The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Vaccination Side Effects
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In this part of the world, the first side effect of vaccines has been political. Europe’s nations are now competing to get vaccinated, and the ructions have been considerable. From the start, the UK took a vaccine friendly stance. Early on it decided that vaccination was the long-term solution, and all else was merely a grim holding pattern.

By March 2020 Kate Bingham (a scientist and venture capitalist with a long track record in pharma research and development) had begun discussions with what she and her team saw as the front runners, having done a careful calculation about which were likely to work, and time has proved them right. They identified the best candidates in each of four platform types, and engaged them all with a winning formula: we will buy in advance, at a reasonable price without much haggling, and in vast numbers, so long as you can deliver as fast as possible. As a quid pro quo will give you a fast track to conducting trials and gaining approval. We will pay for results, and use emergency legislation to cut through all the paper-work. We will check for safety and follow all the usual procedures, but will avoid any time-wasting box-ticking. In most cases we accept that our pre-booking investments may come to nothing, so we won’t ask you for our money back. If, as we hope, your candidate is successful, we have ordered more than we need so as to ensure supply for our citizens. Unused drugs we will sell, or give away to other countries, once all our citizens have been offered vaccination.

In this way they quickly and wisely spent 2.7 billion sterling. They ran all processes almost in parallel, so that vaccinations started on 8 December 2020. They also published their priority lists so that people could calculate roughly when they would be called up.

As of 1st February 2021 the UK has given a first jab to:

First dose total
9,646,715

Second dose total
496,796

As of today the total number is above 10 million first jabs, and daily totals vaccinated are about a third of a million.

For comparative purposes, this is about 12% of the adult population, and European countries are at about 2%. The European Union has reacted oddly, deciding to attack both the UK and AstraZeneca. In a flurry of uncoordinated blows, it threatened AstraZeneca with not being able to sell into the European market unless they stuck to their interpretation of their contract (signed at least 3 months after the UK one) which the EU read as meaning that, although they had signed late, they should be able to take some deliveries which were earlier promised by AstraZeneca to the UK. For a while the EU attempted to put forward legislation which would require any pharma company producing vaccines in Europe to apply for permission to export it to the UK, strongly suggesting they would not get it if Europe had a need for it. At this time the AstraZeneca vaccine had not yet been approved for use in the EU.

They then attacked the UK strategy of concentrating on giving the first dose to as many people as possible, saying it was unwarranted and risky. More recently both German newspapers and the French president said that the AstraZeneca vaccine was ineffective in older people, which is of course the target population. Thus, they were simultaneously demanding more than their fair share of a vaccine which, they said, did not work particularly well. As a consequence, it is now a staple of conversation in England to hear the phrase: “I voted Remain, but this European thing about our vaccines………”

As you will know, some people having been arguing for some time that the actual data show that the first jab does the heavy lifting, and afterwards it is best to have a longish delay (say up to 12 weeks, not the previously tested 3 weeks) before getting the second jab, which will not add much, but which might make immunity last longer.

Now a paper is coming out suggesting that this is precisely the best course of action. The study, which is under peer review and is expected to be published in The Lancet, concludes that leaving a 12-week gap between shots “may be the optimal for rollout of a pandemic vaccine when supplies are limited in the short term”.

The vaccine was 76 per cent effective from three weeks after the first injection and this level of protection lasted until 90 days after the first jab.
After a second dose, vaccine efficacy was 82 per cent with the three-month interval between shots that is being used in the UK.
The report also suggests that the vaccine could have a “substantial” effect on transmission of the virus, with a reduction of positive PCR tests among those vaccinated of more than 50 per cent. This suggests a pronounced reduction in the number of people who carry the disease but show no symptoms.

So, the first AstraZeneca jab gives you 76% and the second jab adds another 6%. The Steve Sailer shrug effect. It is almost as if the immune system can take a hint first time round.

A medical colleague explained why the Johnson and Johnson “Jansen” vaccine gets such good results with a single jab. “The front runners were desperate to show efficacy with this new virus, and thought that two jabs would improve their chances of getting a good result. Also, selling two vaccines is a sensible business decision, even given the not-for-profit stance AstraZeneca took. Now that it is clear that a single jab works, Johnson and Johnson, late to the party, cannot say that their two-jab version is any better than anyone else’s two-jab version, so they can now boast that theirs is the best because it only requires one jab”.

Another side effect of vaccines being available is that people question whether they should have a vaccination at all. What are the odds? Modern vaccines are rarely released unless they achieve the safety standard of no more than one severe reaction per million. The measles vaccine is at that level. People still worry about it. Let us be far more cautious, and assume that these vaccines will kill one person in every 100,000 vaccinated.

How many people would you have to vaccinate in a trial before you got a dead volunteer? Intuitively, one would need at least 100,000 subjects to have a reasonable chance of detecting a 1 in 100,000 condition, and the calculators I have looked at suggest that the number might be two or more times that, to be 95% sure of finding it. This is because rare events do no queue up to happen at a rate which we later observe and summarize. Nothing may happen for a long time, and then several events come together over a few months. Real world tests of vaccines and medicines are the harshest and truest.

If you dropped the redundant placebo arm of the trial, your chance of observing any rare serious side effect would be doubled. Given the intense focus on Covid at the moment, there is good actuarial data about deaths and hospitalization for severe case in most advanced economies. It would be more efficient to just monitor the newly vaccinated against the unvaccinated general population. It would also give you the best chance of finding rare adverse reactions. Perhaps placebo arms of Covid trials should be dropped. Another option is that new vaccines could be tested against older ones, particularly against new variants.

Israel should be able to give any warnings about untoward effects. According to The Times of Israel “a total of 652 people out of around 650,000 to have received the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine reported some discomfort after the shot.” One death is still under investigation (3 already resolved), an 88-year-old man who had serious pre-existing health problems, is currently being investigated. So, perhaps 1 death per 650,000 though better estimates will be out in five or six weeks.

The other approach is to say: at what level of mortality can I live with a 1 in 100,000 fatality risk from a vaccination? As a matter of individual choice, estimates of personal risk will vary.

Assuming that the world in 2020 had a population of 7795 millions, of whom only 2.2 million have died so far (admittedly with varying levels of lockdown, mask wearing and social distancing) then the chances of death are 287 per million, so in round figures 29 per 100,000. That is a low risk overall. However, vaccinations are currently being offered to advanced economy citizens, who have busy airports and are likely to come into contact with infected persons in their work or recreation. In those busy, exciting, cosmopolitan places the death rates can be as high as 181 per 100,000 (Belgium, as a worst case) or 136 per 100,000 as a more usual high level in the US.

Understandably, any citizen might quail at taking an immediate risk of 1 in 100,000 to protect themselves from a potential risk of 136 in 100,000. There is a gain, but to die of an individual personal choice may feel worse than being struck down by an unlikely natural hazard. Anyway, treatments are improving, so deaths will keep falling. Why take a risk, some may ask themselves?

These are the figures calculated for citizens of all ages, but it is a different story for older ones. For those between 65 and 75 year of age the risk is 2,500 in 100,000. For those between 75 and 85 years it is 6,000 per 100,000, and for those over 80 years it is 20,000 per 100,000. Individual choices will vary, but from 65 years onwards, a vaccination may look like a good bet. Naturally, people may wish to refine their bets, and if they are in reasonable health, and free of all co-morbidities (unlikely given current rates of obesity) then these rates tumble down by at least 90%. The virtuous are spared, probably.

Since the vaccinated are very likely to be half as infectious as the un-vaccinated, there is a public dimension. After an inoculation, you are less likely to be the cause of someone else becoming ill. Also, you will be reducing the chance that the virus mutates, thus requiring everyone to get vaccinated next year. The tragedy of the commons is that many prefer others to take the vaccination risk so as to live in herd safety.

Society is facing a dilemma about how to prioritize lives. Once the elderly vulnerable have been vaccinated, it is highly likely that society will open up again.

On other matters, it is Brigid’s Day, and it has been raining a lot, with some fog, very occasional sleet, some promised snow, and moments of baleful awakening, when a wan sun appears behind scudding clouds, harbinger of sunlit uplands to come.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Coronavirus, Vaccines 
Hide 399 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. LondonBob says:

    My mum had to get her B12 booster today and talked to the nurse about vaccines. The nurse will not have an mRNA such as Pfizer and Moderna, no way, of the three who had Pfizer three then got the ro. She will possibly get the AstraZeneca.

    More worryingly Israel, Britain and the UAE have all seen anomalous surges in cases, hospitalisations and deaths since vaccination, not reflected in other countries which haven’t mass vaccinated. More worryingly the surge in Britain did not begin in one region but actually uniformly across the nation, implying it was the vaccination programme.

    • Thanks: Polite Derelict
  2. SteveK9 says:

    Does anyone else find the terminology ‘the jab’ more than a little repulsive?

    In any case I won’t be lining up for my ‘jab’. I probably already had Covid and in any case, prefer it, to ‘the jab’. There is a good argument for the safety of this approach, but it has NOT been tested. What has been done so far is completely inadequate (and I’ve written clinical protocols myself).

  3. Bert says:

    The rush to vaccinate makes sense to the general public only because prophylaxis and early treatment have been informationally suppressed, shall we say, and operationally ignored. By now the efficacy of ivermectin for prevention and treatment of Covid is widely known by anyone awake enough to have looked. But prophylaxis can be simpler than ingestion of a drug. The following December, 2020, Letter to the Editor of the Journal of Infection Control reviews the use of iodine for what could be termed either prophylaxis or preventative treatment, a matter of semantics.

    Even a saline lavage of throat and nasopharynx has reduced viral load and lung damage (https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-153598/v1) !!!

    As Dr. Borody of Australia said many months ago, “This virus is easy to kill.” Public health bureaucrats simply needed to want to do so. None did.

    Dr. Claudio Blasi’s letter:
    To the Editor—Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) enters the body via the eyes, nose, and mouth and infects the upper respiratory tract causing the initial clinical symptoms. After exposure, a period of incubation, mainly at the level of the oropharynx, lasts 5–6 days, allowing the viral replication to reach a number at which spread to the rest of the body occurs, giving rise to symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), organ damage, and/or death.

    This incubation phase and progress of disease are dependent on the rate of viral replication; thus, a possible means to curb the proliferation of the virus after its entry into the upper respiratory tract is rinsing and gargling with iodine mouthwash. A number of in vitro studies support this possibility.

    Enveloped viruses, like SARS-CoV-2, have an outer lipidic bilayer membrane that is very sensitive to antiseptic agents. Iodine is one of these agents, and its action is rapid, taking place through the degeneration of the nucleoproteins of viral particles. 1 In influenza A viruses, this antiviral property occurs by inhibiting the activity of 2 glycoproteins on the viral surface: viral hemagglutinin binding activity and viral neuraminidase catalytic hydrolysis. These processes mediate, respectively, the entry of the virus into the host cells and its release and diffusion into other cells. 2

    With SARS-CoV-2, iodine could, in the same way, inhibit the activity of the surface glycoprotein that mediates its entry into the airway epithelium cells by connecting to the human angiotensin-2 converting enzyme (ACE2) receptor. Aqueous solutions of molecular iodine (I2) are unstable due to the volatility of iodine, and they can cause burning and cytotoxicity. For this reason, compounds called iodophores have been developed in which iodine is combined with neutral carrier polymers acting as solubilizing agents and as iodine reservoirs that keep the release of iodine low.

    The most utilized iodine preparation is povidone-iodine (PVP-I) in which molecular iodine I2, in the form of I3−, is physically intercalated in the PVP helix via hydrogen bonds and is in chemical equilibrium with free I2 in solution; bound iodine is released from the PVP helix to maintain equilibrium as long as free I is utilized. 1 In the aqueous medium, a chemical equilibrium develops in which only a ~1/1,000 part of the iodine is released and made available as free molecular iodine, which is responsible for germicidal activity.

    PVP-I–based antiseptics have demonstrated a broad virucidal spectrum in vitro, both for enveloped and nonenveloped viruses. 3

    Following the H1N1 swine flu outbreak in 2009, the Japanese Ministry of Health recommended daily gargling with antimicrobial agents as a protective hygienic measure to prevent upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). This practice was supported by the results of studies that examined the role of gargling in healthy study participants and those with frequent or persistent respiratory tract infections. 4

    Numerous in vitro studies have shown a rapid virucidal activity of PVP-I contained in mouthwash solution against all respiratory pathogens tested according to the European standard requirements. A 7% concentration with 1:30 dilution has been recommended in Japan for common use (equivalent to a concentration of 0.23% of the active substance); a contact time of 15 seconds, which reflects a similar or even shorter duration time of gargling in real-life conditions, has proven sufficient. 5 The PVP-I solution has demonstrated rapid antimicrobial activity similar to that shown in previous in vitro studies. 5

    This solution has been successfully tested against SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERSCoV); it resulted in a 99.99% viral titer reduction. 5 The same efficacy has also been shown in other in vitro studies with numerous products for pharyngal hygiene based on PVP-I at various concentrations (from 0.23% to 1%). 6

    This prompt antiviral activity has been confirmed in influenza enveloped viruses grown in embryo hen eggs and treated with 6 products containing PVP-I at a concentration of 0.23%. After only 10 seconds, the viral titers were reduced to levels below detection. 7

    Recently nasal and oral antiseptic formulations of PVP-I have been successfully tested in SARS-CoV2 with rapid, as short as 60 seconds, inactivation capacity of at concentrations up to 2.5%. 8

    The safety profile of PVP-I applied to the nasal and oral cavity has been confirmed after >60 years of use and is addressed by a vast literature. 8 Unlike other oral antiseptic agents, it does not cause irritation or damage to the oral mucosa, even after prolonged use. Although iodine absorption may occur in the long term with the use of PVP-I, thyroid gland dysfunction is rare. Moreover, despite its long-term use, the development of resistance to PVP-I in microorganisms has not been reported. 2 Finally, the common iodine–alcohol solutions diluted in water might also be effective but, due to their instability, they should be applied swiftly.

    The in vitro efficacy demonstrated in various reliable studies suggests that PVP-I in oral solution could be an effective agent for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infections, reducing viral spread in situations of high risk of exposure to pathogens by oral and respiratory route. 2,9 Together with hand washing and mask wearing, they could constitute an effective personal hygiene measure against airborne and droplet transmission by reducing the viral load in the oral cavity and in the oropharynx.

    In view of the current absence of medication known to be effective at preventing and treating this highly contagious disease that has challenged traditional healthcare systems, 10 iodophore mouthwashes might be candidates for fast-track approval as simple and inexpensive therapeutic compounds.

  4. dearieme says:

    ‘the jab’ I find not at all repulsive. It’s an expression I’ve known since childhood. Get a grip, man.

  5. As you will know, some people having been arguing for some time that the actual data show that the first jab does the heavy lifting, and afterwards it is best to have a longish delay (say up to 12 weeks, not the previously tested 3 weeks) before getting the second jab, which will not add much, but which might make immunity last longer.

    As far as I know, the bit about the second jab is only true for virus vector vaccines that use a single virus, like Oxford (which has just came out and said that), and Janssen, which is trying both 1 and 2 doses, for the latter 8 weeks apart. This is perhaps not “It is almost as if the immune system can take a hint first time round.” although of course it does, but that single virus vector vaccine doses administered too close together suffer from the immune system still being activated by the first dose against the virus vector itself.

    Sputnik-V is claiming much higher efficacy of 92% by using two different viruses, and the mRNA vaccines should not, and do not appear to suffer from this sort of problem. But I’m looking forward to data from the U.K. in their experiment of spacing out Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna doses beyond what was tested in Phase III (at worst I expect it to be mostly harmless, and in this pandemic already raging context worth trying).

    A medical colleague explained why the Johnson and Johnson “Jansen” vaccine gets such good results with a single jab. “The front runners were desperate to show efficacy with this new virus, and thought that two jabs would improve their chances of getting a good result. Also, selling two vaccines is a sensible business decision, even given the not-for-profit stance AstraZeneca took. Now that it is clear that a single jab works, Johnson and Johnson, late to the party, cannot say that their two-jab version is any better than anyone else’s two-jab version, so they can now boast that theirs is the best because it only requires one jab”.

    That turns out not to be the case. Janssen from the very beginning took a platform proven in an European Phase III trial of an Ebola vaccine (not the one used so successfully in the last outbreak), and worked very hard, slowly but surely to get the best possible outcome from a single jab, with an ambitious goal of vaccinating one billion (thousand million) people in 2021. Just checked now and unless they were lying in a March 13th press release had bottled ready for testing vaccine candidates at about the same time as first out the gate Moderna.

    Oxford on the other hand had never before tried their platform on more than 40 people at a time, and that’s got to be a factor in the clown show of their testing, although that fortuitously started in December with a MERS vaccine candidate which nailed their dose size. And Janssen is trying two jabs in a US strength Phase III trial. In reference to trial sizes and adverse effects caused by vaccines, we might note the U.K. Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) seems to require about half the number of subjects as the US FDA.

    For example, Novavax’s U.K. trial is up to 15,000, their US trial up to 30,000, which was also what Moderna shot for. Or for AZ/Oxford results to base licensing on, the December 8th results, 5,800 each two jabs I’m almost positive 21 days apart, 70% efficacy, 10,000 who got any single dose 53% efficacy. Both a substantial difference and yet a single jab still being very useful for both individuals and public health.

    The US as far as I know wants at least 15,000 people to get a vaccine jab, but I’m not going to say the FDA’s extra caution is necessarily warranted, they do traditionally err on the side of safety, and this is an emergency. (On the third hand ORANGE MAN BAD, and the FDA took some very effective action against him through the end of February 2020.) Of course, in all cases these regulatory agencies are using emergency authorizations, the FDA their Emergency Use Authorization, the MHRA “authorization for temporary supply” per a document for healthcare professionals:

    This medicinal product has been given authorisation for temporary supply by the UK Department of Health and Social Care and the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. It does not have a marketing authorisation, but this temporary authorisation grants permission for the medicine to be used for active immunisation of individuals aged 18 years and older for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

    And the slowpoke without an excuse EU European Medicines Agency (EMA) “conditional marketing authorisation.”

    Another option is that new vaccines could be tested against older ones, particularly against new variants.

    That’s now a requirement for starting any ethical Phase III trial, see for example Sanofi/GSK which is restarting from scratch with Phase I trials this month or soon. It’s a standard thing once you have a “known quantity,” the current “standard of care” I think are the US words of art, that you can use for the control group. Which of course didn’t exist until the second week of December.

    Assuming that the world in 2020 had a population of 7795 millions, of whom only 2.2 million have died so far (admittedly with varying levels of lockdown, mask wearing and social distancing)

    And very likely a lot of under-counting, which appears to be the case in the US.

    Why take a risk, some may ask themselves?

    Well, there’s always morbidity for survivors of natural infections. At this point the simplifying metric of deaths for vaccines and infections is the best and most solid to use, but COVID-19 morbidity is real and nontrivial, and now the number one reason I’m trying for 99.999 isolation.

    Also, you will be reducing the chance that the virus mutates, thus requiring everyone to get vaccinated next year.

    I’m not sure about that at the medium stage of the game, which you are not considering. Early, very possibly if the source of significant variants or eventually a new true antigenic strain is as theorized to be people who don’t throw it off in normal time, allowing an ecological fight inside their bodies for transmission inside their bodies, which might equate to transmission between people. But once enough people get natural or vaccine immunity, there will be ecological selection pressure to get around that immunity in person to person transmission. Although as to the source of the mutants for that….

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  6. dearieme says:

    Hugh Pennington has written an interesting brief history of the scientific advances in his lifetime that have proved useful in Coronaworld.
    https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2021/february/perverse-genetics

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  7. @Bert

    If you think you’re going to get nations with tens or hundreds of millions of multi-cultural residents to prophylactically “DRINK BLEACH AS TRUMP TOLD YOU TO DO!!!” For the West, that went off the table as soon as Trump mused about it in late April. Which was a sure sign of his sociopathy after the HCQ debacle, but also of those who believed COVID-19 “could be the silver bullet that takes out this administration” and fought against everything he spoke about or did, including Operation Warp Speed which supplied a lot of R&D money to AZ/Oxford, Janssen, Moderna, Novavax, and Sanofi/GSK, made available more than a billion USD to each.

    Even discounting that, you’re not going to manage such a radical behavior change for very many people, and again do the math, you’ll need to manufacture a great deal of that antiseptic really fast.

  8. @SteveK9

    “Jab” is simply British English for what Americans call a “shot,” although it seems to be rapidly making its way to the New World.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  9. @dearieme

    ‘the jab’ I find not at all repulsive. It’s an expression I’ve known since childhood. Get a grip, man.

    Well, it’s not common US English usage, but in the context of vaccine discussion crystal clear, and I’m sure the authors of The King’s English would prefer it over the obviously Latinate inoculation and vaccination. Americans being American with a zillion words and usages derived from firearms equivalent would be “shot,” but that’s more ambiguous than jab.

    • Replies: @Sollipsist
  10. Simple23 says:

    “Thus, they were simultaneously demanding more than their fair share of a vaccine which, they said, did not work particularly well.”

    Woody Allen opened his film Annie Hall with: “There’s an old joke – um… two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of ‘em says, ‘Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.’ The other one says, ‘Yeah, I know; and such small portions.’”

    • Replies: @Johnny Nada
  11. MGB says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    If you think you’re going to get nations with tens or hundreds of millions of multi-cultural residents to prophylactically “DRINK BLEACH AS TRUMP TOLD YOU TO DO!!”

    jeezus. talk about your straw men. where does he refer to ‘bleach’ or dr. trump?

    . . . you’re not going to manage such a radical behavior change for very many people

    you mean ‘radical changes’ like forcing healthy people to wear masks, shutting down businesses, closing schools and churches, segregating people with plexiglass shields. (running into the nose clutching ‘two-maskers’ is some depressing shit.) no, people would never stand for such radical changes in their lives, never mind something so radical as gargling.

    you’ll need to manufacture a great deal of that antiseptic really fast.

    it seems simpler than the Warp Speed cluster fuck we are witnessing. i’m assuming that iodophor mouth wash is easier to produce, ship and distribute than the mRNA vaccines.

  12. So, the states that do the most methodical recorded tracking show the most recorded side effects..
    I am really shocked by this.

    As you will know, some people having been arguing for some time that the actual data show that the first jab does the heavy lifting, and afterwards it is best to have a longish delay (say up to 12 weeks, not the previously tested 3 weeks) before getting the second jab

    So, at the earliest point in which we have noted in-the-wild confirmed potential for re-infection (pre-experimental treatments) the so-called ‘booster’ is recommended to – umm,… well… prevent re-infection.

  13. @That Would Be Telling

    Thanks for all these very informative points.
    I had thought that the first-jab-best-effect was also found for Pfizer. Am I mistaken on that?
    Thanks for your reply regarding Janssen.
    You keep saying that the Oxford trial was a clown show, and I should probably go back to your previous comments where you set your reasons. Are there numbered comments I should read to refresh my memory? Did they just vaccinate 5800 in one trial arm?
    Trial shoot for 15,000 sample size. Is that a bit low, particularly when looking for rare reactions?
    Glad that new trials will be against the best alternative vaccine.
    I left out “long Covid” just to keep the risk calculus simple, and bias it towards those who are most worried about vaccinations, but I agree it is an important consideration (and might influence some hesitant people).
    Thanks also for comments on mutation rates.
    99.99% isolation is not much fun.

  14. @dearieme

    What a fabulous account. Reminds me of the show business saying: “To be an overnight success takes 14 years”.

  15. gay troll says:

    So let’s see…hospitalizations have fallen 30% in California in the past 2 weeks after peaking on Inauguration Day. Only 2% of Americans have been vaccinated, yet Dr. Fraudci says 70% percent or more must be vaccinated if we are going to get back to normal. Marvel as the con artists are now forced to talk out of both sides of their mouths. And let the vaccine rot.

    • Agree: Alfred, Rdm
    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  16. botazefa says:

    The Steve Sailer shrug effect

    I hope this term catches on, what a hoot!

    As for the topic at hand, I’m gonna wait for the old fashioned J&J vaccine. This mRNA stuff seems like something a relatively healthy, relatively young person can avoid. I’m guessing that in 5 years we’ll be seeing stories about people claiming the mRNA covid vaccine made them sterile or gave them cancer or what-have-you.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  17. @James Thompson

    Thanks for all these very informative points [and about Janssen’s real objective].

    You’re welcome.

    I had thought that the first-jab-best-effect was also found for Pfizer. Am I mistaken on that?

    Sorry, I haven’t paid attention to that, in part because for Phase III at least it would be almost impossible to figure that out despite the size of the trial, the interval between doses being so short. So it’s either from Phase IV “post-marketing” we’re now in, and that’s really only the U.K. and not long enough to know, or surrogate endpoints. But I can look into it if you want.

    You keep saying that the Oxford trial was a clown show, and I should probably go back to your previous comments where you set your reasons. Are there numbered comments I should read to refresh my memory? Did they just vaccinate 5800 in one trial arm?

    Just going from memory now, first the unforgivable error in those 1,800 or so first half doses, that’s on Oxford, only realized due to lower side effect profiles prompting investigation. Chronologically before that they appear to have botched their blended Phase I/II trial, maybe also their preceding started for real in December 2020 Phase I MERS trial which fixed the dose size, in any case this resulted in much worse than expected Phase III results.

    Now note for results for licensing now outside the US they’ve ran four different Phase III trials in four different countries, I got the impression not all following the same protocols, and only got a 12,000 subject equivalent combined Phase III trial with 5,800 vaccine and control each as planned, two doses 21 days apart as of December 8th. That’s with oodles of money from the U.K., the US (up to 1.2 billion (thousand million) US as of May 21st), who knows elsewhere. I can’t say I’m super confident in those reported results, but they can be off by a fair amount with still good results for public and individual health in the U.K. Oh, yes, why did they take so long to try for real 8-12 weeks between doses (they did try 8 weeks in their Phase I/II trial).

    Their Phase III trial in the US was halted for 40 days, longer than any other pause I know of, and rumor had it this was in large part due to a lack of candor from AZ on the relevant U.K. trial subject with the correlated adverse event; whatever it was, the FDA was not impressed. They flat out lied with the first blended efficacy percentage they publicized, just in general in terms of statistics, but also because the half dose first effect turned out to be a mirage. Is that enough for now? I haven’t even really dug into the subject due to its lack of personal relevance, being in the US.

    Trial shoot for 15,000 sample size. Is that a bit low, particularly when looking for rare reactions?

    Eh, all I can say is it’s half of what the FDA demands, and they’re the gold standard for safety.

  18. @botazefa

    As for the topic at hand, I’m gonna wait for the old fashioned J&J vaccine.

    It’s not in fact that…. An existing vaccine platform, with a successful Phase III European trial for their Ebola vaccine (but not the one that made such a difference in the last outbreak). This will be its first real “post-marketing” Phase IV test, of course assuming it gets authorizations and approvals.

    Based on a human adenovirus (one of the 200 viral species and strains that make up the common cold), that’s been gimped to be “replication deficient,” that is, it can’t make new viruses and spread to other cells, and has had a stabilized spike protein spliced into it. Given how very careful and thorough they have been to try to give the very best one dose to a billion people in 2021 I have no reservations about it prior to really studying it, but it’s only a few years or so older tech than mRNA vaccines, maybe.

    And never forget the purpose of its DNA virus vector is exactly the same as all live virus vaccines and the mRNA ones, the “active” category as I call them, to hijack cells to cause viral mRNA to make one or more viral proteins inside cells. Oh, and by the time you can get it, we’ll have so much data on the first two mRNA vaccines there will be no comparison.

    • Replies: @botazefa
  19. Anonymous[159] • Disclaimer says:

    Assuming that the world in 2020 had a population of 7795 millions, of whom only 2.2 million have died so far (admittedly with varying levels of lockdown, mask wearing and social distancing) then the chances of death are 287 per million, so in round figures 29 per 100,000.

    It makes no sense to input the entire population of the planet into the calculation when only a tiny fraction of them got infected so far. That “chances of death” number is meaningless – especially as a comparison to the other one which only counted vaccinated people.

    Also, the risk of immediate death is just one of many vaccine risks.

    • Agree: Tom Welsh
    • Replies: @joe2.5
  20. I decline. As far as I’m concerned, the “mutation” argument is nonsense designed to deprive us of the right to choose.

    • Agree: stevennonemaker88
  21. joe2.5 says:
    @Anonymous

    “It makes no sense to input the entire population of the planet into the calculation when only a tiny fraction of them got infected so far.”

    In any calculation of overall risk the denominator is total population, not the number “infected so far”. What are you talking about?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  22. joe2.5 says:

    Excellent summary, as always.

    2 reservations — not medical, this time:

    What do you mean by “jab”? This horrible item of journalistic fad-talk seems to vaguely indicate the act of poking something. If you mean vaccination, or even just shot, just say it.

    “very occasional sleet” is obviously a Britishism, judging from its object. But what exactly does “very” when qualifying “occasional”? More, or less, seldom?

  23. If you go the vaccine route you may be going for vaccination every six months for the rest of your life. Don’t forget that the flu vaccine lasts only for a year and this Covid-19 for how long?

  24. dearieme says:
    @joe2.5

    What do you mean by “jab”?

    What “jab” has meant since my childhood (or earlier). If you visit a British blog you must expect to encounter British English. It may be offensive to your refined American sensibilities but, as your countrymen say, “Man up”.

    If you mean vaccination, or even just shot, just say it.

    It isn’t a vaccination it’s an immunisation. “Jab” implies that it’s achieved by an injection rather than, say, a pill. Moreover, to us “shot” is what happens to someone who annoys a frightened, cowardly American policeman.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
  25. @joe2.5

    A “jab” is the correct term for what conceited persons call a vaccination or inoculation. You should stand well back, while we in Britain get on with the key task of renewing the language we invented so that the rest of the benighted world can communicate.

    As always, we make an exception for those North of Hadrian’s Wall, who call it “a wee jabbie”. Whatever their problems, they too contributed to the invention of the modern world.

    However, I must concede you are right on the question of sleet. I meant that we occasionally receive warnings of possible sleet. Anything for excitement.

    Steady persistent rain at the moment.

  26. @Bert

    I have personally used the iodine oral lavage method for years and have always found it very helpful.

    I suffer from severe selective IgA deficiency, and accordingly, have little to no effective primary immune defense in my sinuses, mouth, throat, esophagus or intestinal lining, which is a big problem in fighting flus and colds. Since I was a child, cold and flu season has always been a nightmare for me, with my friends getting sick for a few days, while I would struggle with a severe infection for weeks, every time. Reinfections were common. Again, a nightmare situation for a kid.

    Likewise, any tiny nick or cut in my mouth infected immediately and took at least a month to heal, if not more.

    I decided as a young adult to try brushing my teeth with a Listerine rinse after my normal brushing and flossing, and this has basically eliminated the problems with lingering mouth ulcers.

    I began using iodine oral lavage solution for prophylactic measure in case of viral exposure in my late 30s to great effect. It seemed to help keep my yearly battles with colds and flus down to very manageable levels. I believe it may have even prevented some infections, but that is speculation, of course.

    When my wife and I were exposed to Covid-19 in summer last year, I immediately used my iodine rinse and gargled frequently at the outset, and was thankfully spared a severe disease course. It appears I am now immune to Covid, as I spent six hours last November with a dear friend (an audio buddy) sitting shoulder-to-shoulder on a small couch listening to historic reel-to-reels he had just received that he bought from a midwest Radio station, and all the while, he was sniffling, blowing his nose, coughing, sneezing, and strongly denying he was sick, claiming it was allergies. (I did not wear a mask, I admit.) Two days later he was flat on his back with Covid (verified by testing at Kaiser) which he also gave to his wife and kids (his wife also tested positive; the kids were likewise sick and presumed positive.) His wife and he were both badly ill, taking three weeks to recover. I again admit to brazenly ignoring caution, and I did not use the iodine treatments, believing I had natural immunity (which was dumb.) I developed no symptoms but as a precaution, had the same Covid test at the same Kaiser facility and was negative. So I strongly suspect I have actual immunity. (Still I should have done the iodine lavage, just in case it was a normal flu and not the Covid bug.)

    I wholeheartedly recommend gargling with either an iodine based mouth rinse, or a Listerine based wash, although when I believe I’ve been exposed to a viral contaminant, I go with the iodine, using a commercial Lugol’s Solution 2% (J. Crows brand is what I use as my iodine of choice.) This is really strong stuff, so be careful not to over-do it. I find it can burn your mouth easily if you use too much. (Which was why I didn’t use it after visiting my audio buddy who was sick, as I was worried I might do more harm than good, given my belief I had immunity to the bug. Plus, I use Listerine anyway; see immediately below.)

    I use the Listerine wash almost daily as a broad oral hygiene prophylactic measure, and that seems to work well for me. I recall reading somewhere that a physician in the EU strongly recommended Listerine mouthwash as a means to lower the viral load in the mouth/throat of those exposed to the Covid bug. But that was a long time ago, and I have not read anywhere else doctors recommending this approach.

    Your mileage may vary, of course……

  27. Here’s an article that goes into quite some detail as to how the Covid virus has never been identified or sequenced. This isn’t just some hand waving, but a reasoned look at how this scam has unfolded and why TPTsB are in on the scam – it’s the control and money.

    https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/31/phantom-virus-in-search-of-sars-cov-2/

    • Thanks: Peripatetic Itch
    • Replies: @Polemos
    , @Realist
    , @Steven80
  28. @Commentator Mike

    If you go the vaccine route you may be going for vaccination every six months for the rest of your life. Don’t forget that the flu vaccine lasts only for a year and this Covid-19 for how long?

    The short duration of flu vaccines is a result perhaps in part to their normally being passive ones, and in the US all but one of those being only flu proteins with no adjuvants, but mostly because the human body just can’t create an adaptive immune system response to “conserved” parts of flu virus proteins, either from a normal infection or a vaccine. That is, targeting parts that can’t change much or “the virus won’t virus,” for an enzyme, imagine a lock into which a key must fit more or less precisely.

    We’ve worked on this problem, the head of the Oxford team is noted for failing at this like everyone else, and we’ve yet to see if our very simple V1.0 COVID-19 vaccines can produce such immunity, including after six months or more fine tuning of its response. We would also not be surprised if COVID-19 mutates into genuine new strains a time or three until it settles down into something we can effectively fight. We can imagine something like that initially happened with older viruses for which we can gain “eternal” immunity, for example measles for a while after it jumped from animals to us sometime in the 5th to 15th Century AD.

    If not, we’ll attack the problem with much more effort unless those mutations results in strains which are much less lethal, like the flu after an antigenic shift and resulting pandemic. Even then without a full picture of the morbidity of this puzzling disease we might be motivated to work really hard on an “eternal” vaccine.

    • Thanks: Commentator Mike
    • Replies: @Meimou
  29. botazefa says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    Oh, and by the time you can get it, we’ll have so much data on the first two mRNA vaccines there will be no comparison.

    Thank you for the detailed info. I didn’t realize this tech only has a few years more development than the mRNA. I am still put off by the mRNA spike protein stuff, imagining that there might exist beneficial cells that also have spike protein. But I’m no biologist. Fortunately we have Unz and folks like you who dig deep into the science.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  30. @Mustapha Mond

    Looking at the active ingredients for Listerine and their likely synergistic effect with ethanol, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re death to enveloped viruses like the coronaviruses. All of these grab a bit of their host cell’s membrane as they bud off, and that’s seriously fragile stuff, physically and against anything that’ll chemically disrupt it like soap and water. Probably the only advantage nature gave us in fighting COVID-19.

    And thanks to everyone who’s been extolling the virtues of iodine oral lavage solutions, I did not realize that such a potent antiseptic atom could be used as such, will save for future reference.

  31. @botazefa

    You’re welcome.

    I am still put off by the mRNA spike protein stuff, imagining that there might exist beneficial cells that also have spike protein. But I’m no biologist.

    The spike protein as such shouln’t exist in our cells, given its specific function in the virus. You might find some of this article interesting for it goes into details with excellent illustrations, and for text I’ll quote:

    Viruses multiply by dumping their genes into our cells and hijacking our cellular machinery to crank out new virus particles. But first, they need a doorway into our cells. Coronaviruses are studded with spikes, which grab hold of proteins decorating our own cells like doorknobs. Once attached, the spike undergoes a dramatic transformation, stretching before partially turning inside out to forcefully fuse with our cells.

    (The next sentence is probably bogus, but stopping this process certainly won’t make a vaccine less effective.)

    The bigger issue, which people are worrying about WRT to possible fertility issues, is that parts of the spike protein that the body might make antibodies against look like some parts of other beneficial proteins. Look up something on antibodies, in short they latch onto a small part of an antigen like the spike protein, which might interfere with its operation, but also signals to the immune system “Get rid of this stuff!” (As I’ve recently learned (I think), antibodies are not the only thing that recognizes alien bits of molecules, but they’ll do as a proxy for the whole adaptive immune system, a lot of which we still don’t entirely understand.)

    So one bottom line for your viewing the different vaccines is that with one exception all of them that are anywhere near ready for the general population include the spike protein, hopefully a stabilized version as described in the link above. Inactivated whole virus, well, you’ve got the whole virus, and the proteins on and in it can’t be denatured by the inactivation process or the vaccines wouldn’t work at all (see my above comment, zapping their envelopes is probably enough).

    Protein plus adjuvant like Novavax and maybe someday Sanofi/GSK, a bit like flu vaccines? It’s the spike protein. Virus vector is covered in my reply, its “active ingredient” is DNA spliced into these DNA viruses that codes for the spike protein, which then forces the cells to make mRNA coding for the spike protein, which then makes the spike protein. Natural immunity from an infection? Antibodies targeting the spike protein (plus the nucleocapsid protein) There is no escape!!!

    Well, there’s one alternative from RUSSIA!!!, maybe, which is only using bits and pieces of virus proteins, small enough they’re called “peptides,” but for now we can assume at least some of those are from the spike protein. Otherwise only unacceptable adverse effects from current V1.0 vaccines, or long term vaccine failure like with the flu will likely prompt us to do something different. Maybe target other parts of the virus, maybe do like what I’m assuming the Russians are doing and try to get the immune system to focus on only specific parts of the spike protein that are “conserved.” Meaning if they change too much, “the virus won’t virus.” For enzymes, imagine their being a lock into which a key must fit more or less precisely.

    • Replies: @ic1000
  32. Anon[254] • Disclaimer says:
    @dearieme

    😂😂

    (I’m not a native English speaker, but did read Mary Poppins and Sherlock Holmes as a child.. and I am spending one of my few daily comments to salute English humor. Well done.)

  33. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @joe2.5

    I’m talking about something that requires at least some brain activity to be understood. For the first risk (COVID death) he counted all 7.7 billion people on the planet while for the second one (vaccine death) he only counted people who were vaccinated. Clearly, those two risks didn’t receive equal treatment so they can’t be compared. One is calculating risk among the people who actually took it and the other is the statistics equivalent to blowing cannabis smoke rings.

    Please, blink twice if you understand.

  34. @MGB

    i’m assuming that iodophor mouth wash is easier to produce, ship and distribute than the mRNA vaccines.

    But nowhere near as profitable for Big Pharma – which is the point.

    Anyone who believes that government-organised ‘health’ programs are different from normal – corrupt and socially-dysgenic – government programs, believes in angels. Angels are fiction.

    The purpose of all government programs is to furnish a plausible rationale for the transfer of vast amounts of value from the productive (private) sector, to cronies, donors and the like. It is built in to the deep nature of political machinery, and the political class is not going to have a Damascene conversion because of some weak-ass virus that only kills people who are already half-dead.

    • Agree: Thomasina
  35. Even though I spend a lot of time on the web, this is the first intelligent, informed, mathematically based analysis I have seen by someone who could pass a Rorschach test. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

    • LOL: Philip Owen
  36. @Anonymous

    Let me explain my argument again.
    I am trying to look at why a person might turn down the chance of a vaccination, and assembling a case which makes most sense of their decision, namely that the death rate from the virus is low, and that the death rate from the vaccine is not negligible.
    I used deaths as the most reliable way of estimating the effects of the virus, and of vaccines. Of course there are other ways of measuring those effects, but I think that the death rate is the best for comparative purposes.
    In estimating the death rates from vaccines I looked at the RATE and found that it was low. Perhaps, 1 in 650,000.
    I then took a low estimate of the death RATES for the virus, namely the deaths which have happened so far in the world. If we look at only those infected, we would also have to work out the chance of getting infected so as to be able to estimate the final chance of dying, and it becomes too error prone. I don’t mind this figure being an under-estimate of the actuarial risk.
    So, at the end of it, I thought that the risk/rewards of vaccination were sufficiently strong for most people to see it as worth while. However, younger people might think it not worth the bother. For older people, even given the assumptions I have made (downplaying the risk of death overall) it makes very good sense.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @joe2.5
    , @anon
  37. @LondonBob

    Fear mongering and hate facts.

    • Replies: @Hillaire
  38. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Thompson

    I have no idea why you’re capitalising “RATE” like it’s the key to my enlightenment. Whether it’s a rate or percentage is irrelevant. To compare the risk of death between two risky endeavours you kind of have to only count people who attempted them. You did it with group A but the group B was the entire human race for some reason, most of whom didn’t even take that risk. That other formula can make jumping out of an airplane without a parachute seem harmless since it affects an insignificant percentage of all of us in any given period of time.

    As for my other point, using deaths and not some other risks is fine. We don’t even know if COVID can do permanent damage, or what damage for that matter, so your choices are limited. I only mentioned it because I believe that vaccines are much more likely to cause a plethora of other serious issues with quick death being just a tiny blip on that spectrum. Besides, Herr Schwab and Herr Gates seem to like them which is usually my signal to post ‘burn it with fire’ memes.

    Thanks for the reply.

    • Agree: Rdm
    • Replies: @James Thompson
  39. @That Would Be Telling

    For instance, Americans would likely refer to that comment as a cheap shot.

    Undoubtedly more refined regions that aren’t as obsessed with firearms would find a way to incorporate a reference to testicles instead.

  40. @Anonymous

    I capitalized the rate, not absolute number, because I thought that was the source of the difference in our approaches.

    My initial estimate of Covid death risk was for the whole world. That makes the risk seem very low, so is a harsh test of the benefits of vaccination. I then went on to say:

    In those busy, exciting, cosmopolitan places the death rates can be as high as 181 per 100,000 (Belgium, as a worst case) or 136 per 100,000 as a more usual high level in the US.

    Are you objecting to the view that the risk of death in the US is 136 per million? That is a like for like basis for comparison with a probable vaccine-related death rate of 1 per million.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    , @Anonymous
  41. ic1000 says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    > You might find some of this article [“The tiny tweak behind COVID-19 vaccines”, 9/29/20] interesting for it goes into details with excellent illustrations

    Thanks! I learned a lot about the details of Covid-19 vaccine design philosophy from that article (and I am trained in an adjacent specialty). Refreshing to read something in a science-themed publication (Chemical & Engineering News) that’s technically informative, well written, and directed at informed readers. The words diversity and racism make not one appearance.

    [MORE]

    Here are two beautiful schematics of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, showing how the postfusion conformation tricks the immune system into making antibodies against the “wrong” targets:
    https://acs-h.assetsadobe.com/is/image//content/dam/cen/98/38/WEB/09838-feature1-spike.jpg/?$responsive$&wid=700&qlt=90,0&resMode=sharp2
    Legend: Harvard Medical School virologist Bing Chen determined prefusion and postfusion structures of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The spike sheds a subunit and elongates during fusion with a human cell.

    [Edit: Click on the link if the images of the protein backbones doesn’t show up. Unz.com is the best around for embedding images in comments, but still not perfect.]

    • Thanks: That Would Be Telling
    • Replies: @Sparkon
  42. @James Thompson

    I had thought that the first-jab-best-effect was also found for Pfizer. Am I mistaken on that?

    Perhaps not:”Estimating the effectiveness of the Pfizer COVID-19 BNT162b2 vaccine after a single dose. A reanalysis of a study of ‘real-world’ vaccination outcomes from Israel.” It’s on Medrxiv, here’s the abstract, paragraph breaks added:

    A distinctive feature of the roll out of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 virus in the UK was the decision to delay the timing of the second injection till 12 weeks after the first. The logic behind this is to protect more people sooner and so reduce the total number of severe infections, hospitalisations, and deaths. This decision caused criticism from some quarters due in part to a belief that a single injection may not give adequate immunity.

    A recent paper based on Israel s experience of vaccination suggested that a single dose may not provide adequate protection. Here we extract the primary data from the Israeli paper and then estimate the incidence per day for each day after the first injection and also estimate vaccine effectiveness for each day from day 13 to day 24. We used a pooled estimate of the daily incidence rate during days 1 to 12 as the counterfactual estimate of incidence without disease and estimated confidence intervals using Monte Carlo modelling.

    After initial injection case numbers increased to day 8 before declining to low levels by day 21. Estimated vaccine effectiveness was pretty much 0 at day 14 but then rose to about 90% at day 21 before levelling off. The cause of the initial surge in infection risk is unknown but may be related to people being less cautious about maintaining protective behaviours as soon as they have the injection.

    What our analysis shows is that a single dose of vaccine is highly protective, although it can take up to 21 days to achieve this. The early results coming from Israel support the UK policy of extending the gap between doses by showing that a single dose can give a high level of protection.

  43. Polemos says:
    @RoatanBill

    Go to the comment (#41 for me) by ic1000. Track back from there to the link he cites via That Would Be Telling’s comment (#31 for me). Check the article’s “details with illustrations” that TWBT linked us to.

    What is your viewpoint on what is being presented by any of ic1000, That Would Be Telling, and McLellan & Graham via Ryan Cross in Chemical & Engineering News?

