mRNA does not cause harm. Then there can be no added defense.

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: TaiHaChen

Are you a geneticist or virologist?

Some folks don't know what to believe, until an 'Expert™ ' tells them what to believe.

( But please don't tell TPTB about that, as they might try and control the 'Experts™ ', and control the stuff they tell us to believe. Incredible how they haven't figured that out yet, eh ? )

Ya, crazy..people listen to experts. I suggest next to you need some plumbing done, or electrical work..hey, how about brain surgery. You find a non expert to do the work..should work out great!!

Crazy sayeth thou ?

Would maybe perhaps get a second opinion, first ... LoL !!

Is the brain-surgery the frontal-lobotomy type, that makes one more compliant and obedient, and did it hurt ?

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: TaiHaChen

Are you a geneticist or virologist?

Some folks don't know what to believe, until an 'Expert™ ' tells them what to believe.

( But please don't tell TPTB about that, as they might try and control the 'Experts™ ', and control the stuff they tell us to believe. Incredible how they haven't figured that out yet, eh ? )

Ya, crazy..people listen to experts. I suggest next to you need some plumbing done, or electrical work..hey, how about brain surgery. You find a non expert to do the work..should work out great!!

Crazy sayeth thou ?

Would maybe perhaps get a second opinion, first ... LoL !!

Is the brain-surgery the frontal-lobotomy type, that makes one more compliant and obedient, and did it hurt ?

I wouldn't know, you're the expert ..apparently Or would you rather..non expert!

a reply to: chr0naut

So that 95% number did they do a proper random controlled challenge test? or just hoped people walking about would make equal contact with some infected?

Do the also test for an asymptomatic case? seems very unscientific and just a hit or miss coincident.

originally posted by: vonclod

I wouldn't know, you're the expert ..apparently

Or would you rather..non expert!

You may see me as Some Kind Of Renowned Probabilistic Internet Expert™ On Nothing.

A SKORPIEON™ !!!



Not really though.

Am just an Perplexed Unknown Internet Expert™ On Nothing ...

A P.U. IEON™.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: vonclod

I wouldn't know, you're the expert ..apparently

Or would you rather..non expert!

You may see me as Some Kind Of Renowned Probabilistic Internet Expert™ On Nothing.

A SKORPIEON™ !!!



Not really though.

Am just an Perplexed Unknown Internet Expert™ On Nothing ...

A P.U. IEON™.

We might as well be brothers!

originally posted by: TaiHaChen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: TaiHaChen

Wouldn't the announced effectiveness of the vaccines, like 95% for the Pfizer vaccine, measured in clinical trials and now confirmed in use, be an indicator that what you just made up in your head is not how science works?

Could be fake numbers. How do you know what their trials are and what the real numbers are?

Because the numbers are consistent between independent bodies, and have been subject to external scrutiny.

If the numbers were faked then literally everybody would need to be in on the conspiracy, and you're talking about millions of people because there are multiple vaccines being used by multiple countries.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: TaiHaChen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: TaiHaChen

Wouldn't the announced effectiveness of the vaccines, like 95% for the Pfizer vaccine, measured in clinical trials and now confirmed in use, be an indicator that what you just made up in your head is not how science works?

Could be fake numbers. How do you know what their trials are and what the real numbers are?

Because the numbers are consistent between independent bodies, and have been subject to external scrutiny.

If the numbers were faked then literally everybody would need to be in on the conspiracy, and you're talking about millions of people because there are multiple vaccines being used by multiple countries.

I think the real world numbers speak otherwise. It's nothing close to the 95% efficacy they advertised when the vaccine came out.

originally posted by: TaiHaChen
the body would not waste precious resources to make anti bodies to deal with the manufactured spike proteins.

The problem with your logic is that the body can't tell the difference between a harmless drug containing a spike protein and a harmful virus containing the spike protein. It sees them both as a threat and reacts to both of them in the same manner.

Look at it this way. If a BLM activist dressed up in a clown suit and snuck into your children's bedroom in the middle of the night in order to indoctrinate them into radical Marxism, or Donald Trump Jr dressed up in a clown suit and snuck into your children's bedroom at night to give them stimulus cheques, your alarm system wouldn't be able to tell the difference. It would simply tell you that somebody was in your kid's bedrooms at night and you'd come charging in with your AR-15 and you'd blow them both away equally without bothering to check if they had sufficient ID to vote by mail in Nevada.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: TaiHaChen
the body would not waste precious resources to make anti bodies to deal with the manufactured spike proteins.

The problem with your logic is that the body can't tell the difference between a harmless drug containing a spike protein and a harmful virus containing the spike protein. It sees them both as a threat and reacts to both of them in the same manner.

