I am not an expert in sequencing techniques. Are you? Here's the thing: scientists publish studies in scientific journals that are peer reviewed. So if their sequencing techniques are flawed, they get called out. It's not a perfect system, but when there are experts reviewing sequencing techniques I'm going to trust them much more than someone on the internet who, for no stated reason, doesn't trust their sequencing techniques. I'd love to see you walk into a lab and say, "I don't trust your sequencing techniques." It's laughable.
You tell me: what's wrong with their sequencing techniques? They lay it all out there for anyone to replicate. Your experts could publish a study demonstrating that the sequencing techniques do not work.
Here is a description in that last study I cited:
SARS-CoV-2 positive samples were randomly selected and tested with primers targeting the E gene, which has been previously demonstrated in our reports to be the most sensitive target [10,11].
Is this a step in sequencing that you do not agree with? Why or why not?
Samples with Ct value [less than or equal to] 28 were chosen for further analyses.
What criticism of this step do you have?
Total nucleic acids were extracted from 500 [mu]L UTM-medium on the QIAsymphony SP using the QIAsymphony DSP Virus/Pathogen Midi Kit (Qiagen), following manufacturer's instructions.
Can you pinpoint for me what is wrong with this sequencing step?
High resolution melting was used for the qualitative detection of p.N501Y and p.E484K mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 genome.
How about these steps?
Briefly, extracted RNA was used as a template for the VirSNiP SARS B1351 assay on the LightCycler ® 480 Real-Time PCR System (Roche Diagnostics). Positive and negative control (NTC) were included in all experiments.
4 [mu]L Roche master mix, 0.5 [mu]L reagent mix (containing primers and probes), 5.5 [mu]L PCR-grade water and 10 [mu]L of template were mixed to a total volume of 20 [mu]L. Amplification was performed following manufacturer's instruction.
After normalization and temperature shift determination, the different melting curves were generated.
p.E484K is associated with a shift from 52°C to 57°C while p.N501Y is associated with a shift from 60°C to 65°C. LightCycler® 480 Software was used to analyze all data.
Samples were randomly selected from the 1508 specimens that underwent HRM screening. 479 barcoded libraries were prepared using the Ion AmpliSeq SARS-CoV-2 Research Panel (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and the Ion AmpliSeq Library Kit Plus (Thermo Fisher Scientific), following manufacturer's protocol.
The panel consists of 237 amplicons that allows for the sequencing of 99% of the SARS-CoV-2 reference genome (NC_045512.2), covering from position 43 to position 29,842. All the reactions were performed in a Veriti[TM]Dx 96-Well Thermal Cycler (Applied Biosystems[TM]). Libraries were quantified with the Qubit dsDNA HS Assay kit (Life Technologies) and then diluted to 30 pM. Libraries were loaded into the Ion Chef[TM] Instrument (Thermo Fisher Scientific) for template enrichment and chip loading. Sequencing was performed with the Ion S5 GeneStudio Sequencer using the Ion 510 & Ion 520 & Ion 530 Kit-Chef and the Ion 530[TM] chip-kit (all Thermo Fisher Scientific).
After alignment, the following plugins were run on the Torrent Suite[TM] Server (Thermo Fisher Scientific): the SARS_CoV_2_variant caller, the SARS_CoV_2_CoverageAnalysis, the SARS_CoV_2_annotateSnpEff and the generateConsensus. Sequences kept for further investigations were the ones possessing a mean depth of coverage [greater than or equal to] 500 and a percentage of gaps [less than or equal to] 20% of the entire sequence. For variant calling, variants with a genotype quality (GQ) score [greater than or equal to] 30, a coverage (FDP) [greater than or equal to] 500 and a minimum alternate allele frequency of 70% (AF [greater than or equal to] 70%) were kept for further investigations.
