Mass Psychosis

[Sparko]

Your responses are deteriorating. This is about where the science is and what we can expect from there. You might note that sars-cov-2 has been named after the earlier sars-cov. The targeted approach is similar -- namely of producing spikes so as to trigger curative actions. If you have a similar study of the use of spikes to overcome sars-cov2, then that would be better than just arguing that this is a different virus. While the present experimental shots may not exactly match the expectations (could be better or worse), these are the warnings we get from the scientific studies. The spikes are only one of the concerns. The harming effects are another issue which may appear at any stage from now to decades following.

Then at this time we already see the loss of effectiveness of the covid shots. The solution is not to note that the shots are failing but rather is to promote more shots.

You keep on bringing little opinion pieces. the stuff I am presenting is the concerns about the outcome that arises from previous scientific studies. Plus, you make an ad hominem attack against the person sharing the study rather than addressing the study itself. I'm not sure what you have against actual science.

No, none of that is correct. Whatever vaccine they were talking about was not anything like the mRNA vaccine that was not even invented until after Sars-Cov-2 was around. And this is some Chinese experiment. Trying to claim that the current mRNA vaccines is causing ADE based on a study from a different disease and vaccine is not science, Mike. It's voodoo. If you want to show that the Pfizer or Moderna nRNA vaccine is causing ADE, then you need to provide relevant studies of the Pfizer/Moderna vaccine with actual data. Hop to it.

You are showing your lack of understanding science again.

thats-not-how-this-works-thats-not-how-any-of-13575671.png

eta: I am guessing you didn't even notice that the study was regarding SARS and not COVID-19 when you posted it in response to me, and after I pointed it out to you, your pride couldn't let you admit you screwed up and so you had to try to find some (really bad) way to defend your mistake. Much better to just admit you screwed up. I can respect that.

[mikewhitney]

So, the article loses credibility because it disagrees with your views.

But we are to believe an antivaxxer site that is quoting some study that is about Sars-Cov (note NOT Sars-Cov-2 thus not the vaccines we are discussing) from February 2019, a YEAR before Covid-19 even started spreading in Wuhan.

OK, Mr. D-K-S. Thanks for your input.

Your responses are deteriorating. This is about where the science is and what we can expect from there. You might note that sars-cov-2 has been named after the earlier sars-cov. The targeted approach is similar -- namely of producing spikes so as to trigger curative actions. If you have a similar study of the use of spikes to overcome sars-cov2, then that would be better than just arguing that this is a different virus. While the present experimental shots may not exactly match the expectations (could be better or worse), these are the warnings we get from the scientific studies. The spikes are only one of the concerns. The harming effects are another issue which may appear at any stage from now to decades following.

Then at this time we already see the loss of effectiveness of the covid shots. The solution is not to note that the shots are failing but rather is to promote more shots.

You keep on bringing little opinion pieces. the stuff I am presenting is the concerns about the outcome that arises from previous scientific studies. Plus, you make an ad hominem attack against the person sharing the study rather than addressing the study itself. I'm not sure what you have against actual science.

[Sparko]

The article loses a bunch of credibility with respect to medical discussions. To speak of conspiracy theories (especially without noting what the conspiracy is) is to make an ad hominem argument fallacy against the medical doctors who have brought these concerns out through various scientific studies. Kristina is one of many people in the discussion, not the final determiner of the discussion.

...
The Nebraskamed site loses credibility by a blanket claim that the covid shots are safe.

So, the article loses credibility because it disagrees with your views.

But we are to believe an antivaxxer site that is quoting some study that is about Sars-Cov (note NOT Sars-Cov-2 thus not the vaccines we are discussing) from February 2019, a YEAR before Covid-19 even started spreading in Wuhan.

OK, Mr. D-K-S. Thanks for your input.

