1989 replies to this topic

[joesixpack]

Thanks for the information Dorian, so Echinacea may not be a long term solution, will read the study and keep it in mind. Might be a something to use when going into crowds, going to ball games etc, which is where I may be getting hit. My protocol is a lot like yours, obviously with some differences. I think I can beat it when I get it, I just don't want to get it too often.

 

I do enjoy the free exchange of information on this site, and hope it continues. Everyone continue to relate your experiences with new solutions.

 

The zinc helps me when I get the infection, so far it has not prevented it for me. I don't seem to react to it the same as most people. Best of Luck.

 

I will give the zinc acetate a try, you might want to convince your significant other to try what you are doing, she seems to be getting hit with this stuff as well. It looks like Covid is picking up here in Arizona, and I assume it is everywhere. Starting to look like the same seasonal boundaries of the flu.

[Dorian Grey]

My wife is still working full time at 68, & babysitting the grandkids (including a 3 year old snot nose who's always sick) a couple days per week.  I've about given up hope for her as she seems to thrive on stress, worry and work.  I guess she'll still outlive me by a quarter century, but I'm enjoying the bliss of solitude.  

 

When I'm on my maximum defensive mode, I do the lozenges just 2 or 3 times a day.  They're big & clumsy to try to suck on, but they do dissolve in about 20 minutes.  When it gets down to the size of a pea, I chew it and tuck the crumbs in between my cheeks & gums to try & get additional transfer of zinc to localized tissue.  Try not to eat or drink anything for an hour or so after, as the lozenge seems to leave a film that will continue to soak into tissue for a while.  

 

I was very impressed when I knocked out my COVID with only 2 days of fever, & about dumbstruck I never caught my wife's cold after being at her side continuously when she fell ill her first couple days of Christmas vacation.  Perhaps better to be lucky than brilliant, but I zink it was the zinc!  

[Mind]

Here we have direct evidence that government bureaucrats (in Canada) knew the COVID injections were not properly tested for safety. Saying "we had to approve it because COVID was soooooo deadly" (it wasn't), is not a defense because they went on TV sayiung the exact opposite. They lied and said it was 100% safe and effective.

 

You have to search a little (because mainstream media and the CDC in the US are awful), but there is plenty of peer-reviewed evidence directly implicating the COVID injections in the deaths of nursing home residents. In Norway.

 

In New Zealand, it appears that the government is altering data to obscure the serious side effects from the COVID injections. This is not hard to believe after seeing so many public health bureaucrats and agencies in the US hide data and lie to the public (well-documented).

[joesixpack]

Here we have direct evidence that government bureaucrats (in Canada) knew the COVID injections were not properly tested for safety. Saying "we had to approve it because COVID was soooooo deadly" (it wasn't), is not a defense because they went on TV sayiung the exact opposite. They lied and said it was 100% safe and effective.

 

You have to search a little (because mainstream media and the CDC in the US are awful), but there is plenty of peer-reviewed evidence directly implicating the COVID injections in the deaths of nursing home residents. In Norway.

 

In New Zealand, it appears that the government is altering data to obscure the serious side effects from the COVID injections. This is not hard to believe after seeing so many public health bureaucrats and agencies in the US hide data and lie to the public (well-documented).

 

Don't forget New York.  The Governor ordered hospitals to send nursing home residents, who tested positive for covid, back the nursing home they came from. So they could infect everyone there.

[Hip]

Thanks for the information Dorian, so Echinacea may not be a long term solution, will read the study and keep it in mind. Might be a something to use when going into crowds, going to ball games etc, which is where I may be getting hit. 

 

Yes, it might not be a good to take immune boosting herbs daily on a long term basis (ie, longer than say a month or two). I only take echinacea for a few days in a row, or for a week sometimes, usually when I am surrounded by people with colds, or if I feel a cold coming on. 

 

I believe echinacea is pretty safe, though people with autoimmune disorders are advised not to take it. This is because the immune system is attacking your own body in autoimmunity, so you don't really want to stimulate this attack further with immune boosters.

Edited by Hip, 09 January 2024 - 08:52 PM.

[joesixpack]

Yes, it might not be a good to take immune boosting herbs daily on a long term basis (ie, longer than say a month or two). I only take echinacea for a few days in a row, or for a week sometimes, usually when I am surrounded by people with colds, or if I feel a cold coming on. 

