On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:28:29 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
> Let me highlight it for you:
Hi Cris,
I give you _adult_ credit, above all others in this thread, since you
actually _understood_ what I had written (people like Steve & nospam can't).
Then, to your credit, you disagreed with an assessment of the transmission
rate, and again to your credit you found that Singapore paper which showed
lower transmission rates than what I was assessing (although we're talking
under different conditions - but still - that paper _was_ interesting!).
I welcome an erudite discussion, but first be warned I've asked everyone I
know (and plenty I don't know) how _they_ think, and therefore I can "guess"
exactly why you think the CDC definition says something that it simply does
not say.
You can stammer and hem and haw and you can claim that there are imaginary
ink lines in there that do say what the CDC definition does not say, and you
likely will - but I'm already very familiar with that trick.
Listen to me Chris.
Listen closely.
The CDC definition does _NOT_ describe injection of "something" which then
causes your body to create the antigen. It just doesn't.
That's a fact.
What's a worse fact is _what_ that "something" is, but that's for later.
You can read and re-read the CDC definition a hundred times and the missing
lines just aren't going to show up (are they in disappearing ink perhaps?).
>> Here's the definition. <
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/glossary.html>
>> "A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms
>> (e.g. bacteria or viruses) or
>
> "fractions thereof administered to induce immunity"
> RNA is a fraction of the SARS-CoV-2 virus so fits the definition perfectly.
Where is the completely missing part about your body making the antigen?
a. Do you think that's a _minor_ point? (If you do, then you're crazy.)
b. Do you think they just "forgot" to add it? (Again, you have to be crazy.)
*The CDC definition skips the MOST IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE of this shot* Chris.
You think that's by accident?
>> and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae.
>> Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide
>> of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B);
>> others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined
>> (e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses)."
>
> The CDC list is not exhaustive.
Chris,
I'm not going to call you an idiot outright because you _did_ find that
paper from Singapore which showed lower transmission rates than I was
claiming (although under different circumstances)...
But I have to point out the _obvious_ to you.
a. I said it doesn't meet the CDC definition. Right?
b. You said it did. Right?
c. I gave you the CDC definition.
d. Now you claim that the CDC definition is missing pieces.
Duh.
That's my entire point, Chris.
If you first disputed my claim that the CDC's definition is missing the most
important steps, and then when you realize the CDC definition is missing
huge important pieces, then you're _agreeing_ with me, not disagreeing.
Do you understand yourself?
BTW, I have to give you credit, as at least you, of all people, realized
instantly that the shot doesn't meet the CDC's own definition, since it's
completely missing the most important pieces (which is my entire point!).
>> Do you even have the comprehensive skills to notice what is missing, Chris?
>> HINT: You have absolutely no clue _how_ this shot works inside the body!
>
> I'll show you how you're the ignorant one.
Well, you agreed with me that the CDC definition is missing the most
important pieces, so I hope you thank me for edifying you on that point.
>>>> b. This "shot" is _clearly_ not needed by most people (more than 60%).
>>>
>>> No different to any other vaccine.
>>
>> Chris... the fact you can claim that means you have absolutely zero
>> comprehension whatsoever of _how_ this shot works once inside your body.
>>
>> What "other vaccine", for example, causes your cells to explode
>
> The COVID vaccines don't cause cells to explode.
>
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8418359/
>
> Cells produce the spike protein and then via an MHC-mediated process
> *present* the antigens on the surface which then raises an immune response.
> No explosion reqiured.
Chris... I'm not going to call you an idiot because you have likely never
taken a class in immunology or biochemistry or genetics. As you know, I
don't bullshit. I have. The cell _always_ dies from being taken over.
It just does. Here are some of my iPads (look at the date) next to just
_some_ of my immunology text, OK?
<
https://i.postimg.cc/cJD2dPnY/books03.jpg> Immunology, Biochem, Microbio
Note that I previously showed nospam my basic television books, so my
education spans the gamut from the biological sciences to engineering.
<
https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzkq69w/books02.jpg>
When you have decades of education, Chris - you learn how things work.
Now, do you think that cell lives after its nucleus has been taken over?
You do?
Really?
Do you think the nucleus isn't an important component of prokaryotic cells?
Do you think working the ribosomes to death makes the cell live thereafter?
