Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Encourages Kernel Developers & Everyone To Get Vaccinated

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Qaridarium
    Linus Torvalds is an expert in Computer Science he is not an Expert in medicine... he has no fucking clue what he is talking about.

    the corona virus vaccine is not something good what protects you it is no vaccine at all it is a bio-chemical weapon who does in fact sterilize men(it targets seed stem cells in the testes) and it also attacks placenta of pregnant women causing abortion to it is in fact a depopulation weapon. the spike protein is proofed to be a poly pharmacy toxiology poison it damanges blood vessels and cause blood clot what ends deathly. studies also show that vaccinated test subjects who come into contact with wild virus variants all die because of immune system overreaction.

    it is not only poly pharmacy toxiology it is also self-multiplying and self-spreading poison because vaccines people spread the spike protein to other people who then itself become spike protein producers...
    So.. as an expert, you must be posting from a bioweapon lab then?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by nokipaike View Post
      I only think of one thing, that if television and newspapers had not started this insidious aggressive and persistent propaganda by transforming a flu a little more serious than the others, into a mass psychosis, no one would have given it all this importance.
      For what it's worth, I was very concerned about it at the outset, because PRC can be relied upon to lie about anything that could embarrass them. I took precautions, tried to find masks that would work against it at the time the authorities were saying masks were dumb; I got my company to shut down the office well before there was that much risk in Canada.

      Then, as we gained knowledge about who the virus affects and how, I became more relaxed and moved on with my life.

      It is healthy to be wary of something unknown, with a large potential for danger; it is unhealthy to be wary of something that is unlikely to affect you in any significant way.
      Last edited by microcode; 11 June 2021, 11:41 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by microcode View Post
        Okay, what about this do you doubt, and why?
        I believe what he means is that these repetitive comparisons made in the countless arguments simply lack context and relations.

        For instance, when somebody believes that in their age group the chance of death is 0.05% after 127,000 people have died, and they then read the vaccine caused 900 deaths, why do these people suddenly assume the chance of death from the vaccine in their age group was 100%? Would it not be far more reasonable to assume that when the death rate from COVID was 0.05% and that injecting a fraction of the virus, which is what a vaccination is, should therefore have a similar survival rate as compared to the virus?

        We may not know the exact values of the vaccines' side effects. But just because I am 50 years old and there is no number telling me how the vaccine effects people of different age, should I assume vaccines would only kill people of exactly my age. It makes no sense.

        People end up comparing apples with oranges, because they have no clear idea of what they are doing and what exactly each information means.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by sdack View Post
          Would it not be far more reasonable to assume that when the death rate from COVID was 0.05% and that injecting a fraction of the virus, which is what a vaccination is, should therefore have a similar survival rate as compared to the virus?
          I'm going to set aside your other points for a moment and just address this one, because it is really important. None of the authorized vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are based on inactivated virus, and all of them rely on epigenetic therapies or gene therapies to convince your cells to natively produce spike proteins. The COVID vaccines are not the way you described. There is one vaccine in early Phase 3 trials right now from a company called Novavax which is based on injecting already-formed spike proteins grown in moth cells and transferred onto a lipid nanoparticle substrate, but it has not been authorized for use yet (and it's not certain that it carries the same risk profile as inactivated virus, even if it is more likely to than the other vaccines).

          The result of this distinction is that these vaccines can easily carry more danger than an infection with the virus, because the only thing these have in common is the involvement of the spike proteins: The amounts of the spike proteins, the other vectors for detection and innate immunity with the real virus, and the other ingredients in the vaccines are all unique to the vaccines, and can have a completely different risk profile; and for some subset of the population, that risk profile can be considerably worse in the medium to long term than being infected with the virus.

          It's kinda like asking "would you rather have AIDS or cancer": we know roughly what it's like to live with AIDS, but whether cancer would be preferable depends on the cancer. If it's a benign non-melanoma skin cancer, then I would much rather have that than AIDS; if it's mesothelioma, I would rather have AIDS lol.
          Last edited by microcode; 11 June 2021, 12:05 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by microcode View Post
            I'm going to set aside your other points for a moment and just address this one, because it is really important. None of the authorized vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are based on inactivated virus, and all of them rely on gene therapies to convince your cells to natively produce spike proteins. The COVID vaccines are not the way you described.
            I did not say the vaccines contain the virus. I said they contain a fraction of the virus. That fraction is the spike protein. Nobody is saying vaccines contain the entire virus. Far from it.