 

I believe echinacea is pretty safe, though people with autoimmune disorders are advised not to take it. This is because the immune system is attacking your own body in autoimmunity, so you don't really want to stimulate this attack further with immune boosters.

Thanks, in the studies they were using doses of 1,200 to 2,400 mg. What dose do you use when you take it?

[Hip]

Thanks, in the studies they were using doses of 1,200 to 2,400 mg. What dose do you use when you take it?

 

I am not sure what dose I took when I first started taking echinacea to stop me catching colds at work, as I started doing this over 3 decades ago. 

 

But more recently, when I was using echinacea as a protection from COVID, I was taking doses around 1600 mg. 

 

Some echinacea products are purified extracts, like for example 10:1 extracts, which means that a 100 mg tablet would be equivalent to 1000 mg of echinacea (assuming they have captured and concentrated the immune boosting components in the purified extract)

[Empiricus]

Many people's brains are filled with dull cliches that they read online, and then accept like sheep without further thinking.

 

The notion that the pharmaceutical industry is purely profit driven, and would do much better at treating disease if it operated by some other ideals, is a standard cliche. People repeat this cliche, without ever considering whether it might be true or not.

 

When I hear people repeat this cliche, I know they are not actually thinking, just repeating what they read. 

 

People criticise the capitalist approach, yet fail to realise that in communist countries, we do not see the sort of medical advances we get in the capitalist world. Unless you can think of a better approach, best not to suggest replacing the current approach. Thanks to capitalism, in the last say 200 years, medicine has transformed itself from its primitive Dark Age approach of leeches and bloodletting and the false idea that disease was caused by an imbalance in the four humours, to an incredibly advanced state of scientific understanding by comparison.

 

You created a straw man to shoot down, while ignoring the point I was making.  I said medicine shouldn't be profit-driven.  I didn't say profits were bad.  

 

We need results-driven medicine where profits are determined by the patient outcomes. What we have is system where the standard of care is usually dictated by the profitability of various treatments. That's why the ineffective and hazardous mRNA vaccines where adopted widely and alternative treatments were sidelined. 

 

The system will only be fixed when the profitability is tied to real patient health and quality of life outcomes, not scores assigned to participants in expensive studies. 

[Hip]

The system will only be fixed when the profitability is tied to real patient health and quality of life outcomes, not scores assigned to participants in expensive studies. 

 

That in theory sounds like a good idea. Though I wonder in practice how such a complex system would be implemented. It's easy to measure profitability of a drug, you just count the money coming in. Hence the profit on sales based model is simple to implement.

 

Much more difficult to track and measure the health outcomes of millions of patients taking a drug or treatment, given that each patient is unique, with their own set of ailments and diseases, and often taking more than one drug at the same time.

 

 

If a health outcome-based system worked, then we would see the socialised medicine systems in Europe and other regions do much better. It's the government who has to pay for socialised medicine, through our taxes, and such governments have no interest in profitability, but in value for money. For any given disease, governments would want to use the best affordable treatment for that disease, not the most profitable for the companies supplying the treatment. 

 

Yet we do not see greater medical advancement in these socialised medicine systems. Indeed, because of the very fact that the profit motive has been removed, people in the socialised medicine systems are not motivated to take a treatment idea from research bench to market. It's the profit motive that makes people get off their backsides and undertake the long and arduous route of doing the expensive research and development, and bringing the results of that research to market. 

 

Don't forget that in general, I think we can agree that most human beings are 80% self-interested, and only 20% interested in the greater good (although of course some individuals may be more interested in the greater good than others). So any human enterprise has to work with those percentages.

 

Though certainly socialised medicine systems are cheaper: in Europe, people pay around 10-12% of GDP for their healthcare system. Whereas in the US, people pay 20% of GDP for their health. Although US patients get a better service at the point of care, studies I have seen looking at the health outcomes of the US compared to Europe have not found any greater health outcomes in the US. 

 

 

 

Everyone thinks they have a better system to offer, but the history of humanity is littered with discarded systems which did not work well. 

 

But I think you are right to at least ponder what might be a better system, because systems can always be improved. 

Edited by Hip, 10 January 2024 - 05:07 PM.

[Mind]

Geert Vanden Bossche warned everyone that using the mRNA injections would be a disaster because they don't create sterilizing immunity, they only boost antibodies for a short period of time. He has been proven correct, the widespread vaccination with the mRNA "vaccines" has produced accelerated evolution of variants.

