Italian Institute Of Health Covid Death Adjustment.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

... Continued from previous post.

The recent shooting on the movie set of "Rust" is one example of these unintended consequences: it has been stated that the armorer was lax in her duties because she was following social distancing restrictions.

That sounds like a weak excuse.

Another example is Alabama's lockdown mandate: the first tornado wave that came through, the Governor had to amend her mandate to allow people to legally evacuate when a tornado approached! It took several hours for that to happen. Do you have any idea what a tornado can do in several hours?

Yes. Apparently 5 people died, which is a tragedy.

... but it does sound as if you are 'reaching' to find negatives. Surely these should also be balanced against the numbers of lives and chronic health issues avoided by following those disease mitigations?

So yes, I am against all those things, and I happily criticize and ridicule all the organizations which support these failed and dangerous policies. I am not trying to help spread a disease; I am trying to preserve the lives and freedoms of those who these policies will harm, which is much more than 1% of the population.

There is no 'balance' in your assessment of the situation. Not following these disease mitigations will lead to the wide and rapid spread of a disease, and will cause the deaths of 10's of thousands of people. Already, 760,970 Americans have died from COVID-19, so I'm not being 'over the top' here. Balance that against the few publicized but rare negative cases.

When one "side" starts making demands that are dangerous and ineffective, why is it so heinous to see the other "side" oppose them just as vociferously?

Because the danger and ineffectiveness is not in balance. One side is enormously more dangerous and provably more ineffective than the other.

Answer: because they're not doing what you want them to! Waaaaahhhhh!

That, sir, is a ridiculous statement based in utter ignorance.

Cost of generic Ivermectin, four 6mg tablets, sourced from India, is about $40 US. Standard dosage recommended (by some) for treatment of COVID-19 is 12mg per day, for five days. That would require ten 6mg tablets over a 5 day period, a cost of $100 for less than a week of treatment. That isn't really cheap, as I was trying to explain.

Anyone who recovers from a disease does so because of antibodies against that disease... monoclonal antibodies work, but natural antibodies are more effective.

Wait, if natural antibodies are so effective, why would they have to give less effective monoclonal antibodies?

No medicine cures a disease on its own; they simply assist the body's natural defenses. Even this vaccine, in theory, works because it stimulates the production of antibodies.

It is those antibodies that create immunity to a disease. Not a medication; antibodies. So anyone who contracts the Chinese virus will produce antibodies regardless of whether or not they take hydrochloroquine or Remdesivir... actually, regardless of whether they even help! And that negates the need for a vaccine, since the antibodies produced by the vaccine already exist.

Yet getting the antibodies by getting the disease, has a particularly serious side effect, that about two out of every 100 who have the disease, die.

Plus, the vaccines seem to be an ongoing thing. One shot is not enough to become vaccinated; one must have two shots now. Wait, wait, wait... make that three shots according to new data. Do I hear four? Five? 20? 100? A shot each month for life?

Polio has takes 4 shots to reach maximum effectiveness, but that lasts for decades.

At this point in time, there is discussion about if a third dose is needed. That is quite different than your proposal that we will need monthly boosters.

That continual adjustment upward in the number of shots required is not giving me confidence in the vaccine.

TheRedneck

Sorry, that's just the way real medicine happens. It takes a bit of time and study to determine optimal dosages and time-frames. If it were all BS, then they might just say one shot works. But since it is based upon less than a year of real-world real-life experience, you might expect things to change a little.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

I fail to see how one can not believe that the original claims have not been proven. Joe Biden stated quite clearly that "anyone who gets this vaccine will not get COVID-19." It's on video. He said it.

Whether they be expert game show host, or ex-lawyer, I would not give regard to medical advice from any medically unqualified politician.

But many people who have been vaccinated have also had severe cases of the Chinese virus.

How many is many? What are the specific numbers of breakthrough cases expressed as a percentage of all those fully vaccinated?

Those two elderly family members I mentioned earlier? They were both fully vaccinated, wore masks religiously, and complied with all social distancing guidelines. Both contracted the virus and both were hospitalized. Both began recovery immediately upon receiving monoclonal antibodies.

So, they weren't making antibodies for themselves, and required supplemental externally supplied antibodies. That might suggest a genetic predisposition towards autoimmune disorder if it occurs within the same family? Or, perhaps something else was suppressing immune response?

Half of People Who Did This Had No Antibodies After Vaccination, Study Says

36% Of Those Who Had Covid-19 Didn’t Develop Antibodies, Study Says

So, either the vaccine failed to provide antibodies, or these is a difference between the monoclonal antibodies and the vaccine-induced antibodies.

The vaccines do not contain antibodies. It's up to the people's immune systems to produce the spike protein, and then the antibodies to that. If their immune response is defective, then they won't have antibodies from the vaccines. Nor will they have antibodies from the disease.

The monoclonal antibodies are not naturally produced in the person's body and may themselves be biologically incompatible with the patient.

