I feel your pain.
What for the evec to Croydon? Don't remember much at baby age. Little bit more older. Catching tadpoles at the creek and removing snails from the garden
The coronavirus response seems somewhat suspicious.
- Thread starter Holly-May Leslie
- Start date
What for the evec to Croydon? Don't remember much at baby age. Little bit more older. Catching tadpoles at the creek and removing snails from the garden
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/health/pfizer-paxlovid-pills-covid-treatment/index.html
Extract
After a month of follow-up, the study found five hospitalizations and no deaths among 697 people who received the drug within the first three days of symptoms. Among 682 who received placebo, 44 were hospitalized, including 9 who died. All of the adults in this study were unvaccinated.
The couple of paragraphs before that extract very interesting
Extract
After a month of follow-up, the study found five hospitalizations and no deaths among 697 people who received the drug within the first three days of symptoms. Among 682 who received placebo, 44 were hospitalized, including 9 who died. All of the adults in this study were unvaccinated.
The couple of paragraphs before that extract very interesting
Latest COVID-19 breakdown America
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Looks very grim for a disease which (sarc font engaged) might be dangerous as some say (sarc font off)
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Looks very grim for a disease which (sarc font engaged) might be dangerous as some say (sarc font off)
Michael, what are your thoughts on treating the disease? I have not read through this entire thread. But I believe you to have the accepted view that vaccines (any of the vaccines perhaps) are the way to end the pandemic and save lives. Point taken on that, however, the vaccines are not treatment for those who have already contracted. There is evidence that countries that have treated positive patients early and abundantly have done a much better job at reducing deaths. Is that a fair statement?Latest COVID-19 breakdown America
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Looks very grim for a disease which (sarc font engaged) might be dangerous as some say (sarc font off)
Have not followed to close the numerous treatments of patients infected with COVID-19
Those I have read about seem to follow accepted standard care. While being aware of the infectious cause (more not forgetting) ie aware no standard care exist for the cause TREAT THE SYMPTOMS
If a symptom has more than one form of treatment (this is where the artistry of medicine comes into play) use which your gut tells you would be best (a form of best guess under the circumstances)
Broadcast what works and read all you can about what has worked for others
This post has been flagged for disinformation. Members are reminded that medical disinformation can kill; don't do this sort of thing.
If you coffs a lot because the virus infection, then take some product for that.Headache? Take a product for that. Body pain? Take a product for that. That's all you can do until the infection diminish and the virus presence in your body is tolerated.
On the other hand, when you study mutations in viruses and bacteria, these won't happen without a cause. Mutations with bacteria ususally happen when the treatment is not completed and the survived bateria will keep reproducing but a modified offspring. Let say the treatment is ten days of one pill of antibiotics in order to be sure bacteria have been completely destroyed. But the patient stop the treatment at day four because he feels OK.
The anibiotics has already damaged the structure -organic or functional- of the bacteria, but as the treatment has not been completed, the survived bacteria will come out different, at that point that the same antibiotics won't work anymore, not because the bacteria is more resistant but simply because its organic/functional is different.
And even more, as a deformity has been made in the bacteria, if the bacteria used to feed themselves with sugars, after the degeneration caused by the incomplete treatmentalso has changed its diet,and bacteria might stop eating sugars and start eating the immune system cells. A catastrophic result.
I'm very skeptic with those vaccines against these Corona viruses because definitively won't stop their spread and on the contrary will cause them mutations, sometimes radical mutations.
I don't see their changes so radical before the last outcoming last year in the Chinses town. This Corona virus was already detected years before, but luckily no one tried to implements a vaccine agaisnt it, so it didn't mutate much.
The cause of the mutation which caused the Corona virus to spread easily all arpund the world stillis not found, but that the virus was compromised somehow in lab is the most plausible. Ohter new theory has started to spread that a meteorite impact caused such mutation. You can read lots of theories, allof them might be sound, but until now those are hard to prove as the valid cause.
To me, the implantation of an experimental vaccine in people isperhaps the greatest mistake made in order to stop the spread of the virus. This is like water in the walls of the foundation of your house. You can fill up with concrete all the outside walls of your basement, but water will find the way to get into your house. The only solution is to deviate the path of the water with pipes added to make the water go to a different location.
Vaccines against the Corona virus and the Flu are jus that, covering with concrete the walls of your basement, and next year water will get into your house thru the floor.
This is why every year the same old same old, vaccinations against the Flu, a never ended game.