Clade and lineages of 479 specimens were defined with the Nextclade v2.29.1 web application (https://clades.nextstrain.org/), the GISAID CoVsurver mutation App (https://www.gisaid.org/epiflu-applications/covsurver-mutations-app/), the pangolin web app developed by the Centre for Genomic Pathogen Surveillance-version v.3.1.11 - (https://pangolin.cog-uk.io/) and the Ultrafast Sample placement on Existing tRee (UShER) web tool by UCSC (https://hgwdev-angie.gi.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgPhyloPlace). SNPs and INDELs frequencies were evaluated in the CovidMiner data portal (https://covid-miner.ifo.gov.it/app/home) and in the GISAID database (https://www.gisaid.org/).
FASTA sequences have been uploaded in the GISAID database. S2 Table enlists Accession IDs and virus names.
FASTA sequences were aligned with ClustalW. The Maximum Likelihood (Tamura-Nei method) method was used to generate a phylogenetic tree of the 479 sequences. Alignment and tree were computed with Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) v.11.
What part(s) do you determine are flawed and untrustworthy? Do you have some suggestions to improve their sequencing methods?
I have literally cited dozens of studies all that are "good research."
I don't think you are any kind of judge of what "good research" is when you defend using VAERS for your "math" on the effectiveness of COVID vaccines.
This isn't dogma. This isn't personal attacks. I am not attacking YOU, I am attacking your foolish arguments. That isn't a personal attack. That is discourse. Am I harsh? Yes! I have to put up with ridiculous arguments like not accepting that COVID variants exist or that using VAERS data is legitimate research or that scientific studies published in the most prestigious medical journals on Earth aren't "good research."
You are all defending the right to lie to people. That's all you are doing. You don't trust ACTUAL science but you do trust your own "experts" (who you won't cite) who make up shit on the internet. Believe me, I have had the patience of Job reading and responding to these absolutely bonkers replies. If you took any biology course at any college or university and tried to make any of these arguments, you would be laughed out of the lecture hall.
"Excuse me, Professor, but I have not accepted the construct of COVID variants."
Literally. It's laughable, then you are hurt and think I am personally attacking you because I call you out on absolute BULLSHIT that you post on here. I mean it's ludicrous. I mean, you'd be laughed out of HIGH SCHOOL classrooms. But here, where we are supposed to be adults who can read and critically examine sources and think for ourselves, I'm supposed to be patient with absolute bonkers arguments.
I have been called all sorts of names. vax whore, being the latest. I don't cry about personal attacks. If someone only makes personal attacks I completely disregard what they have to say (for example @DavidColeIntrepid, I don't know how to tag people). But any substance, with insults or not, I will respond to as long as I have time.
What's not to believe about them? Viruses mutate so of course there are variants.
Here's a study:
Local occurrence and fast spread of B.1.1.7 lineage: A glimpse into Friuli Venezia Giulia.
On what basis do you gainsay this study?
All of this is just, what? Fake?
All you do is naysay science then claim you aren't a science denier. The science here is overwhelming. You have to be a fool to deny it.
I can go by either totals back to dec 2020 or take the last month. Either way, it supports the inference that vaccines ARE effective. I did both. That's not cherry-picking. I took the last month in response to the argument that it took time for people to be vaccinated, etc. Also, the last week is included in the last month so even taking that last week into account, unvaccinated people were 3x times more likely to die.
What data?
The data from the very report you cited says 9,512 unvaccinated people died of COVID vs 5,708 partially to fully +boosted people over the same period of time.
That's data from the report you cited. That same report said that unvaccinated people were 3 times more likely to die of COVID than vaccinated people.
So what data do you know that shows I'm full of shit? Why won't you just cite it?
Ahhh....so you ARE referring to VAERS data. It doesn't matter if anything else exists, if you use a database that itself says it could be inaccurate and that causal links can't be inferred, then your results and conclusions are literally garbage.
From Guide to Interpreting VAERS Data:
A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described.
When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established.
From the Disclaimer on the dataset page:
VAERS reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable.
So you think that you can use information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, and unverifiable to draw conclusions about causal connections?
I want to know how you justify that.
You cite Big Pharma sponsored “research” and “studies” and wonder why people call you out on your presumptions.
You don't like the term "anti-vaxxer" but "vax whores" is legitimate? Ok.
