In article <FNMyN.223034$yEgf.108859@fx09.iad>,
Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
> In article <5b31fc9be8bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> >Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the
> >truth?
> >
> >During covid we were continuously told this and that were
> >"misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.
> >
> >Since then, drip by drip so much of that misinformation turns out
> >to be true.

> ...and much of what governments were spewing out proved to be total
> bullshit. Probably the worst offender in this regard was Jacinda
> Ardern insisting that the Kiwis only trust her misbegotten regime,
> but there was plenty of authoritarian big-government nonsense to go
> around.

Yes, indeed fully agree and she is awful.

Bob.

In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Vaccinations certainly did work

For certain values of "work" that have little to do with your health...see
below.

>but we got the ones Big Pharma made the most cash out of...

Absolutely. They "worked" to line the pockets of Pfizer and Moderna execs.
Anthony Fauci also made a killing off of royalties regarding the poison
jabs...never mind that his government paycheck was already bigger than the
President's.

They also "worked" to give big-government authoritarians their wet dream of
near-absolute control over society.

--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

In article <FcNyN.284157$Ama9.135706@fx12.iad>,
Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:

> Anthony Fauci also made a killing

And allegedly funding 'gain of function' work on viruses at the Wuhan
lab.

> They also "worked" to give big-government authoritarians their wet
> dream of near-absolute control over society.

Some people in governments and in society revealed themselves as
ruthless authoritarian bullies. I understood for the first time some
of what happened to the German people in the early 1930s. How on
mass, people lost it and became an uncivilised mob.

Bob.

On 13/02/2024 16:26, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <uqg36u$258bd$1@dont-email.me>,
> mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 13/02/2024 15:32, Bob Latham wrote:
>>> In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Vaccinations certainly did work,
>>>
>>> Well I'm very sure they do not prevent transmission.
>>>
>>> Bob.
>
>> They reduce the likelihood of onward transmission.
>
> That's a new one, where did you get that from?
>
> Do I take that as a tacit admission that vaccines don't protect you
> from infection? Have we also dropped the notion that it helps if you
> get infected?
>
Oh dear. We have an ArtStudent™ mind. Stuck in Boolean logic.

You are asking an ArtStudent™ question.

The scientific questions is *how much* do vaccines reduce the risk of
infection, and the severity of the subsequent disease, and the answer
is, shitloads.

Anyone of any minor intelligence who actually thinks about it,
understands that. Vaccines increase natural immunity. It takes more of
someone else's virus load to make you sick and you wont get *as* sick.

So leave you stupid 'is it perfect?, if not it doesn't work' logic at home.

> So beforehand we were told - asymptomatic transmission, very
> important, anyone, even perfectly well people can give you covid but
> now, even people who are ill and infected are safer because of the
> vaccine?
>
> Do people cough, sneeze and breath less ?
>
Yes, they cough, sneeze and breath less virus load.

> Why then hasn't covid stopped?

It *has* stopped. Killing people.
Vaccines have brought it down to flu level - a bad week maybe in bed
with painkillers, and that's it. Not a life threatening infection with
people gasping for breath and dying.

I suffer when my blood oxygen goes below 90%, which it has done at times
when I was being loaded into an ambulance.

The [paramedics said 'its when its down at 50% an te patient is blue and
gasping for breath, that we put on the blue lights and sirens' I
saidf'whgen does that happen?'

'Covid'.

>
> My friends wife had covid for at least the second time a month ago.
>
Who cares?

Almaist everybody has had it by now

> My cousin who honestly is a GP somewhere in the Monmouthshire/Bristol
> border has just had it for the first time. Fully jabbed of course.
> I'll quote what she wrote...
>
> Cousin wrote"
> So sorry to be late replying .
> I have had Covid for the last week and have actually felt quite
> poorly . It‘s amazing that I have managed to dodge it for so long -
> my first Covid of the pandemic. Thinking that I‘ve had all the
> vaccinations offered and peoples comments that‘s it‘s ‘ like a bad
> cold now  lulled me into complacency.
> I am starting to improve but along the way I have felt pretty unwell,
> breathless and lost my sense taste / smell .
> I have had to cancel 3 days of work which I hate as I don‘t like
> admitting illness .
> To someone who loves their food and adores  eating experiences‘ I am
> going to be mighty upset if the sense of taste doesn‘t come back .
> Obviously I can‘t moan too much as being left on ITU on a ventilator
> is much worse !!
> Anyway I do feel I‘ve turned a bit of a corner today but (husband)
> has started sniffing and sneezing Œ..Oh dear .
> " end quote.
>

Lucky cousin. Without vaccinations she would probably be dead.

