Reasonable interview about CoVID-19

[jaeger19]

Here's exactly what I stated and it is at the top of your post above so anyone can check it out to see you are pretending I claimed things I did not in fact claim.
1. "It seems a lot of faith in face masks being worn by the public being effective for stopping the spread of SARS-CoV-2"

BUT.. the study is NOT about stopping the spread of Covid. Its about mask effectiveness for the wearer. Thats it. Now.. we could understand if your mistake was just ignorance. But given your stated research background.. we can only conclude that you meant to deceive people into thinking that the study spoke about community spread and mask effectiveness.

2. True but they are not as effective as randomized controlled clinical trials at establishing causality.
Whoa there cowboy... FIRST you said that observational studies were not able to establish causality. Now you admit they can. Now again.. if your mistake was just ignorance..we could understand. BUT given your stated research background.. you should KNOW that observational studies can establish causality and thus we can only conclude that your meant to again deceive people.

3. And the best for last:
Your point here escapes me but your suggestion I read the conclusions of the authors is pointless as I already read the entire study. Here are the study conclusions:

"The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees."
Hmm... read the entire study did you?

Then its interesting that you forgot to include this:
From the study:

The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon. Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting. It is important to emphasize that this trial did not address the effects of masks as source control or as protection in settings where social distancing and other public health measures are not in effect.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817

Now again.. we would let Paradox slide.. because he doesn;t know anything about science and research. But you.. you are supposedly an expert on research and as you said.. READ THE ENTIRE STUDY.
So.. the only conclusion we can make regarding the omission you made to the conclusions of the authors.. that their finding SHOULD NOT but used to conclude that wearing masks in the community would not be effective in reducing spread..
The only conclusion we can come to is that you again.. are attempting to deceive people.

 

[Ethel2]

BUT.. the study is NOT about stopping the spread of Covid. Its about mask effectiveness for the wearer. Thats it. Now.. we could understand if your mistake was just ignorance. But given your stated research background.. we can only conclude that you meant to deceive people into thinking that the study spoke about community spread and mask effectiveness.

2. True but they are not as effective as randomized controlled clinical trials at establishing causality.
Whoa there cowboy... FIRST you said that observational studies were not able to establish causality. Now you admit they can. Now again.. if your mistake was just ignorance..we could understand. BUT given your stated research background.. you should KNOW that observational studies can establish causality and thus we can only conclude that your meant to again deceive people.

3. And the best for last:
Your point here escapes me but your suggestion I read the conclusions of the authors is pointless as I already read the entire study. Here are the study conclusions:

"The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees."
Hmm... read the entire study did you?

Then its interesting that you forgot to include this:
From the study:


https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817

Now again.. we would let Paradox slide.. because he doesn;t know anything about science and research. But you.. you are supposedly an expert on research and as you said.. READ THE ENTIRE STUDY.
So.. the only conclusion we can make regarding the omission you made to the conclusions of the authors.. that their finding SHOULD NOT but used to conclude that wearing masks in the community would not be effective in reducing spread..
The only conclusion we can come to is that you again.. are attempting to deceive people.

Either that or he is not being honest about his credentials. Not saying he isn’t, but that’s another possibility. On Internet forums people are frequently pretending that they are something that they are not.

 

[jaeger19]

Either that or he is not being honest about his credentials. Not saying he isn’t, but that’s another possibility. On Internet forums people are frequently pretending that they are something that they are not.

Actually I think its an intentional plan to deceive. That's why the veneer of science and the "I just want to start a discussion".. etc.
Its very much like some of the RW "experts".. that get play in the RW media.

 

[Paradoxical]

BUT.. the study is NOT about stopping the spread of Covid. Its about mask effectiveness for the wearer. Thats it. Now.. we could understand if your mistake was just ignorance. But given your stated research background.. we can only conclude that you meant to deceive people into thinking that the study spoke about community spread and mask effectiveness.

2. True but they are not as effective as randomized controlled clinical trials at establishing causality.
Whoa there cowboy... FIRST you said that observational studies were not able to establish causality. Now you admit they can. Now again.. if your mistake was just ignorance..we could understand. BUT given your stated research background.. you should KNOW that observational studies can establish causality and thus we can only conclude that your meant to again deceive people.

