Vaccination Mandating

MunoRN, RN · Sep 23, 2021

24 minutes ago, listless reads said:

The threshold at which it detects that material is smaller and smaller with each cycle. anything over 35 (per fauci) is chalked up as 100% false positive. PCRs are being used at 40-45 CTs.

The amount we need to magnify something to see it doesn't mean it's not there.

Fauci didn't say that cycles over 35 resulted in false positives. You're referring to a statement he made on July 16, 2020 where he pointed out that a PCR confirms infection, but not whether the person is currently contagious, since fragments of the virus will still be detectable after the active infection has ended.

27 minutes ago, listless reads said:

There is evidence. It's in the manufacturer's guidelines. Refer to the CTs mentioned above. the creator of the PCR test was adamant that it was not to be used to diagnose.

The inventor of the PCR test, John Lauritsen, did not say that PCR tests were not be used to diagnoses. You're mischaracterizing a statement he made in 1996 which was that the available PCR tests were "qualitative not quantitative", they could say whether an infection existed but were not reliable for determining viral load. The usefulness of PCR tests for determining viral load continues to be a debated topic, but not whether or not they can determine whether there is an infection or not.

Out of curiosity, what is your view on Covid as it relates to child trafficking?

toomuchbaloney · Sep 23, 2021

1 hour ago, listless reads said:

The agencies are the "regulators." although if you dive into the history, you will find many former directors of these regulators also working in big pharma. Conflict of interest. You will also find they are fund by associations that are in turn funded by big pharma. COI. CDC in particular made the RT-PCR test. Makes big money. And not to mention those fat checks our government writes out in our names. Many individuals, like fauci, and some of his compatriots at the NIAID, own patents for the Moderna vaccine. here's a reference.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6935295-NIH-Moderna-Confidential-Agreements.html

If you quantify "immunity" by 6-8 months...I mean I guess? But then I'd have to inquire as to the explanation for Israel's issues right now, with the highest vaccination rates, but a raging virus case count. I'd also like to point to this study as get your thoughts if vaccination is the simple means to a covid end.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3897733

Your citations do not support your claims which suggest that we shouldn't trust the agencies like NIH, CDC, or NIAID.

The Vietnam information looks at persons vaccinated with AstraZeneka or Sputnik or other vaccines not used in the USA.

Vaccination mandates help to increase vaccine acceptance in reluctant communities.

listless reads · Sep 23, 2021

57 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Your citations do not support your claims which suggest that we shouldn't trust the agencies like NIH, CDC, or NIAID.

The Vietnam information looks at persons vaccinated with AstraZeneka or Sputnik or other vaccines not used in the USA.

Vaccination mandates help to increase vaccine acceptance in reluctant communities.

baloney.

Guest219794 · Sep 23, 2021

2 hours ago, MunoRN said:

Immunizations aren't intended to provide immunity? That's been the basic premise of pretty much every vaccine in existence.

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Your citations do not support your claims which suggest that we shouldn't trust the agencies like NIH, CDC, or NIAID.

The Vietnam information looks at persons vaccinated with AstraZeneka or Sputnik or other vaccines not used in the USA.

Vaccination mandates help to increase vaccine acceptance in reluctant communities.

Have you noticed the trend between controversial unsupported posts and post counts?

They are all variations on a theme, are not accountable for logic or evidence. They can engage endlessly by recycling the same stuff. Take factoids out of context, create a straw man argument they can refute, etc....

Go back through all these threads and look at the BS/post count ratio.

It is the equivalent of trying to have a meaningful discussion with an 8 year old who's best line is "I know you are, but what am I ?"

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

― Mark Twain

(Disclaimer- I am not calling anybody an idiot. I have nothing against idiots. I know some very nice idiots. It is the theme of the quote that I like. For any idiots who find it offensive, I apologize in advance.)

listless reads · Sep 23, 2021

2 hours ago, MunoRN said:

Fauci didn't say that cycles over 35 resulted in false positives. You're referring to a statement he made on July 16, 2020 where he pointed out that a PCR confirms infection, but not whether the person is currently contagious, since fragments of the virus will still be detectable after the active infection has ended.

no. that's not what he said.

"if you get a CT of 35 or more, the chances of it being replication competent are miniscule."

he then continues talking about them being dead nucleotides, etc.

Then you look at what CT they're being run at, at its 40-45 CT. The presence of something there, doesn't mean infection. You have to take quantum leaps (each cycle is an exponential dive "zoom").

2 hours ago, MunoRN said:

The usefulness of PCR tests for determining viral load continues to be a debated topic, but not whether or not they can determine whether there is an infection or not.

Well let's dive a bit deeper than reuters fact checking a reference his exact statement.

"PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.