> I've seen no evidence vaccines do much good but they do do harm.

The evidence is that the episode your cousin has is now as bad as it gets.

If you cant see that, don't get jabbed and die in a respirator gasping
for breath, like so many others have.

>
> Bob.
>

--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

On 13/02/2024 16:44, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <FNMyN.223034$yEgf.108859@fx09.iad>,
> Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
> Probably the worst offender in this regard was Jacinda
>> Ardern insisting that the Kiwis only trust her misbegotten regime,
>> but there was plenty of authoritarian big-government nonsense to go
>> around.
>
> Yes, indeed fully agree and she is awful.
>
So would you be if some dippy parents had named you 'Jacinda'

It's like a 'boy named sue'
Its not her fault that people simply fall for the promises of the Big
State to change their nappies for them and make everything all right.

I think I shall start the 'Life's a bitch, and then you die' party.
Sack 90% of all government, let the people spend their money and make
the world how they want it to be without government interference

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 13/02/2024 16:58, Scott Alfter wrote:
> In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1@dont-email.me>,
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Vaccinations certainly did work
>
> For certain values of "work" that have little to do with your health...see
> below.
>
As I said, babies and bathwater. The people making those vaccines really
did try and they did succeed. Then it got into the hands of Marketing
and Crony Capital

>> but we got the ones Big Pharma made the most cash out of...
>
> Absolutely. They "worked" to line the pockets of Pfizer and Moderna execs.
> Anthony Fauci also made a killing off of royalties regarding the poison
> jabs...never mind that his government paycheck was already bigger than the
> President's.
>
> They also "worked" to give big-government authoritarians their wet dream of
> near-absolute control over society.

Well they were always going to seize that chance,m weren't they? But
that doesn't mean they engineered it.

Don't be a simpleton. It's a mixture of fact and bullshit. To think its
all one or the other is to be made a fool of.

>

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 13/02/2024 17:12, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <FcNyN.284157$Ama9.135706@fx12.iad>,
> Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
>
>> Anthony Fauci also made a killing
>
> And allegedly funding 'gain of function' work on viruses at the Wuhan
> lab.
>
>> They also "worked" to give big-government authoritarians their wet
>> dream of near-absolute control over society.
>
> Some people in governments and in society revealed themselves as
> ruthless authoritarian bullies. I understood for the first time some
> of what happened to the German people in the early 1930s. How on
> mass, people lost it and became an uncivilised mob.
>
It's always the same when left leaning idealists grab the reins. Grand
designs. Unintended consequences.

> Bob.
>

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

In article <uqgids$283df$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 13/02/2024 16:26, Bob Latham wrote:
> > In article <uqg36u$258bd$1@dont-email.me>,
> > mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:
> >> On 13/02/2024 15:32, Bob Latham wrote:

> > Do I take that as a tacit admission that vaccines don't protect
> > you from infection? Have we also dropped the notion that it helps
> > if you get infected?
> >
> Oh dear. We have an ArtStudent mind. Stuck in Boolean logic.

> You are asking an ArtStudent question.

Oh full personal attack mode I see. Thanks for that.

> The scientific questions is *how much* do vaccines reduce the risk
> of infection, and the severity of the subsequent disease, and the
> answer is, shitloads.

Evidence? I've seen none, not one jot.

> Anyone of any minor intelligence who actually thinks about it,
> understands that. Vaccines increase natural immunity. It takes more
> of someone else's virus load to make you sick and you wont get
> *as* sick.

> So leave you stupid 'is it perfect?, if not it doesn't work' logic
> at home.

Right so there is a video that shows presidents, prime ministers
doctors and professors all claiming they didn't say it stopped you
getting covid. Then the video goes on to show them all saying exactly
that.

> > Do people cough, sneeze and breath less ?
> >
> Yes, they cough, sneeze and breath less virus load.

> > Why then hasn't covid stopped?

> It *has* stopped. Killing people.

> Vaccines have brought it down to flu level - a bad week maybe in
> bed with painkillers, and that's it. Not a life threatening
> infection with people gasping for breath and dying.

No Omicron. The virus continuously mutates and the covid virus
followed the normal pattern of becoming more contagious and less
deadly with each mutation. The virus gains nothing by killing the
host.

> I suffer when my blood oxygen goes below 90%, which it has done at
> times when I was being loaded into an ambulance.

