Quote from JedRothwell

In fact, a very small number of people cannot be vaccinated, and I am sure the laws and rules make an exception for them. It would only be discrimination if it excluded people for something they have no control over and cannot change, such as their sex or skin color.

In the UK, and I'm sure also US and Canada, there are medical exclusions from vaccine and mask mandates.

There is even a nice (optional) badge you can use that says you are medically exempt - it helps if people do not understand this.

Quote from Fm1

Susi saves Japan. If it's green and edible, it probably offers more protection than vaccines!!!

It did not save Japan. The vaccines did. No one in Japan is eating this extraction, although some people do eat the seaweed. Not enough to reduce COVID cases almost to zero, which is what has happened. The algae might or might not offer some protection or more protection, but that has not been established yet. It is unlikely.

Quote from Fm1

Key HighlightsA substance extracted from edible marine algae may help stop the spread of coronavirus, according to a study.

It "may help." But it is not needed now in Japan because the pandemic has been eliminated there. It might come back with the omicron variant, but for now it has been eliminated, so there is no need for this extraction or anything else.

There is an absurd claim that many people in Japan are taking ivermectin. That is completely false. A small number of people might be taking it, but it cannot be having any effect because the pandemic has ended.

Fm1: Why do you believe such nonsense? Why repeat it here? What is the point? Surely you can tell the difference between "X saves Japan" and "X may help, if there is a problem (which there isn't), and if it is deployed." The two situations could hardly be more different. Mothra might save Japan if Godzilla attacks, but Godzilla has not attacked, and both Mothra and Godzilla are fictional. They were men wearing rubber suits. Can you tell the difference between real monsters attacking the real Tokyo and men wearing rubber suits? Would you report those men as real monsters here? If you wouldn't, why do you report this nonsense about seaweed curing a disease that does not exist in Japan?

Quote from Mark U

They no longer have philosophical and religious exemptions.

Neither Aristotle nor any of the book religion Books has anything to say about vaccination...

Quote from JedRothwell

Fm1: Why do you believe such nonsense?

Psychology maybe a bit OT even for this thread.

Eating my shoe-laces may help with coronavirus too.

Would it be more likely to work if I wrote it up as a meaningless study on the antiviral possibilities of leather?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Eating my shoe-laces may help with coronavirus too.

Would it be more likely to work if I wrote it up as a meaningless study on the antiviral possibilities of leather?

Jump boys jump

Quote from Mark U

So New Brunswick may be the first province to ultimately succumb to mandatory childhood vaccinations, like California and NB's neighbour, Maine. (They no longer have philosophical and religious exemptions. )

"Philosophical" exceptions for childhood vaccines are a fairly new thing in the U.S. They did not have them when I was growing up. Religious exemptions were few and far between, only allowed for a few well-established sects. They should not exist at all, in my opinion. In my opinion, not vaccinating children is like not feeding them, or tying them to a bed all day not letting them out of the house. It is child abuse. No parent should be allowed to endanger the child's life because he or she believes in some crackpot religion. If parents are allowed to not vaccinate children, the children must not be allowed into schools. The parents will have to pay for tutors and regularly tested by the state. So called "home schooling" by parents should not be allowed. It wasn't when I was growing up. Not until the 1970s, as I recall. That is way too much "freedom" for the parents, and slavery for the children. Children are citizens, not chattel.

We now have more freedom and less government than at any time in history. Way too much freedom, and nowhere near enough discipline, law enforcement, and authority. People think the government has become overbearing but the opposite is true.

Several states have dialed back or eliminated vaccine exemptions recently. Every one of them should, in my opinion. Parents have absolutely no right to endanger their children or anyone else's children, which is what they do when they refuse to vaccinate. It is as if adults were roaming around the streets throwing rocks at other people's small children. See:

States With Religious and Philosophical Exemptions From School Immunization Requirements

Quote from JedRothwell

It would only be discrimination if it excluded people for something they have no control over and cannot change, such as their sex or skin color.