You are making a fallacious attack on these studies. Instead of dealing with the substance of these scientific studies, you discount them because of your assumption of sponsorship. First, I don't think you know for sure that all these studies are sponsored by "Big Pharma." Second, even if some or even all of them are, they still have to pass peer review to be published in a prestigious journal like JAMA or BMJ or NEJM, or any of these journals. So you have to believe in a widespread conspiracy composed of the most prestigious journals on earth as well as all these prestigious research institutions willing to go along with "Big Pharma" and publish false studies.
What you don't do is offer any substantive criticisms of the research. You just throw out a thought-killer, "Big Pharma," as your cognitive shield to defend your cherished presuppositions.
Let's see. Here's this article: Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant
Who do you think sponsored this study?
Here are the disclosure forms . You will notice that one of the authors, not one of the main authors (authors are listed in order of contribution), has listed an unrelated Pfizer grant. Do your experts provide disclosure forms?
Until next time. I look forward to your sad response to the fact that Big Pharma (BioNTech) is warning their investors about share prices tanking (which is really what all of this is about, it’s got nothing to do with health or “science”) because their trials were worthless and misrepresentative, and that their injections are neither safe nor effective.
Source, please?
I'm not wrong, the report does indeed say exactly what I say it says.
I didn't say it wasn't from 14 Dec 2020 to 17 Apr 2022. What I said is that report says unvaccinated people were more likely to die from COVID than vaccinated people.
You mean you don't trust the actual experts who have studied their subjects for nearly a decade just to earn their PhDs then have secured prestigious research positions and publish their work in prestigious research journals where other "experts" working at other prestigious research institutions review their work prior to publication and either reject it or mark corrections to be made before the research is published in said presitigious journal?
No, your experts publish on blogs on the internet or made up anti-vax journals that are not held in high regard by the scientific community and are not reviewed by people who earned their PhDs after nearly a decade of higher education and do not work at prestigious research institutions. Those are your experts.
It's literally irrational. If I'm wrong, cite one of your experts. Cite yourself and provide the "math" you did on the effectiveness of vaccines. Don't give me studies based on VAERS, I have demonstrated already how and why using that data to make causal links between "vaccine injuries" and vaccines is entirely spurious and outright dishonest. So if your number are based on VAERS, be prepared to defend why you are using a database that itself says shouldn't be used for that purpose.
You keep saying I'm wrong and that all this research in all these prestigious scientific journals is wrong, but you have yet to cite a single study or even a single fact to support your position.
See, I don't believe you when you talk about respecting other people's principled stances.
Ok. That's fine. You can not believe me. I don't care.
I think you mostly respect numberology and measurements, which is why you're out here fighting some kind of one-man war for their honour.
"Numberology?" You mean math and science? Yes, I respect math and science. I also respect principled stands, which is why when someone says they won't get the vaccine our of principle, I don't argue with them. That's fine. I disagree with them, but if they feel that out of principle against state mandates as infringement on their liberty, I'm not arguing against their position on that. The proof of that is in the pudding.
I'm fighting out here against misinformation. If someone says, "I won't take the vaccine because I won't be coerced or socially pressured," I don't care. That's an honest take.
But when people spread falsehoods that other people might believe, falsehoods based on lies, then, yes, I will fight that fight against falsehood, manipulation, and disinformation. It is dishonest and unethical to lie. I will fight against that.
hat should it matter to you how someone else is manipulating numbers?
I care about the truth. Further, it is a threat to the health of the community I live in, not to mention the health of people who are close to me and more at-risk of contracting severe, life-threatening infection.
ost charitably, you want to shore up people's arguments against expertism-driven dismissal by urging them to adhere to the common rituals, but it would better to shortcut that process entirely by simply abolishing credentialed men from the public sphere entirely.
What the hell are you even talking about? What "credentialed men" are you talking about. I cite credentialed men and even some women ALL THE TIME.
There are bunch here that I site:
Effectiveness of COVID vaccines
I haven't seen in any response to me a single "credentialed man" cited. The article I criticized was not by a "credentialed man," but an uncredentialed liar. I have no patience for uncredentialed liars.
hen we wouldn't have to bother about their cult rituals one bit.
