The Totally Civil Covid Thread.

  • You find this "highly unlikely" because you know nothing about this, and you believe the nonsense peddled on the internet by lunatic members of the death cult. If you would look at actual science you would see this is all nonsense.

    I have noticed that Mark U does not respond to details on the science. It is frankly difficult to analyse, you can get many different numbers from the same data, and Mark U prefers to take without further questioning the death cult digests which when examined very flagrantly misuse the data (bad stats).


    Still - he is in good company - alas...

  • New Studies on the Origin of COVID-19
    New evidence strongly supports the conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from the wet markets of Wuhan, killing the lab-leak hypothesis.
    sciencebasedmedicine.org


    The rise and fall of the lab leak hypothesis for the origin of SARS-CoV-2
    Two new studies were published last week that strongly support a natural zoonotic origin for COVID-19 centered at the wet market in Wuhan, China. Naturally,…
    sciencebasedmedicine.org


    It was (probably) that live market - not the lab!

  • A good summary of the sillinesses of the anti-vaccine arguments that we are so used to we begin to believe


    “Natural Immunity” Stans Forget Babies Will Always be Vulnerable to COVID
    Children are still getting hospitalized with COVID, no matter how many times contrarian doctors mindlessly repeat the mantra "natural immunity". Doctors who…
    sciencebasedmedicine.org



    Doctors have to make choices with incomplete information all the time, and repeatedly exposing unvaccinated children to the virus is absolutely a choice. While it’s true we don’t know everything about the vaccine, we also don’t know everything about the virus. There have been zero randomized-controlled trials of the virus after all.

    Nonetheless, I fully agree that a toddler who had the sniffles with Omicron, as nearly all do, has little to fear from a reinfection in the short-term. I’m not knocking viral-induced immunity. In one study from England of nearly 700,000 children from Jan. 27, 2020, to July, 31, 2021, only 1 in 300 suffered a reinfection. While 2.4% of children with reinfections were hospitalized, the same as a first infection, no children died.

    Though this is generally encouraging, the study ended before Omicron arrived, and its relevance to variants circulating today is unclear. Meanwhile, there is evidence that vaccination after infection can limit reinfections, at least for adults (here and here). It’s reasonable to assume that hybrid immunity will also benefit some children. While viral-induced shouldn’t be denigrated, responsible doctors shouldn’t plagiarize Melanie’s Marvelous Measles with statements such as “Natural Immunity wins again“, especially because the study that supposedly gave “natural immunity” its victory concluded, “A single dose of vaccine after infection reinforced protection against reinfection.”

    Currently, there’s no evidence that a child who had COVID in March 2020 will have lifelong immunity to all future variants, nor is there evidence that repeated exposures to the virus are safe for developing children. We have to be humble about the possibility of long-term consequences, and we don’t know if worse variants may be circulating in a few months time. There’s uncertainty about both the vaccine and the virus. Honest brokers admit this instead of wielding the misleading phrase “natural immunity” as a magical talisman that perfectly wards off all future harms.

  • No. There is 'authorized', and there is 'approved'. If a vaccine for covid was fully approved in the US, any covid vaccines under emergency used authorization would have to be discontinued.

    More bullshit. But let's get back your original bullshit. You are saying the ingredients handed out to patients are not true. They are actually administering a different formula. Which would be a crime and would serve no purpose. But let's say this insane fantasy is true. I suppose you do not realize this, but samples from batches are tested regularly by Health Dept. experts in the U.S., Japan and other countries. They would see if the formula was changed. They would come down on Pfizer like a ton of bricks. It would be headline news worldwide. It is absolutely certain they would see the change. They check everything, including the RNA codes.


    You seem to have no idea how the world works, or how ludicrous these conspiracy theories are. As I said, they would not fool a sensible 12-year-old, but you swallow them whole. You believe any damn thing Fox News or the Internet feeds you. You never question your masters, and you never think for yourself. You are pathetic, and a danger to yourself.

