Topic: Is AstraZeneca vaccine: safe or not safe? - page 2. (Read 397 times)

Just bought another 'compound' in the center of a city so there is a whole bunch of actual work to do.  The travel hassles are making it extra hard to get business stuff done.  The 'good news' for the rich people who could see this thing a mile away (because they were either part of the planning or good at analysis) is that a lot of people are getting hungry and under pressure to sell their real property.  'They' always arrange 'cycles' to facilitate extraction...like squeezing a cow's teat cyclically to allow it to re-fill...and it's relatively easy to read them and go along for the ride.  Especially if one is not ignorant of history.

Oileo is trying to play so stupid with the concept of holes in material, fractions, and statistics, that there is nothing much else to say.  The people who've eaten his shit to date are probably lost causes and without even the potential to 'get it'.  Ever.

I noticed that tvbcof hasn't answered you in a long time. He's probably embarrassed with the idea of playing nursemaid to you and the rest of the medical all the time. Anybody who thinks about it a little, knows that a mask doesn't catch all the particles. And that even a bad mask might catch a particle or two, here or there once in a while.

Wrong again. The control group were over four times more likely to wear medical masks than wear cloth masks (170 v 38). You really need to stop making it obvious you either haven't read the paper or can't understand it. It's embarrassing for you.

Also, although it might pass on the conspiracy videos you call "evidence", science really doesn't work by saying "Well, I think it's a fair bet, so it must be true".

Ahh, Schrödinger's mask. It simultaneously traps the virus while also letting it pass right through.

...coupled with relatively high rates of non-compliance by the way.  Anyway, when they were wearing a cloth mask it is a null result.  They didn't seem to have trouble finding people wearing cloth masks so it's a fair bet that much of the time that was what the control group was wearing when they felt like wearing anything.  The differential between the cloth mask vs. control and control vs. medical doesn't seem to allow it, especially in the case of ILI.

Of course there is also a difference between picking up something during a limited study period and evading a _coronavirus_ for a year until an injection is ready.  Anyone who cannot see the difference, or even entertains the notion that such a thing is practical, is not in my opinion a very realistic person (to be polite about it.)

An alternate hypothesis is that straping a rag to your mouth all day not only causes the nasty visible effects of mask-mouth, but also traps the aerosolized virus (which zip right through the masks) allowing re-infection in a cycle.  A correlary is that that might have been the whole idea since cloth masks, and near zero quality control or training, were enthusiastically welcomed by the vax pushers.

[/quote]

Again, we now have the data from Texas and Florida.  Masks don't seem to do shit for 'infection' really.  They are a political and psychological tool to keep people in a state of panic and hopelessness and prep them for the injections.

^^^ Do the tests even show the dozens of other ways that people might have adverse effects from wearing masks? You know, other than that one kind of mask might block a few of the larger droplets better than another kind of mask?

Given that the control group wore either mask, the results are perfectly in keeping with medical masks being superior to cloth masks, which is exactly what the authors concluded. Medical masks > mixed masks > cloth masks. There is absolutely no evidence to support any conjecture regarding no mask at all. Since you refuse to actually read the study, here are some direct quotes. Emphasis mine throughout:


Trying to draw any conclusions from a control group of 2 people is completely laughable, but also irrelevant since those people were excluded from the analysis anyway.

Try actually reading the paper next time.

Put on your thinking cap and see if you can follow this:  One group wears medical masks.  One group wears cloth masks.  One group wears one of cloth masks, medical masks, or nothing.  They go maskless more than the other groups.

Now, the cloth mask people had the worst outcome as far as getting sick.  Your only argument might be that the amount of time the control group people were wearing medical masks was so protective that it overcame the different and greater threat of maskless vs. cloth.  That's a stretch (if not mathematically impossible) given the relative differences in the three groups.

I would have gladly volunteered to be in the deliberately maskless group if it were 'ethical' to have such a group, but then I have a functional immune system and have not been scared shitless about a coronavirus which my chances of dying from are about 0.001%  This study was before the plandemic of course, so I'd have to adjust.  If I was working in a ward with, say, TB, then I would use a mask due to the way that particular bacteria is spread in that particular disease.  Masks do have their place...it just isn't with aerosolized virus spread over a long duration.


Congratulations on finding a bonafide error for a change.  I should have said 'medical masks'.


