Is COVID-19 Caused by a Virus or a Mycobacterium?

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/

Same kind of graphic as for other countries.

Only some 80,000 Australians have received the vaccines so far. The vaccination program only started in late February 2021.

If the M. avium really do come from the atmosphere, Australia will see a dramatic increase in the number of cases as more and more people get vaccinated. The M. avium from the atmosphere is attracted by the HeLa cells in the persons who received the mRNA/adenovirus vaccinations.

Moreover, Australia had a huge bushfire season in 2020, and is happening again in 2021:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/here-we-go-again-australia-on-high-alert-as-fire-season-kicks-off-early/OJBVJ7RRLE5EM2LI6O27QBRANA/

I believe that these fires were a factor in repelling the M. avium from reaching the surface; we will see what happens with the vaccination program which just got underway.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-korea/ (same problems as everyone else)

"It seems the countries worst affected are ones that have allowed freedom of movement and lax about wearing masks."

Not true. The Czechs obeyed the masks mandates, so did the French. It did not help them at all.

Well the population density of South Korea is greater than that of America and their total cases since the start of the pandemic is still less than 1/3rd of the worst of what America was getting per day (95K total vs the some days over 300K cases per day you were getting). If people didn't take any measures, you can guarantee that its results would look similar to America

The Czechs slowly screwed up their gains they made earlier in 2020. They had an election, masks were called 'muzzles' by the opposition and because cases were low, they eased on the restrictions. The paradox of success. People see the cost of prevention but not the virus. This happened as Europe was being hit with a '2nd wave' with an arguably more infectious strain. Basically The Czechs case numbers spiked after they lifted the face mask rule and eased out of the lock down they had. They were doing very well up unto that point.

https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/What-happens-when-a-country-suddenly-stops-15665325.php

When Australia had a breach in its hotel quarantine system, 1 infected family from overseas was literally responsible for thousands of new infections and hundreds of deaths. The virus was contained only to the one state as other states locked them out. After a few months of mask wearing, distancing and lockdowns the virus was virtually eliminated, not simply suppressed.

We'll see about our vaccine rollout what happens when we return totally to normal (no quarantine upon arrival). Almost everyone will get the Astrazeneca brand. Only a few in the beginning got the Pfizer. Because Australia has been doing so well and we were responsible we'll be probably among the last of the developed world to get fully vaccinated even though our population is only 25 million to cover.

It is true that S. Korea has a higher population density than America, but it is also true that they had no trial vaccines administered (other than Genexine, their own DNA vaccine).

They also had a large flu vaccine implementation: the flu vaccine weakens the immune system.







Masks stopped the flu season in its tracks. Not covid-19.

Primary mode of transmission: mycobacterium pouring down from the atmosphere.
Secondary mode of transmission: person to person.

The next six months are crucial, we'll see what happens (Australia, SK, Europe, US).

They also had a large flu vaccine implementation: the flu vaccine weakens the immune system.

This is probably one of the dumbest things you have ever said, which is seriously impressive.

If I ever needed any examples to point out how ignorant you are on the subject of vaccines, this would be it.

"As of October 29, there had been a total of 72 deaths reported in South Korea, many of them occurring within 48 hours or a week after inoculation with the flu vaccine. These reports have struck fear into the hearts of many, bringing public participation in the drive to a grinding halt."

By November 7, 2020, the death toll was 100.

Also study the subject Pamdemrix.

You were thrown out from tfes.org for being a nuissance: you are in no position to judge anybody.

Wanna see how dumb you are?

Go ahead call the FDA and ask them about the mRNA vaccines' integrity and stability studies. Surprisingly, they will direct you to Pfizer. Call Pfizer, they will say you need to talk to BioNTech. BioNTech will redirect you to the Paul Ehrlich Institute. The administrators at the Paul Ehrlich Institute will declare that the data is confidential.

You injected yourself with a mRNA vaccine which is worse than useless: no one can guarantee its stability and integrity.

“The complete, intact mRNA molecule is essential to its potency as a vaccine,” professor of biopharmaceutics Daan J.A. Crommelin and colleagues wrote in a review article in The Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences late last year. “Even a minor degradation reaction, anywhere along a mRNA strand, can severely slow or stop proper translation performance of that strand and thus result in the incomplete expression of the target antigen.”

You were thrown out from tfes.org for being a nuissance: you are in no position to judge anybody.

You and Tom Bishop are quite the pair, you guys should hang out.  You can gleefully gush to each other over tales of tfes banning people you don't like, you both seem to bring it up in every discussion.  Maybe you can even help define the Bishop Constant.  I hear they are having trouble with that.

See, this is why you have such a problem with reality. You seem to have zero ability to judge evidence.

