Coronavirus

[Mori Chu]

Which is more effective: "natural immunity" from having been infected by COVID-19, or having taken an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna?

WaPo: The vaccine.

In comparing the two types of immunity, scientists said research shows vaccination provides a “higher, more robust, and more consistent level of immunity to protect people from COVID-19 than infection alone.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... -immunity/

(Same article also mentions that the unvaxxed are 11x more likely to die from covid than vaxxed.)

(Same article also also says that in either case, the antibodies granted last not much more than 6 months. So be careful.)


Here's a direct link to CDC information: they, too, say that the vaccine is better.

The immunity provided by vaccine and prior infection are both high but not complete (i.e., not 100%).
Whereas there is a wide range in antibody titers in response to infection with SARS-CoV-2, completion of a primary vaccine series, especially with mRNA vaccines, typically leads to a more consistent and higher-titer initial antibody response.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... unity.html

Here's another study showing the vaccine to be more effective:

Higher antibody titers were observed in participants vaccinated with 2 doses of mRNA-1273 compared with those vaccinated with BNT162b2 (geometric mean titer [GMT], 3836 U/mL [95% CI, 3586-4104] vs 1444 U/mL [95% CI, 1350-1544]; P < .001) (Figure, A).

Previously infected participants had higher antibody titers (GMT, 9461 U/mL [95% CI, 8494-10 539]) compared with previously uninfected participants (GMT, 1613 U/mL [95% CI, 1539-1690]) (P < .001). In both groups, those vaccinated with mRNA-1273 had higher antibody titers compared with those vaccinated with BNT162b2 (previously uninfected: GMT, 2881 U/mL [95% CI, 2721-3051] vs 1108 U/mL [95% CI, 1049-1170]; P < .001; previously infected: GMT, 10 708 U/mL [95% CI, 9311-12 315] vs 8174 U/mL [95% CI, 6923-9649]; P = .01). The difference in antibody levels according to previous infection was higher than the difference between the 2 mRNA vaccines (Figure, B, and Table).

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... le/2783797


Here's another link showing the vaccine to be more effective. This one also says that the antibodies you acquire from having been effective exit your body much faster than those from the vaccine:

1. Antibody protection from the vaccines last longer.
If you contract COVID-19 and develop protective antibodies, those antibodies may not be detectable after 90 days. “And if the antibody levels following infection are low, the antibodies may last only 60 days,” says Dr. Cunningham.

Vaccine antibodies, however, last six months or longer. Studies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggest that antibody protection from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines decreases after eight months, and after that, the vaccines are still highly effective against hospitalization. In one study, data from the state of New York showed that vaccine effectiveness decreased from 91.7 to 79.8% against infection—and 79.8% is still very effective.

https://www.henryford.com/blog/2021/10/ ... protection


In2, I probably won't convince you that vaccines are good with the above links. But one thing all the sites say is that any "natural immunity" from having been infected doesn't last forever. If you got infected with COVID-19 a year ago, you likely are no longer protected from catching it again. So I hope you'll be careful and take precautions to avoid exposure. I disagree with you about some issues, but I want you to be healthy and safe.

[In2ition]

I appreciate your concern Mori, and I take it into account. Antibody tests done recently say that they are as high as ever in my body. I'm in no danger. It's funny, because I also read somewhere that an elderly woman yrs ago that had the Spanish Flu as a youth, was still 80 yrs + later to have anti-bodies still in her body to fight it. I'm not sure where it started that natural immunity somehow wains faster than the vaccine, but it wouldn't surprise me to find you can follow the money and find out.

It's hard for me to take anything that the CDC says with any great seriousness, as it has been shown that they have an incestuous relationship with the Pharma companies, and seem to exist to further the bottom lines of them. Unfortunately, at one time they may have been set up to help the public, but when most of their top people come from the Pharma agencies and vice versa, it makes you wonder.

Where are the studies recently that show that the vaccines are waning quite rapidly, hence the need for a booster? Even Fauci and Gates said that the "vaccines" aren't performing like they had hoped, and I believe that they are talking about efficacy over time. Perhaps they aren't killing as many people as quickly as they hoped. (that's a joke for Indy and 3rdside, in case they can't recognize that).

