All things CoronaVirus

[MDlaxfan76]

Fauci keeping it real.....

https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status ... 68741?s=20

what an idiot Raheem is...

Why is Raheem the idiot? He merely presents two minutes of Fauci saying the complete opposite of what he previously said. You can listen or not, but it’s certainly not the messenger who his the idiot here. It simply calls into question Fauci’s command of the facts.

nope, he calls Fauci a disinformation agent of China...idiot.

Parsing together various statements out of context is the act of a troll...but hey, you like that.
Digital warriors for the Lost Cause.

[youthathletics]

Fauci keeping it real.....

https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status ... 68741?s=20

what an idiot Raheem is...

Why is Raheem the idiot? He merely presents two minutes of Fauci saying the complete opposite of what he previously said. You can listen or not, but it’s certainly not the messenger who his the idiot here. It simply calls into question Fauci’s command of the facts.

nope, he calls Fauci a disinformation agent of China...idiot.

Parsing together various statements out of context is the act of a troll...but hey, you like that.
Digital warriors for the Lost Cause.

You are trip.....Fauci's words, no one else's. My guess, you feel cheated on by Fauci and now you are sensing vulnerability, that is clearly unsettling.

Biden is wrong as well ... "If you are vaccinated, you do not need a mask". Bet if Trump said that, you'd be calling him an idiot, again.

[Peter Brown]

Fauci keeping it real.....

https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status ... 68741?s=20

what an idiot Raheem is...

Why is Raheem the idiot? He merely presents two minutes of Fauci saying the complete opposite of what he previously said. You can listen or not, but it’s certainly not the messenger who his the idiot here. It simply calls into question Fauci’s command of the facts.

nope, he calls Fauci a disinformation agent of China...idiot.

Parsing together various statements out of context is the act of a troll...but hey, you like that.
Digital warriors for the Lost Cause.

I’m fairly sure you’re smart enough to skip past the honeytrap headline and listen to the actual quotes. And so far as them being taken out of context, they seem rather straightforward, and polar opposite of his previous stances.

Btw, I’m not anti Fauci. I think he’s trying. I’d simply add that it’s not unwise to resist being a gullible customer of any medical provider, particularly one who works for the federal government. I’d always look at their words with some skepticism.

[MDlaxfan76]

Fauci keeping it real.....

https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status ... 68741?s=20

what an idiot Raheem is...

Why is Raheem the idiot? He merely presents two minutes of Fauci saying the complete opposite of what he previously said. You can listen or not, but it’s certainly not the messenger who his the idiot here. It simply calls into question Fauci’s command of the facts.

nope, he calls Fauci a disinformation agent of China...idiot.

Parsing together various statements out of context is the act of a troll...but hey, you like that.
Digital warriors for the Lost Cause.

You are trip.....Fauci's words, no one else's. My guess, you feel cheated on by Fauci and now you are sensing vulnerability, that is clearly unsettling.

Biden is wrong as well ... "If you are vaccinated, you do not need a mask". Bet if Trump said that, you'd be calling him an idiot, again.

no, there's an enormous difference between being 'wrong' because the emerging science indicates a different answer is more appropriate, given a different situation or set of new information, and actually being a 'disinformation agent of China'...

[Typical Lax Dad]

Unreal. The paper is not anti-vaxx... that's your "take away". It's a peer-reviewed scientific paper which makes claims not presented before... in time, those claims may or may not be accurate. Although you and TLD only want to hear that more vaccines are being performed, science moves on and new evidence/ideas may be considered at the same time vaccines are being promoted. Narrow thinking...

Tech, I am pretty certain that I hear about the science of COVID more than you do….who said the paper was “anti-vaccination”? I live with a scientist, son. She was talking about COVID before you heard about it. I believe “Bart” was too. She was worried about variants over a year ago….she actually teaches an infectious disease course but what does she know about viruses.

So what "son"? Scientists can be biased too (whether they realize it or not). Or is that another fact you choose to ignore? Are you also best buddies with Fauci? Would not be surprised if you made that claim as well.

