Scientifically speaking, vaccinees are fucked beyond all hope

File: 1004 KB, 1x1, 1652209599748.pdf [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Scientifically speaking, vaccinees are fucked beyond all hope Anonymous Mon May 30 19:21:49 2022 No.14528698 [Reply] [Original]

Based on all the above, it is fair to conclude that ADEI in the URT as a result of poor virus neutralization
capacity would dramatically increase the amount of infectious SC-2 virions that are captured and
contained by DCs resident in the mucosal tissue at the portal of viral entry and would, therefore,
dramatically expand the reservoir the infectious virus can spill over from to different distant organs to
trigger ADED in the LRT once the trans infection barrier has been lifted. It is tempting to speculate that
O-glycosylation of the RBD is capable of lifting this barrier. The additional incorporation of one or more
amino acid mutations within a (highly) variable part of NTD that is adjacent to the enhancing domain is
thought to serve as an elegant and effective strategy for allowing O-glycosylated Newco variants to
restore optimal trans infectiousness and allow for ADEI-mediated ADED.
It is certainly conceivable that a higher O-glycosylation density on the RBD could even enhance trans
infection in vaccinees (i.e., by joining the cluster of N-glycans recruited by DC surface-expressed C-type
lectins and thus strengthening viral attachment to the URT-resident DCs) and even trans fusion between
virus-infected and not infected cells at distant target organs (i.e., by promoting the interaction between
oligomannoyslated glycans on S expressed at the surface of SC-2 infected cells and glycan-binding
determinants on uninfected neighboring cells). It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that site-specific
O-glycosylation on RBD would not only restore viral trans infection and trans fusion (i.e., by impeding
binding of the infection-enhancing Abs) but that it could even strengthen viral trans infection and trans
fusion and hence, enhance the likelihood of causing systemic C-19 disease.
It is, therefore, fair to posit that abundant O-linked glycosylation could make SC-2 highly virulent in
vaccinees and, therefore, make vaccinees highly susceptible to severe systemic disease.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 22:15:07 2022 No.14529234 >>14528698 Frankly I think it's kino.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 22:34:56 2022 No.14529283 >>14528698 1. They aren't vaccines. The moment we can formulate a proper meme for this is exactly when the class action lawsuit begins, and we officially take down clown world.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 22:39:33 2022 No.14529287 >>14528698 Two more weeks

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 22:53:53 2022 No.14529310 >>14529287 >within 2 months following this date of writing He clearly stated it's 2 more months, not weeks.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 30 23:21:15 2022 No.14529361 >>14528698 rent free :)

Anonymous Tue May 31 00:13:00 2022 No.14529458

>>14528698
>by promoting the interaction between
>oligomannoyslated glycans on S expressed at the surface of SC-2 infected cells and glycan-binding
>determinants on uninfected neighboring cells
Shit dawg! We wuz just discussing that on the basketball courts the other day and saying that's what it was all about!

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 04:08:53 2022 No.14529945 >>14529287 >Two more weeks Hospitalization rates and infection rates are significantly higher right now than they were at this time last year, despite a huge portion of the population being vaccinated and boosted.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 06:07:16 2022 No.14530130 >>14528698 >two weeks lol

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 06:09:21 2022 No.14530135 >>14529945 yeah there's a new variant retard

Anonymous Tue May 31 06:31:58 2022 No.14530169

>>14529945
>Hospitalization rates and infection rates are significantly higher right now than they were at this time last year, despite a huge portion of the population being vaccinated and boosted.

It's at least partly "pandemic" malnutrition and vitamin D deficiency due to lack of sun exposure. Boron also improves Vitamin D status and is likely "essential" for good health, but not declared such. Genetic polymorphisms mean choline/folate requirements for many subpopulations are likely higher than the IOM suggests for the general population.

It's like they have literally forgotten about nutrition: you can have an elderly woman who has 1 egg, 2 pieces of toast for breakfast, a half a cup of cottage cheese for lunch and 2 pieces of highliner fish for dinner, and it's not anything the average doctor will care about, they will just Rx pills and once she inevitably declines to the point of being institutionalized, well, who knows why, must be genetics!

Like, why would you expect someone like that to be healthy? Make sure she gets her flu shot, because she will be deficient in basically every essential nutrient.

And even if you tell her, she will likely insist she is "fine" because she "is not dead yet" or something like that. So it is partly the patient's attitude, but the idea that these elderly ppl, or people who eat poor diets and have obesity and other diseases, are really vaccine deficient, it's a big con-game.

I am not saying vaccines dont work, or do nothing, just that they are about the worst public health intervention in a sickly population that you could make, in terms of actually improving their health.

IOM says granny needs 8mg zinc a day. So, she needs to eat ~200g beef a day, or oysters, or a heck of a lot of something else to get adequate zinc.

Zinc's essentiality was literally defined based on zinc-deficient Indians eating a shit-diet, who responded to zinc administration.

I hate this clown world idea that everyone eats a great diet.

Anonymous Tue May 31 06:38:52 2022 No.14530181
File: 839 KB, 1174x1254, omicron evolution.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>force everyones immune system to create wuhan variant antibodies through repeated injection of wuhan variant spike protein
>mass vaccination creates evolutionary pressure on virus to escape wuhan immune response
>turns out wuhan variant antigen antibodies don't work for future variants and make the vaccinated extremely vulnerable to new variants because they can only produce wuhan variant immune response
HoW CoULd We HaVe KNowN?

Anonymous Tue May 31 06:53:43 2022 No.14530201
File: 140 KB, 622x798, 1-s2.0-S1673852721003738-gr3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14530181
with respect to your pic, it was clear from spike mutations and receptor affinity that omicron emerged from mice--presumably through a lab, though no one would admit to that. basically since ACE receptors are so massively cross-species labs can keep mutating it regardless of vaccination protocols, even if in the end it's still just a flu

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 06:55:06 2022 No.14530204 >>14530201 I know there's even a patent https://patents.justia.com/patent/11225508

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 06:58:21 2022 No.14530211 >>14529287 Can any vaccine shill answer this? Why in one semester with the vaccines there were more cases and deaths than in the entire year of 2020?

Anonymous Tue May 31 06:58:27 2022 No.14530212

>>14530204
thus the massive fear mongering with high cycle threshold pcr cases, npi and shutting down antivirals and diet to maximise adoption of the wuhan spike protein was the most critical part of their plan which has now been completely inverted to downplaying real unusual mortality

case in point this post >>14530169

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 07:13:59 2022 No.14530228 >>14530169 even small amounts of zinc supplements make me nauseous.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 07:18:27 2022 No.14530235 your spike mutations, variants, fancy charts and pics became irrelevant on 24.02.2022. 300k ukranians arrived in my country without ANY of them being tested, there has been NO increase in cases, hospitalisations or deaths

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 07:28:03 2022 No.14530253 https://www.bitchute.com/video/Udlnvi0eJXYQ/

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 11:59:32 2022 No.14530610 Everyone ITT is a pseud of the highest order.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 12:04:06 2022 No.14530618 >>14529310 That was a typo, he meant two weeks

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 12:13:10 2022 No.14530643 March of Italians carrying the portraits of their fallen due to the jabs: >https://twitter.com/user/status/1530943992111718400

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 13:32:38 2022 No.14530792 >>14530228 eat something fatty before you take zinc. when i do i can take 50-100mg zinc to coommax

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 13:45:50 2022 No.14530819 File: 27 KB, 499x481, 1653287470236.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14528698 viruses don't exist

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 14:18:14 2022 No.14530908 File: 117 KB, 768x576, Get the Vax.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What's going on in Australia?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 15:47:55 2022 No.14531080 >>14529283 We're going towards one already, let's hope they don't assassinate him. https://crimesagainsthumanitytour.com/dr-reiner-fuellmich/

Anonymous Tue May 31 15:56:59 2022 No.14531104

>>14530211
I have been watching every piece of this Scamdemic unfold and everytime the pro-vaccine camp gets caught lying again and again, or evidence emerges that proves them wrong, they either just ignore it or spew memes like 'incel' or 'chud'. Their entire strategy relies on the fact that the entire (((MSM))) is controlled, they know normies will never get to hear the truth so it doesn't matter how many times they get caught lying. Their entire strategy is propaganda, it has nothing to do with science.

Anonymous Tue May 31 15:59:16 2022 No.14531112

>>14530135
>yeah there's a new variant
Which variant? Omicron? Or Omicron BA. 1? Or Omicron BA.1.1? Or Omicron BA.2? Or Omicron BA.3, or BA.4, or BA.5? The differences between these subvariants compared to the original Omicron, is as great as the distance between Omicron and Delta, and the distance between Delta and the original Wuhan virus. It's almost like something is driving extreme mutation rates in a direction that somehow preferentially avoids vaccine-acquired immunity.

Anonymous Tue May 31 16:01:38 2022 No.14531119

>>14531104
Excess deaths that can't be attributed to covid are accumulating all of the first world. Currently these are being ignored even though they're about twice as large as the number attributed to covid (using the loose "with" standard instead of the "from" standard). How long can the millions of excess deaths pile up without it being noticed? I'm not sure but if it keeps increasing, I don't see how they're going to be able to hide it. The numbers keep leaking out from all over the place, like insurance companies making more and more payouts.

Anonymous Tue May 31 16:12:06 2022 No.14531142

>>14530235
>your spike mutations, variants, fancy charts and pics became irrelevant on 24.02.2022. 300k ukranians arrived in my country without ANY of them being tested, there has been NO increase in cases, hospitalisations or deaths

Same thing in my country and we took over 1 milion of them, pretty much all of them unvaxxed, and all Covid measure were dropped before they arrived. To make things even more obvious, my country is the 2nd least vaccinated country out of all white countries. Despite all of this everything is fine, the MSM doesn't even mention Covid anymore. Anyone that still believes Covid existed or that the vaccine isn't just poison is a complete idiot.
To make thing more obvious, there are countries like Canada that won't allow a single citizen to leave/enter without a vaccine + boosters but migrants can come and go as they please.
Nobody thinks this is suspicious, including all the imbeciles in academia.

https://nypost.com/2021/09/10/biden-wont-order-illegal-immigrants-to-get-covid-vaccine/

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 16:15:52 2022 No.14531150 >>14530908 Vaccine genocide, that much is obvious from the graph.

Anonymous Tue May 31 16:27:45 2022 No.14531183

>>14531119
>How long can the millions of excess deaths pile up without it being noticed? I'm not sure but if it keeps increasing, I don't see how they're going to be able to hide it.

I don't want to demoralize you but you overestimate the intellect of the avg individual, including those that have higher studies. Their minds function more like a machine than an actual intelligent human being. They remember, focus and have opinions strictly based on what authority tells them to. Just look how quickly they forgot about the children being prostituted and murdered in the Epstein affair or when Hillary's emails talked about 'sacrifices', or Weiner's laptop that was full of high level pedophilia and snuff. If they can ignore and forget something like that, they'll do the same about the millions dead from the vaccine.
That's why I was hoping someone like Joe Rogan would talk about the vaccine deaths, sheep actualy listen to him. I guess he's just afraid.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 16:46:26 2022 No.14531215 >>14531112 Maybe we should use machine learning techniques to track all possible causes, and have people follow strict advice so the ML input has high enough precision to form detailed maps of the population.

Anonymous Tue May 31 16:52:21 2022 No.14531232

>>14531119
A german anon in a /pol/ thread said their MSM has started reporting on the vaccine deaths. He said the vids were seen by millions and comments are all anti vaccine. He posted the following links.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TN6qRf7S2U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwF5Xy68k0s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpqVsrcn9XQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTd92qTJ3ho

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 17:05:40 2022 No.14531281 ITT : people who haven't taken their meds

Anonymous Tue May 31 17:14:45 2022 No.14531308

>>14531281
ITT: People like you who are too lazy to keep up with the scientific literature and take their medical advice from health agencies suffering from regulatory capture, compromised governments bought out by pharmaceutical cartels and people who aren't doctors (Shill Gates) with a fanatical need to inject the entirety of the world's population, healthy or sick, with experimental genetic therapies.

>back to Plebbit you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHXXTCc-IVg

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 17:27:10 2022 No.14531346 >>14531308 >mRNA >gene that's how I know you mix concrete for a living :)

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 17:31:29 2022 No.14531365 >>14531281 Fuck off glownigger kike.

Anonymous Tue May 31 17:44:47 2022 No.14531407

>>14531346

>mRNA
>genetic therapy

Thats how I know you can't read fine print, or don't care to.

"Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism. In addition, because no product in which mRNA is the primary active ingredient has been approved, the regulatory pathway for approval is uncertain. The number and design of the clinical trials and preclinical studies required for the approval of these types of medicines have not been established, may be different from those required for gene therapy products, or may require safety testing like gene therapy products. Moreover, the length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and to submit an application for marketing approval for a final decision by a regulatory authority varies significantly from one pharmaceutical product to the next, and may be difficult to predict."

>Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA

WOOPSIES !!!

>The spike protein is neurotoxic, and it impairs DNA repair mechanisms.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X

Please read more. For your own good, for God's sake.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 17:51:04 2022 No.14531417 >>14531407 >https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mrna-20200630.htm

Anonymous Tue May 31 18:02:37 2022 No.14531464

>>14531407
>Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA
purely administrative label, not a single scientist outside of substack blogposts would call it a gene therapy you triple idiot

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869152200206X
seriously ?
>peter mccullough
>food and chemical toxicology
HAHAHAHAHAHA

please read less, or learn to apply some kind of bullshit filter, so far you're just wallowing in obscurantist mud and trying to drag the rest of us down to your level
this is embarassing bro, try to make actual decent contributions to this board, it's in serious need of it, and right now you're just turning it into /pol/-lite
fucking incels I swear

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 18:03:52 2022 No.14531467 >>14531464 >purely administrative label, not a single scientist outside of substack blogposts would call it a gene therapy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qowDwaYx7vI

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 18:07:31 2022 No.14531482 >>14531281 They don't work unless you take yours too

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 18:10:10 2022 No.14531490 >>14531467 https://www.antifake.ro/fact-checking-of-the-week-mrna-vaccines-are-not-gene-therapy-and-do-not-alter-human-dna/ yeah ok, you're just retarded please kill yourself for the betterment of mankind, that'd be great

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 18:24:00 2022 No.14531527 >>14531490 >fake checking Get another booster vaxxie

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 18:26:15 2022 No.14531536 >>14531527 hahahahahaha >only my facts are correct, if you can disprove them then it's fake news the absolute state of low IQ midwits trying to do science you cracke me up, good job brah

Anonymous Tue May 31 18:34:57 2022 No.14531563

>>14531464
You sound real smart !!! Im ashamed with this board. Pol has done much more thorough work digging up this information than sci has. In fact, sci seems to be infested with Plebbitors. Too bad.

That is a literal SEC filing I linked. It is a legal document. Fuck what the shill and bought out doctors say. It is literally in a legal document.

Peter McCullough is an academic physician, who is also a cardiologist and a prolific scientific writer, you absolute dunce. The man has literally hundreds of scientific papers published. Whats the publishing record of the TV doctors you listen to? Probably next to nothing. Watch more TV and leave the thinking to those who have a brain. Jesus Christ.

Kick rocks.

>https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=LzqEaOkAAAAJ&hl=en

Anonymous Tue May 31 18:39:02 2022 No.14531574

>>14531536
This entire Covid hysteria will be seen as one of the biggest medical scams the world has ever seen. Numbers where doctored, the populace was abused, all over this ridiculous fear mongering and hysteria. As time passes, it may become more and more apparent that attitudes like yours are on the wrong side of history.

"The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies.[3,6,57] We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence."

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/

Anonymous Tue May 31 18:40:29 2022 No.14531575

>>14531536
The amount of fraud and hysteria the last two years has been absolutely astounding.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/medical/new-study-finds-that-long-covid-may-not-actually-exist/ar-AAXGFKS

>https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-4905

Anonymous Tue May 31 18:42:11 2022 No.14531583

>>14531563
legal =/= scientific, get that trough your thick fucking skull

>cardiologist
so nothing to do with infectious disease, intensive care or even pneumology
so basically incompetent
gotcha
you can dick-ride him all you want, if somebody is speaking out of their fields of expertise, and have to resort publishing in low impact factors journals, it's a good sign they're just ego-fueled grifters, and you're just a resource to be exploited in their narcissistic quest for recognition
good job on being a fathomless cretin

Anonymous Tue May 31 18:43:13 2022 No.14531590

>>14531536
Much harm has been done in the name of politicized Science the last two years. Disgraceful.

"Our analysis strongly suggests that mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policies have had damaging effects on public trust, vaccine confidence, political polarization, human rights, inequities and social wellbeing. We question the effectiveness and consequences of coercive vaccination policy in pandemic response and urge the research community and policymakers to return to non-discriminatory, trust-based public health approaches."

>https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/5/e008684

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 18:44:32 2022 No.14531596 File: 385 KB, 955x1058, dunce.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14531583 No sources, ad hominems. Yeah, you sound REAL smart lol.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 18:45:58 2022 No.14531598 File: 1.90 MB, 1575x1059, Dunce2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14531346 Lol.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 18:46:24 2022 No.14531601 >>14531536 >only my facts are correct, if you can disprove them then it's fake news projecting hard now aincha

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 18:49:03 2022 No.14531609 File: 78 KB, 640x426, Shill_Gates.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14531583 >if somebody is speaking out of their fields of expertise REALLY ? LOL. Listen to Doctor Shill Gates then. The idiocy is palpable even through the screen.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 18:57:09 2022 No.14531637 >>14531536 >it doesn't matter if the CEO of a pharmaceutical company said that they were gene therapy, look at this fact check website you're retarded

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 18:58:16 2022 No.14531641 >>14531583 >appeals to vague "consensus" >dismisses evidence to the contrary >ad hominem it's the shill trifecta

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 18:58:24 2022 No.14531643 >>14528698 wow you guys sure use a lot of words to say vaxx was a kike trick. Anyway keep working INTP untermensch t. INTJ aus /pol/

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:01:36 2022 No.14531653 >>14531112 yes, omicron. retard

Anonymous Tue May 31 19:02:26 2022 No.14531657
File: 22 KB, 474x381, pepesmart.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14531643
pol has honestly been on the forefront of this nonsense when it comes to scouring the many research papers and latest developing info on this entire fiasco. Pol may have actually saved the lives of many as well as saved many from possible injury due to these coerced injections. Checking that board has been one of the more interesting open discussion arenas online to discuss this. There is far too much censorship on Reddit and other sites for such discussions.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:02:48 2022 No.14531661 >>14531112 >is as great as the distance source: your ass

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:05:07 2022 No.14531666 >>14531575 >>https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/medical/new-study-finds-that-long-covid-may-not-actually-exist/ar-AAXGFKS Link doesn't work

Anonymous Tue May 31 19:05:27 2022 No.14531668

>>14531574
>While current vaccines appear to have had a significant impact on decreasing COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality burdens
they're just predicting that mindless contrarians like you will freak-out
why are you bringing this up, it's super unrelated..
>>14531575
>Most participants with COVID-19 had mild to moderate acute illness that did not require hospitalization. The prevalence of reported PASC was likely overestimated in this cohort because persons with PASC may have been more motivated to enroll. The study did not capture PASC that resolved before enrollment.
hypochondriac idiots being hypochondriac pains in the ass
again, super unrelated, what's your point ?

Anonymous Tue May 31 19:10:11 2022 No.14531687

>>14531666
Apologies. Looks like they actually took it down??? Weird. Here is the archive link for it.

>https://web.archive.org/web/20220525062902/https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/new-study-finds-that-long-covid-may-not-actually-exist/ar-AAXGFKS

Anonymous Tue May 31 19:10:16 2022 No.14531689

>>14531596
your own source is a steaming pile of manure, you can't argue in good faith that a cardiologist publishing in a random non-medical journal has anything relevant to say about covid
I've read his article, it's abhorrent, at that

>For our analysis of evidence of increased cancer risk in VAERS, we focused on two somewhat distinct approaches. One, represented by the results in Table 6, was to gather the counts for any terms that contained keywords clearly linked to cancer, namely, “cancer,” “lymphoma,” “leukaemia,” “metastasis,” “carcinoma,” and “neoplasm.” Overall, we found 1,474 entries linking these terms to COVID-19 vaccines, representing 96% of all the entries for any of these terms for any vaccine in that year.
that's not even methodologically flawed at this point, that's just sad sad comedy

you're only bringing him up because he strokes your contrarian ego and makes you feel like a powerful agent of truth
stupid and boring, you're a tool
>>14531609
I don't listen to this narcisstic baboon
now what genius

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:11:03 2022 No.14531695 File: 27 KB, 640x480, 755686D7-54E8-4677-AE9A-5C83B75687E2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14531657

Anonymous Tue May 31 19:12:43 2022 No.14531700

>>14531637
my website points out exactly why your statement is wrong
read it instead of wasting my time faggot
>>14531641
shitty evidence can be refuted with shitty proof, simple as
unless you're ready to pull out solid scientific research for your arguments, so far I've done a good enough job of showing why you're a bunch of vindictive clowns and nothing you say is of importance

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:12:57 2022 No.14531702 >>14531689 And who has controlled the journals for decades midwit?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:15:17 2022 No.14531714 >>14531702 Elsevier and a bunch of other greedy assholes I know you're trying to make a revolutionary point here, go on big boy, play that conspirational tune for us

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:15:24 2022 No.14531715 >>14531668 Its pretty clear to anyone paying attention that this entire Covid narrative is full of holes, the dingy is sinking and there's far too much water in the boat. It is sinking now. >https://youtu.be/RaLxhFiOBYk

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:20:54 2022 No.14531735 >>14531714 No retard, it’s academia kikes, the same kikes who publish articles that flu is pandemic, men are women, and diversity is good for the west dumb fuck

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:22:13 2022 No.14531741 >>14531715 it's full of holes if you spend your time listening to mainstream media, then fuming about it, and blindly following anybody that opposes their point of view sucks to be you I guess

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:23:33 2022 No.14531745 >>14531735 >confusing social sciences with medical sciences life must be so easy when you're this oblivious

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:24:40 2022 No.14531749 >>14531741 >the people who created and promoted the fake narrative are not to be trusted, while data clearly shows it’s all bullshit, but trust me it’s all real wearing a tinmask deprives brain much needed oxygen

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:26:12 2022 No.14531756 >>14531745 >men in dresses are women >injecting children with hormones is harmless >tranny surgery makes any difference >social science man at least on /pol/ we can call these midwits niggers

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:28:51 2022 No.14531761 >>14528698 STFU you stupid pussy. OP is a faggot

Anonymous Tue May 31 19:29:05 2022 No.14531763

>>14531745
Not to mention feminism dating way back is wholly based on a false axiom that male brain and psyche are identical to female’s, same with race and anthropology. Imagine being this oblivious to basic facts and yet make a mockery out of yourself on a public Mongolian basketweaving board.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:30:12 2022 No.14531764 >>14531749 >data you wouldn't know data if it raped your mouth with a calculator genius >>14531756 yeah, as I said, gender theory has nothing to do with medicine that's not even a matter of opinion you fucking mongoloid

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:31:13 2022 No.14531766 >>14531763 also social science you sure you want to keep on digging that hole ? you're really not going anywhere so far

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:33:02 2022 No.14531771 >>14531574 >This entire Covid hysteria will be seen as one of the biggest medical scams the world has ever seen This shit is bigger than holocaust. This is flood-level disaster in the making.

Anonymous Tue May 31 19:37:59 2022 No.14531775

>>14531764
>>14531766
>biology, anthropology and psychology, that march in lockstep with social sciences as part of the same kike academia, are not intertwined with medicine
>they lied in every other field but they wouldn’t lie in medicine, no no no also muh big pharma
>no argument
>childish ad hominem
>ignores basic data regarding symptoms, vulnerable population, global mortality that is identical to a flu
>believes more people died of “covid” because the media reported deaths from complications as flu instead of said complications
you are a midwit npc, you will never have a soul, you are a vaxxed cattle and no amount of kvetching will change that

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:38:56 2022 No.14531779 >>14531771 Unlike holohoax it’s also real but the death count has been similarly distorted

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:39:10 2022 No.14531780 >>14531761 Don't @ me.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:39:39 2022 No.14531781 >>14531775 >global mortality that is identical to a flu that's false on many levels >believes more people died of “covid” seen them die in the ICU buddy have you ?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:40:26 2022 No.14531783 so many retards in this thread. seems like /pol/ has overtaken /sci/. SAD!

