A few points of discussion, just to check my logic. Point One, vaccines are routinely tested in mice, no? AFAIK, the annual flu shot, pimped out in the US every year, is also tested in mice. Point Two, from the standpoint of "relatively similar biology" mice are not a bad choice, are they? The problem is that the INITIAL testing on the mRNA vaccines should have been more thorough, and in fact, was not. On a vaccine, with known efficacy, properly positioned safety profile, being deployed against a stable target, i.e., not mutagenic, verifying performance via mouse testing might actually be okay. Am I confused? (No, I have not changed my position on the complete, barking lunacy of the mRNA vaccine program, nor the evil perpetrated by the CDC and their acolytes.) I only want to get a bit of nuanced understanding.
ETA: Maybe I was unclear. I am not (necessarily) claiming to make statements of fact above. I am offering ideas that I *think* might be correct, hoping for some feedback and correction. Again, the mRNA vaccines were barely qualified to be called "snake oil," but I hope to better understand some of the nuances. In other news, the CDC remains completely FOS.
"On a vaccine, with known efficacy, properly positioned safety profile, being deployed against a stable target, i.e., not mutagenic, verifying performance via mouse testing might actually be okay."
That's what would be expected, I followed that logic with the sinovac, which now I suspect ended up being harmful too... So, there is still a window for misfortune, better study it thoroughly...
Sep 19, 2022·edited Sep 19, 2022Liked by eugyppius
Thank you for this. Work product like this is what gave me the determination and strength to get through the last year as an unvaxxed in Austria. And the dividends continue. Having learned of some vax injuries in our circles, and having sailed through omicron easily without the vax, my kids trust me deeply and respect my opinion in a way that will probably carry on for a very long time. My husband also very grateful I’d begged him to wait until more evidence came out about these products. After just a couple months into the vax campaign no further begging was needed. 🙏
Remember public health agencies and the media urging healthy young people to "get vaccinated for the sake of others"? Ha ha ha! And then to think they ostracized the unvaxxed because they thought we were a danger to everyone else.
There are still advertisements on TV urging children to get vaxed. Last night an ad showed a smiling girl of about 12 getting a bandaid placed on her arm, then showing her smiling at her baby sister. The narrative was that she was doing something loving by getting the jab.
So, everyone who was concerned about the potential for ADE back when they were telling us "that will never happen" is being vindicated. Although, even without this study it has become evident in data, that the further out from increasing boosters, the more likely death becomes. So I don't really think it matters that this is in vitro. It merely confirms real world observations.
Gosh, aren’t we shocked and surprised. Confirming our good old American real world observations? Imagine! Time to get the world to conform back to sanity and reality.
Sep 19, 2022·edited Sep 19, 2022Liked by eugyppius
Process question: Does any of this mean Pfizer has to stop pimping their juice? Because if so, that's a no-no! The Golden Goose is still laying eggs! Stated differently, at what point will any of these studies make the assholery of people like POTUS Biden, or Trudeau in Canada, or a host of other assholes around the World, obviously evil and force it to stop? My guts says, "Never" but might be a bit of a pessimist after 2 years of complete lunacy.
IF they did stop they'd have to spin the reasons why like never before.
Just imagine eg Trudeau saying - woops, got it all wrong, sorry, but the jabs are in fact likely to damage or even kill you and covid wasn't really that bad at all...
They'll keep going until we mount sufficient resistance where it costs them more to keep going than to keep the narrative alive. Then they'll find some other snake oil to sell us.
Imagine what would happen if these drug companies actually were held accountable, like had to do a single randomized controlled trial in order to keep going. Why wouldn't they do an RCT? Because they'd find their products are relatively useless, if not harmful. So, snake oil.
>Recent studies have demonstrated several mechanisms leading to ADE, which can be FcR-dependent but ACE2-independent, FcR-independent but ACE2-dependent, S-protein conformational change-dependent, or both FcR- and ACE2-dependent ADE12,23,24,25,30.
ADE works through a variety of very different mechanisms, some of which we know about and perhaps some of which we may not know about. This virus is basically an expert in Aikido: It is skilled in a wide variety of methods to use its opponents moves against him.
