|
12-04-2020, 11:24 PM | #48691 |
Kind of a mod
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Donkey Land
|
#whyareweusinghashtagsinnormalconversation
|
Posts: 52,337
|
1 0 |
12-04-2020, 11:27 PM | #48692 |
Steel sharpens Steele!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
|
|
Posts: 6,191
|
12-04-2020, 11:38 PM | #48693 |
Steel sharpens Steele!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
|
|
Posts: 6,191
|
12-04-2020, 11:39 PM | #48694 | |
NFL's #1 Ermines Fan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: My house
|
Quote:
So do you want to see a larger number take the vaccine without incident, and if so, how many more? Or do you want to wait longer after the initial test to be sure there are no long-term implications? And if so, how long do you need to wait? Or do you want to see people you know get it without incident so you can observe success with your own eyes? Or is it something else? I'm just curious if you've defined what will put you over the threshold to get it, and what that threshold is. |
|
Posts: 142,670
|
1 0 |
12-05-2020, 12:07 AM | #48695 | |
Steel sharpens Steele!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
|
Quote:
I will gladly answer. It is not really a question of winning me over. It is a question of why now there is a miraculous 'cure" especially after the election. I am not concerned about a long term effect of said immunization but more so why now? If this was now the answer, then why are they so sure that this will work and all will be ok? How can one not be speculative as the immunization is the answer? I am on the fence in the fact that there is no positive proof yet, that said if the vaccine is reducing the "numbers". to me, when i see said vaccine is administered and the "numbers" decline, then I will be a believer. Just my .02 |
|
Posts: 6,191
|
12-05-2020, 12:16 AM | #48696 | |
Steel sharpens Steele!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 6,191
|
12-05-2020, 12:45 AM | #48697 | |
George Brett shit his pants
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: At the Bellagio
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 48,403
|
12-05-2020, 08:09 AM | #48698 |
Generational Player
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Honolulu
|
PCR test paper, scientists demand a retraction.
This extensive review report has been officially submitted to Eurosurveillance editorial board on 27th November 2020 via their submission-portal, enclosed to this review report is a retraction request letter, signed by all the main & co-authors. First and last listed names are the first and second main authors. All names in between are co-authors. External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results. 3. The number of amplification cycles (less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles); In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture [reviewed in 2]; if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% [reviewed in 3] Consequently, in nearly all test procedures worldwide, merely 2 primer matches were used instead of all three. This oversight renders the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance in an ongoing pandemic. Figure 1: The N-Gene confirmatory-assay is neither emphasized as necessary third step in the official WHO Drosten-Corman protocol-recommendation below [8] nor is it required as a crucial step for higher test-accuracy in the Eurosurveillance publication. CONCLUSION The decision as to which test protocols are published and made widely available lies squarely in the hands of Eurosurveillance. A decision to recognise the errors apparent in the Corman-Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimise human cost and suffering going forward. Is it not in the best interest of Eurosurveillance to retract this paper? Our conclusion is clear. In the face of all the tremendous PCR-protocol design flaws and errors described here, we conclude: There is not much of a choice left in the framework of scientific integrity and responsibility. https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ |
Posts: 4,931
|
12-05-2020, 08:31 AM | #48699 |
Ain't no relax!
Join Date: Sep 2005
|
|
Posts: 48,276
|
3 0 |
12-05-2020, 08:38 AM | #48700 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Kansas City
|
Quote:
“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” - Plato |
|
Posts: 4,160
|
2 1 |
12-05-2020, 08:49 AM | #48701 | |
Kind of a mod
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Donkey Land
|
This isn't new information, but I thought this was a concise discussion of long-term immunity.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/..._by_a/gemrkfj/ Quote:
|
|
Posts: 52,337
|
12-05-2020, 09:14 AM | #48702 |
Has a particular set of skills
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the water
|
|
Posts: 79,887
|
1 0 |
12-05-2020, 09:20 AM | #48703 |
Life is changing..
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: NW Missouri
|
Get Ready for False Side Effects
By Derek Lowe 4 December, 2020 We’re in the beginning of the vaccine endgame now: regulatory approval and actual distribution/rollout into the population. The data for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines continue to look good (here’s a new report on the longevity of immune response after the Moderna one), with the J&J and Novavax efforts still to report. The AZ/Oxford candidate is more of a puzzle, thanks to some very poor communication about their clinical work (which suffered from some fundamental problems itself). Now we have to get people to take them. Surveys continue to show a good number of people who are (at the very least) in the “why don’t you take it first” category. I tend to think that as vaccine dosing becomes reality that more people will get in line for a shot, but that remains to be seen. I wanted to highlight something that we’ll all need to keep in mind, though. Bob Wachter of UCSF had a very good thread on Twitter about vaccine rollouts the other day, and one of the good points he made was this one. We’re talking about treating very, very large populations, which means that you’re going to see the usual run of mortality and morbidity that you see across large samples. Specifically, if you take 10 million people and just wave your hand back and forth over their upper arms, in the next two months you would expect to see about 4,000 heart attacks. About 4,000 strokes. Over 9,000 new diagnoses of cancer. And about 14,000 of that ten million will die, out of usual all-causes mortality. No one would notice. That’s how many people die and get sick anyway. But if you took those ten million people and gave them a new vaccine instead, there’s a real danger that those heart attacks, cancer diagnoses, and deaths will be attributed to the vaccine. I mean, if you reach a large enough population, you are literally going to have cases where someone gets the vaccine and drops dead the next day (just as they would have if they *didn’t* get the vaccine). It could prove difficult to convince that person’s friends and relatives of that lack of connection, though. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is one of the most powerful fallacies of human logic, and we’re not going to get rid of it any time soon. Especially when it comes to vaccines. The best we can do, I think, is to try to get the word out in advance. Let people know that such things are going to happen, because people get sick and die constantly in this world. The key will be whether they are getting sick or dying at a noticeably higher rate once they have been vaccinated. No such safety signals have appeared for the first vaccines to roll out (Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech). In fact, we should be seeing the exact opposite effects on mortality and morbidity as more and more people get vaccinated. The excess-death figures so far in the coronavirus pandemic have been appalling (well over 300,000 in the US), and I certainly think mass vaccination is the most powerful method we have to knock that back down to normal. That’s going to be harder to do, though, if we get screaming headlines about people falling over due to heart attacks after getting their vaccine shots. Be braced. |
Posts: 40,428
|
1 0 |
12-05-2020, 09:32 AM | #48704 | |
Cheat Death
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Land of Drincoln
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 35,089
|
1 0 |
12-05-2020, 10:05 AM | #48705 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Jun 2002
|
Quote:
As for proof that the vaccines are effective, I believe that's what the data is for. Do you believe in the proof of people dying from COVID? I mean sure, the numbers are debatable but you have to know that lots of people are dying, right? I'll take my chances with the side effects of the vaccine versus the side effect of Covid in myself or a loved one. |
|
Posts: 2,072
|
2 0 |
|
|