Create account

replied 887d
Quite? you hate numbers dont you? Flu kills everyone, even young people
replied 887d
Covid also kills young people. Don't confuse it being less likely with it not killing young people. Obviously I am the one more familiar with numbers here. Rates are important numbers.
replied 887d
You have not been able to support a single one of your claims. Your links do not back what you are saying. I do not think you are familiar with comparing rates and probabilities.
replied 887d
stop projecting, still waiting for your links, that vaccines are reducing spread :D
replied 887d
They're touting a reduction in the severity in symptoms and hospitalization, not transmission.
replied 887d
Granted, maybe if you weren't coughing as hard or as frequently, that would help lessen the spread somewhat.
replied 887d
Maybe, maybe not, wheres the evidence?
replied 887d
I'm just speculating here. My thoughts go like this: Airborne pathogen is (coughed) excreted fewer times, with less velocity = smaller surface area for others' exposure. Unreasonable?
replied 887d
speculation is fine, but there is evidence that vaxed carry much viral higher load, 251x
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3897733
replied 886d
Read your link because it does not say what you claim it says. The study shows 251 times viral load of Delta vs alpha variants. The study is not about vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
replied 886d
99% what is circulating now is delta, so why would you vax yourself for last years flu?
replied 886d
The vaccine works against the delta varients. Delta is just much more contagious, which was shown in the study you linked and were confused about.
replied 886d
delta produces different protein for spike vs alpha vaxes, so there is no mechanism fo vax to work.
vax does the evolutionary selection for delta by eliminating only alpha
replied 886d
Nope, it has the exact same spike protein. Not sure where you got the false idea that it doesn't. The immune system and the vaccine have the same evolutionary response.
replied 886d
So what do you think variants are?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8367756/
replied 886d
The impact of spike mutated variants of SARS-CoV2 [Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Lambda] on the efficacy of subunit recombinant vaccines
replied 885d
Again your own link does not back up your claim. It says right in there that vaccine helps against the varients. It says disease from Delta with the vaccinated is rare.
replied 885d
replied 885d
The resistance is just a bunch of petulant children bitching. I do agree with the experts though, as any sane person would.denying experts is as smooth brain as you can get.
replied 885d
replied 885d
The resistance in this case is a tiny group of people that want to for their worldview on regular people.
replied 885d
replied 885d
Experts disagree and discuss, then show proof, that is how progress is made.
Not by political consensus
replied 885d
Exactly, and you say that while clearly not understanding that. You keep cherry picking those disagreements and discussions to reach absurd conclusions not supported by those studies.
replied 885d
What those? You write so vague, nothing specific, are you a bot? is that your default answer?
replied 885d
I was pretty specific about which of your claims your own links are debunking. You keep claiming the vaccine is ineffective, and tried to claim it's 0.7% effective against Delta.
replied 885d
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652582/
absolute risk reduction, 0.7%
Missed it? kek
replied 885d
Reduced by 0.7%, so hardly nothing. Not reduced to 0.7%. so roughly 95% down to 94.7% is still very effective.
replied 884d
NO! There is no word "reduced" in publication, ARR vs RRR, learn it!
Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines
replied 884d
I read your linked study. The study says the same thing I am saying. It says right in the study that the vaccine is still effective, and most severe cases are among the unvaccinated.
replied 884d
Its funny the way you keep posting the links that debunk everything you are saying. You are obviously unqualified to even have an opinion on what those studies say.
replied 884d
so you finally found that 0.7%! Good, now you know :)
replied 884d
I saw that you made up that idea. The main place pin your link you see that is in the comment section where people were arguing about what the study said.
replied 885d
Sorry, down to 94.3% effective. You clearly are not reading these links. You just skim them looking to cherry pick out something. You misread, or misunderstand the study you linked.
replied 884d
NO! absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures
replied 884d
That is a bold claim that is not supported by any of the studies you have linked. At most there is only a slight reduction of effectiveness by 0.7%, not down to 0.7%.
replied 884d
Where do you see word "reduced by" in that paper? It's 0.7% ARR (absolute risk reduction)
replied 884d
Were do you get the absurd idea that it says reduced to that effectiveness? Even if the study says what you claim it would just be wrong as real world data would debunk it.
replied 884d
I found that absurd idea in your comment, actually :D
SILENTSAM writes: "there is only a slight reduction of effectiveness by 0.7%, not down to 0.7%"
replied 884d
No, you originally claimed the vaccine is only 0.7% effective against the delta varients long ago. The only thing in your link making that claim is a comment in the comment section.
replied 884d
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652582/
Not in comments, even in the abstract 0.7% mentioned two times.
This is from February, so NOT Delta. RRR=95% ARR=0.7% same moment, same vax
replied 884d
Which shows that it is highly effective, exactly as the real world data has shown. As always real world data means more than lab data.
replied 884d
You are trying to claim that ARR matters, and RRR does not, and that is just wrong. Its the problem with a layman trying to read a study and making claims based on their ignorance.
replied 884d
Look at the charts in that link. RRR matters more. It shows how much better it is to be vaccinated vs unvaccinated, which is 95%.
replied 884d
How does RRR matter more? Think you got that backwards lol

