Sharpe

If the input lag is noticeably less than his last monitor he might have some improvement. There is also the being able to see more/better factor - particularly at distance. Mine is a 24" and I'm only about 1 foot away lol. @IceLizard Not sure if you know about it but always worth checking to make sure you are getting the full frame rate : https://www.testufo.com/

There was a virologist I read about recently who had some major concerns about the current vaccination campaign. Managed to find him again. Yes his degree is in veterinary medicine, however his phd is in virology and it appears he has extensive experience in the field. https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/ This is again well above my ability to even begin to question never mind refute. This is the type of stuff that gives me pause. I actually nearly posted a link a while back to Bret Weinstein and his wife discussing potential vaccine concerns, they aren't against vaccines they were just voicing concerns about the potentiality of long term side effects. I see he has coincidentally had Geert Vanden Bossche on his podcast 4 days ago. I haven't had the time to listen to it yet but will give it a watch and see what they say. I've known about Bret Weinstein for a few years now and he has always come across as a thoughtful, intelligent and reasonable person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNyAovuUxro&t=1s

I can't believe the bbc actually did what appears to be a fairly balanced article on vaccine concerns : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-56665396 I think overall it paints a similar picture to the one I was trying to make. I would add that I am still concerned about new side effects emerging, however the longer the vaccines are rolled out the less likely they are to appear. It would be great if they could work out why a very small minority are prone to these clots. I think that that, along with further individual analysis of a persons own unique risk factors and how that may tip the scale in regards to likely severity of symptoms, would be useful in making a choice about whether to get vaccinated, particularly in the young. Protection of the few unable to get vaccinated would potentially remain an issue. In lieu of vaccination to protect others you could look at other measures for this, however this should be proportional to the overall risk in my opinion. Viral prevalence, advancements in treatment, etc., would play a role in determining potential reasonable measures to be taken. That is a whole other can of worms though.

I get it. I do hope the vaccines on the whole are a major success with minimal side effects. Keep in mind that there are people out there who have experienced iatrogenesis, this can make you extremely hesitant to receive any medical treatment, not just vaccines. If I knew for certain that I wouldn't experience ill effects, yes I would take the vaccine to protect the few that are unable to receive it themselves. I don't wish ill health and death on strangers.

Sorry but no, they are fucking awful and need to go. I'm not accustomed to shit. At least in America you have the choice of moving to a mask or non-mask state depending on your preference.

You started the post with "Some of you are silly" which is pretty condescending, as if there aren't legitimate reasons for concern. I replied jokingly as we had had a reasonable, lengthy debate about a month ago and didn't think we were on the level of needing to start throwing ad this and ad that around if we didn't provide evidence for every remark. You already knew where I stood. Just try not to talk in such absolutes. I get it, you think the vaccine is a good for you and for most people. Fair enough. You think any potential risks are worth it. You think those risks are extremely minimal. You can't say with 100% certainty that there aren't possible unknown side effects, not including those that have already come to light. I'll be honest, having to sit and look up all the information I have processed on this issue to provide links etc is time consuming and I can't really be fucked anymore lol. I think I said it in the last thread, we agree to disagree. I thought we were able to poke a little fun at each other perhaps in place of further discussion to the point of ad nauseum, but perhaps you feel too strongly about this issue for that.

Your post above isn't filled with links and citations? I need to provide links to every idea/statement I make but you don't? Also clearly ignoring the several well thought out posts I responded with in the previous thread and now smugly trying to make it look like I can't present any kind of an argument when your own post is filled with conjecture. You are clever and write well, better than me I would say - but don't try and use latin to make it look like I am not saying anything of substance, just because you don't like it. Part of my argument is that we don't know - thus it can't be proven. It should be up to the individual. The vaccines may very well be worth it for the vast majority. The cost benefit analysis greatly improves the older you become. We do have evidence, from the past and currently, about potential harms of vaccines : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix Here is my last post in the previous thread which you didn't respond to :" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56665517 "Under-30s in the UK are to be offered an alternative Covid vaccine to the AstraZeneca jab due to the evidence linking it to rare blood clots."" https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html Current best estimate ifrs from the cdc - although we don't know to what extent the death count has been inflated. In the UK as an example all deaths within 28 days of a positive test are counted in the official tally. 0-17 years old - 0.005% 18-49 years old - 0.05% - Although I think this one will be weighted heavily towards 40+ 50-64 years old - 0.6% 65 + 9% - Would like to see a bigger split here, 65-75 will be noticeably less than 80-90. "I believe that people that don't want to get vaccinated should be barred from public venues, so they don't kill others with their inconsideration. Their attitude is 'fuck them.' So, fuck them. Many have blood on their hands just as surely as if they walked-up & shot someone in the head. Worse actually, because at least that'd be a quick death compared to protracted, cascading multiple organ failure or a nice, slow suffocation due to pulmonary interstitial fluid accumulation. But let's go with the 'I'm being a dick' premise, since it's more convenient." I actually thought you were arguing reasonably sanely in the previous thread but this is unhinged. I find it sad if you actually think this. If you are this far gone, there is nothing I can say that you will find reasonable and vice versa to be honest. Maybe this is why it appears you are becoming more aggressive, as you find most of my viewpoints abhorrent. I'll state this clearly for you. Even if this was the black plague with an ifr of 50% I wouldn't force or coerce medical treatment on anyone, and still wouldn't have mandatory lockdowns or masks etc. I wonder where such posts were with the flu all these years (which actually kills more young people) and other various maladies. How about traffic fatalities? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year "For 2016 specifically, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day.[1]" Looks like we better get rid of driving immediately - wait no that would be ludicrous. You could make the argument that you are a brilliant driver, that you have never been in a crash. Unfortunately humans are error prone. Didn't sleep well last night? Better not drive the next day as your risk of killing someone has definitely gone up. Life is inherently risky. You are going to die. It would be better to live in as free a world as possible not run by tyrannical loons trying to control everything you do.

