Jump to content
Gordo

Just curious, anyone have a plan, or preps for global pandemic?

Covid-19 Vaccine Survey  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Your Vaccine Status is:

    • Fully vaccinated
      20
    • Partially vaccinated
      0
    • Not Vaccinated
      5
  2. 2. If not (fully) vaccinated, your reason(s) for your decision (check all that apply):

    • Not Applicable - I'm vaccinated
      19
    • The rapid vaccine development process makes me distrust them
      3
    • I'm worried about vaccine side effects
      4
    • I don't think I'm at much risk of getting a covid infection
      3
    • I don't believe a covid infection is a serious risk for someone like me
      4
    • I'm waiting until the vaccines receive final approval
      0
    • Fear of needles
      0
    • A medical condition prevents me from getting vaccines
      0
    • Bad reaction to the first dose of the covid vaccine
      0
    • I already had COVID-19 and don't think I need the vaccine for protection
      2
    • Vaccine not available where I live
      0
  3. 3. Are you OK with having your CR forum name included on a list of members who have/haven't chosen to be vaccinated?

    • Yes
      22
    • No
      3


Recommended Posts

On 8/17/2021 at 2:50 PM, Ron Put said:

This is perhaps the most informative and well-reasoned discussion of the Covid pandemic I've seen in a while.
 

Actually ... I prefer another ... aka the MASS PSYCHOSIS video ... 

(3 min version) and (full version) ...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AlPater said:

The author's ideas have been [...] widely criticized by the scientific community.

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.

 

Edited by Sibiriak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AlPater said:

A media/newspaper provider should have the integrity to exclude stories about QAnon and vaccinine misinfomation.

The author's ideas have been presented in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration#Critical_commentaries and widely criticized by the scientific community.

 

Read this link I urge everyone who won’t get vaccinated to read this link! 

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-08-17/vaccinated-covid-doctor-shot

      --  Saul

Edited by Dean Pomerleau
Fixed broken link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, AlPater said:

A media/newspaper provider should have the integrity to exclude stories about QAnon and vaccinine misinfomation.

The author's ideas have been presented in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration#Critical_commentaries and widely criticized by the scientific community.

 

Al, one should also have the integrity to discuss the arguments made, not resort to attacking the source. You have a pattern of attacking the source whenever you don't like an argument, although based on your response, I highly doubt that you actually listened to, or read, the interview. And who exactly is "the scientific community" and why do you think that it excludes scientists of differing opinions?

I don't know how old you are or where you've learned this mode of "arguing," but it's really getting tiring and it is not conducive to a reasoned, mature discussion.

It's easy to attack a source, any source. The politically sensitive topics on Wikipedia are often not reliable and usually have a horde of woke party faithful on guard, ensuring that the content reflects their biases and propaganda. One can also attack The New York Times, it has a long history of left-wing bias, going back to glorifying Stalin's USSR and accusing those who spoke of atrocities of spreading lies, and more recently involving a partnership with China Daily and printing Chinese propaganda without disclosing that it received payments for it -- the NYT is currently quietly deleting such "news stories" from its online archives, which is quite unprecedented. But it doesn't mean that because of it one should ignore factual stories that deserve our attention.

The interview in question is with Martin Kuldorff, who is a rather well-respected Harvard researcher and epidemiologist. Attacking him and dismissing him says much more about you than about his credibility.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Gordo said:

China rejects WHO plan for study of COVID-19 origin

WHO plan lists hypothesis that Chinese violation of laboratory protocols had caused virus to leak during research

China achieved its goal, with the help of the leftist media, armies of social media trolls, and compromised Western scientists (or, just useful idiots) who attacked those who dared speak of what was and still is the most likely explanation for the origins of the virus. Seed enough doubt to muddy the water and people's biases will do the rest.

 

 

7 hours ago, Saul said:

Read this link I urge everyone who won’t get vaccinated to read this link! 

Well, one can just as easily claim to be "losing compassion" for those who fail to get the flu vaccine too, or for those with a  BMI of 25 and over. After all, the flu kills significantly more children and teens than Covid does, and obesity is responsible for more deaths than Covid and it sucks up a huge portion of our healthcare costs.

It's a now predictable fearmongering piece, in line with the current coverage by much of the media. I am familiar with Sircar, as she is one of "the scientists" trotted out by NPR to tell very similar horror anecdotes, which are then parlayed into calls for vaccine and mask mandates for all.