Based on this and another recent paper, my conviction has been further reinforced that the different Omicron lineages are now convergently evolving towards whatever form allows them to make optimal use of the artificially homogenized human antibody response.
And so you'll have negative efficacy of these vaccines, not just because the immune response produced is inferior to natural immunity, but also because the virus will continue to recall those antibodies that help enhance its replication cycle.
To me that looks like an existential threat, born from an unprecedented idiotic experiment.
yes exactly, I was also a little surprised to see the mAbs enhancement at certain concentrations but not others, really suggest that ADE is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon.
Agreed: it is perplexing but we don’t really understand the mechanism yet. I think, believe that’s why the scientific process is so important. One step forward: we understand then wham something surprising and back to the drawing board. Sadly, in this case many to be harmed and/or will die.
One minor quibble. By my (admittedly limited) understanding, these viruses do not "evolve" nor do random changes in DNA--mutations if you will--automatically lead to more dangerous, better-adapted, optimal outcomes. I agree, wholeheartedly, that the whole "experiment" was some poorly-planned, horribly executed, B.S. I also agree, from what I have heard from folks like Peter McCollough, that "Omicron arose in the vaccinated" which is the (inevitable) outcome of leaky vaccines with a mutagenic target. Apologies if I misunderstand your larger point!
Omicron arising in the vaccinated as a result of leaky vaccines 𝘪𝘴 evolution. Viruses and other microorganisms definitely evolve... it's why we have antibiotic-resistant bacteria, among many others.
No, random mutations or transcription errors do not automatically lead to more dangerous, better-adapted, optimal outcomes. They're random, and most of them are harmful to the organism, causing it to be unable to survive, or at least less able to carry on its reproduction cycle. These variants quickly die out, as the better-adapted unmodified organism out-competes them.
Sometimes the change is neutral, neither presenting an obstacle nor an advantage to the organism. Over time, these strains tend to disappear, as the non-modified organisms are much greater in number, and with no competitive advantage, numbers win.
Every now and then, a mutation will occur that allows the organism to be better able to complete its reproduction cycle. In this case, the modified virus with the new trait will grow in population relative to the unchanged virus, and will out-compete the unmodified version, eventually replacing it.
In the case of leaky vaccines, there is a steady pressure on the virus to adapt around the effects of the vaccine, in much the same manner as the antibiotic-resistant bacteria were created by giving patients antibiotics that did not kill off (sterilize) all of the bacteria. The weaker individual bacteria died, leaving only the stronger, most resistant ones alive. The random mutation that caused those bacteria to evade antibiotics could just as easily have happened in a patient with no antibiotics, but without any antibiotics present, there would be no competitive advantage for the resistant bacteria, and just by sheer numbers (most bacteria not having the non-useful trait), the resistant strain would tend to dwindle and die out in time.
Viruses, though they are not really even alive by the standard definition (they do not perform cellular respiration), behave the same way.
The general trend is for pathogens to evolve to be less dangerous, but more contagious. Reproduction is what they are after, not making anyone sick. A virus that does not kill its host is more able to reproduce, since a dead host also means a lot of virions (individual virus particles) in that host's body will never get to reproduce. This is why very deadly viruses like Ebola and Marburg don't wipe out the population of Africa. They tend to self-limit by killing their hosts before they can spread very much.
Adaptation at a genetic level 𝘪𝘴 evolution. A virus becoming another, nearly identical variant of itself that is more adapted to its environment is evolution, and it takes place one nearly imperceptible step at a time. There is no such thing as a typical virus like SARS-CoV-2 suddenly one day becoming something other than a virus, like a bacterium or anything else... that would be a huge and sudden change, requiring a huge number of fortuitous genetic changes at the same time, and that is not how it works.
