| Over 100 people in the ground today 10:59 - Sep 11 with 26361 views | builthjack |
- will be carrying Covid.
It could be the person next to you.
Frightening. Perhaps wear a mask folks. Take hand gel. [Post edited 11 Sep 2021 10:59]
|  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |  |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 15:28 - Sep 21 with 1208 views | Professor |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 15:25 - Sep 21 by Scotia |
You consider it a lie becasue you've been brainwashed.
If I'm part of a trial, it's a trial that could save my life. |
So are fools like AFD. They are the control group. Lots of those tend to die in vaccine experiments |  | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 18:37 - Sep 22 with 1115 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 15:26 - Sep 21 by A_Fans_Dad |
You can't wriggle out of it.
That was your response to his statement.
So show us your peer reviewed information. |
When are you going to show us that peer reviewed information? | | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 19:35 - Sep 22 with 1102 views | Catullus |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 18:37 - Sep 22 by A_Fans_Dad |
When are you going to show us that peer reviewed information? |
Why show you (or anyone else) something you may well not understand and will end up misrepresenting?
That's the issue with a lot of the nonsense posted online, it takes factual info, misunderstands it and present s aflse version of it that fools gobble up as 100% correc. | |
| |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 20:03 - Sep 22 with 1089 views | Scotia |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 18:37 - Sep 22 by A_Fans_Dad |
When are you going to show us that peer reviewed information? |
You show me where I made any mention of immunity after 6 months. I didn't.
I was responding to a comment that I was repeating government statements.
I then asked you to do the maths to count the months between my second dose (March) and my third yesterday. Perhaps the government are following the science after all?
Do you seriously think that there is no peer reviewed science that a fully vaccinated person is less likely to pass the virus on? In fact go and find some. PS Waning immunity doesn't count, that was always acknowledged to happen, boosters are going to be a regular occurrence.
For the record, aside from a sore arm, not a single side effect from jab 3. I'm free to get on with life safe in the knowledge that I've protected myself and those around me. As will everyone else who needs and accepts a booster. | | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 22:33 - Sep 22 with 1048 views | builthjack |
Pin down the unjabbed and stack that needle in. | |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 23:22 - Sep 22 with 1033 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 20:03 - Sep 22 by Scotia |
You show me where I made any mention of immunity after 6 months. I didn't.
I was responding to a comment that I was repeating government statements.
I then asked you to do the maths to count the months between my second dose (March) and my third yesterday. Perhaps the government are following the science after all?
Do you seriously think that there is no peer reviewed science that a fully vaccinated person is less likely to pass the virus on? In fact go and find some. PS Waning immunity doesn't count, that was always acknowledged to happen, boosters are going to be a regular occurrence.
For the record, aside from a sore arm, not a single side effect from jab 3. I'm free to get on with life safe in the knowledge that I've protected myself and those around me. As will everyone else who needs and accepts a booster. |
You have failed again, no Peer reviewed data.
in fact you never back up yuupor claims.
I do not remember seeing any mention of Me having to do any calculating of the months between your vaccinations.
Which has sod all to do you providing evidence of the peer review that you use.
Perhaps you had better go and ask prof to provide you with some, because you obvioulsy can't actually find any of your own.
Waning Immunity is exactly what it is all about, so don't try and dodge the subject. | | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 23:27 - Sep 22 with 1025 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 19:35 - Sep 22 by Catullus |
Why show you (or anyone else) something you may well not understand and will end up misrepresenting?
That's the issue with a lot of the nonsense posted online, it takes factual info, misunderstands it and present s aflse version of it that fools gobble up as 100% correc. |
Who asked you? | | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 07:45 - Sep 23 with 989 views | Scotia |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 23:22 - Sep 22 by A_Fans_Dad |
You have failed again, no Peer reviewed data.
in fact you never back up yuupor claims.
I do not remember seeing any mention of Me having to do any calculating of the months between your vaccinations.
Which has sod all to do you providing evidence of the peer review that you use.
Perhaps you had better go and ask prof to provide you with some, because you obvioulsy can't actually find any of your own.
