Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
No. It's research and development.
If the government did it, it would be a conspiracy by the government to hide the details. You can't win with these people.
Select to expand quotetheDoctor said..
at least try and find some good ones
find some good ones? I just made that one. It has about as much value.
Just watched a clip from the mainstream where the reporter said the President of the Australian Medical Association told the Sydney Morning Herald it is possible ALL Australians will need to be vaccinated for CV.
Still think it is only a CT FN?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Kamikuza said..FormulaNova said..Kamikuza said..FormulaNova said..psychomub said..
Oops..
www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/emergency-nurse-tests-positive-for-covid19-eight-days-after-vaccination/news-story/f7239b0b0546f810c9a0d7258e6dd8bd
Well, not really an oops, but pretty normal. Its not like you are injecting your body with things to fight off the virus, you are injecting your body with something that looks like the virus to make the body want to fight off the virus. I.e. its not instaneous, and its up to your body to do the fighting.
""We know from the vaccine clinical trials that it's going to take about 10 to 14 days for you to start to develop protection from the vaccine," Dr Ramers said."
I don't think that's how it works. The article shows a picture of the Pfizer vaccine, which isn't using a weakened live or dead virus to force the body to develop immunity...
www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html
So if I understand it right, you'd test positive for antibodies eventually, but not the virus itself. Depends what you test for.
Isn't that essentially the same thing though. you are introducing something into your body that looks like the virus, in this case a particular protein that the virus has, and the body creates anytibodies against anything with that protein. The important point I am trying to make is that immunity is not instant, its making your body respond to something, which takes a while. Which easily explains why people can catch the virus while having had the vaccine. If on the other hand you get the virus after that 2 weeks or so...
"Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, they teach our cells how to make a protein-or even just a piece of a protein-that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. That immune response, which produces antibodies, is what protects us from getting infected if the real virus enters our bodies."
Wasn't the antibody test the reason they stopped the other trial as the antibodies looked like you had a response to HIV, whereas it was just the response to the engineered deactivated virus they were using. No chance of getting HIV, but enough of a negative perception that they though the public would not accept it.
I don't think so -- the Pfizer etc mRNA thingy tells cells to make the spike proteins that then get attacked by T-cells, so when the SARS virus shows up with *its* spike-protein covered self, it gets attacked by the now-educated T-cells. There's none of the original virus involved.
Again, I don't think so -- it will depend on the test used: www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/coronavirus-disease-2019-testing-basics
AFAIK the RT-PCR test is the main one being used...? So if you used anti-body tests on someone who's had the vaccine, they'd test positive but that wouldn't actually tell you if they had the viral infection, I guess.
You're right about the negative perception though.
That's why I said it 'looks like the virus' and not 'it is a deactivated virus'. Clearly you need to make the body react to something that is the same as the virus you are trying to protect against.
The actual response to the virus is a normal reaction of the body, but you are priming it first to recognise it before it can get enough presence in the body.
Yeah, the methods of testing for the virus I hadn't looked at. As you say, there are multiple ways to test for its presence or previous presence.
This is all a moot discussion though as the iluminati are going to not let us survive and are going to have us all living under a bridge with our silver ingots.
I'm being pedantic -- it's not "the same as the virus", nor does it "look like" the virus. It's quite a different method of attack...
Exactly.
Pretty sure the RT-PCR test is the most used.
Then their silver ingots would be useless 
gotta keep the consumers healthy.
Re. Selection bias -- just as you said, about him being a congressman.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..FormulaNova said..Kamikuza said..FormulaNova said..Kamikuza said..FormulaNova said..psychomub said..
Oops..
www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/emergency-nurse-tests-positive-for-covid19-eight-days-after-vaccination/news-story/f7239b0b0546f810c9a0d7258e6dd8bd
Well, not really an oops, but pretty normal. Its not like you are injecting your body with things to fight off the virus, you are injecting your body with something that looks like the virus to make the body want to fight off the virus. I.e. its not instaneous, and its up to your body to do the fighting.
""We know from the vaccine clinical trials that it's going to take about 10 to 14 days for you to start to develop protection from the vaccine," Dr Ramers said."
I don't think that's how it works. The article shows a picture of the Pfizer vaccine, which isn't using a weakened live or dead virus to force the body to develop immunity...
www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html
So if I understand it right, you'd test positive for antibodies eventually, but not the virus itself. Depends what you test for.
Isn't that essentially the same thing though. you are introducing something into your body that looks like the virus, in this case a particular protein that the virus has, and the body creates anytibodies against anything with that protein. The important point I am trying to make is that immunity is not instant, its making your body respond to something, which takes a while. Which easily explains why people can catch the virus while having had the vaccine. If on the other hand you get the virus after that 2 weeks or so...
"Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, they teach our cells how to make a protein-or even just a piece of a protein-that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. That immune response, which produces antibodies, is what protects us from getting infected if the real virus enters our bodies."