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @RoatanBill
    , @gnbRC
  44. anonymous[203] • Disclaimer says:

    It is Saint Brigid’s Day, not Brigid’s day.

    The people who design vaccines have a lot less in their mental tool boxes than you think.

    Or maybe I am wrong —– maybe they are less incompetent, faced with the current challenges with which they are faced, than I think —– but I know much much more about midwits than anyone I know, but probably (and I respect you alot but I am gonna say this) – but probably, I know much more about the incompetence of midwits than even brilliant guys like you. I wish I didn’t, but I do.

    Sorry. —- and tell Unz, or Utz, or whatever his name is, thanks for not telling me I am “posting too fast”.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  45. @Bert

    The suppression of two highly effective medicines by the Western political, fakestream media and medical Mafias illustrates just how Evil they are. Hydroxychloroquine is used widely, successfully and safely around the world, yet the local presstitutes swear blind that it is ineffectual and deadly dangerous. And when the scandal of the fraudulent survey denigrating HCQ having to be withdrawn by Lancet erupted, these presstitutes suppressed the story, totally. The West is corrupt and wicked to its very marrow.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Dave Bowman
  46. @gay troll

    It’s the ‘Biden Effect’, dontcha know.

  47. @Commentator Mike

    And the ‘flu vaccine is generally useless, but you get a seasonal dose of aluminum for your brain health.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  48. GMC says:
    @Mustapha Mond

    I used heavy salt water gargling when I caught the Covid bug and the sinus infection took out my taste and smell for two to three weeks. I also went to Bactrim antibiotic about the 3rd day- which I believe helped – but then it went down to the right lung as my doctor noticed. I went on a nebulizer, vitamins, plasm something, and a steroid/antibiotic injections for 7 to 10 days. I stayed at home doing all of it and it was a different virus than in the past – but not deadly to me. I think Alfred’s research on Ivermectin is the answer. . I’m 70. Thanks M M

    • Thanks: Alfred
  49. @That Would Be Telling

    Except that Trump never uttered the suggestion that people drink bleach or ingest a disinfectant.

  50. After an inoculation, you are less likely to be the cause of someone else becoming ill.

    WHO has said that may not be the case.

    Also, you will be reducing the chance that the virus mutates, thus requiring everyone to get vaccinated next year.

    Did influenza stop mutating once people started getting flu shots?

    • Replies: @dearieme
  51. @Jim Ancona

    It must be a Second Amendment thingy 😉

  52. Alfred says:

    Nature knows best. Personally, I prefer the natural way of getting immunity. It lasts for many years. There is no possibility of little “addons” in the serum. Eat well, sleep well, get some sunshine and fresh air. A vitamin supplement when needed. Forget about masks and antisocial distancing. Enjoy life! 🙂

    PCR Pandemic: Interview with Virus Mania’s Dr Claus Köhnlein

    • Agree: Agent76, Liza
  53. gotmituns says:

    Not nearly enough testing of the vaccines – think Thalidomide.

  54. @LondonBob

    The term ‘vaccine’ should not be applied to an mRNA injection. Its origin is the Latin word for a cow, vacca, from the use of cowpox by Edward Jenner to prevent smallpox infection.

    A vaccine introduces a much attenuated form of the targeted disease-causing agent, designed to elicit a manageable immune response and the consequent production of antibodies for future protection against that agent.

    An mRNA injection, however, is a form of gene therapy. The present crop of injectibles has been rushed into production without animal testing; the human trials are going on at the moment, and in the case of the Pfizer shot will not be complete until January 2023. Thus the entire human population is now being induced to take part in an experiment – and the manufacturers have received government indemnity against claims for injury. This sort of irresponsibility is not only incredible but criminal. Once injected with foreign mRNA, your genetic makeup will be irreversibly changed; you will become, literally, a GMO, a genetically modified organism.

    The alarming spike in UK deaths among elderly recipients is a foretaste of what is to come: God alone knows what the long-term effects will be. A similar injectible developed for SARS caused pathogenic priming and every single one of the test animals (ferrets) died as a result.

  55. aspnaz says:

    Marketing is news in the internet/billionaire/MSM days we live in, trying to persuade the readers/watchers that everybody wants the vaccine. The sad thing about it all is that the facts are out there but people would rather follow the MSM than look at the facts.

    Consider the Danish mask study which was recognised as validly showing that mask wearing has not effect on the number of cases, let alone actual deaths. However, people now think they are clevered than the science, their intuition tells them that masks work, so they must work despite the science showing that they don’t work.

    Vaccines are also a joke, the mRNA recipe showing that the vaccine companies still are unable to come up with anything other than a general vaccine, not a targetted vaccine. You may as well take anti-virals for all the good one of these vaccines will do, but hey, we know better than the science, so we want vaccines.

    A world of retards.

  56. Schuetze says:

    /rant on

    Am I the only one who is utterly disgusted with all these quaccine groupies and their quaccinations?

    These morons, like Steve Sailer and James Thompson, write articles slavishly accepting all the statistics presented by the CDC, WHO, Lancet and all the other pedo-blackmailed Zionist “organizations”, while they ignore all the other damning evidence bitch slapping them across their triple masked faces. I am talking about Medicare bribes for “covid” infected patients, $30K bonus for intubation, PCR cycle roller coaster rides, pre-infected nose swabs, deliberate introduction of Covid-mary’s into senior nursing homes, politically selective super-spreader events, the disappearance of influenze and flu deaths, and on and on.

    Lets face it, these Quaccinators are engaged in one giant circle jerk where they massage each others syringes and brag about the size of the load luciferase in each vaccine jab. Then they get each other randy showing off to each other about their excellent knowledge of “science” they were spoon fed in school, and the whole process starts over again.

    Of course there is also their idiotic lockdowns, social distancing and masking and the illegal way they were imposed and enforced. This also ties in with their disgusting airs of moral superiority and virtue signaling they use to cover up the hypocrisy of cancelling, shutting down and denying free speech of “vaccine deniers”. They just are like the “liberal jews” who pretend to be for free speech while locking up “holocaust deniers”. It also is no mere coincidence that they immediately call the quaccine opponents “anti-semites” and “white supremacists”. This is because jews form the backbone of this quaccination movement.

    Meanwhile, as they devotedly devour every faked statistic printed in the WSJ and NYT, they completely ignore the toll their own stupidity is taking on everyone else. I am talking about the economic toll and the toll of destroying the livelihoods of millions of the middle and working classes and lower classes. Deaths due to suicides, physical and drug abuse, increased mortality due to non-influenza or pneumonia related deaths are swept under the rug and ignored for the glory of “science”. Shattered families are only one side effect of destroying the businesses and pride of people who have spent a lifetime creating something from nothing. Old people being forced to spend their last days alone without the comfort of or being able to comfort family members, is a momentous once in a lifetime event whose loss cannot be quantified by anyone, let alone an idiot quaccinator.

    One final aspect of their betrayal of all their family and neighbors is their refusal to link their two synapses together and figure out the implications of what Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci and Klaus Schwab are telling them. There will be no going back to the old normal. Vaccinations, lock downs, waves of new covid strains are here to stay. And if the quaccinators start to lose grip on power, there will be a new “virus” conveniently timed and located to guarantee that the entire process starts over from the very beginning. The Quaccinators get moist panties just thinking about the billions of shekels a new vaccine will bring, and the prestige that will flow from it. This inevitability illustrates why they refuse to listen to any logic or counter argument, because there can be no going back. If the masks, lockdowns and quaccinations are allowed to stop for any period of time, the quaccinators know that there will be a very high price for them to pay. So they will not object to more police and military presence, and they are guaranteed to submit to this new normal. They have burned the galleons just like Cortez.

    This comic really catches the essence of the quaccination movement:

  57. @James Thompson

    Half your country can barely even speak proper English while over here in N.America, all 400 million of us, largely ignore your use of the language for obvious reasons: critical mass. You don’t have it. We do.

    You are in the same position as the Spaniards, with their ludicrous ‘Castellano’ speech impediment/lisp, blathering about ‘proper accents’ while the Mexicans, all 150 million of them, dominate the Western Hemisphere with what is steadily becoming the new Standard of the language.

    Carry on.

    • Replies: @Hillaire
    , @Davidoff
  58. G J T says:

    If you let ZOG give you a coronavirus “vaccine,” you are literally insane. Full stop. Most vaccines are bad enough after their lengthy (yet totally insufficient) “safety” trials. Imagine being so dumb or insane that you’d be a guinea pig for these psychopaths with a brand new dystopian method of “vaccination” whose trials lasted a matter of months. It is beyond comprehension.

    • Agree: GazaPlanet
  59. @Polemos

    Chemistry and biology are not my areas of expertise, so it’s mostly all Greek to me.

    My point of view is that the pandemic is a manufactured event needed to keep people off the street and prevent rioting as they institute new laws to reduce liberty while engineering a new monetary system because the debts in the old one are unsustainable. The desire to reboot the monetary system was the impetus to produce the panic.

    Further, now that Covid has apparently cured the seasonal flu, heart disease, strokes, cancer, diabetes, and the other major killers, it’s a wonderful bug. /sarc Anyone looking at the reported statistics should conclude they can’t possible reflect reality because all those ailments I mentioned have large reductions in their death rates while the media has Covid responsible for the majority of deaths. These stats are manufactured along with the panic.

    Covid is a smoke screen to institute totalitarianism and a new currency system. Whatever is killing people hasn’t been properly identified, isolated and purified to uniquely discover a pathogen. Any vaccine produced for this politically motivated event is nothing I want as prior attempts over decades to produce just one vaccine for this class of bug have all failed and now we are supposed to believe they have several vaccines developed over a few months and they all work miracles. I’m just not that gullible.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @Polemos
  60. “On other matters, it is Brigid’s Day, and it has been raining a lot, with some fog, very occasional sleet, some promised snow, and moments of baleful awakening, when a wan sun appears behind scudding clouds, harbinger of sunlit uplands to come.”

    How poetic!

  61. @James Thompson

    Actually I think the Scots say “jag” as a rule.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  62. @Polemos

    The generally accepted news is systematically ignoring inconvenient reports.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/02/no_author/cdc-sleight-of-hand-revealed-in-covid-19-death-rates/

    Those that seek out alternative reporting are left wondering which to believe. Given that medicine is more art than science and that the rules for Covid vary from place to place all over the world would indicate that no one KNOWS what to do but many want their turn at controlling populations to suit their individual political agenda.

    If medicine were a real science, it would have answers that don’t vary from one political jurisdiction to the next.

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  63. dearieme says:
    @The Alarmist

    WHO has said that may not be the case.

    Therefore it follows, as the night the day, that it may well be the case.

    In fact, its being the case is probably the way to bet.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  64. Anonymous[661] • Disclaimer says:

    My primary doctor, a diabetic man in his 60s, specializes in treating patients only 65 and older. When I asked him about the Covid vaccines he said he had no interest in taking it and wouldn’t unless it was mandated by his employers. He said the technology is new and not tested enough.

    Somewhat disconcerting when your own doctor doesn’t want it!

    I also favor holding out for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

  65. dearieme says:
    @Guzzifan2t

    I think the Scots say “jag” as a rule.

    Aye, that too was around in my childhood.

    Perhaps an objection to the American “shot” lies in the refined sensibilities of the British, faced with the fact that in many American accents it is pronounced “shat”.

  66. gnbRC says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Don’t forget that the flu vaccine lasts only for a year …

    More than a year (patience and persistence in research is usually the best practice…). Long term effects of vaccinations shown graphically on p. 14 of this research paper (James Lyons-Weiler and Paul Thomas):

    Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination

    I trust you can perform the requisite Internet search.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  67. Let’s be frank here, the arguably most prestigious medical journal of all time up to rather recently, The Lancet, has no clothes on and they themselves revealed that fact when they sacrificed their own credibility, totally and completely, with that Hydroxychloroquine study they not only published in spite of the obvious absurdities, but then only cemented the fact that it was done intentionally deceptively, by retracting it in effective silence and darkness, while having shouted the publication off the rooftops when they were whoring themselves out to political machinations.

    Unfortunately, the negative pattern of how that whole process unfolded in absurdity is just another unnoticed symptom of the whole of western civilization crumbling right before our very eyes. It is clear to any rational and even only moderately intelligent human that a healthy society and civilization would have not only been outraged by such blatant corruption in its most revered institutions and organizations, but would have severely, swiftly, and extremely harshly punished the perpetrators, high and low, in the most public manner possible. Yet that is not what happened at all.

    The consequences of the blatant use of objectivism as political weapon has merely made a tiny splash in an ocean in the public sphere, whilst the professionals in the field seem to simply want to ignore that it ever happened as if the indelible shame and blemish will just somehow go away by a mere administrative correction from “learning” things. Sure, people will quickly forget about this incident since it is just being brushed into the memory hole like any whore that would rather forget once she has crossed the irreversible threshold, but what should worry people far more is that the corrupting forces that allowed it to happen and with impunity, have not at all been even acknowledged, let alone dealt with.

    It’s an ominous sign if you know what you’re looking at, because the sign says “hazardous cliff ahead” as our “leaders” accelerate past the sign they can’t read because they’ve destroyed all common basis for understanding that created the civilization they are mere passengers of. Those who used to be justly revered for their adherence to the principles of the scientific process, have been reduced to being brown skinned sock puppet mean-girls in a kind of macabre echo or cutout if the civilization that the system still wants to see itself as.

    There is probably no more symbolic example of this, than the “people’s house”, the Capitol of the USA, the building which citizens used to simply walk into and could go to any representative’s office, while carrying a gun; has notes been transformed into the “green zone” amidst the hostile forces its occupants sell to dominate and conquer.

    As I wrote this, it reminds me of another, similar incident from not too long ago that has surely also been memory holed. It is the example of the gentleman amateur physicist or astronomer (I can’t quite recall) who was the only one amidst all the clapping and barking seals of the scientific literati to identify a rather basic flaw in a climate change study that purported to say that it’s “all even worse than we thought”. The error was so blatant, so basic, so obvious that it simply could not be ignored. So amidst awkward and immediate muffling cheers of the self-anointed academics, they begrudgingly accepted their trouncing by a mere mortal, before quickly stuffing it down the memory hole, never to be mentioned again.

    When one starts looking, it is rather quickly discovered that not only is the king not wearing any clothes, but so are the nobility, the aristocracy, and all the sycophants ingratiating themselves. It’s a parade of what looks to anyone sane, wearing their clothes, like a parade of utter lunacy and psychosis as our “betters” strut around regally, their noses up high, with nothing on their body and no substance to them at all.

  68. Schuetze says:
    @RoatanBill

    “the rules for Covid vary from place to place all over the world would indicate that no one KNOWS what to do but many want their turn at controlling populations to suit their individual political agenda.”

    Just as with global warming, governments are being pressured to behave in a certain fashion by the peer pressure of other governments. Not only have there been threats of border closures and airport embargoes, I think there has clearly been covert releases of virus in certain jursidictions. Sweden definitely comes to mind, and the early infection of Iran in March 2020 is very suspect too. Just like with their citizens, governments who do not play along get punished.

    It is also quite damning that there is an extremely high correlation between the degree of socialism in the government, the degree of subservience to Zionism and the severity of the lockdowns. California and New York in the USA are a strong indicator in the US, but Australia, New Zealand too. Of course Communist China is the poster boy of lockdowns where the entire Tyrants tool box has been rolled out: drones, facial recognition, tracking apps and even welding apartment blocks shut. Israel, the vortex of Zionism, is in complete and total lockdown.

    • Thanks: GazaPlanet
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  69. gnbRC says:
    @Polemos

    The commenter/comments listed assume a mechanical view of the human being – which seems to be a [convenient] view from the technocratic Hobbsian Leviathanesque viewpoint of social structures.

    Of course, this isn’t really true, and ‘terrain’ is the more important subject not being discussed by the medical/scientific community in response to COVID-19 (whatever that may actually be since COVID-19 et. al. doesn’t currently qualify as a ‘virus’ by either of the Koch or Rivers postulates – but, I digress).

    Sorry, but you and your fellow commenters fell into a very subtle educational fallacy that is mind shaped into everyone participating in a technical education – that being, all complex problems can be solved by applying infinitely narrower boundary conditions, thus divorcing the problem resolution further and further from reality. (This is not just applicable to COVID-19-like problems, but also current social issues/memes such as ROGD, diversity, etc. – yet again, I digress!)

    The discussion of the ‘terrain’ in which COVID is problematic is more of a multi-variable parametric problem with qualitative aspects and thus the solution is not the same for every individual, i.e. thus eliminating the boundary condition problem.

  70. @SteveK9

    You won’t be complaining about the ‘jab’ when the authorities insist on mandatory anal swabs, AKA the ‘prong’.

    Assume the position, Citizen 10456743!

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  71. @Schuetze

    The people making the most from the Covid fiasco will eventually be identified. With hindsight the perpetrators and their motives might be established. For now, I think it’s fairly obvious that some gov’t entity released a pathogen in various places almost simultaneously and managed to get an unelected organization to declare a pandemic when none actually existed.

    The deaths attributed to Covid are artificially inflated for scare purposes. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/02/no_author/cdc-sleight-of-hand-revealed-in-covid-19-death-rates/

    We also know that Fauci and the medical mafia are making a fortune off this farce because the NIH makes a profit on vaccines and their leadership rakes off a percentage.

    All of this is prelude to a currency reset so that negative interest rates can be applied to people’s accounts due to the fact that physical paper currency will be withdrawn from circulation soon. Then there can be no bank runs, there can be no underground economy because all transactions will leave an audit trail. Free speech will be a thing of the past as the control of the currency will silence dissenting voices by turning off or severely limiting their access to their own funds. The totalitarian state is being created in plain sight but most people are oblivious to this reality.

    • Agree: TRM, JasonT, Alfred
    • Thanks: roonaldo
    • Replies: @Realist
  72. Anon[130] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    According to Dr Claus Kohnlein, Hydroxychloroquine was discredited because in the beginning of the crisis, lethal doses of the drug were mistakenly administered to patients causing a spike in deaths.

    Dr Kohnlein explains this and gives some truly interesting and unexpected insights into Coronavirus and its treatments.

    This video features New Zealand Dr Sam Bailys Interview with Virus Mania’s Dr Claus Köhnlein.
    Caution: Don’t be put off by Dr Bailys mannerisms. She has done an awful lot of good work in exposing the “pandemic” and Dr Kohnleins information is pure gold.

    • Agree: GeeBee, TRM
  73. @dearieme

    Since we are talking about an experimental mRNA cocktail, I didn’t want to draw the analogy to vaccine-derived infection outbreaks, like has been seen with polio vaccines; however, it is quite plausible that the mRNA cocktails, being to some extent a therapeutic demonstrated in testing to reduce symptoms, could still leave an infected person still somewhat contagious.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  74. Mr. Thompson has tried to figure out why some Luddite like myself doesn’t want it. Death via vaccine would piss me off in my final gasps, but it doesn’t scare me. For the record I avoid pharmaceutical drugs as much as possible after watching my two parents slide down the rathole of unintended (hopefully) consequences of prescription medicine. Their next pill always seemed to offset the last one. Potassium and magnesium deficiencies seem to rule their final stages of life. Both were ultimately given blood thinner. Who needs death panels when you have blood thinners? Trust the science.

    But back to Covid vaccines. I get they are a new gene altering thing to make you superhuman with respect to this virus only. Why does that strike me as figurative bull feces? Death? Side effects?
    Nah…you are fiddling with DNA and just ONE strain of the virus. The risk reward doesn’t seem worth it. If it weren’t for lockdowns and the future need for virus passports, most would agree. Doesn’t the need for that level of government abuse to force people to get the vaccine in itself seem suspicious? I’ll trust nature instead. Thank god for living on a farm, which so far is essential.

    • Agree: TRM
    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  75. Doctors and Nurses Giving the Covid-19 Vaccine Will Be Tried as War Criminals.
    In an emotional video, Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA, explains why doctors and nurses giving the covid-19 vaccine will be tried as war criminals.

    https://brandnewtube.com/watch/doctors-and-nurses-giving-the-covid-19-vaccine-will-be-tried-as-war-criminals_7tNEBnZogbdlEXu.html

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/01/no_author/professor-dolores-cahill-why-people-will-start-dying-a-few-months-after-the-first-mrna-vaccination/

    One of the most educated Professors in Ireland and one of the founding members of The World Freedom Alliance. https://worldfreedomalliance.org/

    • Replies: @theMann
    , @Marty
  76. GeeBee says:
    @Anon

    As for Dr Bailys’s ‘mannerisms’, if I’m any authority on female body-language I’d say that in spite of the thirty-year age difference she’s got the hots for Kohnlein. Yes she is slightly annoying with all that giggling (does she do it when interviewing other people I wonder), but yes also, Kohnlein is one of those rational, sceptical, analytical Germans one can’t help but warm to.

    Highly recommended.

  77. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    And the ‘flu vaccine is generally useless, but you get a seasonal dose of aluminum for your brain health.

    For any given year flu vaccines are iffy depending on how well the experts guessed many months ago which would be the dominate circulating strains in the coming winter for a hemisphere. They not infrequently guess well.

    As for adjuvants in flu vaccines in the US, FLUAD is the only one using one, metal free squalene oil. Contrary to what that page claims, Novava’s COVID-19 vaccine adjuvant is a saponin, which among other things includes sugars attached to an organic molecule, which could be squalene. Squalene is also a component in GSK’s adjuvants which are being used in Sanofi and Medicago (Canadian firm)’s protein based COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the former a failure so far in producing adequate immunity for the elderly, the latter now in a blended Phase II/III trial. In any case, to my knowledge for COVID-19 vaccines anywhere near being ready, an aluminum based adjuvant is only being used in Russia’s Vector Institute EpiVacCorona, which is in its Phase III trial.

    • Replies: @BDS Always
  78. Sparkon says:
    @ic1000

    In cases like this, remove all of the text following the image file type (jpg). Test in an empty tab. Here it is:

  79. Bottom line, if you want or feel you need the jab, then by all means get it. Just don’t try and force it on me.
    Didn’t a world court establish that it was illegal to force medication on any citizen against their will?

    Mandatory/Forced Vaccinations a Blatant Violation of the Nuremberg Code

    We as a nation stand on the precipice of medical tyranny with a supposed government agency (actually a corporate entity … FACT) mandated for our protection, seeking or proclaiming the power to mandate or force vaccinations on We The People through power or consent not granted it by said people. Yes I am talking about the CDC. When a government can force medication into the bodies of the Unwilling masses and their most vulnerable children without their consent, what makes them any less guilty than those put to death by the Nuremberg trials for medical experimentation against the consent or will of their participants, or crimes committed against humanity? We will discuss this in much more detail as this article progresses.

    https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/mandatoryforced-vaccinations-a-blatant-violation-of-the-nuremberg-code/

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  80. Aardvark says:
    @SteveK9

    They should be referred to as “experimental injections” so as to remind people that at least the mRNA versions have not been formally approved in the U.S.; the trials for these do not end until 2023. Therefore if you get an mRNA based “jab” you are a medical experiment.

    • Agree: flashlight joe
    • Thanks: joe2.5
    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  81. Stephane says:

    In response to “I get they are a new gene altering thing…”

    Actually no, your genes are not altered, otherwise I strongly doubt that it would have been approved.

    The mRNA strands enters the cell, and is read by the cellular machinery to produce spike proteins that will be targeted by your immune system and prepare it to recognise those proteins in the actual virus, should you be exposed to it later.

    But the mRNA is not completely stable and after some times it is degraded and the cell stops producing the proteins.

    • Replies: @Getaclue
  82. Marckus says:

    Lets see, you must still social distance, wear triple face masks, not congregate and continue to hide under your bed.

    Not only that but these preventative “measures” will remain in place until the next millenia. The lockdown ? Well who knows !

    However the vaccine will mitigate none of this. Logical right ?

    The stupidity of the general public is worse than I thought.

  83. @gnbRC

    in response to COVID-19 (whatever that may actually be since COVID-19 et. al. doesn’t currently qualify as a ‘virus’ by either of the Koch or Rivers postulates

    Of course viruses as obligate parasites don’t and can’t satisfy Koch’s postulates, something he was said to realize not all that long after he formulated his. But I fail to see how they fail Rivers’, unless despite your vastly superior world view you fail to realize the West has become too soft to expose naive human subjects to a lethal pathogen, so we must use animal models like rhesus macaque monkeys. Upon which, surprise, surprise, Rivers’ are satisfied. And if not SARS-CoV-2, just what do you suggest is killing so many people around the world in many polities hostile to each other far in excess of preceding years?

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  84. @Simon Tugmutton

    Thanks for the helpful info . . .
    I’ll skip the “vaccination” until forced to take it.

  85. @Frank frank

    Let’s be frank here, the arguably most prestigious medical journal of all time up to rather recently, The Lancet, has no clothes on….

    This was realized in the 1980s in the “junior scientist” pre-grad school circle I was a part of, and they’ve stepped on a rake multiple times since them, from their response after they published the outright fraudulent Andrew Wakefield MMR vaccine autism study to their accepting a couple of papers on Iraq War civilian death tolls from a team who’s data collection methods were obviously bogus. And made it obvious to anyone with eyes from all the purely political positions they take.

    WRT to HCQ, as you note that paper was obviously bogus, I say to anyone not blinded by hatred towards the BAD ORANGE MAN, who they also took a frankly political position against. I personally have no opinion on its efficacy for treating COVID-19, I just know as long as Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) rules, it will never get a fair hearing in the West, and as far as I can tell is still off table in many parts of the US, including solid Red ones in flyover country.

    As I wrote this, it reminds me of another, similar incident from not too long ago that has surely also been memory holed. It is the example of the gentleman amateur physicist or astronomer (I can’t quite recall) who was the only one amidst all the clapping and barking seals of the scientific literati to identify a rather basic flaw in a climate change study that purported to say that it’s “all even worse than we thought”. The error was so blatant, so basic, so obvious that it simply could not be ignored. So amidst awkward and immediate muffling cheers of the self-anointed academics, they begrudgingly accepted their trouncing by a mere mortal, before quickly stuffing it down the memory hole, never to be mentioned again.

    Having indirectly noticed and then studied this field since it flipped from global cooling to global warming, sometimes by the same people, I have no doubt about your above claim, but would appreciate a pointer so I can look at it myself.

    And of course the general thrust of your essay is correct, at least for the US and what I gather of the West. We are watching decivilization in real time; in the US, now the usual sequela of a nation that has become a one party state.

  86. @That Would Be Telling

    FLU SHOTS FOR DUMMIES.
    Dr. Jim Meehan MD, sits down with Del to thoroughly look at science behind the flu shot’s effectiveness and safety, providing everything you need to know to make an informed decision on whether to inject yourself and your kids.
    https://thehighwire.com/videos/flu-shots-for-dummies/

    DR GRAHAM DOWNING – VAXXED: ONE FLEW OVER THE COOKOO’S NEST.



    (Another great Doctor we have in the UK)

  87. dearieme says:
    @The Alarmist

    could still leave an infected person still somewhat contagious.

    Indeed. I suppose we’d all like to know whether inoculated people will be at less risk of passing it on if they become infected, and by how much. 10%? 90%? The people who put great store by viral load have reason to be optimistic.

  88. TRM says:

    Ivermectin + Doxycycline + Zinc

    If they had implemented this in August 2020 we’d have been done by the end of September. If they had done this in December after the senate appearance it would be OVER BY NOW. Eleven RCT’s WITH data (unlike their precious vaccine) show spectacular results.

    Professor Thomas Borody in August 2020 said:
    “It’s easier than treating the flu now”. “You can actually eradicate it”. “We know it’s curable”

    http://covexit.com/we-know-its-curable-its-easier-than-treating-the-flu-professor-thomas-borody/

    and the senate testimony by Dr. Pierre Kory (FLCCC Alliance, https://covid19criticalcare.com/ ) in early December.

  89. Sparkon says:

    The Danish mask study mentioned above, DANMASK, tested only paper surgical masks, so it’s largely irrelevant to the general advice to wear a multi-layer cloth or fabric mask, and the more recent advice from Dr. Fauci to wear two masks for greatest protection.

    There are a number of mechanical studies showing that cloth and fabric masks – especially those with multi-layers – are an effective barrier against the kind of airborne droplets that pose the greatest risk for transmission of COVID-19. Please see my previous comment here:

    https://www.unz.com/rpaul/will-biden-listen-to-the-science/#comment-4299441

    And of course we have real-world results from the Best Clips hair salon in Springfield, MO, USA where universal mask wearing at the salon prevented transmission of COVID-19 from two infected stylists who’d gone into work while experiencing symptoms, and later tested positive for the disease.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/trump-hospitalized/#comment-4201570

    Personally, I’d much rather wear a mask or two than get a shot, jab, poke, injection, vaccination, needle plunge, or any penetration of my thin and tender widdle skin with any sharp object bearing any unknown concoction.

    • Thanks: Brás Cubas
  90. @Simon Tugmutton

    A vaccine introduces a much attenuated form of the targeted disease-causing agent, designed to elicit a manageable immune response and the consequent production of antibodies for future protection against that agent.

    There’s much more to the immune system than antibodies; the only thing you got right in your definition is “designed to elicit a manageable immune response.” Many vaccines don’t fit it because they’re based on introducing one or more viral proteins or bits of them, inside or outside of cells, unless we use a very broad interpretation of “much attenuated,” and even then I’d say the polio live virus vaccine fails because after serial passage through not all that many humans it can regain its fangs. To the point in the last few years in our attempt to eradicate it, polio cases from it have exceeded ones from wild type viruses.

    An mRNA injection, however, is a form of gene therapy. The present crop of injectibles has been rushed into production without animal testing; the human trials are going on at the moment, and in the case of the Pfizer shot will not be complete until January 2023. Thus the entire human population is now being induced to take part in an experiment – and the manufacturers have received government indemnity against claims for injury. This sort of irresponsibility is not only incredible but criminal. Once injected with foreign mRNA, your genetic makeup will be irreversibly changed; you will become, literally, a GMO, a genetically modified organism.

    Most of what you say is entirely wrong. “Gene therapy” requires modifying genes, which in humans are in the form of DNA. Thus you must explain how the fundamental paradigm of molecular genetics, DNA->mRNA->proteins is reversed in mRNA vaccines, as well as how all other live virus vaccines as well as SARS-CoV-2 don’t turn you into a GMO, seeing as how they’re all means to the end of getting mRNA to make viral proteins. The only rush WRT to animal testing was BioNTech and Moderna being confident enough based on their prior vaccine work and a great deal of others’ prior SARS type coronavirus vaccines to start animal and Phase I human testing at the same time. And I wouldn’t be surprised if other companies did the same if their platform was mature enough, for example Janssen and Oxford.

    You have a point about this being an experiment, all these Western Phase III trials follow up their vaccine arm subjects for a couple of years, and if ethical about now offer the vaccine to their placebo arm subjects, but that doesn’t mean SCIENCE!!! was ignored in the emergency authorizations given them by the EU, U.K., and US. For the latter, it says so right on the label, “Emergency Use Authorization” (EUA), and the fact sheets handed out emphasize this is not “approval.” Thus allowing people to make risk/benefit tradeoff calculations, hopefully using facts instead of the turns you into a GMO!!! propaganda you’re propagating to no one’s benefit.

    Don’t know about indemnity granted outside the US, but here it’s for emergency “countermeasures” to things like this pandemic, and modeled on the Reagan era “vaccine court.” In large part because Republicans didn’t want to further pad the incomes of the plaintiff’s bar which has been a very important part of the Democratic Party’s coalition, and the Federal government is cheap. Without removing these companies from the grasp of our insane civil legal system, it would be paying 10X to 100X more for the treatments and vaccines that have been developed and authorized on an emergency basis, assuming any company would want to subject itself to such existential risks.

  91. TRM says:

    We all must get vaccinated and forced/coerced into taking it regardless that the RNA vaccines are:

    1) It is experimental
    2) It has NEVER worked in man nor beast
    3) It killed all the animals in 2012 when they were exposed to the wild virus
    4) They skipped animal testing this time
    5) Has no long term studies
    6) It changes you at the cellular level to produce antibodies
    7) There is NO way to turn it off.
    8) Ivermectin is vastly safer, vastly more effective & vastly cheaper.

    All that for a virus with an IFR of 0.3? That would not have even been a pandemic prior to 2008 when they changed the definition to remove the IFR 1.0 requirement.

    The Nuremberg Code

    http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/

    1) The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

    4) The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

    6) The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

    http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/

    • Thanks: Polemos
  92. @gnbRC

    I trust you can perform the requisite Internet search.

    Yes indeed, but why I come to sites such as this is to get information from the more knowledgeable and to save myself doing the research.

    More than a year

    That may be so but all those that I know take the shot in the autumn every year and no doctor refuses them the jab because they had one the previous year.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  93. joe2.5 says:
    @James Thompson

    Thank you for
    – trying to get through a wall to explain the denominator to choose for different ratios — sotosay from the horse’s mouth,
    – making clear that in Britain the use of “jab” for shot isn’t the irritating journalistic faddishness it looks like from this side of the pond.

  94. Getaclue says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    Resident cheerleader for vaccinations strikes again….Regardless of deaths, side effects, and Big Pharma lies and bs your man here will always be posting a very long winded “defense” of the wonderfulness of all things “vaccine”….

    • Replies: @The Real World
  95. @Old and Grumpy

    But back to Covid vaccines. I get they are a new gene altering thing to make you superhuman with respect to this virus only. Why does that strike me as figurative bull feces?

    Heh. But not really “superhuman,” the mRNA vaccines may not give you even as good an immunity as natural immunity which also targets the nucleocapsid protein. And I’ve anecdotally read that convalescent plasma is either vastly preferred or required from people who got natural immunity since it also attacks those nucleocapsid proteins, which are less obvious targets since they’re hidden behind the virus’ envelope (which is just some membrane stolen from the host cell it buds off of). That’s perhaps because many/most/all?? artificial antibody treatments target the spike protein like one I just found using Bing, so if they fail you don’t want to try harder with only antibodies against the spike protein.

    Death? Side effects?
    Nah…you are fiddling with DNA and just ONE strain of the virus.

    You absolutely will kill and maim some people if you give any biologic or drug to millions and millions of people as we’re doing with COVID-19 vaccines, that’s baked into the pie. If you’re old enough to be grumpy like me, though, you’ll make a risk/reward tradeoff calculation, for we know COVID-19 also kills and maims some of the people who get it. But we are not fiddling with DNA, see my other comments for details, unless you want to count the virus vector vaccines which use DNA virus, I’d assume they have much lower mutation rates than RNA viruses since they don’t have to use hacks to make more mRNA.

    Those viral vectors so far in terms of being at or near getting authorizations are adenoviruses which normally cause “the common cold” in humans or for AZ/Oxford chimpanzees. They have their ability to reproduce gimped, are thus “replication deficient,” unlike attenuated live virus vaccines which you got a lot of when you were young, or took the older vaccine against shingles, and have DNA coding for the spike protein spliced into them.

    So I won’t blame you if you look at them askance since I do now prior to my learning more now that Janssen has made an application to the FDA, but Janssen’s “platform” for example has been tried on enough people for an European Phase III trial against Ebola. It’s considered unlikely they’ll alter your DNA, maybe very unlikely given that I gather they don’t make more of their own DNA as part of being replication deficient. Like all “active” vaccines from mRNA to the old fashioned ones the DNA is a means to the end of causing mRNA to make viral proteins inside some of your cells, thus provoking a full immune system response. Which includes the immune system eventually terminating with extreme prejudice those cell hijacked by the vaccine.

    • Replies: @Rdm
  96. lysias says:

    What is the evidence that the vaccinated are half as likely to spread the disease as the unvaccinated?

  97. @The King is a Fink

    And the prong will lead to the Digit which will lead to the Fist.

  98. Hillaire says:
    @Irish Savant

    That seems to be the method ‘they’ are employing to get you to take their little pricks.

    I think that we need to throw more dollars at the financier class, and kill more healthy useless eaters by locking them up, that most assuredly will bring down the fake deaths and statistics the governors are paying for… ask jimbo and the hard of thinking.

    off for a lemsip

  99. Getaclue says:
    @Sparkon

    Do some actual research maybe? You don’t need to rely on some bs “mechanical studies” that are worthless — there are 41 actual Medical Studies now as to CVirus and Masks – – all 41 of them state they are basically useless and in fact may cause infection — all of them. So tired of the lying by Maskholes — there is nothing they do other than push the climate of fear the “Elite” pushing the Satanic NWO Great Reset want for their Agenda — stop helping them with this type propaganda:

    https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/data-do-not-back-cloth-masks-limit-covid-19-experts-say

    https://jamesfetzer.org/2020/08/studies-of-surgical-masks-efficacy-masks-are-useless-in-preventing-the-spread-of-disease/

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/29/these-12-graphs-show-mask-mandates-do-nothing-to-stop-covid/

    There is literally no evidence supporting Mask wearing as to CVirus — only lies and fear mongering by the CDC NWO “Experts” tied to Gates — like all the rest of the Fraudsters using CVirus to bring about an Agenda that will impoverish and “depopulate” the Peons — most of which are cheering it on for some insanely stupid reason….

    • Agree: Agent76, Mike Tre
    • Replies: @Sparkon
  100. @Sparkon

    Here is some info that dismisses the Masks are safe and protect waffle.

    Dr Vernon Colemans Book: Masks Do More Harm Than Good.
    https://www.vernoncoleman.com/harmthangood.pdf

    International best-selling author, Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA, explains why face masks do more harm than good.
    https://brandnewtube.com/watch/proof-that-face-masks-do-more-harm-than-good_5Ya8cJN5eCT3vqj.html

    MASK WHISTLEBLOWERS TELL ALL

    Government trained OSHA mask experts Tammy Clark & Kristen Meghan join Del in-studio to break down vital info on masks, PPE, and their role in #Covid19 prevention. Every adult on this planet wearing a mask needs to hear this riveting discussion.
    https://thehighwire.com/videos/mask-whistleblowers-tell-all/

    • Thanks: Agent76
  101. Getaclue says:
    @Stephane

    The truth is it is “Experimental” and no one really knows what the outcome will be in the human test subjects now being injected — there have been a number of deaths but the “health” authorities are, of course, stating that they are “not related” even when they occur immediately after the injection….Just the opposite of the CVirus scam where people being shot or killed in car crashes were/are recorded as “Covid 19 Deaths” –the fact people cannot see what is going on and parrot absolute bs put out by Gates and Big Pharma is depressing.

  102. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    Thanks…I posted that under, Aggregated Newslinks, this morning.

  103. Covid-19 is one of the biggest scams and psyops in the history of the world and the vaccinations are a Jim Jones deal, a genocide vaccine that contains mRNA which destroys the immune system and changes the DNA forever.

    This depopulation agenda is driven by the Rockefeller and Gates foundation, the World Economic Forum, UN Agenda 2030 and all the globalists.

    • Replies: @stevennonemaker88
  104. @Aardvark

    They should be referred to as “experimental injections” so as to remind people that at least the mRNA versions have not been formally approved in the U.S.; the trials for these do not end until 2023. Therefore if you get an mRNA based “jab” you are a medical experiment.

    This will be true for every vaccine the FDA grants an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to, seeing as how every US strength vaccine Phase III trial follows its participants for a couple of years. Also if ethical offers the vaccine to the control group, and any ethical Phase III starting now will use an existing COVID-19 vaccine for the control arm, the so called current “standard of care”, see Sanofi/GSK’s V2.0 restart this month or soon.

    On the other hand, not even US FDA vaccine strength trials of 15,000 or more people getting the vaccine are good enough to for example find 1 in 100,000 side effects, that’s only discovered in the “post-marketing” Phase IV. So every new drug or biologic actually approved, granted “licensure,” is still an experiment, and for that matter Phase IV only ends if it’s withdrawn from the market. Look for black boxes in “Prescribing Information” for doctors and pharmacists, there’s a fair chance a drug you’ve previously taken has bad side effects only when “experimented” on much larger populations.

    • Troll: JasonT
    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  105. JasonT says:
    @Schuetze

    lol

    And quite right too.

    • Thanks: Schuetze
  106. @SteveK9

    Does anyone else find the terminology ‘the jab’ more than a little repulsive?

    Yep, irritated me from the start. Every article you read about it repeats the phrase incessantly. It’s like a kind of hypnosis – the jab, the jab, the jab. It’s all around you, the backdrop of your new normal. Worse, it’s mainly British meeja that use it, so I reflexively hear it in that smug accent in my head. Basically, they are signalling how cozy they are with the virus regime.

    • Agree: Bert
    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    , @Skeptikal
  107. theMann says:
    @BDS Always

    I have been pushing for recognizing that the entirety of Coronfraud qualifies as a series of War Crimes/Crimes against humanity since last March.

    Mass incarceration, wanton destruction of property, psychological torture, and now, Medical Experimentation on unknowing subjects via vaccine.

    Oh, and news flash to That Would Be Telling:

    When somebody posts an argument, germane to the article, citing multiple references, that is the opposite of being a troll, Peckerwood.

  108. @Desert Fox

    Well said. I was looking at the cdc website, and it showed that each “covid death” had on average almost 3 other potentially fatal conditions when they died. The whole thing is a huge hoax.

  109. Schuetze says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Forced vaccinations are only half of it. The other half is all the various alternative treatments that they have restricted and cancelled peoples lives for even mentioning. HydroxiCloroquine and Ivermectine are just two of them. But there are far more possibilities that we are not allowed to hear about , let alone purchase. This is because the AMA and all these (((Doctors))) are, at their core, rent seeking arrogant anti-humanists. Just like Climatologists. The quaccinators are guilty of not only trying to force their jew-juice on us, they also are trying to restrict our options so that we have no other choice but to accept the primacy of their “science” over ours. The same thing applies to global warming, which their quackery is joined at the hip to.

    There has been an ongoing chain of “suicides” and murders of leading US alternative medicine doctors, and if one is paying attention the evidence is overwhelming that the AMA and the entire medical profession have prostituted themselves to the murderous big Pharma and are an integral part of the same cabal that has stolen the US from its people and placed their destiny in the hands of the oligarchs. Doctors are just as filthy as bankers, lawyers, politicians and jews.

  110. Rdm says:

    First of all, I was under the impression that we humans have evolved to the stage where no more significant cognitive ability could be achieved after machine learning and artificial intelligence. This pandemic has shown me that we could actually evolve more than I had initially thought.

    Now a paper is coming out suggesting that this is precisely the best course of action. The study, which is under peer review and is expected to be published in The Lancet, concludes that leaving a 12-week gap between shots “may be the optimal for rollout of a pandemic vaccine when supplies are limited in the short term”.

    Lancet, NEJM used to be established journals when it comes to reporting the cases. Over the years, they have evolved into such a junk repository where ivory tower armchair scientists will publish their “thought”.

    Let me ask you James.

    Let’s say there’s a cat running past your garden. You’d see a “cat”. But when it comes to writing the report, you could change the said wanderer as a “dog” as you wish. Since you’re the only one who saw the incident, you could manipulate the outcome which is harmless in a sense. Now let’s put two people together. You and your friend are sitting on the porch. Both of you saw the cat.

    [MORE]

    You, as a reporter, want to write “dog”. Your friend has no say in this report. Of course you lose your reputation and might as well lose a friend. Now Imagine you and your friend will be coauthors in the report. Here comes the conflict. You want to label the animal as “Dog”, but your friend wants to report what he saw, i.e., a “Cat”. You two argue over the incident.

    Let add another complexity into the incident. There’s an incentive that most of the readers want to read about “Dog”, and they’re not interested in “Cat”. By reporting the animal as “Dog”, you both could potentially enjoy being the authors. What about add more flavor to our example that the Journal Editor will pay both authors a huge sum of money for seeing a stray Dog in the street?

    Would you report “Cat” or “Dog”?

    That’s what happened in the early days of pandemic. There’re a slew of journals publishing covids like crazy. It doesn’t matter if the patient came to the hospital with a gunshot wound, if he died of “covid”, covid killed the patient and the count goes up. The number of positive cases are then reported in NEJM, Lancet like they are a true beacon of what’s happening on the ground.

    Based on those reports, Pharma swoops in and make money by offering two jabs. Pfizer CEO said he’s not getting the vaccine shot because “He doesn’t want to cut in line.”

    Read it again “He doesn’t want to cut in line”.

    But he sold millions of shares once Pfizer stock skyrocketed.

    Yea, deadly virus, but with the most altruistic mindset in mind, the Jews has spoken “He doesn’t want to cut in line.”

    Go and reread my “Cat” and “Dog” example and replace the words with this.

    “Cat” = Flu
    “Dog” = Covid-19
    “Incentive” = Money
    “Journal Editor” = Hospitals
    “A huge sum of money” = Reimbursement to hospital if they report covid cases by the Government

    A few famous Covid-19 cases that even before vaccines were developed, but those guys never die but still spew out if they’re going to die like tomorrow.

    – Tom Hanks
    – Kevin Hart (the same time as Tom Hanks, but he said he didn’t want to steal the thunder from Tom while the MSM was pushing the agenda as if Tom was going to die the next day.)
    – Boris Johnson
    – Trump (most likely got it longer until he’s finally got tested and sent to hospital)
    – Chris Cuomo (The guy said it’s the most terrible condition that he’s caught covid. CNN needs some fodder.)




    The list goes on.

    Now even if they say Vaccine will be freely available to the public, there’s no free lunch. Government will cut the tax for Pharma while the Pharma CEO sold millions and they rake in more money.

    The question is

    Who pocketed the money off of this global pandemic?

  111. @dearieme

    “Jab” might be evocative of a passage from a Fanny Hill novel, no?