Every now and then I drop something….champ, sport, ace…I hadn’t rotated son through yet. The way a virus works is the way a virus works….it ain’t biased, sailor.

Whatever.

Re variants... you probably already know this (since you're a Renaissance Man) but try looking into (or ask your wife) the hypothesis that the vaccines themselves are helping to create variants. It goes something this... because the vaccines were developed during the pandemic and not before, they are too narrowly focused on stopping the original specific form of the virus. The virus has learned workarounds (variants) in the meantime. No one's fault... there was no time to waste in development as it were.

Here is a Reuters article discussing just this: https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N2OZ1PU

If you look at the recent emergence of Delta. It got is origin in India, I believe in December and prior to any mass vaccination in that country. This was prior to the WHO deciding it was a Virus or Concern.

Thanks Bart.

As mentioned, it is a hypothesis and may well be proven false over time. Even if variants already existed, the fact that the vaccines were developed narrowly/specifically for the original virus, it does seem plausible that they are/will be less effective against variant strains.

Also, anyone traveling to India from another country could have introduced the Delta variant there. Delta may or may not have originated in India prior to vaccines.

To me, unencumbered by data, the greatest chance for mutation is in populations with high viral replication. The greater the replication, the greater the chance the virus will mutate. IMO, vaccine do just the opposite.

You would vary well have a mutation in a virus in a break through infection but I would think that would be much rarer than in an unvaccinated population. It is just a numbers game. Unfortunately we will see...........it is playing out right in front of us.

Yes. Spreading the idea that vaccines may lead to more mutations is just foolishness, in my opinion. Having someone reconsider getting vaccinated because of that is just going to potentially contribute to the problem…..walked out for lunch, just saw a woman get vaccinated in a park under a tent.

Don't be afraid TLD, no one is "spreading" ideas. Isn't science about asking questions, seeking truth, looking for answers through observation and experimentation? You seem to want to shut that down unless of course it's only source is the medical establishment. Unfortunately, the medical establishment has shown itself to be politically corrupt (see Fauci for one).

To be clear, I never suggested the variants were being caused by the vaccines. Nope. If that's how it came off, apologies. The idea is that the variants will be strengthened because these novel vaccines were not developed broadly enough to completely protect against them. But who knew? I certainly hope the variant hypothesis is wrong but it should be considered plausible until it can be ruled out by scientific methods, not politics, short-sighted policies, or cancellation.

What does this mean? How does a variant strengthen because a "novel" vaccine is not developed broadly enough? Do you actually know what you are questioning? Do you have a link to the "variant hypothesis"? I would like to actually read it.

It's nonsensical.
The variants result simply from the survival of a mutated virus and its passage to another person and another...they don't respond to the vaccine. Some mutations have no advantage in their survival or transmissibility, others have a chance at an advantage. Pure chance. However, with every incremental infection there's a chance of a mutation...with advantages.

One of those advantages may be that is able to be transmitted to and from vaccinated people.

You say "nonsensical" and then say this (below). Make up your mind but thanks for making the point. The current vaccines, no matter how mass-distributed, may not be effective against variants. I hope that's wrong.

But, sure, if a mutation survives and is still able to be spread amongst vaccinated people, then that virus will become the dominant strain as others are choked of...but the virus itself doesn't react.

The key, therefore, is to as quickly as possible choke off incremental infections. Reducing, therefore, the number of possible mutations. Any ongoing infections among unvaccinated people provide the possibility of a breakout strain.

Not really that complicated.

And, of course, this is why it matters to all of us who have been vaccinated that the rest of us are vaccinated as well...or as many as possible, as fast as possible. It's not simply a matter of "they made their decision to take their chances". No, they're gambling for all of us.

The variants aren't "strengthened" tech, they simply survive.
It's not a reaction to the vaccine.

Semantics. The point is, the vaccines may not be effective for any other strain than they were specifically designed for. Get it?

Semantics! stop….you have opened your mouth and removed all doubt! Post the link to the “variant hypothesis”.