Aren't ACTUAL facts and data more important? Da!
replied 884d
When comparing vaccinated vs unvaccinated then RRR matters. Its comparing the two groups. That should be pretty obvious.
replied 884d
I think you misunderstood what that page was saying .... I went to the link you sent. Read whole thing and looked at graphs. Concluded vaccines BARELY passed placebo test lol
replied 884d
It was not my link, but what matters is that it clearly shows 95% efficacy compared to placebo, aka nothing. So being vaccinated is 95% better than being unvaccinated.
replied 883d
Um, look at it again lol
replied 883d
You clearly do not understand these things. You need to listen to those better educated than you.
replied 883d
where is she wrong exactly? :D your psycho projections funny as hell
replied 883d
In the same way you are. You both present links and graphs that do not support your claims, and only show that you do not know how to read the data.
replied 883d
so where was she wrong? you were are unable to find number 0.7% in an abstract first four times :D member?
replied 883d
I saw that number, but reading the actual article shows how misleading it is. The studies you guys link say that shows we need more people vaccinated.
replied 883d
You guys are cherry picking a number out of context, and ignoring what the studies actually say.
replied 884d
RRR shows lab setting, what matters is real life setting ARR
replied 884d
No, that is not the difference between ARR and RRR. Real world data would debunk any absurd claim of only 0.7% efficacy. Do you have anything to back up the 0.7% number?
replied 883d
another one: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext
1.3% AstraZeneca
1.2% Moderna
1.2% J&J
0.93% Gamaleya
0.84% Pfizer
replied 883d
So according to this link it says that more people need to be vaccinated to be more effective. Its funny that you think these studies support the anti-vax position.
replied 883d
Also it says RRR of around 67%, which is all irrelevant. It works, and this is just arguments about the finer points. No where does it say the vaccine is not effective.
replied 883d
The article also lies about the availability of data, which makes me wonder how many are from crack pots.

Its best to let's experts discuss this and go with the consensus opinion.
replied 883d
Trying to cherry pick a particular study or expert is the wrong thing to do.