Have you seen that FDA wants permission from a federal court not to release their data on Pfizer's COVID vaccine approval for another 55 YEARS? It only took the FDA 108 days to "fully review" and approve Pfizer's data, but they want 20,000 days to release their findings to the public... Imo, that doesn't help with those that have vaccine hesitancy or public opinion on what they are doing. Maybe that's a nothingburger to most of those of you that read this post though.

[Indy]

You clearly have no idea how the CDC and FDA work if you think they are actively working to support the pharma industry.

Where are you reading that FDA is trying to hide vaccine approval analysis?

[In2ition]

The FDA is asking for delay in processing 329,000 pages of data in a FOIA request, as they want the rate to be 500 pages per month provided.
https://www.sirillp.com/wp-content/uplo ... 78006e.pdf
http://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/202 ... -FINAL.pdf

You can read the article here. https://www.theblaze.com/news/fda-asks- ... ccine-info

[In2ition]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... o-industry
https://time.com/4510025/fda-drug-compa ... reviewers/
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog ... s-spinning
https://www.thedailybeast.com/big-pharm ... y-work-for
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... zer-board/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... ic-health/

Spoiler: show/hide

I'm sure I don't need to tell you to keep in mind that these are most likely idiotic sources, as they have not been through the approval process of 3rdside or Indy yet, so keep stay tuned. I will retract as required.

[Indy]

You should try reading it again. You are either misled by the article, don't understand the filing/response, or trying to mislead people reading your post.

[Indy]

Umm, yeah of course people with experience in the CDC and FDA are very sought after in the industries they regulate. That is like saying you think there is a big conspiracy between Google and Microsoft and Apple because they hire each other's employees all the time. They are actively fighting each other, and you want any leg up you can get.

[Indy]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... o-industry
https://time.com/4510025/fda-drug-compa ... reviewers/
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog ... s-spinning
https://www.thedailybeast.com/big-pharm ... y-work-for
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... zer-board/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... ic-health/

{removed spoiler tag}I'm sure I don't need to tell you to keep in mind that these are most likely idiotic sources, as they have not been through the approval process of 3rdside or Indy yet, so keep stay tuned. I will retract as required.

Stop being so whiny about others pointing out your lying sources.

[In2ition]

You should try reading it again. You are either misled by the article, don't understand the filing/response, or trying to mislead people reading your post.

I read the first pdf which shows that. Perhaps I've misread(wouldn't be the first time), but I'm not the only one that read this.

"After the December 1 production, FDA proposes to work through the list of documents that
Plaintiff requested FDA prioritize for production in order of priority and process and release the
non-exempt portions of those records to Plaintiff on a rolling basis. FDA proposes to process and
produce the non-exempt portions of responsive records at a rate of 500 pages per month. This rate
is consistent with processing schedules entered by courts across the country in FOIA cases.3
Plaintiff’s request (as set forth below) that FDA process and produce the non-exempt
portions of more than 329,000 pages in four months would force FDA to process more than 80,000
pages per month. Undersigned counsel is not aware of any court ever granting such a request. The
Court should decline to enter Plaintiff’s schedule for numerous reasons."

[In2ition]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... o-industry
https://time.com/4510025/fda-drug-compa ... reviewers/
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog ... s-spinning
https://www.thedailybeast.com/big-pharm ... y-work-for
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... zer-board/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... ic-health/

{removed spoiler tag}I'm sure I don't need to tell you to keep in mind that these are most likely idiotic sources, as they have not been through the approval process of 3rdside or Indy yet, so keep stay tuned. I will retract as required.

Stop being so whiny about others pointing out your lying sources.

Stop being insufferable. Are they all lying? A lot of what you say is lying, just hasn't filtered down to you. One example is the Steele Dossier, it was claimed to be entirely truthful, but as we find out, it was completely made up and Sussman and Igor Danchanko have been indicted over it, and that's just the beginning. Of course, if I posted a story 3 yrs ago that said it was made up, you and others would have said it was a lying source. So, respectfully to you, what should I say to you?

[Indy]

I wasn't saying the hiring of people is a lie. It is your continued lies about vaccines. It is clear you focus on people that have been proven to be liars over and over and over again, and then act shocked when we point it out.

[Indy]

You should try reading it again. You are either misled by the article, don't understand the filing/response, or trying to mislead people reading your post.

I read the first pdf which shows that. Perhaps I've misread(wouldn't be the first time), but I'm not the only one that read this.

