Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The single greatest advance in medicine was the germ theory of disease. It's precursor was smallpox vaccination. There is no handling flu with vaccine, just the pretense, but the pretense is a ho

The pandemics in 1957 and then again in 1968 killed roughly 100k Americans each, they were influenza viruses , I don't know of any societal wide reactions that match this one. Did we flatten a curve ?

William, To add to my post above, I find your contempt for people like Mike Lindell and admiration for the elitist globalists a serious problem of blank-out. You're like a turkey on a farm a

Posted Images

On 3/14/2021 at 5:33 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It depends on what one wants.

deleted

I introduced a terminological confusion which I don’t want to spend time on untangling.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2021 at 11:42 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

Regarding the accuracy of the case and death figures given by Worldometers:

Worldometers report what the official figures for any given country report.  The Worldometers people aren’t able to do testing themselves to verify or disconfirm the accuracy of officially reported figures.

Different countries vary a lot in how rigorous and accurate they are in testing and reporting.  Political factors play a big role.  (For instance, does the government of the country want to look like containment efforts are being successful or like the virus is raging at constant-crisis level?)

The US and Brazil are especially suspect in their figures - suspect in the direction of grossly inflated figures, especially for deaths.

To compare the (reported) death rates of the US and Brazil, you need to compare percentage of deaths per number of cases.

.

 

Political factors, and how. Those tested 'cases' could be over and under reported, for different politicized reasons. Take a look at this short article containing recent data of US states.

Limiting 'cases' through harsher measures should directly correlate with reduced deaths, you'd think? Well, no.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0321/morris031021.php3

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, anthony said:

Limiting 'cases' through harsher measures should directly correlate with reduced deaths, you'd think? Well, no.

The "herd effect" may be a real scientific / medical / socially and personably, observable, phenomenon. 

The Taylor Test Case. After one Pfizer shot I have broadened my interactions without fear. And I have had no problems. I will get my second shot on Friday and then I will start going to grocery and large box stores again. My wife gets her second Moderna shot soon after that. We timed our injections to insure we could help each other if we have a reaction. It's soothing to have a sexy, scientist for a wife. Peter   

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Peter said:

The "herd effect" may be a real scientific / medical / socially and personably, observable, phenomenon. 

The Taylor Test Case. After one Pfizer shot I have broadened my interactions without fear. And I have had no problems. I will get my second shot on Friday and then I will start going to grocery and large box stores again. My wife gets her second Moderna shot soon after that. We timed our injections to insure we could help each other if we have a reaction. It's soothing to have a sexy, scientist for a wife. Peter   

Fine and I'm pleased for you, Peter. If only individual choice had been the buzz word through all of this pandemic.

I'm unsure of those odd figures given above. Lockdowns (etc.) ... didn't work? (Aside from the human devastation they caused). I had my doubts - but still? Was it all a waste?

I thought of "herd immunity" and its antithesis: lowering people's natural antibodies from confinement. But I don't know enough.

Or else, possibly some egregious under-reporting of 'case' numbers by some states to justify their severe measures and make them look good. But one thing that can't be under-counted are the deaths, so their ploys were caught out.

Third, I think that the psychological factor in the relaxed and more free US states could have played a part. When one is allowed the self-responsibility to take greater or lesser care of oneself - i.e. you know the big nanny Gvt. and other people at large can't be counted upon to protect one - one will depend far more on one's own decisions and will be more cautious (if considering oneself at risk) about exposing oneself. You aren't lulled into a false sense of security by bureaucrats "looking out for us", in short. Therefore, explaining a greater spread and higher 'cases' among the young and healthy, but proportionately fewer over-all mortalities among the high risk group - the aged, frail, ill - who were less trusting and more careful.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Among recent headlines, I am getting the notion that 17 to 24 European countries have suspended the AstraZeneca vaccine over fears of blood clots.

I don't trust the fake news media, but there is a lot of churn around this.

Enough to believe something is up. This is not the kind of information the fake news media does in lockstep. This churn appears to be happening despite pro-establishment propaganda.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, anthony said:

I thought of "herd immunity" and its antithesis: lowering people's natural antibodies from confinement.

I read something about long space flights, as going to Mars would be. Every month or so the travelers would deliberately expose themselves to new, different germs, to keep their immune systems working. I think the germs would be kept in stoppered vials.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

deleted

I introduced a terminological confusion which I don’t want to spend time on untangling.

Ellen

So...

I have a bit of time for explaining my terminological mishap:

I used "death rate" when I meant "case fatality rate."  I have a habit of making that goof.

"Case fatality rate" is deaths per confirmed cases (within a specified time frame).

"Death rate," also called "mortality rate," is deaths per a standard population size (within a specified time frame).

I found a clear explanation of the difference, with illustrative examples.

This is from the online Encyclopedia Britannicalink.

