"Byker" wrote:
> On 7/3/2024 6:59 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>> "Byker" wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2024 10:22 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>> On 6/30/24 12:34 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>> Tyrone wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2024 at 12:41:09 AM EDT, "Anonymous" <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 8:30 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 7:48 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     * *greatly* reduce your chance of getting gravely ill or dying
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>       if you do contract it (this is beyond rational dispute)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For at least one of the shots, this was only the case for 60 days.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it made you MORE likely to be hospitalized.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Utter bullshit. That's why you don't have a citation for it. You're just
>>>>>>>>>>> spewing bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2023-09-12/05-COVID-Link-Gelles-508.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> See slide 25.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, Slide 25 doesn't support what you're claiming
>>>>>>>>> (nor do slides 26-28 either).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because you clearly missed some important elements:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First, CoVid isn't just a single genetic version, so the slide lists
>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>> against three then-predominant subvariants on a single chart, specifically
>>>>>>>>> BA.4/5, BQ.1, and XBB.1.5
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It goes on to show a clear vaccine benefit for two of three (BA.4/5 &
>>>>>>>>> BQ.1),
>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>> to its maximum recorded time window of 89 days since dose.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you're 2/3rds shot down already.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But do you have any hope for the third subvariant of XBB.1.5?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only if you can overcome two problems for even this niche case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The first problem you have is that it does show that there's no mean
>>>>>>>>> benefit
>>>>>>>>> from the original vaccine formulation, but the measured Median time
>>>>>>>>> since last
>>>>>>>>> dose isn't your claimed 60 days, but is at 464 days (1.3 years): over
>>>>>>>>> 7x times
>>>>>>>>> longer than your claim: Fail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your second problem you have is that the other one which didn't provide
>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>> benefit ("Bivalent...90-179 days), you also didn't read for
>>>>>>>>> comprehension: its
>>>>>>>>> Median time since last dose also isn't your claimed 60 days, but is 136
>>>>>>>>> days:
>>>>>>>>> over 2x longer too:  fail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you're now fully shot down on this one too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And that's before we even note that you failed to its footnote too:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "** These estimates are imprecise, which might be due to there being a
>>>>>>>>> relatively small number of persons in each level of vaccination or case
>>>>>>>>> status.
>>>>>>>>> This imprecision indicates that the actual VE could be substantially
>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> from the point estimate shown, and estimates should therefore be
>>>>>>>>> interpreted
>>>>>>>>> with caution.
>>>>>>>>> Additional data accrual could increase precision and allow more precise
>>>>>>>>> interpretation."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now we should also note that maybe you got the page# wrong, for there's
>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>> data on hospitalization reduction on slides 26-28, but these charts all
>>>>>>>>> show
>>>>>>>>> clear vaccine benefit for all conditions for the mean.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Plus even if we look at the total error bars, there's only two
>>>>>>>>> instances where
>>>>>>>>> it even crosses over the zero, which are both for the original vaccine,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> Median times since last dose of 334 & 394 days (0.9 & 1.1 years)
>>>>>>>>> respectively:
>>>>>>>>> owhere near your claimed "60 days".  Fail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I posted the wrong link.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So where is the "correct" link?
>>>>>
>>>>> Silence on substantiation...gosh, what a shocking surprise!  /s
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But in any case, the COVID clot shots aren't vaccines. A vaccine is
>>>>>>>> supposed
>>>>>>>> to provide the same sterilizing immunity compared to natural infection and
>>>>>>>> recovery on a PERMANENT basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, _really_?
>>>>
>>>> Before the CDC redefined it.
>>>
>>> The CDC didn't do that, cuntflaps.
>>
>> Yes they did,
>
> No, they didn't, cuntflaps.

Yes they did.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm

>> Jonathan David Ball.
>
> No such poster here, as you well know, cuntflaps.
>

Stop lying, Jonathan David Ball.

"Byker" wrote:
> On 7/3/2024 6:57 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>>> news:v63kcj$271re$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>>>
>>>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots.  Plus
>>>> I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never provided
>>>> "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio in 2006.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Some of us are old enough to remember
>>> the dread of polio in the fifties. Closed
>>> swimming pools, restricted gatherings, etc.
>>> We were terrified of it. And when the
>>> vaccine came out parents lined their
>>> children up for blocks at our local school
>>> to get it. There was no "anti-vaxx" movement,
>>> we all got the vaccine as soon as we could.
>>> Even when polio hit the Amish communities in
>>> 1979 they put aside their religious
>>> convictions and got vaccinated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm not against ALL vaccines or even ALL prophylaxes, provided people tell
>> the truth about them.
>
> The CDC told the truth about the mRNA COVID vaccines, cuntflaps.
>

No they didn't, Jonathan David Ball.

On 7/4/24 1:33 AM, Anonymous wrote:
> "Byker" wrote:
>> On 7/3/2024 6:57 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>>>> news:v63kcj$271re$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots.  Plus
>>>>> I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never provided
>>>>> "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio in 2006.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Some of us are old enough to remember
>>>> the dread of polio in the fifties. Closed
>>>> swimming pools, restricted gatherings, etc.
>>>> We were terrified of it. And when the
>>>> vaccine came out parents lined their
>>>> children up for blocks at our local school
>>>> to get it. There was no "anti-vaxx" movement,
>>>> we all got the vaccine as soon as we could.
>>>> Even when polio hit the Amish communities in
>>>> 1979 they put aside their religious
>>>> convictions and got vaccinated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not against ALL vaccines or even ALL prophylaxes, provided people
>>> tell
>>> the truth about them.
>>
>> The CDC told the truth about the mRNA COVID vaccines, cuntflaps.
>>
>
> No they didn't, Jonathan David Ball.

What specifically, was this alleged lie?

With citations, please, directly from the CDC website.

FYI:

Do also keep in mind that scientific knowledge changes & grows over
time, so that early on in a new pandemic, one only has basic principles
to rely on, which means that recommendations can & will change once
there is retrospective data to apply.

For example, 6ft distancing is based upon physics first principles of
aerosol dispersion which lower concentrations and thus a lower risk of
contagion. Barring confounding variables, increased distancing will
always result in a lower concentration and thus, always a lower risk.
But what isn't known until there's retrospective data to quantify is how
much risk reduction for each increment, but even this needs to be then
viewed from a cost:benefit standpoint: in conventional settings the cost
of merely standing ~1m further away from someone is extremely low, so
the incremental benefit need not be large to be a favorable approach.

Similarly, even a mask that's retrospectively found later to be
objectively minimally effective in filtering can & will have a positive
health benefit because it can have secondary effects that can be
conflated with positive correlation: its mere presence is a visual
prompt which statistically modified social norms for increasing social
distancing, which as per the above has a risk reduction. This is
similar to, but is not the same as being a "placebo effect". Bottom
line is that if nothing else, it did positively contribute as well
through behavior modification to lower risks; putting a precise
quantitative value on it requires a large amount of retrospective data.