Its especially laughable the way people to to act like Fauci shouldn't be trusted. He's the leading expert
replied 883d
Not just puppies: Fauci's NIH funded experiments on AIDS orphans in NYC
https://www.wnd.com/2021/10/not-just-puppies-faucis-nih-funded-experiments-aids-orphans-nyc/
replied 883d
That opinion piece you linked is written by a fool. Its funny the way people try to blame Fauci for any unrelated issue. The guy is the best expert to listen to on Covid.
replied 883d
Ad hominem is a logical falacy you know. Got any arguments why is it false?
replied 883d
It is an opinion piece only. There is no sound logic in the article to argue against. Its just the writing of a blow hard.
replied 883d
No opinion piece on the subject matters. Actual data is what matters. All the studies you link just say we need more people vaccinated. Some only claim we need a booster shot.
replied 883d
so you can't point out where she was wrong?
replied 883d
I have pointed out where she was wrong, and where you were wrong. You guys are acting as 8f one number is a lie, and the other is truth, and showing you do not understand either.
replied 883d
NIH admits Fauci lied about funding Wuhan gain-of-function experiments, why should anyone trust him?
leading expert in puppy torture :D
replied 883d
Did they really admit he lied? Show me something about that. Let's see what they actually said. Its funny they way people blame Fauci as if he was directing Chinese experiments.
replied 883d
so you think he did not know, so you choose "incompetent"?
replied 883d
It was not even his job to know. I question if he even has any say on directing funds.
replied 883d
You are living under a rock, glad to help ;) links to docs are in there, kek
https://www.westernjournal.com/nih-admits-funded-gain-function-research-chinese-bat-coronaviruses/
replied 883d
Ah, so it was not Fauci. Just as I said.
replied 883d
so Fauci did not lie? :D
replied 883d
Doesn't really look like it. Lots of money gets thrown around. Money gets moved around, not by Fauci. That isn't his job.
replied 884d
Even if the study tried to actually claim the vaccine was ineffective it would just mean the study was flawed. One study does not invalidate the real world data.
replied 884d
replied 884d
Great example of a covidiot video. It really doesn't matter what the headlines say, especially for opinion pieces.

The fact is the vaccine is effective.
replied 883d
But YOU can and should look at the real OFFICIAL numbers yourself from each country.... They ARE ALL lying to us!
replied 883d
Even Fox news!
replied 883d
Ha, no. You have no evidence that nations are lying. That said we can compare different nations numbers and see which are likely closer to the truth. Some are off, but thats irrelevant
replied 883d
I do look at the real and official numbers. That is why I know you guys are talking out of your asses.
replied 883d
Matrix has you
replied 883d
replied 883d
Odd thing about science and data is how you look at it can dramatically change your perspective. ESPECIALLY if you trust a certain BELIEF too much you'll be blind to truth....
replied 883d
Confirmed deaths from Covid, cumulative, relative to the population

FULLY vaxed ppl same countries and time periods
replied 883d
replied 883d
Those graphs show the deaths leveling off after the majority of people are vaccinated. Your graphs debunk your claims.
replied 883d
This only shows that you do not understand how to read the data. The only difference in how you look at it is from an educated or uneducated position.
replied 883d
Can't trust governments, medias, WHO, FDA.
Scientists know the truth but most are too scared to say anything because all the above pay their bills
replied 883d
No scientist is scared of telling the truth. Scientists are scared of people like you spouting misinformation and people taking you seriously.
replied 883d
This site makes it easy to compare all sorts of data from anywhere with multiple sources
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
replied 883d
According to your link "To bring this pandemic to an end, a large share of the world needs to be immune to the virus. The safest way to achieve this is with a vaccine."
replied 883d
Look like an interesting site. I'll add it to my list. It will help debunk your absurd claims.
replied 883d
Unless you go by the #s the W.H.O. puts out (fudged data) REAL data collected worldwide shows otherwise & the media & the W.H.O. are lying for their new dictators....
replied 883d
Nope, it shows very little difference between WHO data and other official sources of data. The main would be dictator to WHO was Trump. Thankfully Biden is fixing that damage.
replied 883d
Effective in killing people, for sure
replied 883d
Yes, and video that promotes anti-vax ideas is effective in killing people. Anti-vaxxers have caused outbreaks for diseases that had been removed from populations.
replied 883d
Any evidence? Ideas don't kill people, people kill people, by injecting vaccines
replied 883d
Now you will claim that vaccines kill people. Before you only claimed they were less effective. Yet all your links debunked your claims.