Here you go joker. Hopefully your attention span can handle.

https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/dar ... t-vanden:b

Weinstein

Here you go mate: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid ... en-bossche

[Typical Lax Dad]

[tech37]

Unreal. The paper is not anti-vaxx... that's your "take away". It's a peer-reviewed scientific paper which makes claims not presented before... in time, those claims may or may not be accurate. Although you and TLD only want to hear that more vaccines are being performed, science moves on and new evidence/ideas may be considered at the same time vaccines are being promoted. Narrow thinking...

Tech, I am pretty certain that I hear about the science of COVID more than you do….who said the paper was “anti-vaccination”? I live with a scientist, son. She was talking about COVID before you heard about it. I believe “Bart” was too. She was worried about variants over a year ago….she actually teaches an infectious disease course but what does she know about viruses.

So what "son"? Scientists can be biased too (whether they realize it or not). Or is that another fact you choose to ignore? Are you also best buddies with Fauci? Would not be surprised if you made that claim as well.

Every now and then I drop something….champ, sport, ace…I hadn’t rotated son through yet. The way a virus works is the way a virus works….it ain’t biased, sailor.

Whatever.

Re variants... you probably already know this (since you're a Renaissance Man) but try looking into (or ask your wife) the hypothesis that the vaccines themselves are helping to create variants. It goes something this... because the vaccines were developed during the pandemic and not before, they are too narrowly focused on stopping the original specific form of the virus. The virus has learned workarounds (variants) in the meantime. No one's fault... there was no time to waste in development as it were.

Here is a Reuters article discussing just this: https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N2OZ1PU

If you look at the recent emergence of Delta. It got is origin in India, I believe in December and prior to any mass vaccination in that country. This was prior to the WHO deciding it was a Virus or Concern.

Thanks Bart.

As mentioned, it is a hypothesis and may well be proven false over time. Even if variants already existed, the fact that the vaccines were developed narrowly/specifically for the original virus, it does seem plausible that they are/will be less effective against variant strains.

Also, anyone traveling to India from another country could have introduced the Delta variant there. Delta may or may not have originated in India prior to vaccines.

To me, unencumbered by data, the greatest chance for mutation is in populations with high viral replication. The greater the replication, the greater the chance the virus will mutate. IMO, vaccine do just the opposite.

You would vary well have a mutation in a virus in a break through infection but I would think that would be much rarer than in an unvaccinated population. It is just a numbers game. Unfortunately we will see...........it is playing out right in front of us.

Yes. Spreading the idea that vaccines may lead to more mutations is just foolishness, in my opinion. Having someone reconsider getting vaccinated because of that is just going to potentially contribute to the problem…..walked out for lunch, just saw a woman get vaccinated in a park under a tent.

Don't be afraid TLD, no one is "spreading" ideas. Isn't science about asking questions, seeking truth, looking for answers through observation and experimentation? You seem to want to shut that down unless of course it's only source is the medical establishment. Unfortunately, the medical establishment has shown itself to be politically corrupt (see Fauci for one).

To be clear, I never suggested the variants were being caused by the vaccines. Nope. If that's how it came off, apologies. The idea is that the variants will be strengthened because these novel vaccines were not developed broadly enough to completely protect against them. But who knew? I certainly hope the variant hypothesis is wrong but it should be considered plausible until it can be ruled out by scientific methods, not politics, short-sighted policies, or cancellation.

What does this mean? How does a variant strengthen because a "novel" vaccine is not developed broadly enough? Do you actually know what you are questioning? Do you have a link to the "variant hypothesis"? I would like to actually read it.

It's nonsensical.
The variants result simply from the survival of a mutated virus and its passage to another person and another...they don't respond to the vaccine. Some mutations have no advantage in their survival or transmissibility, others have a chance at an advantage. Pure chance. However, with every incremental infection there's a chance of a mutation...with advantages.

One of those advantages may be that is able to be transmitted to and from vaccinated people.

You say "nonsensical" and then say this (below). Make up your mind but thanks for making the point. The current vaccines, no matter how mass-distributed, may not be effective against variants. I hope that's wrong.

