Covid Jab or no Covid Jab? Discuss!

[Percy666]

Hes not reet in the head !

who isn't?

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

Creepy "Dan from Norfolk" joining today aka two chickens in a pond with his sexual fantasies of calling men karen again. I stopped reading after Karen knowing it was the gender confused two chickens on another profile

Paranoia Karen the Covidiot.

 

[Percy666]

Paranoia Karen the Covidiot.

creepy 2 chickens, the confused chump that doesnt know what gender it is- log into the Dan profile to back yourself up you mad cabbage

 

[Whiskers]

who isn't?

Was talking about hells

 

[Percy666]

Was talking about hells

Yes he is barking mad in fairness

 

[hell2bwith76]

I’m well aware of that. The sad fact remains that some people will continue to ignore the truth even when facts are placed in front of them. It’s more comfortable for them I suppose to pretend that the BBC tells the truth, politicians never lie, the vaccine isn’t making fortunes for the pharmaceutical companies, and we are not being conned.
I envy them in a way. Their naivety is a defence. Sadly, those who can think for themselves, those who look beyond the MSM, are left to wonder when, not if, we will be able to say “I told you so, but you wouldn’t listen.”

Out of curiosity , is your boss going to have the jab?

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

An academic peer reviewed article from April Rees, PhD Researcher in Immunology, Swansea University and Catherine Thornton, Professor of Human Immunology, Swansea University, in The Conversation.

'COVID-19 vaccines are proving highly effective in pregnancy, according to a newly published study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. It has also found that mothers who have been vaccinated are passing on precious immunity to their newborns.

A group of researchers in Massachusetts studied pregnant women’s response to two approved mRNA vaccines – Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna/NIH. The women were vaccinated either during pregnancy or while breastfeeding, and their ability to produce virus-specific antibodies was compared to that of vaccinated, non-pregnant women........contd.'

contd. link - COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective for pregnant women and their babies – new study

The Conversation is an independent source of news and views, sourced from the academic and research community and delivered direct to the public. A team of professional editors work with university and research institute experts to unlock their knowledge for use by the wider public. Access to independent, high quality, authenticated, explanatory journalism underpins a functioning democracy. Our aim is to allow for better understanding of current affairs and complex issues. And hopefully allow for a better quality of public discourse and conversations.... contd.

Each article includes disclosure statements, ref: funding, position, etc.

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

Article from Rob Reddick, The Conversation, Commissioning Editor, COVID-19

COVID vaccine weekly: AstraZeneca supplies and efficacy under the microscope again

'Disputes over the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine have dominated the week, just as they have at various points over the past few months.

Europe’s leaders have so far largely resisted restricting exports of doses manufactured on the continent that are destined for other countries. But the EU is still concerned that the UK has an unfair advantage, as millions of vaccine doses have been exported from the EU to Britain with none being exported back in return..... contd.'

contd. link - COVID vaccine weekly: AstraZeneca supplies and efficacy under the microscope again

 

[Brass]

An academic peer reviewed article from April Rees, PhD Researcher in Immunology, Swansea University and Catherine Thornton, Professor of Human Immunology, Swansea University, in The Conversation.

'COVID-19 vaccines are proving highly effective in pregnancy, according to a newly published study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. It has also found that mothers who have been vaccinated are passing on precious immunity to their newborns.

A group of researchers in Massachusetts studied pregnant women’s response to two approved mRNA vaccines – Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna/NIH. The women were vaccinated either during pregnancy or while breastfeeding, and their ability to produce virus-specific antibodies was compared to that of vaccinated, non-pregnant women........contd.'

contd. link - COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective for pregnant women and their babies – new study

The Conversation is an independent source of news and views, sourced from the academic and research community and delivered direct to the public. A team of professional editors work with university and research institute experts to unlock their knowledge for use by the wider public. Access to independent, high quality, authenticated, explanatory journalism underpins a functioning democracy. Our aim is to allow for better understanding of current affairs and complex issues. And hopefully allow for a better quality of public discourse and conversations.... contd.

Each article includes disclosure statements, ref: funding, position, etc.

Gee, how many women were involved in this study?

 

[Percy666]

CDC ignores inquiry into increasing number of deaths, injuries reported after COVID vaccines
VAERS data released today showed 38,444 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines, including 1,739 deaths and 6,286 serious injuries since Dec. 14, 2020.

