virusrex comments

Posted in: The governments of many countries, including Japan, have said they will not make a coronavirus vaccine mandatory, but legal experts believe companies could order staff to get a vaccine, unless they have a health exemption. What's your stance on this? See in context

Covid19 has a very low death rate.

And vaccines make it even lower according to the protection they confer

There is no evidence the vaccine reduces the spread of virus.

Nor that it does not, even if its only effect were to make the person asymptomatic that would still mean a 2/3 reduction

The vaccines have cause enough deaths to make some medical agencies to reconsider their vaccination recommendations.

There is no causal relationship proven between vaccines and deaths, as usual that is a misrepresentation of high rates of deaths in a population that naturally present them.

There is no data on the long term effects of these vaccines.

But no data is still better than the natural infeciton for which there is already data that proves long term or even permanent damaging effects.

It is therefore completely irrational to mandate any of these rushed experimental vaccines.

On the contrary, the irrational thing is to use false or misleading arguments easily disproven to justify a personal belief not supported by science.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: 'No special treatment' - Australia rebuffs tennis stars' quarantine complaints See in context

That is my question is that possible if EVERYONE needs a negative test to get on the plane.

It should be easy to understand, people are infected but not yet have virus in quantities enough to be detected, after a time the virus titers increase and they can notice their infection. That is why even when negative they must be kept in isolation for at least two weeks, because this possibility is taken into account.

Obviously the people that turned out positive were not isolated before boarding the airplane, got infected (but not detected on the pre-flight test) and made every other passenger a close contact.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: The governments of many countries, including Japan, have said they will not make a coronavirus vaccine mandatory, but legal experts believe companies could order staff to get a vaccine, unless they have a health exemption. What's your stance on this? See in context

False equivalency, but that's par for the course.

These tests are just a check, and don't involve putting anything into the body more invasive than a barium drink. And the risk from chest x-rays is miniscule. But forcing someone to take a vaccine for a virus that is not going to affect the vast majority is a step too far. I'm fine with people getting vaccinated voluntarily with informed consent, but not under compulsion.

There is no false equivalence, many employers do require things for their employees that brings a risk, but this is justified when the same thing reduces a much more important risk, even when most of the population tested do not suffer from that disease at the moment. Everything done during a health check has risk, and even a barium drink can cause death.

The vaccine also have a minuscule risk, specially compared with the natural infection, and the X-rays are completely negative for abnormality for the vast majority of the people that are subjected to them. If your position were consisten you would also be against forcing people to assume tiny risks for health problems that do not affect the vast majority of the people that are subjected to them (or not object to either) your artificial discrimination between the two situations is not based on logic nor reason, just irrational feelings about one of two very similar situations .

You can't say that without the data, which some companies don't seem to want to release:

Obsolete article, the Pfizer vaccine data has already been published without problem, so your complain is false

And even the companies themselves don't share that sentiment:

That is also mistaken, because at this point the natural infection is still much more likely to give long term problems, simply by the fact that it has already done it in many cases well described around the world.

Some cases are already more than zero cases, so even if the vaccine parts from the point of zero data, the natural infection is right now at the point of confirmed data for long term / negative health effects.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Posted in: In Tokyo, some drink on despite gov't request for bars to close at 8 p.m. See in context

Just stay healthy and you can live a normal life, no need for any vaccine. Covid19 is not as deadly as some make it out to be.

That runs contrary to the recommendations of the health care experts, and they have the data and studies to support their position, recommending for people to become spreading vectors just because you believe it to be fine is not something a responsible adult should do.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Posted in: No. of hospitalized coronavirus patients at record high in Japan See in context

And Virusrex, I also question what you wrote. Maybe you shouldn’t be so sure about your information .

That may explain how you get so many mistaken ideas, your source has been proved to be mistaken multiple times about the pandemic (and likely other topics as well).

