Covid-19 News

    Yes Thomas , blood clots and heart trouble are common in people 70 and older but not 18 to 30 year olds and they are the ones that we most want to protect yet the same blood clots and heart troubles are happening in the younger groups at the same rate.

    Will you ever acknowledge that the current mRNA COVID vaccines have NEVER went through ANY long term testing?

    That prior mRNA vaccines were stopped due to horrid effects?


    That HCQ and Ivermectin have been used for decades, with NO adverse effects worth mentioning while the mRNA vaccines are already showing more bad side effects as time goes along.


    You bring up the HCQ "positively harmful" yet this is unsupported, MUCH less than the evidence that Ivermectin is positive and even HCQ is positive. Again, you take one "negative study" and place higher value on it than many positives.... it supports the main stream agenda.


    Bob:


    to address these points:

    Agreed - mRNA vaccines have no long-term testing. I acknowledge. Will you acknowledge that the combination of HCQ with COVID attack on immune system (and its effect on long COVID) has no long-term testing. If you deamnd one, you muts demand the other.


    mRNA vaccines have previously had horrible side effects. Please reference this and let us see what those are, why they happened, are they long term or short term, and then I will come back and eitehr agre with you thyere is unacknowledged risk here, or tell you why that risk is small. I can't comment now since I have not looked at this evidence (had not even heard of it), but am happy to do so.


    That HCQ and Ivermectin have been used for decades. Yes, but they have not been used for decades with COVID. We know that HCQ interferes with the immune system, as does COVID. We know that this interference can cause long-term side effects (long COVID). We do not know whether long COVID is made on average worse by HCQ, but it looks quite likely. This is a clearly signposted likely risk, with a known mechanism. Whereas your "long-term side effects" of vaccines are highly unlikely.


    You bring up the HCQ "positively harmful" yet this is unsupported. You know that is untrue, the RECOVERY trial showed danger. You mean maybe that lower doses of HCQ ae less harmful. The evidence on that is not clear. HCQ has had more RCTs than other drugs, can you point to why overall it is helpful?


    Evidence that Ivermectin and HCQ are positive. You evaluate non-RCT evidence and low quality (not fully registered and carried out as initially intended) RCT evidence as positive - when I see the inevitable positive biasses in this type of evidence. So that is a big difference in how we view the overall evidence base. You will have read the paper i posted a week ago about how doctors and research scientists inevitably have different views about the efficacy of drugs used with emergency authorisation. Doctors will always be more positive.


    I am not saying I know Ivermectin or even lower-dose HCQ do not work. Just that the evidence for them is not good, and the possibilities of more harm than good are real.

    Quote from Fm1

    Yes Thomas , blood clots and heart trouble are common in people 70 and older but not 18 to 30 year olds and they are the ones that we most want to protect yet the same blood clots and heart troubles are happening in the younger groups at the same rate.

    1 in 10,000 risk is real, but young people (unvaccinated) have significant real risks from COVID (including blood clots) as well. So the equation is at what age does the 1 : 10,000 risk of blood clot compare with the 1;10,000 risk of signiifcant COVID symptoms - enough for long COVID to be an issue. We numbers for this, not anecdotes or newspaper stories.


    And I'd like the figures to say the rates are equal across ages? Normally young people would have fewer problems with blood clots.


    EDIT - I've looked at the figures from the whole population study I posted. Younger age groups have roughly comparable vaccine correlated clotting, but lower natural probability of clotting.

    New York times today still spreads fake news: Vaccines still work against Delta despite we know the high rate (7% of PCR+ !! Israel) of severe illness among vaccinated.


    Who does still believe in free press? Press is free to take any bribes!!

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    W. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    THHuxleynew : You indeed are shame of mankind. Your "money fascists" support is legendary now. No other person here ever did spread more FUD and lies in favor of the money laundering big pharma follower people.


    Sorry as a bot you obviously cannot understand what humans want.

    • Official Post

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2021/07/210706180911.htm

    People who receive mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are up to 91 percent less likely to develop the disease than those who are unvaccinated, according to a new nationwide study of eight sites, including Salt Lake City. For those few vaccinated people who do still get an infection, or "breakthrough" cases, the study suggests that vaccines reduce the severity of COVID-19 symptoms and shorten its duration.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    1 in 10,000 risk is real, but young people (unvaccinated) have significant real risks from COVID (including blood clots) as well. So the equation is at what age does the 1 : 10,000 risk of blood clot compare with the 1;10,000 risk of signiifcant COVID symptoms - enough for long COVID to be an issue. We numbers for this, not anecdotes or newspaper stories.


