It's all diet... sure

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..

Here's a paper on the subject.
First the conclusion
Here, we examine memory B cell evolution 5 months after vaccination with either Moderna (mRNA-1273) or Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) mRNA vaccines in a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 naive individuals. Between prime and boost, memory B cells produce antibodies that evolve increased neutralizing activity, but there is no further increase in potency or breadth thereafter. Instead, memory B cells that emerge 5 months after vaccination of naive individuals express antibodies that are equivalent to those that dominate the initial response. We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination


And the paper
www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04778-y

Here's the abstract from the paper (my emphasis) ...

"The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 infected many vaccinated and convalescent individuals. Despite the reduced protection from infection, individuals who received three doses of an mRNA vaccine were highly protected from more serious consequences of infection. Here we examine the memory B cell repertoire in a longitudinal cohort of individuals receiving three mRNA vaccine doses. We find that the third dose is accompanied by an increase in, and evolution of, receptor-binding domain (RBD)-specific memory B cells. The increase is due to expansion of memory B cell clones that were present after the second dose as well as the emergence of new clones. The antibodies encoded by these cells showed significantly increased potency and breadth when compared with antibodies obtained after the second dose. Notably, the increase in potency was especially evident among newly developing clones of memory cells, which differed from persisting clones in targeting more conserved regions of the RBD. Overall, more than 50% of the analysed neutralizing antibodies in the memory compartment after the third mRNA vaccine dose neutralized the Omicron variant. Thus, individuals receiving three doses of an mRNA vaccine have a diverse memory B cell repertoire that can respond rapidly and produce antibodies capable of clearing even diversified variants such as Omicron. These data help to explain why a third dose of a vaccine that was not specifically designed to protect against variants is effective against variant-induced serious disease."

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..

Here's a paper on the subject.
First the conclusion
Here, we examine memory B cell evolution 5 months after vaccination with either Moderna (mRNA-1273) or Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) mRNA vaccines in a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 naive individuals. Between prime and boost, memory B cells produce antibodies that evolve increased neutralizing activity, but there is no further increase in potency or breadth thereafter. Instead, memory B cells that emerge 5 months after vaccination of naive individuals express antibodies that are equivalent to those that dominate the initial response. We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination

And the paper
www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04778-y

I must be suffering long-covid, but where was that text in the article that the link refers to?

I just checked again and I cannot find lots of those phrases in the article. Is there another article or some other link I need to follow to see that conclusion you have posted?

(Please tell me you have not posted a conclusion that came with the link someone sent you? I am not cynical enough to think that, so there must be something else in that link that I have missed!)

FN - you are choosing to support the use of these shots including for kids i presume when there are one hundred and forty thousand reports of adverse harm reported to the Australian Governments own database.

The database is called the TGA or Therapeutic Gooda Administration.

My conscience does not allow me to support in any way any such unethical practice.

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..

FormulaNova said..

psychojoe said..

Here's a paper on the subject.
First the conclusion
Here, we examine memory B cell evolution 5 months after vaccination with either Moderna (mRNA-1273) or Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) mRNA vaccines in a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 naive individuals. Between prime and boost, memory B cells produce antibodies that evolve increased neutralizing activity, but there is no further increase in potency or breadth thereafter. Instead, memory B cells that emerge 5 months after vaccination of naive individuals express antibodies that are equivalent to those that dominate the initial response. We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination

And the paper
www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04778-y

I must be suffering long-covid, but where was that text in the article that the link refers to?

I just checked again and I cannot find lots of those phrases in the article. Is there another article or some other link I need to follow to see that conclusion you have posted?

(Please tell me you have not posted a conclusion that came with the link someone sent you? I am not cynical enough to think that, so there must be something else in that link that I have missed!)

Nah, just posted the wrong article, but I've moved on now, if you search around you'll find an article with the posted conclusion.

I see you deleted your post referencing a peer reviewed article, published by one of the premier scientific journals. Good thing I quoted you so that people can still read it.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
FN - you are choosing to support the use of these shots including for kids i presume when there are one hundred and forty thousand reports of adverse harm reported to the Australian Governments own database.

The database is called the TGA or Therapeutic Gooda Administration.

My conscience does not allow me to support in any way any such unethical practice.