Nevertheless, if you are a medical professional you should be aware that direct antigen vaccination has long been related to Th1/Th2 unbalance that favors inflammation that can be pathogenic depending on the disease, something that is specifically avoided by including nucleic acids (like mRNA) that activate the intracellular toll like receptor pathway and produce a much more balanced reaction and prevent precisely this kind of side effects. This is like saying that vaccinating with attenuated viruses runs the risk of the virus reverting to a very pathogenic form, something completely irrelevant for a vaccine that is not based on an attenuated virus.

Even if you were not a medical professional the simple fact that the vaccinated volunteers had no pulmonary immunopathy after being infected with the virus (and therefore not having more symptoms that those in the placebo group) should be enough to understand this did not happen for the currently approved vaccines for COVID-19.

I recommend you to avoid videos, they are made specifically to disguise faulty arguments and mistaken conceptions that can be proved so with science instantly if they were in the form of text. Also, if someone is trying to prove the whole scientific world is wrong, using widely available information that those world scientists also have examined, try at least to check if this person's reputation is not based on repeating unproved conspiracy theories, that would have saved you from this terribly bad source. Any medical professional should be much above this terribly low standard of "evidence".

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Posted in: No. of hospitalized coronavirus patients at record high in Japan See in context

The problem is that many in the medical community feel that clinical trials has been accelerated due to urgency, at the expense of thoroughness.

I am not providing a definitive answer to this speculation by many, because I cannot be sure. So I pose some questions.

This "problem" can be easily resolved by getting the readily available information, terribly inadequate speculation can also be given a definitive answer by a simple review of the literature that every professional o the medical community should be able to do as part of the requirements of the job.

It is not valid to have easily solved doubts as if they were layman without idea of the scientific process, specific questions about pertinent details that are to be investigated are a different thing, but those kind of questions are exactly what is discussed scientifically prior to the clinical trials (so they are better designed) so it is extremely common they have been already considered.

And never forget the big business of these players. Faulty products have hit the market before despite claims of thorough clinical testing.

And in many cases the products are without problem, because the mechanisms available to prevent these occurrences are very effective even if not perfect, it is not reasonable to bet a process that has been under the scrutiny of the whole scientific world as no other has been before would be worse than the rule, much less be the exception.

This is a discussion forum on understanding this crisis and its resolution. And weighing the risks individually , of both the illness , its spread, and its prevention.

But your "questions" are terribly loaded towards the option that is less likely to increase those risks, and completely ignores the much higher risks from the natural infection (that has not been studied as long as mRNA therapeutic options for example). Why give the impression that a vaccine that produces one single protein on the microgram level would be more likely to increase the risk of autoimmunity than an infection that produces dozens of foreign proteins in a million times more quantities?

Again, those are questions that a layman may have, because he will have no need or responsibility to know about it, but a medical professional? that is more proof of deficient professional formation than of vaccine inadequate testing.

Interesting that there are no statistics on seasonal influenza. It probably kills more than SARS-CoV-2 in Japan. No information.

Of course there are no statistics on seasonal influenza, thanks to the resource intensive measures to stop respiratory infections the influenza season is close to non-existen this year. There are more cases of COVID-19 on a single day on Tokyo than of influenza in the whole country for the whole season. What you think was "probably" is actually the opposite.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Posted in: No. of hospitalized coronavirus patients at record high in Japan See in context

Instead of bashing people asking questions, I think it may be best to study these medicines individually, and make an educated decision on which one is best for you.

Pushing irrational fears that any health care professional should be able to recognize as such is not just "asking questions", it is misleading people to think there is a realistic risk of something that has already been studied and makes not real sense when compared with the risks of the natural infection.

You did not answer any of the questions I asked. They are the reason why it is much more likely that the natural infection is related to higher risks than the vaccine and part of the rationale for the developed of a non-replicating, intracellular expressing, single protein vaccine as the safest possible option.

Clinical trials are exactly the tools that let health professionals evaluate and study individually health interventions for safety and efficacy, the vaccines available right now for COVID-19 had trials of comparable length and size as other previous interventions that resulted in useful therapeutic options without that are in used without problems, saying that having more data is better (something that will be true forever) is no reason to delay the application of something that importantly lowers the risk of a lethal disease.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Posted in: The governments of many countries, including Japan, have said they will not make a coronavirus vaccine mandatory, but legal experts believe companies could order staff to get a vaccine, unless they have a health exemption. What's your stance on this? See in context

Given that the vast majority of people exposed to this virus will show only mild symptoms at worst, and most will show nothing at all, what are the practical and moral justifications for enforcing vaccination on everyone in the workplace unless they have a medical exemption?

