Forum Replies Created
I don’t remember any claim the vaccines were supposed to prevent infections. I remember they were supposed to reduce the risk of hospitalisation and death. I think “The vaccines don’t work” is the wrong conclusion to jump to.
Infection doesn’t mean hospital and death.
If the vaccines don’t work, then what’s happening in the UK?
Just the summer, perhaps?
Look at the deaths:
28 Yesterday. That’s compared to over 1300 per day from all causes.
“The lower the vaccination rates, the lower the infections”
If you have been vaccinated twice, an infection is not likely to be a serious matter. And also you aren’t likely to be taking as many precautions as someone who is not vaccinated.
It is similar to previous vaccines in that it it creates an immune response in the body.
But what you refer to as gene therapy is RNA, and sars-cov2 is RNA too. So any long term effects of the vaccine could also be long term effects of the virus.
Generally with vaccines problems turn up soon after vaccination, not years later. But either way, how do we know what the long term effects of sars-cov2 will be?
I have my doubts about vaccinating children, but Dr Griffin here points to long covid in children.
England is doing well according to these charts.
I cannot prove that it is because of the vaccine, but then if the vaccine were killing huge numbers it would show up in these charts. It’s hard to really know the truth about what’s going on, but I decided on balance that the vaccine was less risky than the risk of getting covid19, and so far nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise.
I see the usual confusion about cases, infections, covid, but skip it all and go straight to the death stats. There isn’t much confusion about death, you are either dead or not dead.
And it’s those spike proteins that PCR tests recognize
It isn’t, they detect RNA by converting it to DNA and multiplying it up.
5,522 people have died within 28 days of receiving a covid vaccination”
Note Ilargi: Scotland population is about 5.5 million, so 1 in 1,000 died from vaccination.
Well, no. In England and Wales 8808 people died in 1 week alone! So you need to consider the normal death rate.
What is the column “expected number of deaths” in your graphic? It looks like actual deaths are lower, so what is there to worry about?
Do you have any proof for that, democritus?
I am hoping you don’t want me to build a lab.
@democritus: then why are they called vaccines?
Because they work the way vaccines work, by inducing an immune response in the body.
Re Hesseri and LDS – The vaccines were intended to prevent hospitalisations and that’s what they have done. They weren’t intended to prevent positive test results or any symptoms at all.
“For every 1,000 confirmed cases for COVID-19,” What does this mean? A positive test result? I think this is not the same use of ‘case’ as in US 34 million cases. Otherwise the figures don’t make sense.
Well, democritus, if you’re not reading the articles anyway, yeah, what’s the use? You’re not going to learn much that way, are you?
Sorry, I was in an angry mood this morning and didn’t read past the first line. I take back what I said.
“A team of Australian researchers have published a scientific paper proving that the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus appears to be best adapted to attack human cells,”
So what? That’s how it got into humans. If it hadn’t been adapted it would not have transferred from bats to humans. It’s called evolution! This is just ridiculous. I have had enough of Automatic Earth and it’s anti-vaxx conspiracy nonsense.
The vaccine wasn’t ever billed to stop infections, it was billed to stop hospitalisation and death. Infections can be harmless.
“No vaccines needed.” What do you mean? Just dab a bit of sars-cov2 on your tongue and hope you get a mild infection?
If you’re worried about RNA or clotting you had better make sure you never get sars-cov2.
Here are some definitions of a vaccine.
The covid vaccines *are* vaccines.
Calling this gene therapy is just hoping we’ll mix up RNA and DNA to be as confused as off-guardian, and hoping that we will completely overlook what sars-cov2 does with its RNA. Just because it is natural, it doesn’t mean it is better or even good.
For the church of Jesus Christ to shut out those deemed by the state to be social undesirables would be anathema to us
They have already done this unfortunately, by shutting out everyone, even though there was no legal requirement to do so.
One solution would be to remove the phrase “of concern” from the phrase “variant of concern”.
Another solution would be to have a General Election and remove all the MPs of concern from Parliament.
Compare what the vaccine does to what sars-cov2, which is RNA, does to your cells. If you want to make an informed decision you don’t want misinformation everywhere. Also immunity doesn’t mean not getting infected, it means not getting ill.
Q: How long does the spike protein made by the body (via encoding through the mRNA vaccine) last in the body?