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:41:49 2022 No.14531785 >>14531783 this place always sucked didn't know it could get even fucking worse

Anonymous Tue May 31 19:45:25 2022 No.14531792
File: 171 KB, 750x1066, 76A28E81-7DB7-4599-9C02-1F490DF83F34.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14531781
>false
>pic rel
>muh anecdotal evidence
Sure idiot, some people died from flu as always and this time they herd them all to one hospital in area while the rest are empty. Wanna talk about panicking people who got hooked to ventilators and died for no reason? Didn’t think so

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:46:01 2022 No.14531795 >>14531783 >>14531785 >zero facts >muh feelings kek what a bunch of pussies

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:50:30 2022 No.14531805 funny innit, viruses don't exist, but you argue. you are schizophrenics

Anonymous Tue May 31 19:51:34 2022 No.14531807

>>14531792
>wanna talk about panicking people who got hooked to ventilators and died for no reason?
I would actually love to talk about it
can you give me the exact medical criteria for intubation, and how which ventilator settings are best suited for somebody with covid pneumonia ?
I'd love to discuss it with you :)

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 19:52:15 2022 No.14531811 Serious question, but how did some of you even manage to avoid getting the vaccine? In my state, all universities required the vax and most white collar jobs required it too. Are you all just NEETs or low IQ retards with shitty jobs?

Anonymous Tue May 31 19:56:24 2022 No.14531821

>>14531807
>I would actually love to
No salty cunt, people were dying at such high rates early in fludemic that even mainstream trash reported vents were overused killing people. Once they stopped using it on everybody who panicked mortality rate dropped significantly.

Anonymous Tue May 31 19:59:10 2022 No.14531828 [DELETED]

File: 2.81 MB, 370x377, C68726BD-2322-4620-AF80-75720B194E0E.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14531811
>I’m a pussy or are you low IQ
quit coping fag
>>14531807
Since you dropped any pretense at a discussion and just keep moving goalposts I’m back to /pol/ to drop some fat N bombs for jannies to clean up (they do it for free)

Anonymous Tue May 31 20:00:48 2022 No.14531834

>>14531821
so do you think they should have used BIPAP or CPAP then ? or alternate with an optiflow ?
How many PEP H2O cms ? And what about FiO2 ?
Also, what dosage of corticoids and heparin was the best, let's discuss this, you seem to know a lot about the subject
Do you think a curative or preventative dosage is best ? Non-fractionned or low molecular weight ?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 20:09:56 2022 No.14531858 >>14531583 >or even pneumology Weird, I know an expert in pneumology https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/michael-yeadon-vaccine-death/

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 20:12:17 2022 No.14531861 >>14531583 >and have to resort publishing in low impact factors journals Why that matters though? https://knowledgeisgood.net/2020/06/01/lancetgate/

Anonymous Tue May 31 20:23:34 2022 No.14531889

>>14531714
>cOnSpIrAtOrIaL
it's not conspiracy you smug NPC faggot, it's financial incentive.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16060722/
We don't need to produce evidence that your shitty 100% effective no actually 90% effective we meant 80% effective, oh no omicron 50% effective looks like your immunity is waning it's only 30% effective time for a booster non-vaccine is dangerous, you need to produce better evidence that it's safe.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 20:28:17 2022 No.14531901 >>14531781 >I-I SAW the doctors putting people into medical coma and hooking them up to a ventilator until they died and also ALL THE NURSES HAD TO WEAR N95 MASKS and you're telling me it's EXAGGERATED? yes lol

Anonymous Tue May 31 20:29:51 2022 No.14531904

>>14531807
>can you give me the exact medical criteria for intubation, and how which ventilator settings are best suited for somebody with covid pneumonia ?
>I'd love to discuss it with you :)
can you give me the criteria they were using to induce coma and ventilate in march-april 2020? (hint: it involved a positive PCR test and nothing else)

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 20:35:17 2022 No.14531918 >>14531889 it's safe https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine >>14531901 why ?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 20:37:53 2022 No.14531929 >>14531904 >hint: it involved a positive PCR test and nothing else that's false

Anonymous Tue May 31 20:42:07 2022 No.14531941

>>14531781
Lol.
Thought you were larping because I’m so used to /pol. But you’re an actual male nurse that got forced to boost.
Lol.
Have fun dipshit.
>like there would really be a conspiracy to take out people, like… like… LIKE ME!?!
lol. Yes. Yes there is.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 20:43:51 2022 No.14531952 >>14531834 Lol. Go empty a bedpan bitch. You talk like you spend all day working with women and you can sass your way out of a global depop wave. Have fun next winter.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 20:44:59 2022 No.14531954 >>14531941 5th year med-student bro :) I wasn't forced to boost, I took it as soon as I could, it was necessary to attend our spring-break parties

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 20:46:00 2022 No.14531956 >>14531952 you talk like you watched too many anime dude

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 21:09:11 2022 No.14532009 >>14528698 the guy who wrote that is a retard

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 21:15:19 2022 No.14532031 >>14532009 the guy who wrote that is actually a vetinarian, with a full 8 articles published to his name impressive indeed, that garbage in the OP isn't even peer-reviewed, it's just schizo ramblings from an attention-deprived nobody

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 21:17:58 2022 No.14532036 >>14531668 >hypochondriac idiots being hypochondriac pains in the ass Just like the covid hospitalizations? https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hospitalization-numbers-can-be-misleading/620062/

Anonymous Tue May 31 21:35:17 2022 No.14532091

>>14531781
>that's false on many levels
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/bill-gates-says-covid-can-be-treated-more-like-seasonal-flu-after-omicron-surge-peaks/ar-AASKojM

https://theworldnews.net/ng-news/bill-gates-admits-covid-kind-of-like-flu-our-mrna-vaccines-failed-to-reduce-infections-also-lasted-so-short-time-applauds-australia-s-quarantine-camps-says-americans-aren-t-great-at-making-sacrifices

https://www.dailywire.com/news/bill-gates-covid-disease-of-elderly-low-fatality-rate-kind-of-like-the-flu

Anonymous Tue May 31 21:39:24 2022 No.14532103

>>14531807
>I would actually love to talk about it
>can you give me the exact medical criteria for intubation
Any covid positive test plus an arbitrary oxygenation number

>and how which ventilator settings are best suited for somebody with covid pneumonia
None of them are suited for anyone except you
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200415/ventilators-helping-or-harming-covid-19-patients#1
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200422/most-covid-19-patients-placed-on-ventilators-died-new-york-study-shows#1

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 21:42:02 2022 No.14532112 >>14531834 >so do you think they should have used BIPAP or CPAP then ? They should have used nothing, just hydrate and supplement vitamins

Anonymous Tue May 31 21:42:03 2022 No.14532113

>>14532031
>the guy who wrote that is actually a vetinarian, with a full 8 articles published to his name
>schizo ramblings
For the record, this is the guy:
>Geert Vanden Bossche received his DVM from the University of Ghent, Belgium, and his PhD degree in Virology from the University of Hohenheim, Germany. He held adjunct faculty appointments at universities in Belgium and Germany. After his career in Academia, Geert joined several vaccine companies (GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals) to serve various roles in vaccine R&D as well as in late vaccine development.

>Geert then moved on to join the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team in Seattle (USA) as Senior Program Officer; he then worked with the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) in Geneva as Senior Ebola Program Manager. At GAVI he tracked efforts to develop an Ebola vaccine. He also represented GAVI in fora with other partners, including WHO, to review progress on the fight against Ebola and to build plans for global pandemic preparedness.

>Back in 2015, Geert scrutinized and questioned the safety of the Ebola vaccine that was used in ring vaccination trials conducted by WHO in Guinea. His critical scientific analysis and report on the data published by WHO in the Lancet in 2015 was sent to all international health and regulatory authorities involved in the Ebola vaccination program. After working for GAVI, Geert joined the German Center for Infection Research in Cologne as Head of the Vaccine Development Office. He is at present primarily serving as a Biotech / Vaccine consultant while also conducting his own research on Natural Killer cell-based vaccines.
To sum it up, he worked for the Bill Gates foundation in a senior position, was head of the Vaccination Development Office in Germany and other positions.
>Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
He knows what's up, lol.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 21:43:09 2022 No.14532118 >>14532009 >>14532031 You shills are so easy to spot

Anonymous Tue May 31 21:48:20 2022 No.14532135

>>14531918
>why?
Not going to waste too much energy spoonfeeding you, frankly you're an idiot if you can't already see that covid was a massive boon for billionaires and technocrats salivating over the surveillance state. Also look into the 2019 reverse repo/liquidity crisis, covid allowed them to inject trillions into equities while completely flattening monetary velocity, which put the breaks on inflation for a couple years and tricked the plebs into giving them exit liquidity while they rotated into commodities. Perfect excuse for and distraction from the controlled demolition of the failing economic system, instead of facing down Occupy 2.0 (this time with guillotines and gallows) they have us arguing about whether it's reasonable to force 5 year olds to take novel vaccines with a 2-year "safety" history while they get richer and we get poorer than ever before in modern history, and are setting up movement controls and surveillance systems to defend against future unrest to the idiot applause of clapping seal faggots who "take the virus seriously"

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 21:55:15 2022 No.14532151 File: 116 KB, 1066x755, it's never lupus.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14531590 >Much harm has been done in the name of politicized Science the last two years. Disgraceful. Yes

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 21:59:23 2022 No.14532157 File: 11 KB, 642x176, gyp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14531695 Scientifically speaking, the least rare pepe.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:02:48 2022 No.14532167 >>14531785 >>14531783 Scientists made us do this. Scientists tried to force us to take untested 'medicine'. Scientists do not deserve to be happy.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:03:32 2022 No.14532169 >>14532167 Scientists didn't even get to say anything.

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:08:27 2022 No.14532179

>>14532113
In case you are unaware, this is not uncommon. That is, scrutinizing safety of vaccines. Virologists, immunologists, and others who work in the field relevant to vaccination, publish reviews and assessments of correlations and investigative causation all the time.

What I would recommend is looking up the history of mRNA vaccine research, as in the actual publications as the transport platform of lipids and so on were developed. There has been over 40 years of papers published, in the tens of thousands, assessing these things in humans and animals. Believe it or not a major holdup on mRNA has been the transport mechanism, and largely due to overly paranoid avoidance of even localized inflammation response. Again, thousands of papers on this.

>>14528698
As for this, it would appear nobody read the paper. Or understood it. The title itself plainly reads "Poor virus-neutralizing capacity in highly C-19 vaccinated populations could
soon lead to a fulminant spread of SARS-CoV-2 super variants that are highly
infectious and highly virulent in vaccinees while being fully resistant to all
existing and future spike-based C-19 vaccines".

This paper is discussing, speculating, on a possibility often raised about vaccines or medicines that fail to sufficiently prevent infection. The same concerns were raised about flu vaccines, or even cleaning chemicals or antibiotics.

There is one easily seen and critical flaw in the paper. False assumption of poorer immune response in a general population of vaccinated individuals after infection. Not only is this not what we saw, but is opposite every single nation studied. Individuals with vaccination, controlling for basic features of age or prior disease, on the whole do better.

So while he cites a lot of speculative mechanisms, he appears shockingly ignorant of real world ecological data contradicting all of its conclusions. Shockingly inept for a researcher.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:10:22 2022 No.14532186 >>14532179 >False assumption of poorer immune response in a general population of vaccinated individuals you mean exactly what's happening? https://expose-news.com/2022/02/08/uk-gov-data-suggests-fully-vaccinated-have-developed-vaids/

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:10:25 2022 No.14532188

>>14532135
>German Center for Infection Research
https://www.dzif.de/en/search?keys=vaccine
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.02979-21

Current evidence on COVID-19 vaccine performance against SARS-CoV-2 variants is reassuring, demonstrating that alpha has a limited impact on effectiveness and that some vaccine platforms may have the potential to provide at least partial protection against beta and delta infection, likely due to the high levels of neutralizing antibodies elicited and the robust and broad nature of the T-cell response elicited by several of the vaccines. Data from booster vaccination programs suggest that mRNA vaccine boosters can provide some protection against omicron. In addition, vaccine effectiveness against severe disease and hospitalization remains high, suggesting that vaccination has weakened the link between infection and severity of disease.

they sound legit

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:11:53 2022 No.14532192

>>14532179
>Individuals with vaccination, controlling for basic features of age or prior disease, on the whole do better.
Patently false, that's why the need to compare "fully vaccinated" is there, to manipulate the stats. Comparing vaccinated (any doses) with the unvaccinated is the correct way to do it and more honest, and shows the opposite of what you're saying

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:12:14 2022 No.14532193 >>14532188 meant for >>14532113

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:12:59 2022 No.14532198

>>14532188
>alpha has a limited impact on effectiveness and that some vaccine platforms may have the potential to provide at least partial protection against beta and delta infection
then the question is, if the vaccines supposedly work according to your sources, why, in only 5 months, there were more deaths and cases in 2021 than in the entire 2020 when no vaccine existed?

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:14:30 2022 No.14532203

>>14532188
>vaccine effectiveness against severe disease and hospitalization remains high
placebo effect, if any
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hospitalization-numbers-can-be-misleading/620062/

"severe disease" is very simple to solve, don't misdiagnose everything under the covid umbrella

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:15:48 2022 No.14532205

>>14532135
every single point you mentioned has nothing to do with health, biology, or science
you're only raising political points
some of which are exaggerated, but potentially receivable in a way
still, nothing that actually says anything about covid as a pathology, and/or vaccines and their efficacy

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:19:46 2022 No.14532213 >>14532198 >vaccines were available everywhere in the world and everybody took them answer your own stupid questions you fucking braindead bitch >>14532203 your article doesn't contradict anything that I wrote you know

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:21:14 2022 No.14532220 >>14532205 I was answering anon's question of why the pandemic was exaggerated, which obviously has no basis in science or medicine. Please explain what was exaggerated.

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:21:38 2022 No.14532222

>>14532186
Again, ALL the data worldwide clearly shows vaccinated people have fewer problems compared to unvaccinated for first infection. It also shows better and broader immunity post infection. Your article is just one long hilarious string of deliberately lying with numbers while asserting things not at all based on good sense, such as "a pandemic of the vaccinated". Obviously, if more people are vaccinated, the odds will be more people infected will be vaccinated. That does not imply "vaccines make you more likely to get the illness".

In fact, all the data worldwide contradicts that silly idea.

From 2021 CDC data: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html

From death rate comparisons in a study of over 6 million: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

And thousands of others from other nations such as this one https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/31/the-new-omicron-subvariant-is-more-contagious-but-vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-to-spread-it-study-finds.html

Or many antibody comparisons like these https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.abn8014

From the get-go, the thesis presented in your article is not only contradicted by the evidence but by ALL the evidence. Only pure ineptitude with statistics, or pure malice, could lead one to conclude otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:22:37 2022 No.14532225 >>14532179 my nigga >>14532186 lmaoing at your source >>14532192 lmaoing at your stupidity

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:22:45 2022 No.14532226 >>14532169 Yes they did. Every government lie and media spin used the words of scientists to justify itself.

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:23:30 2022 No.14532228

>>14532192
That makes no sense at all. What leaded paint are you huffing? That isn't even true. All vaccinated populations, again in samples of tens of millions, do better prior to and after infection. Fewer deaths, better immunity, and broader immunity.

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:24:34 2022 No.14532230

>>14532213
>vaccines were available everywhere in the world and everybody took them
this happened in the vaccinated countries, and by your sources any vaccination should get better results than no vaccine at all no? what is the matter with following basic reasoning? shouldn't a group of just 1% vaccinated or any other percentage fare better than 0%? either the vaccine is useless or worse than useless (the latter is true, since there were more deaths in a shorter period)

>your article doesn't contradict anything that I wrote you know
you lack in the reading comprehension department

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:25:17 2022 No.14532234 >>14532220 he wasn't saying it was exaggerated, he was saying it was comparable to the flu which is a lie just like him, you failed to demonstrate that it is indeed the case

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:25:24 2022 No.14532235 >>14532179 >don't listen to the virology PHD who worked in vaccine R&D and then at the Gates Foundation and GAVI, listen to me, the expert posting on an anonymous anime board

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:25:57 2022 No.14532236

>>14532222
>vaccinated people have fewer problems compared to unvaccinated for first infection
vaccinated? what is that? 4 doses? 3 doses? 2 doses? 1 dose? 2 weeks after the first dose?

> if more people are vaccinated, the odds will be more people infected will be vaccinated
why would they die at higher rates though (per 100,000)?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:26:58 2022 No.14532243 >>14532222 >antibody irrelevant, antibodies are supposed to be low when there isn't an active infection, this criteria is retarded >>14532225 seethe, dilate and cope tranny

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:28:18 2022 No.14532244 >>14532234 Follow the comment chain and read more carefully this time

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:30:37 2022 No.14532251

>>14532230
since you're happily moving goalposts around with no data to back up your claims, suck on my shlong and apply yourself
>you lack in the reading comprehension department
I don't, your article doesn't say anything against the vaccines preventing severe disease and hospitalizations, which it does

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:31:25 2022 No.14532254

>>14532235
As opposed to all the PHD's in virology with published papers with tens of millions of people? Your one PHD who appears to be ignorant of ecological data versus... thousands of other PhD's?

If you're going to start going "muh PHD", sorry pal I win that fight too. You're reaching and desperate.

>>14532236
>vaccinated? what is that? 4 doses? 3 doses? 2 doses? 1 dose? 2 weeks after the first dose?

IF accounting for age and prior illness, population risk demographics, all doses of mRNA vaccines with confirmed infection AFTER the adaptation period (two weeks) do better than the unvaccinated. You have to specify conditions, because your question requires you control for these things. Otherwise a vaccination where you are infected immediately after, or before, won't have helped much.

That is also why studies that do not do controls on "single vaccinated" populations do not evidence your thinking. If and only if they control for the time delay, so as to rule out prior infection or too-near-injection infection. Since you are asking about the efficacy of the vaccine, obviously you need some time for the body to learn from it.

>why would they die at higher rates though (per 100,000)?

I gave you several links showing that is obviously not true from earlier data, where far more people in the US were unvaccinated. So you have a very clear, very plain, and millions of people in the sample, comparison. You do not appear to want to actually read it.

I also gave you the answer, and your illiteracy with statistics is apparent. Again, if most people in a country are vaccinated and most of those are in the sickest demographics (the elderly), the vaccinated who die with covid will have more deaths. When you compare same-age, though, that is not what you see. The unvaccinated die in far greater numbers.

I gave you the example CDC data, this is repeated worldwide. You have no excuse but your own unwillingness to read.

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:33:13 2022 No.14532256

>>14532243
>irrelevant, antibodies are supposed to be low when there isn't an active infection, this criteria is retarded

The study involves more than just antibody measurements. Thanks for confirming you're too scared to read real science. You couldn't even read past the title of ONE of the papers I cited as an example, and there are tens of thousands more using a wide variety of methods.

Your personal ignorance is not some failure of vaccines. It's a personal failing. You're just being narcissistic, and thinking you can know things without doing any work at all.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:34:22 2022 No.14532259 >>14532243 not a tranny, you lose bucko >>14532244 can't be arsed in any case this is a science board, bring up some virology facts or get bent with that political shit

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:38:13 2022 No.14532266

>>14532179
>What I would recommend is looking up the history of mRNA vaccine research, as in the actual publications as the transport platform of lipids and so on were developed. There has been over 40 years of papers published, in the tens of thousands, assessing these things in humans and animals. Believe it or not a major holdup on mRNA has been the transport mechanism, and largely due to overly paranoid avoidance of even localized inflammation response. Again, thousands of papers on this.
IDGAF about mRNA as such. I'd take my own self-engineered mRNA juice if I had a printer for it.
>The same concerns were raised about flu vaccines
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8277183/
>Natural infection and the attenuated vaccine induced antibodies that enhanced uptake of homologous virus and H1N1 virus isolated several years later. These results demonstrate that primary influenza A virus infection results in the induction of infection-enhancing antibodies.
>cleaning chemicals
WTF?
>antibiotics.
What happens if you repeatedly take antibiotics that don't kill of bacteria entirely?
>poorer immune response in a general population of vaccinated individuals after infection. Not only is this not what we saw
lol

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:38:24 2022 No.14532269 >>14532259 >argue >realize you're wrong >"heh actually I don't care and this is off topic" lmao you shouldn't have replied in the first place, then, STEMcel

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:41:02 2022 No.14532278

>>14532266
>lol

It literally is not what we saw. See this post: >>14532222

You can pull up similar data for many countries worldwide. Unvaccinated populations do worse in every way when you control for age and prior conditions. Often just controlling for age is enough to show this.

Basically, you people all believe a lie. A lie you could've dispelled with a single search, a single paper, and you somehow think it's funny you're this gullible?

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:42:36 2022 No.14532281

>>14532188
>they sound legit
>protection against omicron
So you would take a 50%* reduction of severity in case you get infected for a 400%** chance to get infected?
* pulled out of my ass
** real shit
>>14532222
>vaccinated people have fewer problems compared to unvaccinated for first infection
Yes, but they also get infected more often. Like 4x more often.
>>14532226
>media spin used the words of scientists
Those people in the media aren't scientists.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:43:52 2022 No.14532284 >>14532254 >all doses of mRNA vaccines but why? why would 1 or 2 doses would be worse than 0 doses? why the need to move the goalpost to 2 doses plus booster (and now moving to 3 doses)?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:44:40 2022 No.14532287 File: 174 KB, 1080x1037, 1654030343494.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] man this increase in excess death after vaccination rollouts sure is weird, I guess it was long covid?

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:44:53 2022 No.14532289

>>14532269
>never made a single political point
>never replied to one
>pointed out all along they were irrelevant bullshit for unintelligent assholes
sure, take it as a win if it strokes your stupid, uninspired ego
>>14532281
vaccines do not increase your chance of infection

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:46:10 2022 No.14532292

>>14532254
>CDC data
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/21/860480756/scientists-warn-cdc-testing-data-could-create-misleading-picture-of-pandemic
https://reason.com/2020/09/29/the-latest-cdc-estimates-of-covid-19s-infection-fatality-rate-vary-dramatically-with-age/
https://thecovidblog.com/2021/02/12/peer-reviewed-manuscript-concludes-that-cdc-massively-inflates-covid-19-case-and-death-numbers-with-creative-statistics/

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:47:07 2022 No.14532294 File: 117 KB, 1454x940, image 6499.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Whoops!

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:47:57 2022 No.14532296 File: 3 KB, 114x124, 1653991332315.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532289 >your political points are exaggerated! >"explain" >shut up you're stupid I don't care!

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:48:04 2022 No.14532298

>>14532281
>Yes, but they also get infected more often. Like 4x more often.

Let's suppose this is true (it isn't) for sake of argument. Here's the most likely reason for something like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
In general, whether it is helmets or safer cars, people take more risks the safer they feel.
>>14532284
>but why? why would 1 or 2 doses would be worse than 0 doses? why the need to move the goalpost to 2 doses plus booster (and now moving to 3 doses)?

Uhhh... what? They're not. I posted some example links. You can look up any like-for-like vaccinated vs unvaccinated population comparison with millions of people. The unvaccinated are always worse off.

>>14532292
Remember how I wrote this is repeated worldwide? Yet you feel the need to focus on your personal distrust as an easy scapegoat to ignore reality. Your personal failure is not evidence about reality. It is only evidence about your inability to read and research.

Just so we're clear: You are effectively going to argue the entire world is in on a conspiracy to forge medical data for hundreds of millions of people. Billions of people. Even your fellow "truthers" will know that's retarded.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:48:07 2022 No.14532299 >>14532278 >2021 data Yeah, fuck off kike glownigger shill.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:49:07 2022 No.14532304 >>14532299 Remains true today. Your internet and fingers are both working. Too scared to google it?

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:49:46 2022 No.14532308

>>14532254
>if most people in a country are vaccinated and most of those are in the sickest demographics (the elderly), the vaccinated who die with covid will have more deaths
what? but the experts said the exact opposite of you, the elderly were the first to supposedly get reduced deaths because the vaccine supposedly works

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:49:52 2022 No.14532309 >>14532298 >The unvaccinated are always worse off. Even if this were true regarding covid infection, show stats for all-cause mortality.

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:49:58 2022 No.14532310

>>14532298
>>Let's suppose this is true (it isn't) for sake of argument
Yes, it is, glownigger. See >>14532294
I also checked German data from RKI personally in March and it shows a similar picture. By now they even stopped reporting the numbers.
Fuck off, glownigger.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:51:11 2022 No.14532314 File: 48 KB, 971x406, 1654030688095.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Oh no, what's this? Well, this must be because the vaccinated are taking more risks because they feel safe again!

