0
   

PCR-Test Cycle Threshold Issue

 
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2021 07:45 am
@Glennn,
Allow me to highlight key parts of your post.
Glennn wrote:

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.

Virus proteins play a key role in the disease. Get it? Not the "safely encoded" ones in the vaccine. You are avoiding getting a small dose of safely encoded spike proteins but opening yourself up to mass quantities of disease causing spike proteins from the virus. How does this make sense to you?
Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2021 08:05 am
@engineer,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
". . . 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 talking about?

Earlier you said:

The report is talking about exposure to the spike protein from viral infection. Are you still sticking with that story? What virus spike-protein were they referring to?
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2021 08:21 am
@Glennn,
Yes, that is what they are talking about! Yes, yes, yes! Spike proteins from the virus!

All this is pretty clear. Not sure why you keep denying it other than to be perverse. In the same post, you say spike proteins can cause long term cell damage then say the survival rate of exposure to the virus (which generates millions of the spike proteins the paper refers to) is 98%+ so no big deal and no worries about long term effects. It feels like you are bitterly complaining about a mosquito bite but waving off a shark attack as inconsequential.
Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2021 09:03 am
@engineer,
Quote:
Yes, that is what they are talking about! Yes, yes, yes! Spike proteins from the virus!

Yeah but you said the study done by the Salk Institute was talking about spike protein from viral infection. That's not true. There was no virus used in their study. Perhaps you should go read what they've actually said. Then you wouldn't look like someone making untrue statements, hoping I won't catch you. But I caught you . . .
Quote:
In the same post, you say spike proteins can cause long term cell damage . . .

No. Dude! Read the findings of the frickin' study!! I'm not the one who said that the spike-protein will damage you on its own WITHOUT the virus. That was the conclusion of a study done at the Salk Institute. If you continue to deny their conclusion, I guess we'll just chalk that up to your unwillingness to accept the facts right from the horse's mouth.
Quote:
It feels like you are bitterly complaining about a mosquito bite but waving off a shark attack as inconsequential.

Really, cuz let me tell you how it looks from this side. You're mindlessly disregarding the fact that the study proved that the protein-spike alone causes lots of damage. And to make matters worse for yourself, you also mindlessly disregarding the fact that the medical authorities did not alert you to the conclusion of the study that proves that the spike-protein alone will cause you physical damage. So, why do you not trust the good people at the Salk Institute when they tell you what they've discovered? You and they have a past you're not telling me about? Did you catch them in lies and don't rely on their expertise anymore?
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2021 09:35 am
@Glennn,
Here is the link from the Salk Institute.

THE NOVEL CORONAVIRUS’ SPIKE PROTEIN PLAYS ADDITIONAL KEY ROLE IN ILLNESS

See what they did there? "Coronavirus spike protein". The spike proteins are generated by the virus. Once you get the virus, you get lots and lots of spike proteins. You are flipping out about getting a few engineered spike proteins to generate an immune response and ignoring all the spike proteins you get from the virus. If you think spike proteins are bad regardless of where they come from then do everything in your power to not get the virus because that is where you are going to get inundated with spike proteins.

Again from the Salk Institute
Quote:
Understanding the Spike Protein

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. A new study co-led by Assistant Research Professor Uri Manor and UC San Diego shows that the proteins also play a key role in the disease itself. The study 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.


Get it? They are talking about Covid 19 and the spike proteins it generates. I appreciate your passion, but it is misplaced. The vaccines are preventing and ameliorating a virus that produces deadly short term effects and potential long term effects. The evidence of that is already overwhelming and is building daily. What else is apparent now is that the vaccines do not produce "COVID-19’s wide variety of seemingly unconnected complications". You routinely imply the vaccine is worse than the disease. There is absolutely nothing to back that up but plenty to back up the opposite. I can't make you get the vaccine but you are taking a serious risk for no payback. In a cost/benefit type analysis, there is no cost, there is serious benefit.
Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2021 10:31 am
@engineer,
Quote:
Here is the link from the Salk Institute.

