Crisis - Norway Funeral Homes Overwhelmed With The Dead

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

I'm gonna go with the worlds most published cardiologist on this one.

Most published... You pulled that off his personal page... lol I guess that is how you set up your Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

I do agree younger healthy people do not need the vaccine since the variants out now are not much of anything to them, but here is your star player...

He falsely claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic was planned many years ago at a 2017 Johns Hopkins University symposium.
He falsely claimed that people who develop COVID-19 have “complete and durable immunity”, and that there is no benefit in vaccinating someone who recovered from COVID-19.
He falsely claimed that over 50,000 Americans died from the COVID-19 vaccine during his Texas Senate testimony in March 2021.
He falsely claimed that there is a “low degree, if any of asymptomatic spread” of COVID-19.
He promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19.
He falsely claimed that there was a global recall of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Just four months ago, Dr. Peter McCullough falsely testified to a Texas Senate Committee on Health & Human Services, that the COVID-19 vaccines were recalled after over 40,000 deaths were reported.

You and he are what we call the other side of extreme, so no wonder you to see eye to eye.

Why don't you post the link so we can see what big pharma fact checker "fact checked" him?

Hydroxychloroquine along with ivermectin were leaked as covid cures in classified DARPA documents.

twitter.com...

50 thousand is a low estimate, that's about what VAERs has but it is severely underreported and many people have come up with an underreporting factor of 40x.

Natural immunity is superior as Asmodeus has tirelessly laid out in his recent thread.

Can't believe you're still buying all of these debunked narratives. Mass formation is truly incredible.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Don't worry if you can't understand their method. The important message is that The data provided by the Department of Health in Florida shows clearly why mRNA vaccines are no longer recommended for 18-39 males.

Do you understand their methods? Such a condescending statement too. This is such a BS statement... Don't worry, but it clearly shows.... It is one study by one doctor and looking into it I found this, and this statement plays into what I am talking about.

Independent scientists have criticized the Florida paper cited by Dr Ladapo, describing its methodology as 'incredibly flawed'.

One of the main problems is that it does not weed out people who tested positive for Covid — which itself can cause heart inflammation and other issues.

The problem is the actual virus can also cause the same issues and is worst than the vaccine...

Here is some more about the study...

hey found in the 28 days after getting an inoculation people were less likely to die of any cause.

But most, especially young men, were more likely to die of a 'cardiac-related' cause such as a heart attack.

The Florida Department of Health said their analysis suggested an 84 per cent higher risk of death from myocarditis among men aged 18 to 39 years.

There were 20 fatalities in the first month, they said, compared to 52 over the next four months.

For comparison among women they said the risk was 59 per cent higher. This was based on 10 fatalities in the first month compared to 33 in the other.

Many scientists have been quick to blast the analysis as making 'little to no sense'.

Dr Monica Gandhi, an expert in medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, told DailyMail.com today that the analysis had several 'flaws'.

'I do not think this study should be used to set policy on the mRNA vaccines in younger males,' she said.

'It has some methodological flaws including a small sample size, no described change in overall mortality and a failure to account for Covid-related mortality, a control group that was biased and a failure to look at the long-term benefits of the vaccine to younger males.'

Dr Deepti Gurdasani, an ardent Covid vaccine supporter at Queen Mary University of London in the UK, slammed it as 'incredibly flawed'.

'This study tells us nothing about the risks or benefits', she said in a Tweet.

OK I figured it out... First, small sampling and with little control over other factors like if those that died actually had COVID too or other issues. So, to get his magical 84% he said in 5 months 72 young men died of cardiac-related' cause such as a heart attack. 20 were in the first month and 52 in the next 4, so that 20 in the first month is an 84% increase over the other 4 months. I agree it makes little sense and he is drawing conclusion as where he wants them to be.

I can't trivialise deaths or say how many deaths are acceptable.

Well so many here seem to trivialize deaths from the actual virus... So once again what is acceptable when people WILL die either way. You reply is such a copout BTW because you are suggesting 50 year-old males should not get the vaccine because of a 2 per 100k issue, but the 100+ per 100k issues with the virus is OK.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Don't worry if you can't understand their method. The important message is that The data provided by the Department of Health in Florida shows clearly why mRNA vaccines are no longer recommended for 18-39 males.