What PCR does is to select a genetic sequence and then amplify it enormously. It can accomplish the equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack; it can amplify that needle into a haystack. Like an electronically amplified antenna, PCR greatly amplifies the signal, but it also greatly amplifies the noise. Since the amplification is exponential, the slightest error in measurement, the slightest contamination, can result in errors of many orders of magnitude."_

________________________

So how can it diagnose something if it can't detect the virus itself? his words. not mine.

________________________

I'm not aware of any link of covid to child trafficking.

allnurses Guide · Sep 23, 2021

11 hours ago, nurseluckett said:

Why is the only stand vacinne mandates. I know many have COVID antibodies from COVID illnesses. Why can we have antibody testing? Research is showing natural immunity is as good if not better than vaccinated immunity.

Please provide link to this research as it relates to Covid infection. I would like to know more.

iNurs5, CNA · Sep 23, 2021

9 hours ago, listless reads said:

The agencies are the "regulators." although if you dive into the history, you will find many former directors of these regulators also working in big pharma. Conflict of interest. You will also find they are fund by associations that are in turn funded by big pharma. COI. CDC in particular made the RT-PCR test. Makes big money. And not to mention those fat checks our government writes out in our names. Many individuals, like fauci, and some of his compatriots at the NIAID, own patents for the Moderna vaccine. here's a reference.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6935295-NIH-Moderna-Confidential-Agreements.html

If you quantify "immunity" by 6-8 months...I mean I guess? But then I'd have to inquire as to the explanation for Israel's issues right now, with the highest vaccination rates, but a raging virus case count. I'd also like to point to this study as get your thoughts if vaccination is the simple means to a covid end.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3897733

There's no name of Fauci in that document dated back in 2015. Is he married to one of those signers?

The highlighted part "proprietors" of the document you posted could be some aliens. Look at the collaborator names. ?

9 hours ago, listless reads said:

The agencies are the "regulators." although if you dive into the history, you will find many former directors of these regulators also working in big pharma. Conflict of interest. You will also find they are fund by associations that are in turn funded by big pharma. COI. CDC in particular made the RT-PCR test. Makes big money. And not to mention those fat checks our government writes out in our names. Many individuals, like fauci, and some of his compatriots at the NIAID, own patents for the Moderna vaccine. here's a reference.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6935295-NIH-Moderna-Confidential-Agreements.html

If you quantify "immunity" by 6-8 months...I mean I guess? But then I'd have to inquire as to the explanation for Israel's issues right now, with the highest vaccination rates, but a raging virus case count. I'd also like to point to this study as get your thoughts if vaccination is the simple means to a covid end.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3897733

6 hours ago, listless reads said:

no. that's not what he said.

"if you get a CT of 35 or more, the chances of it being replication competent are miniscule."

he then continues talking about them being dead nucleotides, etc.

Then you look at what CT they're being run at, at its 40-45 CT. The presence of something there, doesn't mean infection. You have to take quantum leaps (each cycle is an exponential dive "zoom").

Well let's dive a bit deeper than reuters fact checking a reference his exact statement.

"PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.

What PCR does is to select a genetic sequence and then amplify it enormously. It can accomplish the equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack; it can amplify that needle into a haystack. Like an electronically amplified antenna, PCR greatly amplifies the signal, but it also greatly amplifies the noise. Since the amplification is exponential, the slightest error in measurement, the slightest contamination, can result in errors of many orders of magnitude."_

________________________

So how can it diagnose something if it can't detect the virus itself? his words. not mine.

________________________

I'm not aware of any link of covid to child trafficking.

Never tested positive with PCR tests from early 2020 to this date. Some days, I tested a few times within a week. However, I contracted the COVID-19 prior to lockdowns in the US. I'm skeptical of the PCR tests because of my own bias. The vaccines are still the best choice. I read your sources.

Look up businesses here https://assignment.uspto.gov/trademark/index.html#/trademark/search/resultAssignor?assignorName=MODERNA THERAPEUTICS, INC.

You're worried about "conflict of interest." I get it. Who do you think you recommend to do the job better than those people you questions? Let's unload your bag here. The public deserves to know.

subee, MSN, CRNA · Sep 23, 2021

9 hours ago, listless reads said:

The agencies are the "regulators." although if you dive into the history, you will find many former directors of these regulators also working in big pharma. Conflict of interest. You will also find they are fund by associations that are in turn funded by big pharma. COI. CDC in particular made the RT-PCR test. Makes big money. And not to mention those fat checks our government writes out in our names. Many individuals, like fauci, and some of his compatriots at the NIAID, own patents for the Moderna vaccine. here's a reference.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6935295-NIH-Moderna-Confidential-Agreements.html

If you quantify "immunity" by 6-8 months...I mean I guess? But then I'd have to inquire as to the explanation for Israel's issues right now, with the highest vaccination rates, but a raging virus case count. I'd also like to point to this study as get your thoughts if vaccination is the simple means to a covid end.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3897733