    • Replies: @Bert
  112. Hillaire says:
    @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    English is wasted on americans…

    They should speak hebrew.

  113. Sparkon says:
    @Getaclue

    There is literally no evidence supporting Mask wearing as to CVirus

    Wrong. The Springfield Great Clips experience is powerful evidence that masks work. You may not accept it, but I do. Additionally, the Univ. of Illinois studies demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2-sized particles, in the range of 100 nm, were filtered and blocked by cloth masks. You may not accept it, but I do.

    Your first link is dated Apr. 3, 2020, so it hardly reflects current understanding, nor does it reflect the recommendations of every major medical organization to wear a face covering to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. In your 2nd link, Fetzer is citing studies from 1980 that have no bearing on COVID-19, which has its own unique set of characteristics determining its contagion and virulence.

    By wearing a mask and doing my best to maintain social distancing, I can employ protective measures that are entirely within my own hands, although I have not had 100% success in keeping maskless dolts at a distance.

    As they say, nothing can be made foolproof because fools are too ingenious.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  114. Rdm says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    And I’ve anecdotally read that convalescent plasma is either vastly preferred or required from people who got natural immunity since it also attacks those nucleocapsid proteins, which are less obvious targets since they’re hidden behind the virus’ envelope (which is just some membrane stolen from the host cell it buds off of).

    Any proteins that are made from DNA go through mRNA stage to get translated. If they think that nucleocapsid protein is more potent to provide immunity, why don’t they design the mRNA for that nucleocapsid protein then?

    If such protein is less immunogenic or less antigenic so that it’s difficult to make IgG antibody, then the statement that “either vastly preferred or required from people who got natural immunity since it also attacks those nucleocapsid proteins” is already moot because “Less antigenic” defeats the purpose of generating more potent antibody.

    This entire covid has made some people lose logic and completely mired in mumbo jumbo train of thoughts.

    Are there people dying of Covid?

    Covid alone?

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  115. Agent76 says:

    Jan 24, 2021 Norway Sees Huge Spike in Vaccine-Related Deaths

    New reports from Norway show some worrying side effects from COVID vaccines.

    Dec 19, 2020 Dr. Paul Thomas Targeted By Medical Board & Media After Landmark Vaccine Study – Interview

    Recently a landmark study was conducted by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler and Dr. Paul Thomas. The study compared vaccinated children and unvaccinated children and was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on November 22, 2020 after being peer reviewed.

    • Thanks: Alfred
  116. Beckow says:

    …any citizen might quail at taking an immediate risk of 1 in 100,000 to protect themselves from a potential risk of 136 in 100,000.

    Any citizen under 65 in good heath has a risk from Covid closer to 5 in 100,000. With better treatment that drops further. The vaccine risk of 1 in 100,000 is a premature number: there could be long-term consequences. The longevity of the vaccine protection is not clear, it’s unlikely to be permanent.

    That scrambles the odds further: basically for most people it comes out to risks being roughly the same with Covid or the vaccine. No rational society has ever embarked on health protection measures this sweeping. We can decrease injuries by making wearing helmets outdoors compulsory. We can decrease lime disease by mandating long pants in forests (or even shutting down forests), we can decrease mortality by banning pure alcohol drinks, too much sugar, etc…the list is endless.

    Regarding protecting others: by definition the vaccinated ones are protected, unless they don’t believe what they claim. Who exactly are the unvaccinated threatening?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @James Thompson
  117. The coronavirus is a huge hoax. I was checking on the cdc’s website and each person who died of “covid” actually had on average nearly 3 serious (often fatal) conditions when they died. So basically people are dying of pneumonia, heart disease, even injury or suicide and being counted as “covid” deaths. The fact that the author fails to understand this and takes the cdc’s (or nhs in the uk) numbers at face value makes his article and premise false.

  118. Better to wait ten years for first jab
    then can consume in fish ‘n chips.

    Wait another 5 years for 2nd jab
    then will be born with cells occupied.

    Better yet –

    wait for an actual monster to be released by the Dark Ones.

    So far, past year, just an experiment in control
    with vaxes along with masks and separation being
    tests for morons.

    Truth from Israel same as truth from USreal:
    The universe could end first.

  119. Bert says:
    @MGB

    We seem to agree that if put to a referendum iodine gargling and nasal lavage twice a day would have won hands down over masks, business and school closures, unemployment, and half a million deaths. Fauci and company were well aware from the beginning that this was the best solution (no pun intended) because Japan used it population wide during the 2009 flu. The conclusion that follows from knowing that they knew is mindboggling.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  120. SafeNow says:
    @James Thompson

    My quarrel with “jab” is that it connotes, to the American ear, brusqueness rather than fastidiousness. A person administering an IM injection should consider (1) needle size, (2) angle of attack, and (3) the precise site. Of course, the problem in the U.S. is that most everything is governed by the “jab” standard of performance, so I should just get used to it.

    • Replies: @New Dealer
  121. Bert says:
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    When we were driving through Dry Prong, Louisiana, on a road trip, my companion commented, “That sounds painful.”

  122. Rdm says:
    @Frank frank

    Just clicking “Agree” button wouldn’t do the justice of your well-articulated prose on the absurdity of the current pandemic.

    All scholars are making the vaccine as next holy grail and whoever got the “shot” or “jabs” or vaccination are supposed to be grateful for those pharma when their CEOs sold millions of shares and gave an excuse that they don’t want to cut in line in getting the vaccine.

    Pfizer CEO was 60 years but he’s so much altruistic.
    Pfizer prize their vaccine differently. When the no-name European politician tweeted the price of the vaccine publicly, Pfizer CEO said they were given in discreet discount while charging more on Germany and France. Go figure.

  123. Mike Tre says:
    @Marshall Lentini

    I would guess they use jab because it’s been determined that it sounds the least scary to the uninformed masses who will line up like lemmings to scurry off the nearest cliff.

    Similar in the opposite way how the term “denier” is assigned to anyone who dares vocalize an independent thought of their own about any number of topics, including Covidianity. Denier sounds a lot worse than skeptic or uncertain. They won’t use heretic because that makes the whole religious (faith not facts) aspect of this nonsense a bit too obvious.

    • Replies: @lysias
  124. niceland says:

    If anyone is interested here is a link on Iceland’s vaccination statistics.
    https://www.covid.is/statistical-information-on-vaccination

    Today we have – Vaccination started: 7805
    Vaccination completed: 4855
    If I understand correctly this means 12660 people have gotten the “jab”. Mostly from Pfizer.

    Sadly, not available in English this site reports side effects:
    https://www.lyfjastofnun.is/lyf/covid-19/aukaverkanatilkynningar-vegna-covid-19/

    There we can see today 233 reported side effects. Thereof 13 considered “serious”.

    What does serious mean? I don’t know but last news I read said 9 people died soon after getting the “jab”. All of them, I think, old and fragile. One interpretation is ; they were almost dead anyway. Logic not commonly used when C-19 was thought to be the culprit.

    Considering, according to official statistics – 29 people have died from covid-19 in Iceland so far. And most of them are in the same age group that died shortly after getting the “jab” I can’t say I am very impressed!

    It really looks like the “right thing to do” is to have the younger and healthier section of the population vaccinated to get heard immunity. And spare the elderly from possible side effects, that seem quite serious issue.

    But then, since the disease itself is almost totally harmless for the young and healthy – why bother with the Vaccines?

    • Replies: @Alfred
    , @niceland
  125. @Rdm

    And I’ve anecdotally read that convalescent plasma is either vastly preferred or required from people who got natural immunity since it also attacks those nucleocapsid proteins, which are less obvious targets since they’re hidden behind the virus’ envelope (which is just some membrane stolen from the host cell it buds off of).

    Any proteins that are made from DNA go through mRNA stage to get translated. If they think that nucleocapsid protein is more potent to provide immunity, why don’t they design the mRNA for that nucleocapsid protein then?

    If such protein is less immunogenic or less antigenic so that it’s difficult to make IgG antibody, then the statement that “either vastly preferred or required from people who got natural immunity since it also attacks those nucleocapsid proteins” is already moot because “Less antigenic” defeats the purpose of generating more potent antibody.

    DNA is not involved except in the production of mRNA vaccines, and obviously DNA virus vectors. Also Protein Sciences style production of flu proteins like Novavax is doing for the spike protein, to which it adds an adjuvant, old technology where a bug virus has DNA for the protein spliced into it, add that to a bioreactor filled with bug cells, and soon you have lots of the desired protein. In 2019 Flublok was the only type of flu vaccine Walmart used, so Sanofi Pasteur’s purchase of Protein Sciences would seem to have been a wise one.

    The preference for convalescent plasma was completely unrelated to vaccine design, except if we decide the spike protein alone, or at all won’t work because of mutations, then the nucleocapsid would be an obvious alternative since the body responds to it, thus creating antibodies against it in convalescent plasma.

    For vaccine design, the spike protein is preferred if for no other reason than that it sticks outside the envelope of the protein. Plus antibodies attaching themselves to it might prevent it from functioning to get the virus payload into cells; that’s certainly an objective of all these vaccines. Also, spike proteins have been extensively studied in the context of making safe SARS type coronavirus vaccines. As that article related, Moderna designed their vaccine candidate literally over a weekend (making their first batches, testing it, well, that took a long time of course, but no signs of ADE).

    You last sentence above perhaps reveals a failure to communicate on my part. Convalescent plasma is given to patients already in the hospital who need something more than supplemental oxygen and a steroid to suppress the innate (non-learning, no antibodies involved) immune system, or so I gather, I don’t know what its indications are, and per a search just now the FDA is changing the indications right now.

    I’ve made the assumption that the hospital that asked for blood donations only from people who got natural, not vaccine immunity, citing the need for nucleocapsid protein antibodies was doing do because they’d already tried artificial antibody biologics that only targeted the spike protein and failed. Can’t otherwise think of a reason they’d cite a specific need for nucleocapsid protein antibodies.

    This entire covid has made some people lose logic and completely mired in mumbo jumbo train of thoughts.

    Or maybe I wasn’t so unclear, but I fully believe you are an expert in this type of logic.

    • Replies: @Rdm
  126. SafeNow says:

    Trump mused about bringing a disinfectant into direct contact with the virus, and that discredited gargling. But here is another direct-contact thought. On a medical blog, one doc explained that for decades, whenever he has felt a cold coming on, he has sniffed scotch fumes. That resonated with me, because I once read that during the 1918 pandemic, those who drank scotch tended to survive much more than others. I wonder whether the scotch drinkers were surviving because of their drinking, or their incidental sniffing.

  127. @Commentator Mike

    [Flu vaccine immunity lasts for] More than a year

    That may be so but all those that I know take the shot in the autumn every year and no doctor refuses them the jab because they had one the previous year.

    It’s a question of immunity against which strains of the flu. Of all the things we routinely vaccinate against, flu is unique in our inability to develop an “eternal” immunity to it, whatever “epitopes” our immune system chooses to make antibodies against, they aren’t “conserved.” That is, they can change and “the virus will still virus.” and this is true for “natural immunity” from getting an infection as well as vaccines.

    There are 3 major varieties of flu we vaccinate against, two type A, H1N1 and H3N2, and Type B. In many years at least one of these is predicted months ahead to change strains, and for the types that don’t, as a booster shot it doesn’t seem to harm lots of people. Plus it’s likely some people’s immunity starts fading before the next year, so for them the booster may help.

    • Replies: @TRM
  128. @SafeNow

    And American “shot” (“the firing of a gun or cannon,” “a hit, stroke, or kick of the ball in sports a hit, stroke, or kick of the ball in sports,” “a ball of stone or metal used as a missile fired from a large gun or cannon”) is more fastidious than “jab”!?

    Better latinate “injection”? Which means throwing in. Also not very delicate.

    • Replies: @anon
  129. @TRM

    Ivermectin + Doxycycline + Zinc

    If they had implemented this in August 2020 we’d have been done by the end of September….

    Disagree on the principle that “an ounce/gram of prevention is better than a pound/kilo of cure,” unless it’s credibly claimed that this works on people with advanced COVID-19 who only seek medical care when on death’s door. Which is all too common from what I’ve read, like “Aesop’s” reports as a front line ER nurse in Southern California in his acerbic Raconteur Report blog.

    From a budgetary viewpoint, it’s a lot cheaper to give someone a couple of JABS!!! than have them go to a doctor’s office (doxycycline as an antibiotic is never going to be over the counter in the US), perhaps including a followup, etc. Although the math there is complicated because so many COVID-19 cases don’t require seeking care, although it’s a very good idea to have a pulse oximeter to make sure you’re not getting silently damaged or maimed by happy hypoxia, a lack of oxygen that’s not perceived by the patient. A very strange thing where I assume CO2 exchange in the lungs is working fine, since that’s what drives unconscious breathing.

    And we can always “embrace the healing power of ‘and’,” “belt and suspenders,” etc.

    Also don’t forget that prior to early November all the way to January 6th/20th that the highest priority of our ruling trash was to get rid of the turbulent BAD ORANGE MAN, effective treatments were never going to get a fair hearing before then, including probably for the whole West, for COVID-19 “could be the silver bullet that takes out this administration.” Got lots of detail on that, but I’m sure you noticed the HCQ debacle.

    • Agree: lysias
    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  130. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    The West is corrupt and wicked to its very marrow

    Not “The West”, cretin. The intelligent, cynical, observant and morally honest peoples of “The West” see exactly the same things you do – but have NO power whatever.

    That is because ALL power to publish and influence is held – and abused – solely by the (((unseen, silent powers controlling the West’s media, whom we are not allowed to name or to discuss))).

    Quit running down White people.

    • Thanks: Mike Tre
    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  131. @Bert

    We seem to agree that if put to a referendum iodine gargling and nasal lavage twice a day would have won hands down over masks, business and school closures, unemployment, and half a million deaths.

    If not for the minor detail of “compliance/adherence.” That’s before you factor in it taking at least one wave to manufacture, distribute, and teach people how to use the required iodine. And the usual suspects would scream bloody murder about the increased intake of iodine, which would be harmful to many people.

    BTW, how long until the whole nation could stop this twice a day self-treatment?

  132. lysias says:
    @Mike Tre

    “Holocaust denier” already sounds bad.

    • Replies: @Dave Bowman
  133. Alfred says:
    @Sparkon

    There are a number of mechanical studies showing that cloth and fabric masks – especially those with multi-layers – are an effective barrier against the kind of airborne droplets that pose the greatest risk for transmission of COVID-19

    Nonsense. It is almost impossible to prevent viruses from traveling considerable distances to infect others. Here is a good article by a GP. It mentions tests that were made with animals and experiences with the smallpox virus – a truly deadly virus.

    My own experience of working in the NHS during January would suggest there is not much you can do. I cover an NHS rehabilitation unit, which is remote from the local hospital. A hospital ward that sits all by itself, if you will.

    It houses 30 patients, all in separate rooms. Currently, none of the patients is allowed to leave their room and the staff cannot enter any room without wearing full PPE. This has been rigidly reinforced, and an ‘inspector’ comes in from to time to time to ensure the rules are being followed.

    At the start of January, none of the staff and none of the patients had the virus, and no patient could be admitted without being 14 days past a positive Covid-19 swab. We were also doing twice-weekly lateral-flow tests to ascertain if any staff member or patient had coronavirus antigens and could be spreading the virus but was asymptomatic. All that notwithstanding, later in the month, 15 patients and eight staff developed Covid-19.

    And what have I learnt from this? I’ve learnt that whatever we’re doing, it’s not working. Because we’re not following the rules? Well, we are, we were. If we weren’t doing so to absolute perfection, we were certainly following them as well as any hospital unit outside of intensive care is going to.

    More than 3,000 patients a week, like poor old Captain Tom, are being infected with Covid while in hospital for other ailments (UK)

    • Thanks: Polemos
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @xcd
  134. Rdm says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    I wasn’t making a rebuttal on your comment personally. I’m pointing out your statement that you said you remembered reading from somewhere.

    The entire vaccine development from all kinds of pharma companies without collaboration, but rather completely relying on the published data said something about the severity of the infection, i.e., it’s just as bogus as you can get.

    I gather you’re also on the borderline of this vaccine hoax. What I’m about to write is nothing to rebuke you personally, but rather a demonstration of why some people fed up with the hoax and couldn’t contain their anger and let out the profanity at the top of their lungs.

    I know how vaccines are made. Whether you add the adjuvant to make it more antigenic or to make it more stable, it’s about as far as science is concerned. But that doesn’t translate well into how we are tackling with the infection. That’s what I’m getting at.

    We can all add all the fluffy stuff to the vaccine essay, all the scientific jargons, scientific methods, but it doesn’t mean the application of the vaccine, necessity of the jabs is essential for the entire populace. Science is good. But the intention of this global vaccination is not. Wearing masks in time of dire need is essential. But after about a year without a proper exit plan and encouraging people to wear a mask all the time or Dr. Fauci saying two masks would be necessary is a clear demonstration of how far we have become stupider after a year. This is the only time in modern history when humans don’t evolve but just devolve into a walking stick with a peanut brain.

    Imagine the entire Scottish population is recommended to wear Levi jeans. Granted, the sewing machine is superb. All the stitches are well designed. The sturdy of the fabrics and the protection provided on your skin is second to none. But there’s a place and time.

    Just because the winter is coming doesn’t mean the entire northern population should buy Canada Goose. Humans have survived thousands of years without wearing those clothing. They just provide 21st century fashion.

    Sure I’m not underestimating the severity of the virus. But from the initial phase back in 2020 February to until now, we have an ample amount of data, personal experience, friends-friends experience, all the technology available and yet we are still stymied with the stupidity of those governing the country.

    By looking at your post, it appears that you are well conversant in biology, presumably either you are in STEM fields or your hobby makes you a well-read person.

    It’s not you I’m saying people lose their logic.

    It’s those people who feel like they’re reborn again with the covid vaccine.

    • Agree: Schuetze
  135. Alfred says:
    @niceland

    It really looks like the “right thing to do” is to have the younger and healthier section of the population vaccinated to get heard immunity.

    A vaccine only works for some months – so long as antibodies are still around. Natural immunity works for many years as it primes the T-cells.

    Young people are better off getting infected and allowing their bodies to recognise the assailant so that it reacts more quickly in future invasions.

    Although T cell durability to SARS-CoV-2 remains to be determined, current data and past experience from human infection with other CoVs demonstrate the potential for persistence and the capacity to control viral replication and host disease, and importance in vaccine-induced protection

    T cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection and vaccination

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  136. Anon[344] • Disclaimer says:

    Anyone who takes the vaccine and is damaged by it, deserves it.

    • Agree: Polite Derelict
  137. anon[712] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Thompson

    The writer of the article is pro-vaccine and that’s his prerogative. It’s his body to do what he wants with it. I’ve been around long enough to see nothing but lies coming out of government to make me question every big project, especially that which will make politicians and their cronies big money. It doesn’t matter what government, they’re all connected at the hip. What made me start being suspicious of covid was how almost all the governments of the world jumped into place from the onset bringing out the same or very similar methods of controlling the “disease” as if they had all gotten their orders from central command. Never before in world history has this happened. That alone should raise a red flag in all but the dullest minds. Another observation I have made that raises my suspicions is how all the world’s big media, universities and government have banned all opposition commentary on covid. This is exactly the modus operandi that they have been using in the past to silence any questioning on the subjects of the holocaust, racial differences and multiculturalism. When I see the reaction to being questioned is violently trying to shut down the questioner, it tells me that the one who is being questioned doesn’t have any answers. This whole covid controversy reminds me of what happened to Galileo. When he started seeing through his telescope that the churches’ teachings on astronomy were not valid, he started asking questions. The church didn’t have any “leg to stand on” so they just told him if challenged any more church teachings, he would be killed. End of story. Thank goodness we have had people like Galileo, Copernicus and Newton, who went against the flow or we’d all still be living in the 16th century, kneeling in front of emperors and priests.

    • Agree: Schuetze
    • Thanks: St-Germain
  138. @Alfred

    There’s a lot more to the adaptive immune system than antibodies and T cells. For example, memory B cells which prompt the creation of new batches of antibodies as needed. They even get refined over a period lasting at least six months from first exposure; that is, the system tries to anticipate future antigen mutations for the obvious reasons.

  139. @joe2.5

    “very occasional sleet”

    Joking finally aside – I think – the answer to your honest (I assume) question is as follows;

    In British English (ie, the only fully “correct”, all-original and decisively-valid English), the construction “VERY occasional” (which I will admit is at best cumbersome, and at worst completely pointless and redundant) should best be defined as, the original meaning of the adjective “occasional” – but then raised to an even higher level of “strength”. In other words, even LESS often than “occasional” – ie, almost not at all.

    You’re welcome.

    But why do you Americans say “chips” instead of “crisps”, and “fries” instead of “chips” ? : )

    • Replies: @dearieme
  140. @Bert

    Following the H1N1 swine flu outbreak in 2009, the Japanese Ministry of Health recommended daily gargling with antimicrobial agents as a protective hygienic measure to prevent upper respiratory tract infection (URTI).

    Most interesting observation. Could that explain how Japan has contained the disease? Need to do a survey to see what proportion of the population continued the practice.

    Second point: Povidone Iodine is sold, in Canada at least, under the brand name Betadine. They make a product specifically for gargling. It’s over the counter.

  141. anon[712] • Disclaimer says:
    @New Dealer

    I say let’s start a new name for the British “jab” or American “shot”. Let’s call it a poke.

    Smiling wife to husband, “I went for my covid poke today.”. Husband, “I’m going to kill that doctor!”

  142. Sparkon says:
    @Alfred

    No, I don’t think studies done in a hospital – notorious hot beds for all kinds of antibiotic-resistant organisms, including COVID-19 – have much relevance for or bearing on the general public, whereas the Springfield Great Clips experience and outcome has direct bearing and relevance because it reflects a typical, real-world event.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  143. @That Would Be Telling

    you’ll need to manufacture a great deal of that antiseptic really fast.

    Povidone Iodine is sold, in Canada at least, under the brand name Betadine. They formulate it specifically for gargling.

    It’s over the counter.

  144. @Anon

    I believe that HCQ was discredited because it’s off patent, therefore cheap, therefore a risk to BigPharma profiteering. Other, more sinister, possibilities are also likely. WHO did a meta-analysis of chloroquine and HCQ in 2016, and found NO cases of fatal cardiac complications, despite hundreds of millions of doses, worldwide, since 1955. Then there was the corrupt Lancet study, and the study you allude to where already gravely ill patients were given toxic levels of HCQ, in a plain attempt to rig the results, and fraudulent ‘studies’ are rife in pharmaceutical ‘research’.

  145. @Frank frank

    Bravo. One of the finest, most pertinent and clear-eyed comments in this thread – and I think, in all of the many other previous threads around this main topic. Great prose – full of hard truth, memorable phrases and a good eye for the detailed-length-versus-short-impact balance.

    Welcome to the Unz Review.

  146. @Dave Bowman

    Easy, Dave. I was referring to the leaders of the West. The people in the West have NO say over political decisions, as we all know, and you state.

    • Replies: @Dave Bowman
  147. @Schuetze

    Superb rant. On the money. Forget all the bullshit about the vaccinations – the figures about their efficacy may still be correct but the absence of a holistic view of the cost to society is a humanitarian failure of the highest order. We are sacrificing so much for so little.

    +1 for the Cortez reference.

  148. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Understood. And sincere apologies.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  149. @anon

    This whole covid controversy reminds me of what happened to Galileo. When he started seeing through his telescope that the churches’ teachings on astronomy were not valid, he started asking questions. The church didn’t have any “leg to stand on” so they just told him if challenged any more church teachings, he would be killed. End of story.

    Except that’s not what happened at all. Lots of people realized the ever increasing tweeks to the geocentric model were a bad sign, and to this day “epicycle” is an strong criticism. And the church was perfectly willing to change its interpretation of the Bible to match a correct model, but Galileo wasn’t offering one!

    He and many of his contemporaries could not imagine orbits that weren’t circles. But observational theory showed that was wrong (after trying ~40 wrong models per Wikipedia, Kepler finally realized orbits are ellipses), and the church wasn’t about to make a disruptive change to something that was known to be wrong. Most of the rest of the story is about Galileo being a jerk, and even then after for example insulting the Pope he was very gently treated. Never thought about it before, but perhaps the Pope gave him the not uncommon indulgence extended towards obvious geniuses. And/or he was an easy going guy.

    To view this from a different angle, just who do you think Newton was referring to when he said “If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants.” The myths of suppression of scientific research and ignorance in the Middle Ages for example when the Catholic church was so strong are mostly Protestant propaganda. Including way too much from America like the flat earth meme, Washington Irving in particular pushed this as an excuse for why Columbus found it so hard to get sponsorship for his voyage. Nope, it has been known since before the birth of Christ that the Earth was spherical, and roughly its diameter.

    And the latter was the key, for the estimate by Columbus was way too small, and everyone “knew” he and his men would run out of food and fresh water long before they reached the Indies by going to the West. And they would have if not for “the New World” that was in the way, and that’s why in the US we have two meanings for people who are Indian, “dot” and “feather,” there’s a bunch of “West Indies” islands, etc.

    • Agree: utu
    • Thanks: Macumazahn
    • Replies: @anon
    , @James Thompson
  150. @Sparkon

    No, I don’t think studies done in a hospital – notorious hot beds for all kinds of antibiotic-resistant organisms, including COVID-19….

    If your knowledge of pathogens is so cramped you don’t know the difference between bacteria and viruses, perhaps you have some learning to do before you can rationally evaluate studies pertaining to one or the other?

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Troll: Schuetze
    • Replies: @Sparkon
  151. @stevennonemaker88

    Exactly right, and well said. This article and its premises are thoroughly false, and the author’s credibility is dramatically reduced.

    Perhaps Master Thompson should take the jab and then report to us the consequences.

    • Thanks: stevennonemaker88
  152. @Sparkon

    There have been quite a few recent studies that show that masks reduce the incidence of Covid-19:

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.24.20201178v2

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.13.20193508v2

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7393808/

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp2026913

    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7253999/

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748920301139

    But earlier studies found no effect of masks on the transmission of influenza or were inconclusive:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7181938/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

    http://philosophers-stone.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MasksDon-twork-4.pdf

    Yet there are some studies that contradict the above and show that masks are effective in reducing influenza transmission:

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01428.x

    https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003205&fbclid=IwAR1iiPbVEWbZDmIrO6BT197Y4hllxA-UlnxwWe-jQbhT4t4QB8EswVweyx4

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436516300858

    They say Covid-19 is more communicable so it would make sense that masks almost completely eliminated the flu and cut down on Covid-19 to a lesser extent, but then why did most of those earlier studies show that masks are ineffective against influenza?

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    , @utu
  153. @Schuetze

    But… But… Think about the humongous increase in GNP all these vaccinations and all this testing is generating….

    Almost makes up for the depression in GNP caused by the lock downs, caused by the pandemic…

    Think I’d better quit while I’m ahead…

    Great cartoon. Good rant.

  154. @anon

    almost all the governments of the world jumped into place from the onset bringing out the same or very similar methods of controlling the “disease” as if they had all gotten their orders from central command. Never before in world history has this happened

    BINGO ! And Bravo ! I saw this at once, last March – and I just could hardly believe how fast everyone simply fell into line, despite a total and damning lack of any hard evidence as to what we were actually dealing with – not to mention the absurd conspiracy of accusations and lies about Wuhan. And I knew at the very outset it was the beginning of a great and terrible hoax. I am quite certain many millions of others saw the first great lie also.

    all the world’s big media, universities and government have banned all opposition commentary on covid

    I expect nothing now from the whored media, or the bribed and spineless traitors in governments. But not so long ago, our universities were the proud, timeless and honourable leaders of the charge forward into a new Renaissance for mankind, fired by technology and a new world of better education for all. They were paid to guide us towards a sparked, happy, optimistic future of learning, intelligence, rationality and humanity. And they once prided themselves on being the epicentres of the very founding principle of “free speech”. But now, they are absolutely complicit in political closedown of all rational debate – in public, and in broad daylight. The “body-snatchers” have won.

    the reaction to being questioned is violently trying to shut down the questioner

    The final, absolute giveaway. Every. Single. Time.

    we’d all still be living in the 16th century, kneeling in front of emperors and priests

    It’s coming back – any day now – to a nation near you. But this time the ones wielding the whips and the weapons won’t be mostly wise, humane, beloved Emperors.

    And they sure as fuck won’t be priests.

    • Agree: Schuetze, Alfred
  155. @Schuetze

    This is the BEST rebuttal of Master Thompson’s utterly flawed reasoning, and also provides an excellent succinct summary of the present hoax.

    Thank you!

    I cordially invite Master Thompson to submit to the jab himself and then tell us how he feels afterwards. I’ll bring flowers.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  156. “Given the intense focus on Covid at the moment, there is good actuarial data about deaths and hospitalization for severe case in most advanced economies. It would be more efficient to just monitor the newly vaccinated against the unvaccinated general population.”

    No, it doesn’t work. NYC, high powered stats, showed a 9.2% crude fatality rate between February and June 1 and a 32.1% death rate in hospitalized patients. Today’s cumulative 469,119 deaths and cumulative 27,350,401 cases gives a crude fatality rate of 1.7%; some hospitals/ clinics are doing much better. Even though the FDA has only approved remdesivir (~$3000 per jab) for Covid-19, most American physicians have adopted protocols from others and the death rate has plummeted. Unapproved heparins/ aspirin and glucocorticoids are probably most important, but vitamins, especially vit D3, nutrients, especially zinc and selenium, seem critical in the Elderly (age 60 or older) who account for 95% of deaths (over half of deaths are in those over age 80; 15% of those infected with Covid-19 die). Other drugs, ivermectin or long-term HCQ likely offer prophylactic protection.

    “Once the elderly vulnerable have been vaccinated, it is highly likely that society will open up again.”
    In a sane world, it should. However, with 95% of Covid-19 victims being over age 60 and most of the other 5% in their 50s or with serious medical conditions, the Vulnerable are the basis for all the dead and the hype about the virus, yet when one dies from a vaccine, they are dismissed: “he was old. It was not unexpected”.
    The focus is STRANGELY on the no-risk young and healthy??
    2.2 million Americans age 65 or older die each year; the Covid-19 dead are mostly from these 2.2 million or for sure from the 6.6 million who will die over the next three years (ie, not additional deaths to normal). While vaccines are well worth the risk: benefit in the Vulnerable, it seems stupid to vaccinate the young and healthy (there will be serious adverse side effects). Once the vulnerable are protected by the vaccine, what is the point in vaccinating the non-vulnerable?

  157. @Commentator Mike

    A stupid cloth mask is NOT going to stop a virus ffs.

    A virus is half a fucking micron.

    It’s like putting up a chain link fence to stop mosquitoes.

    Take a puff from a cig, put on your mask, and blow the smoke out. See what happens.

    A cloth mask might stop the big droplets if some douchebag were to deliberately cough or sneeze in your face.

    You can’t stop a virus. If you are inside a building and someone near you has symptoms and is contagious…..you will be exposed…..and your immune system will more than likely take care of it unless you are old and sick with a compromised immune system.

    85% of those exposed to this magic virus have no symptoms or mild symptoms.

    With a .2% death rate it’s NOT a big deal but for the fact they LIED about it to cause hysteria and wreck the economy and force gene therapy on a gullible populace.

    Stop and think…..WHY is the vaccine so important for a virus that has the same death rate as the flu?

    They outlawed all other forms of medicine to combat the magic virus to push the vaccines. What’s in the damn vaccine? What are the LONG term effects? We have no way of knowing.

    Why should I take an untested vaccine for a virus that isn’t particularly dangerous?

    • Agree: Alfred, xcd
    • Replies: @utu
    , @Sparkon
    , @James Thompson
  158. I am retired and my wife lost her job in October for the usual reason. We both live at home and go for a walk in the park every day not coming into any contact with another human being for at least 50 metres. We don’t wear masks. We have our groceries delivered to our front door. I do some teaching work from home on my computer. Neither have either one of us been vaccinated. Could you kindly tell me why we should be vaccinated with a substance that has not even been fully tested?

    I am reliably informed that the recorded deaths attributed to Coronavirus is now in excess of 1 million. But I am rather perturbed that these deaths are due to Conavirus-RELATED deaths which means that the deaths were due to factors which were not directly attributable to CV19. But in present global terms one million deaths out of a total of 7.8 billion lives gives a total of 0.01% fatalities. The Black Death it isn’t. Even Spanish flu resulted in 50 to 100 million deaths from a much smaller global population.

    This whole thing seems panic driven and being manipulated by anonymous actors attempting to create a stampede which they look like doing.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  159. Many lives have been destroyed or ruined because of mandated vaccinations. Happens every day. It happened to mine many years ago tho not nearly to the extent of severity which have occurred over the past 30 or so years.
    Vaccines can be dangerous and harmful especially when given to young children. Is Dr Fauci happy about seeing all the mentally and physically handicapped children and young adults who’s numbers have skyrocketed on his watch? I doubt he cares.

  160. @gnbRC

    whatever that may actually be since COVID-19 et. al. doesn’t currently qualify as a ‘virus’ by either of the Koch or Rivers postulates

    Join the club. You’ve been tagged as a troll by the resident troll of UR. Her’s been doing it to just about everyone on this issue. Take it as a compliment.

    I’ve checked out your statement and find it to be exactly on point.

    Projection is an ugly personality disorder.

  161. utu says:
    @Commentator Mike

    “… but then why did most of those earlier studies show that masks are ineffective against influenza?”

    Confirmation bias plus bad study design. The bias came from the prevailing paradigm of modernity that the non-pharmaceutical measures are antediluvian and ineffective and the modern way is by medication and vaccination. The Big Pharma would not fund studies showing non-pharmaceutical measures effectiveness. Masking to be effective must be a concerted effort which requires cooperation which goes against the post WWII promotion of individualism and thinking in terms of optimization of individual selfish strategies.

    https://www.unz.com/pcockburn/boris-johnson-is-as-incompetent-as-general-haig-at-the-somme/#comment-4356578
    We should not overlook the role of WHO and CDC in dismissing masking as an effective non-pharmaceutical countermeasure. The role of Big Pharma in creating the paradigm for fighting epidemics that is anti the non-pharmaceutical countermeasures should be kept in mind.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/corona/#comment-4374376
    The paradigm of fighting flu like epidemics was developed over the years with the input form the Big Pharma that excluded the non-pharmaceutical countermeasures. The Big Pharma is in the business of selling drugs and annual vaccines. That’s why WHO and CDC were poo-pooing masking in the beginning. Technically they were not lying. Still in May 2020 CDC even published the meta study justifying their position. They knew already then that they were wrong so they were covering ass at that point.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/sailer-lets-be-over-and-done-in-21/#comment-4350424
    Did Big Pharma think tanks consciously conspired how to side line masking? It would be hard to prove just like it was hard to prove that the Big Automotive and Tire Industry conspired to destroy convenient and inexpensive public transportation. It was a part of constructing a new Zeitgeist of change and modernity in which freedom and individualism was emphasized. Vaccines give you freedom and independence from others but not from big corporations. While masking is medieval and to be effective requires a concerted effort which is against individualism. So here comes the role for the libertarians who are anti public transportation, anti-safety belts, anti-maskings always on the side of the big business: eternal useful idiots in the name of liberty.

    In that Zeitgeist it is easy to steer researchers to do studies that are inherently flawed showing that mask are ineffective by omitting the synergic effect of masks when universally worn. In May this year CCD placed a new meta study paper on its website dismissing non-pharmaceutical countermeasures. In my opinion they were covering their ass for the earlier pronouncements dismissing usefulness and effectiveness of masks.

    • Thanks: Commentator Mike
  162. utu says:
    @Robert Dolan

    A virus is half a fucking micron.

    It’s like putting up a chain link fence to stop mosquitoes.

    (1) Virus often travels on micro droplets that are much larger.

    (2) Electrostatic forces play a role in filtration stopping smaller particle than the openings between fibers of the mask material.

    (3) There is a virus dose threshold that needs to be crosses to initiate an infection. Therefore a mask that is not 100% efficient when tested in a laboratory might be 100% effective when it comes to prevention of a singular infection.

    (4) Masking with not 100% effective masks reduces the probability of infection meaning that the mean numbers of contacts not leading to infection is larger. Infectious individuals remain infectious for a finite time. By wearing a mask probability to outlast their infectiousness increases. If the infectious ones also wear masks that probability is significantly higher. If almost everybody wears a mask the number of secondary infection can be reduced so that the R0 will be close to 1 or even below 1.

    • Agree: James Thompson
    • Disagree: Rdm
    • Thanks: Brás Cubas
    • Replies: @Rdm
    , @Peripatetic Itch
  163. Sparkon says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    Why not address the substance of my point instead of falling on your face trying for a cheap shot? Maybe you’ll enjoy it down in the dirt trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

    COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. All viruses and some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics, and most hospitals are crawling with both antibiotic-resistant bacteria and some viruses, including in some cases SARS-CoV-2, so the hospital environment is entirely different from what most of us experience on a day-to-day basis.

    Spread of flu virus in hospital environment common from Science Daily.

    Studies done in hospitals have relevance only for health workers in other hospitals, and not for the general public.

    By contrast, the infection-free outcome of universal mask-wearing at the Springfield hair salon is entirely applicable to everyday, real-world experiences of the general public, and offers strong evidence that universal mask wearing provides good protection against the transmission of the virus responsible for COVID-19, or SARS-CoV-2, which is not a bacterium.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  164. Loup-Bouc says:

    Bad article. The author does not even begin to address the mRNA-vaccine-risks other than death occurring soon after vaccination. Is this guy a virologist or microbiologist or even a general-practitioner physician? [I am a physician.]

    The immune-system effects are virtually quite unknown. The mRNA immunology has not passed it early infancy.

    The mRNA vaccines were not tested to stage 3. Most test-subjects were 30 years or younger. Below-30-years-old non-vaccinated humans are not likely to contract the disease or to suffer harsh or any symptoms. So, vaccinating them proves little or nothing respecting a vaccine’s probable efficacy.

    Not-unlikely mRNA vaccines’ threats include autoimmune diseases and cytokine storm. Already hundreds or more have suffered severe side-effects or previously absent SARS Cov-2 [Covid-19] infection. In many cases, the infections have been severe, even apparently lethal.

    All, or near-all, vaccines contain toxic (even neurotoxic) or carcinogenic ingredients, e.g., mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, or other substances that threaten serious health-harm. Cases-per–100,000 statistics or “estimates” gift cold comfort to the afflicted.

    No legitimate argument obtains from the premise that only two vaccine-doses are involved: Mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde are epidemic toxins present widely in the environment, in clothing, in pharmaceuticals, in other vaccines, and they accumulate in the individual’s system and do not vacate the body. Every small additional intake magnifies threat of manifest harm.

    See, e.g., these sources:

    https://www.rt.com/news/513139-israel-pfizer-vaccine-coronavirus/

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/55-people-died-in-us-after-receiving-covid-19-vaccines-reporting-system_3659152.html

    https://www.rt.com/news/512736-israel-facial-paralysis-13-covid-vaccine/

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/what-not-said-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine/5729461

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/bioweaponized-covid-vaccines/5736482

    https://www.rt.com/news/512586-norway-vaccine-elderly-deaths/ — which reports that the Norwegian Medicines Agency asserted that the Agency does “not see anything alarming with these figures” because “All deaths are in elderly and frail people with underlying diseases,” despite the affected individuals appeared to have contracted Covid-19 because of the vaccine and might not have contracted the disease had they not been vaccinated. The question is whether the individuals would have died or even contracted Covid-19 had they not been vaccinated.

  165. dearieme says:
    @Dave Bowman

    But why do you Americans say … “fries” instead of “chips” ?

    Because “freedom chips” lacks alliteration.

  166. @Theophrastus

    James Thompson has already submitted himself to the jab as you’d know if you’d read his previous post:

    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/vaccination-english-style/

    • Replies: @Theophrastus
  167. Skeptikal says:
    @Marshall Lentini

    The term has become quite ubiquitous, but my take on why this is so is different—I don’t here the “meeja” overtones—in fact, I never saw that word before in my life! No idea what it refers to.

    But IMO the use of the “jab” is partly a bit ironic. Used by a lot of people who think that a lot of the info we are getting is a joke and referring to the jab kind of reinforces that. It is not really serious medicine. It is half politics and half totalitarian PR.

  168. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    The totalitarian state is being created in plain sight but most people are oblivious to this reality.

    Yes, not all Whites are intelligent.

  169. anon[206] • Disclaimer says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    I wasn’t going to go into the Galileo subject other than to say that we need men who question and challenge things that make no sense. Whether Galileo was right or wrong on every question doesn’t matter. The important thing was that he got people thinking and our modern understanding of astronomy can partly be traced to his curiosity about the heavens.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  170. Davidoff says:
    @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    Excuse me! Castellano or if you prefer the way Spanish is talked in Spain is the proper, purest and original Spanish . Read Spanish classic authors and you will undetstand but that is possibly beyond your language skills, comprehension and level of intelligence and understanding….. Having said that, even in Spain (like in the UK or France for that matter) you have a million different accents!: basque, galician, catalonian, andalusian and a large etc.. You might be surprised, but us spaniards welcome the contribution to our language from our brothers from the Americas and beyond.

    • Replies: @Davidoff
  171. @Schuetze

    excellent comment. The architects and enforcers of the lockdowns and covid hysteria are absolutely evil. And their low level accomplices and supporters among the common people are fools.

  172. @Loup-Bouc

    The immune-system effects are virtually quite unknown. The mRNA immunology has not passed it early infancy.

    So you expect immune system reactions to the mRNA or their protective lipids? You’re on solid ground to be suspicious of the latter, but how is the former different from live virus vaccines, if what we’re told about the ubiquity of extraceulluar ribonucleases is correct?

    The mRNA vaccines were not tested to stage 3. Most test-subjects were 30 years or younger….

    The FDA disagrees with you on “stage,” and I wonder how you know this data about the mRNA Phase III trials, since from the documents released for their EUA process and NEJM papers, that demographic granularity hasn’t been released. Only 18 to = 65 for Moderna, and 18-55, > 55, >= 65, and >= 75 for Pfizer/BioNTech.

    Not-unlikely mRNA vaccines’ threats include autoimmune diseases and cytokine storm.

    What proposed mechanisms do you have for either, especially compared to other live virus vaccines?

    Already hundreds or more have suffered severe side-effects or previously absent SARS Cov-2 [Covid-19] infection. In many cases, the infections have been severe, even apparently lethal.

    Vaccines are not safe, news at 11. Seriously, this is not news or unexpected, but some people are capable of making risk/benefit tradeoffs.

    All, or near-all, vaccines contain toxic (even neurotoxic) or carcinogenic ingredients, e.g., mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, or other substances that threaten serious health-harm.

    Boy have the anti-vaxxers have been effective. Guess you don’t know only one US flu vaccine even has an adjuvant, FLUAD and it’s not that nasty, squalene oil. The mRNA vaccines don’t have any adjuvants except for some claimed activity from their lipid protection. Here’s their ingredients list, tell us which are “toxic (even neurotoxic) or carcinogenic,” especially in the concentrations in the vaccines (“the dose makes the poison”), where sucrose is said to be the #1 ingredient to help them survive being frozen. Moderna:

    messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), lipids (SM-102, polyethylene glycol [PEG] 2000 dimyristoyl glycerol [DMG], cholesterol, and 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine [DSPC]), tromethamine, tromethamine hydrochloride, acetic acid, sodium acetate, and sucrose.

    BioNTech:

    mRNA, lipids ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate), 2 [(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, and cholesterol), potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose.

  173. Davidoff says:
    @Davidoff

    Huevon!!!

    There you go!

    But if you prefer some proper Castellano names I can give you some but they can be really harsh!!! I don’t think you will be able to stomach them…

  174. @anon

    So everything you said about Galileo was wrong, “but he started a conversation.”

    Not buying that, since plenty of others were noticing the same failures of the geocentric model. He may have made more of a splash because of his other experiments and discoveries, but he was neither the guy who realized the problem, nor the one who solved it.

  175. Rdm says:
    @utu

    I disagreed the entire sentiment. But I’ll go point by point.

    There’s a time and a place. Just because scientific facts tell the truth doesn’t mean we need to follow like an idiot.

    (1) agreed.

    (2) Fiber masks or any masks with flower, tiger, cat, dog or any cute prints already defeat the purpose of filtering the virus. N95 works because it was initially designed by Peter Tsai with the scientific spirit that the electrostatic barrier will capture the positively charged viral coat protein. This requires the utmost caution in wearing because

    i. Once you put on a N95 mask, you can’t touch the surface of the mask. That’s a must.
    ii. Once you put on a N95 mask, you can’t take off the mask and leave it anywhere.
    iii. Reusability of N95 depends on the environment.

    Does the mask help? It sure does. But there’s a time and a place. During SARS, all East Asians wore masks religiously at the peak time. Even many years after SARS, there’s still a habit that if you feel sick, you wear a mask and go about your business.

    In the US, at the peak time in early 2020 (Jan, Feb, March), no one wears masks. After June, here’s what happened.

    i. Everyone touches their masks’ surface by hands when removing the mask. They’re not removing the masks from the earloop. They pull out the mask from the nose front. It already defeats the purpose of wearing masks, let alone the efficiency of masks.
    ii. If you want to cough, you remove the mask first, cough into the air, then put the mask back on. Defeat the purpose.
    iii. Wearing masks for fashion.

    (3) 6 feet distance, wear a mask, but transforming outdoor dining with chandeliers and tightly packed table arrangement and a gazebo door to ward off the outside temperature, we sure are one hell of an idiot to prevent from a singular infection by executing all the wrong approaches.

