Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Expands Efforts to Vaccinate Employees, But Doesn't Mandate Vaccines
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We all really need to eat more plants, I can go that far. most Americans don’t. But plant-only? I don’t think so
But how can I know that my meat, eggs or fish were happy while they were being raised? Maybe they were depressed realizing what was in store for them. Can I really trust the person who is selling them for profit to be telling the truth about how they raised them?
I’m simply saying it makes me happy, to see how much care they put into creating a healthy natural environment for the hens, and extremely transparent business practices.
In the example I provided, Vital Farms, every farm has a video feed you can see of the hens outside.
They have a ton of space to roam around outside, and receive sunlight, choose thier food from their habitat thus getting more nutrients (and free of pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics). They roam all year round, and have a large barn where they can shelter up (on their own accord, not forced, if it’s cold outside)
So while I’m sure they aren’t extactic about their eggs being stolen, they are probably much happier and healthier than their counterparts at McDonald’s suppliers.
Apple doesn't want to lose a bunch of employees right before they are about to release their biggest product of the year.
Yeah, that's like asking the fox to let you know how happy the chickens are.
Like I said, I don’t really care how happy they are. Just that they are healthier for me to eat. Better conditions and standards mean higher quality food, more nutrients, less bad stuff.
The problem isn't that you aren't dumping enough text, it's that you're unwilling to maintain a focused conversation.
You're trying to create a clearinghouse for misinformation, rather than critically examining it. Pick a point of debate, support your point, read the responses given, and then respond to those directly. If you see the opposing view, acknowledge it. If you see a flaw in the response, point it out. If you feel that line of discussion has reached an impasse, say so and pick another distinct topic.
Just two quick and easy examples of where stuff you're linking just doesn't say what you think it does:
This is clearly wrong. It was revoked by the CDC in favor of tests that allow simultaneous testing of covid and influenza, not because the covid test is confounded by influenza.
Fact Check-CDC lab update on COVID-19 PCR tests misinterpreted
New guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) withdrawing their request for Emergency Use Authorization for a coronavirus test introduced in February 2020 do not mean that these polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests have failed to differentiate...
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the vaccinated are more likely to get infected? Seriously, apply some critical thinking here.
77% of Icelanders are vaccinated, mostly because they're only starting to vaccinate the under 16 demographic. Without knowing anything about the lifestyle choices (ie. are the vaccinated more cavalier in their interactions) and employment of the vaccinated versus unvaccinated in Iceland, just assuming that everyone is exposed equally, if the vaccine were ineffective you'd expect to see 3 or 4 times as many cases among the vaccinated as among the unvaccinated. Instead what you see is closer to 1:1, so you are 3 or 4 times less likely to get infected if you're vaccinated.
The population of Iceland is 364k people. The entire country has less people than Wyoming. Iceland has 14 cases per 100,000 people. Wyoming has 69 per 100,000. Wyoming has a vaccination rate of 38%.
Last edited:
So it was revolked by the CDC. It still remains unclear if the original tests could have been inaccurate. Thank you for the link.
Um, no. As titled. “Iceland Covid data shows majority of Covid cases are fully vaccinated”
I’m not making any assumptions.
Last edited:
Please fix the attribution of your quotes. I did not say that the existing PCR test can not discriminate between covid and flu. You said that. What you said is incorrect and not supported by your link and directly refuted by the CDC quote given in mine. Also please correct the second quote which puts a period where I did not have one-- it changes the meaning of my sentence.
Read my statement, read my link. Do you not know enough about how PCR works that you think it even possible that it couldn't discriminate between covid and flu? Do you not understand enough about viral strains that you think those two are somehow similar? They're not even the same phylum...
Is there more to discuss on this particular point, or do you recognize that you were incorrect in your characterization of this CDC notice? If not, which of your hundreds of links include data supporting the idea that the test being discontinued was inaccurate?
Not making assumptions, but not making sense either. You're clarifying to insist that the case was vaccinated? How does one vaccinate a case? Can it be done if the case is electronically recorded, or must one pour vaccine directly into the manilla folder?
This is why I gave up replying, it's like playing a game of whack-a-misinformation-mole rather than having a discussion in good faith, especially considering that half of the citations and assertions they're making in their latest post, are the exact same ones they made days ago that I systematically dismantled without getting a response. Now they've just reposted them and added some more stuff.
I saw the PCR thing too when skimming their updated wall of text, and eyerolled partly because I literally posted a factcheck for that days ago when someone else came out with it.
Ah yes… assuming you survive the initial infection, and don’t spread it to someone else who may not be so lucky. Great plan.
