COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

[johnst_nhb]

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.

Nature is a peer reviewed scientific journal and one of the most cited scientific journals. That means quality!

Gee thanks. I don’t think anyone on this board knew this.

[Brian Harlin]

Here we go again - by Alex Berenson - Unreported Truths

“ Their reluctance is part of a much larger problem, the unwillingness to offer a serious cost-benefit analysis of the vaccines. Because the truth is messy. The vaccines are clearly far from the miracle that the initial reports promised last November.

Yes, they appear to offer decent protection in the short run. But they don’t end transmission, and their effectiveness is fading fast in the most vulnerable people. Their side effects are real and worsen with the second dose. Their greatest benefit by far is for the elderly.

Instead, of admitting these truths, the vaccine fanatics insist on offering numbers they must know are false - as, increasingly, they attack those Americans who choose not to be vaccinated.

And demonize those of us who point out the truth.”

[Shiva Kaul]

Also, thanks for providing the link to the paper that showed that in the author's hands N2 gave all false positive results. It is certainly cause for concern, but it does not seem to be universal (see supplementary data from this paper, for example: Analytical sensitivity and clinical performance of a triplex RT-qPCR assay using CDC N1, N2, and RP targets for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis - ScienceDirect) It would be nice to know if this is the result of reagent differences between labs.

That link offers no information about the specificity of N2 for COVID-19 diagnosis. It merely shows that the triplex assay agrees with CDC.

Was there ever an indication as to what 'reagent' this was?

It was N3, common to bat coronaviruses.

[VNV]

Fundraiser for Frank Trumbetti by Atilis Bellmawr Members : Atilis Bellmawr Court Relief

$20 to Frank. Boom.

[CommanderFun]

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!

Peer review processes have been tainted for years. I heard enough stories about corruption in academia from my parents, who were engineers in the 1980s. I'm sure it's only gotten worse since then. I remember seeing one video of an asian gentlemen complaining about how it has become "pal review".

[Michael Grantham]

That link offers no information about the specificity of N2 for COVID-19 diagnosis. It merely shows that the triplex assay agrees with CDC.

I agree that it is not indicate much. However, because they had 86 samples that gave a negative result for both N1 and N2, it shows that a 100% false positivity rate for N2 is not a reproducible result.

It was N3, common to bat coronaviruses.

Thanks.

[Gilead]

This has been circulating here in Israel. I don't know if it is authentic but I wouldn't be surprised if it is.
PFIZERLEAK: EXPOSING THE PFIZER MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT.…
Thread by @eh_den on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App

The Israeli People's Committee Report of Adverse Events, May 2021
https://4a1b9d73-4c47-4f3b-bb08-e515...af968088ae.pdf

English | The Israeli People's Committee

[Jovan Dragisic]

This has been circulating here in Israel. I don't know if it is authentic but I wouldn't be surprised if it is.
PFIZERLEAK: EXPOSING THE PFIZER MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT.…
Thread by @eh_den on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App

Say it were true, it would just mean they the Pfizer lawyers and their risk managers have earned their paychecks. I would expect the vaccine manufacturers to take extra precaution in ensuring the viability of sales in the face of political wrangling and stuff.

[jonasfj70]

Peer review processes have been tainted for years. I heard enough stories about corruption in academia from my parents, who were engineers in the 1980s. I'm sure it's only gotten worse since then. I remember seeing one video of an asian gentlemen complaining about how it has become "pal review".

So what is the alternative? Just make things up?

[Gilead]

This doctor probably read this in Nature as well Ministers 'fear coronavirus could be spread by farting in a confined space' - Mirror Online

Informed Consent? AFLD Lawsuit Seeks Halt to EUA and FDA Approval - UncoverDC

McCulloughs and Tuckers best interview to date Tucker Carlson Today - Dr. Peter McCullough - May 7, 2021 - YouTube

Robert W Malone, MD
For those who are skeptical of claims that the CDC is manipulating data and information to support a pro-vaccination narrative.
Defining Away Vaccine Safety Signals - by Mathew Crawford - Rounding the Earth Newsletter