slug.com slug.com

5 0

Disinformation has consequences. A Georgia police officer who frequently posted anti-vaxx messages on Facebook and took an anti-parasitic drug instead of a vaccine has died of COVID-19.

[msn.com]

TyKC 7 Aug 28
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

There are fools everywhere there is no vaccine for stupidity, just like those who believe the lies about other countries etc... if you don't live there if you don't understand the politics or in this case the medical science, then you will be clueless and sucked into any rubbish people post.

2

To be fair people who are vaccinated also still die.
And almost no one dies without some co-morbidity.

The vaccine has been poor at stopping transmissions, however it does appear to reduce severe cases.

That's true, but it is a rare occurrence. It's certainly not true that no one dies without some co-morbidity. Many presumably healthy people have died. I don't think the vaccine has been poor at stopping transmissions. All evidence shows that you can only transmit the disease if you have a breakthrough infection and those are rare. If more evidence comes to light, that opinion might change, but I doubt it. In the States of Louisiana and Mississippi, federal healthcare workers had to be brought in because of the number of new cases, primarily of the unvaccinated. The hospital systems have been overwhelmed. Doctors pleading with people to get vaccinated. This in states where the governors have been reluctant to take precautionary measures or promote the vaccine. They don't need no stinkin' federal interference until they do.

@TyKC Check out the current records on breakthrough cases in Israel and Iceland both with extremely high rates of vaccination.

[msn.com]

[news.yahoo.com]

@toronto_Georgia This is not new information. Health professionals have known this for sometime. And I'm sure they have worked this information into their calculus. It is a fluid and dynamic situation. No doubt the delta variant is far more contagious. But I don't see why this information would send me chasing after some pipedream cure that's likely ineffective and possibly more dangerous.

The broader issue is that I'm supposed to have some sixth sense that tells me that I'm reading something from the MSM, whatever that means, and I should reject that information out of hand because they have an agenda. What that agenda is I will leave to its proponents to explain. Instead I should seek even more dubious sources, which, if I pay attention, speak the truth, uncover the light, that the MSM covers up, in an utopian agendaless heroic effort to save Mankind from itself. I fully admit that I have no such sixth sense and I'm envious of those who do. Evidently, I'm doomed to be crippled by my own deficiencies and condemned to a life of liberalism.

If you research the internet long enough, you'll find that the laws of physics are bunk. That Newton was a fraud. And that Einstein is part of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. Never mind that his theories have withstood years of scrutiny by meticulously designed experiments. This last bit of information comes from mainstream physics that has an agenda, and therefore, I should ignore it. Sorry, but I'm not put together that way. I use the conventional wisdom as a baseline and tend to support it until there is good reason not to. And there has to be a really good reason.

@TyKC what is the difference between a “breakthrough” and a normal infection?
If you have a reference that would be great, else just a short description would be useful.

Deaths due to Covid under the age of 60 and no other co-morbidity is very rare. About as rare as people dying from the vaccine under the age of 60 and no co-morbidity.

The difference is when you are over 60 or do have a couple-morbidity. Then the vaccine appear to greatly reduce mortality and slightly reduce transmissions.

@Hanno Breakthrough infections are those that occur in people who have received a vaccine at least 14 days before becoming infected. The term implies that the virus “broke through a protective barrier provided by the vaccine.” The Kaiser Family Foundation found that among 25 states that regularly report Covid-19 breakthrough events, infections among fully vaccinated individuals were well below 1 percent. But the data is a total tally beginning in January and likely doesn't accurately reflect the odds of a breakthrough infection due to Delta. Scientists have also detected significantly more viral particles in the respiratory tracts of individuals infected with Delta. If more virus exists in someone’s nose and throat, that person can expel more virus into the air and thus spread it more easily. However, vaccinated people don't have as many viral cells, so they are less likely to transmit.

[smithsonianmag.com]

The percentage of deaths of those under age 64 makeup about 21% of the deaths. While significantly lower than those 65 or older, I wouldn't describe those deaths as "very rare." They amount to over 100,000.

