Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

[Aridas]

Especially if you omit the part that soon follows.....

Well, because a post of mine was moved here and I accidentally clicked in, I may as well contribute a little. This particular approach to "Masks don't work" just reminds me of an early meme. Specifically, Wear Your Mask: The Urine Test.

That particular reference to it was a year and a half ago - and the concepts invoked by it seem to be both in line with the evidence being cited and well in line with the evidence as a whole. Going a bit further, michaelsuede trying to use THAT as evidence that masks don't work is worth little more than an eyeroll from the start. Normal masks that allow unfiltered air passage have long been known to serve as poor protection from getting infected by others when it comes to covid, with a note that there are also firm indications that mask use reduces average severity of disease - and decent protection for others from infection when used by the infected. Motivated selective amnesia arguments tend to just be annoying to address, though.

Incidentally, I'm reminded of the creationist disproofs of gradualism being used as arguments against evolution... many decades after scientists moved on from gradualism as a workable theory.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

The first quote is a reason they are investigating, not a statement of fact. Here's a clearer statement of what they concluded.

Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon.

That's called a fancy way of say'n - THEY DON'T WORK

No, that's you cherrypicking bits of a report that you think support your claim.
Did you look at the graphic at the beginning of the report? You know, the one that shows reduced infection rates in mask wearers?
Did you read any of this?

A systematic review of observational studies reported that mask use reduced risk for SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome, and COVID-19 by 66% overall, 70% in health care workers, and 44% in the community.

Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates SARS-CoV-2 transmission,

There are also a great number of caveats, such as improper wearing of masks and whether those around the mask-wearers were also wearing masks, leading the authors to state

The most important limitation is that the findings are inconclusive

That's called a fancy way of sayin' -THIS DOESN'T SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Several more studies all saying masks don't work:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20092668/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22188875/
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29140516/

michaelsuede: How many of those studies refer to Covid-19?
How many of them actually do conclude that masks 'don't work', as you claim?
Did you intentionally link to a retracted study, or did the disinformation source you relied on for this list not tell you that?
By the way, do you know the reasoning behind wearing masks? From these links, it appears you do not.

 

[Craig4]

More confirmation that the vaccines are inuring large numbers of children. Pediatric ICU nurse saw myocarditis jump from 5 to 6 cases a year to 60 after the vaccine rollout. She says she has no doubt that its vaccine related due to the fact that she didn't see any cases come in during the pandemic.

She says MRI follow up showed scaring in about a third of the kids, which indicates a high chance that congestive heart failure may result from the injury. Also says there was no reporting requirement for any of these cases. But don't worry, the government made sure no one can be held responsible for this.

As another anecdote, my co-worker's college age daughter just got the vaccine and ended up in the ICU after a pulmonary embolism and tachycardia.

https://rumble.com/vtge32-tawny-bue...crease-in-the-rate-of-myocarditis-after-.html

Of course she did...

 

[abaddon]

The first quote is a reason they are investigating, not a statement of fact. Here's a clearer statement of what they concluded.



That's called a fancy way of say'n - THEY DON'T WORK

So to get it straight, you think that under surgery, nobody should be masked because it does not work. Not the surgeon, or the nurses, or anyone because masks do not work.

 

[Pixel42]

If "one" reported adverse event was shown to be causal, then the fraction can't be zero, obviously.

Obviously.

So far, last I heard, the only type of adverse event for which a causal link has been established is the blood clot problem, but that alone makes it non zero. I don't know what the latest figure for that is, but I believe it's in the hundreds. Doubtless some are among the VAERS reported events.

Are you contending with a straight face, that for all the vaccine associated mortality depicted in this VAERS graph representing 22,193 dead people, that only one person's death was actually caused by the vaccine?

No. I'm saying that the default assumption for each type of adverse event reported to VAERS is that it is unconnected to the vaccine until or unless there is good reason to think otherwise. Good reason is a rate of incidence of the event which is higher than usual, and is correlated with administration of the vaccine. There has already been good reason to think otherwise for one type of event, there may turn out to be good reason for others. But there's no reason to assume so.

These people presumably died in close temporal proximity to being vaccinated. Are all of these deaths just one big coincidence? Are you a coincidence theorist?

One of the cognitive biases which have been built into our brains by evolution is a tendency to vastly underestimate the frequency with which coincidences can be expected to occur. It is a big factor in much stubborn insistence in believing in the paranormal, despite the objective evidence proving it not to be true. Belief in astrology, dowsing, miracles etc can be traced back to it, and the consequent confirmation bias. "There's no such thing as coincidence" is one of the stupidist statements that the scientifically illiterate solemnly repeat to each other in the belief that they are being profound. I'm not as familiar with conspiracy theories as I am with pseudoscience, but from what I've read that same inability to accept that their intuition and common sense are not reliable guides to what is or is not likely to be a coincidence is a significant factor in most of them too.

 

[Tippit]

So to get it straight, you think that under surgery, nobody should be masked because it does not work. Not the surgeon, or the nurses, or anyone because masks do not work.

Surgical masks work for surgery, preventing bodily fluids from splashing the face, bacteria, and protozoans, but not for preventing .1 micron highly contagious aerosolized viruses. In other words, different masks work (or do not work as the case may be) for different applications.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Surgical masks work for surgery, preventing bodily fluids from splashing the face, bacteria, and protozoans, but not for preventing .1 micron highly contagious aerosolized viruses. In other words, different masks work (or do not work as the case may be) for different applications.

You are assuming that viruses spread from our noses and mouths as individual viruses.
This assumption is incorrect.

 

[Mojo]

More confirmation that the vaccines are inuring large numbers of children. Pediatric ICU nurse saw myocarditis jump from 5 to 6 cases a year to 60 after the vaccine rollout. She says she has no doubt that its vaccine related due to the fact that she didn't see any cases come in during the pandemic.

She says MRI follow up showed scaring in about a third of the kids,

That’s probably because of people spouting alarmist conspiracy theories about the vaccines at them.

 

[Tippit]

No. I'm saying that the default assumption for each type of adverse event reported to VAERS is that it is unconnected to the vaccine until or unless there is good reason to think otherwise. Good reason is a rate of incidence of the event which is higher than usual, and is correlated with administration of the vaccine. There has already been good reason to think otherwise for one type of event, there may turn out to be good reason for others. But there's no reason to assume so.

And so for all of the otherwise healthy people with no co-morbidities who comprise those 22,193 and died shortly after being "vaccinated", your default assumption would be that their deaths were unconnected to the "vaccine"? What makes you think that's a reasonable assumption?

 

[MBDK]

In other words, different masks work (or do not work as the case may be) for different applications.

Too bad you can't understand that the cloth masks work effectively for their own intended application - to limit the spread of the virus by an infected individual.

 

[MBDK]

And so for all of the otherwise healthy people with no co-morbidities who comprise those 22,193 and died shortly after being "vaccinated", your default assumption would be that their deaths were unconnected to the "vaccine"? What makes you think that's a reasonable assumption?

What makes YOU think ANY of the 22,193 who died were otherwise healthy people with no comorbidities?

 

[Pixel42]

And so for all of the otherwise healthy people with no co-morbidities who comprise those 22,193 and died shortly after being "vaccinated", your default assumption would be that their deaths were unconnected to the "vaccine"? What makes you think that's a reasonable assumption?

I see no reason to assume that these 22,193 people were "otherwise healthy people with no co-morbidities". Anyone can report events to VAERS, there's no way to ensure the reports are limited to such cases. I looked at the VAERS mortality data a while back and could see no indication that the events had been processed or filtered, but I could have missed it. What has led you to think that this number comprises only "otherwise healthy people with no co-morbidities"?

The other piece of data I would need before concluding that this number is alarming is the normal sudden death rate for "otherwise healthy people with no co-morbidities" with which it can be compared.

 

[Planigale]

You mean, the freedom of speech that doesn't exist on the platforms owned by the largest corporations in the world? The one way top-down "freedom of speech" enjoyed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people by panning early effective treatments for Covid, in favor of toxic experimental gene therapies that he has a direct financial conflict of interest in as a shareholder, and/or once hospitalized, "treatment" with expensive protocols that are effective only at monetizing the patients they are killing? The "post-truth" culture promoted by lying, propagandizing media and government? The financial incentives provided by Medicare to hospitals for Covid deaths, and ventilator usage that I just documented only a few posts up?

Yeah, no. Your explanation is rejected.

The discrepancy in per capita Covid mortality in the US is explained by the simple fact that the "vaccines" coupled with the gross negligence and malpractice by hospitals is literally killing people and then naming the cause of death Covid, and where it is not, every death with Covid is statistically misrepresented as a death by Covid.

As someone who actually sees people dying from Covid, I can tell you this is untrue as the vast majority of those dying from covid are the unvaccinated. In the UK we certainly differentiate death with Covid from death by Covid on death certificates.

Even your arguments about funding do not explain why the same pattern of deaths is seen in countries with centrally funded health care where each case is a cost not a profit and their is a significant disincentive to e.g. ventilate unnecessarily.

 

[Planigale]

Since the vaccines were initially emergency use only and the Covid 19 was a novel virus, right? There was not a big testing sample group early on with any of the vaccines from Phizer, Moderna or J & J and certainly not much on mice.
These drugs were experimental, so the science needs to have these questions answered in order to improve upon the vaccination effectiveness.
The Hatchard report from New Zealand is a critical report to check out. Early on NZ locked down and did not open back up until most of their population was fully vaccinated and the report is a very telling one that's worth a serious look.
https://youtu.be/VVxmAIKjYM4

Can you link to the actual report as opposed to someone's opinion on it?

 

[Planigale]

The ones that use lipid nanoparticles to deliver to and program your ribosomes with synthetic messenger RNA to produce a genetically modified (GMO) version of the wild virus spike protein, for the hopeful purpose of generating an immune response which clearly fails to prevent transmission of the virus, and may reduce your risks of hospitalization and death due to Covid infection, while adding future unknown risks.

Do you know how vaccines work? For instance how does smallpox vaccine work/

 

[Planigale]

First we were lied to that the "vaccines" would prevent infection, and now, it's beginning to look like the claim that they reduce the likelihood of severe illness or death is a lie too:

Nearly 40 percent of all Illinois COVID deaths in the last month are breakthroughs.

So what's going on? Is their efficacy waning, or was it never there to begin with?

So that means over 60% of over Illinois deaths are in the unvaccinated. Approximately 90% of deaths are in the over 65s and the vaccination rate in the over 65s is about 90%. So the 10% of the unvaccinated are contributing 60% of deaths. So I think your statistic says unvaccinated 6 times more likely to die; pretty good evidence of protection?

 

[Planigale]

If you read the article, the pertinent question was:



Either Pritzker was lying about the rate of vaxxed in the ICU, or for some reason, vaxxed people are much more likely to avoid the ICU altogether and expire at home. Which do you think it is?

I can tell you that!

The vaccinated patients who die from covid are those with advanced diseases who decline ICU admission or are felt inappropriate for ICU admission. So they are a much higher risk group than the unvaccinated again emphasising the protective effect of vaccines.

 

[Planigale]

The modification occurred in the RNA that codes the protein. The protein isn’t the same as the protein coded by the virus that exists in the wild, as a result of the tampering with the RNA.
In addition the adenoviral vector vaccines are GMO as well, they use a genetically modified and deactivated pseudovirus to deliver a DNA payload which itself instructs cells to code modified spike proteins that don’t exist in nature.

The epitopes are similar enough that they produce antibodies, but how effective they are against different variants isn’t clear.

There are also a lot of toxic proteins that exist in nature which can produce different types of illness, from acute poisonings to causing cancers down the road. The modifications to the spike protein are presumed to be beneficial, but I don’t believe anyone really knows, because the long term hasn’t arrived yet. The intermediate term hasn’t even arrived yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You may have missed the fact that there isn't just one spike protein? The whole thing about the variants is the continual (random) genetic modification of the virus resulting in multiple variants of the spike (and other) proteins, including some modifications of the spike protein allowing the virus to escape immune surveillance due to previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, hence omicron causes infections in those previously infected by alpah or delta variants.

 

[Planigale]

Those sources are pretty much garbage. The Stanford study was an RCT on the promotion of face masks, not an actual trial. All the epidemiology on it is junk science.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that respiratory viruses like COVID, flu, the common cold, etc.. which spread through aerosols are not stopped by a mask.

Ask anyone who lives in a northern latitude what happens when they breathe through a facemask or scarf in winter.

Masks are purely being pushed as a method of social control and virtue signaling. They offer no protection. They are a visible display of unity with other mass formation adherents, further reinforcing the collective.

I am curious how do you explain the dramatic fall in other respiratory viruses such as flu, common cold viruses?