Mein Cough

a reply to: AaarghZombies

or just the threat of firing if you talk. You never believe the whistleblowers that go against the MSM narrative, so head down carry-on

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

So, if you did have COVID-19 a year ago, and you tested positive again, you personally would be another case showing natural immunity is insufficient to protect from reinfection with COVID-19, even in the short duration of "about a year".

a reply to: chr0naut

I didn't say I tested Positive again , and for the love of God Mate Vaccines and Natural Immunity do not keep you from contracting the Virus they simply keep you from getting to sick . I feel Like I've said that fifty times already.

Yes. Totally normal. The flu is notably seasonal.

I think you misunderstand , I'm not talking about catching the Flu each time it mutates in a new season . I'm talking about these cases where people are testing positive for Covid-19 4-5 and 6 times in a single year .

Being reinfected with the same variant over and over again is ridiculous and not the way a virus works .

One of two things happening here , one the test they are using trips positive when it see's dead virus in someones body or Sars-Cov19 has been tampered with in a Lab giving it the ability to reinfect people.

Eh, what? You just said you had COVID-19 about a year ago and now you think you have it again, but you only had it once in your life and never again?

I have only had it once and I've had no test to confirm this Cold I have currently is Covid-19 , I'm simply suggesting the PCR test would read the Dead virus in my body and trip positive .

People are testing Positive for reinfection of the same Variant whether they are vaccinated or have natural immunity , and I'm telling you that is not how a Virus works . Have you ever met someone or even heard of someone who has been infected with the Seasonal Flu 3 or 4 times in a year ?

It does not happen.

SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus.

If the sequence can still be replicated (i.e. amplified by the polymerase reaction to get a reading in PCR) it is in fact still 'live', because the process of producing new RNA virus particles in our ribosomes uses almost the same polymerase reaction.

RNA polymerase and the ribosome: the close relationship

RNA does not last in our body for any significant length of time and breaks down in hours or less.

If we had gotten over COVID-19, then the old 'dead' RNA sequences would no longer be in our bodies and even their breakdown products would have been removed and excreted in a few hours.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: chr0naut

To suggest that people are being misdiagnosed all over the place, and that there is a giant conspiracy of tens of thousands of doctors and health workers to mislead everyone else, says a lot about you.

This is actually the undoing of a lot of the conspiracies on this site, the sheer number of people who would need to be involved in order to maintain it.

Even to do something like underreporting flu cases would require 10s of thousands of people to be complicit for a single state. As reports come in from so many sources.

To fake this many deaths as being from covid would need corrupt people at every level in every institution, in every country.

so the conclusion is, we no longer have to worry about the flu, ever. We beat it. It's dead. Time to celebrate!

Can you, perhaps, explain the logic that leads from the official reporting of cases, to the assumption that this means that the flu is beaten?

Because in the the official 2020 numbers, flu cases, while reduced from the numbers we have had in previous years, still are more than the number of cases in the USA in 2012:

Past Seasons Estimated Influenza Disease Burden - CDC

a reply to: DBCowboy

Did you really get a test?
I will never be scared enough to get one or submit to someone shoving that # up me.
Thankfully my employer is sane so us dirty Jews in the company have been unasked and fine for 'status'
Hoping it stays that way
If venues no longer accept tests anyway, and only proof of 'vaccination' they can kiss my @ss and watch their numbers drop.
Luckily I am old enough I have seen all the bands live I wanted to see already anyway.

a reply to: chr0naut

Gee I think that's because these 'tests' for covid vs other viruses were not designed to differentiate and that all these cases are mixed up and inaccurate and just used to fit an agenda because 'numbers'

a reply to: AaarghZombies

ITS BECAUASE THE TESTS ARE FAULTY/MISUSED

shouty face palm over.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: chr0naut

The common cold has been lethal for ages to people with immunity problems. You hear of people dying of, or nearly dying of, pneumonia--as a direct result of a cold, and immune response issues of some sort.

Just as many, if not most, people who've died of Covid had the same issues--immunity issues caused by any number of things.

Years ago, covid would have terrified me, as I was fighting cancer. My immune system beat cancer, but could it have beaten a cold plus cancer--I don't know. Just as I wouldn't want to test it against cancer and covid.

That is the main reason that I see no purpose to the "vaccine" save for people who have immunity issues for what ever reasons. I don't, so I do not need a vaccine, my immune system is capable of handling Covid. In ten-fifteen years? I don't know, I'll worry about it in ten-fifteen years.

As I've said all along, if you want to take it, go for it--I'm certainly not going to stop you, all I ask is that you, the metaphorical you, have the same curtesy. Or is that too much to ask?? For some, apparently it is.

You don't seem to have taken into account the issue of the people that you might spread COVID-19 to, the greater duration of transmissibility of the virus, should you catch it and also be unvaccinated.

originally posted by: MapMistress

originally posted by: chr0naut

Did natural immunity save any of those who died of the 1918 flu? Polio? Smallpox? Tetanus? Diptheria? Pertussis? Mumps? Tuberculosis? Ebola? Plague? Anthrax? Not to mention more modern infectious diseases?