We know the monoclonal antibodies work well; we have many reports of the vaccine-induced antibodies not working effectively. Personally, I believe the vaccine-produced antibodies are simply not very effective and are different from the monoclonal antibodies. That's the only thing which makes logical sense.

No it isn't that simple.

Also, many many more people (by the hundreds of thousands) are being vaccinated than those that require hospitalization or are getting monoclonal antibody treatments. Of course there would be more adverse effects cases of vaccinations than there would be of monoclonal antibodies.

Absolutely untrue, as demonstrated above. You seem to be reading what you want to read into the propaganda you are reading.

No, as explained above.

Again, so why did monoclonal antibodies provide protection when vaccine-produced antibodies did not?

TheRedneck

Because some people have autoimmune deficiencies or suppressions. Again, if naturally acquired immunity was as effective as posited, why would the use of less effective monoclonal antibodies, not even 'native' to the patient's body or immune system, be even useful?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

No, vaccination should be a choice.

So you agree with me that the mandates should be halted?

TheRedneck

Yes, provided that people can make informed decisions based on true information.

Unfortunately, people believe all sorts of unfeasible, irrational, and unsupported things about very pertinent and important life and death issues.

I think that people who shun reasonable precautions against public dangers, and encourage other to do so, should be responsible financially, socially, and legally, for any damage they do to greater society.

As things now are, people can lie without repercussions. And they call it 'free speech'. In that environment, how can most people be expected to make rational and balanced decisions about public health issues

a reply to: chr0naut

Surely these should also be balanced against the numbers of lives and chronic health issues avoided by following those disease mitigations?

"Balance" by mandate? How is it that a mandate is considered "balance"?

Our entire legislative process is based on a group of elected individuals debating and analyzing a proposal to ensure that balance exists. These mandates are not going through that legislative process... they are coming from one individual, an executive (Governor/President) who simply declares "This is what you are going to do." That is not "balance"; that is tyranny.

Not following these disease mitigations will lead to the wide and rapid spread of a disease, and will cause the deaths of 10's of thousands of people. Already, 760,970 Americans have died from COVID-19, so I'm not being 'over the top' here. Balance that against the few publicized but rare negative cases.

Firstly, you do not know how many deaths will be attributed to this virus. No one does because the data is corrupted and skewed. Stop trying to play psychic.

Secondly, you do not know how many deaths will result from the vaccines. No one does, because the data has been corrupted and skewed.

Thirdly, you are trying to argue that examples are a totality. There are also suicides (from isolation), domestic abuse which does not go reported because of lack of social contact, "natural" deaths from simple loneliness (yes, that exists), not to mention the pain and anguish by those who cannot even see a dying loved one in their last minutes. Then there are those whose lives are being utterly destroyed because they are being forced into a choice of violating their own personal beliefs or indigence.

And fourthly, these vaccines do not prevent infection, do not prevent the spread of infection, and do not prevent hospitalizations nor death from the disease. That has been well-documented. It as also been observed by people; I personally know of four people in my "circle" who have contracted the virus and tested positive (verified to be infected); two were vaccinated and both were hospitalized. Of the two who were unvaccinated, one was hospitalized and had additional health concerns; the other did not need hospitalization. None died, thankfully.

Both my wife and I are unvaccinated (and plan to stay that way). Neither of us wear face masks; my wife will for short periods (15 minutes) only if absolutely required. We have not changed anything about our lifestyle; we still entertain company, we still visit friends, and we have not changed how close we get to people. Neither of us have had any issues whatsoever. If we had it (a possibility), we didn't know it.

Because the danger and ineffectiveness is not in balance.

You are still trying to equate "balance" with "mandate." I do not care if someone wishes to take the vaccine. I care deeply when people are being forced to take it. That is not "balance."

Cost of generic Ivermectin...

Cost of not getting either: $0. At least half of the cases are asymptomatic.

Wait, if natural antibodies are so effective, why would they have to give less effective monoclonal antibodies?

For those whose natural immunity is ineffective at first.

Yet getting the antibodies by getting the disease, has a particularly serious side effect, that about two out of every 100 who have the disease, die.

That means 98 out of every 100 who trust their own immunity, survive. At least 98; the death numbers are corrupted and skewed.

At this point in time, there is discussion about if a third dose is needed. That is quite different than your proposal that we will need monthly boosters.

Had this been considered a possibility initially, I could accept that argument. The original statements were of the effect of, "Take this shot and you will not get the virus." Now we also know that this is not true, even with the boosters.

Sorry, that's just the way real medicine happens.

That is the way experimental medicine happens. As long as any medication is experimental, it should never be mandatory. Period.

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

Whether they be expert game show host, or ex-lawyer, I would not give regard to medical advice from any medically unqualified politician.

You already are. Doctors do not have the authority to mandate anything by law. Those are politicians demanding a mandate.

How many is many? What are the specific numbers of breakthrough cases expressed as a percentage of all those fully vaccinated?

At this point, I don't care. The number is enough to appear significant. If the number is significant, it is sufficient to oppose a mandate.

