Something new about how may had Conav-19
- Thread starter Tom 86
- Start date
Harry Le Hermit
Member
And I'll repost what I said on your identical post from Saturday...
If you start with Mr. Becker's assumption that being infected gives natural immunity, then the CDC report which does not mention natural immunity would justify that assumption.
Does natural immunity occur? Certainly to an extent, but just as the vaccine does not guarantee "0" breakthroughs, neither can the natural immunity argument. Case study from Ky. Reinfections among those not vaccinated is higher than those vaccinated. It essentially boils down to duration of "immunity" for each cohort.
The United Kingdom has a more detailed collection of unvaccinated and vaccinated, but does not break out the natural immunity in their numbers. They acknowledge breakthrough hospitalizations and deaths of vaccinated and similar data for unvaccinated (pg-15). The death rates for unvaccinated is 3~4+ times the rate of vaccinated.
With nearly half of the global population not having the opportunity to choose whether or not to get the vaccine, in my opinion, it will likely be 2023 before the transition from pandemic to endemic can really begin.
If you start with Mr. Becker's assumption that being infected gives natural immunity, then the CDC report which does not mention natural immunity would justify that assumption.
Does natural immunity occur? Certainly to an extent, but just as the vaccine does not guarantee "0" breakthroughs, neither can the natural immunity argument. Case study from Ky. Reinfections among those not vaccinated is higher than those vaccinated. It essentially boils down to duration of "immunity" for each cohort.
The United Kingdom has a more detailed collection of unvaccinated and vaccinated, but does not break out the natural immunity in their numbers. They acknowledge breakthrough hospitalizations and deaths of vaccinated and similar data for unvaccinated (pg-15). The death rates for unvaccinated is 3~4+ times the rate of vaccinated.
With nearly half of the global population not having the opportunity to choose whether or not to get the vaccine, in my opinion, it will likely be 2023 before the transition from pandemic to endemic can really begin.
No desire to check out your garbage Tom. Stop posting this BS it is harmful during a deadly pandemic.
People here are too smart for this BS and disinformation.https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/becker-news/
Well, SeaBreeze I hope your belief in the shots only is the best thing.No desire to check out your garbage Tom. Stop posting this BS it is harmful during a deadly pandemic.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/becker-news/
That you never get what I did after my first Conav-19 shot on Jan. 12th of this year. I'm still fighting the Conav-19 11 months later. Seeing many different Drs. because I can hardly breathe or go anywhere. They ALL blamed it on the first shot as my lungs are so messed up. They compare the X-rays & cat scans of this year to past years. In past years my lungs were clear. Now this year they are full of junk they say.
I was able to work on equipment & mow my own yard before that damn shot. Now I can't do any of that. So there are people that need other alternatives than the shot.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...ll-may-cut-severe-illness-89-percent-rcna4593
SmoothSeas
Senior Member
but they say that doesn't count anymore. Something to think about isn't it.
just waitin' until the next viable mutation emerges and runs rampant... scary thought, but it bound to happen without proactive measures.
it's a biological imperative that an extant species continue to adapt to an ever-changing environment or they become extinct.
Knight
Well-known Member
Seeing multiple doctors for the same complaint doesn't make sense to me. Especially if "they" compare X-rays & cat scans.
Maybe it's just me being lucky. The doctor I go to is trust worthy & would take the time to describe in detail what exactly was found in tests done. Attributing your diminished lung capacity to a shot 11 months later sounds sketchy to me.
I would be more convinced if after a few weeks you had visited your doctor or the multiple doctors you go to, to ask about difficulty breathing. At that point treatment could have begun.
Maybe it's just me being lucky. The doctor I go to is trust worthy & would take the time to describe in detail what exactly was found in tests done. Attributing your diminished lung capacity to a shot 11 months later sounds sketchy to me.
I would be more convinced if after a few weeks you had visited your doctor or the multiple doctors you go to, to ask about difficulty breathing. At that point treatment could have begun.
