1989 replies to this topic

[Hip]

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?

 

It was actually in its own thread here: Adenovirus COVID vax greatly reduces all-cause mortality. 

 

Basically they found that live vaccines in general, as well as the adenovirus vector COVID vaccines, dramatically reduce all-cause mortality. So not only do they protect you from the virus or bacterium the vaccine is intended for, but also greatly reduce any other medical causes of death.

 

But the dead vaccines, as well as the COVID mRNA vaccines, may increase all-cause mortality.

Edited by Hip, 15 January 2024 - 06:51 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Regarding vaccines and all cause mortality, I remember posting on this.  

 

https://www.longecit...website/page-54

 

Have People Been Given the Wrong Vaccine?

 

https://brownstone.o...-wrong-vaccine/

 

Randomized controlled trials show all-cause mortality reduction from the Covid adenovirus-vector vaccines (RR=0.37, 95%CI: 0.19-0.70) but not from the mRNA vaccines (RR=1.03, 95%CI 0.63-1.71). 

 

Have people been given vaccines that don’t work (Pfizer/Moderna) instead of vaccines that do work (AstraZeneca/Johnson & Johnson)? 

 

There is clear evidence that the adenovirus-vector vaccines reduced mortality. For every 100 deaths in the unvaccinated, there are only 37 deaths among the vaccinated, with a 95% confidence interval of 19 to 70 deaths. This result comes from five different RCTs for three different vaccines, but it is primarily driven by the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines. 

 

For the mRNA vaccines, on the other hand, there was no evidence of a mortality reduction. For every 100 deaths among the unvaccinated, there are 103 deaths among the vaccinated, with a 95% confidence interval of 63 to 171 deaths. That is, the mRNA vaccines may reduce mortality a little bit, or they may increase it; we do not know. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines contributed equally to this result, so there is no evidence that one is better or worse than the other.

[Hip]

Regarding vaccines and all cause mortality, I remember posting on this.  

 

https://www.longecit...website/page-54

 

Have People Been Given the Wrong Vaccine?

 

https://brownstone.o...-wrong-vaccine/

 

Randomized controlled trials show all-cause mortality reduction from the Covid adenovirus-vector vaccines (RR=0.37, 95%CI: 0.19-0.70) but not from the mRNA vaccines (RR=1.03, 95%CI 0.63-1.71). 

 

Have people been given vaccines that don’t work (Pfizer/Moderna) instead of vaccines that do work (AstraZeneca/Johnson & Johnson)? 

 

There is clear evidence that the adenovirus-vector vaccines reduced mortality. For every 100 deaths in the unvaccinated, there are only 37 deaths among the vaccinated, with a 95% confidence interval of 19 to 70 deaths. This result comes from five different RCTs for three different vaccines, but it is primarily driven by the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines. 

 

For the mRNA vaccines, on the other hand, there was no evidence of a mortality reduction. For every 100 deaths among the unvaccinated, there are 103 deaths among the vaccinated, with a 95% confidence interval of 63 to 171 deaths. That is, the mRNA vaccines may reduce mortality a little bit, or they may increase it; we do not know. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines contributed equally to this result, so there is no evidence that one is better or worse than the other.

 

Yes, if we had kept the COVID adenovirus-vector vaccines, more lives might have been saved by their reduction in all-cause mortality.

 

Unfortunately the COVID adenovirus-vector vaccines were very occasionally killing people by blood clots, and that's a bad look. This is why these vaccines were discontinued. And I think about 1 in 50,000 were getting blood clots in general from these COVID adenovirus-vector vaccines, though not fatal blood clots.

 

 

 

From the longevity perspective, though, the Danish research may be of interest to longevity enthusiasts, as it suggests any live vaccine can greatly reduce your chances of death from any causes.

[Daniel Cooper]

Yes, if we had kept the COVID adenovirus-vector vaccines, more lives might have been saved by their reduction in all-cause mortality.

 

It was always risky to vaccinate essentially the entire planet using a never before tried vaccine technology and never made sense to me.

[Mind]

It was always risky to vaccinate essentially the entire planet using a never before tried vaccine technology and never made sense to me.

