Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
> On 2021-08-03, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> there was *no* safety risk to people.
>
> That is a lie. How do you know what effects they will have on the people
> who have taken them in 5-10 years?
>
> When a vaccine has full FDA approval I'll consider it. Not before.

I doubt it very much. If you're not taking a safe and effective vaccine in
the eye of the worst pandemic the world has seen in over 100 years, you're
never going to take it. You will find other unfounded excuses to justify
yourself.

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 8/3/21 7:06 PM, Paul wrote:
>> Roger Blake wrote:
>>> On 2021-08-03, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The vaccine is clearly effective against the virus - 3x fewer cases
>>>> than the control - and had fewer severe events than the control.
>>>
>>> That says nothing about the long-term effects.
>>>
>>
>> I think you're saying those vaccines I had as a kid,
>> will now kick in to grow a third eyeball ?
>>
>> All I can say is:  Neat.
>>
>> "I ain't superstitious.
>>  Black cat crossed my trail.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqpclYuZabs
>>
>>    Paul
>
> Oh come on Paul. That is not what he is talking
> about. He is talking about the long term side
> effects of the therapy, such as Antibody Dependent Enhancement.
>
> And that polio vaccine you took as a kid was fully
> tested before it rolled out.

LOL! A vaccine developed in the 1950s was NOT tested as extensively as a
modern day vaccine is. The polio vaccine had several problems in the early
days.

We have learned from that and other vaccine issues so that today's vaccines
are the best ever.

> This mRNA terapy
> was not.

There's no such thing.

Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> On 2021-08-03 10:49 p.m., T wrote:
>> On 8/3/21 3:57 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
>>> On 2021-08-03, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> there was *no* safety risk to people.
>>>
>>> That is a lie. How do you know what effects they will have on the people
>>> who have taken them in 5-10 years?
>>>
>>> When a vaccine has full FDA approval I'll consider it. Not before.
>>>
>>
>> 1+.  An outright lie.
>>
>> Not to mention the 4000 and possibly 10 times that
>> many in the US that died from therapy already.
>>
>
> Cites please!
>

+1

In England. The number is 0 out of 38.5m people double vaccinated.

On 2021-08-04 1:07 a.m., T wrote:
>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> Accidentally lost your Ad Hominem attack.
>>> My main references are from
>>>
>>>     pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>>>
>>> -T
>>
>> Who are you replying to ???
>>
>> I can't tell where that comment is intended to go.
>>
>> On my newsreader, it looks like you're replying to yourself,
>> but that probably wasn't what you had in mind.
>>
>>     Paul
>
> That was to Rene.  I accidentally put your name down.
>

72,000 kids contracted Covid-19 in the USA last week.
I hope that through his stupidity and stubbornness that Todd's family
never get it, They don't deserve it through no fault of there own.

If T catches it, I would have to consider it as "self inflicted'.

Rene

In article <secsmf$qb0$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

>
> I think you're saying those vaccines I had as a kid,
> will now kick in to grow a third eyeball ?

that should have already happened, and it's a lot of fun.

maybe you didn't get a vaccine after all.

In article <20210803185626@news.eternal-september.org>, Roger Blake
<rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

> > there was *no* safety risk to people.
>
> That is a lie.

it's not a lie.

what you snipped was that the vaccines went through full phase i, ii &
ii trials, as any vaccine or medication would have done, and with a
*lot* more volunteers than usual.

the only difference was they started manufacturing doses before the
results of the trials were known which is a *financial* risk should the
trials fail.

as it turned out, the trials were successful and there were doses ready
to go, which saved several months. had the trials failed, everything
would had to have been discarded, incurring a loss.

> How do you know what effects they will have on the people
> who have taken them in 5-10 years?

historically, every vaccine has shown adverse effects within months at
the most, usually much sooner.

the body's immune system reacts to it immediately, not 5 years later.

it's been ~18 months since trials began, about a year since phase iii
trials began, with 35k volunteers per vaccine (more than usual), and
since then, ~4 million jabs administered, with only a handful of
adverse reactions.

nothing is perfect in this world. any medication can have adverse
effects, including ordinary aspirin, tylenol, antibiotics and much
more.

heck, even water can kill:
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-drinking-to
o-much-water-can-kill/>

> When a vaccine has full FDA approval I'll consider it. Not before.

that should be within the next few months.

it's also mostly a formality. the data from the trials is the same.

