Jump to content

Vaccine theory


Real McCoy

Recommended Posts

 

On 8/6/2021 at 2:38 AM, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

If I am an immunocompromised person on a plane, I would rather sit next to a unvaccinated individual who has a recent negative PCR Test rather than a vaccinated individual who could be an asymptomatic spreader :p:.

 

I covered that already 3 months ago. That was my OP :p:

On 5/5/2021 at 12:50 PM, Real McCoy said:

I have been watching over the last year. The first wave in India had absolutely no effect but the second wave is creating catastrophe. It all started in April. Vaccine was released in March and the second shot in April. Vaccination in theory says that a controlled virus in the vaccine gives immunity. But now they are saying vaccine cannot prevent any mutations or can only protect upto 80-90 %. They even say vaccinated people may be asymptomatic carriers but it "protects" them. So when people say that vaccines can only protect so much, it also means that those who are vaccinated are asymptomatic (another "scientific" word) carriers of the virus and can infect any people they are in touch with.

I'm talking of cases about old people I know who are admitted to hospitals and their relatives talk like the nonsense on the idiot box. It seems the old people who are in critical condition right now and those who haven't been vaccinated have to fear the vaccinated people more than the normal people since this was not an issue for almost a year. If the virus was reported to be as bad as claimed when it came out at the end of 2019, it should have killed us all by 2020 but it is far worse in 2021 after the vaccine was released. Does anyone see the connection. Lets discuss or leave me with your hateful comments below

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

What's your take on the vaccines. I see you post but where do you stand on this issue

We are taking vaccines since born, so, their benefits are self-explanatory.  I have been apprehensive about corona vaccines, rushed, lack of satisfactory trials, long term effects, etc. Risk-benefit analysis is important too but the most important thing is these past 16 months have been so depressing in every way mentally, financially, seeing people dying, young people succumbing to the virus. Being an eternal optimist inside, I want to cling to any hope that can bring a bit of normalcy, anything that can stop closing, can stop loss of work, jobs, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

We are taking vaccines since born, so, their benefits are self-explanatory.  I have been apprehensive about corona vaccines, rushed, lack of satisfactory trials, long term effects, etc. Risk-benefit analysis is important too but the most important thing is these past 16 months have been so depressing in every way mentally, financially, seeing people dying, young people succumbing to the virus. Being an eternal optimist inside, I want to cling to any hope that can bring a bit of normalcy, anything that can stop closing, can stop loss of work, jobs, etc. 

If you were an eternal optimist, you wouldn't get depressed. That is contradictory. Optimist doesn't mean clinging to any shred of hope. That is desperation. Never did any of us consent to the vaccines we took since we were born. In my family's case it was minimal. Today they make infants take several shots from the get go. Anyway, this is the first time, there is an urge by world leaders to vaccinate the adults and the entire world. You're right about being apprehensive about these vaccines and as you mentioned they are rushed and not tested properly. Let your own wisdom and intuition guide you rather than falling prey to "expert opinions" on TV, social media and even here on ICF. Also don't get sidetracked by fear and desperation. Good luck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

 

"Breakthrough cases" is a nice, fancy way of referring to "vaccine failure" cases. 

 

I would read it as vaccine "success" cases going by this guy's reaction. It almost seems like he gets a hard on when such "successes" happen. He would call manlinda gates for a quickie :lol:

COVID-19 vaccine formulas shouldn't be shared with India ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2021 at 10:29 AM, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

 

"Breakthrough cases" is a nice, fancy way of referring to "vaccine failure" cases. 

 

 

Context (bold-faced points are from the article itself):

 

Out of the 20,000, only 258 were positive two weeks after being fully vaccinated.

50% of Patthanamthitta has been vaccinated with 2 doses.  Let's just just say they have all crossed the 2-week threshold (it can't be true, but it worsens my case to say that, so I am going to).

Population of P'thitta (in 2011) = 1.2 million (am guessing it is higher now, but let's just go with that).   50% of 1.2 million = 600,000

 

258 cases / 600,000 363,000 vaccinated = 0.043%. 0.071%

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/kerala-s-pathanamthitta-reports-several-covid-19-cases-post-vaccination-153549

 

Do what you want with that number, but the number you should be discussing is 258, not 20,000.

 

I am, of course, willing to be corrected if the numbers/calculations above are incorrect.  

 

 

Edited by BacktoCricaddict
Link to comment
Share on other sites

someone is missing the forest for the trees here. if 20k got fully vacced, not even 1 should be testing positive. 258 is a big number. according to the propaganda adminstered in the first wave, 258 could turn into 1000 and so on exponentially. first they said vaccinated are asymptomatic. now they are even testing positive. it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. your useless number crunching is an attempt to obfuscate that this is a big fail for the vaccers and their promoters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

 

 

 

2 possible conclusions:

  • Their analysis finds that they are really side effects caused by the vaccine.  Then, they are absolutely, really side effects caused by the vaccine.  
  • Their analysis finds that they are not side-effects caused by the vaccine.  Even then, they are still, absolutely, really side effects caused y the vaccine, but the EMA was censored/paid off/threatened. 