It's clearly effective, but it doesn't mean that one should base grossly coercive public policies on it.

Edited by Ron Put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Speaking of politicization and spin, I just watched Fauci scrambling on Face the Nation to dismiss the Mayo Clinic survey showing significantly lower effectiveness for Pfizer's vaccine compared to Moderna's. According to Mayo, as of July Pfizer is 46% effective, compared to 76% for Moderna.

While this does not mean that Pfizer is not effective at preventing death or hospitalization, which is the primary aim, it does call into question the sourcing preferences given to Pfizer over other manufacturers, and the CDC's rush to approve Pfizer, while delaying review and approval for its competitors (including AZ and J&J). And let's keep in mind that Pfizer is charging the taxpayers the highest prices and its distribution is also the costliest.

Between the Covid origins cover-up, and the strong whiff of favoritism and political posturing, Fauci should be forced to step down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ron Put said:

Al, one should also have the integrity to discuss the arguments made, not resort to attacking the source. You have a pattern of attacking the source whenever you don't like an argument, although based on your response, I highly doubt that you actually listened to, or read, the interview. And who exactly is "the scientific community" and why do you think that it excludes scientists of differing opinions?

I don't know how old you are or where you've learned this mode of "arguing," but it's really getting tiring and it is not conducive to a reasoned, mature discussion.

It's easy to attack a source, any source. The politically sensitive topics on Wikipedia are often not reliable and usually have a horde of woke party faithful on guard, ensuring that the content reflects their biases and propaganda. One can also attack The New York Times, it has a long history of left-wing bias, going back to glorifying Stalin's USSR and accusing those who spoke of atrocities of spreading lies, and more recently involving a partnership with China Daily and printing Chinese propaganda without disclosing that it received payments for it -- the NYT is currently quietly deleting such "news stories" from its online archives, which is quite unprecedented. But it doesn't mean that because of it one should ignore factual stories that deserve our attention.

The interview in question is with Martin Kuldorff, who is a rather well-respected Harvard researcher and epidemiologist. Attacking him and dismissing him says much more about you than about his credibility.
 

Ok Ron please apply to yourself your criticisms of Al Pater. Details please wrt to the NYT ALLEGATIONS. IM SO CURIOUS!

Edited by Mike41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mike41 said:

Ok Ron please apply to yourself your criticisms of Al Pater. Details please wrt to the NYT ALLEGATIONS. IM SO CURIOUS!

Hi, Mike. I'd rather not deviate much into discussing The NYTimes, since it's not the subject of this thread. My intention was to illustrate, not to defeat an argument., since there was no argument made on the merits of the interview I linked to.

I didn't cite the Walter Duranty affair as is it generally a well-known and well-detailed historical fact and is featured in many works on Stalin and the USSR. Even the NYT's own consultant hired to review the Pulitzer it earned for Duranty's coverage proposed that the award be rescinded.

The China Daily scandal is less covered as the players are still living and the biases are still hot, but it involved many other left-leaning publications in the US and Europe. Still, it has been covered, not so much in the US, but I have seen it even in The Guardian.

The deletion of the archives is an unprecedented editorial decision in the history of the NYTimes, although one can argue that the surreptitious editing (some of it acknowledged only after other media pointed to it, much of it never acknowledged) of the original 1619 historical nonsense it published in 2019 qualifies, too.

Here is a China Daily summary I found:

NYT Memory-Holes CCP Propaganda
 

Edited by Ron Put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ron Put said:

Hi, Mike. I'd rather not deviate much into discussing The NYTimes, since it's not the subject of this thread. My intention was to illustrate, not to defeat an argument., since there was no argument made on the merits of the interview I linked to.

I didn't cite the Walter Duranty affair as is it generally a well-known and well-detailed historical fact and is featured in many works on Stalin and the USSR. Even the NYT's own consultant hired to review the Pulitzer it earned for Duranty's coverage proposed that the award be rescinded.

The China Daily scandal is less covered as the players are still living and the biases are still hot, but it involved many other left-leaning publications in the US and Europe. Still, it has been covered, not so much in the US, but I have seen it even in The Guardian.

