Why Life Jackets Should Be Mandatory

@glitterbag,

Hi, glitterbag,

No. You just think my treatment of willful ignorance is too harsh.

Hey, have you looked into that shady institute I brought to your attention previously? The Salk Institute? No doubt you did. I remember you were very suspicious of them. You should thank me for setting you straight. Can you imagine if someone would have mentioned the Salk Institute in the course of your day, and you had said that it sounded like a shady organization, like you thought of VAERS? They'd probably wonder why you speak before thinking. But that won't happen now.

You're welcome!

So, on a scale of one to ten, how angry would you rate this post? Do keep in mind that I refrained from reminding you that when it came to the PCR-test being set too high, you assumed the character and intellect of someone who insists that "set too high" was way too complicated a concept for us common folk to understand. After all, I don't want to embarrass you.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

So, in other words, you're not an experienced microbiologist and you are relying on prepackaged answers you've collected from anti-vax, covid-denying, "alternative medicine" sites or getting help making your argument from people like maxdancona!

2 Replies

@hightor,

For the record, I said that Glennn (like Hightor) is ignoring facts about the Covid epidemic. I wouldn't say I am supporting Glennn any more than I am supporting Hightor.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

For the record, I said that Glennn (like Hightor) is ignoring facts about the Covid epidemic.

Okay, what facts did I "ignore"? I never denied that the chance of an unvaccinated person either being hospitalized or dying from covid is very small. Nor did I mention anything about the risk to young, healthy people. I'm not discussing covid, I'm criticizing the stupid video. The only point I'm making is that the video is inept.

Quote:

Neither Glennn nor Hightor are representing the facts completely...

The only relevant fact is that the analogy between an individual drowning and a societal pandemic is faulty and ineffective.

Quote:

I wouldn't say I am supporting Glennn any more than I am supporting Hightor.

Who cares?

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

prepackaged answers you've collected from anti-vax . . .

Why on earth would you continue to embarrass yourself by taking the position that these quotes are somehow forged and meaningless. If you actually believe that someone made up all these statements that come from some of your heroes, why don't you cite something that will support that silly notion. For instance, you might provide a quote from tony or the medical temple monks expressing their dismay at having been misquoted and misrepresented.

Start with the one that you're sure has been misquoted by the notorious anti-experimental-injection people for the purpose of deceiving you. Then we'll see if your conspiratorial idea that all of these quotes have been fabricated to fool you holds any water.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” — The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

“PCR-based testing produces enough false positive results to make positive results highly unreliable over a broad range of real-world scenarios.” — Andrew N. Cohen, Ph.D.1*, Bruce Kessel, M.D.2, Michael G. Milgroom, Ph.D.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v3.full.pdf

“…all or a substantial part of these positives could be due to what’s called false positives tests.” — Michael Yeadon: former Vice President and Chief Science Officer for Pfizer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch7wze46md0&t=90s

“…false positive results will occur regularly, despite high specificity, causing unnecessary community isolation and contact tracing, and nosocomial infection if inpatients with false positive tests are cohorted with infectious patients.” — The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(20)30614-5/fulltext

“…you can find almost anything in anybody…it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you…” — Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD (Nobel Peace Prize Winner inventor of the PCR test)

https://maskoffmn.org/#kary

“I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine.” — Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and protease developer

“…up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus.” — The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness.” — Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” — Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“PCR does not distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid” — Barry Atkinson: National Collection of Pathogenic Viruses (NCPV) Eskild Petersen: infectious disease specialist

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30868-0/fulltext

“Detection of viral RNA does not necessarily mean that a person is infectious and able to transmit the virus to another person” — The World Health Organization

“Caution needs to be applied to the results as it often does not detect infectious virus. PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.” — The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/infectious-positive-pcr-test-result-covid-19

“The challenge is the false positive rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the the virus. So the truth is, we can’t just rely on that…” — Dominic Raab – First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-covid-19-testing-tragic-waste/5729700

“positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite.” — FDA

https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

“A positive RT-qPCR result may not necessarily mean the person is still infectious or that he or she still has any meaningful disease.” — Michael R Tom, Michael J Mina

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2252/5841456

“…no single gold standard assay exists. The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%.” —Dr. Elena Surkova; Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy – Public Health Englamd; Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College

“…detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR does not necessarily equate to infectiousness, and viral culture from PCR positive upper respiratory tract samples has been rarely positive beyond nine days of illness[/i].” [/i]— Muge Cevik, clinical lecturer1 2, Krutika Kuppalli, assistant professor3, Jason Kindrachuk, assistant professor of virology4, Malik Peiris, professor of virology5Francis Drobniewsk – Professor of Global Health and TB, Imperial College
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

Why on earth would you continue to embarrass yourself by taking the position that these quotes are somehow forged and meaningless.

