How do you know Covid-19 killed 500,000 people, just because CNN told you so? Originally Posted by Levianon17The link is from the CDC. Where did you get CNN from?
The number of CoVid infections is greater than 1 per 100,000 people in certain areas like Missouri, Arkansas, Nevada and Calif. The pandemic is not over nor are we at Herd Immunity yet. Need another 15 million people to get the vaccine before we can get to Herd Immunity (at least 70% of the population was infected or vaccinated).
Pandemic is over, if you want it. Originally Posted by gnadfly
I'm making things up? No sir, it is you who is doing so by making wild claims about Weinstein's position on this particular vaccine in order to discredit him. To say that he's afraid of vaccines is a lie. He has concerns about a vaccine that that was rushed through truncated clinical trials and given legal protection in terms of liability. What could possibly go wrong?Thanks. Maybe "afraid" or "scared" wasn't the best choice of words, and maybe I didn't understand his tweet about a locked open spike protein. I still believe he's a fear monger and full of shit about the vaccines. I lean towards thinking he's right about Ivermectin. As to changing the topic of the thread, actually I said you and I did not change the topic of the thread. But if it helps your self esteem to get sanctimonious have at it.
Weinstein also recognized the alarmist tone of his first tweet in the thread in question and has made additional tweets since to clarify. BTW, Weinstein is not part of the media.
As far as his "tweet storm" goes, you post more here on a daily basis so there's another attempt to discredit him that falls flat.
Your quotation of his one tweet leaves a lot of context out that was included in his original post. Try this on for size:
"The key difference involves vaccine spike-protein being “locked open”. That was done to give immune cells access, not to render it safe. So if it's safe, that will have been a very lucky accident. And the logical presumption goes the other way. The precautionary principle applies." Not quite so over the top, eh?
As far as his claims about vaccine side effects related to the spike protein and the BBB, do you think he made that up? Had you looked a little closer at the "tweet storm" you might have seen these links.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33053430/
More on the spike protein here:
https://www.canadiancovidcareallianc...full_guide.pdf
see page 20
And if you want to argue the qualifications of folks commenting about the science, who are the people quoted in your fact check from Reuters? Sabina Vohra Miller? How is she qualified? Anna Durbin, a professor of International Health? Color me unimpressed. Is that the best you have? Crikey!
As for Ivermectin, Weinstein's position is based on him seeing field studies and clinical work that speaks to the efficacy and safety of the drug while there has been resistance to it based solely on it being associated with President Cheeto Dust. He thinks we should use all the arrows in our quiver to fight the disease. That sounds pretty reasonable to me. What say you?
To sum up it seems like you don't really know that much about Weinstein or what his message really is.
And as far as me changing the topic in this thread? Fuck that!
There's an old adage you are proving true, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think." Originally Posted by Ducbutter
The link is from the CDC. Where did you get CNN from? Originally Posted by adav8s28I don't listen to either CNN or the CDC on stats of Covid deaths. Anybody who has an ounce of sense knows they are exaggerating. 500,000 deaths from Covid alone among other causes of deaths, there should be a Funeral procession on every major city block on a daily basis. I haven't seen one yet.
Thanks. Maybe "afraid" or "scared" wasn't the best choice of words, and maybe I didn't understand his tweet about a locked open spike protein. I still believe he's a fear monger and full of shit about the vaccines. I lean towards thinking he's right about Ivermectin. As to changing the topic of the thread, actually I said you and I did not change the topic of the thread. But if it helps your self esteem to get sanctimonious have at it. Originally Posted by TinyTo paraphrase what you said, "We didn't change the topic but if you wanna keep saying that, it's Duc's fault."
It was fun when you were on vacation and the deep state was not blamed for everything daily. Originally Posted by adav8s28
To paraphrase what you said, "We didn't change the topic but if you wanna keep saying that, it's Duc's fault."
Is it pedantic to point out that you don't seem to have much of a grasp on the word "sanctimonious"?
Still haven't bothered to check out the links from the "tweet storm" either I'll wager. Originally Posted by Ducbutter
You say you have published in the New England Journal of Medicine. You would agree that you can't make a vaccine for a virus that has not been identified yet? The research on M-RNA to make proteins began in 2010 with Moderna. From the post #314. At a high level the below is pretty accurate wouldn't you say?
hope One had fun ......... Originally Posted by oeb11