As you yourself said

And if the vaccines are as safe and effective as the makers and proponents claim, then vaccinated people will be protected from anything more than mld symptoms and won't transmit the virus...right?

If a company can do something to decrease the risk for people that are not vaccinated (employees with valid medical exceptions, customers) that is a very powerful justification.

Also, anybody might not be part of the "vast majority", and the vaccine will reduce the risks of developing serious complications and even death. The vast majority of people on their 40s do not have cardiac or pulmonary problems but employers still demand a full periodical health check including chest X-rays (that do include a risk) to reduce the chances of having an unrecognized treatable problem.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Posted in: No. of hospitalized coronavirus patients at record high in Japan See in context

Another area under study is how nRNA vaccines impact long term behavior in the immune system that relate to autoimmune diseases. Not much conclusive data has been gathered, but these class of medicines may impact this area. The impact may not manifest in patients in the near or intermediate term, but years later.

This is not such an important worry that would merit caution, what are the antigens from the vaccine that are not present in the natural infection a million times over? how would having a single antigen be more risky than having 2 dozens of them? what extra step would be suspicious from a non-replicating mRNA compared with a replicating viral RNA?

mRNA have been used for years for multiple treatment options on dozens and dozens of human trials, without any special kind of reaction, immune or otherwise associated with them.

Just keep in mind that our governments have granted immunity to any legal recourse against these big pharma companies if something negative comes out from these Covid-19 medicines

That is common trope of antivaxxers that is completely false, why would then government test every lot of vaccine as it is done in Japan for safety and efficacy if the companies are immune? the reality is that the only thing the companies are not liable from are lawsuits from particulars, that instead are granted for a much lower threshold of proof by the government. A product that is found not to be as promised or that ran invalid testing can make the company producing it liable for heavy punishment the same as if it was not a vaccine, and it would have to fight the government (not a particular) to defend itself.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Posted in: The governments of many countries, including Japan, have said they will not make a coronavirus vaccine mandatory, but legal experts believe companies could order staff to get a vaccine, unless they have a health exemption. What's your stance on this? See in context

@virusrex - if a company mandates a vaccine and an employee has a severe adverese reaction should the company be fully exempt from liability for mandating the vaccine?

A valid concern, should be stipulated clearly in the conditions of employment, the same as any other requirement. People can have adverse reactions, allergies, elevated risks of cancer, etc. for many things already required for some jobs (specially frequent in health care) so this would not be anything new either.

Also there is no empirical data on the long term effect of the mRNA vaccines (or other vaccines for that matter) as it has not been in use long enough to gather such data so as a scientist I would have to say "I do not know" to that.

There is no need for empirical data of long term effects to be able to validly say that the vaccine is safer than the natural infection in the long term. The main point is not to prove the vaccine will be perfectly safe without any kind of possibility of anything ever happening, but that the risk is lower than from the natural infection .

For COVID-19 there are already well described long term or permanent problems (from neuronal degeneration to autoimmune disease or persisten myocardial inflammation to mention some) that happened after the infection, none of those problems have happened yet for vaccine recipients.

That means that at this point there is evidence of long term risk associated with not vaccinating, and until there is any evidence of any long term risk being elevated for vaccinated people, that means vaccinating lower those risks.

We don't know what will happen 5 or 10 years from now, for both things; but that does not means we don't already have evidence pointing to long term risks for COVID-19.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Posted in: The governments of many countries, including Japan, have said they will not make a coronavirus vaccine mandatory, but legal experts believe companies could order staff to get a vaccine, unless they have a health exemption. What's your stance on this? See in context

It would be the same as companies ordering their staff to wash their hands before preparing food, taking yearly health checks or wearing a seatbelt at all times when seated on the wheel. At this point the evidence is clear and the available vaccines are much safer than the natural infection (yes, even on the long term), so refusing a vaccine without a valid medical exception is not a rational decision. People would still be free to do it of course, but then the company owners would also be allowed to refuse giving employment to those people.