This is a narrow view of discrimination. A person's choice of religion is something that they have control over, you can choose to be Muslim, Jewish, Christian etc.. but religious discrimination is alive and well in the world. Apparently you can choose your sex these days as well. People claim that discrimination against the un-vaxxed is justified to protect society even though the science doesn't back that up. Regardless, even if there was firm evidence that an unvaxxed person poses a greater risk to others, that is discrimination based on probability. This is no different from racial profiling which is generally frowned upon. Black people are more likely to commit crimes therefore, therefore they are detained, questioned and targeted by police.

One could also target obese people vaxxed or not. Obesity is the most common co-morbidity and vaccines are known to be less effective in obese people. Shall we make all the fat people submit to extra testing for the protection of everyone else? - Oh my how rude!!!

Cetylpyridinium Chloride (CPC)

Cardiff University Researchers Find Mouth Wash Destroys SARS-CoV-2!

Cardiff University Researchers Find Mouth Wash Destroys SARS-CoV-2!

A team of biochemists, infectious disease, and dentistry investigators affiliated with the Wales-based University of Cardiff report that a mouthwash can

trialsitenews.com

A team of biochemists, infectious disease, and dentistry investigators affiliated with the Wales-based University of Cardiff report that a mouthwash can obliterate SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19, within 30 seconds of exposure, at least in a laboratory setting based on new study results. While this regimen wouldn’t be able to protect the nasal passages, it could be combined with a nasal spray, rigorous hand washing, and social distancing to further alleviate the intensity of the current pandemic as society inevitably transitions from the pandemic to endemic stages. TrialSite reports a real breakthrough in Wales.

As always, this study’s results aren’t yet peer-reviewed, thus any claims that these results represent evidence would be premature.

Based out of Wales, Cardiff University, the initial findings were uploaded to the preprint server bioRxiv and suggest that mouth wash available over-the-counter containing cetypyridinium chloride (CPC) evidences “promising signs” that the regimen can overcome COVID-19, at least in a laboratory setting.

What is cetypyridinium chloride or (CPC)?

A well-known, broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent used in over-the-counter mouthwash to promote gingival health, this agent called cetypyridinium chloride penetrates the cell membranes triggering cell elements to leak which ultimately cause cell death.

Lab Work Shows Real Promise

The research team set up experiments to mirror conditions associated with an individual’s nasal and oral passages in the laboratory environment involving test tubes and such. However, this particular treatment doesn’t stop the pathogen from reaching the person’s respiratory tract or lungs, reported the BBC Covid: Mouthwash ‘can kill virus in lab in 30 seconds’ – BBC News on the topic.

Moving to the Endemic Phase

However, as the COVID-19 pandemic eventually transitions to the pandemic stage a number of treatments will be required, from seasonal vaccines to antivirals, and other preventative treatments both for the oral and nasal areas—in this case, the former could possibly be protected with a daily routine involving standard use along with the washing of hands, physical distancing, and mask-wearing, not to mention the potential use of other nasal sprays such as the SanOTize product.

The Research Center

The research team members are affiliated with Cardiff University Systems Immunity University Research Institute, Division of Infection & Immunity, School of Medicine, and Advanced Therapies Group, School of Dentistry, at Cardiff University in Wales.

Lead Research/Investigators

Evelina Statkute

Anzelika Rubina

Valerie B O’Donnell

David W. Thomas Corresponding Author

Richard J. Stanton Corresponding Author

Covid: Mouthwash 'can kill virus in lab in 30 seconds'

Cardiff scientists say using mouthwash may become part of a daily routine to prevent coronavirus.

www.bbc.com

Quote from Fm1

Compared to the Unvaccinated Population

The study team found that the incidence of myocarditis was greater in the vaccinated group than in those in the unvaccinated group. The risk identified in this study is associated with “increased incidence after the second dose of vaccine and in young male recipients.”

Clowns will not like this. How could Pfizer cheat all the other and blame just Moderna....

And also this old study they will not like:: https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2020.10.26.20219345v1

No death in the ivermectin group....Even among seriously ill patients

Japan will start one more trial https://www.researchgate.net/p…in_Treatment_for_COVID-19

Why not directly use it??