Ummm....ok. I'm not sure you are actually sane. No, it's science, it's not a "cult ritual."
nd I understand "math" well enough - enough to know that it's treated as a different discipline from "stats" at any rate
No, actually you don't. There was no statistical analyses done on those numbers. I am talking about math, straight up numbers. How many of these vs how many of those. Just math, yes math that used some very simple stats (like percentages), but no stats to determine causation or even correlation. So I think you don't know much about either math or statistics.
the only people who think otherwise are mathematicians, but they think everything's math
Everything does come down to math. The problem with statisticians is they don't rationalize the denominator. I just can't even go there.
I just think it's stupid.
Math is stupid? ok. That doesn't actually go against my position that anti-vaxxers don't understand math.
Since you keep ignoring my question on which vaccine research you trust, I’m just going to interject here.
I just scrolled through all the replies I've received and I don't see any others from you. I haven't ignored your question.
Stop using the term “anti-vaxxer”. Or I will just sling a term back at you: “science denier”. That’s you. You don’t understand math, immunity, virology, evolution, the list goes on.
I literally cite the science on this. Here is a study from one of the top medical journals in the world:
Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant
You will immediately gainsay this scientific study (just watch) published in a top science journal, recognized by top scientists all over the world, but then call me the "science denier." That's truly, truly Orwellian, dude.
That’s you. You don’t understand math, immunity, virology, evolution, the list goes on.
Literally an unsupported claim hurled in utter desperation to protect your cherished biases.
Vaccines aren’t science and they don’t work.
Hmmm....in addition to the New England Journal of Medicine article above, let's see what else we can find on this, shall we?
Here is a 1965 British Medicine Journal study on the pertussis vaccine, which as is noted in the discussion:
So effective are these vaccines that type 1,2 strains of Bordetella pertussis have been virtually eliminated in this country.
You aren't a science denier, right? But...right...you will absolutely deny this science.
JAMA, another top journal published the research on the effectiveness of polio vaccines, but unfortunately that's behind a paywall. But it's there if you want to buy it.
Here's an article on measles vaccines:
Effectiveness of measles vaccination and vitamin A treatment
Which states:
A meta-analysis of these studies found that vaccination was 85% [95% confidence interval (CI) 83–87] effective in preventing measles disease
All this readily found on the internet (google scholar works well). But you aren't an "anti-vaxxer," right? You understand all this science-y stuff better than even the scientists, I guess.
So saying "vaccines aren't science and they don't work" isn't being an anti-vaxxer? It isn't being anti-science when peer reviewed science journals have published hundred, thousands of studies on the effectiveness of vaccines.
If they did, they’d be 100% effective and you could force/manipulate/encourage people into taking them because, you know, there would be irrefutable proof of their usefulness.
Back to not understanding math. Every damn time. Look, the idea is to reduce the contagion rate to below 1, so the number of infected people decreases instead of increases. So a vaccine doesn't have to be 100% effective to protect the community. That doesn't mean nobody will be infected, but it does mean fewer and fewer people will be infected. Which is better than just letting everybody get infected. (don't start on "herd immunity," I guarantee you will misrepresent that concept as well).
But you can’t because they aren’t scientifically effective and that doesn’t even take into account all of the adverse injuries and death associated with vaccines.
Can you cite a scientific study on "adverse injuries and death associated with vaccines?"
I found this study straight away:
Vaccine Adverse Events: Separating Myth from Reality
That article says this:
Vaccines are one of the most successful medical advances in modern times.
No mention of "deaths associated with vaccines." I did notice you used the term "associated with" giving you wiggle room because you know there's no causal relationship.
less you can point me to a study that shows vaccinated people aren’t getting sick from COVID, the seasonal flu, polio, etc. But you can’t because those vaccines don’t work either. In fact, they prolong these illnesses. Look at the explosion of polio in Africa, the increased rates of autism after MMR vaccines.