 

One good thing about the COVID "vaccine" debacle, is that more people are looking back upon vaccine research, side effects, and malfeasance by the US government/CDC. Recall the case of the pro-vaccine expert witness for the US government revealing that vaccines can cause autism in some cases. He was fired for this revelation.

[Daniel Cooper]

I don't really know why we're even discussing the current vaccines any more.

 

The fact is, if you don't have a vaccine that confers "years" (or at least a year) of immunity, then what you are doing is almost certainly futile unless you are vaccinating for something that changes really significantly from year to year like the flu. 

 

A vaccine that provides "months" of immunity is at best useless, at worst counterproductive. 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 10 January 2024 - 09:34 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

I'm wondering if multiple SARS-CoV-2 exposures throughput the year, occurring frequently enough to keep immune resistance active, might be a similar but BETTER way to build a robust natural immunity, rather than multiple vaccinations throughout the year. 

 

I'll grant, developing symptomatic COVID multiple times over a decade may well do more cumulative damage than multiple vaccines, but even this is not certain, and the opposite may well be true.  

 

I'm coming up on 68 years old, and worry about a nasty immune evading pulmonary variant coming along when I'm in my 70s and more prone to severe disease.  Wouldn't I be in better shape having experienced multiple natural exposures and a couple symptomatic episodes, rather than multiple vaccinations and a couple symptomatic episodes?  

[Hip]

Geert Vanden Bossche warned everyone that using the mRNA injections would be a disaster

 

So clearly then Geert Vanden Bossche has now got egg on his face, since the COVID vaccines have been an unparalleled success in reducing the death rate from COVID in vulnerable people.

 

Were there any other statements that Geert Vanden Bossche made in the past which also turned out to be wrong?

[pamojja]

Wouldn't I be in better shape having experienced multiple natural exposures and a couple symptomatic episodes, rather than multiple vaccinations and a couple symptomatic episodes?  

 

Guess now there isn't a choice left. Some decided for 1 vaccine, some for boosters too, very few decided to refuse due to the unknown long term risks and questionable benefits. This part is now determined by one's own choice in the past.

 

I know only very few who like me who refused and most are still left empty-handed in respect to any symptomatic episodes - even less a conscious choice.

 

I would love to be able to say: in my case it could probably have been all the supplements taken anyway, shown to have some effectiveness against. But there are the black swans of my brother: no vaccine, bad life-style, no supplements, still no episode. The other my 82 years old father: boosted, at least on vitamin C, D3, K2 and Magnesium - no episode either (all other relatives multiple times boosted, each with multiple episodes. Same with all of about 30 co-worker boosted, multiple episodes, including the only 2 cases known of long covid personally known to me. All without supplementation).

 

Guess we few left empty-handed either way, are not worse off, by still lacking any antibody immunity. Since simple humoral immunity (for example, a runny nose) could handle it so well, obviously.

 

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 11 January 2024 - 01:22 PM.

[pamojja]

Were there any other statements that Geert Vanden Bossche made in the past which also turned out to be wrong?

 

In my cycle of relatives, co-workers and acquaintances I see not even one black swan for ADE not to be true, it turned out to be the rule. The more boosters, the worse symptomatic episodes, and long.
 

Anecdotes, I know. But I do feel with all those who dismissed multiple serious concerns and truly suffered.

Edited by pamojja, 11 January 2024 - 01:38 PM.

[Empiricus]

That in theory sounds like a good idea. Though I wonder in practice how such a complex system would be implemented. It's easy to measure profitability of a drug, you just count the money coming in. Hence the profit on sales based model is simple to implement.

 

Much more difficult to track and measure the health outcomes of millions of patients taking a drug or treatment, given that each patient is unique, with their own set of ailments and diseases, and often taking more than one drug at the same time.

 

If a health outcome-based system worked, then we would see the socialised medicine systems in Europe and other regions do much better. It's the government who has to pay for socialised medicine, through our taxes, and such governments have no interest in profitability, but in value for money. For any given disease, governments would want to use the best affordable treatment for that disease, not the most profitable for the companies supplying the treatment. 

 

Yet we do not see greater medical advancement in these socialised medicine systems. Indeed, because of the very fact that the profit motive has been removed, people in the socialised medicine systems are not motivated to take a treatment idea from research bench to market. It's the profit motive that makes people get off their backsides and undertake the long and arduous route of doing the expensive research and development, and bringing the results of that research to market. 

