This is an oddly adversarial comment as we have had plenty of restrictions on activities and mask mandates and issues with testing in the last couple of years on and off and especially 2nd half of last year.

Plenty of places in the world have had it better or worse than your particular LGA/State too, pretty sure it's not a competition?

I really don't recall people here (maybe WA?) being high and mighty unless you count a portion of the population wanting to keep borders closed as that.
If people were doing that in Facebook comment sections then I think the problem is your source aha

No matter where you stand on this issue of Covid, it should be common ground of agreement that taking steps to improve your underlying health can only be a positive.

Given that some of you imbibe information from a narrow restricted number of sources, we can't assume all of you guys persons are aware of the following basic information:

https://flccc.substack.com/p/flcccs-healthy-holiday-gift-guide

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Alliance-I-MASKplus-Protocol-ENGLISH.pdf

The regular contingent of flare-lighting mockers will scoff at this information, but I care enough about all of you to stick my neck out to provide this information, as there'll be others from the silent majority who have common sense to evaluate and test information, rather than dismissing it just because you find one thing you can criticise.

Think I'll keep posting this until he admits he posted an article which was a complete lie and fabrication.  

I don't normally have a go at you Davide. It just so happened that your post gave me an opportunity to rant which I took.

To be fair your mob have been fairly quiet about it all. Qld and WA have been the standout wankers.

I have a bee in my bonnet about Qld in particular after that clown of a premier made it mandatory to have a negative test prior to crossing the border. That meant my son, despite being double vaxxed, had to queue up for 3 times (on 3 separate days, on his holidays) to get tested to go back to bananaland. The last time they got there at 12.30am at night to be near the front when they opened at 9am.

So it's great now to see Qld record nearly 11 000 cases overnight. And still, the dumb clown is making people queue for 6-8 hours to get a test. FFS.

All whilst they've been crapping on about how NSW have botched the whole thing. (Easy to say when they've done none of the heavy lifting.) 

it took long enough for the LNP federal government to finally block the antivaxxer tennis player from playing in the country

Ok, I will try to be gracious. It’s not my intention to destroy you intellectually. After all, both you and I are on a shared search for truth on this Covid issue. We not in a contest against each other.

You’ve shared with us how you do your research i.e. you click the link, and you search for the words “T cell” — and when it doesn’t appear — you got the thrill of a gun-toting hunter having supposedly cornered JohnSmith.

So I have to be very gentle with you, because the fury you feel at catching me out - I hope when I explain it, that those strong emotions don’t turn into .. to use a hunting analogy, when the hunter suddenly feels cornered.

So here we go.

I’ll start with a simple example. If Johnsmith said that the environment in which fish live is being damaged; and if I don't mention the word “water”, you think it doesn’t apply to water. This is a one-dimensional form of analysis.

Similarly, because the word “T cell” was not mentioned in the Crick article, you feel triumphant in pointing out that I must have been talking nonsense when quoting something that referred to T cells.

The following article explains: “The helper T cells stimulate B cells to release antibodies”.

http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-t-cells-and-antibodies/

In the case of Covid, an antibody that deals with the Covid virus is referred to as a “neutralizing antibody” - it neutralises the Covid virus.

So when a person talks about “neutralizing antibody”, it is understood, without saying it, that T cells are involved, even if the word “T cells” is not stated.

Hence, you can now understand this:

“The study from the Francis Crick Institute focused on the neutralizing antibodies which are created by T cells. It analyzed whether the Pfizer vaccine helps the T cells create enough antibodies to fight off Covid-19 and associated variants of the virus. The study was conducted by the Francis Crick Institute … found that the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine produced fewer neutralizing antibodies against Covid-19 and other variants.”

https://phoenixwolfj.com/covid-19-vaccine-is-destroying-your-t-cells-and-weaken-your-immune-system/

Okay so far?

Now here’s the Lancet article:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01290-3/fulltext

The entire article mentions 35x about neutralising antibodies (NAbs). You are correct that the word “T cell” does not appear once in the article. But as we saw above, T cells stimulate the production of antibodies. Therefore, the low amount of Covid-neutralising antibodies (NAbs) has something to do with the T cells.