But, sure, if a mutation survives and is still able to be spread amongst vaccinated people, then that virus will become the dominant strain as others are choked of...but the virus itself doesn't react.

The key, therefore, is to as quickly as possible choke off incremental infections. Reducing, therefore, the number of possible mutations. Any ongoing infections among unvaccinated people provide the possibility of a breakout strain.

Not really that complicated.

And, of course, this is why it matters to all of us who have been vaccinated that the rest of us are vaccinated as well...or as many as possible, as fast as possible. It's not simply a matter of "they made their decision to take their chances". No, they're gambling for all of us.

The variants aren't "strengthened" tech, they simply survive.
It's not a reaction to the vaccine.

Semantics. The point is, the vaccines may not be effective for any other strain than they were specifically designed for. Get it?

Semantics! stop….you have opened your mouth and removed all doubt! Post the link to the “variant hypothesis”.

Here you go joker. Hopefully your attention span can handle.

https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/dar ... t-vanden:b

Weinstein

Here you go mate: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid ... en-bossche

Weinstein is funny? Your loss dude.

I've read it, so what? Hit pieces (McGill or not) are ubiquitous these days, whether legit or simply ridiculing. What if the Dr. is correct? It's a hypothesis... let's hope it's wrong.

I find it fascinating... if you had actually listened, you might too... but I doubt it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Unreal. The paper is not anti-vaxx... that's your "take away". It's a peer-reviewed scientific paper which makes claims not presented before... in time, those claims may or may not be accurate. Although you and TLD only want to hear that more vaccines are being performed, science moves on and new evidence/ideas may be considered at the same time vaccines are being promoted. Narrow thinking...

Tech, I am pretty certain that I hear about the science of COVID more than you do….who said the paper was “anti-vaccination”? I live with a scientist, son. She was talking about COVID before you heard about it. I believe “Bart” was too. She was worried about variants over a year ago….she actually teaches an infectious disease course but what does she know about viruses.

So what "son"? Scientists can be biased too (whether they realize it or not). Or is that another fact you choose to ignore? Are you also best buddies with Fauci? Would not be surprised if you made that claim as well.

Every now and then I drop something….champ, sport, ace…I hadn’t rotated son through yet. The way a virus works is the way a virus works….it ain’t biased, sailor.

Whatever.

Re variants... you probably already know this (since you're a Renaissance Man) but try looking into (or ask your wife) the hypothesis that the vaccines themselves are helping to create variants. It goes something this... because the vaccines were developed during the pandemic and not before, they are too narrowly focused on stopping the original specific form of the virus. The virus has learned workarounds (variants) in the meantime. No one's fault... there was no time to waste in development as it were.

Here is a Reuters article discussing just this: https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N2OZ1PU

If you look at the recent emergence of Delta. It got is origin in India, I believe in December and prior to any mass vaccination in that country. This was prior to the WHO deciding it was a Virus or Concern.

Thanks Bart.

As mentioned, it is a hypothesis and may well be proven false over time. Even if variants already existed, the fact that the vaccines were developed narrowly/specifically for the original virus, it does seem plausible that they are/will be less effective against variant strains.

Also, anyone traveling to India from another country could have introduced the Delta variant there. Delta may or may not have originated in India prior to vaccines.

To me, unencumbered by data, the greatest chance for mutation is in populations with high viral replication. The greater the replication, the greater the chance the virus will mutate. IMO, vaccine do just the opposite.

You would vary well have a mutation in a virus in a break through infection but I would think that would be much rarer than in an unvaccinated population. It is just a numbers game. Unfortunately we will see...........it is playing out right in front of us.

Yes. Spreading the idea that vaccines may lead to more mutations is just foolishness, in my opinion. Having someone reconsider getting vaccinated because of that is just going to potentially contribute to the problem…..walked out for lunch, just saw a woman get vaccinated in a park under a tent.

