This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
Did you know that Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (mad cow disease) is caused by an abnormal protein and can take 10 years to materialize as symptoms and a horrible death ?
Do not draw conclusions from that which is inconclusive.
*********
No adverse effects were created by the error, data show, but Cambridge scientists found such vaccines were not perfect and sometimes led to nonsense proteins being made instead of the desired Covid “spike”, which mimics infection and leads to antibody production.
The vaccine is read well enough to create the strong protection against the coronavirus, the scientists say, but the frameshifting issue creates what was, until now, an unknown off-target effect.
The code relating to the Covid vaccines was harmless and no issues were created. However the team say that subsequent mRNA vaccines used for other diseases or infections could, in theory, lead to viable proteins being created that are active in the body.
In this scenario not only is the vaccine not making the right protein, it could lead to a rogue protein being produced.
I hate to break it to you but your ribosomes are encoding frameshifted proteins RIGHT NOW… nothing happens.
The term "nonsense proteins" was used in the story. mRNA vaxxed better start paying attention.
*********
The First Sporadic Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease Case with a Rare Molecular Subtype VV1 and 1-Octapeptide Repeat Deletion in PRNP
Genetic prion diseases show an even more heterogeneous clinical phenotype, and can be caused by three main types of mutations: Nonsense, missense and octapeptide repeat deletions (OPRD), and insertions (OPRI) in the PRNP. Currently, the list of different PRNP variants includes approximately 60 mutations. However, the penetrance of different PRNP mutations is quite variable, and with enabled large population studies some of the variants were even shown to be not or lowly pathogenic [4,5].
In the present manuscript, we report the clinical presentation and challenging diagnostic work-up of a sporadic Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease patient with confirmed VV1 subtype and heterozygous 1-octapeptide repeat deletion in th...
There has been much debate over how to get the unvaccinated to get their jabs — shame them, bribe them, persuade them, or treat them as victims of mis- and disinformation campaigns — but who, exactly, are these people? [...]R...
Others: But a correlation is insufficient on its own. What deeper analysis demonstrates the significance of the correlation?
Newname: I don’t have to show you. You prove that the correlation is insignificant.
MonkeysSkyping: OK. I’ve run these analyses. They indicate these problems with the correlation.
Newname: BuT tHerE’s A corRelatiON!
DanM: Look! A person who believed in the vaccine died! She died young! And her family wants people to donate to Sloan-Kettering and the American Cancer Society! It must be the vaccine!
Others: I’m not sure what that proves.
Newname: BuT tHeRe’S a CORreLAtioN! WhAT don’T yOu UnderstanD?
Others: Can you please offer thorough statistical analysis indicating the significance of the correlation and a clear refutation of Monkeys Skyping’s points
I hate to break it to you but your ribosomes are encoding frameshifted proteins RIGHT NOW… nothing happens.
The term "nonsense proteins" was used in the story. mRNA vaxxed better start paying attention.
*********
The First Sporadic Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease Case with a Rare Molecular Subtype VV1 and 1-Octapeptide Repeat Deletion in PRNP
Genetic prion diseases show an even more heterogeneous clinical phenotype, and can be caused by three main types of mutations: Nonsense, missense and octapeptide repeat deletions (OPRD), and insertions (OPRI) in the PRNP. Currently, the list of different PRNP variants includes approximately 60 mutations. However, the penetrance of different PRNP mutations is quite variable, and with enabled large population studies some of the variants were even shown to be not or lowly pathogenic [4,5].
Yes we know what a nonsense mutation is. Important to realize that these frameshifted translation events don’t occur from mutations… just translation errors. Which already happen all the time and the proteins created don’t have function aside from a change of immunogenicity (which the spike already is)… so?
For the last 1087 days, my genius IQ led me to the decision to remain unvaxxed. ZERO doses.
Talked to my paramedic nephew today who has vowed to ignore any further vaccine requirements for his job. He said he hasn't been the same since his last injection of mRNA goop.
If it was truly safe and effective, people would be lining up [voluntarily] to get it.
As it is, the uptake is currently anemic. Less than 15% have received the new version nation-wide. About 1/3 of the number of real flu shots.
It's because the original series worked so well. See: excess deaths and millions of lives saved.
I hate to break it to you but your ribosomes are encoding frameshifted proteins RIGHT NOW… nothing happens.
The term "nonsense proteins" was used in the story. mRNA vaxxed better start paying attention.
*********
The First Sporadic Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease Case with a Rare Molecular Subtype VV1 and 1-Octapeptide Repeat Deletion in PRNP
Genetic prion diseases show an even more heterogeneous clinical phenotype, and can be caused by three main types of mutations: Nonsense, missense and octapeptide repeat deletions (OPRD), and insertions (OPRI) in the PRNP. Currently, the list of different PRNP variants includes approximately 60 mutations. However, the penetrance of different PRNP mutations is quite variable, and with enabled large population studies some of the variants were even shown to be not or lowly pathogenic [4,5].
