Crazy (and not-so-crazy) shit about Covid-19

[Steve James]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMc3vL_ ... qm0yg-gfC_

[LaoDan]

Using vaccine which permanently changing our DNA chain is extremely dangerous

Which vaccine would that be? Are you confusing mRNA with DNA? How would mRNA permanently affect one’s DNA? The current mRNA based vaccines will be degraded over time by RNAses into their component nucleotides.

Future potential DNA based vaccines will probably use non-replicating DNAs, so that they would also not cause permanent changes (there are also DNAses that would break down the DNA in these types of vaccines over time).

Do you have data on the degradation rates for these vaccines, or are you just assuming that they would be permanent?

[roger hao]

I am amazed that there are people who can positively assure us
that the vaccine is safe but cannot tell us what is in it.

Discounting that it may be expeditious to have independent development
of vaccine I believe that the ingredients should be published. As Peacedog
is saying - the weight of reactions around the world to the pandemic seems
great enough to transcend the- for profit - introduction of the vaccine. it is
obvious that it is being introduced as a profiteering enterprise.

Regards the medical mistake death rate - it would be telling if the medical
mistakes were reduced while the Covid deaths increased. After all there is
no oversight on either. It is completely controlled by the medical establishment.
Fox in the Hen House.

[Peacedog]

Roger,

Depending upon whose study you look at, some of the data indicates there has been no increase in all source mortality this year with the Covid-19 outbreak. Which is a fancy way of saying no more people died this year than died in any other year. People are arguing over what this means exactly and one possible source of this could well be fewer deaths from medical mistakes as fewer people are being seen by the medical system. It's all raw data at this point and no one will know for sure what is exactly happening for probably 24-36 months.

AFA why this is not better captured by the medical community writ large, if you talk to medical practitioners you will get three responses. First response, "it's all captured in the death rates for specific causes." So a medical mistake involving stroke falls into the death rate for strokes. When pressed a little harder they'll say, "well we have a hard time determining what is or is not exactly a medical mistake." Which is a little closer to the truth. If you really push them hard, and no one else is around to hear their answer, they'll finally admit that they do not track the issue as, "we don't want people who do not understand medicine seeing the raw numbers on this thing and overreacting." Which is a fancy way of stating that they don't want to air their dirty laundry to the general public.

Medical licensure in the US is done at the state level and policed by the local medical authorities as well. A very big negative result of all of this self policing is that it is almost impossible to revoke a medical doctor's license. Since medical doctors in the US are essentially trained via an apprenticeship system, no one wants to be the guy who took someone else's boy's medical license away. It is a major contributor to why medical malpractice insurance is so expensive in the US. Bad doctors can generally kill people for years before the system finally, begrudgingly, gets rid of them. Even then, they can just move to a different state and if they meet the requirements get a license there as well. So these guys usually kill a whole bunch of people before the system finally takes away their license for good.

All of this is also why no one trusts these guys at a policy level. They are not honest with the general public as a matter of practice. A self serving asshat like Fauci should have been gotten rid of after he first screwed up the response to the HIV epidemic in the 1980's. Instead, they linger. Here are some of his greatest hits from that time period. To which he never admitted fault either.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/0 ... -off-mark/

Why would anyone trust this guy given his track record?

That does not mean he is wrong, or for that matter right, now. It does mean anything he says is suspect.

[Steve James]

So, if your doctor advises you not to take the vaccine, don't take it. Don't be amazed if there are people who'll take it, like that 90 year old woman in the UK.

Yeah, the medical establishment is in the hen house, but at best they're roosters who'll be as affected by medical issues as anybody else. If they're taking the vaccine and giving it to health care workers, they probably think it's "safe." Sure, it usually takes hundreds of thousands of people who've received a vaccine in order to see it's effects. But, that takes a long time --even if we had 100K volunteers. How can we know the long term effects without taking a long time?

No one with any sense says that a vaccine is completely safe or even completely effective. Anyway, whatever your personal medical professional advises, do it. Most other people really don't care.

[jimmy]

[wiesiek]

Using vaccine which permanently changing our DNA chain is extremely dangerous

Which vaccine would that be? Are you confusing mRNA with DNA? How would mRNA permanently affect one’s DNA? The current mRNA based vaccines will be degraded over time by RNAses into their component nucleotides.

Future potential DNA based vaccines will probably use non-replicating DNAs, so that they would also not cause permanent changes (there are also DNAses that would break down the DNA in these types of vaccines over time).

Do you have data on the degradation rates for these vaccines, or are you just assuming that they would be permanent?

You know Lao Dan, >will probably< is the right word this time, I`m not the Doc, nor vaccine specialist
BUT
>will probably < is to weak for me to allow put it into my system.
I would probably say YES
,IF it will be clear alternative - die or check it out...
In the mean time I say - NO!

[wiesiek]

PS
I may add, that right now opinion about vaccination in general, became questionable in some scientists circle...