 

[Percy666]

We can do the copying and pasting game all day 2chickens

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

Article from Fiona Henriquez, Professor of Parasitology, University of the West of Scotland, Mia Cousins Burleigh, Senior Technician, University of the West of Scotland and William Mackay, Reader in Healthcare Acquired Infections, University of the West of Scotland. The Conversation.

Is your mask effective against COVID-19? Three questions you should ask yourself.

'The emergence of new, potentially more infectious, coronavirus variants has led many people to worry about the effectiveness of their masks in protecting themselves and other people from catching COVID-19. Some experts are recommending people wear two masks in order to increase the protection.

Masks have been the subject of much debate since the pandemic began. Today, most governments and health bodies recommend we wear them to prevent the transmission of COVID-19......contd'

contd. link - Is your mask effective against COVID-19? Three questions you should ask yourself

 

[Percy666]

Few issues are more contentious in modern American life than mandatory mask orders. And the debate is about to get even more heated.

A newly released study in the academic journal Annals of Internal Medicine casts more doubt on policies that force healthy individuals to wear face coverings in hopes of limiting the spread of COVID-19.

“Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial,” the New York Times reports.

The study is perhaps the best scientific evidence to date on the efficacy of masks.

To conduct the study, which ran from early April to early June, scientists at the University of Copenhagen recruited more than 6,000 participants who had tested negative for COVID-19 immediately prior to the experiment.

Half the participants were given surgical masks and instructed to wear them outside the home; the other half were instructed to not wear a mask outside the home.

Roughly 4,860 participants finished the experiment, the Times reports. The results were not encouraging.

“The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant,” the Times reports.

Dr. Henning Bundgaard, lead author of the experiment and a physician at the University of Copenhagen, told the newspaper the results of his research are clear.

“Our study gives an indication of how much you gain from wearing a mask,” Bundgaard said. “Not a lot.”

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

Having posted articles from The Conversation on other forum 'postings', I found the above articles useful in the spirit of this particular thread and the OP's original question.

for info.

The Conversation is an independent source of news and views, sourced from the academic and research community and delivered direct to the public. A team of professional editors work with university and research institute experts to unlock their knowledge for use by the wider public. Access to independent, high quality, authenticated, explanatory journalism underpins a functioning democracy. Our aim is to allow for better understanding of current affairs and complex issues. And hopefully allow for a better quality of public discourse and conversations

 

[hell2bwith76]

Few issues are more contentious in modern American life than mandatory mask orders. And the debate is about to get even more heated.

A newly released study in the academic journal Annals of Internal Medicine casts more doubt on policies that force healthy individuals to wear face coverings in hopes of limiting the spread of COVID-19.

“Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial,” the New York Times reports.

The study is perhaps the best scientific evidence to date on the efficacy of masks.

To conduct the study, which ran from early April to early June, scientists at the University of Copenhagen recruited more than 6,000 participants who had tested negative for COVID-19 immediately prior to the experiment.

Half the participants were given surgical masks and instructed to wear them outside the home; the other half were instructed to not wear a mask outside the home.

Roughly 4,860 participants finished the experiment, the Times reports. The results were not encouraging.

“The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant,” the Times reports.

Dr. Henning Bundgaard, lead author of the experiment and a physician at the University of Copenhagen, told the newspaper the results of his research are clear.

“Our study gives an indication of how much you gain from wearing a mask,” Bundgaard said. “Not a lot.”

Even if another non masked person sneezed right in your face ?
It makes sense to me !

 

[Percy666]

Do you have any views of your own 2 chickens or just keep posting rubbish from google like your "jokes". For every article you post, one can be found to say the opposite.. why bother?

 

[Brass]

Article from Fiona Henriquez, Professor of Parasitology, University of the West of Scotland, Mia Cousins Burleigh, Senior Technician, University of the West of Scotland and William Mackay, Reader in Healthcare Acquired Infections, University of the West of Scotland. The Conversation.

Is your mask effective against COVID-19? Three questions you should ask yourself.

'The emergence of new, potentially more infectious, coronavirus variants has led many people to worry about the effectiveness of their masks in protecting themselves and other people from catching COVID-19. Some experts are recommending people wear two masks in order to increase the protection.