If what you say is true, that's very unfortunate and I wish you well. However, your reaction is no excuse to post disinformation and conspiracy from questionable sources during a deadly pandemic. The vaccines save lives, and lessen the chance of hospitalization or death from the deadly COVID-19 virus. Still not sure why you keep calling it "Conav" though, please enlighten me.
squatting dog
We don't have as far to go, as we've already been
- Location
- Arkansas, and also Florida
One more for SeaBreeze to dispute.
Parenthesis are obviously sarcasm from yours truly.
By Art Moore
Published November 1, 2021
The top White House coronavirus adviser under two presidents, Dr. Anthony Fauci, gave the wrong answers to the major epidemiological and public health questions posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, contend two experts on infectious disease outbreaks. (no credibility here with these two)
In a column published by Newsweek.com. (probably some right wing rag) Drs. Martin Kulldorf of Harvard and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford write that when the pandemic hit, America "needed someone to turn to for advice."
The media and public turned to Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and President's top health adviser on the pandemic.
However, Kulldorf and Bhattacharya write, "Reality and scientific studies have now caught up with him."
Kulldorff is an epidemiologist, biostatistician and professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Bhattacharya is a professor of Health Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine. They are the co-authors, along with Dr. Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, of the Great Barrington Declaration, advocating a public policy of "focused protection" on the vulnerable while letting others go about their business. More than 860,000 people have signed the declaration, including 14,981 medical and public health scientists, and 44,167 medical practitioners. (Nothing to see here, don't worry, the media will slam them or call them nut jobs)
Here are the key issues that Fauci got wrong, they contend:
Natural immunity: "By pushing vaccine mandates, Dr. Fauci ignores naturally acquired immunity among the COVID-recovered, of which there are more than 45 million in the United States."
Protecting the elderly: "While anyone can get infected, there is more than a thousand-fold difference in mortality risk between the old and the young."
School closures: "Schools are major transmission points for influenza, but not for COVID."
Masks: "For children, there is no solid scientific evidence that masks work."
Contact tracing: "For a commonly circulating viral infection such as COVID, it was a hopeless waste of valuable public health resources that did not stop the disease."
Collateral public health damage: "As an immunologist, Dr. Fauci failed to properly consider and weigh the disastrous effects lockdowns would have on cancer detection and treatment, cardiovascular disease outcomes, diabetes care, childhood vaccination rates, mental health and opioid overdoses, to name a few."
Kulldorf and Bhattacharya said that most of their scientific colleagues agree with them on those points.
"While a few have spoken up, why are not more doing so? Well, some tried but failed. Others kept silent when they saw colleagues slandered and smeared in the media or censored by Big Tech." (of course... follow the money)
Some who have remained silent are government employees forbidden from contradicting official policy. Others fear losing their positions or research grants, "aware that Dr. Fauci sits on top of the largest pile of infectious disease research money in the world."
"Most scientists are not experts on infectious disease outbreaks. Were we, say, oncologists, physicists or botanists, we would probably also have trusted Dr. Fauci," Kulldorf and Bhattacharya say.
Now, governors, journalists, scientists, university presidents, hospital administrators and business leaders need to open their eyes and examine the evidence that has mounted over the past year and a half, they write.
"After 700,000-plus COVID deaths and the devastating effects of lockdowns, it is time to return to basic principles of public health."
Parenthesis are obviously sarcasm from yours truly.
By Art Moore
Published November 1, 2021
The top White House coronavirus adviser under two presidents, Dr. Anthony Fauci, gave the wrong answers to the major epidemiological and public health questions posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, contend two experts on infectious disease outbreaks. (no credibility here with these two)
In a column published by Newsweek.com. (probably some right wing rag) Drs. Martin Kulldorf of Harvard and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford write that when the pandemic hit, America "needed someone to turn to for advice."
The media and public turned to Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and President's top health adviser on the pandemic.
However, Kulldorf and Bhattacharya write, "Reality and scientific studies have now caught up with him."