And, when "presenting" the foreign substances, what do you think the humoral
and innate immunologic recognition of "not self" is going to do to that cell
which appears foreign to your immune system.
>>>> c. Certainly for kids (whose immune systems are naive) it's even less!
>>>> d. The chance of any one person dying from Covid in the USA is 0.2%
>>>
>>> Which is why a treatment is required. That's a dangerous disease.
>>
>> The danger to children is 0.002% fatality, with a 100% infection rate.
>> The danger to adults is 0.2% fatality, with a 100% infection rate.
>> Most people are completely immune to the disease with respect to symptoms.
>
> You're completely missing the point and falling for the ageist and ableist
> propaganda pushed by antivaxxers that it doesn't harm me so it doesn't
> matter that a few old and infirm people die. That's subhuman thinking.
Chris,
You apparently haven't met anyone in your life that is logical.
Fact based.
Scientific based.
Sensible.
I get my facts from the CDC.
You don't _like_ the CDC's facts, Chris.
And that's fine.
But just because you _hate_ the facts from the CDC doesn't make me a wacko.
It makes _you_ the wacko, Chris.
The fact you think all facts you are completely unaware of (which come from
the CDC) are an anti-vaxxer crusade. What the hell is wrong with your brain?
I think your problem, if I may surmise, is that your belief system was based
purely on fear and not on any actual facts. That's fine, by the way.
Most people don't known one billionth of what I know about Covid, Chris.
But my facts are from the CDC.
So if you don't like the facts from the CDC, don't claim they come from
anti-vaxxers.
Unless your claim is the CDC is anti-vax, Chris?
> COVID has killed over 5 million people FFS.
5 million is too low. 5 million is only 0.06% of the world population.
I realize your belief system isn't based on facts, so I ask one question.
What's 0.2% of the world population, Chris?
>> I never once "avoided" the old and sick as in another post I gave the
>> percentages for those over 60, and that it essentially doubled for each
>> decade thereafter.
>>
>> Did you miss that statement?
>
> I was replying to this post only.
In my other posts I explained that the risk to any one individual varied
depending on that one individual's circumstances, which _each_ and every
person has to weigh for themselves since this shot is their decision alone.
If they have diabetes and kidney disease and liver disease and if they're
immunocompromised, etc., they _will_ have a higher percentage fatality risk.
It's the _overall_ percentage that the CDC claims is 0.2% that any one
_healthy_ individual has to assess (as their risk is vastly lower than even
that since they're healthy and the 0.2% took into account the very sick).
> See the reference I gave you below.
I read that paper. And more to the point, I _understood_ what it said.
It _was_ interesting and it implies the infection rate is pretty poor.
But it had limitations also (as do all papers).
Note: I have published papers so I know all about how they're done.
>> The article concluded with the normal list of inaccuracies and further
>> studies where their goal was to bolster support for contact tracing.
>
> Disappointing that you reject evidence so glibly.
I summarized _accurately_ what the paper said.
You _thought_ it said something else.
Your problem is you _hate_ the facts from the CDC so you're trying to
explain them away using your fear-based belief system. Stop that.
>> To be sure, the shot causes our cells to explode creating one protein, which
>> itself has been shown in studies to cause appreciable vascular damage in and
>> of itself, but most people seem to weather that vascular damage quite well.
>
> Still wrong.
How many of these textbooks were you trained on in cellular mechanics?
<
https://i.postimg.cc/SN3cbGv0/books08.jpg> Micro, parasitology, immuno
> Who cares about the USA!? Get your blinkers off. This is a global pandemic
> and requires a global response.
The reason I care about the USA is you get _good_ statistics from the CDC.
I've already explained why I think the WHO statistics are, um, unreliable.
And certainly those from China and North Korea and other areas are also.
The USA is important because the CDC is reasonably good at the facts.
If you want to quote _better_ statistics, I'm all for it but they have to be
useful to the individual because my whole point is the individual has the
choice.
It doesn't matter, for example, to the individual making a decision that
involves _his_ risk that 5% of pilots die in war if the individual is on a
ship, and it doesn't matter to him if he is doing risk assessment if 10% of
infantrymen die if he's a cook in the rear echelon.
The overall fatality risk to any one individual is 0.2% whether you like
that or not but it varies by age (e.g., it's 0.002% for kids aged 5 to 11).
Chris,
Don't play kindergarten games with me.
