Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Corono
Jan 5, 2022 20:09:07 GMT
via mobile
Andrew likes this
Post by Esponja on Jan 5, 2022 20:09:07 GMT
"Israeli study reports fivefold jump in antibodies with 4th Pfizer vaccine shot"Woohoo! Great news! The fourth shot is working!  yep....for a few weeks  After we loose a few guinea-pigs. Nothing to see. There was never a pandemic in the first place. An important point to keep remembering. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Corono
Jan 6, 2022 2:25:16 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2022 2:25:16 GMT
"Israeli study reports fivefold jump in antibodies with 4th Pfizer vaccine shot"Woohoo! Great news! The fourth shot is working! yep....for a few weeks I notice you took that story that the shot effectiveness "starts to decline after 10 weeks" and changed it to "it stops working after 10 weeks", and now you're down to "a few weeks". But I get your point. It's pretty good business model for Pfizer if you have to renew it every 6-12 months. Combine that with their lackeys in the media not questioning the process, and it's pretty obnoxious. |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,345
|
Corono
Jan 6, 2022 2:36:15 GMT
Post by Andrew on Jan 6, 2022 2:36:15 GMT
yep....for a few weeks I notice you took that story that the shot effectiveness "starts to decline after 10 weeks" and changed it to "it stops working after 10 weeks", and now you're down to "a few weeks". But I get your point. It's pretty good business model for Pfizer if you have to renew it every 6-12 months. Combine that with their lackeys in the media not questioning the process, and it's pretty obnoxious. In my reply to Farmer I was joking a bit, because I sensed in his tone that he was joking. Yes, 10 weeks (not 'a few weeks') has been the message in the UK....though the rhetoric has been more than 'starts to decline after 10 weeks'....it's....'your booster will have declined sufficiently to warrant a 4th jab'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2022 8:47:49 GMT
I notice you took that story that the shot effectiveness "starts to decline after 10 weeks" and changed it to "it stops working after 10 weeks", and now you're down to "a few weeks". But I get your point. It's pretty good business model for Pfizer if you have to renew it every 6-12 months. Combine that with their lackeys in the media not questioning the process, and it's pretty obnoxious. In my reply to Farmer I was joking a bit, because I sensed in his tone that he was joking. Yes, 10 weeks (not 'a few weeks') has been the message in the UK....though the rhetoric has been more than 'starts to decline after 10 weeks'....it's....'your booster will have declined sufficiently to warrant a 4th jab'. Your sense was correct! If big pharma was a good neighbor the vax would be free to any and all that wanted it... But that's not how the world works That doesn’t necessarily deny the effectiveness of their products though |
|
|
|
Corono
Jan 6, 2022 17:29:31 GMT
Post by Figgles on Jan 6, 2022 17:29:31 GMT
In my reply to Farmer I was joking a bit, because I sensed in his tone that he was joking. Yes, 10 weeks (not 'a few weeks') has been the message in the UK....though the rhetoric has been more than 'starts to decline after 10 weeks'....it's....'your booster will have declined sufficiently to warrant a 4th jab'. Your sense was correct! If big pharma was a good neighbor the vax would be free to any and all that wanted it... But that's not how the world works That doesn’t necessarily deny the effectiveness of their products though You're right, it doesn't really say anything at all about effectiveness, but it does give insight into their overriding interest and unfortunately, that lends to reasons why they wouldn't want to own up to ineffectiveness or safety issues. Greed is a powerful motivator. One of the reasons I had trust in the study kids went into for their genetic disorder, is that the guy who started up the pharma company and got things rolling with the new drug, did so because he had a daughter with the same disorder and she'd been deteriorating slowly with death impending and he was trying to find something to slow it/stop it....seemed to me to be pretty clear that the motivation there was pure. |
|
|
|
Corono
Jan 6, 2022 18:15:14 GMT
Post by Figgles on Jan 6, 2022 18:15:14 GMT
Canadian dude talking about a new publication that gives credence to Geert Vanden Bossche's theory of immune escape:
Vaccines and virus evolution - COVID-19 mRNA vaccines update 25
Merogenomics
110K subscribers
In this second series video on Omicron infectiousness predictions, we look at the data from a group specializing in predictive modelling of variant infectivity as well as variant immune escape from neutralizing antibodies. We also discuss authors’ latest published work on how vaccination might be influencing virus evolution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Corono
Jan 6, 2022 18:47:07 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2022 18:47:07 GMT