Kulldorff is an epidemiologist, biostatistician and professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Bhattacharya is a professor of Health Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine. They are the co-authors, along with Dr. Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, of the Great Barrington Declaration, advocating a public policy of "focused protection" on the vulnerable while letting others go about their business. More than 860,000 people have signed the declaration, including 14,981 medical and public health scientists, and 44,167 medical practitioners. (Nothing to see here, don't worry, the media will slam them or call them nut jobs)
Here are the key issues that Fauci got wrong, they contend:
Natural immunity: "By pushing vaccine mandates, Dr. Fauci ignores naturally acquired immunity among the COVID-recovered, of which there are more than 45 million in the United States."
Protecting the elderly: "While anyone can get infected, there is more than a thousand-fold difference in mortality risk between the old and the young."
School closures: "Schools are major transmission points for influenza, but not for COVID."
Masks: "For children, there is no solid scientific evidence that masks work."
Contact tracing: "For a commonly circulating viral infection such as COVID, it was a hopeless waste of valuable public health resources that did not stop the disease."
Collateral public health damage: "As an immunologist, Dr. Fauci failed to properly consider and weigh the disastrous effects lockdowns would have on cancer detection and treatment, cardiovascular disease outcomes, diabetes care, childhood vaccination rates, mental health and opioid overdoses, to name a few."
Kulldorf and Bhattacharya said that most of their scientific colleagues agree with them on those points.
"While a few have spoken up, why are not more doing so? Well, some tried but failed. Others kept silent when they saw colleagues slandered and smeared in the media or censored by Big Tech." (of course... follow the money)
Some who have remained silent are government employees forbidden from contradicting official policy. Others fear losing their positions or research grants, "aware that Dr. Fauci sits on top of the largest pile of infectious disease research money in the world."
"Most scientists are not experts on infectious disease outbreaks. Were we, say, oncologists, physicists or botanists, we would probably also have trusted Dr. Fauci," Kulldorf and Bhattacharya say.
Now, governors, journalists, scientists, university presidents, hospital administrators and business leaders need to open their eyes and examine the evidence that has mounted over the past year and a half, they write.
"After 700,000-plus COVID deaths and the devastating effects of lockdowns, it is time to return to basic principles of public health."
I'm so sorry this has happened to you. You are not alone. Have you and your doctors reported this adverse event to VAERS? You really should, I wish you all the and hope things get better for you somehow.
It doesn't scare me. Fear is being used to excess to control the behavior of entire populations in the global community. When we stop being afraid and compliant, these government regulations may end and things may actually take a turn for the better not worse.
Last edited:
You've got to be joking, quoting from a source like WND, no sane person would read and believe that conspiracy trash that site has been proven to push lies and disinformation for many years. People like you and Tom have been suckered into believing this fake information for years, guess you'll never change. But, it's not a reputable source to discuss the coronavirus or vaccines, and readers should be aware of this.One more for SeaBreeze to dispute.
Parenthesis are obviously sarcasm from yours truly.
By Art Moore
Published November 1, 2021
The top White House coronavirus adviser under two presidents, Dr. Anthony Fauci, gave the wrong answers to the major epidemiological and public health questions posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, contend two experts on infectious disease outbreaks. (no credibility here with these two)
In a column published by Newsweek.com. (probably some right wing rag) Drs. Martin Kulldorf of Harvard and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford write that when the pandemic hit, America "needed someone to turn to for advice."
The media and public turned to Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and President's top health adviser on the pandemic.
However, Kulldorf and Bhattacharya write, "Reality and scientific studies have now caught up with him."
Kulldorff is an epidemiologist, biostatistician and professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Bhattacharya is a professor of Health Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine. They are the co-authors, along with Dr. Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, of the Great Barrington Declaration, advocating a public policy of "focused protection" on the vulnerable while letting others go about their business. More than 860,000 people have signed the declaration, including 14,981 medical and public health scientists, and 44,167 medical practitioners. (Nothing to see here, don't worry, the media will slam them or call them nut jobs)
Here are the key issues that Fauci got wrong, they contend:
Natural immunity: "By pushing vaccine mandates, Dr. Fauci ignores naturally acquired immunity among the COVID-recovered, of which there are more than 45 million in the United States."
Protecting the elderly: "While anyone can get infected, there is more than a thousand-fold difference in mortality risk between the old and the young."
School closures: "Schools are major transmission points for influenza, but not for COVID."