Here’s an article that explains it.

https://dailyexpose.uk/2021/08/23/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-destroys-t-cells-and-weakens-the-immune-system/

Here’s a video by Dr David Bauer from the Crick Institute also explaining this.

https://mobile.twitter.com/2NjoyMore/status/1428249714332479492

I plead for unity and brotherhood. This search for truth about Covid and vaccines, I am not treating this like a football match. You are not the other side. If you slip up, I don’t dance a jig gloating that you’ve expressed an inaccuracy. We’re in this together. Sharing different viewpoints helps both of us understand how people can hold different viewpoints.

Once again, you have simply taken your anti-vaxxer sources at face value without giving them the most basic level of scrutiny.  

The Lancet study specially examined and observed a reduction of neutralising antibodies against variants of concern IN COMPARISON to the original strain:

'However, NAbTs were 5·8-fold reduced against B.1.617.2 relative to Wild-type (95% CI 5·0–6·9), significantly more reduced than against B.1.1.7 (2·6-fold vs Wild-type, 95% CI 2·2–3·1), and on a similar order to the reduction observed against B.1.351'

The study does not mention "reducing" or  "destroying" antibodies or T-Cells.   The study does not observe anything other than a reduced ability of the antibodies produced by a vaccine, modelled on the original "wild type" virus strain, to neutralise variants like Beta or Delta. It also observes a waning of antibodies over time.  

The 'Daily Expose' article , which you have unbelievably posted AGAIN blatantly lies about this, claiming the study shows the vaccine destroys T-Cells.  They have even posted a sentence of their own in between real quotes from the study to make it appear that it does.  It's dishonest misinformation of the highest magnitude, and you fell for it, hook line and sinker.

Search for truth my fucking arse.  All you are doing is seeking confirmation bias. If you really care about the truth, offer your sources the same level of scrutiny a high school kid would before posting.

Not even a week into the new year and we have nation wide mask laws, panic buying / food shortages, large chunks of the population in isolation, lockdown in NT for sections of the population, mile long queues for tests, inconsistent rules that change every hour, and lingering threat that school will kick off remote learning until kids can get vaccinated (even though we know vaccination alone doesn't stop the overreaction)

This is why "treating it like every other flu" was an important element in the "have confidence we can open up with 90% of our population vaccinated" plan

Meanwhile - record low deaths, ICU numbers substantially less than 10% of supply (Victoria have 4000 units alone), over hospitalisation - but constant projections hospital systems will be overrun

As I said, testing and tracing should be scrapped for non healthcare and aged care workers, as should all other restrictions outside of these areas. The sooner Australia wake up to the fact we can't regulate our way out of this mess the better

Will take him another 2 days to get back to this after asking his "friends" on some other forum how he can best come back against what you've said

*facebook

The entire premise of the article he posted is based on deceit in order to construct a false narrative, yet he makes out like I'm correcting his grammar or something trivial like that.  

He writes these long winded sociological analyses, lamenting the inability of people to look past what "the media" tells them, yet doesn't follow his own advice.  And when somebody does takes the time to actually look beyond what an article says and get down to the bones of it,  he dismisses them as nitpicking.  

This season we're in means we all need calm heads that are willing to evaluate emerging data. There should be no such thing as a fixed stance, when it comes to science and new data. There is absolutely no place for turning this into an insult-fest, because it risks people entrenching themselves in their stance just to prove they are right. Even though this is a football forum, we must not debate this in a partisan manner like we would a football topic.

For example, if sdneyfc1987 suddenly saw cogent evidence that the vaccine-risk outweighed getting Covid, could he/she shift his/her stance? Or is he/she the type of person that will refuse to change because of being a person who, in general, finds it difficult to admit being wrong? For family relationships, living with people who refuse to admit faults is a pain -- but for such people evaluating Covid data to make life and death decisions, it is deadly to refuse to admit being wrong.

This paper states: "very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic." (italics part of the quotation).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X

This article is a person who shifted their stance based on the above paper.

https://phenell.wordpress.com/2021/11/20/maybe-i-was-wrong-about-the-covid-vaccines/

p/s I'm being politically-correct since, on an anonymous forum, one cannot assume that sdneyfc1987 is male, since he/she could have just used a male profile photo.

the article is an opinion piece not a peer reviewed scientific study

The wordpress article is an opinion - but the sciencedirect article is a scientific paper which cites data.

I'd say this "holier than thou" shtick is the worst character trait you have.  

You spend the vast majority of your time insulting the intelligence of anybody who disagrees with you, smugly explaining to us why we think the way we do, like you have a PhD in sociology or phycology.

