New CDC study states natural immunity was superior to vaccines for protection from Delta

a reply to: Madviking

I think the idea that in general vaccines are bad and we should all get 'natural immunity' from every virus is dangerous. I think the idea that we should discount immunity gained from a prior infection is also dangerous.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Madviking

I think the idea that in general vaccines are bad and we should all get 'natural immunity' from every virus is dangerous. I think the idea that we should discount immunity gained from a prior infection is also dangerous.

Can you show me where acknowledging the scientific fact of natural immunity, which is how people acquired immunity for 1000's of years, is "anti-vaccine?" That's a non-sequiter. I'm not advocating against all vaccines, and there is a risk for high risk individuals to go through Covid to acquire immunity. However, there is absolutely zero scientific and moral reason to deny the existence of those who have recovered, and demonize them or not provide an exemption. People keep reverting back to the claim that those insisting we recognize natural immunity must be therefore advocating people to seek infection, or are anti-vax. None of those arguments are inherent to recognizing natural immunity.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

What is hilarious is you think this is a debate.

I was trying to be nice, but ya you do not bring much to suggest a debate.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Madviking

I think the idea that in general vaccines are bad and we should all get 'natural immunity' from every virus is dangerous. I think the idea that we should discount immunity gained from a prior infection is also dangerous.

no it's science. millions of years old and proven.



survival of the fittest! no jabs will create a race of supermen, i mean humans.


or kill us all. lol. or attacking aliens! that has been proven in movies.

originally posted by: sarahvital
survival of the fittest!

Yes, so if you don't mind a lot of people dying we can do it your way. I consider that dangerous, as survival of the fittest means a lot of people don't survive.

a reply to: Xtrozero

My point is back in 2019 it was talked about, and we had 'clinical trials' back in early 2020, they were all hack jobs designed to make Ivermectin and HCQ look bad. Why is it that it took almost 2 years for real clinical trials to start? Why did all the early 'trials' use methodology that would ensure Ivermectin and HCQ 'failed' no matter how well it actually worked?

a reply to: Madviking

It seems you did not read the source. The source talked about how all vaccines are bad and we should be getting 'natural immunity' rather than taking vaccines.

“We have heard from those that are concerned about vaccines the argument that they prefer to allow their immune system to be naturally exposed to a specific pathogen to gain immunity,”

So the idea that all vaccines are bad, none should be taken, and only 'natural immunity' is good is a dangerous idea.

I believe what you thought the source was about is the idea that natural immunity provides protection for those who have recovered and should be recognized, which is a legitimate belief.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Madviking

It seems you did not read the source. The source talked about how all vaccines are bad and we should be getting 'natural immunity' rather than taking vaccines.

“We have heard from those that are concerned about vaccines the argument that they prefer to allow their immune system to be naturally exposed to a specific pathogen to gain immunity,”

So the idea that all vaccines are bad, none should be taken, and only 'natural immunity' is good is a dangerous idea.

I believe what you thought the source was about is the idea that natural immunity provides protection for those who have recovered and should be recognized, which is a legitimate belief.

Which source are you referring to?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl

I was trying to be nice, but ya you do not bring much to suggest a debate.

You misunderstand.

What I am saying is factual. There is no debate about it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

My point is back in 2019 it was talked about, and we had 'clinical trials' back in early 2020, they were all hack jobs designed to make Ivermectin and HCQ look bad. Why is it that it took almost 2 years for real clinical trials to start? Why did all the early 'trials' use methodology that would ensure Ivermectin and HCQ 'failed' no matter how well it actually worked?

Maybe, or maybe things don't work on some instant internet 24/7 timeline. Alt social media posts crap and people want to see clinical trails right away. There is still a lot to do before a clinical trial, and the trials suggest some befits, but not the end be all cure we kept hearing about.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

What I am saying is factual. There is no debate about it.

Your factual is not.... Throw me a bone here and give me real facts.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

What I am saying is factual. There is no debate about it.

Your factual is not.... Throw me a bone here and give me real facts.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

My point is back in 2019 it was talked about, and we had 'clinical trials' back in early 2020, they were all hack jobs designed to make Ivermectin and HCQ look bad. Why is it that it took almost 2 years for real clinical trials to start? Why did all the early 'trials' use methodology that would ensure Ivermectin and HCQ 'failed' no matter how well it actually worked?

Maybe, or maybe things don't work on some instant internet 24/7 timeline. Alt social media posts crap and people want to see clinical trails right away. There is still a lot to do before a clinical trial, and the trials suggest some befits, but not the end be all cure we kept hearing about.

They did instantly do trials. Respected journals published them, the media had articles about them, they were just hack jobs designed intentionally to make Ivermectin and or HCQ look bad. They would wait until a patient was about to die and give them a dose and when they didn't instantly get better they concluded the drug doesn't work.

a reply to: Madviking

The course my reply was about.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl

Throw me a bone here and give me real facts.

What for? You ignore any and all facts that contradict your pre-conceived biases because to do otherwise would cause a BSOD inside your brain.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl

Throw me a bone here and give me real facts.

What for? You ignore any and all facts that contradict your pre-conceived biases because to do otherwise would cause a BSOD inside your brain.

That's all they do here. They never post original content, but simply post propaganda anytime there is a thread that strikes a truth nerve.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl

Throw me a bone here and give me real facts.

What for? You ignore any and all facts that contradict your pre-conceived biases because to do otherwise would cause a BSOD inside your brain.

That's all they do here. They never post original content, but simply post propaganda anytime there is a thread that strikes a truth nerve.

Covid is one of those subjects that has entered many into the ancient Hall of Shame for shilling or being useful idiots. It's been sad to see how many people are brainwashed, defending corruption and power, or simply putting their head in the sand about these topics.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

They did instantly do trials. Respected journals published them, the media had articles about them, they were just hack jobs designed intentionally to make Ivermectin and or HCQ look bad. They would wait until a patient was about to die and give them a dose and when they didn't instantly get better they concluded the drug doesn't work.

Show me the facts on those "real" trails. We saw observations in the field that can go any direction. Even the best clinical trails can have fallacies in them. What you suggest above is total BS. So yes the left has fought anything Trump talked about to the point of insanity, but the right has had basically had the same level of insanity in response. Is there away to come to the middle and really see the truth?

"Trial design and registration: Clinical trials are carefully designed; the protocol1 for conducting the trial and the statistical analysis plan (SAP) detailing the planned data analyses are developed well before the first participant is enrolled. The protocol and the SAP constitute some of the most important metadata of the trial. During the course of a trial, the protocols and the SAP generally undergo amendments, which should be explicitly documented within the protocol and the SAP. Since 2004, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has required that all trials be registered prior to participant enrollment as a condition for consideration of publication (De Angelis et al., 2004). In 2006, the World Health Organization's (WHO's) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform identified a set of 20 data elements for all trials to include in registration."

originally posted by: tanstaafl

What for? You ignore any and all facts that contradict your pre-conceived biases because to do otherwise would cause a BSOD inside your brain.

I'm open to anything, so what is BSOD? My view evolves all the time, so show me something. Do you really think I'm some left wing nut job. I voted for Trump BTW and I have posted many times my views on the vaccine, virus and the BS crap the Goverment has been dumping down our throat this last year or so.

So funny how the left and now the right likes to label people.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl

I'm open to anything,

Saying you are open minded doesn't make it so.

Your actions speak far louder than your words.

so what is BSOD?

Being open minded includes a willingness to do your own research you know... ever heard of a search engine?