Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: flashforward2009 who wrote (176553)	8/17/2021 1:53:04 AM
From: sense	Respond to of 217714

Let's start with... there's nothing in that article that's "news" that wasn't already discussed here... months ago. The bottom line in what it says is... "there is a Delta variant... but we don't know anything much about it"... and that's all. The discussions about it here... were far more comprehensive than that article... and far more accurate... than that article. You might read between the lines in it... and see the WHO / CDC may be telegraphing that they were planning to make a big deal out of a couple variants that are NOT a big deal... But, the article is very clear in pointing out they are NOT a big deal... and pose no unique new risks... Otherwise what it says is just regurgitating the FAKE NEWS they'd already been WRONGLY putting out about the effectiveness of the vaccines against the A variant... while just ASSUMING it would work to do the same for the Delta...as they wrongly (said they) believed (?) was true of the vaccines conferring immunity to the A variant (which they do not) because that fit with the narrative... not because there was any science to back that up... Why were they telling that lie ? I don't know... Ask them ? That narrative FAILED a long time ago... Quoting articles from BEFORE it failed... doesn't actually wind the clock back as if it didn't happen ? It was pointed out here... long BEFORE it happened... that the vaccines would NOT prevent transmission, but would accelerate it... that they would NOT provide herd immunity, but would prevent it... and that they would NOT prevent mutations... but were guaranteed to accelerate them... and that would PROBABLY result in what we DO have now... a variant that has escaped the very limited effects in suppression of symptoms ONLY the vaccines do provide. The vaccines we have are LEAKY vaccines. They DO NOT provide ANY immunity. In science, when you make a prediction... and others don't agree... and then it comes true... that counts for something. The right prediction... being proven... matters. And I did predict all of that. But, that's still like the stupidest "science" ever... because none of the science and none of the drug companies had ever CLAIMED that the vaccine would stop transmission, would confer immunity, or would prevent mutation. They took great care to NOT make those claims. They KNEW it would not do that when they made it. it is not made to be ABLE to do that. All you had to do... to predict accurately... was read what they said about their vaccines... and then notice the FACT that the politicians were LYING about what the drug companies had claimed... ? I pointed all of that out, here... AS it happened... ? Months ago ? The vaccines DO NOT provide ANY immunity. They are not designed, are not intended, and have no functional method of providing immunity ? So it should not be a shock... that they DON'T ? They DID provide symptom suppression for the A variant... as they were designed to do... they really don't do that for the D variant... which didn't exist when they were designed. The rest ? Dude. That "article" is from early July... July 12... The primary "experts" it quotes for its policy advocacy are the well known shills at the WHO and the CDC. it's laughable propaganda... The Lancet "article" they claim as reference is from JUNE 14... two months ago. It isn't a peer reviewed bit of science... it is in "correspondence"... its a letter to the editor that these guys wrote. The various claims it makes are since widely and resoundingly debunked... they are simply wrong... and they had wildly insufficient data to back the claims made when they wrote the letter... but, even back then... the ONLY actual news value in that communication... is that it is providing notice that the various vaccines ARE LESS EFFECTIVE in protecting against the Delta variant symptoms than the Alpha... way back when that was news, and before we knew or could know from data how MUCH LESS effective... The authors... are not front line scientists "doing science"... writing peer reviewed articles. They are government bureaucrats doing an early review of "some" unconstrained data reported in system at the time, while making claims the data don't support. The punch line in the conclusion they reach is: Given the observational nature of these data, estimates of vaccine effectiveness need to be interpreted with caution. In other words... they said what they hoped was true... then admitted they had no idea.,.. The whole point of that "communication" seems it was... marketing that targeted doctors... It is work supported by AstraZeneca... and they're putting it out to TRY to claim... (at the time we were first discovering that the Covid vaccines do nothing useful to stop the Delta variants impacts...and before we knew HOW true that was)... they were TRYING to claim that THEIR vaccine still worked much much better than those other guys vaccines... [which is also not true]... so stop using theirs and use ours instead... Here's a more recent update on the Astrazeneca vaccine... CNBC quotes it from a peer reviewed article in the [Gold Standard] New England Journal of Medicine... Blood clots linked to AstraZeneca shot have 22% mortality rate Blood clots associated with AstraZeneca vaccine are ‘rare but devastating,’ study says Somewhere between 37 and 64 people died from this... in the U.K. only... in the seventy four days between March 24 and June 6th. So this one impact is killing between 182 and 315 per year, just in the U.K. ? "We have found that it often affects young, otherwise healthy vaccine recipients and that it is associated with a high mortality." "In our cohort, 85% of the patients were younger than 60 years of age, despite the predominance of (Oxford/AstraZeneca) vaccination in older adults," scientists noted. So, if you were wondering why Poland just gave their entire supply of AstraZeneca vax to Ukraine ? As far as the value of the Lancet ? A quick look shows most of what's there now is old stuff republished after the fact from other sources... often with significant lag times... this outdated article we're discussing is actually BETTER than a lot of the rest I found there on Covid... most of it dating back to May... or March... Look to JAMA or New England Journal of Medicine for better / more current work... but ignore people writing letters, communications, or "quick takes" instead of people doing actual science... focus on those publishing peer reviewed research articles... not "letters to the editor"... and that some network hack does not understanding that "published in the Lancet" doesn't convert a letter to the editor (from a major donor) into peer reviewed science...??? The MSM media are mostly clueless idiots... When you go look for actual information... search in the right places... and, in looking, use a search engine with a date filter... say, looking for articles published in the last week... to weed out old fake news... and at least contribute NEW fake news ? The conversation here tends to focus on current headlines... more than ancient history... not that I have a problem with ancient history... just that "it isn't news"...