[statista.com]

@TyKC
Ah, so it is just a man made term an not an actual different type of infection. Thanks for explaining.

Deaths of people under 60 AND no co-morbidity are very rare.
The vast majority of those 21% has co-morbidities.
The total mortality rate is decreasing all the time due to insufficient testing and erroneous attribution of death to Covid at the beginning of the epidemic. Have a look at the morbidity graphs for the world and every country. Those graphs are now being skewed due to vaccine effects, however the pattern is clear.

The eventual total “natural” death rate of the whole population is less than 1% (0,4-0,6% according to CDC and other agencies). Of which 21% is under 60, which is less than 0,2% (likely less than 0,1%) and more than 90% had co-morbidities, meaning the mortality rate is less than 0,02% (likely less than 0.01%) for fully healthy people under the age of 60, which for any other cause of death would be classed as less than one in 10 000 which is very rare.

The case for vaccines are not so clear for this group of people since the vaccine does not stop transmissions completely, just reduce it somewhat.

The case for vaccines for those over 60 and having any co-morbidity is very clear.

Current data suggests the risks of the vaccines are small enough that it is fair to roll out the vaccine to everyone over the age of 12 with their consent.

@TyKC
Sometimes I am lazy selecting and/or correctly and my message reads wrong… sorry for confusion. I think it is clear now.

If you are over 60 you are at risk with or without a co-morbidity. You could say being over 60 IS the co-morbidity.

If you are under 60 the risk is very small unless you have a co-morbidity.

The risk of course depends on the type and severity of the co-morbidity.

I think if all above is better understood the internet arguments over the value and need of the vaccine will diminish.

@Hanno If this is really true, you would have to explain what you mean by "co-morbidity" and provide a source for it. Just like I had to explain what "breakthrough" meant and provide a definition. I seriously doubt that most states track how many deaths are due to co-morbidity and how many are not. Without a creditable scientific source for this, your claims are dubious at best.

@TyKC
The CDC? The NZ dept of health? Your medical doctor?
A co-morbidity is any pre-condition that has been identified as increasing the risk of death by Covid 19.
It is used for many diseases… for example AIDS is a co-morbidity for Tuberculosis etc.

We specifically selected “essential staff” to do work during full lockdowns based on their co-morbidity ( In NZ anyway, however I am sure this is used everywhere else).

Specific co-morbidities we have to take into account for COVID-19 are:
Any type of previous cancer or chemotherapy the past two years.
Obesity listed as a BMI above 35.
Any serious heart condition or heart attack in past three years.
Smoking
Tuberculosis and other lung diseases.
Diabetics
Anyone over the age of 70.
Etc.

If anyone has the above they are listed as at risk due to co-morbidity and they may not perform essential services during full
Lockdowns.

If they don’t have any of these they can be employed as essential workers since their risk is extremely low.

@Hanno Ok, fair enough. I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest here. I have no doubt that pre-existing conditions contribute to hospitalizations and deaths. And I'm willing to admit that most people over 60 have pre-existing conditions of one kind or another. I'm trying to figure out the relevancy here. If you are suggesting that we only vaccinate people with pre-existing conditions, that seems odd. One of the reason you vaccinate people is to keep the virus from mutating as fast, to slow it down. That seems important.

On the other hand, if you are suggesting that it's the pre-existing conditions along with Covid that cause hospitalizations and deaths and that the vaccine cannot protect anybody from that, the data says otherwise. If that were true, hospitalizations and deaths would be independent of whether or not people were vaccinated. That's clearly not the case, at least so far. The vast majority of the hospital cases and deaths occurring currently, are the unvaccinated, at least, in the USA. A very small percentage are people who have been vaccinated. The vaccine appears to be working whether or not people have pre-existing conditions.

@TyKC
I have said none of the kind.
Just read the posts above, about 4 or so back.
Cannot really say it clearer.

Going back to my original statement, which is based on observations in highly vaccinated countries:
1.The vaccine is poor at stopping transmissions. If this was not true, we would not be rolling out second and now third booster shots.
2.The vaccines appear to reduce the number of severe cases and thereby mortality. We know this because the severe drop in mortality rate in highly vaccinated countries vs not highly vaccinated.

