Sibiriak

Lancet review argues for delay in launching a booster campaign: Considerations in boosting COVID-19 vaccine immune responses

But the efficacy in preventing hospitalization and death is still quite robust. That's the crucial fact for me. The risk of ADE seems purely speculative at this point. That makes some sense. Hopefully your threat perception is accurate.

Add arugula to that list. One of my favorites.

Nothing definitive can be stated at this point, really. Here's another take: Third COVID Vaccine Dose Could Be the Last

Yeah, not at all surprising.

A very sad story, worth reading: https://www.gosanangelo.com/story/news/2021/08/22/texas-covid-delta-variant-hospitalizations-high-mom-fights-save-husband/8196516002/

Fact Check- Study did not find vaccinated healthcare workers carry 251 times the viral load of those who were unvaccinated

Hmmm.... interesting. Thanks.

Yeah, the book is titled: "The Cheese Trap: How Breaking a Surprising Addiction Will Help You Lose Weight, Gain Energy, and Get Healthy". Forbes article (2017):

That may be true, assuming the J&J press report assertions can be taken as definitive. My only option was Sputnik V, which is similar to the J&J vaccine [ it uses the same adenovirus as J&J for the first dose (adenovirus-26) and a different adenovirus (adenovirus-5) for the second dose. ] A recent official statement:

But not an actual concern at the moment, as the paper points out: Most importantly, the current vaccines appear to be very effective against the Delta variant in regards to hospitalization and death. New vaccines based on mutant strains are under development, but there doesn't seem to be an urgent need for them at the moment.

Al, you fail to provide any specific criticisms of the posted article (I assume you didn't read it). "Criticized by the scientific community" is simply a vacuous, unscientific appeal to a supposed authority. It contributes nothing to the discussion. You're a pretty smart guy. It would be great if you critiqued some of the author's arguments. That would be a welcome contribution. They seem quite reasonable, which isn't to say indisputable. They should be debated, not dismissed outright.

Yeah, I've been leaning in that direction for some time (and btw, that Jeff Nelson video is pretty good-- blistering attack on Dr. Joel "Noni Juice" Fuhrman!) Back in 2017, I posted this: I decided to take another look into the ALA conversion issue, and the more I look into the more complex and uncertain the whole issue becomes. It also make me wonder about the wisdom in doing speculative calculations based on such imperfect information. [As an aside, it has always struck me as odd from an evolutionary standpoint that humans would NEED to eat fish or fish oil to maintain optimum health.] As far as the conversion rates are concerned, it appears that the 9% figure for DHA is a real outlier, and that: But that all may be largely irrelevant when the complexities of DHA uptake into the brain are taken into consideration. The following review really gets deep into the issue of ALA conversion and brain DHA requirements. It’s a must read, imo. Is docosahexaenoic acid synthesis from α-linolenic acid sufficient to supply the adult brain? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163782715000223 A few quotes: See also: The effect of linoleic acid on the whole body synthesis rates of polyunsaturated fatty acids from α-linolenic acid and linoleic acid in free-living rats http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955286315003502 Whole body synthesis rates of DHA from α-linolenic acid are greater than brain DHA accretion and uptake rates in adult rats http://www.jlr.org/content/55/1/62.full Plasma non-esterified docosahexaenoic acid is the major pool supplying the brain https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15791

Wow, you actually watched it? Almost two hours! I'm impressed.

C'mon, Al, surely you can do better than that.