 

It was exponentially more risky because the COVID mRNA injections never passed a legitimate human trial. In addition, ALL the animals trials failed. Since when do we when do we inject billions of people with a drug that has never passed a legitimate clinical trial?

 

Since when does the CDC and FDA ignore every report of side effects and death from a new drug? Here is a compilation of news reports from around the world covering many of the individual cases (all ignored by public health authorities)

 

Neurological problems have been reported with the COVID injections (in the fraudulent Pfizer trial as well). Now we have a small study in rats showing neurological problems with the mRNA injections.

 

As a sign that "public health" leaders are trying to avoid responsibility, a slow drip of CYA continues to unfold. Now former CDC director Walensky says "we should have been more cautious" when rolling out the shots. Why? What did she know at the time? The US government keeps pushing the shots as if they are "100% safe and effective". Why is Walensky now doing a CYA?

[Daniel Cooper]

The promotion of mRNA vaccine technology was all about the money. Moderna and Pfizer had been trying to get mRNA vaccines (for oncology) through the FDA for about 20 years and had made no progress. They realized that the normal rules weren't going to apply in the pandemic. So they pushed hard on mRNA, arguing that only this technology would create a strong enough immune response to generate long lasting immunity. Remember when they were talking about these "jabs" lasting a year? Maybe more if we were lucky.

 

Their thinking was that once they had "popped the FDA's cherry" with respect to approving a mRNA product then the floodgates would open and they could get reasonably quick approval for all sorts of other applications.

 

I certainly understand their position. But someone at the FDA should have been responsible enough to have said - "No, we aren't going to roll out an experimental technology on half the global population".

 

[joesixpack]

The promotion of mRNA vaccine technology was all about the money. Moderna and Pfizer had been trying to get mRNA vaccines (for oncology) through the FDA for about 20 years and had made no progress. They realized that the normal rules weren't going to apply in the pandemic. So they pushed hard on mRNA, arguing that only this technology would create a strong enough immune response to generate long lasting immunity. Remember when they were talking about these "jabs" lasting a year? Maybe more if we were lucky.

 

Their thinking was that once they had "popped the FDA's cherry" with respect to approving a mRNA product then the floodgates would open and they could get reasonably quick approval for all sorts of other applications.

 

I certainly understand their position. But someone at the FDA should have been responsible enough to have said - "No, we aren't going to roll out an experimental technology on half the global population".

 

Well I think they screwed the pooch on this one. I doubt anyone will be taking any MRNA vaccine anytime soon. I was offered the new flu and covid combined vaccine and let them know that there is no possibility of me taking it ever.

[Mind]

Right, hardly anyone wants the mRNA injections now. The average person knows that they don't prevent transmission or infection, they don't provide protection for but a month or so, plus they come with loads of serious side effects and increased risk of mortality (peer-reviewed).

 

Now Pfizer is trying to force countries to purchase millions of doses that their citizens don't want. During the height of the media and government-led COVID panic, countries agreed to purchase years worth of mRNA injections. Now they don't want the injections because they don't work very well and Pfizer is suing them, lol.

[Mind]

This is just disgusting - the New York Times (big cheerleader for the disastrous public health response to the COVID panic) - is now wondering if it was correct to vaccinate kids and toddlers. Most other countries other figured it out right away. Writers at the New York Times are a little too dull, I guess. I wonder if the New York Times editors know that the US is STILL recommending vaccinations for kids and toddlers. Considering the COVID panic bubble they live in, they might not even know that basic fact.

 

In other news - something that has been discussed before - the varying quality, or lack there-of, of the Pfizer COVID injections. German scientists claim some of the batches were essentially placebos. If this is true - it is overtly criminal and unethical to essentially run a clinical trial on the population without letting them know. Without cooperation from Pfizer, this will be tough to prove. The IFR from COVID is so tiny (peer-reviewed), one would have to survey millions of people to find out if some were given a placebo.

[Hip]

This is just disgusting - the New York Times (big cheerleader for the disastrous public health response to the COVID panic) - is now wondering if it was correct to vaccinate kids and toddlers. Most other countries other figured it out right away. Writers at the New York Times are a little too dull, I guess. I wonder if the New York Times editors know that the US is STILL recommending vaccinations for kids and toddlers. Considering the COVID panic bubble they live in, they might not even know that basic fact.

