Reply With QuoteIt seems to me this is just a back up profile by one of the people who like getting yelled at by you. I find them fairly silly, but banning them is just the typical whack-a-mole.Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe
TMPHBITEU
How did CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN miss this? I guess the Olympics took precedence.In contrast, vaccination cannot achieve “sterile immunity” against infection and infectiousness. Thus, the whole idea of “vaccination certificates” has become obsolete – at least from a medical and epidemiological perspective – and should be rejected: the claim that it’s just “the unvaccinated” that are driving outbreaks – a claim made by many authorities – is simply false.
For instance, just this week a “fully vaccinated” Australian managed to pre-symptomatically infect about 60 people at a party in the United States. Many similar stories have already been reported in Europe and Israel: fully vaccinated people can easily transmit the virus even to large groups. Hence, imposing “vaccination certificates” or “green passes” may only serve a political purpose.
This is what happens when you post on a board you don't actually read, when your trusted sources of information are the AP and CNN. Unless you guys are amused by this, he's done.
Member
It seems to me this is just a back up profile by one of the people who like getting yelled at by you. I find them fairly silly, but banning them is just the typical whack-a-mole.
Member
They're also toasted, and have a full rich flavor that keeps you going throughout the day.
Member
Jonas, I have a really easy question, while I don't think the writers of the articles you posted have an answer for this I am sure you do.
What does VAERS mean? I'll give you a clue. It's an acronym made up of five words.
Member
Well played. I'm getting Mad Men flashbacks. Wish I'd finished that show before it left netflix.
Member
I, for one, am not a fan of religious zealotry -- most especially the secular variety. They have created nothing of objective beauty (architecture, art, music), and the services suck.
Member
The CDC test is based on the N1 and N2 gene regions. The standard of evidence in your field is (1) in-silico similarity search using an approximate, heuristic sequence alignment algorithm, and (2) physical cross-reactivity testing against a few dozen common viruses. N1 and N2 are both over 50% similar to regions in Human coronavirus 229E. The N2 primer/probe was found very nonspecific in at least one study.
Also, to my knowledge, the CDC never actually fixed the negative control reagent which was found to be contaminated in February 2020. CDC:
During validation of the CDC SARS-CoV-2 test, some laboratories discovered a problem with one of the test’s three reagents—chemicals required to run a test. The reagent produced a positive result with the negative control, so laboratories could not verify test performance.
To resolve the issue, CDC laboratories determined that this reagent could be left out without affecting test accuracy because of the built-in redundancy in test design. The redundant design saved time by allowing the kits to be used without the reagent. FDA authorized this modification, and new test kits with the two necessary reagents were manufactured and distributed to states. These kits are still in use.
✓ Member
Is it possible that distancing, masks, reducing capacities, staying home when you're sick (and keeping kids home when they're sick), improving ventilation in schools, etc, had a more obvious effect on influenza transmission than it did on SARS-CoV 2 transmission?
Unless I missed something, the arguments he makes in these do not appear to be directly relevant to this exact topic (influenza RNA being detected as SARS-CoV 2 RNA). The paper they're discussing does not appear to be the basis for the design of the CDC primers/probes to detect SARS-CoV 2. I'm not saying that this proves that the CDC assay is fine. I'm only saying that this does not show evidence of getting a false positive for SARS-CoV 2 when the only virus present in the sample is influenza A or B. I'm still open to seeing those types of data.
I've got a few other issues with some of his arguments, but those can wait for another time.
Member
I know very well what that is. It is a system where anyone can report any problem they think are related to taking a vaccine.
One problem is underreporting. So, for example, Pfizer say that about 80% feel some kind of pain in the shoulder, get tired or experience slight fever after getting vaccinated. The VAERS show less than 1%.
Another problem is interpreting the data. So, if for example a number of people get blood clots after getting vaccinated, you cannot just go ahead linking those two events. You need to check how many non-vaccinated in a similar population during the same time frame got blood clots. As it turns out, there is no statistical significant difference when you compare those two numbers.
You need to know what you are doing when you attempt to interpret VAERS data and clearly many get it completely wrong.
CNN? I cited Nature and AP. Since you do not seem too ignorant to know, Nature is a peer reviewed scientific journal and one of the most cited scientific journals. That means quality!
Member
Posting Permissions
