Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hopeallgoeswell

  1. Am I wrong in concluding that the blood wasn't tested for neutralizing antibodies before any shot was given in either of the studies? Only after the first dose and then again after the second dose? I only ask because there seems to be a sufficent neutralizing response after someone has had the virus, no first shot necessary.
  2. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190320110619.htm From the article: The researchers found that the antibody repertoires remained highly static throughout. More than 70 percent of the antibody molecules found in the donor's bloodstream remained the same over five years. More than two-thirds of these persistent antibodies targeted invariant parts of the virus -- the elements that do not change from one year to the next. These persistent antibodies continue to be produced by the immune system for years and can affect our ability to generate novel antibodies that recognize unique molecular features of a new seasonal strain. "Currently, there is a very large scientific effort underway to design flu vaccine candidates that focus the immune system to produce antibodies targeting the invariant sites of vulnerability of the influenza virus," Lee said.
  3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7402625/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7427556/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-021-00902-8
  4. The doctor from the link I posted would be a good place to start if your friend would like more information. I've found a few podcasts with him as the interviewee where he goes into more detail and gives more references. There are other doctors, immunologists, etc. who have been sharing their concerns as well. I don't know of any other vaccine that is recommended for people who have already built up natural immunity via getting and recovering from the wild virus. In fact, the few vaccines we do have for viruses can be skipped if an individual can show proof of antibodies from natural infection.
  5. Does anyone know if the vaccine manufactures have an endpoint that measures adverse events/death after vaccination of people who have tested positive for the virus/antibodies before getting vaccinated? https://noorchashm.medium.com/already-or-had-a-covid-19-infection-or-think-you-did-b282f9471605 From the above article: I state the above, because I know, as a matter of scientific principle, that once a person is naturally infected by a virus (any virus), antigens from that virus persist in the body for very long after viral replication has stopped and clinical signs of infection have resolved. So, when a vaccine reactivates an immune response in such recently infected persons, the tissues harboring the persisting viral antigen are targeted, inflamed and damaged by the immune response. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we know that the virus naturally infects the heart, the inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain. So, these are likely to be some of the critical organs that will contain persistent viral antigens in the recently infected — AND, following reactivation of the immune system by a vaccine, these tissues can be expected to be targeted and damaged.
  6. Unless they become mandatory and exemptions no longer exist.
  7. We are healthy and have already had it, so we are in the "not right now" camp. The mRNA technology doesn't have a great track record over the last twenty years...with the first SARS or with the gene therapy that was created after their first application didn't perform well. The antibody-dependent enhancement was not, that I can find, specifically studied as an outcome in the mRNA studies for SARS-CoV-2, as the animal challenge trials were not done but were the whole reason the other mRNA jabs stalled at Phase 1 trials. Now that the deaths are starting to rise again, coincidentally after so many have taken the jab, I would like to see better research concerning the many facets of the long-term outcomes of this never-before approved technology. It's strange that the people with many underlying conditions, who were already very unwell, and died with a possible Covid exposure/confirmed PCR test, died from covid, but the people who died shortly after getting the Moderna or Pfizer shot died from anything but the shot. It's concerning that the questioning voices of doctors, research scientists, lawyers, etc. are being silenced. I think that if people want to get it while it is under an EUA, they should be able to as long as they have informed consent. To make a not-fully tested biologic mandatory to live life, especially when it is readily available to people and protects the recipient, is terrifying.
  8. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/1376/htm From the article: We found that the size and power of the state contributes positively to the likelihood and extensions of mass hysteria. The more centralized and the more power a state has, the higher the probability and extension of mass hysteria. In a minimal state, there exist self-correcting mechanisms that limit collective hysteria. The enforcement of private property rights limits the harm inflicted by those that succumb to the hysteria. The state (thanks to a fuzzy public sector and its soft power [123,124]), by contrast, amplifies and exacerbates mass panics, potentially causing important havoc. What are temporarily, locally limited, isolated outbreaks of mass hysteria, the state may convert into a global mass hysteria for an extended period of time. Recent development in information technology and, particularly, the use of social media, as well as a decline of religion, have made societies more prone to the development of mass hysteria [125,126,127]. Unfortunately, once a mass hysteria takes hold of the government, the amount of damage the hysteria can inflict to life and liberty surges as the state’s respect for private property and basic human rights is limited. The violation of basic human rights in the form of curfews, lockdowns, and coercive closure of business has been amply illustrated during the COVID-19 crisis. Naturally, the COVID-19 example is indicative rather than representative and its lessons cannot be generalized. During the COVID-19 crisis, several authors have argued that from a public health point of view, these invasive interventions such as lockdowns have been unnecessary [128,129,130,131] and, indeed, detrimental to overall public health [132,133]. In fact, prior scientific research on disease mitigation measures during a possible influenza pandemic had warned against such invasive interventions and recommended a more normal social functioning [134]. Moreover, in reaction to past pandemics such as the Asian flu of 1957–1958, there were no lockdowns [135], and research before 2020 had opposed lockdowns [136]. From this perspective, the lockdowns have been a policy error. We have shown that these policy errors may well have been produced by a collective hysteria. To which extent there has been a mass hysteria during the COVID-19 crisis is open for future research. In order to prevent the repetition of policy errors similar to those during the COVID-19 crisis, one should be aware of the political economy of mass hysteria developed in this article and the role of the state in fostering mass hysteria. Public health is likely to be affected negatively by state interventions during a mass hysteria due to policy errors.