 

What do you say, Mind, to the fact that a systematic review and meta-analysis study found that children with a previous COVID infection had higher rates of anxiety, depression, and appetite issues than children with no prior infection?

 

It would appear that COVID may be permanently screwing up the brains of children. Not surprising perhaps, given that a study finds COVID can infect dopamine neurons, causing neuron senescence.

 

 

If vaccination can help protect kids from the possibly of COVID messing with their brains, which leads to mental health issues, then this needs to be taken into consideration.

 

Not that COVID is the only virus out there which can infect brains. Other viruses can do this too.

[Daniel Cooper]

What do you say, Mind, to the fact that a systematic review and meta-analysis study found that children with a previous COVID infection had higher rates of anxiety, depression, and appetite issues than children with no prior infection?

 

It would appear that COVID may be permanently screwing up the brains of children. Not surprising perhaps, given that a study finds COVID can infect dopamine neurons, causing neuron senescence.

 

 

If vaccination can help protect kids from the possibly of COVID messing with their brains, which leads to mental health issues, then this needs to be taken into consideration.

 

Not that COVID is the only virus out there which can infect brains. Other viruses can do this too.

 

I saw that paper the other day as well.

 

You have to wonder - is covid actually so much worse for lingering effects than most other viruses or are we just seeing these effects because this is probably now one of the top two or three most studies viruses in human history and we're seeing these things because we're actually looking for them? If I were to study those other coronaviruses that cause colds or the seasonal influenza viruses with this level of scrutiny would I also find these sorts of effects as well?

 

The other issue - we seem to have mounting evidence (which we've recently discussed) that implicates the spike protein itself in causing at least some of this damage, which is why we think myocarditis is an adverse effect of the covid vaccines. So do we really know that frequent re-vaccination is putting us ahead of the game compared to just randomly catching covid, which you're also incidentally going to do even if you are keeping up with the boosters.

 

I don't have any reason to doubt the study you quoted. But it's not clear what to do about it. For all we know, the vaccines themselves can cause the same issue. And, they really aren't that great at keeping you from getting covid in any case.

 

Maybe they should be working really hard at finding other targets besides the spike protein to build a vaccine around. I understand why they picked it - the thought was that spike protein was highly conserved and wouldn't change much as the virus drifted. Which has mostly been true. But, if you happened to pick an aspect of the virus to make a vaccine that happens to be damaging in and of itself then you may have picked the wrong thing.

 

Also, clearly generic antiviral approaches would be useful and have the advantage that they will also be of value when the next unforeseen pandemic arises.

 

[Hip]

I saw that paper the other day as well.

 

You have to wonder - is covid actually so much worse for lingering effects than most other viruses or are we just seeing these effects because this is probably now one of the top two or three most studies viruses in human history and we're seeing these things because we're actually looking for them? If I were to study those other coronaviruses that cause colds or the seasonal influenza viruses with this level of scrutiny would I also find these sorts of effects as well?

 

Yes, certainly there is a great deal of scrutiny on COVID, so lingering effects will no doubt be picked up more readily. 

 

But dozens of viruses in circulation can also linger in the body, and have been linked to a wide array of chronic diseases (in that when you biopsy the diseased tissue in the illnesses, you find these viruses). So lingering and causing a chronic disease is not unique to COVID. 

 

I think the lingering effects of COVID are more noticeable because firstly: the illnesses we have seen so far created by SARS-CoV-2 occur immediately after the acute COVID infection; therefore, it's very easy to see cause and effect.

 

Whereas for many lingering viruses, the chronic disease they may cause might only appear a decade or two after you catch that virus. 

 

For example, many researchers think Epstein-Barr virus virus will turn out to be the cause of multiple sclerosis. However, nearly all of us catch EBV by our early 20s (mostly asymptomatically, so we don't even know it); but MS may not appear until you are 30 or 40 years old. Thus because of the large delay in triggering the chronic disease, it does not look so obvious that the virus is the cause. But when we see a long COVID illnesses appear immediately after an acute COVID infection, the cause and effect seem pretty obvious. 

