LifeIsThermal

Since we have two different types of immunity, natural and vaccine, we can compare. Natural immunity is still 99% against all variants even for those infected early with the Wuhan variant. So we have a standard that vaccine efficacy should be compared to, 99% efficacy. That´s where we see how badly these vaccines perform. If natural immunity is 99% over 18 months in, and ongoing, then vaccines are really bad in comparison.

Does anyone think it´s a coincidence? The vaccine manufacturers have studied coronaviruses and corona-vaccines for decades, it´s extremely unlikely that they didn´t know exactly how this would play out. 1-2 boosters yearly forever was the plan, and covid is the storm. Trump made the vaccines possible with operation warp speed, Fauci restarted gain of function research under his watch and the virus "escaped", and now Biden the tyrant enforces mass vaccination by excluding everyone from the economy who doesn´t comply. Biden and Trump are not enemies, they´re two vaccine salesmen working together. Welcome to the future, medical apartheid.

The 95% efficacy for Pfizer was for infection prevention. Hospitalisation in younger than 65 is extremely rare, so in this group the vaccine have practically no effect. The data from Israel even indicates a slightly higher rate of hospitalisation among vaccinated in this group. At least that was the case a couple of months ago.

Natural immunity gives "ultrapotent" antibodies that works for 23 variants, including delta. That´s what will end this pandemic. Everyone will get infected, vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Ultrapotent antibodies against diverse and highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants

”Wang et al. identified four antibodies from early-outbreak convalescent donors that are potent against 23 variants, including variants of concern”

”The B cells isolated from donor-derived blood samples were sorted for antibody identification. This led to the identification of four potent neutralizing antibodies targeting the spike RBD. These antibodies showed a high affinity for the SARS-CoV-2 spike even at nanomolar concentrations.”

”The findings revealed that of 4 antibodies, two bound to RBDs in the “up position” and two bound to RBDs in the “down position.” Moreover, three out of four antibodies directly blocked the RBD – ACE2 interaction, and one indirectly inhibited the interaction through steric hindrance - the slowing of chemical reactions due to steric bulk.”

”By conducting multiple rounds of selection using combination treatments with two antibodies, it was observed that antibody combinations might reduce the risk of escape mutation acquisition and subsequent development of resistant viral variants.”

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/06/30/scie...

See my post below.

I´m less worried by vaccine safety than the vaccine strategy. You don´t normally vaccinate in an ongoing pandemic, usually you vaccinate when a virus is not in circulation. By vaccinating in this way, in an already infected population, you add selection pressure that creates an advantage for more contagious vaccine-resistant strains. This is the real danger in my opinion, but of course side effects of this new vaccine technology can emerge. We´ve already seen Pfizers vaccine downgraded to 64% efficacy in Israel due to the Delta-variant, so vaccine resistant mutations are a real thing.

There´s one scientist that predicted this development perfectly, Geert Vanden Bosschen. He´s the only one so far that has made correct predictions in this pandemic. He said that mass-vaccinating during ongoing pandemic will result in rising numbers of cases among fully vaccinated people a couple of months after vaccination, caused by selective pressure leading to vaccine resistant mutations dominating. He also warns strongly against vaccinating children. But he praises the new vaccine technology, so he´s not antivaxx.

And still the average temperature from raw data shows cooling for recent years. It´s a big problem when data is adjusted to show a trend that isn´t there anymore.

http://temperature.global/

Also, have a look at the climategate-scandal to see the mindset of the scientists behind the adjustments of raw data sets to show warming where there is none.

https://pdf4pro.com/amp/view/the-climategate-emails-lavoisie...

Here´s some quotes from the link:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s [Briffa] to hide the decline.”

—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Nov. 16, 1999

“Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were…”

—Dr. Tim Osborn, Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Dec. 20, 2006

“…If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s warming blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we’d still have to explain the land blip…”

—Dr. Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, on adjusting global temperature data, disclosed Climategate e-mail to Phil Jones, Sep. 28, 2008

“We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

—Climatic Research Unit web site, the world’s leading provider of global temperature data, admitting that it can’t produce the original thermometer data, 2011

They just sell a product that consumers want. If people want to reduce co2 emissions, just stop buying anything involving fossile fuels. Which is every product on the market today.