Look at it this way. If a BLM activist dressed up in a clown suit and snuck into your children's bedroom in the middle of the night in order to indoctrinate them into radical Marxism, or Donald Trump Jr dressed up in a clown suit and snuck into your children's bedroom at night to give them stimulus cheques, your alarm system wouldn't be able to tell the difference. It would simply tell you that somebody was in your kid's bedrooms at night and you'd come charging in with your AR-15 and you'd blow them both away equally without bothering to check if they had sufficient ID to vote by mail in Nevada.

Virus damage the body by bursting cells. Spike proteins produced by cells from mRNA vaccine are harmless to the body. Maybe some antibodies will be produced, but nothing close to the level produced to fight a viral infection.

originally posted by: chr0naut
effectiveness of the vaccines, like 95% for the Pfizer vaccine, measured in clinical trials

Measured against what? Plannedemic stats?

From what I'm understanding, there was never more that a 12% chance of being infected by 'this bug'. And that translates to a 99.9994% chance of not experiencing a catastrophic infection ... unless modern health had a hand in it.

They cheated the numbers. They don't even mention them anymore now that everyone can plainly see the death statistics for people dying of old age and the flu zeroed-out during the panic. Now that people are out of panic-mode, the hoax is only not obvious to those who have bit into it ... hook, line and sinker ... people who willfully blind themselves to the truth.

Go ahead. Tell us you're not Vaxxed.

originally posted by: TaiHaChen

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: TaiHaChen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: TaiHaChen

Wouldn't the announced effectiveness of the vaccines, like 95% for the Pfizer vaccine, measured in clinical trials and now confirmed in use, be an indicator that what you just made up in your head is not how science works?

Could be fake numbers. How do you know what their trials are and what the real numbers are?

Because the numbers are consistent between independent bodies, and have been subject to external scrutiny.

If the numbers were faked then literally everybody would need to be in on the conspiracy, and you're talking about millions of people because there are multiple vaccines being used by multiple countries.

I think the real world numbers speak otherwise. It's nothing close to the 95% efficacy they advertised when the vaccine came out.

I believe that the number was closer to 85%, with two doses. For a normal adult.

Which the numbers back up.

originally posted by: TaiHaChen

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: TaiHaChen
the body would not waste precious resources to make anti bodies to deal with the manufactured spike proteins.

The problem with your logic is that the body can't tell the difference between a harmless drug containing a spike protein and a harmful virus containing the spike protein. It sees them both as a threat and reacts to both of them in the same manner.

Look at it this way. If a BLM activist dressed up in a clown suit and snuck into your children's bedroom in the middle of the night in order to indoctrinate them into radical Marxism, or Donald Trump Jr dressed up in a clown suit and snuck into your children's bedroom at night to give them stimulus cheques, your alarm system wouldn't be able to tell the difference. It would simply tell you that somebody was in your kid's bedrooms at night and you'd come charging in with your AR-15 and you'd blow them both away equally without bothering to check if they had sufficient ID to vote by mail in Nevada.

Virus damage the body by bursting cells. Spike proteins produced by cells from mRNA vaccine are harmless to the body. Maybe some antibodies will be produced, but nothing close to the level produced to fight a viral infection.

The body can't tell the difference. It's an automated system not an intelligent one.

The body simply recognizes an intrusion and reacts to it, it doesn't know that there is no actual threat.

As I said in my above example, your intruder alarm can't tell the difference between a radical Marxist and a man with a stimulus check. It just detects that a person is there.

This isn't Osmosis Jones, the body isn't intelligent enough to make decisions like you are suggesting. It's the protein that's detected not the harm that an actual virus would be doing.

originally posted by: Deplorable

originally posted by: chr0naut
effectiveness of the vaccines, like 95% for the Pfizer vaccine, measured in clinical trials

Measured against what? Plannedemic stats?

From what I'm understanding, there was never more that a 12% chance of being infected by 'this bug'. And that translates to a 99.9994% chance of not experiencing a catastrophic infection ... unless modern health had a hand in it.

They cheated the numbers. They don't even mention them anymore now that everyone can plainly see the death statistics for people dying of old age and the flu zeroed-out during the panic. Now that people are out of panic-mode, the hoax is only not obvious to those who have bit into it ... hook, line and sinker ... people who willfully blind themselves to the truth.

Go ahead. Tell us you're not Vaxxed.

The effectiveness is closer to 85%, and it's done using a group study in the exact same way as any other vaccine is done.

Your math doesn't make sense. Where do you get 99.9994% from. Please show how you reached this number.

People dying form the flu zeroed out for two reasons 1) Covid killed them first, and 2) it turns out that social distancing, hand washing and mask wearing, and not riding the subway during rush hour also protect you form the flu. Who could possibly have predicted that?

