This could be proof. But maybe let's wait for Remery.

www.facebook.com/share/v/atGYTPWEkRKRLciM/?mibextid=0VwfS7

See, I look after you people.

Hats off to you for posting that myscreenname.

www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2024/july/letters

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..
Hats off to you for posting this myscreenname.

It's got 10 likes and a few shares. But I still want to wait for Remery, before we promote it as proof.

I watched a bit of it. I give it five days before a bunch of literature attempting to discredit the assertion a-la Danmask style hits the news.

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..
Hats off to you for posting that myscreenname.

www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2024/july/letters

Seeping

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

It's got 10 likes and a few shares. But I still want to wait for Remery, before we promote it as proof.

www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/ockhamsrazor/the-importance-of-evidence/3102882

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..
This could be proof. But maybe let's wait for Remery.

www.facebook.com/share/v/atGYTPWEkRKRLciM/?mibextid=0VwfS7

See, I look after you people.

After watching that I now have anatidaephobia.

Select to expand quote

remery.
www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/ockhamsrazor/the-importance-of-evidence/3102882

Remery just checkmated us in one move. Outstanding.

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..
Hats off to you for posting that myscreenname.

www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2024/july/letters

Thanks for posting the link FD. The letters and responses are a good read, and at the very least I reckon we could all learn a lot about how to conduct a civil discourse. Given that Immunology is the most complicated bioscience ever ( possibly cos I was totally crap at it) I would guess we are a still are quite a way from understanding the nitty gritty details of entire picture.
I am a little concerned over the misuse of 'safe and effective' phrasing. The determination of whether a medication remains 'safe and effective' throughout its lifecycle depends on ongoing evaluation of safety data. There isn't a specific number of adverse events that automatically render a medication unsafe or ineffective. Medications are assessed on Frequency/ Severity and Risk benefit data. A medication remains 'safe and effective' as long as its benefits justify its risks. There is no specific threshold of adverse events; rather, it's an assessment based on the totality of available evidence. The use of 'safe and effective' in general discussions may be problematic because there is no universal 'standard' of how much danger has to be present before it is not 'safe'. I feel there are some who assume safe = zero risk. I am sure there were dinosaurs wandering around thinking, "Hey Dino, I feeling very safe right now, look at the size of me, what could possible threaten me? Especially with the second sun that has appeared in the sky this morning." Being safe is relative.

^can you put that in a meme?

Seat belts are safe and effective, but Americans wouldn't wear them because... FREEDOM! USA USA USA. So they invented airbags.

Select to expand quote

remery said..
Seat belts are safe and effective, but Americans wouldn't wear them because... FREEDOM! USA USA USA. So they invented airbags.

Remery have you noticed all you have been doing is deflecting? Myscreenname has brought up an intelligent article and was hoping you'd provide a rebuttal and now you're talking about how seat belts are safe and effective. Seat belts don't have side effects or negative efficacy.

Select to expand quote

fangman said..
Thanks for posting the link FD. The letters and responses are a good read, and at the very least I reckon we could all learn a lot about how to conduct a civil discourse. Given that Immunology is the most complicated bioscience ever ( possibly cos I was totally crap at it) I would guess we are a still are quite a way from understanding the nitty gritty details of entire picture.
I am a little concerned over the misuse of 'safe and effective' phrasing. The determination of whether a medication remains 'safe and effective' throughout its lifecycle depends on ongoing evaluation of safety data. There isn't a specific number of adverse events that automatically render a medication unsafe or ineffective. Medications are assessed on Frequency/ Severity and Risk benefit data. A medication remains 'safe and effective' as long as its benefits justify its risks. There is no specific threshold of adverse events; rather, it's an assessment based on the totality of available evidence. The use of 'safe and effective' in general discussions may be problematic because there is no universal 'standard' of how much danger has to be present before it is not 'safe'. I feel there are some who assume safe = zero risk. I am sure there were dinosaurs wandering around thinking, "Hey Dino, I feeling very safe right now, look at the size of me, what could possible threaten me? Especially with the second sun that has appeared in the sky this morning." Being safe is relative.