3. And the best for last:
Your point here escapes me but your suggestion I read the conclusions of the authors is pointless as I already read the entire study. Here are the study conclusions:

"The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees."
Hmm... read the entire study did you?

Then its interesting that you forgot to include this:
From the study:


https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817

Now again.. we would let Paradox slide.. because he doesn;t know anything about science and research. But you.. you are supposedly an expert on research and as you said.. READ THE ENTIRE STUDY.
So.. the only conclusion we can make regarding the omission you made to the conclusions of the authors.. that their finding SHOULD NOT but used to conclude that wearing masks in the community would not be effective in reducing spread..
The only conclusion we can come to is that you again.. are attempting to deceive people.

I will withhold comment as I am amused that the newest PhD is running circles around you and the rest. Your flailing and flopping on the deck is hilarious to watch. While the imminent PhD is destroying you with his superior knowledge.

 

[RealityChecker]

"True but they are not as effective as randomized controlled clinical trials at establishing causality." RealityChecker (RC)

"Whoa there cowboy... FIRST you said that observational studies were not able to establish causality. Now you admit they can. Now again.. if your mistake was just ignorance..we could understand. BUT given your stated research background.. you should KNOW that observational studies can establish causality and thus we can only conclude that your meant to again deceive people." Jaeger19

Observational studies alone do not establish causation. They can certainly help to develop a strong case of causation when combined with other data. For example, there has never been a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of tobacco smoking causing lung cancer in people. I rather doubt we will ever see RCT in people, because it would never be approved by the IRB. However, we have RCT research in a variety of animals including monkeys that have proven tobacco smoke causes lung cancer. So when we look at the far greater risk of lung cancer in smokers compared to nonsmokers and the lower rate of lung cancer in people who quit smoking versus those the same age that continued to smoke we can combine all this strong observational evidence in people with animals and in vitro data of how chemicals in tobacco smoke cause changes in cells that lead to lung cancer we can look at all the evidence and determine tobacco smoke causes lung cancer in people.

Now the effectiveness of cloth and paper face masks in people for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections has been studied in but one RCT. That RCT (the one I provided a link too above) in Denmark found no statistically significant reduction in the cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearing vs non-mask wearing people. It did not even come close to showing a statistically significant effect. The results certainly did not prove no effect at all. Mask wearers may have had up to a 23% increase in risk or as much as a 46% reduction in infections compared to those who did not wear masks. The were 11.5% fewer infections in the mask wearers compared to the group not wearing masks. So as I noted above the data from this study show that wearing a cloth face mask in public has little or no effect on the risk of catching SARS-CoV-2. Now it was just one study so the author's stated: "Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting. It is important to emphasize that this trial did not address the effects of masks as source control or as protection in settings where social distancing and other public health measures are not in effect." This means very little. My guess it was a negotiated statement between the editors and authors.

Now if the flimsy surgical paper face masks used in this study have little or no effect on one's risk of catching SARS-CoV-2 as this study's results show is most likely true, then the results of this RCT are discouraging to those claiming such face masks are effective for protecting people wearing them from infection. There are no convincing data from any RCT showing that surgical paper masks or cloth masks slow of stop the spread. Now as any responsible healthcare worker should know making health claims that are not backed by convincing RCT is illegal (for drugs) and unethical if not quackery for devices. And yet we saw the CDC, WHO, many health professionals all claiming masks work. Based on those unproven pronouncement we saw politicians and businesses mandating people wear flimsy paper surgical masks or some sort of cloth mask in public. So telling people such masks protect people when the best evidence suggests they have little or no effect likely gave a lot of people a false sense of confidence that they were protected.

So maybe face masks do little or nothing to protect the wearer, they still might help reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by preventing an infected person from infecting others. There are zero RCT showing this is the case. The evidence we have on masks preventing the spread to others is far too weak to claim that is the case. So Jaeger19 wants us to believe that is reality but the fact remains Jaeger is at best speculating on very weak and far from conclusive data none of which shows causality. And yet we have Jaeger19 and Ethel2 claiming I am the one trying to deceive others and misrepresent the truth. Seems a tad Paradoxical doesn't it?!?