There are only two _types_ that are approved.
If you don't know that, then you know even _less_ than most people do.
>>>> n. That causes your cells to explode after making tons of one spike protein.
>>>
>>> Nope. That's what the virus does.
>>
>> Chris,
>> What do you _think_ happens
>
> I don't need to think at all. The research has *shown* how the vaccines
> work and it's not via cytotoxicity.
While I never said that the risk of dying from the shot is high enough to
worry about, I have read the papers that you apparently have not read.
The fact is that the spike protein, in and of itself, is toxic to cells.
You don't _like_ that fact; but it's _still_ a fact nonetheless.
The second fact is that the cells die which I know from _lots_ of education
in this where I've almost never seen a cell _not_ die once you take over its
machinery (and yes, I grew tissue cells in my day).
My degrees span the biological and electrical engineering sciences, Chris.
<
https://i.postimg.cc/s2SGzC8H/books07.jpg> Biomedical instrument design
The cell dies.
If you can find an article that claims the cell does _not_ die, let me know
as it's not something people know who aren't trained in tissue cultures.
> See my reference above.
>
> The virus on the other hand does self-replicate causing the targetted
> (lung) cells to lyse. This is what causes the viral symptoms of the
> disease.
WTF?
What virus?
No virus known to man can "self replicate" Chris.
Half that huge heavy microbiology book in this photo is virology, Chris.
<
https://i.postimg.cc/cJD2dPnY/books03.jpg> Immunology, Biochem, Microbio
However, you don't need a thousand pages of virology textbook, Chris.
It's on the _first_ page of any virology textbook.
> You're confusing disease with vaccine. Of course they have very different
> modalities.
You _wish_ I was confusing disease with the shot (it's not a vaccine).
I'm not.
I know exactly what it is.
You don't.
Learn to learn from someone who has forgotten in the past fifty years more
than you'll ever know in your lifetime, Chris.
>> And that's _before_ we talk about the B-cells and T-cells which begin to
>> recognize the "infected" cells as "no longer self" and attack them too.
>
> Correct, but you need to get the basics right.
You think I don't have the basics of immunology Chris?
Seriously?
Now you're just making up excuses for why your belief system is wrong.
>>>> o. That spike protein itself is toxic to your body but it's in low amounts.
>>>
>>> Not on its own it isn't.
>>
>> Now it's _your_ turn to read a paper, Chris.
>> <
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=spike+protein+causes+vascular+damage>
>> Pick one.
>
> Again you're confusing disease with vaccine. The *viral and complete* Spike
> protein is the primary vector for disease. The vaccines only have an
> incomplete version of the Spike protein which has none of the effects.
> Obviously, as we don't want to cause harm with the vaccine.
First off, it's a trimeric spike protein, Chris, but for me to explain to
you why 3 isn't 1 is too much work given you think the protein is the
"vector", which is utterly ridiculous.
The protein is not the vector.
That's idiotic of you to claim it.
I _know_ you wrote that because nobody on the planet would cut and paste
that because it doesn't exist since it's an idiotic statement, Chris.
Chris, you are brining a pebble to a knife fight.
You can't learn from me because you're too stupid.
The only thing I learned from you is that the transmission rates may not be
as high as I think they are, as my assessment is that two people living
together will almost 100% infect the other person within the days that the
first person is infectious. That's the assessment _I_ use to assess how
virile this virus is in terms of infectivity.
You can dispute that assessment, but you need to bring facts to the fore.
>>>> p. Because it's toxic (it damages vascular tissue) your body reacts to it.
>>>
>>> It's a foreign antigen - not a toxin - which is why it raises an immune
>>> response.
>>
>> Did you _read_ any of the papers that you found in the above search, Chris?
>
> I suggest you read them again. Together with the ones I shared above.
> You've a fundamental misunderstanding.
Chris,
Do you think if I can undersand _this_ stuff, that I can't understand
_anything_ you've ever said in your entire life? Seriously. Think about it.