You think getting yelled at by some guy whose claim to fame is he has a moderator flag on a tiny conspiracy website means my opinions and arguments are all invalid.  This is your reason for ignoring facts.  Because I got banned on a site known for banning people.

That might be even dumber than your vaccine comment.  Almost.

Masks were used before they were mandated.

The sky is not raining sars-cov-2.

My COVID-19 disorder was apparently caused by lack of good French, red wine. Since being locked up by the French government, I have to empty my cellar and I feel fine.

While sitting here eating a sandwich I find it hard to cope with the thought of knowing this time next year I will be eating people.

In the movie, Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow products are also available.

In the movie, Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow products are also available.

I prefer Soylent Cocolate:

Quote from: sandokhan on March 15, 2021, 03:47:19 AM

In the movie, Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow products are also available.

I prefer Soylent Cocolate:

Do I dare ask what part of the human body that is made from?

Quote from: markjo on March 15, 2021, 07:28:35 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on March 15, 2021, 03:47:19 AM

In the movie, Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow products are also available.

I prefer Soylent Cocolate:

Do I dare ask what part of the human body that is made from?

From what I gather, it's made around the corner from Soylent Yellow.

A new variant has been detected in Brazil, and is considered to be even more dangerous than the P.1 strain: the N.9.

https://www.time24.news/time/2021/03/brazilian-scientists-identify-new-strain-of-coronavirus-with-potential-for-greater-transmission.html

Quote from: sandokhan on March 15, 2021, 03:47:19 AM

In the movie, Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow products are also available.

I prefer Soylent Cocolate:

I used to buy that stuff. I think it’s people free.

I think it’s people free.

That's what they want you to think.

Yes, according to your poster, you would believe it correct to walk around in piss-stained drawers all day.

That is not surprising in the least.

Quote from: markjo on March 15, 2021, 07:28:35 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on March 15, 2021, 03:47:19 AM

In the movie, Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow products are also available.

I prefer Soylent Cocolate:

I used to buy that stuff. I think it’s people free.

It's actually pretty good.

Yes, according to your poster, you would believe it correct to walk around in piss-stained drawers all day.

That is not surprising in the least.

Wow, you really do live in your own little world, don't you.  What a warped view of reality you have, no wonder you think leaving loaded guns around for children to play with is a good idea.

Question: what is the absolute risk reduction percentage for the two mRNA vaccines?

"Absolute risk reduction (ARR) and relative risk reduction (RRR) are measures of treatment efficacy reported in randomized clinical trials. Because the ARR and RRR can be dramatically different in the same trial, it is necessary to include both measures when reporting efficacy outcomes to avoid outcome reporting bias."

Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

Answer: absolute risk reduction for BioNTech 0.7%, absolute risk reduction for Moderna 1.1%.

Here is the peer reviewed paper which explains what is going on:

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199/htm

Answer: absolute risk reduction for BioNTech 0.7%, absolute risk reduction for Moderna 1.1%.

Here is the peer reviewed paper which explains what is going on:

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199/htm

Question: Does sandokhan understand the difference between relative and absolute risk?

Answer: No.

What's your point here?

Not inhaling water is 100% effective in preventing drowning in a bathtub.  But the absolute risk reduction of breathing while taking a bath is only a tiny fraction. 

Take your shot like a human with real feelings for others.

Not inhaling water is 100% effective in preventing drowning in a bathtub.  But the absolute risk reduction of breathing while taking a bath is only a tiny fraction.

Chatbot detected.

Absolute risk reduction for BioNTech 0.7%, absolute risk reduction for Moderna 1.1%.

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199/htm

Not inhaling water is 100% effective in preventing drowning in a bathtub.  But the absolute risk reduction of breathing while taking a bath is only a tiny fraction.

Chatbot detected.

Absolute risk reduction for BioNTech 0.7%, absolute risk reduction for Moderna 1.1%.

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199/htm

Ignorance detected.

Yes, repeating yourself is an effective debating technique.  Just spam links and you will HAVE to be right one of these times.

Take your shot and quit talking about statistics like you have any clue what those numbers mean.

Funny how you accuse others of being bots when your posts are 99% content you cut and paste from other sites. Just like all the other spambots here. Ironic.

You still haven't even explained what your POIING of your spamming those links are.  The vaccines are 95% effective in preventing the spread, so take it and help others and quit being selfish, since you can't really stop being ignorant it seems.

Ignorant and selfish is the worst combination.

The vaccines are 95% effective in preventing the spread

That's the relative risk reduction percentage, you vaxhole.

It counts for nothing at all.

The only percentage that matters is the absolute risk reduction.

Here are the figures:

Absolute risk reduction for BioNTech 0.7%, absolute risk reduction for Moderna 1.1%.

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199/htm

The paper proves these figures to be true.

