• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

COVID-19 News

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gene Steinberg said:
Another take on the W.H.O. Story about the origins:

apple.news

Coronavirus Likely Came From Animal, Not Leaked From Laboratory, WHO Says — The Wall Street Journal

The virus that causes Covid-19 most likely jumped from one animal to another before entering the human population and is highly unlikely to have leaked from a laboratory, a leader of the WHO’s investigative team said at the end of a visit to Wuhan, China.
apple.news apple.news
Click to expand...
Same story as always. The problem with the logic is that just because there isn't any conclusive scientific evidence that the virus came from the Wuhan lab, doesn't automatically mean it mutated naturally. We could just as easily say that because there is no conclusive scientific evidence of zoonotic mutation, that the virus must have come from the lab.

And make no mistake here, I've checked all the so-called scientific sources that claim the lab wasn't responsible, and they are simply opinions from scientists that aren't based on actual scientific research into that specific question, or if scientific research is cited, then the scientific possibilities that would make the lab theory possible given the evidence at hand are left out.

It's like if you came home and found your iMac gone and called the police to report it stolen, and they sent out a detective who concluded that because they found no signs of a forced entry, that there was no theft. Did they check the windows or question those who might have keys? No. And in the case of the virus, the whole area, including the market and the lab was sanitized and the evidence destroyed. Not even the least bit suspicious?

If they were so sure it didn't come from the lab, why bother sanitizing it and destroying all the samples of the very virus they claim SARS=CoV-2 mutated from? Hmm? If anything, that lab would be the single most valuable resource in stopping a zoonotic spread, and if it was secure, no decontamination would have been necessary.

So why then has there been such a heavy bias on the side of a zoonotic transmission when there is zero actual evidence for it? The following video makes some interesting observations, among them "Trump Derangement Syndrome" ...


Media finally ‘opening eyes’ to the truth about origins of COVID-19​

Feb 8, 2021

​

 
Last edited:
Dr. Fauci said in an interview I heard some months back that the genetic markers in the virus indicated it had a natural rather than artificial origin.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Dr. Fauci said in an interview I heard some months back that the genetic markers in the virus indicated it had a natural rather than artificial origin.
Click to expand...
The problem with that statement is that it is like the analogy that I gave you if your iMac was stolen. Specifically, when you look at the way that viruses are most commonly manipulated in a lab, they are never "constructed" from scratch, and they may not even have portions that are technologically inserted. Therefore there wouldn't necessarily be any "genetic markers"

They are more often manipulated through purposeful mutation by injecting an animal with the natural virus that then mutates in that animal the same way it would in nature, and therefore the process wouldn't leave any "genetic markers" of the type Fauci and others have maintained were absent. Therefore their explanations don't address the most common way that viruses are manipulated. At the same time they aren't actually lying.

The result is that for someone who knows nothing about virology, it sounds on the surface like these people have determined no lab was involved, when in fact, they didn't actually say that, or if they did, they cannot have known it with any certainty. But what gets picked-up from the story is "It wasn't from a lab", and that gets parrotted by those who don't want to think it came from a lab or don't want other people to think it may have come from a lab.

The result is that the evidence in favor of a lab being responsible is pushed down in the media the way that the news item I posted above describes, and unless you have way too much time to waste looking behind these claims, and studying them ( like I have ), you have no way to keep tabs on the debate. However when you do, you can see through it all and it becomes obvious, even if it remains unproven, hence the plausible deniability.

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts there are plenty of people in the intelligence community who think exactly the same thing, but simply can't go on the record, and that they either have the evidence, but can't tell us, or are seriously trying to find it, as well as figure out ways to catch it in the future if it happens again.
 