No, evolution and adaptation are not the same, at any level. The essential feature of the theory of evolution is a progressive change in an organism's form such as the supposed progression of shrew-like beings to a range of hominids and from ape-like hominids eventually to "homo sapiens." The fact that there is no verifiable evidence of such a thing ever happening is beside the point, that is not what we are talking about in viruses. Adaptation is not "directed," it is simply the result of external survival pressures on apparently random variations/mutations of the same organism, or in this case, virus. Believing that adaptation constitutes evolution is Lamarckian or just loose diction. Of course, TPTB will soon delete both from the next edition of the NewSpeak dictionary, since they are incompatible with marketing "safe and effective" bivalent vexxes that generate spike protein from virus variants of 6 months or more ago, rather than those that are dominant today. Viruses will no longer mutate and neither OAS or ADE will exist, b/c the words won't exist or will have no meaning.
Your own misunderstanding of what evolution is about makes it very easy for you to present the strawman here. Evolution is a very slow and gradual process, one genetic mutation at a time, that over long periods of time add up to create something new. It does not require profound changes from one kind of animal to the next... any genetic change that happens to make the organism more able to survive (survival of the fittest) is evolution in action. Your definition of "adaptation" is quite literally the definition of evolution-- but by this I mean the actual definition of evolution, not the one you posit where one day a shrew goes pop! and becomes some completely different animal. You're right, that's never happened... but no one but people who misunderstand the entire theory or who deliberately strawman it have actually advanced something so silly.
We are probably debating at the edges or past each other, but "adaptation" seems more directed. As such, it is not relevant to the virus case? Mutations are random events. They cannot, by definition, be aimed at "becoming" anything. Some of them are good, and some are bad, all of them are by accident. Adaptation is a *response* to stimuli, and viruses do not react or respond. Apologies if my pedantry is misdirected or confusing.
Do you think it would be a good idea for there to be more research done into the workings of the immune system?- it seems to me that very little work is being done.
Do you the mRNA vaccine developers know much or care enough about the actual effects of their products on the immune system?
We know more than we did yesterday, and the day before. Giving up is not our nature. The recent quest has been inhibited by the insane prohibitions of honest inquiry. We need to fix that first,
We don't know enough to expect good results, but tinkering is how we learn. So, no, we shouldn't stop tinkering, but it's wise to let them tinker with others, not ourselves. I'm always amazed they can find so many volunteers to tinker with.
In 2020 when the lockdowns and universal masking started, I commented on social media that instead of participating, I would "Trust my immune system to take care of me" and my comment almost immediately received dozens of "dislikes" and a storm of replies from people I didn't even know (which made me suspicious of an organized disinformation campaign). Ahh, the sweet smell of vindication!
That's what I constantly tweeted about. Based on early CDC risk rates I had a 99.5% chance of surviving Covid. To gain a possible .5% reward was not worth the risk of vaccination to me. I didn't buy into the hype.
Back in the 80's a local doctor was hounded out of the medical industrial complex because she dared to tell her patients to lose weight, change their diet and get exercise in treating Type II diabetes. She lost her license because she would not prescribe diabetes medication to patients who didn't need it. As a compounding factor she was african-american treating african american clients mainly. Apparently she was racist. I distinctly remember this case because I found it completely wrong and disturbing.
Fast forward 40 years and here we are - the whole society is wrong and disturbing.
In the 1970s with his low carb diet recommended to his heart patients, Atkins observed that a great many of them not only got better and lost weight, but no longer needed medication for type 2 diabetes. Everyone in pharma and otherwise tried to destroy and discredit Atkins. The heresy of helping people with diet rather than medications!
We also have the more recent examples of Gary Fettke and Tim Noakes. These two doctors heroically fought their censure, and won, but at great cost. Most others just knuckle under.
Thank you for your nuanced commentary, which highlights the deep complexity of virology and epidemiology. Contrast your analysis with this stupidity from Rachel Maddow, who has hundreds of thousands of listeners: "Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them, the virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else," she added with a shrug. "It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to go get more people. [Vaccines] will get us to the end of this." - Rachel Maddow, March 2021
Just as a point of clarification. The paper is presented as being published in Nature but it is actually in the much lower tier Scientific Reports which although part of the nature publishing group, papers in such journals are not typically spoken of as published in Nature. Still very interesting.