In article <sed9p1$lf4$2@dont-email.me>, <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
> Not to mention the 4000 and possibly 10 times that
> many in the US that died from therapy already.

it's nowhere near that many, but even if that number was true, it's
still much less compared to 630,000 dead from covid, and that's with
roughly 1/10th the number of cases versus the number of jabs.

On 8/4/21 7:18 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
> On 2021-08-04 1:07 a.m., T wrote:
>>
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>
>>>> Accidentally lost your Ad Hominem attack.
>>>> My main references are from
>>>>
>>>>     pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>>>>
>>>> -T
>>>
>>> Who are you replying to ???
>>>
>>> I can't tell where that comment is intended to go.
>>>
>>> On my newsreader, it looks like you're replying to yourself,
>>> but that probably wasn't what you had in mind.
>>>
>>>     Paul
>>
>> That was to Rene.  I accidentally put your name down.
>>
>
>
> 72,000 kids contracted  Covid-19 in the USA last week.

Hi Rene,

Source?

How many died?

How many were seriously ill?

How many contracted the flu or the common cold
for comparison?

Comparison to other sources of death, like heart
disease?

> I hope that through his stupidity and stubbornness that Todd's family
> never get it, They don't deserve it through no fault of there own.

You are name calling.

If you want to change my mind, it is EXTREMELY easy.
Show me actual Randomized Clinical Trials. Use
science and drop the propaganda narratives.

So far, the only things I am seeing from you is
opinion. No science and nothing to back up what
you say.

But you are good at the Ad Hominem attacks. Do you
really think name calling is going to help
your argument?

> If T catches it, I would have to consider it as "self inflicted'.

I probably caught it 1-1/2 years ago. I was sick on my ass.
I would like to get and antibody test, but I can't afford
the 180 U$D price tag.

>
> Rene

-T

In article <seehei$rht$1@dont-email.me>, <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > 72,000 kids contracted  Covid-19 in the USA last week.
>
> Hi Rene,
>
> Source?

american academy of pediatrics.

<https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infec
tions/children-and-covid-19-state-level-data-report/>
As of July 29, nearly 4.2 million children have tested positive for
COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic. Almost 72,000 cases
were added the past week, a substantial increase from the prior
week, when about 39,000 cases were reported. After declining
in early summer, child cases have steadily increased in July.

> How many died?

very few, but that isn't the only negative outcome.

kids can bring it home to their parents and siblings, who are at *much*
higher risk of complications.

plus they can be very sick, and someone will need to stay home to take
care of them, which means time off from work.

> How many were seriously ill?

quite a few, but even those with milder cases, it's not pleasant.

> How many contracted the flu or the common cold
> for comparison?

not relevant.

> Comparison to other sources of death, like heart
> disease?

it's *extremely* rare for a kid to get heart disease, and that's not
relevant anyway.

>
> > I hope that through his stupidity and stubbornness that Todd's family
> > never get it, They don't deserve it through no fault of there own.
>
> You are name calling.

that's not name calling.

he is saying your actions are stupid and stubborn, which puts you, your
family, friends neighbors and society as a whole at risk.

> If you want to change my mind, it is EXTREMELY easy.

no it isn't. your mind is made up and nothing is going to change it,
even your own links which say the opposite of what you think they do.

> Show me actual Randomized Clinical Trials. Use
> science and drop the propaganda narratives.

it's been done, including cites *you* provided.

> > If T catches it, I would have to consider it as "self inflicted'.
>
> I probably caught it 1-1/2 years ago. I was sick on my ass.
> I would like to get and antibody test, but I can't afford
> the 180 U$D price tag.

at this point, an antibody test is unlikely to be conclusive, although
you could get a t-cell test which might be a better indication.

it also doesn't matter, since natural immunity is not as strong as from
a vaccine and whatever you may have had 18 months ago isn't going to
help a whole lot with delta and other variants anyway.

Rene,

This will really PISS YOU OFF!

Rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and vaccination impact the fate of
vaccine-resistant strains

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95025-3

More variants because of the jabs?

Keep in mind this is just a mathematical model

-T

In article <seekfc$hc9$1@dont-email.me>, <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and vaccination impact the fate of
> vaccine-resistant strains
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95025-3
>
> More variants because of the jabs?

nope.

from *your* link,
As expected, we found that a fast rate of vaccination decreases
the probability of emergence of a resistant strain.

> Keep in mind this is just a mathematical model

one which you do not understand.