<
https://i.postimg.cc/jjkVvNTQ/books01.jpg> Genetics, Instrumentation, TV
<
https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzkq69w/books02.jpg> Vacuum tube technology
<
https://i.postimg.cc/cJD2dPnY/books03.jpg> Immunology, Biochem, Microbio
<
https://i.postimg.cc/CKKrrJQK/books04.jpg> Simulation Analog & Digital
<
https://i.postimg.cc/RVQPMjrF/books05.jpg> Custom and digital design
<
https://i.postimg.cc/tRFk5L45/books06.jpg> Layout, testing, SOC modeling
<
https://i.postimg.cc/s2SGzC8H/books07.jpg> Biomedical instrument design
<
https://i.postimg.cc/SN3cbGv0/books08.jpg> Micro, parasitology, immuno
> None of those confirm your statement that the body makes an "assemblage of
> attack vehicles". These are delivery vehicles manufactured to help the
> activity of a drug or vaccine.
Chris, I was using "vehicle" the way it's often used in immunology where
normally it's a "delivery vehicle" but I used "attack" instead of "deliver".
You were complaining about the "vehicle" and now you complain about
"attack"?
Did you buy too many idiotic arguments this week Chris?
>>>> r. The antibodies don't last all that long with a high titre unfortunately.
>>>
>>> True.
>>
>> At least you're aware that whether or not you get the shot or if you get
>> infected, the antibody titre isn't high for very long.
>>
>> This fact has _huge_ implications for my assessment that this virus will be
>> with us forever.
>
> There are many factors. No single one is most important: viral variation,
> vaccine uptake, vaccine efficacy and longevity etc.
Lots' more than that, Chris.
Did you study virology and the immune system for years, Chris?
I did.
>>>> s. Nobody knows exactly how long so we are doomed to boosters (forever?).
>>>
>>> Why is it dooming? We already do this with flu.
>>
>> You're _agreeing_ with me, so you agree we're stuck with "boosters" forever
>> (even as we don't do "boosters" for the flu, but let's ignore that for now).
>
> The use of the word "dooming" is not factual. That's subjective.
Did you buy too many arguments this week Chris?
I'm making an assessment of the facts.
You're welcome to use different words in your own assessment.
But only an idiot disagrees with facts if they have no better facts.
That's _why_ they're idiots.
a. You don't like facts
b. So you claim they're wrong
It doesn't work that way, Chris.
Except in your mind.
>> What you didn't seem to comprehend is my assessment that if we left the 60%
>> or so of the population who is completely immune to Covid symptoms alone,
>> then _they_ would not need the boosters forever (most likely) given there is
>> no evidence that you get "not immune" once you're known to be immune.
>
> Again just like flu.
Idiot.
It's _nothing_ like the flu.
And it's nothing like flu shots.
You don't have any comprehension whatsoever of what's different because all
you see is a needle. To you, anything injected by a needle works the same.
HINT: It doesn't.
> As we slowly move to the next phase we may be doing
> annual boosters for the most vulnerable only. That decision is yet to be
> made.
I've read the studies that you haven't Chris.
Particularly the one that ran for 35 years out of Amsterdam, Chris.
Why don't you look it up since it's nearer to your neck of the woods.
People got the coronavirus infection _many_ times in those 35 years.
Frequently more than once per year even.
Look it up.
It's a good study.
> The pandemic is still rude so we still need to deal with that first.
>
>> What that means, mathematically, is that most people are getting boosters
>> for the rest of their lives and they never even needed the shot in the first
>> place.
>
> False. During a live outbreak you vaccinate everyone as a blanket to get on
> top of the infection. Vaccination is for targeting the disease not
> individuals.
We're talking _different_ things Chris.
You have to learn how to comprehend what I said.
Not what you _thought_ I said.
I'm talking about any one person's decision to get the shot, or not.
For that, they make a risk assessment to themselves.
It doesn't matter for that assessment the "world good" that the governments
of the world want (and particularly the companies who profit from it too).
It matters the risk to that one person.
Which, if they know nothing else, is a fatality rate of 0.2%.
That's a fact you hate.
But it's _still_ a fact whether or not you hate facts, Chris.
HINT: Your belief system isn't based on facts; it's based on fear.
>
>> What amazes me is how little people have thought about such ramifications.
>
> What amazes me how little people understand the basics when claiming to
> have done their own research.
Do you really think I don't know a billion times more about this than you?
Seriously?
>> What do you _think_ happens in these two very different scenarios as we age?
>> a. Person A has an _initial_ insult that elicits a single spike protein, vs,
>> b. Person B has an initial insult that elicits _multiple_ complex antigens
>>
>> Thought questions:
>> A. Whose immune response is likely to be "complex" (versus naive)?