    (4) It’s like saying, bring a water bottle whenever you go during wildfires in California or Australia. Your 1L water bottle might not be effective at putting out fire. But it might be effective when everyone brings their 1L water bottle everywhere they go. The probability of putting out fire with many people water bottle goes up.

    There’s a time and a place.

    The time has already passed.

  176. @Sparkon

    If you don’t want people taking “cheap shots” at you, work on your exposition skills so you don’t say “not even wrong” stuff like “COVID-19 is antibiotic resistant.” With commenters now getting more and more slanted tpwards grossly ignorant anti-vaxxers, figuring how who’s worth seriously replying to requires heuristics, and we both failed there.

  177. @That Would Be Telling

    Sadly, Ron hasn’t implemented a “pearls before swine” button.

  178. @dearieme

    “the jab’ I find not at all repulsive. It’s an expression I’ve known since childhood. Get a grip, man.”

    Yes, that’s what makes ‘the jab’ such a great propaganda phrase. There are people whose job it is to design the right propaganda to manipulate the public mind. Read chapter 6 (12 pages) of mein kampf to learn about this “spiritual weapon” which has effects that “…are almost beyond our understanding”.

  179. @James Thompson

    Mr. Thompson,
    Could you make a comment on language? You use the word “jab”. I am trained in and worked in a health care field in the US and never heard the word “jab” used to describe an IM injection except when people are joking around (the word “shot” was universal). However, now I see it with increasing frequency. Is this perhaps standard UK English? Or did you adopt it for some reason?

  180. @Commentator Mike

    Good!

    Note carefully that “submitted” is indeed the operative word here, and that you’ve fallen exactly for the trap of admitting that submission to authority is solely and precisely what is going on now. I could have said simply “take the jab,” which is the standard phrase used, but thank you for exemplifying the very twisted psychology in this situation.

    By all means, submit yourself unto the tender mercies of the Fauci fraudster and his global crime family partners. After all, it just couldn’t be true that the authority of a thousand is worth nothing compared to the humble reasoning of a single individual; no, it is only the Voice of Authority that can decree what is Right and Wrong; the individual mind absolutely cannot think for itself; it must submit, musn’t it? Or else Granny will die, and then just think of The Children!

    • Agree: stevennonemaker88
    • LOL: InnerCynic
    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  181. @That Would Be Telling

    But I fail to see how they fail Rivers’ [criteria], unless despite your vastly superior world view you fail to realize the West has become too soft to expose naive human subjects to a lethal pathogen, so we must use animal models like rhesus macaque monkeys. Upon which, surprise, surprise, Rivers’ are satisfied.

    Well no. Your reply is not only wrong, but it is also disingenuous. I took the time to spend about six hours analyzing that rhesus macaque study the other day when a vaccine-shill colleague of yours directed me to it. A few weeks ago I spent a similar amount of time on a related study you sent me to. I formulated a rather long and comprehensive reply, which you had the “good grace” to ignore, as did your colleague my reply to him.

    The macaque study was small and short: six monkeys, two controls, six days, if I remember. Virus samples of undisclosed composition, obtained from a Chinese depository, were inoculated into the trachea of the experimental monkeys, while a sterile lab reagent was similarly inoculated into the controls. The test subjects developed but mild inflammation of the lungs, heralded as proof by the authors, but absolutely no clinical symptoms. Not even so much as a hint of fever. The inflammation itself could have been caused by an allergic reaction to the inoculate, given that the lab reagent was not identical to the test inoculate but for the presence of the virus. (The authors simply ignored that possibility.)

    And producing an inflammation with no clinical symptoms of Covid19 does not in any way prove that the inoculate causes Covid19. The authors admitted this, excusing themselves with the observation that most cases of Covid19 are also mild. Having terminated the monkeys after six days, sorry sacrificed, they could no longer be faulted for their failure to produce a clinical case.

    The study had other flaws, but for the time being it suffices to say that when Koch and Rivers say the virus must be shown to produce the disease, you and your virology colleagues are content to show it produces any disease.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0364-z

    So surprise, surprise, surprise, neither you nor modern virology give a damn for either Koch or Rivers.

    Or truth, it seems.

    • Agree: InnerCynic
    • Thanks: Polemos
    • Replies: @Theophrastus
  182. @That Would Be Telling

    Which was a sure sign of his sociopathy after the HCQ debacle

    Que? That’s a credibility-destroyer right there buddy

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  183. Sparkon says:
    @Robert Dolan

    It’s like putting up a chain link fence to stop mosquitoes.

    Except that it’s not. Many cotton fabrics like a t-shirt or my washable 3-layer cotton mask use what’s called a stockinette stitch, or knit, which is very much denser than any chain link fence:

    Chain link Fence, Image: Wish.com

    Now compare the chain link fence with a SEM image of cotton t-shirt fabric:

    Cotton t-shirt fabric under scanning electron microscope
    Image: Science Photo Library

    Each of the threads in that stockinette knit look something like this:

    Each thread is comprised of a tight bundle of cotton fibers that are themselves about 20 microns (μm) across, resulting in thread that is about 250 μm in diameter in this case.

    The SARS-CoV-2 virus is said to range from about 40 to about 200 nanometers (nm), or 0.04 μm to 0.2 μm.

    Usually, the virus will not be traveling alone, but rather will have hitched a ride on a much larger droplet, or blob of moisture expelled from the lungs by a cough, sneeze, laugh, and possibly even regular singing or talking.

    The bigger the droplet, the heavier the potential viral load, and fortunately, the better chance the mask will have to entrap the invader by ensnaring it on one of the myriad cotton fibers, so the potentially most dangerous big blobs are also the most likely to get blocked by a cotton mask, especially one with three layers.

    Finally, for those reputed aerosol riding viral particles and the tiny virus itself, I’ll leave it to the reader’s imagination to assess the chances of any average SARS-CoV-2 100 nanometer virus making it through the dense forest of obstacles presented by three layers of the kind of cotton fabrics pictured here, where each of the individual cotton fibers is 100x broader than the virus – 20 μm vs. 0.2 μm – and they are wound into a tight bundle making a ~250 μm thread leaving little apparent avenue for anything to pass through its structure.

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
    • Replies: @Rdm
    , @Peripatetic Itch
    , @utu
  184. utu says:

    Mortality reduction as vaccination proceeds (with vaccine of 95% efficacy). The vaccination starting with the oldest is the steepest path of mortality reduction.

    When all 60+ years old are vaccinated the mortality should be reduced five times. Or if all 60+ years old were vaccinated last year in February the total death toll now would be less that 100,000.

    The graph was obtained from CDC covid deaths by age bracket at
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#SexAndAge

    The calculations do not require explicit values of IFR as function of age. I did similar calculations using explicit values of IFR which result in larger mortality reductions.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/some-pretty-good-news-out-of-israel-about-vaccines/#comment-4428884

    Note: In Israel which has somewhat younger population already 90% of all 60+ years old were vaccinated with two doses of Pfizer vaccine that suppose to have 95% efficacy. The daily deaths in last 20 days were reduced by 30% only while daily infections dropped by 20% in the same period. A possibility that the Pfizer vaccine has much lower than 95% efficacy in older population must be considered.

  185. @Loup-Bouc

    Thanks for post.

    However your statement that mercury does not vacate the body is questionable. Selenium binds readily to mercury and can help to remove mercury – and indeed some other heavy metals – from the body. One of the general observations made re older people at greater risk from COVID-19 is low selenium levels.

    Some decades ago there was a spate of concern about high levels of mercury in fish, and at that time it became fairly well known that adequate nutritional selenium levels were significantly protective. Also, some decades ago acid rain became an issue over broad areas, which seemed to exacerbate uptake of heavy metals in plants. Selenium and also vitamin E, which seems to augment the protective qualities of the selenium, became habitually added to many feed stuffs in agriculture.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  186. @That Would Be Telling

    every US strength vaccine Phase III trial follows its participants for a couple of years. Also if ethical offers the vaccine to the control group, and any ethical Phase III starting now will use an existing COVID-19 vaccine for the control arm, the so called current “standard of care”

    So let’s see if I have this straight: The vaccine will be deemed safe if it has no more adverse effects than the control group. But the control group is to be contaminated with many people who will have been persuaded to take the vaccine by propagandists like you. That should substantially reduce the disparity between the two groups.

    Even better, give it to them all. Then the two groups would be essentially identical. No difference, no difference in adverse effects.

    Spare me any talk of ethics. The game was admitted by Pfizer in its vaccine-evaluation study. They said there was no way they could stop it.

    Give the guy who designed that protocol a Nobel Prize in Economics. Pfizer will overtake Amazon on the stock market around… June 17.

  187. @Chrisnonymous

    Nevermind. I see this is already addressed in comments above.

  188. Rdm says:
    @Sparkon

    Masks are protective for sure only when you are properly fitted. The virus ranges from 5 – 20nm while your 2nd fibric SEM has 100um scale. Imagine how the virus would appear in the SEM images.

    You can do a simple experiment easily.

    1. Put on the N95 mask and bring your wife or girlfriend.
    2. Make sure your partner is well perfumed.
    3. Ask your partner to take the elevator first to any floor.
    4. You take the elevator this time alone.
    5. Check if you get any whiff of the perfume.

    Repeat the same experiment with fibric masks or surgical masks.

    This tells you that any person who has just coughed heavily in the lift defeats the 6 feet distance.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Sparkon
  189. @Getaclue

    Big pharma has them on the payroll. Not kidding.

    On more mainstream websites that have comments sections, whenever a vaccine article appears the Big Pharma trolls descend within 10 minutes of an article going live to defend vaccines and try to debunk what naysayers put forth. I’ve seen it many times.

    100% of the time I got them to stop trolling my comments by asking them questions about the adjuvants used in vaccines and the problems with them. LOL, they won’t touch that topic with a ten foot poll. Or I’d post the link to the Govt website about the approx 2 billion they’ve paid out in the last approx 30 years to those, provably, injured or killed by vaccines.

    Gee, I wonder if Hank Aaron’s family will sue? They should…

  190. @Schuetze

    These morons, like Steve Sailer and James Thompson, write articles slavishly accepting all the statistics presented by the CDC, WHO, Lancet and all the other pedo-blackmailed Zionist “organizations”,

    ROTFL!!! Those Zionists who are plotting to use the vaccine to make you infertile and then kill you are so evil that they are giving it to the Israelis first of all!

  191. @Bert

    For those looking for this letter, here it is. It seems to have been published in a different journal than the man said, but whatever

    • Thanks: Polemos
  192. niceland says:
    @niceland

    Did anyone notice the numbers I posted indicate 1 in 1000 have serious side effects from Pfizer vaccine? Is this acceptable?

  193. @Bert

    I remember hearing about salt-water gargles back in March. I’d forgotten about that. One more thing to add to the list of relatively cheap and harmless and potentially useful actions that have been actively discouraged by the great and good.

  194. @utu

    There is a virus dose threshold that needs to be crosse[d] to initiate an infection.

    Accepting that as true, would it not then be wise to expose yourself to infection, without a mask, in the outdoors, where virus concentrations are always much diluted by breezes and disinfection by sunlight?

    You get a dose not high enough for infection, but your immune system is still challenged enough to at least start a response.

    You will say, perhaps, that we need studies. But in truth how many people do we know who have been infected in the out of doors?

    • Replies: @utu
  195. @James Thompson

    “Did they just vaccinate 5800 in one trial arm?”
    No, they realised it would be just as quick to vaccinate 2,900 in both arms.

  196. utu says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    Slight reduction in SARS-CoV-2 exposure viral load due to masking results in a significant reduction in transmission with widespread implementation https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.13.20193508v2.full.pdf

    Masks Do More Than Protect Others During COVID-19: Reducing the Inoculum of SARS-CoV-2 to Protect the Wearer (Jul 2020)
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7393808/

    Facial Masking for Covid-19 — Potential for “Variolation” as We Await a Vaccine, The New England Journal of Medicine
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp2026913?articleTools=true

  197. @Anonymous

    The risk of my blowing cannabis smoke rings is roughly zero. I have no cannabis and never “smoke”. The world population is still about 7.7 bn, but I don’t see that that affects this risk.

    It seems to me that living in, or moving to, a country like New Zealand could change my risk of being covid, even if it doesn’t change the world population.

  198. @Sparkon

    the potentially most dangerous big blobs are also the most likely to get blocked by a cotton mask,

    With the increasing fashion of taking PCR tests from butt swabs, it’s becoming more likely that much of the virus is passed by farting. I expect those will go mostly by aerosol and not by droplet. (That could also explain the increased risk in care homes.)

    Masking might be easier in the sense you don’t have to breathe through your anus. But the weave would have to be much tighter and you would need to tape the seams to your legs and waist.

    Alternatively some enterprising soul might invent a collection bottle.

    Eating beans will, of course, be verboten.

  199. utu says:
    @Rdm

    Covid virus diameter is 100m and its spikes are 10nm. Perfume molecules (not aerosols) are less than 5nm.

    “This tells you that any person who has just coughed heavily in the lift defeats the 6 feet distance.” – Well behaved and considerate person would wear a mask when alone in elevator which would greatly diminish number of droplets and particles ejected into the space while coughing.

    • Replies: @Rdm
  200. @Peripatetic Itch

    Thank you for an excellent response to what is, in fact, the vaccine shill known as That Would Be Telling. (“What” was used on purpose, instead of “who”.)

    I will be curious to see what The Shill has to say. She/he/it aka s/h/it (the new generic pronoun) will, no doubt, hide behind further disengenuous obfuscation.

    Thanks again.

  201. Sparkon says:
    @Rdm

    Most sources give the average diameter of an individual SARS-CoV-2 virus as about 100 nm, or 0.1 µm (micron), but the range may run from 20 nm to 500 nm.

    Thus, SARS-CoV-2 belongs to the betaCoVs category. It has round or elliptic and often pleomorphic form, and a diameter of approximately 60–140 nm.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554776/

    To date, research has shown that the viruses that have been identified and isolated can range in diameter size from 20 nm to as large as 500 nm.

    https://www.news-medical.net/health/The-Size-of-SARS-CoV-2-Compared-to-Other-Things.aspx

    A 200 nm SARS-CoV-2 virus would appear as a tiny, just-visible speck in the SEM of the thread, just about 100x smaller than the 20 μm individual cotton fibers making up the thread, or appearing about like a 24-foot-wide wall to a baseball.

    The point is not that the virus is very small compared to the cotton fibers, but rather it’s the other way around: the cotton fibers and threads are very much larger than the individual virus, so the virus with penetration on its mind finds a lot of obstacles standing in its way, and has to find that elusive and circuitous route through a dense forest of cotton fibers and threads.

    Molecules responsible for scent are about 1 nm, so what you can smell through your mask has no bearing on its effectiveness at blocking either SARS-CoV-2, and/or the droplets and aerosols bearing it.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Peripatetic Itch
  202. utu says:
    @Sparkon

    People can argue about the physics of the masks ad infinitum. What matters are empirical data.

    Recent Japanese lab study on mask effectiveness using real virus aerosols. Note that the scale in graphs is logarithmic.

    Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2
    https://msphere.asm.org/content/5/5/e00637-20/article-info

    In this study, infectious SARS-CoV-2 was exhaled as droplets/aerosols and mask efficacy was examined.

    To allow quantification, we conducted our studies by using a relatively high dose of virus, and under these conditions, it is possible that the protective capacity of the masks was exceeded.

    The results possibly would be better if done on lower dose levels. Providing that there is a minimal threshold of virus load that needs to be crossed to initiate infection a nonlinearity must be introduced in data analysis of mask effectiveness that leads to the inequality:

    N(virus with masks)/N(viruses w/o masks) > N(infections with masks)/N(infections w/o masks)

    The right hand side of the inequality can be even zero when the left hand side is larger than zero. The effectiveness of masks is higher than what the ratio of mask-to-no mask viral dose indicate.

    NB: I have noticed that some people wear super duper masks like N95 or better but the masks have the exhale valve which means that the most important role of masks which is to reduce the amount of virus pumped into the environment is defeated.

    • Replies: @Rdm
  203. @James N. Kennett

    Zionists are the first to turn against their own; they are united only when there is an external threat, Absent that, they resort to fighting amongst themselves. This was lampooned very well in The Life of Brian, for instance.

    Consider also Gilad Atzmon’s statement here:

    “In Israel, mass vaccination was Bibi’s genius political ploy, except that it didn’t work very well (so far).”

    https://www.unz.com/gatzmon/a-brief-examination-of-some-facts-related-to-mass-vaccination/

    So much for your rolling on the floor, laughing. I hope you don’t inhale too many dust mites in doing so. Are you wearing your mask?

    • Thanks: Schuetze
    • Replies: @Schuetze
  204. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Thompson

    Well, here it is:

    Let us be far more cautious, and assume that these vaccines will kill one person in every 100,000 vaccinated.

    That 1 in 100 000 number is fine. I’m not going to quibble about using guesses here instead of reported data because that data is almost certainly heavily distorted for obvious reasons. The important part is that you’re correctly displaying vaccine risk only among those who were vaccinated.

    Assuming that the world in 2020 had a population of 7795 millions, of whom only 2.2 million have died so far (admittedly with varying levels of lockdown, mask wearing and social distancing) then the chances of death are 287 per million, so in round figures 29 per 100,000

    This is where my objection lies. In this case the 29 in 100 000 number is derived from a different set of rules. In the first one those 100K people actually took the risk by getting injected but in this one it’s just 100K random humans. More that 98% of them never got infected with the virus and therefore never risked dying from it.

    The math is correct but the 7.7 billion number should have been just the number of infected people (seems to be around 105 million globally) which would suggest 2095 deaths per 100 000 infected.

    That’s a much higher risk but I’d still refuse to be vaccinated for reasons I’ve explained before.

  205. @Simple23

    “Woody Allen opened his film Annie Hall with: “There’s an old joke – um… two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of ‘em says, ‘Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.’ The other one says, ‘Yeah, I know; and such small portions.’””

    This amusing joke is a kind of inverse to the even more amusing one about the English Camel Corps. Donald Sutherland began telling it to Brooke Adams in the ’78 remake of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” I guess that sort of joke caught fire in the late 70s.

  206. Ed Case says:
    @Schuetze

    This cartoonist is a Two Bob Each Way arsehole. He’s got nothing worthwhile to say, and borrowed his cartooning style off his old man, who stole it fromhttp://viz.co.uk/2014/10/07/first-ever-fat-slags-cartoon/ artists.
    The dork in the stirrups is Aussie PM Scott Morrison, the fat drunk is “rogue” Backbencher Craig Kelly and the crazy Chef is Pete Evans, alleged AntiVaxxer and likely controlled Opposition.
    The “joke” is that Kelly publicly supported Evans’ position, then walked it back under pressure, now Morrison is withdrawing his support of Kelly, who will be looking for a new job after the Election, expected later in the year.
    Basically, it’s proVax, and Gaslights anyone with a contrary opinion.

    • Thanks: That Would Be Telling
    • Replies: @Schuetze
  207. Anon[130] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beckow

    Make no mistake, the unvaccinated are a very serious threat to our rulers because even if only a small percentage refuse to obey, then the masses might begin to doubt the entire pandemic narrative. This cannot be tolerated.

    While our masters may not resort to compulsory vaccination, they will use the media to justify in the minds of the already frightened masses, all manner of infringements of the rights of the unvaccinated.
    In effect, the will make life a misery for the unvaccinated. Look at airlines demanding vaccination passports. Do you really think it will end there?

    For those intending to refuse to be vaccinated, now is the time to be organising yourselves, legally politically or otherwise.

    • Agree: Theophrastus
  208. It is rather alarming to find that this platform is the only place I can find where unfiltered debate of these issues is allowed. Regardless of your personal positions, this should tell you something.

  209. @stevennonemaker88

    Naturally, people may wish to refine their bets, and if they are in reasonable health, and free of all co-morbidities (unlikely given current rates of obesity) then these rates tumble down by at least 90%. The virtuous are spared, probably.

    I think you should read more carefully.

    • Replies: @stevennonemaker88
  210. Schuetze says:
    @Theophrastus

    “Zionists are the first to turn against their own; they are united only when there is an external threat, Absent that, they resort to fighting amongst themselves.”

    I don’t think this statement does the chosenites justice. Not only do they turn against their own, they mix it with large dollops of sadism that makes all other religions, races or creeds pale in comparison. Then when they are done slaughtering their own, the sadistic jews and their jewish victims gleefully join together to blame the goyim. Think of the Kapo. Think of Kristallnacht.

    Mr. (((Kennett))) noticeably doesn’t use a far better argument than jews vaccinating jews to support his claims:

    “If someone is “plotting to use the vaccine to make you infertile and then kill“”

    Why didn’t (((Kennett))) point out all the politicians and hollywood stars getting vaccinated? Surely they wouldn’t risk infertility or death. The answer here, just like with jews vaccinating jews, is that in all likelyhood it is just a placebo and the entire staged event is merely for theater.

    This brings to attention another act in this plandemic: All the famous actors and politicians who “came down” with Covid 19. Prince Charles, Boris Johnson, Tom Hanks, Andrew Cuomo, etc. Funny how none of them die. Does anyone really believe they were really sick, or were they just playing the victim card?

    One case I find particularly interesting was Donald Tump and several of his cabinet where apparently were infected at the Rose Garden inauguration of SCOTUS judge Amy Barret. Of course no one died, but Trump himself had a miraculous recovery after taking “drug cocktails” including “regeneron” which supposedly contains stem cells from “humanized mice”. That is certainly evidence of a crypto-jews performing some kind of blood sacrifice rituals with Trump. It also make me wonder what kind of kabbalistic rituals are being performed by Rabbi’s and the Chabad Lubbowitzers at the vaccine production plants and during the vaccinations.

    • Agree: Theophrastus
    • Replies: @Truth
  211. Chinaman says:
    @Sparkon

    Finally…a breath of common sense after having to endure all the schizophrenic and anti-intellectual comments above. I wasn’t aware that those dumbass Danes used paper masks instead of N95. It was an experiment setup to fail and I wonder who funded it. The fact that they have the audacity to publish the results shows how stupid they are.

    Wearing a mask is just common sense.

    You protect others and you protect yourself. Note my priorities. This is how Asians think about it. Our families comes first. I rather *die* than *infect other*. This is something *barbarians* will never understand. The best inconvenience-reward tradeoff of any mitigation strategy for a society a whole. The empirical fact that masks have worked for all the higher IQ East Asian societies should convince low IQ countries like America to follow suit. I don’t feel need the vaccine at all. Millions of mask wearers is enough protection for me. I think COVID will still be with us for a long time with the UNZ idiots on this thread.

    Makes me want to go back and read the WSJ or Economists. At least they still haven’t completely lost their mind during the lockdown.

    • Agree: utu
  212. @Beckow

    Making judgments under uncertainty is always difficult.

    For young and healthy people the risks posed by Covid are low, but it could still be the case that a vaccination is preferable. For example, a colleague in his thirties caught Covid and has been in bed for 9 days so far. A vaccination would have prevented that. Risks of vaccinations will be more evident some years from now, when millions have been vaccinated. Risks from “long Covid” will also be better understood. However, making wise choices means making a choice when the best data is not available, because most choices are very time sensitive.

    For example, it would appear from the Tuskegee project that those patients in the 1930s who turned down the painful and useless treatments for syphilis made the right call. I am surprised by this finding, but it appears that for many the chronic condition did not progress, as I had assumed, to severe disablement and premature death.

    Regarding protecting others: by definition the vaccinated ones are protected, unless they don’t believe what they claim. Who exactly are the unvaccinated threatening?

    The vaccinated are highly protected, but not perfectly. No vaccine achieves that. There is still a 5 to 30% chance of getting ill, according to which vaccine they have taken, though very probably less ill than if they had not been vaccinated. Also, they are far less likely to pass on the virus to others.

    Who are the unvaccinated threatening?

    Other people.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @utu
    , @frontier
    , @Beckow
  213. @That Would Be Telling

    Yes, the Galileo trope is over-done, and the full story is extremely interesting, and more like contemporary debates.

    • Thanks: That Would Be Telling
  214. @Donald Duck

    Total world deaths as of today 2,311,000.

    If you maintain your current precautions indefinitely, and are in good health and BMI 25 or less, you should have few problems.

    • Replies: @Polite Derelict
  215. @Chrisnonymous

    Common parlance for a vaccination in the UK.

  216. @Barack Obama's secret Unz account

    Which was a sure sign of [Trump’s] sociopathy after the HCQ debacle

    Que?

    Trump did not stop talking about potential treatments for COVID-19 after he saw that doing so for HCQ eliminated it as a possibility in the US unrelated to its merits (and the same for pretty much the entire TDS infected West). There are other terms or explanations you can use for his behavior, but I submit that it’s indistinguishable from the actions of a sociopath. And events unrelated to COVID-19 months later have only cemented that opinion.

  217. Polemos says:
    @RoatanBill

    Chemistry and biology are not my areas of expertise, so it’s mostly all Greek to me.

    Does this also affect how much you trust those who say that there hasn’t been a purification or isolation of a particular virus to fit the bill and it might be an exosome?

    I love reading the discussions about Greek languages I find in other parts of the site here, since I had to learn a smattering enough of koine to be a classical sophomore (just enough to be dangerous to himself). But not enough, and so I recognize how my limits shape my perception. I think there’s analogous things going on for me when it comes to this, namely that when you go on to say

    My point of view is that the pandemic is a manufactured event needed to keep people off the street . . .

    we both come to similar conclusions on the basis of a larger picture of those who impose the lockdown, those who began the financial war that continued on from 2008 (and earlier), those who benefit into the trillions from the controlled demolition of a global economy that capitalism’s exhaustion had already begun, those who destroyed opportunities for humans to collect together under common causes not already approved by them, and so on — you know the rest.

    But I don’t think using doubts about this virus even existing are necessary to notice the duplicity or mendacity. Sometimes it does seem (to me, of course to me!) as though that tack is part of another means of imploding opposition through disinformation. That is, once you begin to ask such questions about what even are viruses, you will soon find that, much like so many other truths of our Western world, truths such as these are grounded upon lies, falsehoods, and collective efforts to make believe.

    And in this world, our beliefs become our realities, long before we inhabit these bodies, long after we shed them.

    Thank you for your responses to my questions! I don’t always agree with you, but in many ways we’re here in the same Choose Your Own Adventure book on the same chapter and same page . . . but I’m flipping through it to see the alternate endings this go-around.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  218. Polemos says:
    @gnbRC

    Sorry, but you and your fellow commenters fell into a very subtle educational fallacy that is mind shaped into everyone participating in a technical education . . .

    No need to apologize, friend!

    Asking questions to listen for responses doesn’t always mean that one agrees with the questions’ premises. People who agree should have the freedom to ask one another for the thrill of engagement, curiosity, elaboration, and greater understanding. People who disagree should have the opportunity to practice listening to those who occupy the other side, hearing what they have to offer and seeing how they go about it.

    My education was less technical, more an extended experience of being immersed in libraries (and librarians).

    This old guy said it better, and I get his point too well:

    The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary’s case with as great, if not with still greater, intensity than even his own. What Cicero practised as the means of forensic success, requires to be imitated by all who study any subject in order to arrive at the truth. He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. Ninety-nine in a hundred of what are called educated men are in this condition; even of those who can argue fluently for their opinions. Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know: they have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them, and considered what such persons may have to say; and consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess. They do not know those parts of it which explain and justify the remainder; the considerations which show that a fact which seemingly conflicts with another is reconcilable with it, or that, of two apparently strong reasons, one and not the other ought to be preferred. All that part of the truth which turns the scale, and decides the judgment of a completely informed mind, they are strangers to; nor is it ever really known, but to those who have attended equally and impartially to both sides, and endeavoured to see the reasons of both in the strongest light. So essential is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devil’s advocate can conjure up.

    I appreciate your insight regarding Hobbesian perspectives on contemporary technocracies, yet I admit that I too serve the diabolical goal of illumination.

  219. @That Would Be Telling

    Lets listen to the view of a real expert.
    Anti stupidly is the real term those who refuse to put toxic or untested “Vaccines” in their body.
    Anti Vac is a term used to shut down the debate.

    Full testimony from Dr. Alvin H. Moss, M.D. at the West Virginia Senate Education Committee on Saturday, March 18, 2017. Dr. Moss is a physician and professor in the Center for Health Ethics & Law department at West Virginia University​.

  220. @That Would Be Telling

    Lets listen to the view of a real expert.
    Anti stupidity is the real term those who refuse to put toxic or untested “Vaccines” in their body.
    Anti Vax is a term used to shut down the debate.

    Full testimony from Dr. Alvin H. Moss, M.D. at the West Virginia Senate Education Committee on Saturday, March 18, 2017. Dr. Moss is a physician and professor in the Center for Health Ethics & Law department at West Virginia University​.

  221. @Polemos

    I don’t know an exosome from an exoskeleton. I don’t care if the virus is real or not. All I care about is the reaction to the purported virus.

    The medical and biological fields are full of well intentioned individuals with a certain amount of knowledge and some think they know enough to suggest policy for the thugs and criminals in the political class to implement. Those directly aligned with the political class are con men with imperfect medical and biological knowledge masquerading as experts and authorities on subjects they actually KNOW little about. The experts in the US come up with one set of rules to follow while the experts in other jurisdictions come up with different rules. They can’t all be correct, so why should anyone obey any of their rules since they’re all just their opinions couched in the language of certainty.

    Lets not forget that doctors were featured in Marlboro commercials. Coffee is bad for you. Coffee is good for you. Cholesterol is bad for you. No, it’s the triglycerides. Masks aren’t needed. Masks are mandatory. Double masks are an even better idea. I could go on but you get the idea.

    The medical and biological fields know a tiny fraction of what is yet to be learned. Their current state of knowledge puts them a notch above a shaman with a bone through his nose. If they really knew anything of substance, then we would understand cancer, heart disease and the other real maladies the kill millions annually and for some strange reason do not lead to lockdowns and an increase in tyranny. The average MD is just a salesman for big pharma that largely takes credit for what the human immune system accomplishes, sometimes with the help of certain drugs shown to be efficacious over decades of use for purpose.

    Researchers have tried for decades and spent billions to produce just one corona virus vaccine with not one success prior to the Covid era. Now, we are supposed to believe that multiple pharma manufacturers have multiple vaccines all available within months of starting research for a virus that may or may not have it’s genome identified.

    Only the terminally stupid, aka voters, would buy this crap and demand immediate access to a largely untested concoction from an industry that has special provisions under law that makes them not liable for any damages they may cause.

    • Agree: xcd
  222. Rdm says:
    @utu

    Well behaved and considerate person would wear a mask when alone in elevator

    I bolded the statement that I agreed.

    This is in plain sight.

    Look how Biden pulls up mask as it slides down his nose.

    By touching the mask surface.

    I’m not disagreeing with the mask being a barrier in viral spread. But the time has passed and people not following the proper procedure to put on masks has made this disaster much more worse than it’s supposed to be.

  223. Rdm says:
    @utu

    To Sparkon and utu,

    Thanks for your aerosol and virus diameter. Yes as you said, it’d look like a speck in the SEM images. The SEM images for fibric, if I’m not wrong is a negative staining on a large material.

    For virus diameter, it’d be much smaller and appears infinitesimal in SEM, unless one takes on cryo-EM approach.

    As I said earlier multiple times before you two joined the discussion, I’m in agreement with masks being a barrier. However it gets to the point where we’re getting more and more ridiculous by every passing days.

    I tried to find a single comic image, but couldn’t find. So I’ll write down the story as I gather my memory.

    There’s a crisis of overpopulation in small rural town back in the days. Each family would have 5 or more children, more than they can provide. The town council sent a young medical doctor to teach every family how to use a condom. The demonstration of how to use a condom on a person is not feasible without an actual person. So the Dr went to the garden picket and said “Imagine this pole as your body part. Roll up the condom, slide down like that and do your business as usual.” and off he went.

    A year went by and the population crisis remained. Puzzled, the Dr revisited the village. Lo and behold, he saw every house garden pickets full of condoms put on.

    If the sperm size is 5 – 50um in size, we’re talking about the virus that is nm in size.

    We can bring up all the pubmed, describing the efficiency of fibric, surgical, N95 masks. At the end of the day, if people are putting their condoms on the garden pickets, the problem will remain.

    This is not getting into how CDC is inflating the covid death counts. There’s one comment above, why don’t everyone paid attention to this statistics?

    We’re too busy talking about the efficiency of the masks.

    • Replies: @utu
  224. Truth says:
    @Schuetze

    Like a gormet cake, nothing needs to be added or subtracted.

    • Agree: stevennonemaker88
  225. Truth says:
    @Schuetze

    Nailed it again.

    I guess I’m going to have to start giving your stuff a longer look.

  226. @Theophrastus

    I’ll avoid taking the vaccine as long as possible. While I’d prefer never to take it, it may become a requirement not just for travel but for visiting a dentist or accessing other medical services. What would you do if you needed to see a dentist or required some medical treatment and they asked that you be vaccinated before they attend to you?

    • Replies: @Theophrastus
    , @anarchyst
  227. @James Thompson

    You are actually adding to my point. You are assuming that the people with co-morbidities still DIED FROM COVID. that is not the case, as I explained above. The coronavirus hoax is about control. You are attempting to legitimize the false narrative that covid is a major new killer, when the deaths being attributed to covid were mostly caused by other conditions. Also, we will not know the full effect of the vaccines for years! The reason the “covid” death rate is so high for people over 80 is not because octogenarians are so susceptible to covid as you suggest, but rather because old people DIE FROM OTHER CAUSES. Every year past 80 is another year older than the average person can be expected to live. I know you think your position is moderate and analytical, but you are still very much incorrect in your assessment. Taking the phony vaccine is ALL risk, no reward.

    • Agree: Theophrastus, Alfred
  228. Schuetze says:
    @Ed Case

    “Basically, it’s proVax”

    I certainly don’t see any “proVax” or antiVax”gaslighting” in there, but I must admit I didn’t understand much in the cartoon except the caricatures of the quaccinator and the quaccination industry whipping up toxic mixtures for ridiculous “ailments”. I stand corrected, but somehow from the tone of your comment I don’t think that I owe you any gratitude.

    • Replies: @Ed Case
  229. utu says:
    @Rdm

    You need to work on your analogies. First you came up with 1 L water bottles and forest fires and now you came up with condoms. A good analogy can’t distract from the main argument and by being extreme, outrageous or being funny should not be its chief purpose.

    “Fiber masks or any masks with flower, tiger, cat, dog or any cute prints already defeat the purpose of filtering the virus. ” – Nonsense. You can find many studies of mask effectives tested on lab generate aerosols. Some of them even show that some home made fabric masks are better than N95 masks at smaller than 200nm particles

    “Peter Tsai” Plugging Taiwanese accomplishment? Anyway, thanks. I had good experience with Taiwanese researchers. With you not so much.

    “We’re too busy talking about the efficiency of the masks.” – We have too many trolls, shills and idiots questioning masks effectiveness. You do not help.

    “There’s a time and a place. The time has already passed.” – No, masking works at any stage of epidemics.

    • Replies: @Rdm
    , @InnerCynic
  230. utu says:
    @James Thompson

    “Who are the unvaccinated threatening? Other people.” – Exactly. Besides Beckow’s estimate that IFR=0.005% for healthy below 65 is way too low.

  231. Rdm says:
    @utu

    Thanks.

    1. 1L water bottle analogy works perfect until you planted your head in your ass. There’s a time and a place. Condom analogy is the way you use your contraption. Mask is effective only if used properly. Many analogies can be applied at different aspects of the situation. But my apology since you only see shit until you pull out your head.

    2. Great. Go and stock up Old Navy masks.

    3. Really? you said the opposite in other posts.

    4. Until you’re drop dead, I’d rather see you always mask up.

  232. Loup-Bouc says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    Thank you for suggesting a few issues not addressed by my previous comment — and for justifying my correcting a typing error that marred that comment.

    Because of my current professional workload, I lack spare time enough to proofread the following text. I type badly and commit tying errors more than seldom. I apologize now for any tying error that may mar the following text.

    In my comment of February 5, 2021 at 11:42 pm GMT (comment # 167), https://www.unz.com/jthompson/vaccination-side-effects/#comment-4452142 , I wrote; “The mRNA immunology has not passed it early infancy.” In that sentence, the error is the term “it” (of “has not passed it early infancy”). The term ought to be “its” (hence “has not passed its early infancy”).

    You wrote:

    So you expect immune system reactions to the mRNA or their protective lipids? You’re on solid ground to be suspicious of the latter, but how is the former different from live virus vaccines, if what we’re told about the ubiquity of extraceulluar [sic] ribonucleases [sic] is correct?

    Your assertions/question assume false premises. The mRNA vaccines do not work (if they do work) per the theory that the human immune-system will react to viral RNA. Rather the theory is this:

    * (a) Synthesized messenger RNA is transcribed from DNA.
    * (b) The RNA enters a cell’s cytoplasm and. there, ribosomes “translate” the RNA into proteins. (The RNA is “cloaked” in a lipid nanoparticle, and the “cloak” enables the RNA to evade the immune system.)
    * (c) Iinside a cell, the ribosomes produce SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
    * (d) The immune-system responds to the spike protein, and the response confers SARS-CoV-2 immunity.

    So, you present irrelevant considerations with your language “So you expect immune system reactions to the mRNA or their protective lipids?”

    You put irrelevant considerations also with your language “ how is the former [“reactions to …mRNA”] different from live virus vaccines.” (And if your comparison-question were cogent, the comparison would be mRNA versus whole live virus.)

    Then, one must wonder at your implicit suggestion that an alternative SARS-CoV-2 vaccine would involve a live virus. Sputnik V and Johnson & Johnson use a snippet of DNA carried by modified adenovirus. (Reports indicate that also an AstraZeneca vaccine sues the same kind of method.) I have not encountered any source that reports a vaccine that uses “live” virus. Whole virus vaccines use: (a) “attenuated” (somehow-weakened) live virus (a virus somehow deprived of its disease-producing capacity); (b) “inactivated” (dead) virus.

    You wrote:

    The mRNA vaccines don’t have any adjuvants except for some claimed activity from their lipid protection.

    Adjuvants are irrelevant to whether I asserted wrongly that “All, or near-all, vaccines contain toxic (even neurotoxic) or carcinogenic ingredients, e.g., mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, or other substances that threaten serious health-harm.” Mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, or other (toxic or carcinogenic) substances are used as preservatives (as means of preserving the useful life of a vaccine), not as adjuvants (which are substances or chemistries that enhance immune-response versus an antigen. So, your ALLEGEDLY complete adjuvants-lists do not refute my assertions respecting toxic preservative “additives.”

    But other matters beg consideration.

    [MORE]

    Among the listed adjuvants is polyethylene glycol. Polyethylene glycol has caused serious allergic reactions. I do not know wether the same is true of any of the other listed adjuvants, but I should not be amazed if the answer is affirmative. Perhaps (though maybe very unlikely) even sucrose could be a problem — for a Type I diabetic. (And I cannot see how sucrose would be an adjuvant, rather than merely a preservative; hence, I must wonder (a) why sucrose finds its way onto an adjuvant list and (b) whether all the alleged adjuvants are actually adjuvants.

    We must wonder whether we can trust (a) whether the “adjuvants” lists are (I) true and (ii) complete. Our doubt must grow because, apparently, the FDA corroborates the lists — by approving them or by having notice of them but not submitting them to serious question.

    Very seldom does the FDA run its own tests of pharmaceuticals (or even medical apparatus, or, more vitally, FOOD). Rather a drug or vaccine’s producer does the “testing” and analyzes the test-results and submits its test- results and its analysis to the FDA, which, very commonly, “rubber stamps” the drug or vaccine producer’s submission. That system is very dangerous, untrustworthy.

    A mere comment is not a venue appropriate for a thorough exposition of the problem and its evil effects. But I shall note two cases.

    The FDA’s approval, support, and advocacy of genetically engineered food [“GE food”] — FDA actions that conflicted seriously with its own experts warnings not to approve such “foods” and with numerous studies (like that of a Hungarian scientist whose name I cannot recall) who proved, with lab-rats, that GE potatoes’ nutritional value was hugely inferior to that of either conventional or organic potatoes. That scientist’s proof was irrefutable. So, his character was attacked and patently bogus “scientific” challenges were substituted for legitimate questions.

    One pseudo-“scientific” challenge was that the potato study was invalid because the GE-potato-fed rats were malnourished because their diet lacked sufficient protein. But if the protein -deficiency assertion was true, the reason must have been that the GE potatoes did not supply enough protein — but less than the protein quantity supplied by conventional and organic potatoes. All rats were fed only potatoes and all the same quantity of potatoes (quantity measured by weight).

    You will believe or doubt that GE foods are dangerous. The VALID, RELIABLE literature indicates belief. But this comment would be a small book if I referenced all the valid, reliable literature. So, I shall not put such list here.

    The other case occurred in one of my law classes — a “law-and-statistics” seminar. (Before I became a physician, I was a law professor, and now I am both.) The case occurred in 1987. The FDA had approved the first anti-AIDS drug (the name of which I cannot recall). The drug’s approval was fast-tracked (with “warp speed,” like the speed of approval of the mRNA anti-Covid-19 vaccines).

    One student wanted to research the statistical method(s) associated with testing and approval of the newly-approved anti-AIDS drug. She contacted the FDA and asked for com-lete access to all the documentation supporting the drug’s approval. The FDA refused to supply ANY documentation.

    I contacted the FDA, provided my credentials, explained the purpose of the student’s request, and pressed the FDA to render the documentation to my student. The FDA told me to bug off. I sent the FDA a letter in which I promised that my student, I, and the law school would file a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain the documentation. The FDA confessed that it approved the drug just on the basis of a New England Journal of Medicine article composed by the drug company; and the FDA cited the article and urged that my student obtain it.

    My student obtained the article. She saw that it did not disclose all of the statistical analyses that would have been necessary to presentation of a case sufficient to justify the drug’s approval. I contacted the drug company and assured it that because its AIDS drug was approved on the basis of its (the drug company’s) testing and statistical analyses, its records were public information obtainable with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

    The drug company recoiled from the prospect of the kind of public exposure it would suffer because of such lawsuit. So, the drug company provided my student EVERYTHING of its testing records and ist statistical analyses.

    My student, and I, were astounded: (1) The experimental group and control (placebo-given) group both suffered substantial attrition, but the experimental group markedly MORE THAN the control group. (2) A one-tailed (positive-result) statistical test was applied to the experimental group results; but a two-tailed test was applied to the control group results. (3) Attrition was calculated into the control-group-results statistical analysis, but not calculated into the experimental-group-results statistical analysis.

    So, the drug company’s testing and statistics were both quite INVALID, as was, therefore, the FDA’s approval.

    Now the matter of my assertions that the mRNA vaccine testing did not compete stage 3 and that the test-subjects were 30-years-old or younger. I put those assertions on the basis of literature I read perhaps two or three months ago. I did not keep copies. So my assertions rest just on my recollection. Believe my memory or not, as you will. I do not believe the drug companies or the FDA, which has been captured, and corrupted, by the drug companies and the GE foods industry for more than a few decades.

    But suppose, e.g., the test-subjects’ ages ranged from, say, 13 to 88. Still, the results are suspect, Consider this example concerning the Moderna mRNA vaccine:

    By November 21, with more cases, the efficacy remained at 94.1 percent, a statistically indistinguishable difference. That comes from 11 infections in the vaccine group compared to 185 among those who received a placebo. While the raw numbers suggest mRNA-1273 is slightly more effective in younger people (95.6 percent for those under 65 vs. 86.4 percent for those over), the confidence intervals for these numbers overlapped, meaning that the difference may not be statistically significant.

    John Timmer, FDA releases data on Moderna’s COVID vaccine: It looks good [Updated], ARS TECHNICA (15 December 2020), https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/12/fda-releases-data-on-modernas-covid-vaccine-it-looks-good/

    Bullshit.

    (1) A 95.6% result is statistically significant. An 86.4% result (the older than 65 group result) is statistically insignificant. Those propositions are statistics 101 — basic.

    (2) Just HOW — by what statistical method — did the statistical analysis measure and interpret the alleged overlap of confidence intervals? With, e.g., F-ratio analysis?

    F-ratio analysis could tell whether the two groups’ curve-means were not statistically different. But remaining would be critical questions like whether, still, the two curves’ standard deviations were significantly different or whether the “MSbetween” and “MSwithin” are different by more than an insignificant degree (greater than a minute degree more than 1.00). An affirmative answer would prove that the two groups’ outcomes WERE significantly different. Two groups can have the same mean but different normal distributions.

    But F-ratio analysis would not apply to measure the relation of two “overlapped” “confidence intervals,” themselves, directly. Rather, it would measure variance between samples and variance within samples. And neither the vaccine-creator nor the FDA published data necessary to determine the two groups’ sample-variances.

    So, if not F-ratio, then WHAT method? Did the analyst fall into a trance and obtain the “truth” from the great god Vishnu? Neither the drug company nor the FDA disclosed data and methodology sufficiently to enable an objective third party to verify or “falsify” the drug-company/FDA assertions. Hence, the assertions ought not be believed.

    • Agree: Theophrastus
    • Thanks: Brás Cubas, roonaldo, xcd
    • Replies: @roonaldo
  233. frontier says:
    @James Thompson

    Who are the unvaccinated threatening? – Other people.

    That’s demagogy. What “other people” if they are… vaccinated and they can only get the short and painless covid, that would boost their immunity further… they should actually want to get infected. The truth sounds like this – the unvaccinated can infect the unvaccinated – but they make that choice anyway. Unless, of course, the vaccine is a sham and used as other means for other purposes, but then the threat vector is quite different and your statement is still false.