On 2021-08-04 12:58 p.m., T wrote:
> Rene,
>
> This will really PISS YOU OFF!
>
> Rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and vaccination impact the fate of
> vaccine-resistant strains
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95025-3
>
> More variants because of the jabs?
>
> Keep in mind this is just a mathematical model
>
> -T

T. Read and believe all the material you want.
I haven't got the time or inclination to bother.

Rene

Rene

On 2021-08-04 10:58 a.m., T wrote:
> Rene,
>
> This will really PISS YOU OFF!
>
> Rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and vaccination impact the fate of
> vaccine-resistant strains
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95025-3
>
> More variants because of the jabs?

Remember the law about headlines that ask a question?

>
> Keep in mind this is just a mathematical model
>
> -T

On 8/4/21 11:17 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
> On 2021-08-04 12:58 p.m., T wrote:
>> Rene,
>>
>> This will really PISS YOU OFF!
>>
>> Rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and vaccination impact the fate of
>> vaccine-resistant strains
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95025-3
>>
>> More variants because of the jabs?
>>
>> Keep in mind this is just a mathematical model
>>
>> -T
>
> T.  Read and believe all the material you want.
> I haven't got the time or inclination to bother.
>
> Rene
>
>
> Rene
>

But you do have the time to throw out insults
and narratives. And to a person who has only
shown friendship towards you.

On 2021-08-04 12:11 p.m., T wrote:
> On 8/4/21 11:17 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>> On 2021-08-04 12:58 p.m., T wrote:
>>> Rene,
>>>
>>> This will really PISS YOU OFF!
>>>
>>> Rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and vaccination impact the fate of
>>> vaccine-resistant strains
>>>
>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95025-3
>>>
>>> More variants because of the jabs?
>>>
>>> Keep in mind this is just a mathematical model
>>>
>>> -T
>>
>> T.  Read and believe all the material you want.
>> I haven't got the time or inclination to bother.
>>
>> Rene
>>
>>
>> Rene
>>
>
> But you do have the time to throw out insults
> and narratives.  And to a person who has only
> shown friendship towards you.
>

Calling an idiotic statement or opinion "idiotic" isn't an insult.

On 2021-08-04 2:11 p.m., T wrote:
> On 8/4/21 11:17 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>> On 2021-08-04 12:58 p.m., T wrote:
>>> Rene,
>>>
>>> This will really PISS YOU OFF!
>>>
>>> Rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and vaccination impact the fate of
>>> vaccine-resistant strains
>>>
>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95025-3
>>>
>>> More variants because of the jabs?
>>>
>>> Keep in mind this is just a mathematical model
>>>
>>> -T
>>
>> T.  Read and believe all the material you want.
>> I haven't got the time or inclination to bother.
>>
>> Rene
>>
>>
>> Rene
>>
>
> But you do have the time to throw out insults
> and narratives.  And to a person who has only
> shown friendship towards you.
>

Thanks for that, but you are so wrong on this covid-19 subject that I
no longer want to argue about it. My son and I both have the 2 shots so
that's what counts to me.

Rene

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 8/3/21 7:59 AM, Tim Slattery wrote:
>> T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It is not a vaccine. It is an mRNA Therapy
>>> (the "Jab") being mischaracterized as a vaccine.
>>
>> It trains your immune system to attack the virus. That's what vaccines
>> do. It's a vaccine.
>
>Hi Tim,
>
>You are being lied to. It is not a vaccine as it does
>not contain any part of the virus.

THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE. A vaccine teaches your immune
system to defeat the virus (or bacteria). How is does it is completely
immaterial.

> It also does not
>train your immune system. It attempts to replace
>a function of it tricking your immune system into producing
>antibodies that disappear in a year or less. Your
>body DOES NOT have the information to do it itself
>afterwards. With a real vaccine, your body does
>remember and does have the tools.

Nope. No difference.

--
Tim Slattery
tim <at> risingdove <dot> com

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

>> And that polio vaccine you took as a kid was fully
>> tested before it rolled out.
>
>LOL! A vaccine developed in the 1950s was NOT tested as extensively as a
>modern day vaccine is. The polio vaccine had several problems in the early
>days.

True. Salk actually tested his vaccine on his own family, because he
couldn't get permission for wider testing.

>We have learned from that and other vaccine issues so that today's vaccines
>are the best ever.

Amen brother.

--
Tim Slattery
tim <at> risingdove <dot> com

T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Rene,
>
> This will really PISS YOU OFF!
>
> Rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and vaccination impact the fate of
> vaccine-resistant strains
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95025-3
>
> More variants because of the jabs?

