Dr. Paul Thomas and Dr. Bob Sears both have books on vaccines that are very much for informed consent and unbiased. Both are current with recent research on vaccines and long-term health outcomes. The Highwire and Children's Health Defense are good websites for unbiased information and news. Best wishes trying to find a pediatrician who will allow anyone vaccinated not exactly on the CDC schedule in his/her practice. I have found general practitioners more open to alternative schedules that fit the child's risk profile.

I think a lot of businesses will soon be requiring it for employees and customers. I don't think any vaccine that has not been proven to prevent person-to-person transmission should be mandated by any business or the government, though. If a vaccine only decreases symptoms in the recipient, that person should be able to make a decision with his/her healthcare provider to take the vaccine or not.

Out of the tens of millions who have had a positive PCR test, what percentage is getting reinfected? 0.0001%? 0.1%? 10%? 50%? Last week, the numbers I saw were 25 confirmed and about 400 suspected. It seems like any new piece of information concerning this specific virus is taken as gospel and shared even if it is not an occurrence widely spread across the general populous, nor is any other information given for perspective about the same instances in similar circumstances. The vaccine will not prevent 100% of infections in 100% of people, isn't proven to prevent subsequent symptomatic/asymptomatic infections, and isn't proven to prevent person-to-person transmission, so all vaccinated people will still need to wear a mask because some could be contagious. If this is a virus that is going to be in circulation all the time, based on the premises above (reinfections, vaccine ineffectiveness, *any and all* general communicable respiratory illnesses), the conclusion is masks will either be worn by mandate or worn due to societal pressures in perpetuity because there will always be deaths from respiratory illnesses. Seriously, where do we draw the line? When is logic and self-responsibility going to be applied?

We know that most of the people who are testing positive twice have not been infected a second time, the test is just a continuation of the first? We know that antibodies last at least a few months. We know that people infected with SARS have immunity 17 years later. So why can't the millions of people who have already had it not wear a mask? If they have to wear a mask because reinfection is likely to happen, then how is a vaccine going to work? If they have to wear a mask even if they aren't likely to get reinfected, it is just a symbol forced upon a growing population to elevate others fears.

This article might be helpful: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/immunity-to-the-coronavirus-may-last-years-new-data-hint/ar-BB1b6dwt?ocid=mailsignout&li=BBnb7Kz. From the article: The research, published online, has not been peer-reviewed nor published in a scientific journal. But it is the most comprehensive and long-ranging study of immune memory to the coronavirus to date. “That amount of memory would likely prevent the vast majority of people from getting hospitalized disease, severe disease, for many years,” said Shane Crotty, a virologist at the La Jolla Institute of Immunology who co-led the new study. The findings are likely to come as a relief to experts worried that immunity to the virus might be short-lived, and that vaccines might have to be administered repeatedly to keep the pandemic under control. And the research squares with another recent finding: that survivors of SARS, caused by another coronavirus, still carry certain important immune cells 17 years after recovering.

re: the bolded If a vaccine doesn't prevent transmission from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person, how is that different from an unvaccinated person spreading it to an unvaccinated person or from a vaccinated person spreading it to a vaccinated person. If the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission, people who don't take the vaccine aren't getting benefits from people who do take the vaccine. You have to take the vaccine to get any benefits and even then it's only personal benefits, not "herd" benefits. I thought the letter brought to light an important point, if the vaccine isn't tracking severity outcomes or transmission interruption, people should know. If not, when someone gets the vaccine, they can still get the virus, be asymptomatic (or symptomatic), and spread it to anyone. If the mortality for the older age group is the same in both the vaccine and control groups (like with influenza vaccine), people should be more cautious when interacting with them.