    There is still a 5 to 30% chance of getting ill (while vaccinated)”

    I’m sorry, 5% to 30% is not an acceptable range, long term studies aren’t available, prior corona vaccines failed miserably and deadly. In fact the vaccines don’t protect certain unknown % and it can harm certain unknown % . Moreover, there are pretty good therapeutics – cures that work better than vaccines at preventing “long covid” – crucially, they don’t have to be used on billions and billions of healthy people, only on a small fraction of the population… Where is the evaluation of that choice? Where are the emergency authorizations? Over the counter HCQ? Well, a lot of subversive “pundits” are trying to make a fraudulent case for forced vaccinations, even if they aren’t doing openly… why wouldn’t they? Billions and billions are at stake.

    • Agree: Theophrastus, TRM
    • Replies: @James Thompson
  234. @James N. Kennett

    That’s if you ass-u-me what they claim to be doling out is the same there as what they dole out elsewhere.

  235. @utu

    I find that masks are far more effective at changing human behavior. Perception being the father of further delusions. If you wish to wear a mask, and “believe” it’ll save you, then by all means go ahead and diaper up! How does what anyone else do affect you and your diaper loving mug? Leave the rest of us alone, even if it means we perish. You’ll be safe and the less of us around to torment your dictatorial sensibilities the better, eh?

  236. Schuetze says:
    @James N. Kennett

    Yahweh to planet Earth: You have been jewed!

    More Evidence Israelis Are Using Placebo COVID Vaccines — And Have Changed PCR Test To Prove Vaccines Are Working

    https://christiansfortruth.com/more-evidence-israelis-are-using-placebo-covid-vaccines-and-have-changed-pcr-test-to-prove-vaccines-are-working/

    “Yet, if we are to believe the Israeli “experts”, the Pfizer vaccine is miraculously stopping people from actually becoming “infected” or testing postive at all — which is in complete defiance of vaccine science.

    But when it comes to this pandemic, there seems to be a lot of “miracles” happening in Israel — like the complete disappearance of the seasonal flu.

    Big Pharma even went out of its way to convince Jews that the COVID vaccines were strictly “kosher” — perhaps a dog whistle that the fix was in?

    • Replies: @HA
  237. Truth says:
    @James N. Kennett

    ROTFL!!! Those Zionists who are plotting to use the vaccine to make you infertile and then kill you are so evil that they are giving it to the Israelis first of all!

    ://christiansfortruth.com/more-evidence-israelis-are-using-placebo-covid-vaccines-and-have-changed-pcr-test-to-prove-vaccines-are-working/

    • Replies: @Schuetze
  238. Loup-Bouc says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    Having finished a draft of a federal court motion, I have set aside a bit more time to finish replying to you. But, still because of my current professional workload, I lack spare time enough to proofread the following text. I type badly and commit tying errors more than seldom. I apologize now for any tying error that may mar the following text.

    In my comment of February 5, 2021 at 11:42 pm GMT (comment # 167) — https://www.unz.com/jthompson/vaccination-side-effects/#comment-4452142 — I referenced https://www.rt.com/news/512586-norway-vaccine-elderly-deaths/
    Respecting that source’s contents, I wrote that the same source

    reports that the Norwegian Medicines Agency asserted that the Agency does “not see anything alarming with these figures” because “All deaths are in elderly and frail people with underlying diseases,” despite the affected individuals appeared to have contracted Covid-19 because of the vaccine and might not have contracted the disease had they not been vaccinated.

    And I observed:

    The question is whether the individuals would have died or even contracted Covid-19 had they not been vaccinated.

    I ought to have presented an alternative observation.

    The mRNA vaccines depend upon the prospect that a vaccinated person’s immune system will react to RNA that is foreign to the vaccinated person’s body. Suppose a particular person’s immune system does NOT react to a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein — despite Moderna and Pfizer assert that the synthetic RNA enters a cell’s cytoplasm and, there, ribosomes “translate” the RNA into SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Suppose, rather, that the person’s immune system reacts simply to the presence of the foreign RNA.

    The vaccine creators [Moderna, Pfizer, or other] insist that the foreign, synthetic RNA is “cloaked” in a lipid nanoparticle and the “cloak” enables the RNA to evade the immune system. But, “cloaked” or not, the RNA may not evade the immune system of THAT PERSON. And such situation is clearly possible and may be somewhat likely, since, per https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/12/fda-releases-data-on-modernas-covid-vaccine-it-looks-good/ :

    …the raw numbers suggest mRNA-1273 is slightly more effective in younger people (95.6 percent for those under 65 vs. 86.4 percent for those over)…

    AND 95.6% effective and 86.4% “effective” imply an ineffective rate of 4.4% to 13.6%.

    So, perhaps the above-referenced Norwegian Medicines Agency report observed NOT cases of an mRNA vaccine’s infecting patients with SARS-CoV-2. Suppose that actually the vaccine may have caused either (a) errant immune-system reaction (not SARS-CoV-2-immunity) or (b) zero immune system reaction; and, being non-immunized against SARS-CoV-2, the patients contracted Covid-19 and died — whether because of Covid-19 or per some other, independent cause(s).

    Such real possibility must be investigated — not only to obtain a close-to-true evaluation of mRNA vaccine effectiveness, but also to ascertain, reliably, whether, and if so to what degree and extent, mRNA vaccination has caused, or will cause, errant immune-system reaction resulting in autoimmune disease or cytokine storm.

    • Replies: @BDS always
  239. @Commentator Mike

    Good question. I’d look for an aggressive attorney with a similar point of view regarding the refusal to submit to gene therapy (because that’s what it is), one who is willing to work pro bono. In fact, I’ve already found one. Then we’d make life hell for whoever tried to mandate the jab. After all, if such a “request” has not been made into law, then no private or public entity can force one to submit, no matter how much they “ask.”

    This also applies to airlines. Without the force of law, no such request need be honoured, and governments know that if they do try to make a medication required, the backlash will be uncontainable. That’s why we see all the euphemisms about “requests.”

    Barring that, a visit by Mr Smith and Mr Wesson seems a last-ditch alternative, but I think my untreated toothache would, by that time, make that a real possibility. And if the world really did go that totalitarian, then perhaps that alternative wouldn’t be so bad; it might even start a real revolt. You know: Give me liberty, or give me death! Remember that?

    Besides, such a situation would be repeated countless times, worldwide.

    The point is that resisting “as long as possible” is not resistance at all.

    Would you really want to do as this idiot Thompson has done, foolishly repeating these specious and vacuous arguments that come straight from the mouths of zionist overlords, as he marches feet first toward a fate that They have decreed for him?

    It would be both stupid, and dishonourable, to both self and others.

  240. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Robert Snefjella

    Because of my current professional workload, I lack spare time enough to proofread the following text. I type badly and commit tying errors more than seldom. I apologize now for any tying error that may mar the following text.

    Your reply puts four matters. Each begs separate consideration. Before I address those matters, I must observe that you put one assertion that does not deserve reply. I mean the highlighted (bold-italic-emphasized) part of this:

    Selenium binds…to mercury and can help to remove mercury – andsome other heavy metals

    The highlighted language is indeterminate and, hence, resists response.

    Now the four matters:

    (1) You wrote:

    Selenium binds readily to mercury and can help to remove mercury….

    “Help remove” does not equal “remove.” Also, “Help remove” does not imply “remove completely.” So, your assertion begs the question of how much, if any, mercury can or does selenium remove. And, your comment adds uncertainty with its first sentence: “However your statement that mercury does not vacate the body is questionable [my emphasis].” [This matter’s indeterminacy/uncertainty is amplified by uncertainty of the three other matters your comment put. See below.]

    (2) You wrote:

    …some decades ago acid rain became an issue over broad areas, which seemed to exacerbate uptake of heavy metals in plants. Selenium…became habitually added to many feed stuffs in agriculture.

    You put that observation in the context of this assertion:

    Some decades ago there was a spate of concern about high levels of mercury in fish, and at that time it became fairly well known that adequate nutritional selenium levels were significantly protective.

    (a) What VALID, RELIABLE PROOF supports your assertion that “it became fairly well known that adequate nutritional selenium levels were significantly protective” against what — mercury poisoning of fish or mercury poisoning of people who eat fish that are mercury-poisoned? Did some source cause some fish or some humans to ingest selenium supplements? Or did some source study the relation of high-selenium diet and whether mercury was evacuated from bodies of certain fish or certain humans?

    Did some source study, validly, reliably, the effect, if any, of adding selenium to animal feed? Adding selenium does not imply any particular effect. And, actually, high selenium diets or high selenium supplementation can be toxic.
    * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3225252/
    * https://www.news-medical.net/health/Selenium-Toxicity.aspx

    Your assertions do not account holistic effects of diet or diet supplementation — especially, but not only, the totality of the quality of the source of selenium. Certain meats, fishes, grains, dried beans, and vegetables bear relatively high amounts of selenium. But some contain also other chemistries that are markedly deleterious ro health. So, if a person’s diet includes high-selenium foods that are, at least eventually, deleterious to, say, liver, kidney, and endocrine-system health, that person’s diet may preclude mercury-evacuation despite the diet is high-selenium.

    Suppose a person intakes much selenium — the highest amount that is not toxic — and the person’s diet is otherwise optimally healthful, except that it includes foodstuffs that contain substantial quantities of mercury. Will all the ingested mercuty evacuate that person’s body? I know that you cannot reference any VALID, RELIABLE study that supplies an affirmative answer.

    In 1999 or 2000, the then largest-ever epidemiological study was conducted in China. The study investigated the relation of diet and mortality, especially, but not only, mortality associated with certain diseases, like cancers. The study concluded, among else, that a meat-centered diet is unhealthful and that a predominantly plant-based diet including some fish (of certain species) is the most healthful.

    [MORE]

    The study-manager concluded tentatively that the “most healthful” diet was such significantly because its selenium content was relatively high. But, later, after further study, he found that the explanation was not selenium, but, instead, that the most healthful diet’s most health-supporting aspects just happened to associate with foodstuffs that happened to bear relatively high quantities of selenium.

    What “most health-supporting” aspects? Among others, low phosphorus, high sulphur, high sodium, moderate-high potassium, moderate-low calcium, moderate-high iron, relatively high copper and zinc, high fiber, moderate-low protein involving certain emphases of certain amino acids.

    (3) You wrote:

    One of the general observations made re older people at greater risk from COVID-19 is low selenium levels.

    But Covid-19 relative-frequency-distribution is irrelevant to the matter of whether selenium enables the human body to evacuate mercury. And, a NECESSARY QUESTION is whether low-selenium is a happenstantial, insignificant adjunct of diet that otherwise diminishes the strength or function of the person’s immune system.

    A typical American low-fiber diet tends to be a low-selenium diet. But such diet’s real immune-system threats are elsewhere — e.g., lack of food for intestinal lactobaccilli (which survive and proliferate much by eating dietary fiber), hence few or zero intestinal lactobacilli, thence near-destruction of a major part of the immune-system. [SARS-CoV-2 infests — or manifests its harms partly in — the intestines, perhaps especially the colon. See, e.g., https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/929222?src=wnl_tp10j_200611_mscpedit&uac=299395PY&impID=2415946&faf=1
    AND
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-science/coronavirus-traces-found-in-march-2019-sewage-sample-spanish-study-shows-idUSKBN23X2HQ

    A low-sulphur/high-phosphorus diet (especially a low-allium-vegetable-sulfone diet) begs immune-deficiency. And such diet tends to associate with much meat-eating and relatively little vegetable matter (except white bread or white-dough pizza, etc.). And such tends to associate with immune-deficiency — not much, if at all, because of the diet’s selenium level.

    When drug companies tried to devise an HIV-virus/AIDS vaccine, they discovered that they could not do so because intracellular immunity was necessary. I prescribe a diet that includes one foodstuff that produces intracellular immunity.

    [Three such foods exist. But one other lacks large-enough supply and is very expensive; and though the second other is rather cheap and abundantly available, it beasr relatively little of the key chemistry, so that one must eat too much to obtain sufficient intracellular immunity. I shall not divulge the identity of the foodstuff I prescribe, since it cannot be used as if medicine and its benefit depends on its being consumed as part of the right diet, which, because of that diet’s complexity, I cannot prescribe in this comment, for, the prescription would require about 100,000 words.]

    The matter is holistic, not a matter of magic bullets, whether selenium or anything else. And partly the matter is avoidance of mercury-intake.

    (4) You seem to suggest that vitamin E supplementation can help the body evacuate mercury. You do not reference a valid, reliable source. More important: Vitamin E supplementation has been shown to produce results opposite those sought by ingesting vitamin E supplements. [Likewise, vitamin C supplementation.] This comment is long enough, I shall not enlkarge it further by presenting the rather complex proofs that would be necessary. The ultimate consideration is that one must derive one’s health-supports near-entirely from food — not supplements — and that one must design one’s diet vis-a-vis requirements of holistic health.

    • Replies: @Robert Snefjella
  241. anarchyst says:
    @Commentator Mike

    There is another way. A “medical professional” could be “bribed” with a substantial cash “reward” for filling out a “proof of vaccination” card without actually administering the vaccine.
    This may become more common as the screws tighten “encouraging” vaccination.
    Here in the USA, any vaccine that is available under an “emergency use authorization” CANNOT be mandated.
    Worldwide, “informed consent” and the “right to refuse” under the Nuremberg protocols is the rule…

    • Replies: @Theophrastus
  242. Ed Case says:
    @Schuetze

    Fair enough, you can read the cartoon that way too.
    The thing about this cartoonist is is that he appears to usually have a bet each way, but this was published in Murdoch’s The Australian and as long as i’ve been reading that paper [30 yrs], it’s never published anything that questioned the efficacy of vaccines, though it regularly attacks people that question vaccines, such as Pete Evans.
    Murdoch’s papers in the U.K. led the attack to destroy Dr. Andrew Wakefield for questioning the MMR vaccine, even though there were solid reasons for withdrawing it from use.

    • Thanks: Schuetze
  243. @Theophrastus

    A few more minutes of reflection reveal several other possible actions, before one need resort to outright revolt.

    First, it is possible to find honest medics who will fill out the vaccine card yet shoot the jab into the rubbish bin, where it heartily belongs.

    Secondly, it is already possible to pay for blackmarket vaccine cards.

    Note that I am using the euphemism “vaccine card” to mean whatever document is issued that lists the user as having had the jab.

    The point is that resistance need not be overt to be effective. The coyotes, for instance, have been breeding smarter for generations, and have eluded every means of extermination. That’s a good paradigm.

  244. @anarchyst

    Great minds think alike. Thank you!

  245. @Theophrastus

    I just assume that the vaccine will be required for much of what at present they require the PCR test. I don’t know about the legality of all this but it seems to me they can do anything they want, like refusing to accept cash in shops. I don’t think they will force vaccination but they may make life very difficult for those who refuse it. It could very well be a requirement for employment in some sectors, and even if not officially they may well preferably lay off the non-vaccinated when they start downsizing. It’s still early days in the vaccination programme so we’ll have to wait and see. Loup-Bouc, the resident lawyer medic here would know much better what is legal and what could be done if they start turning the screws. For anything meaningful to be done there must be mass resistance and I don’t see that happening.

    • Replies: @Theophrastus
  246. @Commentator Mike

    Bloody hell! With that lukewarm attitude of yours then of course resistance is futile!

    Grow some backbone and stop leaning on those of us who already have.

    And quit sitting on the fence.

  247. anonymous[203] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    that second “but probably” should have been an “and probably” : so, in fact, I was writing too fast!

    which means I was “posting too fast” too (inside joke – if you think your comment was not accepted, but it was, and you try again, the Utz site sends you a nanny-type message —- YOU ARE POSTING TOO FAST, SLOW DOWN)

    Sad to say, I have given it a lot of thought, and I am right about the midwittery. Wish I wasn’t, but there is no evidence anywhere I have seen that tends to suggest I am not.

  248. @Loup-Bouc

    Thank you for your response. My brief remarks on selenium were prompted by the depressing finality of your remark that mercury is among

    substances that accumulate in the individual’s system and do not vacate the body. Every small additional intake magnifies threat of manifest harm.

    Some – say someone concerned about having had many cavities in their teeth filled with material containing mercury, or someone identified as having for whatever reason elevated mercury levels in their body – may be depressed by their circumstance and not be aware that selenium may be potentially extremely helpful in their situation.

    My background includes decades of mixed organic farming, including livestock, and while observations made and conclusions drawn there do not qualify as definitive science, practical lessons were learned pertaining to heavy metals and selenium, and the important and protective qualities associated with sufficient and usable forms of selenium in the diet. Yes, too much selenium can do harm.

    My interest in such matters prompted me to explore some of the then available literature and science, but that includes a period before the Internet, when resources were more scarce, and my capabilities were limited.

    One sunny incident that stands out in my memory is as a result of having become involved in a controversy surrounding the use of dioxin bearing materials as inexpensive dust suppressant on dirt roads in this county. I stumbled on a study which to my pleased surprise offered that in addition to selenium’s capability of binding to mercury, cadmium and lead, it might also be helpful in regards to dangers associated with dioxins.

    Much potentially helpful science and observation regarding selenium can now found on line.

    Here for example is a quote from Environmental Health Perspectives, from way back in 1978. Author is J. Parizek. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1637187/

    The protective effect of selenite injection in animals exposed to an otherwise lethal dose of cadmium via inhalation was reported several decades ago (1).
    Since that time, substantial evidence has accumulated revealing that the administration of selenium compounds is highly effective in counteracting the toxicity not only of cadmium compounds but also of mercury and certain other metals.

    Regarding the coupling of vitamin E with selenium as an advantage in maintaining animal health, this was found through experience to be a good practice. But there is pertinent science: here for example is a link to a study which does indicate that selenium and Vitamin E form a kind of ‘dynamic duo’, if you like, with the Vitamin E seeming to help re an overload of silver and lead.
    The title of the piece is “Selenium in the treatment of heavy metal poisoning and chemical carcinogenesis”
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1304229/

    I quite agree with you that good food is the key.

    • Thanks: Polemos
    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  249. @That Would Be Telling

    That’s a novel theory: when the entire scientific, medical, political, academic, and media community deliberately scotches a promising treatment for political and psychotic reasons, this is somehow Donald Trump’s fault for being the object of their ire.

    I might add that the treatment he most “talked about” was vaccines, which these same people are very keen on.

    But at least you didn’t mean that Trump, or anyone, was wrong to suggest HCQ, which is what I thought you meant. Carry on, credibility more or less intact

  250. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Robert Snefjella

    I appreciate greatly the tone and earnestness of your reply. I am sorry for the “livestock” you farmed (whether for meat, hide, wool, or milk). But that is not pertinent to our discussion (albeit very pertinent to the quality of the lives of nonhuman beasts, which I respect far more than I do humans, most of whom are banes of both other humans and, more so, the Earth and its nonhuman living things).

    One can find many studies and other scientific investigations that prove the foolishness of vitamin E, selenium, vitamin C, or vitamin D supplementation. Synthetic vitamins C and E do no good and considerable harm if, as is common, supplementation is high-dose. Even can they be carcinogenic. But I shall not clutter this comment with a list of supportive sources, especially because right now I cannot spare time enough to rifle through my research records to collect a batch that I might post here.

    [Side-Note:
    Perhaps a few injected 1,25[OH]2 D3 vitamin D doses may be a reasonable measure in serious Covid-19 infection cases. The rather small harm-risk would be outweighed markedly by the possibly curative or symptom-mitigation benefit. But the vitamin D ought to be 1,25[OH]2 D3, the only active form of vitamin D. “Vitamin D” milk’s synthetic D1 would be virtually useless even if it, alone (not the milk), were injected.

    But I wonder to what extent (if at all) 1,25[OH]2 D3 injections may be available. Typically, pharmaceutical “vitamin D” is D1, which is virtually useless, or 25[OH] D3, which is effective only if the kidneys can convert enough injected synthetic 25[OH] D3 to 1,25[OH]2 D3.
    End of Side-Note]

    Alas, your “evidence” is mostly anecdotal. Your scholarly sources leave us begging questions.

    One question is how much mercury will bind to selenium.

    I have not encountered any source that asserts the binding-frequency is anywhere near 100%. If it COULD BE even 50% (which is hugely unlikely), still we would be left to beg the question of what selenium-intake quantity and frequency would be necessary to a 50% binding-frequency. The selenium intake quantum could be of toxic level. And even then, near-certainly the remaining unbound (free) mercury quantum would continue to endanger seriously the individual’s health. Your cited sources do not address such matters.

    Clearly, the wise regime is maximum avoidance of mercury-intake. Just so, one must avoid submitting to mercury-bearing vaccines.

    In an earlier comment, I asserted that mercury accumulates and does not evacuate. I shall amend that proposition thus: Mercury accumulates and does not vacate at all, absent substantial intake of selenium or selenium and vitamin E, which intake will bind to some mercury, that binding enabling the body to evacuate some percentage of total systemic mercury. But one must question whether a significant selenium/mercury binding-frequency requires a toxic selenium level.

    I shall not address, here, the problems of aluminum and formaldehyde additives/preservatives of vaccines. You did not say anything that put any issue(s) respecting those problems. Nor shall I discuss cadmium, which was not involved in my discussion of toxic and carcinogenic vaccine additives/preservatives.

    • Replies: @mike99588
  251. TRM says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    So you call me a troll and yet address ZERO of the points I raised.
    Well done. I’m put in my place for certain. /s

    Thanks for coming out. Would you like a cookie? – Chris Rock

    • LOL: Peripatetic Itch
  252. Whitewolf says:

    Society is facing a dilemma about how to prioritize lives. Once the elderly vulnerable have been vaccinated, it is highly likely that society will open up again.

    Here in Australia they are have different ideas.

    https://amp.9news.com.au/article/62f0420e-17e4-465a-8881-7699f4e96a06

    They want to roll out digital vaccine certificates. We already have to scan a barcode or provide contact details for every place we visit. It’s not a big step from there to start oppressing people who don’t want to take part in eperimental vaccine trials.

  253. roonaldo says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    That GE potato/mice study was by Arpad Pusztai in 1998. Found it at http://www.bibiotecapleyades.net, article by Jeffrey Smith, 08/09/10. It mentions 36 significant differences between the GE potato fed mice and the non-GE fed mice. The article was from the Huffpost, but don’t know if it is still there. Stay well.

    • Thanks: Loup-Bouc
    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  254. @Loup-Bouc

    SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT COVID VACCINE?

    Reports of adverse reactions from the #Covid19 vaccines have piled up and recent polls have shown that 51% of Americans will delay or refuse the shot altogether. Why are people refusing? Take a look.

    https://thehighwire.com/videos/second-thoughts-about-covid-vaccine/

    • Thanks: Theophrastus
  255. @frontier

    No, offering an answer to your question is not demagogy. Demagogy would be to impose choices on others without their consent.

    Vaccinations are not perfect, but the harshest test is careful real world observation. The preliminary analyses look good, but I certainly agree that the 5 year results would be more conclusive. You say that the range of 70% to 95% effectiveness is not “acceptable”. In public health anything above 50% is useful. We will eventually find out what the real efficacy of the vaccinations are. Usually they are lower than those claimed in trials. Also, there will always be side-effects.

    Again, to answer your question: the un-vaccinated are a threat to other un-vaccinated persons (and partially to vaccinated persons) because they are more likely to get infected and pass it on. Some will be un-vaccinated by choice, the majority because vaccines are not available in poor countries. You are right that many people, particularly young ones, will develop immunity with little trouble. About 15% will have a harder time, and may have preferred to have had the vaccination when available.

    • Troll: Alfred
    • Replies: @Theophrastus
  256. Schuetze says:
    @Truth

    This is amazing, the list of Israeli’s who are being murdered by the Pfizer quaccine just goes on and on and on. Apparently some jews are really starting to kvetch.

  257. Beckow says:
    @James Thompson

    ..Making judgments under uncertainty is always difficult.

    Right. That should be made explicit and an open discussion allowed (even promoted). What we have instead is a bunch of mini-Napoleons who proclaim the truth, order others to do something, then change their mind, etc…

    There is a basic element of a very different impact on different groups: young, healthy people are much more likely to suffer side-effects in the long run than benefit from the vaccination. Why should the old geezers force the young to do this? There is an economic component: the wealthy, rich boomers do quite well with lockdowns and an inactive society, young people are experiencing a massive loss of opportunities, education, and just life in general. It is the old who are at risk, by all standards they should compensate the young. I don’t hear that discussed.

    Rushing head-first into massive vaccination campaigns without an economic compensation for the young is capricious and unjust. If the elderly don’t see it, they are narcissistic beyond belief (as ‘utu’ here has shown). To act for the pure benefit of the older Boomers at the expense of the young is wrong and will likely have massive consequences. The Boomers have only themselves, and their own myopia to blame.

  258. @Beckow

    There is a basic element of a very different impact on different groups: young, healthy people are much more likely to suffer side-effects in the long run than benefit from the vaccination.

    Citation Needed, unless this is just stating the obvious that bad, permanent side effects will effect the young longer than the old. And talk about the stereotypical viewpoint of eternally youthful Boomers, I don’t suppose today’s young imagine they’ll get old enough to be in more danger from COVID-19??

    I’m not sure how we’ll benefit from the sort of inter-generational war you advocate, our ruling trash’s success at fomenting this starting with Social Security in the US is one of the biggest atomizing forces that has brought us low. But Boomer hate knows no bounds, so I guess it’s expected, but how sure are you they’re getting hit as hard as the older Silents? My parents are from that generation, which is perhaps one reason I’ve escaped the dissident Right’s boring obsession with Boomers, and I can’t help but notice how many Silents are dying locally compared to Boomers.

    And let me ask again, are Boomers a thing in the U.K.? Or anything at all like they are in the US? From what I’ve learned about the strictures of post-WWII in the U.K., I wouldn’t expect an immediate baby boom.

    • Troll: Theophrastus
    • Replies: @utu
    , @Beckow
  259. utu says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    “I’m not sure how we’ll benefit from the sort of inter-generational war you advocate “ – Sowing confusions and strife to make implementation of rational policies more difficult is what Mr. Beckow is all about. Anything that undermines cohesions and stability of the West and America in particular is what amateur Lubyanka’s trolls like Beckow do.

    https://www.unz.com/pcockburn/boris-johnson-is-as-incompetent-as-general-haig-at-the-somme/#comment-4356578
    I do not exclude a possibility that we in the West were a subject of a disinformation operation also on governmental level to weaken our resolve by sowing confusion and distrust. In the age of internet to conduct a disinformation campaign by creating distractive and destructive memes and getting on board some credentialed useful idiots professionals and acht und achtzig professoren from Germany as talking heads on Youtube is easy. Russia and China comes to mind as the potential culprits. The Schadenfreude in Moscow and Beijing must be running very high.

  260. Beckow says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    My meaning was clear: for younger people the balance of risks and benefits from Covid vaccine as opposed to any danger of Covid is very different than for the elderly (Silent-Boomers if you wish).

    There is also the inescapable economic situation: the elderly have benefitted from lockdowns-school closings and the younger people as whole have paid a high price. Elderly teachers are sitting at home getting paid, and college students are borrowing (no less) to watch videos. It is pretty straight-forward, if you don’t see it, you would probably deny nose between your eyes.

    I’m not sure how we’ll benefit from the sort of inter-generational war you advocate

    The inter-generational has been declared by Silent-Boomers on the young long time ago, Covid has only highlighted the absurd levels that old people are willing to go to maximise their own wealth, benefits and screw the young. The ‘war’ is going on, pretending that it is not taking place is silly. (It is by the way roughly the same situation in most of the Western world – with local adjustments.)

  261. dearieme says:
    @Beckow

    Why should the old geezers force the young to do this?

    But the old geezers don’t hold political power (except maybe in the US).

    It’s people in their fifties and sixties who hold the reins of power, and they’ve been frightened by a sharp reminder of their own mortality.

    This idea is not original to me; I saw it somewhere and thought it one of the few insightful remarks I’d seen on the question of the origins of lockdowns. Of course some commenters will always prefer to blame a worldwide conspiracy of The Lizard People.

    • Replies: @Beckow
  262. @James Thompson

    If demagogy is, by your own words, the imposition of a choice on others without their consent, then exactly how is the vaccine mandate not demagogy? And don’t hide behind the facade that this “highly recommended” medication is not mandatory, because it is effectively and rapidly becoming so, and you sir are shilling for this.

    It is really astounding that you, and others here, can be so nakedly two-faced about this.

    Freedom, not safety, is the highest virtue, and I will spell it out for you: without freedom, there is no safety.

    “The unvaccinated are a danger to others…”: what utter rubbish! Everyone is a danger to others, all the time; that’s the nature of life; you take your chances and do your best to mitigate what you can, without imposing your will on those around you, exactly as you wouldn’t want them to impose their will on you.

    Wars begin because people like you attempt to impose their demagogic will on others. Bring it on, hound.

  263. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Robert Snefjella

    Hello:

    I reconsidered the penultimate paragraph of my comment # 260 (February 7, 2021 at 2:09 am GMT, https://www.unz.com/jthompson/vaccination-side-effects/#comment-4454187 ) — which responded to your comment to which this comment replies. My earlier reply-comment’s penultimate paragraph was this:

    In an earlier comment, I asserted that mercury accumulates and does not evacuate. I shall amend that proposition thus: Mercury accumulates and does not vacate at all, absent substantial intake of selenium or selenium and vitamin E, which intake will bind to some mercury, that binding enabling the body to evacuate some percentage of total systemic mercury. But one must question whether a significant selenium/mercury binding-frequency requires a toxic selenium level.

    This is my new, better-considered position:

    Some evidence suggests that if (a) generally, a person’s diet is holistically healthful (much like the traditional Okinawan diet but including near-zero eggs and dairy and not including flesh-food other than certain vertebrate fish and shell fish) and (b) particularly the diet includes foodstuffs that bear substantial but not toxic levels of selenium and vitamin E, then some systemic mercury may bind to selenium and such selenium-bonded mercury may vacate the body — though that selenium-related mercury-elimination possibility has not been proven.

    Otherwise — apart from the yet-unproven selenium-related mercury-elimination possibility — nothing suggests that the body can eliminate mercury, which, therefore, accumulates in various body-tissues and does not vacate the body.

    I reviewed the entireties of the two sources you referenced (not only the abstracts you linked) and researched the mercury/selenium/vitamin-E matter in three online medical libraries — Pub Med, Medscape, and MedpageToday. [Being a physician, I have Pub Med, Medscape, and MedpageToday accounts and can obtain access to entire articles, not just abstracts.]

    I did not find a study that presented compelling, valid, reliable evidence that proves a non-toxic-level selenium intake (with or without involvement of vitamin E) will enable the body to excrete much or any systemic mercury.

    I did find numerous sources observing that mercury is toxic partly because it binds with selenium and hence bars the mercury-bound selenium’s performing vital central nervous system and immune system functions. See, e.g., these sources:
    (1) https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-2383-6_5
    (2) https://www.hindawi.com/journals/aurt/2014/164938/
    (3) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304416518301417
    (4) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29753115/
    (5) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278702735_Mercury-Dependent_Inhibition_of_Selenoenzymes_and_Mercury_Toxicity
    (6) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15563650.2017.1400555?utm_campaign=Clinical_Toxicology_TrendMD_1&utm_medium=cpc&scroll=top&needAccess=true&utm_source=TrendMD&journalCode=ictx20

    Immediately more important:

    Early research suggested selenium may provide a protective role in mercury poisoning, and with limitations this is true. The roles selenium plays in this reduction of mercury toxicity partially depends on the form of mercury and may be multifaceted including: 1) facilitating demethylation of organic mercury to inorganic mercury; 2) redistribution of mercury to less sensitive target organs; 3) binding to inorganic mercury and forming an insoluble, stable and inert Hg:Se complex; 4) reduction of mercury absorption from the GI tract; 5) repletion of selenium stores (reverse selenium deficiency); and 6) restoration of target selenoprotein activity and restoring the intracellular redox environment. There is conflicting evidence as to whether selenium increases or hinders mercury elimination, but increased mercury elimination does not appear to be a major role of selenium. Selenium supplementation has been shown to restore selenoprotein function and reduce the toxicity of mercury, with several significant limitations including: the form of mercury (methylmercury toxicity is less responsive to amelioration) and mercury dose.

    Henry A. Spiller, Rethinking mercury: the role of selenium in the pathophysiology of mercury, Clinical Toxicology Volume 56, 2018 – Issue 5 (cited also supra), https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15563650.2017.1400555?utm_campaign=Clinical_Toxicology_TrendMD_1&utm_medium=cpc&scroll=top&needAccess=true&utm_source=TrendMD&journalCode=ictx20

    One must read and analyze very scrupulously the immediately preceding quoted language’s penultimate sentence — with eyes of a brain well-accustomed to perusing scientific literature, especially the literature of medicine, biology, and psychiatry. That penultimate sentence is: “There is conflicting evidence as to whether selenium increases or hinders mercury elimination, but increased mercury elimination does not appear to be a major role of selenium.”

    That penultimate sentence’s positive indications are:
    (a) Selenium may “hinder mercury elimination,” not enable the body to eleminate mercury.
    (b) A mercury-elimination selenium-function is disputed by legitimate scientific investigation.

    That penultimate sentence does not express or even imply that the human body can eliminate mercury with or without involvement of selenium or any other substance.

    Since the proposition “selenium increases mercury elimination” is legitimately disputed, that proposition does not state fact (does not state a logical or empirical truth). Since the proposition “selenium increases mercury elimination” does not state fact (does not state a logical or empirical truth), that proposition bears NO element (no sub-proposition or internal assertion) that is or states a fact (a logical or empirical truth).

    Therefore, the proposition “selenium increases mercury elimination” cannot support or indicate an assertion that selenium enables mercury-elimination.

    Cf. the same source’s observation that mercury-elimination “does not appear to be a major role of selenium.” That observation does not imply (a) that mercury-elimination is any role of selenium — that selenium ever, through any process, eliminates mercury or participates in elimination of mercury — or (b) that the body can excrete or eliminate mercury by any means, chemical or other.

    Likely, that *mercury-elimination-does-not-appear-a-major selenium-role* observation accounts the probability that dietary-selenium intake cuts the body’s absorption of mercury — eliminates some chance of the system’s bearing presence of some active-mercury-quantity it could have borne. See belowthis comment’s penultimate and final paragraphs.

    Clearly, however, selenium-intake does bear vital mercury-toxicity-mitigating effects, which include, but are not limited to, these:
    (a) facilitating demethylation of organic mercury to inorganic mercury
    (b) redistributing mercury to less-sensitive target organs
    (c) binding to inorganic mercury and forming an insoluble, stable, and inert Hg:Se complex
    (d) curing selenium deficiency
    (e) restoring selenoprotein and selenoenzyme, and selenoprotein and selenoenzyme activity, and intracellular redox environment

    Much evidence suggests strongly that dietary-selenium intake diminishes absorption of active mercury. The evidenced suggestion is that since mercury may bind with selenium in the digestive tract and remain bound after it is absorbed into the bloodstream, the so-bound mercury will be rendered harmless or incapable of causing substantial reduction of longevity or health.

    If, as appears likely, that suggestion is truth, alas it suggests also a detriment: The mercury-bound selenium cannot achieve any of the health-benefits the body requires of selenium. See, e.g., all six of the sources cited above.

    • Replies: @Robert Snefjella
  264. HA says:
    @Schuetze

    https://christiansfortruth.com/more-evidence-israelis-are-using-placebo-covid-vaccines-and-have-changed-pcr-test-to-prove-vaccines-are-working/

    “Yet, if we are to believe the Israeli “experts”, the Pfizer vaccine is miraculously stopping people from actually becoming “infected” or testing postive at all — which is in complete defiance of vaccine science.”

    Miraculously stopping people from getting infected, you say? Met any smallpox sufferers lately? Miracle of not, you think vaccines have nothing whatsoever to do with that? In fact, vaccines do cause you to build up antibodies to a virus (at least one or more strains of it) not to mention what they do regarding “pre-existing cross-reactive memory of cytotoxic T lymphocytes”. As such they can indeed reduce the odds of getting the disease in question. Not perfectly, of course (though again, that smallpox vaccine worked wonders) but even in those who get the disease, the likelihood of dying from it, or suffering serious complications, can still be reduced. This is what happens with the regular flu vaccine, even for older people (who are more likely to still get flu after the shot than younger people, but still are less likely to die from it than those who are unvaccinated).

    [MORE]

    And given the early results of what is happening in Israel, the health officials are seeing something similar for the COVID vaccine, though given what happened with the Astra-Zeneca, there’s doubts, in my mind anyway, about how beneficial the vaccines are for the extremely elderly (in which case, it’s all the more important that everyone around them is vaccinated).

    Your conspiracy site wrongly claims that Fauci denies this. He does not. I quote the Daily Mail article the site linked to as their “primary evidence” (and by the way, really? the Daily Mail is where they go for Fauci quotes? That should tell you something right there): ‘The primary thing you want to do is that if people get infected, prevent them from getting sick, and if you prevent them from getting sick, you will ultimately prevent them from getting seriously ill,’.

    Just because the primary goal is the reduction of death and becoming “seriously ill” doesn’t mean that viruses don’t reduce the chances of getting the disease or testing positive (at least not with the PCR test that helps determine if you have COVID, though you might indeed test positive from the antibody test since, as noted, the purpose of the vaccine is to build up your antibodies). It just means the reduction of the likelihood of getting COVID at all is a secondary goal. If your site can’t even get that right, don’t waste your time with the rest. (That being said, I enjoyed their article on Richard Fahey’s taked0wn of Wodan worshippers — thumbs up for that.)

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  265. @Sparkon

    The point is not that the virus is very small compared to the cotton fibers, but rather it’s the other way around: the cotton fibers and threads are very much larger than the individual virus, so the virus with penetration on its mind finds a lot of obstacles standing in its way, and has to find that elusive and circuitous route through a dense forest of cotton fibers and threads.

    A better analogy, and much more physical, would be throwing a beach ball in a rapid-strewn river. Lots of rocks in the way but the ball will hit very few, if any, because the water carries the ball and the water always finds a way through.

    The fluid dynamics of air and water are much the same.

    STEM wins again.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  266. Loup-Bouc says:
    @HA

    ,,,at least not with the PCR test that helps determine if you have COVID….

    Is your true name Bill Gates, or are you majority share-holder of Moderna or Pfizer, or…….

    The PCR test’s “techinical” name is “RT-PCR” test, which is a “molecular” test (not an antibody test). PCR tests seek to detect a virus’s genetic material via nucleic acid amplification. It involves a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction that tests for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid of a corona virus present in upper and lower respiratory-tract specimens.

    Mostly, “Covid 19″ is not an upper respiratory tract disease, but, rather, infests the middle and lower respiratory tracts and may infest or affect also other organs (e.g., kidneys, intestines) — though often (but not always) the Covid 19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) enters through the nose and though, eventually, cases may involve some upper respiratory tract symptom(s). But near-all PCR testing tests nose-and-sinus mucous, where other corona viruses inhabit and replicate.

    The most common corona virus infections are common colds. See, and compare, e.g., these sources [though neither scholarly nor encyclopedic, virtuous in being (a) not inaccurate and (b) accessible to a non-physician’s grasp]:
    (1) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/general-information.html
    (2) https://web.stanford.edu/group/virus/corona/colds.html
    (3) https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/cold-guide/common_cold_causes
    (4) https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/epidemiology-fact-sheets/coronaviruses/
    (5) http://www.emro.who.int/health-topics/corona-virus/questions-and-answers.html#:~:text=Coronaviruses%20are%20a%20large%20family,Syndrome%20(SARS)

    And unlike the Covid 19 virus (SARS-CoV-2), corona virus colds do infect the upper respiratory tracts.

    PCR tests produce both false positives and false negatives — very often.

    PCR tests detect a very small segment of nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific “detected” virus is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used, which become the ends of the amplified fragment. The PCR test was never intended to identify a specific virus.

    PCR detection is somewhat helpful only if it is appreciated as merely capable of detecting minute quantities of virus RNA — and, so, understood as merely a test of some indication of conducting further testing by other means, including clinical means. But a PCR test’s virus-RNA-detection does not actually indicate the presence of an actual infectious virus. PCR tests do not detect or identify any specific, live, infectious virus. They detect only fragments of a virus that may be a corona species.

    If a PCR test result is positive, the result means only that the test detected tiny shattered parts of some species of a virus that may be the Covid 19 virus (“SARS-CoV-2″). Even if a PCR test suggests that actual viruses have been present and infectious, they may be long dead, since a PCR test detects only RNA fragments, not viruses or virus antibodies.

    PCR positive results are unreliable, if not utterly invalid. The PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of viral genetic material enough to be “detected” as if an actual viral infection — though no infection is actually present. So, PCR tests cannot detect or identify the Covid 19 virus (“SARS-CoV-2″). PCR tests detect only genetic-material fragments that cannot be equated with a Covid-19 positive result.

    Another molecular test is a “LAMP.” A LAMP targets DNA polymerase and four to six primers. It is designed to detect six distinct sequences of the target DNA. But, alas, the Covid 19 virus shares some other corona virus DNA sequences; so, LAMP test positive results are often false.

    The other tests used are antigen tests and antibody tests.

    An antigen test searches out molecular structures of influenza virus surfaces — surface proteins (spike membrane, small envelope, and nucleocapsid proteins). Antigen tests produce false negatives more than do molecular tests (PCR & LAMP). So diligent testing confirms negative antigen test results by rendering subsequent molecular testing and confirms negative and positive PCR & LAMP results with antigen-testing and antibody tests. But such testing is very rare in the U.S.A.

    True antibody testing is the most reliable, because of, e.g., cross-immunity, multiple mutation, and erratic mutation patterns.

    Your entire post reads like a vaccination-advertizement Bill Gates might have commissioned. It does NOT read like a set of observations wrought by an honorable virologist, epidemiologist, or microbiologist — or even any manner of honorable, well-educated physician inclined toward rigorous critical thought, or even a just-competent (albeit brainwashed, self-deluded, or corrupt) physician.

    • Thanks: Theophrastus
    • Troll: utu
    • Replies: @HA
    , @Rdm
  267. HA says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    “…are you majority share-holder of Moderna …The PCR test’s ‘techinical’ name is…nucleic acid amplification…transcription polymerase chain reaction…infests the middle and lower respiratory …cases may involve some upper respiratory tract symptom(s).…common colds…small segment of nucleic acid…fragments of a virus…PCR…Another molecular test is a ‘LAMP’….”

    Wow, way to lose the plot. To dissuade you from spewing yet more non sequitur blather, let me phrase it differently: after the full course of the COVID vaccine, your likelihood of getting COVID may well be reduced, so that (barring false positives) you will be less likely to trigger a saliva swab COVID test that (again, barring false positives) indicates you have COVID viruses replicating inside you. However, since you will have antibodies, you may well trigger an antibody test. Hope that triggers you less.

    Regardless, the point remains that Fauci never claimed that vaccines cannot reduce your likelihood of catching COVID. If the primary evidence these “white-Europeans-are-the-lost-tribes-of-Israel” loons at ChristiansForTruth.com can muster for their claim is some off-the-cuff Fauci quotation related by way of the DailyMail that they then twist and distort, it’s pretty good evidence they’ve got squat. Likewise, if your only retort is a pointless TLDR digression — not to mention name calling — it’s pretty good evidence you don’t have anything either.

    Note that there are, at this point, numerous COVID vaccines that won’t make Bill Gates or Moderna/Pfizer a dime. Feel free to get one of those instead. It won’t change a single word that I said.

    • Agree: utu
    • Troll: Theophrastus
    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  268. With all the muting strains detected. The ones in South Africa that render vaccines 1/6 as effective = 15%.

    So, after all the bullshit about vaccines and herd immunity, we get a mutated strain that makes vaccines useless.

    It seems the Chinese total quarantine is the answer. Not the retarded superficial lockdowns. or herd immunity.

    It just takes a mutation to fuck over the vaccine and herd immunity strategy. UK’s mutated strain will be 90% of all infected by late March 2021.

    fuck UK for lying about it for 3 months.

  269. @Loup-Bouc

    Thanks for the research and thoughts. Following are remarks with bearing on both your previous comment and your more recent one:

    Much of modern farming practice is reprehensible to me, but it is also apparent that farm animals can live in health, security, and indeed a condition that offers the animals much comfort and enjoyment, even happiness. To see healthy animals sometimes frolicking, daily enthusiastically eating good food, sunning themselves when possible, and so on, is satisfying also for the farmer.

    Furthermore, plants and animals together in the environment can thrive together, given sensible arrangements, and together help create an abundant and beautiful environment.

    In nature, animals are subject to various tribulations. Though I have high regard for all species, I have witnessed raven and hawk disemboweling living screaming barnyard fowl, and I can admire the weasel even as it leaves a trail of ‘mass murder’ of chickens in the chicken house. Many is the animal that has frantically sought my aid in seeking relief from swarms of summer insects.

    In the end, all animals die. The good farmer attempts to make the transition from life to death for his animals a completely painless and trauma free one. This can be achieved. Society may create regulatory or legal barriers to achieving such a humane process.

    In regard to humanity as a bane to nature, I am aware of vast evidence in support of your position.

    But it has also been the case that the large majority of people who I have come to know have souls that include kindness and good intent. Unfortunately, we are born into a circumstance where in innocence we are inundated by falsehoods, and by manipulation, which has a massive impetus beyond our early understanding or control. And we are all faced with a deeply dysfunctional context in which through life we try to survive and function.

    One great problem with derision towards humanity itself, however well earned it seems, is that this further empowers elite genocidal intent. I do not see massive genocide by overt or covert means to be a good solution, but as a further catastrophe. A less derisive stance towards humanity, one that includes a recognition of our wonderful capabilities, along with a realistic appraisal of faults and weaknesses, offers a better prospect, in my opinion. Honest and unfettered discourse offers more benefit in my opinion than elite puppet master manipulations.