Do you understand their methods? Such a condescending statement too. This is such a BS statement... Don't worry, but it clearly shows.... It is one study by one doctor and looking into it I found this, and this statement plays into what I am talking about.

Independent scientists have criticized the Florida paper cited by Dr Ladapo, describing its methodology as 'incredibly flawed'.

One of the main problems is that it does not weed out people who tested positive for Covid — which itself can cause heart inflammation and other issues.

The problem is the actual virus can also cause the same issues and is worst than the vaccine...

Here is some more about the study...

hey found in the 28 days after getting an inoculation people were less likely to die of any cause.

But most, especially young men, were more likely to die of a 'cardiac-related' cause such as a heart attack.

The Florida Department of Health said their analysis suggested an 84 per cent higher risk of death from myocarditis among men aged 18 to 39 years.

There were 20 fatalities in the first month, they said, compared to 52 over the next four months.

For comparison among women they said the risk was 59 per cent higher. This was based on 10 fatalities in the first month compared to 33 in the other.

Many scientists have been quick to blast the analysis as making 'little to no sense'.

Dr Monica Gandhi, an expert in medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, told DailyMail.com today that the analysis had several 'flaws'.

'I do not think this study should be used to set policy on the mRNA vaccines in younger males,' she said.

'It has some methodological flaws including a small sample size, no described change in overall mortality and a failure to account for Covid-related mortality, a control group that was biased and a failure to look at the long-term benefits of the vaccine to younger males.'

Dr Deepti Gurdasani, an ardent Covid vaccine supporter at Queen Mary University of London in the UK, slammed it as 'incredibly flawed'.

'This study tells us nothing about the risks or benefits', she said in a Tweet.

OK I figured it out... First, small sampling and with little control over other factors like if those that died actually had COVID too or other issues. So, to get his magical 84% he said in 5 months 72 young men died of cardiac-related' cause such as a heart attack. 20 were in the first month and 52 in the next 4, so that 20 in the first month is an 84% increase over the other 4 months. I agree it makes little sense and he is drawing conclusion as where he wants them to be.

I can't trivialise deaths or say how many deaths are acceptable.

Well so many here seem to trivialize deaths from the actual virus... So once again what is acceptable when people WILL die either way. You reply is such a copout BTW because you are suggesting 50 year-old males should not get the vaccine because of a 2 per 100k issue, but the 100+ per 100k issues with the virus is OK.

No I didn't think you have figured out that the risks from the vaccines often outweigh the benefits in young and healthy people. Children for example and young and healthy adults and you are engaging in some sort of continuous vaccine advocacy.

The matter of fact is that the Department of Health in Florida (and not just a single individual) decided to change its recommendations. The mRNA vaccines are not considered that safe and effective for the 18-39 makes.

Likewise and according to the links provided several times 12-17 year old boys are at more risk from myocarditis due to the vaccines rather than getting hospitalised with Covid.

Likewise the JCVI in England didn't recommend Covid vaccines for the 5-11 age group (both boys and girls).

The vaccines cannot prevent transmission or infection. They don't significantly reduce them either and there is no herd immunity. All the above have been claimed in various threads and are false.

These are experimental, untested products, that are potentially hazardous. People under the age of 50 who are healthy are in no need of them. Is that simple.



www.ft.com...

This was the original intention in the UK and most other countries. Then politics and financial interests blended with science...

Less than half UK population to receive coronavirus vaccine, says task force head


.

Less than half the UK population can expect to be vaccinated against coronavirus, the head of the government’s vaccine task force has said in an attempt to clear up the public’s “misguided” perception of the programme’s aim.

Kate Bingham told the Financial Times that vaccinating everyone in the country was “not going to happen”, adding: “We just need to vaccinate everyone at risk.

People keep talking about ‘time to vaccinate the whole population’, but that is misguided,” she said. “There’s going to be no vaccination of people under 18. It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable.”