Let me see if I have this right: Because some scientists have been picked for leadership positions in public heal, they shouldn't be allowed to make money These are the people who have the instituional knowledge from long-term experience from working in the pharma industry. So we should hire cheaper, less-experienced leaders? Obviously you don't know enough about Israel to put the statistics in context. About 10% of the population is Haredi ultra-conservative right wingers who refuse to get vaccinated and they generate most of the disease in Israel - just as they do in NYC. Things are improving but it's hard to change the minds of people who want to live in 6th century Budapest simultaneously while living in a very crowded borough of NYC.

subee, MSN, CRNA · Sep 23, 2021

9 hours ago, listless reads said:

The agencies are the "regulators." although if you dive into the history, you will find many former directors of these regulators also working in big pharma. Conflict of interest. You will also find they are fund by associations that are in turn funded by big pharma. COI. CDC in particular made the RT-PCR test. Makes big money. And not to mention those fat checks our government writes out in our names. Many individuals, like fauci, and some of his compatriots at the NIAID, own patents for the Moderna vaccine. here's a reference.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6935295-NIH-Moderna-Confidential-Agreements.html

If you quantify "immunity" by 6-8 months...I mean I guess? But then I'd have to inquire as to the explanation for Israel's issues right now, with the highest vaccination rates, but a raging virus case count. I'd also like to point to this study as get your thoughts if vaccination is the simple means to a covid end.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3897733

Did you read the qualifier at the top of the article? Is wasn't taken from the Lancet. It's a non- peer-reviewd article that was merely submitted, not printed. rints with The Lancet is part of SSRN´s First Look, a place where journals identify content of interest prior to publication. Authors have opted in at submission to The Lancet family of journals to post their preprints on Preprints with The Lancet. The usual SSRN checks and a Lancet-specific check for appropriateness and transparency have been applied. Preprints available here are not Lancet publications or necessarily under review with a Lancet journal. These preprints are early stage research papers that have not been peer-reviewed. The findings should not be used for clinical or public health decision making and should not be presented to a lay audience without highlighting that they are preliminary and have not been peer-reviewed.

You have been caught reading this article as a layman:)

MunoRN, RN · Sep 23, 2021

13 hours ago, listless reads said:

no. that's not what he said.

"if you get a CT of 35 or more, the chances of it being replication competent are miniscule."

he then continues talking about them being dead nucleotides, etc.

Then you look at what CT they're being run at, at its 40-45 CT. The presence of something there, doesn't mean infection. You have to take quantum leaps (each cycle is an exponential dive "zoom").

That's what "replication competent" means. Since PCR tests look for genetic material unique to a particular virus it will continue to show positive for some time after an active infection, according to one study about 18% still test positive 3 days after the end of symptoms, all of those tested were negative within a month of infection.

You seem to be suggesting that the tests will show a positive test in someone who has never been infected, there is no evidence to support this a meaningful problem in PCR tests.

13 hours ago, listless reads said:

Well let's dive a bit deeper than reuters fact checking a reference his exact statement.

"PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.

What PCR does is to select a genetic sequence and then amplify it enormously. It can accomplish the equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack; it can amplify that needle into a haystack. Like an electronically amplified antenna, PCR greatly amplifies the signal, but it also greatly amplifies the noise. Since the amplification is exponential, the slightest error in measurement, the slightest contamination, can result in errors of many orders of magnitude."_

________________________

So how can it diagnose something if it can't detect the virus itself? his words. not mine.

That quote was originally attributed to Mullis in an article, the article was later retracted due to the quotes being apparently false.

But the point is without merit, PCR tests in the late 80's to mid 90's were far less accurate that today's RT-PCR tests.

Again, PCR tests detect genetic material unique to a particular virus, if the presence of the genetic material is detected then the virus is detected.

14 hours ago, listless reads said:

I'm not aware of any link of covid to child trafficking.

I suppose it's reassuring you draw the line somewhere.

subee, MSN, CRNA · Sep 24, 2021

I loved Chare's Dr. Ray article!

BeatsPerMinute, BSN, RN · Sep 24, 2021

Unless there is a legitimate contraindication (ex: allergies to the components in the vaccine... or a medical reason where cons outweigh the pros for that individual) I support vaccination.

This isn't the regular flu or something else we have years of studies on and information to go off of. All we have is what we see right here, right now, which is, in summary: areas with higher vaccination rates have lower rates of contracting the virus, spreading it, becoming ill, etc.

I understand the mixed feelings... We cannot predict the future though, either. It's not helpful to focus on all of the "what if" situations that people come up with and foster fear / avoidance of something that could actually save lives.

We need to tackle the issue at hand. If any of the 100+ "what if" scenarios were to arise, well, we can cross that bridge (IF) it comes to it.

Until then, be responsible, be safe, for the people around you, for your loved ones, and for yourself: get vaccinated.