"After the December 1 production, FDA proposes to work through the list of documents that
Plaintiff requested FDA prioritize for production in order of priority and process and release the
non-exempt portions of those records to Plaintiff on a rolling basis. FDA proposes to process and
produce the non-exempt portions of responsive records at a rate of 500 pages per month. This rate
is consistent with processing schedules entered by courts across the country in FOIA cases.3
Plaintiff’s request (as set forth below) that FDA process and produce the non-exempt
portions of more than 329,000 pages in four months would force FDA to process more than 80,000
pages per month. Undersigned counsel is not aware of any court ever granting such a request. The
Court should decline to enter Plaintiff’s schedule for numerous reasons."

So they are not saying "wait 55 years to see the documents" like you said in your original post. They said, we have a total of 10 people handling FOIA requests, and we have hundreds of requests and get more and more every day. We cannot process 80,000 pages a month like you requested. We can commit to 500 pages a month with current budgeted staffing levels."

Do you know what goes into a FOIA request to the FDA?

[In2ition]

I wasn't saying the hiring of people is a lie. It is your continued lies about vaccines. It is clear you focus on people that have been proven to be liars over and over and over again, and then act shocked when we point it out.

If your description of me was obstinate instead of whiny or shocked, I would agree. There may have been errors in my sources, as I am not perfect, but I would still contend that many that you say are, are in fact not.

[In2ition]

You should try reading it again. You are either misled by the article, don't understand the filing/response, or trying to mislead people reading your post.

I read the first pdf which shows that. Perhaps I've misread(wouldn't be the first time), but I'm not the only one that read this.

"After the December 1 production, FDA proposes to work through the list of documents that
Plaintiff requested FDA prioritize for production in order of priority and process and release the
non-exempt portions of those records to Plaintiff on a rolling basis. FDA proposes to process and
produce the non-exempt portions of responsive records at a rate of 500 pages per month. This rate
is consistent with processing schedules entered by courts across the country in FOIA cases.3
Plaintiff’s request (as set forth below) that FDA process and produce the non-exempt
portions of more than 329,000 pages in four months would force FDA to process more than 80,000
pages per month. Undersigned counsel is not aware of any court ever granting such a request. The
Court should decline to enter Plaintiff’s schedule for numerous reasons."

So they are not saying "wait 55 years to see the documents" like you said in your original post. They said, we have a total of 10 people handling FOIA requests, and we have hundreds of requests and get more and more every day. We cannot process 80,000 pages a month like you requested. We can commit to 500 pages a month with current budgeted staffing levels."

Do you know what goes into a FOIA request to the FDA?

Yes, I read that too. It still doesn't change that it would take 55 yrs to process this request, but it only took 108 days to approve those 39,000 pages.

I am not entirely aware of everything that goes into a FOIA request to the FDA(as I don't do this work), but I don't think it's of significant consequence either, that I don't have that knowledge. I'm not saying that I expect the FOIA request to be vetted quicker than 108 days, but 500 pages per month seems to me to be a tad on the snail pace in comparison to 80,000 per month requested. That's 160 times slower. Perhaps something could be done to improve this rate of return?

[Indy]

"Run across the US from LA to NYC and get there in 3 hours."

"I can only run 5 mph for long distances."

"But that is 200 times slower than I told you to run!!!!"

That is a really bad argument. Processing a FOIA request on documents that are not owned solely by the FDA means that every page must be submitted back to the original company to submit their redactions for company confidential/trade secret information. Then it comes back to the agency for them to review and agree/disagree that the redacted info is confidential. Then they have to process the documents to make them publishable. Then they have to document the release of them. They have hundreds of these requests at any one time, and have people working on them as their full time job every single day. A new request of 390,000 pages, and expecting it to be done in 4-5 months is just no possible. Unless you want to change funding for the FDA so that you can increase their staff by 20x.

[Indy]

I wasn't saying the hiring of people is a lie. It is your continued lies about vaccines. It is clear you focus on people that have been proven to be liars over and over and over again, and then act shocked when we point it out.

If your description of me was obstinate instead of whiny or shocked, I would agree. There may have been errors in my sources, as I am not perfect, but I would still contend that many that you say are, are in fact not.

