4 ms·

Would you mind linking me to the evidence that this is incorrect? Posts like mine are being censored across-the-board on the Internet because of "interests". I

Would you mind linking me to the evidence that this is incorrect? Posts like mine are being censored across-the-board on the Internet because of "interests". I mean, how much more evidence could you possibly linked to then 119 studies, yet my comment was flagged out of existence. We are literally living in a George Orwell novel and the people with jackboots are just ordinary citizens, putting the boots on their own necks. We are under the spell of like a self-prescribed global brainwashing campaign. Nobody cares about science anymore, nobody cares about the scientific method, nobody cares about actual data anymore, only propaganda. 119 studies show evidence of one thing. That's not enough though. But then the media says another thing and everybody believes it, despite the fact that there are dozens of studies with conflicting data showing various counter arguments (such as the Israeli pre-print from three weeks ago showing that The gene therapy is less effective than natural immunity by a factor of 13 to 27 times). This was practically completely ignored by the media and everybody on this site. In the past everybody here would've been on that shit immediately, trying to figure out if it was correct, I mean don't we want out of this mess? Does anybody want out of this or does everybody feel good about having a boot on their neck for the rest of their lives? Let go of your ego for a minute and ask yourself that question for real. If you're one of the people who will down vote this comment, there is no help for you in the long run. But if you want to be honest with yourself, and you want this bullshit situation to end, then you need to look at the real science in the real data and ask real questions and be open to the answers. Even if it means you made a terrible mistake somewhere along the way.

ch4s3 5y ago
I think the first thing people here are negatively reacting to is the phrase "gene therapy", which has a specific meaning and the mRNA vaccines are most definitely not gene therapy. I also don't think any scientifically minded person is opposed to the idea that natural immunity from previous infection provides stronger or longer lasting protection for infection. This would be in line with what we see with flu. The problem people have is the use of this information to encourage people to not get vaccinated. COVID outcomes are clearly better for vaccinated individuals than those who have not been vaccinated and have no natural immunity. I don't like the mandates, lockdowns, or passports but I think vaccination is still useful in reducing illness, spread, and mortality. The data backs that up. No one in my opinion should be coerced, but the choice seems so obvious to me.
creddit 5y ago
I vouched for your comment. You're allowed to believe whatever irrational things you'd like and comment about them as much as you'd like as far as I'm concerned. Seems it got flagged to death even after the vouch, though. Let's, however, consider your inane views on the RNA vaccines (note that not only is this what everyone refers to them as, it's also the case that they are very specifically NOT therapies as they are meant to be prophylactic to disease rather than treat disease). > such as the Israeli pre-print from three weeks ago showing that The gene therapy is less effective than natural immunity by a factor of 13 to 27 times) Do you really have no idea why that's a stupid attack on the vaccines? The idea that natural immunity is superior to vaccine acquired immunity says NOTHING about whether or not a vaccine provides immunity. If A > B, that doesn't mean that B = 0. Not only that, but the same study showed that natural immunity + vaccine > natural immunity. So by your inane logic, natural immunity alone does nothing! But even with this study by all accounts being valid, what policy decisions would you change based on it? It's not like we would stop vaccinations! What's more you're concerned that people are ignoring these 119 studies but you yourself claimed there was literally no evidence of effect for the vaccines when there are hundreds of studies (including your cited Israeli study for God's sake!) showing their effectiveness! Beyond all of that, I know of 1 good RCT for Ivermectin in the Together Trial (1500 patients unlike the comedy of many of the studies you quote) and uh, no effect. Weirdly, they do find really great effect from Fluvoxamine and yet you quacks never decided to pursue that for some reason...
- swader999 5y ago
  The Together trial only did 3 doses and only 400 mcg/kg - nobody else is finding results at that dosage rate either. Needs to be 5 days or longer, 600mcg/kg the earlier the better.
  - creddit 5y ago
    Some shocking non-linearities in dose-response you’re expecting. Point me to the most credible study you have. Tired of being shown poorly randomized trials with like 50 subjects.
    - 5y ago

ch4s3 5y ago

I think the first thing people here are negatively reacting to is the phrase "gene therapy", which has a specific meaning and the mRNA vaccines are most definitely not gene therapy. I also don't think any scientifically minded person is opposed to the idea that natural immunity from previous infection provides stronger or longer lasting protection for infection. This would be in line with what we see with flu. The problem people have is the use of this information to encourage people to not get vaccinated. COVID outcomes are clearly better for vaccinated individuals than those who have not been vaccinated and have no natural immunity. I don't like the mandates, lockdowns, or passports but I think vaccination is still useful in reducing illness, spread, and mortality. The data backs that up. No one in my opinion should be coerced, but the choice seems so obvious to me.

creddit 5y ago

I vouched for your comment. You're allowed to believe whatever irrational things you'd like and comment about them as much as you'd like as far as I'm concerned. Seems it got flagged to death even after the vouch, though. Let's, however, consider your inane views on the RNA vaccines (note that not only is this what everyone refers to them as, it's also the case that they are very specifically NOT therapies as they are meant to be prophylactic to disease rather than treat disease). > such as the Israeli pre-print from three weeks ago showing that The gene therapy is less effective than natural immunity by a factor of 13 to 27 times) Do you really have no idea why that's a stupid attack on the vaccines? The idea that natural immunity is superior to vaccine acquired immunity says NOTHING about whether or not a vaccine provides immunity. If A > B, that doesn't mean that B = 0. Not only that, but the same study showed that natural immunity + vaccine > natural immunity. So by your inane logic, natural immunity alone does nothing! But even with this study by all accounts being valid, what policy decisions would you change based on it? It's not like we would stop vaccinations! What's more you're concerned that people are ignoring these 119 studies but you yourself claimed there was literally no evidence of effect for the vaccines when there are hundreds of studies (including your cited Israeli study for God's sake!) showing their effectiveness! Beyond all of that, I know of 1 good RCT for Ivermectin in the Together Trial (1500 patients unlike the comedy of many of the studies you quote) and uh, no effect. Weirdly, they do find really great effect from Fluvoxamine and yet you quacks never decided to pursue that for some reason...

swader999 5y ago
The Together trial only did 3 doses and only 400 mcg/kg - nobody else is finding results at that dosage rate either. Needs to be 5 days or longer, 600mcg/kg the earlier the better.
- creddit 5y ago
  Some shocking non-linearities in dose-response you’re expecting. Point me to the most credible study you have. Tired of being shown poorly randomized trials with like 50 subjects.
  - 5y ago