From the TGA adverse events database you refer to ...

"There might be no relationship between the adverse event and the medicine or vaccine - it may be a coincidence that the adverse event occurred when the medicine or vaccine was taken."

NSW COVID-19 WEEKLY DATA OVERVIEW
Epidemiological weeks 51 and 52, ending 31 December 2022

www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdf

It's still amazing to me that in the 2 columns of hospitalisations and ICU that 'No dose' still has zero attendance. It's been like this for months. With around 5% of people over 16 having no dose, 40% of 5-15 year olds having no dose & almost 100% under 5 year olds having no dose, you'd expect at a minimum 5% being represented in hospital.

It's interesting in the report that it states;

"With such high vaccination coverage in the community, a high proportion of people admitted to hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19 are now vaccinated with two or three doses. However, people who are not vaccinated remain more likely to suffer severe COVID-19."

How are they coming up with that statement when you look at the figures below?





Also it is disappointing to read in the report that from now on;

"The following changes will be implemented for the weekly report in 2023: Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported."

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..
NSW COVID-19 WEEKLY DATA OVERVIEW
Epidemiological weeks 51 and 52, ending 31 December 2022

www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdf

It's still amazing to me that in the 2 columns of hospitalisations and ICU that 'No dose' still has zero attendance. It's been like this for months. With around 5% of people over 16 having no dose, 40% of 5-15 year olds having no dose & almost 100% under 5 year olds having no dose, you'd expect at a minimum 5% being represented in hospital.

It's interesting in the report that it states;

"With such high vaccination coverage in the community, a high proportion of people admitted to hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19 are now vaccinated with two or three doses. However, people who are not vaccinated remain more likely to suffer severe COVID-19."

How are they coming up with that statement when you look at the figures below?





Also it is disappointing to read in the report that from now on;

"The following changes will be implemented for the weekly report in 2023: Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported."

If you look at the definition of 'unknown' from before, it says something like 'the name does not appear to have a match in the vaccination record'.

Wouldn't you expect that unvaxxed people would either appear in that category because they either 'don't appear in the vaccination record' or even potentially make up their vaccination status for some other reason? To be fair, it could even have vaccinated people in it due to an incorrect match.

As you have said, it hasn't changed in months. A reasonable person would ask why and not just assume its because unvaxxed people are doing better.

Do I need to do the sums again and show what the stats would be if we assumed that all the unvaxxed people are liars and telling the hospital people that they are indeed vaccinated, yet their details somehow don't show up in the vaccinated record?


The same report goes on to say:

Of the 95 people who were reported to have died with COVID-19, 72 (76%) were known to have received
three or more doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, while 9 had received two doses, 1 had received one dose and
6 had received no doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccination status of the remaining 7 were unable to
be determined.1

Do we need to do the maths and work out what 6 out of 95 is when comparing the percentage of unvaxxed in the population the vaxxed? My really high level guess is that this way out-represents the unvaxxed in the community, and that's without looking at the 'unknown' pool of people.

But I want to be honest about all this stuff. The same report shows the age groups and its impossible to really get meaningful data when deaths are in the higher ages groups and there is no information on whether Covid made a significant difference.

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..
Also it is disappointing to read in the report that from now on;

"The following changes will be implemented for the weekly report in 2023: Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported."

Are you trying to frame your case to make it more than it is? Examples like the above where you mention that vaccination and deaths will no longer be reported sound worrying, until you actually repeat the bit immediately after it, which says:

"These data were included from 2021 when vaccines were first rolled out to monitor trends in the
relationship between vaccination and outcomes. With most of the population having received at least two
doses of vaccine and there being differences in timings of booster dosing across different age groups, the
trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted using these data."

It doesn't sound nearly as bad when you include the explanation, and in this case the explanation actually makes sense.

If you are genuinely after the truth, you don't need to forge things into a frame that shows what you want it to show.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Flying Dutchman said..
Also it is disappointing to read in the report that from now on;

"The following changes will be implemented for the weekly report in 2023: Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported."

Are you trying to frame your case to make it more than it is? Examples like the above where you mention that vaccination and deaths will no longer be reported sound worrying, until you actually repeat the bit immediately after it, which says:

"These data were included from 2021 when vaccines were first rolled out to monitor trends in the
relationship between vaccination and outcomes. With most of the population having received at least two
doses of vaccine and there being differences in timings of booster dosing across different age groups, the
trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted using these data."