Masks have been the subject of much debate since the pandemic began. Today, most governments and health bodies recommend we wear them to prevent the transmission of COVID-19......contd'

contd. link - Is your mask effective against COVID-19? Three questions you should ask yourself

I just posted this:

The PCR test that was used to detect coronavirus was set at a 40-cycle threshold of amplification/replication as per the FDA's recommendation. However, even infectious disease "expert" tony himself is on record stating that an amplification/replication cycle above 35 is going to spit out almost all false-positives; others say anything above 30 cycles is meaningless. There was even a New York Tmes article stating that the PCR test has spit out 90% false-positives. It takes almost zero critical thinking skills to draw the obvious conclusion. Ninety percent false positives means no pandemic.

So, why did the FDA recommend a cycle-threshold of 40? That's a rhetorical question; they obviously wanted to create the illusion of a pandemic. Also, why didn't Tony bother to speak up concerning what can only be described as a deliberate and gross misapplication of a test? We'll never know because, thanks to a complicit media, Mr. Fauci is not required to publicly answer even one challenge to his dire predictions which are based on 90% false positive returns from a PCR test that was knowingly set too high.

Unfortunately, unless some talking head comes on tv and tells people it's okay to apply their own critical thinking skills to those factual numbers, they won't do it. They think they need permission to make the obvious inference and then respond to the falsehood they've been fed. And the real kicker is that the only ones they'll accept permission from are the same ones who neglected to inform them of the reason for all the false positives in the first place.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You want to excuse yourself from that debate and move on to masks and "vaccines." But first you need to explain how a faulty test that kicked out 90% false positives due to the cycle threshold being set way too high is justification for anything.

And how many pregnant women in that study you linked to?

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

I suggest to anyone asking questions about an article I posted, that they should read it. I mean, that is why a link was included. So it can be independent.

All answers are there (link) plus the article stands alone from 'my viewpoint'.

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

And if you are posting information from a website, please include information about the authors, and make sure that each article includes disclosure statements, ref: funding, position, etc. Name of the website, links to the website are also helpful.

References are important. Impartiality is important or, include the disclosure statement. Allow the reader to decide.

 

[TwoWhalesInAPool]

Few issues are more contentious in modern American life than mandatory mask orders. And the debate is about to get even more heated.

A newly released study in the academic journal Annals of Internal Medicine casts more doubt on policies that force healthy individuals to wear face coverings in hopes of limiting the spread of COVID-19.

“Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial,” the New York Times reports.

The study is perhaps the best scientific evidence to date on the efficacy of masks.

To conduct the study, which ran from early April to early June, scientists at the University of Copenhagen recruited more than 6,000 participants who had tested negative for COVID-19 immediately prior to the experiment.

Half the participants were given surgical masks and instructed to wear them outside the home; the other half were instructed to not wear a mask outside the home.

Roughly 4,860 participants finished the experiment, the Times reports. The results were not encouraging.

“The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant,” the Times reports.

Dr. Henning Bundgaard, lead author of the experiment and a physician at the University of Copenhagen, told the newspaper the results of his research are clear.

“Our study gives an indication of how much you gain from wearing a mask,” Bundgaard said. “Not a lot.”

Article from Forbes.com, author Leah Rosenbaum.

Lead Researcher Behind Controversial Danish Study Says You Should Still Wear A Mask

'... “Even a small degree of protection is worth using the face masks,” says Dr. Henning Bundgaard, professor of Cardiology at Rigshospitalet in Denmark and lead author of the study, “because you are protecting yourself against a potentially life-threatening disease.

Experts swiftly pointed out that the study has many limitations, including low compliance (many people did not complete the study, and a high percentage of people who were supposed to wear masks did not) and that it took place in a population where spread of Covid-19 was already low.

Multiple studies have found that mask wearing has a big impact on Covid-19, including one in October which found areas in Tennessee with mask mandates had lower hospitalization rates than areas that don’t.

Dr. Tom Frieden, former Director for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), wrote a response to the study that was also published in Annals of Internal Medicine. In it, he pointed out that among other limitations, the study authors used antibody tests to diagnose cases of Covid-19 which could have led to a significant number of false positives. In addition, the authors did not make an effort to ensure that people who were told to wear masks wore them correctly, or at all times..... contd.

contd. - link - Lead Researcher Behind Controversial Danish Study Says You Should Still Wear A Mask