 

[minnie616]

Well from what I have seen about The Epoch Times it is not much like the National Enquirer. But I am a big fan of freedom of the press and am concerned at the growing efforts to censor people and publications that have a different political perspective. I am also not a fan of CoVID-19 "passports". There is a reason we have HIPPA regulations and empowering the Federal government to have such information and force people to get vaccinated in order to fly or go on a cruise seems wrong. A friend of mine who happens to be an MD who travels a lot got vaccinated just so he could fly. He was actually one of the first Americans to be Dx with CoVID-19 after doing a talk to a group of mostly Chinese Americans in Chicago back in late February (if memory serves). Perhaps 40% of Americans have antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and the research shows they are likely as immune to infection and likely pose no more risk than those (like myself) who have been vaccinated. Forcing all those people get vaccinated is wrong and a big waste of money. Also those vaccine they got should be going to people who are at high risk of infection and not to those who are already immune IMO.

I also was curious about the percentage of Americans who may have gained natural/earned immunity.

I just looked iup the numbers again and currently 33.4 million Americans have tested positive for Covid 19.
( the numbers I posted in the past was 26. 5 million tested positive for Covid 19 which was still under 10 percent)

Out of a population of about 331 million we are now just over 10 percent of our population who had confirmed cases.

Close to 60 percent of Americans have been vaccined.

Even if you doubled the number of confirmed cases to take into account early cases who were not tested ( but luckily who survived) because of lack of tests we still need more people vaccinated in order to reach herd immunity.

…. …..

An aside :

As for a waste of money. The vaccine costs the government about $20 a shot.
Far less than what they pay for a person hospitalized with Covid 19.
Far less than the money lost in taxes when people lose income because of sick time off.

My Blue Cross Blue Shield gave out $25 gift cards to any policy member who got a flu shot or a pneumonia vaccination this year.

It was a win/win situation it must have saved the insurance company thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

[Paradoxical]

And yet we have Jaeger19 and Ethel2 claiming I am the one trying to deceive others and misrepresent the truth. Seems a tad Paradoxical doesn't it?!?

I had nothing to do with this one.

 

[jaeger19]

I will withhold comment as I am amused that the newest PhD is running circles around you and the rest. Your flailing and flopping on the deck is hilarious to watch. While the imminent PhD is destroying you with his superior knowledge.

Yeah...okay.. whatever makes you feel better Para.

 

[jaeger19]

"

So maybe face masks do little or nothing to protect the wearer, they still might help reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by preventing an infected person from infecting others. There are zero RCT showing this is the case. The evidence we have on masks preventing the spread to others is far too weak to claim that is the case. So Jaeger19 wants us to believe that is reality but the fact remains Jaeger is at best speculating on very weak and far from conclusive data none of which shows causality. And yet we have Jaeger19 and Ethel2 claiming I am the one trying to deceive others and misrepresent the truth. Seems a tad Paradoxical doesn't it?!?

Yawn.. .. you realize that flushing sound you hear? That's the sound of your credibility being flushed down the toilet.

You purposely misrepresented the study as a study showing the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of masks in stopping the spread of infection.
You purposely mispresented the use of observational studies and finding causation
You purposely omitted the section of the study that points out that their data was inconclusive and in no way should be construed as evidence that masks don;t work to stop the spread of infection.

So pardon us if we don;t take your assertion that the "evidence we have on masks preventing the spread to others is "too weak to claim that is the case"... at your word.

Lets just start with a meta analysis and systematic review:

Face masks to prevent transmission of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis​

Results​

A total of 6 studies were included, involving 4 countries, after a total of 5,178 eligible articles were searched in databases and references. In general, wearing a mask was associated with a significantly reduced risk of COVID-19 infection (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21-0.69, I2 = 54.1%). For the healthcare workers group, masks were shown to have a reduced risk of infection by nearly 70%. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results were robust.

Conclusions​

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis support the conclusion that wearing a mask could reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection. Robust randomized trials are needed in the future to better provide evidence for these interventions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7748970/

 

[Quag]

Yeah...okay.. whatever makes you feel better Para.

Having people respond to him makes him happy.
You shoudlnt feed the trolls

 

[Paradoxical]

Having people respond to him makes him happy.
You shoudlnt feed the trolls

Quag! We used to be such good buddies! I'm shocked I tell Ya....shocked!

 

[minnie616]

Having people respond to him makes him happy.
You shoudlnt feed the trolls

I’m guilty of feeding some of the trolls who post here I will admit it.