A: The protein lasts the same amount of time as other proteins made by the body. Exact time is not known, but it is estimated to be a few weeks. ”
Furthermore, the virus sars-cov2 is RNA and it plays havoc with your cells. Jim Rickards should stick to his usual subject matter.
This statement is false: ” The spike protein remains with you indefinitely. In effect, you have modified your own genetic make-up to fight COVID “.
RNA isn’t DNA, and the RNA doesn’t remain.
SARS-COV2 is RNA too, and it reprograms your cells without any concern at all for your well-being, because it can.
“mRNA does not linger in our cells for long. Once it has passed its instructions to the protein-making machinery in our cells, enzymes called ribonucleases (RNases) degrade the mRNA.
It is not possible for mRNA to move into the nucleus of a cell as it lacks the signals that would allow it to enter this compartment. This means that RNA cannot integrate into the DNA of the vaccinated cell.
There is no risk of long-term genetic changes with mRNA vaccines.
RNA is not our own genetic material, so I am not sure that mRNA vaccine plays with it. But even if it does, viruses can also change DNA.
What’s really sad about the Express article is that it isn’t hindsight. It was known at the time it was insane. What else could they have done? They could have done what Sweden did. Or they could have stopped the plane loads of virus coming into the country in the first place. And parliament was useless. Parliament still is useless. Where is parliament? Parliament has gone on ****ing holiday with ****ing face masks on. Not only was lock down a massive mistake, it was highly likely to be illegal. Everything that’s going on now is still illegal and the excuses for doing it are becoming ever more flimsy. Oh it’s to save the NHS, oh no wait, it’s to make the letter R=0, oh no wait, it’s to stop a second wave, oh no wait, it’s time to go to a restaurant with no mask on to try to fix the mess, here’s some free money.
Our country and our economy is all but destroyed by a whole parliament full of useless incompetent idiots. What’s the point in voting?
Not very obviously, the article about masks links to this research: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2820%2931142-9/fulltext where it says reusable 12–16-layer cotton with low certainty. Is that what people are wearing? 12-16 layers? (No).
The mask poster is nonsense. Maybe it is there as an example of nonsense.
100% transmission? What were they doing??
The Independent article about Sweden is absurd. They must have spent ages coming up with “seven day rolling average of new deaths”. If you want to see disaster, look at the UK. Not only have we destroyed our economy, but we have more deaths per million than Spain, Italy, Sweden .and France, Netherlands, Ireland, USA. What can the motive be for articles like this ridiculous article? Maybe people buy more newspapers in a lockdown?
I’m not convinced. There isn’t much evidence offered about what would happen if there were not a lockdown. The number of deaths in the UK peaked on 8th of April, which means infections had peaked before the lockdown began. People were taking precautions anyway, it wasn’t necessary to introduce a totalitarian police state in violation of human rights.
I think whatever we are doing at the moment as a cure is probably much worse than the problem. Looking at the world death statistics for covid19 258,509, this is less than half the number of people who die normally every year in the UK. We don’t have lockdowns for flu, it is a virus, it does spread, it does kill.
So much is still unknown about this virus, we don’t know how many people have it, and therefore we don’t know what the death rate is.
Locking everyone in a padded cell would work. It couldn’t not work as you put it. What is the price?
What is the correct address for COVID2019Info.live ? I cannot find it anywhere. Maybe it has invalid certificate.
Dear Raúl Ilargi Meijer,
What is the correct url for covid2019info.live? Is it this one?
Which spreadsheet are you reproducing?
What happens when the testing starts, will we have two classes of citizen, those who are free, those who are not free? will the free become the majority? so the unfree can be forgotten? how long will it take?
Since when are estimates either real or actual?
Why isn’t it always true that we should avoid unnecessary car journeys to save lives?
Perhaps death on the road is acceptable because it is not exponential.
“already suffocating under a yoke of extreme austerity”
The suffering of the poor is government policy. Many people say they object to Brexit because it will be bad for the poor. But in this country it is already bad for the poor, and if it gets worse, that will be government policy too. There is really no need for the poor to be so poor, but there is always an excuse. Last time it was the debt, which never got paid off, this time it will be Brexit.
I will not read Cameron’s memoirs until 70 years after his death, to be sure he doesn’t get paid for it, and even then he won’t because I will be dead too.
When Boris says the UK Parliament has no control over BREXIT it is a simple statement of fact.
I think in theory parliament could pass a law requiring Johnson to revoke or postpone article 50. But it might take them too long to do that.