-hh

On 7/3/24 9:56 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> On 7/3/24 1:22 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/24 12:34 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> Tyrone wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2024 at 12:41:09 AM EDT, "Anonymous" <anon@anon.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 8:30 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 7:48 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     * *greatly* reduce your chance of getting gravely ill or
>>>>>>>>>>>> dying from it
>>>>>>>>>>>>       if you do contract it (this is beyond rational dispute)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For at least one of the shots, this was only the case for 60
>>>>>>>>>>> days. Then,
>>>>>>>>>>> it made you MORE likely to be hospitalized.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Utter bullshit. That's why you don't have a citation for it.
>>>>>>>>>> You're just
>>>>>>>>>> spewing bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2023-09-12/05-COVID-Link-Gelles-508.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See slide 25.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, Slide 25 doesn't support what you're
>>>>>>>> claiming
>>>>>>>> (nor do slides 26-28 either).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because you clearly missed some important elements:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, CoVid isn't just a single genetic version, so the slide
>>>>>>>> lists
>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>> against three then-predominant subvariants on a single chart,
>>>>>>>> specifically
>>>>>>>> BA.4/5, BQ.1, and XBB.1.5
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It goes on to show a clear vaccine benefit for two of three
>>>>>>>> (BA.4/5 & BQ.1),
>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> to its maximum recorded time window of 89 days since dose.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you're 2/3rds shot down already.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But do you have any hope for the third subvariant of XBB.1.5?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only if you can overcome two problems for even this niche case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first problem you have is that it does show that there's no
>>>>>>>> mean benefit
>>>>>>>> from the original vaccine formulation, but the measured Median
>>>>>>>> time since last
>>>>>>>> dose isn't your claimed 60 days, but is at 464 days (1.3 years):
>>>>>>>> over 7x times
>>>>>>>> longer than your claim: Fail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your second problem you have is that the other one which didn't
>>>>>>>> provide clear
>>>>>>>> benefit ("Bivalent...90-179 days), you also didn't read for
>>>>>>>> comprehension: its
>>>>>>>> Median time since last dose also isn't your claimed 60 days, but
>>>>>>>> is 136 days:
>>>>>>>> over 2x longer too:  fail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you're now fully shot down on this one too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And that's before we even note that you failed to its footnote too:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "** These estimates are imprecise, which might be due to there
>>>>>>>> being a
>>>>>>>> relatively small number of persons in each level of vaccination
>>>>>>>> or case status.
>>>>>>>> This imprecision indicates that the actual VE could be
>>>>>>>> substantially different
>>>>>>>> from the point estimate shown, and estimates should therefore be
>>>>>>>> interpreted
>>>>>>>> with caution.
>>>>>>>> Additional data accrual could increase precision and allow more
>>>>>>>> precise
>>>>>>>> interpretation."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now we should also note that maybe you got the page# wrong, for
>>>>>>>> there's more
>>>>>>>> data on hospitalization reduction on slides 26-28, but these
>>>>>>>> charts all show
>>>>>>>> clear vaccine benefit for all conditions for the mean.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Plus even if we look at the total error bars, there's only two
>>>>>>>> instances where
>>>>>>>> it even crosses over the zero, which are both for the original
>>>>>>>> vaccine, and
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> Median times since last dose of 334 & 394 days (0.9 & 1.1 years)
>>>>>>>> respectively:
>>>>>>>> owhere near your claimed "60 days".  Fail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I posted the wrong link.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So where is the "correct" link?
>>>>
>>>> Silence on substantiation...gosh, what a shocking surprise!  /s
>>
>> More silence on substantiation...gosh, what a shocking surprise!  /s
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> But in any case, the COVID clot shots aren't vaccines. A vaccine
>>>>>>> is supposed
>>>>>>> to provide the same sterilizing immunity compared to natural
>>>>>>> infection and
>>>>>>> recovery on a PERMANENT basis.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, _really_?
>>>
>>> Before the CDC redefined it.
>>
>> Got cite?
>>
>> Wayback Machine will have the CDC's old (pre-"redefined") webpages, so
>> you have no excuse for not clearly substantiating your claim.
>
> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
>
> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
>
>>>> Provide the medical citation that substantiates your claim that
>>>> natural infection & recovery provides "PERMANENT" (your word choice)
>>>> protection.
>>>>
>>>> Plus while you're at it, that vaccine & natural function only in
>>>> this mechanism of providing "sterilizing immunity" (again, your word
>>>> choice).
>>>>
>>
>> Once again, silence on substantiation...shocking!  /s
>>
>>
>>>>>> Covid did not work like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it did. Even the initial lab leak. If viruses and immune
>>>>> systems didn't
>>>>> work like that, there would be no animal life on Earth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nah, you're merely demonstrating that you don't know much about
>>>> either viruses or immune system architecture & function.  Suggest
>>>> that you go contract Measles so that you can reset your auto-immune
>>>> system back to an infant's 'zero', so that you can perhaps learn it
>>>> correctly 2nd time.
>>>
>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>
>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots.  Plus
>> I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never provided
>> "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio in 2006.
>> My Meningococcal & Typhoid expired in 2021, but Tetanus & Yellow Fever
>> vaccinations don't need to be renewed before 2026.
>
> I'm enjoying my far superior natural immunity to Covid. I got the virus
> years ago, before the shot was released, and I haven't had it since.

-hh wrote:
> On 7/4/24 1:33 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>> "Byker" wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2024 6:57 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:v63kcj$271re$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots.  Plus
>>>>>> I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never provided
>>>>>> "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio in 2006.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Some of us are old enough to remember
>>>>> the dread of polio in the fifties. Closed
>>>>> swimming pools, restricted gatherings, etc.
>>>>> We were terrified of it. And when the
>>>>> vaccine came out parents lined their
>>>>> children up for blocks at our local school
>>>>> to get it. There was no "anti-vaxx" movement,
>>>>> we all got the vaccine as soon as we could.
>>>>> Even when polio hit the Amish communities in
>>>>> 1979 they put aside their religious
>>>>> convictions and got vaccinated.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not against ALL vaccines or even ALL prophylaxes, provided people tell
>>>> the truth about them.
>>>
>>> The CDC told the truth about the mRNA COVID vaccines, cuntflaps.
>>>
>>
>> No they didn't, Jonathan David Ball.
>
> What specifically, was this alleged lie?
>
> With citations, please, directly from the CDC website.
>
> FYI:
>
> Do also keep in mind that scientific knowledge changes & grows over time, so
> that early on in a new pandemic, one only has basic principles to rely on, which
> means that recommendations can & will change once there is retrospective data to
> apply.
>
> For example, 6ft distancing is based upon physics first principles of aerosol
> dispersion which lower concentrations and thus a lower risk of contagion.

Lower concentrations don't matter when a virus replicates exponentially.