So, they weren't making antibodies for themselves, and required supplemental externally supplied antibodies. That might suggest a genetic predisposition towards autoimmune disorder if it occurs within the same family? Or, perhaps something else was suppressing immune response?

Or perhaps a combination of being elderly and a weakened immunity from over-medication caused their immune system to simply be slow to respond to a new threat.

News flash: you're going to be old one day, too. At least I hope you make it that long... with your paranoid approach to any suggestion from TPTB, you might not.

The vaccines do not contain antibodies. It's up to the people's immune systems to produce the spike protein, and then the antibodies to that.

No, the immune system does not produce the spike protein. The cells do that. The immune system produces the antibodies against the spike protein.

The spike protein also appears to cause some amount of (typically minor) blood clotting before the antibodies can be produced. That makes it more dangerous than a minor case of the virus, since the virus is respiratory and does not enter the blood supply unless and until there is internal bleeding in the lungs.

The monoclonal antibodies are not naturally produced in the person's body and may themselves be biologically incompatible with the patient.

Antibodies are not cells and do not contain DNA. They cannot be "biologically incompatible" with a patient. They are artificial, by definition, but so are the spike proteins produced by the mRNA process. For that matter, so are the mRNA fragments, which interact directly with cellular mechanisms.

No it isn't that simple.

No, it isn't. However, I am trying to converse on your level.

Because some people have autoimmune deficiencies or suppressions. Again, if naturally acquired immunity was as effective as posited, why would the use of less effective monoclonal antibodies, not even 'native' to the patient's body or immune system, be even useful?

A good demonstration of why I am having to try and converse on your level.

The mRNA vaccines produce a spike protein which is not native to the body, in order to try and trick the body into producing antibodies against it, the idea being that the antibodies will already exist should the virus infect the patient. Monoclonal antibodies skip this sequence of events and directly introduce antibodies.

A person's immune system depends on antibodies detecting an infection to produce more antibodies. When a new virus enters the body, it takes time to detect that infection and respond. Introducing antibodies against the new infection will jump-start this process. That is the purpose of both the mRNA vaccines and the monoclonal antibody treatments.

My concern is that the antibodies produced by the vaccines appear to be less effective at this jump-starting process than the monoclonal antibodies. I do not know the difference; I can only make observations based on results. I have heard of no problems using monoclonal antibodies. There are verified reports of clotting using mRNA vaccines.

In addition, monoclonal antibodies are a treatment administered only to those who are known to have an infection and in need of assistance. The vaccines, especially in a mandate, are administered to everyone regardless of whether they will need it or not. That is prudent in diseases like smallpox, which is very deadly, but not in diseases with less than a 2% (I actually believe it to be less than 1%) fatality rates.

All immune issues are not "autoimmune." That is a serious misunderstanding of the issue. Autoimmune refers to conditions where one's own immunity actually attacks one's own cells, as in diseases such as Parkinson's Disease. In Parkinson's disease, dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra are attacked by the body's own immunity. In Myathena Gravis, another autoimmune disease, the body produces antibodies against neurotransmitters used in the synaptic areas where muscles receive signals from the nervous system. Having a weak immune system is actually the opposite of "autoimmune," in that the inherent immunity fails to respond to legitimate threats in a timely manner instead of responding to false threats.

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

Yes, provided that people can make informed decisions based on true information.

I never fail to be amused how some people can answer a simple question with "yes" and still indicate they mean "no."

That was either a yes or no question. "Yes" as long as people voluntarily comply actually means "no." Being in favor of halting mandates only if people agree to comply with the mandates is not opposing mandates.

So I will move forward with the understanding that you support mandates, but only because asking nicely didn't work.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Biden doubled overall deliveries of monoclonal antibodies, but there is an issue of limited supply, and so the administration has tried to manage that.

Then Biden needs some remedial math at least. There is now a serious shortage of monoclonal antibodies here.

You do not know what you are talking about.

The US has millions of active cases requiring monoclonal antibodies. Its new infections grew by 515,210 last week alone. That might go a long way to explain shortfalls in manufacture and supply of therapeutics.

Are we going back to you outright lying? Hydrochloroquine has been around for decades and used as treatment for other issues. Any contraindications as to it's potential side effects are well known.

HQC used to treat some types of Malaria (it doesn't work against all types) maximum adult dosage is 800mg initially, then 400mg once a week for three weeks. This maximum dosage regimen is the protocol used to treat COVID-19.

Plaquenil, the non-generic form of HQC, comes only in 200mg tablets, so to fit the protocol you would require a minimum of 12 tablets. Additionally, Plaquenil comes in boxes of 30 tablets or more. A 30 tablet box costs an average of $394.67. It is expensive.

HQC also has a long list of dangerous and permanent side effects, and some people are allergic to it, too. It isn't benign, it never has been. Additionally, HQC has dangerous cardiac interactions with Azithromycin (Z-Pak), which is often suggested as part of the COVID-19 treatment protocol.

Any medication is dangerous if taken improperly. Do I need to start talking about water poisoning again?

Remdesivir is dangerous even when taken properly under close observation of medical staff.