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:52:10 2022 No.14532316

>>14532296
"every single point you mentioned has nothing to do with health, biology, or science
you're only raising political points
some of which are exaggerated, but potentially receivable in a way
still, nothing that actually says anything about covid as a pathology, and/or vaccines and their efficacy"
can you read you dumb motherfucker ?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:52:39 2022 No.14532318 File: 38 KB, 250x250, 1653843018996.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] SHILLCON 1 SHILLCON 1 EXTREME SHILLING ITT

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:53:11 2022 No.14532322 >>14532298 >Uhhh... what? They're not. I posted some example links. You didn't

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:53:51 2022 No.14532324 >>14532316 >still can't answer how they were exaggerated just shut up and move on if you're so triggered by economic and social factors

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:54:31 2022 No.14532326 File: 62 KB, 736x736, 1638064060245.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I think he gave up lol.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:54:45 2022 No.14532327 File: 65 KB, 831x665, ahem.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532298 >You can look up any like-for-like vaccinated vs unvaccinated population comparison with millions of people. The unvaccinated are always worse off. wrong buddy

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:54:51 2022 No.14532328 File: 85 KB, 1303x438, 1654030380800.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Weird! Long covid again!

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:55:00 2022 No.14532330

>>14532294
>Can't do basic math

Okay, for the retards let's play a game of pretend to understand how this works. If 100% of a population is vaccinated, 100% of deaths will be among the vaccinated. That is why you can look up countries, like the united states, where large numbers of people were not vaccinated and compare them. The unvaccinated always do worse.

>>14532308
Are you illiterate? If you look in aggregate, not controlling for age, what I said will be true. It's called lying with numbers. When you control for age, so all the people age 80 who are vaccinated vs. age 80 who aren't, the vaccinated populations always do better. For small samples you also have to account for prior conditions (if you are dishonestly using a single hospital sample for example).

>>14532309
Are your fingers broken? Is your internet not working? Are your eyes not working, where I already posted this? Here it is again, you can pull up the same kind of data in just about every country: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm

>>14532310
I see that you're also gullible. See the first paragraph of this reply. I know it sucks to find out that you're mentally retarded, and gullible enough to buy swamp land for oil, but it helps to find out sooner rather than later.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:55:49 2022 No.14532332 >>14532327 WTF does that even say?? >>14532330 >Okay, for the retards let's play a game of pretend to understand how this works It's per capita you stupid gorilla kike glownigger. Not even reading the rest of your shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:56:01 2022 No.14532333 >>14532327 >Says I'm wrong >Shows graph with huge deaths for the unvaccinated Uhhh... okay?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:56:49 2022 No.14532335 >>14532327 >ZEROBIAS Is this like deb00nked?

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:56:52 2022 No.14532336

>>14532294
your graph do not actually represent an increase infection chances for the vaccinated
this is beyond stupid
>>14532324
I can answer why they are exaggerated if you really want
make a post on /pol/ and like it here and I'll eventually bother answering
in the meantime, eat a dick

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 22:56:53 2022 No.14532337 >>14532314 n-no you see, it's b-because the elderly and immunocompromised t-took the vaccine f-first, that's why they're dying haha, the unvaccinated equivalent? just ignore they're still alive

Anonymous Tue May 31 22:57:39 2022 No.14532340

>>14532332
>It's per capita you stupid gorilla kike glownigger. Not even reading the rest of your shit.

That's why you remain gullible. Your failure to read things is why you're so easily tricked. I know it sucks to find out that you're stupid, but tards can live good lives too.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:00:07 2022 No.14532348 >>14532332 >per capita are you for real ? it's really not that's pathological levels of stupidity right here

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:02:14 2022 No.14532352 viruses don't exist, there's no cvoid, you are total retards

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:03:41 2022 No.14532354 >>14532340 12.1% of all deaths are from the unvaccinated, while making up 24% of the population. Meanwhile 76% are vaccinated, but 87.9% of all deaths are them. Who is more likely to die?

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:03:43 2022 No.14532355

>>14532310
>can't do basic math
lmao no u, look at the graph again you obstinate moron, 24% unvaccinated in the total population make up 16% of cases and 12.1% of deaths
>n-no j-just look at this CDC study with a garbage sample size from December 2020-July 2021, that totally explains >>14532328 >>14532314 >>14532294 and >>14532287

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:10:59 2022 No.14532377

Wow this thread sure is full of vaxx regret, poor cattle are grasping at increasingly short straws
>nooo the data TOTALLY checks out, you have a 0.0001% chance of dying of covid while I only have a 0.00003% chance of dying of covid and all I had to do was take an emergency use authorization therapeutic with 12 whole months of long term safety data

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:11:11 2022 No.14532378

>>14532332
>WTF does that even say??
dark blue is non vaccinated
light blue is vaccinated but no info on doses
dark orange is partially vaccinated
light orange is fully vaccinated

>>14532333
>Shows graph with huge deaths for the unvaccinated
>Uhhh... okay?
On 13th of May 2021 there were 865registered deaths for non-vaccinated

Combining partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated and vaccinated with no doses info, 362 deaths were registered for the vaccinated

on that date, 18% of the population had gotten vaccinated

being 18% of the population, the vaccinated accounted for 29.5% of deaths. The unvaccinated, being 82% of the population, accounted for 70.5% of deaths

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Graph 4.10
https://zerobias.info/

I can be the same discrepancy can be seen everywhere in the world

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:11:30 2022 No.14532379 >>14532355 let's see you break down those number by age groups now.. oops your argument doesn't hold anymore baby :)

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:13:31 2022 No.14532382 >>14532378 >May 2021 No one cares about your outdated data.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:14:11 2022 No.14532386 >>14532379 Alright, I doubt it, but let's see your work then :)

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:14:37 2022 No.14532388

>>14532355
>over 6 million people
>"Garbage sample size"

Well you're clearly trolling. Also there's larger ones, this one assesses 30 million https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/new-study-shows-fewer-people-die-from-covid-19-in-better-vaccinated-communities/

>>14532378
So instead of looking at large age controlled studies with tens of millions of people, demonstrably showing vaccinated vs unvaccinated, you want to focus on... Less than 1300 deaths. Because it confirms what you already want to believe.

I'm not even comparing what the two studies did. I just want you to admit how dishonest you are. You disregard samples of 30 million or more because you found something to superficially agree with your prior belief. https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/new-study-shows-fewer-people-die-from-covid-19-in-better-vaccinated-communities/

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:15:30 2022 No.14532389 >>14532379 >>14532382 Extremely weak shilling, you're embarrassing yourself. Just get your janny friend to delete the thread.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:15:45 2022 No.14532391 >>14532382 I wasn't aware people un-die once they die. Lol. It's like you heard this criticism once and it's all you have to dismiss things that make you have to question your gullibility.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:16:21 2022 No.14532392 >>14532386 no no honey, not doing your homework for you how many of those unvaccinated people are below 30 years of age ? let's see your synapses work on that one

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:17:55 2022 No.14532395 >>14532388 That study only tracks covid mortality.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:18:31 2022 No.14532398 >>14532391 The virus mutates, glownigger.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:19:22 2022 No.14532400 >>14532389 not deleting anything my friend we're having a lot fun right this moment, aren't you ?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:19:43 2022 No.14532402 >>14532392 >it's your homework! No, it's a claim you're making. Produce data or fuck off

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:20:44 2022 No.14532406 >>14532400 >chinese ESL moment

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:21:05 2022 No.14532408 >>14532395 ...Yes? You want sample data that includes people being killed in traffic accidents or dying from cancer? Because.... ? >>14532398 Great reason to keep up to date on your shots, yes.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:22:30 2022 No.14532410 >>14532406 You must be the pride of the CIA. You might almost pass as a notglownigger. >>14532408 >Great reason to keep up to date on your shots, yes. You mean the outdated ones? Or the new one they've been testing that's even worse than the old one?

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:23:48 2022 No.14532411

>>14532402
it's you data
you're claiming "24% unvaccinated in the total population make up 16% of cases and 12.1% of deaths"
so you should also be able to tell us how the different age groups in your sample are vaccinated
if you're not able to do it, you're basically using data you haven't reliably analyzed and are introducing major biases
which seems to be the glaring case, as far as your posts can tell
>>14532406
u mad ?

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:24:14 2022 No.14532415

>>14532382
>No one cares about your outdated data.
Outdated? Would it be better to use data that already had time to be verified? I picked that date beause it is the peak of deaths for the unvaccinated

It's interesting to note there were 0 unvaccinated deaths between september 14 and october 17

>>14532388
>So instead of looking at large age controlled studies with tens of millions of people
which studies are those?

>demonstrably showing vaccinated vs unvaccinated
You mean the CDC ones?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72sGObYYTuM

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:24:15 2022 No.14532416

>>14532410
>You mean the outdated ones? Or the new one they've been testing that's even worse than the old one?

Yep. Still do better than never vaccinated and never infected. Also does better with prior infection, so having a prior infection isn't a reason to avoid it either.

The real problem is people who just "don't wanna" inventing excuses when the reason is just "don't wanna".

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:25:14 2022 No.14532420 >>14532388 >You disregard samples of 30 million or more Did you not see the graph shows deaths for the entire brazil? (200 million population)

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:27:12 2022 No.14532425

>>14532415
>which studies are those?

I linked it in that post you retard. Your "muh CDC" excuse is irrelevant when the data ITSELF is used by many other researchers with no affiliation. It is simply data submitted.

So your excuse now is that literally the whole country on an individual level is engaged in a conspiracy? Please, do admit how retarded you are.

>>14532420
Do you not see how there were far more deaths for the unvaccinated? Are you blind as well as stupid?

Okay since you're retarded too, let's use the power of imagination: If 100% of a population is vaccinated, 100% of deaths will be post-vaccination. Meaning a chart that ONLY SHOWS vaccination WITHOUT explicitly comparing rate between vaccinated vs unvaccinated does not show what you're stupidly believing it shows.

So you're either retarded, and that's fine, or you're malicious. Pick one.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:27:30 2022 No.14532426 >>14532411 >you're claiming "24% unvaccinated in the total population make up 16% of cases and 12.1% of deaths" yes, that's the data, keep up the pathetic cope though

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:29:05 2022 No.14532432

>>14532388
>I'm not even comparing what the two studies did. I just want you to admit how dishonest you are. You disregard samples of 30 million or more because you found something to superficially agree with your prior belief. https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/new-study-shows-fewer-people-die-from-covid-19-in-better-vaccinated-communities/

>lower rates of population level covid-19 mortality and incidence
Notice it doesn't say all-cause mortality, I wonder why

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:29:49 2022 No.14532433 >>14532426 alright tell us more about the data then, since you're using it as an example to demonstrate vaccine efficiency can you break it down by age groupe please ? that'd be the scientific way to analyze it even better wouldn't you agree ?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:30:03 2022 No.14532435 File: 191 KB, 983x1200, 1641550073921.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] You guys don't even deny being glowniggers. No point in continuing this now. Just know you've been exposed.

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:30:33 2022 No.14532436

>>14532408
>...Yes? You want sample data that includes people being killed in traffic accidents or dying from cancer? Because.... ?
uh, i don't know, maybe because it's one of the side effects of the safe and effective clot shot?
https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/covid-vaccine-lymph-node-breast-cancer

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:31:59 2022 No.14532439 >>14532433 if you think you have a point to make, make it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:32:15 2022 No.14532440 >>14532436 >A woman is Iowa is speaking out about an unexpected benefit of the COVID-19 vaccine: Getting the shot resulted in a stage 2 breast cancer diagnosis. have you even read your article ? you're embarassing yourself at this point..

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:32:52 2022 No.14532441 >>14532408 >Great reason to keep up to date on your shots, yes. If you have AIDS? maybe

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:33:00 2022 No.14532444 >>14532408 >...Yes? You want sample data that includes people being killed in traffic accidents or dying from cancer? Because.... ? because mortality from the target disease isn't the only measure of vaccine safety...?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:33:12 2022 No.14532447 >>14532440 >get cancer from a vaccine And that's a good thing!

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:35:17 2022 No.14532452

>>14532388
Why aren't you linking double blind randomized control trials for long term side effects and effectiveness of the jab? Do you believe in the experimental deployment model of medicine, just coerce people through whatever means and hope it works out.
You are trying to focus on large population studies, but the highest qualities studies have already made ambitious statements about the jab effectiveness. Are you of the opinion that the Pfizer/Moderna studies are unreliable? They need to be supplemented with this observational for how an experimental drug interacts with an illness it wasn't designed for?

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:35:23 2022 No.14532453

>>14532426
https://publichealthscotland.scot/publications/covid-19-statistical-report/covid-19-statistical-report-16-february-2022/

>In the most recent four weeks, from 15 January 2022 to 11 February 2022, the age-standardised rate of hospital admissions per 100,000 were 3.0 to 3.7 times lower in individuals with their third dose or booster dose of vaccine compared to unvaccinated individuals or have received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine

https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/vital-events/general-publications/weekly-and-monthly-data-on-births-and-deaths/deaths-involving-coronavirus-covid-19-in-scotland

Your dishonest image is not an actual rate comparison. Self evident from quoting your own source, hospitalizations among the vaccinated are lower.

tl;dr - you really are a gullible retard.

>>14532436
Okay, this is ridiculous. I literally posted that. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm

>After excluding COVID-19–associated deaths, overall SMRs after dose 1 were 0.42 and 0.37 per 100 person-years for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, respectively, and were 0.35 and 0.34, respectively, after dose 2 (Table 2). These rates were lower than the rate of 1.11 per 100 person-years among the unvaccinated mRNA vaccine comparison group (p <0.001).

Special concerns for immunocompromised people are all the more concerning given coronavirus has over tenfold higher risk of associated clot. "Clot shot"? So you're really paranoid about coronavirus then, right? Given the risk ratio is so much higher? Or are you just being dishonest?

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:36:26 2022 No.14532455

>>14532416
>Also does better with prior infection, so having a prior infection isn't a reason to avoid it either.
https://nationalpost.com/health/natural-immunity-provides-strong-protection-from-covid-reinfection-but-vaccination-still-safer

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dr-makary-says-natural-immunity-is-more-effective-then-vaccine-immunity/ar-AAMX3sM

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-226857/v1

https://www.theblaze.com/news/johns-hopkins-professor-ignore-cdc-natural-immunity-works

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/92836

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/05/anti-vaxxers-have-a-dangerous-theory-called-natural-immunity-now-its-going-mainstream/

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:36:26 2022 No.14532456

>>14532447
> Moseley's vaccine didn't cause the lump in her breast, it started a train of thought that motivated her to check herself for signs of cancer. This, Dr. Adalja points out, was a "good coincidence."

Moseley noted that she had a routine mammogram scheduled in July. But if she hadn't been vaccinated in April and discovered the swollen lymph node, her cancer could have grown before it was detected. "The COVID-19 shot, I'm gonna say-as much as COVID sucked-it saved me," she told the Des Moines Register.

have you no self-respect ?
for real man

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:37:37 2022 No.14532459

>>14532425
>the data ITSELF is used by many other researchers with no affiliation. It is simply data submitted.
and "just data" showed itself to be a clear show of science's pristine ethics didn't it?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/04/lancet-retracts-major-covid-19-paper-that-raised-safety-concerns-about-malaria-drugs/
https://www.motherjones.com/coronavirus-updates/2020/06/hydroxychloroquine-study-covid-lancet-retracted/

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:37:43 2022 No.14532460 >>14532453 >December 14, 2020–July 31, 2021 LOL

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:39:06 2022 No.14532463

>>14532453
>All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Runxin Huang reports support for attending meetings or travel from Dynavax Technologies. Nicola P. Klein reports institutional support from Pfizer, Sanofi Pasteur, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur to support vaccine studies). Elizabeth G. Liles reports research contracts from the National Human Genome Research Institute and Pfizer. Kerresa Morrissette reports research contracts from the National Institutes of Health, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
Literally propaganda paid for by big pharma. Not even gonna read that shit.

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:39:42 2022 No.14532465

>>14532452
Because I don't need to rely on small sample clinical trial results when we have whole-nation data of millions.

You people are something special. First, you whine about sample sizes allegedly being too small. Now you're whining that the sample size is too big?

It's so transparent how desperate you people are to lie for your feelings.

>>14532455
So ignoring your blogspam let's focus on the research.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

This is a comparison of vaccinated-never-infected to the prior infected. What this doesn't tell you is the risk from being never infected OR never vaccinated.

Guess what, retard? Being vaccinated is better than not being vaccinated. You're so desperate you can't even read.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:40:26 2022 No.14532466 >>14532465 >It's so transparent how desperate you people are to lie for your feelings. At this point I'm just fucking with you because you're a glownigger.

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:40:29 2022 No.14532467

>>14532425
>literally the whole country on an individual level is engaged in a conspiracy?
imagine being that naive, you truly deserve another round of shots (of covid gene therapies)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/

>We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence.
>For the first time in American history a president, governors, mayors, hospital administrators and federal bureaucrats are determining medical treatments based not on accurate scientifically based or even experience based information, but rather to force the acceptance of special forms of care

>The media (TV, newspapers, magazines, etc), medical societies, state medical boards and the owners of social media have appointed themselves to be the sole source of information concerning this so-called “pandemic”. Websites have been removed, highly credentialed and experienced clinical doctors and scientific experts in the field of infectious diseases have been demonized, careers have been destroyed and all dissenting information has been labeled “misinformation” and “dangerous lies”, even when sourced from top experts in the fields of virology, infectious diseases, pulmonary critical care, and epidemiology.

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:41:24 2022 No.14532469

>>14532453
Jab doesn't produce sterilizing immunity. Not preventing the transmission or infection of covid renders protection from goyvid symptoms moot.
> Unvaccinated comparison group included unvaccinated persons and COVID-19 vaccine recipients before COVID-19 vaccination. The assignment of index dates allowed COVID-19 vaccinees to contribute unvaccinated person-time before vaccination, thus avoiding immortal time bias.
hahaha unjabbed includes the fucking immediate term effects of the jabs holy oh fucking shit. hahahahahaha

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:41:28 2022 No.14532470 >>14532463 Thanks for conceding. >>14532466 Thanks for admitting you have no argument. >>14532459 I get it, you have nothing to show so you're deflecting. Thanks for conceding.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:42:02 2022 No.14532471 >>14532425 >Do you not see how there were far more deaths for the unvaccinated? Using absolute numbers is fine when it suits your agenda motherfucker? The study you linked used the same proportional reasoning you fucking chump

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:42:06 2022 No.14532472 >>14532439 >can you break it down by age groupe please ? that'd be the scientific way to analyze it even better wouldn't you agree ? answer yes or no you either can do it, or you're full of shit

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:42:54 2022 No.14532475 >>14532470 >Thanks for admitting you have no argument. You don't argue with terrorists.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:43:02 2022 No.14532477 >>14532469 >hahaha unjabbed includes the fucking immediate term effects of the jabs holy oh fucking shit. hahahahahaha You can't read. Read it again. "before COVID-19 vaccination." Boy there's a lot of retardation here.

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:43:19 2022 No.14532478

>>14532425
>Meaning a chart that ONLY SHOWS vaccination WITHOUT explicitly comparing rate between vaccinated vs unvaccinated does not show what you're stupidly believing it shows.
That's exactly what I did here you niggerbrain
>>14532378
>on that date, 18% of the population had gotten vaccinated
>being 18% of the population, the vaccinated accounted for 29.5% of deaths. The unvaccinated, being 82% of the population, accounted for 70.5% of deaths
>https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

>So you're either retarded, and that's fine, or you're malicious. Pick one.
You are both, and are projecting

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:43:53 2022 No.14532479 >>14532466 that sweet incel rage finally coming out

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:43:55 2022 No.14532480 >>14532477 Read is again. >included unvaccinated persons and COVID-19 vaccine recipients before COVID-19 vaccination. hahahah you are so fucking retarded. Shill not getting apdi today.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:44:02 2022 No.14532482 File: 137 KB, 800x800, 1473847688450.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532472 >c-cases and deaths are only higher in the vaccinated because they're probably older and at higher risk!

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:44:03 2022 No.14532483 >>14532471 Uhhh nope the CDC studies I've posted have rate adjusted risk ratios from the raw numbers. I get it, you can't read. It sucks and I'm sorry you suffer illiteracy.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:44:56 2022 No.14532486 File: 786 KB, 220x213, 1641563947497.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532477 >Boy there's a lot of retardation here. Then why so desperate? >>14532479 "u mad"?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:45:04 2022 No.14532487 File: 32 KB, 500x360, 45542836.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532480 >before COVID-19 vaccination.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:47:49 2022 No.14532491 >>14532478 Which you did wrong as pointed out here. >>14532453 The sooner you admit how inept you are with basic statistics the sooner you can put up the modicum of effort to learn how to do it properly. Or keep being this easy to lie to. Up to you.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:48:27 2022 No.14532492 >>14532482 why don't need to be so smug about failing to defend your ideas you've been ripped to shreds my dude, I'd feel bad if I were you

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:48:52 2022 No.14532493 File: 94 KB, 550x550, 1641443104471.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:48:57 2022 No.14532494

>>14532433
>can you break it down by age groupe please ?
we surely would be able to if the govs didn't refuse to release the raw data, so total deaths is the best we can do for now

https://nypost.com/2022/02/22/cdc-withholding-covid-data-over-fears-of-misinterpretation/
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220222/report-cdc-not-publishing-large-amounts-of-covid-19-data
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01/1032885251/millions-of-people-are-missing-from-cdc-covid-data-as-states-fail-to-report-case
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.html
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cdc-hasnt-release-data-behind-mask-reversal

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:49:29 2022 No.14532496 >>14532486 he definitely is haha "You don't argue with terrorists." sounds like he's fuming

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:50:01 2022 No.14532497 >>14532328 >>14532287 damn it's weird how long covid started killing so many people right after vaccines were introduced remember to get boosted

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:51:34 2022 No.14532499

>>14532453
>hospital admissions per 100,000 were 3.0 to 3.7 times lower in individuals with their third dose or booster dose of vaccine compared to unvaccinated individuals or have received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine
oh, what's that?

>compared to unvaccinated individuals or have received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine
sorry, i think i heard some manipulative bullshit, let me be more precise

>or have received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine
oh, so they are not comparing the vaccinated with the unvaccinated. weird, our shill friend told us that wasn't necessary
>>14532284
>but why? why would 1 or 2 doses would be worse than 0 doses? why the need to move the goalpost to 2 doses plus booster (and now moving to 3 doses)?
>>14532298
>Uhhh... what? They're not. I posted some example links. You can look up any like-for-like vaccinated vs unvaccinated population comparison with millions of people. The unvaccinated are always worse off.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:51:58 2022 No.14532501 File: 327 KB, 964x958, 1641699119164.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532494 You're projecting.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:52:59 2022 No.14532505 >>14532496 Meant for you: >>14532501

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:53:41 2022 No.14532507 >>14532494 that's a deflection I'm talking specifically about the scottish data you were so loud about since you decided we were to use it as an example, let's take it a step further and also check out the age group composition

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:55:07 2022 No.14532510

>>14532453
>Your dishonest image is not an actual rate comparison. Self evident from quoting your own source, hospitalizations among the vaccinated are lower.
Nigger can you not read?
>compared to unvaccinated individuals or have received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine

>tl;dr - you really are a gullible retard.
says whom?

>scotland
reminder for you retard
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19931745.covid-data-will-not-published-concerns-misrepresented-anti-vaxxers/
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/covid-data-stop-being-published-114056378.html

You need to be a serious believer in SCIENCE(TM) to fall for this bullshit

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:56:33 2022 No.14532514 >>14532501 we really couldn't give less of a shit if you take it or not we just enjoy proving you wrong

>>	Anonymous Tue May 31 23:58:32 2022 No.14532519 File: 423 KB, 500x701, 1641743211922.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532510 >Nigger can you not read? Careful! What if your supervisor sees you saying nigger? >>14532514 cope

Anonymous Tue May 31 23:59:49 2022 No.14532524

>>14532465
>So ignoring your blogspam
Blogspam? You don't trust the experts now?

>Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at John Hopkins School of Medicine, during an appearance on The Vince Coglianese Show, said individuals formerly infected with COVID-19 are seven times more likely then vaccinated people to fight off the virus.

>Johns Hopkins professor says 'ignore the CDC' — 'natural immunity works'

>Vaccine-induced immunity provides more robust heterotypic immunity than natural infection to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.
>Donal T. Skelly, Adam C. Harding, Javier Gilbert-Jaramillo, Michael L. Knight, and 29 more

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:01:29 2022 No.14532525 >>14532519 we're not done here >>14532294 can you give us the breakdown of age groups for this graph you used as evidence ? :)

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:02:14 2022 No.14532526

>>14532499
>oh, so they are not comparing the vaccinated with the unvaccinated. weird, our shill friend told us that wasn't necessary

>"compared to unvaccinated individuals OR have received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine"

They have both. On the link. That you didn't click on and you refuse to read. Hence "OR". There are comparisons for unvaccinated, one or two dose to three, etc. You know, available through the link. That was posted. That you didn't click.