The rest of the discussion was just to help you understand how we got to those conclusions.

I cannot comment on the ability of the vaccine to reduce mutations. From an evolutionary point of view stress on a population (such as a vaccine on a virus epidemic) do Increase the probability of mutations to survive, however it reduces the total number of mutations.
Hence it is hard to say if a particular vaccine limits new mutations.
We know for example that antibiotics have increased viable mutations in bacteria.

@Hanno The word "poor" is a relative term. I'm not sure there is enough data to determine to what extent the vaccine reduces transmission. I am sure that the vaccine is less effective against delta. Transmission normally is a function of the amount of virus in the infected person. The more viral cells you have in your body, particularly in your nose and throat, the more chance there is of spreading it. It's safe to assume that vaccinated people have less viral cells, and therefore, are less likely to spread the disease.

Said differently, how is it that this virus seemingly violates the second law of thermodynamics? In other words, how does a cool pan of water generate the same amount of steam as a pan of boiling water? We know what the answer is. It's doesn't. And what amounts to the same thing, how does a person lightly infected with the disease give off the same amount of viral excrement as a person massively infected with the disease? There may be a reasonable explanation, but I haven't heard one yet.

There is a lot of debate, at least in this country, over the need for a booster. It seems like simply a precautionary measure. Clearly, the vaccine is not as effective against the delta. People will have to make a decision, if they want the booster or not.

@TyKC
The word “poor” in this context means: insufficiently reduce new infections to stop the pandemic.
The purpose of this vaccine as originally advertised is to reduce new infections to such as extent to reduce the pandemic to levels what we can easily deal with.
The vaccine has been “poor” at achieving this… as I stated the need to revaccinate twice and now three times.
The data is in, we now know this.

I don’t understand your 2nd law analogy. No one said the viral loads are the same. To the contrary. The reduced significant cases and lower transmissions indicate reduced viral loads.

However, it is not sufficiently reduced to stop the epidemic. The viral loads are not sufficiently lowered to stop new infections as needed to get the epidemic under control.

@Hanno I don't agree. The vaccine was designed and tested on the original variant of the virus. And it was very effective. But viruses mutate. So, we are talking apples and oranges here. This should not be unexpected. It's clear that the vaccine is not as effective against the delta variant. Whether a third dose will be sufficient remains to be seen. It could be entirely possible that we will need an on-going dose as the virus mutates just as with flu vaccines. Health officials always hope that the virus dies out on its own unable to spread because it no longer can grow. They've been fairly successful, about 14 diseases have been all but eliminated. That's still a possibility. But we seem to be holding health officials accountable for what they cannot possibly know or predict. The distrust is palpable and there doesn't seem to be a good reason for it.

@TyKC
No TyKC.

The fact that the virus mutates is not new. They all do. Hence we have new flu vaccines every year.
The point is that colds are so more effective at this and hence a large fraction of scientists argued that a vaccine will not be effective in the long term and you would need to have a new Covid vaccine out every 6 months to a year.
This is known and was completely expected and was predicted.

There is a big difference between viruses such as small pox for which vaccines have been successful and the common cold viruses.

These vaccines have been “good” at stopping their respective pandemics, the Covid vaccines have been “poor”.
These vaccines were good by stopping the original variants as well as later mutations. This is aided by the fact that these diseases mutate slower and their mutations are less successful to defend against acquired immunity.

Covid -19 is not a “new” disease. It is just a variation of the coronavirus that has been around for thousands of years. The new variants of Covid are just a continuation of these variants.

And this will continue. There are many other variants of corona out there and people get them all the time. As there are also many variants of the rhino-, andeno-, and entero-viruses that all causes different type of colds and they evolve all the time.
They are all deadly to specific individuals with specific co-morbidities.
Covid-19 is not unique. It was just unusually deadly to a larger group of individuals than usual, especially lately since we have become very adept at keeping old people alive when just a decade ago they would have succumbed.
Again, this is not new. This has happened in the past and will happen again.

