BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

oski003 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

That's exactly how a conspiracy theorist would respond.

---

Btw, if you really want to talk actual conspiracy theories, Stephanie Bancel, the CEO of Moderna, was the CEO of the company that created the Wuhan Lab in China.

---

Don't leave us hanging.
What precisely is the conspiracy theory that you want to discuss.?

---

It relates to the theory that Fauci authorized gain of function research in Wuhan. The fact that a Western Company led by the now Moderna CEO built the level 3 lab could support this. I don't pay too much attention to this stuff. I don't think anyone from the US had any direct involvement in releasing covid 19.

---

The Wuhan lab was funded from many international sources, including the US, because everyone knew that new viruses could come out of China and wanted to support research that might help prevent that. The mere fact that the NIH provided some funding for the lab is also hardly a smoking gun.

I also believe that the US had requirements that their funding would not be used for gain-of-function research, but of course it's hard to say exactly how the money would have been spent by the lab. Again, though, this is all just conjecture at this point. There's no solid evidence.

---

There was no solid evidence that the virus was transmitted naturally from Wuhan bats to humans either but interestingly, no one got censored or banned for promoting that theory. Bringing up the most plausible theory was previously considered taboo and any discussion was widely suppressed Why do you think?

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

oski003 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

That's exactly how a conspiracy theorist would respond.

---

Btw, if you really want to talk actual conspiracy theories, Stephanie Bancel, the CEO of Moderna, was the CEO of the company that created the Wuhan Lab in China.

---

Don't leave us hanging.
What precisely is the conspiracy theory that you want to discuss.?

---

It relates to the theory that Fauci authorized gain of function research in Wuhan. The fact that a Western Company led by the now Moderna CEO built the level 3 lab could support this. I don't pay too much attention to this stuff. I don't think anyone from the US had any direct involvement in releasing covid 19.

---

The Wuhan lab was funded from many international sources, including the US, because everyone knew that new viruses could come out of China and wanted to support research that might help prevent that. The mere fact that the NIH provided some funding for the lab is also hardly a smoking gun.

I also believe that the US had requirements that their funding would not be used for gain-of-function research, but of course it's hard to say exactly how the money would have been spent by the lab. Again, though, this is all just conjecture at this point. There's no solid evidence.

---

There was no solid evidence that the virus was transmitted naturally from Wuhan bats to humans either but interestingly, no one got censored or banned for promoting that theory. Bringing up the most plausible theory was previously considered taboo and any discussion was widely suppressed Why do you think?

---

To be fair, the transmission of disease from wild animals to humans (sometimes through domesticated animals as intermediaries) is a very common occurrence throughout human history.

If some government or health agency were to conclude that "the usual suspects" were again guilty for causing the spread of one particular disease. That conclusion might be, and usually would be, the correct one.

If however AFTER A THOROUGH SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION that conclusion is proven to be wrong, that error would not be proof of a gigantic coverup without more persuasive evidence of such a
coverup. .

FYI 60 Minutes had a segment several months ago on health expert who has been studying the transmission of disease from wild animals to humans. That expert's conclusion was that we can expect an increase of such transmissions and therefore an increase in potential opportunities for epidemics and pandemics because of increasing human intrusion into the habitats of wild animals ( both directly and indirectly). One very obvious example of such new contact was shown: trips into for foreign tourists to a huge bat cave in the jungles of South East Asia. (No Bat-mobile was found. But hundreds, possibly thousands of bats were put into direct contact with human tourists who would soon return to their home countries.)

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

oski003 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

That's exactly how a conspiracy theorist would respond.

---

Btw, if you really want to talk actual conspiracy theories, Stephanie Bancel, the CEO of Moderna, was the CEO of the company that created the Wuhan Lab in China.

---

Don't leave us hanging.
What precisely is the conspiracy theory that you want to discuss.?

---

It relates to the theory that Fauci authorized gain of function research in Wuhan. The fact that a Western Company led by the now Moderna CEO built the level 3 lab could support this. I don't pay too much attention to this stuff. I don't think anyone from the US had any direct involvement in releasing covid 19.

---

The Wuhan lab was funded from many international sources, including the US, because everyone knew that new viruses could come out of China and wanted to support research that might help prevent that. The mere fact that the NIH provided some funding for the lab is also hardly a smoking gun.

I also believe that the US had requirements that their funding would not be used for gain-of-function research, but of course it's hard to say exactly how the money would have been spent by the lab. Again, though, this is all just conjecture at this point. There's no solid evidence.

---

There was no solid evidence that the virus was transmitted naturally from Wuhan bats to humans either but interestingly, no one got censored or banned for promoting that theory. Bringing up the most plausible theory was previously considered taboo and any discussion was widely suppressed Why do you think?

---

AunBear89 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

1) about 1 in 70,000 12-39 year olds get myocarditis within 3 weeks of second shot of mRNA vaccine. Moreso in men.
2) patients afflicted generally recover
3) despite such, Delta variant is concerning and all 12+ should get vaccinated.

At least we are getting near the truth.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/national/coronavirus/2021/6/23/1_5482320.html

---

Yes - this is how science works. You never have all the answers, all at once at the very beginning of the process. And you can't make reasoned and informed decisions with cherry picked information that only affirms your beliefs/suspicions.

