PCR-Test Cycle Threshold Issue

No.

I deal with PhD's will lots of really interesting problems all the time. I don't start out by debating fine points of science and how they may or may not fit their hypotheses, I start out by saying "if you hypothesis is true, it will produce the following effect. Do we see that effect?" I've done the same here. You say the vaccines aren't vaccines and don't prevent Covid 19. They clearly do. You say the vaccine represents a health risk in excess of any benefits they yield. They clearly do not. I don't need to debate the minutia of your posts when your entire hypothesis is wrong on it's face. At a minimum, a hypothesis must explain all of the observed data. People with the vaccine are not getting COVID-19 for the most part and when they do it is mild. You must explain that as part of any hypothesis before it can be considered seriously.

Anyone is free to go back just one page to see that, like your previous posts, your new post does not address anything I've brought to your attention. Frankly, I think you're having a bad reaction to being shown what a recent study from the Salk Institute has determined:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

". . . but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

What do you think they were saying?

And why did the CDC turn the cycle threshold of the PCR-test down to 28 for for the people who've received the experimental injection, but not for the ones who've refused it?

Because none of it matters. There is no need to debate a hypothesis that doesn't explain the observed data. If you presented reams of links saying the vaccines turn people's hair green, I wouldn't bother to read all your detailed supporting data because no one's hair has turned green. Your hypothesis does not explain the observations. The death rate of vaccinated people has dropped to near zero. The rate of illness is way, way down. That is all the refuting data I need.

Okay, so you don't care to paraphrase the results of a study done by the Salk Institute because you consider their findings concerning the spike protein's damaging effects to humans to be a hypothesis. You're free to dismiss them, but I would love to hear your interpretation of their findings before you do.

Ever hear of VAERS? Many here have not.

You're still ignoring the CDC's decision to turn the cycle threshold of the PCR-test down for the people who've received the experimental injection, and to leave it up at 40 cycles for the people who've refused it. What on earth do you make of that, or is that a hypothetical, toof?

That's been explained to you as well. A well known mathematical technique often applied to medical studies (often medical studies are used as examples when discussing Bayes Theorem) and well accepted.

And VAERS? That's been used (misused?) by the anti-vax movement forever. Reports to VAERS don't mean that events were caused by vaccines, just that something happened around the time a vaccine was administered. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/06/28/fact-check-covid-19-vaers-death-reports-not-verified/7587577002/

I know, right! Why even allow for the existence of VAERS when the data is useless for the purpose of telling us anything about what it sets out to do?

The inventor of the mRNA platform warned of consequences. The Salk Institute warned of consequences, and proved it with their study. But that's just a coincidence, right? The inventor of the mRNA platform and the Salk Institute coming to the same conclusion regarding the damaging effects of injecting spike-proteins.

But I'll allow for the possibility that I've grossly misinterpreted the statement below.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
". . . but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

However, you'll have to actually explain how that statement doesn't mean what it clearly says. So . . .

So show me the people hurt from the vaccine. 600,000 unvaccinated dead Americans so far, plenty more around the world probably wished the had the vaccine.

What you're implying is that all of the deaths and injuries from the experimental injection reported to VAERS is not to be trusted.

The mainstream media won't even pick up on what the inventor of the mRNA platform--verified by a Salk Institute study--had to say about injecting spike-protein into people. You think the Salk Institute discovery was newsworthy? Sure it was, but . . .

It wasn't on tv and so it doesn't exist, kind of like VAERS data.

Now come on.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

". . . but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, what does this tell you about injecting spike proteins into people? I mean, you must have some thoughts about what was said there. Are you going to dismiss them like you dismiss VAERS?

No, I'm saying correlation is not causation.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Previous studies have shown a similar effect when cells were exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wow! You're in some kind of denial there, eh? So, you think they're talking correlation? You need to take off your blinders and listen to what is being said for once.

What they said has nothing to do with correlation. They said their study SHOWED that damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike-protein ON ITS OWN! Why don't you explain how that points to only a correlation?

Nice try, but I was talking about the reports to the VAERS database and yes, just because someone took a vaccine and then had something happen does not mean that the vaccine was the cause. Just because you just saw a black cat does not mean it caused you to trip and hit your head.

The report is talking about exposure to the spike protein from viral infection. Do you take a little dose to prevent infection or a massive dose when infected? You talk out of both sides of your mouth here. Exposure to a small dose of spike proteins to produce an immune response is insanity but after exposure to huge quantities 98% of people survive so no big deal? Make up your mind. If you are so afraid of the slightest exposure to the spike protein, you should be shivering in fear from Covid-19.

Still, you fail the big test and I'm not sure why that doesn't give you pause. 150 million vaccinated Americans are not getting sick, not infecting their loved ones, not ending up in hospitals, not dying. People are still dying of COVID in the US, just not vaccinated people.

Where did they come up with this conclusion, again?

The study confirms that the spike protein alone causes damage.

And did you just say that the study was working with real viral infections?

Yeah, about that, I'm not so afraid of the spike-protein that I'm going to hysterically run out to have someone inject me with something that, according to Salk Institute, will damage me just to get less than an extra one percent protection.

Besides, I would decline tony's advice to those infected with it to stay home and wait, and when it gets real bad, go to the hospital. I'd do something more proactive.

What is the survival rate?

Here's Joe's take on the experimental injections:

“You are not going to get COVID,” he promised during a CNN town-event Wednesday night, “if you have these vaccines.”