Obviously complicated details would have to be sorted out (people already infected, what are valid medical exceptions, kinds of vaccines available, etc.) but as a general principle this would not be anything new.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Posted in: COVID-19 infection gives some immunity for at least 5 months, UK study finds See in context

I'm not sure Wick's pencil was saying there was something necessarily "wrong" with it. Perhaps he/she is just one of many who have understood the fear mongering in the media and elsewhere regarding Covid19, in that similar results might be obtained with other respiratory infections if they were tested in the same manner.

Is the media doing the testing? obviously not, it is done by the health authorities, therefore there is no "fear mongering" there, the value of testing has been widely recognized by all experts involved in the fight against the pandemic.

And yes, if one disease is extremely easy to spread by people without any symptom it would be natural to test anybody that may be in this situation, that is the whole point of doing it and why people follow the numbers with such interest, not because fear but because even if testing is not done as widely as it should it is still much better than just waiting until hospitals gets completely full and people begin to die in terribly high numbers.

Why do you think I used HIV as an example?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Selena Gomez: Big Tech 'cashing in from evil’ See in context

It's generally people who do not understand science that keep bringing up scientific consensus.

On the contrary, those that do not understand science are the ones that desperately want to discredit the scientific consensus based on absolutely nothing, from conspiracies that are impossible prove to imaginary numbers that supposedly prove something else.

The main point is that there is a valid and well recognized method to decide what is or not the truth, but when people want to lie and manipulate others to believe false things this method becomes the enemy.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Posted in: COVID-19 infection gives some immunity for at least 5 months, UK study finds See in context

I bet they could say the same thing about other respiratory infections. The difference is that now they are doing PCR tests, where those who are not sick can still be considered infected.

Because they are infected, there is nothing wrong with that.

Being infected and being sick are two different things and for a disease easily spread by people without symptoms it is very important to detect the infections. That must include people that have immunity.

What do you think doctors do with HIV patients, wait until they have full blown AIDS to test them? They can be infected (and infectious for others) for years without having any symptom.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Posted in: Selena Gomez: Big Tech 'cashing in from evil’ See in context

What counts as false information though? Big Tech shouldn't be the judges of what counts as 'true' because the underpaid, overworked and traumatised moderators probably aren't the best judges on important topics considering how they're probably not qualified for a lot of things.

Big tech is not the judge, it doesn't need to. It can do the rational thing and compare what someone is saying with the scientific consensus, if it says the opposite thing then science is the one that judges that to be not true, trying to push imaginary, incomplete, false information as facts can easily be identified this way.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Posted in: WHO stops short of advising proof of COVID-19 shots for travel See in context

At this point asking for vaccine requirements is not a rational decision, so the WHO is completely justified in not issuing a recommendation. In one side because most people still don't have access to one, so adding an impossible requirement on top of rational measures (like complete isolation before and after the travel) brings no additional value; and in the other side because it has not yet been proved that being vaccinated prevents the person from being able to spread the disease, so replacing validated measures with the vaccine could lead to reintroducing the infection to the traveler's destination.

Test and isolate people properly at both points or restrict travel completely (depending on the situation), vaccines can enter the requirements only after enough data has been collected.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: How Ireland became most infectious coronavirus country See in context

copy that. No answer. God forbid you should have to put your money where your mouth is.

Again, if you are going to answer things that anybody can understand simply by reading the article then what is the point of you asking on the first place.

It is clearly written, do you want me to explain it on more simple terms? what is that you could not understand then?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: WHO team arrives in Wuhan to search for pandemic origins See in context

My conclusion here is that even though there is some chance of inter-species virus transfer in nature, it is negligible comparing to a chance of getting and spreading it by group of researchers living in overpopulated city who deliberately searching for dangerous viruses in every cave in the country and performing numerous experiments in order to prove that these viruses can be dangerous for humans.

