Fascinating New Study on What Happens to Vaxed Over Time

[saxitoxin]

It's looking more and more like Gary and JP4 are AIs. When confronted here with accumulating piles of peer-reviewed studies published in journals ranging from The Lancet, to the New England Journal of Medicine, to the British Medical Journal, they simply retreat to regurgitating the same 2021 talking points, no matter how dated or increasingly ludicrous they are when reflected against the evolving science.

[GaryDenton]

I am curious why conservatives became anti-science and education conspiracy theorists.

Peer pressure? All the propaganda they read?

We finally get good data and good studies from two states with good record-keeping and it confirms the conservative Republican anti-science, anti-mask, anti-vax policies killed over 60% more Republicans than Democrats that took precautions and got vaccinated.

So if he wants to support policies that kill Republican voters maybe I should say, stand by your principles.

[jimboston]

Is this video even real?

I’ve been trying to find an unbiased source.

There seems to be some possibility that this guy in the video is either…
- an actor playing as a Pfizer employee
- a mid-level Pfizer employee who pumped up his resume to attract higher quality dates

Can someone show an unbiased source?

So he’s an actor?

[saxitoxin]

I am curious why conservatives became anti-science

I forget, did you ever address these? Oh wait, I remember now. You didn't.

While not establishing causal relationships, the findings raise concerns regarding vaccine-induced undetected severe cardiovascular side-effects and underscore the already established causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis, a frequent cause of unexpected cardiac arrest in young individuals.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 512201982X





Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4206070





The incidence of myocardial lesions was 800 times above the usual incidence of myocarditis in 18-24 year olds who had completed their vaccination series.

https://www.cardio-online.fr/Actualites ... i-COVID-19





Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight.

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

Be great if you could eventually get around to these as I have another nine, recent (~60 days old) death and doom studies ready to go once you reply with your two year old vax safety data talking points you got from The Palmer Report and the Pfizer, Inc. PR department.

Peer pressure? All the propaganda they read?

It's because the most vaccine hesitant group are Ph.Ds who are more likely to read peer-reviewed studies about the vax. Meanwhile, Gary reads posts from The Palmer Report, Occupy Democrats, and the always reliable Unnamed Official at Unnamed Agency. (See above for an example of this phenomena in action.)

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 1.full.pdf

[saxitoxin]

Oh crap, new mainstream science just dropped. Gary is going to have to go scrambling to get his version of science (posts from The Palmer Report and Occupy Democrats) to respond!

Vaccination was associated with a 36% and 90% reduction in the risk of infection and hospitalization, respectively. Prior infection was associated with a 65% and 90% reduction in the risk of infection and hospitalization, respectively.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-28129-7

tl;dr - As a prior-infected pureblood, I'm less likely to get infected than a vax mutant. Just by doing nothing. Plus, I don't have a chemical manufactured by the most-fined and sanctioned pharma company in history, manufactured with 9 months of safety data, coursing through my veins forever and ever.

Hope you guys can get a few speed games in before the time bomb goes off!

[saxitoxin]

The people left who are still pro-vax in light of the last 90 days of new scientific studies -->

[GaryDenton]

LOL - somehow the conservatives here who are vaccine-hesitant are much more likely to have a high school education or below than have PhDs.

And saxi pulls some numbers and ignores the conclusion.

Vaccination was associated with a 36% (OR 0.64; 95%CI 0.62–0.66) and 90% (OR 0.10; 95%CI 0.07–0.14) reduction in the risk of infection and hospitalization, respectively. Prior infection was associated with a 65% (OR 0.35; 95%CI 0.30–0.40) and 90% (OR 0.10; 95%CI 0.07–0.14) reduction in the risk of infection and hospitalization, respectively. Vaccinated and recovered subjects showed a 63% (OR 0.37; 95%CI 0.34–0.14) and 98% (OR 0.02; 95%CI 0–0.13) reduction in the risk of infection and hospitalization, respectively. Vaccination remains an essential public health tool for preventing severe forms of COVID-19. Our study shows that vaccination or previous infection has a strong protective effect against Sars-CoV-2 hospitalization.

A lot of these studies have many caveats and don't really support whatever point saxi thinks he is making.

The Nature study, for example, suspects death is less common than previously estimated from COVID, particularly among the young, but most of the report is considering inaccuracies in measurement. And the conclusion, again, is the opposite of what he argues. If more people had not gotten vaccinated millions more would be dead.