>> B. What will happen to each person above when their immune system senesces?
>> C. Which person is more likely to be able to fend off greater variations?
>> etc.
>
> D. which one is most likely to still be alive?
Notice your entire belief system is driven insane by fear.
Not logic.
Not science.
Not facts.
Fear.
Your brain works off of fear.
Mine works off of logic.
We're different.
We need to understand each other.
I assess based on cold hard facts; you assess based purely on fear.
will likely live longer than I because you bring a butterknife to cut down a
tree so that you won't hurt yourself while I use a chainsaw for that job.
>> While I commend you Chris for knowing some stuff, have you ever _thought_ of
>> those ramifications above?
>
> More than you can imagine.
Actually, while you can't possibly have thought about senescence (since you
denied it even exists), you _have_ thought about your fears quite a lot.
That I will hand to you.
Your brain works off of fear.
Mine works off of logic.
> Just to be utterly explicit your Person A is equivalent to a vaccinated
> individual and Person B is equivalent to herd immunity gained by catching
> the disease.
We're talking about the individual who is already innately naturally immune.
So "herd immunity" doesn't apply.
> Your questions A-C are highly affected by survivor bias. If you kill all
> your susceptible people, then of course the remainder will appear to have a
> better immune response. However, in a humane society we need to *protect*
> the vulnerable not lead them to slaughter.
While I get it that everything out of your mouth is based on your crazed
fear but what you don't comprehend is that the numbers I quote are for the
entire population as a whole _during_ the epidemic.
It takes into account _everyone_, including those who lived and those who
died.
What you're struggling with is fear and logic don't use the same rationale.
a. Your brain is driven crazy by fear
b. Mine is relaxed because it uses logic
> So the natural thing is to immunise the whole population to benefit the
> vulnerable. Just like we do with all childhood vaccines.
Do you realize that you're advocating modifying the immune system of kids
aged 5 to 11 who have a 99.998% chance of _not_ dying from Covid simply
because of _your_ fears (not the danger to kids, mind you, but to you!).
I realize that.
But do you?
Note: I have to ask myself if you even realize how your brain works.
>> Essentially dumbing down the immune system response to respond almost
>> completely to only a _single_ antigenic insult is not "more protection"
>
> It is compared to a naive immune system and there's plenty of evidence to
> support it. Search COVID vaccine efficacy.
Again, you are assuming I said something I never said because you have no
defense to the things that I did say.
I never once said (nor implied) the shot didn't work.
Why do you think that I said that when I clearly and obviously never did?
What must you fabricate what you think I said just to respond to facts?
>> We can go into the details of what % needs hospitalization if you like.
>
> No-one needs hospitalisation.
What?
Some people need a ventilator.
I can't imagine you saying nobody needs hospitalization.
Perhaps I missed something?
Why wouldn't very sick people "need" help from things like a ventilator?
>> But the fact remains that most people are completely immune to Covid.
>
> Asymptomatic infection is not the same as immune.
Idiot.
Your are bringing sticks to a gunfight by pitting your brain against me.
I already said practically 100% of us are going to get infected, but that
most of us will feel no symptoms whatsoever, which means we're immune.
You need to take a class on immunology Chris to figure out what that means.
Read one of these books maybe?
<
https://i.postimg.cc/cJD2dPnY/books03.jpg> Immunology, Biochem, Microbio
>> I welcome your response given you've never heard from the people who
>> surround you the thoughts and ideas that I've presented to you, as I have a
>> far greater knowledge of this subject than it seems you are exposed to.
>
> You have no idea who I am nor what I know, yet you're so arrogant to
> believe your own theoretical knowledge. Which in fact is full of holes and
> misunderstandings.
Well, I gave you a bunch of pictures taken today (look at the date on the
iPads) which show you the kind of detail I'm capable of comprehending Chris.
While I commend you for being the only one who looked up _any_ facts (e.g.,
your Singapore study), when you spend all your time refuting what is
published by the CDC and what is in all virology & immunology texts, then
all you're doing is bringing a rock to an artillery dual.
You're out of your league Chris.
Just learn to learn from what I can explain to you.
I'll try to learn from you, but if all you can do is refute common
immunological terms because you've never heard them, then you're wasting all
of our valuable time.