Yes, the panic is atrificially inflated, and yes Covid isn't harmful to a lot of people, but you're still spouting nonsense about the rest of it.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: chr0naut

Wouldn't the announced effectiveness of the vaccines

What then of the unannounced ?

Every drug company wants to promote their particular products by touting their advantages. It's part of the process of attracting investors.

originally posted by: Deplorable

originally posted by: chr0naut
effectiveness of the vaccines, like 95% for the Pfizer vaccine, measured in clinical trials

Measured against what? Plannedemic stats?

From what I'm understanding, there was never more that a 12% chance of being infected by 'this bug'. And that translates to a 99.9994% chance of not experiencing a catastrophic infection ... unless modern health had a hand in it.

I would have thought that the incredible epidemic spread in counties that have not implemented lockdowns or other attempt to minimize the spread, would indicate it was always more than 12%.

Like, remember those cruise ships, and Navy ships, in the early days, and how nearly everyone on board got infected, in a matter of days? There you have it in microcosm.

They cheated the numbers. They don't even mention them anymore now that everyone can plainly see the death statistics for people dying of old age and the flu zeroed-out during the panic.

In 2017-18 flu season, a particularly bad one for flu, 60,000 Americans died of flu.

In the 2019-2020 Covid-19 epidemic more that 1/2 a million Americans died of COVID-19. That's more than 8 times deadlier than the flu at its worst.

Now that people are out of panic-mode, the hoax is only not obvious to those who have bit into it ... hook, line and sinker ... people who willfully blind themselves to the truth.

Go ahead. Tell us you're not Vaxxed.

I am not yet vaccinated against Covid-19 - yet, I recently had a 'flu shot and have to wait 2 weeks before taking the Pfizer shot.

originally posted by: Themaskedbeast
a reply to: chr0naut

I can make up numbers for a virus 99.9% of the population of the planet seems to fully recover from.

Global deaths from COVID-19 = 3,443,544. Global confirmed cases of COVID-19 = 166,157,071.

That is a global case fatality ratio of 2.07%. There is no way that 99.99% of people would recover from COVID-19 if 2.07% die from it.

My urine vaccine is 98% effective. Are you ready for the golden shower?

In India, they have fairly definitely proven that urine and other wastes provide no defense against COVID-19.

Covid-19: India's fight against cow dung and other misinformation

And my guess is that every single person who has died of COVID-19 has already had urine and feces inside of them - every single one!

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: chr0naut

So that 95% number did they do a proper random controlled challenge test? or just hoped people walking about would make equal contact with some infected?

Do the also test for an asymptomatic case? seems very unscientific and just a hit or miss coincident.

REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE CONFIRMS HIGH EFFECTIVENESS OF PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE AND PROFOUND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT OF VACCINATION ONE YEAR AFTER PANDEMIC DECLARED

Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Among Residents of Two Skilled Nursing Facilities Experiencing COVID-19 Outbreaks — Connecticut, December 2020–February 2021

Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines on covid-19 related symptoms, hospital admissions, and mortality in older adults in England: test negative case-control study

PFIZER AND BIONTECH CONCLUDE PHASE 3 STUDY OF COVID-19 VACCINE CANDIDATE, MEETING ALL PRIMARY EFFICACY ENDPOINTS

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: chr0naut

Wouldn't the announced effectiveness of the vaccines

What then of the unannounced ?

Every drug company wants to promote their particular products by touting their advantages. It's part of the process of attracting investors.

But where is your answer to my question ?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: TaiHaChen

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: TaiHaChen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: TaiHaChen

Wouldn't the announced effectiveness of the vaccines, like 95% for the Pfizer vaccine, measured in clinical trials and now confirmed in use, be an indicator that what you just made up in your head is not how science works?

Could be fake numbers. How do you know what their trials are and what the real numbers are?

Because the numbers are consistent between independent bodies, and have been subject to external scrutiny.

If the numbers were faked then literally everybody would need to be in on the conspiracy, and you're talking about millions of people because there are multiple vaccines being used by multiple countries.

I think the real world numbers speak otherwise. It's nothing close to the 95% efficacy they advertised when the vaccine came out.

I believe that the number was closer to 85%, with two doses. For a normal adult.

Which the numbers back up.

85% is pretty good.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: chr0naut

Wouldn't the announced effectiveness of the vaccines

What then of the unannounced ?

Every drug company wants to promote their particular products by touting their advantages. It's part of the process of attracting investors.

But where is your answer to my question ?

How would anyone, know anything, about any sort of stuff, that was unannounced? Where would they get this information from?

This is an example of how so many people are unable to reason through things, and they therefore totally believe the voices in their head.