Your transformation to the pig Squealer is completeJohnStOnge wrote:See https://www.science.org/content/article ... ice-sicker.
The incident does not at all show that the NIH funded "gain of function" research. Paul is very intellectually dishonest.
In the battle between was The Rona created in a lab vs completely natural, the score is now, the entire earth population vs Fauci, JOS and the Chinese Communist PartyJohnStOnge wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 5:59 pmDo you seriously think Paul won that exchange? There is no "preponderance of evidence" suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab. It was not gain of function research. The guy is a demagogue. He is arguing with someone who knows a whole hell of a lot more about the subject matter involved than he does.
To me this is disturbing because I've seen it many times before. You have someone who really doesn't know what he is talking about (Paul) speaking very aggressively and assertively as though he does. So people think he's on to something when he is not.
JSO is revealing his inner ChiComm. Introducing JohnStXi.andy7171 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:36 amIn the battle between was The Rona created in a lab vs completely natural, the score is now, the entire earth population vs Fauci, JOS and the Chinese Communist PartyJohnStOnge wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 5:59 pm
Do you seriously think Paul won that exchange? There is no "preponderance of evidence" suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab. It was not gain of function research. The guy is a demagogue. He is arguing with someone who knows a whole hell of a lot more about the subject matter involved than he does.
To me this is disturbing because I've seen it many times before. You have someone who really doesn't know what he is talking about (Paul) speaking very aggressively and assertively as though he does. So people think he's on to something when he is not.
andy7171 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:36 amIn the battle between was The Rona created in a lab vs completely natural, the score is now, the entire earth population vs Fauci, JOS and the Chinese Communist PartyJohnStOnge wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 5:59 pm
Do you seriously think Paul won that exchange? There is no "preponderance of evidence" suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab. It was not gain of function research. The guy is a demagogue. He is arguing with someone who knows a whole hell of a lot more about the subject matter involved than he does.
To me this is disturbing because I've seen it many times before. You have someone who really doesn't know what he is talking about (Paul) speaking very aggressively and assertively as though he does. So people think he's on to something when he is not.
JSO purposely lying in this case is just so sad Interesting, does that put a hold on vaccine mandates? If you can just take a pill once you get COVID and it gives you the same benefits that the vaccine does (less hospitalization and less death), what's the public imperative to make someone get a vaccine? (btw, I'm not anti-vax, have my appointment today for my booster).kalm wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:26 am Pfizer has a pill that reduces hospitalization and deaths by 89%
Possible game changer…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... 0N5qir0fKI
Brace yourselves, this is coming!!!!!
Sad that there are people here who have no idea what that is in reference to.
They might be better for it. I'm still scarred.
It was a great time to be alive!
He also purposely tried to misrepresent what was in the article I posted as if the rest of us cannot effing read or something
I don't think yet, as it was only England so far that has approved it's EUA. Don't believe it is an option here in the US yet.GannonFan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 8:29 amInteresting, does that put a hold on vaccine mandates? If you can just take a pill once you get COVID and it gives you the same benefits that the vaccine does (less hospitalization and less death), what's the public imperative to make someone get a vaccine? (btw, I'm not anti-vax, have my appointment today for my booster).kalm wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:26 am Pfizer has a pill that reduces hospitalization and deaths by 89%
Possible game changer…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... 0N5qir0fKI
No it's not. You know better than that. The Republicans on that committee have made a lot of noise and making claims about things like "preponderance of the evidence" when that's not really there. I think this article pretty well sums up the situation: https://www.newscientist.com/definition ... -come-lab/.andy7171 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:36 amIn the battle between was The Rona created in a lab vs completely natural, the score is now, the entire earth population vs Fauci, JOS and the Chinese Communist PartyJohnStOnge wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 5:59 pm
Do you seriously think Paul won that exchange? There is no "preponderance of evidence" suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab. It was not gain of function research. The guy is a demagogue. He is arguing with someone who knows a whole hell of a lot more about the subject matter involved than he does.
To me this is disturbing because I've seen it many times before. You have someone who really doesn't know what he is talking about (Paul) speaking very aggressively and assertively as though he does. So people think he's on to something when he is not.
The ideas that it looks like a lab leak and/or that there was bioengineering iis another is another one of those things bouncing around in the conservative false reality echo chamber.The World Health Organization and US intelligence are both taking the lab-leak hypothesis seriously. However, some scientists are concerned that this is a distraction from the most likely origin of the virus – wild animals – and that we are running out of time to determine the true origin of the pandemic.