Don't be afraid TLD, no one is "spreading" ideas. Isn't science about asking questions, seeking truth, looking for answers through observation and experimentation? You seem to want to shut that down unless of course it's only source is the medical establishment. Unfortunately, the medical establishment has shown itself to be politically corrupt (see Fauci for one).

To be clear, I never suggested the variants were being caused by the vaccines. Nope. If that's how it came off, apologies. The idea is that the variants will be strengthened because these novel vaccines were not developed broadly enough to completely protect against them. But who knew? I certainly hope the variant hypothesis is wrong but it should be considered plausible until it can be ruled out by scientific methods, not politics, short-sighted policies, or cancellation.

What does this mean? How does a variant strengthen because a "novel" vaccine is not developed broadly enough? Do you actually know what you are questioning? Do you have a link to the "variant hypothesis"? I would like to actually read it.

It's nonsensical.
The variants result simply from the survival of a mutated virus and its passage to another person and another...they don't respond to the vaccine. Some mutations have no advantage in their survival or transmissibility, others have a chance at an advantage. Pure chance. However, with every incremental infection there's a chance of a mutation...with advantages.

One of those advantages may be that is able to be transmitted to and from vaccinated people.

You say "nonsensical" and then say this (below). Make up your mind but thanks for making the point. The current vaccines, no matter how mass-distributed, may not be effective against variants. I hope that's wrong.

But, sure, if a mutation survives and is still able to be spread amongst vaccinated people, then that virus will become the dominant strain as others are choked of...but the virus itself doesn't react.

The key, therefore, is to as quickly as possible choke off incremental infections. Reducing, therefore, the number of possible mutations. Any ongoing infections among unvaccinated people provide the possibility of a breakout strain.

Not really that complicated.

And, of course, this is why it matters to all of us who have been vaccinated that the rest of us are vaccinated as well...or as many as possible, as fast as possible. It's not simply a matter of "they made their decision to take their chances". No, they're gambling for all of us.

The variants aren't "strengthened" tech, they simply survive.
It's not a reaction to the vaccine.

Semantics. The point is, the vaccines may not be effective for any other strain than they were specifically designed for. Get it?

Semantics! stop….you have opened your mouth and removed all doubt! Post the link to the “variant hypothesis”.

Here you go joker. Hopefully your attention span can handle.

https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/dar ... t-vanden:b

Weinstein

Here you go mate: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid ... en-bossche

Weinstein is funny? Your loss dude.

I've read it, so what? Hit pieces (McGill or not) are ubiquitous these days, whether legit or simply ridiculing. What if the Dr. is correct? It's a hypothesis... let's hope it's wrong.

I find it fascinating... if you had actually listened, you might too... but I doubt it.

What’s funny is your hero worshiping of all things Weinstein. That’s what is funny….or sad.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/ ... format=amp

[tech37]

https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/ ... format=amp

Good for you. Again, have you listened? Maybe your wife is interested. After all, you did say she's a scientist, right?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/ ... format=amp

Good for you. Again, have you listened? Maybe your wife is interested. After all, you did say she's a scientist, right?

I listened to most of him. He should be ashamed of himself…..actually Weinstein should be ashamed of himself.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/e2-80 ... tp&pc=U531

I hope the Ivermectin works out. Weinstein recommended it.

[NattyBohChamps04]

again... you are not.following. my posts aren't meant for you. dude. they are meant for people who can follow.

ftr, internet tough guys have come by the millions before you, and they will show up in the millions after you. you are not unique.

Not sure why you think I'm some internet tough guy, that's pretty funny my man.

You're certainly unique. Just like everyone else.

Your posts aren't actually meant for anyone except your own ego and agenda. You don't drive meaningful discussions, but rather encourage fear mongering and challenging the things that actually work, so why should we engage in something that's bad faith to begin with?

[ggait]

"If you are vaccinated, you do not need a mask".

There's two parts to the guidance. How come no one talks about the other one?

"If you are not vaccinated, you do need to wear a mask!"

Which, of course, is being completely ignored by the unvaccinated. Which is why the virus is bouncing back.