> Barring confounding variables, increased distancing will always result in a
> lower concentration and thus, always a lower risk. But what isn't known until
> there's retrospective data to quantify is how much risk reduction for each
> increment, but even this needs to be then viewed from a cost:benefit standpoint:
> in conventional settings the cost of merely standing ~1m further away from
> someone is extremely low, so the incremental benefit need not be large to be a
> favorable approach.
>
> Similarly, even a mask that's retrospectively found later to be objectively
> minimally effective in filtering can & will have a positive health benefit
> because it can have secondary effects that can be conflated with positive
> correlation: its mere presence is a visual prompt which statistically modified
> social norms for increasing social distancing, which as per the above has a risk
> reduction.  This is similar to, but is not the same as being a "placebo
> effect".  Bottom line is that if nothing else, it did positively contribute as
> well through behavior modification to lower risks; putting a precise
> quantitative value on it requires a large amount of retrospective data.

Masks never worked, and were known to not work.

-hh wrote:
> On 7/3/24 9:56 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> On 7/3/24 1:22 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>> On 6/30/24 12:34 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>> Tyrone wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2024 at 12:41:09 AM EDT, "Anonymous" <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 8:30 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 7:48 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     * *greatly* reduce your chance of getting gravely ill or dying
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>       if you do contract it (this is beyond rational dispute)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For at least one of the shots, this was only the case for 60 days.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it made you MORE likely to be hospitalized.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Utter bullshit. That's why you don't have a citation for it. You're just
>>>>>>>>>>> spewing bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2023-09-12/05-COVID-Link-Gelles-508.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> See slide 25.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, Slide 25 doesn't support what you're claiming
>>>>>>>>> (nor do slides 26-28 either).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because you clearly missed some important elements:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First, CoVid isn't just a single genetic version, so the slide lists
>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>> against three then-predominant subvariants on a single chart, specifically
>>>>>>>>> BA.4/5, BQ.1, and XBB.1.5
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It goes on to show a clear vaccine benefit for two of three (BA.4/5 &
>>>>>>>>> BQ.1),
>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>> to its maximum recorded time window of 89 days since dose.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you're 2/3rds shot down already.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But do you have any hope for the third subvariant of XBB.1.5?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only if you can overcome two problems for even this niche case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The first problem you have is that it does show that there's no mean
>>>>>>>>> benefit
>>>>>>>>> from the original vaccine formulation, but the measured Median time
>>>>>>>>> since last
>>>>>>>>> dose isn't your claimed 60 days, but is at 464 days (1.3 years): over
>>>>>>>>> 7x times
>>>>>>>>> longer than your claim: Fail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your second problem you have is that the other one which didn't provide
>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>> benefit ("Bivalent...90-179 days), you also didn't read for
>>>>>>>>> comprehension: its
>>>>>>>>> Median time since last dose also isn't your claimed 60 days, but is 136
>>>>>>>>> days:
>>>>>>>>> over 2x longer too:  fail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you're now fully shot down on this one too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And that's before we even note that you failed to its footnote too:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "** These estimates are imprecise, which might be due to there being a
>>>>>>>>> relatively small number of persons in each level of vaccination or case
>>>>>>>>> status.
>>>>>>>>> This imprecision indicates that the actual VE could be substantially
>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> from the point estimate shown, and estimates should therefore be
>>>>>>>>> interpreted
>>>>>>>>> with caution.
>>>>>>>>> Additional data accrual could increase precision and allow more precise
>>>>>>>>> interpretation."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now we should also note that maybe you got the page# wrong, for there's
>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>> data on hospitalization reduction on slides 26-28, but these charts all
>>>>>>>>> show
>>>>>>>>> clear vaccine benefit for all conditions for the mean.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Plus even if we look at the total error bars, there's only two
>>>>>>>>> instances where
>>>>>>>>> it even crosses over the zero, which are both for the original vaccine,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> Median times since last dose of 334 & 394 days (0.9 & 1.1 years)
>>>>>>>>> respectively:
>>>>>>>>> owhere near your claimed "60 days".  Fail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I posted the wrong link.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So where is the "correct" link?
>>>>>
>>>>> Silence on substantiation...gosh, what a shocking surprise!  /s
>>>
>>> More silence on substantiation...gosh, what a shocking surprise!  /s
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But in any case, the COVID clot shots aren't vaccines. A vaccine is
>>>>>>>> supposed
>>>>>>>> to provide the same sterilizing immunity compared to natural infection and
>>>>>>>> recovery on a PERMANENT basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, _really_?
>>>>
>>>> Before the CDC redefined it.
>>>
>>> Got cite?
>>>
>>> Wayback Machine will have the CDC's old (pre-"redefined") webpages, so you
>>> have no excuse for not clearly substantiating your claim.
>>
>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
>>
>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
>>
>>>>> Provide the medical citation that substantiates your claim that natural
>>>>> infection & recovery provides "PERMANENT" (your word choice) protection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plus while you're at it, that vaccine & natural function only in this
>>>>> mechanism of providing "sterilizing immunity" (again, your word choice).
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Once again, silence on substantiation...shocking!  /s
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Covid did not work like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes it did. Even the initial lab leak. If viruses and immune systems didn't
>>>>>> work like that, there would be no animal life on Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nah, you're merely demonstrating that you don't know much about either
>>>>> viruses or immune system architecture & function.  Suggest that you go
>>>>> contract Measles so that you can reset your auto-immune system back to an
>>>>> infant's 'zero', so that you can perhaps learn it correctly 2nd time.
>>>>
>>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>>
>>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots.  Plus I've
>>> boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never provided "100%
>>> permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio in 2006. My
>>> Meningococcal & Typhoid expired in 2021, but Tetanus & Yellow Fever
>>> vaccinations don't need to be renewed before 2026.
>>
>> I'm enjoying my far superior natural immunity to Covid. I got the virus
>> years ago, before the shot was released, and I haven't had it since.
>
>
> Suuuure you did.

On 2024-07-05, Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> On 7/4/24 1:33 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> "Byker" wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:57 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:v63kcj$271re$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots.  Plus
>>>>>>> I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never provided
>>>>>>> "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio in 2006.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Some of us are old enough to remember
>>>>>> the dread of polio in the fifties. Closed
>>>>>> swimming pools, restricted gatherings, etc.
>>>>>> We were terrified of it. And when the
>>>>>> vaccine came out parents lined their
>>>>>> children up for blocks at our local school
>>>>>> to get it. There was no "anti-vaxx" movement,
>>>>>> we all got the vaccine as soon as we could.
>>>>>> Even when polio hit the Amish communities in
>>>>>> 1979 they put aside their religious
>>>>>> convictions and got vaccinated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not against ALL vaccines or even ALL prophylaxes, provided people tell
>>>>> the truth about them.
>>>>
>>>> The CDC told the truth about the mRNA COVID vaccines, cuntflaps.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No they didn't, Jonathan David Ball.
>>
>> What specifically, was this alleged lie?
>>
>> With citations, please, directly from the CDC website.
>>
>> FYI:
>>
>> Do also keep in mind that scientific knowledge changes & grows over time, so
>> that early on in a new pandemic, one only has basic principles to rely on, which
>> means that recommendations can & will change once there is retrospective data to
>> apply.
>>
>> For example, 6ft distancing is based upon physics first principles of aerosol
>> dispersion which lower concentrations and thus a lower risk of contagion.
>
> Lower concentrations don't matter when a virus replicates exponentially.
>
>> Barring confounding variables, increased distancing will always result in a
>> lower concentration and thus, always a lower risk. But what isn't known until
>> there's retrospective data to quantify is how much risk reduction for each
>> increment, but even this needs to be then viewed from a cost:benefit standpoint:
>> in conventional settings the cost of merely standing ~1m further away from
>> someone is extremely low, so the incremental benefit need not be large to be a
>> favorable approach.
>>
>> Similarly, even a mask that's retrospectively found later to be objectively
>> minimally effective in filtering can & will have a positive health benefit
>> because it can have secondary effects that can be conflated with positive
>> correlation: its mere presence is a visual prompt which statistically modified
>> social norms for increasing social distancing, which as per the above has a risk
>> reduction.  This is similar to, but is not the same as being a "placebo
>> effect".  Bottom line is that if nothing else, it did positively contribute as
>> well through behavior modification to lower risks; putting a precise
>> quantitative value on it requires a large amount of retrospective data.
>
> Masks never worked, and were known to not work.