The CDC recently reported on long covid for different groups, including by sexual orientation to see how it is impacting the gay and trans communities.
Dr. JJ Couey called out ADE risk publicy as early as 4-22 2020, when I first heard him explain it. He also explained the improper use of PCR tests with clear potential for false positives being rolled out at the same time. He was calling out the unnaturalness of the virus with specific evidence in concert with many colleagues. Quite a hat trick. And now he is released from his two decades long academic position.
That information turned my attention, along with Dr. Chris Martenson's concerns voiced on Peak Prosperity, to searching even more carefully for credible science information ever since (PubMed and active scientists in many fields) and beyond what media were telling us. To this day, I trust the two of these people for ongoing insights. May have saved many lives including mine.
Just wanted to say thanks for all the valuable information you've shared over the past couple years....
it's my pleasure, Grace. thanks for reading :-)
E: "This an in-vitro study; it doesn’t look at clinical outcomes; things that seem bad in a cell culture might not mean very much in real life."
Waddaya mean?!?! Didn't they just approve the super-juice based on in-vitro study of antibodies of 8 mice? :-P
Experiments in mice are "in vivo", not "in vitro". Wrong organism, though.
A few points of discussion, just to check my logic. Point One, vaccines are routinely tested in mice, no? AFAIK, the annual flu shot, pimped out in the US every year, is also tested in mice. Point Two, from the standpoint of "relatively similar biology" mice are not a bad choice, are they? The problem is that the INITIAL testing on the mRNA vaccines should have been more thorough, and in fact, was not. On a vaccine, with known efficacy, properly positioned safety profile, being deployed against a stable target, i.e., not mutagenic, verifying performance via mouse testing might actually be okay. Am I confused? (No, I have not changed my position on the complete, barking lunacy of the mRNA vaccine program, nor the evil perpetrated by the CDC and their acolytes.) I only want to get a bit of nuanced understanding.
ETA: Maybe I was unclear. I am not (necessarily) claiming to make statements of fact above. I am offering ideas that I *think* might be correct, hoping for some feedback and correction. Again, the mRNA vaccines were barely qualified to be called "snake oil," but I hope to better understand some of the nuances. In other news, the CDC remains completely FOS.
"On a vaccine, with known efficacy, properly positioned safety profile, being deployed against a stable target, i.e., not mutagenic, verifying performance via mouse testing might actually be okay."
Where are the data for said vaccines?
Wait. We're back into looking for actual data? Conspiracy Theorist!
I was just checking my premises. Sounds like you are implying, and I would tend to agree, that we have no such vaccines anyway.
That's what would be expected, I followed that logic with the sinovac, which now I suspect ended up being harmful too... So, there is still a window for misfortune, better study it thoroughly...
Ooops, my bad. Well, that sure makes it all right. :-P
Thank you for this. Work product like this is what gave me the determination and strength to get through the last year as an unvaxxed in Austria. And the dividends continue. Having learned of some vax injuries in our circles, and having sailed through omicron easily without the vax, my kids trust me deeply and respect my opinion in a way that will probably carry on for a very long time. My husband also very grateful I’d begged him to wait until more evidence came out about these products. After just a couple months into the vax campaign no further begging was needed. 🙏
Remember public health agencies and the media urging healthy young people to "get vaccinated for the sake of others"? Ha ha ha! And then to think they ostracized the unvaxxed because they thought we were a danger to everyone else.
There are still advertisements on TV urging children to get vaxed. Last night an ad showed a smiling girl of about 12 getting a bandaid placed on her arm, then showing her smiling at her baby sister. The narrative was that she was doing something loving by getting the jab.
That is pure evil
The commercials are awful, pure lies
But that was the rationale.
Indeed. In danger of seeing through the public health bullcrap.
Absolutely correct.
Yup - reminds me of past history, sadly
So, everyone who was concerned about the potential for ADE back when they were telling us "that will never happen" is being vindicated. Although, even without this study it has become evident in data, that the further out from increasing boosters, the more likely death becomes. So I don't really think it matters that this is in vitro. It merely confirms real world observations.
Good post!