Ratios of median IFRs using 20–29 years as reference group show a steep progression of the risk of dying from COVID-19 with increasing age (proportion ratio is 5.5 for those 30–39 years old, 17.5 for those 40–49 years old, 61.5 for those 50–59 years old, and 253 for those 60–69 years old compared with people 20–29 years old). Even if our median IFR estimates are lower than some previous calculations, this does not mean that COVID-19 could not have had an impact on the non-elderly at the population level, especially when the number of infected people was high. As shown in Appendix Table 3 if 100% of non-elderly people globally were to be infected without having the benefit of vaccination or other potentially beneficial interventions that were developed and implemented later in the pandemic, a total of 4.7–5.3 million deaths of people 0–69 years old are expected worldwide according to our IFR estimates. This includes 32–98 thousand deaths of people 0–29 years old. Three years after the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the large majority of the global population has indeed been infected at least once (Ioannidis, 2022) and an estimated 44% had been infected even before the advent of the Omicron wave in fall 2021 (COVID-19 Cumulative Infection Collaborators, 2022). If we assume half of the global non-elderly population infected without the benefit of vaccination or other beneficial interventions, this corresponds to 2.3–2.6 million deaths in people 0–69 years old, including 16–49 thousand deaths of people 0–29 years old. These absolute numbers of fatalities are overall probably modestly higher than seasonal flu fatalities over three typical pre-pandemic years (Ioannidis, 2022) when the entire 0–69 year old population is considered, but they are lower than pre-pandemic years when only the younger age strata are considered. For example, Iuliano et al. (2018) estimate 9243–105,690 deaths for children <5 years old per year based on data from 92 countries for seasonal influenza.

Moreover, in terms of absolute counts, the number of hospitalizations and intensive care unit admissions are many times higher than the number of deaths in the non-elderly (Herrera-Esposito and de los Campos, 2022), resulting in non-negligible clinical and health care burden. However, in depth analysis of population data of health utilization show that for the non-elderly (and even more so for children) the number of hospitalizations was shaped initially in many countries by the precautionary principle, admitting many people to the hospital, especially early in the pandemic, while hospitalization rates declined over time. For example, population-level data from Vojvodina (Medić et al., 2022a) shows that 100% of COVID-19-diagnosed children and adolescents were hospitalized in the first wave (March–June 2020), but the hospitalization rate among COVID-19-diagnosed children and adolescents dropped to 0.8% in 2021. While some poor and disadvantaged locations may have had low numbers of hospitalizations due to lack of hospital beds and/or poor access to care, in many locations excessive hospitalizations may have been driven by irrationally high perceptions of IFR for non-elderly people and they may have caused unnecessary stress and damage to the health care system at large.

Saxi argues from the conclusion he has reached from his opinions and the propaganda he has been exposed to and cherry-picks the studies to support his anti-science, anti-math, and anti-statistics conclusions.

[jusplay4fun]

LOL - somehow the conservatives here who are vaccine-hesitant are much more likely to have a high school education or below than have PhDs.

And saxi pulls some numbers and ignores the conclusion.

Vaccination was associated with a 36% (OR 0.64; 95%CI 0.62–0.66) and 90% (OR 0.10; 95%CI 0.07–0.14) reduction in the risk of infection and hospitalization, respectively. Prior infection was associated with a 65% (OR 0.35; 95%CI 0.30–0.40) and 90% (OR 0.10; 95%CI 0.07–0.14) reduction in the risk of infection and hospitalization, respectively. Vaccinated and recovered subjects showed a 63% (OR 0.37; 95%CI 0.34–0.14) and 98% (OR 0.02; 95%CI 0–0.13) reduction in the risk of infection and hospitalization, respectively. Vaccination remains an essential public health tool for preventing severe forms of COVID-19. Our study shows that vaccination or previous infection has a strong protective effect against Sars-CoV-2 hospitalization.

A lot of these studies have many caveats and don't really support whatever point saxi thinks he is making.

The Nature study, for example, suspects death is less common than previously estimated from COVID, particularly among the young, but most of the report is considering inaccuracies in measurement. And the conclusion, again, is the opposite of what he argues. If more people had not gotten vaccinated millions more would be dead.

