There are 104 comments.

1. Inactive
   Ontheleftcoast

   @Ontheleftcoast

   7:28 AM EDT ⋅ Aug 18, 2021

   EJHill (View Comment):

   The situation has been a clusterfark from the get-go.

   When they tell you the efficacy of the shots dropped from 95% to 41%, the higher number may have been a myth to begin with. But nobody wants to say, “We don’t know.”

   In the rush to get this to market the trials excluded vast swaths of people: pregnant women, people with allergies, people with HIV and other immunocompromised individuals – all of the people they now wave a hand at and say, “Ehhhh, you should be fiiiiine.” But nobody wants to say, “We don’t know.”

   They also excluded people with previous Covid infections. They have no idea if this new style of vaccine resets or enhances natural immunity. But nobody wants to say, “We don’t know.”

   The vaccines may accelerate the mutation process. But nobody wants to say, “We don’t know.”

   And nobody, outside of a few lonely voices like Jay Bhattacharya, wants to say the bloody obvious: It’s here to stay. As long as mammals other than humans can host the virus, it’s not going to eradicated. You will get it. Your cat might get it. The deer munching on your cabbage in the garden will most likely have it.

   The virus that caused the 1918 pandemic, N1H1, is still with us. And as a species we learned to adapt to its presence.

   They are also using different PCR testing methods for immunized (IIRC 28 or 30 cycles, more likely to generate false negatives) and non-immunized (38 or 40 cycles; a level at which many, many false positives are certain occur.) 

2. Member
   The Reticulator

   @TheReticulator

   9:50 AM EDT ⋅ Aug 18, 2021

   Saint Augustine (View Comment):

   Bob Thompson (View Comment):
   I only know one anti-vaxxer here at Ricochet . . . .

   I don’t even know one.

   There is one person opposed to these vaccines, and maybe to some other vaccine, but, as I recall, she is also a fan of the polio vaccine and other classic ones.

   Sometimes people slip up and say more than they probably meant to. 

3. Member
   The Reticulator

   @TheReticulator

   9:51 AM EDT ⋅ Aug 18, 2021

   Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
   They are also using different PCR testing methods for immunized (IIRC 28 or 30 cycles, more likely to generate false negatives) and non-immunized (38 or 40 cycles; a level at which many, many false positives are certain occur.) 

   How could “they” possibly have the information on which to base different criteria? (Different criteria, not different methods.)

4. Coolidge
   DaveSchmidt

   @DaveSchmidt

   2:28 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 18, 2021

   I am more concerned about how we protect the rights of those who don’t get vaccinated. 

5. Member
   Bob Thompson

   @BobThompson

   2:41 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 18, 2021

   DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

   I am more concerned about how we protect the rights of those who don’t get vaccinated.

   Exactly. We thought we had that with the Constitution and its amendments but the facts seem to be that even though that is the supreme law of the land there is no punishment for violations maybe no remedies at all except sometimes we say stop doing that.

6. Member
   DrewInWisconsin, Oaf

   @DrewInWisconsin

   2:46 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 18, 2021

   Bob Thompson (View Comment):

   DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

   I am more concerned about how we protect the rights of those who don’t get vaccinated.

   Exactly. We thought we had that with the Constitution and its amendments but the facts seem to be that even though that is the supreme law of the land there is no punishment for violations maybe no remedies at all except sometimes we say stop doing that.

   Warning, bad language in this video.

   I’m speechless 💔 pic.twitter.com/urykZgUsRN

   — LADY AMINA (@Alpha_Mind7) August 17, 2021

7. Member
   Bob Thompson

   @BobThompson

   2:53 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 18, 2021

   DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

   Bob Thompson (View Comment):

   DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

   I am more concerned about how we protect the rights of those who don’t get vaccinated.

   Exactly. We thought we had that with the Constitution and its amendments but the facts seem to be that even though that is the supreme law of the land there is no punishment for violations maybe no remedies at all except sometimes we say stop doing that.

   Warning, bad language in this video.

   This should be a medical licensing issue right here but nothing will happen.

8. Coolidge
   Fake John/Jane Galt

   @FakeJohnJaneGalt

   2:54 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 18, 2021

   Bob Thompson (View Comment):

   DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

   I am more concerned about how we protect the rights of those who don’t get vaccinated.

   Exactly. We thought we had that with the Constitution and its amendments but the facts seem to be that even though that is the supreme law of the land there is no punishment for violations maybe no remedies at all except sometimes we say stop doing that.

   The constitution is a dream.  A historic document.  It has been a long time since it was an actual law if it ever was.  I think that is what the Deplorables discovered with Trump.  They thought the country and its laws worked one way.  Turns out that it does not.  That law is basically just the whims of those in power that have the will and the force to make it so.  Even elections are not honest.  Just blatantly cheat and when some of the people that believe in law show up do some bad optics stuff and lock them up for as long as they want.  I hope the Constitution survives what is coming.  Maybe it will be resurrected afterward once the Gods of the CopyBook Headings are done.