It doesn't sound nearly as bad when you include the explanation, and in this case the explanation actually makes sense.

If you are genuinely after the truth, you don't need to forge things into a frame that shows what you want it to show.

Don't you think that it is time we should combine all this covid data and make clear connection with global warming?
It is clear that there is group people hidding from us that truth.
If we combine now global temperature growth with covid data and profits made by pharmaceutical sector there is similarity in trends.
We could extrapolate or interpolate those trends and show that by continuing existing trends of vaccination Greenland ice masses will melt 100x faster and world is going to drawn.

Ooops . I forget to mention vaccination rate correlation to your gybing performance? Is it coincidence that after 4 dose your jibes improved significantly? I propose to fund research to test vaxed vs non vaxed alphas over last years.
I would love to see sister cambell now going with her long pen over gpstc tables marking those tables and data, scratchin the head, maybe even poiting to some conspiracy ?

Retraction: Walach et al. The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations-We Should Rethink the Policy. Vaccines 2021, 9, 693
by Vaccines Editorial Office
MDPI, St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel, Switzerland
Vaccines 2021, 9(7), 729; doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9070729
Received: 1 July 2021 / Accepted: 1 July 2021 / Published: 2 July 2021
Download Versions Notes

The journal retracts the article, The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations-We Should Rethink the Policy [1], cited above.
Serious concerns were brought to the attention of the publisher regarding misinterpretation of data, leading to incorrect and distorted conclusions.
The article was evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief with the support of several Editorial Board Members. They found that the article contained several errors that fundamentally affect the interpretation of the findings.
These include, but are not limited to:
The data from the Lareb report (www.lareb.nl/coronameldingen) in The Netherlands were used to calculate the number of severe and fatal side effects per 100,000 vaccinations. Unfortunately, in the manuscript by Harald Walach et al. these data were incorrectly interpreted which led to erroneous conclusions. The data was presented as being causally related to adverse events by the authors. This is inaccurate. In The Netherlands, healthcare professionals and patients are invited to report suspicions of adverse events that may be associated with vaccination. For this type of reporting a causal relation between the event and the vaccine is not needed, therefore a reported event that occurred after vaccination is not necessarily attributable to vaccination. Thus, reporting of a death following vaccination does not imply that this is a vaccine-related event. There are several other inaccuracies in the paper by Harald Walach et al. one of which is that fatal cases were certified by medical specialists. It should be known that even this false claim does not imply causation, which the authors imply. Further, the authors have called the events 'effects' and 'reactions' when this is not established, and until causality is established they are 'events' that may or may not be caused by exposure to a vaccine. It does not matter what statistics one may apply, this is incorrect and misleading.
The authors were asked to respond to the claims, but were not able to do so satisfactorily. The authors were notified of the retraction and did not agree

I still did not received any explanation from our SBers why
YouTuber Camell is using Dr.
In her videos.
Let compare it to pseudo electricicia that you invited to install power point in your hose.
You pay him for his service not knowing that he is only YouTuber electricanin that learned the trade secrets on YouTube in a week.
YouTube plumber that going to install your pipes in bathroom, but could flood your entire house.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
Hmmm. FN made enormous contribution to SB pop up advertising revenue with 15 chapters 15,000 views thread about nothing.

Please stop quoting Carantoc or I will have to add you to the list as well. There are already 25 people on the list, what is one more.

The secret to 15000 posts about nothing is to just argue with everyone about whatever it is they say. Its simple. I can type fast, so it only takes seconds at a time and people can read it.

Your posts are too cryptic and no one reads them.

Please put me back on the enemy list.

"He received the Ph.D. for his work on developing methods of teaching via digital media such as online videos."

Select to expand quote

UncleBob said..

FormulaNova said..

Macroscien said..
I still did not received any explanation from our SBers why
YouTuber Camell is using Dr.
In her videos.

A bit of mold.

Is 'Nurse Campbell' a doctor, i.e. with a Doctorate, not necessarily a medical doctor?

Does it really matter, Micro wouldn't know the difference anyway.

I think Macro is mostly worried about having a male nurse look after him.