Yeah mate, the Safe and Effective label was way too simplistic a description to describe the Covid vaccines.

Select to expand quote

Flying Dutchman said..

Remery have you noticed all you have been doing is deflecting? Myscreenname has brought up an intelligent article and was hoping you'd provide a rebuttal and now you're talking about how seat belts are safe and effective. Seat belts don't have side effects or negative efficacy.

In true Carontoc fashion, I listened to the first two seconds.

Have you listened to Aaron Siri's expert testimony before the New Hampshire House Committee on COVID Response Efficacy?

Skip to about 6.30 where it starts.

thehighwire.com/watch/

Select to expand quote

snoidberg said..
Have you listened to Aaron Siri's expert testimony before the New Hampshire House Committee on COVID Response Efficacy?

Skip to about 6.30 where it starts.

thehighwire.com/watch/

Dorit R. Reiss and Viridiana Ordonez, Law in the Service of Misinformation: How Anti-Vaccine Groups Use the Law to Help Spin a False Narrative, 18 NW. J. L. & SOC. POL'Y. 51 (2022). scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njlsp/vol18/iss1/2"INTRODUCTION On November 11, 2021, Attorney Aaron Siri published an article on his Substack website, responding to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on behalf of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), an anti-vaccine organization.1 The FOIA request claimed the Center for Disease Control (CDC) admitted it had no proof that the naturally immune-people who previously had COVID-19-could reinfect others.2 This meant, Mr. Siri wrote, there was no justification for the CDC's concerns about unvaccinated people.3 Mr. Siri's claim was untrue, a fact he likely knew. FOIA requests are designed to provide agency records, not to answer specific questions.4 FOIA requests provide citizens access to all federal agency records unless the records or portions of those records are protected from disclosure; this right is enforceable by the courts.5 As linked from the article, ICAN's request was submitted on September 2, 2021, and the CDC responded on November 5, 2021. The CDC's response to the FOIA request meant only that a search of the CDC's computers did not find agency records showing any case of an individual who (1) never received a COVID-19 vaccine; (2) was infected with COVID-19 once, recovered and then later became infected again; and (3) transmitted the virus to another person when infected the second time.6 Possible explanations for the CDC's response could be that such cases exist, but the CDC does not keep them as records; that the request did not provide enough guidance for an effective search that would lead to such records; or that the evidence for reinfection is not based on a documented single case, but on other data."

Select to expand quote

remery said..
In true Carontoc fashion, I listened to the first two seconds.

In what way is that Carantoc fashion ? (oh, and just to note..... Carantoc does not have a 'fashion'. Carantoc is all style, mate, 100% style).


I wasn't invited to this party, but I still listened to the link.

It seemed to me it was somebody following the scientific method; looking at something, analysing the issues, asking questions where previous conclusions might not seem right and providing an alternate theory, with the recognition that more work is likely to yield a better understanding, either reinforcing what is already thought to be known, or potentally finding something else.

Unless you believe the 'sciencce is in' and cannot ever be questioned then what is to disagree with in that ?




But anyways - I have always agreed the Covid vax was both safe and effective. It was an effective way for the politicans to get themselves out of the lockdown hole they had dug and a safe way to go to the next state elections without having to explain their decisions.

How would you describe Carantoc style? Im trying to picture it.

Is it style associated with a trendy affluent area of Seoul like Gangnam Style?

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..
How would you describe Carantoc style?

Some say it is uniquely indescribable, yet fascinatingly perplexing and addictive.

All we know is that it is like strawberry-fizz flavoured cocaine with the hit of LSD.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

myscreenname said..
How would you describe Carantoc style?

Some say it is uniquely indescribable, yet fascinatingly perplexing and addictive.

