Random Fashion Questions: Facemask Styling


Show original post
Mr.X.
Mr.X. avatar

3069 posts since 23/6/13

6 Jan 2021 10:01
I don't think people understand science, as in the meaning of the word.
COVID-19 is an ever changing virus. Blaming and shaming the government is futile.
ismvil
ismvil avatar

1615 posts since 16/9/11

6 Jan 2021 10:04
The UK government has been particularly inept, it's an objective view just looking at how other countries are handling this.
Mr.X.
Mr.X. avatar

3069 posts since 23/6/13

6 Jan 2021 10:23
I flouted at Christmas like so many and my in-laws are all brainwashed by mainstream news. It was an awful time - I wish I stayed at home.
zappa1903
zappa1903 avatar

437 posts since 26/8/14

6 Jan 2021 10:28
andymakesglasses wrote:
joe6886 wrote: He wouldn’t take the vaccine because ‘Hes not putting that shit in his body’

https://youtu.be/QOkA_BdFqfM

Cool
figurine
figurine avatar

5991 posts since 14/5/07

6 Jan 2021 11:10
Mr.X. wrote: I flouted at Christmas like so many and my in-laws are all brainwashed by mainstream news. It was an awful time - I wish I stayed at home.
I'm sure your in-laws felt the same.
Mr.X.
Mr.X. avatar

3069 posts since 23/6/13

posted 6 Jan 2021 11:11, edited 6 Jan 2021 11:11
At least I have in-laws…

I'm sure they didn't as I bought Christmas presents which included 2 half-zip tops from J Crew.
emixam
emixam avatar

495 posts since 8/2/12

posted 6 Jan 2021 11:57, edited 6 Jan 2021 11:57
Crackajack wrote: Whats your point? That PCR tests are too sensitive?

Precisely yes, and based on the WHO information themselves. They released on Dec 14 a guidance memo, warning that high cycle thresholds on PCR tests will result in false positives.

PCR works by taking nucleotides – tiny fragments of DNA or RNA – and replicating them until they become something large enough to identify. The replication is done in cycles, with each cycle doubling the amount of genetic material. The number of cycles it takes to produce something identifiable is known as the “cycle threshold” or “CT value”. The higher the CT value, the less likely you are to be detecting anything significant.

This new WHO memo states that using a high CT value to test for the presence of Sars-Cov-2 will result in false-positive results.

To quote their own words :

'Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result.'

'The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low. Conversely, when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.'

Of course, none of this is news to anyone who has been paying attention. Many articles have been written about it, by many experts in the field, medical journalists and other researchers. It’s been commonly available knowledge, for months now, that any test using a CT value over 35 is potentially meaningless. Kary Mullis said it clearly : 'If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR'. This has all been public knowledge since the beginning of the lockdown. Even Fauci has publicly admitted that a cycle threshold over 35 is going to be detecting “dead nucleotides”, not a living virus. Despite all this, it is known that many labs around the world have been using PCR tests with CT values over 35, even into the low 40s. in France up to 50 sometimes as leaked accidentally during a live interview at a testing lab !

emixam
emixam avatar

495 posts since 8/2/12

posted 6 Jan 2021 12:13, edited 6 Jan 2021 12:13
swede wrote:
emixam wrote: Come on now… Those Pfizer and Moderna results come from their own PR, where are the independent agencies results? And do you even know what success rate means? They say these vaccines don't prevent you from getting sick nor transmit the virus, just not to make a severe form of the disease… We will be stuck with masks, social distance and lockdowns all this year and the next I can insure you, because of course they say vaccine won't stop the spread.

PR or just highly regulated clinical trial studies with results published in the most widely respected and peer-reviewed medical journals?

Highly regulated clinical trial studies, really? below are extracts from an Off-guardian website article:

The regulators and governments have worked with the pharmaceutical corporations to conflate the limited data from the initial, or phase one, trials with the incomplete and ongoing data collection from the substantially larger phase two and three trials. The MSM have then falsely claimed the 1,2,3 phase trials are complete and insinuated that the untested data demonstrates vaccine efficacy and safety.

In reality, not only has the reporting of existing data been manipulated to show efficacy that isn’t evident in the raw data itself, the most important and meaningful phases of the trials have barely begun, let alone been completed.

On November 18th Pfizer and BioNTech announced they had concluded their phase three trial of BNT. They had demonstrated efficacy of 95% and U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) safety data milestone had been met. The only part of this claim that was true was compliance with FDA emergency safety data milestones. They have not concluded their phase three trials. They haven’t even fully completed phase one.

Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) so called “unapproved” drugs are allowed on the market in emergencies. Similarly, in the UK, authorisation under Regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012 (as amended) permits the same.

Having also been approved in the UK, this is why the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) state: 'This medicinal product does not have a UK marketing authorisation'

The fact that there are no completed clinical trials for the Pfizer and BioNTech BNT vaccine also explains why the FDA State: 'Additional adverse reactions, some of which may be serious, may become apparent with more widespread use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.'