Vaccines also have "hundreds of years" of recipients not catching the disease

Utter BS. Vaccines are rarely 100% effective. Nor are most vaccines single dose, and there have always been breakthrough cases.

Breakthrough infection
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Six Important Things to Know About Breakthrough Infections

Historical Vaccine Safety Concerns - CDC

, until these came along. Pick a definition, willya?

I'm going to ignore the inane to save time.

I suppose if one includes deaths caused by sending nursing home residents back infected while denying medical professionals PPE and people just so happening to die in car crashes of the virus instead of hospitals, one might could get the numbers that high.

Those instances were of very small numbers relative to totals. In most cases, the errors were corrected. The fact that 762,816 Americans have died so far, with COVID-19 as cause of death on their death certificate, and the majority of them died in hospital, under medical care and observation, and of respiratory failure, doesn't seem to have meaning to you?

It's still not as deadly as smallpox.

And people performing open-chest cardiac self-surgery is even deadlier!

I fully appreciate your argument there, both the absurd one you actually made, and the absurd one I made up about you making (sauce for the goose... et al).

Yeah, we all know: it is "real" medicine that doesn't stop one from catching the virus, doesn't prevent hospitalizations, and doesn't prevent deaths. I guess it's a new kind of "real" medicine.... a real scientific breakthrough.

Can you name a real world medicine that 100% stops people catching the virus and stops hospitalizations? Any one - I'll wait.

Yep, you caught me... it's all spin. When I see businesses with signs stating "permanently closed" it must be just spin. They closed down to to affect my opinion! I guess they are actually just closing their doors and putting out the "for lease" signs when they see me coming.

Or, perhaps it is confirmation bias and you just never noticed that it has been happening around you all the time?

Centuries? Wow... it has been centuries since 1898?

That's one century and 23 years.

That was when face masks were first designed (they didn't achieve widespread use until the late 1920s). Centuries since 1966? That was the first suggestion of hand sanitizer.

Nope. Joseph Lister
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's about 1869. A century and a half + years ago.

And you forgot about social distancing and quarantine, that must go back thousands of years (leprosy, anyone?).

Of course, we're also still in the two weeks needed to "flatten the curve" starting in early 2020, so maybe you're right.

How could that ever happen with denialist Don Turnip, at the lead of the Qtard army of super-spreaders? They'll swamp that drain for ya!

Oh, really? You sure have a weird view of what "stopping" a virus is.

And yet, that graph has that long flat stretch right across the middle. And to give you an indication of the numbers involved; to date, only 33 people have died from COVID-19 in New Zealand over the last two years.

How does that compare with the 762,816 deaths in the same time frame in the US? It's like NZ must have stopped the virus spreading for, like, months!

Oh, so they work, but we just haven't been able to get them to work because of Typhoid Marys. Got it.

More like "COVID Q'tard'ies". But yes, idiots that spread a disease and blame everyone else for the consequences of their actions (or inaction).

So... why is it that areas with less masking requirements have no significant difference in severity than areas with high masking requirements? More Typhoid Marys cancel each other out maybe?

Because the efforts to slow the epidemic are being effectively negated. Meaning that in areas where at least some people are trying, the spread of the disease is as unrestrained as areas that do nothing to stop it. That, and the moron marches.

Maybe the precautions worked against the stupid virus instead of the Chinese virus. You should be relieved... the stupid virus spreads more rapidly and has more consequences than the Chinese virus ever dreamed of.

TheRedneck

Indeed.

Funny how both seem to be far worse in the USA, than in any other country?

COVID-19 Dashboard
by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

"Balance" by mandate? How is it that a mandate is considered "balance"?

I never mentioned mandate, I was talking about something else.

Referring to a "mandate" (as if that is what I had been specifically posting about) in your response is a misapplication, or complete misunderstanding, of what I posted.

Our entire legislative process is based on a group of elected individuals debating and analyzing a proposal to ensure that balance exists. These mandates are not going through that legislative process... they are coming from one individual, an executive (Governor/President) who simply declares "This is what you are going to do." That is not "balance"; that is tyranny.

For extremely low levels of what could be considered tyranny?

Take for instance, that someone in government, or law, says that you will be prosecuted for driving while drunk. Is that tyranny?

Clearly, many laws are already in place for the safety of the general public, and are NOT tyranny. Opposition to them, however, is irresponsible, antisocial, and unpatriotic.

Firstly, you do not know how many deaths will be attributed to this virus. No one does because the data is corrupted and skewed. Stop trying to play psychic.

Throwing doubt onto the official numbers does not invalidate their empirical accuracy and the credibility of the processes by which they are compiled, especially when your opinion is clearly based upon very few, and now corrected, errors in compilation, and, of course, those numbers are now under very high scrutiny from all quarters for any such errors.

Secondly, you do not know how many deaths will result from the vaccines. No one does, because the data has been corrupted and skewed.

None the less, the official numbers are far, far, more accurate than your wild speculation.

Thirdly, you are trying to argue that examples are a totality.