See my example, how many chances did I give for the lab? one or two a week, that is hugely more than the 3 cases you found for the entire history of the SARS breakout, but still nothing compared with the alternative (that is not a remote cave, any contact with a wild animal or contaminated material is a chance).

Your conclusion is invalid not only because of the very important ramp-up of security measures in many countries (not only in China) thanks to the SARS scare, but also because even if accidents would be common they would still be only a drop in the ocean compared with the hugely much more common natural contacts.

The virus is completely natural according to every piece of evidence collected, so you have millions of chances of being introduced to humans naturally, and according to you 3 chances per year of being a laboratory accident. It is not rational to be fixed in the terribly low odds while inexplicably ignoring the much more likely possibility. That is why this completely irrational conclusion only seems likely the less you know about the topic, the world experts all coincide in the conclusion that a completely natural origin is the only realistic possibility.

You also are terribly confused about where the virus was introduced to humans, Wuhan is the city where it first was detected and identified, but that does NOT mean it was where the first cases were present, epidemiological data says that it is much more likely it originated in a less dense area with more contact with wild animals, caused a few human cases without too many fatalities only to become much more obvious when it caused a much more important number of cases in a big city, it is the same mistake between finding out lots of gunshot victims die in hospitals and thinking they were also shot in the hospitals.

According to the growth curve of the number of cases it is commonly though that the real first human cases happened weeks before the outbreak in the Wuhan market,

This proves that your conclusion is simply much more likely to be mistaken.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Posted in: AI chatbot introduced to tackle alarming rise in coronavirus-related suicides See in context


False, Japan has had a problem of suicide since long before the pandemic, and warnings completely coherent with scientific consensus cannot be called fear mongering. Specially when having a small number of deaths for the infection is not something that can be kept if the number of cases increases to surpass health services capacity.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: Bumpy road ahead for global COVID-19 vaccine rollout, experts say See in context

I might take it in ten years after everyone who for some reason trusts Big Pharma has taken it. I mean, this exact same process isn't unprecedented:

It is not the exact same process by a long shot, not even similar, and choosing to run a 1/100 risk of dying from an infection because you are afraid of the 1/1000000 risk of developing a much less permanent condition is not rational. Even less justified is to use the example of narcolepsy, because the vaccination caused less cases than the natural influenza infection since the virus obviously contains and produces much more of the problematic protein than the vaccines, the vast majority of which did not include any of that protein.

Also, I would think that is against the rules of the site to link to illegal pirated materials from sci-hub.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: WHO team arrives in Wuhan to search for pandemic origins See in context

Why would you assume wild animal-to-human transmission is so easy and so much likely?

It is not that is very easy or likely, but very frequent. Just think how many hunters there are in the area, coming in contact with how many animals directly, then add farmers that come in contact with fruit and other resources contaminated with bat saliva, urine or feces, then all the people that come in contact with domestic animals that got exposed to contaminated materials and could be vectors of the disease, and merchants that handle contaminated things or directly animals, and butchers, cooks, etc. etc.

There is no laboratory in the world that can make as many experiments as the number of contacts that humans have with the viruses in nature. We don't even know for sure what is the reservoir animal, nor the vector, so theoretically every contact with animals or animal contaminated things is one chance. So even if the infection happens only one in every million chances you would still have a few infections every day.

Obviously most of those infections are with viruses that cannot adapt to humans, but if you keep having those uncountable contacts every day of the year, year after year, eventually we run out of luck. We ran out of luck on 2003 with SARS, then again in 2012 with MERS (no laboratory involved in either case), in 2019 we ran out of luck again and a terrible management of the original outbreak caused it to extend into a pandemic.

If nothing changes on our way to relate with the ecology we will have new outbreaks every few years in the same way, without ever needing any virus escaping from a laboratory.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Posted in: Tokyo reports 2,001 new coronavirus cases; nationwide tally 7,133 See in context

your logic is flawed - even if it is more likely that positive cases will be tested during holidays, that would only explain an increase in positivity rate. It does not explain why the amount of positive people remain the same when 5 times as many people are being tested on normal weekdays. Its not like in the weekend, really sick people are asking for tests, and during normal weekdays they suddenly stop calling.

