didjathinkmess

I hear Myocarditis is absolutely huge in the 4 and under age group!

Just trying to get out in front of this.

Natural immunity followed by a single dose is the strongest immunity available supposedly. Many of us likely have cross reactive immunity from a previous Coronavirus infection from before the pandemic.

Regarding "better antibodies", that doesn't make any sense to me. More in number perhaps, but better? It's the exact same formula being given as boosters.

>So, yes, vaccination may not prevent being infected, but for sure it helps immensely in avoiding being hospitalized and shortening the infection, which does actually translate in less people being infected.

On the flip side, infections in the vaccinated who are asymptomatic are more likely to leave the house, simply because they have no idea that they're sick. Perhaps they end up at a restaurant with their mask off and turn into a literal super spreaders (if we're to believe Omicron is 4X more transmissable). This was always a potential problem with vaccines that only reduce symptoms and don't prevent transmission. If Omicron is indeed mild and highly contagious as officials in South Africa claim, this could be a huge issue with anyone vaccinated.

Good comment, also: the vaccinated are a fertile ground for mutations that eventually evade the vaccine.

Unless you have a study that backs up the claim that this mutation phenomenon only happens in people not vaccinated for Covid-19, you should probably stop singling them out. The phenomenon occurs in both.

You're comparing mRNA vaccines to traditional vaccines.

Unlikely outcome sure. So is getting autism from a traditional vaccine but the warning still appears on the MMR vaccine insert.

>Vaccines rapidly lose efficacy when the virus they target has free real estate (vectors) in which to mutate.

The finger pointing game really has to stop considering anyone vaccinated can contract, get sick from, act as a vector/petri dish, and consequently spread the mutated virus. Unvaccinated as well.

>The laughably slow vaccine uptake in the US (while the rest of the world couldn't secure doses) is to blame there, not anything else.

Instead of attempting to blame unvaccinated vectors for the poor vaccine performance, why not blame the actual culprit - the barely tested (with only ~200 clinical trial participants), rushed (sorry, expedited) vaccines?

I believe the word slip is 100% intentional. It's the same kind of people that conflate, on purpose, "the vaccines are 95% effective!" with the wishful notion that they stop the spread of the virus.

The author refers to getting innoculated as "immunized" which is about as scientific as flat earth. The rest of the article isn't much better.

If everyone was actually immunized, we would have hit Fauci's early number of 65% herd immunity months ago. What's the herd immunity threshold at these days.. 85%? 90%? Utter quackery.

I haven't heard of a shorter duration with vaccination. Could you please post the source for this?

He's talking about transmission, you are talking about reduction of symptoms.

The vaccines don't prevent transmission. Now follow that to its logical conclusion: "we forcefully vaccinated everyone on Earth, why are we still having outbreaks?" Because... Well, you get it

After you sit down and mull over this concept for a while, vaccine mandates make absolutely no sense. Vaccine passports make absolutely no sense. Unless your goal is a slight reduction in ICU patients, forcing people to get it is a straight up violation of human rights.

"Pandemic of the unvaccinated" yeah, right. Blame the leaky vaccine, not the people who already have natural immunity.

Interesting how this peer review argument comes out selectively and not when something like Surgisphere happens and their bogus findings are immediately passed off as the ultimate truth.

I see that towards the end of your comment that you're inferring the page has issues with the statistical calculations. Here's the easy solution to get past that and get us talking about what matters: disregard whatever problems you have with the page and look at the actual studies. I think it's absolutely preposterous that people are disregarding life saving research based on which web site serves as a vehicle to get them to it. Read through a few of the studies as I have, and let's have a conversation around the most promising.

That's up to the reader to judge. I always advise doing your own research. For example look at the history of the Atlantic, which political side do they align with, have they ever said anything unbiased about Ivermectin, etc.

Another thing to consider: one is an article and one is a site which points to medical studies so it's difficult to compare the two. You can weave a biased narrative easily with one article. It's a lot more difficult to do that across 60+ studies.

Trust nothing, do your own research always.

Okay cool, pretend the page's only purpose is a collection of links to medical studies.

Find anything amiss with any of actual 64 studies? Or are you content to just not move past the web site itself.

Why take the biased article at its word? Luckily we have access to all of these studies and can do the research ourselves (thanks Internet!)

https://ivmmeta.com/

The current count of medical studies that show Ivermectin being beneficial for treating or preventing COVID-19 is 64. Out of those 64, 44 of them are peer reviewed.

Or we could throw the baby out with the bathwater because this article cherry picked a few of the worst studies to shape a narrative.

You heard it hear first: Ivermectin people have been pushing snake oil (nothing specific, just general snake oil.. like Ivermectin!) for 1000 years.

Should I ask him for a source?

Took a look through through that Intercept article. It reads like any of the biased opinion based drivel passing for journalism these days. Trying to conflate politics with medicine and say Doctors who risked their careers to speak up for Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are "extremely pro Trump". Immediate red flag.

They call out Simone Gold for posting anti-vax content on Twitter by retweeting Joe Rogan's experience that he got covid and treated it with a cocktail of drugs including Ivermectin. This first hand account of recovery was apparently not true because... Ivermectin isn't shown to be effective.

Trick question, they're both censorship.

Just because I don't agree with Nazis who want to take my guns away, doesn't mean I want to censor them. It's much more useful to engage with them and get into an open discussion. I stand up for their right to say whatever they like because it's a foundational human right. Think old ACLU or NPR before they went full authoritarian and now fully embrace censorship.

