GOLFMK8
GOLFMK7
GOLFMK6
GOLFMKV

The COVID19 SCAMdemic... Biden Moves To Outlaw Acorns, Limit Squirrel Immigration

GolNat

Autocross Champion
Location
Delaware
Car(s)
13 GTI & 98 Prelude
Am i the only one here that doesn't smoke pot?

I don’t.

Work can do randoms and if I had an accident I’d get tested. Not worth the risk.
 

jimlloyd40

Autocross Champion
Location
Phoenix
Car(s)
2018 SE DSG
I'm not even necessarily trying to change minds. I don't think Zrick and others are going to change their mind. At this point, I'm simply trying to identify what "facts" everyone is relying upon. I've noticed medRxIV links show up a bunch of times, so I became suspicious. MedRxIV articles simply are not credible since almost anyone can post an article on medRxIV. You can't do the same with peer reviewed white papers. At this point, I'm just asking if any of the any of the anti-vaxxers in this thread can cite a credible source for some of their claims.
Anyone can discredit a source and they do regularly. Nobody in here believes any link anyone posts if they disagree with the information in the link and then immediately discredit the source. This crap is going to be needlessly debated which is ridiculous because it's a fluid situation and regularly changes based on new information.
 

MagicMK

Drag Racing Champion
Location
PA
Okay, here is why that study is unreliable and needs to be peer reviewed. Before I speak to that, let me first say... you do realize the idea is to NOT get COVID, right? I mean, if you're solution to getting the best immunity to COVID, which kills people, is to actually GET COVID in the first place so that you don't get it, again... don't you see the problem with that logic?

Okay, so what is wrong with that study... other than it does not cite its sample population, age distribution of subjects, sex, underlying health issues, etc, etc, etc.... other than that, the problem is that it was taken over too short a period of time. Also, if your sample size is too small... using only 10 people for ex, and one get's infected, that's a 10% increase in infections. We really need to know how many people were involved in this study, and if there were any differences in the way non-vaccinated people acted during the study period vs vaccinated people. For ex, were unvaccinated people wearing masks in Israel... because they were unvaccinated, while the vaccinated people (who thought they were safe) were NOT wearing masks? Also, how many of the infections ended up being Delta break through infections vs COVID A break through infections?

Listen, I'm interested in this study, but you have to admit... there isn't much "meat" on the bone, here. You can't even say how many people were in the study, or whether the people conducting the "observational study" actually had sufficient information to reduce other variables (such as if the unvaccinated persons were actually wearing masks during the study period while the vaccinated people were unmasked)... etc, etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAP

brat_burner

Autocross Champion
Location
FL
Car(s)
Mk6
C0FC8436-0FEC-44A6-90CF-7C7EFC055CA8.jpeg
 

oddspyke

Autocross Champion
Location
Delaware
Car(s)
2016 GTI, 2018 ZL1

Unreal1

Autocross Champion
Location
Pittsburgh
Lol, I did not ignore anything... I mean, I just randomly picked MedRxIV and focused on it. That was the only one I looked at. Okay, if you think Nature.com has a credible article re why mRNA COVID vaccines are dangerous, then provide me a link of this article, and I'll look at that one as well. Show me what ya got...

I already posted studies from nature.com on the effectiveness of natural immunity and you ignored every one. We all know why. I don't need to get into it.

As far as the spike protein being dangerous, again, already had this argument with torga so you can ask him how that went...

I will admit I was wrong in that case.
 

zrickety

The Fixer
Location
Unknown
Car(s)
VW GTI
Top