Again, assuming there is a stable number of "high risk" people, those people will keep being tested every day even on holidays. What accumulates over weekends and holidays are the "low risk" people, that are very unlikely to actually be positive on the test.

Let me put a simple example using round numbers.

Lets assume 75% of the "heavy risk" patients are positive, and only 5% of "low risk" patients will be positive.

Friday, 2,000 heavy risk and 6,000 low risk people are tested, results? 1,800positives. a 26% rate.

Saturday 2,000 heavy risk and 2,000 low risk people tested, 1,600 positives, a 40% rate.

Sunday, 2,000 heavy risk and only 1,000 low risk, 1,550 positives, a 51.7% rate.

Monday, 2,000 heavy risk and 10,000 are low risk (counting for accumulation), 2000 positives 16.7% rate.

As you can see the total number of people tested increase a lot the next working day, but the total number of positives increase much less importantly proportionally. This is what is observed in Japan.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Posted in: Tokyo reports 2,001 new coronavirus cases; nationwide tally 7,133 See in context

I don't believe these numbers at all. So for the previous few days the rate is 30%-50% positivity for only 2000 to 3000 tests, but suddenly when it's 17000 tests the rate drops to 11%? Bullocks!

Is completely inside what would be expected according to the terrible testing strategy followed in Japan.

If every testing site is open every day of the week you would observe much more stable numbers, but since Japan behaves like a developing country in this aspect it closes most of the places where you can be tested on weekends and holidays. So only those people with extremely heavy suspicion of disease will be tested then (patients with heavy respiratory difficulty, symptomatic close contacts of a confirmed case, etc.), those with relatively low chances of being positive will simply wait until the next weekday (in this case January 12) so they will only need to go to a much more convenient testing place.

Result? people likely to be negative will not be tested on holidays and weekends, so the percentage of positivity increases; and the next work day the opposite happen.

14 ( +22 / -8 )

Posted in: WHO team arrives in Wuhan to search for pandemic origins See in context

I think when people have a clear point of interest, and especially one that only posts on a single subject, should at least declare what their interest is.

For what purpose? again, nothing about what I write depends at all on who I am or what I do, I have never said "this is true because I teach this subject in a national university" or anything like that. Therefore there is absolutely no point in "declaring" anything. I like the topic, I know about it, that is enough. The only people that are interested on who are those that prove them wrong are the people that have no arguments on their own, so when they have nothing to disprove their opponents they try to discuss the person, even when that has absolutely no importance.

Again, what part of my arguments would change its value depending on who I am?

Also multiple accounts are not acceptable.

More than "acceptable" it is meaningless to do it. What is actually not acceptable according to the rules is to discuss other people, but here you are, doing exactly that even when it should have been already clear it is not allowed.

The sheer numbers of long posts from someone who must also need to work indicates some thing else.

Feel free to imagine whatever you like, it has no importance either. You can think I am at school writing on my phone trying not to be found, or between patients in a clinic, Or I can be a retired octogenarian, it is all the same, the arguments are valid or not completely independent of why I can write them or not.

It may surprise you, but writing about something you know well does not take time at all, is only when you completely ignore the topic when it seems like a huge effort.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Posted in: WHO team arrives in Wuhan to search for pandemic origins See in context

Virusrex, based on your posts, it's becoming increasingly clear that your representing some interest group, which is why Zichi (I think, post was conveniently deleted) asked the question. He's not the first one to have asked, but posts always get deleted when someone does. You'll deny it of course, but that won't allay anyone's suspicions.

The real problem is that instead of analyzing the arguments for their value and accepting when those argument prove them wrong you are focusing exclusively on the person. You did not answer my question, what part of my post would become false according to what I do?

If nothing becomes false, then what is the point in trying to guess irrelevant things? the arguments would still prove you wrong. You can imagine whatever you want about me, you would still be mistaken. I have even been accused of being a couple of posters here (including you) and on purpose writing terribly bad arguments just to be able to prove "them" wrong with ease, whatever you want to think is the same as those accusations, of no importance whatsoever.