Was the virus bioengineered?
The current scientific consensus is that the virus occurred naturally, not through bioengineering.
Researchers led by Shan-Lu Liu at the Ohio State University say there is “no credible evidence” of genetic engineering (Emerging Microbes & Infections, doi.org/dpvw). The virus’s genome has been sequenced, and if it had been altered, we would expect to see signs of inserted gene sequences. But we now know the points that differ from bat viruses are scattered in a fairly random way, just as they would be if the new virus had evolved naturally.
I did not misrepresent what was in the article you posted at all. I just looked at the letter and saw that the article you posted created a false impression. But I didn't even say that. I just said look at the letter. The letter just flat does not lend credence to the lab leak theory.CID1990 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:58 amHe also purposely tried to misrepresent what was in the article I posted as if the rest of us cannot effing read or somethingGannonFan wrote:
Like I said - he’s become Squealer from Animal Farm and he ain’t the only one
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BTW, I can never know. But based on reaction I suspect you had not read the letter.CID1990 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:58 amHe also purposely tried to misrepresent what was in the article I posted as if the rest of us cannot effing read or somethingGannonFan wrote:
Like I said - he’s become Squealer from Animal Farm and he ain’t the only one
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is LITERALLY IN THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH right there in black and whiteJohnStOnge wrote:BTW, I can never know. But based on reaction I suspect you had not read the letter.
And you thought I was bad.CID1990 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:44 pmIt is LITERALLY IN THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH right there in black and whiteJohnStOnge wrote:
BTW, I can never know. But based on reaction I suspect you had not read the letter.
Somebody do a house check on JSO maybe Jelly has tied him up and is now posting as JSO
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s already in the US. They’re not too worried about as of yet…SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:33 pm Hope I'm wrong, but it looks as if the 4th wave may be starting in Israel. Some believe it may be the worst wave yet.
Guess it’s gaining its OWN function as it spreads….SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:33 pm Hope I'm wrong, but it looks as if the 4th wave may be starting in Israel. Some believe it may be the worst wave yet.
The letter from the NIH to Congressman James Comer clearly indicates that the research it discusses was for the purpose of determining "...if spike proteins from naturally occurring coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model." It goes on to say that the instance of having mice infected with one bat coronavirus becoming sicker than those infected with another bat coronavirus was "...an unexpected result as opposed to something the researchers set out to do."New USG funding will not be released for gain-of-function research projects that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route. The research funding pause would not apply to characterization or testing of naturally occurring influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses, unless the tests are reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity.
I'd been meaning to get back to you on this but we swerved off into different topics. Whatever is going on with the UK data, there is nothing like it in the US data as far as I can tell. Go to https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracke ... ine-status then click on the "Age Group" button.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 3:08 pmAs I'm in my phone, I can only address one of your points. Let's talk vaccine effectiveness. Why do you keep reciting numbers that were generated months ago and much of it hasn't even been peer reviewed. Tsk. Tsk.JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 2:39 pm
Here is the latest report in the UK series you've been referencing: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eek-43.pdf .
The authors say you should not be using Table 2 to try to assess vaccine effectiveness and the fact that people are tested through self selection is one reason the authors provide for saying that. Go to the "Interpretation of Data" discussion on page 13. In that discussion, you will find this:
At the end of the "Interpretation of Data" discussion, the authors wrote this:
The authors discuss vaccine effectiveness with respect to infection on page 6. And their conclusion is this:
Comirnaty is the Pfizer vaccine. Vaxzevria is not approved for use in the United States.
The main take away here is that you keep referring to the numbers in Table 2 of these reports while assessing vaccine effectiveness. And the authors of the reports say you should not be doing that. The people who actually write the reports said the Pfizer vaccine is highly effective. The other one is fairly effective as well. And you are using data in their report in a way they say those data should not be used in order to make your own argument that there are questions about vaccine effectiveness.
Even though you don't like comparing vaxxed vs unvaxxed because the authors tell you so, you don't find it odd that you are saying the vaccine is 80% effective, when you can clearly see it's negative in the 30+ groups. Even with hidden bias, it can't be THAT far off.
You sure they really want to be arguing differences in "more health conscious". Wouldn't that suggest prior differences in health of the vaxxed and unvaxxed populations, which would in turn suggest worse outcomes in the unvaxxed are to some unknown degree the result of statistical confounding?