Not at all. This is another 'argument' that you have just made up in your own head.

There are also suicides (from isolation), domestic abuse which does not go reported because of lack of social contact, "natural" deaths from simple loneliness (yes, that exists), not to mention the pain and anguish by those who cannot even see a dying loved one in their last minutes. Then there are those whose lives are being utterly destroyed because they are being forced into a choice of violating their own personal beliefs or indigence.

I also omitted the guy who have stormed into Comet Pizza and began shooting the place up, to try and save all the children who were enslaved by the pedophiles, down in the basement. Sadly, no one was saved because there was no basement, there were no enslaved children, and it was just a Pizza shop, and all the online stuff about it was just lies. I have now redressed the situation by mentioning this entirely unrelated and irrelevant information.

And fourthly, these vaccines do not prevent infection, do not prevent the spread of infection, and do not prevent hospitalizations nor death from the disease. That has been well-documented. It as also been observed by people; I personally know of four people in my "circle" who have contracted the virus and tested positive (verified to be infected); two were vaccinated and both were hospitalized. Of the two who were unvaccinated, one was hospitalized and had additional health concerns; the other did not need hospitalization. None died, thankfully.

Largest CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Study in Health Workers Shows mRNA Vaccines 94% Effective - CDC

Real-world evidence shows that the COVID-19 vaccines work

6 Real Examples That Prove The COVID-19 Vaccines Are Working

COVID-19 Vaccines Work. Here’s the Real-World Proof

Both my wife and I are unvaccinated (and plan to stay that way). Neither of us wear face masks; my wife will for short periods (15 minutes) only if absolutely required. We have not changed anything about our lifestyle; we still entertain company, we still visit friends, and we have not changed how close we get to people. Neither of us have had any issues whatsoever. If we had it (a possibility), we didn't know it.

You are still trying to equate "balance" with "mandate." I do not care if someone wishes to take the vaccine. I care deeply when people are being forced to take it. That is not "balance."

I wrote "Because the danger and ineffectiveness is not in balance". Nowhere did I mention the word "mandate". I was talking about the imbalance between "the danger" and "ineffectiveness". Between those two things. Not some random and unrelated thing you just thought of for argument.

The fact that you can't even parse the English language, and that your opinion clearly must be so loud in your consciousness, that it swamps what is happening in the world outside your cranium, does not mean you are even vaguely correct or on topic with your responses.

I have already explained that I do not agree that the vaccines should be mandatory. But no, - you continue to 'tilt at that windmill' despite that.

I do not believe that the vaccines should be mandatory, but I do see the reasoning of those who try and protect those simultaneously too stupid, and too opinionated, to take reasonable precautions, and who remain a danger to themselves and everyone else around them.

Cost of not getting either: $0. At least half of the cases are asymptomatic.

Magnitude of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases throughout the course of infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

For those whose natural immunity is ineffective at first.

It's a novel virus. Think about that for a bit.

That means 98 out of every 100 who trust their own immunity, survive. At least 98; the death numbers are corrupted and skewed.

Well, yours are.

Do you realize that if you play Russian Roulette, for 5 out of every 6 spins you will survive!

Had this been considered a possibility initially, I could accept that argument. The original statements were of the effect of, "Take this shot and you will not get the virus." Now we also know that this is not true, even with the boosters.

Before the vaccines were rolled out to the general public, there were numerous studies showing that there was a roll-off of antibodies post infection. This made the news:

Covid-19 antibodies diminish over time, but experts say there's no reason to be alarmed

... before the vaccines were rolled out.

That is the way experimental medicine happens. As long as any medication is experimental, it should never be mandatory. Period.

If medicine works, and it's late in extensive trials, and its an emergency. Why?

a reply to: chr0naut

That might go a long way to explain shortfalls in manufacture and supply of therapeutics.

What night go even farther in explanation are Joe Biden's own words and Executive Orders. He purposely restricted access to monoclonal antibodies for states which are opposing his mandates.

Did you miss that? Or are you just ignoring it?

HQC also has a long list of dangerous and permanent side effects, and some people are allergic to it, too. It isn't benign, it never has been.

History just called you a liar.

Hydrochloroquine has been used for decades, quite successfully, against Malaria. It is also widely used to combat lupus and severe cases of arthritis. It's used as such because it is effective and has fewer side effects, where not contra-indicated, than other approaches.

All medicines have the potential for side effects, are restricted by contra-indicators, and carry a risk of one being allergic to them. Hydroxycloroquine simply has less than most. Tell me, should we ban aspirin as well? It has those same characteristics, also in very low amounts.

Remdesivir is dangerous even when taken properly under close observation of medical staff.

Well, thank you for the heads-up. I'll be watching for the MSM to demonize Remdesivir in the near future.

Are there any other potential treatments that are pre-planned to be demonized?

Those instances were of very small numbers relative to totals.

Can I get clarification on what "very small numbers" is supposed to indicate? I mean, it seems the number '2' is a massive number in your world, so I an lacking a good reference.