Read the article properly. The jabs REDUCE variants whereas stopping
non-pharmaceutical interventions (i.e. lockdowns and social distancing) too
soon INCREASES variants. That means get jabbed AND keep the mask on and
avoid all contacts.

> Keep in mind this is just a mathematical model

Yup. So may not be accurate.

T wrote:
> Rene,
>
> This will really PISS YOU OFF!
>
> Rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and vaccination impact the fate of
> vaccine-resistant strains
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95025-3
>
> More variants because of the jabs?
>
> Keep in mind this is just a mathematical model
>
> -T

We didn't even need a study or an article for this.

It was all predicted from the start, based on
knowing what family the virus belongs to.

There was always the possibility it would behave
like seasonal flu and need a new vaccine each year.

Notice how the poor turnout for seasonal flu vaccine,
means the vaccine program could not control it. Instead,
seasonal flu vaccine is mainly for people with pre-existing
conditions, to enhance their survivability to catching flu.
We can't hope for much more than that.

Yet, the year we wear masks ??? No seasonal flu.

And I consider the observation there, to be more
strange than any of your ideas. How is that even possible ?
It means the fomite contribution on seasonal flu,
is virtually zero.

MERS was not defeated. There are still cases of MERS every
year. Maybe the camels continue to be the reservoir. And
yet MERS is considered to be a success. I think it's
a success.

Ebola is not defeated. Ring vaccination helps control outbreaks.
There is likely an animal reservoir or something.

Every year in the US, people come to the doctors
office with Plague. And it's dealt with.

The purpose of having a vaccine, is to have a "weapon"
in hand. As is the process of analyzing offlist uses
of existing drugs (as opposed to spending a few
billion bucks designing a drug from scratch). These
are hunts for weapons, so we go into a fight "armed".

Like seasonal flu, we can *attempt* to defeat it, but
that doesn't mean we will. Instead, it's mainly a
fascinating look at writhing human nature. (Stealing
medical equipment off airport tarmacs, by giving
the vendor more money than the person that already
bought the materials. That sort of "human nature".
The screw-your-buddy type.)

Paul

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
> On 2021-08-04 2:11 p.m., T wrote:
>> On 8/4/21 11:17 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>>> On 2021-08-04 12:58 p.m., T wrote:
>>>> Rene,
>>>>
>>>> This will really PISS YOU OFF!
>>>>
>>>> Rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and vaccination impact the fate of
>>>> vaccine-resistant strains
>>>>
>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95025-3
>>>>
>>>> More variants because of the jabs?
>>>>
>>>> Keep in mind this is just a mathematical model
>>>>
>>>> -T
>>>
>>> T.  Read and believe all the material you want.
>>> I haven't got the time or inclination to bother.
>>>
>>> Rene
>>>
>>>
>>> Rene
>>>
>>
>> But you do have the time to throw out insults
>> and narratives.  And to a person who has only
>> shown friendship towards you.
>>
>
> Thanks for that, but you are so wrong on this covid-19 subject that  I
> no longer want to argue about it. My son and I both have the 2 shots so
> that's what counts to me.
>

Unfortunately unless a significant portion of the reluctant do as well
it may be moot with the next variant incarnation...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <segs3q$jln$2@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little
<lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Unfortunately unless a significant portion of the reluctant do as well
> it may be moot with the next variant incarnation...

or until they die off...

nospam wrote:
> In article <segs3q$jln$2@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little
> <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Unfortunately unless a significant portion of the reluctant do as well
>> it may be moot with the next variant incarnation...
>
> or until they die off...
>

If only it was to be confined to them, a lot of innocent folks could go
along with them.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <segtos$c7t$1@dont-email.me>, Jonathan N. Little
<lws4art@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Unfortunately unless a significant portion of the reluctant do as well
> >> it may be moot with the next variant incarnation...
> >
> > or until they die off...
> >
>
> If only it was to be confined to them, a lot of innocent folks could go
> along with them.

that's true, but currently, over 90% currently with covid are
unvaccinated.

those who have been vaccinated have a milder case, and although in some
cases may be serious, is very unlikely to result in death.

On 8/5/21 7:20 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Unfortunately unless a significant portion of the reluctant do as well
> it may be moot with the next variant incarnation...

Looking at the math behind

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95025-3

A poor therapy that allows for "breakthrough infections"
is an incubator for variants. A real vaccine
done correctly wipes the little bastards out before
they can mutate.

There is going to be a lot of finger pointing when
this is all said and done.