 

I think the lingering effects of COVID are also more noticeable because of a second reason: simply because during the pandemic we were all issued with these free lateral flow COVID tests, and we had access to free COVID PCR tests too, so people can be sure that their acute infection is COVID.

 

This is rather a unique circumstance, because normally when we are hit with a nasty viral infection, we often don't know what it might be, as there are hundreds of human viruses that can cause generic symptoms like a flu-like illness, a bad sore throat, or gastrointestinal upset. 

 

 

Not all viruses can linger though. Out of the common cold viruses, rhinovirus I believe does not linger at all; it is completely cleared by the immune response, and possesses no mechanism by which it can create a persistent infection in the body, as far as I am aware.  

Edited by Hip, 21 January 2024 - 02:20 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

"Not all viruses can linger though. Out of the common cold viruses, rhinovirus I believe does not linger at all; it is completely cleared by the immune response, and possesses no mechanism by which it can create a persistent infection in the body, as far as I am aware."

 

Too much trouble for you to find a reference which backs up your original research, rather than posting your useless "I believe" and "as far as I am aware" nonsense?

[Hip]

Too much trouble for you to find a reference  

 

For you yes, it would be certainly be too much trouble. You are too lazy to use Google yourself, and thus never bring anything of interest to these discussions. 

Edited by Hip, 21 January 2024 - 02:24 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

So, I guess you have no references for your vacuous statements? Correct?

[Hip]

So, I guess you have no references for your vacuous statements? Correct?

 

Wrong, I can provide a good argument to back up my statement, which normally I would be more than happy to provide, since I love taking about virology, but I don't respond to lazy or rude people.

Edited by Hip, 21 January 2024 - 02:32 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Just because the effects of covid can linger, I don't necessarily take that to mean that the virus must be lingering.

 

It's entirely plausible that damage is being done that is at the least long lasting or even potentially permanent.  

 

If I shoot you with a 9mm, you may have lingering effects even if I remove the bullet.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

"Wrong, I can provide a good argument to back up my statement, which normally I would be more than happy to provide, since I love taking about virology, but I don't respond to lazy or rude people."

 

Good, then provide your generalized arguments (with references), or a specific citation(s) for your assertions, so as to benefit others reading this thread who may want to see where your revelations come from. Don't be so puerile as to withhold your vast knowledge because your feewings were hurt by being called out.

[Hip]

Just because the effects of covid can linger, I don't necessarily take that to mean that the virus must be lingering.

 

That's right, in the case of ME/CFS, which is nearly always triggered by a viral infection, the so-called "hit and run" theory of ME/CFS states that some sort of physical damage to the body is created during the acute viral infection, and it is this damage which causes the chronic disease of ME/CFS and its symptoms. 

 

So this hit and run theory could apply to the ME/CFS form of long COVID, as well as other types of LC. Indeed the heart and lung damage form of LC seems to be caused by physical damage from the acute infection.

 

However, if we take enterovirus ME/CFS, which is more researched, evidence that argues against the hit and run theory comes from the fact that if you give patients a potent antiviral called interferon alpha, you can get severely ill totally bedbound patients back to work. 

 

Clearly if ME/CFS symptoms were caused by physical damage, interferon would not be able to fix that. 

 

Unfortunately interferon is not the answer to ME/CFS, because nearly all patients treated with interferon relapse before a year is out, and with relapse comes the return of high viral antibody titres on blood tests. It would appear that interferon cannon fully clear the virus from the body, so the viral infection in the tissues eventually regrows, and ME/CFS reappears. 

 

 

It's also the case that if you biopsy the tissues of enterovirus ME/CFS patients, you find the virus in those tissues. So a chronic infection is definitely there. 

 

Such tissue biopsy studies have not yet been conducted for ME/CFS long COVID patients as far as I know; but a new study just published this month demonstrated chronic COVID infection is present in LC patients, using a technique that I had not heard of before: testing for viral antisense RNA. However, this study failed to say what subset of LC they tested, and it's not clear if they tested ME/CFS LC patients, or some other category of LC patients. 

Edited by Hip, 21 January 2024 - 02:55 AM.