  • More bullshit. But let's get back your original bullshit. You are saying the ingredients handed out to patients are not true. They are actually administering a different formula. Which would be a crime and would serve no purpose.

    That you deny the difference between 'authorized' and 'approved' means you don't know what you're talking about. And no, I am not saying the ingredients listed on a package insert are incorrect. They may be incomplete however, if they are there at all. EUA standards are different and aren't subject to the full rigours of licensing (approval) standards.

  • Low vitamin D common in chronically anticoagulated children

    Low vitamin D common in chronically anticoagulated children
    SAN DIEGO – Consider testing for vitamin D deficiency to optimize bone health in children receiving frequent anticoagulation.
    www.mdedge.com


    Vitamin D in Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Related Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C)

    Vitamin D in Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Related Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C)
    Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a rare but devastating complication of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). The development of…
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


    PREVALENCE OF VITAMIN D DEFICIENCY IN IRON DEFICIENT AND NORMAL CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 24 MONTHS


    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346942571_PREVALENCE_OF_VITAMIN_D_DEFICIENCY_IN_IRON_DEFICIENT_AND_NORMAL_CHILDREN_UNDER_THE_AGE_OF_24_MONTHS


    ABSTRACT Objective: To elucidate the potential association between iron status and vitamin D levels in infants. Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted on patients who presented in Consultant Clinics, Department of Pediatrics, The Indus Hospital, Karachi from 1st November 2015 till 31st April 2016. Medical records of infants aged three to 24 months were analyzed retrospectively. Data was entered and analyzed using SPSS version 21.0. Results: A total of 87 patients were enrolled in the study, out of which 47 (54%) patients had iron deficiency anemia, 23 (26.4%) had iron deficiency and 17 (19.5%) had no anemia. Out of 87 patients, 43 (49.4%) had vitamin D deficiency, 8 (9.2%) were vitamin D insufficient and 36 (41.4%) were vitamin D sufficient. Iron deficient anemic patients had significantly higher proportion of vitamin D deficiency as compared to iron deficient and normal patients (57.4% vs 47% and 29.4% respectively. Significant difference in median hemoglobin was found between vitamin D deficient patients and vitamin D insufficient patients. P-value of <0.05 was considered as significant. Conclusion: Iron-deficient children are more prone to vitamin D deficiency. Therefore, every child with IDA should also be evaluated for vitamin D deficiency. Educational efforts are needed to increase compliance with iron and vitamin D supplementation guidelines.

  • Dr. James Thorp Interview VAERS Expert: Disturbing COVID-19 Vaccine Data


    Dr. James Thorp Interview VAERS Expert: Disturbing COVID-19 Vaccine Data
    Recently, a contributor to TrialSite, Dr. James Thorp, recently interviewed Albert Benavides, a world expert on the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reaction System…
    www.trialsitenews.com


    Recently, a contributor to TrialSite, Dr. James Thorp, recently interviewed Albert Benavides, a world expert on the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reaction System (VAERS). Dr. Thorp suggests that the World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and more continue to reject the very purpose of VAERS in the first place—a vital database used to identify safety signals. But how could VAERS data signals be rejected when the very system was designed for this very purpose?


    According to Dr. Thorp, there is irrefutable evidence that this rejection of VAERS is based on an absolutely false narrative. During the interview, these experts speculate on what could be considered the unthinkable: groups and participants deeply embedded in organized medicine are deleting cases with adverse events, delaying reporting for months, and throttling the results to minimize vaccine-induced adverse events.


    With over 20 plus independent sources not only verifying VAERS but that there may even be some form of manipulation and throttling. As an example of some potentially illicit activity, Pfizer’s own documentation should be referenced—specifically on page 7’s associated tables review. Dr. Thorp told TrialSite, “Do 1,223 deaths in the first 90 days of the COVID-19 vaccine program sound safe?