They did according to Fauci. But then they didn't according to Fauci. But then 2 masks worked, once
again according to Fauci.
So which one is it Dr. Fauci?

How about "stop the spread in ~2 weeks or whatever the number was?"
How well did that work out Dr. Fauci?
Then of course there is the ever popular "your MRNA shot prevents the spread to people close,
physically, to you even if they haven't gotten the shot".
Another Dr. Fauci error.
Defending the Wuhan lab at all costs.

The real issue is what did Fauci really know, when did he know it, and how involved was he in
the funding of gain of function research with a US adversary as well as his influence with the
corrupt WHO.
Whatever the science is, was or was thought to be, Dr. Fauci is a corrupt, self serving little man
who needs to be put under one of his own microscopes and fully investigated because too many arrows
are pointing in his direction. And this time not some lame ass republican investigation but a
criminal one.

--
pothead
Joe Biden is the absolute WORST President Of the U.S. ever.
Nobody else is even close. Including Jimmy Carter.
Vote for ANYBODY but Joe Biden in 2024.

On 7/5/24 1:10 AM, Anonymous wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> On 7/4/24 1:33 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> "Byker" wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:57 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:v63kcj$271re$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots.
>>>>>>> Plus
>>>>>>> I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never provided
>>>>>>> "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio in
>>>>>>> 2006.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Some of us are old enough to remember
>>>>>> the dread of polio in the fifties. Closed
>>>>>> swimming pools, restricted gatherings, etc.
>>>>>> We were terrified of it. And when the
>>>>>> vaccine came out parents lined their
>>>>>> children up for blocks at our local school
>>>>>> to get it. There was no "anti-vaxx" movement,
>>>>>> we all got the vaccine as soon as we could.
>>>>>> Even when polio hit the Amish communities in
>>>>>> 1979 they put aside their religious
>>>>>> convictions and got vaccinated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not against ALL vaccines or even ALL prophylaxes, provided
>>>>> people tell
>>>>> the truth about them.
>>>>
>>>> The CDC told the truth about the mRNA COVID vaccines, cuntflaps.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No they didn't, Jonathan David Ball.
>>
>> What specifically, was this alleged lie?
>>
>> With citations, please, directly from the CDC website.

Golly, no cites provided at all, let alone ones from the CDC which
document their _alleged_ statements.

>>
>> FYI:
>>
>> Do also keep in mind that scientific knowledge changes & grows over
>> time, so that early on in a new pandemic, one only has basic
>> principles to rely on, which means that recommendations can & will
>> change once there is retrospective data to apply.
>>
>> For example, 6ft distancing is based upon physics first principles of
>> aerosol dispersion which lower concentrations and thus a lower risk of
>> contagion.
>
> Lower concentrations don't matter when a virus replicates exponentially.

Yeah, they do matter. Basic reason is because the immune system has a
functional carrying limit of how many intruders it can fend off. Below
that threshold value, the immune system successfully fights off the bug
so that it doesn't grow. FYI, this is quite basic stuff in biology.

>> Barring confounding variables, increased distancing will always result
>> in a lower concentration and thus, always a lower risk. But what isn't
>> known until there's retrospective data to quantify is how much risk
>> reduction for each increment, but even this needs to be then viewed
>> from a cost:benefit standpoint: in conventional settings the cost of
>> merely standing ~1m further away from someone is extremely low, so the
>> incremental benefit need not be large to be a favorable approach.
>>
>> Similarly, even a mask that's retrospectively found later to be
>> objectively minimally effective in filtering can & will have a
>> positive health benefit because it can have secondary effects that can
>> be conflated with positive correlation: its mere presence is a visual
>> prompt which statistically modified social norms for increasing social
>> distancing, which as per the above has a risk reduction.  This is
>> similar to, but is not the same as being a "placebo effect".  Bottom
>> line is that if nothing else, it did positively contribute as well
>> through behavior modification to lower risks; putting a precise
>> quantitative value on it requires a large amount of retrospective data.
>
> Masks never worked, and were known to not work.

Mask have _always_ worked, even if you don't want to admit it.

-hh

-hh wrote:
> On 7/5/24 1:10 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> On 7/4/24 1:33 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> "Byker" wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:57 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:v63kcj$271re$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots. Plus
>>>>>>>> I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never provided
>>>>>>>> "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio in 2006.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Some of us are old enough to remember
>>>>>>> the dread of polio in the fifties. Closed
>>>>>>> swimming pools, restricted gatherings, etc.
>>>>>>> We were terrified of it. And when the
>>>>>>> vaccine came out parents lined their
>>>>>>> children up for blocks at our local school
>>>>>>> to get it. There was no "anti-vaxx" movement,
>>>>>>> we all got the vaccine as soon as we could.
>>>>>>> Even when polio hit the Amish communities in
>>>>>>> 1979 they put aside their religious
>>>>>>> convictions and got vaccinated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not against ALL vaccines or even ALL prophylaxes, provided people tell
>>>>>> the truth about them.
>>>>>
>>>>> The CDC told the truth about the mRNA COVID vaccines, cuntflaps.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No they didn't, Jonathan David Ball.
>>>
>>> What specifically, was this alleged lie?
>>>
>>> With citations, please, directly from the CDC website.
>
>
> Golly, no cites provided at all, let alone ones from the CDC which document
> their _alleged_ statements.
>
>
>>>
>>> FYI:
>>>
>>> Do also keep in mind that scientific knowledge changes & grows over time, so
>>> that early on in a new pandemic, one only has basic principles to rely on,
>>> which means that recommendations can & will change once there is
>>> retrospective data to apply.
>>>
>>> For example, 6ft distancing is based upon physics first principles of aerosol
>>> dispersion which lower concentrations and thus a lower risk of contagion.
>>
>> Lower concentrations don't matter when a virus replicates exponentially.
>
>
> Yeah, they do matter.  Basic reason is because the immune system has a
> functional carrying limit of how many intruders it can fend off.  Below that
> threshold value, the immune system successfully fights off the bug so that it
> doesn't grow.  FYI, this is quite basic stuff in biology.
>
>
>
>>> Barring confounding variables, increased distancing will always result in a
>>> lower concentration and thus, always a lower risk. But what isn't known until
>>> there's retrospective data to quantify is how much risk reduction for each
>>> increment, but even this needs to be then viewed from a cost:benefit
>>> standpoint: in conventional settings the cost of merely standing ~1m further
>>> away from someone is extremely low, so the incremental benefit need not be
>>> large to be a favorable approach.
>>>
>>> Similarly, even a mask that's retrospectively found later to be objectively
>>> minimally effective in filtering can & will have a positive health benefit
>>> because it can have secondary effects that can be conflated with positive
>>> correlation: its mere presence is a visual prompt which statistically
>>> modified social norms for increasing social distancing, which as per the
>>> above has a risk reduction.  This is similar to, but is not the same as being
>>> a "placebo effect".  Bottom line is that if nothing else, it did positively
>>> contribute as well through behavior modification to lower risks; putting a
>>> precise quantitative value on it requires a large amount of retrospective data.
>>
>> Masks never worked, and were known to not work.
>
> Mask have _always_ worked, even if you don't want to admit it.