I think it is important to share knowledge with others and there are many more views on each thread than posters, therefore when I respond I am not only addressing the person whose post I am responding to but also sharing my knowledge and research with the thread viewers as factual and researched as I am able to. I want them see the two sides as well as what other posters have said and they can make up their own minds.

I learned a long time ago that there are two sides to every coin but there is also a third side which is actually the edge and sometimes the real truth or the true fact is on the edge.

That’s why I read multiple sites regarding an issue before I decide if I agree. I have also been known to change my
mind/opinion as new evidence/data is presented/found.

Everyone of us grew up with different life experiences.

Some people are very trusting , some trust no one , and others look for conspiracy theories.

When this pandemic first started I thought the vast majority would work together to contain this virus.

Sadly, I learned too many are so divided they still believe keys stick to vaccinated people because the vaccine is magnetic. They forget the key they are using has no iron in it. It does not stop them from believing the falsehood.

Very sad.

 

[lwf]

The difference between you and me is I change my opinion if and when someone presents me with verifiable evidence my take on something is out of sync with reality. The thing I have always liked about science is that you can embrace an idea or hypothesis that no one or only a few others even think might be true yet still end up being right. Progressive leftists are far more likely to accept authoritarian rule and believe the majority ought to rule. Most people are like you, far more likely to trust and put their faith in authoritarian pronouncements than in figuring things out by understanding what logical conclusions the most credible evidence suggest is most likely true. So you may believe the SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally but if you were capable of understanding the evidence (it appears you are not) you would have read the Wade article and be realize the chances of SARS-CoV-2 developing in nature is miniscule. The fact that I have taken many advanced classes in biochemistry and physiology and several at the graduate level makes it easier for me to understand the arguments Wade makes in his article. It is clear you either did not read it or it was way above your capacity to understand why he and the two experts who wrote the article in the WSJ I have almost no doubt the SARS-CoV-2 was produced by GOF genetic manipulation. Because the evidence is so clear to me I would be happy to bet you any amount of money you can afford to lose that eventually there will be a consensus that SARS-CoV-2 did not arise naturally. How much would you like to wager?

Not confident enough to wager, but I'm from Missouri originally. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[jaeger19]

Having people respond to him makes him happy.
You shoudlnt feed the trolls

True..
But trolls turn to stone when exposed to the light...(yes that was a "geek check".)

 

[ElChupacabra]

True..
But trolls turn to stone when exposed to the light...(yes that was a "geek check".)

Then I will gladly double down.

 

[ElChupacabra]

I’m guilty of feeding some of the trolls who post here I will admit it.

I think it is important to share knowledge with others and there are many more views on each thread than posters, therefore when I respond I am not only addressing the person whose post I am responding to but also sharing my knowledge and research with the thread viewers as factual and researched as I am able to. I want them see the two sides as well as what other posters have said and they can make up their own minds.

I learned a long time ago that there are two sides to every coin but there is also a third side which is actually the edge and sometimes the real truth or the true fact is on the edge.

That’s why I read multiple sites regarding an issue before I decide if I agree. I have also been known to change my
mind/opinion as new evidence/data is presented/found.

Everyone of us grew up with different life experiences.

Some people are very trusting , some trust no one , and others look for conspiracy theories.

When this pandemic first started I thought the vast majority would work together to contain this virus.

Sadly, I learned too many are so divided they still believe keys stick to vaccinated people because the vaccine is magnetic. They forget the key they are using has no iron in it. It does not stop them from believing the falsehood.

Very sad.

I did as well. I was sure there would be skeptics and detractors; since there usually are. I did not expect it to be a nationally divisive topic though.

 

[Paradoxical]

Actually Dr. Fauci is not the nation's foremost infectious disease expert. He is however, the highest paid Federal bureaucrat in DC and like most over paid bureaucrats is far from an expert at anything other than manipulating corrupt politicians to give him more power and money to impose his ideas on others. He has contradicted himself on many points. He was told us one had to be a conspiracy nut to believe SARS-CoV-2 was produced by gain of function (GOF) research. Dr. Fauci is also on record at claiming he believed that GOF research provided more benefits than risks. He also lied to Congress that he was not funding GOF research at the WIV. Has Dr. Fauci admitted the truth that he did in fact fund GOF research at the WIV? Nope. Has he admitted his faith in GOF research had more benefits than risks? Like most power hungry bureaucrats in DC he likely will never apologize for being so wrong about whether his bureaucracy was funding GOF research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab of the infamous "Bat Lady". But anyone who understands the reality of what happened does not see Dr. Fauci as a top infectious disease expert or an honest person who can admit his mistakes. Sadly Dr Fauci incompetence and/or zeal for GOF is likely what led to this worldwide pandemic of CoVID-19.

