CDC Says Natural Immunity Outperformed Vaccines Against Delta Strain

[Honeyman]

Heard a great quote today...."The more anti-vaxxers....the less anti-vaxxers"

Not a big Howard Stern fan, but he's right on here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/howard-stern ... 09718.html

"No one's sitting there conspiring against you. Americans don't want to create a vaccine that's going to turn you into a robot or magnetize you," he continued. "It's time for you to get it. Now, if you don't get it, in my America, all hospitals would be closed to you. You're going to go home and die. That is what you should get. Absolutely."

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

the woman who is first name on the paper, Stephanie Seneff, she is a lunatic. She has said in the past that glyphosate causes COVID.

And Dr. Fauci has claimed in the past that you can get AIDS by being in the same room as someone else who has it. What's your point?

Without Dr Fauci, we don't have the cocktail to treat HIV, so you should shut your mouth.

[km1125]

Do some reading here:
https://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dpbhn ... NEFF~1.PDF

It's a published and reviewed MIT document. You can skip a lot of the detail that you might not understand (they go into a lot of technical details on how the vaccines were developed) but they cover several situations where the vaccine might prevent significant risks down the road. NONE of these have been investigated to rule them out to actually determine if the vaccine is "safe", so ANYONE you hear just saying "the vaccines are safe" does not know what they are talking about.

What is the risk? WE DON'T KNOW YET. We have a decent handle on the NEAR TERM risk of "vaccination" vs "COVID infection" and some data on the relative risk of death. We have NO IDEA on any of the longer-term risks, some of which are presented in the paper.

For example, if the vaccine had a 20% risk of giving you Parkinson's, would you take it? Would you take the booster if you've already had the first two shots? If you were pregnant and there was a 2% chance your baby would be permanently infected with COVID (and a super-spreader for their entire life), would you risk getting the vaccine?

LMFAO!

The document linked was published in The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. The IJVTPR as gained a reputation as a go-to journal for articles with an anti-vax bias. As an example, there was an article that had been corrected and then retracted from one journal that they turned around and published in the IJVTPR.

Listen, you probably don't know much about scholarly publications, but there are plenty of journals that pop up for purposes other than to support the advancement of science. Some of these journals are "predatory journals" that will publish just to make a buck. Others are wrought with bias to support a position. The shitty journals become known pretty quickly in a discipline and scholars in a specific discipline will know the good from the bad. There are also watchdog sites that will call out the trash journals. The IJVTPR is one such journal that's been called out.

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/11/ ... al-issues/

As for the whole "its totally an MIT document, dude" thing, the woman who is first name on the paper, Stephanie Seneff, she is a lunatic. She has said in the past that glyphosate causes COVID.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/04/10/mi ... else-14706

You see? You sorta have to scrutinize what you're reading, man. The paper offers nothing empirical, just a mix of maybe's and bizarre discussion. Don't let a glitzy name confuse you.

Do you disagree with all of the bulleted items in the conclusion section?

[Deleted User 9015]

Do some reading here:
https://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dpbhn ... NEFF~1.PDF

It's a published and reviewed MIT document. You can skip a lot of the detail that you might not understand (they go into a lot of technical details on how the vaccines were developed) but they cover several situations where the vaccine might prevent significant risks down the road. NONE of these have been investigated to rule them out to actually determine if the vaccine is "safe", so ANYONE you hear just saying "the vaccines are safe" does not know what they are talking about.

What is the risk? WE DON'T KNOW YET. We have a decent handle on the NEAR TERM risk of "vaccination" vs "COVID infection" and some data on the relative risk of death. We have NO IDEA on any of the longer-term risks, some of which are presented in the paper.

For example, if the vaccine had a 20% risk of giving you Parkinson's, would you take it? Would you take the booster if you've already had the first two shots? If you were pregnant and there was a 2% chance your baby would be permanently infected with COVID (and a super-spreader for their entire life), would you risk getting the vaccine?

LMFAO!

The document linked was published in The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. The IJVTPR as gained a reputation as a go-to journal for articles with an anti-vax bias. As an example, there was an article that had been corrected and then retracted from one journal that they turned around and published in the IJVTPR.

Listen, you probably don't know much about scholarly publications, but there are plenty of journals that pop up for purposes other than to support the advancement of science. Some of these journals are "predatory journals" that will publish just to make a buck. Others are wrought with bias to support a position. The shitty journals become known pretty quickly in a discipline and scholars in a specific discipline will know the good from the bad. There are also watchdog sites that will call out the trash journals. The IJVTPR is one such journal that's been called out.

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/11/ ... al-issues/

As for the whole "its totally an MIT document, dude" thing, the woman who is first name on the paper, Stephanie Seneff, she is a lunatic. She has said in the past that glyphosate causes COVID.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/04/10/mi ... else-14706

You see? You sorta have to scrutinize what you're reading, man. The paper offers nothing empirical, just a mix of maybe's and bizarre discussion. Don't let a glitzy name confuse you.

Do you disagree with all of the bulleted items in the conclusion section?

I sorta did you a solid and did some digging to find out that one of the authors you were relying on for information is full of shit and your response is to ask whether i disagree with the conclusions published in an untrustworthy journal by someone who has a long history of being untrustworthy. You do realize how silly that is, right?

[Honeyman]

You do realize how silly that is, right?

No. He doesn't. They don't. Anti-vaxxers are a cult. They refuse logic and science. Up is down and blue is red to these fools. There is ZERO chance you can change their minds (feeble as the are) by information. You really should not waste your time and energy to even try.

[Deleted User 9015]

You do realize how silly that is, right?

No. He doesn't. They don't. Anti-vaxxers are a cult. They refuse logic and science. Up is down and blue is red to these fools. There is ZERO chance you can change their minds (feeble as the are) by information. You really should not waste your time and energy to even try.

what is amusing is that the guy isn't refusing science, he's accepting horsenuggets being framed as science, which really is much worse. I just dont get how these people live their lives with the blinders so tight to their head.

[km1125]

You do realize how silly that is, right?

No. He doesn't. They don't. Anti-vaxxers are a cult. They refuse logic and science. Up is down and blue is red to these fools. There is ZERO chance you can change their minds (feeble as the are) by information. You really should not waste your time and energy to even try.

With folks like you that don't understand XX and XY, you shouldn't be referring to "science"!

[Deleted User 9015]

Notice how they can't stay on topic? And they wonder why people throw up their hands and give up trying to have civil conversation. They've been trained by conservative media to be useful idiots that can take their garbage and toss it about until another moron comes along to consume it.

[Matt]

Km is a trumpbot. He probably enjoys slam poetry, along with being an anti-vax dodo.