Vaccines work great with polio because the transmition of this virus is completely different. So, I don't see science backing up vaccines against the Corona virus but totally the contrary, vaccines are the ones causing the radical mutations of the COVID 19 in merely two years after the infection spread.
To the question of how the virus mutate so radical, the explanation is that when you have a vaccinated individual and this individual is infected by the virus, the virus inside will neet an environment which will contain its free traffic inside the body. The mixing of the several chemicals included in the vaccine will attack the virus causing it mutations. Then, the vaccinated person will transmit to others the mutated virus, and there you go, a new wave with a "different virus" is the new sheriff in town.
What caused the mutation?
Sadly to say: The vaccines.
On the other hand, when you study mutations in viruses and bacteria, these won't happen without a cause. Mutations with bacteria ususally happen when the treatment is not completed and the survived bateria will keep reproducing but a modified offspring. Let say the treatment is ten days of one pill of antibiotics in order to be sure bacteria have been completely destroyed. But the patient stop the treatment at day four because he feels OK.
The anibiotics has already damaged the structure -organic or functional- of the bacteria, but as the treatment has not been completed, the survived bacteria will come out different, at that point that the same antibiotics won't work anymore, not because the bacteria is more resistant but simply because its organic/functional is different.
And even more, as a deformity has been made in the bacteria, if the bacteria used to feed themselves with sugars, after the degeneration caused by the incomplete treatmentalso has changed its diet,and bacteria might stop eating sugars and start eating the immune system cells. A catastrophic result.
I'm very skeptic with those vaccines against these Corona viruses because definitively won't stop their spread and on the contrary will cause them mutations, sometimes radical mutations.
I don't see their changes so radical before the last outcoming last year in the Chinses town. This Corona virus was already detected years before, but luckily no one tried to implements a vaccine agaisnt it, so it didn't mutate much.
The cause of the mutation which caused the Corona virus to spread easily all arpund the world stillis not found, but that the virus was compromised somehow in lab is the most plausible. Ohter new theory has started to spread that a meteorite impact caused such mutation. You can read lots of theories, allof them might be sound, but until now those are hard to prove as the valid cause.
To me, the implantation of an experimental vaccine in people isperhaps the greatest mistake made in order to stop the spread of the virus. This is like water in the walls of the foundation of your house. You can fill up with concrete all the outside walls of your basement, but water will find the way to get into your house. The only solution is to deviate the path of the water with pipes added to make the water go to a different location.
Vaccines against the Corona virus and the Flu are jus that, covering with concrete the walls of your basement, and next year water will get into your house thru the floor.
This is why every year the same old same old, vaccinations against the Flu, a never ended game.
Vaccines work great with polio because the transmition of this virus is completely different. So, I don't see science backing up vaccines against the Corona virus but totally the contrary, vaccines are the ones causing the radical mutations of the COVID 19 in merely two years after the infection spread.
To the question of how the virus mutate so radical, the explanation is that when you have a vaccinated individual and this individual is infected by the virus, the virus inside will neet an environment which will contain its free traffic inside the body. The mixing of the several chemicals included in the vaccine will attack the virus causing it mutations. Then, the vaccinated person will transmit to others the mutated virus, and there you go, a new wave with a "different virus" is the new sheriff in town.
What caused the mutation?
Sadly to say: The vaccines.
Nope. There are plenty of antivirals that work quite well for serious infections. And an intelligent person would get a vaccine beforehand if that virus were dangerous - that way the body recognizes the pathogen early on in the infection, and it does not manage to replicate very much.
No, your body doesn't "tolerate" the virus. It destroys it.
Correct. Those causes are:
Copying errors. Viruses replicate by taking over the cellular machinery that makes proteins, and using it to make copies of themselves. The copying process is not perfect. 99% of faulty copies just die; their errors cause them to become non-infectious.
Radiation. Radiation can change the sequences in an existing virus, so that the copies it makes contain the new (erroneous) sequences. Again 99% of them die.
But in both cases, the 1% that do survive can present antigens that existing antibodies will not bind to, thus rendering them a little more "invisible" to the immune system.
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about here.
Nope. They do not cause mutations. They merely provide selective pressures for the mutations that are happening anyway.
You get the least selective pressure one of two ways:
1) No one is vaccinated. There is therefore no selective pressure to change to a new form to evade the vaccine.
2) Everyone is vaccinated. Infections drop rapidly and there's many fewer mutations to begin with to be 'tested' against the vaccine.
The absolute worst thing to do is to vaccinate half the population and let the other half generate more virus. That way you have selective pressure AND a huge reservoir of mutating viruses to test against.