 

 

Edited by BacktoCricaddict
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

2 possible conclusions:

  • Their analysis finds that they are really side effects caused by the vaccine.  Then, they are absolutely, really side effects caused by the vaccine.  
  • Their analysis finds that they are not side-effects caused by the vaccine.  Even then, they are still, absolutely, really side effects caused y the vaccine, but the EMA was censored/paid off/threatened. 

 

 

 

More possible conclusions: Even if they are really side effects caused by the vaccines let's suppress most of the incidents from being reported and make up stuff like you're more likely to get struck by lightning :laugh: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2021 at 6:18 PM, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

 

Just another layer added to the Swiss Cheese Model :dontknow:.

 

 

 

 

If vaccines are working so brilliantly, why antivirals and pills are being brought into the mix :hmmm:? I guess the target audience for these is the 0.01% of the "Breakthrough cases".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

 

 

If vaccines are working so brilliantly, why antivirals and pills are being brought into the mix :hmmm:? I guess the target audience for these is the 0.01% of the "Breakthrough cases".

 

 

 

I think we should have as many possible weapons in the arsenal as possible, including the possibility of using antivirals and Ivermectin.  They could help the following populations:

 

  • People who get infected before they are fully vaccinated (maybe after 1 dose, maybe within 2 wks after 2nd dose) - think Patthanamthitta.
  • Kids under 12, who cannot get vaccinated yet.
  • Immunocompromised individuals.
  • Breakthroughs.
  • The vaccine-hesitant.

You would of course reject anything that Fauci endorsed, but maybe we can look beyond cutting our noses to spite our face.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by BacktoCricaddict
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

 

I think we should have as many possible weapons in the arsenal as possible, including the possibility of using antivirals and Ivermectin.  They could help the following populations:

 

  • People who get infected before they are fully vaccinated (maybe after 1 dose, maybe within 2 wks after 2nd dose) - think Patthanamthitta.
  • Kids under 12, who cannot get vaccinated yet.
  • Immunocompromised individuals.
  • Breakthroughs.
  • The vaccine-hesitant.

You would of course reject anything that Fauci endorsed, but maybe we can look beyond cutting our noses to spite our face.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Considering his flip flops on masks, his GoF shenanigans as well as his disastrous endorsement of Remdesivir, he has earned that skepticism :dontknow:. I'd give him some credit if he said they are moving away from the one size fits all approach to vaccines and allowing people to use options like Ivermectin for early treatment. Instead he is all for vaccine mandates which takes away options from the vaccine hesitant.

 

 

 

This new pill will most probably prove to be just another opportunity for Big Pharma to mint $$$ which is something they couldn't do with a cheap, generic drug like Ivermectin. You of course would refuse to consider the idea that some of the decisions made by the likes of Fauci and entities like FDA/CDC are based on conflict of interest rather than public health so that's that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

Considering his flip flops on masks, his GoF shenanigans as well as his disastrous endorsement of Remdesivir, he has earned that skepticism :dontknow:. I'd give him some credit if he said they are moving away from the one size fits all approach to vaccines and allowing people to use options like Ivermectin for early treatment. Instead he is all for vaccine mandates which takes away options from the vaccine hesitant.

 

 

 

This new pill will most probably prove to be just another opportunity for Big Pharma to mint $$$ which is something they couldn't do with a cheap, generic drug like Ivermectin. You of course would refuse to consider the idea that some of the decisions made by the likes of Fauci and entities like FDA/CDC are based on conflict of interest rather than public health so that's that.

Jury is still out on Ivermectin.  You seem stuck on it. 

 

One of the papers on which it was based was found to be fraudulent (we have already discussed that). 

 

Here's the other paper:

https://media.marinomed.com/8b/7a/c7/nota-journal-of-biomedical-research-safety-adn-efficacy-iota-carrageenan-and-ivermectin.pdf

 

Spend some time with it and tell me if it is any good.  Don't look at it from the perspective of "FDA/CDC/Big Pharma/pressure tactics/Remdesivir" etc.  Just read the paper and tell me if it is acceptable to you.  

 

 

Edited by BacktoCricaddict
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Jury is still out on Ivermectin.  You seem stuck on it. 

 

One of the papers on which it was based was found to be fraudulent (we have already discussed that). 

 

Here's the other paper:

https://media.marinomed.com/8b/7a/c7/nota-journal-of-biomedical-research-safety-adn-efficacy-iota-carrageenan-and-ivermectin.pdf

 

Spend some time with it and tell me if it is any good.  Don't look at it from the perspective of "FDA/CDC/Big Pharma/pressure tactics/Remdesivir" etc.  Just read the paper and tell me if it is acceptable to you.  

 

 

 

I am not stuck on anything. People are free to not use Ivermectin if they don't think the data adds up or if they have safety/efficacy concerns. The same thing should apply to vaccines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

I am not stuck on anything. People are free to not use Ivermectin if they don't think the data adds up or if they have safety/efficacy concerns. The same thing should apply to vaccines.

Yeah, but the difference is that (unlike Remdesivir, HCQ and IM) vaccine efficacy data so far are robust, reproducible and statistically sound (at least in the US).  

Edited by BacktoCricaddict
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...