Can't make this up. People are genuinely this stupid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:03:15 2022 No.14532528 >>14532524 >Blogspam? You don't trust the experts now? >Literally went on to discuss the research paper you linked instead of the blogspam Boy there's a lot of illiteracy here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:03:36 2022 No.14532529 File: 52 KB, 542x679, 1641708759953.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532525 Check the source yourself.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:05:14 2022 No.14532533

>>14532507
>I'm talking specifically about the scottish data you were so loud about
You were? I thought you linked a CDC study
>Among the data that has been collected but not made public is hospitalizations broken down by age, race and vaccination status over the last year and information on the effectiveness of booster shots.
>When the CDC released data on the effectiveness of boosters for adults younger than 65 two weeks ago, it did not include full numbers on those between 18 and 49.

btw the scots are doing the same thing
>>14532510
>https://www.thenational.scot/news/19931745.covid-data-will-not-published-concerns-misrepresented-anti-vaxxers/
>https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/covid-data-stop-being-published-114056378.html

seems like forging data and hiding data is how science(TM) is done

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:07:14 2022 No.14532536 >>14532533 >You were? I thought you linked a CDC study That's a different anon you retard. I already mopped the floor with you I'm eating popcorn as you all fail to do basic fucking maths, click links, or read.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:07:17 2022 No.14532537 >>14532524 >pre-print you're a cock-sucker >>14532529 what's preventing you from disclosing that info yourself ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:07:30 2022 No.14532538 >>14532526 >They have both. On the link prove it >That you didn't click on not giving your favourite vaccine company ad revenue

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:08:31 2022 No.14532543 >>14532537 >pre-print... le bad

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:09:08 2022 No.14532546 >>14532536 you did good brah ngl hope you pop around in those threads from time to time and serve some righteous science-slapping >>14532538 why are you scared of vaccines ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:09:26 2022 No.14532548 File: 88 KB, 922x732, 1641748985146.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532533 >>14532537 >you're a cock-sucker Projecting again. >what's preventing you from disclosing that info yourself ? I'm not your nigger. You're the nigger.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:10:49 2022 No.14532555 >>14532543 still waiting for the age groups from your scottish covid stats maybe you shouldn't use sources you haven't fully analyzed and cannot give relevant details about

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:11:52 2022 No.14532558

>>14532546
>why are you scared of vaccines ?
uh i don't know, i get kind of suspicious due to the track record of the parties involved
https://www.vaccines.news/2015-09-23-cdc-admits-98-million-americans-were-given-cancer-virus-via-the-polio-shot.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/johnson-andamp-johnson-faces-dollar2-billion-lawsuit-over-opioids/ar-BB199EvA
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pfizer-settlement-idUSTRE5813XB20090902
https://lowninstitute.org/cdc-disclaimers-hide-financial-conflicts-of-interest/

The fact that they need to use coercion is the cherry on the top of the shitcake

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:13:08 2022 No.14532563 File: 525 KB, 2160x2700, 1643532838850.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532548

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:13:54 2022 No.14532565 >>14532558 >politics so basically you're unable to understand medical science, and need to hide your fear behind a fake act of rebellion that's super lame

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:14:19 2022 No.14532567 >>14532555 >still waiting for the age groups from your scottish covid stats I'm still waiting too, go complain with the scottish government for not releasing data By the way, you seemed to have completely ignored the CDC data hiding too >>14532494

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:15:21 2022 No.14532568 >>14532565 >bioethics and empirical evidence is politics such a (fully vaccinated) nigger cock after you get your 4th clotshot glowie

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:15:33 2022 No.14532569 >>14530908 went from hard lock downs to open society. are /pol/tards really this dumb?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:16:51 2022 No.14532572 >>14532567 why are you using data you know to be fake or incomplete then ?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:17:39 2022 No.14532573

>>14532569
>went from hard lock downs to open society. are /pol/tards really this dumb?
that excuse doesn't fly
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/17/australias-melbourne-set-to-end-worlds-longest-lockdowns
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-58866464
https://apnews.com/article/business-health-australia-coronavirus-pandemic-coronavirus-vaccine-5d06fd5e017b428acfb07dcf06a48ac0

the growth was clearly happening before lockdowns ended in october 2021

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:17:58 2022 No.14532574
File: 582 KB, 878x543, 1653873492513.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035421
>Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X14013321?via%3Dihub
>Antibody-dependent SARS coronavirus infection is mediated by antibodies against spike proteins

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:18:40 2022 No.14532578 >>14532572 >why are you using data you know to be fake or incomplete then ? who says I am? you are the one linking to scottish government studies you dirty nigger >>14532453

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:19:02 2022 No.14532579

>>14528698
This is an interesting, almost 800 page appeal by a data scientist to the Bank of Canada.

>In before not a medical doctor

He's a data scientist, reviewing data.

On March 16, 2022, Dr. Hickey submitted an internal appeal of the Bank’s decision. His 766-page submission describes and cites the scientific evidence that demonstrates there are many medical reasons for declining vaccination, including that:

-There was no emergency that caused large amounts of deaths in Canada in 2020-2021 that would justify vaccinating the entire population;
-There is no reliable evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine products provide any health benefit;
-Vaccine products injected via intramuscular routes are in-effect physiologically incapable of preventing infection and transmission of respiratory illnesses;
-There is autopsy, surveillance, and statistical evidence of grave dangers of COVID-19 vaccine products;
-There are more than 1000 peer-reviewed articles providing evidence of harm from COVID-19 vaccine products;
-There is a significantly increased risk of dangerous heart inflammation following injection with a COVID-19 vaccine product, especially for younger males, and this danger is heightened for those who engage in strenuous physical activity;
-Natural immunity provides robust and sufficient protection against respiratory illnesses; and
-It is a fundamental principle of medicine that individual assessment of risk is a personal and confidential choice and the decision to receive or not receive a medical intervention must be made with free and informed consent.

>https://ocla.ca/data-scientist-files-internal-appeal-of-bank-of-canadas-mandatory-vaccination-policy/

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:20:39 2022 No.14532583

>>14532546
>you did good brah ngl

Thanks I guess. I don't think it's all that hard when your opponents have to lie with numbers and fail to click links or read, though. It's really like arguing with creationists. You can sort of do it in your sleep.

Ultimately it always just devolves into "Buht where's your evidence" when you linked exactly what they're asking for. Their belief relies on denying evidence, so they can't let themselves go and actually read the evidence. Case in point. >>14532538

I think anyone can manage idiots that transparently afraid of reading.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:21:06 2022 No.14532584

>>14532579
>This is an interesting, almost 800 page appeal by a data scientist to the Bank of Canada.
Wrong guy nigger. Not Peter Van Den Bossche. Just checked is wikipedia page, huh?
The guy who wrote it is Geert Vanden Bossche. This guy: https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/authors/geert-vanden-bossche

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:21:45 2022 No.14532585 >>14532578 why do you keep on lying ? are you 12 ? >>14532294 that was you my dude you are you posting data you know to be fake or incomplete ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:23:59 2022 No.14532591 File: 111 KB, 1440x1185, 1650319078416.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532585 I'm not him, fag.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:25:57 2022 No.14532596
File: 314 KB, 1195x1439, Lipid Ns.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14532179
>Believe it or not a major holdup on mRNA has been the transport mechanism, and largely due to overly paranoid avoidance of even localized inflammation response.

>largely due to overly paranoid avoidance of even localized inflammation response.

Really???? Alright there.

>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168365912000892

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:26:16 2022 No.14532598

>>14532583
I think there's a few more things that's common with him and other antivax cattle
link spamming and bringing new unrelated points whenever he's cornered in order to deflect from his glaring contradictions
using any random fucking source he superficially read in 20 seconds, which is usually pre-prints, or random clickbait non-science websites
and yeah, like you said, outright denial and cherry-picking whenever there is obvious evidence thrown in his face

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:29:05 2022 No.14532604 >>14532591 >lmao no u, look at the graph again you obstinate moron, 24% unvaccinated in the total population make up 16% of cases and 12.1% of deaths that was you bitch so, anything to say ?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:29:18 2022 No.14532605
File: 2.63 MB, 1101x1183, Harry_.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14532584
I wasn't talking about Geert, you dunce. If you READ the comment, it clearly says DR HICKEY. Is reading comprehension poor here on sci, of all places?? Odd.

Here's a nice poster that is more apt to your reading level.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:29:43 2022 No.14532607 >>14532596 >Really???? Alright there. Yes, there were other transport mechanisms tried. Inflammation from injections at injection site are common for all kinds of reasons. Others were just worse. As I wrote. So you can't read either?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:30:27 2022 No.14532612 File: 134 KB, 640x471, 1653864275187.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Even EU government admits the vaccine is shit: archive.ph slash Ipyyv

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:31:59 2022 No.14532614
File: 46 KB, 934x776, 1641676032398.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14532604
>>lmao no u, look at the graph again you obstinate moron, 24% unvaccinated in the total population make up 16% of cases and 12.1% of deaths
>that was you bitch
>so, anything to say ?
And 70% vaccinated make up 90% of the deaths.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:32:01 2022 No.14532615 >>14532612 just give up dude, your asshole is already gaping and bleeding, try to salvage a bit of dignity here

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:32:08 2022 No.14532616

>>14532598
Well yeah other than trolls that's what you normally see with denialists.

You can link exactly what they want, a direct comparison with a whole nation or multiple nations, and they'll grab some asstard with a blog who just points at raw numbers and falsely claims the rate is higher.

...When the rate, if you do basic math, is actually lower.

I think it's narcissism frankly. A need to feel special.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:33:26 2022 No.14532618 >>14532598 >antivax cattle >vaxxniggers get literally in line for injections and conform to mask mandates, yet they feel they're not cattlr

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:34:05 2022 No.14532621

>>14532598

>using any random fucking source he superficially read in 20 seconds, which is usually pre-prints, or random clickbait non-science websites

There's now more than a thousand scientific papers on issues with the injections. Thats a bit much.

>https://nzdsos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Peer-review-papers-papers-on-Vaccine-AE.pdf

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:34:25 2022 No.14532622 >>14532614 so you agree with those stats and consider them a reliable source since that's the case, give me the different age groups that were sampled

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:35:16 2022 No.14532627

>>14532179
>False assumption of poorer immune response in a general population of vaccinated individuals after infection. Not only is this not what we saw, but is opposite every single nation studied. Individuals with vaccination, controlling for basic features of age or prior disease, on the whole do better.
Sure, the vaccinated are getting infected at a higher rate because of how great their immune systems are working. Don't take data from a year ago and act like it's relevant today.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:35:42 2022 No.14532628 >>14532616 >denialists >nooooooo you can't question le heckin science(tm)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:35:50 2022 No.14532630 File: 90 KB, 212x225, 1650035882216.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532622 I already told you I'm not your nigger. The source is in the image.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:36:16 2022 No.14532633 >>14532281 Yes they are. Scientists are amoral monsters.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:36:22 2022 No.14532635

>>14532616
The incompetence from captured regulatory agencies has been astounding. Most aren't aware of some of the colorful history that some of these agencies have. That alone is but one of the many issues with the mandates and coercion of the last two years.

>regulatory capture

FDA "Corruption" Letter Authenticated: Lawyers, Start Your Engines! https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fda-corruption-letter-authenticated-lawyers-start-your-engines/

Hidden conflicts? Pharma payments to FDA advisers after drug approvals spark ethical concerns https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/hidden-conflicts-pharma-payments-fda-advisers-after-drug-approvals-spark-ethical

Risky Drugs: Why The FDA Cannot Be Trusted https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/risky-drugs-why-fda-cannot-be-trusted

FDA conceals serious research misconduct–fraud, deception, even deaths https://ahrp.org/fda-conceals-collaborates-in-serious-research-misconduct-fraud-deception-adverse-events/

The Food and Drug Administration has a sordid history of scandals involving conflicts of interests, cover-ups, corruption and congressional investigations https://www.ennislaw.com/blog/essure-depicts-classic-examples-fda-conflicts-and-corruption/
Former FDA Official Pleads Guilty in Generic Drug Scandal https://apnews.com/article/4341009a667c3195829a79728d6774b3

Exposing the FDA https://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/10/business/exposing-the-fda.html

How Independent is the FDA? https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/hazard/independent.html

The Pharmaceutical Industry, Institutional Corruption, and Public Health https://ethics.harvard.edu/pharmaceutical-industry-institutional-corruption-and-public-health

Lies and Deception How the FDA Does Not Protect Your Best Interests https://smart-publications.com/articles/lies-and-deception-how-the-fda-does-not-protect-your-best-interests/

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:36:59 2022 No.14532636

>>14532616
I'm genuinely wondering if there's some psychological pathology at hand
for example he posted this
https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/covid-vaccine-lymph-node-breast-cancer
thinking it was an article about how the vaccine caused cancer
like seriously, there's some brain damage at play here

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:37:42 2022 No.14532640

>>14532616
>a direct comparison with a whole nation
You gave CDC data, the problems with which were extensively addressed (and you did not respond to the withold of data btw)

>and they'll grab some asstard with a blog who just points at raw numbers and falsely claims the rate is higher.
>...When the rate, if you do basic math, is actually lower.
In your dreams maybe

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:37:55 2022 No.14532643 >>14532633 >Yes they are. Scientists are amoral monsters. Haven't seen any papers about the pandemic from them, but feel free to link any.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:38:04 2022 No.14532644 File: 10 KB, 251x242, 1647238208761.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532622 >w-well that's because the vaccine only protects people who are already at extremely low risk of covid death!

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:38:20 2022 No.14532645

>>14532635
A Look At How The Revolving Door Spins From FDA To Industry

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/28/495694559/a-look-at-how-the-revolving-door-spins-from-fda-to-industry

FDA Depends on Industry Funding; Money Comes with “Strings Attached”

https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2016/12/fda-depends-on-industry-funding-money-comes-with-strings-attached/

FDA Repays Industry by Rushing Risky Drugs to Market

https://www.propublica.org/article/fda-repays-industry-by-rushing-risky-drugs-to-market

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:38:35 2022 No.14532647 >>14532630 what's preventing you from furter elaborating on your source ? aren't you confident those stats are fully supporting your argument ? or are just scared, and that's why you refuse to take a closer look

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:40:02 2022 No.14532650 File: 1.78 MB, 1311x1763, No_Refunds.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532616

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:40:06 2022 No.14532651 >>14532644 They will not reply to this

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:42:40 2022 No.14532661
File: 123 KB, 852x1024, 1652651897389.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14532647
>what's preventing you from furter elaborating on your source ?
Don't have time, looking for images to post.
I checked the data from RKI in March personally and they were showing similar things for all age groups.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:43:32 2022 No.14532666

>>14532640
You just have a conspiracy theory. Nothing you've posted evidences a universal conspiracy that somehow comports with all the data from the rest of the world showing the same thing. You don't "win" on a "technicality" just because you have a delusion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:43:50 2022 No.14532669 File: 49 KB, 611x527, scotland1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532647 you're just trying to muddy the waters you dumb fag here's your data (1 of 2)

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:44:12 2022 No.14532671
File: 559 KB, 694x767, WH.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14532636
It may not be this year or next year, but eventually the abuses of the last two years will have to be rectified in a court of law. The many lies told over the last two years all for control and domination have been absolutely repugnant and inhumane.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:44:55 2022 No.14532672 File: 21 KB, 620x311, scotland.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532647 2 of 2 so how does this explain higher rate of infection in the vaccinated, exactly? >w-well the vaccine only protects people who aren't at risk! lmaooooo

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:45:07 2022 No.14532673

>>14532635
Cool a whole bunch of completely irrelevant links and nothing to do with all the individual data submitted. You're a schizo with a paranoid delusion.

>>14532636
I mean, yeah, usually. If they're not trolling and making grand conspiracy claims, unsurprisingly you see a lot of schizophrenia. Hence the replies with a bunch of irrelevant nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:45:15 2022 No.14532675 >>14532669 alright, that's the data indeed isn't there something obvious about it ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:46:57 2022 No.14532680 File: 123 KB, 738x656, 1653858908862.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532673 >conspiracy claims Official government numbers are a conspiracy now!!!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:47:00 2022 No.14532681 >>14532666 >You just have a conspiracy theory Conspiracy facts you mean, satan https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062939/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:47:32 2022 No.14532683 >>14532675 >of COURSE there's more covid deaths in the vaccinated - it's because they're OLD. The vaccine only protects people who are extremely unlikely to die of covid! unbelievably retarded cope

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:47:41 2022 No.14532684 File: 2.19 MB, 1772x1688, well then.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532666 >A conspiracy No dunce. Its DATA.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:47:45 2022 No.14532685 >>14532671 you sound super butthurt try not being a stupid pleb and maybe life will treat you better

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:47:53 2022 No.14532687

>>14532671
>It may not be this year or next year, but eventually the abuses of the last two years will have to be rectified in a court of law. The many lies told over the last two years all for control and domination have been absolutely repugnant and inhumane.
10,000+ intentionally killed by Cuomo in nursing homes, to inflate deaths and create panic.
Cuomo still walking around.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:48:24 2022 No.14532688

>>14532672
> so how does this explain higher rate of infection in the vaccinated, exactly?

Basic math. You're just schizoposting without thinking it through. Example, If 90 out of 100 are vaccinated, and a vaccine only provides ~70% coverage the rate of infection of 90 will exceed the 10 unvaccinated because a vaccine only provides n% reduction in a population.

...Which is irrelevant anyway and you're goalpost hopping to "infection rates" to avoid the fact your own source shows lower death rates and hospital admissions for the vaccinated.

>In the most recent four weeks, from 15 January 2022 to 11 February 2022, the age-
standardised rate of hospital admissions per 100,000 were 3.0 to 3.7 times lower in
individuals with their third dose or booster dose of vaccine compared to unvaccinated
individuals or have received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

>In the four weeks from 08 January 2022 to 04 February 2022, in an age-
standardised population, the death rate in individuals that received a booster or 3rd
dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 4.6 and 9.5 times lower than individuals
who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19
vaccine.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:50:34 2022 No.14532695 >>14532683 don't the unvaccinated look awfully young ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:50:39 2022 No.14532696 >>14532647 He didn't elaborate because his source contradicts what he wants to believe. That's why he jumped to "but muh infection rates" and suddenly dropped claims of deaths or hospitalizations.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:52:03 2022 No.14532701
File: 118 KB, 1147x713, Fauci Science.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14532673
Its detailed information which shows that the agency which approved the injections, has some skeletons in their closet. Its literally one of the root problems here. My God. I thought pol was bad. Sci is much worse when it comes to common sense.

A couple of FDA officials quit over the incompetency.

>https://nypost.com/2021/09/01/two-senior-fda-officials-resign-over-biden-administration-booster-shot-plan/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:52:17 2022 No.14532702 >>14532696 >who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine keep acting like this is a comparison of unvaccinated to vaccinated and not cherrypicking booster data in the small window before immunity wanes

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:52:39 2022 No.14532703 File: 568 KB, 826x763, 1654005966333.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:53:14 2022 No.14532705 >>14532696 he ended up elaborating, which is actually fairly honorable but yeah, his stats don't say what he thinks they say, I've been baiting him to get into the details and so far it's working, let's see where this leads us

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:53:14 2022 No.14532706 >>14532685 Try being smarter and learning to read, and maybe, just maybe, you may get some common sense one day.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:53:40 2022 No.14532708 >>14532701 Totally not relevant to anything being discussed here, which is vaccine efficacy in hospitalizations and deaths, and all cause mortality. In every single case, vaccine is safer than the virus for the unvaccinated. You're schizoposting.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:54:16 2022 No.14532709 >>14532708 Im reality posting. >Face the music.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:55:59 2022 No.14532715

>>14532702
>keep acting like this is a comparison of unvaccinated to vaccinated and not cherrypicking booster data in the small window before immunity wanes

Now you move the goalpost to "but muh immunity wanes"? I just posted from your own source showing the unvaccinated have the highest risk load. The thing you've been denying the entire time.

You're so desperate it's hilarious.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:56:33 2022 No.14532718
File: 99 KB, 1080x854, 1652688590496.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14532708
>not relevant to anything being discussed here, which is vaccine efficacy in hospitalizations and deaths
This thread is about the incoming ADE, so all current numbers are irrelevant even if they show that the vaxxed are worse off already.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:57:13 2022 No.14532720 >>14532705 >>14532708 >still refusing to address increase in excess deaths after mass vaccination come on, just say it's long covid

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:58:18 2022 No.14532725 >>14532715 >I just posted from your own source showing the unvaccinated have the highest risk load no, you posted from my own source showing that the unvaccinated PLUS those vaccinated with one or two doses have a higher risk load than the boosted

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:59:06 2022 No.14532727 >>14532643 Scientists have written thousands of papers on the pandemic, most of which have been used to justify authoritarian measures. Scientists are evil.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:59:08 2022 No.14532728 >>14532720 what would you say about the vaccination rates in the different age groups ? >>14532669

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 00:59:37 2022 No.14532730

>>14532718
>>14532720
The deflections continue. It's not surprising when reality doesn't align with your claims. It's just very evil of you all to lie when you've been so thoroughly corrected so many times.

>>14532725
Nope I quoted the basis for the scotland image. Obviously the risk load is highest in unvaccinated. If you're denying 1+1 = 2, explain why the booster is so much better than not being boosted, and how this would magically result in the unvaccinated being better off than the vaccinated.

Go on. Use your two neurons.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:00:31 2022 No.14532733 >>14532728 >changes the subject Argue with that anon all you want, I'm asking about >>14532287 and >>14532328

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:01:34 2022 No.14532736 File: 389 KB, 600x616, 1648755727465.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532730 >The deflections continue. You derailed the thread first. This whole discussion is deflection.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:02:15 2022 No.14532737

>>14532733
>Doesn't understand how rates work.

Listen retard, when most of a population is vaccinated most deaths will be "with vaccinated" by definition. Holy shit you're stupid.

>>14532736
I'm the only motherfucker who posted explaining why the PDF in OP was wrong because it ignored all the worldwide ecological data you mouth breathing moron.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:02:52 2022 No.14532738

>>14532720

Long Covid indeed.

"189 persons with laboratory-documented COVID-19 (12% of whom were hospitalized during acute illness) and 120 antibody-negative control participants were enrolled. At enrollment, symptoms consistent with PASC (postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection) were reported by 55% of the COVID-19 cohort and 13% of control participants. Increased risk for PASC was noted in women and those with a history of anxiety disorder. Participants with findings meeting the definition of PASC reported lower quality of life on standardized testing. Abnormal findings on physical examination and diagnostic testing were uncommon. Neutralizing antibody levels to spike protein were negative in 27% of the unvaccinated COVID-19 cohort and none of the vaccinated COVID-19 cohort. Exploratory studies found no evidence of persistent viral infection, autoimmunity, or abnormal immune activation in participants with PASC."

>https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-4905

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:03:09 2022 No.14532740
File: 13 KB, 319x419, 1647819507862.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14532737
>I'm the only motherfucker who posted explaining why the PDF in OP was wrong because it ignored all the worldwide ecological data you mouth breathing moron.
How do current infections take into account future mutations?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:03:32 2022 No.14532742

>>14532688
>and a vaccine only provides ~70% coverage the
https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/moderna-vaccine-100-effective-in-severe-cases-to-seek-us-eu-approval-120120100047_1.html
https://reason.com/2021/02/23/vaccines-are-100-effective-at-preventing-covid-19-hospitalizations-and-deaths/

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:03:58 2022 No.14532746

>>14532730
>Nope I quoted the basis for the scotland image.
which compares the boosted to the unvaccinated PLUS one and two dose vaccinated. keep up your "deflection!!1" projections though
>explain why the booster is so much better than not being boosted
hypothesis: vaccination confers a brief period of immunity before it wanes into the negative

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:03:58 2022 No.14532745

>>14532730
>explain why the booster is so much better than not being boosted, and how this would magically result in the unvaccinated being better off than the vaccinated.
Not that anon, but risk rises substantially in the two weeks after vaccination, Pfizer found around double the risk due to temporary immune suppression. So the vaccinated go down as unvaccinated, the boosted go down as double vaccinated, and the double boosted go down as boosted. Every preceding group looks worse than it should because they get hammered with the next group's cases.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:04:27 2022 No.14532747

>>14532740
Induction. So far the best off group has had prior vaccinations and infection. There are also very large scale virology studies I linked on the same basis showing that, so far, they have the best and longest lasting immunity.