Vaccines virtually eradicated polio in the US. Again, you're making many claims. Where are the peer reviewed studies supporting your claims? It's just a lot of words strung together unless you have scientific evidence. (A polio outbreak in Africa is not evidence of the ineffectiveness of vaccines.)
Herd immunity?
oop. There it is. Herd immunity. I'm pretty sure you have no clue what herd immunity is. Here's some science to help you:
Herd immunity is an important—and often misunderstood—public health phenomenon
National Academy of SCIENCE. You aren't going to deny more science are you?
Since you’re a mathematician, are you denying that VAERS, and these studies showing increased rates of hospitalizations and death associated with vaccinated people?
What studies? If these studies exist, why don't you explicitly cite them? I bet because they aren't science. I can say without even reading them that they aren't science, because scientists wouldn't use VAERS to establish any causal links between vaccines and vaccine injuries. How do I know that? Because VAERS itself says the data on that site isn't suitable for that purpose:
VAERS reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable.
More from VAERS site itself:
VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to CDC and FDA. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine.
From page, Guide to Interpreting VAERS data:
When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established.
The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.
[emphasis in original.]
A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.
So tell me more about studies based on VAERS data. Seriously, if you didn't know this about VAERS already, then you are just ignorant about the science related to vaccines. If you did know this about VAERS, then you're a liar. No respectable scientist would ever base a conclusion of causation on VAERS data. So if you have accepted studies based on VAERS data, you've been duped by liars.
Now that you know this, you can stop citing VAERS data. Because to continue to cite VAERS data when VAERS itself says not to, is dishonest. And you don't want to be dishonest, do you?
Did you really think I would fall for these anti-vaxxer talking points? Come on. This stuff only works on red pilled, down the rabbit hole crowd.
Do you deny Pfizer’s own trial papers that are releasing showing people died and were injured during their trials?
You need a citation. I can't deny or not deny if I can't read the trial papers.
Do you refute the 9 pages of side effects associated with COVID experimental injections?
I know there's side effects. I've been injected 3 times, so I know by experience. Please link to your sources (as I have done).
If you’re denying it, what’s your proof that the vaccines work?
I'm inclined to respond with the thought-killer: "do your own research" from the anti-vaxxer crowd. But I won't. I will help you get a start on that research.
Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant
Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant
Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: findings from real world studies
Note on above; this is a preview copy and didn't go through peer review and says so up front in bold letters which is what hones publishers would do.
Real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: a literature review and meta-analysis
Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines in Ambulatory and Inpatient Care Settings
Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines over a 9-Month Period in North Carolina
This isn't even close to all the studies out there demonstrating the effectiveness of the vaccines. I've provided a nice sampling of the SCIENCE on this topic. I ACCEPT this science (thus I am not a science denier).
Here is start for you to do your own research on this topic:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=effectiveness+of+COVID+vaccines&btnG=
Now please provide me with your list of peer reviewed scientific studies that demonstrate that the vaccines are not effective or cause serious injury/death. PEER REVIEWED. I am not going to wade through pseudoscientific junk. I spent too much time doing your research for you here.
I don't even read this word salad anymore. You remind me of one those homeless guys scribbling madly in a notebook and you wonder, hmmm, what are they writing? You walk by and see that its all just gibberish.
Yes, they do. I literally copy and paste them, link to them. You can lie all you want. Who do you think you are fooling? You're making a clown out of yourself.
Where did I claim to be an expert? I claim to be able to do very simple, rudimentary math which anti-vaxxers apparently are deficient in.
I don't have a lab in my wood shop to run experiments on coronavirus variants. I leave that up to actual experts.
Here is what you said:
You introduced the concept of variants which I never acknowledged as a valid construct.
You do know that VAERS alone is a suitable database for drawing that conclusion right?
The VAERS website itself says on the first page:
VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to CDC and FDA. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine.
Yet here you are, using VAERS in a way that it itself cautions against. Why do you believe its legitimate to do that?
On the page: Guide to Interpreting VAERS Data, it reads:
When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.
No cause-and-effect relationship established. Anybody can report to VAERS. On and on. To use any of the VAERS data to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship, you'd have to verify the veracity of the report, rule out other possible causes, etc, etc. All of which is impossible to do with VAERS alone.