Sounds like you are ignoring the fact that natural immunity has also failed, too, and frequently.

I am puzzled by your reasoning. Pretty much everyone alive today has grandparents or great grandparents that survived the 1918 flu and they all acquired natural immunity.

My grandfather was in Florida and he definitely acquired natural immunity to the 1918 flu. He also acquired natural immunity to tuberculosis when he was 5. His mother had tuberculosis. And his mother was Choctaw and acquired natural immunity to small pox. Fact is the majority of native americans are alive today because their ancestors acquired natural immunity to smallpox.

Grandma acquired natural immunity to mumps, before there were vaccines.

Lots of people have acquired natural immunity to pertussis (whooping cough). There are infants and toddlers every year who catch pertussis and survive building natural immunity. (Some too young to get their vaccines).

There's actually a lot of survivors to ebola in Africa. And they do have natural immunity. My understanding is the death rate to ebola is less than 50% now. So the other half have some form of natural immunity. (Marburg is the real killer. 98% death rate).

As for plague, the majority of people alive today have ancestors in the past who developed natural immunity to plague sometime in the 1500s, before or after.

The hundreds of millions who succumbed and died from those diseases are examples of where the process of natural immunity let them down.

Unfortunately, to get to having 'natural' immunity, you first have to get the diseases. Some don't survive that.

Vaccines offer a way to initiate the immune system against a pathogen without having to suffer the disease first. The immune system, in both vaccinated and unvaccinated cases, is the same one.

originally posted by: markymint
And if you DO die of COVID, then remember you are likely still part of the 1% of privilidged who get to die with dignity in a Western hospital surrounded by professionals and hopefully loved ones.

For all the years you were taught not to fear death and live each day like it's the last, why did high-survival rate COVID change that for you? You are a sheeple?

Although COVID-19 has a high survival rate, it is highly infectious. It will affect more people, and therefore can kill more than a deadlier pathogen that almost no-one catches.

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: DBCowboy


I have been informed by males in my life that catching the common cold is actually worse than death for men.

Can confirm.

Male brain is defective. It's also why I don't know how to load the dishwasher correctly.

Also, need assistance to make a sandwich.

a reply to: chr0naut

You really don't get what you're talking about. Stop before you hurt yourself.

Just because you a have a fragment of viral RNA in your sample that can be amplified is no guarantee that it came from a whole viral RNA sequence or even enough to create an active disease process in an individual. That's the controversy over the number of cycles a test is run. More cycles will amplify smaller and smaller amounts in your beginning sample to the point where it creates false positives, meaning healthy individuals are told they are asymptomatic when they really aren't.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: TheRedneck

The problem is the MRNA instructs your immune response to attack a single viral type. It then out competes your natural T-cells allowing any other pathogen to freely attack your system. This is acquired immuno-deficiency, very similar to AIDS. The inversion here is the "protection' of the jab makes one vulnerable to all manner of disease.

That's why everyone immediately dies of every other disease when they get over a cold, because you can only carry a single antigen at a time - not!

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
a reply to: chr0naut

Gee I think that's because these 'tests' for covid vs other viruses were not designed to differentiate and that all these cases are mixed up and inaccurate and just used to fit an agenda because 'numbers'

PCR tests differentiate between viruses based upon a genomic sequence. The genomic sequence for, say, flu, is significantly different than a coronavirus, and the sequence for SARS-CoV-2, is also different to other coronaviruses.

Your confusion is probably because most PCR tests can now test for Influenza A, Influenza B, and SARS-CoV-2 simultaneously. The test does not confuse the different viruses. It is a multivirus assay that reveals the abundances of all three viruses in a sample, separately from each other, but at the same time, with the same test. It is just a technological advance that was wanted because the CDC was concerned about the interaction of these contagious respiratory viruses.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

You really don't get what you're talking about. Stop before you hurt yourself.

Just because you a have a fragment of viral RNA in your sample that can be amplified is no guarantee that it came from a whole viral RNA sequence or even enough to create an active disease process in an individual. That's the controversy over the number of cycles a test is run. More cycles will amplify smaller and smaller amounts in your beginning sample to the point where it creates false positives, meaning healthy individuals are told they are asymptomatic when they really aren't.

PCR cannot amplify what isn't there.

Unless something is replicating these partial 'dead' genomic strands, they are removed from the body and excreted within hours and so, they won't be in a sample. RNA just doesn't last at room or at body temperature.

Additionally, if the 'dead' strands don't match well with your primers, they won't amplify.

And, if the technicians are sticking to the recommended cycle depth, the issues you mention are moot.

a reply to: chr0naut

Without doubt, there are other antibodies to other proteins created by natural immune processes. However, the spike protein is on the outside of the viral surface and presents the most available part of the virus to detect.