Gosh, aren’t we shocked and surprised. Confirming our good old American real world observations? Imagine! Time to get the world to conform back to sanity and reality.
Process question: Does any of this mean Pfizer has to stop pimping their juice? Because if so, that's a no-no! The Golden Goose is still laying eggs! Stated differently, at what point will any of these studies make the assholery of people like POTUS Biden, or Trudeau in Canada, or a host of other assholes around the World, obviously evil and force it to stop? My guts says, "Never" but might be a bit of a pessimist after 2 years of complete lunacy.
IF they did stop they'd have to spin the reasons why like never before.
Just imagine eg Trudeau saying - woops, got it all wrong, sorry, but the jabs are in fact likely to damage or even kill you and covid wasn't really that bad at all...
Get the lamp posts ready.
Thank God the lamp posts are safe - trudope will never say that.
They'll keep going until we mount sufficient resistance where it costs them more to keep going than to keep the narrative alive. Then they'll find some other snake oil to sell us.
Imagine what would happen if these drug companies actually were held accountable, like had to do a single randomized controlled trial in order to keep going. Why wouldn't they do an RCT? Because they'd find their products are relatively useless, if not harmful. So, snake oil.
Brush with the new FDA approved mRNA toothpaste or you're a Cavity Creep who endangers other people's oralhealth!
Tooth decay 🤣👏
Honestly the biggest takeaway for me was this:
>Recent studies have demonstrated several mechanisms leading to ADE, which can be FcR-dependent but ACE2-independent, FcR-independent but ACE2-dependent, S-protein conformational change-dependent, or both FcR- and ACE2-dependent ADE12,23,24,25,30.
ADE works through a variety of very different mechanisms, some of which we know about and perhaps some of which we may not know about. This virus is basically an expert in Aikido: It is skilled in a wide variety of methods to use its opponents moves against him.
Based on this and another recent paper, my conviction has been further reinforced that the different Omicron lineages are now convergently evolving towards whatever form allows them to make optimal use of the artificially homogenized human antibody response.
And so you'll have negative efficacy of these vaccines, not just because the immune response produced is inferior to natural immunity, but also because the virus will continue to recall those antibodies that help enhance its replication cycle.
To me that looks like an existential threat, born from an unprecedented idiotic experiment.
yes exactly, I was also a little surprised to see the mAbs enhancement at certain concentrations but not others, really suggest that ADE is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon.
Agreed: it is perplexing but we don’t really understand the mechanism yet. I think, believe that’s why the scientific process is so important. One step forward: we understand then wham something surprising and back to the drawing board. Sadly, in this case many to be harmed and/or will die.
One minor quibble. By my (admittedly limited) understanding, these viruses do not "evolve" nor do random changes in DNA--mutations if you will--automatically lead to more dangerous, better-adapted, optimal outcomes. I agree, wholeheartedly, that the whole "experiment" was some poorly-planned, horribly executed, B.S. I also agree, from what I have heard from folks like Peter McCollough, that "Omicron arose in the vaccinated" which is the (inevitable) outcome of leaky vaccines with a mutagenic target. Apologies if I misunderstand your larger point!
Omicron arising in the vaccinated as a result of leaky vaccines 𝘪𝘴 evolution. Viruses and other microorganisms definitely evolve... it's why we have antibiotic-resistant bacteria, among many others.
No, random mutations or transcription errors do not automatically lead to more dangerous, better-adapted, optimal outcomes. They're random, and most of them are harmful to the organism, causing it to be unable to survive, or at least less able to carry on its reproduction cycle. These variants quickly die out, as the better-adapted unmodified organism out-competes them.
Sometimes the change is neutral, neither presenting an obstacle nor an advantage to the organism. Over time, these strains tend to disappear, as the non-modified organisms are much greater in number, and with no competitive advantage, numbers win.
Every now and then, a mutation will occur that allows the organism to be better able to complete its reproduction cycle. In this case, the modified virus with the new trait will grow in population relative to the unchanged virus, and will out-compete the unmodified version, eventually replacing it.