Also - there are these people who are experts in science - we call them "scientists", and they are much better at making decisions based on the available data, than non scientists (we call them Right Wing Nut Jobs).

---

HoopDreams said:

---

There is so many opinions, studies, facts flying around, including from "experts", media and leaders

It's therefore very difficult to say who is "right"

But with the first global pandemic we needed to move fast, and decisions were needed

Critical decision making in a huge new crisis is extremely difficult as new info emerges, and with the added complexity of a moving target (mutations)

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

There is so many opinions, studies, facts flying around, including from "experts", media and leaders

It's therefore very difficult to say who is "right"

But with the first global pandemic we needed to move fast, and decisions were needed

Critical decision making in a huge new crisis is extremely difficult as new info emerges, and with the added complexity of a moving target (mutations)

---

This is one reason why a person should vet an expert's credentials and not just rely on that person's titles and degrees. Credentials include ALL reports And articles published. And all groups and people with whom the expert is officially and unofficially affiliated.

---

oski003 said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

There is so many opinions, studies, facts flying around, including from "experts", media and leaders

It's therefore very difficult to say who is "right"

But with the first global pandemic we needed to move fast, and decisions were needed

Critical decision making in a huge new crisis is extremely difficult as new info emerges, and with the added complexity of a moving target (mutations)

---

This is one reason why a person should vet an expert's credentials and not just rely on that person's titles and degrees. Credentials include ALL reports And articles published. And all groups and people with whom the expert is officially and unofficially affiliated.

---

Whatever it takes to discredit that which you disagree with.

---

oski003 said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

There is so many opinions, studies, facts flying around, including from "experts", media and leaders

It's therefore very difficult to say who is "right"

But with the first global pandemic we needed to move fast, and decisions were needed

Critical decision making in a huge new crisis is extremely difficult as new info emerges, and with the added complexity of a moving target (mutations)

---

This is one reason why a person should vet an expert's credentials and not just rely on that person's titles and degrees. Credentials include ALL reports And articles published. And all groups and people with whom the expert is officially and unofficially affiliated.

---

Whatever it takes to discredit that which you disagree with.

---

Zippergate said:

---

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx

Peer-reviewed meta-analysis of Ivermectin

"Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

---

oski003 said:

---

Only fair to post this article demonstrating how effective the vaccines are at preventing hospitalizations and death.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-06-covid-deaths-unvaccinated.html

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx

Peer-reviewed meta-analysis of Ivermectin

"Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

---

There is moderate certainty of the evidence when there are one or more factors that reduce the certainty of the evidence to the extent that the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is moderate.
https://getitglossary.org/term/moderate+certainty+of+the+evidence

---

Zippergate said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx

Peer-reviewed meta-analysis of Ivermectin

"Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

---

There is moderate certainty of the evidence when there are one or more factors that reduce the certainty of the evidence to the extent that the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is moderate.
https://getitglossary.org/term/moderate+certainty+of+the+evidence

---

The data table summarizing the results didn't work in my last post but I would say "moderate" understates the benefit of this drug considerably.

https://www.awesomescreenshot.com/image/9862837?key=3b7a3fb36c9a27902363678ef27a2a68

62% reduction in mortality. P-value of 0.004. Even at the top end of the 95% confidence interval, the risk ratio shows a 27% reduction in mortality. Further, I've seen numerous reports of how effective it is if given at the onset of symptoms. And many doctors are using it in combination with other re-purposed drugs with even better results.

As I've said, Ivermectin is extremely inconvenient for the Big Pharma Industrial Complex. If there is an effective treatment for Covid, then it is inappropriate to give the population a vaccine under an EUA. And who would want it anyway.

If you start having symptoms, get treatment while the symptoms are still mild.

---

dimitrig said:

---

My cat had ear mites. Ivermectin is one treatment for that.

---

dimitrig said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx

Peer-reviewed meta-analysis of Ivermectin

"Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

---

There is moderate certainty of the evidence when there are one or more factors that reduce the certainty of the evidence to the extent that the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is moderate.
https://getitglossary.org/term/moderate+certainty+of+the+evidence

---

The data table summarizing the results didn't work in my last post but I would say "moderate" understates the benefit of this drug considerably.

https://www.awesomescreenshot.com/image/9862837?key=3b7a3fb36c9a27902363678ef27a2a68

62% reduction in mortality. P-value of 0.004. Even at the top end of the 95% confidence interval, the risk ratio shows a 27% reduction in mortality. Further, I've seen numerous reports of how effective it is if given at the onset of symptoms. And many doctors are using it in combination with other re-purposed drugs with even better results.

As I've said, Ivermectin is extremely inconvenient for the Big Pharma Industrial Complex. If there is an effective treatment for Covid, then it is inappropriate to give the population a vaccine under an EUA. And who would want it anyway.

If you start having symptoms, get treatment while the symptoms are still mild.

---

My cat had ear mites. Ivermectin is one treatment for that. It an anti-parasitic drug also used to treat some types of worms.