Last edited:


⭐⭐⭐ Jay Bhattacharya on Pandemic Management ⭐ ⭐⭐​

12/21/20​


Some Of The Costs
  • Lockdowns have never eradicated a disease in the history of mankind.​
  • Argentina initiated one of the strictest lockdowns and became one of the highest in casualties ( LINK )​
  • The UN estimated an additional one-hundred and thirty million will die of starvation worldwide as a consequence of the lockdowns.​
  • 80 Million additional people thrown into poverty.​
  • The billion people lifted out of poverty prior to lockdowns is now reversed.​
  • Up to a million more deaths from tuberculosis because TB control programs were stopped​
  • Resurgence of polio in Afghanistan and Pakistan because the vaccination programs were halted​
  • In the USA 1 in 4 young adults seriously considered suicide because of social restrictions caused by pandemic management​
 

The Second COVID-19 Shot Is a Rude Reawakening for Immune Cells​


"I woke to find my husband shivering beside me. For hours, he had been tossing in bed, exhausted but unable to sleep, nursing chills, a fever, and an agonizingly sore left arm. His teeth chattered. His forehead was freckled with sweat. And as I lay next to him, cinching blanket after blanket around his arms, I felt an immense sense of relief ..." - excuse me what? A "sense of relief?" WTF?​

www.theatlantic.com

The Second COVID-19 Shot Is a Rude Reawakening for Immune Cells

Side effects are just a sign that protection is kicking in as it should.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

We've been sold on how the side effects are rare, and when they're not rare, they're mild ( except when they're not ), and when they're not mild we're supposed to shut-up and be happy about it? This vaccine causes the same symptoms as the virus itself, only with the virus, between 40% and 90% of the cases don't even know they ever had it. More disturbingly are the so called "long-haul" symptoms, which we're not certain that the vaccine won't cause either.

I was very pro-mRNA vaccine back before I read the paper from the actual Pfizer clinical trials,, and did more digging into how the mRNA vaccine works. I'm not an "anti-vaxxer", just like I'm not an "anti-masker", but I'm not into calling people maskholes any more than I'm into calling them maskaholics, or into calling people either vaxholes or vaxaholics.


 
Last edited:
The reality is this: Over 55 million shots have been administered in the U.S. This includes first doses and those who have had two doses. So far, there haven't been widespread reports of serious side effects from either of the mRNA vaccines currently approved; no other vaccines have garnered approval so far..

I'd pay attention to the Covid-19 Task Force updates for current information on the state of vaccinations.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
The reality is this: Over 55 million shots have been administered in the U.S. This includes first doses and those who have had two doses. So far, there haven't been widespread reports of serious side effects from either of the mRNA vaccines currently approved; no other vaccines have garnered approval so far..

I'd pay attention to the Covid-19 Task Force updates for current information on the state of vaccinations.
Click to expand...
The first round makes-up most of the 55 million you're talking about. The article above is talking about the second dose, which far fewer people have had, and it suggests the side effects are generally much more noticable. Here's another:

Second COVID Shot Packs the Big Punch​

"Like scores of other physicians and healthcare workers, ​
T.J. Maltese, DO, a neurologist in private practice on Long Island​
in New York state, had no problem with his first dose of the Moderna​
coronavirus vaccine -- but he was knocked out by the second."​

www.medpagetoday.com

Second COVID Shot Packs the Big Punch

First dose also worse for those with previous COVID, but 'small price to pay' for protection
www.medpagetoday.com www.medpagetoday.com

But be happy, it's a "small price to pay" for "protection". But from what exactly? The virus that may or may not give you any symptoms at all, and which unless you've already got serious preexisting conditions, you'll be over in 14 days anyway. On top of that the evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission is weak. It doesn't even necessarily prevent infection.

There's no evidence that any of the current Covid-19 vaccines can completely stop people from being infected – and this has implications for our prospects of achieving herd immunity.

www.bbc.com

Can you still transmit Covid-19 after vaccination?

There's no evidence that any of the current Covid-19 vaccines can completely stop people from being infected – and this has implications for our prospects of achieving herd immunity.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

Should you get it anyway? That's a decision that you need to make for yourself. You can either be informed about it, or uninformed about it. Maybe it's better to just be the latter and have blind faith? I don't know, but I fall into the former category, so I'm just sharing the info. As you know, there are some sites where this wouldn't be allowed. Thankfully this is not one of them.
 