In the case of leaky vaccines, there is a steady pressure on the virus to adapt around the effects of the vaccine, in much the same manner as the antibiotic-resistant bacteria were created by giving patients antibiotics that did not kill off (sterilize) all of the bacteria. The weaker individual bacteria died, leaving only the stronger, most resistant ones alive. The random mutation that caused those bacteria to evade antibiotics could just as easily have happened in a patient with no antibiotics, but without any antibiotics present, there would be no competitive advantage for the resistant bacteria, and just by sheer numbers (most bacteria not having the non-useful trait), the resistant strain would tend to dwindle and die out in time.
Viruses, though they are not really even alive by the standard definition (they do not perform cellular respiration), behave the same way.
The general trend is for pathogens to evolve to be less dangerous, but more contagious. Reproduction is what they are after, not making anyone sick. A virus that does not kill its host is more able to reproduce, since a dead host also means a lot of virions (individual virus particles) in that host's body will never get to reproduce. This is why very deadly viruses like Ebola and Marburg don't wipe out the population of Africa. They tend to self-limit by killing their hosts before they can spread very much.
Not evolution, adaptation. The virus isn't becoming a bacterium or other organism. It just adapts, to the extent it can, to its environment.
Adaptation at a genetic level 𝘪𝘴 evolution. A virus becoming another, nearly identical variant of itself that is more adapted to its environment is evolution, and it takes place one nearly imperceptible step at a time. There is no such thing as a typical virus like SARS-CoV-2 suddenly one day becoming something other than a virus, like a bacterium or anything else... that would be a huge and sudden change, requiring a huge number of fortuitous genetic changes at the same time, and that is not how it works.
No, evolution and adaptation are not the same, at any level. The essential feature of the theory of evolution is a progressive change in an organism's form such as the supposed progression of shrew-like beings to a range of hominids and from ape-like hominids eventually to "homo sapiens." The fact that there is no verifiable evidence of such a thing ever happening is beside the point, that is not what we are talking about in viruses. Adaptation is not "directed," it is simply the result of external survival pressures on apparently random variations/mutations of the same organism, or in this case, virus. Believing that adaptation constitutes evolution is Lamarckian or just loose diction. Of course, TPTB will soon delete both from the next edition of the NewSpeak dictionary, since they are incompatible with marketing "safe and effective" bivalent vexxes that generate spike protein from virus variants of 6 months or more ago, rather than those that are dominant today. Viruses will no longer mutate and neither OAS or ADE will exist, b/c the words won't exist or will have no meaning.
Your own misunderstanding of what evolution is about makes it very easy for you to present the strawman here. Evolution is a very slow and gradual process, one genetic mutation at a time, that over long periods of time add up to create something new. It does not require profound changes from one kind of animal to the next... any genetic change that happens to make the organism more able to survive (survival of the fittest) is evolution in action. Your definition of "adaptation" is quite literally the definition of evolution-- but by this I mean the actual definition of evolution, not the one you posit where one day a shrew goes pop! and becomes some completely different animal. You're right, that's never happened... but no one but people who misunderstand the entire theory or who deliberately strawman it have actually advanced something so silly.
We are probably debating at the edges or past each other, but "adaptation" seems more directed. As such, it is not relevant to the virus case? Mutations are random events. They cannot, by definition, be aimed at "becoming" anything. Some of them are good, and some are bad, all of them are by accident. Adaptation is a *response* to stimuli, and viruses do not react or respond. Apologies if my pedantry is misdirected or confusing.
Much appreciate the detailed (and informative) response.
I just feel really sorry for the children...
I just hope my little nephew (triple-juiced before birth; obviously, no-one consulted the aunt) will be fine...
Do you think given it’s complexities, researchers should stop tinkering with the immune system?
yes.
we've picked all the low-hanging fruit here and it's clear we don't know what we're doing any longer.
Do you think it would be a good idea for there to be more research done into the workings of the immune system?- it seems to me that very little work is being done.
Do you the mRNA vaccine developers know much or care enough about the actual effects of their products on the immune system?