    And I'd like the figures to say the rates are equal across ages? Normally young people would have fewer problems with blood clots.

    I agree, normally younger do have fewer issues but not in the case of Covid vaccines. Read of the US military and the higher than expected or read the American pediatric reports of excess heart issues not expected. I just don't know where you draw a line. These are clear cut issues that you gloss over as normal or expected. That's WRONG and fake news!!!


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    perhaps this overview, and its references, would form a good starting point for discussion?


    https://pssjournal.biomedcentr…0.1186/s13037-021-00291-9

    Please scroll through the above block by clicking the "Display more" button. I inserted my answers in the referenced post and you cannot see them without scrolling down.....


    I will read your link. It may take a while before I get time to give it proper study. Thank you.


    Quote from Alan Smith

    SINCE SOME MEMBERS (THEY KNOW WHO THEY ARE) ARE USING IT TO ABUSE OTHERS.

    This does not solve the issue that one bot here extensively spreads FUD - mildly said. We would like to exchange real information here and I guess that is not what the "bot" and his promoters like to see.


    So closing this thread would be an act to support professional spin doctors and the people who finance them.

    Quote from Bob#2

    Please scroll through the above block by clicking the "Display more" button. I inserted my answers in the referenced post and you cannot see them without scrolling down.....


    I will read your link. It may take a while before I get time to give it proper study. Thank you.


    With respect to Alans comment above: this kind of dispute, the wording, language and argumentation of different perspectives is very much inline with the netiquette, this forum has / should have. Very convenient to read, and a great contribution to a "normal" and respectful way of exchanging - even if contrary - opinions! That is how scientific discussions should be. Thank you.

    If the Covid site is taken down......!!!


    The Rossi forum accounts for 14,700 posts since 2016. 5 years to reach that number!


    The Covid forum accounts for 13,216 posts since only 2020!


    It is on a fast track to take over the #1 spot by far! 8| Only one year!

    (Although I do not think this is especially a good thing)


    Unfortunately, this site might dry up!


    Mizuno? going on three years and no confirmable advancement that I am aware of. Actually lowering of output if anything.


    Brillouin - several years and nothing concrete.


    BLP - The usual "Rossi like annual big announcement" and test, that always seems to fade away after decades.


    And I hate to even mention "atom-ecology".


    So things might get pretty quiet here.... Rossi seems to be fading and hopefully COVID will disappear. (The pandemic, not this thread)

    Quote from Bob#2

    And I hate to even mention "atom-ecology".

    Russ is sailing out to farm fish. The immediate impact on the carbon balance from Million tons of fish can huge. But the same would hold for successful "cold fusion" too.

    His deep knowledge is Biology. In cold fusion he has a lot of experience - I could profit - but he lacks the deep physics methodology. We will try to use the results of what he did produce for us.

    Never forget that his "fuels" first time did prove the predicted LENR mechanism of SO(4) physics. All deeply involved researchers now know that magnetic gamma states are crucial.

    If you are a Rossi Believer you think

    Rossi will be coming on strong

    with the SKLed after Nov 25 Presentation.

    But yes I know we have been disappointed before.

    But there is always hope in Rossi Land.

    I feel the same way about

    Doc Mills and BLP .

    Them 2 Dudes Never give up.

    So there threads on LF might take

    off again someday when Covid is

    History.

    Quote from Bob#2

    Please scroll through the above block by clicking the "Display more" button. I inserted my answers in the referenced post and you cannot see them without scrolling down.....


    I will read your link. It may take a while before I get time to give it proper study. Thank you.


    Thanks Bob. Your link: https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/


    This is an article about how Moderna hoped (optimistically) to make money from mRNA as a treatment. Not as a vaccine.


    As the article points out it is difficult to find diseases where tiny amounts of delivered drug can help.


    However vaccines are one example where indeed very small amounts are all that is needed. They are a perfect application of mRNA technology.