There are many influenza studies which show that vaccination does not decrease mortality, especially in the over 65 population, or transmission, but the manufacturers only looked at the decrease in confirmed cases, so they can say the vaccine is "effective". Let's go with your previous post of Moderna's latest data: 90 symptomatic people were in the control group, 5 were in the vaccine group. If they don't report severity, how do we know if the number of people who had to be hospitalized are/aren't similar in both groups? How do we know if the number of deaths are/aren't similar in each group? If we don't know, then it should be made clear and widely known that those things were not tested for. This has a clear explanation of why the severity of outcomes and transmission interruption should be endpoints that are being tracked but aren't: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037. Two passages I found pertinent: "Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said, 'Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things . . . first, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission.'” and "But Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, told The BMJ that the company’s trial lacks adequate statistical power to assess those outcomes. 'The trial is precluded from judging [hospital admissions], based on what is a reasonable size and duration to serve the public good here,' he said. Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out."

I try to look at all information. What part of their letter was not factual? If the people in the vaccine trials are not getting tested frequently, then how can the manufacturers claim that the vaccine reduces infection? From what I have read, the companies are only taking self-reported data of symptoms and testing only those with symptoms. The people who have taken the vaccine could have gotten infected and just been asymptomatic, yes? Some of the people could have already gotten T cell immunity to the virus before they entered the vaccine trial, which would take them out of the actual pool, right?

Did you read the letter? It doesn't say any of those things you asked about. It just says that right now the studies aren't looking at certain outcomes or baseline markers and that those things, like preventing person-to-person transmission and testing to see if a person already has T cell immunity, are important to include. If a vaccine is touted to be 94% effective, but no one says anything about what that actually means, people are going to be screaming that is should be mandated for everyone so we can all "get back to normal". Mandates, in that case, would not help decrease cases and getting it would not prevent you from spreading it to others.

re: what the vaccine will or won't change From the letter: If a COVID-19 vaccine is licensed without an appropriate efficacy review, then any potential acceptance or mandate of these vaccines are likely to be based on inaccurate beliefs about the vaccine, namely that it will stop transmission of the virus from the vaccine recipient to others or that it will reduce severe COVID-19 disease and deaths. The trial protocols for Moderna’s mRNA-1273 (NCT04470427), 1 Pfizer’s BNT162b (NCT04368728), 2 AstraZeneca’s ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (NCT04400838) 3 and Johnson & Johnson’s Ad26.COV2.S (NCT04505722) 4 are not currently designed to determine whether either of those objectives can be met. https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Ltr-to-Peter-Marks-re-Efficacy-COVID-19-vaccines.pdf Hopefully, any and all vaccines that get approval will have transparency on these things and the limitations will be widely publicized.

Do you know what the cycle threshold was for the test? I have been reading some studies that show if the cycle threshold is past a certain number, the test result is a positive, but the sample cannot be cultured to grow the actual virus; the person is not infectious, the sample just has dead piece of the virus.

Welcome to The Club That No One Wants To Be In. First thing I learned was Hashi's isn't a bad thyroid, it's an immune attack on the thyroid. As others have said, there is a genetic predisposition. Both of my grandmothers and both of my parents were diagnosed with hypothyroidism based on TSH testing. My mom later got a proper diagnosis of Hashi's and thyroid cancer. I was a goner because, though my genetics loaded the gun, my parents never knew enough to clear my environment, which pulled the trigger. I was able to get diagnosed before I was 30 and have taken extra precautions to limit environmental factors for my dds as they have grown up. Adding to what others upthread have said, I have managed mine and gotten rid of my nodules by just changing my diet and adding selenomethionine and L-Tyrosine, so meds are not *always* necessary. YMMV. Most helpful sites for me were https://www.thepaleomom.com/start-here/the-autoimmune-protocol/ and the Thyroid Pharmacist. A full thyroid panel (https://thyroidpharmacist.com/articles/top-10-thyroid-tests/) will give you a complete picture of not only your thyroid function but also your autoimmune levels. Best wishes on your healing journey.