If perfectly valid reasons become sophistry for you because you don't understand them that is also something invalid as an argument. You can simply ask for a better explanation of anything you did not understood, that is much better to blindly assume that what you could not grasp must be meaningless or false.

China is obviously trying to hide their terrible management, that is clear for everybody in the world, but completely unrelated to the work the WHO sent specialists intend to do, they are not forensic accountants or hackers trying to see who is responsible for anything that was improperly done.

Saying that China is hiding something, therefore every crazy baseless theory must be what they hide is just nonsense. That is not apologizing for them, it is being rational. The behavior of China is irrelevant to how likely an artificial origin would be, logic and science (that points out to a completely natural origin as the hugely more logical source) are the ones that rules out that possibility. What if someone says that unicorns are the ones that are the origin of the virus? China being secretive proves this to be more likely? obviously not. An artificial origin is the same, completely unsupported by science, so a scientific investigation is not interested in it (as they are not interested either in finding unicorns).


The origin was conceived from a scientist. The Virus was harvested and then weaponized.

It was a bio weapons race war. It got out. It turned on them. Does it matter what animal in comes from?

China in it's shabby self needs to held accountable to the entire world. The regime needs to be dismantled.

Movie plots are not good things to base opinions about real life, the scientific consensus says this is a terribly bad explanation, completely unnecessary and less likely that a natural origin, the same that has happened before countless times.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Posted in: Bumpy road ahead for global COVID-19 vaccine rollout, experts say See in context

A total of 3,916 adverse events had been reported to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), including 13 deaths (9 from Pfizer, 4 from Moderna), by the end of December.

That is half of the information, where is the absolutely necessary other half?

Obviously you need the numbers of adverse effects and deaths on an unvaccinated population of the approximate same size and characteristics, so you can compare the data and see if it is higher or lower than expected. That also goes for the reporting itself, who do you think is more likely to report something negative that happened, someone that just got vaccinated or someone that was just living a normal life? Would you go to the doctor for some vague pain in your arm that disappeared after a day?

For example, what if in the unvaccinated population there are 30 deaths unrelated to coronavirus? would that mean that the vaccine also protects you from all kinds of deaths? What if 5 deaths in VAERS are from gunshot and 7 of those deaths were found in the general population, does that mean the vaccine repels bullets but only slightly?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Posted in: WHO team arrives in Wuhan to search for pandemic origins See in context

If everyone wants to see an image of the Corona virus then...

No, that is completely different from what you said. Coronaviruses can be visualized, that is not the problem, the problem is that you think they can be differentiated based on how they look on the microscope, that is impossible, the normal variation between viral particles of the same strain is much greater than the variation between viral strains and species of the same family. 

Or more simply, all coronaviruses look the same under the microscope.

Careful, your post will be deleted for asking a reasonable question. Virusrex is above reproach.

What makes the question reasonable? If I said I am a junior high schooler with lots of time and interest on viruses what part of my replies would suddenly become false? And if I were a doctor working in an ICU? the owner of Pfizer? cleaning staff at a beauty parlor? 

Of course it would be rational if I based anything on some kind of authority that I was supposed to have, can you quote me on that?


Heres one for your analysis

One what? how does that prove that you can differentiate between virus strains with microscopy? do you think that imaginary musings somehow scientifically prove something.

Virusex, simply calling something you don't like a conspiracy theory demonstrates that you don't understand, or more likely, want to divert attention away from perfectly pertinent issues, disguising your dismissals with technobabble designed to impress the more credulous, but transparent nonetheless.

One, if you base your argument on a conspiracy that has no evidence behind, and reject much better sustained explanations, very likely and actually observed then that can be validly be called a conspiracy theory.

Two, if you are unable to understand the topic you feel so strongly about, that explains (but not excuses) why you can be wrong. Giving up trying to understand the topic is fine, but persisting on a mistaken opinion because of that lack of understanding is not valid. Either you understand at least the vocabulary so you can sustain your opinion or you give up and concede that you may be wrong, you cannot have both.