[mikewhitney]

[QUOTE=Sparko;n1297139]Also:

Source: https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/94190

ADE Is Still Not a Problem With COVID Vaccines

— Recent paper "not aligned with reality"

by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting, MedPage Today August 24, 2021



Conspiracy theories about antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) with COVID-19 vaccines are swirling yet again, apparently due to a letter to the editor and a controversial talk by a physician at a school board meeting.
That's despite the fact that there's absolutely no evidence of the condition occurring as hundreds of millions of people around the world have been vaccinated.

© Copyright Original Source

The article loses a bunch of credibility with respect to medical discussions. To speak of conspiracy theories (especially without noting what the conspiracy is) is to make an ad hominem argument fallacy against the medical doctors who have brought these concerns out through various scientific studies. Kristina is one of many people in the discussion, not the final determiner of the discussion.

"If COVID-19 vaccines caused ADE, people who are vaccinated against COVID-19 would have more severe disease," Nada Fadul, MD, an infectious diseases physician with Nebraska Medicine, said in a statement. "This is not happening. On the contrary, people who are vaccinated typically have very mild disease or none at all. In fact, the majority of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. are people who aren't fully vaccinated."



The Yahi model is based on the Kappa variant spike protein, Nirenberg said.

Lowe concluded that there's no evidence of ADE in vaccinated people, and in fact the clinical data show the opposite: vaccinated people are less likely to be infected with Delta, and if they do get sick, they are less likely to develop serious illness.
"If the mechanism proposed by Yahi et al. were happening in the real world, then we should see higher Delta infection rates among vaccinated people, with more severe disease," he wrote. "We are not. We are seeing the reverse. The vaccines simply to not appear to be causing ADE, no matter how many reasons one might be able to spin for them to do so."

The Nebraskamed site loses credibility by a blanket claim that the covid shots are safe. Of course, this was the goal of the article in the first place, so we could not expect any balanced discussion there.

The study of spikes in a vaccine caused lung injury in monkeys in this study: Anti–spike IgG causes severe acute lung injury by skewing macrophage responses during acute SARS-CoV infection https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/123158

A summary in part is below:

Source: https://vaxxter.com/covid-vaccines-part-2/

The animals were sacrificed between weeks 9 and 21, after receiving the second injection; the vaccine containing the spike protein induced very high antibody responses to the spike protein (anti-S-IgG). Although the antibodies had reduced the viral load in the upper respiratory tract, they caused a serious, antibody-enhanced injury in the lungs.

© Copyright Original Source

The study of these monkeys shows that the damage may not have been instant death but that the vaccine led to more injury compared to the monkeys that did not get the vaxx. Both of these responses noted by Sparko just appeal to common perceptions rather than to actual scientific data. Nor are we particularly in a new flu season to see what happens when people are more likely to get sick and then the weaknesses of the immune system become more apparent.

[Sparko]

It's more complex than that. First of all, what is the chance that any one person will contract the China flu? That's the first consideration. Second, if that person does contract it, what are their chances of becoming seriously ill or dying? Third, what preventative measures other than vaccines are available? Fourth, what are the short-term and long-term risks of the vaccines, and do they outweigh the potential benefits?

All of these questions are whole discussions in and of themselves, but it seems that people want easy answers -- "Stay six feet apart! Wear a mask! Get the Jab!" -- rather than wrestling with complex issues.

I am just talking about your comments on the risks of dying from COVID. I have never said anything about mask wearing or anything else. You are deflecting.

[Mountain Man]

Wi-fi!

---

I also want to drop this here for MM and Mike who keep making comments like "why would I want to take an experimental vaccine for a disease that has a 99% survivability rate?" and acting like COVID is no worse than a flu.

The mortality rate of the Spanish flu was 'only' 2.5%, that is a 97.5% survivability rate!

And yet we still think it was horrible, and the worse pandemic in modern history. Over 670,000 people died in the USA alone.

So far the death rate of COVID in the USA is 630,000. It's catching up.

It's more complex than that. First of all, what is the chance that any one person will contract the China flu? That's the first consideration. Second, if that person does contract it, what are their chances of becoming seriously ill or dying? Third, what preventative measures other than vaccines are available? Fourth, what are the short-term and long-term risks of the vaccines, and do they outweigh the potential benefits?