[Gal220]

Not trying to get too off base, but be aware, hospitals are still using Remdesivir for Covid, regardless of how severe it is.

 

https://twitter.com/...852727059238932

 

 

Remdesivir comes with 2 black box warnings, Gilead still making a literal killing

[Mind]

Here is an ironic juxtaposition: Sports writer who ridiculed and harassed Novak Djokovic, "died unexpectedly". If it wasn't the COVID injection that did him in, it might have been karma.

 

For those hoping to see the V-safe data that the CDC is desperately hiding from the public - it looks like a federal judge has temporarily blocked the release.

 

One good thing about the disastrous COVID response and the CDC/FDA lies and obfuscation is that a lot of people are taking a second look at vaccine history and its failures. One thing people wonder about is how vaccine manufacturers became the only companies not liable for any problems with their products. Here is a good article about how that came about.

[joesixpack]

Should we be concerned about the possibility that the vaccine may cause Mad Cow disease in humans?

 

This articles details the cases of 26 people that came down with a new version of Mad Cow disease within 11 days of receiving the Covid vaccine. All but one died at the time of publication this month. It is a new version of the disease because of its rapid onset and development.

 

https://ijvtpr.com/i...cle/view/66/182

[Hip]

I know this might sound off-topic, but given the libertarian views expressed on this thread regarding vaccine mandates and coerced vaccination, I wonder what people think about the coming age of warfare? 

 

As the world moves towards more right wing nationalism, and away from liberal globalism, history suggests that we will see major wars (the last great era of liberal globalism which began in around 1870, and is considered the first period of globalisation, crashed into nationalism and two world wars in 1914).  

 

Today I read this newspaper article: Britons 'face conscription if we go to war with Russia': Head of the Army will tell ministers troops numbers are so low he would need 'to find more people' if Putin's war in Ukraine escalated and public's 'mindset' must change so they are ready

 

Will this current liberal / libertarian generation be ready for conscription? That is indeed a change of mindset, given that people today believe they have the right to self determination of their own life. 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 24 January 2024 - 03:59 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

So liberal globalism lasted for 44 years?

 

That's a blink of the eye in history. That's not even a longish human lifespan. There had been a series of European wars leading up to that. The Franco-Austrian War, the Austro-Prussian War, and finally the Franco-Prussian War. I think Europe just decided to take a breather after tiring from a dozen years of nearly constant conflict. After all, you had 20 years of something approximating peace in Europe between the two world wars.

 

And I think it would be difficult to say that nationalism declined between 1870 and 1914. After all, we get the formation of the German Empire in 1871 which certainly did not lessen nationalistic sentiments in that part of the world. And I don't think Russian nationalism ever went away. It was just satiated by the empire it managed to assemble in the Soviet Union.

 

There was a pretty significant increase in material wealth during that era, which was more the product of capitalism which I guess one would say was enabled by what you would consider to be classical liberalism. Of course, all that industrial progress and new wealth got put to use in 1914 and 1939.

 

I think what you see now is more the norm than the exception in history. Long periods of conflict punctuated by periodic peace.

 

In any case, I don't think the Britons have to worry about an attack from Russia any time soon. They haven't been able to digest Ukraine and Putin has spent his military for a generation or two.

[Hip]

And I think it would be difficult to say that nationalism declined between 1870 and 1914. After all, we get the formation of the German Empire in 1871 which certainly did not lessen nationalistic sentiments in that part of the world. And I don't think Russian nationalism ever went away. It was just satiated by the empire it managed to assemble in the Soviet Union.

 

Certain factors help create globalism. In the case of the period of 1870 to 1914, first of all, the telegraph arrived, which was in its day every bit as revolutionary as the Internet has been for our generation. Prior to the telegraph, information only travelled at the speed of a horse or a steam train. But the telegraph made communications instantaneous. This communications technology of the telegraph helped galvanise a wider global community.

 

Then secondly gold became accepted as the international standard monetary exchange. You need an agreed standard of money to conduct global business. 

 

And finally, immigration laws were relaxed, allowing masses of people to move to other countries as economic migrants. This opened up the borders of nations, and allowed free flow of people. 