I never said they were "forged and meaningless". I remarked that you are not a medical specialist and that you rely on sites which aggregate all these pre-packaged statements and quote them removed from any meaningful context.

In any case, your position is of no interest to me; I really don't care what you believe. I just want you to explain why you think the analogy between an individual drowning and a societal pandemic is valid. I think comparing an individual wearing a life preserver to a pandemic-threatened population being vaccinated is stupid.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

I don't think you are harsh, I think you are angry. It's certainly alright with me that you're angry, my day stays the same. It must take a lot of time to ferret thru all that anger to try and insult people. But hey, it's your time, enjoy your retirement.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

I never said they were "forged and meaningless". I remarked that you are not a medical specialist and that you rely on sites which aggregate all these pre-packaged statements and quote them removed from any meaningful context.

Wrong! The context of those quotes is quite clear. I've 0ffered you the opportunity to prove otherwise, but you have nothing but your assurance that your unfounded beliefs can be counted as fact.

Quote:

In any case, your position is of no interest to me

Your fingers say no, but your presence says YES!

Now, you go out and buy yourself four life jackets cuz that's your new definition of what it takes to make a quality product work.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

I just want you to explain why you think the analogy between an individual drowning and a societal pandemic is valid.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Ya know what? You're right. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have went at you like that. I should have just told you to ponder the fact that you're just too . . . uninformed and thin-skinned for this game and left it at that.

It is not my desire to expose your recently acquired ignorance of the concept of "set too high," and "doesn't distinguish between covid and the flu." But if you want to keep pretending that it's complicated, I'm going to keep setting you straight. I owe you that much.

1 Reply

@hightor,

The analogy is between a life jacket and the experimental-injection. You needed two, then a booster, and probably another booster. You know a good deal when you see one, don't you?

Did you buy four life jackets?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

You needed two, then three, now a booster.

You might be confused – while a fourth vaccination is being discussed in Israel, the protocol here is still three.

Quote:

Did you buy four life jackets?

That stupid question will not rescue a hopelessly misapplied analogy. If someone needed to be saved from drowning four different times, yes they would be offered life jackets four different times. Under certain circumstances they might even be using their own life jacket four different times. People who are drowning don't normally buy life jackets; nor are they charged for them if they are rescued.

Vaccines are given serially; the course of inoculation is determined by the character of the disease and the speed at which it mutates. Water doesn't mutate. Life jackets don't offer temporary immunity from drowning. Life jackets aren't designed to work in different types of water. Drownings do not occur at the rate of an epidemic. The analogy fails on multiple levels.

1 Reply

@hightor,

You're using the life jacket analogy to avoid answering for your conspiratorial thinking that all of those quotes were taken out of context. HA! You're using it as a life jacket to avoid sinking into the ridiculousness of your ill-conceived theory that actual quotes are nonactual and don't mean what they clearly say.

I'll offer you yet another chance to prove your case and tell me how I took those quotes out of context.

A booster how often?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Hey, live it up, it's your time.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

You're using it as a life jacket to avoid sinking into the ridiculousness of your ill-conceived theory that actual quotes are nonactual and don't mean what they clearly say.

Relax. Obviously you can no longer defend the juvenile video so now you're trying to change the topic!

Quote:

I'll offer you yet another chance to prove your case and tell me how I took those quotes out of context.

When all you provide is a cherry-picked fragment of a study or article you are, by definition, removing a statement from its context. In addition, some of the links no longer work, some of them (as I said) are taken from clearly biased anti-vax sites, and some of them have been since updated to reflect new discoveries about the disease.

As far as I'm concerned we're done as you've abandoned your defense of the dumb video and I don't really care what you think about the PCR tests. Best thing for you to do is to get maxdancona back here and continue the discussion with him.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

Obviously you can no longer defend the juvenile video so now you're trying to change the topic!