All we know is that it is like strawberry-fizz flavoured cocaine with the hit of LSD.

My mind read that as Jeremy Clarkson. I know it was intended, I just couldn't escape it.

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..
My mind read that as Jeremy Clarkson. I know it was intended, I just couldn't escape it.

Now you have me doing it!

GEERT VANDEN BOSSCHE PhD:
'Ongoing universal vaccination campaigns are absolutely detrimental to public and global health.'
"People, no matter their names and reputation, who are not knowledgeable in the fields of immunology, virology, vaccinology and evolutionary biology/ epidemiology are, therefore, not a good source for information or advice. This particularly applies to politicians. The vast majority of them are not only scientifically illiterate but they are typically also unable or unwilling to work in a mid- or long-term perspective.
Because they have no understanding whatsoever of the evolutionary dynamics of this pandemic, they simply do not understand that the rise in cases of disease currently observed in a number of European countries as well as in the US is due to enhanced circulation of more infectious variants that enjoy exceptional training as mass vaccination only increases the immune pressure exerted by the overall population. Their simplistic reasoning make them conclude that vaccinating the unvaccinated (i.e., younger age groups and children) is going to solve the problem, whereas each and every independent (!) knowledgeable expert understands that this is only going to further raise the population-level immune pressure on viral infectiousness and, therefore, promote the adaptation of additional mutations that will eventually enable full neutralization escape of circulating, highly infectious variants (Vanden Bossche, June 2021).

Initially, people were told that 'the more you vaccinate, the more you will prevent mutants from being generated and the less more infectious variants will spread'. This mantra proved miserably wrong as not only viral spread has increased in a number of countries despite very high vaccine coverage rates but it has now also become clear that the vaccinated spread the virus as much as the unvaccinated do (whereas it is even highly likely that vaccinees are a more important source of transmission of naturally selected, highly infectious variants (3)). Sadly enough, even a number of MDs have joined the club of fact checkers and have been taking advantage of their titles and reputation to divulgate simplistic and erroneous interpretations of the effect of mass vaccination campaigns. I cannot emphasize enough that, although none of them combine sufficient knowledge of virology, immunology, vaccinology and evolutionary biology to be able to understand what is driving the evolution of these pandemics towards a disastrous outcome, they have engaged in vilifying attacks that excelled in arrogance but were never built on solid scientific grounds. As if none of this were sufficient, TV channels and MSM have blindly supported the destructive rhetoric of plenty of substandard fact checkers instead of providing a forum for an open scientific debate. Furthermore, the travel and meeting restrictions that come with the Covid-19 crisis have made it very difficult to align and organize our science-based defense against the irrational and offensive mass vaccination campaigns. This is just another obstacle which makes it even more challenging to share and consolidate our findings and analyses with peers and other scientists.

All of this has only added to the confusion of those who initially saw themselves confronted with the difficult choice between getting the shot or letting it pass but are now often pressured to getting jabbed for risk of losing their job.

Here comes the answer:

Early treatment of people showing first sign and symptoms will result in enhanced rates of recovery from disease and, therefore, raise the number of people who develop life-long protective immunity against the viral variant they got infected with as well as against a diversified spectrum of other, more infectious circulating variants. Enhanced recovery rates will, therefore, contribute to building HI

www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/doomsday-prophecy-dr-geert-vanden-bossche

Select to expand quote

remery said..
www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/doomsday-prophecy-dr-geert-vanden-bossche

Nah, this is where you post large blocks of someone else's text without your own comments.

Not actual links so that people can read it all!

Thanks that made much more sense instead of random text extracts.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
Thanks that made much more sense instead of random text extracts.

Normally I would post an interesting excerpt with the link, but there were too many.

Select to expand quote

remery said..
www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/doomsday-prophecy-dr-geert-vanden-bossche

That was a good read and far easier than trying to get the image of Clarkson on strawberry LSD out of my head.