So congratulations, anti-vaxxers. You are COVID's best ally. Because of you, we will have years and years of mutations.
That is due to your ignorance and your preference for fake news.
Vaccines have for over a century been our first line of defense against pathogens. The polio vaccine was much worse than today's mRNA COVID vaccines. They were ineffective; early vaccines only reduced your odds of infection by a factor of 4. They were deadly; one bad batch killed 10 kids and paralyzed 200. But it worked, and within ten years the polio pandemic was over.
Terrible analogy. Vaccines work nothing like a water barrier.
Sounds like you know as much about virology as you know about EV's - i.e. nothing.
Your are contradicting yourself with your answer.
In case #1, no one is vaccinated, then the fight is against the same virus wich suffers minimal changes.
Besides, the virus does nothing to change itself in order to evade the vaccine.
Your words reveal your thoughts belong to the obsolete evolutionary idea of how mutations happen. Those mutations are NEVER controlled by the organism, read this clearly, mutations are NEVER controlled by the organisms. Same as wolves don't have any control the change the color of their skin to white in Winter season, same as well viruses do not control their mutations, they just adapt to the new changes caused by the invading stimuli. There is not such a thing as super bacteria or more resistant bacteria after treatments against them, but a deformation in their organism that by luck helps them to survive the same treatment attack. This is basic biology.
In case #2, everybody is vaccinated causes radical mutations in the virus and a new wave with a modified virus will come out. The consequence is to produce a new vaccine against the new virus, causing again new radical mutations, and a new vaccine, and more radical mutations, and more vaccines... you get the point. This is the game which is already enforced with the Flu virus every year, the cause of the new Flu virus is the vaccine made last year.
The best solution is not to vaccinate anyone, and just work alleviating the sysmptoms without compromising the virus. The reason for my thought is because you just can't force people to accept such a vaccine, specially when your famous vaccine is just experimental.
The entire humanity is now not in a greater danger but under a different danger each time, the health experts are shown to be a bunch of ignorant or simply a herd of stupid dudes who don't know how much damage they have caused against humanity. You know, if you are not an expert paramedic, then best for you is not to move a victim of an accident, because trying to help him you can cause him more damage.
In this case, when no one, read clearly, no one is an expert in COVID 19 virus, best was to protect the weak health people by isolation means, wearing masks, and alleviating the symptoms, such were the only neccessary steps.
Are you witness of how that war against drugs is not mentioned anymore by any government, such is because the drug traffic have won the war. Same will happen in a near future, when people will be used to new vaccines and the virus will be spreading every years anyway. With the similar pandemic Spanish flu, wearing masks and people becoming healthy again after the war was enough to make the human body to create better defenses against it.
What a waste of time and money with those vaccines, when simple and more effective measures could have been applied and perhaps the results were to be more favorable today.
The damage with those vaccines have been done, now, no other option but watch what will come next.
Please don't spread misinformation about health issues, it is dangerous.
This MIGHT, I use the word lightly, help bewildered - but doubtful
Cowpox is similar to, but much milder than, the highly contagious and often deadly smallpox disease.[3] Its close resemblance to the mild form of smallpox and the observation that dairy farmers[4] were immune to smallpox inspired the modern smallpox vaccine, created and administered by English physician Edward Jenner.[5]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowpox
You are laboring under the misconception that vaccines cause mutations. They do not.
So your assertion is that new vaccine-resistant strains show no genetic changes vs. previous strains?
Again, perhaps educate yourself first before making a fool of yourself.
Correct. They are "controlled" by entirely random factors.
Again, vaccines do nothing to cause mutations in a virus. They simply change the selective pressures.
You're a great example of a Trump supporter - often wrong but never in doubt.
I think you need to re-visit the context of what you are suggesting...
If the human race wishes to solve it's over-population crisis utilizing natural eugenics (natural selection) and allow for only "survival of the fittest" rather than employ it's intelligence to solve it's problems, sure, letting all manner of viruses decimate and cull the global population would be a good thing.
As long as it is not you who gets "euthanized" by the inevitable marauding death squads hell bent on eradicating those who are unwell, disabled or other wise become a liability, even temporarily, on society.
"But it is only a common cold" screamed the victim just as he is executed for being biologically unfit to exist in this dystopian nightmare.
The problem with your solution is that humans are capable of using their intelligence to artificially practice the sort of biological eugenics you are contemptuous of.
So sure the deeper philosophical discussion about "Nature vs Nurture" would be more appropriate for your stance on the enormous gains medical science has made to the quality of life for humans generally, when compared to those who existed thousands of years ago.