There's no basis for your BS other than denying reality.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:04:33 2022 No.14532748 File: 143 KB, 1280x722, 1654007575472.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532740

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:05:34 2022 No.14532749 >>14532747 >Induction. So far the best off group has had prior vaccinations and infection What about all the animals that got jabbed with MERS/SARSv1 vaccine?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:05:34 2022 No.14532750

>>14532746
>hypothesis: vaccination confers a brief period of immunity before it wanes into the negative

Which is contradicted by the very same evidence. You can use CDC data, you can use Canada's data, you can use the UK's national data, in every single country with good records and a large enough unvaccinated population for comparison you see the same thing.

Your "hypothesis" is falsified, but you'd rather deny reality to preserve your faith.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:06:09 2022 No.14532753

>>14532737
>Listen retard, when most of a population is vaccinated most deaths will be "with vaccinated" by definition. Holy shit you're stupid.
hurr listen retard when most of a population is vaccinated OF COURSE excess death rates will significantly exceed the last several years!
fuck you're retarded, those graphs aren't about vaccination status, that wasn't my question, I'm asking you to explain why (non covid) excess deaths were so much higher in 2021 than in previous years

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:06:41 2022 No.14532754

>>14532745
>Not that anon, but risk rises substantially in the two weeks after vaccination, Pfizer found around double the risk due to temporary immune suppression.

You're misremembering a clinical study on immunosuppressed populations with specific comorbidities. That does not happen in the average population.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:06:51 2022 No.14532755

>>14532733
get off my dick in that case
you're the one changing subjects, I'm still discussing those stats and their meaning
>>14532736
this thread was one massive derailement to begin with, you should feel fucking honoured we bothered posting some scientific facts for you low-IQ troglodytes

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:07:42 2022 No.14532756

>>14532753
>fuck you're retarded, those graphs aren't about vaccination status, that wasn't my question, I'm asking you to explain why (non covid) excess deaths were so much higher in 2021 than in previous years

Missed. Covid. Diagnosis. You fucking retard. What you're trying to do is make an argument from ignorance, "you can't explain it therefore". Excess deaths

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:08:29 2022 No.14532759

>>14532750
>Which is contradicted by the very same evidence. You can use CDC data, you can use Canada's data, you can use the UK's national data, in every single country with good records and a large enough unvaccinated population for comparison you see the same thing.
prove it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:09:11 2022 No.14532762 >>14532754 >You're misremembering a clinical study on immunosuppressed populations with specific comorbidities. No, that actually came from Pfizer's trial that gained them approval.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:10:08 2022 No.14532768 >>14532756 >claiming that the weaker strain of covid started killing even more people after mass vaccinations extremely weak hypothesis

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:10:55 2022 No.14532769

>>14532748
The information on the website and in the IJVTPR is not intended as a diagnosis, recommended treatment, prevention, or cure for any human condition or medical procedure that may be referred to in any way. Users and readers who may be parents, guardians, caregivers, clinicians, or relatives of persons impacted by any of the morbid conditions, procedures, or protocols that may be referred to, must use their own judgment concerning specific applications. The contributing authors, editors, and persons associated in any capacity with the website and/or with the journal disclaim any liability or responsibility to any person or entity for any harm, financial loss, physical injury, or other penalty that may stem from any use or application in any context of information, conclusions, research findings, opinions, errors, or any statements found on the website or in the IJVTPR.
great stuff

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:11:56 2022 No.14532770 >>14532759 he already proved it 15 times in this thread asshat can't you open your eyes and read ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:12:06 2022 No.14532772 >>14532769 tl;dr

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:12:10 2022 No.14532773 >>14532738 >Long Covid indeed https://archive.md/E5rPj

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:14:23 2022 No.14532780

>>14532762
...In the section talking about the immunocompromised.

>>14532759
I did. You're too scared to click links.

>>14532768
Isn't my hypothesis. You have to lie because you know you were caught. You're trying to make an argument from ignorance and you've been caught. Note once again, you jump topics, you deflect. You refuse to admit the very data you cited in fact shows the opposite of what you were claiming.

Unvaccinated have more deaths from covid, more hospitalizations, and greater all cause mortality. You people just lie, deny, deflect, to avoid the facts. Just duck and weave like a flat earther.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:14:28 2022 No.14532781 File: 65 KB, 601x512, 1654014066634.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The numbers don't even mean anything because shit is just made up.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:14:34 2022 No.14532782 >>14532773 >https://archive.md/E5rPj Nicely archived good Sir. They actually took the article down lol. We really are in Bozo Carnival world.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:14:41 2022 No.14532783 >>14532772 they're a bunch of stupid cowards basically

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:16:06 2022 No.14532786 File: 72 KB, 360x263, 1653781933533.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532783 Ah, right, I think the RKI reports do say that, too.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:16:55 2022 No.14532791 File: 854 KB, 2108x1410, Safe and Effective.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532780 Yes yes. Safe.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:17:07 2022 No.14532792 >>14532780 you posted a single CDC study with data collected between december 2020 and july 2021

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:17:07 2022 No.14532793 >>14532780 >and greater all cause mortality >[citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:18:18 2022 No.14532797 >>14532793 I did. I cited many. You people only have denial and refusal to read. You're cowards, just like creationists and flat earthers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:19:19 2022 No.14532798 >>14532792 More lies. Canada, UK, US, and so on, all show the same thing. Your failure to read and your failure to click links is your own fault. All you have are lies because you're a coward.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:20:04 2022 No.14532803

>>14532786
Editor in Chief
John W. Oller, Jr., PhD in General Linguistics
Associate Editors
Gayle DeLong, Associate Professor, Bert W. Wasserman Department of Economics and Finance
Antonietta Gatti, PhD, Doctorate also in Experimental Physics
Mary S. Holland, MA, JD, General Counsel for Children's Health Defense 2019-present; formerly Director Graduate Lawyering Program

again, good stuff

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:21:31 2022 No.14532807 >>14532797 >>14532798 quote the posts where you provided links showing all-cause mortality to be lower in the vaccinated don't ask me to wade through 358 replies

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:22:53 2022 No.14532808 >>14532807 Lazy vaxcow

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:23:12 2022 No.14532810 >>14532807 360* now

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:23:39 2022 No.14532811
File: 111 KB, 809x410, Infection Risk.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14532780
>...In the section talking about the immunocompromised.
Actually can't find that, but I did find this from the Danes. Neat how all of those cases would go down as unvaccinated.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.08.21252200v1.full.pdf

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:24:44 2022 No.14532813 File: 151 KB, 1180x695, FauXi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532807 362 replies. Posting in a legendary /sci/ bread.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:25:17 2022 No.14532817 >>14532808 the guy you're quoting is actually antivax you know

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:25:48 2022 No.14532820

>>14532644
still zero replies so let me remind the shills of some facts
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2020/11/30/moderna-submits-covid-19-vaccine-for-emergency-approval-says-it-is-100-effective-at-preventing-severe-forms-of-disease/?sh=4b3b03af5f56

https://www.timesofisrael.com/astrazeneca-winning-vaccine-formula-is-100-effective-against-severe-covid-19/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-russia-vaccine-vec-idUSKBN29O151

https://www.ibtimes.com/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-100-effective-preventing-deaths-hospitalization-us-study-3167222

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-100-effective-children-ages/story?id=76779737

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/modernas-covid-19-vaccine-found-be-100-effective-children-ages-12-17

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/landing/covid-19-vaccine

https://www.science.org/content/article/absolutely-remarkable-no-one-who-got-modernas-vaccine-trial-developed-severe-covid-19

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:26:20 2022 No.14532822 >>14532813 everything about this thread is shit, and so are you

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:26:38 2022 No.14532823

>>14532807
Oh, so you just outright admit you didn't know what you were talking about. And you think I'd help you now because... ?

>>14532811
So earlier I mentioned this >>14532330 dishonest thing people do with citing tiny samples in individual hospitals to make false claims about vaccine effectiveness.

Almost like I'm psychic.

Assuming you're just genuinely misinformed, you're cherrypicking whether you know it or not. Look at the ecological data for any country, again you have the CDC or the raw CDC-submitted data for the US, you have canada, you have the UK, and so on.

So you get one of two options: A vast mass conspiracy where all medical professionals are submitting false data in every country that reported on these comparisons, or you're cherrypicking. Guess which one makes the most sense.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:28:02 2022 No.14532827

>>14532823
>citing tiny samples
Cool. So you have data with larger samples which separates the two weeks post-vaccination so we can look at that? Please provide, because so far as I can tell, the data we've been getting from various countries doesn't do so.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:29:40 2022 No.14532835 >>14532827 you haven't looked into any data beyond what this thread required of you, stop lying

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:30:16 2022 No.14532837 File: 42 KB, 640x636, 1653763402996.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:30:56 2022 No.14532839 >>14532823 >tiny samples in individual hospitals you may not believe it but only a few hundred people die from covid in the entire country, the sample is not small, this is just reality, it's a flu

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:31:30 2022 No.14532841

>>14532823
>>14532827
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n783/rr

>The REACT study of prevalence in January showed that the odds ratio of having a positive swab was 1.48 in healthcare and care home workers and 1.38 in other key workers (when compared to all workers).[7] It seems highly unlikely that behavioural change alone (in the over 80s) could account for an increase in the risk of infection of a similar magnitude to that assumed by being in high-risk employment.

>The ONS study quoted does show that over 40% of vaccinated over 80 year-olds met with someone outside of their household or bubble during some unspecified period after vaccination, but there was no data collection for behaviour prior to vaccination with which to compare that figure.[8] No specific dates were given for when the meetings had taken place. It is therefore impossible to conclude that there has been any change in behaviour, let alone one specifically related to the week or two after vaccination.

>The ONS has reported that the proportion of adults who had no contact at all with over 70 year-olds rose from 83% prior to vaccine rollout to 90% during vaccine rollout, from the beginning of December to 8th February.[9] By 8th February 90% of the over 70s had been vaccinated.[10] It is hard to reconcile fewer people visiting the over 70 year-olds prior to 8th February with more over 80 year-olds having contact with others.

Please, if you have data disproving me, then provide it. I'll gladly accept I'm wrong in that case. It sure seems like data that would provide these answers is being obfuscated by counting vaccination status as two weeks post-vaccination, and then lumping all cases into the previous groups without providing a way to delineate the data. Canada has gone so far as counting anyone who isn't at least double vaccinated as unvaccinated.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:33:29 2022 No.14532847

>>14532823
>ecological data
virologists simply can't stop stealing terms from hard sciences can they?

they stole epicenter (morons don't even know there should be an hypocenter too), first "wave", second "wave", etc. now they're stealing from other areas of biology too which have more empirical data to them

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:35:43 2022 No.14532849

>>14532827
I guess your fingers and google are broken for you too?

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm

There have been ongoing publications in multiple countries with interim data throughout the pandemic.

>Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (≥14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status; vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (≥14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%.

All you had to do was search "two weeks covid vaccine effectiveness" or any iteration thereof. You can specify countries and so on. It really was that simple. You really are that inept. Whether genuinely or not, something to be aware of. It's that easy for you to get caught in an echo chamber because you're that unable to do basic searching.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:36:58 2022 No.14532850 File: 202 KB, 1284x1789, 1653639844225.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] It's fine! No human to human transmission!

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:37:19 2022 No.14532851

>>14532849
>I guess your fingers and google are broken for you too?
>Prospective cohorts of 3,950 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing for 13 consecutive weeks.
>>14532823
>So earlier I mentioned this >>14532330 dishonest thing people do with citing tiny samples in individual hospitals to make false claims about vaccine effectiveness.

the shill refutes himself

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:37:44 2022 No.14532853 >>14532841 >counting anyone who isn't at least double vaccinated as unvaccinated. in the face of a rapidly mutating virus, it's a reasonable stance

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:37:56 2022 No.14532854
File: 80 KB, 665x153, Oopsie.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14532780
>...In the section talking about the immunocompromised.
Found it. Can you point me to where it mentions they were immunocompromised? You'd think they would have tested these suspected cases, but that may have hurt the study's results.

https://www.fda.gov/media/144416/download

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:38:51 2022 No.14532855 >>14532851 >prospective cohort of 3950 >tiny are you for real ?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:39:36 2022 No.14532857

>>14532849
>All you had to do was search "two weeks covid vaccine effectiveness" or any iteration thereof. You can specify countries and so on. It really was that simple. You really are that inept. Whether genuinely or not, something to be aware of. It's that easy for you to get caught in an echo chamber because you're that unable to do basic searching.
So...I ask you for data which includes case rates in the two weeks immediately after vaccination, and you provide me with data that has specifically removed it. Thanks, real helpful bud. You're making my case here that they're hiding that data by lumping it in with the previous group.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:40:03 2022 No.14532860 File: 1.26 MB, 600x600, Rona.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532822 I love the name calling please keep going. Lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:41:35 2022 No.14532864 File: 68 KB, 600x600, 1653622400405.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-30/s-africa-had-fifth-covid-wave-despite-97-antibody-protection https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1687679/v2

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:42:26 2022 No.14532867

>>14532841
>Please, if you have data disproving me, then provide it. I'll gladly accept I'm wrong in that case. It sure seems like data that would provide these answers is being obfuscated by counting vaccination status as two weeks post-vaccination, and then lumping all cases into the previous groups without providing a way to delineate the data. Canada has gone so far as counting anyone who isn't at least double vaccinated as unvaccinated.

That has a lot more to do with how unreliable assessments of unvaccinated populations are, AND the fact single dose vaccination efficacy wanes to virtually zero over the course of a year or two. Last I checked anyway, and that probably depends on the vaccine manufacturer.

They're not "trying to hide" or "obfuscate" it, it's just irrelevant for the vast majority of uses because you've a single paranoid hangup. The data the CDC uses is publicly available, you can download it yourself, you can see for yourself if you're willing to put up the effort to learn how.

>>14532851
You see how in that one it isn't isolated to a single facility? You know, proper wide scale sampling? God you're desperate.

>So...I ask you for data which includes case rates in the two weeks immediately after vaccination, and you provide me with data that has specifically removed it. Thanks, real helpful bud. You're making my case here that they're hiding that data by lumping it in with the previous group.

Um, no. They were tested for 13 consecutive weeks. Vaccine effectiveness greater than or equal to 14 days was 90%. That is literally impossible if the vaccine made it MORE LIKELY to get sick within those two weeks.

Your failure to understand is not my fault. You just didn't get it. So I've explained it again. What you would effectively be claiming now is "somehow they all got it worse and more often but also this magically reversed on day 14". Do you see how stupid that sounds?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:43:12 2022 No.14532872 >>14528698 Shout out to Jikkyleaks on Twitter as well. >https://i.4cdn.org/pol/1654031779789.png

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:43:36 2022 No.14532875 >>14532857 >>14532867 Missed a quote. That last greentext there was for you. So please explain to me how it's possible to have 90% vaccine efficacy in those 14 days and for your opposite claim to be true. Do explain that black magic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:44:30 2022 No.14532879 >>14532857 is that really the only single thing you'll end up arguing about ? infection rates immediately after vaccination ? talk about grasping at straws ? >>14532864 so natural immunity is shit basically ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:44:53 2022 No.14532881 >>14532853 >in the face of a rapidly mutating virus, it's a reasonable stance the vaccine is helping create the mutations though

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:45:48 2022 No.14532886 File: 91 KB, 1024x682, 1641560170575.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Put me in the screencap. >>14532879 Explain how vaccines create higher quality antibodies.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:46:03 2022 No.14532887 >>14532881 it's not though the unvaccinated are however

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:47:18 2022 No.14532889 File: 40 KB, 615x694, 1650067649059.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532887 Unvaccinated don't create the same kind of selection pressure.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:47:30 2022 No.14532891 >>14532864 >fifth wave such a thing doesn't exist, this is a geophysics term

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:49:00 2022 No.14532897

>>14532854
... Did you read before you screencapped? That particular section concerns "suspected but unconfirmed". The following quotes the portion for CONFIRMED cases:

>A Phase 3 randomized and placebo-controlled trial using BNT162b2 in approximately 44,000 participants is currently ongoing to evaluate the vaccine’s safety and efficacy. Vaccine efficacy for the primary endpoint against confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after the second dose was 95.0% with 8 COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group compared to 162 COVID-19 cases in the placebo group.

You're just not reading anything carefully enough, and as a result getting very confused when the text you've quoted explains the issue you're having. The unconfirmed cases aren't through testing but symptom reporting, that is why it says "with symptoms that overlap those of covid".

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:49:05 2022 No.14532898

>>14532867
>They're not "trying to hide" or "obfuscate" it, it's just irrelevant for the vast majority of uses because you've a single paranoid hangup. The data the CDC uses is publicly available
>>14532494
>we surely would be able to if the govs didn't refuse to release the raw data, so total deaths is the best we can do for now
>https://nypost.com/2022/02/22/cdc-withholding-covid-data-over-fears-of-misinterpretation/
>https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220222/report-cdc-not-publishing-large-amounts-of-covid-19-data
>https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01/1032885251/millions-of-people-are-missing-from-cdc-covid-data-as-states-fail-to-report-case
>https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.html
>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cdc-hasnt-release-data-behind-mask-reversal

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:49:37 2022 No.14532899 >>14532889 >virus mutates the more it replicates >will it replicate more in somebody : with antibodies ? or without antibodies ? enlighten us please, you seem super well-informed

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:49:57 2022 No.14532902

>>14532867
>Um, no. They were tested for 13 consecutive weeks. Vaccine effectiveness greater than or equal to 14 days was 90%. That is literally impossible if the vaccine made it MORE LIKELY to get sick within those two weeks.
I'm not sure what you're not getting here. They cut out the two weeks post-vaccination, and then tracked them for 13 weeks. I want to see what happened in those first two weeks.

>That is literally impossible if the vaccine made it MORE LIKELY to get sick within those two weeks.
It's not impossible because they simply said "here's what happened starting at 14-days post vaccination."

Let me try to be more clear.

Unvaccinated + Two weeks post-vaccination = Unvaccinated. This is one data set.

One injection + Two weeks-post second injection = One injection. This is one data set.

Two injections + Two weeks-post booster = Two injections. This is one data set.

I've found no way to separate the data in a way that allows me to see if cases go up in those two weeks after each dose, because they're lumped into one giant data pool. Based on the few studies that did delineate the data, the risk is anywhere from 50% greater to more than doubled of being infected in the next two weeks following an injection.

And let's not even get into all of the suspected cases that were never even tested in Pfizer's study. >>14532854 1816 placebo infections to 1594 vaccine infections creates a very different picture when we were being told about 90% efficacy at preventing symptomatic COVID-19. That's more like 14%, back when the vaccines actually did seem to prevent cases. And there were 409 cases in the first week after vaccination compared to 287 in the placebo, which they could put down as adverse reactions since they didn't test.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:50:16 2022 No.14532903 >>14532899 Depends. Are the antibodies neutralizing?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:50:49 2022 No.14532905 >>14532887 >the unvaccinated are however >a virus mutating to get around antigens created specifically by the vaccine are to be blamed on the unvaccinated immune system

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:51:06 2022 No.14532906 >>14532879 >so natural immunity is shit basically ? Far above vaccine immunity based on NEJM. :-)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:52:07 2022 No.14532909 >>14532899 >will it replicate more in somebody : with antibodies ? or without antibodies ? >enlighten us please, you seem super well-informed antibodies mean nothing if ADE or original antigenic sin is happening

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:52:52 2022 No.14532910

>>14532897
I'm not confused by anything. It's not my fault they didn't test the people who were symptomatic, and with good reason, because the vaccine wouldn't have reached the minimum threshold of 50% efficacy. But I'm sure you're okay with a study which gained the vaccine EUA when it only bothered testing less than 10% of the suspected covid cases?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:53:40 2022 No.14532911 File: 2.99 MB, 640x474, 1637283469619.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532909 >antibodies mean nothing if ADE or original antigenic sin is happening ADE is the result of antigenic sin, but yes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:53:53 2022 No.14532914 >>14532903 no genius, they're pacifist antibodies of course >>14532905 what's the difference with a virus mutating to get around antigens created specifically by natural immunity ?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:55:33 2022 No.14532916

>>14532902
so even though the vaccine shows undeniable protection against infection past two-weeks
you're not going to acknowledge that fact because you don't have data concerning the first two-weeks ?
what kind of backwards fucking logics is that supposed to be ?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:55:42 2022 No.14532917

>>14532914
>what's the difference with a virus mutating to get around antigens created specifically by natural immunity ?
It's mutating mostly in the spike portion, which is what people have been vaccinated against. Natural immunity includes antibodies against other proteins besides the spike, it wouldn't place selective pressure on just that one portion of the virus. Not to mention natural immunity is proving to be more robust that vaccine immunity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:57:32 2022 No.14532922 >>14532909 yeah, that doesn't really exist you know.. >>14532917 what you're saying is even worse, since it means the whole virus would mutate and become even more difficult for you organism to combat you're not making a lot of sense so far

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:57:53 2022 No.14532925

>>14532914
>what's the difference with a virus mutating to get around antigens created specifically by natural immunity ?
https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/pandemics-unveil-major-shortcoming-in-contemporary-vaccine-design-too-little-too-late

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:58:09 2022 No.14532927 File: 924 KB, 768x768, 1642610792625.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Also the spike has a very high rate of mutations.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:59:26 2022 No.14532932 File: 799 KB, 339x336, 1648776900164.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532922

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 01:59:34 2022 No.14532933

>>14532916
Take this as an example.

Placebo Vaccinated
Week 1 8 cases 14 cases
Week 2 9 cases 17 cases
Week 3 7 cases 2 cases
Week 4 8 cases 3 cases
32 cases 36 cases

Now here's how that would be counted. Those first two weeks would become unvaccinated cases. Now it's 63 unvaccinated cases, compared to 5 vaccinated cases. Not only are you essentially increasing the unvaccinated time frame (four weeks for the unvaccinated, plus the first two weeks of the vaccinated), it's also absorbing the additional risk period of those first two weeks. Limited data suggests that's exactly what's happening. Not being able to separate the data to know for sure is a serious issue.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:00:10 2022 No.14532935

>>14532925
>Our mission is to unveil and widely share the scientific truths concerning the detrimental health and social consequences of the ongoing COVID-19 mass vaccination campaigns.

Proponents of these campaigns largely underestimate the negative impact of widespread immune pressure on both the evolutionary capacity of the virus and the innate immune response.

Governments' concerted efforts worldwide to administer vaccines on a global scale will only prolong the pandemic and lead to catastrophic results - their methods of misinformation and coercion only deepen the magnitude of such a catastrophe and have been accompanied by an increasing erosion of individual rights and freedoms.

Only through a global awareness and understanding of these truths through transparency and open scientific debate, we can realize the futility of these vaccination campaigns and pursue a viable and scientifically rational strategy.

I'm sure those gentlemen are unbiased and eager to do some objective science

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:00:26 2022 No.14532936

>>14532823
>Oh, so you just outright admit you didn't know what you were talking about. And you think I'd help you now because... ?
you're posting on a board with no ID's and you think you have some magical power to identify posters? anyways good to know you don't actually have any sources. cya :)

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:01:43 2022 No.14532940

>>14532922
>what you're saying is even worse, since it means the whole virus would mutate and become even more difficult for you organism to combat
Actually what happens is people don't get infected because it's too many mutations for the virus to make and herd immunity develops. The virus then remains at a very low level. That's how every respiratory virus in history has behaved.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:02:22 2022 No.14532942

>>14532902
My dude, seriously, slap yourself and get some coffee and focus on what's going on. You're not paying attention. Focus, please, and we'll go over this again.

My example citation, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm , shows that 14 days after the first dose the efficacy was 80%.

You said "They cut out the two weeks post-vaccination". This is false. They tracked them 14 days following first vaccination, and the vaccine was 80% effective.

Now follow me closely: It is impossible without reality time-bending black magic for the vaccine to be WORSE than not being vaccinated when it's 80% effective relative to not being vaccinated.

> I've found no way to separate the data in a way that allows me to see if cases go up in those two weeks after each dose

This is exactly what "effectiveness 14 days later" tells you. It tells you that in those 14 days those people had fewer infections and fewer problems. It is impossible for them to have had MORE cases and simultaneously fewer cases.

>It's not impossible because they simply said "here's what happened starting at 14-days post vaccination."

No, they're saying "here's what happened in those 14 days". You aren't paying attention. Focus. Pfizer does the same thing. You literally are just not comprehending what is written.

>And let's not even get into all of the suspected cases that were never even tested in Pfizer's study.

