lotofwind said.
thousands of medical experts world wide

Implicit is your assumption that medical professionals all have uniformity of thought on this, that there is no difference of opinion that would lead to thousands of medical experts signing things like the Barrington declaration.

But of course, those are the CT nut jobs amirite?

FormulaNova said..
... setup a city where they generate variants...

This is what was going on a WIV and other places -- gain of function research. They were going the other way though -- like the plot of Mission Impossible 2.

westozwind said..
So, out of all the commenters, who is a medical doctor, microbiologist, immunologist or epidemiologist? Do those skeptical honestly believe that these scientists (tens of thousands world wide) are all involved in a global coverup about vaccines? Your year 12 C grade in science is probably not enough to make you an "expert" no matter how many YouTube videos you watch.

Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche is a veterinary doctor who also has a Ph.D. in virology. He has not been involved in vaccine development, trials or rollout. Nice to throw stones from the outside.

Argument from Authority v2.

What is it about listening to actual medical experts and reading peer-reviewed studies etc, then repeating that, invalidates the data...?

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said.
Sadly I think this might be Kami's version of arguing something. Don't actually state how or why so that we can examine it and possibly understand it, but wait for a response and try to tear that down instead.

Jeez, give me a chance -- got better things to do than explain things to people who can't be bothered looking them up for themselves

Yeah, well, instead of parroting something, an explanation of what you mean helps. Just repeating the same thing that someone else has said in a previous post adds nothing.

I see, its the 'do your own research' defense. Surely followed by 'educate yourself'?

Carantoc said..

Are you missing PM33 and Bono FormulaN ?

Yeah in a way. I was hoping for an update on the 9/11 lawsuit. Surely its done by now.

The flat earth thing is mildly entertaining too as you don't need to think about it.

Do you think Covid was invented to stop us getting to the ice-shelf or to stop the 9/11 lawsuit?

Mr Milk said..

FormulaNova said..

Mr Milk said..
Good question. Like the CT nuts say, do your own research. Maybe measles and mumps are still infecting lots of kids without causing serious disease.

Another question occurs to me. Why don't those viruses evolve in response to vaccines? Are they just less mutable than flu?

My guess, as before, is that these viruses are not living in a pool of people where they can mutate and then get passed on. The symptoms are noticeable and these people can be isolated, so its not like there would be many people that have it and not know it.

Maybe the government (the one world government run by Bill Gates) should setup a city where they generate variants and choose one that is incredibly contagious but not with significant symptoms. They can then release this on the world... although is this going to have the same problem where it does not protect against other variants?

This is one of those rare instances where I think you might be wrong. Not obviously wrong, but I'll explain my reason.

The CDC says that the vaccines are 97% effective, so the flip side of that is 3% of toddlers are becoming symptomatically infected.
How else could the 97% claim have meaning? If the population didn't have the virus circulating when you calculate your infection rate you'd be dividing by zero.
If only 3% were infective and passing it on, the F2 generation of the disease would be 0.09%, F3 would be 0.0027% and so on. ie The transmission chain would rapidly lead to no circulating virus (except for among the Mullumbimby Mums unvaccinated kids). And that would lead to the same situation that we have with smallpox. No vaccination necessary.

Don't forget that the vaccine effectiveness figures come directly from the vaccine manufacturers.

Pfizer mis-promoted medicines, paid kickbacks to compliant doctors, misbranded a drug for uses for which it was not approved, deliberately misled regulators about the hazards of heart valves, mislead regulators, overcharged the UK's National Health Service ?48 Million per year for what should have cost ?2 million per year, bribed doctors to prescribe its epilepsy drug Neurontin for which it was not approved, committed racketeering fraud in its marketing of the drug Neurontin, paid nearly nearly 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals some $20 Million for speaking on its behalf, its subsidiaries bribed overseas doctors and other healthcare professionals to increase foreign sales, was sued in a U.S. federal court for using Nigerian children as human guinea pigs, without the childrens' parents' consent, paid $75 Million to settle in a Nigerian court and an additional undisclosed amount in the U.S. to settle, Pfizer had violated international law, including the Nuremberg Convention established after WWII, due to Nazi experiments on unwilling prisoners.

Certainly Pfizer have good products but nevertheless they appear to be a predatory company. If they were builders would they build your house? As mechanics would you let them repair your car? If they were baristas would you trust them to make a decent flatwhite?

Are you missing PM33 and Bono .....?