It's written by Rebecca A. Harrington, who is Research Program Manager at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Johns Hopkins does a fair amount of hyping on Covid, although the site has some really useful charts as well.  Probably Harrington's Britannica piece was written before Covid ever came along.  Whatever Harrington's views on Covid (I don’t know what her views are), her explanation of the difference between case fatality rate and death (mortality) rate is good:

 

 

==== Start Quote

Case fatality rate is calculated by dividing the number of deaths from a specified disease over a defined period of time by the number of individuals diagnosed with the disease during that time; the resulting ratio is then multiplied by 100 to yield a percentage. This calculation differs from that used for mortality rate, another measure of death for a given population. Although number of deaths serves as the numerator for both measures, mortality rate is calculated by dividing the number of deaths by the population at risk during a certain time frame. As a true rate, it estimates the risk of dying of a certain disease. Hence, the two measures provide different information.

As an example, consider two populations. One population consists of 1,000 people; 300 of these people have the specified disease, 100 of whom die from the disease. In this case, the mortality rate for the disease is 100 ÷ 1,000 = 0.1, or 10 percent. The case fatality rate is 100 ÷ 300 = 0.33, or 33 percent. The second population also has 1,000 people; 50 people have the disease and 40 die from it. Here the mortality rate is 40 ÷ 1,000 = 0.04, or 4 percent; the case fatality rate, however, is 40 ÷ 50 = 0.8, or 80 percent. The incidence of death from the disease is higher in the first population, but the severity of disease is greater in the second.

===== End Quote

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

From The Washington Examiner: Media face the music: Ron DeSantis got it right Eddie Scarry  8 hrs ago/ If you blinked while watching CNN this morning you might have missed it but the cable news outlet has finally come around to admitting what so many of us have known for months: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican (AHHH!!), was right.

CNN's Jeff Zeleney went to Florida, no doubt on a mission to see just how badly DeSantis was screwing up. He was left with no choice but to report a segment Wednesday with the truth. Florida, all things considered, is a model state for how we should have handled the coronavirus pandemic from the start. “The governor’s gamble to take a laissez faire approach to coronavirus appears to be paying off," said Zeleney. "At least politically, at least for now."

He added that DeSantis's governing was "getting a second look" and that his "standing is stronger than other governors across the country," even noting that his state's virus-related death rate is much better than Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo's New York, and that his state's economy is significantly better off than heavily locked down California. Despite the fact that Florida remained mostly open, California's coronavirus death rate is only 6% lower. Meanwhile, its unemployment rate (9.0%) is almost twice as high as Florida's (4.8%).

Still, it bears noting that DeSantis did not take a "laissez faire approach" to the pandemic. It's just that he didn't put his state's citizens in a choke-hold. The DeSantis administration did take action in some important areas, using "the science" to target who exactly needed the most protection (the elderly). Meanwhile, he simply encouraged everyone else to carefully monitor their own individual risk levels. Unlike Cuomo, DeSantis did not mandate that infected patients be admitted to nursing homes.

DeSantis refused to shut down the state's biggest public spaces -- its beaches -- on the understanding that this was one of the few places people could go while easily distancing from others. He also made sure the state's schools opened in the fall and stayed open -- something "the science" has said all along is safe.

Endlessly frustrating for liberals and the media was DeSantis's reluctance to institute indefinite statewide mask orders and restrictions on businesses. It was supposedly "anti-science" to consider that governing a state or even a country through a pandemic might also mean weighing the costs of a severely restrictive policy designed to slow the spread of a virus that's harmless for the vast majority of people who contract it. When you force businesses to shut down, throwing untold numbers of people out of work and preventing many necessary activities such as health checkups, .

Democrats such as Cuomo, Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan were lauded by the media for closing hair salons and bars, in many cases permanently ending the lifelong dreams of many of their own residents. DeSantis determined that the cost for that was too high.

CNN isn't the only news outlet taking a second look at Florida. The New York Times on Saturday wrote, "For better or worse, Florida’s experiment in returning to life-as-it-used-to-be offers a glimpse of what many states are likely to face in the weeks ahead, as they move into the next phase of the pandemic — the part where it starts to be over."

The website Axios wrote Monday that "after a solid year of living with a pandemic, the national press is beginning to ask the question that even Democrats have been quietly pondering in the Sunshine State: Was Gov. Ron DeSantis' pandemic response right for Florida?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, America has enough to go around. Peter

Biden administration to share millions of AstraZeneca vaccine doses with Canada, Mexico, Shannon Pettypiece and Lauren Egan - 1h ago. WASHINGTON — The Biden administration is working to finalize plans to send millions of doses of the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine to Mexico and Canada, the White House said Thursday. About 2.5 million doses would go to Mexico and 1.5 million doses would go to Canada as U.S. regulators wait on the company to provide further data on the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received my second dose of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine today at the VA, around 1pm. I had some very minor issues, such as a brief ache in the upper arm but not at the “shot sight” and my body felt warm in spots. And since I was “monitoring myself” the symptoms may have had nothing to do with the shot.