Ms Bingham said vaccination policy would be aimed at those “most at risk” and noted that vaccinating healthy people, who are much less likely to have severe outcomes from Covid-19, “could cause them some freak harm”, potentially tipping the scales in terms of the risk-benefit analysis

Do you see what the intentions were?! The vaccines were meant for the over 50s and the vulnerable.

So I was correct.

Did you notice what she said?! We want to avoid some freak harm when vaccinating young and healthy people so we won't give them these vaccines.

They did cause harm though and if you go to my other thread you will see the 24 year old who died as a result of vaccine induced myocarditis. As many others who have been killed or seriously injured by these products.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

beckernews.com...

New scientific research shows that the vaccinated are more than twice as likely to be infected with Covid-19 than those who had a prior infection.

This research shows that Covid-19 vaccines are associated with more spread of the virus reveals that the Big Lie that vaccines “stop the spread” was even worse than at first glance. Public health officials’ arguments that “vaccine passports” would help protect communities from the spread of the virus turns out to be entirely fraudulent. The emotional appeal that Covid vaccines somehow protect your family members is now shown to be entirely without merit. The brazen claim that Covid-19 was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” turns out to be completely bogus.

Not only natural immunity gives much better protection in comparison to vaccination in general terms but it seems that the vaccines can't even reach anywhere near the levels of protection natural infection provides.

That article draws conclusions about what those studies show, which are at odds with the conclusions the study authors made.

Similarly, who are "Becker News"? Browsing the site, it seems to me to be extremely right-wing and conspiracy-theory biased and of low credibility.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

beckernews.com...

New scientific research shows that the vaccinated are more than twice as likely to be infected with Covid-19 than those who had a prior infection.

This research shows that Covid-19 vaccines are associated with more spread of the virus reveals that the Big Lie that vaccines “stop the spread” was even worse than at first glance. Public health officials’ arguments that “vaccine passports” would help protect communities from the spread of the virus turns out to be entirely fraudulent. The emotional appeal that Covid vaccines somehow protect your family members is now shown to be entirely without merit. The brazen claim that Covid-19 was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” turns out to be completely bogus.

Not only natural immunity gives much better protection in comparison to vaccination in general terms but it seems that the vaccines can't even reach anywhere near the levels of protection natural infection provides.

That article draws conclusions about what those studies show, which are at odds with the conclusions the study authors made.

Similarly, who are "Becker News"? Browsing the site, it seems to me to be extremely right-wing and conspiracy-theory biased and of low credibility.

So based on that logic, you posting on this site makes you have low credibility.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

beckernews.com...

New scientific research shows that the vaccinated are more than twice as likely to be infected with Covid-19 than those who had a prior infection.

This research shows that Covid-19 vaccines are associated with more spread of the virus reveals that the Big Lie that vaccines “stop the spread” was even worse than at first glance. Public health officials’ arguments that “vaccine passports” would help protect communities from the spread of the virus turns out to be entirely fraudulent. The emotional appeal that Covid vaccines somehow protect your family members is now shown to be entirely without merit. The brazen claim that Covid-19 was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” turns out to be completely bogus.

Not only natural immunity gives much better protection in comparison to vaccination in general terms but it seems that the vaccines can't even reach anywhere near the levels of protection natural infection provides.

That article draws conclusions about what those studies show, which are at odds with the conclusions the study authors made.

Similarly, who are "Becker News"? Browsing the site, it seems to me to be extremely right-wing and conspiracy-theory biased and of low credibility.

No you are wrong as usual. The article is based on the largest study of its kind at that time in Israel who had been peer reviewed long time ago. Likewise the other two larger studies in California and New York did show the same results.

Natural immunity is superior to vaccinations.

www.science.org...

Science.org is not a right wing extremist site and the peer reviewed publications it relies on are not far right either..

You need to go somewhere else to argue this type of nonsense.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

No I didn't think you have figured out that the risks from the vaccines often outweigh the benefits in young and healthy people. Children for example and young and healthy adults and you are engaging in some sort of continuous vaccine advocacy.

It is not a good study, period. How many times have I said you do not need the vaccine if the risk from the virus is small, geez.

