2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

errors I pointed out in your previous posts

You have failed to disprove ANYTHING and EVERYTHING as an "error". Please show us all the errors and include typos's, grammar, etc if you find any.

Just now, placeholder said:

Given the errors I pointed out in your previous posts, that assertion is laughable.

Laughable to you, but 100% correct.

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

you're right

Of course I am, or I would not have said it.

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

they are identical, which, of course they are, as the FDA as explicitly stated

They most certainly are not identical, impossible if they have different properties /additional chemicals.

FDA

If they are identical, why not just grant FDA approval to both Comirnaty and Phizer. Drop the EUA and be done with it and maybe more people would trust pfizer and the FDA.

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

And finally, the judge did explicitly acknowledge that the President does have the authority to require the members of the armed services be vaccinated whether the vaccine is being administered under BLA or EUA rules.

This is not in dispute and irrelevant to the pfizer vaccine & FDA bait and switch fiasco.

Whats clear about the judges ruling is that Comirnaty and Phizer CANNOT be used interchangably: "A federal district court judge rejected a claim by the U.S. Department of Defense that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine being administered under Emergency Use Authorization is interchangeable with Pfizer’s fully licensed Comirnaty vaccine.

In this case, an EUA is considered illegal and invalid if there is a fully licensed alternative available. This appears to be the case with Pfizer’s licensed Comirnaty while its EUA Pfizer-BioNTech is still on the market.

Pfizer retains EUA status and people cannot be mandated to take it. Comirnaty is FDA approved. It's exactly that, nothing terribly complicated about it. I think you are not seeing the implication here or refuse to admit it, and conveniently confused now that pfizer has EUA and NO FDA approval. Simple simple, no confusion for me. I expected this would come to light eventually. It's a good ruling based on sound legal principles.

And, all bidens vaccine mandates are being litigated currently and have all been blocked by all courts to date and will be settled at a later date. If the mandates were so critical, life and death critical path in nature, then maybe the people in the know would support and implemt vaccine mandates. They are not and that's very telling. Time will tell, but don't expect any vaccine mandates anytime soon.

FDA committed "bait and switch", the entire FDA pfizer "approval process" was underhanded and they have been called out on it by the courts and should come as no surprise.

Comirnaty case-FDA.pdf

“The Omicron variant of the Covid-19 virus could lead to more infections among vaccinated people, according to several scientists,” - WSJ

Omicron Risks Infecting Vaccinated People but May Not Cause Them Severe Illness

Some scientists say the virus will likely remain vulnerable to immune cells; ‘Don’t freak out,’ says BioNTech co-founder

All omicron variant infections identified to date in the US (total of 2-MN/CA) have been in fully vaccinated people, one with travel history to SA from CA, and the MN case was a person who had traveled to NYC.

On 9/4/2021 at 10:25 AM, mtls2005 said:

Yep. As are your posts.

 

 

 

No clue what you're on about? Comirnaty is a brand name for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

 

North of 200 million doses of Comirnaty have been administered to date.

 

 

Thanks but advice from you seems, well, downright looney.

 

 

Where in the USA can one find Comirnaty vaccine?

Not loony, unless you are a sheep perhaps |/!

It was only a matter of time until someone saw thru the FDA / pfizer confusing vaccine "approval".

https://brjm.org/2021/12/federal-judge-rejects-claim-pfizer-comirnaty-same/

https://www.technocracy.news/federal-judge-rejects-dod-claim-that-pfizer-eua-and-comirnaty-vaccines-are-interchangeable/

On 11/30/2021 at 3:47 AM, wordchild said:

It is interesting to see that the UK has now reduced the minimum gap between 2nd vaccine and booster jab to 3 months. I believe in response to Omicron.

Could be that, but likely too many unknowns about omicron at this time to push the panic button, and maybe more to do with the significant waning protection values at protection and prevention afforded by the vaccines, specifically AZ in this case. US does not have AZ and they have recommended those meeting the risk criteria and vaxed (Pfizer BioNTech/Moderna/J&J) prior to June 01/2021 to get the booster now.