Rather than go to the vet, I went to Tractor Supply Company and bought a big box of Ivermectin over-the-counter for cheap.

I decided in the end that I didn't want to use this poison on my cat. I still have the box in my garage somewhere if you want to ingest it. Knock yourself out.

---

oski003 said:

---

https://t.co/6X88V7s1CY?amp=1

The NNTV is between 200-700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the
mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000
(95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse
reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects
per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three
deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. Conclusions: This
lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

... Editing this post to say that I believe vaccines have saved more lives than the authors indicate.

---

oski003 said:

---

Increase in infections in Israel despite mass vaccinations. Indoor mask rules reinstated. Half of those sick had been vaccinated by Pfizer.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccinated-people-account-for-half-of-new-covid-19-delta-cases-in-israeli-outbreak-11624624326

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Increase in infections in Israel despite mass vaccinations. Indoor mask rules reinstated. Half of those sick had been vaccinated by Pfizer.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccinated-people-account-for-half-of-new-covid-19-delta-cases-in-israeli-outbreak-11624624326

---

The vaccines are only 95% effective against the original strain of COVID. They are reportedly effective against the D1 variant. But I have not seen any reports whether that effectiveness is 95% or less.

In any event, we can expect that some number of the vaccinated will be included among those infected during a spike.
The larger the absolute number of vaccinated, the larger will be the absolute number of vaccinated who will be infected during a spike.

That fact is not a criticism of the vaccines. It is merely a mathematical conclusion.

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

oski003 said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Increase in infections in Israel despite mass vaccinations. Indoor mask rules reinstated. Half of those sick had been vaccinated by Pfizer.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccinated-people-account-for-half-of-new-covid-19-delta-cases-in-israeli-outbreak-11624624326

---

The vaccines are only 95% effective against the original strain of COVID. They are reportedly effective against the D1 variant. But I have not seen any reports whether that effectiveness is 95% or less.

In any event, we can expect that some number of the vaccinated will be included among those infected during a spike.
The larger the absolute number of vaccinated, the larger will be the absolute number of vaccinated who will be infected during a spike.

That fact is not a criticism of the vaccines. It is merely a mathematical conclusion.

---

It is logical to criticize the vaccine for a design that loses significant effectiveness against variants. It is also logical to factor in Delta effectiveness in risk/reward mRNA vaccine analysis, especially since the Delta variant will be the dominant US variant by the fall.

---

1. I said that i did not know whether the vaccine had the same effectiveness against the D1 Variant as it did against the original strain, my comments were that even assuming 95% effectiveness, we should expect that some percentage of vaccinated individuals would be infected by COVID. if you know the effectiveness of the current vaccine against the D1 Variant, please enlighten us.

If you read the WSJ article I posted about Israel and breakthrough covid from Delta strain, you would be enlightened. Nvax is 96% against original strain and 55% against South African strain. Moderna was offered a large grant to test effectiveness against South Africa strain and rejected it. They have only shown immunogenicity against SA strain in a lab, and it is significantly less than 95%, despite the biased setting. I doubt effectiveness against Delta strain is in the 90s.

2. You say, "It is logical to criticize the vaccine for a design that loses significant effectiveness against variants." However you ignore that the current vaccine is more or less effective against many of the Variants being experienced in the world. So obviously, some effort was made to make a more broadly effective vaccine.

I never said no effort was made to make a more broadly effective vaccine. Your logic here does not cut the mustard.

3, You also say, "It is also logical to factor in Delta effectiveness in risk/reward mRNA vaccine analysis, especially since the Delta variant will be the dominant US variant by the fall." Unless you know Marty McFly and have access to his time machine, it appears more than a little unfair to criticize the vaccine developers for failing to foresee the evolution of the D1 Variant and with that foresight understand how that Variant operates and how to develop an appropriate defense. These vaccines were developed very quickly but they weren't developed overnight.

Again, your logic does not cut the mustard. I am not criticizing spike protein vaccine scientists. I am criticizing the actual vaccine. I am criticizing the FDA/OWS/NIH/politics for having only three vaccines available, all spike protein based off the original variant, one of which was halted in trials for the same condition it was halted after EUA and European countries won't touch it with a ten foot pool.

Perhaps your criticism is better focused on the individuals who are resisting vaccination. It is a well known fact that the Variants arise from mutations that increase the longer the original strain of Covid spreads through the host population. The more people there are that contract Covid (or one of the Variants), the more mutations there will be. one good way to fight further mutations is to "Get the **** shot."

Fine. Let's force vaccination on everyone in the U.S. and close the border for five years. I am being a bit facetious here. In reality, if we could kill it by vaccinating everyone around the same time, it would be great. Perhaps, we should ship Pfizer and Moderna to Mexico, so their adults could get vaccinated.

However, what we really need are SAFE VACCINES that give protection against severe disease that we will likely boost annually, like a flu shot. Btw, vaccine survival causes variants as well.

---

The evidence for this catastrophe is contained in a study done in Japan on the Pfizer vaccine. The nanoparticles were discovered in large concentrations in the ovaries, bone marrow & lymph nodes.https://t.co/dg7J62ku7d

— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) June 24, 2021