The matter of fact is that the Department of Health in Florida (and not just a single individual) decided to change its recommendations. The mRNA vaccines are not considered that safe and effective for the 18-39 makes.

Actually, in this case it was just him since he is politically the surgeon general of Florida, and they followed his lead.

Likewise and according to the links provided several times 12-17 year old boys are at more risk from myocarditis due to the vaccines rather than getting hospitalised with Covid.

Very true...your point? So don't get the vaccine in that age group... Once again though it is not because the vaccine is so bad, it is because the virus is nothing for them, but if it was 100 per 100k deaths with the virus I would say maybe get the vaccine. Right now, that age group is below 1 per 100k

The vaccines cannot prevent transmission or infection. They don't significantly reduce them either and there is no herd immunity. All the above have been claimed in various threads and are false.

I bet you just copy and paste this same statement over and over.... lost interests in reading the rest, sorry...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

No I didn't think you have figured out that the risks from the vaccines often outweigh the benefits in young and healthy people. Children for example and young and healthy adults and you are engaging in some sort of continuous vaccine advocacy.

It is not a good study, period. How many times have I said you do not need the vaccine if the risk from the virus is small, geez.

The matter of fact is that the Department of Health in Florida (and not just a single individual) decided to change its recommendations. The mRNA vaccines are not considered that safe and effective for the 18-39 makes.

Actually, in this case it was just him since he is politically the surgeon general of Florida, and they followed his lead.

Likewise and according to the links provided several times 12-17 year old boys are at more risk from myocarditis due to the vaccines rather than getting hospitalised with Covid.

Very true...your point? So don't get the vaccine in that age group... Once again though it is not because the vaccine is so bad, it is because the virus is nothing for them, but if it was 100 per 100k deaths with the virus I would say maybe get the vaccine. Right now, that age group is below 1 per 100k

The vaccines cannot prevent transmission or infection. They don't significantly reduce them either and there is no herd immunity. All the above have been claimed in various threads and are false.

I bet you just copy and paste this same statement over and over.... lost interests in reading the rest, sorry...

It's the best study together with the studies in California and New York either you like it or not.

www.science.org...

Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine

The research impresses Nussenzweig and other scientists who have reviewed a preprint of the results, posted yesterday on medRxiv. “It’s a textbook example of how natural immunity is really better than vaccination,” says Charlotte Thålin, a physician and immunology researcher at Danderyd Hospital and the Karolinska Institute who studies the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2. “To my knowledge, it’s the first time [this] has really been shown in the context of COVID-19

It's a textbook example of how natural immunity is better the vaccination. It's that simple.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Natural immunity is superior to vaccinations.

Don't just stop there, drop the mic and walk out. It seems you and others just stop where it fits your narrative.

The study said it found that COVID protection decreases over time, but the overall protection was higher in those who had COVID than those who received a second vaccine dose.

Two follow-ups with this as I can agree with it just fine.

1. There have been other very large studies (such as John Hopkins) that show if you had both the virus and vaccine it increases the protection duration by a good deal over just one or the other.

2. How long is the duration of your immunization if the virus actually kills you first?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

It's the best study together with the studies in California and New York either you like it or not.

The study was not good, and he cited just his one...

The SG was guidance only in he recommends against males aged 18 to 39 from receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. He also said this, which is what I said many times. "The risk associated with mRNA vaccination should be
weighed against the risk associated with COVID-19 infection."

It's a textbook example of how natural immunity is better the vaccination. It's that simple.

Read my post above this one...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Natural immunity is superior to vaccinations.

Don't just stop there, drop the mic and walk out. It seems you and others just stop where it fits your narrative.

The study said it found that COVID protection decreases over time, but the overall protection was higher in those who had COVID than those who received a second vaccine dose.

Two follow-ups with this as I can agree with it just fine.

1. There have been other very large studies (such as John Hopkins) that show if you had both the virus and vaccine it increases the protection duration by a good deal over just one or the other.

2. How long is the duration of your immunization if the virus actually kills you first?

I don't think you understand the difference between vaccine immunity and natural immunity. Especially the major differences when mRNA vaccines are involved.