Masks never worked, even with trained medical professionals in the operating
room:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf

On 7/7/24 12:24 AM, Anonymous wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> On 7/5/24 1:10 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/24 1:33 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> "Byker" wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:57 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:v63kcj$271re$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu
>>>>>>>>> shots. Plus
>>>>>>>>> I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never
>>>>>>>>> provided
>>>>>>>>> "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio
>>>>>>>>> in 2006.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Some of us are old enough to remember
>>>>>>>> the dread of polio in the fifties. Closed
>>>>>>>> swimming pools, restricted gatherings, etc.
>>>>>>>> We were terrified of it. And when the
>>>>>>>> vaccine came out parents lined their
>>>>>>>> children up for blocks at our local school
>>>>>>>> to get it. There was no "anti-vaxx" movement,
>>>>>>>> we all got the vaccine as soon as we could.
>>>>>>>> Even when polio hit the Amish communities in
>>>>>>>> 1979 they put aside their religious
>>>>>>>> convictions and got vaccinated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not against ALL vaccines or even ALL prophylaxes, provided
>>>>>>> people tell
>>>>>>> the truth about them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The CDC told the truth about the mRNA COVID vaccines, cuntflaps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No they didn't, Jonathan David Ball.
>>>>
>>>> What specifically, was this alleged lie?
>>>>
>>>> With citations, please, directly from the CDC website.
>>
>>
>> Golly, no cites provided at all, let alone ones from the CDC which
>> document their _alleged_ statements.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> FYI:
>>>>
>>>> Do also keep in mind that scientific knowledge changes & grows over
>>>> time, so that early on in a new pandemic, one only has basic
>>>> principles to rely on, which means that recommendations can & will
>>>> change once there is retrospective data to apply.
>>>>
>>>> For example, 6ft distancing is based upon physics first principles
>>>> of aerosol dispersion which lower concentrations and thus a lower
>>>> risk of contagion.
>>>
>>> Lower concentrations don't matter when a virus replicates exponentially.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, they do matter.  Basic reason is because the immune system has a
>> functional carrying limit of how many intruders it can fend off.
>> Below that threshold value, the immune system successfully fights off
>> the bug so that it doesn't grow.  FYI, this is quite basic stuff in
>> biology.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Barring confounding variables, increased distancing will always
>>>> result in a lower concentration and thus, always a lower risk. But
>>>> what isn't known until there's retrospective data to quantify is how
>>>> much risk reduction for each increment, but even this needs to be
>>>> then viewed from a cost:benefit standpoint: in conventional settings
>>>> the cost of merely standing ~1m further away from someone is
>>>> extremely low, so the incremental benefit need not be large to be a
>>>> favorable approach.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, even a mask that's retrospectively found later to be
>>>> objectively minimally effective in filtering can & will have a
>>>> positive health benefit because it can have secondary effects that
>>>> can be conflated with positive correlation: its mere presence is a
>>>> visual prompt which statistically modified social norms for
>>>> increasing social distancing, which as per the above has a risk
>>>> reduction.  This is similar to, but is not the same as being a
>>>> "placebo effect".  Bottom line is that if nothing else, it did
>>>> positively contribute as well through behavior modification to lower
>>>> risks; putting a precise quantitative value on it requires a large
>>>> amount of retrospective data.
>>>
>>> Masks never worked, and were known to not work.
>>
>> Mask have _always_ worked, even if you don't want to admit it.
>
> Masks never worked, even with trained medical professionals in the
> operating
> room:
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf
>

A 40 year old study on bacteria, not viruses, which neglected to
document if & how confounding variables were factored into the study: FAIL.