A similar discussion could take place concerning climate change with regards to human ingenuity potentially destroying it's own existence. Humans have been attempting to terra-form the planet since the first days of pulling weeds and lighting fires. But of course we had no idea of what we were doing then and still don't. I guess as with medicine we just have to learn how to master terra-forming if we as race are to survive in the long term.
Last edited:
Mod Hat — Mis-/Dis-
On the question of mis- or dis-information, the answer is that it's always unwelcome, and nobody ever really knows quite how to feel about homethrown crackpottery. Inasmuch as pretty much any substantive sentence in the post seems to require a "[citation needed]" note, we might consider some selected examples:
As another noted, there are antiviral drugs; the question of alleviating symptoms while trying to ride out viral infection is actually a statistical question calculating threshold comparing the risks of a particular tool against its benefits. Ask HIV patients; you probably don't want antivirals for a common cold or influenza.
Still, though, look what that bit of misinformation sets up:
The turn occurs in the second sentence of the excerpt. While the first sentence mentions viruses, subsequent discussion in these paragraphs focuses on bacteria; and the result is a catastrophic paragraph speculating about the wrong ranges of pathogen and treatment:
Remember, we can demand citation all we want, here, and when it is provided, even after we labor over the basic sketch in order to understand what our neighbor thinks he is referring to, it's still a different subject; the implicit inherent connection between his discussion of bacteria and the realities of the Covid-19 viruses is speculative at best, but functions as part of the setup to an uncertain sentence that nearly reads like a thesis statement of some sort:
This isn't quite how selection or evolution work; viral RNA is not alive; mutations are results, not responses, and the persistence of a particular result is circumstantially relative. Consider that viral components and even complete viruses fall out of the sky on a regular basis, and have done so pretty much as long as both RNA and rain have existed. One of the reasons we don't hear much about this is because it generally doesn't come to much; our bigger problem in a given moment might be the rain. If we cheer for drought because pieces of ebola might be up in the sky waiting to fall back down in a raindrop, we're doing it wrong. The more affecting viruses tend to arise from other circumstances.
Still, in trying to make sense of the two parts driving that pretense of skepticism, it's worth observing that no vaccine outright stops the spread of a viral disease, so that seems an inappropriate criterion. Also, noting the faulty assertion of similarity between antibiotic treatment of bacteria and vaccination against virus, it seems plainly clear that simple reiterations of confidence about what one does or doesn't "see science backing up" are insufficient. Regarding more technical explanations—
—we can only await the details. The mixing of chemicals, for instance, ought not be some mystery; certes, there are reviewed papers describing what they are, and how they "attack the virus", so ... er ... wait. There are? Okay, what are they? There ought to be, if this plain-sounding assertion of an extraordinary vaccine thesis, turns out to not be so extraordinary. So, where are these articles about how the mixing of several chemicals in a "vaccine" will do something a vaccine doesn't actually do.
Indeed, what stands out is the amount of incorrect information of dubious and mysterious origin we must accept in order for the underlying narrative to start to make sense. And in the end, it's just a heap of misinformation slouching its way through speculation toward a pretense of conclusion—
—we already know is wrong. We've known it for a while, too:
The prospect that this sort of misinformation is just an accident of circumstance or even passion, is pretty much unbelievable. As disinformation, it is unacceptable. It's one thing if we've filed this thread away in the Conspiracies subforum, but trying to misinform people in this particular manner can actually result in grave human harm. It is unclear why anyone would wish to inflict such harm; it is rather quite clear that we simply cannot accept it.
____________________
Notes:
Cyranoski, David. "Profile of a killer: the complex biology powering the coronavirus pandemic". Nature. 4 May 2020. Nature.com. 22 December 2021. https://go.nature.com/3padQ5J
On the question of mis- or dis-information, the answer is that it's always unwelcome, and nobody ever really knows quite how to feel about homethrown crackpottery. Inasmuch as pretty much any substantive sentence in the post seems to require a "[citation needed]" note, we might consider some selected examples:
As another noted, there are antiviral drugs; the question of alleviating symptoms while trying to ride out viral infection is actually a statistical question calculating threshold comparing the risks of a particular tool against its benefits. Ask HIV patients; you probably don't want antivirals for a common cold or influenza.
