It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One Sentence COVID Questions - Top 10

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2021 @ 06:58 PM
link   
10 questions
1 answer

UN control.



posted on Jul, 11 2021 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

"The mRNA sequence in the vaccine is identical to the mRNA sequence in the virus."

Incorrect. The vaccine has many differences in the coding, including the CAP, UTR, Proline substitutions and a pony-A tail.

Pick one of those 10 questions above and let's debate it with honesty, sources and reason. If I'm found to be wrong in my assertion that there are gaps in the 'health orthodoxy' (as you put it), I will readily admit it and welcome the knowledge. I await your choice.

Take care.



posted on Jul, 11 2021 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: FreeOrigin
a reply to: chr0naut

Re: A question for you:

It is quite serious, if you are wrong, even slightly, and people believe what you say, there will be avoidable deaths and chronic conditions in significant numbers. What do you get out of denigrating established health orthodoxy and promoting something alternate?

Answer: Absurd. This isnt Medscape or a JAMA forum. This is ATS. And we should have an appreciation for the intent of this site and the 'pandemic' forum. I seek information from verifiable sources from the resources herein. I seek understanding to questions that are not addressed within the 'health orthodoxy' you reference.


But there is a lot of disinformation on social media sites everywhere right now. They aren't Medscape or JAMA, but they have the attention of the general population in a way that those sites don't.

I have provided answers to each of your questions. None of your questions included supportive links, either. Many of your questions were highly dependent on the acceptance of disinformation published elsewhere.

Nothing I have said isn't also available online if you had wanted answers, or you wish to verify mine.


I was surprised to find your reference-free responses (to all of them) spoken as fact. More so, that you brought yourself to two conclusions. The first that Ivermectin treatment is akin to HCQ.


No, I never said that.

Ivermectin has been shown to be effective against COVID-19 in in-vitro tests, but the evidence of real-life effectiveness is slim:

Table 2c. Ivermectin: Selected Clinical Data

The issue is the high dosages required, and the the fact that the effectiveness only occurs in sustained high doses. Not as a short duration-low dose symptomatic therapy.


The second that I'm actively seeking to denigrate the narrative. Neither are true.

See the last two paragraphs of my original post. Thanks for the time and energy you put into your response. Despite the negativity, I appreciate the dialogue.


Several of the questions you have asked are similar to those raised by people who are strongly enough antagonistic to the vaccines, as to be intentionally untruthful in defense of their opinions.



posted on Jul, 11 2021 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

All good... But, note that I just verified the most recent information you posted indicating "The mRNA sequence in the vaccine is identical to the mRNA sequence in the virus" as incorrect. So to somehow imply that I am posting anti vaccine rhetoric, while your commentary is source verified and legit is simply not the case.



posted on Jul, 11 2021 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: FreeOrigin
a reply to: chr0naut

"The mRNA sequence in the vaccine is identical to the mRNA sequence in the virus."

Incorrect. The vaccine has many differences in the coding, including the CAP, UTR, Proline substitutions and a pony-A tail.

Pick one of those 10 questions above and let's debate it with honesty, sources and reason. If I'm found to be wrong in my assertion that there are gaps in the 'health orthodoxy' (as you put it), I will readily admit it and welcome the knowledge. I await your choice.

Take care.

While the chemical expression of the mRNA is different in the vaccines, the part of the sequence itself that creates the protein is functionally the same, and must be, for the vaccine to work.

Firstly, the cap is required to initiate transcription in the ribosome, so the sequence will be executed from the correct end. All RNA requires a cap to initiate transcription, and the cap is much the same regardless of the amino acid chain being built.

The UTR regions are both untranslated at either end of the translated block, but add stability and longevity to the RNA strand.

The use of methylpseudouracil to replace uracil, helps to stop the immune system from identifying the mRNA as foreign, but still translates as if they were uracil.

The changes to proline are necessary to lock the protein into the prefusion-stabilized spike shape.

I love the "pony tail" (LOL autocorrect, right?
) but the poly (A) tail just stops the mRNA molecule from being digested inside the cell before it has done its thing.