> The [paramedics said 'its when its down at 50% an te patient is
> blue and gasping for breath, that we put on the blue lights and
> sirens' I saidf'whgen does that happen?'

> 'Covid'.

I sympathise but it proves nothing.

> Almaist everybody has had it by now

Exactly.

The vaccines don't stop you getting infected, absolute fact !!

I've seen no evidence the vaccines improve your recovery.
It *may* do but I've seen zero evidence only conjecture and wishful
thinking by the guilty.

I've seen no evidence that it reduces transmission at all. The
manufacturers have admitted that no testing on transmission was done.

Perhaps you've forgotten , the virus mutated to a much milder forms
again and again, Alpha, Beta, Delta, Omicron.

It was Omicron that saved the day, it wiped away all the more deadly
earlier strains. Don't you remember the data showing the deadly
strains disappearing by the day as mild Omicron took over.

> Lucky cousin. Without vaccinations she would probably be dead.

Probably, probably ?????

FFS !!!

What percentage of unvaxed adults do you think died of covid?

Greater than 50%? Probably ???

Absurd. The vast majority of unvaxed people with covid even the early
nasty variants did not go to hospital or die.

Saturday February 22nd 2020. My wife and I both became very poorly
and spent 4 days in bed. We had very bad flu like symptoms.

I have a weak chest which is prone to infection and so normally with
cold or flu it goes directly there and I have considerable phlegm but
not this time. I had a tickle cough never had that before in my life
and the mother and father of a sore throat. So bad that sipping soup
almost all day and night was the only relief. It was bad. A high
temperature and few other nasties too.

At that time of course there were no tests available to buy and
certainly no vaccines. It took us 5 weeks to recover.

Also at the time, we were constantly being told it wasn't in the
country yet but we now know it was here before christmas 2019.

So we had the key symptoms of covid, we were very poorly and unvaxed
at that time. we eventually recovered.

Can I prove I had covid Feb 2020 no of course I can't but I know we
did.

> > I've seen no evidence vaccines do much good but they do do harm.

> The evidence is that the episode your cousin has is now as bad as
> it gets.

That's mutation, I thought everyone knew that by now. Standard virus
behaviour.

> If you cant see that, don't get jabbed and die in a respirator
> gasping for breath, like so many others have.

That's very disappointing to see you talk like this. Hateful for no
good reason.

I thought you were logical.

Bob.

On 13 Feb 2024 at 15:20:41 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 13/02/2024 12:41, TimS wrote:
>> On 13 Feb 2024 at 12:14:57 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:29:08 +0000
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/02/2024 20:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>> On 12 Feb 2024 19:10:53 GMT
>>>>> TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
>>>>>> justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Questionable justification for them to be in any hands IMHO.
>>>>
>>>> I think what is happening in Ukraine fully justifies their existence and
>>>> use. Because if the other side has them, you are going to be walked all
>>>
>>> Yes that's always the justification - "the bad guys have them",
>>> therein lies the problem.
>>
>> It's usually a single bad guy. WW2 only happened because of Adolf, Ukraine
>> only happened because of Putin. If we get trouble in the Pacific, it will be
>> because of Xi.
>>
> No. That is criminally naive. The reasons why Adolf, Putin and Xi became
> leaders are rooted in many other economic and geopolitical factors.

I know that. But instead of being warmongers they might have merely been
strong leaders for their countries. Unluckily for the world, they *are/were*
warmongers, when there was no need. And *that* is what we have to guard
against and prepare for.

> They were and are products of their time and place. Just like Donald
> Trump is.
>
>> It only takes one to make war; it takes two to make peace. After 1991, we all
>> thought Russia was on a peaceful/democratic trajectory, and we were encouraged
>> by the Chinese changing leaders every ten years. Thats all gone by the board
>> now, and we have to adapt accordingly, just as we eventually did in the 1930s.
>>
> Putin wont hand in his guns just because you do. That's all I am saying.

I'm not saying we should hand in our guns, because, essentially, we don't have
any. But the govt should be training us to handle them, and laying in
stockpiles.

--
Tim

On 13 Feb 2024 at 15:13:13 GMT, "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <l313evF4k5pU1@mid.individual.net>,
> TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 13 Feb 2024 at 09:50:25 GMT, "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> In article <uqf4j8$1vsp3$5@dont-email.me>,
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
>>>
>>> Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the
>>> truth?
>>>
>>> During covid we were continuously told this and that were
>>> "misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.
>
>> Well, you figure it out.
>
> I do remember a tremendous number of people demanding all sorts of
> extreme actions against those that didn't want the vaccine. It opened
> my eyes to how quickly normal people could become unhinged and
> barbaric. People should be able to decide if they want the medication
> or not, extreme pressure placed on people was disgusting.