The largest studies in the world i.ei in Israel, California and New York showed clearly that natural immunity is superior to vaccination.

It's rather simile.

The lady question is just a way out but you need to rethink it. The vaccine can also kill you and the virus can also kill you even if you are vaccinated. So not a good question you posed.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I don't think you understand the difference between vaccine immunity and natural immunity. Especially the major differences when mRNA vaccines are involved.

This has nothing to do with what I said. I said both together is superior to either by themselves.

The lady question is just a way out but you need to rethink it. The vaccine can also kill you and the virus can also kill you even if you are vaccinated. So not a good question you posed.

Yep, so you look at where the virus is worst and then take the vaccine to lower that chance of serious illness from the virus. We can all agree the virus is nothing for those under 18, little for those 19 to 35, but then it starts to slowly tick up from there. Also, anyone of high risk at any age better not just hope the virus doesn't kill them to get immunity.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
It's funny how covid skipped 2020 for increasing all cause mortality and then just as it's dissipating with a much weaker variant it magically increases all cause mortality by 20-30% but only in highly vaxxt countries.

Seems legit.

Boink!

Excess mortality: Deaths from all causes compared to average over previous years - Our World in Data

Keep it up!

Not sure how the bill gates funded our world in data site validates its data but I'm guessing great reset proponents like gates would want to hide depopulation inconvenient truths.

How We’re Funded - OurWorldInData

Q3 2021 for example shows a 150-200% increase for 25-64.

rumble.com...

What about the possibility that all these tens of thousands of government employees, doctors, academics, educators, and so forth, aren't lying, but instead, it's these three blokes in the video?

Anyway, how are you enjoying the natural immunity data?

It is clear that since lots of diseases exist and persist, that 'natural immunity' isn't a magic shield, and is 'leaky'.

They arent all "lying" but most are caught in mass formation and are going along with the establishment.

Its hard to deprogram the billions of dollars of propaganda thats been force fed into them. Some are lying to keep their jobs, or in their view ignoring it.

So, you reject the idea that they are all lying because it is an absurd thing to think, and then because of the cognitive dissonance with your core beliefs, you try and make excuses.

If they are lying, for whatever reason, they are lying - they are knowingly telling untruths. Their motivation does not change that.

Anyone who gets red pilled isn't going back either. Strange how there is no anti covid vaxx person who wishes they got it and the trend is only for people to awaken to the truth. There is only one direction that people go.

You haven't even looked: Web search - people who wished they were vaccinated

LOL.

The motive or losing your job and putting your family at risk versus keeping your job while potentially making kickbacks from promoting or administering clot shots while keeping yourself hypnotized. I can see the easier choice here.

My job is not under threat if I don't vaccinate. I make no money out of pharma companies or medical services (they all cost me).

However, I, and my wife are in an at-risk demographic. My whole family have been vaccinated (and my daughter hates needles) and we interact closely, so, even if my grandson got COVID, despite his low risk status, he could infect my wife and I, so for the sake of cuddles and our lives, he is also vaccinated.

The whole extended family have all been vaccinated against many illnesses (not just COVID) and have had no adverse reactions, ever, (even to the Comirnaty jabs we have had). In fact, I don't know anyone in my wider community of surrounding suburbs, and that attend churches or clubs I go to in our area, or at my work (staff of a couple of thousand), that has had an adverse reaction.

Similarly, my relatives overseas have all been vaccinated (with a mix of different vaccines), and none have had any adverse reactions there, either.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

beckernews.com...

New scientific research shows that the vaccinated are more than twice as likely to be infected with Covid-19 than those who had a prior infection.

This research shows that Covid-19 vaccines are associated with more spread of the virus reveals that the Big Lie that vaccines “stop the spread” was even worse than at first glance. Public health officials’ arguments that “vaccine passports” would help protect communities from the spread of the virus turns out to be entirely fraudulent. The emotional appeal that Covid vaccines somehow protect your family members is now shown to be entirely without merit. The brazen claim that Covid-19 was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” turns out to be completely bogus.

Not only natural immunity gives much better protection in comparison to vaccination in general terms but it seems that the vaccines can't even reach anywhere near the levels of protection natural infection provides.