Let's hope your suspicions are correct and laissez-faire is actually allowed to happen :). TSA is problematic for me, as well, especially considering they are fairly inept. I would rather drive two days each way than fly. Currently, due to my husband's job, we are at a 5 day drive each way to see family, which makes flying a necessity. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tsa-fails-95-percent-tests-homeland-security_n_7485558 https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-operation-us-airports/story?id=51022188 https://www.hstoday.us/industry/tsa-wants-to-increase-third-party-testing-on-screening-systems-despite-a-lack-of-take-up-to-date/

I'm a libertarian, so I think the list is a mile long 😜. The most notable two are small businesses are tanking right now and kids are not able to do in-person school.

Just to be clear, I am not panicked or worried about this. I just like to stay informed about future possibilities...prepare for the worst, pray for the best. I would like to dismiss tracking people's medical information and requiring to participate in normal, everyday activity as Orwellian, but the level of liberties people are giving away to the government now for a bit of potential safety is concerning.

Hu dark chocolate gems are my favorite.

"To date, the Food and Drug Administration has not approved any third-party companies to provide the complex technology needed to deliver real-time vaccination results, but Ticketmaster president Mark Yovich expects the demand for digital screening services -- which will be needed for airline travel, employment verification and theme park entry -- will attract a new wave of investors and entrepreneurs to fuel the growth of a new COVID-19 technology sector." https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/touring/9481166/ticketmaster-vaccine-check-concerts-plan If this starts, where does it end? Will we all need smart phones that carry proof of vaccination if we want to go to the grocery store or an office, as well? If a vaccine does not prevent person-to-person spread and doesn't have close to 100% effectiveness, what is the point in tracking and proving one has taken the vaccine, besides making tech companies and their investors a large profit by coercing a majority of individuals into participation? What about people who can't get tested for whatever reason? What about the people who had the virus and are recovered, but due to cycle thresholds during testing, they test positive? Or have cycle thresholds been lowered to read positive only if people have an active infection? Why not stop at this disease and vaccine? Communicable disease are transmitted and kill daily; do we add tests for those 1000s of diseases and require proof for the handful of vaccines currently in production, as well? Or, is this just one company who is totally off-base and you don't see this going anywhere beyond hot air.

So based on this, vaccines should be proven to prevent colonization and person-to-person spread to fulfill the right to go to a disease-free school and live in a disease-free society? I think you would be surprised to find that not all mandated vaccines do that, but they are still mandated to "prevent the spread of disease". And what about the 1000s of diseases that have no vaccine for them? Are a person's rights to go to a disease-free school being infringed because scientists haven't gotten rid of *all* illnesses? This vaccine is being fast-tracked on hyper speed. We haven't ever had an mRNA vaccine to get any idea on concomitant and long-term side effects. It appears that the U.S. will either use Moderna or Pfizer, both mRNA vaccines. If there are monetary incentives to take the vaccine, the poor end up being the guinea pigs. If there is free and informed consent for the exchange, I have no issues with it, but I doubt that will be the case.

I have been a vegetarian since I was 14 and gluten free since I was 27. I ate a ton of fake meat for about 10 years, mostly Morningstar Farms and Loma Linda...lots of soy isolate protein. After I was diagnosed with Hashimoto's, I avoided most fake meat like the plague due to the processed soy. I do like the brand Quorn for "chicken" chunks and "turkey" rolls; I don't know if this brand would work for you because they do have a few breaded items that may be processed in the same facility as the non-breaded items. There are two brands that have really tasty, whole food, vegetarian, gluten free burgers, but due to the price, I buy them infrequently and can't remember the names; I find them at Whole Foods and some Publix in the freezer section. For jerky I do Pan's mushroom jerky, which I get from Thrive Market.

But who gets to choose what is offensive? Who is the person who gets to decide that X can be thought/said but not Y? I don't ever get offended because in this country, people are all over the place: different religions, different cultures, etc. What one finds offensive might just be commonplace for another person. Now, I sometimes think to myself, "I have tried to talk to this person and he/she isn't being logical/respectful. This conversation is not getting either of us anywhere," and I try steering the conversation to neutral waters to end it on a good note. Some people are just blockheads and me getting offended is a waste of my time and energy.