You post gifs of sheep, making out like we're incapable of thinking for ourselves and blindly follow what "the media" tell us to think. 

And you call me a "gun toting troll hunter" because I did exactly what you keep saying we should do, which is "evaluate and test information". 

Practice what you preach just once ffs.

Ok, for each of the above points you raised, I apologise for overstepping the mark. Let's focus on the science, for the sake of the next generation.

When it comes to the health of our children, we adults -- I assume you're over 18 -- should set aside differences, and focus on using the best data to make decisions.

Good to see Victoria inflating their figures by adding a weeks worth of RAT data to a daily PCR figure, despite historically back dating data to the relevant date

What you effectively had was 25k PCR cases and 5k RAT cases today which is the figure one would expect at this point in time. It also supports the idea that over 80% of all cases fit the definition of a close contact and by changing the definition we are only missing 15%-17% of cases

It also shows the effectiveness of self monitoring and no need to regulate it outside of high risk areas like hospitals and aged care

remember it was the LNP who let COVID into the country

ok pauly

rules are rules

Kostoff? The lead author?

You mean this bloke?  https://retractionwatch.com/2021/10/04/author-defends-paper-claiming-covid-19-vaccines-kill-five-times-more-people-over-65-than-they-save/

http://blogs.harvard.edu/sj/2021/09/30/journal-level-fraud-elsevier-fakes-peer-review-of-covid-click-bait/

another johnsmith rabbit hole filled in

You think - by citing some website criticising the data -- that somehow -- that vindicates you. Then you refuse to see the data for yourself.

Here is the link to the UK government website. Let's see this week's data for Week 1 of 2022.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports?

I know you won't bother, so I've done it for you below:



See with your own eyes the number of un-vaxed deaths of older people, and the number of vaxed.

Doesn't even deny it.

Remember it was Australia who decided to open up

Step 1: Vaccinate 90% of the population and open up
Step 2: Panic because vaccinated people are getting it

It's raining outside. Better put on a rain coat and get my umbrella. *goes outside. Oh no! My rain coat and umbrella are getting wet

Quote from this Canadian study: "We also observed negative VE against Omicron among those who had received 2 doses compared to unvaccinated individuals. "

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.30.21268565v1.full.pdf
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.27.21268278v1.full.pdf

The notion of "negative vaccine effectiveness" (negative VE) means that the Vaccinated are More Likely to Get COVID.

The regular mockers on this forum have such a Media-dogleash around their necks, you will not see them having an open discussion about the notion of "negative vaccination effectiveness", i.e. more than the vaccines being ineffective, but that the vaxxed are actually more likely to get Covid than the unvaxxed. See the above posts. I mentioned in a few times with citations from the Danish study, and they mocked and insulted, rather than having a sane, scientific discussion.

And if your last defence is that the vaccines at least prevent serious sickness from Covid, you may wish to review new studies - which confirm predictions of people dismissed as conspiracy - which now show that the COVID vaccines damage your immune system, likely permanently. This is no conventional vaccine. It is a new-tech gene-manipulating drug that forces the cells in your body to being little manufacturing-sites for spike proteins. If you are perfectly comfortable with that, then you have no need to research further.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-study-shows-vaccines-must-be

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-study-from-germany-confirms-higher

95% of people that die in car accidents are wearing seatbelts.

Carefully study how this person Munrubenmuz handles new emerging data. It goes against what he has been schooled by the Media. So he instantly dismisses it with a seatbelt analogy. This is a prime example of how people are stuck in one narrative. They are blind and deaf to emerging data that is against their safety-narrative of relying on potentially dangerous vaccines that are showing signs of destroying your innate immune system, all to combat a disease with a 0.1% chance of dying, with Omicron indicating milder symptoms.

I'm sorry to say, if the majority of society investigate Covid data like the above statement, then it explains why we're in the mess we're in.

We saw this closed-mindedness months ago with Ivermectin, a medicine used for 3+ decades as a human medicine with minimal side effects, won a Nobel Prize for use in humans (not animals) -- and all the media has to do is label it as "horse medicine", and the simple well-meaning folk go along with the Media headlines. There's something in that medicine, previously used as a parasitic, that overcomes Covid. But the Media just slurs it as a parasitic, and the people follow along.

deny what?

I thought you said you were going to "focus on the science" instead of insulting the intelligence of posters who disagree with you? 

Didn't take long for Dr John Smith - PhD in Psychology from Bitchute University to rear his head again.