-hh

On 7/5/24 1:10 AM, Anonymous wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> On 7/3/24 9:56 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/24 1:22 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/30/24 12:34 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>> Tyrone wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2024 at 12:41:09 AM EDT, "Anonymous" <anon@anon.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 8:30 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 7:48 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     * *greatly* reduce your chance of getting gravely ill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or dying from it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       if you do contract it (this is beyond rational dispute)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For at least one of the shots, this was only the case for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 60 days. Then,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it made you MORE likely to be hospitalized.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Utter bullshit. That's why you don't have a citation for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're just
>>>>>>>>>>>> spewing bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2023-09-12/05-COVID-Link-Gelles-508.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> See slide 25.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, Slide 25 doesn't support what you're
>>>>>>>>>> claiming
>>>>>>>>>> (nor do slides 26-28 either).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because you clearly missed some important elements:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First, CoVid isn't just a single genetic version, so the slide
>>>>>>>>>> lists
>>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>> against three then-predominant subvariants on a single chart,
>>>>>>>>>> specifically
>>>>>>>>>> BA.4/5, BQ.1, and XBB.1.5
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It goes on to show a clear vaccine benefit for two of three
>>>>>>>>>> (BA.4/5 & BQ.1),
>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>> to its maximum recorded time window of 89 days since dose.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you're 2/3rds shot down already.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But do you have any hope for the third subvariant of XBB.1.5?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only if you can overcome two problems for even this niche case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The first problem you have is that it does show that there's
>>>>>>>>>> no mean benefit
>>>>>>>>>> from the original vaccine formulation, but the measured Median
>>>>>>>>>> time since last
>>>>>>>>>> dose isn't your claimed 60 days, but is at 464 days (1.3
>>>>>>>>>> years): over 7x times
>>>>>>>>>> longer than your claim: Fail.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your second problem you have is that the other one which
>>>>>>>>>> didn't provide clear
>>>>>>>>>> benefit ("Bivalent...90-179 days), you also didn't read for
>>>>>>>>>> comprehension: its
>>>>>>>>>> Median time since last dose also isn't your claimed 60 days,
>>>>>>>>>> but is 136 days:
>>>>>>>>>> over 2x longer too:  fail.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you're now fully shot down on this one too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And that's before we even note that you failed to its footnote
>>>>>>>>>> too:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "** These estimates are imprecise, which might be due to there
>>>>>>>>>> being a
>>>>>>>>>> relatively small number of persons in each level of
>>>>>>>>>> vaccination or case status.
>>>>>>>>>> This imprecision indicates that the actual VE could be
>>>>>>>>>> substantially different
>>>>>>>>>> from the point estimate shown, and estimates should therefore
>>>>>>>>>> be interpreted
>>>>>>>>>> with caution.
>>>>>>>>>> Additional data accrual could increase precision and allow
>>>>>>>>>> more precise
>>>>>>>>>> interpretation."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now we should also note that maybe you got the page# wrong,
>>>>>>>>>> for there's more
>>>>>>>>>> data on hospitalization reduction on slides 26-28, but these
>>>>>>>>>> charts all show
>>>>>>>>>> clear vaccine benefit for all conditions for the mean.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Plus even if we look at the total error bars, there's only two
>>>>>>>>>> instances where
>>>>>>>>>> it even crosses over the zero, which are both for the original
>>>>>>>>>> vaccine, and
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> Median times since last dose of 334 & 394 days (0.9 & 1.1
>>>>>>>>>> years) respectively:
>>>>>>>>>> owhere near your claimed "60 days".  Fail.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I posted the wrong link.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So where is the "correct" link?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Silence on substantiation...gosh, what a shocking surprise!  /s
>>>>
>>>> More silence on substantiation...gosh, what a shocking surprise!  /s
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But in any case, the COVID clot shots aren't vaccines. A
>>>>>>>>> vaccine is supposed
>>>>>>>>> to provide the same sterilizing immunity compared to natural
>>>>>>>>> infection and
>>>>>>>>> recovery on a PERMANENT basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, _really_?
>>>>>
>>>>> Before the CDC redefined it.
>>>>
>>>> Got cite?
>>>>
>>>> Wayback Machine will have the CDC's old (pre-"redefined") webpages,
>>>> so you have no excuse for not clearly substantiating your claim.
>>>
>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
>>>
>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
>>>
>>>>>> Provide the medical citation that substantiates your claim that
>>>>>> natural infection & recovery provides "PERMANENT" (your word
>>>>>> choice) protection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plus while you're at it, that vaccine & natural function only in
>>>>>> this mechanism of providing "sterilizing immunity" (again, your
>>>>>> word choice).
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Once again, silence on substantiation...shocking!  /s
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Covid did not work like that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes it did. Even the initial lab leak. If viruses and immune
>>>>>>> systems didn't
>>>>>>> work like that, there would be no animal life on Earth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nah, you're merely demonstrating that you don't know much about
>>>>>> either viruses or immune system architecture & function.  Suggest
>>>>>> that you go contract Measles so that you can reset your
>>>>>> auto-immune system back to an infant's 'zero', so that you can
>>>>>> perhaps learn it correctly 2nd time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>>>
>>>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots.
>>>> Plus I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never
>>>> provided "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for
>>>> Polio in 2006. My Meningococcal & Typhoid expired in 2021, but
>>>> Tetanus & Yellow Fever vaccinations don't need to be renewed before
>>>> 2026.
>>>
>>> I'm enjoying my far superior natural immunity to Covid. I got the virus
>>> years ago, before the shot was released, and I haven't had it since.
>>
>>
>> Suuuure you did.
>
> That's what the antibody test said.

On 7/5/24 7:48 AM, pothead wrote:
> On 2024-07-05, Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> On 7/4/24 1:33 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> "Byker" wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:57 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:v63kcj$271re$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots.  Plus
>>>>>>>> I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never provided
>>>>>>>> "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio in 2006.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Some of us are old enough to remember
>>>>>>> the dread of polio in the fifties. Closed
>>>>>>> swimming pools, restricted gatherings, etc.
>>>>>>> We were terrified of it. And when the
>>>>>>> vaccine came out parents lined their
>>>>>>> children up for blocks at our local school
>>>>>>> to get it. There was no "anti-vaxx" movement,
>>>>>>> we all got the vaccine as soon as we could.
>>>>>>> Even when polio hit the Amish communities in
>>>>>>> 1979 they put aside their religious
>>>>>>> convictions and got vaccinated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not against ALL vaccines or even ALL prophylaxes, provided people tell
>>>>>> the truth about them.
>>>>>
>>>>> The CDC told the truth about the mRNA COVID vaccines, cuntflaps.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No they didn't, Jonathan David Ball.
>>>
>>> What specifically, was this alleged lie?
>>>
>>> With citations, please, directly from the CDC website.
>>>
>>> FYI:
>>>
>>> Do also keep in mind that scientific knowledge changes & grows over time, so
>>> that early on in a new pandemic, one only has basic principles to rely on, which
>>> means that recommendations can & will change once there is retrospective data to
>>> apply.
>>>
>>> For example, 6ft distancing is based upon physics first principles of aerosol
>>> dispersion which lower concentrations and thus a lower risk of contagion.
>>
>> Lower concentrations don't matter when a virus replicates exponentially.
>>
>>> Barring confounding variables, increased distancing will always result in a
>>> lower concentration and thus, always a lower risk. But what isn't known until
>>> there's retrospective data to quantify is how much risk reduction for each
>>> increment, but even this needs to be then viewed from a cost:benefit standpoint:
>>> in conventional settings the cost of merely standing ~1m further away from
>>> someone is extremely low, so the incremental benefit need not be large to be a
>>> favorable approach.
>>>
>>> Similarly, even a mask that's retrospectively found later to be objectively
>>> minimally effective in filtering can & will have a positive health benefit
>>> because it can have secondary effects that can be conflated with positive
>>> correlation: its mere presence is a visual prompt which statistically modified
>>> social norms for increasing social distancing, which as per the above has a risk
>>> reduction.  This is similar to, but is not the same as being a "placebo
>>> effect".  Bottom line is that if nothing else, it did positively contribute as
>>> well through behavior modification to lower risks; putting a precise
>>> quantitative value on it requires a large amount of retrospective data.
>>
>> Masks never worked, and were known to not work.
>
> They did according to Fauci. But then they didn't according to Fauci. But then 2 masks worked, once
> again according to Fauci.
> So which one is it Dr. Fauci?
>
> How about "stop the spread in ~2 weeks or whatever the number was?"
> How well did that work out Dr. Fauci?
> Then of course there is the ever popular "your MRNA shot prevents the spread to people close,
> physically, to you even if they haven't gotten the shot".
> Another Dr. Fauci error.
> Defending the Wuhan lab at all costs.
>
> The real issue is what did Fauci really know, when did he know it, and how involved was he in
> the funding of gain of function research with a US adversary as well as his influence with the
> corrupt WHO.
> Whatever the science is, was or was thought to be, Dr. Fauci is a corrupt, self serving little man
> who needs to be put under one of his own microscopes and fully investigated because too many arrows
> are pointing in his direction. And this time not some lame ass republican investigation but a
> criminal one.
>

Interesting bunch of claims. Lets start with where the substantiating
citations on each of these "he said" are.