@toronto_Georgia Normal flu vaccine is 40~60% effective... Seems Covid19 vaccine fits that model... So instead of being a population killer Covid19 may just be a normal variation of the flu - some years it's worse than others 🤔

@azjc
That is correct.
The extremely low mortality for non-co-morbid individuals right from the start confirmed that.

The Covid vaccines will not stop the pandemic… just lesson it’s impact.
Is that a good thing? Yes!
Is it the solution? No!

The solution is simply to vaccinate the at risk people as soon as possible and return the world to normal.

People will still die and live as they always have done while doctors and science do what they do to make that more bearable.

@Hanno Define at risk: Close friend of ours might fall into your category... 68, life time diabetic, 2x Cancer survivor. Got the jab, caught Covid19, hospital, caught phenomena and died within days (kids didn't even have time to fly in). My wife is a cancer survivor, kidney disease and a few other things that you might put in that high risk group - but no vaccine for her - who knows how it will react? 40 years as a early childhood educator, pretty sure she has a damn good natural immunity.

@azjc
I made a list earlier for TyKC. That list needs to be updated continuously as we learn what co-morbidities are important and which ones not. And then act accordingly.

As said before, the vaccine is not a silver bullet. It significantly reduces severe cases and deaths. Will never eliminate it.
It reduces transmissions, however not sufficiently to stop the pandemic.

For example, in NZ being Maori is more important than being under 60 with a significant co-morbidity.
The roll out here has been poor due to political interference and poor leadership.

@Hanno You Say: The fact that the virus mutates is not new. They all do.

That's actually not true. Some do, some don't. And the rate of mutation between viruses varies widely. Most viruses don't mutate that fast, particularly new ones even if they are variants of commonly known viruses.

You say: Hence a large fraction of scientists argued that a vaccine will not be effective in the long term and you would need to have a new Covid vaccine out every 6 months to a year.

You need to provide a source for this claim. I have not heard this. What do you call a large fraction of scientists?

You say: These vaccines have been “good” at stopping their respective pandemics, the Covid vaccines have been “poor”.

You also need to provide a source for this. I don't really think you can make this claim. We really don't know the transmission rates of vaccinated people, whether or not the spread rate could be made so low as to eventually make the virus die out. The shorter gustation period and prudent use of facial coverings could reduce the spread to manageable levels.

[cdc.gov]

It's also not true that covid is the same kind of virus as the common cold: Both COVID-19 and the common cold are caused by viruses. COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2, while the common cold is most often caused by rhinoviruses. They are similar, but slightly different. The big difference is that COVID-19 is much more deadly than the common cold.

[cdph.ca.gov]

[reuters.com]

You say: It is just a variation of the coronavirus that has been around for thousands of years.

That's actually not true either. The virus referred to in the claim is COVID-19, which is a new strain of the human coronavirus, not the general coronavirus family.

[reuters.com]

@TyKC
I don’t think you know what mutates mean…. You need to at least understand that or basics of evolution before we can discuss these things.
Please read up what mutations are… they happen continuously in all DNA and RNA.

Cells have different mechanisms to deal with mutations and hence they evolve faster or slower, and that is further affected by the environment etc etc.
No organism can protect its DNA from cosmic or radioactive decay radiation and there are many other causes of DNA damage. All organisms experience mutations all the time, even you. You are a mutant. So am I. If your specific mutations are highly beneficial in the current environment, then you will breed more effectively and your mutations will become more dominant and if it is significant enough or there are geographical separation, you and your offspring will form a new variant and eventually a new species.
Of course the vast majority of mutations are failures and you simple don’t see them.

This happens to everything that has DNA and RNA.

If you have not heard or seen the responses of doctors and other scientists on YouTube and elsewhere, you have been living under a rock. The concerns about vaccines are not unfounded. All vaccines have side effects. The potential efficacy of a cold vaccines is a significant discussion point and it appears that it is just about as effective as the current flu vaccines.
That is not a bad thing..: but not the same as many other highly effective vaccines. As I explained before.