Protection against transmission wanes

The new study showed that protection against transmission seemed to wane over time, however. After three months, people who had breakthrough infections after being vaccinated with AstraZeneca were just as likely to spread the delta variant as the unvaccinated. While protection against transmission decreased in people who had received the Pfizer vaccine, there was still a benefit when compared with people who were unvaccinated.

https://news.yahoo.com/vaccinated-people-less-likely-spread-203900647.html

34 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

You don't understand how surveys (or statistics) work, do you? You don't have to survey everybody (or even a majority of people) to get an accurate result.

 

As stated in the article below:

 

Survey Statistical Confidence: How Many is Enough?

It's misleading to make a claim that 96% of ALL physicians...when there are over a million physicians in America. It's false and misleading. And if you can't see it then you have the problem, I forgot more about stats than you know.

On 11/24/2021 at 8:22 AM, Danderman123 said:

96% of all US physicians are vaccinated.

You mean 96% of all US physicians, or just those included in the sample size of this survey? (Sample size – N=301). I am sure there are more than 301 doctors in the US.

Misleading.

If you have an android mobile device you can download the MoPH morprom app which u can then use to obtain a copy of your vaccine certificate, apply for a vaccine passport and other features.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mor.promplus

39 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Therefore, Rittenhouse's killing of Rosenbaum was not self-defense, but murder.

Once you read and understand the elements of 1st degree intentional homicide in WI, (onus, burden of proof) maybe then you can grasp this, even though it's not overly complicated for most. I already gave you a hint.

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The law you quoted invalidates your argument. Assuming, as is likely, that the prosecution can show that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at the crowd, he lost his right to self defense right there. He could not have reasonably assumed that he was bout to be killed or maimed with a plastic bag containing toiletries. Demonstrably, Rittenhouse held his ground once attacked and turned and shot Rosenbaum. The others were then entitled to use any force to disarm Rittenhouse.

You are wrong, (again, as usual). The state has not proved the 3 necessary elements. You need better legal advise as well it seems.

2 hours ago, cmarshall said:

Rittenhouse lost his legal claim to self-defense

Incorrect under WI statutes.

Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
^{(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.}

^939.48(2)(a)

Don't direct your rage at me, and get yourself a new lawyer.

44 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The crowd obviously thought that Rittenhouse was another mass murderer. Why else would a sane man chase somebody armed with an AR15 while unarmed or only with a pistol?

Maybe he's not sane, and just plain stupid and now, he has only half his arm. Would you chase him?

7 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Whatever aggressive behavior Rosenbaum might have exhibited toward Rosenbaum is completely, 100% irrelevant to the murder charge in Rittenhouse's indictment.  No matter how aggressive Rosenbaum was it doesn't justify Rittenhouse's shooting him unless and until Rosenbaum threatens Rittenhouse with immediate death or grievous injury, which he never did.  Only under that degree of immediate threat would Rittenhouse's shooting of Rosenbaum have been protected as self-defense.

 

Talking about Rosenbaum's aggressive behavior that does not rise to that degree of threat no more justifies his killing than complaining that he picked his nose in an offensive manner.

Wow, you are a tad deranged by all this. Would it make you happy if I go away now and leave you to your pathetic rage.

15 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

You don't get it.  Rosenbaum's being aggressive and even threatening, even if true, do not justify shooting him.  Only if Rosenbaum posed an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm to Rittenhouse would Rittenhouse's shooting him be protected as an act of self-defense.  There has been no evidence that Rosenbaum ever posed such a threat.  He had no weapon.  At the time that Rittenhouse shot him he was four feet away from Rittenhouse.  He never got at grip on Rittenhouse's assault rifle, much less did he come close to getting possession of it.  

 

Therefore, Rosenbaum never posed an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm to Rittenhouse.  So, Rittenhouse's killing of Rosenbaum was murder, not self-defense.

I don't get what?