Once again a warm Shout Out! to the Georgetown, Delaware Veterans Administration Clinic. Well done gals and guys. Peter Taylor   

Link to post
Share on other sites


 

=====. Start Quote

 

“Top health officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci and CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, have said a variant that originated in the U.K. could become the dominant strain in the U.S. by the end of the month. That strain is believed to be some 56% more contagious and perhaps twice as deadly than the existing dominant strain in the United States.”

How do Faustian Fraud Fauci and the CDC know to make these date predictions?

One might just begin to think maybe, just maybe, it was ALL planned. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/03/18/covid-spiking-in-over-a-dozen-states-most-with-high-vaccination-rates/amp/
 
 


===== End Quote

Link to post
Share on other sites

After my second shot yesterday, "I ain't afraid of no ghosts!" 

If Fauci and others planned the outbreak in China, then . . . .  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

I am rooting for you to be safe and healthy.

That's my wish. Without qualifications.

Michael

It's my wish also.

However, abandoning caution because of being vaccinated isn’t a safe way to be safe.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

It's my wish also.

However, abandoning caution because of being vaccinated isn’t a safe way to be safe.

Ellen

Abandoning caution started with the vaccination so it's logical.

--Brant

via inertia

the vaccination is actually for fear so I'm a bad voice

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

It's my wish also.

However, abandoning caution because of being vaccinated isn’t a safe way to be safe.

Ellen

I should have written "vaccinated."

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

?Still feeling well. Minor problems after the vaccine. I am feeling cold. Two family members stayed in bed for one or two days after their second vaccine. But I seem to be faring better than they. "Just get the damn shot." 12 to 24 hours with the Pfizer and you are ready for the Californian, Brazilian, English, or whatever variant. I hope. It isn't Q hype. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there's hype and then there is hype.

'Just get the damn shot' is hype coming from those who didn't like masks, then loved masks and then loved masks so much more masks are better. The same that claimed potential therapeutics were dangerous, even though it was wildly known those same compounds were proven safe. The same who claimed quarantining the healthy was the most logical path without even discussing negative attributes of closing society down, the same people are screaming just get the damn shot. The same that touted high flow /pressure ventilators were imperative to treatment and allowed untrained persons to administer the treatment, ect ect.

As far as I've seen the 'damn shot' is like no other used to vaccinate against a viral infection. The traditional method( in my layman's understanding) is to 'make a vaccine ' out of weakened or dead virus particles inject the solution to trigger the immune system to recognize and then produce 'antibodies' to that particular heretofore not encountered bodily invasion, so that when/if an invasion occurs 'naturally', the immune system is prepped to handle the encounter.

These mRNA 'vaccines' instead cause production in the body of specific proteins that are found in/on the Wuhan virus in order to prep the immune system to recognize and develop protection against encountering that protein in the future. Which frankly sounds like a wonderful development in medical science and technology and 'feels' like it has great potential in all sorts of ares, but what do I know? Some concerns in this area I have seen/heard go along the lines of : are there similar proteins in the body that perform other functions and will the stimulated production of these affect the effects of the presence of the similar protein?

Another concern I've seen mentioned is that either the spike protein the mRNA shot produces is 'close' to a protein found in women during or 'around' pregnancies and it may disrupt the healthy functioning of either the uterus and or placental tissues and operations. 10-20 % expected miscarriage rates among pregnant vaccine recipients was a number I saw, though not sure where.   And perhaps something or other to do with clotting activities?

It seems the reason vaccines take 'so long' to be available has more to do with real world testing ,ie give them to people and watch them for a few years, then the engineering of the 'thing'.

Given just /only what I've said about my understanding so far, it seems that those most at risk (based on age, weight, general health) could consider the experimental treatment as a safe hedge against infection or dire consequences,though it seems that those at lower overall risk from the virus should consider the questions or concerns before they decide. ie pregnant women, young women who may become pregnant. I don't think it "q" hype to point to the fact that questions of fertility and vaccine use are 'out there', unless of course the questions themselves are arbitrary or purposely misleading but I have seen/heard definitively either way . 

The hardest part of the this whole clusterfuck , is that laymen need more than ever to scrutinize advice coming from 'experts' , given that this pandemic has shown us how far and to what degrees practically all of our 'institutions' have been degraded or corrupted.

My severe libertarian streaks means I'd advocate against a governmental structure like an FDA, but it doesn't mean that I think adherence to scientific principles should be abandoned , especially when it comes to shit I inject or eat !