 

Quite the opposite. The medical system is failing society, it's needlessly expensive (too many over-priced managers).  Too much corporate-government collusion.  Far too modest results for the cost. Better to blow it up before it collapses of its own weight.

 

Disband government and private insurance institutions.  Disband regulators such as the FDA and CDC, but make it easy for patients to sue bad actors. Basically, healthcare needs to start operating like a normal market again.  The end users (patients) need to be writing the checks to the doctors. That's how you make doctors accountable to patients, not to Pharma companies, hospital groups, insurance companies, and corrupt medical boards. Certain legislation would be helpful, such as tax-free health savings accounts and provisions for insolvent citizens.  

Edited by Empiricus, 12 January 2024 - 03:19 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

It is astonishing how much we spend on healthcare, particularly in the US.  

 

https://www.brooking...th-care-system/

 

A dozen facts about the economics of the US health-care system

 

The health-care sector now employs 11 percent of American workers

 

and accounts for 24 percent of government spending

 

Health insurance is the largest component (26 percent) of nonwage compensation

 

and health care is one of the largest categories of consumer spending

 

-------------------------------------------

 

I've also read 80% of healthcare costs are incurred during the last year of life, with largely futile end of life heroics.  

 

Every time someone dies in a hospital, it's like the first time this has occurred.  "Oh dear...  Let's try this, and we can also try that...  Get the crash cart & let's get this patient to ICU.  

 

It doesn't help that the patients families are cheering them on, trying to prove who loves mom best by insisting on doing "anything & everything we can"

 

Getting your money's worth at the end of life is a bitter end indeed.  Avoid it if you can!  

[Daniel Cooper]

We've got a healthcare system in the US that seems designed to be expensive.

 

Last I checked it cost between $1.3 and $2.8 billion dollars to get a drug developed and through the FDA approval process. And about 10 years time wise.

 

While I'm not happy with way Warp Speed was done on the covid vaccines, surely there is something in between less than a year and minimal evaluation and 10 years of naval gazing and billions of dollars. After all, those are real cost born by real consumes and taxpayers - almost exclusively in the US btw. The development costs are paid for in the US and the world markets get priced more on the marginal cost after the development and regulatory cost have been amortized here. So US consumers are doing the heavy lifting on paying for a lot of the development for drugs that benefit people globally. Which of course at least partly explains the delta between what we're spending on healthcare vs. the world. And of course, if life saving therapies are delayed for years and years entering the market, people are actually dying during that time.

 

As far as the US system being designed to be expensive, in a lot of ways I think it is. We have the regulatory environment that the major pharmaceutical want to have. 

 

It isn't obvious to some people that big drug companies actually want an expensive and long approval process. But the expense and time is an enormous entry barrier to smaller nimbler companies that might suddenly appear to disrupt the market, and that's exactly what the Pfizers and Moderna's of the world want.

 

Think about what the computer industry has seen in the last 50 years. In the 1960s that industry was pretty much dominated by IBM and a few smaller players like DEC. IBM is now a much more marginal player in the industry and DEC is gone entirely. What happened?

 

They were old and slow and they got overtaken by smaller more agile companies like Microsoft and Apple. Because that was essentially a free market there was little to stop that from happening.

 

Thank god there was not some giant regulatory agency overseeing that industry. I'd probably be tying this on a dumb terminal connected to an IBM mainframe right now. The sort of innovation we've seen in the computer industry over the last 50 years is simply not possible given the regulatory gatekeeping that the FDA performs because any regulatory body like that invariably gets co-opted by the major incumbent players in their industry and put to their own uses. The FDA isn't operating in our interest, it's operating in their interest. Has been for a long time now.

 

 

[Hip]

Disband regulators such as the FDA and CDC, but make it easy for patients to sue bad actors.

 

Remove the regulatory bodies that prevent dangerous treatments, quack treatments, and ineffective placebos from being unleashed on the public? Remove the regulatory bodies that demand to see evidence of efficacy before a treatment is given a licence to sell? Yeah that's a good idea. 

 

Do you know why the US never had the tragic thalidomide birth defects problem that plagued Europe in the 1960s? Because the US regulator was not happy with the safety testing on this drug, so would not give it a license. 

Edited by Hip, 12 January 2024 - 05:19 PM.

[Hip]

We have the regulatory environment that the major pharmaceutical want to have. 