    In addition (from link below):


    There are potential risks from mRNA vaccines that include local and systemic inflammatory responses, which could lead to autoimmune conditions, and the toxic effects of any synthetic nucleosides or vaccine delivery components. However, modifications made to the nucleosides have been found to drastically reduce the immune system’s response to the synthetic nucleosides.


    Can I suggest a more innocent reason for the lack of recent horror stories related to mRNA? The technology has been around now used for more than 10 years and early problems - immune system responses to synthetic nucleosides - have been overcome.


    But the main difference here is that in vaccines those synthetic nucleosides are used in minute amounts produce small amounts of proteins - enough to deliver an immune response.




    Previous paper looking specifically at Pfizer and Moderna vaccines:


    https://pssjournal.biomedcentr…0.1186/s13037-021-00291-9


    Here is a decent qualitative (but detailed) discussion of mRNA vaccine safety.


    https://www.pharmaceutical-tec…-vaccines-disinformation/


    There are also additional safety concerns raised on social media about the safety of a novel vaccine technology that has been rapidly developed. Some potential recipients are planning on delaying being vaccinated until more data is gathered on long term adverse events. So far, the data on adverse events for the vaccine has been promising. The Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine had 0.6% in the vaccine group and 0.5% in the placebo group report at least one serious adverse event. For the first 1.8 million US Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients, only 21 experienced a severe allergic reaction.

    While there are concerns over long-term effects, for most vaccines the most serious reactions occur within the initial weeks after administration. It is unlikely that the spike proteins expressed by the mRNA will have long-term effects, as the mRNA used for their translation is quickly broken down and will not be available for the long term in the system. Long-term effects from other vaccinations include the RotaShield vaccine, which caused a rare type of bowel obstruction, and the 1976 swine influenza vaccine, which was associated with an increased risk for developing Guillain-Barré syndrome.



    While these are the first approved mRNA vaccines, mRNA vaccines have been under development since 2011 for cancer indications, and it is highly likely that long-term issues based on the technology would have surfaced by now.

    Examples of mRNA vaccines include CureVac’s rabies vaccine, which has announced positive data from an interim analysis of safety and immunogenicity in its Phase I study; Moderna’s mRNA-1647, which has positive interim results from a Phase II study for cytomegalovirus infections; Moderna’s mRNA-4157 for solid tumours, which is in Phase II for metastatic melanoma; and BioNTech’s BNT-112, which is in Phase II for prostate cancer.

    There are potential risks from mRNA vaccines that include local and systemic inflammatory responses, which could lead to autoimmune conditions, and the toxic effects of any synthetic nucleosides or vaccine delivery components. However, modifications made to the nucleosides have been found to drastically reduce the immune system’s response to the synthetic nucleosides.


    Here is a good 2018 (before COVID) review of mRNA vaccine technology. In Nature. Not censored. Bob - scientific papers just don't get censored. Very occasionally they are withdrawn as the result of being egregiously wrong (typically the authors lied). In that case though you have the rebuttals to look at for why they were withdrawn.


    https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243


    • Recent improvements in mRNA vaccines act to increase protein translation, modulate innate and adaptive immunogenicity and improve delivery.
    • mRNA vaccines have elicited potent immunity against infectious disease targets in animal models of influenza virus, Zika virus, rabies virus and others, especially in recent years, using lipid-encapsulated or naked forms of sequence-optimized mRNA.
    • Diverse approaches to mRNA cancer vaccines, including dendritic cell vaccines and various types of directly injectable mRNA, have been employed in numerous cancer clinical trials, with some promising results showing antigen-specific T cell responses and prolonged disease-free survival in some cases.
    • Therapeutic considerations and challenges include scaling up good manufacturing practice (GMP) production, establishing regulations, further documenting safety and increasing efficacy.


    Like all technological advances, mRNA was initially over-hyped. And there were risks. But it has been around now for many years and the mRNA vaccines have performed amazingly well against COVID. It does seem that - except for production in quantity being a challenge, and delivery being a challenge due to mRNA fragility - this is a real breakthrough technology for vaccines and I'd expect mRNA vaccines will come to dominate over time. And as we all know technological production quality challenges for things that basically work are bread and butter to modern industry - they get solved.


    Where you need a vaccine very quickly for a new disease mRNA vaccines are particularly useful.


    Hey, look, everyone is doing them:


    https://www.imperial.ac.uk/new…h-target-covid-mutations/

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.