9. Coolidge
   Flicker

   @Flicker

   2:58 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 18, 2021

   I’m late to this discussion, because I was completely turned off by the assumption in the post’s title.  I’m glad to see that the argument now is about citizen’s rights, and not ways to manipulate or coerce those who don’t want to get vaccinated to get vaccinated.

10. Member
    Bob Thompson

    @BobThompson

    2:59 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 18, 2021

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    I am more concerned about how we protect the rights of those who don’t get vaccinated.

    Exactly. We thought we had that with the Constitution and its amendments but the facts seem to be that even though that is the supreme law of the land there is no punishment for violations maybe no remedies at all except sometimes we say stop doing that.

    The constitution is a dream. A historic document. It has been a long time since it was an actual law if it ever was. I think that is what the Deplorables discovered with Trump. They thought the country and its laws worked one way. Turns out that it does not. That law is basically just the whims of those in power that have the will and the force to make it so. Even elections are not honest. Just blatantly cheat and when some of the people that believe in law show up do some bad optics stuff and lock them up for as long as they want. I hope the Constitution survives what is coming. Maybe it will be resurrected afterward once the Gods of the CopyBook Headings are done.

    Here is a comment of mine from another thread today:

    How much of all the wrongdoing, corruption, criminal acts and grief dumped on innocent, well-behaved, law-abiding Americans comes from no other causes than the overgrown bureaucracy and regulatory state headquartered in Washington, DC?

    If we separate those employed by or contracted by government at all levels whether they be in the political, legal and law enforcement, security and intelligence, accounting, banking and finance, education, or medical fields (and those I missed), all of these people are subject to influence and corruption, including bribes and blackmail and other forms of intimidation. These are those who once voiced that they had principles of honesty and integrity and we see then that they fall to the inducements or intimidation of those whose hands are deep in the till. Some are just crooked with no pretense, but many fall into the trap of doing these things to protect their careers and their families and loved ones from threatened acts that can destroy their lives.

    Some of what I have said there I would support by what was revealed during the Trump Administration at the NSA, CIA, FBI, the riots in cities all of 2020, the legal crimes that brought down Arthur Anderson, the pharmaceutical giant that oiled the opiod crisis for profit, the Lois Lerner type at the IRS, on and on, the corruption has no end and grows with the bureaucracy. The little people face this at the individual level every day with all the regulatory conforming they must engage and that is what we see now with Covid.

     

11. Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast

    @Ontheleftcoast

    5:00 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 18, 2021

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    How could “they” possibly have the information on which to base different criteria? (Different criteria, not different methods.)

    “They:” (Fauci, the CDC, etc?)

    As late as July 2020, Dr. Redfield of the CDC told CNN Correspondent Sanjay Gupta that the US needed a viable COVID19 testing strategy. Nothing has changed since July. As a result these failures, testing paradigms have been modified to include repeat testing via the same or different PCR tests a few days later. This window of testing leads to delay, additional cost, and can result in disparate test results in the same patient. The result is a shift to diagnose every respiratory illness case – test result or no – as COVID19 (suspected or “confirmed”). The absence of influenza diagnosis is further evidence of this fact. False positives mean that “confirmed” does not mean confirmed. The reality is that the testing paradigm that has emerged is one in which individuals with one, or two, or even zero positive PCR test results are given a positive COVID19 diagnosis, leading (necessarily) to inaccurate reports in the number of cases and numbers of death (Ealy et al., 2020). False positive results can have serious clinical consequences ranging from inappropriate treatment of respiratory illnesses (e.g., bacterial pneumonia misdiagnosed as “COVID19”) and delays in emergency surgery (Katz et al., 2020) and misattribution of cause of death.

    PCR Test Escape Variants Detected – And More Expected

    Evidence suggests that widespread qRT-PCR testing alone – without sequencing – has led to – and will continue to lead to – test escape by new variants. The UK variant (202012/01 aka B.1.1.7, 20I/501Y.V1) which is widely considered to be “more transmissible” has seven variants in the nucleotide sequences encoding the spike protein; one of the primers in the spike region fails with the UK variant. Before this was discovered, the UK variant diagnosis was likely 50% less sensitive due to the S-gene dropout because the algorithm for the test requires ⅔ of primers pairs to each successfully amplify its target amplicon. The role of escape of the test for the UK variant contributing to its spread until the testing algorithm allowed 2/2 positive primer pairs results instead of the original ⅔ is certain. Further, a study found that 8.5% of all known mutations among SARS-CoV2 variants were located in known qRT-PCR primer sites, leading the authors to suggest the use of two different qRT-PCR assays per patient, which is untenable, complex, expensive and wasteful.