Having a separate data set of "symptom reported" showing something opposite confirmed cases is not at all surprising. Nor is it a fault in the study. You can't put people in jail for the doctor. Some people just did not get tested in spite of reporting symptoms.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:03:53 2022 No.14532946 File: 44 KB, 501x501, 1643539891433.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532942

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:04:02 2022 No.14532947 >>14532933 no it's not a serious issue, that's how immunity builds up.. this really feels it's just the last bastion of denial you've found and you're desperately clinging to it

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:04:23 2022 No.14532948

>>14532914
>what's the difference with a virus mutating to get around antigens created specifically by natural immunity ?
https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/videos-and-interviews/second-call-to-who-please-dont-vaccinate-against-omicron

>Omicron has acquired a substantial level of resistance to the vaccinal antibodies, and that means that the vaccinal antibodies are less likely to outcompete the innate antibodies
>We also know that innate antibodies can be trained, and therefore they can even improve their recognition and protection against the virus. Innate antibodies can be trained just like other innate immune effectors can be trained, by repeated exposure to what we call pathogen-associated molecular patterns.
>This is, in fact, nicely shown by the data published by the UK Health Security Agency, previously Public Health England - where they have shown that basically with aging and also with more exposure to the pathogen, the number of cases in the unvaccinated people was dramatically reduced, and even to an extent such that vaccine efficacy, or we should say, in the population, vaccine effectiveness, would become negative.
>There is also increased evidence, or increasing evidence, that training of innate antibodies as a result of natural infection can enhance the abrogation of the infection, and that training of adaptive immunity – particularly the induction of T-cell memory, also as a result of natural infection – can enhance the abrogation of disease.
>Thanks to the increased resistance of Omicron to vaccinal antibodies, the innate antibodies are set free and can now enable the vaccinees to eliminate the virus, to control viral transmission, and to lead to a dramatic decrease in the viral infection rate, just like healthy unvaccinated people are doing

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:05:53 2022 No.14532955

>>14532942
I think you might be stupid.

>Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (≥14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status; vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (≥14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%.
Do you see those greater than or equal to signs? They cut out the first two weeks after the first dose. I showed here that the first dose has the highest risk for infection >>14532811.

>This is exactly what "effectiveness 14 days later" tells you.
No, it's showing effectiveness starting after 14 days. That's bullshit. If the vaccine increases risk initially, that should count as a vaccinated case.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:06:13 2022 No.14532956 >>14532899 >what is selection pressure? lmao

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:06:20 2022 No.14532957

>>14532948
>If we are now going to vaccinate against Omicron, we are going to take away this window of opportunity for the population to generate herd immunity, thanks to freeing up our innate antibodies. And what we are going to do is in fact we would build against antibodies, against the spike protein of Omicron, and particularly against the receptor-binding domain of this Omicron spike protein
>We know that this receptor-binding domain has already undergone a number, or several, important mutations. So, if we put again full pressure on this domain, there is a high likelihood that we are now going to promote variants that will be able to use a receptor that is different from ACE-2 to enter into the cell. And we know that SARS-CoV-2 can do that because it has already been described that SARS-CoV-2 can use receptors other than ACE-2 to enter into the cell
>this would mean that basically we end up with a situation where we have antibodies that still strongly bind to the virus, to the receptor binding domain, but that can no longer neutralize the virus because the virus is now using another domain to enter into the cell, a domain which is different from the domain that is blocked by the antibodies
>Such a situation is in fact, a textbook example, for how you provoke antibody-dependent enhancement of the disease. So, this would mean that such a situation, the virus covered with strongly binding antibodies but not being able to neutralize the virus, would basically lead, or would be similar, to a situation where the virus has acquired a higher level of virulence. This would be - this situation would really, really, really be at risk of provoking the kind of disastrous consequences that I have been warning against at the beginning of this year. And we know that industry is already gearing up for mass vaccination against Omicron. And, as this, according to my humble opinion, could potentially be - with a high likelihood - a real disaster

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:06:27 2022 No.14532958 >>14532940 >too many mutations to make why did it mutate twice before vaccines were even a thing then ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:07:20 2022 No.14532960 >>14532916 >vaccine shows undeniable protection against infection past two-weeks for 13 weeks (i.e. 3 months and 1 week), in that study. Good luck jabbing yourself 4 times a year to keep yourself protected from a flu

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:07:54 2022 No.14532962 File: 828 KB, 150x250, 1644987133941.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] You're salty because you know you'll die this year.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:08:36 2022 No.14532963

>>14532948
>>14532957
>Our mission is to unveil and widely share the scientific truths concerning the detrimental health and social consequences of the ongoing COVID-19 mass vaccination campaigns. Proponents of these campaigns largely underestimate the negative impact of widespread immune pressure on both the evolutionary capacity of the virus and the innate immune response. Governments' concerted efforts worldwide to administer vaccines on a global scale will only prolong the pandemic and lead to catastrophic results - their methods of misinformation and coercion only deepen the magnitude of such a catastrophe and have been accompanied by an increasing erosion of individual rights and freedoms. Only through a global awareness and understanding of these truths through transparency and open scientific debate, we can realize the futility of these vaccination campaigns and pursue a viable and scientifically rational strategy.
schizo shit
passed

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:09:41 2022 No.14532966 >>14532960 lmao you finally admitted see, it wasn't that hard after all :)

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:10:05 2022 No.14532968

>>14532947
>no it's not a serious issue
Dude, what they're doing would be like doing a study, and saying those infections should count as part of the placebo group because the vaccines couldn't work yet. Even worse, they're not making the data available.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:10:45 2022 No.14532970 >>14532935 >I'm sure those gentlemen are unbiased and eager to do some objective science They probably are since they're not risking billion dollar lawsuits (vaccine companies) or political positions (fauci et al)

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:11:26 2022 No.14532972

>>14532955
>I think you might be stupid.

No. You just can't read. Here, I'll prove it. This is from the cited study:

>Hazard ratios of unvaccinated person-days to partial immunization person-days (≥14 days after first dose and before second dose) and to full immunization person-days (≥14 days after second dose) were calculated separately.

Literally, they have them both. They're listed, calculated, separately.

>Do you see those greater than or equal to signs? They cut out the first two weeks after the first dose. I showed here that the first dose has the highest risk for infection

You seriously are not reading what's written. They did not "cut out" the two weeks after the first dose. They reported two figures separately. You're myopically focusing on one value when the study contains both values. You aren't reading.

Sorry to say, you're the stupid one here. I'm genuinely trying to get your brain to realize you've missed critical information, and you just refuse to stop and go over it. Snap out of it.

Quoting my study: "vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization was 80% (95% CI = 59%–90%) (Table 2)."

So INCLUDING WITHIN THOSE FOURTEEN DAYS efficacy was 80% still. Fucking stop and read.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:11:31 2022 No.14532974

>>14532955
this faggot must be getting paid to run cover for shitty, sketchy data, he's pushed this thread to what must be close to a /sci/ reply record with his evasive and belabored posts, the way he's posted a few studies, exaggerated their scope, and then continued to act like he's in possession of overwhelmingly high quality data and ad-hominem'd everyone else the whole time is almost professional-tier. if he didn't make at least $10 for his work in this thread I'm disappointed

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:11:50 2022 No.14532975

>>14532958
>why did it mutate twice before vaccines were even a thing then ?
It's quite interesting that the first two major variants were first found in countries where the vaccine trials were occurring. But regardless, the gap between Omicron and Delta is larger than the gap between Delta and the original Wuhan strain. Delta may have been somewhat natural, Omicron was either driven by vaccine immunity allowing it an opening or it was a lab leak.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:13:11 2022 No.14532977

>>14532972
>Hazard ratios of unvaccinated person-days to partial immunization person-days (≥14 days after first dose and before second dose)
Dude, are you a fucking troll? It literally says, RIGHT THERE, that they're only counting 14 days post-injection up to the second dose. Where's the 14 days after the first injection? It's not in that paper.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:14:11 2022 No.14532982
File: 32 KB, 500x465, studio-vaccino-covid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14532968
not how it works
I know it's a different study, but you don't get to switch patients from one groupe to another
they're counted with the groupe they were first assigned to

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:14:24 2022 No.14532983 File: 118 KB, 940x1024, 1647229275581.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:14:26 2022 No.14532984

>>14532942
>You said "They cut out the two weeks post-vaccination". This is false.
dude you're lying

>They tracked them 14 days following first vaccination, and the vaccine was 80% effective.
They tracked the cases STARTING at 14 days AFTER the first vaccine.
>vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (≥14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%.

What were the cases 5 days after the first vaccination? 2 days? 3 days? 7 days?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:14:39 2022 No.14532985

>>14532972
>>14532977
To be very clear, partial immunity is counted as one dose, two weeks post-injection up to the second dose. They are not including the first two weeks after the first injection. They've removed the entire period of immuno-suppression.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:15:46 2022 No.14532987 File: 89 KB, 256x256, 1643546356101.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14532974 >almost professional-tier >almost

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:16:24 2022 No.14532988

>>14532982
>not how it works
>I know it's a different study, but you don't get to switch patients from one groupe to another
Correct, in an actual study, that's not how it works, yet in the real world, that's how it's working. You're not vaccinated until two weeks after your injection, prior to that you get counted in the previous group (whether that's unvaccinated, or single vaccinated, etc). Canada went so far as to say that if you're not double vaccinated, you're an unvaccinated case.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:18:09 2022 No.14532990

>>14532975
quite interesting that there were barely a few thousand people in the trials, compared to the millions that got infect at the same time, for sure
>Omicron was either driven by vaccine immunity allowing it an opening or it was a lab leak.
and you've got solid evidence for both of these claims obviously

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:19:16 2022 No.14532993

>>14532963
>>>/lgbt/

>>14532966
>lmao you finally admitted
i hadn't read this anon's post
>>14532933

it's even worse than becoming a pincushion, the vaccine is making you more likely to get the chink flu. we don't know simply because the motherfuckers aren't telling us what happens 7 days after the vaccination, 2 days, 5 days, etc. only what happens after 14 days (the "2 weeks" the shills like to use so much for some reason)

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:19:31 2022 No.14532994

>>14532977

Oh my fucking God. You're getting hung up on this part:

>Hazard ratios of unvaccinated person-days to partial immunization person-days (≥14 days after first dose and before second dose) and to full immunization person-days (≥14 days after second dose) were calculated separately.

And ignoring "were calculated separately". Apparently I have to spoon feed you and quote the whole thing myself. This is the portion calculated separately:

> During the 116,657 person-days when participants were unvaccinated, 161 PCR-confirmed infections were identified (incidence rate = 1.38/1,000 person-days). During the 13 days after first-dose or second-dose vaccination when immune status was considered indeterminate (67,483 person-days), 33 PCR-confirmed infections were identified and excluded from the outcome.

So all that's excluded is 33 infections. Compare to the incidence rate of the other 161 PCR confirmed infections. Are you satisfied now? You can add those back in and the efefctiveness is still over 75%.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:21:53 2022 No.14532996

>>14532994
>>14532977

I will apologize, should, for not realizing exactly which part you were hung up on until then. I'd thought it obvious you should look for the number of excluded, but in hindsight that probably is not obvious if you aren't used to reading literature.

I am sorry for that. But the numbers are all there, just add on those 33 additional infections and do basic division for those 13 days. Anything else?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:23:35 2022 No.14533001

>>14532990
>quite interesting that there were barely a few thousand people in the trials, compared to the millions that got infect at the same time, for sure
Yup, so what was the driving factor for those variants to come from those countries when other countries without trials didn't originate significant variants?

>and you've got solid evidence for both of these claims obviously
Well evidence one is that the vaccinated cases per capita far exceed unvaccinated cases. Surely that's a sign one group's immunity is holding up better than another? If it was the unvaccinated driving mutation, then they should be getting greater protection, especially not when the one protein that the vaccinated or developing antibodies to happens to be the protein that is undergoing the majority of mutations. It's possibly a lab leak based on the fact that Omicron seems to have jumped from mice, except for the fact that mice couldn't harbor SARS-CoV-2. Only genetically mutated mice (aka lab mice) can be infected by it, so how did it live in a wild mice population, mutating like crazy, and then appearing from nowhere, when they can't be infected by it? It certainly seems plausible that many labs were working with the original Wuhan strain, testing the vaccines in test animals (aka lab mice) and it accidentally escaped, fully ready to infect the vaccinated.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:24:22 2022 No.14533002

>>14532993
> the vaccine is making you more likely to get the chink flu
to quote you
>>14532960
vaccine shows undeniable protection against infection past two-weeks
for 13 weeks
so no, it really does make it less likely for you to become infect
you can't refute it at this point, you already admitted

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:25:34 2022 No.14533003

>>14532972
> ≥14 days after first dose
> ≥14 days after second dose

>Literally, they have them both. They're listed, calculated, separately.
You're a fact checking journalist aren't you? No one can be this stupid in middle school maths, it's basic intervals. They registered cases starting at 14 days after the first shot, and 14 days after the second shot.

>Sorry to say, you're the stupid one here.
You brain dead nigger, your superiors will fire you tomorrow for comiting such a bad shilling, good luck writing another click bait to pay for food and don't forget that booster you took to keep waging

>>14532977
>Dude, are you a fucking troll? It literally says, RIGHT THERE, that they're only counting 14 days post-injection up to the second dose. Where's the 14 days after the first injection? It's not in that paper.
They skipped counting the cases before the 14 days after the second shot too if you read it closely.

This means if a vaxxtard got a second shot months later, the immune supression wouldn't be noticed if it happened within 14 days of the second shot too

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:28:02 2022 No.14533010 File: 31 KB, 506x506, 1647641148768.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14533002 >vaccine shows undeniable protection against infection past two-weeks And for how many weeks does that last?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:28:48 2022 No.14533011

data analysis aside I'm impressed with how far vaccine-pushing fags have managed to slide the goal posts
>yeah so the data is in and it looks like this cuts your risk of dying from covid from 0.001% to 0.0002%, yes you'll need a booster every year, also "long term research" is a chud conspiracy theory and basically you're a fucking schizo if you have any questions

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:29:47 2022 No.14533012

>>14533001
>driving factor for those variants to come from those countries
you just suck at stats I guess
there were many countries participating in the trial, including the US who had the most participants
no variant
the first country to have the widest vaccine coverage was Israel
no variant
India, terrible vaccine coverage
one of the most infecitous and lethal variant
stop making up garbage with no basis in reality
>vaccinated cases per capita far exceed unvaccinated cases
and you have no idea why, because you've never taken a single epidemiology class in your life
sucks to be you, but that's meaningless speculations

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:31:01 2022 No.14533014

>>14532982
>I know it's a different study, but you don't get to switch patients from one groupe to another
>they're counted with the groupe they were first assigned to
if only
https://pink.pharmaintelligence.informa.com/PS145052/Placebo-Unblinding-Process-For-Pfizers-COVID-Vaccine-No-Detriment-To-US-FDA-Safety-Analysis

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:31:46 2022 No.14533015 >>14533010 depends on prior infection or vaccines

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:34:28 2022 No.14533020 File: 149 KB, 640x669, 1647495800140.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14533015 >depends on prior infection or vaccines What about a 30 year old guy, never infected, double vaxxed with Pfizer and getting his Moderna booster.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:34:54 2022 No.14533022 >>14533003 The number of excluded infections is listed in the article. Ongoing saga of "you morons cant read".

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:34:57 2022 No.14533023

>>14533002
>it really does make it less likely for you to become infect
what happens, though, after those 13 weeks?

>vaccine shows undeniable protection
mate not even the authors were as retarded as you to claim such a thing

>The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, vaccine effectiveness point estimates should be interpreted with caution given the moderately wide CIs attributable in part to the limited number of postimmunization PCR-confirmed infections observed. Second, this also precluded making product-specific vaccine effectiveness estimates and limited the ability to adjust for potential confounders; however, effects were largely unchanged when study site was included in an adjusted vaccine effectiveness model and when adjusted for sex, age, ethnicity, and occupation separately in sensitivity analyses. Finally, self-collection of specimens and delays in shipments could reduce sensitivity of virus detection by PCR (10); if this disproportionately affected those who received the vaccine (e.g., because of possible vaccine attenuation of virus shedding), vaccine effectiveness would be overestimated.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:37:08 2022 No.14533027 >>14533023 >what happens, though, after those 13 weeks? Have you tried google? Moving goalposts as always.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:37:13 2022 No.14533028 >>14533020 stop posting shitty memes >>14533023 same thing that happens after infection immunity slowly wanes

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:37:26 2022 No.14533030 >>14533023 >what happens, though, after those 13 weeks? duh, then it's time for your booster. dumb schizo chud. trust science.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:37:34 2022 No.14533031

>>14533012
>the first country to have the widest vaccine coverage was Israel
and they're the most fucked, kek
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-12/israel-preparing-for-possible-fourth-covid-vaccine-dose
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/israel/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:38:36 2022 No.14533032 File: 1.63 MB, 500x281, 1648755205892.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14533028 >stop posting shitty memes So you're not gonna answer even though she (male) showed you her feminine cock?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:40:16 2022 No.14533035 >>14533031 >0,3% mortality >USA : 1% looks like they did pretty ok

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:40:54 2022 No.14533036

>>14533028
>same thing that happens after infection
>immunity slowly wanes
"immunity" doesn't "wane", antibodies do, because there isn't an infection there.

it's curious how the vaccinated keep needing more shots to activate their immune system thought while natural immunity seems to be working as it should (memory defense)

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:41:59 2022 No.14533042

>>14533012
UK and India had two of the largest trials prior to Dec 2020, and we were welcomed with Alpha and Delta. California had a subvariant of Alpha that seemed to develop separately.

>and you have no idea why
The semantics really don't matter, we can deduce that natural immunity is superior, that much is clear. :-)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:42:30 2022 No.14533043 >>14533036 y-you're moving goalposts! the point is the vaccine works very well after 2 weeks and up to 13 weeks! stop grasping at straws! so what if you need four boosters a year to maintain protection? it's perfectly safe and you're a fucking schizo!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:43:44 2022 No.14533047 >>14533036 Uhhh no natural immunity wanes too. Just keep moving those goalposts. Just keep dening mortality is way worse for the unvaccinated. Your deflections dont work.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:44:21 2022 No.14533048

>>14533043
>so what if you need four boosters a year to maintain protection?
Good question. Boosters are showing less and less efficacy, that doesn't seem like a great approach.

>it's perfectly safe
So long as you're not a young male, they're somewhat safe. You don't think there's a reason many countries are restricting the mRNA vaccines and stopping at one dose?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:44:45 2022 No.14533049 >>14533042 Except for all those extra people who die from the natural infection. Galaxy brain.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:44:59 2022 No.14533050

>>14533035
>CFR moratality
the actual covid mortality (IFR) is around 0.05%
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/225/2/219/6426172
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext

Worth of note however is that the highest IFR is at the second most vaxxed country on the planet (portugal)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:45:58 2022 No.14533052 >>14533036 natural immunity also wanes nigga I don't see why you'd even try to deny that https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-covid-19-reinfection-surveillance/information-on-covid-19-reinfection-surveillance-in-england

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:47:00 2022 No.14533055 >>14533042 yeah, lung fibrosis and chronic inflammation sure sounds like a blast

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:47:31 2022 No.14533056 >>14533047 >mortality is way worse for the unvaccinated >>14533049 >Except for all those extra people who die from the natural infection. Galaxy brain. yeah, those "deaths" from (with) "covid"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:49:05 2022 No.14533061 >>14533055 >lung fibrosis from masks and micrplastics >and chronic inflammation caused by high PUFA diet and fear mongering, that much is obvious https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2021/21_0123.htm

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:49:12 2022 No.14533062 >>14533056 so when you die of pneumonia with a positive covid PCR, you die 'with' covid according to your twisted logic ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:49:31 2022 No.14533064 File: 51 KB, 636x474, Protection.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14533047 >Uhhh no natural immunity wanes too. Very slowly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:50:26 2022 No.14533066 >>14533056 Yes. And? I don't know what brain disease you have to repeat that as if it's some kind of point. More people die who are unvaccinated than prior to covid, WITH COVID, yes. More people are dying. You're a moron.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:50:31 2022 No.14533067

>>14533049
>Except for all those extra people who die from the natural infection.
I had it in January, slight fever for a couple of days. Sure, vaccinate the vulnerable, but it's stupid to be vaccinating the young and healthy and impairing their chance to build proper immunity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:50:58 2022 No.14533068 >>14533061 whataboutism : the post

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:51:18 2022 No.14533069

>>14533062
>so when you die of pneumonia with a positive covid PCR
it's been almost 2 years already and I'm fine without a clot shot, but just "2 more weeks" right?

>you die 'with' covid according to your twisted logic ?
yes. you dided of pneumonia, a very common cause of death. Interestingly respiratory illnesses decreased dramatically (almost disappeared even) when covid showed up

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:52:44 2022 No.14533073 >>14533066 >More people die who are unvaccinated than prior to covid, WITH COVID, yes. More people are dying. You're a moron. This assertion lacks evidence

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:53:01 2022 No.14533074 >>14533069 >yes and that's how I know you're just a keyboard warrior who's never set foot in a hospital

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:53:38 2022 No.14533075 >>14533073 No it doesn't, you just refuse to read it. You just deny reality and ignore every single national level data brought to your attention by deflecting to yet another conspiracy theory.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:53:46 2022 No.14533076 >>14533068 >explaining the causes is whataboutism

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:54:02 2022 No.14533077 >>14533073 as opposed to the claim that covid death certificate were falsified, which is prefectly credible

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:54:06 2022 No.14533078 File: 88 KB, 1280x772, 1647394216428.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:55:11 2022 No.14533080 >>14533078 Yeah, and as other people mentioned it's all lying to help you feel better. I don't care if you dipshits don't get vaccinated. Stop lying. That's all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:55:32 2022 No.14533081 >>14533069 You're going to face a winter of illness and death...I mean, wait, winter is over. Well next winter, definitely!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:55:51 2022 No.14533083 >>14533076 >post-covid fibrosis on a CAT-scan is due to mask-wearing you sound like a fag and your shit's retarded

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:56:21 2022 No.14533085 File: 26 KB, 500x517, 1644808051184.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14533080 >Yeah, and as other people mentioned it's all lying to help you feel better. How long does immunity last again?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:56:53 2022 No.14533087

>>14533064
Comparing vaccine without infection to natural infection without vaccine. Vaccine with infection lasts longer than just not being vaccinated with infection.

All you can do is dodge, deflect, lie. You coyly drop inconvenient parts of the same data you cite. You're no better than CNN.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:58:01 2022 No.14533089 >>14533085 How many excess deaths occur in the unvaccinated again? The answer is in the data you schizopost to pretend isn't valid. How likely is it the entire world is lying, again?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 02:59:28 2022 No.14533091 File: 2.86 MB, 1200x1793, 1647395946389.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14533089 >How many excess deaths occur in the unvaccinated again? Stop dodging the question.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:00:16 2022 No.14533092

>>14533087
>Vaccine with infection lasts longer than just not being vaccinated with infection.
NEJM found that getting infected after vaccination showed less efficacy than being infected without vaccination. The only one with an ever so slight edge was vaccinating post-infection, but based on the data, it's the natural immunity doing almost all the work.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:00:32 2022 No.14533094 >>14533091 nah, it's a good question, people in this thread would be hard pressed to answer

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:02:13 2022 No.14533099 >>14533092 being infected with vaccination lessens your symptoms, their length, and your risk of hospitalization sounds like a rather good deal all in all

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:02:42 2022 No.14533100

>>14533074
>and that's how I know you're just a keyboard warrior who's never set foot in a hospital
i mean, we tried, but they didn't like it when their emptiness was recorded
https://www.hsj.co.uk/stevens-condemns-videoing-of-empty-hospitals/7029270.article

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:04:11 2022 No.14533104

>>14533099
>being infected with vaccination lessens your symptoms, their length, and your risk of hospitalization
Well I don't believe any of that's true in the age of Omicron. Regardless, your point that vaccine + infection increases immunity is unproven. Every person I know who's been infected more than once went the vaccination route. I'd rather not get COVID multiple times per year.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:04:15 2022 No.14533106

>>14533091
He's the one dodging. That's the point. He isn't asking a question he's lying by avoiding the fact more deaths occur from/with covid in the unvaccinated.

>>14533092
Oh boy more lying. Nope. Immunity is better across variants for infections after vaccinations. Lasts longer as well. Again you'll see this with national CDC data, Canada's data, UK data, on and on it goes.