Others: But a correlation is insufficient on its own. What deeper analysis demonstrates the significance of the correlation?
Newname: I don’t have to show you. You prove that the correlation is insignificant.
MonkeysSkyping: OK. I’ve run these analyses. They indicate these problems with the correlation.
Newname: BuT tHerE’s A corRelatiON!
DanM: Look! A person who believed in the vaccine died! She died young! And her family wants people to donate to Sloan-Kettering and the American Cancer Society! It must be the vaccine!
Others: I’m not sure what that proves.
Newname: BuT tHeRe’S a CORreLAtioN! WhAT don’T yOu UnderstanD?
Others: Can you please offer thorough statistical analysis indicating the significance of the correlation and a clear refutation of Monkeys Skyping’s points
Newname: CORRELATION!
DanM: Gimme a sec. I’m scouring the obits.
Yeah, I have nothing but inanities.
The most vaccinated nations had the highest Covid death rates.
Why is that?
How does that support the allegation that the jab is effective?
Others: But a correlation is insufficient on its own. What deeper analysis demonstrates the significance of the correlation?
Newname: I don’t have to show you. You prove that the correlation is insignificant.
MonkeysSkyping: OK. I’ve run these analyses. They indicate these problems with the correlation.
Newname: BuT tHerE’s A corRelatiON!
DanM: Look! A person who believed in the vaccine died! She died young! And her family wants people to donate to Sloan-Kettering and the American Cancer Society! It must be the vaccine!
Others: I’m not sure what that proves.
Newname: BuT tHeRe’S a CORreLAtioN! WhAT don’T yOu UnderstanD?
Others: Can you please offer thorough statistical analysis indicating the significance of the correlation and a clear refutation of Monkeys Skyping’s points
Newname: CORRELATION!
DanM: Gimme a sec. I’m scouring the obits.
Yeah, I have nothing but inanities.
The most vaccinated nations had the highest Covid death rates.
Why is that?
How does that support the allegation that the jab is effective?
You have never showed this correlation despite insisting it for months.
When you finally provided your source, Monkeys Skyping, showed the correlation in the table was negative.
This article contains the current number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths per population by country. It also has cumulative death totals by country. For these numbers over time see the tables, graphs, and maps at COVID-19 pandemi...
Or that there is a correlation but this does not mean causation
Or that I need to age adjust.
Or that there are "confounding variables".
I have posted the official, establishment data.
The correlation between high vax nations and high covid death rates is very strong.
Ditto low vax nations and low covid death rates.
The only glaring exception being China which claims a low death rate which is viewed as very understated by the rest of the world (I trust you guys can look into this yourself; But I know you won't so here are some sources
China, which narrowed the definition of COVID mortality after it dismantled its zero tolerance approach, reported 60,000 deaths during its current outbreak
China understates the Chinese Covid death rate by 17,000% ... The true number of Covid deaths in China is not 4,636 – but something like 1.7 million. That is, China’s cumulative death toll is likely at least double that of th...
It's a New Year and it's time to consolidate some of the covid threads. We've deleted hundreds of them but it just makes more sense to be official about consolidation. So this thread is for anything related to the Covid vacci...
People who know the truth and are making a wise decision. What the hell. You vaxxers should do what you tried before. Threaten to fire them all. HA HA HA HA HA.
A surprisingly low share of nursing home staff and residents are up-to-date with their COVID-19 vaccinations, per the CDC. Two doctors offer their input on the vaccine hesitancy.
Others: But a correlation is insufficient on its own. What deeper analysis demonstrates the significance of the correlation?
Newname: I don’t have to show you. You prove that the correlation is insignificant.
MonkeysSkyping: OK. I’ve run these analyses. They indicate these problems with the correlation.
Newname: BuT tHerE’s A corRelatiON!
DanM: Look! A person who believed in the vaccine died! She died young! And her family wants people to donate to Sloan-Kettering and the American Cancer Society! It must be the vaccine!
Others: I’m not sure what that proves.
Newname: BuT tHeRe’S a CORreLAtioN! WhAT don’T yOu UnderstanD?
Others: Can you please offer thorough statistical analysis indicating the significance of the correlation and a clear refutation of Monkeys Skyping’s points
Newname: CORRELATION!
DanM: Gimme a sec. I’m scouring the obits.
Yeah, I have nothing but inanities.
This, on repeat, for FOUR YEARS without end. We're in hell.