Alabama Gov. Ivey nailed it:

"Folks are supposed to have common sense. It’s time to start blaming the unvaccinated folks, not the regular folks. It’s the unvaccinated folks that are letting us down."

If the selfish and stupid mouth breathers would mask up or get their free shots, regular vaccinated folks like me wouldn't have to start wearing forking masks again. Or please let me get a vax passport so I can steer clear of the selfish/stupid mouth breathers.

You know us nose breathers have ruy-iots too.

JFC!!!

[wgdsr]

again... you are not.following. my posts aren't meant for you. dude. they are meant for people who can follow.

ftr, internet tough guys have come by the millions before you, and they will show up in the millions after you. you are not unique.

Not sure why you think I'm some internet tough guy, that's pretty funny my man.

You're certainly unique. Just like everyone else.

Your posts aren't actually meant for anyone except your own ego and agenda. You don't drive meaningful discussions, but rather encourage fear mongering and challenging the things that actually work, so why should we engage in something that's bad faith to begin with?

sounds like it's bout time for you to take your own advice?

[PizzaSnake]

Maybe some of the vaccine "hesitant" already had a severe case?

"After controlling for factors such as age, sex, handedness, first language, education level, and other variables, the researchers found that those who had contracted COVID-19 tended to underperform on the intelligence test compared to those who had not contracted the virus. The greatest deficits were observed on tasks requiring reasoning, planning and problem solving, which is in line “with reports of long-COVID, where ‘brain fog,’ trouble concentrating and difficulty finding the correct words are common,” the researchers said."

https://www.psypost.org/2021/07/large-s ... ence-61577

Actually, quite likely.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... nted-study

"The number of Covid-19 cases across the US may have been undercounted by as much as 60%, researchers at the University of Washington have found.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, builds on research which has found the number of reported cases “represents only a fraction of the estimated total number of infections”. It has important implications for how many Americans need to be vaccinated to stop outbreaks."

[tech37]

Unreal. The paper is not anti-vaxx... that's your "take away". It's a peer-reviewed scientific paper which makes claims not presented before... in time, those claims may or may not be accurate. Although you and TLD only want to hear that more vaccines are being performed, science moves on and new evidence/ideas may be considered at the same time vaccines are being promoted. Narrow thinking...

Tech, I am pretty certain that I hear about the science of COVID more than you do….who said the paper was “anti-vaccination”? I live with a scientist, son. She was talking about COVID before you heard about it. I believe “Bart” was too. She was worried about variants over a year ago….she actually teaches an infectious disease course but what does she know about viruses.

So what "son"? Scientists can be biased too (whether they realize it or not). Or is that another fact you choose to ignore? Are you also best buddies with Fauci? Would not be surprised if you made that claim as well.

Every now and then I drop something….champ, sport, ace…I hadn’t rotated son through yet. The way a virus works is the way a virus works….it ain’t biased, sailor.

Whatever.

Re variants... you probably already know this (since you're a Renaissance Man) but try looking into (or ask your wife) the hypothesis that the vaccines themselves are helping to create variants. It goes something this... because the vaccines were developed during the pandemic and not before, they are too narrowly focused on stopping the original specific form of the virus. The virus has learned workarounds (variants) in the meantime. No one's fault... there was no time to waste in development as it were.

Here is a Reuters article discussing just this: https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N2OZ1PU

If you look at the recent emergence of Delta. It got is origin in India, I believe in December and prior to any mass vaccination in that country. This was prior to the WHO deciding it was a Virus or Concern.

Thanks Bart.

As mentioned, it is a hypothesis and may well be proven false over time. Even if variants already existed, the fact that the vaccines were developed narrowly/specifically for the original virus, it does seem plausible that they are/will be less effective against variant strains.

Also, anyone traveling to India from another country could have introduced the Delta variant there. Delta may or may not have originated in India prior to vaccines.

To me, unencumbered by data, the greatest chance for mutation is in populations with high viral replication. The greater the replication, the greater the chance the virus will mutate. IMO, vaccine do just the opposite.