    I had also intended to make some comments pertaining to the first amended proposition which you in this more recent comment have made additional amendments to.

    My initial reaction was to question the use of the word “substantial” (“intake of selenium”) since this is represents quantitative obscurity. I had first considered that something along the lines of ” appropriate quantity and quality (form) intake of selenium” might serve as an improved substitute, but this again remains vague. Its possible improvement comes in the implicit recommendation that in any particular circumstance a nuanced and careful approach appropriate to that situation ought to be taken.

    Another consideration that I thought might have improved your initial amended proposition is some mention of the potential role of subsidiary ‘helpers’. Again, based on farming practice, it has been found that a wide variety of trace elements can be critically important in optimizing health. Given the incredible complexity of life there is so much we do not understand. One of the assumptions commonly made about organic agriculture practiced on healthy living soil is that trace elements will be beneficially broadly well represented in the plants and animals.

    Pertaining to selenium, and here I speculate, it would not surprise me to learn that a number of other trace elements if again available in suitable quantity and quality in conjunction with selenium, might provide support, even critical support, in some of selenium’s roles in the body.

    Your closing comment, that mercury-bound selenium is prevented from other tasks and benefits in the body, underlines the importance of supplying to the body an ongoing appropriate amount and quality of selenium.

    A comment on the anecdotal. Like assertions by science, an anecdote may consist of the closely observed and faithfully and accurately described, or lies and corruption. But the anecdotal may include important subtleties which are not science’s strong suit: Say, how someone feels. For example, if someone 90 years old with a chronic annoying but not typically life threatening breathing problem, on someone’s suggestion tries NAC as a supplement, and declares that with that single change they have felt better, have had more energy, more mental acuity, have been breathing better, that’s an anecdote. But it’s not science. It’s real and it’s important. I knew such a person, whose puffer found itself long underemployed, compared to previous circumstances without NAC .

    If one observes in oneself or one’s acquaintances , or if a farmer observes in one’s animals, tangible improvement in well being, from a particular change in diet or supplements to diet, that is a highly significant anecdote.

    One of my concerns is that the phrase “that’s an anecdote” easily transmutes into a put down as in “that is a mere anecdote”. I did not detect derision in your use of the term anecdote, but I am sensitive to easy dismissal of life experience, especially by those who may have an inordinate admiration for the broad conclusions derived from the proverbial ‘peering into a test tube’.

    Science is fascinating and may be helpful.

    • Thanks: Polemos
  270. Loup-Bouc says:
    @HA

    To dissuade you from spewing yet more non sequitur….

    Not “non sequitur,” but a curt way of observing that your earlier post was toxic dross.

    Your new post is worse for you, because it shows blatantly that you know nothing of medicine or human microbiology and even less of the critical particular s of the vaccines for which you advertise, as if you were one of the fake patient actors playing in a TV commercial that presses audiences to demand their physicians prescribe one of the hideously toxic unnecessary, oft-ineffective drugs the FDA approves corruptly.

    Be gone.

    • Thanks: Theophrastus
    • LOL: utu
    • Replies: @HA
  271. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Robert Snefjella

    I appreciate your earnest reply. Lacking spare time sufficient to reply adequately this evening, I shall reply properly tomorrow.

  272. HA says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    “Not ‘non sequitur,’ but a curt..”

    Curt, you say? If only. No, that rambling 700-word spew of irrelevance was anything but curt.

    “…drugs the FDA approves corruptly.”

    Again, if the FDA is your bugbear (as opposed to simply Bill Gates and Moderna/Pfizer and fake patient actors on TV commercials and whatever else is on that evidently long list of things that set you off) there are countries making COVID vaccines without FDA approval or oversight. At this point, the world’s your oyster.

    • Troll: Theophrastus
  273. utu says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    It seems the Chinese total quarantine is the answer. Not the retarded superficial lockdowns. or herd immunity.

    The strategy of virus elimination was not put on the table. A false alternative of curve flattening and herd immunity was presented.

    Only few countries went for the virus elimination strategy. Best examples: New Zealand and Taiwan.

    It is still doable for other countries: Border closures, mandatory strict quarantine of all arrivals, strict lockdown to bring down the infection rate to the level manageable by contact tracing system and then continued contact tracing until the infection rate is driven to zero.

    Elimination could be the optimal response strategy for covid-19 and other emerging pandemic diseases
    https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4907

    The New Zealand government chose an explicit elimination approach.67 Australia also has elimination of community transmission as the stated goal, but has generally described its strategy as “aggressive suppression.”8 A related strategy that also aims to achieve zero community transmission is the exclusion approach that has been successfully used by some Pacific Island countries and territories (fig 1).

    The goal of elimination is a major departure from pandemic influenza mitigation. With a mitigation goal, the response is typically to increase stringency as the pandemic progresses and for more disruptive interventions, such as school closures, to be held in reserve to flatten the peak. By contrast, the goal of elimination rapidly escalates the stringency of control measures to extinguish chains of transmission.

    Here from my May 21, 2020 comment:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/what-is-the-herd-immunity-rate-60-infected-in-3-italian-towns/#comment-3908367
    The debate was falsely framed form the very beginning. The meme of herd immunity was created very early and people liked it because it did not ask them for anything except for the sacrificing of the old folks. Blood sacrifice has a long history in gaining loyalty from participants. The meme of curve flattening came later to counteract it but only apparently. Argument was pretty much the same except it was more humanitarian as by trying to lower the pressure on the health system to be able to treat more people and presumably save more lives. When the concept of the curve flattening was introduced the unmitigated curve and the flattened curve were presented in the slide illustration where it just happened so that the areas under both curves appeared to be equal. Anybody perceptive got the message that the number of people dead will be the same except for those caused by the overwhelmed health system. A third curve with much smaller area was never presented. The third option has never a chance to enter people consciousness. It remained unknown. No media ever mentioned it. China was accused of lying and hiding reoccurring flare ups just in case if somebody thought of bringing up China as an example.

    From the very beginning people were primed and programmed that herd immunity fast way or slow way was the only way. The option of elimination was not offered and kept hidden. It was not put on the table and never taken seriously even as we were learning about Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. Even now when New Zealand eradicated virus in 49 days we still do not talk about it. WHO and CDC were undermining the faith in masks’ effectiveness and they still do. Is it because the universal mask wearing (80% of population) can stop and eradicate the virus. More effective than half -ass lockdowns we have in the US that keep as in idiot’s limbo (*).

  274. @Astuteobservor II

    With all the muting strains detected. The ones in South Africa that render vaccines 1/6 as effective = 15%.

    Citation? Because here’s what I was just able to find to refresh my memory on Janssen:

    The level of protection against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection was 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America and 57% in South Africa, 28 days post-vaccination.

    That’s for Janssen’s ambitious “best results from a single dose” huge 44,325 Phase III trial with the goal of getting at least one jab into a billion people in 2021, and they’re also trying two doses. Not sure how many participants in South Africa, that level of data hasn’t been released yet, but we can be sure it’s a fairly small fraction of the total. For Novavax: 89% in a U.K. 15,000 subject sized U.K. Phase III trial, and here I quote a lot because it’s a good discussion of the issue; also note this isn’t a Phase III trial:

    South Africa Results: Approximately 90% of COVID-19 cases attributed to South Africa escape variant

    In the South Africa Phase 2b clinical trial, 60% efficacy (95% CI: 19.9 – 80.1) for the prevention of mild, moderate and severe COVID-19 disease was observed in the 94% of the study population that was HIV-negative. Twenty-nine cases were observed in the placebo group and 15 in the vaccine group. One severe case occurred in the placebo group and all other cases were mild or moderate. The clinical trial also achieved its primary efficacy endpoint in the overall trial population, including HIV-positive and HIV-negative subjects (efficacy of 49.4%; 95% CI: 6.1 – 72.8).

    This study enrolled over 4,400 patients beginning in August 2020, with COVID-19 cases counted from September through mid-January. During this time, the triple mutant variant, which contains three critical mutations in the receptor binding domain (RBD) and multiple mutations outside the RBD, was widely circulating in South Africa. Preliminary sequencing data is available for 27 of 44 COVID-19 events; of these, 92.6% (25 out of 27 cases) were the South Africa escape variant.

    Importantly in this trial, approximately 1/3 of the patients enrolled (but not included in the primary analyses described above) were seropositive, demonstrating prior COVID-19 infection at baseline. Based on temporal epidemiology data in the region, the pre-trial infections are thought to have been caused by the original COVID-19 strain (i.e., non-variant), while the subsequent infections during the study were largely variant virus. These data suggest that prior infection with COVID-19 may not completely protect against subsequent infection by the South Africa escape variant, however, vaccination with NVX-CoV2373 provided significant protection.

    Back to you:

    So, after all the bullshit about vaccines and herd immunity, we get a mutated strain that makes vaccines useless.

    While the above data is based on small numbers of subjects, and Pfizer and Moderna’s in vitro studies also show less efficacy against the B.1.351 variant, only the less effective to begin with AZ/Oxford vaccine is being withdrawn from South Africa based on unpublished data.

    That said, it was always in the cards that a novel strain like SARS-CoV-2 might mutate into another antigenically different enough strain that totally escapes V1.0 vaccines. We’re hoping we won’t have to go through very many cycles of this, these trials aren’t yet allowing for memory B cell evolution that can perhaps get around future mutations, overall it’s a bit early to despair, which is a sin as Jerry Pournelle liked to remind us. We should, for example, be able to make and test V2.0 vaccines much more quickly, then it’s a question of production. And Novavax’s “old,” first decade of this century technology should be great for that, and the mRNA and virus vector vaccines are still early in their manufacturing learning curves.

    It seems the Chinese total quarantine is the answer. Not the retarded superficial lockdowns. or herd immunity.

    It just takes a mutation to fuck over the vaccine and herd immunity strategy. UK’s mutated strain will be 90% of all infected by late March 2021.

    The U.K. strain is believed to transmit a lot better, not clear it’s nastier except for that, and we believe it’s handled well by existing vaccines. Afraid the West’s ruling trash is not about to abandon their open borders policies, so “retarded superficial lockdowns” are still on the menu, at least where the Left is the strongest. That is, not retarded in the flyover Red state very Red area where I live.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @James Thompson
  275. @Astuteobservor II

    With all the muting strains detected. The ones in South Africa that render vaccines 1/6 as effective = 15%.

    Just came across better data, the AZ/Oxford numbers for the South African variant repeated elsewhere. Source claimed to be the Wall Street Journal, Janssen, a unit of Johnson and Johnson (J&J) had on the order of one fourth of its one jab testing done in South Africa, ~10,900 subjects, so their 57% vs. 72% US efficacy with no hospitalizations data is strong.

    AZ/Oxford ~2,000 subjects, ~10% efficacy, 19 infections with vaccine, 20 without, nothing on preventing more severe effects. Which as extensively discussed somewhere, here? is the primary goal, before stopping infection altogether, for what I would hope would be obvious reasons. Although a “leaky” vaccine has its own dangers. The table also has Novavax and AZ/Oxford efficacy results for the U.K. B.1.1.7 faster transmitting version, they’re fine.

  276. Anonymous[151] • Disclaimer says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    Citation? Because here’s what I was just able to find to refresh my memory on Janssen:

    “The level of protection against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection was 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America and 57% in South Africa, 28 days post-vaccination.”

    That’s a nonsensical argument. Surely, the South African strain he’s taking about is not the only strain present in South Africa. As a matter of fact, it seems to be a relatively new strain so I wouldn’t be surprised if other strains still infect most South Africans.

    I don’t really care about your other claims and I didn’t read your post further but that’s a serious failure of reasoning. You were rushing to get a ‘gotcha’ moment without thinking.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  277. @That Would Be Telling

    The results from South Africa seem to be being reported in an odd way, as if getting not much reduction for mild and moderate cases, but no severe cases was a bad outcome. I know that the relative youth of the volunteers complicates the analysis, but the pessimism seems overdone.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  278. Sparkon says:
    @Peripatetic Itch

    A better analogy, and much more physical, would be throwing a beach ball in a rapid-strewn river. Lots of rocks in the way but the ball will hit very few, if any, because the water carries the ball and the water always finds a way through.

    No, that’s a terribly flawed and entirely misleading analogy, which demonstrates a very poor understanding of the simple physics involved, and completely ignores the scale of the virus compared to the size and number of cotton fibers in a cotton mask.

    I mean, did you even bother looking with open eyes at those SEM images I posted above of the cotton stockinette knit and the individual cotton fiber? I see nothing looking like any river by any stretch of the imagination, so your vision must vary significantly from mine, or something.

    But I’ll play your game for a moment just to show how ridiculous it is: If a mask is a river, and the rocks in the river represent the cotton fibers in a cotton mask, then that river would be choked with rocks surrounding some little trickles of water here and there scarcely enough to even float a beach ball.

    In any event, beach balls bounce and don’t stick to anything, certainly not to rocks.

    By contrast, aerosols, droplets, and the virus itself do adhere to, and are trapped by the cotton fibers in a cotton mask. There is probably no bouncing of any kind, and probably the particles are actually drawn to the fibers by their hydrophilic and electrostatic properties.

    But there is no need for your kind of misleading analogy when the dimensions of the players are fairly well established, as I’ve taken some pains to point out above.

    It’s been established that the individual SARS-CoV-2 viruses range in size from 20 nanometers to 500 nm, or 0.02 µm – 0.5 µm, and the average diameter of the virus is about 100 nm, or 0.1 µm.

    The individual cotton fibers in a cotton mask have a diameter of about 20 µm, which is about 200x broader than the average 0.1 µm virion, virus, or viral particle.

    Again, scaling up the dimensions to help with visualization, if the virus is the size of a baseball, then each cotton fiber appears to it as a 49-foot-wide obstacle. Obviously, the spaces between each fiber are very much smaller than the fiber itself, and due to the way the fibers are assembled and twisted to make thread, any small gaps between fibers in the thread are backed up and blocked by many additional fibers in the thread.

    Recall that several dozen of the cotton fibers are twisted into fairly tight bundles to make cotton thread with a diameter on the order of 250 µm, and each cotton mask must have thousands of such threads.

    Additionally, the aerosols for the most part are not moving in a straight line, but rather are subject to Brownian motion, meaning they zig zag and dart around.

    https://biodesign.asu.edu/news/cloth-masks-are-worthy-line-defense-mitigate-covid-19-pandemic

    The fluid dynamics of air and water are much the same.

    STEM wins again.

    Yes, they are, but your analogy ignores the basic physical or STEM characteristics of both virus and cotton by using an inappropriate and flawed analogy, resulting in a failure of both STEM and logic in your case.

  279. Rdm says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    You have some basic understanding of PCR. Your argument has some merits on testing. 

    You were right about reverse transcriptase PCR. However the RT-PCR name evolved over time. Initially RT-PCR means reverse transcriptase PCR. During the period of PCR evolution, there were many modifications on existing PCR methods and another technique also developed as RT-PCR which is actually a real-time PCR because with the fluorescent probe, you can see the amplification in real time. It used to be called a real time qRT PCR. These days it’s shortened to RT-PCR to describe real time reverse transcriptase PCR. But there’s still confusion because there’s no PCR consortium.

    RT-PCR definitely is not 100% foolproof. Add an another layer of technicality into this pandemic, i.e., annealing temp, you can control the product formation. 

    Whether or not if the entire cabal at the higher up is manipulating at the temp, I’m not privileged to know the answer.  

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  280. Here is some updated news including some on vaccine from the UK.

    Brian Gerrish, Mike Robinson and David Scott with today’s UK Column News.

    https://www.ukcolumn.org/ukcolumn-news/uk-column-news-8th-february-2021

  281. Beckow says:
    @dearieme

    …It’s people in their fifties and sixties who hold the reins of power, and they’ve been frightened by a sharp reminder of their own mortality.

    People in their 50’s and 60’s are by any standard older people, by historical standards actually quite old. The weird psychological fear they have of death is partially caused by their lack of stable family lives and often a lack of descendants. It makes them feel like they are staring into an abyss with any society-wide risk – corona fits that nicely.

    They are frightened and paralyzed, but that doesn’t justify their abuse of power against the younger people. There will be reckoning for this, there always is. To call them broadly ‘Boomers’ is not strictly speaking accurate – they are the mostly elderly beneficiaries of the system they created for themselves in the last 30-40 years (global neo-liberalism) Silents, Boomers, many people in their 50’s and 60’s. Biden, Harris, Romney, Clintons, BoJo and Co. are the ultimate representatives.

    Even the self-described conservatives are part of the problem – they are equally benefitting and their conservatism is hollow, by any objective standard they are also very neo-liberal. The fact that they don’t see it is neither here nor there, people are like that.

  282. @Anonymous

    Citation? Because here’s what I was just able to find to refresh my memory on Janssen:

    “The level of protection against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection was 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America and 57% in South Africa, 28 days post-vaccination.”

    That’s a nonsensical argument. Surely, the South African strain he’s taking about is not the only strain present in South Africa. As a matter of fact, it seems to be a relatively new strain so I wouldn’t be surprised if other strains still infect most South Africans.

    It’s very common that a new variant or strain that’s more competitive becomes dominant, all but completely displacing previous ones, see flu for many well studied examples, including how H1N1 returned in 1976-7 from a presumed weapons lab vial. The prevalent South African strain during the more recent Janssen and Novavax trials has been extensively discussed, although I suppose that might have been more in iSteve topics. It’s covered in my long quote from Novavax, and going further down in the Janssen press release I linked to:

    Protection was generally consistent across race, age groups, including adults over 60 years of age (N= 13,610), and across all variants and regions studied, including South Africa where nearly all cases of COVID-19 (95%) were due to infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant from the B.1.351 lineage

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  283. HA says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    “So, after all the bullsh*t about vaccines and herd immunity, we get a mutated strain that makes vaccines useless.”

    Useless? Hardly. First of all, the COVID death toll in South Africa, the ground zero for this strain, is dropping big time. So it’s not really a gamechanger at this point. Second, the effectiveness in question refers to catching COVID. The vaccine, even for those who later catch the disease, still reduces serious complications (e.g. hospitals) and deaths and that is the primary goal.

    From the BBC:

    The trial, involving some 2,000 people, found that the vaccine offered “minimal protection” against mild and moderate cases.

    But experts are hopeful that the vaccine will still be effective at preventing severe cases…

    Health Minister Zweli Mkhize said his government would wait for further advice on how best to proceed with the AstraZeneca vaccine in light of the findings.

    Obviously, the vaccine will need to get updated at some point to target the new strains, but that already happens with the flu vaccine, which gets reformulated each flu season.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  284. @James Thompson

    The results from South Africa seem to be being reported in an odd way, as if getting not much reduction for mild and moderate cases, but no severe cases was a bad outcome.

    A “sterilizing”* vaccine is generally preferred to a “leaky” one, see the link for the outcome of a leaky vaccine for chickens being thought to be responsible for the circulating strain getting much more vicious, but given that we have every reasonable expectation updates to existing vaccines will address this for humans and COVID…. Well, the media, what we in the US call the Mainstream Media (MSM) is doing its usual thing. I go so far as to assume almost all stories start with a narrative and slot in facts or fake news!!! to fit it.

    AZ/Oxford for example is now a political football due to the EU’s procurement debacle, I assume attacking the Tories is always an agenda, and ignoring PRC vaccines is I think it is currently the “worst” of the crop that’s gotten authorization or is looking to get it soon (it’s lots better than Sanofi/GSK’s V1.0 on which the EU and likely France bet too much…). Which circling back to your point, does not make it useless for individuals and public health, especially this early in the game. And AZ/Oxford may make it generally better, for example, I just read another claim it doesn’t use a stabilized to the prefusion conformation spike protein.

    * Must always emphasize that in vaccine speak, “sterilizing” refers to the type or quality of immunity it confers in the animals for whom it works. I model is as “you will never, ever culture a virus from a human” sort of sterility, which may overstate the effectiveness, but it won’t take long at all for the body to stop in its tracks another infection from the same virus against which it was targeted, and that’s I assume that’s prior to it becoming contagious.

    Polio is an interesting example. The Sabin type live virus which is given orally thoroughly “sterilizes” the gut, critical since it’s a fecal-oral transmission route disease. This is great for public health when you’re starting to immunize a population, but it has some disadvantages for individuals. So after getting a large enough fraction covered, if your healthcare infrastructure and acceptance is good enough, you switch to the Salk type inactivated whole virus vaccine. Which only prevents an infection in the gut from causing paralysis etc. A good herd immunity example, let’s say.

  285. Anonymous[360] • Disclaimer says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    You’re right about the press release. It does state that the South African test overwhelmingly (95%) consisted of the SARS-CoV-2 variant.

    But that makes very little sense. I’ve just visited a few links about it and it looks to be only one of 13 different strains in SA, seems to be showing up mostly in coastal cities and was first discovered a month and a half ago (18th Dec). There no way that a brand new strain could reach that position in such a short period of time. South Africa is a large country with 60 million inhabitants and those other strains, which had time to spread for a year, wouldn’t just decide to retire in 6 weeks and leave the new kid on the block to explode to 95%.

    I fully understand that a more infectious strain can overtake others but that takes time. SARS-CoV-2 is certainly not being described as this insane Sci-Fi superbug which is many orders of magnitude more infectious than its competitors (or anything else for that matter). It’s main advantage was reported to be resistance to (some?) vaccines but that’s not even a factor at the moment since vaccinations are just starting.

    I guess it’s possible that they deliberately tested just smaller areas where that strain was exceptionally dominant but that’s just fishy and inconsistent with their stated goals.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  286. @HA

    But experts are hopeful that the vaccine will still be effective at preventing severe cases

    That “hopeful” just about summarises the “state of the science” as far as this pandemic goes. The experts told us early on last spring that they hoped (expected) that the summertime warmer weather would kill off the virus and it did not, experts hoped (expected) that exposing people to the virus would help achieve herd immunity and it did not, and so on it went up to hoping (expecting) that the vaccines will be useful for the various evolving strains, that they will not have significant harmful effects, that they will contain the pandemic, that ??? It’s a sad day when faith and hope are promoted in anything other than religion, let alone the sciences. Yes of course the experts can come up with lengthy treatises about why they hope (expect) whatever it is they hope (expect) but it remains that they just cannot predict long term effects of vaccines quickly prepared for a disease that has been with us for only a year, let alone strains that have been with us for only months and after the vaccines were developed. But I can deal with all that that as long as they are providing us with honest research, truthfully presented results, and no cover ups or misinterpretations of any undesirable outcomes, doing their science honestly as a scientist should and leaving all the hoping to the priests.

    • Replies: @HA
  287. Astute readers check this out. What is the reason for forcing a Q-tip into the barrier between the nasal passage and the brain? The original can be found at rense.com.

    https://odysee.com/@TruthHertz:2/onceweretheliving:9

  288. HA says:
    @Commentator Mike

    “That “hopeful” just about summarises the “state of the science” as far as this pandemic goes. The experts told us early on last spring that they hoped (expected) that the summertime warmer weather would kill off the virus and it did not, experts hoped (expected) that exposing people to the virus would help achieve herd immunity and it did not, and so on it went up to hoping (expecting) that the vaccines will be useful for the various evolving strains, that they will not have significant harmful effects, that they will contain the pandemic, that ???

    First of all, given that this is a “novel” coronavirus, some guesswork — be it wishful or otherwise — is inevitable. But overall, you’re confusing experts with COVID-denialists. The experts denied that summertime would kill off the virus even as the truthers were assuring us it would. The experts were the ones who made Boris Johnson reverse course on his herd immunity approach, even while coronavirus denialists kept claiming herd immunity had already been attained.

    Finally, the “hope” with regard to coronavirus’s death toll being reduced by the vaccine even for those who catch it more than several weeks after vaccination is complete (i.e. when their antibodies have been given enough time to build up) comes from actual field work. It is similar to what we have seen with the flu vaccine which also reduces the chance of dying even for those who get the flu after being fully vaccinated. It’s still a preliminary result, and if you want, you can wait for the peer-reviewed edition, but it’s far less wishful thinking than the corona-truthers have been feeding us.

  289. Is the test for covid19 implanting a mechanical operating system? Before you answer, watch this. The original is found at rense.com.
    https://odysee.com/@TruthHertz:2/onceweretheliving:9

  290. @HA

    First of all, given that this is a “novel” coronavirus, some guesswork — be it wishful or otherwise — is inevitable.

    True, but when it comes to playing with people’s lives, and especially lives of the masses, I’d like to see guesswork, wishful thinking and hope minimised, and the experts being as truthful as possible.

    But there are experts, that is well qualified and experienced medics and scientists, on both (or all) sides of the argument – we do get posters and commenters linking many of these. There have even been some highly reputable virologists completely denying the existence of Covid-19. That’s what makes it difficult for a layman to get to the bottom of this to make sound decisions.

    • Agree: Rdm
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  291. Rdm says:
    @HA

    I would say whether or not Trump achieved something of significance during his era, it always will be debatable. One thing for sure Trump certainly made the imprint on the current state of the information age is his ardent use of the word “fake news”.

    As the old cliché goes, no news is good news. In fact, no news is better than fake news.

    But in 21st century, MSM need continual supply of fodder to sustain their existence. This kind of phenomenon is not only happening in media, it’s also prevalent in academic publishing as well.

    I’d rather see “No pub is better than fake pubs.”

    There is a milieu of fabricated publications. If you want a pub that say 1+1 makes 3, there’s one available for you in pubmed.

    A reasonable sane person with some hesitancy to take on 6 months old vaccine will be instantly shut down as “Anti-Vaxxers”. It’s like if you’re White, you can’t say anything of suggestions. If anything that goes beyond a gray zone, you’re instantly shut down as “racist.”

    So fake news and racist, what can you say?

  292. @Commentator Mike

    One of the tells for expertise in a topic is the ability to accurately predict future events.

    Those who from day one, explained this as primarily a political/economic operation to destroy the societies of the West and create a global (initially western) technocratic oligarchy have pretty much batted 1000. Start with James’s Corbett’s outrageous, at the time of the early days of panic just 12 months or so ago, claims that Jobs, religious freedom, all civil rights would be destroyed, personal tracking , travel at the whim of the State, dependency on Govt handout ubiquitous, vaccine documenting passports would be acceptable etc etc.

    When I got the flu, I took some ivermectin for 2 days and was fine.None of my Family Doctor, the people at the test clinic nor the two people from “Covid Maryland” who I separately spoke with could tell me the cycle threshold of the RT-PCR test that told them I had the plague.

    This is, of course all about the money.

    When I bought my Ivermectin from Amazon on April 7th it cost me $12 for 2. Now $13.66

    https://www.amazon.com/s?k=duramectin&i=sporting&ref=nb_sb_noss_1

    I should have gone to Tractor Supply Store
    https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/search/ivermectin?

    $3.99 a pop.

    I was Robbed!

    • Agree: Polite Derelict
    • Thanks: Commentator Mike
    • Replies: @Polite Derelict
  293. @TRM

    TRM, they don’t want a cure. They want a source of loot, a possible population reduction vector as the virus ‘mutates’ and, increasingly obviously, a casus belli for war on China. The increase in deranged Rightist ideological and racialist hate-mongers spreading the lie that SARS CoV2 was created by the Chinese as a bioweapon then inflicted, deliberately, on the world, is staggering and frightening, but hardly surprising. The Western elite ‘Gods Upon the Earth’ (the real creators of this virus)will happily destroy humanity to prevent China becoming the de facto leading power on the planet.

  294. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Robert Snefjella

    You wrote [all ellipses mine, wrought only to minimize this comment’s length]:

    …it is…apparent that farm animals can live in health, security, and indeed a condition that offers the animals much comfort and enjoyment, even happiness. To see healthy animals sometimes frolicking, daily enthusiastically eating good food, sunning themselves when possible…is satisfying also for the farmer.

    …animals…can thrive, given sensible arrangements, and…help create an abundant and beautiful environment.

    In nature, animals are subject to various tribulations. Though I have high regard for all species, I have witnessed raven and hawk disemboweling living screaming barnyard fowl, and I can admire the weasel even as it leaves a trail of ‘mass murder’ of chickens in the chicken house. Many is the animal that has frantically sought my aid in seeking relief from swarms of summer insects.

    In the end, all animals die. The good farmer attempts to make the transition from life to death for his animals a completely painless and trauma free one. ***

    Without intending insult, I must observe that you delude yourself to avoid confronting the wrong of conduct. I deluded myself so for much of about 58 of my 80 years. Hence, I empathize with you.

    I urge that you grasp two matters:
    * (1) All “animal husbandry” is slavery —even that of ranchers who do not pen-in their slaves, even that of foresters who claim they “work for the benefit” of beasts, even when they “cull” them — even if the slavers believe, truly, that their intent is benign.
    * (2) “Animal husbandry” manifests the worst of humans’ ignorance or arrogance and greed.

    [MORE]

    Though such matters may seem irrelevant to the subject of James Thompson’s article Vaccination Side Effects, ultimately such matters are relevant. The phony-pandemic “excuses” the “lock-down” enslavement of The People and the vaccines will further that enslavement. The vaccines were tested on enslaved non-human animals. The whole problem is the arrogance of slavery and unnecessarily causing suffering and death of “others” — any but self or another (a spouse, one’s child…..) one identifies, even arrogantly, with self.

    When I was 7 years old, I found myself a captive of two old, arrogant, greedy farmers (a married couple), to whom state government gave me as a foster-child, after earlier (in my 6th year) my parents consigned my sister and me to an orphanage.

    I witnessed the two farmers’ abuse, and enslavement, of their old farm-horse and their slaughter of their chickens and pigs — and felt their abuse of me and two other foster-children, in my case, the abuse being physically violent). Until I saw the farm-beasts being slaughtered and sometimes their flesh sitting cooked on the kitchen table, I had not apprehended that “steak” and “bacon” and “chicken meat were parts of enslaved and slaughtered non-human beasts. Soon, still a 7-years-old child, I vowed to become a vegetarian.

    A year later — when I was 8 — the State returned my sister and me to our parents, who, at least metaphorically, treated my sister and me as their animal slaves, whom they disciplined, for our “own good,” oft- violently. I did not achieve any of my vegetarianism-goal until I was 13, because my parents forced me to eat flesh. Sometimes I puked it up. Often I wept.

    When I was 13, I “ran away” from “home” and lived, briefly, “on the street” — until a kindly southern Italian immigrant family took me into its home. The mamma and papa Ferrizzi housed me and showed me love and tenderness. They did not force me to eat flesh. But, still, at that time, I had not appreciated that fishes and reptiles feel fear and pain, including the pain of enslavement. Fish were “different.” So, I ate fishes. Not until I was 67 did I apprehend, totally, my cruel, arrogant, greedy error.

    When I was 23, I worked on a Swiss farm 7 months. I furthered my familiarity with “kind-hearted” “animal husbandry” — dairy farming. I witnessed infant male bovines sold to slaughter.

    When I was 47, I visited the Monterey California aquarium — long each of 3 days. I stared at the many sea-creatures swimming in huge mostly-glass-walled cages. My emotional goal was to determine which fishes were “like” me. The matter was, I thought, one of empathy. How could I feel empathy for a creature with whom I could not identify at all. I would spare only those my arrogance gifted the “like me” label — eat any of the rest.

    In my 66th year, I confronted the idiocy of my arrogance, and I determined not to eat, enslave, or harm otherwise any creature capable of feeling physical or psychic pain. I confronted also my “lesser included evil” excuse of wearing leather shoes and permitting my life to excuse other leather objects, if the leather was skin of animals killed “anyway” for food. I was “righteous” because I did not were or use furs of animals killed only for their pelts.

    Appreciating, at last, the arrogant greedy fraud of my excuses, I ceased purchasing leather products. [I chose not to trash the leather shoes I had already bought — for trashing them would treat animals as garbage.] Also, I ceased buying things that included wool or any other such stuff, despite some herders may not kill — with their own hands — any of their flock. Herding is enslaving. Much earlier, I had ceased buying or using any product (even medical products) produced partly with use of animal experiments.

    I confronted, completely, the arrogant, greedy fraud of my continuing to eat flesh of creatures that were not “like me.” I researched the matter. Slowly, I culled from my list of “not-like-me” creatures the beings — like crab, lobster, octopus, and squid — I found capable of felling pain. I “discovered” that lobsters feel pain more and worse than humans do and that the octopus may be more intelligent and psychic-pain-sensitive than humans.

    I determined that I must not eat any creatures but (a) bi-valve molluscs, jellyfish, sea urchin eggs [I continue to reconsider sea urchin eggs.] and (b) wild salmon. Eventually, I encountered a source that confirmed my earlier-researched determination: Minding Joel P. MacClellan, Minding Nature: A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics (2012), https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2643&context=utk_graddiss&httpsredir=1&referer

    I eat eggs marketed only by an Oregon farm that merely has chickens on its land, does not kill them, “cull” them, feed them, deprive them of roosters. The chickens and roosters live and die as they would in primitive nature, receiving from the farmers only the shelter of hen-houses. The farmers do not interfere, at all, in the chickens or roosters lives. They take only about half the eggs the chickens lay, fewer than would not become chicks in the wild.

    I eat no sharks or other similar invertebrate fishes (e.g., rays, skates). Wild salmon is only vertebrate fish I eat. Why do I eat wild salmon?

    When wild salmon swim back to the water in which they were born, water where they will spawn, many are killed brutally by bear, wolves, otters……. If they survive long enough to reach the spawning water and “mate” and lay eggs, they die a slow, horrible death, taking a week or longer. They disintegrate to death while suffering ever-increasing excruciating pain. So, if a man catches a wild salmon, which never was enslaved and always lived the life of its nature, never enslaved, the salmon dies a death far kinder than it would naturally.

    Wild salmon supply “available” omega 3 fatty acids more than does any other food. Meat, bird-eggs, dairy, and vegetable-food do not bear any “available” omega 3 fatty acid — the 20.5 n-3 (EPA), 22.5 n-3 (DPA), and 22.6 n-3 (DHA) fatty acids — but only ALA omega 3. I know of no other fish that supplies such fatty acid much as wild salmon does. ALA omega 3 fatty acids are available only if the body converts them, and the conversion-rate is 0.2% to 8%. Unconverted ALA fatty acid can be toxic, even carcinogenic.

    Recall: you said you

    have witnessed raven and hawk disemboweling living screaming barnyard fowl, and…[a] weasel…[leaving] a trail of ‘mass murder’ of chickens….

    Ravens, hawks, and weasels are genetically programmed to act as they do. They CANNOT act otherwise — in the wild, where they are not enslaved by a human who may condition them to alter their behaviors or deprive them of environment in which they can act according to their natures.

    But humans are NOT genetically programmed to enslave, torture, and kill other creatures, except “in self defense,” TRULY in “self defense.” Humans can choose not to enslave, torture, or kill other creatures — to let other creatures follow their natures without any human interference, except for self defense. I a human does not chose so, the human acts per ignorant lack of empathy or per evil arrogant greed, psychopathically.

  295. @That Would Be Telling

    Dear I-does it not seem a better idea to prevent sero-conversion to CoViD 19 and possible serious disease, then just fiddle one’s fingers and count the vaccine profits and wait until the victim is seriously ill? That some do not, at present, present to medical care until quite sick, is NO argument against providing cheap, effective and safe medication to those who do, or are tested and prove positive. And then there is prophylaxis and pre-exposure medication, too. We all know the real reason for the propaganda jihad against ivermectin and HCQ-they represent an end to the pandemic, are cheap, entirely safe and highly effective, all outcomes that the powers that be do not want.

  296. @Dave Bowman

    Thanks. No offence taken. I must be more concise.

  297. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Robert Snefjella

    As I clicked on the “Publish Comment” button, I saw a bad typing error marring the final sentence of my comment of February 9, 2021 at 12:18 am GMT, https://www.unz.com/jthompson/vaccination-side-effects/#comment-4457809

    My above-referenced comment replied to your comment to which this comment, too, replies. My above-referenced comment’s final sentence was:

    February 9, 2021 at 12:18 am GMT

    The first word, “I,” ought to be “If.” Hence the sentence ought to be:

    If a human does not chose so, the human acts per ignorant lack of empathy or per evil arrogant greed, psychopathically.

  298. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Robert Snefjella

    Because of my current professional workload, I lack spare time enough to proofread the following text. I type badly and commit tying errors more than seldom. I apologize now for any tying error that may mar the following text.

    =========

    In my comment of February 9, 2021 at 12:18 am GMT (comment # 305), https://www.unz.com/jthompson/vaccination-side-effects/#comment-4457809
    I put the reason (and history) of my becoming a nearly pure vegetarian. Other than noting that my comment responded to your comment in which you discussed humanity’s, and your, treatment of non-human beasts, to explain, partly, why the matter was not irrelevant to the subject of James Thompson’s article Vaccination Side Effects, I wrote:

    The phony-pandemic “excuses” the “lock-down” enslavement of The People and the vaccines will further that enslavement. The vaccines were tested on enslaved non-human animals. The whole problem is the arrogance of slavery and unnecessarily causing suffering and death of “others” — any but self or another (a spouse, one’s child…..) one identifies, even arrogantly, with self.

    I neglected to put another index of the relevance of the matter, an index this comment addresses.

    Diet is a major cause, arguably the dominant cause, of a human’s being susceptible to SARS Cov-2 infection (Covid-19). Near-all humans’ diets impair immunity, except to encourage autoimmune disease. Even most vegetarian diets, especially vegan diet, fail to support, or even impair, immunity.

    The vegan diet is unhealthful (though not much as a meat-centered diet) because it does not provide adequate vitamin B12, vitamin D3, or available Omega 3 fatty acids, and vitamin B12 supplements are toxic (partly because they contain a form of cyanide, that, contrary to idiotic vegan claims, is not harmless.)

    Other vegetarian diets and the “Macrobiotic” diet suffer vegan diet’s deficiencies and imbalances. The “Macrobiotic” diet and all vegetarian diets, including the vegan diet, suffer chemical imbalances, especially, but not only, too much phosphorus, calcium, and ALA omega 3 fatty acid, not-infrequently too much potassium, too much water, too little sulfur and sodium, and a somewhat imbalanced amino acid constellation.

    Meat-centered diets lack adequate chlorophyll and dietary fiber and bear a toxic/carcinogenic chemical structure that, among else, impairs immunity and encourages autoimmune disease, a structure of too much phosphorus, too much water, too little sulfur, much too little available omega 3 fatty acid, too much ALA omega 3 fatty acid, and a markedly unhealthful amino acid constellation. Meat-centered diets are unhealthful and anti-immune for other reasons. But I will not express more defects, so that this comment will not stretch very long.

    Surely, genetic structure is a vital consideration. But many heath-threatening genetic predispositions submit to suppression with right diet.

    Also important is physical activity (or its insufficiency or unhealthfulness) — even sexual activity and its quality much as its frequency, psychic-inducement-type, and object-individual(s). But non-sexual physical activity significantly less important — much less than is diet.

    I use the term diet to denote not only the food and drink of post-infancy humans, but also the nutrition supplied infants, including, even especially, the milk or pseudo-milk (“baby formula”) infants are fed.

    Huge considerations are (a) whether the infant is fed human breast-milk, (b) whether the breast is the biological mother’s,(c) the duration of breast-feeding, and (b) the diet(s) and health-status-details of the breast-milk’s source-woman or source women. The milk cannot supply the infant nutrients the source’s body cannot deliver, or avoid delivering into the infant troublous chemistries the source’s body bears and may deliver in its breast-milk. And if the infant is fed “baby formula,” the infant is fed inadequate nutrition and much and some toxin or deleterious matter.

    Adequate breast-milk-supplied nutrition includes not only the right constellation and quantities of vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, carbohydrates, and amino acids. Also it involves certain chemistries not present in foodstuffs post-infancy humans tend to consume. One critically vital chemical chemistry is a certain fatty acid compound’s bi-product that the infant’s body converts, by synthesis, to a compound that immunizes the infant against most viruses (even HIV), most gram positive bacterial pathogens, some Re mutant gram negative bacterial pathogens.

    As the infant ages, the infant’s body synthesizes the compound less and less. In adolescence, the body synthesizes little of the compound. Adult bodies synthesize very little or none. The compound is harmless — except it may exacerbate acid reflux if dosage is very large. So, it can be very useful diet supplement. [But see below.]

    The compound (a) attaches to and enters virus-targeted host cells and destroys the targeting virus’s protective envelope hence “kills” the virus (and revents its replicating) and (b) interferes with epithelial cell production of pro-inflammatory cytokines that attract CD4 T cells into tissues.

    The compound bears one specially remarkable quality. Unlike allopathic antibiotics, it does not kill lactobacilli, which, in the intestines, constitute perhaps the most vital aspect of the immune system and which supply the liver part of the chemistry needed for production of bile.

    I shall not identify the compound. Fools will try to use it as a “magic bullet, despite the compound’s efficacy depends partly on the subject-human’s internal holistic environment and whole diet. I prescribe the compound only as part of a thorough diet-prescription and, in some cases, also a prescription of certain Chinese medicine herbs to of which were markedly effective against the SARS epidemic of November 2002-mid-2004. And I will supply a patient such prescription only if I believe the patient will adhere to the diet diligently.

    Of all the considerations put above, the most important is diet, and the very most important is that a meat-centered diet is worst. Also, one errs troublously if one acts on the (false) premise that all vegetable foods are good or that none is bad.

    Examples: (a) Most vegans and other vegetarians belive that kale is “the king of vegetables” and that one must consume much kale very regularly. But kale is bad, because it is acid-forming and bears hugely too much phosphorus. (b) Most believe all “standard” fruits — like apples and pears — are good. But apples and pears bear too much fructose, which can cause cardiovascular disease and participate in causing certain cancers, like pancreatic or prostatic cancer.

    Still, these matters deserve emphasis: A meat-centered diet is the worst — worse still if it involves much dairy; for, meat-and-dairy-centered diet is a substantial part of the cause of immunity-deficiency that explains many viral infections (and many bacterial and fungal infections, too). Hence, humans cannot justify meat-eating, animal husbandry, and enslavement, torture, and slaughter of non-human beasts.

    • Replies: @Robert Snefjella
  299. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Rdm

    Your reply puts critically debatable PCR-test-supportive assertions. You are too nice to PCR, which suffers flaws you seem to disregard, flaws not dissolved by your comment’s assertions.

    My previous comment did not observe all of the PCR test insufficiencies/unreliability-aspects. The PCR test’s unreliability is greater than I outlined earlier and much greater than your comment admits or tries to vanish.

    But I have posted quite enough long comments on this thread. So, I shall not observe, on this thread, any more of the deficiencies of PCR testing. Interested, skeptical individuals can research the matter themselves and draw independent conclusions.

    Global Research is among fair choices, but even there some articles are significantly suspect for at least seeming to support the interests of pharmaceuticals firms and Establishment-entities that have used the phony pandemic for wealth-increase and populace-control — and have injured greatly the interests of The People.

    Still, I thank you for the tone of your reply.

    • Replies: @Rdm
  300. @Anonymous

    You’re right about the press release. It does state that the South African test overwhelmingly (95%) consisted of the SARS-CoV-2 variant.

    But that makes very little sense. I’ve just visited a few links about it and it looks to be only one of 13 different strains in SA, seems to be showing up mostly in coastal cities and was first discovered a month and a half ago (18th Dec). There no way that a brand new strain could reach that position in such a short period of time.

    I just remembered that only the U.K. is making a Maximum Effort to sequence virus samples, so it’s entirely possible the South African variant was circulating before it was discovered on December 18th. How methodically are they gathering and sequencing samples?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  301. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Rdm

    I decided that my previous reply was somewhat dismissive. So, here appears a bit of substance.

    You wrote:

    …with the fluorescent probe, you can see the amplification in real time.

    If you amplified a RT-PRC result until the particle-sizes were quite macroscopic, still the result could not enable conclusive or even compelling determination whether the genetic material shards were fragments of live SARS Cov-2, long dead SARS-CoV-2, or of a corona virus other than SARS-CoV-2.

    Below are corroborations of the immediately preceding paragraph of this comment and of much of the content of my comment of February 8, 2021 at 1:19 am GMT (comment # 276), https://www.unz.com/jthompson/vaccination-side-effects/#comment-4455946

    (1) https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pcr-test-does-not-identify-the-virus-covid-false-positives-used-to-justify-the-lockdown-and-closure-of-the-national-economy/5735395?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
    [observing sundry deficiencies of RT-PCR testing, including most of those I observed in my comment # 276 [February 8, 2021 at 1:19 am GMT], referenced supra

    (2) https://www.rt.com/news/499944-coronavirus-test-dead-false-positive-exaggerate-pandemic/
    [observing the problem that RT-PCR testing does not reliably distinguish live virus genetic material from material of dead viruses]

    (3) https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-rt-pcr-how-to-mislead-all-humanity-using-a-test-to-lock-down-society/5728483
    [supporting RT-PCR testing somewhat, but cautioning that RT-PCR results, themselves alone, cannot be reliable bases of diagnosis and that RT-PCR results must be treated as adjuncts of other evidence, including clinical examination results, because, e.g.,
    * (a) no RT-PCR test-result can prove “contagiousness” or “infection,” even if amplification reaches 60 cycles
    * (b) the RT-PCR test cannot measure the “the amount of virus in the sample” (a deficiency of other test-types, also)
    * (c) an RT-PCR test may not detect live virus but gene fragments that are remnants of old infection
    * (d) the more the amplification, the greater the chance that the result will suggest falsely the presence of infection/contagion (“A virologist at the University of California admits that an RT-PCR test with a Ct greater than 35 is too sensitive”), but if amplification is relatively low, either false positive or false negative will be a risk
    * (e) a “positive” RT-PCR result shows only the presence of traces of “the desired element,” and such showing cannot prove actual infection (either current or past infection).