If the question is WHO to censor, I've always thought the solution is not at the server side but on the client side. Any platform where sensitive topics are being discussed (conspiracies for example) is going to be spammed, trolled, forum slided, etc. The solution is to have filtering on the client side take away the spam. Similar to how you have ad lists which block adsense, googleanalytics, etc. Allow ALL speech, and then filter out just the ones you want. Much better than having a tyrannical government or corrupt media or powerful tech giants do it for me.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's a meta analysis of 25 different studies and some will have flaws of course.

For me, if one single study showed positive results and had a valid methodology, that'd be enough for me to consider taking it.

I'm open to anything to get us out of this mess: anti-parasitic, anti-biotic, Zinc, Vitamin-D from sunshine, whatever it takes - I'm not picky.

As an aside, here's a meta analysis of 63 studies on Ivermectin, 44 of them peer reviewed.

https://ivmmeta.com/

And for a fun case study, check out what happened in India when they used Ivermectin at a large scale. If those stores haven't been censored yet, that is.

Please circle back and post that article. That would be the first that I've heard of any difference in time between the two. Honestly it sounds suspicious.

Less likely to be sick and.. That's it. Equally as likely to spread the Delta variant if we're considering viral load as the metric. That's only compared to an unvaccinated person who has not previously had an infection (i.e. no natural immunity).

Um yeah, what's the virus going to do, die off?

Of course not, it's going to mutate and continue to survive in as many hosts as possible. A mutation that's more easily transmitted but less deadly (which jives with the lower death rate count lately).

There is some irony here that would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The news calls this "the pandemic of the unvaccinated". In all likelihood the delta variant came from someone vaccinated and the vaccines do next to nothing to stop transmission.

The solution we're told? More vaccines of course (no I am not making this up).

Meanwhile studies come out weekly which prove natural immunity from a previous infection is more effective than the current leaky vaccines.

Not only is natural immunity superior to artifical or vaccine induced immunity, it might be our only way out of this mess.

>They are overflowing because of the unvaccinated.

Source for this claim? Asking because I see stats being thrown around constantly: unvaccinated are 97% of ICU patients, etc. The only problem is, there's no data to back it up.

I've followed sources to the very end to try and locate this data but it doesn't exist. Most lazily point at the CDC but even they openly admit the data isn't reliable because they aren't tracking breakthrough cases correctly.

Maybe your source is legit.

The video was censored because Paul states cloth masks are worse than N95 masks for infection. Which is scientifically accurate as far as I know.

So it's gotten a significant step worse. It has gone from "do not question the science" to simply "do not question".

That's not at all what the paper says.

>The OP alleges it can't sufficiently mutate among the vaccinated, so their recommendation of full vaccination to eliminate the virus is perfectly consistent.

From the study:

"We conclude that the virus becomes more contagious as it is screened through the vaccinated population and the resultant strain becomes the dominant strain and able to infect the entire population."

The main takeaway from the paper is that the vaccinated are driving new variants.

>Opening up and letting everyone get delta, vaccinated or not, is going to happen sooner and is not good because passing through the unvaccinated will cause many new mutations some of which might start new waves.

Again, the paper states the vaccinated are driving new mutations. Technically due to natural immunity, the unvaccinated who have been previously infected are now in a better position than the vaccinated. They don't contract, get sick or spread whereas the vaccinated do. The big exception is unvaccinated who have never been infected by this coronavirus or any other past coronavirus. They are still susceptible to infection, spread, etc.

"It is still unknown whether COVID-19 Variants are evolving randomly or under the selection pressure generated by mitigation efforts."

Very interesting. My thesis for the new highly contagious variants is they are from the vaccinated because of the virus's escape mechanism. And on cue here we have a mention of the phenomenon in a medical study.

Oh well, postponing all judgement until it's peer reviewed. And while we're at it, how about study on head to head vaccinated vs unvaccinated mutation frequency.

> What is the damage that has been done?

Runoff from crops getting into aquifers, rivers, reservoirs which turns into drinking water for humans. Later it will rain contaminated water all over our properties, gardens, bodies

Up until the landmark ruling against Monsanto in 2018, there would be pro-glyphosate shills polluting forums like Hacker News with misleading statements and outright lies. After the initial court case that ruled in favor of a grounds keeper that got Lymphoma, they magically disappeared. Its been pretty nice. Guess the PR budget got cut!

This is an amazing development but the job isn't done yet. This poison needs to be banned in all agriculture applications worldwide immediately. This is our FOOD WE ALL EAT for crying out loud.

What you're describing is called vaccine induced immunity or artificial immunity. Natural immunity is from an infection with no vaccines involved. You know, naturally.

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33129951/

"The new data found that fully vaccinated people who get infected carry as much of the virus in their nose as unvaccinated people, and could spread it to others"

There goes that "for the greater good" incentive for getting vaccinated. And people are still thinking vaccines should be mandatory?

It seems that the only people who don't spread now are people who have previously had COVID-19 or those who have cross reactive immunity from a previous coronavirus strain. Even better if you've gotten a single dose in addition to a natural infection.

I propose robust research and testing which will prove natural immunity (not antibody testing, long term immunity such as B and T-cells) for use with any kind of potential "passport" for travel, business, etc. The latest data from the article is proving that natural immunity (which is lifelong and protects against variants) is king.