That article draws conclusions about what those studies show, which are at odds with the conclusions the study authors made.

Similarly, who are "Becker News"? Browsing the site, it seems to me to be extremely right-wing and conspiracy-theory biased and of low credibility.

No you are wrong as usual. The article is based on the largest study of its kind at that time in Israel who had been peer reviewed long time ago. Likewise the other two larger studies in California and New York did show the same results.

Natural immunity is superior to vaccinations.

www.science.org...

Science.org is not a right wing extremist site and the peer reviewed publications it relies on are not far right either..

You need to go somewhere else to argue this type of nonsense.

The article on Becker News, that I was referring to, from the post I was replying to, makes no mention of Israeli, Californian or New York studies.

The article on Becker News refers specifically to the Cleveland Clinic study, a Washingtom Post article, a Johns Hopkins study (of the unvaccinated and of the entire US population), the SeroHub CDC web page, and an Indiana study. All of which do not support what the Becker News article is claiming they do.

And I am not entirely rejecting that 'natural' immunity may have a slightly longer duration, or slightly broader scope of coverage against variants, than the existing vaccines.

I was pointing out that 'naturally acquired' immunity is not perfect and total, but is quite similar in effectiveness to vaccination, and that acquiring immunity by catching the disease involves an unnecessary level of risk that vaccination does not.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

beckernews.com...

New scientific research shows that the vaccinated are more than twice as likely to be infected with Covid-19 than those who had a prior infection.

This research shows that Covid-19 vaccines are associated with more spread of the virus reveals that the Big Lie that vaccines “stop the spread” was even worse than at first glance. Public health officials’ arguments that “vaccine passports” would help protect communities from the spread of the virus turns out to be entirely fraudulent. The emotional appeal that Covid vaccines somehow protect your family members is now shown to be entirely without merit. The brazen claim that Covid-19 was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” turns out to be completely bogus.

Not only natural immunity gives much better protection in comparison to vaccination in general terms but it seems that the vaccines can't even reach anywhere near the levels of protection natural infection provides.

That article draws conclusions about what those studies show, which are at odds with the conclusions the study authors made.

Similarly, who are "Becker News"? Browsing the site, it seems to me to be extremely right-wing and conspiracy-theory biased and of low credibility.

So based on that logic, you posting on this site makes you have low credibility.

Yes, in equal measure as it does for you.

In fact, the low credibility of what some people post here probably brings down the general tone significantly. If I recall, someone on here re-posted a video of someone who stated that 40% of the people who have been vaccinated had died.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

beckernews.com...

New scientific research shows that the vaccinated are more than twice as likely to be infected with Covid-19 than those who had a prior infection.

This research shows that Covid-19 vaccines are associated with more spread of the virus reveals that the Big Lie that vaccines “stop the spread” was even worse than at first glance. Public health officials’ arguments that “vaccine passports” would help protect communities from the spread of the virus turns out to be entirely fraudulent. The emotional appeal that Covid vaccines somehow protect your family members is now shown to be entirely without merit. The brazen claim that Covid-19 was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” turns out to be completely bogus.

Not only natural immunity gives much better protection in comparison to vaccination in general terms but it seems that the vaccines can't even reach anywhere near the levels of protection natural infection provides.

That article draws conclusions about what those studies show, which are at odds with the conclusions the study authors made.

Similarly, who are "Becker News"? Browsing the site, it seems to me to be extremely right-wing and conspiracy-theory biased and of low credibility.

No you are wrong as usual. The article is based on the largest study of its kind at that time in Israel who had been peer reviewed long time ago. Likewise the other two larger studies in California and New York did show the same results.

Natural immunity is superior to vaccinations.

www.science.org...

Science.org is not a right wing extremist site and the peer reviewed publications it relies on are not far right either..

You need to go somewhere else to argue this type of nonsense.

The article on Becker News, that I was referring to, from the post I was replying to, makes no mention of Israeli, Californian or New York studies.