Remember Typhoid Mary. And then there was the MMR nonsense, as a result of
which measles is now on the increase.

> video) the manufacturer Pfizer if I recall correctly, said that no
> testing of transmission was ever done. There was never any basis for
> the madness. Some have since apologised most have not, most notably
> the unhinged media.

Why would you test transmission, for a vaccine? It would never occur to me for
a moment to imagine that a vaccine would affect transmission. What a vaccine
does is prime your immune system so that, when you get infected, you beat off
the infection double-quick, or at any rate only have a low-grade infection.

> Certainly I can't think of anyone I know that hasn't had covid, not
> one. A good proportion have had it twice and some 3 times. I don't
> know anyone who didn't have the first 3 jabs at least.

Yes, I know a number of people who've had it more than once.

> I'm 90% sure that the vaccine does not affect transmission.

That is so obvs I can't even believe people might dicsuss it.

> They *may* help if you get infected not seen enough data.
> Vaccines have caused many people serious injury.

Here you are exaggerating.

> Masks even N95 masks are useless they're just theatre.
> Asymptomatic transmission was never a serious factor, I will not
> claim it didn't happen but for the most part it was propaganda from
> the nudge units.
>
> PCR testing in the UK used double the sensible levels of
> amplification cycles. People who should know said you could find
> anything in anyone with that level of amplification.
>
> Remember the videos from China of people dropping dead at bus stops.

I don't waste time looking at random internet videos, so, no.

>> We were told the vaccines were coming, and they did,
>
> Yes, remarkably quickly, too quickly.

I've no idea what this means.

> My wife and I had the first 3 jabs. Had we known then what we think
> we know now, including what happened to us, we would not have done so.

What is it you think you now know?

--
Tim

On 13 Feb 2024 at 15:51:56 GMT, "mm0fmf" <none@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 13/02/2024 15:32, Bob Latham wrote:
>> In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1@dont-email.me>,
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Vaccinations certainly did work,
>>
>> Well I'm very sure they do not prevent transmission.
>>
> They reduce the likelihood of onward transmission.

This makes much more sense.

--
Tim

On 13 Feb 2024 at 16:19:47 GMT, "Scott Alfter" <Scott Alfter> wrote:

> In article <l2v8ptFomvlU1@mid.individual.net>,
> TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 12 Feb 2024 at 18:50:58 GMT, "Scott Alfter" <Scott Alfter> wrote:
>>> "Buybacks" are nothing of the sort. The government can't "buy back" that
>>> which it never owned. Be honest and call it what it is: confiscation,
>>> usually at nowhere near what the firearms involved are worth.
>>
>> We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
>> justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
>
> ...and that is why you're a subject of your country, not a citizen.

Not according to my passport, which says "British Citizen".

You're out of date.

And there is still no justification for these weapons to be in private hands.
Train us on them, yes, but only in an official context. Anything else is
lunacy.

--
Tim

On 13 Feb 2024 at 21:32:57 GMT, "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> The vaccines don't stop you getting infected, absolute fact !!
>
> I've seen no evidence the vaccines improve your recovery.
> It *may* do but I've seen zero evidence only conjecture and wishful
> thinking by the guilty.
>
> I've seen no evidence that it reduces transmission at all. The
> manufacturers have admitted that no testing on transmission was done.
>
> Perhaps you've forgotten , the virus mutated to a much milder forms
> again and again, Alpha, Beta, Delta, Omicron.

Look, we know all this. Why d'ye keep trotting it out as if it's profound in
some fashion?

a) vaccines prime your immune system. So if you do get it, covid won't be as
bad as it would otherwise have been.

b) viruses mutate. Which is why I keep taking the jabs as they are offered.
It's routine now: I get a message from the climic and I go there are they give
me a covid jab in one arm, and flu in the other, at the same time. This will
now happen every winter. Prior to covid, I was getting the annual flu jab late
every year. Only had flu once in the last 20 years - and that was because that
particular jab was only goodd for 3 of the 4 strains going around, and I was
unlucky.

c) Vaccines/transmission. Just because I'm vaccinated doesn't affect the virus
load someone coughs on me. What vaccination *does* affect is subsequent
events. Which is what counts. So stop bleating that the manufacturers did no
transmission tests. Why would they? Why would anyone expect them to?