One of the arguments against an FDA or similar structure/institution in a capitalist society is the danger of that authority being used as rubberstamp in place of sound principles. This whole clusterfuck highlights that danger , no ?

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tmj said:

Well there's hype and then there is hype.

'Just get the damn shot' is hype coming from those who didn't like masks, then loved masks and then loved masks so much more masks are better. The same that claimed potential therapeutics were dangerous, even though it was wildly known those same compounds were proven safe. The same who claimed quarantining the healthy was the most logical path without even discussing negative attributes of closing society down, the same people are screaming just get the damn shot. The same that touted high flow /pressure ventilators were imperative to treatment and allowed untrained persons to administer the treatment, ect ect.

As far as I've seen the 'damn shot' is like no other used to vaccinate against a viral infection. The traditional method( in my layman's understanding) is to 'make a vaccine ' out of weakened or dead virus particles inject the solution to trigger the immune system to recognize and then produce 'antibodies' to that particular heretofore not encountered bodily invasion, so that when/if an invasion occurs 'naturally', the immune system is prepped to handle the encounter.

These mRNA 'vaccines' instead cause production in the body of specific proteins that are found in/on the Wuhan virus in order to prep the immune system to recognize and develop protection against encountering that protein in the future. Which frankly sounds like a wonderful development in medical science and technology and 'feels' like it has great potential in all sorts of ares, but what do I know? Some concerns in this area I have seen/heard go along the lines of : are there similar proteins in the body that perform other functions and will the stimulated production of these affect the effects of the presence of the similar protein?

Another concern I've seen mentioned is that either the spike protein the mRNA shot produces is 'close' to a protein found in women during or 'around' pregnancies and it may disrupt the healthy functioning of either the uterus and or placental tissues and operations. 10-20 % expected miscarriage rates among pregnant vaccine recipients was a number I saw, though not sure where.   And perhaps something or other to do with clotting activities?

It seems the reason vaccines take 'so long' to be available has more to do with real world testing ,ie give them to people and watch them for a few years, then the engineering of the 'thing'.

Given just /only what I've said about my understanding so far, it seems that those most at risk (based on age, weight, general health) could consider the experimental treatment as a safe hedge against infection or dire consequences,though it seems that those at lower overall risk from the virus should consider the questions or concerns before they decide. ie pregnant women, young women who may become pregnant. I don't think it "q" hype to point to the fact that questions of fertility and vaccine use are 'out there', unless of course the questions themselves are arbitrary or purposely misleading but I have seen/heard definitively either way . 

The hardest part of the this whole clusterfuck , is that laymen need more than ever to scrutinize advice coming from 'experts' , given that this pandemic has shown us how far and to what degrees practically all of our 'institutions' have been degraded or corrupted.

My severe libertarian streaks means I'd advocate against a governmental structure like an FDA, but it doesn't mean that I think adherence to scientific principles should be abandoned , especially when it comes to shit I inject or eat !

One of the arguments against an FDA or similar structure/institution in a capitalist society is the danger of that authority being used as rubberstamp in place of sound principles. This whole clusterfuck highlights that danger , no ?

 

Hey, now...stop trying to use reason and persuasion...Just give in to the damn arguments from intimidation, already...Dont' try to make up your mind by evaluating the pro's and con's, and don't listen to the doctors who raise concerns or offer alternatives; just listen to the damn doctors we goddamn tell you to listen to...Don't worry about your civil liberties; just get the damn shot...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely consider personal susceptibility and the science behind these vaccines. Covid is much worse than the flu.

Confirmed Covid cases in the U.S.: 30,011,181

Fatal U.S. cases due to Covid: 547,453

Fatal U.S. cases due to Flu: 36,000

Notes from Wikipedia: Flu results in "about 250,000 to 500,000 yearly deaths" worldwide, Wikipedia tells us. "The typical estimate is 36,000 [deaths] a year in the United States," reports NBC, citing the Centers for Disease Control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter

I'm glad you took the damn jab, of all the categories of people who would seem to benefit from this shot I think you fall right 'in ' there. Truly I am glad you feel more protected and I sincerely hope you are, but like Ellen cautioned don't slack off on protective measures used to avoid a respiratory virus cuz the fit you have for that category.

The numbers you posted I view as suspect. I find it hard to believe over a half million deaths 'due' to covid, half a million with a corona virus diagnosis.. maybe, but the actual number of persons who died as a direct result of only a covid infection,  without 550k verified autopsy reports showing that covid alone was direct cause of death I don't buy it.

I'm waiting for a reliable extra death report as it should be a better gauge of all this.

It's not very scientific and all but one of the reasons I'm skeptical without an extra death report , is that without trying I'm starting to hear more and more stories about 'long haul' cases and the severity of damage due to infection, and wouldn't you know it but a jab is reported to help with that too , wonders just don't cease.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now