I don't care if you think you have a study you can misquote. You're just lying.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:04:47 2022 No.14533108 >>14533080 >Stop lying. stop pretending you know the long term safety profile of these "vaccines", there are more significant abominations of science playing out than some people on an anime forum saying it's not very effective.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:04:54 2022 No.14533109 >>14533100 >we've tried you just sit on your stupid ass and gobble schizo blogposts doesn't sound like too much of an effort

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:05:49 2022 No.14533112 >>14533106 >You're just lying. Sure. :-) I'll take your word for everything. After all, it's not like the CDC's data has repeatedly conflicted with data from other countries. https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2118946?articleTools=true

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:05:55 2022 No.14533113 >>14533104 >I don't believe >Every person I know you weren't salvageable to begin with

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:06:06 2022 No.14533114

>>14533104
>Unproven
>Studies with millions of people
>Unproven
>"I have an anecdote"

Just admit you're lying to make yourself feel better already. It's so obvious. The hallmark of every idiotic denialism is always epistemic double standards. You deny national data and then accept anecdotes.

You basically lost.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:06:50 2022 No.14533116 >>14533106 >Immunity is better across variants for infections after vaccinations. Lasts longer as well. Kek. So we know natural immunity is good for over a year. Can you provide a source showing infection + vaccination lasts over a year?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:07:11 2022 No.14533117 >>14533108 can you suggest a pathophysiological mechansim on how an immunological response can have long-term effects ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:07:58 2022 No.14533119 >>14533113 >>14533114 Hospitalization rates in the USA and Canada are preferentially vaccinated. What's your excuse? Demographics?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:08:04 2022 No.14533120 File: 258 KB, 590x497, 1648756384702.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14533099 >being infected with vaccination lessens your symptoms, their length, and your risk of hospitalization But for how long?? >>14533114 FOR HOW LONG???

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:08:37 2022 No.14533123 >>14533099 >being infected with vaccination lessens your symptoms, their length, and your risk of hospitalization you sure? you're willing to be sued if someone ends up in hospital because of the vaccine? c'mon cowboy put your money where your mouth is

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:10:06 2022 No.14533125 >>14533106 >national CDC data this thread has nmany posts with articles saying how CDC isn't releasing any data what are the chances the other countries aren't doing the same?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:11:21 2022 No.14533129 >>14533119 >preferentially vaccinated >no data more power to you I guess >>14533120 depends on former infection and vaccines

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:11:49 2022 No.14533130 >>14533117 not him but the gene therapy integrates their science juice in your dna via reverse transcriptase, thus you get cancer another explanation, some batches have graphene oxide blades which create the microclots

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:12:22 2022 No.14533132

>>14533112
>https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2118946?articleTools=true

No dipshit, you are literally lying about your own source. You, once again, didn't read it. Literally the chart on page 9 confirms what I said. Hybrid immunity has the least infections.

Your OWN FUCKING SOURCE corroborates what I just told you. This is unbelievably stupid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:12:33 2022 No.14533134 File: 201 KB, 2048x1771, 1650500750124.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14533129 >depends on former infection and vaccines See >>14533020.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:12:51 2022 No.14533135 >>14533114 >millions of people >>14532851 >Prospective cohorts of 3,950 health care personnel you clown, go suck a nigger dick

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:13:58 2022 No.14533138 >>14533123 if you're okay to get sued by somebody who caught covid from you and ended up in the hospital then sure, I'm okay to get sued as well

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:14:11 2022 No.14533140 >>14533132 >Literally the chart on page 9 confirms what I said. Hybrid immunity has the least infections. Kek. Please post a screen shot of being vaccinated, then recovering, being superior.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:15:09 2022 No.14533141

>>14533138
>if you're okay to get sued by somebody who caught covid from you
kek, good luck proving that

>and ended up in the hospital
why would he end up in the hospital if he took a life saving safe and effective booster?

>then sure, I'm okay to get sued as well
ok post your face with timestamp and write your bank account on your post

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:15:34 2022 No.14533143

>>14533116
See retards own source: >>14533112

You morons don't even read your own publications. There are plenty of studies with millions of people in any country you could want showing the same thing.

And all of this is to avoid, deflect, from one simple fact: Unvaccinated have higher mortality. Too bad, so sad, you can't lie your way out of it.

>>14533140
PDF link was right there. I cited the page. Figure it out. Not surprised you're so illiterate with computers you can't open a PDF.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:16:22 2022 No.14533144

>>14533138
>if you're okay to get sued by somebody who caught covid from you and ended up in the hospital
I'm unvaccinated and got covid from a boosted person who came to work sick. Should I sue them? What about my dozens of other coworkers who spread it around during outbreaks?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:16:48 2022 No.14533146 >>14533120 https://lmgtfy.app/?q=How+long+does+covid+immunity+last

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:17:37 2022 No.14533150 >>14533130 that's not remotely how cancer works and develops so no >microclots wouldn't be chronic

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:18:33 2022 No.14533156 File: 96 KB, 1090x926, 1653600500027.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14533146 Website doesn't work for me because of my schizo extensions. So how long does it last?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:18:35 2022 No.14533157 >>14533150 >wouldn't be chronic you didn't ask for chronic you dirty kike >>14533117 >how an immunological response can have long-term effects

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:19:04 2022 No.14533159 >>14533130 Riddle me this: What's your risk of clots and myocarditis and other health complications... from unvaccinated covid? HMMM seems like you're ignoring half of your equation I wonder why?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:19:05 2022 No.14533160 >>14533141 good luck proving he ended up in hospital because of the vaccine :) >>14533144 sure, sue them, whatever floats your boat

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:20:21 2022 No.14533165 >>14533156 About tree fiddy. I'm not google and if you're too lazy to look up obvious things you're not worth talking to.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:20:53 2022 No.14533167 >>14533157 >acute episode >resolves >no long-term effects magic

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:21:42 2022 No.14533170 File: 125 KB, 640x633, 1643257802134.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14533165 Is that one of the things you're not allowed to talk about because it makes it obvious the vaccines are shit?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:22:24 2022 No.14533172
File: 179 KB, 886x697, For Stupid.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14533143
>PDF link was right there. I cited the page. Figure it out. Not surprised you're so illiterate with computers you can't open a PDF.
Teehee. For reference, here's what you said:

>>14533106
>Immunity is better across variants for infections after vaccinations. Lasts longer as well.

Here's what I said:
>>14533092
>NEJM found that getting infected after vaccination showed less efficacy than being infected without vaccination. The only one with an ever so slight edge was vaccinating post-infection, but based on the data, it's the natural immunity doing almost all the work.

Now check the image. Vaccination and then Recovery (what you claimed) is the worst of the three at 6-8 months.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:24:31 2022 No.14533178 >>14533170 still better than catching covid >>14533172 so what does it change exactly ? you're still getting at least one dose of vaccine..

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:24:48 2022 No.14533180 >>14533159 >What's your risk of clots and myocarditis and other health complications... from unvaccinated covid? zero since the chance of getting covid isn't 100%

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:25:33 2022 No.14533181 >>14533178 >so what does it change exactly ? you're still getting at least one dose of vaccine.. A 50% difference in protection at 6-8 months, that's what.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:26:59 2022 No.14533182 >>14533181 so vaccine are good at protecting you from covid basically ?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:27:18 2022 No.14533183
File: 341 KB, 560x796, 1648585754357.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

https://mark-skidmore.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Survey-of-Covid-Heatlh-Experiences-Working.pdf
In this paper, I present the findings from the Survey of Covid-19 Health experiences, which was
administered to 3,000 people sampled from the US adult population. The survey provides
valuable information about the perceptions and experiences of everyday people. Data on the
Covid-19 illness show that many have lost loved ones. However, the survey also demonstrates
that many people lost loved ones from the Covid-19 inoculations. Under the assumption that all
reported inoculation-related fatalities in the survey were caused by the inoculations, calculations
indicate that as many as 308,000 people may have died in the US following Covid-19
inoculation. However, not all reported inoculation-related fatalities are necessarily caused by
the inoculation. If we subtract fatalities that might have occurred regardless of inoculation,
estimated fatalities are about 260,000. Many of the descriptions such as “heart attack”, “stroke”,
or “blood clot” are consistent with FDA documentation about the potential risks of the Covid-19
inoculation. They are also consistent with the research and concerns of many scientists
>>14533178
>still better than catching covid
So you agree it's a shitty vaccine?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:28:01 2022 No.14533186 >>14533160 >good luck proving he ended up in hospital because of the vaccine :) not really that hard, just do the Anti-PF4 exam and some others

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:28:15 2022 No.14533187 >>14533182 Sure, getting vaccinated before getting infected is so effective that your protection is lower than if you were never vaccinated at all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:29:36 2022 No.14533190 >>14533183 it's an amazing vaccine mRNA technology is genius shit, we've witnessed how vaccines went from steam-engine to fusion reactor in our lifetime, it's pretty cool

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:31:11 2022 No.14533195 File: 538 KB, 860x1137, 1647235573745.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14533190 A vaccine you need a quarterly subscription for is amazing?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:31:33 2022 No.14533197 >>14533186 just like any other antibodies like anti-SSA or anti-GBM, those can be present without actual clinical relevance nice try

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:33:35 2022 No.14533199 >>14533187 and what happens when you vaccinate after getting infected ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:35:33 2022 No.14533201 File: 123 KB, 1287x868, 1654045119624.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14533199 You're still going to get clots and heart failure, but your immune system won't be fucked forever.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:37:42 2022 No.14533203

>>14533172
Imagine being this dishonest.

You did not screenshot page 9, because page 9 includes all the data for the total rate. Hybrid cases have the least number of infections.

I know why you are scared to show page 9, because you'd rather lie by citing the wrong data instead of quoting the study in context.

Figure 3, page 9, "recovered, unvaccinated cohort, 0.5 in the recovFigure 3. Estimated Covariate-Adjusted Rates of Confirmed Infections per 100,000 Person-Days at Risk."

Hybrid has the fewest infections after all the analysis.

Imagine being so desperate you can't go one page down. You're such a coward.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:39:37 2022 No.14533210

>>14533201
>things you'd get with an infinitely higher probability with a covid infection
so basically, if we boil it down, vaccinating yourself to get a lesser infection, then vaccinating yourself again afterwards would be the best way to protect yourself and others from covid

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:40:33 2022 No.14533211 >>14533172 What's going on in the two dose cohort?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:40:48 2022 No.14533212 >>14533203 holy shit for real ? hahahaha I couldn't be bothered to look those stats up, but what a fucking loser

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:42:08 2022 No.14533214
File: 46 KB, 462x587, Retard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14533172
Here ya go dipshit from your own source. It's almost like data can't just be looked at without analysis because doing so results in incorrect conclusions.

Things you'd know if you had a basic high school education.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:43:11 2022 No.14533216 >>14533212 Yes, he actually did try to lie that blatantly. Dishonestly citing only the first half of the study without the second half. Like always. All these idiots can do is lie. >>14533214

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:43:17 2022 No.14533217 >>14533178 >so what does it change exactly ? It means vaccine induced aids

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:43:40 2022 No.14533218 >>14533214 what a fucking bitch I swear he even cropped out of this screenshot.. >>14533064 good catch dude

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:43:50 2022 No.14533219 File: 118 KB, 1920x1080, 1648790694532.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14533210 Yes, do it faggot.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:45:22 2022 No.14533223 >>14533197 I wonder how all those myocarditis cases were attributed to the clotshot then since you're claiming it's impossible to prove it had anything to do with the shot

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:45:32 2022 No.14533224

>>14533211
The same thing that has been explained 20 times already.

The more people are vaccinated the higher the rate of vaccinated infected will be. That is why you cannot just look at rates like that. Well, if you're honest anyway. Which these people are not.

If you follow back to the link the article in question discusses this. All of them do. It's braindead obvious basic statistics about epidemiology. All these retards know is "hurrr number bigger".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:46:02 2022 No.14533228 >>14533216 also, if you look at the three-dose cohort, it looks super similar to hybrid/recovered immunity I guess there are some studies that show it's on par with those ? >>14533217 that doesn't exist anon, it's like santa claus

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:46:58 2022 No.14533229 File: 374 KB, 589x642, 1654046639916.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:47:42 2022 No.14533230 >>14533212 >>14533216 >>14533203 We actually have a schizophrenic glowie...

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:47:52 2022 No.14533231

>>14533223

Sing it with me children, "correlation is not causation". All studies on the fraction of a fraction of a % of associated myocarditis, ASSOCIATED, are correlational. Not causal. There remains, to date, no causation evidenced. All studies alleging correlation, to date, report correlations well within the rate of false negative testing and other reporting mistakes.

So what's more likely? Missing a covid infection or a vaccine nobody can establish a causal test for causing a 0.001% increase in myocarditis... something covid causes too? HMMM...

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:48:19 2022 No.14533233 >>14533223 If you really wonder, then look it up and share it with us :)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:49:07 2022 No.14533234 File: 110 KB, 1024x834, 1654049028641.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Not eve the Jew recommends vaccines any more.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:49:26 2022 No.14533235 >>14533230 you're just mad you're not making six figures shitposting with paranoid autists

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:49:49 2022 No.14533238 >>14533218 You do know we can see the IPs count right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:50:24 2022 No.14533240 File: 186 KB, 1178x1226, 1654050082734.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Oh shi-

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:50:56 2022 No.14533242 >>14533224 >The more people are vaccinated the higher the rate of vaccinated infected will be Does that excuse still fly after the mortality rates are still higher than before 2020?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:51:17 2022 No.14533244 >>14533238 Oh how interesting. So, your side is caught out in a lie and your response is... "He's samefagging!" Deflection, lies, dodging, all you can do. Pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:51:29 2022 No.14533245 >>14533238 yeah ? so what does it say ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:52:19 2022 No.14533247 File: 39 KB, 437x437, 1630532506516.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] posting in epic thread

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:52:23 2022 No.14533248

>>14533228
>that doesn't exist
No refunds
https://cyprus-mail.com/2022/03/28/hiv-drugs-may-lower-covid-risk-covid-and-flu-co-infection-raises-risk-of-severe-illness-death/
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/hiv-drugs-may-lower-covid-risk-covid-flu-co-infection-raises-risk-severe-illness-2022-03-28/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:53:25 2022 No.14533249 >>14533231 >"correlation is not causation" Except for vaccine efficacy apparently, then yeah it's causation

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:53:37 2022 No.14533250

>>14533203
Why do you keep lumping hybrid together, as though there aren't two distinct hybrid groups? And you have the nerve of accusing others of lying. Not to mention, your charts on page 9 are visual representations of the numbers I posted. But better to be a lying piece of shit, right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:53:41 2022 No.14533251 File: 421 KB, 685x761, 1654038600027.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] How could this happen?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:53:56 2022 No.14533252

>>14533242
The fuck are you on about? Mortality every single year has been lower in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated. All you morons have to say about that is to deny all the evidence and lie about the evidence you cite.

Basically, you're flat earthers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:54:27 2022 No.14533254 >>14533231 >All studies on the fraction of a fraction of a % of associated myocarditis 1 in every a few thousands is too little for you? That was enough to remove pandemrix from the market

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:55:36 2022 No.14533257 >>14533247 can't think of a shittier thread in my whole entire life and I've seen a few >>14533248 your article just says that protease inhibitors are good at preventing covid dude nothing to with aids but you tried

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:56:03 2022 No.14533259

>>14533231
>All studies alleging correlation, to date, report correlations well within the rate of false negative testing and other reporting mistakes
>so uh yeah that pain you felt in your chest, your tiredness and trouble with breathing are just... false positive, you have nothing little guy, go home and play
>*drops dead a week later from heart failure*
>another covid death i guess

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:57:05 2022 No.14533261 >>14533245 >>14533244 It says you're samefagging

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:58:27 2022 No.14533263 >>14533252 >The fuck are you on about? Mortality every single year has been lower in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated Sorry buddy, that excuse doesn't work when 80% of the population is vaxxed

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:58:43 2022 No.14533264

>>14533249
Ecological correlations are not the same as randomized controlled trials, retard.

>>14533250
The chart on page 9 is a more advanced analysis than raw rate differences, which you'd know if you read your own source.

Give it a rest liar. You trimmed off hybrid cases in your first image and kept trying to avoid posting page 9 because you knew you'd have some explaining to do, which you can't do.

Pathetic children.

>>14533261
The fucking desperation. Go ahead bud show it. Unless he hacked my wifi in the same house and is living in my attic, no, he isn't me. But if you can prove he IS in my attic I'd like to know.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:59:06 2022 No.14533265
File: 207 KB, 462x587, For the Retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14533214
Why...why the fuck are you posting a bar chart of the numbers I just provided? Look at the 6-8 month numbers.

Unvaccinated - 14 per 100k
Recovered, one dose - 11.6 per 100k
One dose, recovered - 16.2 per 100k

BTW, I hope you looked at your image carefully to see that they fucked with the times. Each bar in each chart does not cover the same amount of time. Unvaccinated spans to over 12 months, hybrid and vaccinated immunity stop at 8 months and they front load the short bars with times of o to 2 months, and 2 to 4 months. It's purposeful deception on their part. I've circled the bars that are actually comparable.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:59:22 2022 No.14533266

>>14533254
>Two large European pharmacoepidemiological studies have estimated the excess risk in younger males following the second dose of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. One study showed that in a period of 7 days after the second dose there were about 0.265 (95% CI 0.255 - 0.275) extra cases of myocarditis in 12-29 year old males per 10,000 compared to unexposed persons. In another study, in a period of 28 days after the second dose there were 0.57 [95% CI 0.39 – 0.75] extra cases of myocarditis in 16-24 year old males per 10,000 compared to unexposed persons.

between 20% and 50% increase
sounds like a nothingburger

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:59:36 2022 No.14533267 >>14533257 >your article just says that protease inhibitors are good at preventing covid Yeah, they just happen to be the same used for HIV and at a most auspicious time when reports of vaids are coming out

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 03:59:47 2022 No.14533269 File: 2.51 MB, 640x480, 1654050609023.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14533264

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:00:12 2022 No.14533270

>>14533264
>Give it a rest liar. You trimmed off hybrid cases in your first image and kept trying to avoid posting page 9 because you knew you'd have some explaining to do, which you can't do.
I just wanted you to know that you're a piece of shit. :-) Here's your image again, with the relevant information circled. You're either a liar or stupid, I'm embarrassed for you either way.

>>14533265

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:00:55 2022 No.14533272

>>14533265
Oh look yet another completely different claim. Boy I sure do like goalpost hopping. BTW I hope you read the fucking study and noticed the ERROR BARS where they're about equal in the same margin of error.

Averaging margin of error does not magically make the averaged margin "the right value". The stupidity is hysterical.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:02:09 2022 No.14533275 >>14533240 Gee, you mean data from last year isn't relevant now, and shit has reversed? Shocker.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:02:11 2022 No.14533276 >>14533270 >Durrrr I'm going to keep misrepresenting the image as something it isn't and pretend I didn't lie by omitting page 9's hybrid infections from the outset Nice try, anyone can go look at the first image and see you did it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:02:16 2022 No.14533277 File: 2.81 MB, 298x480, 1654055707417.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:04:00 2022 No.14533280

>>14533261
oshit nigga you got us good ngl
>>14533264
that'd be pretty creepy from me
but you do sound like a cool dude, I would have gladly drank a beer with you after that little internet curfuffle
>>14533265
Unvaccinated and one dose recovered are basically the same
Looks like the vaccine is a good option after all

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:05:16 2022 No.14533283

>>14533272
>Boy I sure do like goalpost hopping.
Please explain where you think I moved the goal posts.

>I hope you read the fucking study and noticed the ERROR BARS
Sure, they're very visible in the image I already provided >>14533172

Unvaccinated - 13.3-14.8
Recovered, one dose - 10.0-13.5
One dose, recovered - 14.0-18.5

Next?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:05:18 2022 No.14533284 >>14533267 damn, how amazing anyway >>14533270 he got you good you mean, don't get mad, he's just better than you

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:05:45 2022 No.14533286 >>14533264 >Ecological correlations are not the same as randomized controlled trials correlations because... they just aren't goy

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:06:46 2022 No.14533289 >>14533286 >I've never read a single methodology textbook in my life

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:08:13 2022 No.14533292 >>14533266 >between 20% and 50% increase >sounds like a nothingburger >>14533269

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:08:16 2022 No.14533293

>>14533280
>Unvaccinated and one dose recovered are basically the same
There's a 10-20% difference. You're going to risk the adverse events of the vaccine, only to get infected anyway, only to not get equivalent long term immunity? What sense does that make?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:10:40 2022 No.14533297 >>14533293 There's a 10-20% difference. You're going to risk the adverse effects of covid-19, only to get reinfected anyway, only to rationalize your fear of needles? What sense does that make?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:11:29 2022 No.14533298 >>14533283 As already pointed out, the recovered cohorts are just as good as the recovered unvaccinated. you tried to lie about this. Next?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:12:13 2022 No.14533299 >>14533298 nah dude, there's a 10% difference, like, get real

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:12:49 2022 No.14533300

>>14533297
>Get vaccinated, get COVID-19, have 20% less protection at 6-8 months
>Get COVID-19, have 20% more protection at 6-8 months
To me it seems like the person who risk vaccination, then risks COVID-19, and then has shorter protection, is taking the bigger risk. And if your hope is that the vaccine will make your illness less severe, the data for that no longer agrees with you. >>14533240

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:13:02 2022 No.14533302 >>14533289 >words on books are the truth because... they just are you silly goy

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:14:04 2022 No.14533305 >>14533297 >the adverse effects of covid-19 Those only exist in the imagination of journalists

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:14:35 2022 No.14533307

>>14533298
>the recovered cohorts are just as good as the recovered unvaccinated
Except they're not. One is, one is not, but if you actually kept up with the argument, the other anon was arguing for getting vaccinated before getting COVID-19. That doesn't work as well. It seems like a great way to get myocarditis, though.

Unvaccinated - 13.3-14.8
Recovered, one dose - 10.0-13.5
One dose, recovered - 14.0-18.5

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:17:58 2022 No.14533316

>>14533307
Continuing to show you don't know what margins of error are for. Let's quote the paper itself shall we?

>In the subcohorts of the recovered, unvaccinated cohort, the adjusted rates of confirmed infection were similar to those of the recovered, one-dose and one-dose, recovered subcohorts when the time elapsed since the last immunity conferring event (either infection or vaccination) was the same (Fig. 3)

It's almost like you don't know what margins of error are for, and stupidly think this shows a meaningful difference. It doesn't. The margins of error are due to differences in sample size and accuracy, other factors mentioned in the paper. There is not an appreciable difference.

...Which you'd know if you'd read your own sources. Which you don't.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:18:00 2022 No.14533317

>>14533298
>you tried to lie about this.
Also, since you're a lying piece of shit (as we've established), I said LOOOOONG ago that the recovered and then vaccinated fared best, but you just jumped into the middle of something you had no clue about, right? But I realize differentiating between two different groups is very difficult.

>>14533092
>NEJM found that getting infected after vaccination showed less efficacy than being infected without vaccination. The only one with an ever so slight edge was vaccinating post-infection

Where in that post, which was before you stepped your stupid ass into the conversation, is incorrect?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:18:04 2022 No.14533318 >>14533300 vaccination still prevents severe covid, hospitalisation and death so yeah, it's a safer bet >>14533307 covid is an even greater way you know https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:20:15 2022 No.14533324

>>14533317
>But I realize differentiating between two different groups is very difficult.

Except there isn't a meaningful difference attributable to the vaccine itself. As stated. In your own paper. What you think this paper does is literally what the scientists say it can't do in the discussion portion.

>We did not have enough data to evaluate the level of protection as a function of time between infection and vaccination, while taking the waning effect into account

Whoopsie you're retarded.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:21:26 2022 No.14533326

>>14533316
From Figure 2, which is here >>14533172.
>The rate was adjusted for age, sex, population sector, calendar week, and risk of exposure.

Why are you having such a hard time wrapping your head around the fact that Figure 3 is a bar graph representation of the data in Figure 2?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:22:15 2022 No.14533330

>>14533326
Why are you having such a hard time wrapping your head around the fact it doesn't show what you think it shows?

>We did not have enough data to evaluate the level of protection as a function of time between infection and vaccination, while taking the waning effect into account.

Maybe reading your cited sources would help? Maybe think of doing that next time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:22:33 2022 No.14533331 >>14533318 >Posts data from Sept 2021 >Ignores data from March-April 2022

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:22:51 2022 No.14533332 >>14533318 >vaccination still prevents severe covid, hospitalisation and death 99.99% of people will never experience any of these anyway so I have trouble believing it isn't just snake oil

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:23:57 2022 No.14533335 >>14533331 getting covid is at greater risk of giving you myocarditis whether you caught one year ago or last month

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:24:17 2022 No.14533336

>>14533330
So your whole argument boils down to they didn't have enough data to form a solid conclusion. Yet you're willing to say they proved they're equivalent? The fuck kind of logic is that? You can't use data to prove your point, and then say the data is actually invalid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:25:19 2022 No.14533337 >>14533335 Oh really? So odds of pneumonia and death are exactly the same as a year ago? Variants don't change anything? Okay.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:25:48 2022 No.14533338

>>14533336
Nope. My whole argument is what you think it shows isn't what it shows, and what it shows is there's functionally better protection with the vaccine from waning protection.