In most cases, the errors were corrected. The fact that 762,816 Americans have died so far, with COVID-19 as cause of death on their death certificate, and the majority of them died in hospital, under medical care and observation, and of respiratory failure, doesn't seem to have meaning to you?

That is not exactly true. Many of these deaths would have been attributable to other things... like car crashes... before the plandemic started. Once it was started, of course, it is perfectly reasonable for someone in a car crash to suddenly die of the Chinese virus instead of massive trauma.

That data is corrupted and skewed.

Can you name a real world medicine that 100% stops people catching the virus and stops hospitalizations? Any one - I'll wait.

Smallpox. The vaccine is not even used in the US anymore because smallpox has been eradicated. It boasted a historical effectiveness of 95%, and a even higher effectiveness as time went on. And no mandates were required to accomplish that.

Compared to a vaccine that is now advertised as "not preventing the disease," "not preventing hospitalization," and "not preventing infectious spread." But it must be mandated?

Or, perhaps it is confirmation bias and you just never noticed that it has been happening around you all the time?

Have you ever considered that it might be your "confirmation bias" that makes you assume such when one presents data contrary to your desired position?

That's one century and 23 years.

In the English language, we typically use the 's' suffix to indicate plural, meaning 2 or more. One century and 23 years is not "centuries."

And you forgot about social distancing and quarantine, that must go back thousands of years (leprosy, anyone?).

Social distancing has been around since people first discovered that being around sick people could make them sick too. It's common sense. However, mandating social distancing in a society where it is simply not feasible is not a good idea. If anything it contributes to the spread.

Case in point: at one time, in order to enter a store to purchase a few items, people were forced to stand outside the store for extended periods of time, in order for the store to comply with "social distancing" mandates (a drastic cut in occupancy levels). So instead of going in the store and being close to people as one passed them for a few minutes, one was placed in direct contact with others, in the weather, for sometimes hours.

As a voluntary measure, social distancing is a good thing. I practiced it even before all this virus panic. As a mandate, it is worse than nothing at all.

With the exception of a few cases before the virus became widespread in North America, there has been no quarantine. What has been called "quarantine" (or "self-isolation") is in reality just another failed attempt to enforce social distancing. I know of people who were diagnosed with the Chinese virus, and who, immediately prior to getting the diagnosis, spent hours in town shopping so they could survive for two weeks in a forced "self-isolation." I myself refused to get any testing to even determine if I had the thing, because one positive meant i was going to go hungry for a while.

How could that ever happen with denialist Don Turnip, at the lead of the Qtard army of super-spreaders? They'll swamp that drain for ya!

Sow me where Trump denied the Chinese virus. I won't wait, because you can't.

One more mention of 'Q' and I'm out of here. That is absolute, complete, utter bullcrap, and you damn well know it.

And yet, that graph has that long flat stretch right across the middle. And to give you an indication of the numbers involved; to date, only 33 people have died from COVID-19 in New Zealand over the last two years.

Yeah, and you're also on an island.
The USA also tried to stop the virus from entering... but it didn't work, probably because we aren't on an island. And, if memory serves,weren't you one of those who said that restricting flights from the outbreak area was "racist" at the time?

The fact is that New Zealand has been spared the horrors of this virus until now. Now, however, it's loose there too. You're going to see a lot of people die there, just like everywhere else, and nothing you do will stop it any more than it has stopped it here.

But you can make everyone else miserable. And if you get your way, I'm sure you will.

More like "COVID Q...

That's 2. I'm out. If you want to discuss that, there's a thread for it. I will not listen to it here.

If and when you decide you wish to converse without bringing up 'Q,' let me know. Until then, everything you say I will take as utter garbage.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

You already are. Doctors do not have the authority to mandate anything by law. Those are politicians demanding a mandate.

LOL. No, as previously explained, I don't agree with mandatory vaccinations. You "keep kicking the same dead horse".

At this point, I don't care. The number is enough to appear significant. If the number is significant, it is sufficient to oppose a mandate.

"Kick... kick... ", damn thing just won't budge!

Or perhaps a combination of being elderly and a weakened immunity from over-medication caused their immune system to simply be slow to respond to a new threat.

News flash: you're going to be old one day, too. At least I hope you make it that long... with your paranoid approach to any suggestion from TPTB, you might not.

I'm no spring chicken and already have some "risky" potentially contributory conditions. But, that being said, I'm also fully vaccinated, so there's some attempt at mitigation.

No, the immune system does not produce the spike protein. The cells do that. The immune system produces the antibodies against the spike protein.

Yes. You are right that the spike protein is not produced by the immune system.

The spike protein also appears to cause some amount of (typically minor) blood clotting before the antibodies can be produced. That makes it more dangerous than a minor case of the virus, since the virus is respiratory and does not enter the blood supply unless and until there is internal bleeding in the lungs.

The primary cause of blood clotting in the AstraZeneca vaccine was identified to be from the adenovirus used to carry the mRNA into the cell.