Despite those neccessities, the actual protein coding part of the sequence, the 'sig' and to some extent the 'S Prot' are functionally equivalent to the sequence in the virus that codes for the same protein. The rest could just be thought of as 'packaging'.

edit on 11/7/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2021 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Just to counter your responses to the first three...

1) In May 2021, the CDC indicated “For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)”

And

“As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. Previous case counts, which were last updated on April 26, 2021, are available for reference only and will not be updated moving forward.”

The text on the site has since been changed. My point, however, is not about the history or logistics of PCR testing. It is about the integrity of the data. Vaccinated are only sequenced at



posted on Jul, 11 2021 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: FreeOrigin

continuing...

Vaccinated are only sequenced at 28 CT and positive cases are only captured when they involve hosp or death. This is not the same criteria for unvaccinated and may skew the data to indicate most positives are coming from people who have chosen not to be vaccinated.

2) You indicated agencies are fluid as more is learned and that most inconsistencies are due to commentators comparing old and new data. But, coordinating communication and the response of leading agencies during a pandemic is 101. Here is the current guidance on vaccinating adolescents.

WHO
WHO 11Jul “Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers.” More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19.
WHO 22Jun “the WHO and partners are working together on the COVID-19 pandemic response ... and are racing to develop and deploy safe and effective vaccines.”
WHO 21Jun “Children should not be vaccinated for the moment… There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19.”

CDC
CDC 11Jul "CDC recommends everyone 12 years and older should get a COVID-19 vaccination to help protect against COVID-19."

FDA
FDA 10May "The FDA has determined that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine has met the statutory criteria to amend the EUA, and that the known and potential benefits of this vaccine in individuals 12 years of age and older outweigh the known and potential risks, supporting the vaccine’s use in this population."

3) You indicated remdisovir was an effective antiviral. But, at best, it only reduces the hospital stay and has zero impact on mortality.

JAMA
“No significant difference was found in mortality between drug (7.1%) and placebo (11.9%) (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04).

NIH
“no mortality benefit was observed following remdesivir therapy.”

PLOS
“No differences in all-cause mortality or SAEs were seen among 5-day, 10-day and standard of care.”

MEDRXIV
“These Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir and Interferon regimens appeared to have little or no effect on hospitalized COVID-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation and duration of hospital stay.”

Respectfully, I think you get my point. The words we say are important and when we make concrete statements without sourcing our conclusions, especially in a scientific discussion, it may be misleading to the reader. FWIW, I'm pro vaccine and find the COVID vaccine to be effective in its initial premise. I believe it is holistically safe. But the gaps are otherwise too great to not ask open ended questions. I hope you agree.



posted on Jul, 11 2021 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

functionally equivalent and identical are two different things my friend.



posted on Jul, 11 2021 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: FreeOrigin
a reply to: chr0naut

Just to counter your responses to the first three...

1) In May 2021, the CDC indicated “For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)”


In this document, effective both before and after May 2021, it makes no use of the word "feasible" in any of its 80 pages. My guess is that you have gotten that specific word use from one of the many online sites that suggest that higher cycle depths in PCR are less accurate. These sites usually also suggest that PCR tests don't work but have nothing to say about what should be used in their place.

On pages 17 and 18 of the document previously linked, it displays amplification plots which explain why not to use higher thresholds, because the results of cycles higher than 28 are out of the exponential PCR phase and are therefore are not optimal for where time taken is a factor.

At higher cycle depths, the data becomes more accurate, but it becomes pointless to aim for a higher accuracy that is little different to that available with lower cycle depths.


And

“As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. Previous case counts, which were last updated on April 26, 2021, are available for reference only and will not be updated moving forward.”


So, is that wrong?

They have retained the old data, despite the fact that it buried the pertinent statistics in 'noise' and they have chosen a new method. You have to understand that they aren't trying to make a political point, or to disprove anyone, they are trying to get data relevant to optimal healthcare.


The text on the site has since been changed. My point, however, is not about the history or logistics of PCR testing. It is about the integrity of the data. Vaccinated are only sequenced at < 28 CT and positive cases are only captured when they involve hosp or death. This is not the same criteria for unvaccinated and may skew the data to indicate most positives are coming from people who have chosen not to be vaccinated.