 

It isn't obvious to some people that big drug companies actually want an expensive and long approval process. But the expense and time is an enormous entry barrier to smaller nimbler companies that might suddenly appear to disrupt the market, and that's exactly what the Pfizers and Moderna's of the world want.

 

Think about what the computer industry has seen in the last 50 years. In the 1960s that industry was pretty much dominated by IBM and a few smaller players like DEC. IBM is now a much more marginal player in the industry and DEC is gone entirely. What happened?

 

They were old and slow and they got overtaken by smaller more agile companies like Microsoft and Apple. Because that was essentially a free market there was little to stop that from happening.

 

Thank god there was not some giant regulatory agency overseeing that industry. I'd probably be tying this on a dumb terminal connected to an IBM mainframe right now. The sort of innovation we've seen in the computer industry over the last 50 years is simply not possible given the regulatory gatekeeping that the FDA performs because any regulatory body like that invariably gets co-opted by the major incumbent players in their industry and put to their own uses. The FDA isn't operating in our interest, it's operating in their interest. Has been for a long time now.

 

If your theory is correct, then in the near future, all the major health advances will come from China, as there is a nation with a massive and scientific economy, and far less regulation. Not to mention an average national IQ of 107 (higher than the average IQ of about 100 in the US and Europe), so plenty of talent. 

 

But whether China will lead health innovation is questionable, because less regulation means more dishonesty, and widespread dishonesty really hampers progress.

 

I don't know if you have ever tried to order chemicals or drugs from China, but doing so is fraught with problems, because there are so many companies selling fake chemicals and drugs. And these faker companies are experts at conning people.

 

A friend of mine tried to get a drug custom synthesised in China, and found company which was willing to do it. He paid many $thousand for the custom synthesis, but when he tested the compound at an analytical lab, it turned out to be fake. And of course the company stopped answering his emails after that.

[Dorian Grey]

Remove the regulatory bodies that prevent dangerous treatments, quack treatments, and ineffective placebos from being unleashed on the public? Remove the regulatory bodies that demand to see evidence of efficacy before a treatment is given a licence to sell? Yeah that's a good idea. 

 

Do you know why the US never had the tragic thalidomide birth defects problem that plagued Europe in the 1960s? Because the US regulator was not happy with the safety testing on this drug, so would not give it a license. 

 

I hope you'll agree, when regulators start playing Patty-Cake with the Big Pharma companies they are supposed to be regulating, the whole machine can become damaged.  

 

I've seen first hand how good drugs that have become cheap generics have suddenly become dangerous when the pharmaceutical industry rolls out a new product the generic may compete with.  Out with the old (cheap) and in with the new (expensive).  

 

The US has borne the weight of these shenanigans quite well, but Medicare costs are now forecast to break the back of the US economy if "something" doesn't happen to fix the mess medical evolution has presented us.  

 

We need to pull our heads out of the sand, and soon, if we don't want our children enslaved paying for our medically expensive chronic illnesses.  

[Mind]

I don't really know why we're even discussing the current vaccines any more.

 

The fact is, if you don't have a vaccine that confers "years" (or at least a year) of immunity, then what you are doing is almost certainly futile unless you are vaccinating for something that changes really significantly from year to year like the flu. 

 

A vaccine that provides "months" of immunity is at best useless, at worst counterproductive. 

 

Check the peer-reviewed research. The flu vaccines are pretty close to worthless as well.

[Mind]

I'm wondering if multiple SARS-CoV-2 exposures throughput the year, occurring frequently enough to keep immune resistance active, might be a similar but BETTER way to build a robust natural immunity, rather than multiple vaccinations throughout the year. 

 

I'll grant, developing symptomatic COVID multiple times over a decade may well do more cumulative damage than multiple vaccines, but even this is not certain, and the opposite may well be true.  

 

I'm coming up on 68 years old, and worry about a nasty immune evading pulmonary variant coming along when I'm in my 70s and more prone to severe disease.  Wouldn't I be in better shape having experienced multiple natural exposures and a couple symptomatic episodes, rather than multiple vaccinations and a couple symptomatic episodes?  

 

Because natural immunity is broad and near sterilizing - activating the entire immune system - it will likely provide robust protection against close variants.

 

In contrast, the mRNA "vaccines" only boost antibodies against one variant for a very short period of time (peer-reviewed).