Is that like 'dead naming' someone

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..
What do you mean by the vacccines are forcing the virus to mutate?

Evolution. If potential hosts are harder to infect because they have greater immunity for whatever reason, then the more infectious and contagious strains become more common in a population.

Thankfully there's only a certain amount of mutation a virus can handle until it does itself out of a job.

A virus is not conscious. Neither is evolution. Things don't "evolve to survive", they just die out if they can't survive the new environment.

...which is what you said, kinda sorta, but the whole conversation makes it sound conscious.

Just to be clear the vaccine is not forcing the virus to evolve. If your body rejects the virus, kills it, it ain't going to be mutating in your body.

But the vaccine allows you to survive the virus, so it can mutate in you!

Your body kills the virus, as much as it can, which means ...there is less of it, if any, to mutate.

That is: a vaccinated person has less of the virus to mutate in them than a non-vaccinated person.

So yes, the virus can mutate inside a vaccinated person, but it is less likely to. And this is all about percentages; nothing is 100% (except death).

But I did my own research and I found that mutated viruses have to be stronger to survive in a vaccinated person.

Mutations occur randomly. If/when a mutation occurs in a vaccinated person it is less likely to survive than if it occurred in a non-vaccinated person. Because a vaccinated person has anti-bodies (many) that will go further toward killing it than a non-vaccinated person has (none).

Saying that vaccinated people somehow help the virus get stronger, by attacking it, is akin to saying "We shouldn't have fought the Japanese because they just learned our tactics and became stronger. We should have let them win and then they would have just ...died out naturally.. i dunno, really."

evlPanda said..
A virus is not conscious. Neither is evolution. Things don't "evolve to survive", they just die out if they can't survive the new environment.

...which is what you said, kinda sorta, but the whole conversation makes it sound conscious.

Just to be clear the vaccine is not forcing the virus to evolve. If your body rejects the virus, kills it, it ain't going to be mutating in your body.

But the vaccine allows you to survive the virus, so it can mutate in you!

Your body kills the virus, as much as it can, which means ...there is less of it, if any, to mutate.

That is: a vaccinated person has less of the virus to mutate in them than a non-vaccinated person.

So yes, the virus can mutate inside a vaccinated person, but it is less likely to. And this is all about percentages; nothing is 100% (except death).

But I did my own research and I found that mutated viruses have to be stronger to survive in a vaccinated person.

Mutations occur randomly. If/when a mutation occurs in a vaccinated person it is less likely to survive than if it occurred in a non-vaccinated person. Because a vaccinated person has anti-bodies (many) that will go further toward killing it than a non-vaccinated person has (none).

Saying that vaccinated people somehow help the virus get stronger, by attacking it, is akin to saying "We shouldn't have fought the Japanese because they just learned our tactics and became stronger. We should have let them win and then they would have just ...died out naturally.. i dunno, really."

I dunno evlPanda,

Maybe the 'mutations' happen in a lab in Wuhan ?

"Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture"

Without researching how much chloroquine can be introduced into a human body without causing other harm this is not much use. You can poison anything in vitro.
If someone digs into this a bit will they find it's something like the Ivermectin furphy? ie The concentration being used is 100 times what is a safe dose in a living patient

FormulaNova said..

Yeah, well, instead of parroting something, an explanation of what you mean helps. Just repeating the same thing that someone else has said in a previous post adds nothing.

I see, its the 'do your own research' defense. Surely followed by 'educate yourself'?

I can't understand things for you or read your mind. I've given explanations as I understand them, if you don't understand or have further questions about my points, feel free to ask specific questions...

... but if you just can't be bothered to look up the basics, that's not on me to provide you with a free education.

Mr Milk said..
"Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture"

Without researching how much chloroquine can be introduced into a human body without causing other harm this is not much use. You can poison anything in vitro.
If someone digs into this a bit will they find it's something like the Ivermectin furphy? ie The concentration being used is 100 times what is a safe dose in a living patient

You are trying to defend the indefensible. HCQ and Ivermectin in combination with zinc, doxycycline, and cortical steroids have been proven in over forty trials worldwide to significantly reduce mortality and are highly effective against Covid in the early stages of the disease.

The MSM have fought tooth and nail to bury this information often citing the fraudulent study published in the Lancet which was subsequently withdrawn.

Right from the outset Fauci and his robbers have done their utmost to assure the public that the only solution is vaccination because they knew that the emergency authorisation of the "vaccines" could only be issued in the absence of alternative treatments.