Another disclaimer on the VAERS site reads:
Key considerations and limitations of VAERS data:
The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal association between a vaccine and an adverse event, or as evidence about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.
You have to wade through a lot of warning about how to not interpret this data in order to go ahead and interpret the data in exactly the way the site itself warns against. I would say that's dishonest.
Of course we should condemn dogma. I have yet to see where the support for the vaccine is "bad policy." You won't show your "math" and I have literally read hundreds of links that anti-vaxxers put up purporting to be "studies" showing the vaccines to be ineffective at best, harmful at worst. Of all those links, not one stands up to even the most cursory of examination.
Show me THE BEST study that demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the COVID vaccines. I will read it and consider it. But I am not an epidemiologist or a virologist. I doubt that you are either and when we have studies like this:
Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant
we should have substantial reasons for rejecting it. Not conspiracies about the "western medicine establishment" that won't sanctify drinking urine or eating placentas as sound preventative health practices because they want to sell more drugs to people. (And, yes, absolutely, many drugs are overprescribed, physicians get taken in by drug companies, too, yes, I'm not saying those problems don't exist.)
it is ludicrous to trust an anonymous person on the internet doing the math on vaccine efficacy over the work of experts in the field, openly publishing their work in prestigious journals for the whole world to see, consider, and critique.
The report says:
From March 21, 2022 to April 17, 2022, compared to fully vaccinated cases, unvaccinated cases were 3 times more likely to be hospitalized and 3 times more likely to die as a result of their illness.
That's the most recent month. It doesn't support anything you just said.
So internet troll "KiloRomeo" doesn't acknowledge variants as a valid construct, but this paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the top two or three medical journals in the world says:
A large number of mutations have been identified in the omicron variant, including multiple mutations in the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein that have been associated with increased transmissibility and immune evasion after natural infection and vaccination.2
The authors:
Nick Andrews, Ph.D., Julia Stowe, Ph.D., Freja Kirsebom, Ph.D., Samuel Toffa, Ph.D., Tim Rickeard, M.Sc., Eileen Gallagher, Ph.D., Charlotte Gower, D.Phil., Meaghan Kall, M.Sc., Natalie Groves, M.Sc., Anne-Marie O’Connell, M.Sc., David Simons, M.B., B.S., Paula B. Blomquist, M.Sc.,
I would argue each and every one of them alone has more knowledge and expertise than internet troll "KiloRomeo" who claims to have "done the math" a "long time ago" (in a galaxy far, far away?).
Your pretentiousness is almost as laughable as your utter ignorance, dude. Put up your so-called "math" or I won't believe a word of what you say.
Insufficient is my term. The term in report is "Partially." However, we know that "partially" is "insufficient." That's why health officials recommend getting boosters.
I know there are a lot of fools out there who trust memes from unknown sources that they see on the internet over virologists, epidemiologists, and other health experts. If that's you, then have at it. I don't care.
You can say that. You can believe that if you want, I don't really care. Keep posting foolish memes, demonstrating your idiocy. I don't care. That's on you.
You haven't called me on anything at all. None of your responses have had any substance at all.
You introduced the concept of variants which I never acknowledged as a valid construct.
If you don't accept the fact that viruses change over time, then you literally know nothing about viruses.
What odds? What are you talking about? My point is that it is not legitimate to take one week of data to make any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of vaccines. I have continuously quoted the Scotland report:
Data and rates presented in this section are not a measure of vaccine effectiveness.
Nonetheless, I demonstrated that, in fact, using that methodology demonstrates exactly the opposite of what was claimed.
It's up to you to make your case against effectiveness. I haven't seen it. There are plenty of actual, legitimate studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of the vaccine. Those studies outweigh someone on the internet who claims to have "done the math long ago."
I don't believe you've done any math.
I know you are but what am I?
What are you? A child? Come on. If you have something of substance to say, say it. I mean I can keep going back and forth with you all night long. Well, no, I do have other things to do tonight.