Or that there is a correlation but this does not mean causation
Or that I need to age adjust.
Or that there are "confounding variables".
I have posted the official, establishment data.
The correlation between high vax nations and high covid death rates is very strong.
Ditto low vax nations and low covid death rates.
The only glaring exception being China which claims a low death rate which is viewed as very understated by the rest of the world (I trust you guys can look into this yourself; But I know you won't so here are some sources
Others: But a correlation is insufficient on its own. What deeper analysis demonstrates the significance of the correlation?
Newname: I don’t have to show you. You prove that the correlation is insignificant.
MonkeysSkyping: OK. I’ve run these analyses. They indicate these problems with the correlation.
Newname: BuT tHerE’s A corRelatiON!
DanM: Look! A person who believed in the vaccine died! She died young! And her family wants people to donate to Sloan-Kettering and the American Cancer Society! It must be the vaccine!
Others: I’m not sure what that proves.
Newname: BuT tHeRe’S a CORreLAtioN! WhAT don’T yOu UnderstanD?
Others: Can you please offer thorough statistical analysis indicating the significance of the correlation and a clear refutation of Monkeys Skyping’s points
Newname: CORRELATION!
DanM: Gimme a sec. I’m scouring the obits.
Yeah, I have nothing but inanities.
This, on repeat, for FOUR YEARS without end. We're in hell.
A new study published by Cambridge University Press suggests that wearing a mask may be associated with an increased risk of Covid infection.
From the study, xemptyzThe crude estimates show a higher incidence of testing positive for COVID-19 in the groups that used face masks more frequently. … The risk was 1.74 (1.38 to 2.18) times higher in those who wore face masks often or sometimes, compared to participants who reported never or almost never wore masks. xemptyzIn other words, individuals who always or almost always wear face masks have a 75% higher risk of testing positive for COVID-19 than those who never or almost never wear masks.
A new study published by Cambridge University Press suggests that wearing a mask may be associated with an increased risk of Covid infection.
From the study,
xemptyzIn other words, individuals who always or almost always wear face masks have a 75% higher risk of testing positive for COVID-19 than those who never or almost never wear masks.
Great. So you posted this to indicate that you’ve learned something and you concede points made by people who question your brick-wall approach?
Great. So you posted this to indicate that you’ve learned something and you concede points made by people who question your brick-wall approach?
Because in identifying the association, the authors state, “However, it is important to note that this association may be due to unobservable and non-adjustable differences between those wearing and not wearing a mask. Therefore, caution is imperative when interpreting the results of this and other observational studies on the relationship between mask wearing and infection risk.”
THAT’S EXACTLY the point others have made when you point to a correlation and then turn into a brick wall and follow up with useless, misleading, foolish questions about the data.
(FWIW, I would expect the results of this study to be at least somewhat meaningful; that is, I don’t think confounding factors are likely to undermine the findings. But I’d need more info to be firmer in that opinion and to have a better sense of the ramifications of it.)
A new study published by Cambridge University Press suggests that wearing a mask may be associated with an increased risk of Covid infection.
. ...
1. On the topic: I personally can think of a reasonable argument to make from this about the vaccine debate, but it’s a fairly minor one, and I have no idea if you’re actually implying the reasonable point or just using the standard tactic of using all available means to create a climate of doubt, whether that’s well-founded or not.
2. On your attitude toward your audience: There’s no point in the last few years in which I would have assumed the findings of this study to be untrue. But I suppose you frequently adopt a manichean perspective, so it’s all-or-nothing, isn’t it? I suppose also that such a perspective infects your overall understanding of the discussion here. You act as though reasonable questions are partisan attacks even when they are just the kinds of questions a neutral party might ask to arrive at well-founded facts. That manner of questioning, incidentally, is part and parcel of scientific inquiry.
3. On the data: From the Statement about data availability in that study: “The datasets generated and/or analysed in the current study are not publicly available due to them containing personal data, but will be made available.”
Fine. And if someone reading this study wanted to reserve judgment until the data were made available, that would be reasonable. It seems that you and DanM, however, tend to regard the absence of certain information as red flags if the conclusions disagree with your own but dismiss them if their findings seem to support your prior assumptions. If I’m wrong about that, please show me.
4. On associations, correlations, and what can be demonstrated or proven: As noted above, the study itself makes THE VERY statements about what data can prove and not prove that other posters have mentioned when you speak of correlations with the Wikipedia data you post (and then act as though you don’t know that there are useful questions and useless questions to ask about data. You ask useless questions then start acting though you’ve won the argument when no one answers them.). The methods of science involve very strict ways of arriving at conclusions. I haven’t seen any willingness in you to apply much rigorous thinking at all to ideas you suggest.