Please see the many previous replies in the last thread we had a debate in. "The chances of contracting COVID & it fucking you up are WAAAY higher than any danger the vaccine presents." Across all age groups? We definitely know for certain all possible side effects, there are no possible further surprises that could appear like the blood clot issue with astra zeneca? To reiterate what I think my main point in the other thread was - there is a vast continuum of risk from young to old and I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty that if you are young and healthy the potential risks of a vaccine outweigh the benefits. The cost benefit analysis improves the older and unhealthier you get. I don't think if you are young and healthy with a minute risk, that it is worth taking the chance at this moment in time. 70 with high blood pressure and obese? Probably worth it. This leaves aside the moral aspect of "protecting" others which is a separate issue. "a surprising number are going to be living with long-term or permanent damage to various systems of their body" What percentage is "a surprising number"? How does this stratify across age groups?

Speaking in some strange absolutes here. Do you work for Pfizer? @PHUCKITMANDo you drive?

A few family members had similar symptoms, maybe not quite as bad, that also went away quickly. This was after 1st astra zeneca dose.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56665517 "Under-30s in the UK are to be offered an alternative Covid vaccine to the AstraZeneca jab due to the evidence linking it to rare blood clots." Well gee guys thanks for picking that up in the clinical trial. Guess they won't be going ahead with their experimentation on children, too late for the ones that got it already : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56656356 Imagine enrolling your kid in one of these trials when their risk is almost 0 if they are healthy. I'm sure all potential side effects have now been found. But hey let's potentially kill or fuck up my almost 0 risk 8 year old to "save" 90 year old grandpa. Makes sense. Almost if by coincidence the same day this all happens, moderna starts rolling out in the UK. Sign me up.

Well I hope you are right. There are other treatments (pandemrix which I mentioned) that had major issues after coming to market that give me pause. I see no reason to personally take the risk, even if it is minute. As stated previously, that equation changes the older you get. I'm sure the websites you mention paint the vaccines in a very positive light, as I'm sure they did 10 or so years ago. I wouldn't mind seeing the links, I may even have read some of them already. You asked 7toes for some evidence that steps were skipped so I provided some evidence. That doesn't make it fact either. Everyone hopefully gets to make their own minds up, but I guess we will see on that front.

"And if this DNA is not digested well enough, if residues are left, this harbours risks – I’ll come back to the risks from DNA residues, but the activity of the enzymes has to be monitored well and at the end you need to have a pure RNA without any more DNA. And that is not the case. BioNTech has admitted that there are DNA contaminants." "So. Requirements were also made relating to the fact that they have not conducted a transport verification study. This means they have no idea whether the vaccine is still viable after transportation. That is currently being performed." "It was found that the integrity of the RNA always varies in the batches that had been made. I will come back to that again. There needs to be a standard that is always the same for each batch. This should be used as the reference to measure the standard. And they only have this of course for the processes of the clinical phase. Now we have to generate a new standard for the new manufacturing processes, i.e., for the commercial sales. That hasn’t been done yet, they are in the process of doing that now." "So it is theoretically possible that this linearised DNA that is in there as a contaminant could integrate into the host’s cell nucleus in a dividing cell, linearised DNA is optimal for integration. Circular DNA is not. DNA from bacteria is circular and is not as easy to integrate. It happens, but not so often. But as soon as you have a situation like we do here, it will happen more often. That is the risk. I didn’t really want to get into what can happen if this is the case: genes can be switched on and off, upregulated and downregulated, cancer can develop – there are a lot more possibilities. So this contamination definitely has to be reduced." "WW: But these are processes that are probably not the same in all patients. Whether this happens at all is stochastic at the most, and if it does happen, the results are probably also dependent on each individual and what else is going on in their cells. So one can’t say put that in and this is what will happen, these are eventualities – if a million or so and so many thousands of people are vaccinated, then one can perhaps say with a certain degree of probability after 10 or 20 years whether something will happen or not. VSK: Yes. WW: With some things perhaps after 3 or 4 years. But one needs some time to be able to detect such effects clinically. VSK: That’s exactly right. One never finds a group that all have the same mutation, this varies in people - exactly." "VSK: That’s fine. So I’ll continue. There are also contaminants with regard to the lipids (30.32). There are two new lipids, they have focused on them. One is ALC-0315, that is the cationic lipid, and the other is ALC-0159, the PEGylated peptide, the PEG component. And they have found that the end product – that there are contaminants in the end product in some batches. They don’t know where this is coming from, probably from the cationic lipid." "The EMA Committee issued complaints about 20 points in total regarding Good Manufacturing Practice. These are very extensive points, it will be quite a challenge to manage this in half a year I’d say, and they have issued 23 recommendations for further development of the quality of the of the product. And then there are another six pages at the end: I’ll quote from that: “The assessment of the safety risk is considered acceptable; there are theoretical calculations of worst-case concentrations from residues from the manufacturing process, but these have been found to be below established safety limits”. What this means is that our health depends on theoretical calculations, and not on actual tests in practice." Sorry to copy and paste so much, that's about half way into it. Could easily copy more. None of this fills me with confidence. As I stated I can't speak to the veracity of these claims. If she is telling the truth, it looks like things have been rushed. Personally given my own personal level of risk, I see no reason to risk potential side effects. I don't have the expertise to know if she is making up these claims or exaggerating them. If there is even a small chance she is telling the truth that is plenty for me.