Oh, so there are no other proteins except this infamous spike protein on the exterior of the virus?

Interesting...

The other proteins are within the viral package and are not released until the virus shell is disrupted upon entering the cell.

So, considering the exterior of the virus is literally made of proteins, I guess you are indeed saying that the exterior is made of only spike proteins.

The most usual antibody and T-cell immune response occurs outside, or at the surface of cells, and so the immune system would not detect the other proteins unless, or until, they also present at the surface of an infected cell (as part of that cells' waste disposal mechanism).

Mmmm-hmmm.

This was what made the spike protein mechanism such a good prospect for vaccine companies to build their vaccines around, and why nearly every COVID-19 vaccine producer is using that particular mechanism.

Sounds to me like you believe it is the only possible mechanism... after all, you did indicate that the entire surface of the virus is made of a single protein.

Which, by the way, is completely false. Such a virus has never existed because it cannot exist. Physics says so. All viruses and all cells have multiple proteins which link together to form the outer shell.

The spike protein was chosen because it was the first protein identified. It is the protein that the virus uses to attach to cells using the mating ACE2 receptors. Unfortunately, the same spike proteins attaching to the ACE2 receptors throw the balance between ACE1 and ACE2 receptors off balance, and this signals the body to produce inflammation to assist any immunity cells and antibodies in attacking the virus, before the body creates the antibodies.

That is why the disease creates pneumonia in the lungs and organ damage when on the bloodstream. Since it uses the spike protein to create this problem, the vaccines will do the same... they create the spike protein! The vaccine itself, if it is injected into the blood supply instead of the muscles, creates many of the exact same life-threatening issues as the virus. It might have been "a good prospect," but it certainly made for a poor vaccine... we might have to redefine "vaccine" again. We already went from a medication that prevents infection to a medication that decreases symptoms... now we need to make "vaccine" mean a medication that might kill you by mimicking the virus it was supposed to protect against.

All you are doing is trying to use a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo that you do not even understand yourself to justify your position, which is not based on science but rather on fear and trust in the MSM garbage reports.

But, I suppose now you'll now explain to me how you used to be a famous microbiologist... heck, you've been everything else, so why not?

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

should you catch it and also be unvaccinated.

Vaccinated people are just as able to spread the virus as unvaccinated. That has been admitted by both the CDC and the pharmaceuticals who manufacture the vaccines.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

should you catch it and also be unvaccinated.

Vaccinated people are just as able to spread the virus as unvaccinated. That has been admitted by both the CDC and the pharmaceuticals who manufacture the vaccines.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

All you are doing is trying to use a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo that you do not even understand yourself to justify your position, which is not based on science but rather on fear and trust in the MSM garbage reports.

It's been regurgitated in multiple threads and self refuted based on those same sources.

Vaccinated people are just as able to spread the virus as unvaccinated. That has been admitted by both the CDC and the pharmaceuticals who manufacture the vaccines.

Which is why the logic fails.


We may not have solid vaccines but we do have solid treatments. IMO we should be increasing methods of testing and getting treatments available.

Having millions of asymptomatic timebombs seems rather counterproductive...

a reply to: chr0naut

PCR tests differentiate between viruses based upon a genomic sequence. The genomic sequence for, say, flu, is significantly different than a coronavirus, and the sequence for SARS-CoV-2, is also different to other coronaviruses.

The PCR does not amplify the entire genome. It amplifies fragments. The question is whether it amplifies fragments that are unique to the Chinese virus genome. All genomes are made of sequences that may exist in completely different genomes... I believe humans and dogs have something like 95% similarity in their genomes?

So if we are trying to count humans, I suppose we should count dogs as well because they may share certain segments of their genome? We can include cats, too... certainly all the primates... actually all mammals! And if we want to loosen that requirement just a bit, we can include birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish... all vertebrates! Heck, we can include all animals if we loosen it even more, and all we need is one sequence in common to do that.

But, you probably used to be a famous microbiologist... sorry, I forgot about that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus. If the sequence can still be replicated (i.e. amplified by the polymerase reaction to get a reading in PCR) it is in fact still 'live', because the process of producing new RNA virus particles in our ribosomes uses almost the same polymerase reaction. RNA polymerase and the ribosome: the close relationship RNA does not last in our body for any significant length of time and breaks down in hours or less. If we had gotten over COVID-19, then the old 'dead' RNA sequences would no longer be in our bodies and even their breakdown products would have been removed and excreted in a few hours.

Yes thank you for the Moderate lesson in PCR , turns out I can read to and everything you just said is redundant to the point I'm making

And yet people continue to test positive for a Virus that they should not be Infected with ?.?.

There are numerous cases of people testing positive for Sars-Cov19 multiple multiple times inside of the same year if not a few months , so how do we explain this ?

1. The test is flawed and turning out false positives.
2. Some how this Virus is bypassing the human immune system vaccinated or not and reinfecting people over and over again
3. The test is flawed and turning out false positives.