@metal-brain saidThe difference between vaccinated asymptomatic cases and non-vaccinated asymptomatic cases is simple; you have a lot less chance of getting the former than the latter according to the scientific studies. If you had read them, you'd know this.
Your own CDC link said "A new CDC study". That implies the CDC conducted it. You are lying again.
The study I posted is about positive asymptomatic cases. You have not answered my question. What is the difference between vaccinated positive asymptomatic cases and non vaccinated positive asymptomatic cases? If there is little difference your CDC study is worthless and m ...[text shortened]... ict of interest like these is complete BS corruption that is inexcusable. Stop condoning corruption!
No facts support your wild claims, so you have to resort to conspiracy theories i.e. the evil CDC is cooking the data for nefarious reasons. That is ridiculous and I think you know it.
11 Apr 21
@no1marauder saidYou could attempt to prove your case using the data and numbers, but you know you cannot do that.
The difference between vaccinated asymptomatic cases and non-vaccinated asymptomatic cases is simple; you have a lot less chance of getting the former than the latter according to the scientific studies. If you had read them, you'd know this.
No facts support your wild claims, so you have to resort to conspiracy theories i.e. the evil CDC is cooking the data for nefarious reasons. That is ridiculous and I think you know it.
What is the percentage of asymptomatic transmission of the non vaccinated? That is all I am asking. Either you are confident it will prove you right or it will prove you wrong. Your evasiveness indicates you know it will prove you wrong.
Not very confident are you?
@metal-brain saidWhy don't YOU try presenting such a number? I already provided three scientific studies supporting the idea that vaccination reduces asymptomatic cases of COVID 19 and infection by the virus. You've presented absolutely nothing to the contrary besides claims that the "corrupt" CDC is somehow cooking the books.
You could attempt to prove your case using the data and numbers, but you know you cannot do that.
What is the percentage of asymptomatic transmission of the non vaccinated? That is all I am asking. Either you are confident it will prove you right or it will prove you wrong. Your evasiveness indicates you know it will prove you wrong.
Not very confident are you?
11 Apr 21
@no1marauder saidDo you admit the CDC has a clear conflict of interest or not? Yes or no?
Why don't YOU try presenting such a number? I already provided three scientific studies supporting the idea that vaccination reduces asymptomatic cases of COVID 19 and infection by the virus. You've presented absolutely nothing to the contrary besides claims that the "corrupt" CDC is somehow cooking the books.
11 Apr 21
@metal-brain saidNo, it doesn't.
Do you admit the CDC has a clear conflict of interest or not? Yes or no?
11 Apr 21
@no1marauder saidWhat do you call this?
No, it doesn't.
https://www.lawfirms.com/resources/environment/environment-health/cdc-members-own-more-50-patents-connected-vaccinations
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2000/08/23/119685/congress-hits-fda-cdc-on-vaccine-conflicts-of-interest/
Are you seriously going to deny facts as a last resort?????
@metal-brain saidI call the first an undated advertisement from a law firm playing to anti-vaxxers. Dr. Paul Offitt, mentioned in the article as being a member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has not actually been on the ACIP for more than a decade: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/members/members-archive.html
What do you call this?
https://www.lawfirms.com/resources/environment/environment-health/cdc-members-own-more-50-patents-connected-vaccinations
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2000/08/23/119685/congress-hits-fda-cdc-on-vaccine-conflicts-of-interest/
Are you seriously going to deny facts as a last resort?????
I call the second an article written over 20 years ago.
@no1marauder saidhttps://eraoflight.com/2018/12/08/robert-kennedy-jr-cdc-is-a-privately-owned-vaccine-company/
I call the first an undated advertisement from a law firm playing to anti-vaxxers. Dr. Paul Offitt, mentioned in the article as being a member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has not actually been on the ACIP for more than a decade: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/members/members-archive.html
I call the second an article written over 20 years ago.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3076748
11 Apr 21
@metal-brain saidThis quote from the second article explains the first sufficiently:
https://eraoflight.com/2018/12/08/robert-kennedy-jr-cdc-is-a-privately-owned-vaccine-company/
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3076748
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for instance, claims ownership of the virus and its entire genetic content. Rather than trying to profit if such a patent were awarded, the CDC says its application is to prevent others from monopolizing the field.
“The whole purpose of the patent is to prevent folks from controlling the technology,” said CDC spokesman Llelwyn Grant. “This is being done to give the industry and other researchers reasonable access to the samples.”
12 Apr 21
@no1marauder saidI merely added that as an extra. Did you read the first link?
This quote from the second article explains the first sufficiently:
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for instance, claims ownership of the virus and its entire genetic content. Rather than trying to profit if such a patent were awarded, the CDC says its application is to prevent others from monopolizing the field.
“The whole purpose of the patent is ...[text shortened]... t. “This is being done to give the industry and other researchers reasonable access to the samples.”
12 Apr 21
@metal-brain saidYes, it complained that the CDC had certain patents and claimed that it was for nefarious purposes.
I merely added that as an extra. Did you read the first link?
The quote in the second article explained why the CDC has patents and thus destroyed the conspiracy theory in the first link.
12 Apr 21
@metal-brain said🙄
LOL!
Seriously?
What is a gene based vaccine?
https://www.theverge.com/21562309/pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine-gene-based
I'll play your game. Let's dance.
What, in your own words, is gene therapy.
You won’t answer.
@no1marauder saidNefarious purposes?
Yes, it complained that the CDC had certain patents and claimed that it was for nefarious purposes.
The quote in the second article explained why the CDC has patents and thus destroyed the conspiracy theory in the first link.
That is not true at all.
A conflict of interest does not imply nefarious purposes.
You are being silly.
Did you read the first link all the way through? You don't seem to understand it.
13 Apr 21
@shavixmir saidI gave you the wikipedia link like you always do to me to avoid answering questions.
🙄
What, in your own words, is gene therapy.
You won’t answer.
Don't you like being treated the way you treat others?
13 Apr 21
@no1marauder saidThe CDC patented the SARS2 virus or at least attempted to. That means they claim they isolated the virus and they patented it to make available freely to the public. Will they make that available to you? You are the public.
Yes, it complained that the CDC had certain patents and claimed that it was for nefarious purposes.
The quote in the second article explained why the CDC has patents and thus destroyed the conspiracy theory in the first link.
Show me they are keeping their word. Access their patent of the SARS2 virus and show me.