You just keep splitting two irrelevant data points because you think it helps your case. It does not. When combined, which it should be because the study cannot determine timing effects, it's better than the unvaccinated cohort.

Your own study contradicted you. Cry about it.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:28:17 2022 No.14533344

>>14533338
>and what it shows is there's functionally better protection with the vaccine from waning protection.
Too bad their data didn't show that. You can't make it say what you want it to say. They included error bars, you know what those are, right? Based on their estimates, protection from infection alone is higher than from vaccination followed by recovery. That's what they show. If you disagree, then fine, but don't pretend they're showing something else.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:30:42 2022 No.14533349 >>14533332 so far 1 million americans thought like you, and they're dead and buried that's not counting those who survived with long-lasting effects >>14533337 can you read dipshit ? >GREATER RISK goddamn

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:31:10 2022 No.14533350 >>14533240 I find it hilarious this is getting no responses. The whole argument for vaccination has boiled down to protection against risk of hospitalization and death. Yet we're seeing the opposite, vaccination increases risk.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:31:56 2022 No.14533351 >>14533350 that's not what your graph says in the slightest :)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:32:11 2022 No.14533352 >>14533349 And what is the risk today of myocarditis if someone gets infected? Because it's certainly lower with Omicron than with previous variants.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:33:25 2022 No.14533354 >>14533351 What's your alternative hypothesis? I hope you aren't going to tell me that the vaccines only protect the people who are already young and healthy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:36:01 2022 No.14533357 >>14533352 certainly lower still orders of magnitude higher than the vaccine now what bitch

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:36:21 2022 No.14533358

>>14533344
>Too bad their data didn't show that. You can't make it say what you want it to say. They included error bars, you know what those are, right? Based on their estimates, protection from infection alone is higher than from vaccination followed by recovery. That's what they show. If you disagree, then fine, but don't pretend they're showing something else.

Remember this?

>We did not have enough data to evaluate the level of protection as a function of time between infection and vaccination, while taking the waning effect into account.

Remember how, when they drop the subcohort categories, vaccinated and infected performs better and you were upset about that?

Well, the study could not evaluate level of protection as function of time. Obviously, then, making conclusions like you're trying to do based on the order of vaccination versus infection is not supported by the study itself. Because the study could not evaluate timing effects. By its own admission.

You're trying to split hairs because "number agrees with me!" while ignoring what the study says about that number. Children throwing tantrums.

You're just desperate and ignoring your own study to cherrypick numbers from it, and numbers that don't mean what you want them to mean.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:40:32 2022 No.14533366 >>14533357 >still orders of magnitude higher than the vaccine Yet rates of myocarditis are higher in vaccinated children. Strange.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:41:57 2022 No.14533368

>>14533358
>Because the study could not evaluate timing effects. By its own admission.
If that's the route you're taking, then you can't take any of the data is valid, yet you're trying to claim they compared equally. Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:42:22 2022 No.14533370 >>14533366 ...Rates of myocarditis are highest in infected children. So no, no not really. Rates of false negatives on testing are also highest in children. It's only strange you're this stupid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:42:56 2022 No.14533371 >>14533366 yeah it's almost like there's a simple epidemiological explanation crazy huh

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:43:21 2022 No.14533372 >>14533358 Kek. Here's how this has gone >The vaccinated and then infected do better >See, they do better! >No, you can't read it like that, look at the error bars! >Actually, they aren't measuring time at all, but hybrid is still better! Yeesh.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:44:13 2022 No.14533374 >>14533368 showed not significant inferiority or superiority =/= compared equally basic stats my dude

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:44:22 2022 No.14533375 >>14533370 >...Rates of myocarditis are highest in infected children. The fuck? The vaccinated have a higher risk of myocarditis than the controls, who presumably are being exposed to covid.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:44:24 2022 No.14533376

>>14533368
Um, no. What the study shows contradicts you. What you WANT it to show, the authors explicitly state it cannot show.

That's all I need to do. Reveal your lies for what they were. There's a reason you trimmed the image in the first place: >>14533064

So do you think you're fooling anyone?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:45:25 2022 No.14533379 >>14533372 Why, yes, you people do make a lot of stupid mistakes and don't read your own sources. It is a pretty big yikes on your part.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:45:32 2022 No.14533380 >>14533371 >it's almost like there's a simple epidemiological explanation What's that? That the vaccines provide no protection at all and increase risk of myocarditis on their own? I agree.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:45:44 2022 No.14533381 >>14533375 controls = asymptomatic unvaccinated

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:46:32 2022 No.14533382

>>14533374
There were three separate groups Either you dismiss all of the data, or accept that. You can't ignore the finding you dislike and then claim the data is valid to compare. :-)

Unvaccinated - 13.3-14.8 - BETTER
Recovered, one dose - 10.0-13.5 - BEST
One dose, recovered - 14.0-18.5 - WORST

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:47:05 2022 No.14533386 >>14533380 >blahblahblah I suck horse penis for breakfast what this >>14533370 dude said, plus an additional cofounding factor he didn't mention, but nobody gives a shit cause that stuff obviously goes way above your head

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:47:35 2022 No.14533387 >>14533381 Yup, and no myocarditis. Therefore SARS-CoV-2 isn't a significant myocarditis risk for children, but the vaccines are. Thanks for playing.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:48:06 2022 No.14533390
File: 2.04 MB, 500x267, 8rcxw7f.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14533382
The ordering of vaccine first or infected first would be subject to timing effects the study explicitly states it cannot account for.

You're butthurt the total figure contradicts you and continue to lie by posting a split figure. I mean, you can try, but everyone can see how dishonest that is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:48:42 2022 No.14533393 >>14533390 :-) Unvaccinated - 13.3-14.8 - BETTER Recovered, one dose - 10.0-13.5 - BEST One dose, recovered - 14.0-18.5 - WORST

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:48:53 2022 No.14533394 >>14533387 >get infected with covid >tenfold increase compared to vaccinated it's really that simple you know

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:50:15 2022 No.14533399 >>14533394 It's not, because that's wrong. Myocarditis rates are higher in vaccinated children.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:50:23 2022 No.14533401 >>14533393 Thanks for conceding. All you have left is repeating what was already corrected. So sad, play again later.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:51:19 2022 No.14533404 >>14533393 so you're taking a covid vaccine after you get infected and recover from covid ? :)

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:51:30 2022 No.14533405

>>14533399
Oh this I gotta see. What the fuck do you think you read where myocarditis rates aren't highest in infected children?

Or are you still dishonestly comparing the high likelihood of false-negative covid tested vaccinated children to the control group that may or may not have covid at all?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:51:36 2022 No.14533406 >>14533401 I'm just posting from the study. You can't pick and choose the portions you like. Unvaccinated - 13.3-14.8 - BETTER Recovered, one dose - 10.0-13.5 - BEST One dose, recovered - 14.0-18.5 - WORST

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:52:31 2022 No.14533410 >>14533406 That is exactly what you're doing. You're listing subcohorts subject to timing effects and complaining the total figure disagrees with you, because the total figure is better than unvaccinated.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:52:37 2022 No.14533412 >>14533404 >so you're taking a covid vaccine after you get infected and recover from covid ? :) Nope, because I'm not at risk of getting COVID-19 again, so why would I risk myocarditis from the vaccine?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:53:19 2022 No.14533417 >>14533399 oh shit nigga why you lyin https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/06-COVID-Rosenblum-508.pdf

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:54:20 2022 No.14533421 >>14533412 you are, since your immunity won't last as long as with the vaccine..

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:55:44 2022 No.14533425 >>14533410 I'm just listing the data. :-) Unvaccinated - 13.3-14.8 - BETTER Recovered, one dose - 10.0-13.5 - BEST One dose, recovered - 14.0-18.5 - WORST

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:56:35 2022 No.14533427 >>14533425 >>14533425 your data is in favour of the vaccine, so hey, more power to you I guess

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:56:55 2022 No.14533429 >>14533421 I have over a year, I feel safe. We don't know how long hybrid immunity might last, only that it may be marginally better at 6-8 months with a risk of myocarditis.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 04:58:41 2022 No.14533437

>>14533429
you have a higher risk of getting myocarditis from covid than from the vaccine
we've been over this already
since you are claiming to act in a rational risk-averse manner
then you're saying the vaccine is the safest option instead of catching covid again, logically

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:01:02 2022 No.14533442

>>14533437
>you have a higher risk of getting myocarditis from covid than from the vaccine
I already had COVID, no myocarditis or any other issues, so that point is moot. Why would I risk an issue with the vaccine when I had no issue with the virus and have immunity?

>then you're saying the vaccine is the safest option instead of catching covid again, logically
1. I have almost no risk of catching it again for another year. 2. My immunity can obviously handle it just fine. 3. My immunity won't help me if the LNP's go to my heart.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:08:00 2022 No.14533464

>>14533442
but your natural immunity wanes faster than your immunity with the vaccine as shown by your article
and no immunity means a greater likelyhood of myocarditis from covid infection
since you claim to act with safety and health in mind
then the vaccine is the best option, since its likelyhood of myocarditis is lower than that of covid
We're agreeing on all of those elements right ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:09:25 2022 No.14533469 >>14533464 >and no immunity means a greater likelyhood of myocarditis from covid infection No immunity? How did I clear the virus in only a couple of days? Magic?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:10:22 2022 No.14533471 >>14533469 >your natural immunity wanes faster than your immunity with the vaccine as shown by your article your immunity won't last

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:14:57 2022 No.14533480

>>14533471
So you're contending it was magic? Because I would have thought it was my T cells, IgM antibodies, and neutrophils, and interferon. They allowed me to clear the virus long before my adaptive immune system could have kicked in. So I'll have plenty of protection next time as well.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:16:48 2022 No.14533486 >>14533480 you'll have more time if you get vaccinated as shown on the graph you posted >>14533265 you can obivously see immunity doesn't last forever, and getting a vaccine is the safest option for a longer immunity

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:19:28 2022 No.14533492 >>14533486 Can you show me how much protection I'll have in 12 months?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:19:44 2022 No.14533493 >>14533240 lmao at that glownigger failing to respond to this shift is finally over I guess

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:21:48 2022 No.14533498 >>14533492 if we compare the two linear graph progressions, then in the low 20s

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:22:49 2022 No.14533504 >>14533493 nah, I'm still here, just can't be bothered :)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:23:58 2022 No.14533508 >>14533244 >>14533318 >>14533486 thoughts on this? >>14533240

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:25:05 2022 No.14533511 >>14533504 >nah I just can't be bothered to acknowledge data that contradicts my arguments oh

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:26:16 2022 No.14533515 >>14533498 That's not very good, think I'll just rely on my innate immunity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:28:03 2022 No.14533523 >>14533515 but your innate immunity will be worse according to the graphs at around 30 instead aren't you contradicting yourself by choosing a more dangerous health option ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:29:22 2022 No.14533526 >>14533523 >but your innate immunity will be worse according to the graphs You don't know the difference between innate and adaptive immunity it seems.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:31:58 2022 No.14533533 >>14533526 I know it very well Want to talk about diapedesis of neutrophiles in viral infections ? I studied that shit as part of my master's degree :)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:34:16 2022 No.14533538 >>14533533 Interesting, where did you go to school that they taught you that you have "no immunity" after a certain amount of time?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:36:46 2022 No.14533544 File: 118 KB, 1080x1080, 1653752005807.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] viruses don't exist

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:38:36 2022 No.14533551

>>14533538
the school that also taught me your immunity against infections is overwhelmingly dependent on your adaptive immune system, and its response wanes over time as shown in your graph >>14533265
but it seems to wane more slowly when you take the vaccine, as seen on the hybird cohort
we can both agree on that right anon ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:42:07 2022 No.14533564 >>14533551 So you never learned about killer t cells? Nothing about memory b cells? That's a shame.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 05:43:56 2022 No.14533572 >>14533564 memory b cells are adaptative you know why can't you adress my point about waning covid immunity ? is something bothering you ?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 06:20:45 2022 No.14533632

>>14533572
>memory b cells are adaptative you know
Yes, and they're why my immune system will quickly pump out antibodies if I ever encounter the virus again. So can you explain why I should intentionally spike my antibodies for no reason? Especially in light of the fact that my innate immune system eliminated the virus the first time?

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 07:20:11 2022 No.14533688

>>14533632
look at this graph again
>>14533265
it shows that your immunity will end up disappearing from infection alone
so your body won't be able to fight the virus again, and you'll get reinfected with covid
a simple way to prevent this, and have a longer lasting immunity is to take the vaccine following an infection
do we agree that's what the graphs say ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 07:20:50 2022 No.14533691 File: 37 KB, 1205x519, yawn.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14533240 >>14533508 Lying. Same as always. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 07:24:08 2022 No.14533694

>>14533533
HA, boy, you must be having fun watching these morons fall all over themselves unwilling or unable to even read their own sources.

I fuckin lost it, and had to share with another colleague, when the retard kept quoting subdivisions of that study that would require timing sequencing to determine causation... in a study explicitly saying it can't do that.

Very odd for it to be published with that subdivision, though, when it's pointless to do so. Professionally speaking I wonder if they tried, for some reason found out they couldn't publish with reasonable error margins in the analysis, and just gave up. Sadly career moves like that just provide fuel for ignorant jackasses like you see here, though.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 07:27:48 2022 No.14533698

>>14533694
I'm still a medschool student, I'm very familiar with everything that was discussed but still lack some in-depth knowledge about the finer details
I re-read the whole damn thing, and it was a massive bitch-slapping nonetheless, I hope some other science-minded anons will enjoy the read somewhat

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 07:33:51 2022 No.14533707

>>14533698
It's often simply a challenge to deal with the dishonesty. Confounds are okay as long as it supports what they believe, but they invent shit not in studies contradicting them. Or just outright invent caveats literally controlled in the studies linked.

In a way, it is an interesting exercise, because it helps you realize just how little the below-average person or average person knows about statistics or science. They just see numbers, bar graphs, or error margin averages, and make giant assumptions about the conclusions.

If you're going to be dealing with patients, get ready to deal with a lot of antivaxxers exactly like these. People who think they understand publications or statistics, but who can't or won't do basic math. That's the worst part. You just have to let the morons stick their fingers in the light socket and show up later to die or be horribly maimed.

> I'm still a medschool student, I'm very familiar with everything that was discussed but still lack some in-depth knowledge about the finer details

Anything in particular? Sometimes I have a hard time figuring out what is or isn't "finer details" to people. Like when I fucked up earlier by not realizing the anon I was replying to wouldn't have the self initiative to just... add 33 cases to the average. That'd get him an "F" so fuckin fast lol but still was my fault.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 07:53:29 2022 No.14533732

>>14533707
one recurring theme you can read when you skim through some science pages with people who deal with debunking disinfo, is the sheer amount of effort it takes to just analyze and properly assess a single document, let alone a wall of non sequitur cherry-picked studies
I manage ok, but I can only imagine the pain of somebody that's decently smart, but not equipped with the right scientific and methodological tools to tackle that shit up front

>anything in particular ?
haha, it's mostly regarding the precise stats and some of the mechanisms in covid infection, transmission etc
regarding epidemiological studies and methodology, I guess I still struggle with things like sample bias, or internal validity, but that's mostly on an academic level, it would have been way overkill in this thread

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 08:27:19 2022 No.14533798

>>14533732
>one recurring theme you can read when you skim through some science pages with people who deal with debunking disinfo, is the sheer amount of effort it takes to just analyze and properly assess a single document, let alone a wall of non sequitur cherry-picked studies

If it's a wholly new domain there's a lot of "guide dang it" trying to figure out what the implications of otherwise common words are. That's the real big issue with reading papers. Most people just don't do it with the awareness that each field, even subfields, are using words in very particular ways. Kind of impossible to get people with ideological axes to grind to stop and think about that though.

>I manage ok, but I can only imagine the pain of somebody that's decently smart, but not equipped with the right scientific and methodological tools to tackle that shit up front

I think one can tell, as in those cases the person tends to be genuinely curious. Something you didn't see at all in this thread.

>regarding epidemiological studies and methodology, I guess I still struggle with things like sample bias, or internal validity, but that's mostly on an academic level, it would have been way overkill in this thread

Aaah I see. Well you know I kind of deal with that by example. I am only addressing what the person raises, pointing out particular facets often discussed in the paper itself. Such as the authors in the recent example outright stating they cannot do a time-series analysis (...So why did they post subdomains that would require a time series to validate? Still not sure on that one).

You're right, though, and it's the same problem bringing up "Those words don't mean what you think they mean". The people involved have no interest in the actual truth, so trying to encourage them to commit to real questions at an academic level is hopeless. Let alone question their completely wrong assumptions about seemingly simple words.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 08:43:40 2022 No.14533834

>>14533798
In a way it's an interesting exercise, really forces you to grasp things quickly, synthesize the main points and choose your words super carefully, so that you're not leaving any room for errors or misinterprations that can later be used to muddy the waters
I can really understand why it also wears people's patience thin however, and that at some point it's just not worth engaging, because the time and energy invested are definitely not worth it in the end
still, I had fun ^^

I was actually pleasantly surprised by myself when >>14532294 this graph turned up, because even though it might have been bullshit, I decided to look into it deeper, and then understood what was at play
People aged below 30 were the most unvaccinated group, and obviously the ones with the least risk of covid complications. So it followed super simply that if you were to adjust for age, you'd quickly realize that unvaccinated are still way more at risk, but by clumping every single age groupe together, you can distort that trend
And obviously, people who are triple vaccinated are the ones who are likely the most at risk (age, chronic conditon, etc), so the ones who are most likely to die, along with being the most numerous group
I was quite satisfied with having been able to come up with it on my own haha

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 08:58:27 2022 No.14533855

>>14533834
That process is just about how to do it every time someone misuses data. Ask that question: Is it like-for-like? If not, why not? Which is basically what you did there, just summarized into a question.

In almost every case where the data is just "off" you see the same thing, in just about every field. People deliberately constraining time to cherrypick a favorable interpretation, like the guy lying with cherrypicked Canadian data. Or, in your case, not doing relevant controls for things like age.

Naturally what you may need to control can dramatically increase in difficulty when things just aren't making sense. To where you'd need to even investigate confounds far-afield. Luckily in these cases most epidemiological inconsistencies are as simple as "You literally did not control for age" or cherrypicking time series to hide all the risk the unvaccinated had.

As you saw, of course, that is why they dismiss "old data" then cite earlier 2021 data. Like, really? I saw you caught that one too lol. Good skills to have professionally... but be careful who you call out and how you do it. Sadly some scientists can be just as dishonest, or just as stupid.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 09:05:56 2022 No.14533861

>>14533855
thanks for all the good rethoric you put out also
I'm not too sure what field you're in, but I certainly hope to meet some cool knowledgeable dudes like you in the future
come by /med/-general some day, I usually hang around there haha
guess we can let this distorted abortion of a thread finally die out, feels like a deserted war-field at this point

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 09:07:17 2022 No.14533862 >>14533861 Ah yeah I probably should visit some of the other places. Just don't have the time. This was sort of "Oh yeah that place" after 15 years, and being in a spot of boredom. See you around maybe. Hopefully on good terms.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 09:25:35 2022 No.14533887 >>14533349 >so far 1 million americans thought like you 1 million Americans die every year of many things including medical malpractice, but specially because most are overweight

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 09:29:17 2022 No.14533892

>>14533370
>..Rates of myocarditis are highest in infected children. So no, no not really. Rates of false negatives on testing are also highest in children.
Why did it take the entire 2020 and half of 2021 for myocarditis to start becoming noticle in children, sometimes very recently (1 to 7 days) after a vaccination?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 09:31:10 2022 No.14533897 >>14533376 Not him but you realize the authors can conclude something the data doesn't support, right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JpWlkqUWwQ You're not illiterate in science to have to depend on the conclusion, right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 09:34:17 2022 No.14533901 >>14533404 You probably didn't realize it but if you're from the second group you also become the third group after another infection (since after the first recovery you get infected again and thus experience the worse outcomes)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 09:35:34 2022 No.14533905 >>14533417 >cdc

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 09:38:31 2022 No.14533911 >>14533533 You didn't study shit, you're reading from the sheet your superiors gave you

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 09:39:50 2022 No.14533914

>>14533551
>the school that also taught me your immunity against infections is overwhelmingly dependent on your adaptive immune system
Maybe if you lived in a sterile environment all your life but specially the first years, and you took all the poison experts recommend (formula, vaccines, vitamin k, clamping, etc)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 09:41:15 2022 No.14533916 >>14533688 >your body death with the chink flu in 5 seconds the first time but for some reason it won't be able to deal with it the second time

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 09:43:46 2022 No.14533919

>>14533691
>Lying. Same as always
You think we're retarded discord tranny? We can read, your graph is showing the distribution of the percentage of cases, this is the same thing you accused people of doing (showing only the absolute numbers but not adjusting for the population rates)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 09:47:12 2022 No.14533923 >>14533861 >>14533862 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia You know we can read the whole thread right? Everything you said was bullshit

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 13:36:17 2022 No.14534190
File: 106 KB, 1080x499, Screenshot_20220601_153309.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What about picrel?
Source: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/Wochenbericht/Wochenbericht_2022-03-10.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 13:44:54 2022 No.14534206
File: 102 KB, 1028x455, Screenshot_20220601_154246.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

A month later... Then they stopped reporting thise numbers in their reports.
https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/Wochenbericht/Wochenbericht_2022-04-28.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 17:51:13 2022 No.14534724 Was this the thread with the most replies in sci's history?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 18:16:27 2022 No.14534840 >>14534724 Just hitting the bump limit on /sci/ is rare enough, but this thread has more than twice the posts of that. So probably.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 18:30:23 2022 No.14534897
File: 23 KB, 400x400, Med Pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14534840
Wow. Impressed at the amount of replies. This has to be a recent record for sci. Well, you can thank poltards for bringing in some ammo in the form of scientific papers and sources. Sci did good too.. just use less ad hominems when arguing with people. Pol needs to do that to lol.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 18:39:05 2022 No.14534926

>>14534897
I guess.
Later on I got the impression the apparent glowniggers were just anons about technicalities or playing devil's advocate. I too defend positions when they are being attacked by arguments of no substance even though I don't agree or support the thing I defend. Just to keep it intellectually honest. Real shills don't usually argue on such a sophisticated level as seen ITT, so unless they are recruiting actually smart people they probably weren't that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 19:27:14 2022 No.14535117 >>14534926 >Real shills don't usually argue on such a sophisticated level as seen ITT They weren't though

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 19:41:00 2022 No.14535166 File: 2.00 MB, 398x248, 1569507025881.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Absolutely howling at the fact that there are unironic shills still peddling their beyond discredited "vaccine" on fucking 4channel You just cant make this shit up

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 19:42:23 2022 No.14535171 This thread did a good job of exposing how dumb /pol/tards are.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 19:45:30 2022 No.14535183

>>14535117
>They weren't though
They dumped actual data and studies and wrote walls of text arguing their point, which is not something they generally do.
I'm not saying they were necessarily correct or arguing in good faith, because they weren't or if they were, in a pedantic way at best, but that behavior is still very unusual for a shill.
They're paid to shit things up, not to debate and refute things brought up by others using arguments and data/studies/papers. Or they started taking it more seriously now.
>>14535171
What about >>14534190 and >>14534206?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 20:05:29 2022 No.14535249 >>14535183 >They dumped actual data and studies and wrote walls of text arguing their point fair point, though their arguments, when demolished, were changed in the same instant the best example is the discussion starting from here >>14533064

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 1 20:41:52 2022 No.14535318 >700 replies Good to see we will persist in exposing vaccine genocide.

Anonymous Wed Jun 1 20:50:34 2022 No.14535336

>>14533887
>>14533901
>>14533905
>>14533911
>>14533914
>>14533916
>>14533923
>>14535117
>>14535166
>>14535183
>>14535249
>>14535318
HAHAHAHA YOU GOT UTTERLY RAPED AND YOU'RE STILL COMING BACK FOR MORE LIKE HORNY LITTLE BITCHES
BASK IN THE GLORY OF OUR SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE YOU LOW IQ MOUTHBREATHERS, ADMIRE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PLAY OUT OF YOUR TINY BRAINLET LEAGUE
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
/POL/ NPCS UTTERLY DESTROYED AND BTFOOOOOOOOO
PLEASE MAKE SOME MORE ANTIVAX THREAD SO WE CAN PERIODICALLY RUIN YOUR SHIT TIME AFTER TIME YOU BUNCH OF MISERABLE FAILURES
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math