Here you get a world wide list of doctors etc. that will treat you according Ivermectin protocols: https://www.exstnc.com/

Quote from THHuxleynew

Proteins are not genes!

You are a 1000% ridiculous person. Genes are always proteins. Why do you eat meat...

The only difference between "genes" and RNA is : RNA is single stranded DNA is a double helix. All activated DNA must first be translated into RNA = 1:1 image of gene.

End of baby teaching

Quote from uncertainH

People claim that discrimination against the un-vaxxed is justified to protect society even though the science doesn't back that up.

Personally, I think any discrimination against anti-vaxxers is almost wholly justified by the level of idiocy and/or ignorance displayed in statements such as the above.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Genes are always proteins.

LOL. Does anyone take this muppet seriously?

Quote from Zeus46

LOL.

Kiddy! This is not facebook where you have to turn on chicken... Here you first should take a little education.... How about trying a first degree in biology?

Quote from Zeus46

Personally, I think any discrimination against anti-vaxxers is almost wholly justified by the level of idiocy and/or ignorance displayed in statements such as the above.

Thanks for admitting that it is discrimination. It is very telling that you used "discrimination" and "justified" in the same sentence. People have used various reasons to justify their discrimination over the years. Discrimination in any form should not be tolerated even from ignorant idiots.

Quote from uncertainH

Thanks for admitting that it is discrimination. It is very telling that you used "discrimination" and "justified" in the same sentence. People have used various reasons to justify their discrimination over the years. Discrimination in any form should not be tolerated even from ignorant idiots.

Absolutist views here don't work. For example - should we discriminate against those who are unable to read and write in work requiring those abilities?

And, a rough analogy, should we discriminate in enclosed public spaces against those choosing a course of action that significantly increases their chances of infecting others with a dangerous virus? If not, is there any level of behaviour known risky to others which we would discriminate against?

As with the question about what financial inducement would persuade somone to sleep with a stranger, it is helpful to see whether the argument is truly one of principle, or whether it is a risk/bnefit trade-off where the level of risk and benefit matters.

If we first of all try to get some ground rules for when it is proper to exercise discernment and when not, we can make progress.

I don't think it helps to conflate the two issues with a breezy:

"discrimination is always wrong, anyway vaccines don't work [ at reducing risks for others]"

If the first part is true (I doubt), the second is irrelevant.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is not facebook where you have to turn on chicken... Here you first should take a little education.... How about trying a first degree in biology?

Listen up you senile fool… Either you think DNA is made of protein, or your attempts at English are worse than those of a small child. (And if the latter, you are still incorrect, as only 1% of genes code for proteins).

But let us not get bogged down with the ravings of the Swiss Cherepanov and his collection of nazi memorabilia: There’s bigger fish fry… Worm Theory is gaining some traction.

Ivermectin may help covid-19 patients, but only those with worms

An anti-parasite drug’s benefit is limited to places with lots of parasites

“This is coming,” crowed Andrew Hill, the lead author of an unreviewed meta-analysis looking at whether ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug, was helpful for treating covid-19. “Get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve it,” advised Dr Hill, a visiting fellow at the University of Liverpool.

Such advocacy proved far too optimistic. One of the papers cited in the report was withdrawn because its data were fraudulent; the report itself was retracted as well. Two of the largest and most rigorous randomised controlled trials also found no evidence the drug was helpful. As a result, ivermectin has never become part of the standard of care for covid-19.

Yet ivermectin’s advocates insist that there is solid science demonstrating the drug’s efficacy. One well-documented website lists and links to 65 different papers on the subject, many of which, on the surface, seem to support this claim. Could this many studies all be wrong? Recent analysis by Avi Bitterman, a dermatologist in New York, and Scott Alexander, a prominent blogger, suggests that the answer is nuanced. Ivermectin probably does help one subset of covid-19 patients: those who are also infected by the worms it was designed to fight.