Your sense was correct! If big pharma was a good neighbor the vax would be free to any and all that wanted it... But that's not how the world works That doesn’t necessarily deny the effectiveness of their products though You're right, it doesn't really say anything at all about effectiveness, but it does give insight into their overriding interest and unfortunately, that lends to reasons why they wouldn't want to own up to ineffectiveness or safety issues. Greed is a powerful motivator. One of the reasons I had trust in the study kids went into for their genetic disorder, is that the guy who started up the pharma company and got things rolling with the new drug, did so because he had a daughter with the same disorder and she'd been deteriorating slowly with death impending and he was trying to find something to slow it/stop it....seemed to me to be pretty clear that the motivation there was pure. Sure, greed can lead to evil (if such a word has meaning to you), and the Sackler family of Purdue Pharma getting all those folks hooked on narcotics is a prime example. But you can't use an isolated example to indict the entire industry. Just like you can't use isolated examples of vaccine harm to condemn the entire program. |
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Jan 6, 2022 19:25:24 GMT
You're right, it doesn't really say anything at all about effectiveness, but it does give insight into their overriding interest and unfortunately, that lends to reasons why they wouldn't want to own up to ineffectiveness or safety issues. Greed is a powerful motivator. One of the reasons I had trust in the study kids went into for their genetic disorder, is that the guy who started up the pharma company and got things rolling with the new drug, did so because he had a daughter with the same disorder and she'd been deteriorating slowly with death impending and he was trying to find something to slow it/stop it....seemed to me to be pretty clear that the motivation there was pure. Sure, greed can lead to evil (if such a word has meaning to you), and the Sackler family of Purdue Pharma getting all those folks hooked on narcotics is a prime example. But you can't use an isolated example to indict the entire industry. Just like you can't use isolated examples of vaccine harm to condemn the entire program. Pfizer, in particular, has been fined and lost billions in court settlements and verdicts multiple times in the past. Just like with the car companies it's a cost/benefit analysis that drives their marketing decisions, not the ostensible "FDA safety" process. If the dollar benefits to pushing the chemical exceed the expected dollar costs of the fines and settlements then they push. It doesn't matter whether the crap does what they promise it does or is toxic in other ways. Why do you believe them now? |
|
|
|
Post by ghostofmuttley on Jan 6, 2022 19:43:08 GMT
In my reply to Farmer I was joking a bit, because I sensed in his tone that he was joking. Yes, 10 weeks (not 'a few weeks') has been the message in the UK....though the rhetoric has been more than 'starts to decline after 10 weeks'....it's....'your booster will have declined sufficiently to warrant a 4th jab'. Your sense was correct! If big pharma was a good neighbor the vax would be free to any and all that wanted it... But that's not how the world works That doesn’t necessarily deny the effectiveness of their products though The vax is quite obviously not preventing infection, and the data on whether it ameliorates the illness seems to me to be in the dispute of the fog of information war. Their organizational sociopathy is only relevant in so far as that they are knowingly making, distributing and influencing the corrupt politicians to finance that distribution of an ineffective chemical, and what is also unclear to me in that fog of information war is whether or not what they're distributing is dangerous. On balance, I believe (yes Bolie, I believe!) that it is. |
|
|
|
Corono
Jan 6, 2022 20:45:54 GMT
Post by Figgles on Jan 6, 2022 20:45:54 GMT
You're right, it doesn't really say anything at all about effectiveness, but it does give insight into their overriding interest and unfortunately, that lends to reasons why they wouldn't want to own up to ineffectiveness or safety issues. Greed is a powerful motivator. One of the reasons I had trust in the study kids went into for their genetic disorder, is that the guy who started up the pharma company and got things rolling with the new drug, did so because he had a daughter with the same disorder and she'd been deteriorating slowly with death impending and he was trying to find something to slow it/stop it....seemed to me to be pretty clear that the motivation there was pure. Sure, greed can lead to evil (if such a word has meaning to you), and the Sackler family of Purdue Pharma getting all those folks hooked on narcotics is a prime example. But you can't use an isolated example to indict the entire industry. Just like you can't use isolated examples of vaccine harm to condemn the entire program. So how many examples would you say you DO need to indict/condemn the entire industry or the entire program? |
|