            Originally posted by microcode View Post
            The result of this distinction is that these vaccines can easily carry more danger than an infection with the virus ...
            No, they do not. The tests have shown this and the data gathered from vaccinated people are further proof. You are simply misinformed.
            Last edited by sdack; 11 June 2021, 12:03 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
              You are so obviously biased... You're open-minded to the symptoms of hypochondriacs and immune system responses, but you're skeptical of the effectiveness by comparing to flu vaccines, which are a totally different mechanism to mRNA.
              It amazes me how people will grasp onto anything that resembles their way of thinking, no matter how illogical.
              I'm not comparing mechanism of action, I'm comparing big pharma's history of making unrealistic efficacy claims. I told you I took the stupid jab, what do you want me to do? Sacrifice at the altar of big pharma profits? Would that make you happy? Sorry I'm not giddy about the prospects of what this probably worthless shot is otherwise doing to my body.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by microcode View Post
                I'm going to set aside your other points for a moment and just address this one, because it is really important. None of the authorized vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are based on inactivated virus, and all of them rely on gene therapies to convince your cells to natively produce spike proteins. The COVID vaccines are not the way you described. There is one vaccine in early Phase 3 trials right now from a company called Novavax which is based on injecting already-formed spike proteins on a lipid nanoparticle substrate, but it has not been authorized for use yet.

                The result of this distinction is that these vaccines can easily carry more danger than an infection with the virus, because the only thing these have in common is the involvement of the spike proteins: The amounts of the spike proteins, the other vectors for detection and innate immunity with the real virus, and the other ingredients in the vaccines are all unique to the vaccines, and can have a completely different risk profile; and for some subset of the population, that risk profile can be considerably worse in the medium to long term than being infected with the virus.
                You're missing sdack's point... Although he's wrong in assuming covid vaccines are vector vaccines (to my knowledge, only one of them is and it's not available everywhere) his point remains valid: people overblow the severity of the dangers of the vaccine. That includes you, BTW. My last response was unaccepted because I cited a source, but there is not sufficient evidence to suggest the spike proteins created by the vaccines accumulate in things like bone marrow or ovaries.

                I get why people are hesitant about taking a vaccine without more testing; so was I. But you're a solid case of confirmation bias. It's good to be skeptical but not to the point where you take all contrarian evidence as truth.
                Last edited by schmidtbag; 11 June 2021, 12:04 PM.

                Comment


                • He could have just wrote "I know better. I have spoken.".
                  I'd rather read another IT rant than newsletter from The Ministry of Truth.
                  Last edited by ozeszty; 11 June 2021, 12:07 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
                    Although he's wrong in assuming covid vaccines are vector vaccines
                    No, you're wrong, too. I simply said that vaccines contain a fraction of the virus. I left out the details of how exactly this fraction is gained. This is not a dick measuring contest or who is more vein or bloated. None of you have created the vaccine. None of you have first hand experience of making it, and you, too, only trust the knowledge passed on to you of how roughly each vaccine was created. Sams as I do. I then try to keep it simple and not over-complicate explanations, because I suddenly believe myself to be some vaccine expert.

                    Now, back to my point. If anyone was to believe a vaccine was more dangerous than the virus, then we would already have seen this in the data. However, the data shows no such risk. It is by magnitudes less harmful than the virus, and anyone who believes the virus would not cause them any harm can assume the same from a vaccine. Of course, older and sick people are more affected by the virus and they should equally assume to be more at risk by the side-effects of the vaccines. We will know soon enough how true exactly this is the more data we gather.
                    Last edited by sdack; 11 June 2021, 12:26 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Pretty sure Linus is a programmer, not a doctor. I am a programmer, not a doctor. We should not be bringing up "mRNA" or stuff like that in any argument, as it is 100% regurgitated by some talking head on the TV, who is also probably not a doctor. If we are to "trust the science", lets listen to actual scientists and not neckbeards like us.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X