Your links are my evidence.
replied 884d
That said if you claim to have gotten it from me then you are admitting that the study itself makes no such claim.
replied 884d
you are mixing up threads, different arguments
replied 884d
Are you saying that were you got the information changes based on what thread you are typing in? That or someone else made that claim and I confused it with you?
replied 884d
The data on those who do get infected also show most of them are unvaccinated, and almost all of the more severely effected are the unvaccinated.
replied 885d
You are not reading the links you give, and in one case you obviously only read the comments about it, not the paper or conclusion.
replied 885d
You are trying to cherry pick phrases out of it while ignoring what the study actually says. Yes they worry about reduced efficacy with varients, which is why we see studies about it.
replied 885d
You keep linking studies that look for things while ignoring what they actually find.
replied 885d
The spike protein is not what has varied in these varients.
replied 885d
kek
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS-CoV-2_Delta_variant
It has mutations in the gene encoding the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein[1] causing the substitutions T478K, P681R and L452R
replied 885d
Do you just hope no one will read the links themselves? Again your own link debunks your claims. It says right there that the vaccine is effective against the varients.
replied 885d
well get to that, but first what about that spike mutation? :D
replied 885d
The vaccine still attaches to it. This says there has been some mutation, others have said it doesn't, but you claimed the vaccine no longer worked because it mutated, which is untrue.
replied 882d
The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 variant A.30 is heavily mutated and evades vaccine-induced antibodies with high efficiency
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41423-021-00779-5
replied 882d
Your cherry picking is funny since the study is less certain than you imply, and in the end only shows why we need nearly 100% vaccination rates. The more it spreads the more it mutate
replied 882d
Every one of the studies you link says that it shows why we need more people vaccinated. Not one of your links argues against vaccinations, or claim the vaccinations are not useful.
replied 882d
You cant follow your own arguments, I gave up on you long ago, my posts are not for you :) kek
replied 882d
Oh I never strayed from my argument. The delta varients isn't mutated on the spike gene, and the vaccine still works. Some mutations may be going on other varients.
replied 881d
Delta B.1.617.2
L452R is a substitution at position 452, confers a stronger affinity of the S protein for the ACE2 receptor and decreased recognition capability of the immune system
replied 881d
replied 881d
Nothing on that this link implies vaccination is useless, or that it is not the best option. You keep linking studies that you refuse to accept the conclusions of.
replied 881d
No quote out of context invalidates the conclusions these researchers come to. Your strange idea that vaccines cause mutations is just something you heard.
replied 881d
From the conclusion of this study "To date, low or no significant impact on vaccine efficacy against Alpha variants has been reported."
replied 881d
"Concern about and Delta, Beta, Gamma, and Lambda mutations on vaccine efficacy and treatments is greater than for the Alpha variant."

Why do you link studies that back my points?
replied 882d
Every study you link that says some spike protein mutations may effect the vaccine, and that more vaccinations are needed to prevent this. Some possible changes for a booster shot.
replied 882d
Even if I am mistaken on any point it does not change the fact that the study that corrects me reaches the same conclusion as I do. That more people need to be vaccinated due to this.
replied 881d
Just a peripheral observation; you and Corn are an approximation of immovable object meets unstoppable force; neither one willing to budge even an inch. It's actually quite impressive.
replied 881d
Mass hypnosis fascinates me, you can't persuade with arguments when person has so much anxiety :)
replied 881d
Its difficult to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. This is why you cherry pick Snippets from studies instead of following their conclusions.
replied 882d
Mutates because of mass vaccination using leaky vaccine at the time of endemic,
that has never been done! Zero chance to eradicate endemic
replied 882d
Ha, no. That is not how things work. Mutations happen randomly. The more it spreads the more chance it has to mutate. More vaccination mean less chance to mutate.
replied 882d
Instead of skimming and cherry picking try honestly reading these studies.
replied 885d
Is that a yes? Great then, now you know.
I present you this about delta waning:
https://dreddymd.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/salus_humetrix_ve_study_2021_09_28-2.pdf
replied 886d
Its not just less coughing causing less spread, but also being infected for less time as well. Real studies show less viral load for the vaccinated as well.
replied 887d
I don't really have to provide any links. I provided a link that shows all nations data. I am not the one making bold claims that need to be backed up though.
replied 887d
Also you seem to not be using the word "projecting" properly. You should understand terms before you use them confidently.

Your links back up my claims, even with their faulty methods