--
Tim

On 13/02/2024 23:22, TimS wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2024 at 21:32:57 GMT, "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The vaccines don't stop you getting infected, absolute fact !!
>>
>> I've seen no evidence the vaccines improve your recovery.
>> It *may* do but I've seen zero evidence only conjecture and wishful
>> thinking by the guilty.
>>
>> I've seen no evidence that it reduces transmission at all. The
>> manufacturers have admitted that no testing on transmission was done.
>>
>> Perhaps you've forgotten , the virus mutated to a much milder forms
>> again and again, Alpha, Beta, Delta, Omicron.
>
> Look, we know all this. Why d'ye keep trotting it out as if it's profound in
> some fashion?
>
> a) vaccines prime your immune system. So if you do get it, covid won't be as
> bad as it would otherwise have been.
>
> b) viruses mutate. Which is why I keep taking the jabs as they are offered.
> It's routine now: I get a message from the climic and I go there are they give
> me a covid jab in one arm, and flu in the other, at the same time. This will
> now happen every winter. Prior to covid, I was getting the annual flu jab late
> every year. Only had flu once in the last 20 years - and that was because that
> particular jab was only goodd for 3 of the 4 strains going around, and I was
> unlucky.
>
> c) Vaccines/transmission. Just because I'm vaccinated doesn't affect the virus
> load someone coughs on me. What vaccination *does* affect is subsequent
> events. Which is what counts. So stop bleating that the manufacturers did no
> transmission tests. Why would they? Why would anyone expect them to?
>

A vaccinated person who contracts the virus (normally with reduced
effects) will normally have coughs and sneezes with a reduced viral
payload compared to a non-vaccinated person. This is how transmission is
reduced by vaccination. The word being reduced not eliminated.

On 13/02/2024 21:32, Bob Latham wrote:
> The
> manufacturers have admitted that no testing on transmission was done.

Straw-man. Some manufacturers said that they did no testing on
transmission as they were not required to do such testing for approval.
They had plenty of other tests to perform for approval which were performed.

In article <l32btrFbpo9U1@mid.individual.net>,
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2024 at 21:32:57 GMT, "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > The vaccines don't stop you getting infected, absolute fact !!
> >
> > I've seen no evidence the vaccines improve your recovery.
> > It *may* do but I've seen zero evidence only conjecture and wishful
> > thinking by the guilty.
> >
> > I've seen no evidence that it reduces transmission at all. The
> > manufacturers have admitted that no testing on transmission was done.
> >
> > Perhaps you've forgotten , the virus mutated to a much milder forms
> > again and again, Alpha, Beta, Delta, Omicron.

> Look, we know all this. Why d'ye keep trotting it out as if it's
> profound in some fashion?

I spoke of it in one post, never before. Your comment that I'm
trotting it out suggests you don't like the truth.

> a) vaccines prime your immune system. So if you do get it, covid
> won't be as bad as it would otherwise have been.

I've had plenty of vaccinations in my life I'm not anti-vax. I had 3
covid jabs. However, the experimental vaccine has done damage to a
lot of people and I've not seen any data which proves it did anything
good. It may have done but I've not seen it.

> b) viruses mutate. Which is why I keep taking the jabs as they are
> offered. It's routine now: I get a message from the climic and I go
> there are they give me a covid jab in one arm, and flu in the
> other, at the same time. This will now happen every winter. Prior
> to covid, I was getting the annual flu jab late every year. Only
> had flu once in the last 20 years - and that was because that
> particular jab was only goodd for 3 of the 4 strains going around,
> and I was unlucky.

All fine, for you. My wife had developed a condition which is a
classic illness from the vaccine damage list. Is it not okay for me
to have a different opinion and choose differently?

> c) Vaccines/transmission. Just because I'm vaccinated doesn't
> affect the virus load someone coughs on me. What vaccination *does*
> affect is subsequent events.

Please show me evidence of that. I would love to see it to help me
decide. I don't believe agenda pushers like the media any more.

> Which is what counts. So stop bleating that the manufacturers did
> no transmission tests. Why would they? Why would anyone expect them
> to?

That would be fine except we were lied to massively and thousands of
people lost their jobs on the false story that the vaccine stopped
transmission by stopping infection. That was a massive lie, they had
no evidence to back the claims.

Bob.