Waning Immunity is exactly what it is all about, so don't try and dodge the subject. |
Cat is absolutelty correct to raise this becasue you've misunderstood this again. I'm not sure if it is a deliberate misunderstanding to get yourself of the massive barrel you're over? I note you haven't copy and pasted any reference I made to "after six months" becasue I didn't.
If I didn't back up my claims you wouldn't need to resort to quasi personal jibes and you wouldn't look like a fool.
I'm not dodging the waning immunity subject, but it is a moot point, as it is being addressed. I had my booster vaccine 6 months and 17 days after the first. It has been acknowleged and dealt with. I will soon be safer from the virus and safer to be around people for another few months. Both those facts are relevant to the use of vaccine passports, although I think the latter is the reason for booster jabs as there appears to still be a significant level of protection from severe disease from the original dose.
The requirement for boostsers and waning imuunity has been considered since the vaccines have been launched. In fact the only person who seems to have mentioned life long immunity is Dolores Cahill - remember her? You should do she is one of your "experts", you seem to now be admitting that she was wrong? She is.
Prof has even stated on here that immunity from the AZ jab is likely to last longer than the mRNA jabs, but couldn't be used as a booster as there would be immunity to the adenovirus vector used. My booster was Pfizer.
Who'd a thought it, he really seems to know what he is talking about? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 08:35 - Sep 23 with 981 views | felixstowe_jack |
Just get vaccinated you know it makes sense. | |
| |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 08:57 - Sep 23 with 972 views | Professor |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 07:45 - Sep 23 by Scotia |
Cat is absolutelty correct to raise this becasue you've misunderstood this again. I'm not sure if it is a deliberate misunderstanding to get yourself of the massive barrel you're over? I note you haven't copy and pasted any reference I made to "after six months" becasue I didn't.
If I didn't back up my claims you wouldn't need to resort to quasi personal jibes and you wouldn't look like a fool.
I'm not dodging the waning immunity subject, but it is a moot point, as it is being addressed. I had my booster vaccine 6 months and 17 days after the first. It has been acknowleged and dealt with. I will soon be safer from the virus and safer to be around people for another few months. Both those facts are relevant to the use of vaccine passports, although I think the latter is the reason for booster jabs as there appears to still be a significant level of protection from severe disease from the original dose.
The requirement for boostsers and waning imuunity has been considered since the vaccines have been launched. In fact the only person who seems to have mentioned life long immunity is Dolores Cahill - remember her? You should do she is one of your "experts", you seem to now be admitting that she was wrong? She is.
Prof has even stated on here that immunity from the AZ jab is likely to last longer than the mRNA jabs, but couldn't be used as a booster as there would be immunity to the adenovirus vector used. My booster was Pfizer.
Who'd a thought it, he really seems to know what he is talking about? |
Dolores Cahill is subject to a
UK arrest warrant for breaching lockdown rules and potentially facing charges in the RoI. After being removed from teaching at the students’s request, she is not longer a member of staff at UCD. She has also stood down from her senior role in a far right anti-EU party.
Nice lady | | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 12:46 - Sep 23 with 937 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 07:45 - Sep 23 by Scotia |
Cat is absolutelty correct to raise this becasue you've misunderstood this again. I'm not sure if it is a deliberate misunderstanding to get yourself of the massive barrel you're over? I note you haven't copy and pasted any reference I made to "after six months" becasue I didn't.
If I didn't back up my claims you wouldn't need to resort to quasi personal jibes and you wouldn't look like a fool.
I'm not dodging the waning immunity subject, but it is a moot point, as it is being addressed. I had my booster vaccine 6 months and 17 days after the first. It has been acknowleged and dealt with. I will soon be safer from the virus and safer to be around people for another few months. Both those facts are relevant to the use of vaccine passports, although I think the latter is the reason for booster jabs as there appears to still be a significant level of protection from severe disease from the original dose.
The requirement for boostsers and waning imuunity has been considered since the vaccines have been launched. In fact the only person who seems to have mentioned life long immunity is Dolores Cahill - remember her? You should do she is one of your "experts", you seem to now be admitting that she was wrong? She is.