The article on Becker News refers specifically to the Cleveland Clinic study, a Washingtom Post article, a Johns Hopkins study (of the unvaccinated and of the entire US population), the SeroHub CDC web page, and an Indiana study. All of which do not support what the Becker News article is claiming they do.

And I am not entirely rejecting that 'natural' immunity may have a slightly longer duration, or slightly broader scope of coverage against variants, than the existing vaccines.

I was pointing out that 'naturally acquired' immunity is not perfect and total, but is quite similar in effectiveness to vaccination, and that acquiring immunity by catching the disease involves an unnecessary level of risk that vaccination does not.

The study I have linked from

www.science.org...

Shows clearly that Natural Immunity confers better protection then vaccination. The largest study of its time and one of the largest studies ever conducted together with the studies in California and New York.

There is no debate in this.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

I don't think you understand the difference between vaccine immunity and natural immunity. Especially the major differences when mRNA vaccines are involved.

This has nothing to do with what I said. I said both together is superior to either by themselves.

The lady question is just a way out but you need to rethink it. The vaccine can also kill you and the virus can also kill you even if you are vaccinated. So not a good question you posed.

Yep, so you look at where the virus is worst and then take the vaccine to lower that chance of serious illness from the virus. We can all agree the virus is nothing for those under 18, little for those 19 to 35, but then it starts to slowly tick up from there. Also, anyone of high risk at any age better not just hope the virus doesn't kill them to get immunity.

This a way to please the vaccine industry.
When someone is infected and recovers from primary infection there no need for vaccination. Vaccines are before one gets infected not after. We don't want to start debating the basics in immunology.


The study I linked above shows clearly that Natural Immunity confers better protection then vaccination. The largest study of its time and one of the largest studies ever conducted together with the studies in California and New York.

There is no debate in this.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

beckernews.com...

New scientific research shows that the vaccinated are more than twice as likely to be infected with Covid-19 than those who had a prior infection.

This research shows that Covid-19 vaccines are associated with more spread of the virus reveals that the Big Lie that vaccines “stop the spread” was even worse than at first glance. Public health officials’ arguments that “vaccine passports” would help protect communities from the spread of the virus turns out to be entirely fraudulent. The emotional appeal that Covid vaccines somehow protect your family members is now shown to be entirely without merit. The brazen claim that Covid-19 was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” turns out to be completely bogus.

Not only natural immunity gives much better protection in comparison to vaccination in general terms but it seems that the vaccines can't even reach anywhere near the levels of protection natural infection provides.

That article draws conclusions about what those studies show, which are at odds with the conclusions the study authors made.

Similarly, who are "Becker News"? Browsing the site, it seems to me to be extremely right-wing and conspiracy-theory biased and of low credibility.

No you are wrong as usual. The article is based on the largest study of its kind at that time in Israel who had been peer reviewed long time ago. Likewise the other two larger studies in California and New York did show the same results.

Natural immunity is superior to vaccinations.

www.science.org...

Science.org is not a right wing extremist site and the peer reviewed publications it relies on are not far right either..

You need to go somewhere else to argue this type of nonsense.

The article on Becker News, that I was referring to, from the post I was replying to, makes no mention of Israeli, Californian or New York studies.

The article on Becker News refers specifically to the Cleveland Clinic study, a Washingtom Post article, a Johns Hopkins study (of the unvaccinated and of the entire US population), the SeroHub CDC web page, and an Indiana study. All of which do not support what the Becker News article is claiming they do.

And I am not entirely rejecting that 'natural' immunity may have a slightly longer duration, or slightly broader scope of coverage against variants, than the existing vaccines.

I was pointing out that 'naturally acquired' immunity is not perfect and total, but is quite similar in effectiveness to vaccination, and that acquiring immunity by catching the disease involves an unnecessary level of risk that vaccination does not.

The study I have linked from

www.science.org...

Shows clearly that Natural Immunity confers better protection then vaccination. The largest study of its time and one of the largest studies ever conducted together with the studies in California and New York.

There is no debate in this.

A full harness seat belt provides better protection than a lap sash seat belt. This does not logically follow that we should cut all lap sash seat belts out of cars in which they are fitted. It would be taking a bit of information and suggesting a response that is totally inappropriate and will potentially cause more carnage.