[Giles]

All vaccines can have serious side effects, but it's not useful to compare them to Thalidomide. I was born a few years after the polio vaccine was issued. You can look up the effects of polio at the time. Some people got very sick from the vaccine/s. However, the alternative was spending childhood in an iron lung, or losing the ability to walk without crutches. I have an aunt who was born with polio, and it's handicapped her all her life.

It is rational to be wary of vaccines. It's not crazy to be suspicious of drugs that have been rushed through testing and approval. But, it's got to be considered in light of the problem and what the drug/vaccine was developed to combat. Covid isn't the flu, but it isn't ebola either. If someone can stay relatively isolated, then not taking the vaccine won't hurt anyone. Otoh, if someone doesn't want to take the vaccine, but wants to go to social events, etc., then he's risking everyone else.

Good basic thoughts, Steve - you saved me a reply when I'm pretty busy right now.
The bottom line is, the whole global situation with Covid-19 is pretty terrible. We all think it stinks (even if partly for different reasons). First of all I'll set aside arguments that the virus is just 'a little flu' and/or that excess mortality is not up dramatically. Such claims, even if they go viral and get seized upon by some, are well discredited by now. See for instance https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/flawed-analysis-leads-to-false-claim-of-no-excess-deaths-in-2020/). If people are not past this stage yet, then I think they will be soon when the (excess) death tolls climb even higher. The vaccines won't be there fast enough to stop things getting worse before they get better.

So what are you going to do? Just ignore that it's happening and wait for the deaths to climb to a million or even millions? At the current rate of estimated infections vs. deaths to date, this is quite likely for the USA (yes, not completely certain, because we're not in a familiar, controlled lab experiment). That's not an option I would choose. I wouldn't subscribe to the laissez-faire position "It's God's will / just nature running its course / no big deal, most people will survive..." Sure, smoking may still be killing more people in the long run, but for the great majority of these people they choose to smoke and not give up, so not a good comparison.
Apart from everything else, when the virus REALLY goes exponential then there will be so very many sick people and also so many deaths, that even many sceptics or ignorers will change their practical position, for themselves or their parents, and many branches of the economy will go into major decline anyway - official shutdown or not. Too many people will become scared.

Or do we have long-lasting social and economic lockdowns to keep the worst effects (highest death counts) on check, but then not only during this winter but extending through 2021 and into the next winter as well? Lockdowns plus fresh waves of illness and death. I find that prospect really scary, not so much because I'm afraid of dying from this thing but the whole idea of society, friends, training, travel etc. being semi-frozen for so long. The virus is not going to go just disappear by itself, miraculously. BTDT, Donald.

So basically the only option we're left with is: vaccines that work. And it looks as if we'll be getting them (in reality, in your arm) in the course of next year. It's true that a degree of risk can't be ruled out, either soon or more long term. Pandemrix seems to have been a screw-up (thanks, Bao, didn't know about that one) that shouldn't have happened but even then, in a cold assessment, these really bad side effects were not widespread (yes, if it had been my kid I would have felt destroyed). But this is no basis for arguing that the same or similar will happen with one of the Covid-19 vaccines. All the claims/rumors doing the rounds about these vaccines altering your DNA, utilizing banned techniques, making women infertile, giving you cancer, not having gone through all the normal tests and checks etc. are all demonstrably baseless. Once again, a risk can't be ruled out. But compared to the risk to health (and to the economy, and to the 'health' and stability of human societies in general) that Covid-19 itself presents, I think it's much better to go with the vaccines that have successfully passed through all three stages, then been approved by the competent regulatory authority, and will continue to be monitored VERY closely and critically in the coming period. So if no red flags appear beforehand (and I mean real, scientifically observed and recorded ones, not the familiar junk rumors and also wilful misinformation), then I'll certainly get my vaccination(s) when it's my turn. Everyone will be free not to take it, which is how it should be, but that might possibly stop you working in certain jobs, or travelling to certain places or doing certain things. That too is part of 'freedom of choice'. I hope that worldwide enough people get the shots to put the pandemic back in the box. And then we can turn our collective attention to things that are really important.

[Steve James]

This is the problem right now.

Some California counties on Tuesday saw intensive care units hit full capacity, and others were getting close to that level as COVID-19 cases continued to surge.

At least three counties in the San Joaquin Valley have reached 0% capacity in their hospitals’ intensive care units, making the state’s agricultural hub the first area in California to become maxed out.

In Santa Clara County, meanwhile, conditions are deteriorating rapidly. Officials said there are only 31 ICU beds remaining — less than 10% of the county’s capacity — and that a few hospitals have run out completely.

“It is the worst we have seen, and it’s continuing to worsen,” said Dr. Ahmad Kamal of Santa Clara County.

With a population of almost 1 million people, Fresno County faces a potentially dire situation, overshadowing its smaller neighbors Madera County, to the north, and Kings County, to the south.