  9. Most younger people do fine with fighting off disease quickly and efficiently because their immune systems are better-functioning than the elderly and immune-compromised. I know over 200 people under 50 who tested positive and none of them even had to go to a doctor because it was mild enough to ride out at home (if they even had symptoms). The people I know will take the virus they can handle well over a vaccine that was only tested for a few weeks and has no long-term safety data. I don't think it is helpful or fair to label a group of people who handle this specific virus well and choose not to get the shot to be vaccine hesitant or anti-vax or any other label that has negative connotations. Most vaccines only protect the recipient from symptoms and don't prevent transmission to others, so why does it matter if a person sits down with their doctor and makes an informed decision not get a specific medical treatment? I am beginning to wonder when it happened that in order for people to be an accepted member of society they must all take the same ever-growing list of vaccines pushed and shamed if they decide to opt for a different path for their health.
  10. Has anyone else fallen in love with Dr. Lee Merritt?
  11. I watched part of a hearing with a military cyber security person. He explained how the machines are supposed to be set up in order to be secure, but due to how the instructions are actually written, security measures were effectively negated.
  12. We have only used chemistry (logic stage) on a 2-day schedule. Time-wise, it really depended on what kind of mood my kids were in; some days we finished in 30 minutes and some days it was over an hour. We used Apologia for biology, earth science, and physics. We did love the ES kindergarten curriculum and recommend it often. Noeo is also SWB-esque: https://noeoscience.com/.
  13. We didn't do everything from scratch using SWB's suggestions, but we did use Elemental Science's Classic Series, which uses SWB's suggestions for the program. It was extremely open-and-go, affordable, and engaging. Even if you don't use the program, the samples give a very good idea of what SWB's spines and schedule could look like. https://elementalscience.com/collections/classical-science
  14. Your post reminded me of this doctor from a podcast I listened to a few years ago: https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/podcast-320-adhd-explosion/.
  15. No one knows whether the vaccine will prevent transmission. There are other vaccines, like influenza and acellular pertussis, that protect the person who takes the vaccine but doesn't prevent the spread. Taking this one to prevent others from getting sick is not a factor in my decision process right now.
  16. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/
  17. A community is supposed to be about balance. Some people need physical interaction every once and a while, to actually see someone smile. Isolating from friends and family for God-only-knows-how-long is not healthy for most because humans are social creatures and a year of video chats are not fulfilling the social aspect for some. Someone could do all the "responsible" things and still get it and go on to infect others. On the flip side, someone could do all things someone else deems "irresponsible" and never get it, thus not infecting others. My husband is in charge of tracking covid-positive tests and interactions for his whole business. Most of the people who live with a covid-positive person do not go on to have symptoms or test positive. Most people who test positive don't know where they could have gotten from because they are always masked.
  18. That hermetically sealed bubble part was inflammatory, but I'm a bit froggy today. I do apologize. I DO NOT look good with short hair, but should I cut my hair short...at home...so I reduce the risk of transmission?
  19. There is a middle ground. People have different risk profiles and should not be judged because theirs are different than someone else's. Anyone's interaction with another person can result in transmission. The users on this forum are by far the most cautious people I have interaction with. The people I interact with in real life are all taking some additional precautions but are definitely not on month 9 of keeping their kids physically isolated from a majority of their friends and family, choosing to not eat at restaurants, choosing not to have friends over to chat. Even though the behaviors of most of the boardies are absolutely foreign to me, I would never start a thread complaining about it. People who drive at night in the pouring down rain, to me, are not very smart because those road conditions are not safe, but I don't bash them and say they're going to cause an accident and kill an innocent person.