Ratios of median IFRs using 20–29 years as reference group show a steep progression of the risk of dying from COVID-19 with increasing age (proportion ratio is 5.5 for those 30–39 years old, 17.5 for those 40–49 years old, 61.5 for those 50–59 years old, and 253 for those 60–69 years old compared with people 20–29 years old). Even if our median IFR estimates are lower than some previous calculations, this does not mean that COVID-19 could not have had an impact on the non-elderly at the population level, especially when the number of infected people was high. As shown in Appendix Table 3 if 100% of non-elderly people globally were to be infected without having the benefit of vaccination or other potentially beneficial interventions that were developed and implemented later in the pandemic, a total of 4.7–5.3 million deaths of people 0–69 years old are expected worldwide according to our IFR estimates. This includes 32–98 thousand deaths of people 0–29 years old. Three years after the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the large majority of the global population has indeed been infected at least once (Ioannidis, 2022) and an estimated 44% had been infected even before the advent of the Omicron wave in fall 2021 (COVID-19 Cumulative Infection Collaborators, 2022). If we assume half of the global non-elderly population infected without the benefit of vaccination or other beneficial interventions, this corresponds to 2.3–2.6 million deaths in people 0–69 years old, including 16–49 thousand deaths of people 0–29 years old. These absolute numbers of fatalities are overall probably modestly higher than seasonal flu fatalities over three typical pre-pandemic years (Ioannidis, 2022) when the entire 0–69 year old population is considered, but they are lower than pre-pandemic years when only the younger age strata are considered. For example, Iuliano et al. (2018) estimate 9243–105,690 deaths for children <5 years old per year based on data from 92 countries for seasonal influenza.

Moreover, in terms of absolute counts, the number of hospitalizations and intensive care unit admissions are many times higher than the number of deaths in the non-elderly (Herrera-Esposito and de los Campos, 2022), resulting in non-negligible clinical and health care burden. However, in depth analysis of population data of health utilization show that for the non-elderly (and even more so for children) the number of hospitalizations was shaped initially in many countries by the precautionary principle, admitting many people to the hospital, especially early in the pandemic, while hospitalization rates declined over time. For example, population-level data from Vojvodina (Medić et al., 2022a) shows that 100% of COVID-19-diagnosed children and adolescents were hospitalized in the first wave (March–June 2020), but the hospitalization rate among COVID-19-diagnosed children and adolescents dropped to 0.8% in 2021. While some poor and disadvantaged locations may have had low numbers of hospitalizations due to lack of hospital beds and/or poor access to care, in many locations excessive hospitalizations may have been driven by irrationally high perceptions of IFR for non-elderly people and they may have caused unnecessary stress and damage to the health care system at large.

Saxi argues from the conclusion he has reached from his opinions and the propaganda he has been exposed to and cherry-picks the studies to support his anti-science, anti-math, and anti-statistics conclusions.

Gary Gets IT.

+1

[saxitoxin]

Saxi argues from the conclusion he has reached from his opinions and the propaganda he has been exposed to

In Gary's world Nature is propaganda and The Palmer Report is science.

In Gary's world The Lancet is propaganda and Occupy Democrats is science.

In Gary's world The BMJ is propaganda and The Raw Story is science.

Gary has been exposed to such irrational and unhinged DNC conspiracy theorizing that he is unable to recognize up from down, black from white, left from right. The brilliance of the regime was to inflate the self-esteem of a generation with BA degrees from ACE-accredited pseudo diploma mills like Something State University and convince them they weren't as dumb as society had told them; and that, somehow, they could prove it by letting corporate propaganda be firehosed straight into their skulls.

[jimboston]

Did anyone ever confirm IF this guy works for Pfizer.. and if soon what role?

[saxitoxin]

After questioning the value of general mask-wearing early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention decided the practice was so demonstrably effective that it should be legally mandated even for 2-year-olds. A new review of the evidence suggests the CDC had it right the first time.

That review, published by the Cochrane Library, an authoritative collection of scientific databases, analyzed 18 randomized controlled trials that aimed to measure the impact of surgical masks or N95 respirators on the transmission of respiratory viruses. It found that wearing a mask in public places “probably makes little or no difference” in the number of infections.

These findings go to the heart of the case for mask mandates, a policy that generated much resentment and acrimony during the pandemic.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists ... cob-sullum

They got it wrong about masks but got it right about a chemical compound manufactured by a company that, in 2009, received the largest health care fraud fine in American history and whose lab supervisors, in the development of the COVID-19 vaccine, were discovered by The British Medical Journal to have falsified safety data?

Note- Links in this post go to the following sites: U.S. Department of Justice, British Medical Journal, Chicago Sun Times.
Incoming rebuttal from Tweedledee, Tweedledum, and Tweedledumbass ... Gary: "These are propaganda outlets! Here's a Tweet from Occupy Democrats to set the record straight. Also, read this article I found on a site run by a Korean religious cult." JP4 response: "Thanks Gary, for exposing saxi's lies!" Jimboston: "I agree with JP4 and Gary -- but only this one time for 27th time."

