[arm79]

Originally Posted by Romulus

I expected the character assassination of the 4 Dr's I mentioned, that was easy pickings.

Then why write it like you are trying to wow the population with credible sources? I'm assuming because its the only thing in your arsenal.

But I suppose one persons character assassination is another's truth and fact. I'm yet to see anyone dispute what I wrote as incorrect or lacking in fact.

Are you also going to tell us that the inventor of the PCR test told everyone his test was not accurate and can't detect covid too?

Originally Posted by Romulus

What's not been debunked is the statement from Janine Small from Pfizer, giggling when stating the Pfizer covid vaccine was never tested for its ability to block transmission of the virus, the basis of the vaccine.

I was coming back to this. Had to have dinner first before I could come back to play.

That EU Commission was nothing more than a bull**** sensationalist gotcha type question from a ****head politician trying to wow the population with his little brain. If she was giggling it was probably because she thought he was a ****head too.

Why do I say this? Because of this. As you read through it, check out the date it was written.

When it comes to COVID-19, researchers have been primarily focused on the vaccines' protective efficacy — how well they protect people from falling ill.

In clinical trials, the Pfizer vaccine was found to be 95 per cent effective at reducing disease. But whether it stopped people from getting infected in the first place isn't yet known — because it wasn't measured.

Larisa Labzin, an immunologist at the University of Queensland, says it's possible there were people in the Pfizer trial who received the vaccine, got infected with COVID-19, but didn't develop any symptoms.

They wouldn't have been identified, nor included in Pfizer's analysis, because researchers were specifically looking at whether the vaccine stopped or reduced the severity of COVID-19 symptoms — not whether the vaccine prevented infection in the first place.

I like this one because its not classified as a poo newspaper.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2...38kIoqDz2LDOXk

So, 18 months before this "explosive" and "unexpected" testimony with the EU Commission it was publicly knowledged in our own media that blocking of transmission was never tested for.

But then I always comeback to the fact, when did a vaccine stop being a vaccine? At what point did it also become a cure and transmission blocking poison for a virus? Because apparently a vaccine is now all that too.

Or is it just THIS vaccine? Or does a vaccine have a new definition? Or is this not a vaccine, but something different again? Call me confused.

It's said pretty well in that article.

The goal of vaccination is, first and foremost, to stop people getting sick, says Nigel McMillan, director of infectious diseases and immunology at Menzies Health.

Sometimes, vaccines are also able to stop us from getting infected in the first place — and therefore prevent us from passing the virus onto others. This is known as sterilising immunity.

"That's a very high bar for vaccines, and not all vaccines do that," Professor McMillan says.

The measles vaccine does; as does the hepatitis B jab. But they're very much in the minority.

So this non-poo newspaper is saying that vaccines are not meant to prevent transmission and its extremely rare that they ever do.

I look at it this way...

Ever year I get a flu shot. I hope that this flu shot should stop the virus from taking hold should I get infected, but if it does take hold I hope that it will prevent the kind of serious illness that might put me into hospital or on my deathbed. It doesn't always work like that, but that is the hope and expectation.

I am under no illusion that I've probably been infected with the flu a handful of times in my life and not known. And I'm under no illusion that if it is in my body that I can and am likely to transmit to to other people.

Any lowering of the chances of transmission to other people rely on the premise that if the vaccine stops the virus from taking hold mean the quantity of virus in my body is so low that the chance of sharing it is miniscule. As compared to getting rather sick and every time I sneeze, cough, fart or touch something with my infected hands, the quantity of the virus I am sharing is large enough to be a concern that I might share it with someone.

Quite simply I think if anyone expects anything more out of a vaccine than that they have rocks in their head.

What I think your trying to say is your expectation is this vaccine should kill the virus the instant it comes into contact with any part of your body, essentially a poison for the virus. Like a dog flea and tick treatment. Because that is the only way to stop transmission.

And the other thing I've never seen adequately explained is the definition of transmission in this case? That I should not be able to sneeze or cough it on to someone? Or rubbing my eyes and then shaking a persons hand wont share it? Or me touching a virus carrying object and then shaking someone's hand wont share it?