Kamikuza said..

evlPanda said..

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..
What do you mean by the vacccines are forcing the virus to mutate?

Evolution. If potential hosts are harder to infect because they have greater immunity for whatever reason, then the more infectious and contagious strains become more common in a population.

Thankfully there's only a certain amount of mutation a virus can handle until it does itself out of a job.

A virus is not conscious. Neither is evolution. Things don't "evolve to survive", they just die out if they can't survive the new environment.

...which is what you said, kinda sorta, but the whole conversation makes it sound conscious.

Just to be clear the vaccine is not forcing the virus to evolve. If your body rejects the virus, kills it, it ain't going to be mutating in your body.

But the vaccine allows you to survive the virus, so it can mutate in you!

Your body kills the virus, as much as it can, which means ...there is less of it, if any, to mutate.

That is: a vaccinated person has less of the virus to mutate in them than a non-vaccinated person.

So yes, the virus can mutate inside a vaccinated person, but it is less likely to. And this is all about percentages; nothing is 100% (except death).

But I did my own research and I found that mutated viruses have to be stronger to survive in a vaccinated person.

Mutations occur randomly. If/when a mutation occurs in a vaccinated person it is less likely to survive than if it occurred in a non-vaccinated person. Because a vaccinated person has anti-bodies (many) that will go further toward killing it than a non-vaccinated person has (none).

Saying that vaccinated people somehow help the virus get stronger, by attacking it, is akin to saying "We shouldn't have fought the Japanese because they just learned our tactics and became stronger. We should have let them win and then they would have just ...died out naturally.. i dunno, really."

I neither said nor implied that evolution is conscious.

Genes that survive to be passed on, survive and are passed on.

There are various selection pressures, and a hostile environment (a vaccinated host) is one of them.

If a virus survives in a vaccinated host because of whatever mutation, then that virus and its genes will survive and be passed on.

There's no force from the vaccine, there's only selection of survivability traits...

...which is what you said, kinda sorta, but the whole conversation makes it sound conscious.

evlPanda said..

Kamikuza said..

evlPanda said..

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..
What do you mean by the vacccines are forcing the virus to mutate?

Evolution. If potential hosts are harder to infect because they have greater immunity for whatever reason, then the more infectious and contagious strains become more common in a population.

Thankfully there's only a certain amount of mutation a virus can handle until it does itself out of a job.

A virus is not conscious. Neither is evolution. Things don't "evolve to survive", they just die out if they can't survive the new environment.

...which is what you said, kinda sorta, but the whole conversation makes it sound conscious.

Just to be clear the vaccine is not forcing the virus to evolve. If your body rejects the virus, kills it, it ain't going to be mutating in your body.

But the vaccine allows you to survive the virus, so it can mutate in you!

Your body kills the virus, as much as it can, which means ...there is less of it, if any, to mutate.

That is: a vaccinated person has less of the virus to mutate in them than a non-vaccinated person.

So yes, the virus can mutate inside a vaccinated person, but it is less likely to. And this is all about percentages; nothing is 100% (except death).

But I did my own research and I found that mutated viruses have to be stronger to survive in a vaccinated person.

Mutations occur randomly. If/when a mutation occurs in a vaccinated person it is less likely to survive than if it occurred in a non-vaccinated person. Because a vaccinated person has anti-bodies (many) that will go further toward killing it than a non-vaccinated person has (none).

Saying that vaccinated people somehow help the virus get stronger, by attacking it, is akin to saying "We shouldn't have fought the Japanese because they just learned our tactics and became stronger. We should have let them win and then they would have just ...died out naturally.. i dunno, really."

I neither said nor implied that evolution is conscious.

Genes that survive to be passed on, survive and are passed on.

There are various selection pressures, and a hostile environment (a vaccinated host) is one of them.

If a virus survives in a vaccinated host because of whatever mutation, then that virus and its genes will survive and be passed on.

There's no force from the vaccine, there's only selection of survivability traits...

...which is what you said, kinda sorta, but the whole conversation makes it sound conscious.

No I didn't, not even kinda sorta.

... which bit exactly gives you that mistaken impression?

leto said..
Guys is it for real in Oz

He missed the part where it doesn't need to be a police officer that enters your home and takes your kids, any "authorised person" can do it, no minimum qualification, and it's even worse if you're black, for the purpose of racial sensitivity of course