Wasn't the antibody test the reason they stopped the other trial as the antibodies looked like you had a response to HIV, whereas it was just the response to the engineered deactivated virus they were using. No chance of getting HIV, but enough of a negative perception that they though the public would not accept it.
I don't think so -- the Pfizer etc mRNA thingy tells cells to make the spike proteins that then get attacked by T-cells, so when the SARS virus shows up with *its* spike-protein covered self, it gets attacked by the now-educated T-cells. There's none of the original virus involved.
Again, I don't think so -- it will depend on the test used: www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/coronavirus-disease-2019-testing-basics
AFAIK the RT-PCR test is the main one being used...? So if you used anti-body tests on someone who's had the vaccine, they'd test positive but that wouldn't actually tell you if they had the viral infection, I guess.
You're right about the negative perception though.
That's why I said it 'looks like the virus' and not 'it is a deactivated virus'. Clearly you need to make the body react to something that is the same as the virus you are trying to protect against.
The actual response to the virus is a normal reaction of the body, but you are priming it first to recognise it before it can get enough presence in the body.
Yeah, the methods of testing for the virus I hadn't looked at. As you say, there are multiple ways to test for its presence or previous presence.
This is all a moot discussion though as the iluminati are going to not let us survive and are going to have us all living under a bridge with our silver ingots.
I'm being pedantic -- it's not "the same as the virus", nor does it "look like" the virus. It's quite a different method of attack...
Exactly.
Pretty sure the RT-PCR test is the most used.
Then their silver ingots would be useless gotta keep the consumers healthy.
Re. Selection bias -- just as you said, about him being a congressman.
Ahh, I see the point. The vaccine is making existing cells create a protein, and the protein itself is not injected. I refuse to accept that you are right and I am wrong on principle and instead I think somehow my posting was hacked by the russians! 
Remember 'vaccine = bad' and 'organic potatoes = good' and will cure cancer galucoma and irritable bowel syndrome.
Yeah, its weird isn't it... a virus to kill off people, but you need them as consumers so you can keep making money, and then a vaccine that will also kill, but you still need consumers. Its almost like it doesn't make sense, but I fail to see how a naturally occuring virus could possibly happen and there must be someone else in charge trying to somehow ruin my life. I will check what the other free thinkers on Facebook can tell me.
You're repeating yourself Doctor.
It's still wrong. You might equally say that a company that pays for its books to be audited is committing an act of fraud.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
You're repeating yourself Doctor.
It's still wrong. You might equally say that a company that pays for its books to be audited is committing an act of fraud.
He's not saying anything. Just repeating crap from other people and not even attempting to justify it. I guess that's as good an argument you get from some people.
Which would be funny if it was coming from PM33 as no doubt he would describe it as repeating what you are told to say. Sheep, sheep, sheep I say!
"Peer reviewed? What's that?"
Sadly, stupid people tend to latch onto memes because it doesn't require much thinking.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
You're repeating yourself Doctor.
It's still wrong. You might equally say that a company that pays for its books to be audited is committing an act of fraud.
except, they pay an external body to do the audit, then they are still beholden to a regulatory authority.
vaccines manufacturers are the authority unto themselves
Just run a back of the envelope calculation on pretty boy above's claim. 0.04% fatality is 1/2500. Current US deaths about 300 000. Multiply by 2500 and the US population must be about 750 million, roughly twice what they claim.
That only applies if everybody in the USA has been infected AND the infection has proceeded to an outcome, either recovery or death.
I'll go with the official figures, which are running about 2% fatality for diagnosed infections.
The USA is an outlier. They're a disgusting unhealthy country, and 80% of Covid deaths are overweight. Go figure. And if you dare suggest that a diet would save lives, which is proven by verifiable empirical evidence, well, it's met quite poorly.
The USA is not an outlier. Deaths per million population are about the same in Brazil and Mexico. A bit lower in Sweden, France and Spain. Higher in UK and Belgium. Germany and Canada are dying at about 1/3 the US rate.
Select to expand quotetheDoctor said..
Starts out crunching numbers & ends up melting down about Satan + mind control. At least it tries to appeal to a wide audience!
'I'm no philosopher but...' understatement of the year.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
The USA is not an outlier. Deaths per million population are about the same in Brazil and Mexico. A bit lower in Sweden, France and Spain. Higher in UK and Belgium. Germany and Canada are dying at about 1/3 the US rate.
Are they all measuring the numbers in the same way ?
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
The USA is not an outlier. Deaths per million population are about the same in Brazil and Mexico. A bit lower in Sweden, France and Spain. Higher in UK and Belgium. Germany and Canada are dying at about 1/3 the US rate.