The deletion of the archives is an unprecedented editorial decision in the history of the NYTimes, although one can argue that the surreptitious editing (some of it acknowledged only after other media pointed to it, much of it never acknowledged) of the original 1619 historical nonsense it published in 2019 qualifies, too.

Here is a China Daily summary I found:

NYT Memory-Holes CCP Propaganda
 

Ron I can believe this cause corporations are motivated first and foremost by profits. As you noted the WSJ also participated so not really a left wing conspiracy but simply a case of money talks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mike41 said:

Ron I can believe this cause corporations are motivated first and foremost by profits. As you noted the WSJ also participated so not really a left wing conspiracy but simply a case of money talks!

True, although the WSJ was the only publication to my knowledge that disclosed clearly that the pieces were China Daily content AND disclosed that China Day is controlled by the CCP.

Be that as it may, let's not make this about The NYT or the Journal. I was making a completely different point, one about addressing the subject matter of a post, instead of attacking the source, which effectively shuts of any future reasoned discussion.

Back to the topic:

AZD7442 PROVENT Phase III prophylaxis trial met primary endpoint in preventing COVID-19
 

77% reduced risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19

First long-acting antibody combination to prevent COVID-19
 

Positive high-level results from the PROVENT Phase III pre-exposure prophylaxis trial showed AstraZeneca's AZD7442 achieved a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19, the trial's primary endpoint.

AZD7442, a combination of two long-acting antibodies (LAAB), reduced the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 by 77% (95% confidence interval (CI): 46, 90), compared to placebo. The trial accrued 25 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 at the primary analysis.

There were no cases of severe COVID-19 or COVID-19-related deaths in those treated with AZD7442. In the placebo arm, there were three cases of severe COVID-19, which included two deaths.

AZD7442 is the first antibody combination (non-vaccine) modified to potentially provide long-lasting protection that has demonstrated prevention of COVID-19 in a clinical trial.

The trial included 5,197 participants in a 2:1 randomisation AZD7442 to placebo. The primary analysis was based on 5,172 participants who did not have SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline.

More than 75% of participants had co-morbidities, which include conditions that have been reported to cause a reduced immune response to vaccination.

The LAAB was well tolerated and preliminary analyses show adverse events were balanced between the placebo and AZD7442 groups.

Myron J. Levin, MD, Professor of Pediatrics and Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, US, and principal investigator on the trial, said: “The PROVENT data show that one dose of AZD7442, delivered in a convenient intramuscular form, can quickly and effectively prevent symptomatic COVID-19. With these exciting results, AZD7442 could be an important tool in our arsenal to help people who may need more than a vaccine to return to their normal lives.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, DHL said:

This is my plan.

1) Yawn

2) Eat Pizza

3) No vaccine for something that is 99.5% survivable for someone under 60.

4) No supplements or drugs other than extra ice cream (with a banana)

5) More Pizza

There are an array of studies that indicate CRP levels are predictive of severe complications from COVID-19; eating pizza and ice cream and other junk food surely would raise CRP levels. I think a very misunderstood thing about COVID (and even the seasonal flu) is that even though it is not likely to kill you, it can implicate your well being in the future through complications -- many of which are understudied because they are very new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the recent talk (and controversy apparently) about "booster shots" had me wondering... since I got the J&J vax, which booster, if I decide I should get one, should/would I get?  This led me to some searches which turned up an interesting article published recently - I didn't hear anything about this until randomly stumbling upon it today:

https://news.yahoo.com/studies-show-j-j-vaccine-170757355.html

A recent study showed that the J&J vax is "highly effective against the delta variant", but maybe more importantly: “Current data for the eight months studied so far show that the single-shot Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine generates a strong neutralizing antibody response that does not wane,” said Mathai Mammen, the global head of Janssen Research & Development at Johnson & Johnson, in a press release. “Rather, we observe an improvement over time. In addition, we observe a persistent and particularly robust, durable cellular immune response.”  

There was possibly some hint of this from the clinical trials where they found that the J&J vaccine was 100% effective at preventing severe symptoms and hospitalizations starting four weeks after people got the shot (and it was not as effective UNTIL 4 weeks after).

Maybe all you mRNA people should be getting the J&J vax for your booster! 😉

And speaking of the mRNA vaccines... I finally ran in to an actual real person in my circle that suffered from a nasty complication from an mRNA vaccine - he is around 40 years old, and had myocarditis his docs said was caused by the vaccine.  This led me to do some more searching and I see the FDA actually updated their patient provider fact sheets to reflect this risk:

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-june-25-2021

Quote
  • Today, the FDA is announcing revisions to the patient and provider fact sheets for the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines regarding the suggested increased risks of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart) following vaccination. For each vaccine, the Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine (Vaccination Providers) has been revised to include a warning about myocarditis and pericarditis and the Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers has been revised to include information about myocarditis and pericarditis. This update follows an extensive review of information and the discussion by CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting on Wednesday. The data presented at this meeting reinforced the FDA’s decision to revise the fact sheets and further informed the specific revisions. The warning in the Fact Sheets for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccines notes that reports of adverse events suggest increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly following the second dose and with onset of symptoms within a few days after vaccination. Additionally, the Fact Sheets for Recipients and Caregivers for these vaccines note that vaccine recipients should seek medical attention right away if they have chest pain, shortness of breath, or feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart after vaccination. The FDA and CDC are monitoring the reports, collecting more information, and will follow-up to assess longer-term outcomes over several months.

Another possible reason to avoid the mRNA vaccines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always, what we have is "best"; what we don't have is "worse".

"hope springs eternal in the human breast; man is but always to be blessed"

😉

  --  Saul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gordo said:

Another possible reason to avoid the mRNA vaccines.

Based on what I know, my opinion is that the mRNA vaccines should be safe for most. Just like the AZ and J&J vaccines. Given the choice, I personally would go for a vaccine based on a tried and proven technology, since there is simply no long-term data on the safety of the mRNAs and there are some nagging questions.

But nowadays politics is driving the coverage and the response to Covid, as well as the tools used to combat it. Germany financed its darling BionTech to the tune of 400 million Euros last year and by eliminating AstraZeneca it's both punishing the UK for Brexit and helping its own economy -- BionTech may end up being responsible for 0.5% of Germany's growth this year, just in time for the elections.

In the US, J&J and AZ were quickly blocked by the government, ensuring huge profits for Pfizer. One has to wonder if the delay in Pfizer's vaccine announcement until a few days after the election, and the fact that a Pfizer lobbyist was Biden's campaign chairman, have something to do with the obvious favoritism shown to Pfizer. Moderna appears to be a lucky beneficiary, being far smaller and thus not a threat, and employing similar technology. 

It's even more notable that the FDA is stalling approval of the competing, much cheaper vaccines (demanding a two-shot trial for J&J and apparently a full review for Novavax), while fast-tracking a booster shot for Pfizer (which also appears less effective against the Delta variant than AstraZeneca and Moderna).

Those are questions that a free and independent press would normally ask, but we live in interesting times and most of the media regale us with scary stories and horrific anecdotes about Covid deaths of those who don't wear masks, or question the wisdom of lockdowns and forced vaccinations.

What crime?! What Afghanistan?! It's all Covid, stupid!

 

Edited by Ron Put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron,

Are you ever going to stop bloviating about the politics of Covid? You sound like a broken record. Wasn't it you who complained that Covid is dominating the world's and this forum's attention to the point that we barely talk about health and CR anymore?

If you are so tired of it, I have a suggestion. Stop perpetuating it. 

--Dean 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

Ron,

Are you ever going to stop bloviating about the politics of Covid? You sound like a broken record. Wasn't it you who complained that Covid is dominating the world's and this forum's attention to the point that we barely talk about health and CR anymore?

If you are so tired of it, I have a suggestion. Stop perpetuating it. 

--Dean 

Unfortunately, it is predominantly political, Dean.

Politicians are using it to change our world and some of us are not OK with it.

Did I say something that is not true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ron Put said:

Did I say something that is not true?

As I've pointed out repeatedly, it is not uncommon for you to say things that are untrue. But on the specific topic at hand, I choose not to be dragged into a debate about the politicization of Covid and thereby contribute to the endless droning.

--Dean

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

As I've pointed out repeatedly, it is not uncommon for you to say things that are untrue

Oh, come on, Dean... Like what, exactly? You repeating the 2.2 million dead Americans estimates?

And yet here you are, in the middle of the "endless droning." Anyway, I for one am always happy to hear your thoughts on the subject, especially if you have a specific and reasoned point to make.

Cheers.

Edited by Ron Put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following video was uploaded 20 Aug. on Info Wars (Alex Jones' banned channel on YT, Twitter, FB, etc, etc).

Hasidic Jewish Doctor--Dr. Vladimir Zelenko: on OTC COVID treatment.

https://odysee.com/@AlexJonesChannel:c/Hasidic-Jewish-Doctor--COVID-Medical-Tyranny-is-Genocide-Against-the-Innocent:4?r=2gW9aLR61jhirJYqQX31Kaip7FzWjsXs

Bottom line: A potential over-the-counter solution for COVID. Quercetin + Zinc + Vit d + Vit C.  Quercetin being the key .... a  "transport" molecule to "carry" Zinc better into cells.

Of course, there  are influencing factors here -- products for sale, etc. Take it FWIW.

Edited by KHashmi317

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re. booster shots: that pretty much baffles me.

IF the shot has been designed to counteract a new significant variant, then it's welcome. Delta may be or may not be any longer considered significant. So far and I'm speaking about Italy, mass vaccination, even though not complete, seems to keep the epidemics at bay.

BUT, if the shot is just believed to keep a high immune response, than we must discuss the biology of the immune system. Antibodies count rises just after a viral infection, to decline progressively just because of basic economy. Useless to produce so many specific proteins all the time when there is no real need. Immune memory is conserved though and as far as the known viral protein is recognized, the body suddenly starts its production again. It takes a few days to build up the right concentration, but it happens almost unfailingly.

So, I would like to hear some real facts about the booster shot. Did any studies show a really significantly diminished immune memory after only a few months?

If not I see no point in proposing booster shots if there is no significant variant to fight.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Khurram is now sharing content from Alex Jones' InfoWars. Boy this forum has really jumped the shark...

Was there any evidence from controlled experiments in people that this combination of zinc ionophores has any benefit against covid? Because the idea that shuttling more zinc into cells via quercetin (or EGCG) to prevent or treat covid was pretty thoroughly debunked more than a year ago:

On 5/15/2020 at 3:01 PM, TomBAvoider said:

Chris Masterjohn on zinc ionophores:

https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/covid-19/can-quercetin-or-egcg-reduce-the-risk-of-covid-19-covid-19-updates

Well worth the read, but the bottom line - the odds for zinc and these particular ionophores are very poor, if not zero. YMMV.

--Dean 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

the idea that shuttling more zinc into cells via quercetin (or EGCG) to prevent or treat covid was pretty thoroughly debunked more than a year ago

Was it though?  A quick search of pubmed seems to indicate otherwise:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=zinc+ionophore+covid

My impression was that it is probably helpful in early stages, but possibly useless in advanced stages when you really have to deal with the cytokine storm (at that point you aren't really fighting 'covid' per se).

Here is a newer published study:

20-Week Study of Clinical Outcomes of Over-the-Counter COVID-19 Prophylaxis and Treatment

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34225463/

Design and participants.: We present results of a clinical study with a multi-component OTC "core formulation" regimen used in a multiply exposed adult population. Analysis of clinical outcome data from our sample of over 100 subjects - comprised of roughly equal sized regimen-compliant (test) and non-compliant (control) groups meeting equivalent inclusion criteria - demonstrates a strong statistical significance in favor of use of the core formulations.

Results.: While both groups were moderate in size, the difference between them in outcomes over the 20-week study period was large and stark: Just under 4% of the compliant test group presented flu-like symptoms, but none of the test group was COVID-positive; whereas 20% of the non-compliant control group presented flu-like symptoms, three-quarters of whom (15% overall of the control group) were COVID-positive.

Conclusions.: Offering a low cost, readily implemented anti-viral approach, the study regimen may serve, at the least, as a stopgap modality and, perhaps, as a useful tool in combatting the pandemic.

From the full text I see:

Quote

The core supplementation formulations included zinc; zinc ionophores (quina plant bark extract and quercetin); vitamins C, D3 and E; and

l-lysine. Sourcing for these components was, except as noted below, from a range of well-known manufacturers of name brand

supplements. The core supplementation formulation components have been demonstrated, as per references below, to have beneficial effects both

outside of and within clinical settings in the prevention of viral infections and also in the treatment of early stages of such diseases. By way

of selection criteria of those components for the roles they were anticipated to serve in the formulations, we briefly review relevant

biochemical/immunological background of each.

 

Edited by Gordo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×