The FDA also noted:'There is currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of the vaccine in sub-populations such as children less than 16 years of age, pregnant and lactating individuals, and immunocompromised individuals…..[the] risk of vaccine-enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity, remains unknown.'
andymakesglasses
andymakesglasses avatar

20527 posts since 26/1/06

6 Jan 2021 13:14
emixam wrote: Off-guardian website

Seems like a legit and well-balanced website authored by very rational people with no agendas. Cool

https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/16/6-factors-which-point-to-a-rigged-election/

ps You lost me at "The MSM have then falsely claimed….".
emixam
emixam avatar

495 posts since 8/2/12

posted 6 Jan 2021 13:30, edited 6 Jan 2021 13:30
you seem lost indeed. You are so biased that you won't look at the claims and facts stated, and just will stop at the website's name. All your comments on here are completely useless, dare to comment on the statements for a change ? That's what we are here for.
RickRude
RickRude avatar

3814 posts since 13/1/12

6 Jan 2021 13:38
It’s called straw man fallacy Emixam - quite common here
Crackajack
Crackajack avatar

7865 posts since 21/4/05

6 Jan 2021 13:39
emixam wrote:
Crackajack wrote: Whats your point? That PCR tests are too sensitive?

Precisely yes, and based on the WHO information themselves. They released on Dec 14 a guidance memo, warning that high cycle thresholds on PCR tests will result in false positives.

PCR works by taking nucleotides – tiny fragments of DNA or RNA – and replicating them until they become something large enough to identify. The replication is done in cycles, with each cycle doubling the amount of genetic material. The number of cycles it takes to produce something identifiable is known as the “cycle threshold” or “CT value”. The higher the CT value, the less likely you are to be detecting anything significant.

This new WHO memo states that using a high CT value to test for the presence of Sars-Cov-2 will result in false-positive results.

To quote their own words :

'Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result.'

'The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low. Conversely, when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.'

Of course, none of this is news to anyone who has been paying attention. Many articles have been written about it, by many experts in the field, medical journalists and other researchers. It’s been commonly available knowledge, for months now, that any test using a CT value over 35 is potentially meaningless. Kary Mullis said it clearly : 'If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR'. This has all been public knowledge since the beginning of the lockdown. Even Fauci has publicly admitted that a cycle threshold over 35 is going to be detecting “dead nucleotides”, not a living virus. Despite all this, it is known that many labs around the world have been using PCR tests with CT values over 35, even into the low 40s. in France up to 50 sometimes as leaked accidentally during a live interview at a testing lab !

But so what? They are seemingly erring on the side of caution to minimise false-negatives.

The restrictions in the UK and many countries are primarily about avoiding health services being overwhelmed (which is now happening again). The obvious consequence is more death from other causes unrelated to Covid, as well as increased Covid deaths.

People are only being admitted when they are already seriously at risk, so the false-positive argument seems moot in that context. It's also been shown that OTHER respiratory disease like Flu is massively reduced.


MrW
MrW avatar

2968 posts since 1/8/11

6 Jan 2021 14:30
emixam wrote: you seem lost indeed. You are so biased that you won't look at the claims and facts stated, and just will stop at the website's name.

Would you say these are valid, or should both be dismissed?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/offguardian/

https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Off-Guardian.pdf
andymakesglasses
andymakesglasses avatar

20527 posts since 26/1/06

posted 6 Jan 2021 14:37, edited 6 Jan 2021 14:37
emixam wrote: You are so biased that you won't look at the claims and facts stated, and just will stop at the website's name. All your comments on here are completely useless, dare to comment on the statements for a change ? That's what we are here for.

I am very interested in facts. I didn't stop at the website's name, quite the contrary, I read further.

Do you believe the vaccine will deliver a microchip into your body that will then be used as a "biometric passport" to control your access to all manner of things like government services, shops and pubs?

Do you believe the Great Reset has been designed to restructure the world's governments and will lead to the abolition of personal ownership? No more designer clothing for you!

Because the author of that article does.
emixam
emixam avatar

495 posts since 8/2/12

6 Jan 2021 14:50
You definitely have nothing to bring on the table as usual, answer the facts stated about the vaccines trials.
andymakesglasses
andymakesglasses avatar

20527 posts since 26/1/06

6 Jan 2021 15:13
Iain Davis at OffGuardian wrote: People genuinely appear to believe that the COVID 19 vaccines have undergone clinical trials and have been proven to be both safe and effective. That belief is simply wrong.

Ok, interesting, you might think. Where's the evidence for this? He then links to analysis in The Lancet to supposedly back up his claims but it actually does the opposite.

The Lancet wrote: We report on the first clinical efficacy results of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in a pooled analysis of phase 2/3 trials in the UK and Brazil, and safety data from more than 20 000 participants enrolled across four clinical trials in the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and is efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19, with no hospital admissions or severe cases reported in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 arm.
MrW
MrW avatar

2968 posts since 1/8/11

6 Jan 2021 15:38
andymakesglasses wrote:
Iain Davis at OffGuardian wrote: People genuinely appear to believe that the COVID 19 vaccines have undergone clinical trials and have been proven to be both safe and effective. That belief is simply wrong.

Ok, interesting, you might think. Where's the evidence for this? He then links to analysis in The Lancet to supposedly back up his claims but it actually does the opposite.

emixam wrote: Why would we trust the same scientists (including The Lancet) who have been lying all year long about the masks, remdesivir, HCQ, etc?

So the person whose article emixam is referencing as fact is using The Lancet as source of evidence, which emixam earlier stated is a source of lies, but which actually appears to provide the opposite?

Puzzled
Kingmob07
Kingmob07 avatar

9105 posts since 11/5/07

6 Jan 2021 16:30
This is like a bad thought experiment when we already knew that people are selfish assholes. I mean how in the fuck did they allow all those influencers/reality "stars" to nip off to places like Dubai? Actually, sorry, those trips were all for business purposes, right…
Kadafi39
Kadafi39 avatar

1919 posts since 30/10/09

6 Jan 2021 16:42
Dubai is like a tier 1 extension of the UK right now.
ismvil
ismvil avatar

1615 posts since 16/9/11

6 Jan 2021 16:46
Never seen this much Essex in the desert.