The liberals here can be presented with a factual timeline replete with verified emails, PDFs, proof of meetings, statements in the past from Fusti and others, actual video recordings laying out a pattern of deceit and hiding information from the public and would STILL not change their minds. They are married to the narrative that it started in China and the Chinese government is filled with moral people who would never keep anything from anyone. If you mention Wuhan, they say where is the proof, If you mention that all signs point to it being manipulated by humans, they demand proof. If you show that GOF research was never stopped, they say prove it. It is a no-win with the brainwashed who hear a narrative from MSM and their tribal instincts kick in and they must believe the tribal leaders. The way they see it is that if they step out of line with the group think, they will be shunned and scorned and they cannot risk it.

 

[jaeger19]

The liberals here can be presented with a factual timeline replete with verified emails, PDFs, proof of meetings, statements in the past from Fusti and others, actual video recordings laying out a pattern of deceit and hiding information from the public and would STILL not change their minds. They are married to the narrative that it started in China and the Chinese government is filled with moral people who would never keep anything from anyone. If you mention Wuhan, they say where is the proof, If you mention that all signs point to it being manipulated by humans, they demand proof. If you show that GOF research was never stopped, they say prove it. It is a no-win with the brainwashed who hear a narrative from MSM and their tribal instincts kick in and they must believe the tribal leaders. The way they see it is that if they step out of line with the group think, they will be shunned and scorned and they cannot risk it.

Amazing bit of fiction you wrote there...
The real irony is yhat it's you right wingers that can't get out of the group think...thats why it's all conspiracies and oath taking..
Cripes..you think that all your local medical providers took some oath to make people wear masks I. Some grand conspiracy...to do what??? Who knows..but those medical providers are all in on it right??

 

[RealityChecker]

From Jaeger19's net-analysis article which he apparently believes is convincing high quality evidence that trumps the RCT by Bundgaard H. et. al.

"This investigation also had several limitations. First, all the included studies were case-control studies and lacked adequately designed and high-quality randomized controlled studies. This may reduce the overall strength of the results. Second, because more research is currently focused on the treatment and pathology of COVID-19, the total sample size of studies on the effectiveness of PPE is still relatively small. We will continue to focus on the progress of relevant population-based studies. Third, the available studies that provided data for some subgroup analyses were limited, thus the statistical power was relatively low and the results should be interpreted with caution. Fourth, this study performed a meta-analysis on the adjusted data to calculate the corresponding results, however, the included original studies did not make the same adjustments for possible confounding factors, such as gender, age, vaccination, hand hygiene, and cultural difference, and thus, the heterogeneity of the final results may be affected." Yanni Li, et al [Link for study above in Yaeger19's prior post.]

"However, we conducted a sensitivity analysis using unadjusted raw data and the results did not change the conclusion, indicating that was generally robust.
Well a meta-analysis of six small poor quality case control observational studies is what I would call weak evidence. But wait there's more Yanni Li and his cohorts: "However, we conducted a sensitivity analysis using unadjusted raw data and the results did not change the conclusion, indicating that was generally robust." Yanni Li et.al Well I guess I am not sensitive enough to realize how a "sensitivity analysis" of admittedly poor quality raw data from 6 weak observational case control studies changes anything?! Perhaps Jaeger19 can explain this to us as he no doubt is a a much more sensitive guy who understands "sensitivity analysis" and how it converts weak data from 6 problematic case controlled studies and make them robust. But then Yanni Li & Co. conclude:

"The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis support the conclusion that wearing a mask could reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection." No doubt and Jaeger19 could know more about critically analyzing clinical research than some self described RealityChecker. Yet Yanni Li's final conclusion seems a tad incongruous:

"Robust randomized trials are needed in the future to better provide evidence for these interventions." Yanni Li et.al. So what we really need are robust randomized controlled trials to determine whether or not the weak observational study data from 6 studies that Yanni and his associates rounded up for their impressive meta-analysis Jaeger19 thinks proves he's far better at critical analysis of research than the RC. Perhaps not.