For me, I try to focus locally. I got off of all social media almost two years ago. It has freed up time and mind-space to focus on my family, friends, and local community. I see media, social and news, as intentionally divisive, polarizing, and manipulative. Views/clicks make money. When you talk to your family/friend/neighbor face to face, meaningful conversations can be had, mostly due to the fact that tone is less likely to get misinterpreted, people are more likely to not say things that are explosive, and you realize that you are interacting with an actual human being. I learned quickly that even though we don't agree on everything, no one is a monster, we can always find common ground, and we are not as divided and hateful as the media would have us believe. I homeschool my kids. They are taught, among other things, critical thinking skills, debate, basic statistics/research design, and basic psychology so they are less likely to be manipulated by a narrative. They are taught that everyone has a right to voice their opinions so people are heard and not shut down (no getting offended because someone holds a different point of view). I include them in my adult life and model respectful behavior. Even though they are only teenagers now, I can see that they have a wide range of friends and can discuss challenging topics in a thoughtful manner.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10096-020-03913-9 "In the present work, we observe a strong correlation between Ct value and sample infectivity in a cell culture model. On the basis of this data, we can deduce that with our system, patients with Ct values equal or above 34 do not excrete infectious viral particles." "One limitation of our work is that it cannot be extrapolated to other hospital centers since they use different systems of sample transport, of RNA extraction, and of PCR with different primers and probes; i.e. it has been suggested that sensitivity of amplification based on Gene E detection would be less sensitive than ORF1ab or N genes. We propose that each center perform its own correlation between culture results and viral RNA load from patients’ samples." If we had better numbers/correlation for all PCR tests, we could get more accurate case numbers and a deeper understanding of who is actually infectious. If PCR tests are running higher Ct values, finding any viral loads, and reporting a case positive, it would seem that that is a false positive. Has anyone seen other research like this?

Emily, sorry to hear about your RSI after flu shots. If there isn't a true placebo, then how do we suss out SAEs, both short and long-term? Isn't that why other pharmaceutical products that go through testing use things such as sugar pills as placebos in their trials? If a product being tested was suspected to give the recipient dry mouth/nausea/insomnia/etc., would the "placebo" also have to be known for giving people the same side effects so people in the trial wouldn't know if they got the actual drug or the placebo? The package inserts of vaccines show that most people, thankfully, don't report inflammation, swelling, redness, or fever for the 3-7 day reporting window after receiving most vaccines. Why do we need the "placebo" to be some other vaccine that creates some level of inflammation even though most people wouldn't know, based on their lack of inflammation, which group they were in? Using a true placebo for all of these vaccine trials wouldn't be unethical, either, because we don't have another protective vaccine already approved and in use for this virus.

Do you know if all of the potential vaccines are being tested against an inert placebo in all phases? In most other vaccines, there isn't a true control, just another vaccine (different type, different brand, or previous version) or the ingredients of the vaccine being tested minus the pathogen. It would give us very solid data and a clear picture (e.g. short-term side effects and efficacy) if a true inert placebo is used and a challenge study is done. If that is the case, more people might be willing to get it.

Apologies. I have been keeping an eye on case numbers. I just looked specifically at positivity rates. We had a 2% positivity each week until the middle of July, with two outbreaks the first week of June. For the next six weeks it was 4.9%, 3.7%, 4.1%, 4.7%, 4.1%, and 4.2%. During that time, 7 facilities reported outbreaks from weeks 4-6 of the high rates. September was 2.8%, 2.5%, 2% (2 outbreaks that week), 2%, and 1.7%. October was 2% weekly with 5 outbreaks reported for this week. Edited to add: Death counts are in my previous post through the end of August. There were an additional 2 from the September outbreaks and 3 (so far) from the 5 outbreaks reported this week.