Cut and paste from previous posts:

"I am not entirely rejecting that 'natural' immunity may have a slightly longer duration, or slightly broader scope of coverage against variants, than the existing vaccines.

I was pointing out that 'naturally acquired' immunity is not perfect and total, but is quite similar in effectiveness to vaccination, and that acquiring immunity by catching the disease involves an unnecessary level of risk that vaccination does not."

"There is no debate in this".

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

beckernews.com...

New scientific research shows that the vaccinated are more than twice as likely to be infected with Covid-19 than those who had a prior infection.

This research shows that Covid-19 vaccines are associated with more spread of the virus reveals that the Big Lie that vaccines “stop the spread” was even worse than at first glance. Public health officials’ arguments that “vaccine passports” would help protect communities from the spread of the virus turns out to be entirely fraudulent. The emotional appeal that Covid vaccines somehow protect your family members is now shown to be entirely without merit. The brazen claim that Covid-19 was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” turns out to be completely bogus.

Not only natural immunity gives much better protection in comparison to vaccination in general terms but it seems that the vaccines can't even reach anywhere near the levels of protection natural infection provides.

That article draws conclusions about what those studies show, which are at odds with the conclusions the study authors made.

Similarly, who are "Becker News"? Browsing the site, it seems to me to be extremely right-wing and conspiracy-theory biased and of low credibility.

No you are wrong as usual. The article is based on the largest study of its kind at that time in Israel who had been peer reviewed long time ago. Likewise the other two larger studies in California and New York did show the same results.

Natural immunity is superior to vaccinations.

www.science.org...

Science.org is not a right wing extremist site and the peer reviewed publications it relies on are not far right either..

You need to go somewhere else to argue this type of nonsense.

The article on Becker News, that I was referring to, from the post I was replying to, makes no mention of Israeli, Californian or New York studies.

The article on Becker News refers specifically to the Cleveland Clinic study, a Washingtom Post article, a Johns Hopkins study (of the unvaccinated and of the entire US population), the SeroHub CDC web page, and an Indiana study. All of which do not support what the Becker News article is claiming they do.

And I am not entirely rejecting that 'natural' immunity may have a slightly longer duration, or slightly broader scope of coverage against variants, than the existing vaccines.

I was pointing out that 'naturally acquired' immunity is not perfect and total, but is quite similar in effectiveness to vaccination, and that acquiring immunity by catching the disease involves an unnecessary level of risk that vaccination does not.

The study I have linked from

www.science.org...

Shows clearly that Natural Immunity confers better protection then vaccination. The largest study of its time and one of the largest studies ever conducted together with the studies in California and New York.

There is no debate in this.

A full harness seat belt provides better protection than a lap sash seat belt. This does not logically follow that we should cut all lap sash seat belts out of cars in which they are fitted. It would be taking a bit of information and suggesting a response that is totally inappropriate and will potentially cause more carnage.

Cut and paste from previous posts:

"I am not entirely rejecting that 'natural' immunity may have a slightly longer duration, or slightly broader scope of coverage against variants, than the existing vaccines.

I was pointing out that 'naturally acquired' immunity is not perfect and total, but is quite similar in effectiveness to vaccination, and that acquiring immunity by catching the disease involves an unnecessary level of risk that vaccination does not."

"There is no debate in this".

The seatbelt analogy has been refuted several times across several threads here and elsewhere online.

The largest studies in the world i.ei in Israel, California and New York showed clearly that natural immunity is superior to vaccination as I have already posted earlier and on many occasions.

If you are in low risk group then you don't care about these products that could be potentially harmful.

a reply to: chr0naut


Also your claims often show lack of understanding of basic concepts and principles.

You used the seatbelt analogy which has been refuted so many times.

You made references about herd immunity which is impossible with SARS-CoV-2. Others did the same thing in other threads.

You have claimed that SARS-CoV-2 may have existed for long time before becoming pathogenic. No evidence for it whatsoever.

And you claimed that the Cambrian Explosion disproves evolution.

Also other claims about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines and claimed that you know the adverse reactions.


Everything in the list above is just false.