The risk of serious complications may well be minimal or non-existent. I see no reason to take the chance at this stage. They said Pandemrix was safe before it was taken off the market. Why were the serious life altering side effects (for a small minority) not discovered during the clinical trials before it was brought to market? Does the human species understand physiology well enough to say with absolute certainty that "x" treatment won't cause complications? I don't get medical interventions to protect others. If they want protection, they can take the vaccine themselves if they think it is a good idea. For the small minority that can't, sorry still not doing it. I haven't seen the massive drive for personal responsibility in all this to reduce obesity rates for example, which is a major risk factor for dieing from coronavirus.

It "feels suspicious" when they are trying to get perfectly healthy young people to take the vaccine for something that has almost no risk to them. This is easily explained by fear and greed however. Fear because "everyone must get the vaccine for everyone to be safe" which is really just a ruse for fattening wallets. Even if all the usual protocols were followed, how long does it take for antibody dependent enhancement to develop? Prion disease? Autoimmunity? What about the narcolepsy that hundreds developed after the swine flu vaccine 10 years ago? Maybe these effects would have shown up by now, I haven't taken the extra step of researching this as personally I have no plans on getting vaccinated. I do hope the vaccine is very successful with minimal complications. Very few medical interventions are without risk though. So where you are on the continuum of risk should play a role in your choosing whether to receive the vaccine or not. I see a lot of people say they'd rather have vaccine side effects for a day or two than the virus. Well how about if you are 20 and the virus is a slightly raised temperature for a few days and not much else or the risk of lifelong narcolespy (hypothetically)? Not really a good trade off. The decision is perhaps more difficult in the 50-60 range where risk somewhat increases relative to those that are younger.

All I know is when you take some humans and inject fear and greed, the chances of something going wrong skyrocket. To me the individual needs to weigh up their own risk associated with contracting coronavirus and decide if the vaccine is a good idea for them. Telling a perfectly healthy 20 year old that has a minuscule risk to take any of the vaccines that from certain perspectives appear to have been rushed to market seems shortsighted. Iatrogenesis is real, there is no reason to risk potential life long complications if your risk is very low. On the other hand if you are an 80 year old diabetic heart disease patient it's probably a worthwhile risk.

This is meaty, but you asked : http://enformtk.u-aizu.ac.jp/howard/gcep_dr_vanessa_schmidt_krueger/ "The problem that BioNTech had is that in the clinical phase the product, i.e. the RNA, was produced with completely different techniques to how it is being produced now. During the clinical phase they only needed small volumes of vaccine, they were able to use very expensive techniques that delivered highly purified end products. Now that they have entered mass production, that is no longer possible, they have had to switch to lower-cost processes, e.g. using huge quantities of DNA that functions as the substrate to be able to produce the RNA in an in-vitro transcription reaction." So – the integrity of the RNA means of course the RNA quality. They have found that this is not very high: it was higher for the processes during the clinical phase. In this report they don’t say how high it is, but I have other information that says 78% of the RNA was good [translator: this refers to the integrity], the remainder was not, but now they have found new batches with only 55% RNA integrity, i.e., half of it is basically unviable." I can't speak to the veracity of her claims, well above my pay grade. Reiner Fuellmich is German/American lawyer preparing lawsuits in America, Canada and elsewhere due to the mishandling of the coronavirus response.

@BigPapaDean Try scanning your computer with this tool and it will tell you your motherboard and how much ram and hard drive space you currently have : https://www.crucial.com/store/systemscanner

What's your stance on mandatory vaccination? Vaccine passports? When governments say that the vaccine is "safe", do you believe that that means there is zero risk some people will have long term negative consequences from said vaccine?

Mw2 doesn't run punkbuster.

Steam? https://www.xtremeidiots.com/forums/topic/71924-houston-we-have-a-problem/ Jesters first post on page 1 has the files.

Welcome

Welcome