Wow! Where did you find that? It looks so familiar . . . oh yeah, I've already provided you with that link. That kinda tells me that you didn't read it, or you did read it but forgot that you did. Either way . . .

From "your" link:

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.
Quote:
You are flipping out about getting a few engineered spike proteins

A few, you say? Well how many is a few. Let's compare notes on this one. What have you heard?

You are free to disregard VAERS data out of hand. Others are not so inclined, especially in light of what the Salk Institute has said about what the spike-protein does when it enters your body system.
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2021 11:26 am
@Glennn,
The Salk Institute's interpretation is that this represents a risk from the VIRUS. It's in the title to the article. "THE NOVEL CORONAVIRUS’ SPIKE PROTEIN PLAYS ADDITIONAL KEY ROLE IN ILLNESS". It doesn't say the vaccine spike protein, it says the CORONAVIRUS SPIKE PROTEIN. Don't know what else there is to say here. You want to interpret the report as only pertinent to the vaccine when it's pretty clear the authors intended it to be applicable to spike proteins from the virus. Even if you applied it to both the vaccine and the virus you should be VERY CONCERNED about the virus.
Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 28 Jul, 2021 03:28 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
It doesn't say the vaccine spike protein, it says the CORONAVIRUS SPIKE PROTEIN.

Ah, so you're saying that the spike-proteins in the experimental injections are benign and will not behave in your cells the same as the virus spike-protein does. Is that your point?

Also, you said it is better to have a few spike-proteins from the experimental injection than from the virus. I asked you how many you consider to be a few. What have you heard?
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2021 06:42 am
*bump*
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2021 08:38 am
A really good article summarising many of the arguments made in this thread, and a few new ones.

https://thepulse.one/2021/07/27/want-to-get-to-70-vaccine-coverage-mr-president-heres-how-you-do-it/
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2021 11:04 am
@Leadfoot,
This info. from the NIH contradicts what this guy says about Ivermectin.
Leadfoot
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2021 11:29 am
@InfraBlue,
Your reading is different than mine. They say they don't know and they want more study. This is not a contradiction.

And, they have a vested interest in NOT HAVING ALTERNATIVES TO THE 'VACCINE'. (IF only to keep them from looking like fools. In that they fail.)

I see they already changed their tune on vaccination and 'freedom from masks'. **** their lying asses. They lie by ommission and every other way.
Glennn
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2021 04:21 pm
https://healthimpactnews.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/07/unvaxed-vs.-vaxed-meme.jpg

It would appear that the people who want the experimental injections are not at all hard to please.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Jul, 2021 09:38 pm
@Leadfoot,
the NIH saying they don't know and they want more study, and your guy's assertion of 80-85% effectiveness rate in preventing Covid infection is verily contradictory. Your reading is a misapprehension.
Leadfoot
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2021 07:05 am
@InfraBlue,
So you lied, no contradiction if NIH doesn't know. Don't know means just that, get it?

Your opinion of my apprehension abilities noted. Yours now in question.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Jul, 2021 10:50 pm
@Leadfoot,
Where does this guy get his assertion of an 80-85% effectiveness rate that the NIH doesn't know about, I mean, other than from his butt?
Leadfoot
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2021 09:16 am
@InfraBlue,
So you admit there is no contradiction.
His credentials were in the article.

Thank you.
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Sat 31 Jul, 2021 11:12 am
@Leadfoot,
When you go by "alternative facts" you do have a contradiction.
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 1 Aug, 2021 06:47 am
@InfraBlue,
That's exactly right. For instance, there are people in other threads at this very moment talking about the stupidity of opting out of the experimental-injection- program. And they do this despite the fact that it doesn't confer immunity.

Maybe I should start a thread about what motivates these pro-experimental-injection people to continue pretending that they're receiving immunity when they're receiving no such thing. Or, maybe you could enlighten us right here in this thread . . .
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Aug, 2021 12:42 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

And they do this despite the fact that it doesn't confer immunity.

If you're referring to the mRNA vaccines, that's incorrect. They do confer immunity.

I already responded to your incomprehension here. Your obtuseness is another issue.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/17/2021 at 01:21:12