Dr. Makary Says Natural Immunity Is More Effective Then Vaccine Immunity
"Data from Israel revealed that natural immunity is 6.7x more effective"www.msn.com
We won’t mention that none of this comes from a peer reviewed study, and is merely a single doctor’s interpretation of data collected by other doctors.
Keep trying though.
Yup, they teach your immune system to learn how to identify a pathogen and prompt it to create protective antibodies and t/b cells so that if anything like that (like the real virus) shows up again, your immune system can quickly recognise and destroy it. Science + our immune system is an awesome combination.
I acknowledge my original statement (in reference to the PCR test being inaccurate) being inaccurate, in reference to the attached linked that followed it. Let me be clear. You have convinced me, that now I take a neutral (probably more leaning to what you linked in the reply. This is why I thanked you. I have also crossed this out in my original post, and clearly sectioned off non-academic articles/videos.
I think you misread or misinterpreted that part, and instead spent 95% of the post attacking my grammatical errors in quoting your posts. Relax. I’m here to take it in, analyze, and break it back down. The mistake is corrected on the original post (under non academic)
In my post, I have made 10 points for vaccine hesitation, and directly cited close to 100 peer reviewed medical journals. I look forward to any thing else you might see wrong or in error.
I’m presenting data. How does that not make sense? Is it because it’s not favorable to you?
Hypothetical questions don’t thwart it, present data to combat it.
Last edited:
But Google says 73.8% are vaccinated in Iceland?The problem isn't that you aren't dumping enough text, it's that you're unwilling to maintain a focused conversation.
You're trying to create a clearinghouse for misinformation, rather than critically examining it. Pick a point of debate, support your point, read the responses given, and then respond to those directly. If you see the opposing view, acknowledge it. If you see a flaw in the response, point it out. If you feel that line of discussion has reached an impasse, say so and pick another distinct topic.
Just two quick and easy examples of where stuff you're linking just doesn't say what you think it does:
This is clearly wrong. It was revoked by the CDC in favor of tests that allow simultaneous testing of covid and influenza, not because the covid test is confounded by influenza.
Fact Check-CDC lab update on COVID-19 PCR tests misinterpreted
New guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) withdrawing their request for Emergency Use Authorization for a coronavirus test introduced in February 2020 do not mean that these polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests have failed to differentiate...www.reuters.com
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the vaccinated are more likely to get infected? Seriously, apply some critical thinking here.
77% of Icelanders are vaccinated, mostly because they're only starting to vaccinate the under 16 demographic. Without knowing anything about the lifestyle choices (ie. are the vaccinated more cavalier in their interactions) and employment of the vaccinated versus unvaccinated in Iceland, just assuming that everyone is exposed equally, if the vaccine were ineffective you'd expect to see 3 or 4 times as many cases among the vaccinated as among the unvaccinated. Instead what you see is closer to 1:1, so you are 3 or 4 times less likely to get infected if you're vaccinated.
The population of Iceland is 364k people. The entire country has less people than Wyoming. Iceland has 14 cases per 100,000 people. Wyoming has 69 per 100,000. Wyoming has a vaccination rate of 38%.
You still haven't corrected the misquoting of my original post. I don't care about grammatical errors as long as the meaning is clear enough. English isn't everyone's native language, and even among English speakers typos abound.
If you're going to put words in a box that claims I wrote them though, I expect them to be things I wrote. If you're going to abridge my statements for clarity, I expect the meaning to be unaltered by punctuation.
Combat what? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, and when I asked you simply repeated that the cases were vaccinated. Originally I assumed you meant that infected people were vaccinated and believed that meant the vaccine was ineffective. I showed you why it didn't mean the vaccine was ineffective. You came back with something, jokes aside, I still can't quite parse.
You linked to data from Iceland. How is that data relevant to this discussion?
Iceland says 279,121 people have been vaccinated. It depends on the population estimate you use to determine the percentage. I'm not sure what I used yesterday. I just back calculated again from the numbers in the Icelandic table though and if 263,531 is 72% of the population, then 279,121 is 76.3% Whatever population estimate I used yesterday must have been slightly different.
Not that any of that changes the point. As long as the percent vaccinated is more than 50%, then a 1:1 ratio favors vaccination.
Last edited:
You’re still hanging on to a settled topic. Are you ready to move on? I’m ready to discuss how the other 75+ sources are flawed.
Tactically, you also surgically quoted small parts of my post, to drum up hysteria, ignoring the rest.
Be better, provide data. Refute my original post and linked studies.