In article <uqhtjj$2ijm2$1@dont-email.me>,
mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:

> A vaccinated person who contracts the virus (normally with reduced
> effects) will normally have coughs and sneezes with a reduced viral
> payload compared to a non-vaccinated person. This is how
> transmission is reduced by vaccination. The word being reduced not
> eliminated.

I hope that is true.

Evidence?

Bob.

In article <uqhtnu$2ijm2$2@dont-email.me>,
mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 13/02/2024 21:32, Bob Latham wrote:
> > The
> > manufacturers have admitted that no testing on transmission was done.

> Straw-man. Some manufacturers said that they did no testing on
> transmission as they were not required to do such testing for
> approval. They had plenty of other tests to perform for approval
> which were performed.

Yes that would be fine but authorities the world over made claims you
don't get covid if you're vaccinated. then had to make video
statements insisting they never said any such thing.

Bob.

In article <l32ar3FbjbfU2@mid.individual.net>,
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2024 at 15:51:56 GMT, "mm0fmf" <none@invalid.com> wrote:

> > On 13/02/2024 15:32, Bob Latham wrote:
> >> In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1@dont-email.me>,
> >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Vaccinations certainly did work,
> >>
> >> Well I'm very sure they do not prevent transmission.
> >>
> > They reduce the likelihood of onward transmission.

> This makes much more sense.

Evidence?

I've seen none.

I have seen plenty of evidence of vaccine damage.

Bob.

On 13/02/2024 21:32, Bob Latham wrote:
> Right so there is a video that shows presidents, prime ministers
> doctors and professors all claiming they didn't say it stopped you
> getting covid. Then the video goes on to show them all saying exactly
> that.

Again, you are confusing facts with narratives.

And expecting politicians to tell the complicated truth, which at that
point they don't even know, rather than a simple narrative they think
the plebs will understand.

You are inferring far too much from human weakness. And expecting far
too much from 'experts'

I don't know what you are actually referring too, but at leats in my
personal memory all I saw was a lot of politicians in a panic, and a lot
of epidemioligsts with some extremely sketchy models, all of which said
(in the case of the UK), that if something wasn't done, deaths were
likely to exceed 50,000, and the peak rate of the sperad would
completely overwhelm the hospitals.

And the only real tool of merit at their disposal at that time was
lockdown and social distancing. Which would *reduce* (not eliminate)
viral load so that hopefully they would catch it* less*, and catch it
*less severely*. This is not a *qualitative* issue. It's not a catch
it/dont catch it or a die/dont die binary outcome. It's quantitative.
Less likely to catch it, less severe if you do.

Its not the politicians fault per se that the world is full of
ArtStudents™ who want clear simple qualitative answer - four legs good,
two legs bad etc.

People like to think in simple terms, and counting up to two is hard for
some people, and beyond ten with their socks on, beyond the realms of
possibility.

They want an answer to the impossible question 'am I safe or not?' - as
it seems, do you.

No one is ever safe from anything. Its the same BS in the climate change
narrative. Its not a question of whether or not any particular thing is
happening. Mostly *every* thing is happening, its a question of *how
much* is it happening.

I call this insistence on using simple binary logic coupled with an
emotional narrative as ArtStudent™ thinking, because it is utterly
characteristic of people with reasonable intelligence education and
training but who don't grasp and never have grasped the idea of
quantity properly. Who cant see risk beyond a 'its not safe/its safe'
dichotomy.

If you dont want to be referred to that way stop displaying the clear
signs that you are one of those people.

Those measures gave time for vaccines to be developed. Vaccines were
supposed to do the same as lockdown. Reduce (but not eliminate) the
speed of spread, and the severity of infection. Of course the speed at
which they were rushed into place meant that massive long term tests
were skimped.

*HOWEVER* the trials did show that they were in general less dangerous
than getting infected.

Once again, ArtStudents™ then attack this by saying 'well you don't know
that they did anything, because there were no countries that didn't
vaccinate' etc etc. And its easy to spin that into a conspiracy theory
about injecting whole populations with mind control chips etc.

And saying (since they have *denied* the efficacy of the vaccines) that
the only effects were side effects of a negative nature.

Look. I am at some level an (amateur) philosopher, and this is all
covered by the 'problem of induction' or the impossibility of proving
any inferential conclusion to be true.

Almost any scenario, right down to being ruled buy giant invisible
lizards, is *possible*. In the end you have to select an interpretations
that is demonstrably not false, at least, and that's what science is.
Our best shot.