You would vary well have a mutation in a virus in a break through infection but I would think that would be much rarer than in an unvaccinated population. It is just a numbers game. Unfortunately we will see...........it is playing out right in front of us.

Yes. Spreading the idea that vaccines may lead to more mutations is just foolishness, in my opinion. Having someone reconsider getting vaccinated because of that is just going to potentially contribute to the problem…..walked out for lunch, just saw a woman get vaccinated in a park under a tent.

Don't be afraid TLD, no one is "spreading" ideas. Isn't science about asking questions, seeking truth, looking for answers through observation and experimentation? You seem to want to shut that down unless of course it's only source is the medical establishment. Unfortunately, the medical establishment has shown itself to be politically corrupt (see Fauci for one).

To be clear, I never suggested the variants were being caused by the vaccines. Nope. If that's how it came off, apologies. The idea is that the variants will be strengthened because these novel vaccines were not developed broadly enough to completely protect against them. But who knew? I certainly hope the variant hypothesis is wrong but it should be considered plausible until it can be ruled out by scientific methods, not politics, short-sighted policies, or cancellation.

What does this mean? How does a variant strengthen because a "novel" vaccine is not developed broadly enough? Do you actually know what you are questioning? Do you have a link to the "variant hypothesis"? I would like to actually read it.

It's nonsensical.
The variants result simply from the survival of a mutated virus and its passage to another person and another...they don't respond to the vaccine. Some mutations have no advantage in their survival or transmissibility, others have a chance at an advantage. Pure chance. However, with every incremental infection there's a chance of a mutation...with advantages.

One of those advantages may be that is able to be transmitted to and from vaccinated people.

But, sure, if a mutation survives and is still able to be spread amongst vaccinated people, then that virus will become the dominant strain as others are choked of...but the virus itself doesn't react.

The key, therefore, is to as quickly as possible choke off incremental infections. Reducing, therefore, the number of possible mutations. Any ongoing infections among unvaccinated people provide the possibility of a breakout strain.

Not really that complicated.

Now THIS is nonsensical. It's very complicated actually.

And, of course, this is why it matters to all of us who have been vaccinated that the rest of us are vaccinated as well...or as many as possible, as fast as possible. It's not simply a matter of "they made their decision to take their chances". No, they're gambling for all of us.

Yep. We can only hope the current vaccines are effective re variants, at least effective enough until something better is developed.

[youthathletics]

So...kinda like the way the flu vaccine is produced each year. Even when you take the guessed strain flu shot, you can still get the flu b/c it can be a different variant. See....that was easy to explain.

[tech37]

https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/ ... format=amp

Good for you. Again, have you listened? Maybe your wife is interested. After all, you did say she's a scientist, right?

I listened to most of him. He should be ashamed of himself…..actually Weinstein should be ashamed of himself.

Sure you listened... what a clown. You should be ashamed saying such.

You're discrediting people with laudable bona fides, who courageously question conventional thinking and practices with sincere intentions. That should never happen with science With all the problems we humans face now and in the future, people such as these are needed more than ever.

Of course TLD and his good sheep ilk, blindly follow the so-called establishment experts, who could never be wrong and can never be questioned. Talk about a Fauci bootlicker...

That sort of narrow-minded compliance and stupidity will surely do us in.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/ ... format=amp

Good for you. Again, have you listened? Maybe your wife is interested. After all, you did say she's a scientist, right?

I listened to most of him. He should be ashamed of himself…..actually Weinstein should be ashamed of himself.

Sure you listened... what a clown. You should be ashamed saying such.

You're discrediting people with laudable bona fides, who courageously question conventional thinking and practices with sincere intentions. That should never happen with science With all the problems we humans face now and in the future, people such as these are needed more than ever.

Of course TLD and his good sheep ilk, blindly follow the so-called establishment experts, who could never be wrong and can never be questioned. Talk about a Fauci bootlicker...

That sort of narrow-minded compliance and stupidity will surely do us in.

Enjoy the boot licking. Palm oil will help the tongue. Stock up on Ivermectin and don’t get vaccinated because Stone Cold Said So… use your brain.