Corona Virus Update

No. We are wise to Fake News.

Politifact retracts fact-check about lab leak theory



Politifact retracted a fact-check it did last year about the lab leak theory of the origin of the coronavirus. The original article opened:

Politifact concluded:

This Monday the the site added an Editor’s note at the top of the page which reads:

If you follow that link to their current report they actually do acknowledge that the natural transmission theory is also currently unsupported.

The same article offers a pretty fair summary of the lab leak theory.

Yesterday Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee released a report of “significant circumstantial evidence” to support the lab leak theory. The report references the three basic points above as well as the claim, which has been circulating for a while, that researchers at the lab came down with a COVID-like illness in the Fall of 2019.

There is no good reason for the Biden administration to protect China against the truth, whatever that may be. In April, Biden’s director of national intelligence testified to the Senate that the intelligence community remained open to the two possibilities that the virus “emerged naturally from human contact with infected animals or it was a laboratory accident.” CIA Director William Burns concurred, adding that “the Chinese leadership has not been fully forthcoming or fully transparent.” The only thing that is certain is that these leaders are starting to disbelieve the Chinese story that the virus originated in the Wuhan markets where live animals are sold.

More than a year after the worst pandemic in a century, China’s story about where the virus originated has fallen apart and they don’t have a better one. Meanwhile they continue to stifle and control any investigation or even reporting on the topic. They certainly behave as if they have something to hide.

Those that pointed out that Politifacts "Pants on Fire" rating was drivel were right, even Politifact finally admits that.

 

GOP Sen. Rand Paul says he refuses to take the COVID-19 vaccine, claims he already has 'natural immunity' (msn.com)
If you can believe that if you got COVID-19 once, what are the odds that you can get it again? US senator Rand Paul (R-KY) says that he's naturally immune from it. Someone ought to tell him that he could get it again. Trump thought he immune but as you all know he tested positive and spent time in the hospital. Trump wasn't invincible and neither is Rand Paul. No one is immune if you don't get the vaccine. There are those out there that won't get the vaccine no matter what. How do you convince those to do it?

 

Trump also got the vaccine despite having already had Covid 19.
Hard as it is to believe that anyone could be, that officially makes Rand Paul dumber than Donald Trump.

 

And he really didn't need to prove it once more; he had convinced me long time ago.

 

You realize vaccinated individuals can “get it” as well? Just a bit less likely to than someone who’s had Covid.

If varying risk tolerance is a predictor of intelligence are people who get the J&J vaccine 9-20% dumber than people who get the Phizer vaccine?

Some of the vaccines being used in other first world countries aren’t much better than natural infection. Are all those poor schmucks getting those vaccines idiots because they have about the same level of immunity as Paul?

I’ve been telling you guys since before vaccines were even a certainty that calling reluctant people stupid would be counterproductive if vaccination of the masses is your goal.

Adopting a policy of honesty would be the best way to convince skeptics to get vaccinated. People smart enough to figure out some of the lies they’ve been told by the scientific/medical community for decades and are skeptics as a result aren’t going to react well to being called dumb by people not smart enough to recognize the same lies.

On PF we have people who want everyone to get vaccinated claiming the Covid vaccines in use in the US can’t prevent infection. We also have people who want everyone to get vaccinated insinuating natural infection doesn’t confer immunity but vaccination makes everyone immune. Both groups think they are following “science” but neither group knows anything about the “science”. They know how to politicize issues and use logical fallacies and that’s about it.

/rant off—carry on....

 

What? That statement is internally inconsistent.

We don't know if natural infection provides immunity. If it does, we don't know how long. And getting vaccinated will likely prevent illness and certainly prevents severe illness.

Instead of spreading unsupported claims and alleged false claims, why not just tell it like it is.

 

That statement is factual. The people it describes are internally inconsistent.

WUT? Here’s a sample of things apparently your sources of information don’t really want you to know.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00675-9/fulltext

Too bad you get selective information. That seems to be the one constant thing with Covid. People always trying to influence behavior by lying or withholding information.

That’s what I do bro. That’s my “agenda”. Giving people accurate information so they can make good decisions for themselves.

 

You're right about that as well. Even though one gets vaccinated can still get but it won't be as bad like you won't die from it. No one is really immune.

 

Unfortunately a small percentage of vaccinated individuals are dying of Covid.

Can you clarify what you mean by the phrase “no one is really immune”?

 

Of course the real difference between the vaccine and natural immunity is that far more folks survive the vaccine than the other method.

Oh that and the fact that if you catch the virus instead of the vaccine you are far more likely to spread it.
That's why we want everyone to choose the vaccine route.