Prof has even stated on here that immunity from the AZ jab is likely to last longer than the mRNA jabs, but couldn't be used as a booster as there would be immunity to the adenovirus vector used. My booster was Pfizer.
Who'd a thought it, he really seems to know what he is talking about? |
All those weasel words and not a single Peer reviewed piece of information. | | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 12:49 - Sep 23 with 940 views | Professor |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 12:46 - Sep 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
All those weasel words and not a single Peer reviewed piece of information. |
I though you said Peer Review was bad a few days ago? | | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 13:13 - Sep 23 with 935 views | Catullus |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 23:27 - Sep 22 by A_Fans_Dad |
Who asked you? |
Who asked me? If you want to go down that road then WHO ASKED YOU? Who asked you to post the nonsense you believe? | |
| |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 14:28 - Sep 23 with 916 views | Professor |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 08:57 - Sep 23 by Professor |
Dolores Cahill is subject to a
UK arrest warrant for breaching lockdown rules and potentially facing charges in the RoI. After being removed from teaching at the students’s request, she is not longer a member of staff at UCD. She has also stood down from her senior role in a far right anti-EU party.
Nice lady |
And also very far off the mark with claims of ADE-which has simply not occurred despite a significant infection wave. | | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 15:07 - Sep 23 with 905 views | Scotia |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 14:28 - Sep 23 by Professor |
And also very far off the mark with claims of ADE-which has simply not occurred despite a significant infection wave. |
I really wonder what these people are trying to achieve. I'm beginning to think they are just evil. | | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 15:13 - Sep 23 with 897 views | A_Fans_Dad |
You mean that Lancet that prints totally made up Studies and letters from people involved with the Wuhan virus development saying that the virus couldn't possibly of come from the Laboratory?
The same NEJM that just had to have the study of COVID vaccine of pregnant women revised due to a mistake?
Naive or what?
An interesting little note in the Lancet study "Ct-value of 30 was used here as the cutoff, since several studies have shown no viable virus detected using Ct cut-offs ranging from Ct>24 to Ct<35 [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14].
7 Studies.
Pssst, don't tell prof he thinks that up to 45 as used in the UK is OK.
So, you, or prof have found peer reviewed papers that show reduced viral loads 12 days after vaccination.
Something everybody already new, otherwise there would be no point in vaccination at all would there?
You are wasting your and everybdy else's time as it is the reduced immunity that is the issue with vaccinated people becoming superspreaders due to virtually symptomless infections with same viral load as the unvaccinated that do have symptoms.
But it is nice to see you finally produce some data to support your argument, even if it is the wrong argument. | | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 15:31 - Sep 23 with 891 views | Scotia |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 15:13 - Sep 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
You mean that Lancet that prints totally made up Studies and letters from people involved with the Wuhan virus development saying that the virus couldn't possibly of come from the Laboratory?
The same NEJM that just had to have the study of COVID vaccine of pregnant women revised due to a mistake?
Naive or what?
An interesting little note in the Lancet study "Ct-value of 30 was used here as the cutoff, since several studies have shown no viable virus detected using Ct cut-offs ranging from Ct>24 to Ct<35 [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14].
7 Studies.
Pssst, don't tell prof he thinks that up to 45 as used in the UK is OK.
So, you, or prof have found peer reviewed papers that show reduced viral loads 12 days after vaccination.
Something everybody already new, otherwise there would be no point in vaccination at all would there?
You are wasting your and everybdy else's time as it is the reduced immunity that is the issue with vaccinated people becoming superspreaders due to virtually symptomless infections with same viral load as the unvaccinated that do have symptoms.
But it is nice to see you finally produce some data to support your argument, even if it is the wrong argument. |
It's not the wrong argument, fully vacinated people reduce there spread until the point that immunity wanes. And even then may well still do so. That is why the vulnerable are being boosted.
Vaccine passports (for the vaccinated, not tested) demonstrate a reduce likelihood of spreading the virus AND / OR getting severley ill if you contract the virus at the event for which you require the passport for.