Why cannot I make this claim?
Vaccines eradicated many diseases in the past. They work very well for some diseases.
We know the transmissions from vaccinated people. Because we track and trace. We know how infectious vaccinated people are statistically. Why do you think we are doing second and third boosters?
So before you call me wrong, please answer these questions.
Why have Fauci asked vaccinated people to where masks?
Why are doing boosters?
Vaccinated people getting ill and spreading is well reported.
This was already the case before the delta.
Again this I have explained.

Please read up on the common cold. There are 5 common cold viruses. I listed them all for you just a few post ago.
Unless the COVID-19 virus is indeed man-manipulated at the Wuhan lab, the virus is just a natural mutation of an existing cold virus. Just like the 200+ others once already identified.
And they are all deadly for immune compromised people.
Some more than others.

Obviously I refer to the human coronavirus. And the “human” coronavirus have been around for thousands of years.

Nothing I said was untrue. You don’t understand and read sources out of contexts.

@Hanno Yes, you have explained. Yet you offer no data or sources to back your claims and when I ask for them, I'm told that I should be the one to do the research. I have. And I simply cannot find what's not there. I've provided sources and data to back my opinions on this. You have offered none. Evidently, you don't have to, because you already have all the answers off the top of your head. Well, good for you.

@TyKC
I understand your frustration.
It is one of the fundamental problems we have found in the high information era. So much information and so little understanding.
There is just so much I don’t understand, even if I have all the information. It requires reading a LOT and evaluating continuously that what you learnt.
However since I have done much of this I do understand a small fraction of our world and hence the problem I have is to extrapolate that small understanding to everything else I just that the information for.
It is hard not to do it because the actual understanding part take so long and require so much effort and cannot be achieved by just reading a few sources.

I have often studied something, got to an understanding, and then years later has to study it again and realised I completely misunderstood key parts of it.

Wikipedia is a good example. Most of the questions you have are reasonably well explained there. However it is not sufficient to fully understand.
For example if you read Wiki it will explain the 5 main cold viruses well enough to understand.
However it does not explain mutations or (in my opinion) the modern vaccines sufficiently to gain a reasonable level of understanding.

My bigger problem is that “my understanding” of things are built up from many sources, most I cannot even cite anymore. It is a combination of many field that interest me that is continuously expanding.
So unfortunately much what I understand is of the top of my head, and hence I am always open to be corrected.
Even though it does not appear like that, just in this forum I have been corrected several times and are appreciative of it.

5

There are several levels of crappola in this. !st, what is anyone of >average IQ doing on facebook? Just going there drags down your IQ. 2nd, posting anti-vax info usually gets you immediately banned from FB, so I don't believe the post a'tall. 3rd, disagreeing with a position only counts as disinformation in a Fascist/Communist society. It is part of the scientific process: gather info, post hypothesis, show some spine by publishing/asking for comments, getting comments, REBOOT. Cutting out the last couple of steps is what totalitarian regimes do -- in addition to killing the one who dares to ask questions. 4th, anyone mistaking an anti-parasitic for a vaccine is too dumb to live. 5th, the diagnosis of "dying of Covid" has been corrupt from day one when CDC changed rules to : ~"if he had sniffles before dying chalk it up to Covid since that gives the hospital more $$$".

If you'd read the article, he was banned from FB, but not before the info spread to other sites. It is not disagreement. This is someone wholly unqualified to speak on this subject who lacks the common sense to know so. I certainly would not make the statements he made without reference to a source of my beliefs. And I seriously doubt the CDC changed its rules solely give more $$ to hospital. This is horrifying disinformation that is dangerous.

@TyKC You need to educate yourself on the corruption is this whole mess. CDC changed the definition of "dying from and dying with". What their reasoning was, I no longer care. Just like I care about as much as what they have to say about anything as I care about what the SPLCenter has to say about racism -- both totally compromised. What was passed as "covid relief" tied directly to what the CDC spewed out on "dying with"; such that any hospital that diagnosed someone with Covid got an extra stipend, on the order of $14K each. If the person lived, fine. If they died, also fine so far as the hospital was concerned. They got the bucks. Hospitals were incented by CDC to diagnose every patient they could with Covid, no questions asked. Of course, anyone who asked questions was banned from Facebook, YouTube, etc.
Information is dangerous only to those who seek only to suppress it. And, anyone attempting to suppress info doesn't belong anywhere near anything calling itself "science based".