You aren't shocked or obstinate, at least in your posts. You are "oh, my sources aren't good enough for you huh?!?" which is very whiny.

[In2ition]

I wasn't saying the hiring of people is a lie. It is your continued lies about vaccines. It is clear you focus on people that have been proven to be liars over and over and over again, and then act shocked when we point it out.

If your description of me was obstinate instead of whiny or shocked, I would agree. There may have been errors in my sources, as I am not perfect, but I would still contend that many that you say are, are in fact not.

You aren't shocked or obstinate, at least in your posts. You are "oh, my sources aren't good enough for you huh?!?" which is very whiny.

If you imagine me saying it in a whiny voice, sure. If you actually heard my voice say it out loud, it would sound much lower tone and more obstinate.

[In2ition]

"Run across the US from LA to NYC and get there in 3 hours."

"I can only run 5 mph for long distances."

"But that is 200 times slower than I told you to run!!!!"

That is a really bad argument. Processing a FOIA request on documents that are not owned solely by the FDA means that every page must be submitted back to the original company to submit their redactions for company confidential/trade secret information. Then it comes back to the agency for them to review and agree/disagree that the redacted info is confidential. Then they have to process the documents to make them publishable. Then they have to document the release of them. They have hundreds of these requests at any one time, and have people working on them as their full time job every single day. A new request of 390,000 pages, and expecting it to be done in 4-5 months is just no possible. Unless you want to change funding for the FDA so that you can increase their staff by 20x.

Well, Biden wants to increase the number of IRS agents by 87,000 just to look into your taxes returns and activity specifically. Maybe hiring more to the FDA would be warranted in this day and age?

[Nodack]

One example is the Steele Dossier, it was claimed to be entirely truthful, but as we find out, it was completely made up and Sussman and Igor Danchanko have been indicted over it, and that's just the beginning. Of course, if I posted a story 3 yrs ago that said it was made up, you and others would have said it was a lying source. So, respectfully to you, what should I say to you?

Entirely made up? Republicans hired Steele to look into Trumps ties with Russia and once he got the nomination they gave up on it. Hillary then paid to keep up the investigation going even though Steele didn’t know who was funding it at that time. Clinton stopped paying for it and Steele didn’t stop because he believed in what he was doing and even shared his finding with authorities. Some of his sources were lying and the FBI who were doing their job busted them for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier
Some aspects of the dossier have been corroborated,[29][23] in particular what Newsweek call's its "main finding",[30] confirmed by the January 6, 2017, ODNI assessment,[31][30] that Putin and Russia actively favored Trump over Clinton[23] and that many Trump campaign officials and associates had multiple secret contacts with Russians.[32][33] However, many allegations in the dossier remain unverified or have been dismissed by authorities.

Many of the findings remaining unverified or dismissed doesn’t mean the entire thing was made up as you and other Trump supporters say. Do doubt Democrats were looking for dirt on Trump just like Republicans were looking for dirt on Hillary. I wish politicians would spend more time on issues than destroying the other side but, that’s where we are today.

Trump officials and associates that had multiple secret contacts with the Russians were also busted for lying about it such as Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman. He was found guilty of tax fraud and bank fraud in a jury trial in August 2018. A month later, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges related to money laundering, lobbying violations and witness tampering. He was working for the pro Russians side in the Ukraine and against the pro US side and kept it secret. Luckily for him Trump pardoned him.

Former Trump Aides Charged as Prosecutors Reveal New Campaign Ties With Russia
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/p ... icted.html

Here are Paul Manafort's lobbying ties to Russia that may have led to the FBI raid
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/here- ... le/2631051

Paul Manafort and Rick Gates have been charged with money laundering, while ex-adviser George Papadopoulos cut a plea deal for lying about Russia-linked contacts.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/ ... ies-244305

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was just indicted — here's what you need to know about him. The two were charged with several federal crimes, including conspiracy against the United States.
http://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-p ... obe-2017-3

Manafort earned $600,000 a month from pro-Russia party: Ukrainian report
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor ... 816242001/


Trump was trying to negotiate a new Trump Tower in Moscow during the election.

