Sources: Many top NBA players hesitant to promote coronavirus vaccines

LOL

 

Sources - many NBA players are not all that smart, and don't have medical degrees.

DD

 

You gotta love it. Lol.

 

Kary Mullis is a doctor, in fact, he is the inventor of PCR, who won the 1993 nobel prize for inventing it. Is he qualified on the subject matter do you think? Is it worth considering his take?

Kary has been a very vocal fellow against corruption matters in the medical industry. On the topic of the industry abuse of his invention, the PCR test, he had this to say:

“PCR... is just a process that's used to make a whole lot of something out of something, that's why it's not, it doesn't tell you that you're sick and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that”

@3:10：Maker Kary Mullis over PCR tests


And for some reason all of my earlier posts about Bill Gates interview and this Kary Mullis interview, FDA & EU publications on the PCR, Scenario planning by Rockefeller Foundation, Johns Hopkins, etc, were all deleted. These are simply well-known public figures doing interviews... wonder why?

 

I remember those posts being in this thread, and they are still there:

https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/jazz-great-john-stockton-did-his-own-research.311916/page-2

 

Meaning what? A diagnostic test is used to indicate if you have a virus. Whether that virus can lead to serious illness is a separate question (in the case of CoV2, or HIV for that matter, one we have ample evidence for). When he says knowing you have a virus isn’t all that meaningful, I don’t understand that.

 

Tampa is saying, come to Tampa, Raptors.

 

Yes, hence it should call for more scrutiny on the accuracy and dependability of all these medical / social schemes. You have to check what materials they use and how they've come up with the "primer" on which this particular PCR diagnostic is based.
The PCR is just there to find a matching sequence by amplifying the test signal through multiple cycles. How do they come up with the sequence that they try to match? Have they ever found the "virus"? Or just some "genome" they cut out of any patient's tissue they choose to be "the one"? This has been asked hundreds of times to various governments all over the world, people are eager to study the virus, but all they get from the responsible institutions is a mere "no record" as an answer, or all they use are "computer generated sequence"s.

On issue of whether various kinds of life-changing policy are necessary, justified, or even effective at all, however, scientific debate has been stifled with a very heavy-hand. Even Oxford/Stanford/Harvard experts were ignored (The Great Barrington Declaration, which predicted inevitable extra causes of deaths with lockdown policies). All my relevant posts were deleted here as well, only the earlier ones were kept (before it got deeper into the crux). I don't mind it, I've said what needed to be said, I'm not here to re-iterate or re-post them. I'm just here to highlight the fact about censorship, the 21st century global attack on the integrity of science, and all the witchhunt training by the MSM that comes along with it.

Driving a car can cause car accident, or it won't, still 20-50 million people are injured or disabled per year, why don't people witchhunt all irresponsible drivers? Street crimes? Overdose? No, we're not trained to persecute them with blind hate.

I just hope people can respect each other.

 

I don’t understand what any of this means. We’ve been studying coronaviruses for a long time. We know what they look like.

 

All you have to do is ask yourself why is pfizer and moderna requesting the trial data not be released until 2076 (55 years). If it is so safe and effective why not release the data as soon as the studies conclude in 2023?

 

I've shared these information from the Eurosurveillance and CDC before, if it's welcome, I'll share again. First, this study describes how EU came up with the assay design back in jan.2020 -

《 Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR 》

Aim
We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.

Methods
Here we present a validated diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV, its design relying on close genetic relatedness of 2019-nCoV with SARS coronavirus, making use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.

Results
The workflow reliably detects 2019-nCoV, and further discriminates 2019-nCoV from SARS-CoV. Through coordination between academic and public laboratories, we confirmed assay exclusivity based on 297 original clinical specimens containing a full spectrum of human respiratory viruses.

Source:
National Center for Biotechnology Information | www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/pdf/eurosurv-25-3-5.pdf

----- Second, -----
as of July 2021, the manual for the PCR STILL has not updated its procedure that the test was designed WITHOUT any virus isolates.

《 CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel 》
@ p40
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

The analytical sensitivity of the rRT-PCR assays contained in the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel were determined in Limit of Detection studies. Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/μL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.


----- Third, -----
Public Health England On PCR test
----- ----- -----
Since the very beginning, many scientists have asked their local governments and institutions via FOI requests for the info about this virus material. A hundred FOI got responses - so far no one who had responded could point to any record of virus material for the covid-19, some have stated that it's even after the due diligent of a thorough search.

Below is the response from Public Health England:

FOI Request by Dr. Kevin Corbett, MSc PGCE PhD
Response from COVID-19 Virology Cell, Public Health England
April 28, 2020

Dr. Kevin Corbett of England requested from Professor Zambon, the Director of Reference Microbiology Services, the data relating to the positive predictive value (PPV) of the “COVID-19” PCR and antibody tests.

Public Health England admits using computer-generated RNA sequence material to evaluate the COVID-19 PCR tests, while the “gold standard” has never been based on any isolated virus.

Response by Public Health England in exact words:
i) RT-PCR tests –
the gold standard for PCR tests is not virus isolation
PCR tests are developed using synthetic transcripts; field use data are not widely available yet

 

Pfizer/Moderna is making that request, or the FDA? More info here.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...ss-foia-request-over-vaccine-data-2021-11-18/

The issue raised is that the plaintiffs are asking for over 300,000 pages of information relating to the trials, some of which may contain sensitive patient info.

 

Is the point that PCR diagnostic tests are not reliable unless it uses existing “authentic” coronavirus material to check for a match in the sample?

I don’t know enough to decide if that’s a valid critique or not. It seems like it isn’t. Can you point to a scientific expert in the field who is raising that criticism?

 

Okay so the FDA is asking for them then since they don't seem to want to release it either. Each of these entities exchange employees too so not surprising they'd work together to not fully release data until a good amount of the people who have taken this vaccines are 70+ or dead.

 

From the article:

Justice Department lawyers representing the FDA note in court papers that the plaintiffs are seeking a huge amount of vaccine-related material – about 329,000 pages.

The plaintiffs, a group of more than 30 professors and scientists from universities including Yale, Harvard, UCLA and Brown, filed suit in September in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking expedited access to the records. They say that releasing the information could help reassure vaccine skeptics that the shot is indeed “safe and effective and, thus, increase confidence in the Pfizer vaccine.”

But the FDA can’t simply turn the documents over wholesale. The records must be reviewed to redact “confidential business and trade secret information of Pfizer or BioNTech and personal privacy information of patients who participated in clinical trials,” wrote DOJ lawyers in a joint status report filed Monday.

The FDA proposes releasing 500 pages per month on a rolling basis, noting that the branch that would handle the review has only 10 employees and is currently processing about 400 other FOIA requests.

​

 

The JJ vaccine is like the Tilman Fertitta quality of the bunch
That’s why people like it , it’s cheap