LOS ANGELES, CA - DECEMBER 5, 2020: During the global coronavirus pandemic Certified Medical Assistant Ana Ivette Zacarias, 25, walks to her car and changes her clothes after working her shift at South Central Family Health Center at on Sat., December 5, 2020 in Los Angeles, CA. Ana, much like many medical workers is very careful after working her shift. She changes her clothes after work because she does not want to being covid-19 home to her family. (Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times)
CALIFORNIA

“All the things that you’re hearing about how impacted our hospitals are, about how dire this situation with our ICUs is, it’s absolutely true,” said Dr. Rais Vohra, Fresno County Department of Public Health’s interim health officer. “That really is the reason that we want everyone to stay home as much as possible, at least for the next few weeks until we get this surge under control, as we try to work through the hospitalizations that are just coming in so quickly and try to provide the best care.”

Though Central California is the first area in the state to hit 0% ICU capacity, it will not be the last. The latest data show that the entire San Joaquin Valley’s ICU capacity is down to 5.6%, and the Southern California region is hovering around 10.1%.

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... SsFyPah_94

[Giles]

PS
I may add, that right now opinion about vaccination in general, became questionable in some scientists circle...

Hmm, are you saying that scientists are questioning whether vaccination in general is effective? Or claiming that it does more harm than good? Can you provide any sources/references for these scientific opinions?
Or are these the same (kind of) scientists who say that AIDS and ebola were created in laboratories, that abortion causes breast cancer, that evolution is a dubious unproven theory and that global warming is either insignificant or beneficial?

[roger hao]

Or are these the ( kinds of ) scientists who have excellent credentials
but are motivated by greed or political ambition to support a narrative?

[Giles]

[LaoDan]

Using vaccine which permanently changing our DNA chain is extremely dangerous

Which vaccine would that be? Are you confusing mRNA with DNA? How would mRNA permanently affect one’s DNA? The current mRNA based vaccines will be degraded over time by RNAses into their component nucleotides.

Future potential DNA based vaccines will probably use non-replicating DNAs, so that they would also not cause permanent changes (there are also DNAses that would break down the DNA in these types of vaccines over time).

Do you have data on the degradation rates for these vaccines, or are you just assuming that they would be permanent?

You know Lao Dan, >will probably< is the right word this time, I`m not the Doc, nor vaccine specialist
BUT
>will probably < is to weak for me to allow put it into my system.
I would probably say YES
,IF it will be clear alternative - die or check it out...
In the mean time I say - NO!

Come on! The degree of uncertainty is because of MY lack of knowledge – I am not in the field and do not have access to all labs developing DNA based vaccines in the world! Still, I do not understand why you would think that the current mRNA vaccines would cause permanent changes. What are your sources for this information? If credible, then they should be able to explain WHY and HOW.

If you are waiting for 100% consensus, then you will never get it. Would 90% of authorities stating that it is safe and effective be enough for you? Would 99%? You will always be able to find someone who disagrees with almost anything, especially when an issue becomes politicized. But they are typically in the minority, and their credibility needs to be examined and established. Politicians like Trump are not credible [he just claims things are the way that he wants them to be, regardless of reality], and when authorities like Dr. Fouchi make statements that politicians do not like (especially politicians who do not understand the scientific field), then they resort to character assassination to “kill the messenger” in the hopes that their message will also be ignored.

If one needs consensus in order to trust something to be true, then one will not have that level of proof. In this situation one could rationalize believing almost anything. If one is sowing doubt in order to promote what they want other people to believe, then that information is unlikely to be reliable and could be (probably is) disseminating misinformation or lies.

As to the potential DNA based vaccines, if anyone was NOT using non-replicable DNA, then they SHOULD be condemned. But if there is no evidence that anyone is, then why would one assume that some labs are? You would need to provide credible evidence of misuse in the DNA based vaccine field rather than just spreading speculative misinformation! Or you would need to show credible evidence that non-replicable DNA is not safe for some reason (other than speculative science fiction).

The above being said, typically one needs months of data before determining and understanding potential harmful effects, and phase 3 trial participants are typically followed for three years to determine long term effects, length of effectiveness, determination if booster shots would be sufficient to maintain immunity, etc. We will not know about long term effects until these vaccines have been in use for years – will you want to wait that long? Perhaps you will be lucky and not be exposed, and if exposed, have no or mild symptoms – good luck.

Note: Although only perhaps 4% of the population has confirmed COVID-19 exposures, and that sounds like a very small number, one can also think of this as being 1 in 25 individuals. How frequently do you come into contact with 25 or more other people? While that percentage is cumulative and many of those individuals will no longer be contagious (due to recovery or death...), you get the idea.

[Giles]

LaoDan has just said it, but to highlight this fact even more:

The current 'innovative' vaccines for Covid-19, the ones that have now been approved or will be approved shortly, are not DNA-based. They use mRNA as part of a method that does not involve a risk of changing or interacting with your own DNA. As a rough metaphor: if you take a flight in a glider, even if it's a long and high flight, is there a risk of you colliding with a satellite and causing the satellite and yourself to crash to earth, possibly killing many people?

(This metaphor refers to mRNA/human DNA interaction, not to any other risks that currently can't 100% ruled out.)