Quote from Mark U

Almost all genes code for proteins. Only about 1 percent of DNA is comprised of these genes.

This is a rather outdated idea. Probably you are basing it on notions of “junk DNA”, learnt long ago.

The modern interpretation is that there are 20,000 or so coding genes, and about the same number of non-coding genes. (The non-coding genes are much longer, hence the 99%).

New human gene tally reignites debate

Some fifteen years after the human genome was sequenced, researchers still can’t agree on how many genes it contains.

www.nature.com

Think of it this way: a gene is just an inheritable unit - and you share most of your “junk DNA” with most other animals. QED…

Quote from uncertainH

Then of course, there are the so called asymptomatic spreaders. ( I guess this is like concealed weapons in your analogy ). Who is more likely to be an asymptomatic spreader someone with Covid that has taken a serum to help reduce the severity of the disease or someone who hasn't. I have my opinion on that but let's wait for the science,

The science is pretty much done… Most sources suggest an unvaxxed person is around ten times more likely to have covid than someone who isn’t. (For example, Singapore say this, in the article I posted above).

(Sure, you can do weird antivaxxer maths, like Wyttenbach does, in order to prove how much of an idiot he is whatever incorrect nonsense he pleases, but ultimately he disagrees with every health authority in the western world, and 99.5% of medical doctors)

Quote from uncertainH

Luckily Ivermectin is cheaper than ventilation tubes

Ah. Another one. Figures.

Perhaps their medical bills could be paid by sending the corpse to the knackers yard for melting down into glue?

Looks like Singapore, already famous for sending anti-maskers for a two-week mental health evaluation, is ahead of the curve again:

Covid-19: Singaporeans who remain “unvaccinated by choice” must fund own treatment, says government

Singapore’s government will no longer fund covid treatment after 8 December for citizens and residents who choose to remain unvaccinated, its government has said.

Until now all of Singapore’s citizens and residents, except those who have recently arrived from abroad, have had their covid treatment fully funded by the government. Under the new plan unvaccinated people will lose this privilege from 8 December, and those who are partially vaccinated will lose it from 31 December. Those ineligible for vaccination, such as children and medically exempt people, will continue to have their covid treatment costs publicly covered.

The city state of six million people is one of the world’s most vaccinated countries, with 85% of its population fully vaccinated and 18% having already received a third, booster dose. Its mix of strong border controls and early lockdowns kept the pandemic largely at bay for 18 months: until the end of September 2021 the most covid deaths it had recorded in a single day was three.

It then saw a surge in cases that led to abandonment of its “zero covid” approach in favour of a “living with covid” policy of slow reopening, at least for vaccinated people. But with almost no herd immunity, the unvaccinated population is still highly susceptible. Singapore’s health ministry said that fully vaccinated people were admitted to hospital over the past week at a rate of 0.5 per 100 000 and that deaths in this group were 0.1 per 100 000. But unvaccinated people were admitted at a rate of 5.2 per 100 000, and deaths were 0.9 per 100 000.

About 1725 people are currently admitted to hospital with covid, of whom 67 are critically ill and intubated. Singapore’s intensive care facilities are at 68.5% occupancy.

The ministry said in a statement announcing the new policy, “Currently, unvaccinated persons make up a sizeable majority of those who require intensive inpatient care, and disproportionately contribute to the strain on our healthcare resources.”1

A vaccination drive beginning in early August brought the number of unvaccinated people over 65 down from 175 000 to below 64 000. “If not for this reduction, our hospitals and ICUs today would have been already overwhelmed,” said Ong Ye Kung, health minister.

In practice, he noted, few Singaporeans would have to pay for covid treatment out of their own pockets, as strong legal incentives encourage most citizens to have extensive private health coverage.

“Our hospitals really much prefer not to have to bill these patients at all, but we have to send this important signal, to urge everyone to get vaccinated if you are eligible,” the minister said.

Quote from Fm1

Jump boys jump

Shouted the rest of the freemasons when it was Fm1’s turn at riding the goat.

Quote from uncertainH

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.

Yawn. Next you’ll be claiming thats its discrimination against gun owners, when they are told not to bring firearms into school.

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 Wyttenbach

Genes are always proteins.

LOL. Does anyone take this muppet seriously?

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.

This guy sounds familiar….

The Loneliest Anti-Vaxxer

Even the popular polio shot had its haters.

On March 26, 1953, virologist Jonas Salk announced a successful initial test of his polio vaccine. Newspaper front pages gleefully trumpeted good tidings. In 1952, polio had peaked in the U.S. with about 58,000 infections, resulting in 3,145 deaths and 21,269 cases of paralysis. As outbreaks moved from city to city, swimming pools and movie theaters closed, and parents safeguarded children at home. Salk’s announcement marked the start of the largest medical experiment ever conducted at the time, a placebo-controlled study of 1.8 million children in 44 states, carried out in 1954, that would pave the way for the near eradication of the disease.

Duon H. Miller, the cantankerous owner of a cosmetics company in Florida, was having none of it.