Still, though, look what that bit of misinformation sets up:
The turn occurs in the second sentence of the excerpt. While the first sentence mentions viruses, subsequent discussion in these paragraphs focuses on bacteria; and the result is a catastrophic paragraph speculating about the wrong ranges of pathogen and treatment:
Remember, we can demand citation all we want, here, and when it is provided, even after we labor over the basic sketch in order to understand what our neighbor thinks he is referring to, it's still a different subject; the implicit inherent connection between his discussion of bacteria and the realities of the Covid-19 viruses is speculative at best, but functions as part of the setup to an uncertain sentence that nearly reads like a thesis statement of some sort:
This isn't quite how selection or evolution work; viral RNA is not alive; mutations are results, not responses, and the persistence of a particular result is circumstantially relative. Consider that viral components and even complete viruses fall out of the sky on a regular basis, and have done so pretty much as long as both RNA and rain have existed. One of the reasons we don't hear much about this is because it generally doesn't come to much; our bigger problem in a given moment might be the rain. If we cheer for drought because pieces of ebola might be up in the sky waiting to fall back down in a raindrop, we're doing it wrong. The more affecting viruses tend to arise from other circumstances.
Still, in trying to make sense of the two parts driving that pretense of skepticism, it's worth observing that no vaccine outright stops the spread of a viral disease, so that seems an inappropriate criterion. Also, noting the faulty assertion of similarity between antibiotic treatment of bacteria and vaccination against virus, it seems plainly clear that simple reiterations of confidence about what one does or doesn't "see science backing up" are insufficient. Regarding more technical explanations—
—we can only await the details. The mixing of chemicals, for instance, ought not be some mystery; certes, there are reviewed papers describing what they are, and how they "attack the virus", so ... er ... wait. There are? Okay, what are they? There ought to be, if this plain-sounding assertion of an extraordinary vaccine thesis, turns out to not be so extraordinary. So, where are these articles about how the mixing of several chemicals in a "vaccine" will do something a vaccine doesn't actually do.
Indeed, what stands out is the amount of incorrect information of dubious and mysterious origin we must accept in order for the underlying narrative to start to make sense. And in the end, it's just a heap of misinformation slouching its way through speculation toward a pretense of conclusion—
—we already know is wrong. We've known it for a while, too:
Coronaviruses are also one of the few RNA viruses with a genomic proofreading mechanism — which keeps the virus from accumulating mutations that could weaken it. That ability might be why common antivirals such as ribavirin, which can thwart viruses such as hepatitis C, have failed to subdue SARS-CoV-2. The drugs weaken viruses by inducing mutations. But in the coronaviruses, the proofreader can weed out those changes.
Mutations can have their advantages for viruses. Influenza mutates up to three times more often than coronaviruses do, a pace that enables it to evolve quickly and sidestep vaccines. But coronaviruses have a special trick that gives them a deadly dynamism: they frequently recombine, swapping chunks of their RNA with other coronaviruses. Typically, this is a meaningless trading of like parts between like viruses. But when two distant coronavirus relatives end up in the same cell, recombination can lead to formidable versions that infect new cell types and jump to other species.
(Cyranoski↱)
Mutations can have their advantages for viruses. Influenza mutates up to three times more often than coronaviruses do, a pace that enables it to evolve quickly and sidestep vaccines. But coronaviruses have a special trick that gives them a deadly dynamism: they frequently recombine, swapping chunks of their RNA with other coronaviruses. Typically, this is a meaningless trading of like parts between like viruses. But when two distant coronavirus relatives end up in the same cell, recombination can lead to formidable versions that infect new cell types and jump to other species.
(Cyranoski↱)
The prospect that this sort of misinformation is just an accident of circumstance or even passion, is pretty much unbelievable. As disinformation, it is unacceptable. It's one thing if we've filed this thread away in the Conspiracies subforum, but trying to misinform people in this particular manner can actually result in grave human harm. It is unclear why anyone would wish to inflict such harm; it is rather quite clear that we simply cannot accept it.
____________________
Notes:
Cyranoski, David. "Profile of a killer: the complex biology powering the coronavirus pandemic". Nature. 4 May 2020. Nature.com. 22 December 2021. https://go.nature.com/3padQ5J
This post has been flagged for disinformation. Members are reminded to support their arguments, and in public health matters, it's kind of important.
This virus , coronavirus , is not acting Naturally . Its mutating way to fast .
perhaps instead of "naturally" you meant "normally". But then defining normal would be problematic with such a novel virus?
or
Why do you think this when really, this virus was and is virtually an unknown potential?
It is getting more known of its potential , continually . By science .
[citation needed]
Honestly, the idea of anyone staking their life on the petulant say-so of a two-bit crackpot who is never right is the kind of stupidity the human species ought not afford.