Masks: "For children, there is no solid scientific evidence that masks work."
Contact tracing: "For a commonly circulating viral infection such as COVID, it was a hopeless waste of valuable public health resources that did not stop the disease."
Collateral public health damage: "As an immunologist, Dr. Fauci failed to properly consider and weigh the disastrous effects lockdowns would have on cancer detection and treatment, cardiovascular disease outcomes, diabetes care, childhood vaccination rates, mental health and opioid overdoses, to name a few."
Kulldorf and Bhattacharya said that most of their scientific colleagues agree with them on those points.
"While a few have spoken up, why are not more doing so? Well, some tried but failed. Others kept silent when they saw colleagues slandered and smeared in the media or censored by Big Tech." (of course... follow the money)
Some who have remained silent are government employees forbidden from contradicting official policy. Others fear losing their positions or research grants, "aware that Dr. Fauci sits on top of the largest pile of infectious disease research money in the world."
"Most scientists are not experts on infectious disease outbreaks. Were we, say, oncologists, physicists or botanists, we would probably also have trusted Dr. Fauci," Kulldorf and Bhattacharya say.
Now, governors, journalists, scientists, university presidents, hospital administrators and business leaders need to open their eyes and examine the evidence that has mounted over the past year and a half, they write.
"After 700,000-plus COVID deaths and the devastating effects of lockdowns, it is time to return to basic principles of public health."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/world-net-daily-wnd/
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
- Overall, we rate WND Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.
Reasoning: Propaganda, Conspiracy, Fake News, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
David777
Well-known Member
- Location
- Silicon Valley
Note I have no interest in being pulled into these discussions as there is little purpose in doing so on a public web board like this but will add my 2 cents this once as a general criticism of such threads.
Here's the problem folks per below link.
As someone new to this board am noticing the ongoing war among some herein. The problem I've read with each of these threads that is common also at other web communities, is one of not presenting arguments in unbiased ways seeking truth. Instead it is as though it has become a game on both sides with a tendency to twist, leave out pertinent information, and overstate arguments sometimes just for the sake of irritating those with opposing views. In the case of this current thread for example, things known now after 20 months of research and data are being used against what was being publically related during earlier periods of the pandemic when little was certain. Those posting such often clearly understand what they are doing is a game. The GBD was only about a continuing lockdown during summer 2020 that I tended to agree had run its course and needed to end with at that time. Since that time, some of the same people have added new criticisms.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10...y-disagreement-became-culture-war-flashpoint/
With COVID-19, every disagreement became a culture-war flashpoint
snippets:
Whether the subject was lockdowns, masking, social distancing, vaccination, the origins of the virus, or even what the disease should be called, dogmatism consistently drowned out honest debate. There should have been a lively, ongoing process of questioning, testing, and revising scientific insights into COVID-19 and how best to confront it. Yet too many people preferred to dig in their heels, refusing to acknowledge that critics or dissidents might have a legitimate point. Again and again, on both the right and the left, people have insisted on viewing public health measures through a political or partisan lens...
None of this means that the Great Barrington Declaration was unassailably correct, let alone that its prescriptions, if adopted, might not have caused other problems. But did it have to become a flashpoint in the culture war? In the midst of a pandemic, respected epidemiologists ought to be able to raise questions about prevailing public health policy without being savaged as fools or apostates. The fact that they couldn’t is appalling, and should make all of us uneasy, lockdown supporters and detractors alike.
Here's the problem folks per below link.
As someone new to this board am noticing the ongoing war among some herein. The problem I've read with each of these threads that is common also at other web communities, is one of not presenting arguments in unbiased ways seeking truth. Instead it is as though it has become a game on both sides with a tendency to twist, leave out pertinent information, and overstate arguments sometimes just for the sake of irritating those with opposing views. In the case of this current thread for example, things known now after 20 months of research and data are being used against what was being publically related during earlier periods of the pandemic when little was certain. Those posting such often clearly understand what they are doing is a game. The GBD was only about a continuing lockdown during summer 2020 that I tended to agree had run its course and needed to end with at that time. Since that time, some of the same people have added new criticisms.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10...y-disagreement-became-culture-war-flashpoint/
With COVID-19, every disagreement became a culture-war flashpoint
snippets:
Whether the subject was lockdowns, masking, social distancing, vaccination, the origins of the virus, or even what the disease should be called, dogmatism consistently drowned out honest debate. There should have been a lively, ongoing process of questioning, testing, and revising scientific insights into COVID-19 and how best to confront it. Yet too many people preferred to dig in their heels, refusing to acknowledge that critics or dissidents might have a legitimate point. Again and again, on both the right and the left, people have insisted on viewing public health measures through a political or partisan lens...