[jimboston]

After questioning the value of general mask-wearing early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention decided the practice was so demonstrably effective that it should be legally mandated even for 2-year-olds. A new review of the evidence suggests the CDC had it right the first time.

That review, published by the Cochrane Library, an authoritative collection of scientific databases, analyzed 18 randomized controlled trials that aimed to measure the impact of surgical masks or N95 respirators on the transmission of respiratory viruses. It found that wearing a mask in public places “probably makes little or no difference” in the number of infections.

These findings go to the heart of the case for mask mandates, a policy that generated much resentment and acrimony during the pandemic.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists ... cob-sullum

They got it wrong about masks but got it right about a chemical compound manufactured by a company that, in 2009, received the largest health care fraud fine in American history and whose lab supervisors, in the development of the COVID-19 vaccine, were discovered by The British Medical Journal to have falsified safety data?

Note- Links in this post go to the following sites: U.S. Department of Justice, British Medical Journal, Chicago Sun Times.
Incoming rebuttal from Tweedledee, Tweedledum, and Tweedledumbass ... Gary: "These are propaganda outlets! Here's a Tweet from Occupy Democrats to set the record straight. Also, read this article I found on a site run by a Korean religious cult." JP4 response: "Thanks Gary, for exposing saxi's lies!" Jimboston: "I agree with JP4 and Gary -- but only this one time for 27th time."

1) You are misrepresenting what the study states… not 100% outright lie but some definite tweaking to fit your agenda.

2) Please please please don’t say that I agree with JP4. I’d rather jump in a pool of covid infected zombies than be accused of agreeing with him.

[saxitoxin]

After questioning the value of general mask-wearing early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention decided the practice was so demonstrably effective that it should be legally mandated even for 2-year-olds. A new review of the evidence suggests the CDC had it right the first time.

That review, published by the Cochrane Library, an authoritative collection of scientific databases, analyzed 18 randomized controlled trials that aimed to measure the impact of surgical masks or N95 respirators on the transmission of respiratory viruses. It found that wearing a mask in public places “probably makes little or no difference” in the number of infections.

These findings go to the heart of the case for mask mandates, a policy that generated much resentment and acrimony during the pandemic.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists ... cob-sullum

They got it wrong about masks but got it right about a chemical compound manufactured by a company that, in 2009, received the largest health care fraud fine in American history and whose lab supervisors, in the development of the COVID-19 vaccine, were discovered by The British Medical Journal to have falsified safety data?

Note- Links in this post go to the following sites: U.S. Department of Justice, British Medical Journal, Chicago Sun Times.
Incoming rebuttal from Tweedledee, Tweedledum, and Tweedledumbass ... Gary: "These are propaganda outlets! Here's a Tweet from Occupy Democrats to set the record straight. Also, read this article I found on a site run by a Korean religious cult." JP4 response: "Thanks Gary, for exposing saxi's lies!" Jimboston: "I agree with JP4 and Gary -- but only this one time for 27th time."

1) You are misrepresenting

Those two black curvy things are called quote marks. They indicate when someone else is speaking.

[GaryDenton]

I quote from the studies Saxi posted that he ignored their conclusions.
Saxi's response is to ignore that, smear me, and say I use propaganda sites instead of his real science sites.
Again, he cherry-picks articles to fit his opinions and ignores the conclusions and data in the reports that don't fit his anti-science opinions and loves smearing people.

[jonesthecurl]

Foe him and you won't have to be bothered with his nonsense.

[saxitoxin]

I quote from the studies Saxi posted that he ignored their conclusions.

LOL, no you didn't. You scoured them for random, mid-paper sentences, slapped them up, and screamed "AH HA!"

I quoted from the abstracts. I know you don't understand how scientific publishing works, given your reliance on the low brow Democratic conspiracy theory corporate media echo chamber like The Palmer Report, Occupy Democrats, and The Raw Story. But that's not my fault.

Further, each of the authors of these papers have been unambiguous in their discussion -- in the popular press -- about the serious questions about the vax. For you to imagine that somehow I'm misinterpreting them and they're actually Pro Mega Corporation (like you) belies and underscores the extent of your ignorance and sheer foolishness.

[saxitoxin]

Foe him

The way things are going for him, launching a full retreat is probably sound advice.

[GaryDenton]

After accusing me of using biased sites, Saxi launches a new attack on wearing masks and supposed problems with the CDC with an opinion article from a Libertarian conservative from Reason magazine published in a conservative column in a newspaper. No hypocrisy there!