The vaccines themselves do not contain the spike protein, and so it can't get into the blood from the injection. Similarly, the spike protein is produced by the ribosomes inside the cell. The spike protein, when it is created, migrates to the outside of the cell, where it encounters ACE2 receptors and binds there. Stuck to the outside of the cell. So it can't get into the blood that way, either. However, the body needs ACE2 for normal cell metabolism. If it is clagged up with spike protein, the cell begins to suffer. Fortunately, there is limited mRNA and therefore limited spike protein produced by the vaccine.

Now, in the case of the virus, however, its replication produces more of itself and they are fully clad in spike protein. So, there is an issue with the virions (little virus particles) getting back out of the cell, because they'd bind to the ACE2 on the surface of the cell and end up stuck there. So the virus does something that completely turns-off ACE2 function in infected cells. This lets the little blighters out but it has another effect. Not only is some of the cell clagged up with spike protein bound to ACE2, it also turns-off the few remaining ACE2 receptors. Remember how I wrote that ACE2 was necessary for the cell's normal function? This turning off of ACE2 is the most damaging bio-chemical effect of the virus and causes most of the symptoms, including those blood cots.

So, while the spike protein might cause issues with depletion of ACE2, it doesn't get into the blood stream in its own (where it would cause clots), and also the virus is way more likely to cause blood clots because it replicates and produces more and more of the spike protein all the time.

Antibodies are not cells and do not contain DNA. They cannot be "biologically incompatible" with a patient. They are artificial, by definition, but so are the spike proteins produced by the mRNA process. For that matter, so are the mRNA fragments, which interact directly with cellular mechanisms.

Strange how they would make such a big thing about something that wasn't an issue?:

Pharmacokinetics, biocompatibility and bioavailability of a controlled release monoclonal antibody formulation

There's a good, and fairly complete, series on biocompatibility and how it relate to the immune system. Here's video 2 (of about 18?): If that is too much to watch, you could just look at the one regarding antibodies:

No, it isn't. However, I am trying to converse on your level.

Honestly, how could you know the educational level of someone posting on a relatively anonymous conspiracy site?

Your slip is showing (but I still would never concede to being your 'man-date', no matter how much you want to talk about them. Just not into that kind of thing).

A good demonstration of why I am having to try and converse on your level.

You only just suggested that foreign antibodies can't be identified by our immune systems as such, but also with the inference that only things with DNA were bio-incompatible. LOL. LOL.

... snip, because just about everyone already knows this...

My concern is that the antibodies produced by the vaccines appear to be less effective at this jump-starting process than the monoclonal antibodies. I do not know the difference; I can only make observations based on results. I have heard of no problems using monoclonal antibodies. There are verified reports of clotting using mRNA vaccines.

Here ya go, then:
Late-Stage Failures of Monoclonal Antibody Drugs: A Retrospective Case Study Analysis

Why experts say monoclonal antibodies aren't vaccine substitute

In addition, monoclonal antibodies are a treatment administered only to those who are known to have an infection and in need of assistance. The vaccines, especially in a mandate, are administered to everyone regardless of whether they will need it or not. That is prudent in diseases like smallpox, which is very deadly, but not in diseases with less than a 2% (I actually believe it to be less than 1%) fatality rates.

All immune issues are not "autoimmune."

Didn't say they were.

That is a serious misunderstanding of the issue. Autoimmune refers to conditions where one's own immunity actually attacks one's own cells, as in diseases such as Parkinson's Disease. In Parkinson's disease, dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra are attacked by the body's own immunity. In Myathena Gravis, another autoimmune disease, the body produces antibodies against neurotransmitters used in the synaptic areas where muscles receive signals from the nervous system. Having a weak immune system is actually the opposite of "autoimmune," in that the inherent immunity fails to respond to legitimate threats in a timely manner instead of responding to false threats.

Autoimmune disease can also be a failure of the immune system, as well as overactivity.

Autoimmune disease
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a reply to: chr0naut

Exactly what part of "I'm done with you" are having trouble with?

I will not entertain any thoughts from anyone who thinks everyone that disagrees with him also believes in some illegitimate, idiotic, completely inane ideal that I have never brought up.

AND THAT INCLUDES YOU!

I do not want to hear about Q; I do not want to know about Q; I do not want to even see the damn letter anymore after all the idiocy that surrounds it! And I damn sure will not accept someone trying to insinuate that I believe in that hogwash.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Exactly what part of "I'm done with you" are having trouble with?

I will not entertain any thoughts from anyone who thinks everyone that disagrees with him also believes in some illegitimate, idiotic, completely inane ideal that I have never brought up.

AND THAT INCLUDES YOU!

I do not want to hear about Q; I do not want to know about Q; I do not want to even see the damn letter anymore after all the idiocy that surrounds it! And I damn sure will not accept someone trying to insinuate that I believe in that hogwash.

TheRedneck

I made no mention of it in later posts.