 

My understanding is that three factors underpinned the 1870 to 1914 period of globalisation. 

 

 

But the pendulum tends to swing back, and in 1914 governments started becoming protectionist, turning against global trade (just as we have seen in the Trump presidency, and with Brexit, showing how history can repeat itself). 

 

Also resentment started building up by 1914, as global capitalism benefited some people, but left many others behind (again, just like in today's world, were the middle classes and the super-rich benefit from global trade and a globalised economy, but the Western working classes get a raw deal — which of course Trump has picked up on in order to get the working class vote, and so have the Conservative Party in the UK picked up on this working class dissatisfaction).

 

 

For the last 5 years or so, I have felt that the pendulum has just started to swing back to protectionism, to right wing conservatism, and to countries putting themselves first. The pendulum is presently at the extreme end of global liberalism, but I think it is starting to turn back.

 

And I think we may see nations start to use their military muscle more. Russia has a long term goal to re-instate the Soviet Empire, and it does not mind sacrificing the lives of millions of its people to achieve its military goals. Russia is now spending 6% of its GDP on the military. So it's gearing up for a long war, and may become a militarised nation. 

 

China wants to bring Taiwan back into the fold, so we could see some military action there. This might then bring in the US and other Western nations to come to defend Taiwan, bringing the US into armed conflict with China. China may then team up with Russia, just out of mutual self interest, and then you start getting the dominoes falling into place for a world war. 

Edited by Hip, 24 January 2024 - 08:12 AM.

[Hip]

The moronic red rating button pushers strike again. Marking only my posts in red, but not anyone else's. When will the mods ban these pricks?

 

 

[Daniel Cooper]

The moronic red rating button pushers strike again. Marking only my posts in red, but not anyone else's. When will the mods ban these pricks?

 

Well, they ain't wrong. Both your and my posts are only tangentially related to the thread topic.

 

And if the mods start banning people it might include people that call other people pricks.  

[Hip]

I've already been banned for marking people's posts as "Il informed" or "Pointless". Since then, I've not used the red ratings. So bans are effective.

 

I suggest the mod team here need to widen their scope, and dish out the same disciplinary measures to others who abuse the red rating system.

 

Just because my views on vaccination or mask wearing are different to other people's here, there is no need for people to be rude. And if they are rude, via their red ratings, they need to be disciplined. 

 

 

As for being off-topic, the post I made about was in the context of civil liberties, which has been a topic of discussion on this thread. My point is that as the world moves more right wing, this will change the civil liberties environment.

 

 

 

 

[Rocket]

Since the vaccines rolled out, global death rates in young healthy people have skyrocketed. My wife does er medicine and can attest to seeing many young healthy people coming to the er with blood clots, heart issues, arthritis, and cancers of all types that didn't happen until the vaccines. Its an open secret the vaccines are the cause. The truth will never come out.

[Hip]

Since the vaccines rolled out, global death rates in young healthy people have skyrocketed. My wife does er medicine and can attest to seeing many young healthy people coming to the er with blood clots, heart issues, arthritis, and cancers of all types that didn't happen until the vaccines. Its an open secret the vaccines are the cause. The truth will never come out.

 

More antivax bullshit from the scientifically clueless of Longecity.

 

Get a grip on reality please. SARS-CoV-2 has spread to most people around the world, and is sitting in their bodies as a ticking viral time bomb. This is why many studies have shown that in the year after you catch COVID, you are twice as likely to die compared to people who did not catch COVID, because of the pernicious effects of having this virus living in your body.

 

SARS-CoV-2 has been found to persist in the respiratory tract, including the lungs, as well as in the gastrointestinal tract, the heart, brain, and other organs. Researchers are still trying to uncover the full range of tissues and organs in which the virus may persist.

 

One study found that SARS-CoV-2 likes to infect dopamine cells of the brain, so could lead to Parkinson's-like symptoms in years to come. And major review paper found that children infected with COVID have more depression and anxiety that uninfected kids. Having this virus in your body is detrimental to mental health.

 

Vaccines do not cause diseases, pathogens do. I suggest you write that phrase down, and recite it every day. 

Edited by Hip, 25 January 2024 - 02:34 AM.