[Daniel Cooper]

If your theory is correct, then in the near future, all the major health advances will come from China, as there is a nation with a massive and scientific economy, and far less regulation. Not to mention an average national IQ of 107 (higher than the average IQ of about 100 in the US and Europe), so plenty of talent. 

 

But whether China will lead health innovation is questionable, because less regulation means more dishonesty, and widespread dishonesty really hampers progress.

 

I don't know if you have ever tried to order chemicals or drugs from China, but doing so is fraught with problems, because there are so many companies selling fake chemicals and drugs. And these faker companies are experts at conning people.

 

A friend of mine tried to get a drug custom synthesised in China, and found company which was willing to do it. He paid many $thousand for the custom synthesis, but when he tested the compound at an analytical lab, it turned out to be fake. And of course the company stopped answering his emails after that.

 

You think government regulation leads to honesty?  Man, do I have a bridge for you. Marvelous spans! Scenic views! Fantastic price!

 

China has on paper an enormous amount of regulatory oversight. The problem is they also have a culture where corruption is more or less expected from all parties on all sides - including the government regulators. 

 

I deal with Chinese manufacturing constantly in my career and am well aware of the pitfalls. But the corruption isn't due to a lack of government oversight. This is after all an ostensibly communist country. The government is into everything. In fact, a lot of the companies that display such corrupt behavior are frequently partially owned by party - which is to say government - officials.  

 

I don't actually see China becoming a world leader in drug development any time soon. All their best people tend to end up leaving the country. And it is starting to be obvious that China is in decline. So much of it is a Potemkin Village. Phony economic numbers. Phony technological advances. Fake products. The whole thing seems more and more like an elaborate scam. Companies are ditching Chinese manufacturing left and right and leaving for sunnier skies in Vietnam, Malaysia, and India. With the one child policy their demographics are starting to collapse.  Xi is actually forcing more government control of private business and it is driving things in the obvious direction.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 12 January 2024 - 07:30 PM.

[Hip]

You think government regulation leads to honesty? 

 

It depends on the culture. 

 

If you look at Europe, the northern Protestant countries like the UK tend to have a different relationship with rules and regulations than the southern Catholic or Orthodox countries.

 

In northern countries, when rules and regulations are set, people tend to follow them. Even if they break the rules, people are aware they are doing wrong. 

 

Whereas the southern countries, people tend to see rules and regulations that are beneficial to society as something they might aspire to, but they don't necessarily see them as obligatory. They have a more laid back approach to such things in southern Europe.

 

 

This may relate to the psychological nature of these religions, with the Protestant faith being stricter and more rational, whereas the Catholic faith is more emotional and more forgiving rather than strict. Of course these days, religion is no longer popular, but the effect that these religions have had on the national psyche remains. 

 

Or it may relate to the weather, as the sunny and warm countries of southern Europe tend to have a more laid back attitude to life, in part I think because of the good weather. 

 

Whereas you cannot take a laid back approach to life in the cold harsh winters found in northern Europe, as you would not survive winter without careful planning ahead (storing firewood, etc).

 

 

If think it was you that said in China, cheating is considered a socially acceptable means of getting by. Under such a culture, rules and regulations may have a weaker effect. 

Edited by Hip, 12 January 2024 - 08:34 PM.

[Hip]

I hope you'll agree, when regulators start playing Patty-Cake with the Big Pharma companies they are supposed to be regulating, the whole machine can become damaged.  

 

 

Hard to know, really, how much dishonesty goes on in the pharmaceutical world. You'd have to speak to hundreds of pharmaceutical industry insiders to get an understanding of what's going on.

 

It's a cliche and dictum amongst the general public that the pharmaceutical industry is only interested in profits, is corrupt, and engages in nepotism.

 

People are always be happy to state such things about the pharmaceutical companies. But they are just repeating these cliches as hearsay without ever thinking about them, or researching into the subject. 

 

When people just repeat dictums without actually checking whether they are true, you can just completely ignore what they say. It's pointless listening to people who have opinions, but know nothing about the subject on which they opine. 

 

 

 

If I came across a detailed analysis by a group of pharmaceutical industry insiders and experts concluding that the pharmaceutical industry has severe issues, then I might believe it. Especially if those experts suggested a better way for pharmaceutical companies to operate. 

 

But when you get members of the public who know next to nothing about medical science, nothing about pharmacology, and are oblivious on how tech businesses operate, yet make statements that the pharmaceutical industry has issues, I just ignore them. 