I limited myself specifically to direct response to what you posted, and provided credible supportive links for my arguments.

a reply to: Smigg

AMEN, well done Italy. I've been hoping that we'll see whole nations start to come out with this sort of revision, almost as though they're fighting back against a devious fifth column within their midst. But is this a genuine challenge to the globalist satanic cabal which has been running this fake pandemic from the beginning, or is it a twist in the tale authored by those same demonic cultists? Are they using this apparent turning point in Italy to illustrate a point about their total supremacy over all nation states? I sincerely hope not, I pray that this is a genuine turning point for Italy, an example to the rest of the developed nations of the world that resistance if NOT futile, that we are NOT bound & hamstrung on an irresistable freight train to the Pit of Hell. God help us as we fight this evil scam, God help the Italisans to stand their ground if this is a genuine point of resistance.

Will be keeping a close watch on this one.

a reply to: chr0naut

If that is supposed to be an apology, it sucks.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Grenade

Not what i seen when i went to A+E, i was the only person there and the wards were empty.

Same for me when I attended for an x-ray. I was literally the only patient in the department, there weren't even any inpatients waiting for their x-ray, zero outpatients, totally empty. The whole thing is a scam.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Funnily enough, equating people who oppose the plandemic with Q believers is becoming a common means to denigrate someone's opinions on the matter of the scam which we can clearly see unfolding befoore us. Someone tried to insinuate that I was a Q believer the other day, based on zero evidence other than their own fanciful speculation. I didn't receive an apology either, despite my clear statement about how I believe Q to be a psy-op deliberately inculcated by the Satanic cabal mainly with the intention of ensnaring Christians in the USA with something that can later be used to denigrate them & delegitimise their beliefs, both regarding their religion & regarding their awareness that the pandemic is a scam. Dark times.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I know, and it's about as intellectually dishonest a statement as one can make.

I do expect an apology, but I don't anticipate one. That particular poster probably thinks he has made some sort of good argument; in reality, his opinion now means less than nothing to me. If his intention was to convince me to get vaccinated, he just accomplished the exact opposite.

The hysteria over vaccination mandates is actually the strongest evidence I have that I do not need to take this shot. And now, with Italy downgrading their numbers, it's becoming clear that the vaccination is not to prevent a disease. I just don't yet know what the intention is, unless it's something as simple as money. I already authored a thread about the Chinese tie to the vaccine and its manufacturers.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

If that is supposed to be an apology, it sucks.

TheRedneck

Not apology. An explanation that I had abandoned direct mention of that particular pseudo-political cult.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I know, and it's about as intellectually dishonest a statement as one can make.

I do expect an apology, but I don't anticipate one. That particular poster probably thinks he has made some sort of good argument; in reality, his opinion now means less than nothing to me. If his intention was to convince me to get vaccinated, he just accomplished the exact opposite.

My intention was to present cogent argument that countered yours. But you have found something that, in your mind, allows you to hold on to your beliefs and opinions, and disregard the body of the argument.

You don't like that particular cult? Then follow through and ask yourself whose stated opinions/arguments are closest to theirs, yours, or mine?

The hysteria over vaccination mandates is actually the strongest evidence I have that I do not need to take this shot. And now, with Italy downgrading their numbers, it's becoming clear that the vaccination is not to prevent a disease.

So a reduction in the numbers of those dead only from the disease, means that no-one has died? You seem to be taking 'a mile' from that 'inch'.

I just don't yet know what the intention is, unless it's something as simple as money. I already authored a thread about the Chinese tie to the vaccine and its manufacturers.

TheRedneck

I read the thread you refer to in the above post.

- It implied that COVID-19 is not deadly (contrary to world-wide numbers of deaths).
- It implied that it is mainly a money grabbing exercise (despite the fact that Pfizer appears to be having financial difficulties, and ignoring that there are production and distribution costs, and that governments have negotiated deals that reduce profitability).
- It implied it was planned in advance by the CCP (and hasn't been a drain on their finances, and resources. Also, why? What has it got them?).
- It implied that Trump was innocent of all wrong and was ill-advised by those around him (yet his inaction, outright denials, and inappropriate and ineffective responses, went on for months, allowing the US to host the largest infection numbers of any country in the world. Oh, and we all know about his ignoring the advice and even promoting 'cures' that his advisors strongly opposed).
- It implied the virus was manufactured in a lab, and didn't have a natural source (despite the fact that no-one knows one way or the other, and the fact that all viruses like this, have, all of them, always arisen in nature).
- It implied that the vaccines have been ineffective, and are highly dangerous (despite their proliferation, proven effect, and relatively small ratio of adverse reactions).

If any one of these wildly speculative and mostly debunked assumptions are false, then the 'house of cards' of what your posts assert would be on very shaky ground.

In short, those initial 'original posts' were a mostly unoriginal restatement, and dependent upon, the assertions and beliefs proposed by others - echoes resonating in the echo chamber. At least I have the gumption to stand against that in debate.

a reply to: chr0naut

My intention was to present cogent argument that countered yours.

By insinuating that i also believed some crazy idea that had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion?

I don't think so. You were trying to besmirch my character because you couldn't present a "cogent argument" any other way. And I'm fed up with that cowardly tactic.

TheRedneck