 

[Quag]

I’m guilty of feeding some of the trolls who post here I will admit it.

I think it is important to share knowledge with others and there are many more views on each thread than posters, therefore when I respond I am not only addressing the person whose post I am responding to but also sharing my knowledge and research with the thread viewers as factual and researched as I am able to. I want them see the two sides as well as what other posters have said and they can make up their own minds.

I learned a long time ago that there are two sides to every coin but there is also a third side which is actually the edge and sometimes the real truth or the true fact is on the edge.

That’s why I read multiple sites regarding an issue before I decide if I agree. I have also been known to change my
mind/opinion as new evidence/data is presented/found.

Everyone of us grew up with different life experiences.

Some people are very trusting , some trust no one , and others look for conspiracy theories.

When this pandemic first started I thought the vast majority would work together to contain this virus.

Sadly, I learned too many are so divided they still believe keys stick to vaccinated people because the vaccine is magnetic. They forget the key they are using has no iron in it. It does not stop them from believing the falsehood.

Very sad.

There are often more than just 2 sides that is one of the problems some people want to make everything binary.
However in this particular case the only thing the troll craves is attention what that attention is for is irrelevant. If you dont feed them they go looking for their food elsewhere and Dp becomes a better place

 

[RealityChecker]

"The study is not peer-reviewed. It was submitted to journals, but they rejected it “because they think it’s not a priority for them,” Shrestha said. But it adds to the growing body of research that supports natural immunity existing for some time among those who contracted the illness." Zachary Stieber

I'll provide the link to this quote below but it illustrates to me a disturbing trend in scientific publications. We have seen on college campuses growing efforts to silence those who are out of sync with what I will call the progressive left's ideology. The quote above is from Dr. Nabin Shrestha, who is the head of the Department of Infectious Disease at the Cleveland Clinic [certainly one of the most prostegious medical clinic in the USA]. By contrast, if you scroll up you can find a link to a low quality study by Yanni Li that Jaeger19 provided the link to that was easily and quickly published in the Am J Ifect dis this past December. If you are more interested in science and reality than politically correct ideology you can find my assesment of this rather crappy study above. Li's study is in sync with the the Federal healthcare bureaucracy's current guidelines. Contrast this with an article I posted and provided the link to above of the only [to date] randomized control trial (RCT) on the efficacy of paper surgical face masks. This Danish RCT showed such masks provided very little or no protection against the wearer catching the SARS-CoV-2 virus [that has caused the pandemic]. Statistically while the subjects wearing the face masks did have about 11.5% fewer infections than those randomly asigned to no mask wearing group [suggesting a very small benefit] this small decline was not even close to being statistally significant. It would be like flipping a coin 10 times and getting 6 heads and concluding this proves the coin is not fair and biased toward heads.

So while anyone who understands scientific reasearch knows the 6 weak studies that made up Yanni Li's meta-analysis was quickly published the far more impressive study was delayed for many months until it appears to me they added some verbiage that made it appear the results were not at odds with the then current CDC guidelines. So now we see another study being hung up in the review process perhaps because the results suggests the current CDC guidelines on Americans getting vaccinated against the CoVID-19 vaccines even if they already had and recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. [SARS-CoV-2 is also called the CCP virus and the Wuhan coronavirus because of the now increasingly compelling evidence suggesting it was created via gentic manipulation of a naturally occurring bat coronavirus to make it far more contagious to humans]. Those more interested in the truth than in political correctness (PC) should find this apparent to me trend in the selection of articles to be published by increasingly PC scientific and clinical journals.