The problem is that you've shown that even if people do this, and refute every single assertion and link you've posted, point-by-point, you'll just ignore them, repost the exact same links again, and add some more.
I remembered I had a copy of Kaleidoscope, so out of interest, I extracted the links from your actual original post, the one I thoroughly responded to and which you just ignored, did the same with your latest "original post", and compared them. All 17 of the links you posted then, which I responded to and refuted in full, are ones you posted again in your newer post, even if you moved the order of some of them around and added more.
I'm not gonna tell @Analog Kid how to spend their time, but if my rebuttals for all 17 links you posted originally weren't good enough for you to even engage with, why would theirs be now you've posted them again and added 54 new ones?
So you say, "there is no evidence that the spike protein produced via the vaccines is crossing the blood-brain-barrier" but then goes on to quote a guy who says that 0.02% of the vax ends up in the brain. Well, there's 40 trillion lipid nanoparticles, so 40,000,000,000,000 x 0.02 = 800,000,000,000 lipid nanoparticles end up in your brain. So, let's say your right, that the spike itself doesn't cross into the blood brain barrier, even though it does, you're potentially putting 800 billion nanoparticles in your brain. That ain't good. That's 800 billion potential transfections into your brain's blood vessels and other tissues. No wonder we're seeing neurological issues.
The other thing you say is something that I address in my explanation. All of these people assume that the spike is only harmful when it is open. That's why you say here: "The spike protein in the Moderna, Pfizer and J&J vaccines (and the upcoming Novavax one) also had some proline mutations introduced into it which works to keep it in its prefusion form rather than the one it adopts to bind to ACE2 and do Bad Things."
But this assumption is false. The spike does its damage by the S1 protein connecting to the ACE2. That is in its closed prefusion form. Go read my explanation on the original post I go into more depth there.
Then you just says these things are rare, well that's a buzzword. Dying of covid is rare too but everyone takes that seriously. I have driven for 14 years, never had an accident because they are rare but millions of people die from them every year. Rare is a relative term and it get's thrown around a lot. It's not exactly a lot of comfort for the person who takes the vaccine and can't stop shaking anymore if you tell them their condition is rare. Their quality of life has been destroyed whereas they probably would have been fine from covid itself because covid doesn't transfect 800 billion nanoparticles into your brain.
The you say this study says things are just potential. You treat it like its all theoretical and only on paper, even though it's done on tissue which gives us a good indication that it will work the same way in the body. You say it only looks like it will do the damage but in real humans it hasn't been proven and we need to watch and wait. Great. Let's do that then and stop jabbing people until we can rule this out. Remember, drugs are guilty until proven innocent, not innocent until proven guilty.
Then you talk about the biodistribution stuff is not a concern because we're different from rats. Sure but we never got any better data because they chose to rush, so we go by what we have. Remember, guilty, not innocent. They need to prove to us that it is innocent. Show us the data that it does not spread in the human body. You also say that on paper the spikes were designed to stay anchored. And dismisses the study that shows they don't stay anchored. You see also the double standard? The other study was just theoretical and on paper so we can't take it seriously. But this completely unproven design must be working flawlessly. No. It too must be proven. Prove that the spikes don't get loose because in the study of the nurses 11 out of 13 had free floating spike. Guilty until proven innocent.
And you may be right about the targeting ligands but if they were targeting just the muscle, and we pump the vax into the muscle, then we would likely get a decent amount of transfection. It all depends on how fast the immune system picks up the lipid nanoparticles. And I unfortunately don't know that. I imagine it would take a few days to clear up 40 trillion of them. They could also have increased the amount of nanoparticles in each shot so that this wouldn't be a problem.
Last edited:
I will move on when you fix the public record and address my response on Iceland. I did not say this:
That's probably less critical except that I'd seen the earlier draft of your response where you implied I was agreeing with you, and the way you bolded the repeated word pattern and then excised the negative clause at the end of my sentence was designed to give that appearance. To your credit, you changed your response, but you left the distorted text.
I extracted specific bullets from your manifesto to begin focusing on. The fact that they are no longer bracketed by Thalidomide and Obama's birthday party doesn't change the fact that your interpretation of these two information sources is wrong. Based on what I'm seeing so far, I imagine many of the others are as well. We can move on to some of them if you like once we reach a conclusion on these.
You still have not responded on the Iceland post.
My apologies, most of the edits were done on safari on the mobile version of the site. It’s a nightmare with quotes. I did not intend to change the message of the quote. We are in agreement and I have changed my stance and edited a strike through the comment.
As far as Iceland, the data shows - out of all cases on that chart, a majority of those were vaccinated.