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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric who wrote (1425681)	11/17/2023 8:55:42 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574320

By that standard the "vaccines" are a failure W/o vaccines: The research was funded in part by NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and National Cancer Institute (NCI). Results were published on January 6, 2021, in Science. The researchers found durable immune responses in the majority of people studied. Antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which the virus uses to get inside cells, were found in 98% of participants one month after symptom onset. As seen in previous studies, the number of antibodies ranged widely between individuals. But, promisingly, their levels remained fairly stable over time, declining only modestly at 6 to 8 months after infection. Virus-specific B cells increased over time. People had more memory B cells six months after symptom onset than at one month afterwards. Although the number of these cells appeared to reach a plateau after a few months, levels didn’t decline over the period studied. Levels of T cells for the virus also remained high after infection. Six months after symptom onset, 92% of participants had CD4+ T cells that recognized the virus. These cells help coordinate the immune response. About half the participants had CD8+ T cells, which kill cells that are infected by the virus. As with antibodies, the numbers of different immune cell types varied substantially between individuals. Neither gender nor differences in disease severity could account for this variability. However, 95% of the people had at least 3 out of 5 immune-system components that could recognize SARS-CoV-2 up to 8 months after infection. “Several months ago, our studies showed that natural infection induced a strong response, and this study now shows that the responses last,” Weiskopf says. “We are hopeful that a similar pattern of responses lasting over time will also emerge for the vaccine-induced responses.” nih.gov That having been said, evidence is growing that contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, is generally as effective as vaccination at stimulating your immune system to prevent the disease. Yet federal officials have been reluctant to recognize any equivalency, citing the wide variation in Covid patients’ immune responses to infection. nbcnews.com and.... Can You Still Spread COVID-19 After Vaccination? - Health May 2, 2022The short answer is yes and yes. When a vaccinated person gets COVID-19, it's referred to as a breakthrough infection. And according to the CDC, vaccinated people experiencing breakthrough...

To: Eric who wrote (1425681)	11/17/2023 9:16:29 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574320

CDC Claims On Vaccination And Natural Immunity Made Without Seeing Underlying Data: FOIA Document Friday, Nov 17, 2023 - 04:00 PM Authored by Hans Mahncke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), In a new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now admits that it recommended COVID-19 vaccines for people who had recovered from COVID-19 despite the fact that CDC subject matter experts didn't have access to the underlying data. [url=]The Emergency Operations Center at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta on March 19, 2021. (Eric Baradat/AFP via Getty Images)[/url]The stunning disclosure came in reply to a FOIA request for information on the CDC’s claim, first made on Oct. 29, 2021, that unvaccinated people with previous infection were five times more likely to get COVID-19 than vaccinated people. The CDC’s claim was based on a CDC study published in the Nov. 9, 2021, edition of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The conflicts-of-interest section of the study had noted that a number of the study’s authors were being sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Merck, Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline. At least four of the listed pharmaceutical companies were involved in the manufacturing and sale of COVID-19 vaccines. Given that the conflict-of-interest disclosures were made at the time the study was first published, the CDC would have been aware of the heightened need to scrutinize its findings. However, this appears not to have happened. Notably, the CDC’s public pronouncement about unvaccinated COVID-19 survivors being five times more likely to get reinfected was made on the same day that the study was released as a preprint. This would have left no time for any review. A lawyer who specializes in FOIA cases subsequently made a formal request for the data underlying the study. Last week, the CDC replied by admitting that the CDC didn't have this data. According to the CDC, the data was held by an "external partner organization and was maintained by a contractor." Notably, the CDC also acknowledged that "CDC subject matter experts didn't receive copies of the raw data prior to the contract termination." Put another way, the CDC made its vaccination recommendation for people who already had COVID-19 without ever seeing or having had access to the underlying data. Furthermore, that data is now no longer available, meaning that neither the CDC, nor the general public, may ever know what it said. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) had previously pointed out problems with the CDC’s study. He further highlighted the fact that the study’s authors had conflicts of interest. Mr. Massie’s concerns have now not only been confirmed but have also been aggravated by the fact that the CDC never reviewed or audited the study. The CDC’s failure to scrutinize the study before making sweeping recommendations to the public is exacerbated by the fact that the emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 vaccines specifically excepted people who had previously been infected with COVID-19. Pfizer’s emergency use authorization specifically stated that the “available data are insufficient to determine whether such individuals could benefit from vaccination.” Moderna’s emergency use authorization acknowledged that its vaccine study “was not designed to assess the benefit in individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.” Johnson and Johnson’s emergency use authorization used similar wording. When it was pointed out in 2021 that the emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 vaccines didn't account for people who had already had the disease, Twitter (now known as X) promptly marked this fact as misinformation. The existence of natural immunity, meaning that the human body remembers how to fight off diseases that it has previously been afflicted with, has been known since ancient Greek times. When the plague tore through ancient Athens in 430 B.C., Thucydides noted that those who had been previously afflicted weren't getting sick. He stated that "the same man was never attacked twice–never at least fatally." However, when COVID-19 broke out, the CDC appears to have cast aside 2,500 years' worth of medical wisdom. As we now know, the CDC did this without accessing or analyzing the underlying data.