@bobbo666 That's not information, it's propaganda. You don't even provide a source for this conspiracy theory. What motivation would the CDC have for making such a ridiculous recommendation? Where in the CDC guidelines does this information appear?

Twitter drags IQ down even more

@TyKC Go do your own homework. Emergency Room surgeons went on air and described what they had been told by hospital admin -- what to put on death certs. And, why.

@bobbo666 And from where I'm I supposed to get this homework?

2

Disinformation does indeed have consequences. It seems that what we were told was a 'novel' corona virus has many registered patents associated with it dating back at least a dozen or more years; damning evidence that this was a man-made virus. Vaccines given EUA after two months of clinical trials without sufficient blinding and/or placebo studies and then justified for full authorization based on just the pre- EUA clinical evidence doesn't give you pause? I'd say consider the source.

The vaccine was approved for emergency use because of the seriousness of the infection. No doubt there are risks in taking the vaccine. If you want to live in a world devoid of risk, then I suggest you find a different one. But whether or not you choose to take the vaccine should be grounded in fact, not fiction. I trust the healthcare officials to give the best available information, based on the preponderance of the evidence and to report it as accurately has possible. If you choose a different route, I can only bid you good luck.

2

Don't believe everything you read in the papers, kid!

Don't disbelieve everything that doesn't comport with your beliefs.

@TyKC This has nothing to do with "beliefs", well actually it does for those who rely on MSM for their news and education. Most on this site do their research and due diligence and so "belief" has nothing to do with their statements on here. This is a fear pandemic. MSM only prints articles that support their narrative or can be distorted to support their narrative. If you chose to buy the goods that is your choice. Calling alternate information "disinformation" means you are buying their narrative, their "fear porn". Your reception on here will not be good.

@dd54 No doubt I would say the same about you. So, what's the point?

@toronto_Georgia Your position seems very odd. Like I should only believe certain articles and place more importance on who wrote it than what it says. If you choose to call opinions proffered by uninformed and ignorant sources "alternate information," I suppose that that's your prerogative. I prefer information derived from facts that come from sources who know the facts and what those facts mean and have the knowledge and training to do so.

That most on this site do their research and due diligence has not been my experience. Certainly, had people done their due diligence and seen what has happened in Louisiana and Mississippi, surely they would not have come to the conclusion that vaccines are ineffective and too risky and so called alternatives approaches are better ways to go. If that was their conclusion, they were not thinking clearly.

@TyKC

Actually the drug in question has been shown to have therapeutic benefits in multiple trials. You should do your research.

I'm speaking as someone who is vaccinated. I'm also someone who doesn't believe everything they hear on MSN. The important information left out of the article is that the drug is very safe when professionally administered. It is almost irrelevant to the article. You have to ask yourself why so little effort has been put into anything but the vaccines.

From the beginning the original researchers knew the vaccines were not sterilizing and made mutations factories out of the vaccinated. Why were you not told this?

There is a lot of misinformation out there and some of it comes from the CDC and mainstream media. How many people died unnecessarily because Fauci told them they didn't need Masks? Why have you never been told how masks work to promote herd immunity?

There is a lot of propaganda that passes as news. You could argue that people can't handle the truth. That's probably true but it cuts both ways. The government seems unable to handle the truth of their multiple missteps and failures.

@wolfhnd I have and the drug is not approved by the FDA and their official medical opinion is the it shows no effectiveness in helping with covid - 19. There are, however, treatments that are approved: Remdesivir. I don't believe everything I hear in the MSM, either. You should not take prescription medication that is not prescribed by your doctor. I suspect that any doctor who would prescribe a treatment not approved would risk losing his/here medical license. There is no evidence that vaccinated people can spread covid - 19 unless they have a breakthrough infection, which is rare. That's disinformation. The CDC has to operate in a environment of incomplete and sometimes contradictory information, so their position on things naturally changes. It's folly to think that the CDC fails all over the place, but some of these so called "alternative" approaches are safe, effective and without risk. If you want to believe that, so be it. But I'll go with the preponderance of evidence provided by health professionals that know what they are doing.

