COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events - Page 1754

starting strength gym
Page 1754 of 2387 FirstFirst ... 7541254165417041744175217531754175517561764180418542254 ... LastLast
Results 17,531 to 17,540 of 23866

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #17531
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    273

    Default

    • starting strength seminar october 2022
    • starting strength seminar december 2022
    • starting strength seminar february 2023
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe View Post
    Doesn't say anything about eviction. But they are Canadians, and they will just move out peacefully if they're told to do so.
    There are a few subtleties to this that you probably don’t have any reason to understand, but I get your point.

  2. #17532
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,752

  3. #17533
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    49,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anticausal View Post
    I think I might print out some white apology vouchers to put in their bins.
    Not a bad idea. In lieu of money.

    This will be ignored. Ignoring things has become a highly developed skill for the media.

    Abstract
    Background The extent to which vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 contribute to transmission is unclear. During a SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant outbreak among incarcerated persons with high vaccination rates in a federal prison, we assessed markers of viral shedding in vaccinated and unvaccinated persons.

    Methods Consenting incarcerated persons with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection provided mid-turbinate nasal specimens daily for 10 consecutive days and reported symptom data via questionnaire. Real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), viral whole genome sequencing, and viral culture was performed on these nasal specimens. Duration of RT-PCR positivity and viral culture positivity was assessed using survival analysis.

    Results A total of 978 specimens were provided by 95 participants, of whom 78 (82%) were fully vaccinated and 17 (18%) were not fully vaccinated. No significant differences were detected in duration of RT-PCR positivity among fully vaccinated participants (median: 13 days) versus those not fully vaccinated (median: 13 days; p=0.50), or in duration of culture positivity (medians: 5 days and 5 days; p=0.29). Among fully vaccinated participants, overall duration of culture positivity was shorter among Moderna vaccine recipients versus Pfizer (p=0.048) or Janssen (p=0.003) vaccine recipients.

    Conclusions As this field continues to develop, clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons. These findings are critically important, especially in congregate settings where viral transmission can lead to large outbreaks.

  4. #17534
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlPrincipeBrutto View Post

    I've just read the FDA letter that confirms EUA for the Pfizer/BionTech vaccines. You can read it here: https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download

    The bit that matters for the above quote is on page 8:

    <quote>
    I. Criteria for Issuance of Authorization
    ...
    C. There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative15 Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19.

    <unquote>


    So, for the purpose of the EUA, vaccines have been considered as *preventative* measures, not *curative* ones. The FDA is basically saying, through the lines I believe, that yes, you can *cure* CoVid-19 in many ways, but you only *prevent* it with these vaccines; hence, they are authorised for emergency use.

    Does it make sense to impose a de facto (and in a lot of cases, de jure) vaccination mandate for a disease you can cure? Absolutely not, imho, but it's not the point I want to make.

    When you fight a minority battle against overwhelming media propaganda, your slightest imprecision will be pounced upon to discredit everything you say. The story that effective therapies had to be ignored otherwise no vaccine authorisation would have been given doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny, because EUA was given to vaccines as the only option for prevention, not cure.

    In other words, don't you think people who drive this would be as stupid as to make such a glaring mistake.



    IPB
    Good find. That letter was from November 19, 2021.

    The "original sin" took place in 2020 when they first ignored HCQ as a prophylaxis in order to approve mRNA injections via EUA.

    Check out this document current as of 11/20/2020: Emergency Use Authorization for Vaccines Explained
    Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.
    In 2005, the Fauci's NIH published the following paper: Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread
    The fact that the drug has significant inhibitory antiviral effect when the susceptible cells were treated either prior to or after infection suggests a possible prophylactic and therapeutic use.
    Perhaps this is where Dr. Vladimir Zelenko got the idea to try HCQ. It was right there in everyone's face.

    So, Fauci et al were aware of HCQ as a prophylaxis for SarCov. Why wasn't HCQ given more serious consideration as a prophylaxis for SarCov2? Right on cue, the fraudulent Lancet hit job study put HCQ to rest months before the original EUA. HCQ never recovered even after the paper was retracted; the media buried that conversation and so did the CDC, NIH, FDA, ETC.

    Anyway, comparing the recent EUA letter from 2021 with the one from 2020, they changed the wording for the statutory criteria. I wonder why they didn't just go with the original wording?

    Bottom line: Given the $$$$ made on these subscription-based vaccines combined with the importance of the Vaccine Passport in the broader agenda, the incentive to repress adequate, approved, and available alternatives is undeniable and obviously irresistible.

    If we update the wording of my original post like the FDA did from 2020 to 2021, does the theory still hold water? All preventative alternatives had to be repressed in order to meet statutory criteria for EUA and bypass real trials....which the mRNA injections would have failed. Therefore, HCQ was buried with a fraudulent Lancet hit job and the FDA steamrolled us all with the EUA. Absurd "protocols" (without HCQ/Ivermectin prophylaxis or early therapy) were imposed at our hospitals & pharmacies resulting in many unnecessary deaths. I knew a few.

    What did I get wrong?

  5. #17535
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Reduce the risk of lockdowns during the holiday season
    And it has taken only 3 days for the 'experts' here in Australia to recommend boosters every 2 months now.

  6. #17536
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    233

    Default

    As of today I now personally know more vaccinated people who've had covid than unvaccinated. And in each case, the vaccinated person has had worse symptoms.

    In other news, I recieved the work email today that being vaccinated may soon be a condition of employment. It'll be an interesting next few months.

  7. #17537
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan DCNT View Post
    As of today I now personally know more vaccinated people who've had covid than unvaccinated. And in each case, the vaccinated person has had worse symptoms.

    In other news, I recieved the work email today that being vaccinated may soon be a condition of employment. It'll be an interesting next few months.
    Your employer is a little late to this. Doesn’t make sense given the vaccine schedule requirements, I think.

    Which mandate do you fall under?

    1. Military
    2. Health care
    3. Federal contractors
    4. Private employer > 100

    #4 Has been stayed by the 5th circuit, being decided in the 6th now.

    #2 Just had a setback in the district of eastern Missouri

    Nothing tangible for #1 and #3.

  8. #17538
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    1,704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsuma View Post
    What did I get wrong?
    You missed the Solidarity and Recovery trials in which they were murdering people to show that HCQ was deadly. The HCQ thing is a much bigger scandal than ivermectin.

  9. #17539
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,752

    Default

    Forbes wrote an article today titled "Yes, the vaccines change your DNA. A tiny bit. That's a good thing". They then changed the title and are trying to cover up what they initially posted after it started getting shared online.

    Proof 1: Look at the URL slug Covid Vaccines Don’t Alter Your DNA – They Help Choose Cells To Strengthen Your Immune Response

    Proof 2: Look at the archive https://archive.md/QpJk0

  10. #17540
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,752

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Nova Scotia putting defibrillators in all public schools | CBC News
    Israel has bought 1556 defibrillators to be installed in their schools as well. Keep an eye out for this trend.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •