mRNA Spike protein is very dangerous, it's cytotoxic - says INVENTOR of mRNA Technology

Status
Not open for further replies.

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,425
VAERS deaths are verified to weed out the fake reports. Are you saying that every Covid death should be investigated to make sure they really died?
Dying with Covid /= dying from Covid. Say a new really harmless virus emerges and everyone on the planet gets it. During that time everyone who dies from whatever cause also tests positive for the virus and gets counted as one of its victims. It's a bogus way of counting statistics.

To Covid deaths? Yes there has, what planet have you been living on the last year?
Have not seen any. Have not seen an analysis comparing how many of those would have died anyway.

Not true. But excess deaths tell us that Covid deaths are WAY higher than what we are counting.
Only if your assumption is that every Covid death is in fact a Covid death and the excess deaths are missed Covid deaths. It's a fallacy. It's bogus.

If you wish.

Are you seriously trying to downplay Covid deaths while simultaneously exaggerating vaccine dangers?
You are aware that at the bare minimum more than 4 million people have died from Covid? And you think we need more studies and "fact checks" to make doubly sure that it is actually harmful?

Give me a break dude.

You're just pissing against the wind at this stage.
Downplaying implies we have accurate figures. We don't, no country has. We don't even know how many people have been infected. Antibody tests suggest it's far more than the official numbers without them even knowing it. You're simply assuming that 4 million is the lower bound instead of the upper bound.

What I'm saying is there's a double standard of making doubly sure every vaccine death is attributable to the vaccine but not when it comes to the virus. Because not doing the former or doing the latter doesn't fit the narrative.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
29,425
The Pfizer vaccine is 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 95.3% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Data from Israel shows 91% effective in preventing severe disease from the Delta variant.
So no standard. Claims of 100% efficacy are also dubious at best. The guy sounds like a salesman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dsi

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,160
Challenging the entire idea behind "herd immunity"! If the above is true then the only hope is for the entire population to be vaccinated, no exceptions!

What makes me really worry is when doctors start talking like this on social media.
Yes, for many viruses you need a herd immunity in excess of 90%.

The delta variant is showing that COVID also needs to be in excess of that it seems.
 

dsi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2017
Messages
398
Where does common = only?
Posters on mybb need to be more responsible.
That is what was implied in his statement, 'peace of mind' implies not to worry about potential side effects or still being able to contract or spread the virus if vaccinated or that the vaccine could lose efficiency to newer variants. To have 'peace of mind' implies zero chance of side effects, 100% immunity. It's a deceptive and reckless statement.
 

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
2,796
Dying with Covid /= dying from Covid. Say a new really harmless virus emerges and everyone on the planet gets it. During that time everyone who dies from whatever cause also tests positive for the virus and gets counted as one of its victims. It's a bogus way of counting statistics.
Yes it is bogus which is why nobody has ever done it that way. Now show some proof to convince me otherwise or leave this lie behind.

Have not seen any. Have not seen an analysis comparing how many of those would have died anyway.
Everyone dies anyway. There have been plenty analysis done on this. Here's one: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-83040-3

Only if your assumption is that every Covid death is in fact a Covid death and the excess deaths are missed Covid deaths. It's a fallacy. It's bogus.
No it's not a fallacy. Excess deaths are also known as winter deaths, the time the immune system is compromised due to the cold. Excess deaths include all kinds of death, like hypothermia for example. Usually the biggest contributor to excess deaths is Influenza. That's why it's called flu season.
Now suddenly we have massive amounts of excess deaths in summer and what a coincidence it's at the same time as hospitals are full of Covid patients.
And BTW thanks to our infection mitigation strategies the Influenza virus has all but disappeared.

Pretending like Covid is not the primary contributor to excess deaths is bogus.

Either show me proof of what is "really" causing excess deaths or leave this lie behind.

Downplaying implies we have accurate figures. We don't, no country has. We don't even know how many people have been infected. Antibody tests suggest it's far more than the official numbers without them even knowing it. You're simply assuming that 4 million is the lower bound instead of the upper bound.
We don't need exact figures to establish what we already know. Whether it's 4 million dead or 6 million death the fact is it's extremely deadly.

What I'm saying is there's a double standard of making doubly sure every vaccine death is attributable to the vaccine but not when it comes to the virus. Because not doing the former or doing the latter doesn't fit the narrative.
No. VAERS counts EVERY DEATH no matter what the cause. They do not attribute every death to the vaccine! The only thing they are making doubly sure of is that the deaths are actual deaths as opposed to falsified death reports by the tinfoil hat army.

You seem to have a real problem with repeating debunked misinformation. We literally went over this issue like a page or 2 back yet you seem to have forgotten about it already.
 
Last edited:

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
2,796
That is what was implied in his statement, 'peace of mind' implies not to worry about potential side effects or still being able to contract or spread the virus if vaccinated or that the vaccine could lose efficiency to newer variants. To have 'peace of mind' implies zero chance of side effects, 100% immunity. It's a deceptive and reckless statement.

Since when does "peace of mind" protect against the virus? Why would you even need the vaccine if all you need to do is be chill?
 