    Thorp wonders aloud if the CDC’s Tommy T. Shimabukuro’s arguments are reliable—the position published in the New England Journal of Medicine that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe for pregnant women? Again, reviewing Pfizer’s own documents on page 12, Thorp shares “Does the 45% complication rate in the 274 pregnant women sound safe to you (75 "serious" and 49 "non-serious complications)?


    Thorp noted that Mr. Shimabukuro’s name surfaces in emails accessed via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests associated with actions by both the FDA and CDC extinguishing a death that happened to have not been reported. Disturbing allegations.


    TrialSite suggests the vaccines were highly effective early on but with SARS-CoV-2 mutations, durability issues surfaced that have impacted overall efficacy. Safety issues appear to be actively suppressed based on several data sources. An accurate safety profile remains absolutely essential for a proper risk-benefit analysis ongoing.


    Dr. James Thorp Interviews Albert Benevides - The World Expert on VAERS
    The Medical Industrial Complex of World-Wide Globalists attempt to invalidate VAERS. Dr. James Thorp interviews Albert Benevides the World Expert on VAERS.…
    rumble.com

  • I think studies like this one show that narrative to be bullshit!!!


    Study indicates that cross-reactive immunity against SARS-CoV-2 N protein was present in Africa prior to the pandemic

    Study indicates that cross-reactive immunity against SARS-CoV-2 N protein was present in Africa prior to the pandemic
    Researchers assessed the pre-existing cross-protective immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein and spike protein before the COVID-19 pandemic…
    www.news-medical.net

  • I think studies like this one show that narrative to be bullshit!!!


    Study indicates that cross-reactive immunity against SARS-CoV-2 N protein was present in Africa prior to the pandemic

    https://www.news-medical.net/a…rior-to-the-pandemic.aspx

    I think that idea is wrong.


    We all know that cross-reactivity between different coronaviruses is possible, and if you do a 10s google search you find this evidence:


    Cross-reactivity of SARS-CoV structural protein antibodies against SARS-CoV-2
    There is currently a lack of biological tools to study the replication cycle and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2, the etiological agent of COVID-19. Repurposing the…
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


    Therefore cross-reactivity for the N protein says nothing about prior presence of sars-cov-2.


    Worth pointing out (as the paper you indirectly reference does) that unknown CVs are very possible and they can affect cross-reactivity. The N protein is highly conserved in CVs so the chances of cross-reactivity are high.


    Whereas the SARS-CoV-2 from wet market evidence is specific and strong, the evidence you quote is non-specific and speculative.


    As always with this medicine stuff you need to look beyond single headlines to see what stuff means. In fact all scientific papers are like that - you have to put any single fact into context.


    Which is what the antivaxxer disinformation always leaves out.


    THH

  • I think studies like this one show that narrative to be bullshit!!!

    You should ignore this paid (by fringe benefits) troll. The virus was in Italy long before it occurred in Wuhan. The proofs are irrefutable as these come from lung biopsies.


    @THH is just a minor link in the FM/R/JF/B world wide web that tries to control the narrative...

  • Ok we can forget Barcelona in the spring of 2018 and northern Italy in August of 2019 and again in china in October of 2019 during military games. But ya evidence for wet market is overwhelming, NOT!

  • That you deny the difference between 'authorized' and 'approved' means you don't know what you're talking about.

    I know the law says you have to tell the patient what is in the vaccine. If you lie about that, you go to jail. Nowhere does it say you are allowed to lie if the drug is authorized but not approved. That would be preposterous. Whoever told you that is making a fool out of you.

  • They do not have to mention trade secretes (like graphite and other crap found in dozens of samples) as CDC did guarantee this

    As an example, I think it was Politifact that confirmed that the FDA still redacted some part of the Pfizer BioNTech recipe, I believe it was a substance imbedded in the lipid layer of the lipid nanoparticle.