None of this means that the Great Barrington Declaration was unassailably correct, let alone that its prescriptions, if adopted, might not have caused other problems. But did it have to become a flashpoint in the culture war? In the midst of a pandemic, respected epidemiologists ought to be able to raise questions about prevailing public health policy without being savaged as fools or apostates. The fact that they couldn’t is appalling, and should make all of us uneasy, lockdown supporters and detractors alike.
Last edited:
Knight
Well-known Member
The article by squatting dog
By Art Moore
Published November 1, 2021 <-----
After 21 months not in the beginning when the world was panicked by a killer viral infection.
People world wide wanted action now, not the typical 7 to 10 years of testing that bringing a vaccine to market takes. A judgement call then that may well be different now.
No problem now expressing their thoughts. I think once more is known it's always easier to express after the fact thoughts on what took place.
By Art Moore
Published November 1, 2021 <-----
After 21 months not in the beginning when the world was panicked by a killer viral infection.
People world wide wanted action now, not the typical 7 to 10 years of testing that bringing a vaccine to market takes. A judgement call then that may well be different now.
No problem now expressing their thoughts. I think once more is known it's always easier to express after the fact thoughts on what took place.
squatting dog
We don't have as far to go, as we've already been
- Location
- Arkansas, and also Florida
WND ??? WOW, pulled that one out of the air. This article came from Newsweek.com You know, that far right wack-a-do website.
Now where do you claim you pulled that article out of? I'll give you the link to what you posted, and you give me the link of the article in Newweek. I'll wait.
https://www.wnd.com/2021/11/harvard-stanford-scientists-show-fauci-fooled-america/
I went into the E.R. 2 days after the shot. The Dr. there gave me some kind of medicine to contradict the Conav-19 shot as my right side of my neck was swelled out about 5" also my tongue was swollen up where I could hardly swallow. He was afraid he was going to have to put me on a ventilator. He was the first one to say it was a reaction to the shot & do not get any more as your immune system will not take it. Since then I've seen my primary care Dr, another E.R. Dr that put me in the hospital for 4 days. That I had 2 more specialists in the hospital that both said the same thing My immune system is compromised so no more shots for you.
I wish I would have gone to my friends Dr. in another city. She got the Ivermectin pills & was better in 2 days when she got the conav-19 & no shots.
Knight
Well-known Member
Thanks for taking the time to explain the reason for multiple doctors. Did your doctor or doctors mention anything about your immune system being compromised before you had the shot. The reason I asked is because here where I live shots were not available until march, but those with compromised immune systems could get shots right away like you did.
squatting dog
We don't have as far to go, as we've already been
- Location
- Arkansas, and also Florida
https://www.newsweek.com/how-fauci-fooled-america-opinion-1643839Now where do you claim you pulled that article out of? I'll give you the link to what you posted, and you give me the link of the article in Newweek. I'll wait.
https://www.wnd.com/2021/11/harvard-stanford-scientists-show-fauci-fooled-america/
TooMuchMuktuk
New Member
The study done in Israel, one of the most highly vaccinated nations in the world, showed that natural antibodies from recovering from covid provides far better protection than the vax shots.I believe by now it's very likely that large numbers of Americans do have natural immunity, but they say that doesn't count anymore. Something to think about isn't it.
I have enough proof of that. I had the flu 38 years ago. I haven't had it since, even though I cared for several friends with the flu. I've never had a flu shot. But I know several people who got the flu after their flu shots. And, during a bad flu season, ER waiting rooms are crowded with people who had their flu shots. It's pretty obvious that flu shots don't work.