If someone has some minor symptom subsequent to vaccination, and that does not get serious enough to cause death or warrant hospitalization, why bother adding it in with the serious cases? There's a health emergency going on and they knew in advance there would be some minor adverse reactions. So what?


2) Coordinating communication and the response of leading agencies during a pandemic is 101. The argument you present is that there is a time delay of multiple days between governing bodies?

WHO
WHO 11 Jul “Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults, so unless they are part of a group at higher risk of severe COVID-19, it is less urgent to vaccinate them than older people, those with chronic health conditions and health workers.” More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19.

WHO 22Jun “the WHO and partners are working together on the COVID-19 pandemic response ... and are racing to develop and deploy safe and effective vaccines.”

WHO 21Jun “Children should not be vaccinated for the moment… There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19.”

CDC
CDC 11Jul "CDC recommends everyone 12 years and older should get a COVID-19 vaccination to help protect against COVID-19."

FDA
FDA 10May "The FDA has determined that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine has met the statutory criteria to amend the EUA, and that the known and potential benefits of this vaccine in individuals 12 years of age and older outweigh the known and potential risks, supporting the vaccine’s use in this population."


The WHO reports to the world at large and there are at least 12 different COVID-19 vaccines. They must produce announcements mindful of that.

The CDC and FDA are speaking about a subset of vaccines and had made a decision that these particular vaccines were safe for children older than 12.


3) You indicate Remdisovir is an effective antiviral? Remdisovir shows, at best, a shortening of hosp stay. There is no benefit on mortality.

JAMA
“No significant difference was found in mortality between drug (7.1%) and placebo (11.9%) (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.04).

NIH
“no mortality benefit was observed following remdesivir therapy.”

PLOS
“No differences in all-cause mortality or SAEs were seen among 5-day, 10-day and standard of care.”

MEDRXIV
“These Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir and Interferon regimens appeared to have little or no effect on hospitalized COVID-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation and duration of hospital stay.”

Its not a good use of time to continue... Respectfully, I think you get my point.


Remesdivir was originally for Hep C, it has also been tested for use with Ebola and Marburg viruses.

It is a drug that works in conjunction with other drugs, and specifically was granted its EUA for use alongside baricitnib. It has come down in price but it is slow to produce and still quite expensive.

Remdesivir From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit on 11/7/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2021 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: FreeOrigin
a reply to: chr0naut

functionally equivalent and identical are two different things my friend.


At some point you have to make a distinction.

But by all means, you have been someone who clearly has thought things through and delivered cogent argument.

I can see we still disagree but life would be dull if we all just opted for the easy path.




posted on Jul, 11 2021 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: FreeOrigin
a reply to: chr0naut

functionally equivalent and identical are two different things my friend.


At some point you have to make a distinction.

But by all means, you have been someone who clearly has thought things through and delivered cogent argument.

I can see we still disagree but life would be dull if we all just opted for the easy path.



We dont agree on the content, but we clearly agree on the value of good dialogue and conversation. Be well.



posted on Jul, 11 2021 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: FreeOrigin

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: FreeOrigin
a reply to: chr0naut

functionally equivalent and identical are two different things my friend.


At some point you have to make a distinction.

But by all means, you have been someone who clearly has thought things through and delivered cogent argument.

I can see we still disagree but life would be dull if we all just opted for the easy path.



We dont agree on the content, but we clearly agree on the value of good dialogue and conversation. Be well.


You too.

I will revisit this thread should I have time and will address each point with far better support for my argument.




posted on Jul, 13 2021 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: carewemust
Are antibodies from recovery as "good" as antibodies created due to the vaccine?

Because authorities are hiding the answer to this simple question one must assume the answer is yes.

The 40 million Americans who have recovered from covid-19 do not need to be vaccinated with the experimental drugs.



My doctor said that you produce more antibodies from the shot and have a longer lasting immunity from the shot that a normal recovery from the virus.