All of these questions are whole discussions in and of themselves, but it seems that people want easy answers -- "Stay six feet apart! Wear a mask! Get the Jab!" -- rather than wrestling with complex issues.

[Stoic]

I came to the same conclusion about you a while back. Your go-to tactic is a quick excuse and to move on.

If you have a problem with any of my posts, feel free to point them out.

Enough hand-waving from you.

[CivilDiscourse]

Okay. I no longer expect better from you.

I came to the same conclusion about you a while back. Your go-to tactic is a quick excuse and to move on.

[Stoic]

I would, but unfortunately, most posts from you are light handwaves that generally dismiss points as opposed to actively talk about them.

Okay. I no longer expect better from you.

[mikewhitney]

Australia and NZ have both found it worth making extra effort to keep Covid entirely out of their countries, because this means more freedoms within the countries to live life as normal, operate businesses and schools as normal etc. So when cases of covid do break through the border quarantine into the general population, they have to be really vigorously contained, otherwise they would just spread through the population and our countries would become as bad as America (well in the one respect of covid).

One part of that, is that when people are discovered to have Covid (i.e. by testing positive), they are subject to legal orders to quarantine until they are no longer infectious, thus preventing them spreading covid, killing thousands and costing the economy billions of dollars.

The person you mention tested positive for Covid, was told he had covid, and received the legal order to quarantine. And instead of obeying it, he decided he'd go out and about, and went on the run from authorities.

The ridiculousness of this post should be quite evident to most of us. In order to have more freedom, we have to be locked in our houses while losing the ability to see friends and relatives. To have more freedom, we have to obey oppressive forces who strip away all rights and thus make life miserable. If we do not obey these oppressive laws, then we will not have freedom. This is all on the chance that we might stop 1% who might get ill and die because the government has forbidden use of effective treatments like Ivermectin. All this is in the name of living life and enjoying freedom -- even if we don't have a control group that is not being oppressed if perchance the Kiwis are already immune to the disease.

It actually is more important to be able to live our lives while we are alive rather than have such oppressive freedom.

[CivilDiscourse]

I'm not surprised by posts without content from MM. I expected better from you.

I would, but unfortunately, most posts from you are light handwaves that generally dismiss points as opposed to actively talk about them.

[Stoic]

Give Stoic a hand fan and throw data that makes democrats look bad, and he'll solve global warming...or at least produce EF5 rated winds, and women in trailer parks with a deep southern accent talking about how it sounded like a freight train.

I'm not surprised by posts without content from MM. I expected better from you.

[rogue06]

Oh yeah. But I was counting actual deaths, not as a percentage of the population. The mortality rate if you caught the Spanish flu was "only" 2.5% and look at the havoc it wrought. So saying Covid is ONLY 1% so why take a vaccine is just a dumb statement.

As an aside, during the Spanish Flu masking mandates were strictly enforced. There was even a man shot by the police for refusing to wear one in public and many others were jailed.

Do you know what is credited with ending it by some historians?

Photos started circulating of some of those who mandated such laws out in public, attending events, while not wearing a mask, and the resulting public outrage

Some things never change.

[Sparko]

To be fair, in a population less than a third of what there is today.

Oh yeah. But I was counting actual deaths, not as a percentage of the population. The mortality rate if you caught the Spanish flu was "only" 2.5% and look at the havoc it wrought. So saying Covid is ONLY 1% so why take a vaccine is just a dumb statement.

[rogue06]

Wi-fi!

---

I also want to drop this here for MM and Mike who keep making comments like "why would I want to take an experimental vaccine for a disease that has a 99% survivability rate?" and acting like COVID is no worse than a flu.

The mortality rate of the Spanish flu was 'only' 2.5%, that is a 97.5% survivability rate!

And yet we still think it was horrible, and the worse pandemic in modern history. Over 670,000 people died in the USA alone.

So far the death rate of COVID in the USA is 630,000. It's catching up.

To be fair, in a population less than a third of what there is today.