Edited by Hip, 12 January 2024 - 08:36 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

It depends on the culture. 

 

Exactly. The honesty or dishonesty isn't a product of the government. It precedes the government. Or in the currently en vogue language - culture is upstream of government.

 

Which was of course my point. Glad you agree.
 

[Empiricus]

"United States District Court Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk has issued a 30-page decision that orders the CDC to release the 7.8 million free text fields from the Covid-19 V-safe program to the public."

https://www.coronahe...v-safe-program/

 

"The first production of at least 390,000 entries will be produced by February 15, 2024." https://icandecide.o...y-transparency/

 

When the dangerous mRNA vaccines are removed from the market, it will have been largely on account of successful court cases that have forced the FDA, CDC and drug companies to release incriminating data and documents. 

Edited by Empiricus, 15 January 2024 - 08:29 AM.

[Hip]

When the dangerous mRNA vaccines are removed from the market, it will have been largely on account of successful court cases that have forced the FDA, CDC and drug companies to release incriminating data and documents. 

 

Let's be clear: the mRNA COVID vaccines were safer than the more conventional vector COVID vaccines like AstraZeneca and J&J. It was the latter which were discontinued because the spike protein in them would sometimes cause fatal blood clots. 

 

For both the mRNA and the vector vaccines, if the spike protein itself is toxic, then the side effects of these vaccines may primarily come from the spike protein, and not the mechanism of the vaccine. 

 

So nobody at this stage should assume that the mRNA mechanism itself is dangerous, just because there are side effects from the mRNA vaccine.  

 

 

Drug companies are now developing other mRNA vaccines in future, such as an EBV mRNA vaccine. If this new EBV vaccine is given to young people, it may prevent them from ever getting the nasty chronic autoimmune diseases (like multiple sclerosis) and cancers linked to EBV — a virus which is found in the B cells of 90% of adults, and is harmful in the body.

 

Of course in future, there will still be antivaxers who are against the mRNA EBV vaccine. But this vaccine refusal might actually be a good thing, because it will allow us to measure the benefits of the EBV mRNA vaccine. We would expect EBV vaccinated people to be immune from multiple sclerosis, whereas the non-vaccinated may still get MS. If this turns out to be the case, it would demonstrate the benefits and power of the EBV vaccine. 

 

 

Though I think more work should be done on the Danish research which I have posted about before, which found dead inactivated vaccines may increase all cause mortality, whereas live attenuated vaccines can dramatically reduce all-cause mortality. Not much research has been done on these so-called off-target effects of vaccines.

 

Unfortunately the Danish research suggested that the mRNA vaccines act more like inactivated vaccines, so might have the potential to increase all-cause mortality, even though they protect from the target infection.

 

However, the good news is that the Danish researchers found the vaccines' effects on all-cause mortality only depended on the nature of the last vaccine that you had. So if you had a series of inactivated vaccines or mRNA vaccines, these might increase all-cause mortality. But then if after taking those vaccines you have a live vaccine, that live vaccine cancels the ill effects of the inactivated vaccines, and imparts you greatly reduced all-cause mortality. 

 

Of course, this Danish research needs to be replicated; and unfortunately the medical science community has not shown much interest so far in off-target vaccine effects. I would like to see more interest in this area. 

Edited by Hip, 15 January 2024 - 05:06 PM.

[DanCG]

 

 

Though I think more work should be done on the Danish research which I have posted about before, which found dead inactivated vaccines may increase all cause mortality, whereas live attenuated vaccines can dramatically reduce all-cause mortality. Not much research has been done on these so-called off-target effects of vaccines.

 

Unfortunately the Danish research suggested that the mRNA vaccines act more like inactivated vaccines, so might have the potential to increase all-cause mortality, even though they protect from the target infection.

 

However, the good news is that the Danish researchers found the vaccines' effects on all-cause mortality only depended on the nature of the last vaccine that you had. So if you had a series of inactivated vaccines or mRNA vaccines, these might increase all-cause mortality. But then if after taking those vaccines you have a live vaccine, that live vaccine cancels the ill effects of the inactivated vaccines, and imparts you greatly reduced all-cause mortality. 

 

Of course, this Danish research needs to be replicated; and unfortunately the medical science community has not shown much interest so far in off-target vaccine effects. I would like to see more interest in this area. 

I scrolled back several pages and I did not find your link. Not trying to give you a hard time, but could you post it again?