With harvest records being broken almost every year, famine declining, Earth greening with deserts shrinking and reductions in record low temperatures with increasing average temperature, it will do better and better. Humans will thrive, but if one species expands some other species will have to give in. I care about humans more than other species. The future of humans is bright, if we decide it shall be.

That´s doomsday rhetoric. All doomsday cults have one thing in common, they´ve all been wrong. 100%. The climate doomsday cult is no different.

Cannabis use should be legal everywhere. Driving intoxicated must of course be illegal.

I thought it was just "cultural differences"?

Herd immunity was never the strategy. The reason there was no lockdowns was that the laws didn´t permit them, and that the globally agreed strategy didn´t include lockdowns. So Sweden was the country that followed the science everyone had agreed upon beforehand. Now the laws are changed, and our government is about to lock down soon. The article is not truthful, Sweden doesn´t have a high death count per capita, we´re among the lowest in Europe.

The alternatives would be so expensive that nobody could afford them. Without fossile fuels nobody would even bother to build them because of the cost and trouble. Without fossile fuels there wouldn´t even be any planes and trucks available to deliver materials for development and production. Ban fossile fuels and civilization will collapse in a day.

And the UN says that we must cut 7%/year up to 2030 to reach climate goals. Just look at what the lockdowns does to the economy, if we do what the UN says there´ll be nothing left. They have already been promoting climate lockdowns.

Haha, the pope, Rockefeller and Rothschild. Let´s get our tinfoil hats. 2020 doesn´t dissapoint.

"Our theory begins with a new fundamental idea – that energy always “flows” through regions of space and time."

New fundamental idea? This is as old as the earliest theories of radiating bodies, at least. Heat flow and heat transfer, the most fundamental and solid science that exists. Heat flows everywhere in the universe constantly, and at all heat sources in space, gravity is heat´s companion making matter flow in the opposite direction.

With increasing world population, decreasing famine, decreasing poverty, wildfires at 5% compared to 100 years ago, climate related deaths at 5% compared to 100 years ago, there´s not even a threat in sight. Humanity and the planet is doing better than ever.

Wouldn´t it be better to have two options when you log in to Twitter? Safe space Twitter and wild west Twitter. Then all sensitive people can log into a pink bubble and the rest of us can enjoy uncensored reality. Most people should realize that very few would choose the pink bubble. The line should be drawn at illegal content in the wild west Twitter.

You should trust other people to have the same ability as yourself to evaluate information.

So, it´s RUSSIARUSSIARUSSIA again? Pathetic.

"signatories presented no new evidence"

This means that they´re guessing it´s Russia, but they don´t hava a clue.

Here in Sweden it works fine.

This is tragic. Science must always be free of politics.

Yes, lets use censorship to improve our democracies. Good idea! Let´s also put all those who disagree in prison.

It´s your problem that you don´t evaluate the information, not Joe´s or anybody else.

As I understand, Oil companies only reviewed other scientists theories, they didn´t do research themselves.

At the end of the day it will come down to you lowering your living standards by using less energy. Much less energy. And a really large reduction in living standard where everything you consume will cost at least double of what you pay today. Even if you blame the fossile fuel industry, you will have to pay. Oil is the cheapest energy there is. You have the choice today to stop all your emission of co2, so why don´t you? Because it´s uncomfortable. Your comfort is the cause of climate change. I´m fortunate enough to realize that climate change caused by co2 is a thermodynamic impossibility because it implies that earth heats itself by energy creation. Life is much easier without believing in doomsday cults.

That sounds like standard doomsday cult rethoric. Very dangerous and it will end with dictatorship if we listen to that.

On the contrary. If ocean uptake is larger than previously thought and the pH has only decreased from 8.1 to 8.0 it shows large resiliance. But the 0.1 decrease should be questioned because of uncertainty in measurement. Measuring ocean pH can be considered impossible since the oceans is on average 3000m deep and measurements in history should be questioned. Also, acidification happens below ph7. A reduction from 8.1 to 8.0 is neutralization, not acidification. Sea creatures (including corals) have been shown in experiments to tolerate larger pH-drops well.