Under the banner of his organization, Polio Prevention Inc., Miller distributed hair-raising mailers with claims like “Thousands of little white coffins will be used to bury victims of Salk’s heinous and fraudulent vaccine.” A self-made shampoo magnate, he was one of the few malcontents who publicly campaigned against the polio vaccine. His crusade shows that even during a public embrace of the polio shot that many people frustrated at COVID anti-vaxxers have held up as the ideal reaction to a new lifesaving vaccine, there was dissent, some of it as vitriolic as that you find in the corners of Twitter that swap anti-Fauci memes and Bill Gates rants—and just as weird.

To Miller, “polio” was not an infectious disease. It was a state of malnutrition caused by midcentury American diets, particularly soft drinks—his mortal enemy. “Disease and malfunction do not ‘strike’ us; we build them within ourselves,” he wrote in one of his two-sided handbills. “Children permitted to indulge heavily in soft drinks (especially ‘colas’), over-sweetened and refined starchy foods are the greatest sufferers from POLIO. NO CHILD OR ADULT ON A COMPLETELY COMPETENT AND BALANCED DIET EVER CONTRACTS POLIO.”

To Miller, the disease wasn’t real. The conspiracy was. The “experts” were criminals. The vaccine was actually dangerous. This was your libertarian uncle’s Facebook profile, 50 years before there was Facebook. But unlike modern anti-vaxxers, Miller depended on the U.S. Postal Service—which proved, in the end, to be a more effective gatekeeper than social media has been for us…

One Lonely, Wealthy Man’s Crusade Against the Polio Vaccine

Most people celebrated Salk’s shot. This soda-hating businessman did not.

slate.com

Quote from Wyttenbach

Here the figures for USA

Title::Annual sales of the leading vitamin, mineral and supplement (VMS) brands* in the United States in 2016

Third bite at the cherry, and this time all you offer up is the sales figures of a few brands.

If you had followed the link in my original comment, you could have saved yourself the time and effort of all that angry googling.

Quote from zorud

Something to swallow, think about and internalize for our skilled in the art of using smart language from Switzerland…

Hmmm… quite. One can’t fail to notice the unhealthy and pervasive obsession with all aspects of Nazi history and culture amongst certain characters.

I think there is a distinct possibility that some memorabilia might be tucked away in a drawer somewhere. Perhaps some collar tabs, or local party insignia. Maybe even a nice totemkopf.

What were you saying about reading disabilities?

Quote from Zeus46

The US vitamin industry revenue is about $30 billion per year

And you suffer from the impotent rage of a shut-in dotard. Must be tough.

You also lack understanding of the vitamin and supplements industry. The same companies sell both types of product. Although vitamins are their big money-maker.

10 Biggest Vitamin Companies In The United States – Zippia

Quote from Mark U

Do you think that those crazy anti-vaxers just make it up out of thin air?

Most of comes from Facebook.

Judging by the Herman Cain Award, sorryantivaxxer, and conversations with GP friends.

Quote from Fm1

those trials will never come as it's not in the best interest of big pharma.

Quote from THHuxleynew

All it needs is for somone to pay a lot of money for them.

You can't expect private companies to spend money on thigs that have no return for them.

The US vitamin industry revenue is about $30 billion per year. Globally its $300B - about 25% of what the pharmaceutical industry makes. They could easily afford to run trials if they wanted.

But they don't want to run trials, as they understand that despite the majority of US citizens taking supplements, overall health has not improved.

Still, the vast majority (>80%) of people blindly trust that vitamins will help them, despite there being very little evidence.

Why would the vitamin industry risk killing off that golden goose?

Talking of the Swiss, it seems the majority of them are fed up of the anti-vaxxers, and actually voted en-masse to continue banning them from social places and universities.

Covid: Swiss back government on Covid pass as cases surge

Sunday's referendum is held in a country with one of the lowest vaccination rates in Western Europe.

www.bbc.co.uk

Quote from The Gauleiter of Zurich

Einstein himself speaks... or better pebble ...

https://www.oatext.com/pdf/JTS-3-186.pdf

The study is 100x more clear than most FUD spread by the CoV-19 gene therapy ( claimed vaccine) mafia.

Einstein LOL. Aren’t you the one claiming to have a new and revolutionary understanding of physics?

Basically you are the Swiss Cherepanov.

Anyway… That paper you dug out is the same as Zephir (a.k.a. The Czech Wyttenbach) spammed us with recently. It involves parents who homeschool their children (i.e. ‘weirdos’) who self-diagnose their unfortunate children with ‘illnesses’, on questionnaires sent to/targeted at them by the ‘scientists’.

It was retracted from the first journal it was published in, only to be republished by a second predatory journal, in return for lots of money.

…Should send them your magnum dopus. If you ask nicely maybe they’ll let Curbina peer review it.

Sir, your emojis are upside down

Zephir, theoretical physics is a mathematical discipline, and requires more than the occasional word salad if you want to convince scientists of, say, your pet 'aether-wave' theory.

And in a similar manner, you never going to begin to convince any scientist, or indeed sensible person, that covid vaccines cause ADE by linking to an unholy brew of anecdotes, reddit comments, irrelevant images, grifting MAGA-heavy anti-vaxxer articles (first link if anyone wants a laugh), and cranky homeschoolers self-diagnosing their kids with 'autism'.

Of the two higher-quality links you provided: Alex Berenson's unfortunate mistake is excellently explained/mocked here, and your second-from-top link can be explained by the presumed fact that the countries least able to afford vaccines are also the least capable of counting covid cases within their population.