in the vaccine group, compared to 14 in the placebo group. We also have the suspicious fact that two of the placebo participants suddenly died after getting the real deal.

How You Express Effect Size Matters

As noted in a July 2021 Lancet paper,11 “fully understanding the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines is less straightforward than it might seem. Depending on how the effect size is expressed, a quite different picture might emerge.”

The authors point out that the relative risk reduction really needs to “be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time.” This is why the absolute risk reduction figure is so important:12

“Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population ...

ARR is also used to derive an estimate of vaccine effectiveness, which is the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one more case of COVID-19 as 1/ARR. NNVs bring a different perspective: 81 for the Moderna–NIH, 78 for the AstraZeneca–Oxford ... 84 for the J&J, and 119 for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.

The explanation lies in the combination of vaccine efficacy and different background risks of COVID-19 across studies: 0.9% for the Pfizer–BioNTech ... 1.4% for the Moderna–NIH, 1.8% for the J&J, and 1.9% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines.

ARR (and NNV) are sensitive to background risk — the higher the risk, the higher the effectiveness — as exemplified by the analyses of the J&J's vaccine on centrally confirmed cases compared with all cases: both the numerator and denominator change, RRR does not change (66–67%), but the one-third increase in attack rates in the unvaccinated group (from 1.8% to 2.4%) translates in a one-fourth decrease in NNV (from 84 to 64) ...

With the use of only RRRs, and omitting ARRs, reporting bias is introduced, which affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy.

When communicating about vaccine efficacy, especially for public health decisions such as choosing the type of vaccines to purchase and deploy, having a full picture of what the data actually show is important, and ensuring comparisons are based on the combined evidence that puts vaccine trial results in context and not just looking at one summary measure, is also important.”

The authors go on to stress that comparing the effectiveness of the COVID shots is further hampered by the fact that they use a variety of different study protocols, including different placebos. They even differ in their primary endpoint, i.e., what they consider a COVID case, and how and when diagnosis is made, and more.

“We are left with the unanswered question as to whether a vaccine with a given efficacy in the study population will have the same efficacy in another population with different levels of background risk of COVID-19,” the authors note.

One of the best real-world examples of this is Israel, where the relative risk reduction was 94% at the outset and an absolute risk reduction of 0.46%, which translates into an NNV of 217. In the Phase 3 Pfizer trial, the absolute risk reduction was 0.84% and the NNV 119.13 As noted by the authors:14

“This means in a real-life setting, 1.8 times more subjects might need to be vaccinated to prevent one more case of COVID-19 than predicted in the corresponding clinical trial.”

SARS-CoV-2 Specific Antibodies Pose Danger for the Obese

In related news, a recent study15 published in the International Journal of Obesity warns that “the majority of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in COVID-19 patients with obesity are autoimmune and not neutralizing.”

In plain English, if you’re obese, you’re at risk of developing autoimmune problems if you get the natural infection. You’re also at higher risk of a serious infection, as the antibodies your body produces are not the neutralizing kind that kill the virus. As explained by the authors:16

“SARS-CoV-2 infection induces neutralizing antibodies in all lean but only in few obese COVID-19 patients. SARS-CoV-2 infection also induces anti-MDA [malondialdehyde, a marker of oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation] and anti-AD [adipocyte-derived protein antigens] autoimmune antibodies more in lean than in obese patients as compared to uninfected controls.

Serum levels of these autoimmune antibodies, however, are always higher in obese versus lean COVID-19 patients. Moreover ... we also evaluated the association of anti-MDA and anti-AD antibodies with serum CRP and found a positive association between CRP and autoimmune antibodies.

Our results highlight the importance of evaluating the quality of the antibody response in COVID-19 patients with obesity, particularly the presence of autoimmune antibodies, and identify biomarkers of self-tolerance breakdown. This is crucial to protect this vulnerable population at higher risk of responding poorly to infection with SARS-CoV-2 than lean controls.”

Now, these findings apply to obese people who develop the natural infection, but it makes one wonder whether the same holds true for the COVID jab. If the antibodies produced in response to the actual virus are primarily autoantibodies, will obese people develop autoantibodies instead of neutralizing antibodies in response to the COVID shot as well?

For clarity, an autoantibody is an antibody that is directed against one or more of your own body’s proteins. Many autoimmune diseases are caused by autoantibodies that target and attack your own tissues or organs.

So, this is no small concern, seeing how the mRNA in the COVID shots (and subsequent SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which is what your body produces antibodies against) gets distributed throughout your body and accumulates in various organs.17,18

Vermont’s COVID Cases Despite Highest Vaccination Rate

At this point, there’s an overwhelming amount of evidence showing the COVID shots are not working. What little protection you do get clearly wanes within a handful of months, and may leave you worse off than you were before. We’re seeing data to this effect from a number of different places.

In the U.S., we can now look at Vermont.19 At nearly 72% vaccinated, it has the highest rate of “fully vaccinated” residents in the country, according to ABC News,20 yet COVID cases are now suddenly surging to new heights.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show Vermont had the 12th highest COVID case rate in the nation as of November 9, 2021. Over the previous seven days, cases had increased by 42%. It couldn’t have been due to a surge in testing, though, as the weekly average of tests administered had only increased by 9% in that time.