I expect nothing less from Saxi. Supposedly the opinion writer is just reporting the conclusions of studies but you can see how opinionated biases can distort reports in reputable journals, as Saxi constantly does.

Here is a balanced report on this review without the smears and distortions -

"Despite being three years into the pandemic, it is still unclear whether masks are effective at slowing the spread of respiratory viruses such as the coronavirus or influenza, according to a research review published in Cochrane Library. For the review, researchers examined 78 studies that assessed the use of various masks among more than 610,000 participants across different settings in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. Although some of these studies were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza and COVID-19 pandemics, many were conducted during flu seasons "in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19," the researchers wrote. Overall, the researchers found that studies comparing medical or surgical masks to no masks suggesting that masking "will probably make little to no difference" on the number of COVID-19 or flu cases. Similar findings were found for studies that examined healthcare workers N95/P2 respirators. According to the researchers, some potential reasons why masking was not found to be effective include poor study design, low adherence to masking rules, and mask quality. "Our review has provided important insights into research gaps that need to be addressed with respect to these physical interventions and their implementation and have been brought into a sharper focus as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic," the researchers wrote.

And here is the Cochrane published conclusion:

Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?
Key messages
We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.

Hand hygiene programmes may help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.

https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses

[saxitoxin]

We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.

https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses

Ummm ... yes, that's exactly right.

The OP was that there is no evidence -- as claimed by the CDC -- that masks effectively prevent spread of COVID-19. No one claimed it's been demonstrated masks are ineffective or counter-effective. Merely that there is no evidence of efficacy. The conclusion "we are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed" is 100% consistent with that.

Didn't they teach reading comprehension at Something State University, Gary? You've previously demonstrated you have a low ability to understand scientific literature and prefer to receive information via all caps Facebook posts but this is a little bit of a faceplant even for you.

[saxitoxin]

Absolutely shocking. If you thought it was bad before, you ain't seen nothing yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyfx9FwmHMY&t=42s

[GaryDenton]

Saxi rote:

In Gary's world Nature is propaganda and The Palmer Report is science.

In Gary's world The Lancet is propaganda and Occupy Democrats is science.

In Gary's world The BMJ is propaganda and The Raw Story is science.

Not only are these lies from Saxi but I suppose I might have to go review everything I posted and see where, or if, I used Occupy Democrats, Palmer Report, and Raw Story, and if I did, how.

The science sites are not propaganda but Saxi cherry-picks their articles and often specifically ignores their conclusions to create propaganda to support his anti-science opinions, as I previously demonstrated.

This is so tiresome and like many conservatives this year Saxi is sinking further into hate and unreality.
I stated before it has been proven all the anti-science propaganda really does is kill off more conservatives than non-conservatives so it may be best to just ignore his illogical screeds. Evolution will work.

[saxitoxin]

The science sites are not propaganda but Saxi cherry-picks their articles and often specifically ignores their conclusions to create propaganda to support his anti-science opinions, as I previously demonstrated.

Repeating this ad infinitum won't make it true. As was demonstrated, you don't understand how journal writing works. The abstract, which I cited, contains the conclusion. A random sentence in the literature review on line 234 is not the conclusion. The literature review is a chronicle of all perspectives, not the research and definitely not the conclusion.

You really need to ask for a refund from the University of Phoenix or Southern New Hampshire University Online or wherever you went to school.

Evolution will work.

In sha'Allah

[saxitoxin]

Just to give the knife another twist, here is the full and unedited abstract from one of the six studies I posted that Gary - illiterately - claims I've misrepresented and is actually pro vaccination!

Students at North American universities risk disenrollment due to third dose COVID-19 vaccine mandates. We present a risk-benefit assessment of boosters in this age group and provide five ethical arguments against mandates. We estimate that 22,000 - 30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation. Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities. Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable. University booster mandates are unethical because: 1) no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group; 2) vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people; 3) mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission; 4) US mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and 5) mandates create wider social harms. We consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialisation and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support. Finally, we discuss the relevance of our analysis for current 2-dose COVID-19 vaccine mandates in North America.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4206070

This is what Gary is claiming is a pro-vaccination (!) study I've mischaracterized. If this is pro-vaccination ... yikes!

Gary needs to stick to his usual conspiracy theory sites; Occupy Democrats, The Palmer Report, The Raw Story, etc. There's no shame in reading to your level.

[jimboston]

Absolutely shocking. If you thought it was bad before, you ain't seen nothing yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyfx9FwmHMY&t=42s

Clearly Saxi has proven his point here.

Why is there further debate?

[mookiemcgee]