Last edited:
Randall said:
There's no evidence that any of the current Covid-19 vaccines can completely stop people from being infected – and this has implications for our prospects of achieving herd immunity.
Click to expand...
94-95% efficacy, which is pretty damn good.

This is confirmed in the data submitted to the FDA for emergency approval. It's all posted online.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
94-95% efficacy, which is pretty damn good.

This is confirmed in the data submitted to the FDA for emergency approval. It's all posted online.
Click to expand...
The WHO cites an approximate 92% efficacy, which as you say is "pretty damned good". But weighed against what exactly? Here's how it breaks down for me:

Potential Benefits:
  1. An approximate 92% chance that you will not experience serious COVID-19 symptoms if you are infected.
  2. Most people will think you are being a responsible person for going along with the program.
Weighed Against:
  1. A 100% certainty that you will experience some minor discomfort and/or symptoms as the disease itself from the first dose.
  2. A 100% certainty that you'll experience them again from the second dose, but more likely in a substantially increased capacity
  3. A small chance that you'll have a very bad reaction to the first dose and therefore not get the second one.
  4. An approximate 8% percent chance it will do you no good at all.
  5. It cannot prevent infection or even transmission altogether. It just prevents vaccinated people from get as sick as they would otherwise.
  6. Unknown long-term effects from the vaccine, which are potentially much more serious than they are telling us.
  7. The hassle of having to get it done not once but twice.
  8. A 40-90% chance that if you get the actual disease, you may never even know you have it.
  9. An extremely small chance that I or the average person will come into contact with or be infected by the virus at all.
  10. Some people will think I'm not being responsible for weighing these factors because they would sooner ignore them.
So for me ( personally ), the certainties and uncertainties about the problems associated with the vaccine outweigh the possibility that I will ever get the virus in the first place, and even if I do, I have an extremely high chance of recovering fine within 14 days, and thereby become as immune as any vaccination would provide, but without going through the hassle of having to do it twice. You therefore will not see me lining up to get it.

On the off-chance that I do get COVID-19 and die from it ( as opposed to with it ), then I've had a good 60+ years and am no real loss to society. In fact what material stuff I have can probably benefit someone more than the vaccine would have helped me.
 
Last edited:
Gene Steinberg said:
www.politico.com

Doctors bring the fight to anti-vaxxers online

Health care workers are organizing online networks to promote Covid shots, strategically aiming to drown out vaccine opponents active on those sites.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
Click to expand...

Interesting article. I'm all for hearing-out and weighing all the evidence and reasoning. Clearly there is misinformation, and disinformation in both camps. But let's be clear, I'm not an "anti-vaxxer".

Something that is overlooked frequently by those who are advocates of the prevalent pandemic management ( the ones that include lockdowns ) fail to acknowledge is that it has compromised some long standing vaccine programs for other more harmful diseases. For example the pro-vaxxers often cite the polio vaccine as proof of the efficacy of vaccines while ignoring data like this:

"LONDON -- The World Health Organization says Niger has been struck by a new outbreak of polio,​
following the suspension of immunization activities during the COVID-19 pandemic ... The outbreak was ​
sparked by a mutated virus that originated in the vaccine."​

www.ctvnews.ca

UN: New polio outbreak in Niger after vaccination suspended

The World Health Organization says Niger has been struck by a new outbreak of polio, following the suspension of immunization activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
www.ctvnews.ca

 
Last edited:
Gene Steinberg said:
A great argument for getting the vaccination going and making sure that other vaccine programs are renewed ASAP.
Click to expand...
Also a great argument against the lockdowns as a strategy in the first place, along with a stack of other reasons. But here's more on the vaccine issue from the WHO:

WHO and UNICEF warn of a decline in vaccinations during COVID-19

www.who.int

WHO and UNICEF warn of a decline in vaccinations during COVID-19

GENEVA/NEW YORK, 15 July 2020 – The World Health Organization and UNICEF warned today of an alarming decline in the number of children receiving life-saving vaccines around the world. This is due to disruptions in the delivery and uptake of immunization services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic...
www.who.int www.who.int

There's a clear double standard going on with the pro-vaxxers when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccinations and pandemic management.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top