You seem to have decided what that argument is becasue it is the only one you can be correct in. And even that is of no relevance, because a booster programme is underway.
With regard to your 12 day comment:-
The nature papaer measure to 37 days - not as a maximum but that is when measurement ceased.
The Lancet paper to 3 months.
The Oxford paper states "7 or more days" with no limit (although there obviously is).
The NEJM paper states 12 days purely to allow immunity to build.
I'm not going to resort to petty "you're clueless, you don't know where to get the data, or you don't have any evidence" snipes. Just please give up this stupid and pointless crusade. | | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 15:39 - Sep 23 with 889 views | Professor |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 15:13 - Sep 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
You mean that Lancet that prints totally made up Studies and letters from people involved with the Wuhan virus development saying that the virus couldn't possibly of come from the Laboratory?
The same NEJM that just had to have the study of COVID vaccine of pregnant women revised due to a mistake?
Naive or what?
An interesting little note in the Lancet study "Ct-value of 30 was used here as the cutoff, since several studies have shown no viable virus detected using Ct cut-offs ranging from Ct>24 to Ct<35 [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14].
7 Studies.
Pssst, don't tell prof he thinks that up to 45 as used in the UK is OK.
So, you, or prof have found peer reviewed papers that show reduced viral loads 12 days after vaccination.
Something everybody already new, otherwise there would be no point in vaccination at all would there?
You are wasting your and everybdy else's time as it is the reduced immunity that is the issue with vaccinated people becoming superspreaders due to virtually symptomless infections with same viral load as the unvaccinated that do have symptoms.
But it is nice to see you finally produce some data to support your argument, even if it is the wrong argument. |
I’m not posting the PHE validation paper yet again, but it shows a significant number of post Ct30 culture positives. Using a lower cut off will increase false negatives which are dangerous. Not that many are over though-most are 18-27 and so can be sequenced easily.
But don’t let the facts bother you. PCR is only a truly quantitative test for viral load with standard s to run against- a titration curve in effect which is what we used to develop for gene expression studies. Too busy at present to pander you your insanity | | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 15:55 - Sep 23 with 885 views | Catullus |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 15:13 - Sep 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
You mean that Lancet that prints totally made up Studies and letters from people involved with the Wuhan virus development saying that the virus couldn't possibly of come from the Laboratory?
The same NEJM that just had to have the study of COVID vaccine of pregnant women revised due to a mistake?
Naive or what?
An interesting little note in the Lancet study "Ct-value of 30 was used here as the cutoff, since several studies have shown no viable virus detected using Ct cut-offs ranging from Ct>24 to Ct<35 [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14].
7 Studies.
Pssst, don't tell prof he thinks that up to 45 as used in the UK is OK.
So, you, or prof have found peer reviewed papers that show reduced viral loads 12 days after vaccination.
Something everybody already new, otherwise there would be no point in vaccination at all would there?
You are wasting your and everybdy else's time as it is the reduced immunity that is the issue with vaccinated people becoming superspreaders due to virtually symptomless infections with same viral load as the unvaccinated that do have symptoms.
But it is nice to see you finally produce some data to support your argument, even if it is the wrong argument. |
Do you know what I have noticed about proper scientific evidencee and decent media sourcess?
Simply, they will correct articles where evidence has changed or been proved wrong, or was mistakenly printed. The whack jobs and the sites they use don't admit tsuch mistakes, they call everybody else liars, puppets, paid fools, the brainwashed etc.
Again with the reduced immunity, this is why there's the booster programme. It is still the unvaccinated who are the biggest problem but mostly to themselves and any vulnerable people they know.
I shall be at the game, with my son, confident in the level of protection the vaccine gives me. I shall have the booster when it's offered and I shall be advising my son to have the vaccine too, when they start doing 12-15 year olds which is apparently October 4th. | |
| |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 16:08 - Sep 23 with 879 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 15:55 - Sep 23 by Catullus |
Do you know what I have noticed about proper scientific evidencee and decent media sourcess?
Simply, they will correct articles where evidence has changed or been proved wrong, or was mistakenly printed. The whack jobs and the sites they use don't admit tsuch mistakes, they call everybody else liars, puppets, paid fools, the brainwashed etc.