Trump’s business sought deal on a Trump Tower in Moscow while he ran for president
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... b91cfdc817

Trump attorney reached out to Kremlin to pursue Moscow Trump Tower project
https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/28/politics ... index.html

Trump signed letter of intent for Russian tower during campaign, lawyer says
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-kn ... d=49472342

Donald Trump 'was planning Trump Tower in Moscow' as he embarked on presidential bid
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08 ... sidential/

Trump's firm sought Moscow real estate deal during presidential run: Washington Post
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1B806D

Michael Cohen: The Trump Tower Moscow proposal was 'solely a real estate deal'
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-trump ... eal-2017-9

Trumps funding came from where?

ERIC TRUMP REPORTEDLY BRAGGED ABOUT ACCESS TO $100 MILLION IN RUSSIAN MONEY
“We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05 ... olf-course


Golf writer: Eric Trump said father's golf courses were funded by Russians
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05 ... sians.html



Eric Trump: 'We have all the funding we need out of Russia' for Trump golf courses
http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-tru ... ing-2017-5

'MAFIA' DON President Donald Trump’s Scots golf courses may have been ‘financed with Russian mafia dirty cash’
Sensational allegations against the US President emerged at a Washington hearing into his alleged links with Moscow
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/2 ... irty-cash/

Trump picked Tillerson, CEO of EXXON to be Secretary of State.

Rex Tillerson’s Company, Exxon, Has Billions at Stake Over Sanctions on Russia
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/worl ... tions.html

Exxon sues U.S. over fine levied for Russia deal under Tillerson
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxo ... SKBN1A51UH

Tillerson's Exxon violated Russia sanctions, Treasury says
http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/20/investi ... index.html

A timeline of Rex Tillerson's relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-re ... on-2016-12

Behind the deep ties between Exxon's Rex Tillerson and Russia
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/11/investi ... index.html

The president-elect has chosen Exxon Mobil CEO as secretary of state but experts say Senate may bridle over realpolitik choice that would benefit Russia
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ssia-putin
Rex Tillerson’s nomination as the next secretary of state confirms Vladimir Putin as one of the strategic victors of the US presidential election.

Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of state is a Putin-friendly Exxon CEO
https://www.vox.com/2016/12/10/13908108 ... nald-trump

TRUMP/RUSSIA ELECTION MEDDLING

What more evidence of Trump-Russia collusion do you need?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html

Donald Trump Jr. releases email chain on his Russian meeting
https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics ... index.html

What is the significance of Trump Jr's meeting with a Russian lawyer?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ian-lawyer

Trump campaign analytics company contacted WikiLeaks about Clinton emails
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/25/politics ... index.html

JARED KUSHNER HIDING INFORMATION ABOîUT RUSSIA BACKDOOR AND WIKILEAKS CONTACTS, SENATORS SAY
http://www.newsweek.com/jared-kushner-t ... aks-715349

Donald Trump Jr. confirms communicating with WikiLeaks
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/ ... aks-244862

New twist in Russia probe as Donald Trump Jr releases WikiLeaks messages over Clinton's hacked emails
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11 ... -campaign/

Donald Trump Jr.'s Secret WikiLeaks Relationship Is Unveiled
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... s-unveiled


Trump and Republicans like to say Trump and his associates had zero ties to Russia. I don’t agree.

[In2ition]

One example is the Steele Dossier, it was claimed to be entirely truthful, but as we find out, it was completely made up and Sussman and Igor Danchanko have been indicted over it, and that's just the beginning. Of course, if I posted a story 3 yrs ago that said it was made up, you and others would have said it was a lying source. So, respectfully to you, what should I say to you?

Entirely made up? Republicans hired Steele to look into Trumps ties with Russia and once he got the nomination they gave up on it. Hillary then paid to keep up the investigation going even though Steele didn’t know who was funding it at that time. Clinton stopped paying for it and Steele didn’t stop because he believed in what he was doing and even shared his finding with authorities. Some of his sources were lying and the FBI who were doing their job busted them for it.

Yes, it was ENTIRELY made up. It was fabricated from conjecture, rumors and fantasy. You got to give it up.

I'm not fully sure where Durham is going, but so far it's starting to point to Clinton. Like I said before, Sussman and Danchanko won't be the last ones and it seems that the next ones will be Joe Biden’s current National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is a likely target. Then, three former FBI officials as targets of the Durham probe: 1) former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe 2) former FBI Special Agent in the Counterintelligence Division, Peter Strzok and 3) former DOJ legal counsel to Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page.

After that, we'll see.