Here's the link to the quote above:

Study: People Who Have Recovered From COVID-19 Unlikely to Benefit From Vaccine

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Paradoxical]

"The study is not peer-reviewed. It was submitted to journals, but they rejected it “because they think it’s not a priority for them,” Shrestha said. But it adds to the growing body of research that supports natural immunity existing for some time among those who contracted the illness." Zachary Stieber

(This portion deleted by Paradoxical due to 5000 word max)

So while anyone who understands scientific reasearch knows the 6 weak studies that made up Yanni Li's meta-analysis was quickly published the far more impressive study was delayed for many months until it appears to me they added some verbiage that made it appear the results were not at odds with the then current CDC guidelines. So now we see another study being hung up in the review process perhaps because the results suggests the current CDC guidelines on Americans getting vaccinated against the CoVID-19 vaccines even if they already had and recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. [SARS-CoV-2 is also called the CCP virus and the Wuhan coronavirus because of the now increasingly compelling evidence suggesting it was created via gentic manipulation of a naturally occurring bat coronavirus to make it far more contagious to humans]. Those more interested in the truth than in political correctness (PC) should find this apparent to me trend in the selection of articles to be published by increasingly PC scientific and clinical journals.

Here's the link to the quote above:

Study: People Who Have Recovered From COVID-19 Unlikely to Benefit From Vaccine

www.theepochtimes.com

Another excellent post in a rather long series in your short time here and because your link is included in Epoch Times some here will hammer on that to discredit it and won't bother to even read it.

I am no doctor, PhD, scientist. All I am is someone who (I believe) thinks logically and clearly and uses Occam's razor to determine what is most likely the truth of a matter. Science was never intended to become politicized and should not be, because then it is not science. It is a group of people looking to get a certain result rather the the truth. We have been conditioned as a society that scientists are above reproach and would never massage the numbers or lie. In a perfect society, that would be the truth. We do not live in any such reality. Today, scientists are looking for a result that matches a leftist agenda. Even scientists are not immune to control by their particular tribe and know that if they don't conclude a certain pre-conceived result, they will be ostracized and denigrated by their peers. For instance, any deviation from the party line that global warming is a clear and present danger and solely caused by humans will be dealt with harshly against any scientist that says that.

For over a year now, Fauci has lied to the American people. It took a FOIA to get emails and even though they implicate him and others in a cover-up, the emails were still heavily redacted. WHY would they be? What "National Security" issue allows them to hide (redact) his emails? Is the same Stae Department who ordered no mention of Wuhan doing the redacting? We are a manipulated and controlled humanity with faceless people in the State Department hiding information from us not just on Wuhan but on many other things. Here we have had millions of people die and they hide the facts/ What kind of world is humanity accepting? We all should be marching in the White House, Congress, and the Senate demanding answers.

As for being vaccinated after already having COVID, I have read that it is useless. It is just common sense. I don't need a PhD to know this. I also don't need to be a scientist or doctor to know that Pfizer and other Big Pharm companies donate MILLIONS to the CDC each year and these vaccines are "FREE" to the ones getting them, but cost $20.00 a pop, not including booster shots,

Twenty bucks times 300 million = 6 billion times two or three booster shots. THERE is the reason the evil ones CLAIM that you still need the vaccine even if you already had Covid.

 

[minnie616]

"The study is not peer-reviewed. It was submitted to journals, but they rejected it “because they think it’s not a priority for them,” Shrestha said. But it adds to the growing body of research that supports natural immunity existing for some time among those who contracted the illness." Zachary Stieber

I'll provide the link to this quote below but it illustrates to me a disturbing trend in scientific publications. We have seen on college campuses growing efforts to silence those who are out of sync with what I will call the progressive left's ideology. The quote above is from Dr. Nabin Shrestha, who is the head of the Department of Infectious Disease at the Cleveland Clinic [certainly one of the most prostegious medical clinic in the USA]. By contrast, if you scroll up you can find a link to a low quality study by Yanni Li that Jaeger19 provided the link to that was easily and quickly published in the Am J Ifect dis this past December. If you are more interested in science and reality than politically correct ideology you can find my assesment of this rather crappy study above. Li's study is in sync with the the Federal healthcare bureaucracy's current guidelines. Contrast this with an article I posted and provided the link to above of the only [to date] randomized control trial (RCT) on the efficacy of paper surgical face masks. This Danish RCT showed such masks provided very little or no protection against the wearer catching the SARS-CoV-2 virus [that has caused the pandemic]. Statistically while the subjects wearing the face masks did have about 11.5% fewer infections than those randomly asigned to no mask wearing group [suggesting a very small benefit] this small decline was not even close to being statistally significant. It would be like flipping a coin 10 times and getting 6 heads and concluding this proves the coin is not fair and biased toward heads.