    One must note that recently my position was partly ratified by an error-acknowledgment of the World Health Organization [“WHO”], which had propagated the phony pandemic with RT-PCR testing it had touted as sufficient proof of infection. The WHO said:

    Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.

    AND

    Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

    I admit my skin feels itchy and slimy as I consider that I referenced the contemnible WHO. But the WHO’s error-acknowledgment parallels, approximately, a dying murderer’s confession that he had asserted falsely that an innocent woman committed the murder that actually he (the dying man) had committed.

    • Thanks: Theophrastus
    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Theophrastus
  302. Anonymous[299] • Disclaimer says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    Who knows, but it’s safe to say that the strain would have spread to other countries with better monitoring long before reaching 95% in SA (and then tracked back to its origin).

  303. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    I neglected to provide a link that opens the WHO document that bears the WHO statements I quoted. Here is the link: https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05

    I need to cure a significant typing error of my comment of February 8, 2021 at 1:19 am GMT (comment # 276), https://www.unz.com/jthompson/vaccination-side-effects/#comment-4455946

    In that comment, one sentence was “True antibody testing is the most reliable, because of, e.g., cross-immunity, multiple mutation, and erratic mutation patterns.” I failed to type into that sentence a word that was part of my thought that induced my typing that sentence. The untyped word was “except.” The sentence ought to be “”True antibody testing is the most reliable, except because of, e.g., cross-immunity, multiple mutation, and erratic mutation patterns.”

  304. @Loup-Bouc

    Dear Dr Loup-Bouc,

    I cannot thank you enough for the enormous wealth of information you have provided within these comments. I have, in fact, copied your comments to keep as reference. The information you provide is the only reason I keep visiting this tawdry article.

    I would very much like to see a full article of yours about this, top-billed here on Unz.

    Again, I cannot thank you enough. Best wishes to you.

    Note to trolls: None of what I wrote above is sarcasm; I meant every word exactly.

    • Thanks: Loup-Bouc
    • Replies: @Polemos
  305. Polemos says:
    @Theophrastus

    I ran out of Agrees, but it’s a good opportunity to say that Loup-Bouc is a genuinely beautiful person whose irascible and grumpy demeanor, especially with people who otherwise seem to agree with him and support viewpoints closely aligned (so it seems from the outside!) with his, makes so much sense the more of his personal history and evolution one reads as he reveals it. I’m sure even this much coming from me is going to be wrong from his perspective, but how he expresses his universal love for what lives and dies is his to work out and mine to miscategorize.

    Very few people have the consistency of character and principles that Loup-Bouc expects from himself and from us, so naturally we chaotic good PCs fail. He’s a Lawful Good Paladin in a fallen and chaotic world full of true neutral animals worth letting be, chaotic neutral monsters worth ignoring altogether, and very few lawful neutral moderators willing to give him the space — not just for one article, but a recurring series?

    But it would be a pearls before swine thing in the end. This is not his calling nor his professions. It’s still worth it to know this planet harbors such people, beautiful and tedious, sublime and all too human, making and owning his errors while keen in cutting relentlessly on our own. We are all better for at least once provoking one of our finest. Not everyone wants to look directly into the particle beam accelerator and see how vague and lazy and unsure our thinking really is in its fundamentals, not even some judges.

    • Thanks: Theophrastus
    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  306. @That Would Be Telling

    For your edification, as well as that of all other amateurs, Dr Claus Köhnlein, MD.

    “PCR Pandemic: Interview with Virus Mania’s Dr Claus Köhnlein”

    YouTube
    ————

    BitChute
    ———–

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  307. @HA

    HA would you mind giving a source for your claim, that the flu vaccines work?

    (I know of one Californian meta-study, cited in the German Arzneimitteltelegramm, which claims that there’d be a 4% reduction of the death rate amongst those vaccinated who caught the flu vs. such people without the flu-shot. – 4 % death rate reduction would be a lot, I assume.)

    • Replies: @HA
  308. @Loup-Bouc

    Each of us is in a unique circumstance. Unlike you, I lucked into a mother with an abundance of good qualities, but she herself had been abused and abandoned by her mother and abandoned by her father. She lucked into the care of two good grandparents.

    As a newborn, my condition was such that it was assumed that I would not survive, but I am told that someone suggested trying to feed me small amounts of raw eggs and this had immediate benefit. In my twenties, in pursuit of better health, I fasted for seventeen days, taking in only water and tiny bits of lemon juice, honey and garlic. When it seemed time to end the fast, my ‘inner voice’ advised raw eggs. The fast was greatly beneficial.

    I am not recommending this to anyone else, but merely reporting on my experience.

    Even short fasts for me have had the merit of making me more sensitive, more intuitive, in regard to what is particularly needed, both in terms of avoidance and engagement.

    Kale has little appeal to me but much appeal to some. It has the important merit of doing well in our northern latitude at colder temperatures. The animals are crazy for it.

    In rougher-country farming, where some of the land cannot be cultivated, one of the great benefits of judiciously grazing animals in the rough places is that fertility via manure from those places can then be transferred into cultivated areas, helping those areas flourish. This was especially helpful in my circumstance, where the farm’s cultivated fields had been seriously run down in fertility.

    Not everyone of course can rely upon wild salmon. But if one observes in one’s particular situation that animals, plants and children and adults are for the very most part thriving, the basis of that success, whatever the particulars, ought I think to merit respect.

    I have found your earnest contributions both interesting and helpful.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  309. @TheTrumanShow

    For your edification, as well as that of all other amateurs, Dr Claus Köhnlein, MD.

    “PCR Pandemic: Interview with Virus Mania’s Dr Claus Köhnlein”

    Based on the videos’ titles I don’t give a damn, because the only case related statistics I pay attention to are hospital capacity and all cause mortality, precisely because there’s no fudging them. Beds are occupied or not, people died in excess of previous years or not. Although if this MD is claiming RT-PCR is useless in the clinical context, as part of a doctor’s differential diagnosis of an individual presenting with COVID-19 symptoms….

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
    • Troll: Theophrastus
  310. Rdm says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    I think you and I are on the same page regarding the testing. In fact, majority of your concerns are in line with what I have been saying, CDC statistics and truthful reporting in several clinical journals. However I’m not in the camp of Bill Gates’ devious plan of planting tracking devices in vaccine voodoo theory. Just to clarify further, I DO NOT believe what Unz claims that the virus was originally seeded by American athletes in China back in 2019 either.

    If you have perused my comments way above, you’d see I raised the concerns on covid death counts reporting. Nowhere in history had CDC ever used the covid-procedure to count deaths. In every death certificate, there’s a cause effect. For Covid, they changed the rules. Even the patient with gun shot wound death would be counted as Covid death if he was tested positive. The statistics was already skewed.

    I asked James in earlier thread rhetorically “Would he report a cat or a dog?” scenario. In one of James’ articles on vaccine development timeline, I talked about the disaster of “Thalidomide”.

    This is not to downplay the importance of science and how far we have progressed under scientific methods. This is just simply the application of logics and the calculation over cost and reward effect.

    I talked about the altruism displayed by Pfizer CEO when he said he did not want to cut in line for vaccine while instantly sold millions of shares once $PFE ticked up to $45 from $30 in Nov 2020. Lo and behold he was 59 years old. If the entire planet is on a pandemic disaster, as a sane person, would you rather get the vaccine or some paper certificates from Wall Street?

    The same can be said for Moderna CEO who also sold millions of shares. I agree there’s nothing wrong with one’s own options and RSUs selling when an opportunity arises. But there’s something fishy going on when one doesn’t want to take the vaccine that’s supposed to curtail the contagion of the viral infection which is again also very severe in older people.

    If you know how vaccine was developed in the lab, purity of vaccine by chromatography, you’d realize how cheap it is just to spare 100ul of vaccine on its very CEO.

    For what it’s worth, maybe I’m wrong about this pandemic.

    I’m not worried about the continual existence of our species either stupid or brilliant. What I’m seeing is the progressive decay of the scientific methods in front of our very own eyes while we mere mortals argue over which reviewers to choose and which journals to send to at least to talk about something.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Loup-Bouc
  311. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Rdm

    Well said. And I appreciate your integrity.

    Since James Thompson’s article’s focus was vaccine and its “side-effects,” I did not put comments directly concerning the gravely unscientific (even fraudulent) infection-and-death counts, I have done so under other Unz Review articles. I addressed RT-PCR testing only because @HA put stupid and misleading assertions concerning RT-PCR tests; and I wanted to trash @HA’s dreck.

    A U.S. Senator died yesterday or two days ago. Allegedly he was SARS-CoV-2 infected; and the prestitutes claimed Covid-19 killed him (was the cause of death). But he had lung cancer.

    I did not encounter a report that indicated whether the cancer was small cell, non-small-cell, carcinoid, or a cystic carcinoma; but reports did suggest that the cancer was end-stage or “terminal” ( a cancer he was “fighting” for a long time). So, very likely the cancer was end-stage or “terminal,” and near-certainly he suffered other serious physiological ills that typically associate with end-stage cancer of the lung.

    If the alleged SARS-CoV-2 positive diagnosis rested solely or near-wholly on an RT-PCR test, the SARS-CoV-2 positive diagnosis was questionable. But even if he was SARS-CoV-2 infected, surely the true cause-of-death was end-stage lung cancer complicated by sundry associated physiological ills — the synergistic effect of which must have been a lethal systemic breakdown that made SARS-CoV-2 infection analogous to a pimple — not a proximate cause-of-death.

    Cheers.

    • Thanks: Theophrastus
    • Replies: @HA
  312. HA says:
    @Dieter Kief

    “HA would you mind giving a source for your claim, that the flu vaccines work?”

    Some years they do pretty badly:

    https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectiveness-studies.htm

    and that might be the best we’re going to get with coronavirus for all anyone knows at this point. But again, flu patients who previously received a vaccine have better survival rates.

    • Thanks: Dieter Kief
  313. @James Thompson

    “Total world deaths as of today 2,311,000.”

    1) How many of those were “from” as opposed to “with”?
    2) How many people die each year from any cause?
    3) How many mRNA vaccines have ever been given to the public before the Pfizer and Moderna ones?

    Answers:

    1) No one knows, but probably less than half.
    2) 70-80 million
    3) zero

    • Agree: stevennonemaker88
  314. @Bill Jones

    “Those who from day one, explained this as primarily a political/economic operation to destroy the societies of the West and create a global (initially western) technocratic oligarchy have pretty much batted 1000.”

    And conversely, those who (like Thompson and Sailer) continue to take the official Covid narrative at face value should be mocked and ridiculed.

  315. HA says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    “put stupid and misleading assertions concerning RT-PCR tests”

    My exact words were “PCR test that helps determine if you have COVID”. There is nothing remotely controversial in that for anyone who isn’t already on the verge of a conniption and I did not realize it would trigger yet another tirade of logorrhea and paranoia. Again, the word I used was “helps determine”, as in they happen to be one indicator that is commonly considered when assessing whether someone has COVID. I nowhere claimed the tests were infallible, and no one as far as I know claims they are free of false positives. And yet, regardless of how much their usage agitates or agonizes you, they have become common references with regard to whether someone has “tested positive for COVID” despite their limitations and cautionary drawbacks. So do try and take all that in without losing it to yet another bout of outrage, is that really so much to ask?

    The only reason I brought them up in the first place was because the comment I was replying claimed that it would be somehow miraculous if the Pfizer vaccine stopped “people from actually becoming ‘infected’ or testing positive at all“, at which point I needed to distinguish saliva tests from antibody tests (given that receiving a vaccine might indeed subsequently lead to failing an antibody test) and also put some clinical connection to what is meant by “becoming ‘infected’”. Again, nothing there for anyone to be particularly upset about.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  316. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Robert Snefjella

    As often before, I lack spare time enough to proofread. So I must apologize now for any typing error(s).

    Your comments suggest you have a good heart. So, I shall just observe that your fasting and raw eggs ideas are unfortunate and eschew commenting on any but one particular of your comment to which this note replies.

    [MORE]

    You wrote:

    Not everyone of course can rely upon wild salmon.

    Wild salmon is rather expensive. It does not find its way to to many food-stores in the East, Midwest, South, or even in the West to the east of Idaho and far-western Montana (and not in Utah or much of Nevada, except in “upscale” stores. Farmed Atlantic Salmon and even farmed British Columbia farmed Chinook and Coho have taken over much of the salmon market. But so what?

    From my 27th year until my 31st year, then from my 38th year until my 42 year, I underwent a grueling Orgonomic psychotherapy with a world-famous psychiatrist, Dr. H. — world famous because his therapeutic method actually worked (partly because of his special, nearly unique personal competence). The total actual visit-period was about 5 & 1/3 years.

    Dr. H’s most common therapeutic statement (other than certain action directions) was “shut up, and do it.” In my case, another not-infrequent similar statement was a sarcastic “Oh, poor, poor little Loup-Bouc: Does he want his mommy?

    In 2013, a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter interviewed Dr. H. During the interview, Dr. H recalled his time of undergoing training therapy, which lasted three years. He had to drive from Philadelphia to northern Maine and back once every 10 days. At the time, the Interstate Highway system did not exist. Winters, he had to drive up the old US1 and on even worse Maine roads in snow, ice-storms, hard rain, and deep cold. His workload required he drive straight through, near-non-stop, each way.

    The reporter asked Dr. H how he could bear that ordeal. Dr. H replied (and this is a verbatim quote): “If a patient won’t endure such ordeal, he doesn’t deserve therapy.”

    Was Dr. H heartless, cruel, an unempathic prick? I have not known anyone else good, generous, loving, empathic, caring — or professionally effective — as Dr. H, except my current wife. Dr. H’s points were: (a) One must become a beast to be healthy, and a beast must do or die. (b) Psychic illness does not disintegrate without the patient’s engaging in grueling work, indefatigably.

    DH Lawrence wrote a poem that fits here; and I shall offer my slightly edited form of it:

    I have never seen a wild creature sorry for itself.
    I have seen birds freeze on boughs and tumble dead
    never having felt self-pity.

    An indigenous American tribe (perhaps Mohawk) lived by this assertion, which was partly metaphoric:

    I do not care for whether you say you love your child or even for whether you provide your child superb food & fine clothing & a beautiful room & excellent, costly education.
    I care for whether if you are suffering pneumonia & a 104 F degree temperature & great pain, still you will rise from your bed & hold & kiss your crying child & sing it a lullaby & rock it to sleep.

    My point (which I put to many of my patients)? If you really want health (including psychic health), you must do whatever is necessary, as if you were a beast of the wilderness. So, if wild salmon and the right diet and lifestyle do not gift themselves to you, you must struggle and spend whatever you must — and shut up and do it.

    More than once, I have been very money-poor. I bankrupted once. In an odd way, I thank my poverty — and my parents’ cruelty and my 13-year-old self’s ordeal of living on the street. For, the experience was my first lesson of the need of being a beast.

    For some years I lived in Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. I paid to have wild Pacific salmon packed in dry ice and flown to me from Alaska. To do so, I had to renounce more than a few other things I could not purchase for having to pay the cost of the salmon. Boo hoo.

    If America is actually suffering a special epidemic (rather than just another flu), the salient reasons are (a) incompetence of the U.S. allopathic medical community, (b) the personal-life laziness and stupidity of most Americans, (c) bad diet and dependence on allopathic medicines (especially antibiotics, which destroy a third of the immune system, and vaccines), and (d) submitting to lockdowns, mask-mandates, 6-feet “social distancing” and the bullshit of Fauci and the CDC (so called “Center for Disease Control,” which could be renamed Corruption Depot Central).

    I wish you health and happiness.

  317. Loup-Bouc says:
    @HA

    Perhaps I can save you trouble or anxiety. Two days ago, when I posted comment # 280, I determined never again to respond to your comments.

    So, please know that you are wasting your effort. I have not read your comment to which this note relates. Only did I notice that you addressed some blather to me.

  318. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Rdm

    Have I inferred correctly that you are a physician? If so (maybe even if not so), you may be aware that in the U.S., Medicare is among the substantial sources of false SARS-CoV-2 infection and Covid-19 death “statistics,” because of a provision of the CARE Act. That CARE Act provision awards “health care providers” a 20% additional payment in cases the provider claims to be Covid-19 cases.

    You may know that Medicare fraud was rampant before the birth of the phony Covid-19 “pandemic.” So, you may not be amazed by the fact that CARE Act related Medicare fraud (false 20% extra payment claims) are rampant, too. Since alleged symptomatic Covid-19 infections and alleged Covid-19 deaths occur most among those having Medicare coverage, you will not be amazed by the fact that the CARE Act, Medicare, and crooked “health care providers” have coalesced to invent many thousands of Covid-19 infections and Covid-19 deaths.

    • Agree: Theophrastus
  319. HA says:

    “Perhaps I can save you trouble or anxiety.”

    My anxiety, you say? I’m not the one outraged over what Bill Gates or the shareholders of Moderna/Pfizer or the FDA are doing. You clearly are. As far as I’m concerned, there’s plenty of opportunities right now with regard to vaccines that allow you to avoid all of them, and I have no problem with that.

    That being the case, perhaps you should address your own anxiety before allaying mine. Mote/beam, and whatnot. Rest well.

    • Troll: Theophrastus
  320. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Polemos

    Astounding. I do not reference the (shall-I-say?) “compliments” you voiced concerning me. I reference you — as you manifest in your comment.

    Read my comment of February 10, 2021 at 11:07 pm GMT (comment # 327), https://www.unz.com/jthompson/vaccination-side-effects/#comment-4461880
    You will meet a bit of the history of a psychotherapy I experienced.

    If you appreciate that history, you ought not be amazed by learning that because of that therapy, I do not care a wit for whatever anyone thinks of me (except my wife). So, your “compliments” do not cause me to feel flattered, ego-petted, or praiseworthy. My wizened feathers are not puffed. Your comment suggests that some time substantially earlier (before the publication of the article addressed on this comments-thread), you may have apprehended that aspect of me, at least subliminally.

    Your comment is astounding for reason having little or no relation to this weird old creature, an empathic curmudgeon-beast.

    (a) Your comment is remarkably well written.

    (b) Your comment shows you bear a very unusual capacity of perceiving the textures of the meshes of another human’s character-structure, deep motives, tendencies of intention, and (dare I say?) heart.

    (c) Your comment demonstrates near-palpably, that instilled in you, likely much self-instilled in you, are some of the noblest values humans have manifested, alas only few humans.

    I appreciate immensely your language “…making and owning his errors while keen in cutting relentlessly on our own.” I taught law-students 27 years, often summers, not just two semesters annually — a total of about 8,000 class-sessions. In all those sessions, I committed just two errors — which I did not apprehend until after the closes of the two class-sessions in which they occurred. I could not bear waiting for the next class-session, when I could confess my error and cure it. Each of the two times, my confession and cure were the class-session’s first two events.

    How could I not have committed more errors? I am excruciatingly punctilious (and for that reason have been an object of curt criticism). But truth obtains quite in details — details of investigation and analysis, details of criticism, deconstruction, falsification, reconstruction, details of further criticism, deconstruction, reconstruction…… As you have noted, I demand the same of everyone else, the same punctiliousness, the same need of confessing and curing error.

    If you read my other comment referenced above in this note — that comment’s spare history of my psychotherapy — you will see that I am a beast who does or dies. Just so, for that reason too, my quasi-religion is punctiliousness, which I demand of myself and all others (except my wife).

    You wrote:

    …Loup-Bouc is a genuinely beautiful person whose irascible and grumpy demeanor, especially with people who otherwise seem to agree with him and support viewpoints closely aligned (so it seems from the outside!)….

    If others “seem to agree with” me but I treat their seeming agreement with “irascible and grumpy” language, the reason is that the matter is not whether another agrees with me, but whether the other’s proposition’s every detail is sound, in itself and in how it relates to every other detail of the proposition. I demand no less of myself and feel great psychic pain if I fail that requirement; and I clamber to cure my failure. I demand the same of all others (except my wife).

    Be strong, happy, and healthy, Polemos. I appreciate the fact of your special existence, which is some reason for my not slipping utterly into misanthropy.

    • Replies: @Polemos
  321. dux.ie says:

    Flash! France has pushed the earliest SARS2Cov2 seropositive results to 2019-11-04, earlier than the seropositive and PCR results from Milan, and 50 days earlier than the PCR results from Wuhan. That is what I was looking for, pushing earliest results towards the direction to Spain, the potential detectable original source of SARS2Cov2, the real original source could be Philippines or the previous French IndoChina but they are with little test data.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00716-2
    Evidence of early circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in France: findings from the population-based “CONSTANCES” cohort

    Using serum samples routinely collected in 9144 adults from a French general population-based cohort, we identified 353 participants with a positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test, among whom 13 were sampled between November 2019 and January 2020 and were confirmed by neutralizing antibodies testing. Investigations in 11 of these participants revealed experience of symptoms possibly related to a SARS-CoV-2 infection or situations at risk of potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure. This suggests early circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in Europe.

    all positive ELISA-S were confirmed by SN testing, and the specificity of SN was estimated at 100% over thousands of blood donors sampled in 2017–2018 when samples with a titer ≥ 40 were considered to be positive

    • Thanks: Brás Cubas
  322. Clyde says:
    @Bert

    Great anti-Covid info on iodine. I take Lugol’s iodine in 2-3 ounces of apple juice first thing every morning. Do this on an empty stomach and eat drink nothing for at least 15 minutes. Good US source is ebay. Get the 7% Lugol’s and carefully……start with one drop in the apple juice for a few days. I am 136 pounds so adjust accordingly for your weight
    3 drops of 7% Lugols maximum for my weight
    Do your Lugol’s research it is easy to find

    https://www.lugols.com/calculating.html
    Chart for how many mg iodine in a drop of Lugols

  323. Steven80 says:
    @RoatanBill

    There were several Germans that offerred money for this: 100 tsd euro (see https://corona-transition.org/die-coronavirus-wette-100-000-eur-fur-virusbeweis)
    and there was another one, I can’t find the link now , but he was offerring 40 tsd euro. It seems no one can claim it …
    It’s funny to watch how those people offerring the money start being attacked – the guy with the 100K was declared a homophobe almost immediately 🙂

    • Thanks: RoatanBill
  324. Chinaman says:
    @dux.ie

    Thank you, dux.ie! It is great to have you back.

    I have been telling everyone here about your research but no one wants to hear it because they are too fixated on blaming China for lab leaks and eating bats. Your research contradicts their political narrative…or pet conspiracy theories.

    Someone (Iris) was telling me that phylogenetic networks don’t work.

    I am surprise to hear about viernam connection since they have COVID pretty well controlled here. They are geograpichally close to Yuanan caves which is where RatG13 was found but if that’s the case, it would have been in the wild for some time given the genetic distance.

    Thank you for bringing light to the darkness on Unz. I appreciate your work very much.

    • Replies: @dux.ie
  325. Chinaman says:
    @dux.ie

    What do you think of the latest WHO “findings” In Wuhan?

    They didn’t find anything of course but were you able to “read something between their lines” In their report?

    The Chinese found the courage to ask for an WHO investigation of the United States. Just political or do you think they know something?

  326. Chinaman says:
    @dux.ie

    all positive ELISA-S were confirmed by SN testing, and the specificity of SN was estimated at 100% over thousands of blood donors sampled in 2017–2018 when samples with a titer ≥ 40 were considered to be positive

    Can you break it down in layman terms for all of us? How does the specificity of SN(?) Relates to the false positives rate and What is the significance of the 2017-18 reference?

    So is this is the live virus and not an indirect antibodies reactivity test so unequivocally proof it was in Europe way before Wuhan? I hope they sequence it and put it on nexstrain, would be the oldest 19B strain?

  327. Loup-Bouc says:
    @roonaldo

    Thank you again for reminding me that the study was conducted by Arpad Pusztai.

    I found a bit of spare time and looked through my records. I found the GE potato studies, plural, or perhaps one ought say “several sub-studies within one major study.”

    One study, or sub-study, was was reported as this:
    Stanley W B Ewen, Arpad Pusztai, “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine,” THE LANCET • Vol 354 • October 16, 1999.

    That study is available online to those who have The Lancet accounts. The online publication is here: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(98)05860-7.pdf
    But one cannot see more than the abstract unless one has a The Lancet account. Since I have a The Lancet account, I opened the study and re-read it. Again, I found the study and its findings unassailable.

    In my previous comment’s reference, I observed:

    The FDA’s approval, support, and advocacy of genetically engineered food [“GE food”] — FDA actions that conflicted seriously with its own experts warnings not to approve such “foods” and with numerous studies (like that of a Hungarian scientist whose name I cannot recall) who proved, with lab-rats, that GE potatoes’ nutritional value was hugely inferior to that of either conventional or organic potatoes. That scientist’s proof was irrefutable .So, his character was attacked and patently bogus “scientific” challenges were substituted for legitimate questions.

    One pseudo-“scientific” challenge was that the potato study was invalid because the GE-potato-fed rats were malnourished because their diet lacked sufficient protein. But if the protein -deficiency assertion was true, the reason must have been that the GE potatoes did not supply enough protein — but less than the protein quantity supplied by conventional and organic potatoes. All rats were fed only potatoes and all the same quantity of potatoes (quantity measured by weight).

    In the above-cited study’s report, this appears:

    All potato diets were isocaloric and contained an average of 6% protein.

    See my comment of February 6, 2021 at 5:43 pm GMT (comment # 241), https://www.unz.com/jthompson/vaccination-side-effects/#comment-4453419

    One must conclude that the above-abstracted “pseudo-‘scientific’ challenge” disregarded the key necessary inference.

    Since all “potato diets were isocaloric and contained an average of 6% protein,” the GE-potato-fed rats were deprived of sufficient protein quite because, unlike the non-GE-potatoes (i.e., conventional or organic potatoes), the GE potato’s protein was significantly inferior because the GE potato
    (a) bore a poor constellation of amino acids
    or
    (b) failed to supply sufficient taurine (an amino sulfonic acid) or over-supplied it
    or
    (c) rendered its protein in a general nutrition context or bound its proteins to other chemical compounds that prevented adequate assimilation or metabolism needed to satisfy the rats’ systemic biochemical/physiological protein-requirements
    or
    (a) and (b)
    or
    (b) and (c)
    or (a) and (c)
    or
    (a), (b), and (c)
    or because protein-quality, taurine quantity, or protein or taurine assimilation or metabolism was affected deleteriously by the GE potato’s expressing a snowdrop lectin, Galanthus nivalis agglutinin [“GNA”], under the CaMV35s promoter (introduced to increase insect and nematode resistance).

    That is: either the gene-splicing process itself or the GNA-insertion (i) altered deleteriously the GE potato’s amino acid structure, assimilability, or metabolism, or (ii) diminished, eliminated, or oversupplied taurine, or (iii) both (i) and (ii).

    • Thanks: roonaldo
  328. Loup-Bouc says:
    @roonaldo

    Cure of ambiguity of my comment of February 11, 2021 at 9:27 pm GMT (comment # 339), https://www.unz.com/jthompson/vaccination-side-effects/#comment-4463771

    In my above-referenced comment, this language appears:

    (c) rendered its protein in a general nutrition context or bound its proteins to other chemical compounds that prevented adequate assimilation or metabolism needed to satisfy the rats’ systemic biochemical/physiological protein-requirements

    The phrase “general nutrition context” ought to be “general intra-potato nutrition context.” The point is the whole nutrition environment within the potato.

  329. Loup-Bouc says:
    @dux.ie

    Thank you for the information. It is not surprising. See these:

    https://www.darkdaily.com/studies-finding-remnants-of-sars-cov-2-in-sewage-suggest-covid-19-may-not-have-originated-at-wuhan-market-some-scientists-dispute-the-findings/

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-science/coronavirus-traces-found-in-march-2019-sewage-sample-spanish-study-shows-idUSKBN23X2HQ

    https://theconversation.com/was-coronavirus-really-in-europe-in-march-2019-141582

    I recall reading, but could not find with a cursory search, two news-articles that reported evidence that a SARS-CoV-2-infection case occurred in Los Angeles California a couple months before the first reported Wuhan case. Perhaps you read at least one such article.

  330. @That Would Be Telling

    This is what Master Thompson has just submitted to:

    https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/covid19-rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-disease-1503.pdf

    Since the cult of experts often attempts to denigrate such citations, note well that the author is a well-established immunologist, which neither you nor Master Thompson are.

    By all means, keep shilling for this substance that is not a vaccine; I’m sure someone will bring you flowers. And please keep placing your faith in the sweaty little hands of the Fauci mobster and appropriately-named Master Handcock; we shall ask you about that fervent faith in a year or two.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  331. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Theophrastus

    Thank you for referencing J. Bart Classen, MD, “COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease” [hereinafter referenced as “Classen”], https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/covid19-rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-disease-1503.pdf

    Classen’s thinking is at least preliminarily sound, insofar as Classen treats solely the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. But Classen dilutes his thinking’s influence (and may deny it any credibility) where he mixes into his article the suggestion that SARS-CoV-2 and also mRNA vaccines are bioweapons deriving from laboratory activities begun in the U.S. and perhaps continuing still in the U.S.

    I do not deny that SARS-CoV-2 may be a bioweapon. I acknowledge that some competent evidence suggests that the virus was created in a laboratory — whether for “legitimate” research purposes or to be available as a bioweapon.

    But the bioweapon-suggesting evidence has not been quite sufficient; and some such evidence has been vanished by the Deep State and the internet tech companies. And the immediately vital matter is just whether the mRNA vaccines threaten serious harm, a matter that does not depend on whether bioweaponry is involved.

    • Thanks: Theophrastus
    • Replies: @Theophrastus
    , @dearieme
  332. HA says:

    “This is what Master Thompson has just submitted to…[risk that mRNA vaccines could lead to prion disease]…”

    Which RNA sequences are found in the vaccine that are not found in the virus itself? Even if the risks outlined in your link are real, how is it that the odds of the vaccine leading to prion disease are not significantly larger for those who have the actual virus replicating (and mis-replicating) within them?

    [MORE]

    And if the risk is indeed real, is the prion-disease-risk in a vaccine equal to, say, eating 10 burgers (or cups of venison stew)? A thousand?

    The paper also claims that:

    the virus causing COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, is a bioweapon and it is possible that the viral spike protein may have been designed to cause prion disease.…[OK, I guess — this is evidently one of THOSE papers]…Genetic diversity protects species from mass casualties caused by infectious agents. One individual may be killed by a virus while another may have no ill effects from the same virus. By placing the identical receptor, the spike protein, on cells of everyone in a population, the genetic diversity for at least one potential receptor disappears. Everyone in the population now becomes potentially susceptible to binding with the same infectious agent.

    I’m not sure what any of that has to do with prion disease, and even if that’s true, we remain — despite the same potential receptor — genetically diverse in myriads of other ways so that this hypothetical infectious agent will still have to be creative in killing everyone. And he’s saying that the spike protein in the live virus is less dangerous because it is genetically diverse — i.e. he’s trying to have it both ways. If genetic diversity is better for the host, and makes them harder to kill, that would imply that the genetic diversity present in the live virus (and whatever diverse spike proteins it puts onto the host cells) make that virus more resilient as well, and harder to knock out. So again, it seems as if the threat from the spike proteins that the genetically diverse virus puts into us should concern us far more than the genetically identical spike proteins from the vaccine. What am I missing?

    Regardless, if anyone believes that COVID was designed to cause prion disease, it seems that would mean that getting vaccinated (so as build up antibodies that take the virus out) is that much more important. Especially since as mentioned before, there are versions of the vaccine that do not rely on messenger RNA.

    I’ll leave it to the more qualified to answer any of these questions, but to the extent that Moderna/Pfizer need to do more to address any concerns about this, I would think that going with one of the non mRNA competitors sends that message pretty well and allows one to dodge both the Scylla and Charybdis, however remote either one might be.

    So it seems in the end that all this paper is doing is urging people to opt for the J&J or Sputnik vaccine. That being the case, you’re not really in a position to criticize shilling. Is the author being funded from Moscow or J&J headquarters, by any chance?

  333. @Loup-Bouc

    “And the immediately vital matter is just whether the mRNA vaccines threaten serious harm, a matter that does not depend on whether bioweaponry is involved.”

    I couldn’t agree more; whether it is a bioweapon or not is irrelevant; the real point is whether introducing exogenous mRNA is a bad idea. It certainly seems to me that the covid narrative is made-to-order literally to push such a substance into the hapless.

    And if that’s the case, then one wouldn’t need an actual virus, weaponised or not, to push people to take the jab; it would suffice simply to present the threat of one. Thus, I wonder if the virus-as-weapon possibility is part of controlled opposition: get the minnows to swarm around this possible origin, thus cloaking its actual purpose in broad daylight.

    It fairly reeks of chutzpah.

    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @HA
  334. @HA

    Shilling does not require external funding: one might just believe the narrative and wish to promulgate it, to justify one’s belief.

    By all means, please submit to whichever “vaccine” you choose.

    In any case, as Dr Loup-Bouc has already said so well to you: “Perhaps I can save you trouble…I determined never again to respond to your comments.”

    • Replies: @HA
  335. Loup-Bouc says:
    @Theophrastus

    You wrote:

    …I wonder if the virus-as-weapon possibility is part of controlled opposition: get the minnows to swarm around this possible origin, thus cloaking its actual purpose in broad daylight.

    Good point, friend.

  336. HA says:
    @Theophrastus

    “Shilling does not require external funding: one might just believe the narrative…”

    Shilling requires neither external funding nor belief. The point remains: whatever justification you have for accusing others of doing that applies to you as well.

    Hypocrisy is not a winning look.

    • LOL: Theophrastus
  337. dux.ie says:
    @Chinaman

    >Someone (Iris) was telling me that phylogenetic networks don’t work.

    It depends. However there are problems with how people (simpleton) interpreted the most popular Nextstrain phylo tree. I have no time to go into the tech detail just that it is OK to use the Wuhan sample as the “reference” but it cannot be interpreted that as the “origin”. The nextstrain genetic phylo tree is basically an “Unrooted” phylo tree and they should labeled it as such like other credible researchers. The requirement of “rooted” phylo tree,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree#Rooted_tree
    The most common method for rooting trees is (1) the use of an uncontroversial outgroup—close enough to allow inference from trait data or (2) molecular sequencing, but far enough to be a clear outgroup.

    RATG13 is 1,200 mutations away from SARSCov2 and thus it is not a credible outgroup. The tMRCA I previously cited and in the chart above is the molecular sequencing clock and that proved that the “reference node” is not the “root origin node”. So there is nothing to stand on.

    The most direct way to disprove the mistaken “origin” is thru genetic which I dont have time to do now. Basically genetically Nextstrain Clade 19B should be older than Clade 19A which contains the Wuhan reference, as shown in the equivalent genuine GISAID clade phylo tree and Nextstrain got them the other way round. Note now Nextstrain stops showing the genetic phylo tree and only show the timed phylo tree and clade 19A still comes before clade 19B in time but they are not so genetically.

    • Replies: @Chinaman
  338. @Loup-Bouc

    The word pig is misused as a synonym for ‘dirty messy greedy’ or as a derogatory reference to the police. They are actually, as the RT article noted, intelligent and resourceful. Far cleaner than their reputation, if given half a chance they will dispose of their own waste in a tidy manner, not just anywhere. The pig can be fascinating to observe, and more interesting than many people to chat with. The pig’s tail and voice combine as active communicators of mood. Even a busy farmer may succumb to its request for a back scratch.

  339. @HA

    I’ll leave it to the more qualified to answer any of these questions, but to the extent that Moderna/Pfizer need to do more to address any concerns about this, I would think that going with one of the non mRNA competitors sends that message pretty well and allows one to dodge both the Scylla and Charybdis, however remote either one might be.

    So it seems in the end that all this paper is doing is urging people to opt for the J&J or Sputnik vaccine. That being the case, you’re not really in a position to criticize shilling. Is the author being funded from Moscow or J&J headquarters, by any chance?

    Nope, the virus vector vaccines including AZ/Oxford’s also do exactly the same thing as the mRNA ones, they’re all means to the end of getting some mRNA to be transcribed into copies of the spike protein inside cells (there’s another obvious step required there). And there should be no reason why the spike protein plus adjuvant vaccines like Novavax, Medicago/GSK and Sanofi/GSK would avoid this posited problem, seeing as how simple ingestion of prions can cause disease.

    But based on my limited knowledge of prion disease, no coronavirus spike protein has a chance of causing prion disease. For that, you need masses of identical except for being properly folded normal proteins for a prion to induce its misfolding onto them in a cascade. Hence your point “And if the risk is indeed real, is the prion-disease-risk in a vaccine equal to, say, eating 10 burgers (or cups of venison stew)? A thousand?” Except you might need to ingest CNS tissues for the classic bad outcome.

    The people who don’t seem to understand any of this need to demonstrate how this can even begin to happen with stabilized vaccine spike proteins, which we must note are not identical to the wild type virus protein with its two conformations. Unless some protein folding experts are credibly raising an alarm I think they can be summarily dismissed like all other idea salad alarmists who show they don’t know the very basics of the biology about which they’re screaming blood murder. Like all the ones who don’t understand DNA->mRNA->proteins.

    • Thanks: HA
    • Replies: @HA
    , @utu
    , @Loup-Bouc
  340. HA says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    “And there should be no reason why the spike protein plus adjuvant vaccines like Novavax, Medicago/GSK and Sanofi/GSK would avoid this posited problem, seeing as how simple ingestion of prions can cause disease.”

    And that being the case, it still seems that actually coming down with COVID and thereby having actual live virus multiplying inside you is significantly more problematic (however miniscule the risk is for any single spike protein), which is an argument in favor of getting any of the vaccines. I guess in that sense, the passages about the supposed dangers of the lack of genetic diversity in the mRNA induced spikes was an attempt on the author’s part to patch that hole in his argument, but as noted, it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  341. dearieme says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    A bio-weapon that is ineffective against fit young men of military age but highly effective against fat, ill geezers? The inventor should be fired immediately.

  342. @HA

    [Vaccines better than infection] (however miniscule the risk is for any single spike protein), which is an argument in favor of getting any of the vaccines. I guess in that sense, the passages about the supposed dangers of the lack of genetic diversity in the mRNA induced spikes was an attempt on the author’s part to patch that hole in his argument, but as noted, it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

    If you’re right about people saying the latter, then they’ve grasped a bit about prion diseases which I realize I edited out the clear explanation of in my reply:

    They work with identical proteins in terms of amino acid sequences, thus the point about mutations, although some fraction of those might not make a difference. A prion is a misfolded protein, that when in direct contact with another identical in sequence but properly folded protein induces it to misfold in the same way. Which then cascades through all the other individual proteins touching each other. Or I suppose if they’re far enough apart, enough circulating misfolded proteins could cause bad effects.

    So the focus on vaccine monoclonal spike proteins is a cope, ignoring for example how coronaviruses are the best of all RNA viruses at limiting mutations, but of course they still do mutate. But there’s still a great leap in going from spike proteins in any conformation causing prion type misfolding damage to other unrelated proteins.

    Maybe it’s theoretically possible, but again as you note you’re almost certainly better with a vaccine exposure for this posited cause of harm than an infection where the number of cells hijacked is not inherently limited. Since mRNA and replication deficient virus vector vaccines hijack a fixed set of cells, they can’t cause other cells to join the game of making spike proteins, and protein and inactivated whole virus vaccines also have very finite doses. And again, anyone who spouts such an ideal salad without including all other COVID-19 vaccines except the Russian Vector Institute one, especially the people who are absolutely fixated on mRNA vaccines, show they have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about.

    • Thanks: HA
    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
  343. No well informed person in their right mind would willingly subject themselves to any of the experimental compounds that have been concocted for various pernicious or despicable purposes in the wake of the COVID-19 declared but non-existent pandemic.

    The pandemic was declared in March long before there were actual signs of a widespread deadly new disease. The declaration was on par with declaring a mouse a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

    There is still no sign of a pandemic.

    Early there were many indications that nefarious ambitious agendas were being implemented on a grand scale.

    So, for example, former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown emerged from relative obscurity (and incidentally, while it is not fair to disparage someone’s appearance, to me he had the appearance of a ghoul risen from a casket) in March 2o20 to offer salvation for humanity in the war against the (non-existent but declared) pandemic: world government and new vaccines.

    The relentless attempt to ignore, censor or demonize effective inexpensive protocols, and to prevent doctors from utilizing these for the health problems associated with this declared-to-be new nebulous pathogen, also gave away the game.

    In addition, there was a near complete absence in mass media and from health officials of reference to known ways of strengthening one’s immune system. Absurdities abounded. In our local county, with much fear mongering about COVID-19 chronically presented by health officials, some health genius did manage to identify what in their minds constituted the biggest health problem faced here: systemic racism.

    One could go on and on pertaining to evidence that the COVID-19 operation has relied on incredible degrees of dishonesty, censorship, intimidation and cruelty. It has served greed and political agendas associated with boundless elite depravity and dysfunction. It has caused a massive destruction of lives and small businesses, impaired mental and physical health, and has caused a huge increase in indebtedness for many.

    And all this was to be prelude and spur to convincing a large part of humanity to accept or even embrace a new technology capable of who knows what pernicious effect being injected into them in order to make the nightmare/disruption to life go away.

    But as always, there are blessings. People by the millions have been rescued from the tyranny of old habits, the treadmill of business as usual. Countless millions have had time and incentive to gain a better understanding of things, and a clearer sense of priorities.

    • Agree: Theophrastus
  344. utu says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    You guys are way behind what the sharpest minds have already discovered about that vaccine:

    From Mike Whitney:

    https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/covid-vaccine-the-nightmare-scenario/#comment-4463750
    The body is now primed so that the next time the person catches a cold, or any coronavirus, the body’s first line of defense has already been compromised by the mRNA cocktail, which means the body’s second line of defense will kick in hard. This produces a cytokine storm in the body and the person gets very sick, and maybe dies.

    This, of course, is the beauty of the plan. It will be the virus that is blamed for the sickness and not the mRNA cocktail, which means that every year people will be desperately lining up to take the very poison that is the root cause of the problem – the mRNA cocktail euphemistically called a vaccine. We will then have a situation where large parts of the population will be culled and the remainder will be held in thrall. Alongside this, of course, will the steady implementation of even more draconian totalitarianism, all in the name of fighting the common cold.”

  345. I had not read the following piece when I posted my comment #355 above.

    Link to an important, informed, helpful contribution to the subject that Ron Unz should consider republishing, in my opinion.

    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/02/11/the-mark-of-the-beast-2/

  346. @utu

    You guys are way behind what the sharpest minds have already discovered about that vaccine:

    From Mike Whitney:

    Oh, yes, the idea salad guy at the extreme end of Unz.com COVID-19 contributor craziness. For example, the latest I’ve heard from a source I can’t remember the reliability of is that the “cytokine storm” than the NIH treatment recommendations trivially quell with a steroid is from the true first line of defense, the innate immune system who’s remit is keeping you alive until the adaptive immune system can learn and then do its thing.

    Per that source (the NIH bit is from the Merck Manual plus is generally known, part of standard of care for many months) says the virus outfoxes enough of the innate immune system (but still in a very small fraction of those who get it!!) and that results in the innate immune system trying that much harder to wipe it out. Because all four of these “systems” are multi-component, that’s one reason they’re called systems.

    But you left out the very best part of that comment, “which is hard for us non-science people to grasp.” Like that’s going to stop him from pontificating. OMG, the guy he’s quoting thinks cellular immunity, which is part of the adaptive immune system, is the first line of defense! Humoral is the antibody mediated other part of the adaptive immune system.

    Also, how can Mr. Whitney know “This process has actually taken place in animal tests (ferrets) that were given mRNA injections. The ferrets died. All of them.” Is this genocidal cabal, which ranges from the US (Janssen, Moderna and Pfizer) to the U.K. (AZ and Oxford) to Sweden (AZ) to Germany (BioNTech and CureVac) to RUSSIA!!! (Gamaleya (Sputnik-V)), that’s all the pretty far along “active” vaccine entities who’s vaccines result in mRNA resulting in “this spike protein being pumped into people’s bloodstreams” (left unexplained is how the protein exits the hijacked cells except when they die or are killed), going to be that open in publishing their intermediate bioweapons work?

    That’s one reason I lean to the lab accident of a gain of function research project explanation, bioweapons researchers don’t publish their offensive work in scientific journals!!!

    Yes, we all should bow to the intellectual [fill in the blank] of the latest thinking from these guys.

    • Agree: utu
    • Troll: Theophrastus
  347. Loup-Bouc says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    You ought to have said nothing more than this

    based on my limited knowledge of prion disease

    followed by “I shall not presume to comment on the matter.” But, alas, you could not constrian yourself and, so, gifted readers more or your pseudo-scientific word salad.

    • Agree: Theophrastus
  348. Loup-Bouc says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    More pseudo-scientific word salad.

    • Replies: @utu
  349. HA says:
    @Meimou

    “Are you shills going to respond to this or not?”

    Pointless ad hominems about being a shill notwithstanding, here goes. From your link:

    “IF YOU WOULD NOT TEST ANYMORE, CORONA WOULD DISAPPEAR”

    And yet, excess death studies — which the corona truthers were the first to highlight back before the spikes started happening — which do not rely on PCR tests or whether COVID appeared on coroners’ cause-of-death reports, show that something is indeed killing off people, in excess of what can be explained by other “usual suspects” when it comes to tallying causes of the vast majority of non-violent death (from heart disease down to Alzheimers), and that just happens to be roughly equal to the stated COVID death toll (even after factoring out all the excess associated with the lockdowns themselves, though there’s some uncertainty there as well, at least with regard to suicide).