Last edited:

Paulsie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
2,484
Herd immunity only works when the vaccinated and unvaccinated are mixed homogenously.
Doesn't help so much if the makeup of people's social circles is based on shared anti-vax beliefs.
Thank you. Now go and tell all government officials globally as well as all msm media propagandists (CNN), who strive to keep vaccinated and unvaccinated apart. Now and forever.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,356
Yes they do. In fact the problem is caused by politicians who are anti-vax themselves. This can be seen by the huge disparity in vaccination numbers between democrats and republicans. Though I seriously doubt this is a problem outside of the US as the rest of the world doesn't seem to have major anti-vax political parties (haven't researched this).
Ja I was being sarcastic. It is the first thing I researched after Prof Karrim's very first presentation last year.
I waited patiently to see if our lot would acknowledge the assumptions. It never happened. Neither did anyone on myBB do so. Neither had anyone acknowledge the changed % for SA since the first calculation of 67% for the original virus. For the Delta variant it is now 88%.
The more transmissible, the higher the R0 is, the larger the population that must be vaxxed to get to this mythical herd immunity.
Add to that fact that SA is by no means a homogeneous society, nor are the vaccines providing solid immunity, and that means even the 88% figure is not enough.

When do you think we are going to see our MAC acknowledge this fact?
 
Last edited:

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
2,796
Thank you. Now go and tell all government officials globally as well as all msm media propagandists (CNN), who strive to keep vaccinated and unvaccinated apart. Now and forever.
Pretty sure government officials globally as well as all msm media globally has been asking everyone to get vaccinated from the beginning.

This excludes the republican Trump loyalists which is what most of these cases in the US seem to be related to...
 

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
2,796
Ja I was being sarcastic. It is the first thing I researched after Prof Karrim's very first presentation last year.
I waited patiently to see if our lot would acknowledge the assumptions. It never happened. Neither did anyone on myBB do so. Neither had anyone acknowledge the changed % for SA since the first calculation of 67% for the original virus. For the Delta variant it is now 88%.
The mor transmissible, the higher the R0 is the larger the population that must be vaxxed to get to this mythical herd immunity.

On the flipside the more contagious variant will infect the un-vaccinated at a higher rate, which would result in herd immunity being reached sooner time-wise as opposed to a slow variant where we would reach herd immunity sooner percentage-wise.
 
Last edited:

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,356
On the flipside the more contagious variant will infect the un-vaccinated at a higher rate, which would result in herd immunity being reached sooner time-wise as opposed to a slow variant where we would reach herd immunity sooner percentage-wise.
Yes maybe. But how do you test that? Everyone is under lockdowns. Herd immunity ALSO assumes no restrictions on people movement which means random contact is not impeded. Instead, LDs concentrate people into certain contact behaviours, the same people will generally be in contact within a community (generally speaking), which in turn means the "protection" offered by those vaccinated just does not create the herd immunity umbrella. All much more complicated than it looks on the surface.

As an example, my wife and I go out once a week, we make contact with the seam people at the shops (2 shops) week in week out. Our contact with the rest of the population is severely restricted. Our protection is dependent on that relatively small number of people in the shops. And because we are all creatures of habit, the same shoppers are in the shops at the same time. In fact, after a year we are great distance friends with the same people because we see the same people all the time.

BTW, today on TV (every day early in the morning and at night) on ch 404, there is a doctor answering all sorts of questions. The latest topic has been all about vaccines, vaccine intolerance, allergic reactions, etc.
The doctor this morning pointed out that maximum effectiveness for Pfizer is only reached after 42+14 = 56 days. This means all those vaccinated should not relax their guard for a lot longer than most are.

In SA, with the incredibly low vax rates, the anti-vax lot don't even feature in the calculations yet.
 
Last edited:

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
2,796
Yes maybe. But how do you test that? Everyone is under lockdowns. Herd immunity ALSO assumes no restrictions on people movement which means random contact is not impeded. Instead, LDs concentrate people into certain contact behaviours, the same people will generally be in contact within a community (generally speaking), which in turn means the "protection" offered by those vaccinated just does not create the herd immunity umbrella. All much more complicated than it looks on the surface.

As an example, my wife and I go out once a week, we make contact with the seam people at the hops (2 shops) week in week out. Our contact with the rest of the population is severely restricted. Our protection is dependent on that relatively small number of people in the shops. And because we are all creatures of habit, the same shoppers are in the shops at the same time. In fact, after a year we are great distance friends with the same people because we see the same people all the time.

BTW, today on TV (every day early in the morning and at night) on ch 404, there is a doctor answering all sorts of questions. The latest topic has been all about vaccines, vaccine intolerance, allergic reactions, etc.
The doctor this morning pointed out that maximum effectiveness for Pfizer is only reached after 42+14 = 56 days. This means all those vaccinated should not relax their guard for a lot longer than most are.

In SA, with the incredibly low vax rates, the ant-vax lot don't even feature in the calculations yet.

Honestly, this is all moot anyway as the vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission outside the time that there are antibodies in the bloodstream. They only teach our immune systems to detect and destroy the virus much faster than it naturally would.

So even if 99% of people are vaccinated the other 1% are still screwed.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,356
So even if 99% of people are vaccinated the other 1% is still screwed.
My view as well. We are headed for total protection IFF everyone is vaccinated.
Which is going to be impossible. This means if the vaccines do not offer long-lasting protection, boosters become a fixture in our lives for at least a few years.
 

tetrasect

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
2,796
My view as well. We are headed for total protection IFF everyone is vaccinated.
Which is going to be impossible. This means if the vaccines do not offer long-lasting protection, boosters become a fixture in our lives for at least a few years.

How do you come to that conclusion?
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
23,356
How do you come to that conclusion?
All this talk about 8 months and other stuff about waning anti-body counts etc. Just this morning the Prof CEO of the NICD was on about it also. A day does not go past that MSM does not publish an article about vaccine effectiveness somewhere, making all sorts of confusing noises.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top