Of course, that's a lie. So, joe is either knowingly lying, or he has no idea what he's talking about. He appears to be in as much denial as those here who believe that giving the experimental injection to people in nursing homes on their deathbeds makes total sense.

Listened to an NPR article this morning on long term cognitive damage done by Covid. You seem completely willing to expose yourself to massive quantities of the spike protein because you consider a 1-2% risk acceptable, but the overall risk to your quality of life is substantially higher. Data continues to poor in showing that even break through infections are mild, rarely require hospitalization and rarely have long term effects. Still, your position is inconsistent. If you think exposure to Covid is no big deal, you should no concerns about exposure to the vaccine. If you think exposure to the spike protein is a very big deal, you should be rushing out to get the vaccine to prevent the massive exposure (and potential long term health effects discussed in the study you linked) that comes with getting the virus.

First of all:

The study confirms that the spike protein alone causes damage.

And did you just say that the study was working with real viral infections?

Now:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

". . . but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

What are they saying there?

Exactly! If exposure to the spike protein can cause long term damage, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU RISK THE VIRUS SPAWNING MILLIONS OF THEM IN YOUR BODY? The biggest source of spike proteins is the virus.
Even if you survive, this doesn't seem like a good scenario. Why are you advocating it?

This is funny. You wonder why I would risk allowing the spike protein to potentially damage me by not getting the experimental injection, while you get in line to have the actual spike proteins pumped into you. You haven't thought this through, have you?

By the way, in order to avoid giving the impression that you are willfully avoiding this, why don't you address it?

First of all:

The study confirms that the spike protein alone causes damage.

And did you just say that the study was working with real viral infections?

Now:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

". . . but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

What are they saying there?

And what was Joe talking about here? Is there any truth to what he is saying?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

“You are not going to get COVID,” he promised during a CNN town-event Wednesday night, “if you have these vaccines.”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Well one of hasn't.

Correct! One of us hasn't thought it through.

Of course, that would be you because you are the one singing the praises of an experimental injection that creates the spike-protein you're guarding against.

You must feel somewhat betrayed by the medical authorities who are throwing you under the bus by not alerting you to this:

LA JOLLA—Scientists have known for a while that SARS-CoV-2’s distinctive “spike” proteins help the virus infect its host by latching on to healthy cells. Now, a major new study shows that the virus spike proteins (which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines) also play a key role in the disease itself.

The paper, published on April 30, 2021, in Circulation Research, also shows conclusively that COVID-19 is a vascular disease, demonstrating exactly how the SARS-CoV-2 virus damages and attacks the vascular system on a cellular level. The findings help explain COVID-19’s wide variety of seemingly unconnected complications, and could open the door for new research into more effective therapies.

Representative images of vascular endothelial control cells (left) and cells treated with the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein (right) show that the spike protein causes increased mitochondrial fragmentation in vascular cells.

Credit: Salk Institute

“A lot of people think of it as a respiratory disease, but it’s really a vascular disease,” says Assistant Research Professor Uri Manor, who is co-senior author of the study. “That could explain why some people have strokes, and why some people have issues in other parts of the body. The commonality between them is that they all have vascular underpinnings.”

Salk researchers collaborated with scientists at the University of California San Diego on the paper, including co-first author Jiao Zhang and co-senior author John Shyy, among others.

While the findings themselves aren’t entirely a surprise, the paper provides clear confirmation and a detailed explanation of the mechanism through which the protein damages vascular cells for the first time. There’s been a growing consensus that SARS-CoV-2 affects the vascular system, but exactly how it did so was not understood. Similarly, scientists studying other coronaviruses have long suspected that the spike protein contributed to damaging vascular endothelial cells, but this is the first time the process has been documented.

In the new study, the researchers created a “pseudovirus” that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2 classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus. Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and arteries of an animal model—proving that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls.

The team then replicated this process in the lab, exposing healthy endothelial cells (which line arteries) to the spike protein. They showed that the spike protein damaged the cells by binding ACE2. This binding disrupted ACE2’s molecular signaling to mitochondria (organelles that generate energy for cells), causing the mitochondria to become damaged and fragmented.

Previous studies have shown a similar effect when cells were exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own.

“If you remove the replicating capabilities of the virus, it still has a major damaging effect on the vascular cells, simply by virtue of its ability to bind to this ACE2 receptor, the S protein receptor, now famous thanks to COVID,” Manor explains. “Further studies with mutant spike proteins will also provide new insight towards the infectivity and severity of mutant SARS CoV-2 viruses.”

The researchers next hope to take a closer look at the mechanism by which the disrupted ACE2 protein damages mitochondria and causes them to change shape.

Other authors on the study are Yuyang Lei and Zu-Yi Yuan of Jiaotong University in Xi’an, China; Cara R. Schiavon, Leonardo Andrade, and Gerald S. Shadel of Salk; Ming He, Hui Shen, Yichi Zhang, Yoshitake Cho, Mark Hepokoski, Jason X.-J. Yuan, Atul Malhotra, Jin Zhang of the University of California San Diego; Lili Chen, Qian Yin, Ting Lei, Hongliang Wang and Shengpeng Wang of Xi’an Jiatong University Health Science Center in Xi’an, China.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Shaanxi Natural Science Fund, the National Key Research and Development Program, the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University; and Xi’an Jiaotong University.

https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Would you like to retract your statement that this study points only to a correlation and not to causation?