We are all still waiting with baited breath for the massive catastrophe you guys promised in Texas and Florida on account of their governors inviting the peeps to throw the mask in the trash and start living as humans again.  What gives?

every year is a common cold flu season.
so while you are ignorant of the excess deaths.
so while your ignorant that the symptoms are not the same as common cold/flu(no runny nose)
so while you are ignorant of the excess deaths that show the lung damage

maybe just maybe your repeated rants that include scripted buzzwords like "plandemic'.. reveals not just that you are not having an independent thought or research on the topic. but also revealing which conspiracy crapsite you are using as reference for your scripted nonsense

repeating a scripted nonsense post does not verify the nonsense as anything else but repeated nonsense

I'll debunk your nonsense for the second time, but really, you should try actually reading the study rather than just skimming the abstract and assuming it fits your narrative.

That's not what the trial shows, at all. It shows that medical masks are better than cloth masks. That's all. The control arm of people who are "free to wear what they want" as you put it only had 2 people out of 458 who wore no mask at all. I'd hardly call that "often wearing nothing at all".

N95 masks were not studied in this trial, at all. In fact, the three people who did wear a N95 were actively excluded.

It is impossible to make this claim based on this trial since there was not a "no mask" control group. You are speculating based on nothing at all.

That much is clearly evident given the above.

Cloth masks (the type most people are told to wear) are much worse at stopping infection than when people are free to wear what they want when they want and often wear nothing at all (aka 'non-compliance').

In all groups (cloth, control, and N95) the 'protection' is pretty poor at stopping jack actually.  You can lower your risk some for some things, but if you are in some sort of a 'global pandemic' from aerosolized virus for years on end, you are gunna get hit no matter what you do.

I really don't specialize in remedial reading so I cannot help you much more than that...'Doctor'.

---

Thankfully the plandemic was a fraud built mostly on the season's common cold, or something fairly non-threatening built on top of it,  Most people got it and got over it without even knowing it as is the common case.  After the several month block typical of a coronavirus lifecycle the hype was build completely on fraudulent testing and mainstream media lies and scaremongering.

'They' needed an excuse to fuck with spike protein for reasons which will become all to apparent in the coming years.  The 'gain of function' seems to be to get the spike protein a legitimate target, but as a SARS-cov-2 constituent it was, thankfully, not a big deal for most people.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.56060372

What an easy out on the digging you promised.  'Doctor'.

What a long winded way of saying "I have no evidence".

Dig all you like 'doctor'.  Your hole just gets deeper.

Good thing for fake doctors like yourself that they can state that a published paper resulting from a double-blind study says the opposite of what it actually says and an army of mouth-breathing drones will just go with it 'because doctor'.  That's the world we live in.  Kudo's for understanding the grift and executing it fairly well.

Have you finally found some evidence to back up your often-repeated-but-never-substantiated claim? Or should I go dig up that one post one made where you actually attempted to provide proof of your nonsense, only to realize the trial you linked to actually proved the exact opposite of what you thought it did?

Edit: Can't wait for a link to some conspiracy moron's bitchute vlog as "evidence".

Even in your formulation, it is not a 'slippery slope'.

For one, there is no 'disaster' in having the peeps crawl around on all fours and it might have some advantages.  Especially for the fashion knee-pad and glove industry.

For two your 'P', wearing masks or socks or whatever to 'fight against' an aerosolized coronavirus starts out stupid AF by any medical or scientific standards (except for psychological torture which is why the same techniques have been seen in places like Gitmo.)  Add on face-shields and it becomes truly clown-world from the get go.

You do perfectly reasonable thing P (wear a mask), therefore you would also do stupid thing Q (crawl around on all fours), and even more stupid thing R (convince other people to crawl around on all fours), therefore P is also stupid/we shouldn't do P.

Pretty much textbook definition of a slippery slope fallacy.

Good strategy!  If your comment makes no contextual sense whatsoever, just snip the original.  Genius!

If no other option is available, why would you take the risk of AstraZeneca vaccine and get into trouble of short breathing ?  I understand that taking no vaccine can be a risk too but i would not prefer to take a dose of poison and hopes nothing happens to me for 2 weeks. Ahhhh.....

Careful you don't injure yourself on that slippery slope you built there.