Again with the reduced immunity, this is why there's the booster programme. It is still the unvaccinated who are the biggest problem but mostly to themselves and any vulnerable people they know.
I shall be at the game, with my son, confident in the level of protection the vaccine gives me. I shall have the booster when it's offered and I shall be advising my son to have the vaccine too, when they start doing 12-15 year olds which is apparently October 4th. |
"Simply, they will correct articles where evidence has changed or been proved wrong, or was mistakenly printed. The whack jobs and the sites they use don't admit tsuch mistakes, they call everybody else liars, puppets, paid fools, the brainwashed etc."
Very good, except it was the so called "wack jobs" that pointed out the error in the NEJM paper, not the authorities, not the vaccine proponents, not the mass media.
It was even "fact checked" and they said the "wack jobs" were wrong, except they weren't. | | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 20:52 - Sep 23 with 849 views | Scotia |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 16:08 - Sep 23 by A_Fans_Dad |
"Simply, they will correct articles where evidence has changed or been proved wrong, or was mistakenly printed. The whack jobs and the sites they use don't admit tsuch mistakes, they call everybody else liars, puppets, paid fools, the brainwashed etc."
Very good, except it was the so called "wack jobs" that pointed out the error in the NEJM paper, not the authorities, not the vaccine proponents, not the mass media.
It was even "fact checked" and they said the "wack jobs" were wrong, except they weren't. |
I'm wondering in that case why the 6 deaths vs 3 deaths in the NEJM HCQ paper that you keep banging on about hasn't been corrected?
Have the "whack jobs" not been in touch with them to let them know their mistake, or they have been in touch but are completely wrong and the paper reaches the correct conclusion?
I think I know which it is | | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 18:28 - Sep 24 with 797 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 20:52 - Sep 23 by Scotia |
I'm wondering in that case why the 6 deaths vs 3 deaths in the NEJM HCQ paper that you keep banging on about hasn't been corrected?
Have the "whack jobs" not been in touch with them to let them know their mistake, or they have been in touch but are completely wrong and the paper reaches the correct conclusion?
I think I know which it is |
Well it is quite possible that the "whack jobs" as you like to call them haven't read past the Study displayed.
You see unlike the NEJM pregant women study and most others which include their data tables and statistics in their studies the HCQ study buried the actual data table in a seperate pdf file.
The error was obvious in the pregnant women study because it was on the front page.
The 6 deaths and the 3 deaths are their data in their data table.
The fact you don't want to belivee it is neither here no there. | | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 20:05 - Sep 24 with 788 views | Scotia |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 18:28 - Sep 24 by A_Fans_Dad |
Well it is quite possible that the "whack jobs" as you like to call them haven't read past the Study displayed.
You see unlike the NEJM pregant women study and most others which include their data tables and statistics in their studies the HCQ study buried the actual data table in a seperate pdf file.
The error was obvious in the pregnant women study because it was on the front page.
The 6 deaths and the 3 deaths are their data in their data table.
The fact you don't want to belivee it is neither here no there. |
So you are the only person in the world to notice this crucial anomaly and you haven't informed the authors?
Well I'm sure the oldest and most respected medical journal in the world will be very interested in your observations, because obviously they don't know that 6 is more than 3. And clearly neither do their millions of readers, who are probably only the most respected medical professionals in the world. If only they had an interest in ending this pandemic.
You really ought to let them know. | | | |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 22:30 - Sep 24 with 761 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Over 100 people in the ground today on 20:05 - Sep 24 by Scotia |
So you are the only person in the world to notice this crucial anomaly and you haven't informed the authors?
Well I'm sure the oldest and most respected medical journal in the world will be very interested in your observations, because obviously they don't know that 6 is more than 3. And clearly neither do their millions of readers, who are probably only the most respected medical professionals in the world. If only they had an interest in ending this pandemic.
You really ought to let them know. |
Sarcasm, the lowest from of wit, just like you.
I wouldn't even have looked at it except prof suggested it. [Post edited 24 Sep 2021 22:32]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
