Covid-19 News

  • The government not ordering a lockdown is ... not a lockdown. Citizens voluntarily minimizing things like eating out is not a lockdown.

    Conflating the two seems like an attempt to blunt the stark reality of what a real lockdown is : an enforced, blatant overreach of government control.


    The stark reality of a real lockdown is that it is a set of rules which if everyone obeys - COVID infection rate reduces. If not enough people obey - COVID infection rate increases.


    There are two separate issues: is this an overreach of government control? And - is a lockdown the best solution to this crisis.


    Conflating those two issues - as Mark U has done, is a problem.


    Obviously, a lockdown is a very extreme measure, and if you don't like it you may argue against it as an abuse of governmental power.


    That however is just wrong. It is accepted that governments have all sorts of rules to keep people safe. For example, driving on the right (left in UK) side of the road. Individually it is a restriction of civil liberties. Collectively it is important, and important that everyone reliable drives on the same side of the road, or accidents happen.


    So a legitimate use of governmental power in any society is to enforce what is needed collectively to keep people safe. That is the justification for COVID lockdown. You may believe it is not necessary to keep people safe, or even that it does the oppositite, but that is just because you have a different view about the correct action to take in this extraordinary time - not because it is an abuse of government power.

  • Inside account by the Washington Post of a restaurant owners struggle to stay open, and finally throwing in the towel. He will close down tomorrow. This is his parting shot:


    "It’s like Trump said: The cure has been worse than the disease"...for him at least. For may others though, it has been a paid vacation.


    The cure is not worse than the disease for me. I would not want to spend a week sick because I went to a restaurant. It is not worth it to me. I sure wouldn't want to die from going to a restaurant.


    Here's the thing. Many people agree with me. People have individually decided not to go to restaurants. The governments in Georgia and Florida are trying to get us to go, but we don't want to. So this is not imposed by a government. It is a result of the virus. If people choose to protect their health, and that ends up bankrupting restaurants, that is tragic for the restaurant owners and workers. It is heartbreaking. But to say it is "worse" is to second-guess my decision to protect my own health.


    People who want to risk this are free to do so. They have decided the cure is worse than the disease. I expect they have not spent a week in the hospital with pneumonia, and month recovering in considerable pain from pleurisy. I have, and I judge it is not worth it.


    Furthermore, if Trump thinks the cure is worse than the disease, he damn well should have done something to reduce the disease. 200,000 people have died. If he had acted, it would have been a few thousand instead, and many more people would feel confident enough to go to restaurants. It is his fault.

  • Influence of Vitamin D in HIV Infection


    https://www.infectiousdiseasea…tamin-d-in-hiv-infection/


    Among HIV-infected patients, the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is estimated to be 70% to 85%.1 This may be, in part, because of general risk factors for deficiency, including limited sunlight exposure, female sex, black ethnicity, advanced age, and liver and kidney disease. Genetic associations with vitamin D deficiency have also been identified; for example, certain single nucleotide polymorphisms in the DBP gene appear to influence plasma vitamin D levels.6,7


    This shows a relationship between HIV and covid19 and vitamin D deficenccy.

  • The CDC has not held back any data as far as I know. What data do you think they hold back? Can you point to a news story about this?

    Certain private non profit organizations like Children's Health Defence and Informed Consent Action Network have had to bring lawsuits against Federal agencies like the CDC and NIC and HHS to obtain documents which were not given over from repeated FOI requests.

    See for instance

    https://www.icandecide.org/lawsuits/


    Then of course there are the whistleblowers from the CDC like Dr. William Thompson.

    Take a peek at

    https://www.prnewswire.com/new…ry-project-300347376.html

  • So a legitimate use of governmental power in any society is to enforce what is needed collectively to keep people safe. That is the justification for COVID lockdown. You may believe it is not necessary to keep people safe, or even that it does the oppositite, but that is just because you have a different view about the correct action to take in this extraordinary time - not because it is an abuse of government power.


    It is the disproportionate responses of governments, more than anything, that have made this an "extraordinary time". If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, China should be flattered.

    Why is it that the governments during the 1957-1958 and 1968 flu pandemics - each of which killed roughly 1 million people worldwide - reacted so differently than today?

    Something has happened to our mentality as a whole. We've regressed. We've been conditioned to fear on a global scale.

  • Why is it that the governments during the 1957-1958 and 1968 flu pandemics - each of which killed roughly 1 million people worldwide - reacted so differently than today?


    1. They did a lot. As much as they could given the medical science and data processing at the time. Internet based case tracing has been the key to reducing COVID-19 in Korea, Japan and elsewhere. That was no possible in 1968.


    2. The 1968 pandemic killed 100,000 people in the U.S. COVID-19 has killed 200,000, and will likely kill at least 150,000 more before a vaccine can be deployed. That is a lot worse.