What’s more, during that first week of November, the hospital admission rate for patients who were fully vaccinated increased by 8%, while the admission rate for those who were not fully vaccinated actually decreased by 15%.

Data from physician assistant Deborah Conrad shows vaccinated people are nine times more likely to be hospitalized than the unvaccinated.
Keep in mind that you’re not considered “fully vaccinated” until two weeks after your second injection. If you got your second dose a week ago and end up in the hospital with COVID symptoms, you’re counted as unvaccinated. This gross manipulation of reality makes it very difficult to interpret the data, but even with this manipulation it is beyond obvious that the vaccines are failing.

Overall, the case rate in Vermont is FAR higher now than it as in the fall of 2020, when no one had gotten the “vaccine.” According to Vermont health commissioner Dr. Mark Levine, the surge is occurring primarily among unvaccinated people in their 20s and children aged 5 through 11 — a curious coincidence, seeing how the shots are just now being rolled out for 5- to 11-year-olds.

Levine blames the surge on the highly infectious delta variant, but delta has been around for months already. The first case of delta in Vermont was identified in mid-May 2021.21 Surely, it wouldn’t have taken six months for this most-infectious of variants to make the rounds and cause an unprecedented spike?

Two clues are given by Levine, however, when he admits that a) Vermont has one of the lowest rates of natural immunity in the U.S. and b) protection is waning among those who got the COVID shot early to mid-year. Breakthrough cases among the fully vaccinated shot up 31% during the first week of November.22

Fully Vaxxed Are Nine Times More Likely To Be Hospitalized

Coincidentally, data from physician assistant Deborah Conrad, presented by attorney Aaron Siri23 October 17, 2021, shows vaccinated people are nine times more likely to be hospitalized than the unvaccinated.

The key, however, was in what they counted as vaccinated. Rather than only including those who had gotten the shot two weeks or more before being hospitalized, they simply counted those who had one or more shots, regardless of when, as vaccinated. This gives us an honest accounting, finally! As explained by Siri:24

“A concerned Physician Assistant, Deborah Conrad, convinced her hospital to carefully track the COVID-19 vaccination status of every patient admitted to her hospital. The result is shocking.

As Ms. Conrad has detailed, her hospital serves a community in which less than 50% of the individuals were vaccinated for COVID-19 but yet, during the same time period, approximately 90% of the individuals admitted to her hospital were documented to have received this vaccine.

These patients were admitted for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to COVID-19 infections. Even more troubling is that there were many individuals who were young, many who presented with unusual or unexpected health events, and many who were admitted months after vaccination.”

Despite these troubling findings, health authorities ignored Conrad when she reached out. In mid-July 2021, Siri’s law firm also sent formal letters to the CDC, the Health and Human Services Department and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Conrad’s behalf,25 and those were ignored as well.

“This again highlights the importance of never permitting government coercion and mandates when it comes to medical procedures,” Siri writes.26

Now, one of the most shocking details gleaned from Conrad’s data collection, which Siri failed to make clear but Steve Kirsch highlights in a recent substack post is that:27

“The only way you can get those numbers is if vaccinated people are 9 times more likely to be hospitalized than unvaccinated. It is mathematically impossible to get to those numbers any other way. Period. Full stop. This is known as an ‘inconvenient truth.’”

Indeed, the more data we gain access to, the worse it looks for these COVID shots. Unfortunately, those who push them seem hell-bent on ignoring any and all data that don’t support their stance.

Worse, it seems data and statistics are being intentionally manipulated by our health authorities to present a false picture of safety and effectiveness. All such tactics are indefensible at this point, and people who believe the official narrative without doing their own research do so at their own risk."


Last edited by isobars on Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:36 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20654

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BTW, I paid cash to get the latest, greatest, state-of-the-art Covid spike antibody test. I got two things out of it:
1. A numerical score. No interpretation, just a number.
2. Fine print to the effect that the test provides only a number, not any implications of what it means to me or my doctors regarding any risk or prognosis, nor whether I've had Covid (as I suspect), nor whether my antibodies are from the jab or my suspected Covid bout.

But by golly I got my number. It's >20. Isn't that wonderful?

No, wait ... is that bad?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wsurfer



Joined: 17 Aug 2000
Posts: 1560

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
BTW, I paid cash to get the latest, greatest, state-of-the-art Covid spike antibody test. I got two things out of it:
1. A numerical score. No interpretation, just a number.
2. Fine print to the effect that the test provides only a number, not any implications of what it means to me or my doctors regarding any risk or prognosis, nor whether I've had Covid (as I suspect), nor whether my antibodies are from the jab or my suspected Covid bout.

But by golly I got my number. It's >20. Isn't that wonderful?

No, wait ... is that bad?


As they say "There's a sucker born every minute!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 281, 282, 283 ... 331, 332, 333  Next
Page 282 of 333

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group