-hh

-hh wrote:
> On 7/7/24 12:24 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> On 7/5/24 1:10 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>> On 7/4/24 1:33 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>> "Byker" wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:57 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:v63kcj$271re$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots. Plus
>>>>>>>>>> I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never provided
>>>>>>>>>> "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio in 2006.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     Some of us are old enough to remember
>>>>>>>>> the dread of polio in the fifties. Closed
>>>>>>>>> swimming pools, restricted gatherings, etc.
>>>>>>>>> We were terrified of it. And when the
>>>>>>>>> vaccine came out parents lined their
>>>>>>>>> children up for blocks at our local school
>>>>>>>>> to get it. There was no "anti-vaxx" movement,
>>>>>>>>> we all got the vaccine as soon as we could.
>>>>>>>>> Even when polio hit the Amish communities in
>>>>>>>>> 1979 they put aside their religious
>>>>>>>>> convictions and got vaccinated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not against ALL vaccines or even ALL prophylaxes, provided people tell
>>>>>>>> the truth about them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The CDC told the truth about the mRNA COVID vaccines, cuntflaps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No they didn't, Jonathan David Ball.
>>>>>
>>>>> What specifically, was this alleged lie?
>>>>>
>>>>> With citations, please, directly from the CDC website.
>>>
>>>
>>> Golly, no cites provided at all, let alone ones from the CDC which document
>>> their _alleged_ statements.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do also keep in mind that scientific knowledge changes & grows over time,
>>>>> so that early on in a new pandemic, one only has basic principles to rely
>>>>> on, which means that recommendations can & will change once there is
>>>>> retrospective data to apply.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, 6ft distancing is based upon physics first principles of
>>>>> aerosol dispersion which lower concentrations and thus a lower risk of
>>>>> contagion.
>>>>
>>>> Lower concentrations don't matter when a virus replicates exponentially.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, they do matter.  Basic reason is because the immune system has a
>>> functional carrying limit of how many intruders it can fend off. Below that
>>> threshold value, the immune system successfully fights off the bug so that it
>>> doesn't grow.  FYI, this is quite basic stuff in biology.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Barring confounding variables, increased distancing will always result in a
>>>>> lower concentration and thus, always a lower risk. But what isn't known
>>>>> until there's retrospective data to quantify is how much risk reduction for
>>>>> each increment, but even this needs to be then viewed from a cost:benefit
>>>>> standpoint: in conventional settings the cost of merely standing ~1m
>>>>> further away from someone is extremely low, so the incremental benefit need
>>>>> not be large to be a favorable approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, even a mask that's retrospectively found later to be objectively
>>>>> minimally effective in filtering can & will have a positive health benefit
>>>>> because it can have secondary effects that can be conflated with positive
>>>>> correlation: its mere presence is a visual prompt which statistically
>>>>> modified social norms for increasing social distancing, which as per the
>>>>> above has a risk reduction.  This is similar to, but is not the same as
>>>>> being a "placebo effect".  Bottom line is that if nothing else, it did
>>>>> positively contribute as well through behavior modification to lower risks;
>>>>> putting a precise quantitative value on it requires a large amount of
>>>>> retrospective data.
>>>>
>>>> Masks never worked, and were known to not work.
>>>
>>> Mask have _always_ worked, even if you don't want to admit it.
>>
>> Masks never worked, even with trained medical professionals in the operating
>> room:
>>
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf
>>
>
> A 40 year old study on bacteria, not viruses, which neglected to document if &
> how confounding variables were factored into the study:  FAIL.

Viruses are smaller than bacteria. Find a study that refutes the one
I cited.

-hh wrote:
> On 7/5/24 1:10 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> On 7/3/24 9:56 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/24 1:22 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/30/24 12:34 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tyrone wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 29, 2024 at 12:41:09 AM EDT, "Anonymous" <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/24 8:30 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 7:48 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeffrey VanRensselaer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     * *greatly* reduce your chance of getting gravely ill or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dying from it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       if you do contract it (this is beyond rational dispute)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For at least one of the shots, this was only the case for 60 days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it made you MORE likely to be hospitalized.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Utter bullshit. That's why you don't have a citation for it. You're
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> spewing bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2023-09-12/05-COVID-Link-Gelles-508.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> See slide 25.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, Slide 25 doesn't support what you're claiming
>>>>>>>>>>> (nor do slides 26-28 either).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because you clearly missed some important elements:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First, CoVid isn't just a single genetic version, so the slide lists
>>>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>>> against three then-predominant subvariants on a single chart,
>>>>>>>>>>> specifically
>>>>>>>>>>> BA.4/5, BQ.1, and XBB.1.5
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It goes on to show a clear vaccine benefit for two of three (BA.4/5 &
>>>>>>>>>>> BQ.1),
>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>> to its maximum recorded time window of 89 days since dose.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you're 2/3rds shot down already.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But do you have any hope for the third subvariant of XBB.1.5?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Only if you can overcome two problems for even this niche case.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The first problem you have is that it does show that there's no mean
>>>>>>>>>>> benefit
>>>>>>>>>>> from the original vaccine formulation, but the measured Median time
>>>>>>>>>>> since last
>>>>>>>>>>> dose isn't your claimed 60 days, but is at 464 days (1.3 years): over
>>>>>>>>>>> 7x times
>>>>>>>>>>> longer than your claim: Fail.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your second problem you have is that the other one which didn't
>>>>>>>>>>> provide clear
>>>>>>>>>>> benefit ("Bivalent...90-179 days), you also didn't read for
>>>>>>>>>>> comprehension: its
>>>>>>>>>>> Median time since last dose also isn't your claimed 60 days, but is
>>>>>>>>>>> 136 days:
>>>>>>>>>>> over 2x longer too:  fail.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you're now fully shot down on this one too.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And that's before we even note that you failed to its footnote too:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "** These estimates are imprecise, which might be due to there being a
>>>>>>>>>>> relatively small number of persons in each level of vaccination or
>>>>>>>>>>> case status.
>>>>>>>>>>> This imprecision indicates that the actual VE could be substantially
>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>> from the point estimate shown, and estimates should therefore be
>>>>>>>>>>> interpreted
>>>>>>>>>>> with caution.
>>>>>>>>>>> Additional data accrual could increase precision and allow more precise
>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now we should also note that maybe you got the page# wrong, for
>>>>>>>>>>> there's more
>>>>>>>>>>> data on hospitalization reduction on slides 26-28, but these charts
>>>>>>>>>>> all show
>>>>>>>>>>> clear vaccine benefit for all conditions for the mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Plus even if we look at the total error bars, there's only two
>>>>>>>>>>> instances where
>>>>>>>>>>> it even crosses over the zero, which are both for the original
>>>>>>>>>>> vaccine, and
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> Median times since last dose of 334 & 394 days (0.9 & 1.1 years)
>>>>>>>>>>> respectively:
>>>>>>>>>>> owhere near your claimed "60 days".  Fail.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I posted the wrong link.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So where is the "correct" link?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Silence on substantiation...gosh, what a shocking surprise!  /s
>>>>>
>>>>> More silence on substantiation...gosh, what a shocking surprise!  /s
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But in any case, the COVID clot shots aren't vaccines. A vaccine is
>>>>>>>>>> supposed
>>>>>>>>>> to provide the same sterilizing immunity compared to natural infection
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> recovery on a PERMANENT basis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, _really_?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before the CDC redefined it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Got cite?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wayback Machine will have the CDC's old (pre-"redefined") webpages, so you
>>>>> have no excuse for not clearly substantiating your claim.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
>>>>
>>>>>>> Provide the medical citation that substantiates your claim that natural
>>>>>>> infection & recovery provides "PERMANENT" (your word choice) protection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plus while you're at it, that vaccine & natural function only in this
>>>>>>> mechanism of providing "sterilizing immunity" (again, your word choice).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, silence on substantiation...shocking!  /s
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Covid did not work like that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes it did. Even the initial lab leak. If viruses and immune systems didn't
>>>>>>>> work like that, there would be no animal life on Earth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nah, you're merely demonstrating that you don't know much about either
>>>>>>> viruses or immune system architecture & function.  Suggest that you go
>>>>>>> contract Measles so that you can reset your auto-immune system back to an
>>>>>>> infant's 'zero', so that you can perhaps learn it correctly 2nd time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu shots. Plus I've
>>>>> boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never provided "100%
>>>>> permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio in 2006. My
>>>>> Meningococcal & Typhoid expired in 2021, but Tetanus & Yellow Fever
>>>>> vaccinations don't need to be renewed before 2026.
>>>>
>>>> I'm enjoying my far superior natural immunity to Covid. I got the virus
>>>> years ago, before the shot was released, and I haven't had it since.
>>>
>>>
>>> Suuuure you did.
>>
>> That's what the antibody test said.
>
> Substantiating citation ... absent.