The video makes a mockery of your newly arrived at definition of a vaccine--a treatment of unknown doses that doesn't prevent infection or transmission. Ever wonder why you know the difference between a life jacket that functions as advertised and one that doesn't, but when it comes to an experimental-injection that doesn't confer immunity--doesn't function as advertised--you overlook the fact that it doesn't function as advertised, and you now wait for your next treatment notification . . . maybe. Maybe not.

Quote:

When all you provide is a cherry-picked fragment of a study or article you are, by definition, removing a statement from its context.

Yes, you've been doing your best to avoid pointing out one instance in which I took those quotes out of context. You came up dry, and you want to blame the antivaxxers for that failure.

If they've been updated, why don't you post something to that effect? That way it won't look like you made it up.

Tony: “…If you get [perform the PCR test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

So, in context, explain why tony, whom, according to his own words, knew that a cycle-threshold of anything over 35 would spit out meaningless results, forgot to mention it when labs around the world did just that.

Quote:

I don't really care what you think about the PCR tests.

You're still pretending that it was not a fraudulent test even though the CDC announced a while back that it's going to ditch it in favor of one of the many approved alternatives, specifically, one that CAN differentiate between covid and the flu; not right now, but after the last of December. But you let them get to you, and as a result, you've become incapable of connecting the dots.

0 Replies

<yawn>

1 Reply

@hightor,

You claimed that the quotes I put right in front of your face--the ones that show the PCR-test to be unapproved, unable to distinguish between covid and the flu, and deliberately set too high anyway--are taken out of context. Ever wonder why you have a lot to say until you're being asked to support your claim, like now? Ever wonder why THAT'S when you get tired and bored?

Ya know, there's no shame in carelessly speaking before thinking. But pretending it didn't happen will put you on the fast track to having it happen again.

I have some good news for you. In recent negotiations with the virus, the all-knowing people you know and trust have hammered out a deal whereby the virus has agreed to allow some people to shorten isolation from ten days to five days. First the virus gave in and agreed to stay away from workplaces with less than a hundred employees, and now this. Who knows, we may be able to negotiate ourselves out of this mess.

And just out of curiosity, have you set a limit to the number of boosters you'll accept before coming to the conclusion that they are being brought to you because you'll believe a n y t h i n g!

1 Reply

Anyway, the guy really is a genius. To hear his point about "different rules for different people," go to the 7:11 mark of the you-tube below. He'll show you all the stars of politics and a newswoman unmasked before the camera is on, and then masked for the camera. What were they thinking? I'm thinking they don't really take this crisis seriously, but they really want you to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpmSvlu4lDo

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

You claimed that the quotes I put right in front of your face(...)are taken out of context.

Right. You've selected the facts which you think are important and presented them out of context.

Quote:

In recent negotiations with the virus, the all-knowing people you know and trust have hammered out a deal whereby the virus has agreed to allow some people to shorten isolation from ten days to five days

I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know any of these people.

Quote:

And just out of curiosity, have you set a limit to the number of boosters you'll accept before coming to the conclusion that they are being brought to you because you'll believe a n y t h i n g!

I told you before – I'm not interested in your truth crusade. I just think the analogy between life jackets and vaccinations doesn't work.

Quote:

Ever wonder why you know the difference between a life jacket that functions as advertised and one that doesn't, but when it comes to an experimental-injection that doesn't confer immunity--doesn't function as advertised--you overlook the fact that it doesn't function as advertised, and you now wait for your next treatment notification . . . maybe.

No, I never wondered that. Life jackets aren't "experimental". That's because under real life conditions, life jackets work by displacing sufficient water to provide additional buoyancy to the person wearing the life jacket. While there are differences between the buoyancy of saltwater compared to fresh water and cold water compared to warm water, the principle remains the same. Experimental vaccines are formulated to act on particular components of an active virus which itself can undergo significant mutations over time, rendering the experimental vaccine less effective. It thus has to be reformulated or employed differently. Fortunately, standard life jackets will work in fresh water as well as seawater as the density of the liquid isn't changed significantly. But let's say someone fell into a vat of 80 proof vodka – they'd sink even if wearing a standard life jacket because they'd be heavier than the liquid they displace. Comparing vaccines to life jackets is sort of like comparing apples to oranges – only stupider.

1 Reply

Why Life Jackets Should Be Mandatory

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know