  20. The chance of some one *getting* an infection might be lower if that person went to the salon at the beginning of the day. On the other hand, if someone is infectious and wearing the type of face covering most people wear, one that's not very effective at stopping large droplets and laughable at stopping small droplets and aerosolized particles from going into the air but at the same time still legally a face covering, it is possible for that person to *spread* the infection to others who will come into the salon throughout the day because others' masks don't prevent inhalation of small and aerosolized particles. On top of that, the stylist could infect many clients over a number of days. I'm sure you have looked at the hairdresser study above. That study did not prove transmission did not happen. It proved that 102 out of the 139 people *said* they wore a face covering the whole time of their short visits and all the clients *said* they had no symptoms. If some people get together unmasked and no one is infected, the person who decided to go get a hair cut potentially infected more than the get together did, but society at large is going to bash the people at the get together and not the person who went for a hair cut because the hair cut was within the "legal limits". My chiropractor and her husband just tested positive even though all interactions her family have had outside of their house have been masked. Now she is out of income for the next several weeks and still has to pay her receptionist. It really seems to be a game of luck. And I don't know about these people who are in the salon for 10-15 minutes because it takes me over an hour in there. I'm just waiting for the governor to make a proclamation about the length of time any and all human interactions can be ;). If we really want to stop the spread of this and every other pathogen, we should all be in hermetically sealed bubbles when we leave our homes...but then people would just find something else to judge others on.
  21. I know a lot of people are pointing to this study to show that masks make interactions relatively safe or at least safe enough to continue leaving their houses and interacting with other humans indoors as long as all parties wear a face covering, but half of the clients were not even tested and the clients who were tested could have been positive but it was too early for the test to catch the infection. Also, every client who was interviewed about mask wearing, which was only 104 out of the 139, self-reported their mask status; they could have felt pressured to say they wore one even if they didn't. Why this hair stylist example is being used to illustrate masking indoors in close proximity is "not risky at all" is puzzling to me. My husband, through work, knows just over 100 people who have been in close contact with a positive person where no one was wearing masks (spouse/kids/roommates) and most of that 100+ group had no symptoms. I guess I could use that to say that not masking indoors is not risky? Is there is any paper or research on whether or not there is a significant increase in infection transmissions from get togethers as opposed to many single interactions in places like Walmart or a grocery store or a mall? Or is it just an extrapolation of data? Even people who are wearing face coverings are getting it. Having any interaction outside of one's own home could result in transmission, masked or not. From the paper: Overall, 67 (48.2%) clients volunteered to be tested, and 72 (51.8%) refused; all 67 nasopharyngeal swab specimens tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR. Also: First, whereas the health department monitored all exposed clients for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, and no clients developed symptoms, only a subset was tested; thus, asymptomatic clients could have been missed. Similarly, with a viral incubation period of 2–14 days, any COVID-19 PCR tests obtained from clients too early in their course of infection could return false-negative results. To help mitigate this possibility, all exposed clients were offered testing on day 5 and were contacted daily to monitor for symptoms until day 14.
  22. If the parents have never had consequences for her, I would quit. One of my dc had major behavior problems (not listening, screaming, biting, kicking, hitting) almost daily and night terrors nightly from the time she was almost 2. No amount of love, patience, and guidance would get her out of a tantrum. When she was 5, I took all artificial dyes, colors, and flavors out of the house. I thought it wasn't going to work, but I had tried everything else. Within a week, I had a new child. Whenever she got anything she wasn't supposed to eat from outside sources, like loving grandparents and friends, she was back to her bad sleep and bad behavior for the next week or so. I'm not sure if the parents of your student would even consider trying an elimination diet to see if it is helpful with the behavior issues, but I thought I would share my experience in the event it may be of assistance.
  23. Prosecco Cheddar Cheese and Macadamia Nuts Strawberries, Raspberries, and Peaches Mushroom and Leek Risotto Lemon meringue bars
  24. We are both analytical and logical, thankfully. When we disagree, both sides leave feelings at the door, present the evidence, and we go with whatever has the most clear, unbiased data behind it.
  25. I wonder if the vaccine could possibly be taken with no adverse reaction at the time of administration but create high levels of anti-PEG antibodies which set off a future adverse event the next time a person is exposed to PEG in another vaccine or drug? In other words, the reactions from the vaccines will not be high but subsequent reactions to other pharmaceuticals containing PEG would rise?
  • Create New...