If you start with a metaphysical assumption that they, the blob that
runs things, are smart, devious and lying to you at every turn, and that
*everything* that happens is, if not by God's Design, at least the
design of some evil Illuminati, then you will arrive at the position you
seem to have arrived.

But I've met these people, I've observed how they think, I've observed
what they understand, and let me assure you, that while they are
devious and prone to lying at every turn, smart they ain't.

They are clumsy, inept, ignorant, greedy corrupt and venal, and a
combination of arrogance because they are on the winning side, and
paranoia because they subconsciously realise how little they deserve to
be, and how just one election can change it all.

What they say is not therefore the truth, it is simply whatever they
think at the time is likely to be the least politically damaging, so
they construct a simplistic emotional narrative around the facts and
hope the fuck that the plebs believe them.
Some do, some instantly disbelieve them on *everything*, on principle,
and the rest of us try to distil the wheat from the chaff, the data from
the carefully crafted bullshit, and act accordingly. Supporting
whichever bunch of cunts seems to be leading towards a slightly better
outcomes than the other bunch, so to speak.

In the case of Covid, they clearly didn't plan it, and didn't realise
what the implications were, and so left many of the decisions to the
medical professionals. Who did what medical professionals do, tried to
save lives *no matter what the cost*. So lockdown was economically very
very damaging. Then big pharma got into the act with some vaccines that
were at least partially effective, then they did what they do best,.
made as much money by as much lobbying and passing of brown envelopes
under the table as *they* could...This isn't a particularly Grand
Conspiracy. Its a shabby little play of corrupt human beings struggling
to maintain their jobs, status, power and wealth in the face of a
situation they didn't anticipate.

That is my conclusion based on what I understand of biology,
epidemiology, computer modelling , exposure to the Great and the Good,
and exposure to the boardrooms of companies which have massive income
streams.

In short the usual buggers muddle of insufficient data, insufficient
analytical skills, incompetence, opportunism, greed and insecurity.

Welcome to the RealWorld™

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 14/02/2024 08:28, mm0fmf wrote:
> A vaccinated person who contracts the virus (normally with reduced
> effects) will normally have coughs and sneezes with a reduced viral
> payload compared to a non-vaccinated person. This is how transmission is
> reduced by vaccination. The word being reduced not eliminated.

the scientific, rather than the art student, narrative.
--
“A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
“We did this ourselves.”

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 14/02/2024 10:24, Bob Latham wrote:
> I've had plenty of vaccinations in my life I'm not anti-vax. I had 3
> covid jabs. However, the experimental vaccine has done damage to a
> lot of people and I've not seen any data which proves it did anything
> good. It may have done but I've not seen it.

The initial trials showed reduced severity in those infected.

Post vaccination we had huge numbers of people infected with a massively
reduced mortality rate compared to the pre vaccination waves.

I don't see any reason to doubt this.

--
Perfect is the enemy of good

On 13/02/2024 15:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> As I said, a careful mixture of truth and bullshit.
>
> Vaccinations certainly did work, but we got the ones Big Pharma made the
> most cash out of...
>
>
>

Speak for yourself, I was given Vaxzevria. That was all I had before I
caught Covid the first time. I had the other ones later, but that was
probably a mistake.

I would commend AstraZeneca for trying to offer the vaccine cheaply.

In article <l32aqaFbjbfU1@mid.individual.net>,
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2024 at 15:13:13 GMT, "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > In article <l313evF4k5pU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
> >> On 13 Feb 2024 at 09:50:25 GMT, "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>> In article <uqf4j8$1vsp3$5@dont-email.me>,
> >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
> >>>
> >>> Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the
> >>> truth?
> >>>
> >>> During covid we were continuously told this and that were
> >>> "misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.
> >
> >> Well, you figure it out.
> >
> > I do remember a tremendous number of people demanding all sorts
> > of extreme actions against those that didn't want the vaccine. It
> > opened my eyes to how quickly normal people could become unhinged
> > and barbaric. People should be able to decide if they want the
> > medication or not, extreme pressure placed on people was
> > disgusting.

> Remember Typhoid Mary. And then there was the MMR nonsense, as a
> result of which measles is now on the increase.

Oh dear. I'm not anti-vax, I've had plenty.

Forcing people to have medical treatment is evil and unforgivable.

I am open minded about MMR, I simply do not know. I do know that when
I was at school in large city schools there was only 1 child I ever
saw that had "odd" behaviour. Now it is so much more common and
plenty of children are now medicated for their behaviour. Something
has changed. You tell me what.