On 7/8/24 4:19 PM, pothead wrote:
> On 2024-07-08, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>> On 7/7/24 8:49 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>> On 7/7/24 12:24 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/5/24 1:10 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/4/24 1:33 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Byker" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:57 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:v63kcj$271re$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go take you clot shot then. Take twenty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Already have; around five so far for CoVid, plus many flu
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shots.
> Plushttps://www.politifact.com/article/2023/dec/07/donald-trump-was-asked-if-he-will-be-a-dictator-
> if/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've boosted some traditional childhood vaccines that never
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "100% permanent sterilizing immunity" from, such as for Polio
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2006.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Some of us are old enough to remember
>>>>>>>>>>>> the dread of polio in the fifties. Closed
>>>>>>>>>>>> swimming pools, restricted gatherings, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We were terrified of it. And when the
>>>>>>>>>>>> vaccine came out parents lined their
>>>>>>>>>>>> children up for blocks at our local school
>>>>>>>>>>>> to get it. There was no "anti-vaxx" movement,
>>>>>>>>>>>> we all got the vaccine as soon as we could.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even when polio hit the Amish communities in
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1979 they put aside their religious
>>>>>>>>>>>> convictions and got vaccinated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not against ALL vaccines or even ALL prophylaxes, provided
>>>>>>>>>>> people tell
>>>>>>>>>>> the truth about them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The CDC told the truth about the mRNA COVID vaccines, cuntflaps.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No they didn't, Jonathan David Ball.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What specifically, was this alleged lie?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With citations, please, directly from the CDC website.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Golly, no cites provided at all, let alone ones from the CDC which
>>>>>> document their _alleged_ statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FYI:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do also keep in mind that scientific knowledge changes & grows
>>>>>>>> over time, so that early on in a new pandemic, one only has basic
>>>>>>>> principles to rely on, which means that recommendations can & will
>>>>>>>> change once there is retrospective data to apply.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For example, 6ft distancing is based upon physics first principles
>>>>>>>> of aerosol dispersion which lower concentrations and thus a lower
>>>>>>>> risk of contagion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lower concentrations don't matter when a virus replicates
>>>>>>> exponentially.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, they do matter.  Basic reason is because the immune system has
>>>>>> a functional carrying limit of how many intruders it can fend off.
>>>>>> Below that threshold value, the immune system successfully fights
>>>>>> off the bug so that it doesn't grow.  FYI, this is quite basic stuff
>>>>>> in biology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Barring confounding variables, increased distancing will always
>>>>>>>> result in a lower concentration and thus, always a lower risk. But
>>>>>>>> what isn't known until there's retrospective data to quantify is
>>>>>>>> how much risk reduction for each increment, but even this needs to
>>>>>>>> be then viewed from a cost:benefit standpoint: in conventional
>>>>>>>> settings the cost of merely standing ~1m further away from someone
>>>>>>>> is extremely low, so the incremental benefit need not be large to
>>>>>>>> be a favorable approach.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Similarly, even a mask that's retrospectively found later to be
>>>>>>>> objectively minimally effective in filtering can & will have a
>>>>>>>> positive health benefit because it can have secondary effects that
>>>>>>>> can be conflated with positive correlation: its mere presence is a
>>>>>>>> visual prompt which statistically modified social norms for
>>>>>>>> increasing social distancing, which as per the above has a risk
>>>>>>>> reduction.  This is similar to, but is not the same as being a
>>>>>>>> "placebo effect".  Bottom line is that if nothing else, it did
>>>>>>>> positively contribute as well through behavior modification to
>>>>>>>> lower risks; putting a precise quantitative value on it requires a
>>>>>>>> large amount of retrospective data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Masks never worked, and were known to not work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mask have _always_ worked, even if you don't want to admit it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Masks never worked, even with trained medical professionals in the
>>>>> operating
>>>>> room:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A 40 year old study on bacteria, not viruses, which neglected to
>>>> document if & how confounding variables were factored into the study:
>>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>> Viruses are smaller than bacteria. Find a study that refutes the one
>>> I cited.
>>
>>
>> Want the layperson "yes" from the Mayo Clinic that says they're effective?
>> Well then, here you go:
>>
>> <https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449>
>>
>> "Can face masks help slow the spread of the virus that causes
>> coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?
>>
>> Yes."
>>
>>
>> Or do you want the systematic meta-analysis research paper that comes to
>> basically the same conclusion?
>> Here you go:
>>
>> "Despite the ROB, and allowing for uncertain and variable efficacy, we
>> conclude that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators),
>> and mask mandates generally reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission in these
>> study populations."
>>
>>
>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10446908/>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Studies for and against can be found everywhere. The problem is there are many variations of what
> was being called a "mask" and thus a lot of misinformation being spread.