[Gambas-user] Reduced activity

Fri Dec 3 00:12:30 CET 2021

> According to the specialists, RNA viruses exchange pieces of their RNA
> far more than they mutate. So it's not mutations, but one call them
> mutation to simplify.
>

No, there are mutations. There is the recombination also, which is
technically different to mutation. But they *both* do occur.
It is factually wrong to say there aren't mutations.

> Again, this is the nice theory. In practical, RNA viruses become less
> dangerous the more they mutate.

No, I gave you many *practical,* *real world* examples. Please re-read it.
Here are some more: Yellow fever, Rabies, Measles, Hepatitis C and Ebola.
The First three are less dangerous because of the vaccines, but the viruses
themselves are just as dangerous as they have always been.
When will these become less dangerous?

Here is another example; polio. It has injured children since the times of
*ancient* Egypt. Now it is almost gone *only* due to the vaccines.
Why didn't we just wait some more, if that is the case?

 > Of course not, just like letting fishes live their life doesn't make
> > them die off. That is not how mutations work in evolution.
>
> I don't see any argument here.
>

Why would a successful organism just die off from mutations? That just
doesn't happen.
As long as the organism reproduces, it continues its life. Just as I
demonstrated with the real world examples. You seem to be unable to see
them.

> When you compare all the countries that all took completly different
> social and sanitary decisions, you see no pattern, no correlation
> between the variant big cycles and the social/sanitary decisions.
>

How would that work even in theory? Less exposure to the virus causes more
infections..?

Which may imply that preventing the virus to spread -generally- is not a
> good idea, directly or indirectly.
>

If the virus doesn't spread, then it doesn't spread. IE less infections,
less hospitalization, less deaths.

> Moreover, we now know that the spike protein can be dangerous, and that
> it was not a good idea to hijack the cells to make them produce that
> specific protein.
>

That is exactly what the virus does. How come you think it is dangerous in
the vaccine, but not in the virus?

> In England, and in France (but it's not yet official), the proportions
> of vaccinated people with covid in the hospital is the same than the
> proportion of vaccinated people in the population.
>

Not true. Here are the numbers for England:
https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/health/doh-vaccination-status-weeks-43-46.pdf

And please provide the actual data, like I do, instead of just making empty
claims. It's a bit hard to believe you after seeing all these claims.

That means that the experimental injections do not prevent virus spreading.
>

I already showed you evidence that the vaccine *does* prevent spreading. Do
you have a weak memory?
Also, what is the experimental thing in the vaccine?
The principle in the mRNA vaccine is from 1989.
https://www.pnas.org/content/86/16/6077

First human trial with mRNA vaccine was from 2001.
https://www.jci.org/articles/view/14364

Pretty much nothing has changed in technology in over ten years. Just minor
optimizations.
And all living things use mRNA to make proteins anyway.

Now it is ultimately tested with billions of people. No problems.

> If you go to the John Hopkins University's Covid web site, that compares
> vaccination rate, number of cases (usually a useless stat) and number of
> deaths, you will see that the effect of vaccination is completly random
> between countries.
>

No it's not. You just don't know what to look at.
The number of cases and number of deaths comes from quite a small
proportion of the population.
Thus what you see are the effects of the lockdowns etc restrictions. Even
in country, which is 80% fully vaccinated,
there are more than enough unvaccinated people to completely fill the
hospitals many times.
Thus you need to look how many people in the hospitals are vaccinated vs
unvaccinated.
As already shown many times, the patients are mostly unvaccinated. One more
source:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00061-2/fulltext

But note that if 100% of the population are vaccinated, then the X% who do
not get immunity may need hospitalization.
In that case 100% of the people in the hospital would be vaccinated. IE
base rate fallacy.

In England, the vaccination seems to make a huge number of Covid
> contanimation, but less deaths.
>

Contaminations..? Or what? You mean infections? How is that even
theoretically possible?
A lot of claims like that and without anything to show.

> As for the effect of vaccination of people against Covid death with the
> Delta variant (almost 100% of contamination in France), the official
> French stats are: no effect at all. No difference between vaccinated
> people and non-vaccinated people.
>

Why won't you show us the stats?

> This is an official report of the French State published 2 or 3 weeks
> ago.

Oh, it was 2020 there 2-3 weeks ago? Right. I wonder what else you got
wrong. Please show us the stats, from the official site, not from Facebook.
Reminder; in the previous mail you claimed that the stats are from the
worst peak in 2020. And yes, the worst peak was in 2020. But it's 2021 now.

I gave you the official and publicly available statistics of the French
> Health State department, build by the doctors seing sick patients. So
> good luck to pretend they are wrong.
>

Let's see them. Your country isn't very helpful to people who don't speak
French.

> A "COVID case" is just a positive test, it does not really means
> anything: there are many false positive and false negative.

No. There are false negatives, but false positives are extremely rare,
since it is possible only via contamination.
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045

> The greater injury and hospitalization rate of COVID is just because the
> government forbid doctors to treat the patients.
>

Of course not. Why would they do that? Where is the evidence for this claim?

> The COVID 19 starts spreading (at least in Italy and in France) in 2018,
> maybe before.

Not true.

... the doctors received their sick patients, saw an unusual breathing
> disease, give them the
> usual drugs in that case (Azythromicin for example, Zinc, and other
> drugs depending on the patients), and all patients recovered, none went
> to the hospital.
>

Why would they give antibiotics for virus infection? If the infection has
damaged lung tissue enough for bacterial co-infection,
then the patient *should be hospitalized*.

> We have a few examples of doctors in France that had ...
>

Blaa blaa, just talking, no evidence.

Nowadays, all the drugs that are suspected to have a positive effect
> against the Covid, at least in France, are forbidden in one way or another.
>

Like what?

I'm not entirely convinced by how 'ourworldindata.org' computes excess
> mortality.
>

Age structure is of course in the adjustments. Here they are:
https://www.mortality.org/Public/Docs/MethodsProtocol.pdf

> > Benoit, I wonder how well you could engineer a compiler without knowing
> > how to program. It's the same here.
> > You have no education in this field, yet you claim to know better than
> > others who do have the education.
>
> No, there is a difference between the two situations: it's the human
> people.
>

What is that supposed to mean?

... as the side effects of these injections in a few monthgs is greater
> that the
> total number of side effects of all other vaccines in tens of years - ...
>

Again, no evidence, just empty assertions.
Would you accept this kind of shitting on your work?

Jussi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gambas-basic.org/pipermail/user/attachments/20211203/bd08e94e/attachment-0001.htm>