    3. Our standards are higher than they were in 1968. There has been progress in medical science and technology. We expect less pollution, more product safety, more cures for disease, faster development of vaccines and much else. We have spent trillions of dollars on these things, and we demand a return on this investment. We demand a more active, lifesaving response. As we should!

  • Is this supposed to be a joke? "Stipulated Order Proving CDC Has No Studies To Support Claim That Vaccines Given in First 6 Months of Life Do Not Cause Autism." Yes, I am sure they have no studies showing that 5G networks cause COVID-19, so that must be true after all. Right?


    The punchline is not that difficult. If the CDC actively claims, as they do, that vaccines given in the first six months of life (like Hep B and DTP) do not cause autism, they sure as hell better have the data to back up that claim. Yet, they don't! A private non profit has to bring a lawsuit against them to get them to reveal their data, which indeed shows the CDC is just fabricating their claim out of thin air.

  • 2. The 1968 pandemic killed 100,000 people in the U.S. COVID-19 has killed 200,000, and will likely kill at least 150,000 more before a vaccine can be deployed. That is a lot worse.

    The US population has grown over 1.6 times since 1968, and is more concentrated in urban centres now. Proportionally, this would have amounted to at least 160,000 deaths in 1968 in the US, which is well over half of the projected total US Covid19 casualties. More than this, the world population has grown 2.2 times since 1968, Proportionally, that would have been 2,200,000 deaths in the world in 1968, which probably surpasses the projected Covid19 deaths.

    We have spent trillions of dollars on these things, and we demand a return on this investment. We demand a more active, lifesaving response. As we should!

    Yes, we should. But instead we get lockdowns, people losing their businesses and homes, censoring of alternative health information, etc. Meanwhile we wait for a glorious deliverance by a vaccine of unknown efficacy and safety, to be administered, perhaps mandated, when the pandemic is already far into its decline. Progress?

  • The punchline is not that difficult. If the CDC actively claims, as they do, that vaccines given in the first six months of life (like Hep B and DTP) do not cause autism, they sure as hell better have the data to back up that claim. Yet, they don't! A private non profit has to bring a lawsuit against them to get them to reveal their data, which indeed shows the CDC is just fabricating their claim out of thin air.


    Mark, you seem like you have your act together. Just a note that it doesn't appear to me to be legitimate conversation happening on this thread of this message board. You may be wasting your time...it may be best to let this thread die out by giving no resistance!


    We do certainly need a place to talk breakthrough science but this isn't it! As an example check out this admission by JAMA that the "anti-fluoriders" were right for half a century and that it is a potent neurotoxin (which those of us who actually looked the science already knew). Ooops!

  • The punchline is not that difficult. If the CDC actively claims, as they do, that vaccines given in the first six months of life (like Hep B and DTP) do not cause autism, they sure as hell better have the data to back up that claim.


    Mark U.


    When we are talking about possible links between event A and unlikely event B in a child's life it is technically impossible to prove there is no link. However, there is no evidence for a link between vaccines and Autism, nor any reason to expect this.


    That applies however to everything. For example, we do not ban pets because we cannot prove that exposure to multiple immune system challenges in early years does not predispose to Autism. In fact it appears that having such challenges reduces the incidence of allergies (helpful). Does it increase the incidence of Autism? There is no evidence for this, but also you cannot disprove it.


    Anyone who had the sort of emotion-driven dislike of pets that some have of vaccination would ask for this proof of no link - and find it non-existent.

  • As an example check out this admission by JAMA that the "anti-fluoriders" were right for half a century and that it is a potent neurotoxin (which those of us who actually looked the science already knew). Ooops!


    Fluorine is toxic in many ways, and the evidence that on balance Fluoridation of water is a bad idea is quite strong, both from limited benefit, and possible neurotoxicity to developing brains (low quality evidence), and difficulty in controlling the dosage obtained via water Fluoridation, and the ethical issue that water Fluoridation is very burdensome for individuals to avoid.


    I'd agree with you there. But wonder at the consistency of your position.


    If Fluorine has these effects then the first thing we need to do is make sure all tea has Fluorine labelling (content can vary by 5X or more), and highlight the possible risks drinking tea for pregnant mothers (and children). I trust i get your support in a major campaign to stop pregnant women from drinking tea, which can deliver significantly higher typical daily doses than obtained from Fluoridated water? Fluorine crosses the placenta and this must be the highest risk group.


    THH

  • The punchline is not that difficult. If the CDC actively claims, as they do, that vaccines given in the first six months of life (like Hep B and DTP) do not cause autism, they sure as hell better have the data to back up that claim.


    There is a mountain of data backing up that claim. The CDC does not need to do research or publish papers covering the same ground that others have already covered. They do not need to refute every crackpot assertion. They should not do that. There are many crackpot assertions so this would waste their time and our money.