> > video) the manufacturer Pfizer if I recall correctly, said that
> > no testing of transmission was ever done. There was never any
> > basis for the madness. Some have since apologised most have not,
> > most notably the unhinged media.

> Why would you test transmission, for a vaccine? It would never
> occur to me for a moment to imagine that a vaccine would affect
> transmission.

Because that was the claim at the time. Getting vaccinated prevents
you getting covid. Do I really have to spend time finding the famous
video of this?

> What a vaccine does is prime your immune system so
> that, when you get infected, you beat off the infection
> double-quick,

Oh yes, I agree, that's what I thought before covid.

> or at any rate only have a low-grade infection.

I don't think I've seen that before covid.

> > Certainly I can't think of anyone I know that hasn't had covid,
> > not one. A good proportion have had it twice and some 3 times. I
> > don't know anyone who didn't have the first 3 jabs at least.

> Yes, I know a number of people who've had it more than once.

> > I'm 90% sure that the vaccine does not affect transmission.

> That is so obvs I can't even believe people might dicsuss it.

> > They *may* help if you get infected not seen enough data.
> > Vaccines have caused many people serious injury.

> Here you are exaggerating.

I don't think so. I know Main Stream Media is suppressing this
massively and Parliament will not listen or debate it. It's like
they're frightened of a can of worms. However, more and more mps are
listening.

> > Masks even N95 masks are useless they're just theatre.
> > Asymptomatic transmission was never a serious factor, I will not
> > claim it didn't happen but for the most part it was propaganda
> > from the nudge units.
> >
> > PCR testing in the UK used double the sensible levels of
> > amplification cycles. People who should know said you could find
> > anything in anyone with that level of amplification.
> >
> > Remember the videos from China of people dropping dead at bus
> > stops.

> I don't waste time looking at random internet videos, so, no.

You have to be careful who you take seriously on the net and see over
time how what they say stands up or not. From what you've said I
don't think you're fully aware of how serious the vaccine damage
situation really is. At the very least, have you not looked at the
*current* "excess deaths" situation in the vaccinated world?

Yes thousands of excess deaths that the media does not talk about at
all, exactly the opposite to covid where deaths was front and centre.

Sorry mate I think you trust main stream media far too much.

I would ask you to look wider MSM is mostly propaganda.

Anyway no point in continuing to argue, not going to achieve anything.

Bob.

In article <uqi55t$2jrmq$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 13/02/2024 21:32, Bob Latham wrote:
> > Right so there is a video that shows presidents, prime ministers
> > doctors and professors all claiming they didn't say it stopped you
> > getting covid. Then the video goes on to show them all saying exactly
> > that.

> Again, you are confusing facts with narratives.

> And expecting politicians to tell the complicated truth, which at
> that point they don't even know, rather than a simple narrative
> they think the plebs will understand.

> You are inferring far too much from human weakness. And expecting
> far too much from 'experts'

> I don't know what you are actually referring too, but at leats in
> my personal memory all I saw was a lot of politicians in a panic,
> and a lot of epidemioligsts with some extremely sketchy models,
> all of which said (in the case of the UK), that if something
> wasn't done, deaths were likely to exceed 50,000, and the peak
> rate of the sperad would completely overwhelm the hospitals.

Of all the people to write something like that you were the last I
expected. I know you are aware that main stream media pushes
propaganda not truth, I know you are.

Surely you remember that we had professors of serious note like
Sunetra Gupta who were completely shut out of the conversation
because politicians had decided what the truth was going to be and
only allowed doctors who agreed with the narrative to speak. Perhaps
you were unaware of the group that formed of viral experts from
across the globe offering an alternative view which was shut out.

The models were from that well known Prof Neil Ferguson otherwise
know as pants down because he didn't believe his own model when it
came to his sexual desires and broke the rules.

This man is and was at the time notorious for massive exaggeration of
deaths from every virus that got near us. He had form for this kind
of nonsense and then some. He was always massively WRONG. But his
ridiculous models were very useful for the narrative.

We both know from ACC how models only reflect the opinion or desire
of their creator, they are propaganda tools, nothing more.

You also seem unaware that many deaths attributed to covid were
really from other things like the end of life drug, I'd have to look
the name given to many elderly in care homes. Or that ventilators
were in themselves the cause of deaths.

But congratulations. I've never seen such an expert job of air
brushing inconvenient truths.

Surprisingly you too seem to be a victim of the media.

No point in arguing further.

Bob.