There are a number of publications over many years from the Wuhan researchers, engineering coronaviruses. Much of that research was banned for several years in the US (it's no longer banned), and during that time the US funded the Wuhan lab thanks to people like Fauci. So I doubt very much the investigators will find anything...

There are endless publications of many groups all over the world about engineering Coronaviruses, the funny thing is that everybody got the mutations necessary for human adaptation wrong, and that include the researchers at Wuhan, that theorized a much smarter and efficient process but totally different from what the SARS-CoV-2 actually developed to get humans, their research is a much stronger proof of them being unrelated to the appearance of this virus than the opposite, as anybody that read that research knew from the beginning.

And no, no coronavirus research on Wuhan was ever banned in the US. You are terribly confused and should review your sources. And since the research was not banned it was obviously never funded by the US. Which do fund some research projects aimed precisely to avoid what happened with COVID-19.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Posted in: New virus mutation raises vaccine questions See in context

The focus of any analysis of moral panic is whether an issue is distorted and exaggerated in such a way as to produce an obvious over-reaction on the part of social and political authorities.

Is the media saying something different from the experts? are the experts contradicting the available scientific evidence? without proving these two things it is not valid to say there is distortion or exaggeration.

People trying to convince others that the pandemic is nothing to worry about are the ones that are frequently found using misleading information.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: How Ireland became most infectious coronavirus country See in context

Actually, I said 99.9-99.95%, but don't let facts interfere with your narrative.

Same difference, nobody but you has said that, and since you have provided no proof of it then it is still perfectly safe to discard that information as imaginary.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Posted in: WHO team arrives in Wuhan to search for pandemic origins See in context

Virusrex, this investigation, for what it's worth, isn't happening in a vacuum, so your apparent faith in the scientific process is misplaced at best, terribly naive in the middle, or disgraceful apologism for China at worst. 

Still irrelevant, the Chinese government obviously wants to avoid the responsibility of a badly managed local outbreak, but also about the situation in Hong Kong and the prosecution of Muslim minorities, none of which has anything to do with the purpose of this scientific investigation.

The main purpose of this investigation is to elucidate the process of how the virus adapted to humans and what kind of steps were followed, what is the reservoir animal, what kind of ecologic links facilitated it, etc. etc. Absolutely nothing that the Chinese government did after the outbreak initiated is on the scope of the investigation, so they could report absolutely everything without even touching about what the CCP wants to hide.

Irrational conspiracy theories about realistically impossible scenarios would be in the scope, but "losing" access to the evidence necessary for those astronomically improbable scenarios is nothing that a scientific delegation would ever have to worry about, the professionals of the world already know there is no merit on the "artificially created bioweapon" theory, so their focus is on the natural emergence of the pathogen.

Why would it be so difficult to pinpoint the vector that the virus took to infect humans?

Again, because this is not a movie, you think it would be as easy as catching the first bat they find on site, take some blood and identify a virus almost exactly as the SARS-CoV-2, bam! work done.

In reality the work is about identifying different populations of every likely vector, sampling in significant numbers all those populations, brute force the sequencing of everything and anything that may or not be related to the pandemic, endlessly assemble the genomes, analyze the evolutionary relationships, make phylogenetic trees of everything found correlating with host organisms, isolation site, ecological relationships, etc. then make antigens and test human samples to see if there is reactivity and neutralization specific to those newly identified pathogens, etc. etc.

Then 3 months later begin again to see how times changes everything that was found before, and so on. After a few years good hypothesis can be formulated and tested with the data to see if things check ok, only then publications will be released and science will advance.

There are also many microscopes that can check for similarities to the Corona virus that causes Covid-19.

No, that makes no sense, there is no "microscope" that can let you see similarities between viruses, not even cryo-electron-microscopy, all the viruses in the same order (or even class) will look exactly the same.

You seem to think that finding a virus that is somewhat similar would mean you found the link, you could not be farther from the real process.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Recent Comments


Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.