I am referring to the issue of Rosenbaums aggressive behavior, nothing else. You however seem confused by that. Why so aggressive?

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Excluded from evidence. No proof that he was aggressive at the outset.

Much of the trial witness testimony described the actions of Rosenbaum (if you are referring to him) as aggressive and threatening towards the defendant and others during the riots that evening. There is no question of that if you consider all the facts put forth by the defense in this case. The prosecution ostensibly disagrees but fails to refute the trial testimony. He also (state / Binger) failed to show any evidence of threatening or aggressive behavior by Rittenhouse who claims he fired his weapon only in self defense and that now will be decided by the jury or perhaps the judge may consider declaring a mistrial after a jury verdict in light of previous defense motions and the recent actions of MSNBC.

There is zero credible evidence, and only prosecution suggestions that Rosenbaum displayed no aggressive or threatening behaviour. It's quite clear in fact that he did.

There are a plethora of news and media sources attesting to the above. I can add them as required, if necessary.

25 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Here's my attempt at this:

 

Firstly no it does not include ATK tests, the positivity rate for those are occasionally given via the CCSA daily briefing slides.

 

The brown box represents the overall positive results per PCR test. So is Thailand's official positivity rate.

 

There are other metrics such as walk in positivity rates which are much higher, pro active testing positivity rates usually lower now that the worse is over, PUI positivity rates etc 

Ok, thanks. I am thrown off by the "7" and thai translation telling me it says "per 100 person" in the description. But, if one crunch's total covid cases and total tests performed (relying on Worldometer data), you arrive at about 13%. Seems like a high positive rate, with many more potential cases than the 1.9M detected & reported thus far.

4 hours ago, anchadian said:

UPDATE: 7,574 confirmed cases, 2,113 probable cases (ATK), and 78 deaths (1.00%). Out of 98,444 patients , 42,170 are in hospital, 46,964 in hospitel and 6,365 in home/community isolation. There are 2,219 in a serious condition (-2) with 473 on ventilators (-21) #Thailand

 

https://twitter.com/ThaiNewsReports/status/1455344938439352327

Hello, are you able to tell me what the data (13.93%) in the brown box at the bottom represents? Is this a 7 day r-average for positive covid tests (based on both PCR and home ATK tests)?

Thanks.

12 hours ago, Salerno said:

natural v vaccine debate

Clarify the quoted.

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

Apparently not

CDC study: COVID vaccine stronger than natural immunity

 A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that vaccines offer much stronger immunity to COVID-19 than natural immunity.

Researchers analyzed data from nearly 200 hospitals across the country, and concluded that COVID vaccines still offer better protection than a previous COVID infection. Specifically, the CDC report found that unvaccinated adults with previous COVID infection were 5.49 times more likely to be re-infected than fully vaccinated individuals with no previously documented infection.

https://www.wfla.com/community/health/coronavirus/cdc-study-covid-vaccine-stronger-than-natural-immunity/

Yeah, I saw that report.

In Table 1 it shows that out of CDC selected people hospitalized with Covid-19 like illness, in the period of Jan-Sept 2021:
    •    1,020 were unvaccinated with a previous Covid infection
    •    6,328 were vaccinated without previous Covid infection

Totals in the data set group to have 7,348 persons (1,020+6,328). In this group of sick people, 86% of sick hospitalized people are vaccinated without previous Covid, and only 14% are unvaccinated who had Covid before.

Vaccinations may have been more effective in suppressing covid spread early on, maybe, with the original covid variants, Alpha, Beta but now it seems Delta is presenting bigger problems and challenges all across the spectrum of covid management efforts.

MMRW | OCT29

pdf icon PDF [240K]

Availability and supply of moderna vaccines may improve now that today FDA announced it has delayed it's EUA approval of moderna for use in adolescents aged 12 to 17 years citing more time required to study risks of heart inflammation called myocarditis after vaccination.

https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/fda-moderna-eua-covid-shot-under-18-delayed/507-e43e2ff1-e586-4162-9843-9cf0f41f2c8d