We know more than we did yesterday, and the day before. Giving up is not our nature. The recent quest has been inhibited by the insane prohibitions of honest inquiry. We need to fix that first,
I have now resorted to referring them as “regressive” ideas. Sad, just truly sad.
Progzis.
We have no idea what we've done to humanity's immune system - nor do we care. Hubris.
The arrogance is breathtaking.
We don't know enough to expect good results, but tinkering is how we learn. So, no, we shouldn't stop tinkering, but it's wise to let them tinker with others, not ourselves. I'm always amazed they can find so many volunteers to tinker with.
Hubris.
In 2020 when the lockdowns and universal masking started, I commented on social media that instead of participating, I would "Trust my immune system to take care of me" and my comment almost immediately received dozens of "dislikes" and a storm of replies from people I didn't even know (which made me suspicious of an organized disinformation campaign). Ahh, the sweet smell of vindication!
That's what I constantly tweeted about. Based on early CDC risk rates I had a 99.5% chance of surviving Covid. To gain a possible .5% reward was not worth the risk of vaccination to me. I didn't buy into the hype.
Back in the 80's a local doctor was hounded out of the medical industrial complex because she dared to tell her patients to lose weight, change their diet and get exercise in treating Type II diabetes. She lost her license because she would not prescribe diabetes medication to patients who didn't need it. As a compounding factor she was african-american treating african american clients mainly. Apparently she was racist. I distinctly remember this case because I found it completely wrong and disturbing.
Fast forward 40 years and here we are - the whole society is wrong and disturbing.
In the 1970s with his low carb diet recommended to his heart patients, Atkins observed that a great many of them not only got better and lost weight, but no longer needed medication for type 2 diabetes. Everyone in pharma and otherwise tried to destroy and discredit Atkins. The heresy of helping people with diet rather than medications!
We also have the more recent examples of Gary Fettke and Tim Noakes. These two doctors heroically fought their censure, and won, but at great cost. Most others just knuckle under.
Sometimes it's awful to be vindicated.
Thank you for your nuanced commentary, which highlights the deep complexity of virology and epidemiology. Contrast your analysis with this stupidity from Rachel Maddow, who has hundreds of thousands of listeners: "Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them, the virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else," she added with a shrug. "It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to go get more people. [Vaccines] will get us to the end of this." - Rachel Maddow, March 2021
She's an idiot and will feign ignorance when confronted with her idiotic statement. As if being ignorant is somehow better than being an idiot.
That is hard to stomach wrt Maddow
8 mice > 6 in-vitro
BOW DOWN TO THE SCIENCE!!
we are so screwed
And all the mice contracted the disease..... lol
Just as a point of clarification. The paper is presented as being published in Nature but it is actually in the much lower tier Scientific Reports which although part of the nature publishing group, papers in such journals are not typically spoken of as published in Nature. Still very interesting.
thanks, corrected.
I received Sotrovimab monoclonals last Christmas. Hope I am ok....
the authors look at Sotrovimab briefly, it doesn't have the same ADE effects.
Thank you. And thank you for your amazing work.
The CDC recently reported on long covid for different groups, including by sexual orientation to see how it is impacting the gay and trans communities.
But no breakdown of long covid by vaxxed vs. unvaxxed status, since that is irrelevant information from their view. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/pulse/long-covid.htm
Dear Lord in Heaven, when will the madness stop? "Gay and trans communities"--the very concept itself is an absurdity.
Somewhere out there is a crack-team of public health officials coming up with these ideas as intensifying carnival music plays in the background.
Thanks for this balanced explanation, very intriguing.
Dr. JJ Couey called out ADE risk publicy as early as 4-22 2020, when I first heard him explain it. He also explained the improper use of PCR tests with clear potential for false positives being rolled out at the same time. He was calling out the unnaturalness of the virus with specific evidence in concert with many colleagues. Quite a hat trick. And now he is released from his two decades long academic position.
That information turned my attention, along with Dr. Chris Martenson's concerns voiced on Peak Prosperity, to searching even more carefully for credible science information ever since (PubMed and active scientists in many fields) and beyond what media were telling us. To this day, I trust the two of these people for ongoing insights. May have saved many lives including mine.