    [MORE]

    That tells us that the “motorcycle-accident-deaths” incorrectly ascribed to COVID (the truthers love to make hay of that one) and the deaths in nursing homes that never even got a PCR test (call them type I and type II errors, by way of analogy) to some extent cancel each other out.

    In other words, something is causing that anomalous bump in death. and it’s roughly in line with the official death toll (i.e. even if it’s off by 20-30%, which wouldn’t surprise me, that’s still a lot of excess death to account for). If the truthers had a way to convincingly pin the blame for that on the lockdowns or the “hysteria”, they’d have done a better job of it. They didn’t. In fact, when these so-called deadly lockdowns were eased around summertime, the deaths just kept rising, even though many truthers were assuring us that heat and humidity would kill off the virus, or that we were “almost at herd immunity” or whatever other straw they were grasping at. So I’m left with the suspicion that it’s NOT the lockdowns causing all that excess death toll despite what the truthers were telling us.

    I’m not saying the official story lacks for holes. It’s a moving target after all, and it takes years of haggling before the dust sort of settles into something that sort of makes sense and even then epidemiologists will keep arguing (recently, there was a report saying that the 2009 flu epidemic undercounted deaths by a factor of 10, and that was over a decade ago). But overall, it holds more water than the narrative the conspiracy theorists are feeding us.

    • Troll: Theophrastus
  350. @That Would Be Telling

    Made one error in my Fisking, “the guy he’s quoting thinks cellular immunity, which is part of the adaptive immune system, is the first line of defense!” Cellular immunity includes components of both the innate immune system like natural killer cells which attack cells that are under stress, and the adaptive immune system like at least some T cells. Evidently T cells in general are not yet entirely understood (yep, four decades later still not regretting learning about the immune system on an as needed basis; the more we look, the more complicated it is).

  351. utu says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    pseudo-scientific word salad? That’s exactly impression I got from going through J Bart Classen papers. The latest of them

    COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease
    https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/covid19-rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-disease-1503.pdf

    The journals he publishes are the 3rd world bottom feeders set up to crank up publication numbers for those who are unpublishable.

  352. utu says:
    @utu

    What do we know about J Bart Classen?

    President Trump Challenged by Immunologist J. Bart Classen, MD of Classen Immunotherapies to Stop Dangerous Vaccine Policies (Jun 29, 2017)
    https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/president-trump-challenged-by-immunologist-j-bart-classen-md-of-classen-immunotherapies-to-stop-dangerous-vaccine-policies-300481652.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Bart_Classen
    John Barthelow Classen is an American immunologist and anti-vaccinationist.

    Classen proposes that vaccines cause diabetes by causing the release of interferons, causing an autoimmune state leading to immune-mediated type 1 diabetes,[5] and he is quoted on many anti-vaccine websites, such as that of the National Vaccine Information Center.

  353. HA says:
    @Theophrastus

    “I couldn’t agree more; whether it is a bioweapon or not is irrelevant…”

    And yet, you posted a paper in which the vaccine’s use as a bioweapon is a key argument. Hmmm.

    “the real point is whether introducing exogenous mRNA is a bad idea.”

    And tell us, what do you think that viruses wind up doing? Do they introduce any exogenous genetic material into our bodies, and is that genetic hijacking fine with you? Irrelevant or not, the paper you yourself introduced into the discussion claims the virus in question was specifically formulated as a bioweapon. Would that not indicate an even greater urgency to get it under control?

    Again, I’m not claiming there are no holes in the standard narrative. But if this Swiss cheese of a takedown is the alternative, well, it’s no wonder the truthers are dismissed as loons. I mean, talk about word salads.

    But hey, when your head is too full of conspiracy theories to actually come up with a genuine counter-argument, there’s always that “Troll” button, am I right? Who needs to use his brain when he has that going for him?

    • Replies: @HA
  354. HA says:
    @HA

    “Classen proposes that vaccines cause diabetes by causing the release of interferons,”

    Well, it just so happens there’s this:

    A COVID-19 infection can cause a lot of serious, sometimes lingering health problems, like lung damage, kidney damage and ongoing heart issues. Lately, research has suggested [COVID] may also cause the sudden onset of insulin-dependent diabetes.

    Boy, that’s gotta sting — somehow, a real-life virus managed to scoop his own loony anti-vaxx conspiracy theory.

  355. @utu

    Note I make a distinction between word and idea salads, and am only accusing some of doing the latter, that is jumbling together a bunch of ideas that don’t fit together, no matter how correctly they are expressed in the English language.

    pseudo-scientific word salad? That’s exactly impression I got from going through J Bart Classen papers. The latest of them

    COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease
    https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/covid19-rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-disease-1503.pdf

    Well, this paper doesn’t scream “BULLS***!!!” like the postings of Mr Whitney. It’s got some very bad smells when for instance it attempts guilt by association like:

    The fact that this research, which could be used for bioweapons development, is funded by private organizations including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Ellison Medical Foundation [2] without national/international oversight is also a concern. In the past, for example, there were prohibitions for publishing information pertaining to construction of nuclear bombs.

    [2] is a real paper albeit published by Elsevier (the very worst and sometimes very sketchy of the science journal publishers). But the claim is utter garbage, we just don’t do things that way (but perhaps should, see gain of function research!) and that’s not exactly how nuclear weapons secrets were protected, except for the born secret concept which is a purely national policy. And this is the ending paragraph:

    Many have raised the warning that the current epidemic of COVID-19 is actually the result of an bioweapons attack released in part by individuals in the United States government [10,11]. Such a theory is not far fetched given that the 2001 anthrax attack in the US originated at Fort Detrick, a US army bioweapon facility. Because the FBI’s anthrax investigation was closed against the advice of the lead FBI agent in the case, there are likely conspirators still working in the US government. In such a scenario the primary focus of stopping a bioweapons attack must be to apprehend the conspirators or the attacks will never cease. Approving a vaccine, utilizing novel RNA technology without extensive testing is extremely dangerous. The vaccine could be a bioweapon and even more dangerous than the original infection.

    He’s right about the FBI’s infamous mishandling of this case, but that doesn’t point to Fort Detrick as the source of the anthrax. Rather, this investigation as personally run by FBI Director Saint Mueller started and ended with the idée fixe that the source was a domestic lone wolf, and couldn’t possibly come from any of our enemies abroad (more details on request), or the Deep State itself executing a flex.

    The biggest problem with the paper is that the author just doesn’t show us his work in the Results section, it’s just assertions which we could only verify ourselves by digging into the citations, which for the (Pfizer/)BioNTech mRNA sequence is simply a pointer to the whole thing. This is so shoddy I’m not sure the paper deserves any respect, but it’s not something that can be dismissed out of hand, nor are there any apparent idea salads in it on my first and second readings of it.

    But another very bad smell is that the heavy work and lifting is done in the Discussion section, which takes a throw everything at the wall and see if any of it sticks approach, jumping from prion concerns to”

    There are many other potential adverse events that can be induced by the novel RNA based vaccines against COVID-19. The vaccine places a novel molecule, spike protein, in/on the surface of host cells. This spike protein is a potential receptor for another possibly novel infectious agent. If those who argue that the COVID-19 is actually a bioweapon are correct, then a second potentially more dangerous virus may be released that binds spike protein found on the host cells of vaccine recipients. Data is not publicly available to provide information on how long the vaccine RNA is translated in the vaccine recipient and how long after translation the spike protein will be present in the recipient’s cells.

    Without of course explaining how a normal infection is axiomatically less dangerous than the vaccine, and without noting that both, if successfully attacked by the adaptive immune system, result in these cells getting terminated with extreme prejudice.

    He also spends a paragraph on potential autoimmune issues in the context of vaccines in general, again not germane to what’s ostensibly the thesis of the paper, but allows him to cite himself first. While I can’t judge his prion claims without as said duplicating the work he claims to have done, that last bit firmly puts him into anti-vaxxer territory, for what that’s worth. The accumulation of bad smells inclines me to dismiss it for now, using them as a heuristic.

    • Thanks: utu
    • Replies: @Loup-Bouc
    , @Sean
  356. Factorize says:

    Breakthrough! One third lost one fifth of their weight! This is a massive step forward for global health. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210211091352.htm

  357. Chinaman says:
    @dux.ie

    Thanks. Need some time to digest all the information but may I ask which country have the oldest strain of 19A ( which I assume doesn’t include Wuhan)?

  358. Loup-Bouc says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    Still more word salad, but this time not even pseudo-scientific. A sufficient example is, e.g., this dreck:

    Per that source (the NIH bit is from the Merck Manual plus is generally known, part of standard of care for many months) says the virus outfoxes enough of the innate immune system (but still in a very small fraction of those who get it!!) and that results in the innate immune system trying that much harder to wipe it out. Because all four of these “systems” are multi-component, that’s one reason they’re called systems.

    ***

    Also, how can Mr. Whitney know “This process has actually taken place in animal tests (ferrets) that were given mRNA injections. The ferrets died. All of them.” Is this genocidal cabal, which ranges from the US (Janssen, Moderna and Pfizer) to the U.K. (AZ and Oxford) to Sweden (AZ) to Germany (BioNTech and CureVac) to RUSSIA!!! (Gamaleya (Sputnik-V)), that’s all the pretty far along “active” vaccine entities who’s vaccines result in mRNA resulting in “this spike protein being pumped into people’s bloodstreams” (left unexplained is how the protein exits the hijacked cells except when they die or are killed), going to be that open in publishing their intermediate bioweapons work?

    With the quality of his (or her) verbal sparring with Mike Whitney (actually, Whitney and someone named “Jason T,” https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/covid-vaccine-the-nightmare-scenario/#comment-4463750 ), the comment’s author, @That Would Be Telling, shows his (or her) medical/microbiological knowledge is poor as Whitney’s (or Whitney’s and Jason T’s). But at least Whitney’s English-language texts are not word salad.

    Word salad?

    Consider the second sentence (or wannabe “sentence”) of the second above-quoted paragraph. [That paragraph’s first sentence is Whitney’s. The second “sentence” is that of the comment’s author, @That Would Be Telling.] In that second “sentence,” the grammatical subject is “cabal.” The main verb is the “Is” of “Is this genocidal cabal”? What is the predicate? To answer that question, one must torture one’s eyes, cerebral energy, and patience.

    [MORE]

    The predicate is “going to be that open in publishing their intermediate bioweapons work.” That predicate answers the question “what” The “what” is “going to be that open in publishing their intermediate bioweapons work” (where the term “that” connotes, colloquially, a measure of degree, as would “so very” had the phrase been “so very open”).

    But one must struggle gravely (while one’s eyes and patience tremble) through more than two lines of a bumbling, much impertinent, vision-deranging list of pharmaceuticals firms and nations and three more lines of word salad wrought with illogic, egregiously flawed grammar, and wrong diction, to find that the predicate is what it is — “going to be that open in publishing…[etc.].”

    [Side-Note:
    See that the phrase “is…going to be” is not the main verb of the subject “cabal.” The phrase “going to be” is not a verb; and it is not part of a passive voice verb, like “is captured” in “Beth is captured by her fate.” The phrase “going to be” begins a predicate — “going to be that open in publishing…(etc.).”

    See also that “going to be” has no logical function, partly because the sentence’s subject is not “going” anywhere and partly because “going to be” is an illiterate means of implying subjunctivity or an intent or expectation that has not passed from possibility or likelihood to actuality — in the instant case, a strange intent or expectation, an intent or expectation of “being.”

    See, too, that the main verb cannot be “ranges” (of “which ranges from the US…to the U.K….to Sweden…to Germany…to RUSSIA”). That clause is parenthetical. It is also either illogical or nuts, since neither the cabal nor the pharmaceuticals firms (plural) or any one such firm can “range” from the U.S. to Russia, by way of the U.K., Sweden, and Germany, unless in a world of weird dream.

    And nothing pertinent obtains from the observation of the national domiciles of the pharmaceuticals corporations that may be parties of the “cabal.” The firms’ and their domicile-nations names or identities — their long, clunky listing — only obfuscates the relation of subject/verb/predicate and causes reader perplexity and perturbation.
    [End Side-Note]

    Reconsider, differently, the phrase “going to be….” [of “going to be that open in publishing…(etc.)]. The phrase’s “be” takes a “predicate” that answers the question “what” — the answer being “that open in publishing their intermediate bioweapons work” (where the term “that” connotes, colloquially, a measure of degree). But that predicate is not the predicate of “Is…cabal.” The “going to be” phrase is the predicate of “Is…cabal.”

    And yet, the point is not what the “cabal” is “going to be.” The point is the content of the predicate of the “be” of “going to be.” And that point is not one of existence or equation (a state of being, an “is-ness,” a “being-ness”). The point is whether the “cabal” would do some certain act — an act of exposure.

    Now consider three troubles of the phrase “open in publishing their intermediate bioweapons.” (a) The “cabal” could not be “open” “in” “publishing”? (b) Since “cabal” is singular, the pronoun “their” (“their…bioweapons work”) is an instance of number-disagreement. (c) The cabal would not “publish” “bioweapons” (irrespective of whether the “bioweapons” were or would be “intermediate”). Rather, the cabal would, may, or did “publish” a result or results of a test or tests.

    Other flaws mar the @That Would Be Telling comment’s language — the language quoted above and other language of the comment.

    The sentence’s subject/verb/predicate relation is obfuscated not only by the list of “cabal”-members and their sundry national domiciles. It is muddled by this language:

    that’s all the pretty far along “active” vaccine entities who’s vaccines result in mRNA resulting in “this spike protein being pumped into people’s bloodstreams” (left unexplained is how the protein exits the hijacked cells except when they die or are killed)

    which is parenthetical, if not superfluous, language bearing wrong and illogical grammar and diction hugely more than it includes any linguistically/logically sound and cogent propositions.

    Example: The language tries to modify the noun “entities” with the multiply erroneous multi-term pseudo-adjective “all the pretty far along ‘active’ vaccine.” The term “vaccine,” a noun, cannot modify “entities,” as it might if the term were put thus: “vaccine-creating-entities.” The language “far along ‘active’” is nonsense worthy of Humpty Dumpty:

    Alice: “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’.” [Sic]
    Humpty Dumpty: “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you’ !” [Sic]
    Alice: “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’.”

    Humpty Dumpty

    : “When I use a word…it means just what I choose it to mean….”

    Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

    The same complex/compound run-on language’s remainder [“who’s vaccines” through “hijacked cells…die or are killed”] is near-utterly flawed. Three more examples ought suffice — (a) the number-disagreement-error of the subordinate clause begun by the singular “who’s” that tries to modify the plural “entities,” (b) the illogic/falsehood of “vaccines result in mRNA,” and (c) the use of present particle where gerund is required, in the phrase “mRNA resulting in.”

    More-than-few other flaws mar the language of the @That Would Be Telling comment language quoted at this comment’s start — and in the rest of the @That Would Be Telling comment. But the preceding considerations ought suffice.

    @That Would Be Telling might have written a sentence simple as this:

    Why would a nine-major-firm pharmaceuticals-cabal risk publishing test-results that suggest its vaccines are illegal bioweapons?

    Why do I highlight so many linguistic flaws of the comment posted by @That Would Be Telling? The linguistic flaws manifest mentation-flaws that render doubtful whatever medical or microbiological “knowledge or “analysis” that @That Would Be Telling pretends to display.

    Language does not convey meaning (as if thoughts played cargo of a ship of syntax). Language constitutes meaning (as lust whelps hunger and hunger lusts).

    If you say you did not mean what you have written, you had three thoughts, acted three meanings: You wrote one. You thought (“meant”) another. You said a third (that you meant not what you wrote).

    As “red ball” is not “red plus ball,” it is not a conveyance of an idea of a red ball — or of a propositionred plus ball.” The phrase “red ball means itself, the special idea it is, including what it takes from, and gives, its setting (shape, color, music, milieu), human and else

    Excerpt of one of my published short stories, the name and publication-details of which I shall withhold, to protect my privacy.

    • Thanks: Theophrastus
    • Replies: @HA
  359. Loup-Bouc says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    You wrote:

    Note I make a distinction between word and idea salads, and am only accusing some of doing the latter, that is jumbling together a bunch of ideas that don’t fit together, no matter how correctly they are expressed in the English language.

    See my comment of February 13, 2021 at 4:18 am GMT (comment # 371) — https://www.unz.com/jthompson/vaccination-side-effects/#comment-4466330 — which shows the stupidity of your above-quoted language.

  360. Sean says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    Boris just said 14 million have had first shot of vaccination and all the most vulnerable will have had the firt shot by the 15th.

    As you will know, some people having been arguing for some time that the actual data show that the first jab does the heavy lifting, and afterwards it is best to have a longish delay (say up to 12 weeks, not the previously tested 3 weeks) before getting the second jab, which will not add much, but which might make immunity last longer.

    Now a paper is coming out suggesting that this is precisely the best course of action. The study, which is under peer review and is expected to be published in The Lancet, concludes that leaving a 12-week gap between shots “may be the optimal for rollout of a pandemic vaccine when supplies are limited in the short term”.

    Is that the concern though? Israel is using the Pfizer vaccine and giving the second dose after 3 weeks. Israel’s results are good with the older (already vaccinated ) groups showing a much greater decline in new infections. That is not happening in the UK. Britain is doing it rather differently, which may be better for presenting deaths, but still a mistake because it presents a greater risk of a disastrous unintended consequence: a new mutation that the vaccination will not protect against. See the video , which is linked to most relevant point.

    Moreover, the longer an individual suffers from Covid-19, the more time the virus that is causing Covid-19 by replicating in that person has to mutate during replication in that person. Hence long lasting infection case more mutations, and is is necessarily true with enough random mutations there is going to be one that is more transmissible, or the vaccine does not protect against. There has already been a troublesome mutation in Britain that seems to be spreading because it more easily (sometimes) is infecting people who already have had Covid 19, meaning getting past the antibodies. Therefore a mutation that can easily infect vaccinated people is quite possible. Britain has a lot of long lasting cases of Covid -19 infection. So the British government’s decision to not have a rapid second vaccination is rather dangerous inasmuch as it entails an extended period containing lot of individually long lasting Covid-19 infection cases. Those who really understand this stuff are saying ‘Risky ‘!

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  361. @Sean

    So the British government’s decision to not have a rapid second vaccination is rather dangerous inasmuch as it entails an extended period containing lot of individually long lasting Covid-19 infection cases. Those who really understand this stuff are saying ‘Risky ‘!

    Don’t know of anyone (I respect) who doesn’t think the British “give everyone a single jab ASAP” policy isn’t risky. Although to the extent most of the jabs are AZ/Oxford, and they almost certainly are or will be very soon since it’s made in the U.K. unlike the mRNA vaccines, if we’re to believe AZ/Oxford’s very latest claims about their disappointing vaccine the twelve week interval will provide better efficacy outcomes.

    Which fits with the theory their single virus vector vaccine loses efficacy in the 21 day normal interval between doses due an activated immune system being too good at attacking the vector before it can do its job. Gamaleya (Sputnik-V) addressed this by using different virus vectors for each jab, Janssen doesn’t care so much because their successful strategy was to take their time and make the very highest efficacy single jab that doesn’t require freezing for a goal of vaccinating a billion people in 2021, and they’re seeing what two jabs eight weeks apart does in another Phase III trial.

    But for the British experiment on their whole population, yes it’s risky, but your particular and valid concern about longer lasting infections that produce significant sets of mutations is baked in the pie throughout the entire world which won’t have a chance of all of them getting vaccinated in this year, perhaps 2022 as well, and it’s not clear to me what the U.K, is doing will significantly increase that danger. There’s just too many people getting infected, says so right on the label of “pandemic.”

    Mutations currently known like the South African one and maybe future ones could also make their strategy the best, if they change the booster dose to better cover them. We might in fact be in for a year or three of booster doses until the virus runs out of tricks to escape vaccines, and our immune systems fine tune their response which goes on for at least six months after the first exposure to an antigen.

    With the U.K.’s 68 million people you can’t compare them to Israel with its 9.3 million for whom it was realistic to get them all properly immunized per the official Pfizer/BioNTech dosing schedule quickly. One seventh the number of people, could and did buy enough vaccine for all of them by moving early and paying top dollar shekel to Pfizer/BioNTech (and maybe others?). The U.K. by comparison as discussed here on Mr. Thompson’s topics did the best sort of thing a big country like it or the US can do, pick a handful of good candidates and spend plenty of money on them for the best supplies as fast as possible for their much larger populations.

    Hmmm, they haven’t yet approved Novavax’s, but I’d guess like some previous vaccines more time for safety data is required after the first good efficacy reports can be made. At a less specific level, a French vaccine they backed is said to be doing well (not the Sanofi/GSK that everyone expected to work but didn’t on the elderly, they’ll will start testing V2.0 fairly soon, but haven’t registered that on ClinicalTrials.gov).

  362. HA says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    “Why do I highlight so many linguistic flaws of the comment posted by @That Would Be Telling? The linguistic flaws manifest mentation-flaws that render doubtful whatever medical or microbiological “knowledge or “analysis” that @That Would Be Telling pretends to display.”

    On the contrary, I submit that you chose to fuss over linguistic flaws precisely because you have absolutely nothing of medical, epidemiological or microbiological substance that would counter anything that was stated. And though you tried to bury that in a 1,500 word cloud of digressionary bandwidth like some squid squirting ink when in flight, that just made the emptiness of your argument all the more evident.

    Did you never once stop to consider, in this meandering word-dump on literary rectitude and assorted minutiae, that puffery and bloviation are not only a weak substitute for a rational counter-argument, they are literary flaws just as serious as the ones you have enumerated? Except, in your case, they are served with a side of hypocrisy, which arguably makes them even worse.

    In any case, if this is all you have in the way of counter-argument (“hey, let’s change the subject and pretend we’re Strunk&White!”), that speaks far more directly than your actual comment about how little you have to say.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  363. Sean says:

    [Y]our particular and valid concern about longer lasting infections that produce significant sets of mutations is baked in the pie throughout the entire world

    Britain is introducing all sorts of bans on foreign travel. But my main point is the unusually long lasting individual infections with Covid-19 are what seems to be creating conditions for the mutations, and the UK has an exceptionally high proportion of such patients and is already the origin for one rapidly spreading variant of the virus.

    Modelling and lab tests suggest that the aforementioned British variant’s spread is through being better at reinfection of those who have already had Covid-19. Adaptive immunity is from a pathogen or a vaccination. So a variant that can get past the B cell produced antibodies from a prior Covid-19 infection could quite conceivably get past the antibodies from a vaccine.

    In addition to the proven track record of Britain as nature’s laboratory for new variants, a specific connection between (the British disease) bad teeth and Covid-19 symptoms has been suggested.

    https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200630/Oral-hygiene-and-severity-of-COVID-19-e28093-the-connection.aspx
    British researchers have found a link between poor oral hygiene and severity of COVID-19 disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. , “Could there be a link between oral hygiene and the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infections?” was published in the latest issue of the journal British Dental Journal.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  364. @HA

    “Why do I highlight so many linguistic flaws of the comment posted by @That Would Be Telling? The linguistic flaws manifest mentation-flaws that render doubtful whatever medical or microbiological “knowledge or “analysis” that @That Would Be Telling pretends to display.”

    On the contrary, I submit that you chose to fuss over linguistic flaws precisely because you have absolutely nothing of medical, epidemiological or microbiological substance that would counter anything that was stated. And though you tried to bury that in a 1,500 word cloud of digressionary bandwidth like some squid squirting ink when in flight, that just made the emptiness of your argument all the more evident.

    Broke my rule of not reading Trolls after marking them as such, and here’s the bottom line for the likes of Loup-Bouc who in bad faith attacks me vs. my arguments: I’m not getting paid to write all my comments in clear and straightforward English. I put some effort, occasionally a serious couple of hours or more into my effortposts, but when discussing self-evident garbage like Mr. Whitney’s I don’t see the point. So you may get something more like a stream of consciousness, with caveats, asides, or details that might be footnoted in a serious work in the middle of more than adequate sentences like “Is this genocidal cabal … going to be that open in publishing their intermediate bioweapons work?”

    “hey, let’s change the subject and pretend we’re Strunk&White!”

    As previously mentioned WRT to “jab,” I’m very old fashioned and prefer The King’s English. In fact, never found the much recommended in America Strunk and White The Elements of Style to be an interesting, let alone compelling read.

    Looking further, I see Strunk’s work started in 1918 vs. the Fowler brothers’ 1906, and I have to wonder if the original is better than the “greatly enlarged and revised” by White 1959 edition and its two following updates, one of which I looked at for the first and last time in the 1970s. At which point American English was much degraded, obvious to anyone who reads older works penned by Englishmen, or even the U.K. editions of the wonderfully subversive Harry Potter novels.

    • Replies: @HA
    , @Loup-Bouc
  365. @Sean

    the unusually long lasting individual infections with Covid-19 are what seems to be creating conditions for the mutations, and the UK has an exceptionally high proportion of such patients and is already the origin for one rapidly spreading variant of the virus.

    What you perceive may be an artifact of the U.K. putting much more effort into sequencing samples of the virus than anyone else. 250,673 “viruses” to date per the COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium (COG-UK), that’s half the total worldwide per a Tweet yesterday on that page. Here’s a relevant comment from a Telegraph article:

    “You only find what you look for,” says Peacok. “Because we’re doing so much sequencing, I think that’s why we’re detecting them. It’s quite likely that variants are arising elsewhere in the world. The question is, how many more fresh mutations will arise that we actually start to care about.”

    So you’ve been doing a great service to mankind, albeit less so going forward now that you’re “introducing all sorts of bans on foreign travel.”

    • Replies: @HA
    , @Sean
  366. HA says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    “or even the U.K. editions of the wonderfully subversive Harry Potter novels.”

    Funny you should say that since I have to come to suspect that Loup-Bouc, even though he likely antedates Harry Potter books by several decades, lives by the rules of that universe to the extent that there is always some handy incantation (in this case, it is apparently the magical phrase “word salad”) that is enough to defeat any opponent. Beyond that, no argumentation or counter-evidence is necessary.

    But for better or for worse, outside of JK Rowling novels and schoolyards where 10-year-olds play, there’s more to winning an argument than coming up with some clever epithet to hurl at those you disagree with.

  367. HA says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    “It’s quite likely that variants are arising elsewhere in the world. The question is, how many more fresh mutations will arise that we actually start to care about.”

    That’s the other thing I wonder about with regard this effort to find coronavirus earlier and earlier in the timeline, as noted above. I suspect that even with regular known coronaviruses, there’s the occasional mutation of that which might be close enough to COVID so that it triggers at least a false positive and shares some other similarities. And if that’s true, then we’ll be finding outbreaks of what looks a lot like COVID stretching back pretty much forever.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  368. Sean says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    What you perceive may be an artifact of the U.K. putting much more effort into sequencing samples of the virus than anyone else.

    Hmm. They like to think they are punching above their weight in that and everything else too, the British, but the truth is more prosaic. In my opinion a long standing pattern in science and technology is governments of Britain act as if it had some world lead, follows an aberrant course, and then–quietly withdrawing from its bold and supposedly very sophisticated strategy–hastens to follow everyone else while playing catch up with putatively less advanced countries. So far the response to pandemic offers no clear exception to this trend; Britain was going to go for herd immunity, then had to reverse course.

    It seems to me that we can expect more of that style of decision making from Boris; he is going to want to take the lockdown off as soon as possible. The prospect of doing so is probably a big part of why the ‘concentrate on give everyone the first shot’ strategy was chosen. To go back to the boxing analogy, what Britain really needs to do is ‘sit down’ on its punches, meaning create a solid base for effective action.

  369. Loup-Bouc says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    A few minutes ago, I noticed a comment written by a fool whose pseudonym tries to mimic a sarcastic single, monosyllabic voice-expression that might be a human’s intonation reacting to a joke, if such voice-expression were repeated, staccato, several times. Sadly for that comment’s writer, he is a joke.

    The fool’s comment tries to argue that I manifested criticism-failure with my comment of February 13, 2021 at 4:18 am GMT (comment # 371) — https://www.unz.com/jthompson/vaccination-side-effects/#comment-4466330 — which comment’s linguistic-analysis shows the (I shall be kind) unreliability of your comments, which try to defend mRNA vaccines.

    I do not know (and am not interested in finding) whether that fool-who-is-a-joke failed to read, read but did not comprehend, or suffered quasi-delusional denial of my comment that showed your vaccine-defense-attempts reflect ignorance of the nature and operation of (a) the current mRNA vaccines and (b) the human immune-system. See my comment of February 6, 2021 at 5:43 pm GMT (comment # 241), https://www.unz.com/jthompson/vaccination-side-effects/#comment-4453419

    You did not post a reply-comment that might respond to my above-referenced comment # 241 (February 6, 2021 at 5:43 pm GMT). Merely did you render an automated

    • Troll: That Would Be Telling

    So, until late yesterday (12 February 2021), I did not waste time on commenting on your later comments addressed either directly to James Thompson’s unfortunate article or to comments of other comment-writers.

    [MORE]

    But yesterday, your incompetent and misleading blather’s growing profusion annoyed me. So, since you say near-nothing medically or microbiologically correct respecting the topics you try to address and never responded to my comment that exposed your pretense of “expertise,” I determined to highlight your abysmal use of the English language — surely your abysmal incapacity of competent use of any language.

    Why did I stress “merely” the incompetence of your language-usage? Sufficient objective answer occurs in my comment of February 13, 2021 at 4:18 am GMT (comment # 371) — https://www.unz.com/jthompson/vaccination-side-effects/#comment-4466330

    Why do I highlight so many linguistic flaws of the comment posted by @That Would Be Telling? [Reference comment # 359, February 12, 2021 at 6:17 pm GMT.] …[The referenced @That Would Be Telling comment’s] linguistic flaws manifest mentation-flaws that render doubtful whatever medical or microbiological “knowledge or “analysis” that @That Would Be Telling pretends to display.

    Language does not convey meaning (as if thoughts played cargo of a ship of syntax). Language constitutes meaning (as lust whelps hunger and hunger lusts).

    If you say you did not mean what you have written, you had three thoughts, acted three meanings: You wrote one. You thought (“meant”) another. You said a third (that you meant not what you wrote).

    As “red ball” is not “red plus ball,” it is not a conveyance of an idea of a red ball — or of a propositionred plus ball.” The phrase “red ball” means itself, the special idea it is, including what it takes from, and gives, its setting (shape, color, music, milieu), human and else

    Excerpt of one of my published short stories, the name and publication-details of which I shall withhold, to protect my privacy.

    The subjective answer: Since you did not respond to my above-referenced comment (comment # 241) that exposed the unreliability (even incompetence) of your vaccine-defenses — since you put only an automated “• Troll: That Would Be Telling” — you do not merit my further deconstruction of the “substance” of your flagrantly flawed arguments.

    If you are a physician, I pity your patients.

    • Thanks: Theophrastus
    • Replies: @HA
  370. Loup-Bouc says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    See my comment of February 13, 2021 at 11:17 pm GMT (comment # 382), https://www.unz.com/jthompson/vaccination-side-effects/#comment-4467815

    You attempt your parry with a rubber spatula, not a Samurai sword.

    You cannot defend with the illiterate jargon “Troll” — a “shield” that bares the incompetence of your arguments (and the dubiety of your knowledge).

    But relax. I shall not address you again.

  371. HA says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    “A few minutes ago, I noticed a comment written by a fool whose pseudonym tries to mimic a sarcastic single, monosyllabic voice-expression that might be a human’s intonation reacting to a joke,…”

    Hmm, let me try and think who this could possibly be referring to…on the tip of my tongue, I tell you. If I’m on the right track, I suppose I have to take back what I said about you belonging to a generation too early to take note of Harry Potter, given that I have now apparently been elevated to the status of joke-who-will-not-be-named and where have we heard something like that before?

    Then again, this is only 3.1 days after being assured by you — so as to spare me “anxiety or fear” about being deprived of the pleasure of your attention or something like that — that you were “determined” to “never again” respond to my comments, so maybe this anonymous Voldemort-manqué is some other name in that long list of people who have peeved you. If not, then I’ll leave it to others to judge, given this weaselly roundabout way of replying to me, how seriously we should henceforth regard your “determination”, or indeed, anything else about you, given that you yourself are able to extrapolate so wildly from nothing more than a grammatical error.

    Moreover, I see in this follow-up reply there is STILL nothing having to do with epidemiology, vaccines, etc., or anything else relevant to the topic at hand — rather, we have yet another discursion into linguistic flaws and why your harping on them is justified (and also some spleen-venting over being labelled a troll for refusing to reply with anything except name-calling). So apparently, it takes you a two-course salad of some 2100 words to inform us that you have absolutely nothing to say. Now THAT is truly a paradox worthy of the Red Queen, so furiously running merely to stay in one place. So maybe the Lewis Carroll isn’t totally off-topic.

    But as worthwhile as these digressions may seem to you, given that it took typing 2100 words, any time that you should deign to return to the topic at hand, as opposed to having to regale us with more excerpts from your published works and so forth, that would be fine with me.

  372. Sean says:

    For the Oxford AstraZenica trial there were some people who got their vaccinations up to twelve weeks apart, but those who did were relatively few in number and not randomized. So the evidence that it will work at twelve weeks is not very good by the established standard.

    Despite this the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was approved, and the very same day the twelve week gap in giving the doses was announced, but at least Oxford has some data from the trials. For the Pfitzner BioNtech vaccine, which the British government is also giving twelve weeks apart there is far less evidence to suport it working when there is twelve weeks between shots, because everyone in the Pfitzner trials had a three week gap between the vaccinations. The British government are also going to permit people to get a different vaccine for the second vaccination than they had for the first, which obviously there are no trials of.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
  373. @Sean

    Not sure how many times we need to agree with you that the British experiment is risky (but many of us think and/or hope the potential benefit is worth it…). But you bring up something new that’s very worthy of discussion, so:

    The British government are also going to permit people to get a different vaccine for the second vaccination than they had for the first, which obviously there are no trials of.

    That’s probably OK since all of the currently approved by the U.K. vaccines are “active” and hijack cells to make more or less the same COVID-19 spike protein. Presumably roughly the same bits will be picked for immune system scrutiny if the second dose was of the same vaccine as the first. That is, I see no reason to believe there will be a qualitative difference between these two types of booster doses, the same vaccine as the first, and another vaccine, especially to the extent there’s some randomness in that part of the system. There is in the memory B cell evolutionary process that goes on for at least six months in people who natural immunity, and we expect immunity from vaccines (minus action against the nucleocapsid protein hidden deep in the virus).

    Although I’d want to look at first dose efficacy data however sparse it is to see if the mRNA vaccines do a lot better than AZ/Oxford, and the Phase I trials being done with one AZ/Oxford and one Gamaleya (Sputnik-V) dose, on top of the as you note sparse data on spacing out AZ/Oxford doses. If the theory is correct about AZ/Oxford’s disappointing efficacy coming from an alerted immune system zapping its virus vector on the second dose, this could be a great way to make those particularly plentiful in the U.K. AZ/Oxford doses go a lot further.

    And I again point out we might get very interested very soon in reformulated booster doses due to for example the South African variant, which wouldn’t necessarily be second doses. As previously mentioned, the U.K. is better positioned than any other country in the world to figure out if and when that’ll be needed due to their Maximum Effort in sequencing viral genomes.

    • Replies: @Sean
  374. @HA

    “It’s quite likely that variants are arising elsewhere in the world. The question is, how many more fresh mutations will arise that we actually start to care about.”

    That’s the other thing I wonder about with regard this effort to find coronavirus earlier and earlier in the timeline, as noted above. I suspect that even with regular known coronaviruses, there’s the occasional mutation of that which might be close enough to COVID so that it triggers at least a false positive and shares some other similarities. And if that’s true, then we’ll be finding outbreaks of what looks a lot like COVID stretching back pretty much forever.

    Now this is an interesting idea. Despite their proofreading mechanism, coronaviruses are still hacks like all other viruses, and if you test enough samples, especially from sewage where you’re presumably getting bits of RNA from multiple people who’ve gotten “the common cold” during that period, you just might get unlucky. Pretty sure we know enough to calculate the odds of this based on mutation rates and the general sizes of the two or so bits of RNA that are checked for. For that matter, could you get false positives from other much higher mutating RNA virus diseases that we don’t routinely vaccinate for??

    In case the above isn’t clear or you don’t know how RT-PCR tests work, they look for two or so short sequences of RNA believed to be unique to COVID-19, and they’re not exactly intended to be used on samples of sewage, but that’s not a misuse of them.

    On the other hand, I’ll bet cross contamination or perhaps other forms of false positives are responsible for some of these reports; I’m particularly suspicious of that single March 2019 Spanish sewage sample. Last time I checked if you discard that one we’ve got lots of positive test reports that are consistent with a low level of circulation around our globalist globe prior to it breaking out in Wuhan in December 2019 or a bit earlier.

  375. Sean says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    And I again point out we might get very interested very soon in reformulated booster doses due to for example the South African variant, which wouldn’t necessarily be second doses. As previously mentioned, the U.K. is better positioned than any other country in the world to figure out if and when that’ll be needed due to their Maximum Effort in sequencing viral genomes.

    I think there is already enough evidence to say ‘risky’ would be a charitable term. “Maximum Effort” in one area, such as sequencing viral genomes, involves reduced attention on others one might think. More concretely, it is an alarming portent that although the R value is has now fallen below 1 in Britain, the mainly vaccinated older group is not showing a greater decline in new infections than the unvaccinated younger people.

  376. @Sean

    “Maximum Effort” in one area, such as sequencing viral genomes, involves reduced attention on others one might think.

    Perhaps, but irrelevant here when vaccination is entirely governed by a supply massively less than demand if you’re doing a good enough job of jabbing a lot of people. Which our host’s anecdotal account suggested was indeed good.

    More concretely, it is an alarming portent that although the R value is has now fallen below 1 in Britain, the mainly vaccinated older group is not showing a greater decline in new infections than the unvaccinated younger people.

    That’s not a statistic I respect unless a county is very methodical about adjusting reporting for the vagarities of who gets tested when. We also have some reasons to believe the “one shot ASAP” policy will reduce severity of infections, perhaps do that more than lower total infections (you have remarked on the mutation generating danger of this previously), so how are hospitalizations/hospital capacity and deaths doing? Those are the two statistics I pay attention to due to how solid they are, albeit all cause mortality for the latter.

  377. Sean says:

    The coronavirus causing Covid-19 is exceptionally stable for an RNA virus, because its RNA enzyme has a proofreading function. The first three Covid-19 cases outside China were in Nepal and Thailand and were the original later dubbed (19A). The first mutant (19B) revealed by genetic sequencing was reported in Yunnan on January the 17th 2020. The same (19B) one was reported in the USA two days later. Clearly, the 19B mutation occurred in China during the latter months of 2019. The original 19A virus is mainly confined to Asia

  378. @Sean

    Interesting review article from the Gatestone Institute, “EU’s Covid-19 Vaccination Debacle: ‘Epochal Failure’.” Not sure there’s much that hasn’t been discussed here before, and beware some of the linked articles it provides short excerpts of, for example a “Bruegel” think tank credulously links to a Guardian article about CoreVac’s fundraising scam of claiming the BAD ORANGE MAN proposed to buy and move it to the US (they’re a distant #3 in making a mRNA vaccine, but now perhaps the EU’s best hope). As more and more are noting, the West’s ruling trash are literally insane, simply not living in the same reality we are.

    But it has some news which is interesting in the context of the EU claiming they were negotiating for the best possible prices, which now provides critical context into the EU’s very slow non-emergency style regulatory process: it insisted the pharmaceutical companies bear all liability for their vaccines, which I suppose isn’t the end of the world if the various states in it have sane civil liability systems unlike the US.

    But that adds to the burn AZ is getting from the EU: not only is it making it at cost, and at the insistence of the EU in four or so factories in it (as previously discussed, starting three months behind the U.K. etc. learning curve), it’s on the hook for whatever Oxford may have screwed up. Well, that’s show eeeeevil Big Pharma as EU subjects wait many extra months to get their jabs!

    Also read in that questionable Bruegel piece that the EU has been completely dilatory in enlisting other companies in it to manufacture vaccines with whatever spare capacity they can bring to bear:

    There is an argument that the EU was slow to develop an industrial strategy to increase production. The factories of competitors should have been mobilised as soon as possible to increase the total supply of vaccines. Sanofi has now agreed to use its factory in Frankfurt to produce additional BioNTech-Pfizer vaccines. The former Novartis factory in Marburg, Germany, will soon produce vaccines in large amounts.

    The EU made a big bet on Sanofi/GSK, and everyone expected them to succeed, but their Phase I and/or II failure for the elderly means whatever they spent getting ready to make a lot of their V1.0 vaccine can be devoted to someone else’s for most of the year. Which should have been taken advantage of as soon as it was discovered, not now that the EU technocrats are flailing wildly blaming everyone except themselves. Not to mention never going off script on “Brexit Bad, U.K. Bad, U.K. companies like AZ Bad,” but very much so in suddenly reversing what I’ve read are many years of policy that Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland require a soft border (wasn’t that part of the comprehensive peace agreement?).

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @dearieme
  379. Sean says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9258179/Undersea-tunnel-Britain-Northern-Ireland-approved-weeks.html

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/02/14/01/39261698-9258179-image-a-27_1613265274920.jpg

    The Republic has sided with the EU and won a battle over Northern Ireland, but it is already looking like a very pyrrhic victory.

    France is a joke country. What else is new?

  380. xcd says:
    @Alfred

    Argentina is trying to solve the mystery of how 57 sailors out of 61 contracted covid-19 after 35 days at sea together. The Echizen Maru fishing trawler returned to port after some of its crew began exhibiting symptoms typical of covid-19. Before leaving port, the entire crew of 61 had tested negative and then undergone a 14-day quarantine. Thereafter, they had had no contact with dry land. Supplies were only brought in at the port of Ushuaia. 2 have tested negative, and 2 more are awaiting test results. -AFP 2020-07-14

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
  381. @xcd

    This mystery has already been solved. Some of the crew had shared a flight with an 80-year-old man who was infected.

    Happy ending for the infected of Covid-19 in the Echizen Maru
    https://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?monthyear=8-2020&day=4&id=108874&l=e&country=0&special=&ndb=1&df=0

    An 80-year-old man, the key to the mystery of the fishing vessel infected with coronavirus on the high seas
    https://www.web24.news/u/2020/07/an-80-year-old-man-the-key-to-the-mystery-of-the-fishing-vessel-infected-with-coronavirus-on-the-high-seas.html

  382. dearieme says:
    @That Would Be Telling

    I can’t vouch for this claim but somebody I read said that after wasting lots of time on insisting that AstraZeneca bear the liability for any injury caused by the vaccine, the EU caved in and gave it a waiver much like that given by the UK.

    Does anyone here know the state of play on this?

    • Thanks: That Would Be Telling
  383. mike99588 says:
    @Anon

    Dr Claus has several discrepancies in his cites.

    He seems to poo-poo early/regular treatment for HCQ but rather perhaps for Covid pneumonia whereas most HCQ clinicians cite earliest use.

    He dismisses cytokine/interleukin storm as natural, needed response to terminate viral infection.
    Seems to totally miss on the concept of viral protein debris driven cytokine overload, even weeks after the viruses are all inactivated. Where reduction of particular inflammation or immunologic pathways might be beneficial to avoid the overload or derangemments.

  384. mike99588 says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    D1 was a impure mixture abandoned generations ago due to toxic impurities.
    D2 is the “pharm” version, that had a patent on it, like U Wisconsin funding their chemistry program.

    “synthetic vitamin C” is magical thinking about l-ascorbic acid. In essence, Royal Lee disciples merely tout the natural mixture of flavinoids and ascorbate as the “true vitamin C” complex.

    One can find many studies and other scientific investigations that prove the foolishness of …. vitamin C, or vitamin D supplementation.

    or the incompetence of the investigators, pseudoskeptic accolytes or their total lack of understanding about Klenner and Carthcart’s papers. Ditto vitamin D3.
    Massive infusions of synthetic sodium ascorbate (e.g. 0.5-1.5 gram/kg) can often bring a dying viral, overdosed, or poisoned patient back rapidly, from the brink of death.

    Synthetic vitamins … E do no good and considerable harm if, as is common, supplementation is high-dose. Even can they be carcinogenic.

    Oxidized, “rancid” forms of vitamin A and E are notorious for problems. Not so in normally poised (Eh) environments. Vitamin E has transport/metabolism competition issues with CoQ10 and dolichols that are off most peoples’ radar, if they are inhibited (e.g. statins) or deficient.

    • Thanks: Polemos
  385. Marty says:
    @BDS Always

    I’m sure many here would feel better about Coleman if he weren’t a bow-tie guy.

  386. Polemos says:
    @Loup-Bouc

    You mentioned some of your history and changes when we communicated with one another before, but your recounting recently here still adds to fleshing out, so to speak, the one who comments here.

    I appreciate that after having told me then that you put me on ignore that you read me again. I do appreciate that you are convinced in yourself from having done the work that you will arrive at truth. I get why others tire of you, as I see how this usually demonstrates how their minds work as opposed to yours — conflict between your perspective and theirs is inevitable given the differing values of flash and style on the one hand and intense focus on the build for the other.

    This world is a great place for shaping a soul into a willing thing, turning both beasts and men, angels and gods, worms and metal, into Self who chooses. With nothing to lose, we must follow our muses, giving no quarter to ruses, and use the one gift of our being: to express who we are as we choose.

    Good tidings to you and your wife and your dog ㊗️

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS