Coronavirus | Discussion

This comparison is full of flaws, though.

-The mRNA used in the vaccine is modified. The uridine there the 'U 'has been completely substituted by N1-Methylpseudouridine. This is new, and we still do not fully understand what such a modification does. For instance how many CYCLES such a modified mRNA can be used as a blueprint to make the antigen. This means the actual dose of the antigen produced has a great variation and is unknown, but higher than 'natural'. This even was the purpose of making that substitution!

On the amino acid level there are additionally 2 proline substitutions which are made to enhance immune reactions. We also don't know much about its side effects.

-The mRNA in the vaccine codes for a part of the virus only. Unfortunately it is the S protein, a part of the virus which is associated with many toxic effects at the virus and so at the vaccine as well.

-The mRNA in the vaccine is encapsulated with LNP's which don't have approval for medical use. By that we don't know about its attributes and where it lasts. The idea to enter cells by positively charged LNPs to bring in a foreign modified mRNA is new. The complete biodistribution is still unknown and never has been fully researched at. It can enter there where the original virus never would and by that it adds behaviours which are completely off from the natural infection!

And finally: The vaccines don't prevent infection. So you need to get through the vaccination AND infection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Found something....(thanks to drbeen)
Now I am curious who can comprehend that..it's actually quite obvious and one does not need to be familiar with maths or studies.

My comment: It belongs to: "Another study which has been on the news recently: How you can bend conclusions mixing up relative values to absolutes to your like."

"Apparent risks of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome diagnoses after COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-Cov-2 Infection"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44161-022-00177-8

The conclusion: "For POTS-associated diagnoses, in particular, the post-infection risk was 5.35 (5.05–5.68, P < 0.001) times higher after exposure to SARS-Cov-2 infection than after exposure to vaccination."

The real value: 1.134 means 13.4% higher only!

Would you be able to find the manipulation?

I try to extract the essence and then tell me how you would see that.

It's a study about POTS. You actually don't need to know what it really is to get to the issue, but here: A simplified idea what those set of symptoms are. When you are resting like sitting or lying and then you stand up quickly your body has to regulate the new situation that you are in an upright position now. If it cannot you are suffering from POTS which usually appears as: Dizziness, raised pulse rate, fatigue, vertigo.....

OK.
They compared the influence on POTS if you get vaccinated.
They compared the influence on POTS if you get infected.

Good?

Group 1: Before the vaccine the incidence rate of POTS in that group: 0.68% then 90 days after vaccination: 0.91%. means: Odds is 0.91% / 0.68% = 1.338 times greater.

Group 2: Before the infection the incidence of POTS in that group : 3.2% then 90 days after infection: 4.86%. Means Odds: 4.86% / 3.2% = 1.518 times greater.

How 'they' did the comparison now:
The vaccine group raised to 0.91% the infected group to 4.86%. This means the Odds relation is 4.86% / 0.91% = 5.34 times higher. NO THAT IS wrong!

The right comparison IS to use the odds!!! 1.518 / 1.338 = 1.134 times more when you get infected compared to when you get vaccinated AND

1.518 / 1.21 = 1.25 times higher when getting infected compared to the control group.

It should be obvious to everybody that when a group starts already at 3.2% and goes up to 4.86% you have to use the relation and you can NOT use the absolute 4.86% and compare that to 0.91% right?

This is that much obvious that anybody can see it..actually! But this study got peer-revived...by whores of science eermm scientists....

You clearly can see how they manipulated FIG3

 

I don't get it.
Strep is streptococcus, a bacterium, hence we use an antibootic as treatment such as Amoxicillin.
What has that to do with a virus?

And the last question is a valid one..IMHO.
Not saying it is causal. Means "Because we've sent money to the Ukraine we don't have money left to guarantee for basic meds." OP also did not...

We have the same problem. Many basic meds are not available. There must have been some mismanagement for sure.

And please no political associations. I sorely replied to a content of somebody. I would have replied the same if it was a "leftist" or something else.

 

2 different ways how it can be understood...
1. It weakens the IS so other pathogens have a greater chance to infect, means co-infection.

AFAIK SARS-COV-2 is here not suspicious, at least not more than other respiratory system related viruses. Sure when an individual fights the virus it has to assign resources to that 'fight'.
This means it should be clear that the IS has already capacities occupied. The same applies if one has co-morbidities or other ongoing infections which already occupy capacities.
But it is common sense that if somebody is sick fighting a pathogen generally that we take care and stay at home, take a rest and avoid any additional IS taxing activities.(Best would be to support it even more by taking vitamins, zinc, etc...)

I replied that way because SARS-COV-2 is not known to promote other pathogens. That's why I asked: What has strep to do with a / the virus?

This wording points to my previous explanation. The IS turns against us.
2. Auto immune reactions.

Body makes auto antibodies (as a reaction to the virus), ABs which also attack receptors which are needed for proper body functions.
There is actually a 3rd point. Some individuals have problems to clear the virus completely. They or parts of those constantly poke the IS.
At point 2 and 3 we are not speaking of a co-infection, though.

Mutations and family tree.
It is complex, not even the experts are in agreement, sometimes.
AFAIK BQ.1 came from BA.5, XBB from BA.2.
BA.5 itself from BA.2.
Also BA.4, BA.2.12.1 and BA.2.75 came from BA.2

Either way.
IMHO the details do actually not matter most. Also not how they are created. (random error or random recombination).
We never should forget. There is NO intelligence and no intentional direction behind both! All is based on the random error principle.
Ribosome can make an error not translating correctly and can confuse viral mRNA from one strand to another and by that can recombine variants.

'We' then assign retrospectively intelligence to that, but it is based on: "I make here and there some random changes, I do that simultaneously at a huge amount of infected individuals, the chance to get a new 'surviving' one is most then."

That's why it is more Important to look at the 'rules'...

Mutations are either created by random errors in the reproduction process or recombinations there.
Each individual carries lots of own mutations during an ongoing infection. Most of them are 'minor' so they never play a role. Anyway we know tons of mutations that have been found in labs. Most are never in the news.

The more immune pressure the more mutations AKA immune escape. Means: If a variant hits a population that was already infected by that variant OR was vaccinated against it there is more pressure to escape = to mutate 'away' from the acquired immunity.
In China we don't expect a great immune pressure, because many individuals are still 'naive' to the predominant variant. This may change at future waves.

The 'mutation direction': To become more contagious at first place. Once a mutation that is more contagious has been randomly created it even attracts attention by that attribute!
More contagious also includes the fact to be as such even though there is already some immunity created before.
This comes along with a similar or less virulence, though.

And finally an interesting study.
"Twice-Daily Oral Zinc in the Treatment of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial"
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciac807/6795268?login=false

Even though the effect on mortality was not statistically significant, at ICU admission and at combined outcome it was.

So how to read:
Zinc reduces mortality and ICU admission. At mortality the study power was insufficient to have a statistical significance, though.
At ICU admission there was enough power also at the combined outcome.

Here also: Although this is a good study one has to read the values correctly. The 95% CI Confidence interval at mortality Odds Ratio is exceeding one (OR: .68; 95% CI .34–1.35).

 

Something more important.

I already pleaded for COVID vaccine EUA withdrawal. The EUA was justified if at all until delta..but now...
Either way what others opinions are, some facts need to be known, especially for those who still consider to get the vaccine.

Some history
Swine Flu vaccine 1976: Has been withdrawn. 1 serious event per 100,000 vaccinees.
Rotavirus vaccine 1999: Has been withdrawn 1-2 serious events per 10,000 vaccinees

Paper:
https://sensiblemed.substack.com/p/why-we-question-the-safety-of-covid
Study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22010283?via=ihub

COVID vaccine: 1 serious adverse event per 800 vaccinees!

Conclusion?

OK
Another study about the new bivalent vaccine:

"Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine"
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full

Yes you read correctly. The higher the number of vaccines received, the HIGHER the risk of contracting COVID. This clearly point towards immune imprinting / exhaustion. The estimated effectiveness remaining is only 30%.

Moderated:
https://rumble.com/v23x33u-more-vaccines-causes-more-infections.html


Regardless of your previous opinion of the COVID vaccines, take that into your consideration when you think about your next shot.

No matter where the vaccine's sweet-point was, they are over it!

A withdrawal would be the rational consequence, at least at pre-pandemic rational times.

EDIT:
I just saw Dr. Campbell has taken down his video where he presented that study.
I don't know why....will let you know.

He had to take it down from YT, but it is still on Rumble.
He updated his description of the study.

I am updating the link and the description. To be fair he added another outcome where the estimated effectiveness remaining VE is 30%.

So we have to get this all together:

Vaccine status according to 2 recent studies:
One based on publicly available data from Pfizer and Moderna studies, one based on a huge amount of healthcare workers (Employees of Cleveland Clinic, n = 51,011)

1 serious adverse event out of 800 people vaccinated and the estimated remaining vaccine effectiveness only 30% left, with the outcome the more shots, the HIGHER the risk of contracting COVID.

 

'Herd immunity' was an unpleasant expression for that what we call now natural immunity.
The pandemic has originated lots of strange expressions such as being 'asymptomatically ill'.

The term herd immunity implied that we all can become immune a life time, which was a mistake, it mutates more than previously thought. On the other hand it's due to mutations that it became Omicron at all and by that it has weakened a lot...

But natural immunity is the major fact why the pandemic has become endemic AKA what we fortunately can call 'lucky you!!!'.
Not the vaccines, not the measures....if we are looking back at the whole past 3 years.

The scope of the auto immune issues is not known yet. And also if it is extraordinary (high) at COVID (compared to other pathogens). Auto immune reactions are known 'malfunctions' of some humans. We never had an infection of one virus which affected so many people at the same time.
The tendency to suffer from auto immune related illnesses is raising since years amongst humans. There is a general impact on human health and the IS which support auto immune issues.

Worldwide 5-8% of the population are affected, we know 80-100 different kinds of auto immune diseases and that ALREADY before the pandemic. It is also a consequence of our understanding of 'healthy' living, the way we eat, stress, the way we encounter 'nature'....

Also we have to consider if it is an attribute of the virus it could be an attribute of the vaccines as well. That btw. is one reason why I am constantly repeating the real benefit of the vaccines is still undetermined.
There is still a lot of work to do.

Collapsing of national health systems.
It is mostly not an unique attribute of COVID. It happens all the time when there is a wave of infection.
COVID just shamelessly uncovers (again) what's essentially wrong with the health systems.

Excess deaths..something is / was going on. We have to properly clarify that. What is attributed to the infection itself and what has to be attributed to the political measures 'against' COVID and the consequences of such decisions.
Interestingly it 'happens' when the virus itself has lost virulence already (after delta) and the vaccines were / are widely available.

Unlikely. The virus already took the endemic route. The artificial part inserted in the lab is already 'mutated'....but still a part of the S protein.

Maybe another virus in the future.