Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.
Saving the environment one swab at a time 
(bonus points for the āprobeā pun)
1 Like
High temp, UV or radiation sterilization, no problem.
Just washing it with tap water, hell no.
Doubt it. You put those bits of dead virus RNA in a PCR machine and itāll still amplify those bits of dead virus.
Up to 60% of new cases are from those vaccinated:
I guess it depends on whether you were recorded as vaccinated or actually vaccinatedā¦
1 Like
The comments explain whatās going on there (completely expected, IMO).
Personally, if I ever have to get a vaccine certificate, Iād happily bribe them not to press that plunger as long as they still give me the stupid piece of paper.
That guy is worth googling. This record of testimony before the senate on the subject of hydroxychloroquine (I didnāt even know such a thing even happened) might be interesting:
It took me two seconds to check this.
7 Likes
It sounded a bit unlikely, didnāt it. The question is: if itās so blatantly false, why has Yale not hauled him up on this? Why on earth would he say something thatās so easily falsifiable? I really donāt understand whatās going on here.
2 Likes
Sign of the times? Desire to just get lies out there in the hopes that some stick for various different agendas? Like the recent lie regarding how Biden is pushing for less red meat eating. Strange. Maybe pernicious is the better word.
Donāt people worry about getting fired if theyāre show to be egregiously wrong?
Anvisa, the Brazilian drug agency, said that every single lot of the Ad5 Gamaleya shot that they have data on appears to still have replication-competent adenovirus in it.
Apropos of nothing ā¦ Iāve just noticed that some videos and ads on YouTube have the following disclaimer tacked onto them:
āFootage shot prior to covid-19 restrictionsā
Presumably so that the witchhunter-general doesnāt pounce on them for failing to show everyone wearing their āPPEā.
Youāre missing the point - share the misinformation/anecdote first, ask critical questionsā¦never. If someone corrects you, ignore the correction and go find something else on Twitter. Itās the cake way.
2 Likes
I was waiting for Mr Obsessed.
Go ahead and do likewise with everything I have posted from links.
I am sure you will enjoy pulling up every single bit of āmisinfomationā as you call it.
Funny how you will never question letās say government āmisinformationā or those whom work in pharma and have vested interests.
Itās the Andrew way.
Thereās no real obsession - I just respond to the misinformation you incessantly post and apparently donāt understand enough to question. Could the latter not be considered an obsession?
What is your purpose in posting this stuff to a discussion forum, if not to discuss and perhaps learn something? Havenāt you noticed that Iām one of perhaps three or four people who actually respond to you, the rest presumably just not considering your posts worth engaging with?
I literally donāt know what this means. If the government or pharma says something wrong/dubious, I question it. Those entities have flaws too, obviously, but itās nothing compared to the constant stream of stuff youāre putting out. (I also donāt respond to every topic - it doesnāt necessarily denote agreement. Iām also not that interested in the political aspects, especially in relation to the UK etc., having not lived there for over a decade.)
I think there are several factors. The first is academics arenāt generally good at making their point clear to us mere mortals. The second is if we are questioning the source of information then Iām not quite sure where we go if we are writing off a professor of epidemiology from Yale. Is anything we donāt agree with therefore must be ignored?
My, amateur, take on what he said was lockdowns are counterproductive once the virus has kicked off. Heās questioning the effectiveness of vaccinated herd immunity. Time will tell to what degree heās right, but he is a genuine expert. Thatās not to say that experts are never wrong, of course.
Weāll see over time whether 50 percent of new Covid cases had been vaccinated. I doubt it, but Iām no expert.
I was referring to his ā60% of new cases are vaccinated peopleā. I donāt think there are many possible alternative interpretations.
Iām not writing him off. Iām wondering what on earth is going on. That ā60%ā thing is either true or itās false, and itās a falsifiable statement - one can (presumably) look at the records and come back with a yay or a nay.
- So if itās false, you would expect him to have been hauled over the coals.
- If itās true, then ā¦ well, consider my mind well and truly blown. Why arenāt other academics coming out in support?
I flagged up the Senate report for the same reason. What on earth was all that about? It seems to suggest that hydroxychloroquine is pretty effective (for unknown reasons), but that was the last we ever heard of the matter.
I got the impression that he was questioning the effectiveness of the vaccine itself. If his statement is true, then either the vaccine is not working as well as they say it does, or it takes much longer for the effect to kick in than they say it does.
I wasnāt saying that you were writing him off. I apologise if my post read that way. I was saying that if other posters ignore a Yale professor of epidemiology because of the source, then is there anything we donāt ignore?
As you say, why would he come up with a 50 or 60 percent figure if it were nonsense?
Good one. Like I said you can pull it up and āfact checkā links I send.
Speaking of links, I didnāt know posting links was frowned upon in discussion forums. Maybe for you and your ilk.
The ones whom respond in a negative way seem quite wound up at almost anything I post regarding C19. I obviously upset them. Probably because they feel threatened. I donāt get wound up when someone champions say lockdowns or claims the Earth will end without a vaccine.
But it feels like the narrative by government sponsored media has worked on many so much so that they cannot handle anything beyond the spoon fed news.
And I suggest you donāt judge your perceptions as the same as others.