 

Unruly air passengers facing more than $60,000 in fines after accusations of mask fights, assaulting flight attendants

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...=857693951420692326&utm_medium=Email Sailthru

How "civilized"...........NOT!!!

 

The vaccines are thought to provide more immunity than natural infection.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/marty-makary/92434

And the vaccine works differently than natural infection. The vaccine is really against the spike protein that allows the virus to infect cells. This is why we didn't know if the vaccine would prevent the spread of the virus as well. In traditional vaccines that isn't a concern because those provide immunity to the virus itself, as does natural immunity.

 

Wow.

Before going any further, please provide evidence natural immunity does not target the spike protein.

Next, please explain subunit vaccines and how they differ from mRNA vaccines.

 

The burden of proof is on you to prove it does. Simple logic dictates that a universal negative cannot be proven. Any elementary exposure to logic tells you that. Guess you never had that.

Subunit vaccines provide segments of the pathogen. mRNA vaccine at least in this case acts on the spike protein.

It isn't my job to defend what actual experts say. But if you want to play Holiday Inn Immunologist you have fun.

 

No it isn't. You made the claim, you give the evidence to support the claim.

 

You can't provide proof of a negative. But this is the explanation given by actual experts as to why we didn't know if we could still transmit the virus after vaccinations. Unlike traditional immunity, we are not immune to the virus.

I don't pretend to be an expert. I am just repeating what experts say. That is probably confusing for a lot of you. If there are mainstream medical journals with published studies showing otherwise, please post them.

 

Actually when you make the claim the vaccines target the spike protein but natural infection does not the burden of proof is on you. When you make claims it’s your job to provide evidence they are correct when asked to do so.
But that’s fine, I knew you couldn’t answer because you don’t use comprehensive sources of information.

Natural infection induces immune response to all subunits of the spike protein. Vaccines do as well, but elicit higher titers of a couple of the more important ones, including the receptor binding domain.

Natural infection also elicits response to the nucleocapsid protein whereas it’s unlikely the vaccines can, especially the mRNA ones since they do not code for ribosomes to build that antigen. Furthermore, there is now some evidence antibodies to the S2 subunit (natural infection produces high titers of antibodies to S2) may be very important in protecting against variants because this portion of the S protein does not mutate as much as the RBD subunit.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...iffers-from-natural-SARS-CoV-2-infection.aspx

Also the link to further information on S2 subunit etc.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210505130541.htm

So in conclusion, both the vaccine and natural infection induce full antibodies to every subunit of the spike. The vaccine elicits higher titers of some than natural infection.

Vaccines in this case do not act on the spike protein. They instruct ribosomes in cytoplasm of your cells to manufacture spike proteins virtually identical to those on SARS-CoV-2 virons. Essentially your cells are manufacturing a subunit vaccines instead of a lab somewhere creating the subunit. So these vaccines are really no different than “traditional” subunit vaccines contrary to your claim.

The biggest problem is your posts are in direct conflict with the “experts”. I’m not sure what an “expert” is to you, but I deal with respiratory viruses and vaccines daily. My livelihood depends on my understanding of immunology. If I’m not correct, things get sick and die.

That’s why it bothers me when people like you provide misinformation—I fear it may harm some person who reads PF. That’s why I supply accurate information here—to ensure people who care about basing their decisions involving Covid and vaccination on empirical evidence are aware of that evidence, not just garbage people repeat from journalists, bloggers, and politicians.

 

What'd they find out?

 

Do you have a strategy for that that hasn't been tried already? People let their pets poop in other people's yards and won't put their trash in a receptacle in the park. You seriously think they are going to go by the rules when they've been resisting them for over a year now?

 

He should wear a mast on general principle just to hide his unkempt facial hair. He's just disgusting on so many levels.

 

Why should he? There are millions of people that hide from information (I'm not saying he is or isn't. I didn't read all those exchanges). Some people just can't handle the truth because it's too much to think and shift one's paradigm.

 

Results not out yet apparently.

 

Not exactly. Trump SAID he got the vaccine. He's a pathological liar so who knows if he did or didn't? Didn't he just blurt out one day that he was taking Hydroxychloroquine as a preventative and they had to do damage control on that? My bet is he didn't get it but is shilling it because he wants his name on it. He's way too attention-starved to have taken the shot behind closed doors. He might have even said that because Bush, Obama and Clinton asked him to join them in some public service announcement and he declined. He could have joined them and had them give him a saline solution if he didn't want the vaccine or already had it. The optics would have been a show of unified support but he's too selfish, too narcissistic, too evil and too whackadoodle to do anything that benefits the country instead of his bank account.

 

Cognitive dissonance.

 

I'm not sure a Mast would help much.