@TyKC Massive lawsuits against governments are being filed all over the world. Censorship only happens when the "truth" being pushed does not stand up to scrutiny. Remdesivir actually causes renal failure. It was tried in one other clinical research project to fight Ebola. It failed miserably because it caused renal failure. Believe your loving government is taking care of you. No skin off my nose.

@TyKC

I'm just going to come out and say you are a liar.

[nature.com]

Just like the media you may be tecnically correct due to hedging your argument but you leave out and distort the relevant facts.

@wolfhnd tykc cherry picks his data, and when cornered says"trust the authorities". He/it will do well in a totalitarian society.
Using drugs "off prescription" is common practice. Ask any Dr.
The alternative treatments were discouraged and suppressed because, by law, if any alternative exists no emergency approval is legal. CDC issued the latest "approval" of the Pfizer Vax in the same lying way. The "approved" version does not exist. The emergency vax was re-approved as-is (no liability to Pharm) so that on-shelf supplies can be sold and used. Oh, and the "approval" was only for two months of data back in Dec20 and tracking of the antibody load was tracked for only 7 days.
It is a scam.

@bobbo666

There are always alternative treatments and therapeutics and vaccines don't address the same issues. The way the laws are written allow for a lot of interpretation. What I have learned from Covid is that all vaccines are dangerous and we have been negligence in screening people who may have adverse effects. It's an extension of a system that treats but doesn't prevent. Wellness programs such as they are are little more than screening for treatment. It's a unhealthy mindset for an unhealthy population and dangerously accelerating cost of medicine.

The vaccines for Covid were designed to save the medical system. Once you understand that it all makes sense. None of the therapeutics could have saved the medical system from being overrun. The governments are still hoping the vaccines can. I tend to think they may be right.

Protecting the system is the mindset of a bureaucrat. Doesn't matter if they are in a pharmaceutical company or the government. It doesn't help that doctors are part of the "system". Covid is a nightmare for the system because Coronaviruses are nearly impossible to vaccinate against. The disease is serious and the virus contagious enough to break the medical system but not dangerous enough for unequivocal public support for experimental vaccines. Many people will choose not to be vaccinated if therapeutics are life saving. Those people automatically become enemies of the system. The question is if bureaucratic states are ever able to serve the best interests of the population given the unavoidably dynamics.

The best way to address the health care system is capitalism. For decades the working class has been undermined by exporting pollution and slave labor to China. At the same time the welfare system has created a population with the worst healthcare habits. Given good jobs and responsibilities the lifestyle choices that are driving the poor health of western countries would be diminished. What bureaucrats cannot understand is that capitalism is not about the capitalist but about the voluntary productivity of the masses that create a healthy and wealthy society.

@wolfhnd Emerging data suggest that Delta could spread more readily than other coronavirus variants among people vaccinated against COVID-19. But key questions remain. This is a dynamic situation and the study you cite is one data point. It's not the end all be all. It's true this variant is more contagious, but these things take time to work out because there are other perspectives out there. All the evidence has to be weighed and considered. If you think your excellent web research skills trump years of accumulated training knowledge in the subject, so be it. But, I'm not put together that way.

@toronto_Georgia Most medications have side effects. If you plan to live in a world devoid of risk, I suggest you find a different one, because you won't find it here. Drs. must weigh the risk against the benefit of taking a drug. The FDA obviously believes that in some cases, Remdesivir"s benefit outweighs the risks as cited in this academic study:

[academic.oup.com]

Moreover, if what you say is true, then all you've done is make a case for getting the vaccine. Since it has less severe side effects, it's the best option, just like Dr. Fauci says.

I'm fully aware of the problems with our healthcare system, but, at this point, the alternative seems far worse. My opinion on this could change, however.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:261161
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.