That's one I haven't heard yet, you got some links? I'd like to read about that.

In fact I've heard the exact opposite and everything in between from some reports. All these contradictions from the specialists and experts puts you in a situation where you must choose one report or another or reject them all. Those clowns in Washington have to wonder why people are reluctant to get the jab? IMO, they are creating this "Ball of Confusion" to keep us uncertain and in the dark.



posted on Jul, 13 2021 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: carewemust
Are antibodies from recovery as "good" as antibodies created due to the vaccine?

Because authorities are hiding the answer to this simple question one must assume the answer is yes.

The 40 million Americans who have recovered from covid-19 do not need to be vaccinated with the experimental drugs.



My doctor said that you produce more antibodies from the shot and have a longer lasting immunity from the shot that a normal recovery from the virus.


That's one I haven't heard yet, you got some links? I'd like to read about that.

In fact I've heard the exact opposite and everything in between from some reports. All these contradictions from the specialists and experts puts you in a situation where you must choose one report or another or reject them all. Those clowns in Washington have to wonder why people are reluctant to get the jab? IMO, they are creating this "Ball of Confusion" to keep us uncertain and in the dark.



I don't have a link, my doctor told me verbally but I can give more detail.

The doctor asked if I had the covid shot. I told her I had had the opportunity at work but turned it down. This was before the shot was released to the general public. I told her I was suspicious of it. I asked her to test my blood to see if I had the antibodies. She asked why I wanted that. I told her because if I had already had covid then I won't need the shot right?

That's when she told me the shot was better, specifically the dual shot type. She said it's because the shot makes the body have more of a reaction than a normal exposure to covid. This is because when someone gets covid the level of their body's reaction depends on how much of the virus enters their body initially.

If you had someone that was at peak shedding and you took a q-tip and rubbed it all in their nose then rubbed it all in a person's nose who has never been infected, their immune response would be huge because it's reacting to a lage amount of the virus.

On the other hand if you are at the grocery store and your hand picks up a trace amount that gets into your nose when you rub it then there will b a much smaller immune reaction because of the small intrusion of the virus.

My doctor said getting the shot is better than even rubbing the q-tip in the infected nose and putting it in your own because of the massive immune response the shot causes.

Even though this made since to me and this is probably true for all immunization shots, it doesn't change the fact that these particular shots were developed in haste and very well had a strong likelihood of unwanted irreversible after affects. Therefore, I still haven't taken the shot and I have zero plans on taking it in the future.



posted on Jul, 13 2021 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: KawRider9

Yes, but likely money and profits are not the sole motivation for various protocol. I think more nefarious goals are also involved.

I would like to add question 11 to the fine list of the OP: Why are no autopsies being done on those who die after being fully vaccinated?

I know one elderly male in Germany was autopsied, but have not seen any news about others.
edit on 13-7-2021 by Salander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2021 @ 04:10 PM
link   
So are you saying that they are purposely not doing autopsies or that you don't know about them?

There's a lot of hospitals in the world, you can't be expected to keep up with all of them.



originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: KawRider9

Yes, but likely money and profits are not the sole motivation for various protocol. I think more nefarious goals are also involved.

I would like to add question 11 to the fine list of the OP: Why are no autopsies being done on those who die after being fully vaccinated?

I know one elderly male in Germany was autopsied, but have not seen any news about others.



posted on Jul, 13 2021 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Yes Bishop, I know all that.

It turns out the German autopsy showed the deceased to be infested with the spike protein in almost every organ in the body. That was startling news, especially for the Vaccine Foot Soldiers in the world.

Yes, maybe there have been others, but for whatever reason nobody is talking about them.

I hunger for knowledge, but all the MSM provides is propaganda. Maybe somebody here at ATS has heard of other autopsies.



posted on Jul, 13 2021 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Can I have a link to the German autopsy?

I'll have a nose about for any info on ones in the UK.


a reply to: Salander



posted on Jul, 13 2021 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

It's weeks old. I don't trust your posting style. Find it yourself if you are actually interested.



posted on Jul, 13 2021 @ 04:24 PM
link   




top topics



 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join