Wading through the papers whose methodologies appeared sound, Dr Bitterman noticed that the studies that looked best for ivermectin tended to cluster in regions with high rates of infections by strongyloides, a parasitic worm. Common in much of Africa, Asia and Latin America, strongyloides can cause, among other things, diarrhoea, fatigue and weight loss. However, they only pose a graver threat if their numbers grow out of control. Such “hyper-infection”, which is often fatal, becomes far more likely if a patient is receiving corticosteroids, which both suppress the immune system and appear to make female worms more fertile. And dexamethasone, a corticosteroid, is now a standard treatment for severe covid-19, because it prevents the immune system from going into overdrive and attacking the body’s own cells.

Building on observations by David Boulware, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Dr Bitterman concluded that strongyloides may account for the conflicting results of studies about the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment for covid-19. In trials conducted in countries where the parasites are common, many people could have both covid-19 and strongyloides infections. Covid-19 might already have weakened their bodies’ defences against the worms; treating the coronavirus with corticosteroids would let the parasites run wild.

In the groups who received ivermectin during trials, the drug would keep strongyloides in check. But patients in control groups would be left at the worms’ mercy. This would make it look as if ivermectin were preventing deaths caused solely by covid-19, when in fact it was preventing those caused by the parasites or by a combination of the two infections. This mechanism would explain why most studies conducted in places where strongyloides are rare showed no benefit from taking ivermectin. “Ivermectin doesn’t treat covid,” Dr Bitterman wrote. “It treats parasites (shocker) that kill people when they get steroids that treat covid.” He concluded that “taking strongyloides endemic populations, putting them into a control group with corticosteroids is a death sentence”.

In July 2020 a group of doctors argued in the Journal of the American Medical Association that it was “reasonable to consider presumptive treatment with ivermectin for moderate- to high-risk patients not previously tested or treated for strongyloides”, and said that the risk of infection by the worms in covid-19 patients should be “based on factors such as country of origin and long-term residence”. The World Health Organisation also recommends ivermectin in this context. However, most people in rich Western countries like America—where demand for ivermectin, driven by advocates on social media, is so high that some people have resorted to taking the equine version of the drug—do not fit this description. At least when treating patients who have never been to countries with widespread strongyloides, the evidence suggests that mainstream doctors in such places are right to avoid prescribing ivermectin. ■

Ivermectin may help covid-19 patients, but only those with worms

An anti-parasite drug’s benefit is limited to places with lots of parasites

www.economist.com

Quote from uncertainH

One could also target obese people vaxxed or not. Obesity is the most common co-morbidity and vaccines are known to be less effective in obese people.

I think here you are conflating efficacy against infection with efficacy against severe disease. The latter is surely something we might feel less comfortable controlling, whereas the former, which alters risks you expose others to, might properly be controlled. After all we control behaviour in many ways when it represents a risk to others, e.g. requiring driving licenses, and more specialised licenses for heavy good vehicles.

You can try to understand how vaccine terror works and how much damage it may cause among a broad population.

#IndiaFightsCorona COVID-19

www.mygov.in

compare with : https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

The small India vaccine only terror state - Kerala (population 33mio) - now already reports 4x more deaths in total as the India average. Kerala is the place where the bright ones an very educated people live...

Kerala now delivers regularly 80% of all India deaths and > 50% of all India CoV-19 cases.

But the ratio of death after June 2021 is > 1000:1 compared to Uttar Pradesh. So vaccines in fact cause 1000x more deaths than treatment and prevention. Good news for western people waiting for a heritage!

Soon cases in India will increase due to Omicron. There was a small uptick today. Will be interesting to follow on. Some few 100'000 India/Pakistan people work in RSA!

But South Africa is on the direct road to get a broad immunization with a huge hyper exponential increase in cases and also a slower increase 2x/week in hospital cases with more younger affected.

(Website sometimes is overloaded)

Quote from Zeus46

There’s bigger fish fry… Worm Theory is gaining some traction.

Perhaps this is a very special case of a more general rule:

Loathsome creatures with small brains who wriggle when they find themselves in tight spots correlate with higher societal risk from COVID everywhere?