Ha! So there's 195 countries in the world but because five are worse, this field of six could not possibly consist entirely of outliers. Ok, I'm sold. And I wish to subscribe to your newsletter, you're ideas are intriguing to me.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
Just run a back of the envelope calculation on pretty boy above's claim. 0.04% fatality is 1/2500. Current US deaths about 300 000. Multiply by 2500 and the US population must be about 750 million, roughly twice what they claim.
That only applies if everybody in the USA has been infected AND the infection has proceeded to an outcome, either recovery or death.
I'll go with the official figures, which are running about 2% fatality for diagnosed infections.
300,000 is the October 15th (IIRC) figure released by the CDC for total estimated excess mortality for the year to date. On the very same page it says it estimates COVID deaths account for 2/3 of that figure.
Today they announced 20 million cases -- which I assume is people who've presented themselves to hospitals and tested positive -- so case fatality rate would be approx. 1%.
Which is the lower end of the range according to CFR estimates of 0.8% - 9.6% (dependent on demographics), and is still very low for an infectious and fatal disease.
www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Case-Fatality-Rate-(CFR).aspx
The IFR is probably what the poster is referring to. Infection rates may be many times that of the number of cases who test positive, with one study (Santa Clara) conservatively estimating infections being 50x the number of positive tests.
www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/antibody-surveys-suggesting-vast-undercount-coronavirus-infections-may-be-unreliable
So if the number of infections in the US is closer to 100 million, you're getting close to 99.96%.
Funny, if you read that as describing Conspiracy Theorist authors, it reads the same way!
Wouldn't you think there is something wrong with that?? That the same people create the same fear about everything?
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
Are they all measuring the numbers in the same way ?
For the UK: publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2020/08/12/behind-the-headlines-counting-covid-19-deaths/
I can't tell if they only include people with respiratory symptoms, or if they also include people who test positive then get run over by a bus...
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Ahh, I see the point. The vaccine is making existing cells create a protein, and the protein itself is not injected. I refuse to accept that you are right and I am wrong on principle and instead I think somehow my posting was hacked by the russians!
Remember 'vaccine = bad' and 'organic potatoes = good' and will cure cancer galucoma and irritable bowel syndrome.
Yeah, its weird isn't it... a virus to kill off people, but you need them as consumers so you can keep making money, and then a vaccine that will also kill, but you still need consumers. Its almost like it doesn't make sense, but I fail to see how a naturally occuring virus could possibly happen and there must be someone else in charge trying to somehow ruin my life. I will check what the other free thinkers on Facebook can tell me.
Ha!
Dude -- chemicals are bad, natural is good. Mm kay.
"naturally occurring"
I'm still not convinced. You've got the checkered-safety history Wuhan Institute of Virology studying live coronavirus *right bloody there*, but sure it's the meat market just across the river that was the problem 
Select to expand quoteCH3MTR4IL5 said..
Ah yes, the old "if you don't agree that's because you don't understand" logical fallacy...
please
by all means
take your vaccine
by doing so, you protect the rest of us huh...?
One percent of 330 million is 3.3 million.
A tenth of 3.3 million is 330 000 so the death rate is 0.1 not the 2 percent claimed by somebody here.
Then you factor in that the CDC on their own website admit that 94 percent of the deaths have an average of 2.6 underlying conditions.
So the three hundred thousand figure death count is laughable.
Six percent of three hundred thousand is 18 000 so the death rate is a very small fraction of a single percent - period.
The harm caused by the lockdowns to people and businesses in the short and longer term is going to be on a scale never seen before in the history of the world.
Select to expand quotehashbrown said..
One percent of 330 million is 3.3 million.
A tenth of 3.3 million is 330 000 so the death rate is 0.1 not the 2 percent claimed by somebody here.
Then you factor in that the CDC on their own website admit that 94 percent of the deaths have an average of 2.6 underlying conditions.
So the three hundred thousand figure death count is laughable.
Six percent of three hundred thousand is 18 000 so the death rate is a very small fraction of a single percent - period.
The harm caused by the lockdowns to people and businesses in the short and longer term is going to be on a scale never seen before in the history of the world.
That's a death rate for the whole population, not case fatality rate (people who die who've tested positive in a clinical setting) or infection fatality rate (fatalities for estimated number of total infections).
A population death rate is going to be very low because you're assuming everyone is going to get it, butthat's unlikely.I guess you *could*use it as a measure of your overall chance of dying from it as a member of a population, but it's just averaging it out and not taking into account local risks ie. living in the middle of Ghetto, New York or living in the middle of Nowhere, Wyoming. Which makes all the difference.
CFR is the thing to look at, because those are the people sick enough to actually go to a hospital, and IFR is pretty much unknowable.
It's like the risk of dying from shark bite while kitesurfing. Average it out across all kitesurfers and it's very low... but for me here on the fresh water lake, it's absolutely zero while for someone in WA it will be higher than the average for the population of kiters.