So while anyone who understands scientific reasearch knows the 6 weak studies that made up Yanni Li's meta-analysis was quickly published the far more impressive study was delayed for many months until it appears to me they added some verbiage that made it appear the results were not at odds with the then current CDC guidelines. So now we see another study being hung up in the review process perhaps because the results suggests the current CDC guidelines on Americans getting vaccinated against the CoVID-19 vaccines even if they already had and recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. [SARS-CoV-2 is also called the CCP virus and the Wuhan coronavirus because of the now increasingly compelling evidence suggesting it was created via gentic manipulation of a naturally occurring bat coronavirus to make it far more contagious to humans]. Those more interested in the truth than in political correctness (PC) should find this apparent to me trend in the selection of articles to be published by increasingly PC scientific and clinical journals.

Here's the link to the quote above:

Study: People Who Have Recovered From COVID-19 Unlikely to Benefit From Vaccine

www.theepochtimes.com

This article was peer reviewed:

The vaccines induced robust reactivity levels, including antibodies against the full-length spike protein, S1 and S2 subunits, and the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which binds to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor on host cells. Cross-reactive antibodies between the spike protein and RBD induced by the vaccine could possibly provide protection against emerging variants.

This differs from the response from natural infection, which had weak antibody levels against RBD but produced the highest levels of antibodies against nucleocapsid protein (NP) antigens. Anti-nucleocapsid antibodies weren’t affected by the vaccines and could indicate prior natural exposure.

After the second dose of the vaccine, antibody titers were up to 10 times higher than those of patients who had recovered from natural COVID-19 infection, suggesting that even those with prior exposure could benefit from vaccination.

The study also found that people who have had prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2 had a stronger immune response to the vaccine, developing antibody levels faster than those who hadn’t been exposed to the virus.

Weekly monitoring of 9 individuals before and after vaccination showed differences in responses to first and second doses of the vaccine and suggested that for many individuals a more robust response only occurred after the second shot.

Immune Response From mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Is More Robust Than Natural Infection

Antibody levels induced by mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are much higher than those induced by natural infection and confer cross-reactivity that could be effective against new variants, a new study from the University of California, Irvine, found.

www.contagionlive.com

 

[Paradoxical]

This article was peer reviewed:

The vaccines induced robust reactivity levels, including antibodies against the full-length spike protein, S1 and S2 subunits, and the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which binds to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor on host cells. Cross-reactive antibodies between the spike protein and RBD induced by the vaccine could possibly provide protection against emerging variants.

This differs from the response from natural infection, which had weak antibody levels against RBD but produced the highest levels of antibodies against nucleocapsid protein (NP) antigens. Anti-nucleocapsid antibodies weren’t affected by the vaccines and could indicate prior natural exposure.

After the second dose of the vaccine, antibody titers were up to 10 times higher than those of patients who had recovered from natural COVID-19 infection, suggesting that even those with prior exposure could benefit from vaccination.

The study also found that people who have had prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2 had a stronger immune response to the vaccine, developing antibody levels faster than those who hadn’t been exposed to the virus.

Weekly monitoring of 9 individuals before and after vaccination showed differences in responses to first and second doses of the vaccine and suggested that for many individuals a more robust response only occurred after the second shot.

Immune Response From mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Is More Robust Than Natural Infection

Antibody levels induced by mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are much higher than those induced by natural infection and confer cross-reactivity that could be effective against new variants, a new study from the University of California, Irvine, found.

www.contagionlive.com

Well, well, well......lookey what we have here from that report.

Pfizer announced recently that individuals who received the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine will most likely need a third dose within 12 months of being fully vaccinated, and annual vaccinations may be necessary.

A third dose and annual vaccination!! Kaching Kaching for Pfizer, all paid for by our newly constructed socialist health system that gives them out for FREEEEE! No one cares that we go into more debt for these shots or that Pfizer donates heavily to the CDC.

Nothing to see HERE folks! Run along now!

 

[Ethel2]

Well, well, well......lookey what we have here from that report.



A third dose and annual vaccination!! Kaching Kaching for Pfizer, all paid for by our newly constructed socialist health system that gives them out for FREEEEE! No one cares that we go into more debt for these shots or that Pfizer donates heavily to the CDC.

Nothing to see HERE folks! Run along now!

Golly! You mean you actually have to pay to protect your health?
What a novel idea!