    This entire debacle began when CDC shipped flawed tests in March 2020. Ask any competent laboratory technician or molecular pathologist: PCR tests by themselves cannot be gold-standard clinical test; the FDA gold-standard for the validation of PCR tests is Sanger nucleotide sequencing (FDA, 2020). This technique was used by Lee (2020) to determine that a reference sample set not only included 20% false positives, but also 30% false negatives.

    False negatives make vaccines or treatments look better than they are.

12. Member
    The Reticulator

    @TheReticulator

    6:35 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 18, 2021

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    How could “they” possibly have the information on which to base different criteria? (Different criteria, not different methods.)

    “They:” (Fauci, the CDC, etc?)

    As late as July 2020, Dr. Redfield of the CDC told CNN Correspondent Sanjay Gupta that the US needed a viable COVID19 testing strategy. Nothing has changed since July. As a result these failures, testing paradigms have been modified to include repeat testing via the same or different PCR tests a few days later. This window of testing leads to delay, additional cost, and can result in disparate test results in the same patient. The result is a shift to diagnose every respiratory illness case – test result or no – as COVID19 (suspected or “confirmed”). The absence of influenza diagnosis is further evidence of this fact. False positives mean that “confirmed” does not mean confirmed. The reality is that the testing paradigm that has emerged is one in which individuals with one, or two, or even zero positive PCR test results are given a positive COVID19 diagnosis, leading (necessarily) to inaccurate reports in the number of cases and numbers of death (Ealy et al., 2020). False positive results can have serious clinical consequences ranging from inappropriate treatment of respiratory illnesses (e.g., bacterial pneumonia misdiagnosed as “COVID19”) and delays in emergency surgery (Katz et al., 2020) and misattribution of cause of death.

    PCR Test Escape Variants Detected – And More Expected

    Evidence suggests that widespread qRT-PCR testing alone – without sequencing – has led to – and will continue to lead to – test escape by new variants. The UK variant (202012/01 aka B.1.1.7, 20I/501Y.V1) which is widely considered to be “more transmissible” has seven variants in the nucleotide sequences encoding the spike protein; one of the primers in the spike region fails with the UK variant. Before this was discovered, the UK variant diagnosis was likely 50% less sensitive due to the S-gene dropout because the algorithm for the test requires ⅔ of primers pairs to each successfully amplify its target amplicon. The role of escape of the test for the UK variant contributing to its spread until the testing algorithm allowed 2/2 positive primer pairs results instead of the original ⅔ is certain. Further, a study found that 8.5% of all known mutations among SARS-CoV2 variants were located in known qRT-PCR primer sites, leading the authors to suggest the use of two different qRT-PCR assays per patient, which is untenable, complex, expensive and wasteful.

    This entire debacle began when CDC shipped flawed tests in March 2020. Ask any competent laboratory technician or molecular pathologist: PCR tests by themselves cannot be gold-standard clinical test; the FDA gold-standard for the validation of PCR tests is Sanger nucleotide sequencing (FDA, 2020). This technique was used by Lee (2020) to determine that a reference sample set not only included 20% false positives, but also 30% false negatives.

    False negatives make vaccines or treatments look better than they are.

    Whatever it is that you quoted, it doesn’t anwser my question.

13. Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast

    @Ontheleftcoast

    4:12 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 22, 2021

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    How could “they” possibly have the information on which to base different criteria? (Different criteria, not different methods.)

    I took your question to be “how could the CDC decide to use different criteria?”

    What would the clinical benefit for any given patient be to use a test that underestimates her 

    “Positive test” in “vaccinated population” is a proxy for “vaccine prevents transmission,” a statement common in provaxx propaganda.

    It is true to the extent that preventing large viral loads in “cases” if by that you mean people with a new or ongoing SARS-CoV2 infection from any strain.

    The question then arises whether PCR technology as widely used can accurately test this. It cannot. There are methods that can; the linked paper describes them. They are not used.

    Both false positives and false negatives are clinically problematic in infectious disease

14. Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast

    @Ontheleftcoast

    3:54 AM EDT ⋅ Aug 23, 2021

    Nohaaj (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):
    Sounds like the vaccine worked perfectly for you.

    This is the point where I scream and shake my fist at the computer screen. Her post clearly stated that both poked and non-poked people in her household had identical low impact symptoms. As I understand, most people without poke, have low impact symptoms. How can you, good doctor, claim the vax worked perfectly or reduced the severity of the symptoms? There is no possible control experiment to validate that claim.

     

    “Anecdotes are not data!” (Except when they confirm my biases.)