The real efficacy of the vaccines is 1% (a generous figure).

The vaccines are 95% effective in preventing the spread

That's the relative risk reduction percentage, you vaxhole.

Not if the idea is to prevent spread, you moron.

Not if the idea is to prevent spread

Another vaxtard does not understand the difference between ARR and RRR.

You cannot prevent spread with an efficacy of 1%.

That's the real figure for the two mRNA vaccines.

Here is the peer reviewed paper to prove it:

https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/57/3/199/htm

Abstract

Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy. The present article uses clinical epidemiologic tools to critically appraise reports of efficacy in Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials. Based on data reported by the manufacturer for Pfzier/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2, this critical appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 95.1%; 95% CI, 90.0% to 97.6%; p = 0.016; absolute risk reduction, 0.7%; 95% CI, 0.59% to 0.83%; p < 0.000. For the Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273, the appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 94.1%; 95% CI, 89.1% to 96.8%; p = 0.004; absolute risk reduction, 1.1%; 95% CI, 0.97% to 1.32%; p < 0.000. Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

As was also noted in the BMJ Opinion, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna reported the relative risk reduction of their vaccines, but the manufacturers did not report a corresponding absolute risk reduction, which “appears to be less than 1%”. Absolute risk reduction (ARR) and relative risk reduction (RRR) are measures of treatment efficacy reported in randomized clinical trials. Because the ARR and RRR can be dramatically different in the same trial, it is necessary to include both measures when reporting efficacy outcomes to avoid outcome reporting bias.

Ironically, the omission of absolute risk reduction measures in data reviewed by the VRBPAC overlooks FDA guidelines for communicating evidence-based risks and benefits to the public. The FDA’s advice for information providers includes:

“Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.”

The New England Journal of Medicine also published clinical trial data on safety and efficacy for the BNT162b2 vaccine and the mRNA-1273 vaccine, but with no mention of absolute risk reduction measures.


Relative Versus Absolute Risk Reduction

So exactly how much risk reduction are the manufacturers crediting their vaccine with?

The reduced risk of COVID-19 infection reported by the manufacturers is approximately 95%, which is an accurate relative risk reduction measure. However, missing from the vaccine reports are absolute risk reduction measures which are much more clinically relevant to the reduced risk of COVID-19 infection. The absolute risk reduction of the vaccines in the present critical appraisal is approximately 1%, indicating practically no clinical efficacy or usefulness of the vaccines to reduce COVID-19 infection.

Essentially, the vaccine is useless and ineffective?

For applied clinical and public health interventions, yes, they appear to be almost completely ineffective. The members of the FDA advisory committee overlooked FDA guidelines to include absolute reduction measures when reporting clinical trial outcomes to the public, leading to outcome reporting bias in the FDA’s authorization of the mRNA vaccines.

Reporting relative risk outcomes, without absolute risk outcomes, has been a huge problem in research for decades. Notice that the ARR numbers are close to zero. The vaccines have almost no effect at all!


Not if the idea is to prevent spread

Not even a joke.

First look lie zero.

The vaccines are 95% effective in preventing the spread

That's the relative risk reduction percentage, you vaxhole.

It counts for nothing at all.

The only percentage that matters is the absolute risk reduction.

Uh, no you moron.

Once again all you show is your ignorance on medicine and math.  Not surprising from someone who routinely couldn't successfully add two number together.

Take your shot or do us all a favor and never come out of your basement ever again.

You are not very bright at all to inject yourself with a vaccine which has an ARR of 0.7%.

Here is another paper which takes a look at the difference between the RRR and the ARR for covid-19 vaccines:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348691034_Title_What_is_the_efficacy_of_a_Covid-19_vaccine_A_viewpoint

Let us now analyze the raw data from the clinical studies.

"Pfizer’s vaccine “may be more than 90% effective.” (Mahase, BMJ 2020;371:m4347, November 9) Specific data are not given but it is easy enough to approximate the numbers involved, based on the 94 cases in a trial that has enrolled about 40,000 subjects: 8 cases in a vaccine group of 20,000 and 86 cases in a placebo group of 20,000. This yields a Covid-19 attack rate of 0.0004 in the vaccine group and 0.0043 in the placebo group. Relative risk (RR) for vaccination = 0.093, which translates into a “vaccine effectiveness” of 90.7% [100(1-0.093)]. This sounds impressive, but the absolute risk reduction for an individual is only about 0.4% (0.0043-0.0004=0.0039). The Number Needed To Vaccinate (NNTV) = 256 (1/0.0039), which means that to prevent just 1 Covid-19 case 256 individuals must get the vaccine; the other 255 individuals derive no benefit, but are subject to vaccine adverse effects, whatever they may be and whenever we learn about them."

What other one off paper that nobody cares about are you going to find?