JedRothwell Verified User
  • Member since Oct 11th 2014
  • Last Activity:

Posts by JedRothwell

    Just because you may convincingly claim they have less risk getting a vaccine does not determine if they they should therefore get the vaccine. It is a very small margin of risk either way.

    It is larger than you realize. The risk of death is small, but the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and "long-haul" effects is large. Much larger than for chickenpox, measles, mumps and other diseases that all children must be vaccinated against. If we are going to vaccinate children for these other diseases, why would we not vaccinate them for COVID? I do not understand why you have a different standard for this one vaccination, for this one disease.

    Birth-18 Years Immunization Schedule | CDC

    But it seems that there is a paradoxical situation when older people are interested and work in LENR, and young people are interested and work exclusively in the mainstream thermonuclear sector.

    Yes. I call this the generational role reversal. It shows there is something wrong with modern science. Young people have always taken the lead in research and technology. That is how things should be.

    Obviously some will need it every six months, then five months ,3,2,1 then daily - just the junky reality..

    No vaccine works that way. None ever did. Everyone with the slightest knowledge of disease or medical science knows this, and will know that what you say is nonsense. Along with just about everything else you say. So the question arises: Why so you say this stuff? Why do you make yourself look like a blithering idiot? If you are trying to fool people, it isn't working. If you really do believe this stuff, I suggest you read some grade-school level textbooks about biology and health.

    I think that would depend on the age of the person, and their health.

    Nope. The risk is much higher for everyone, in all age groups tested so far. I don't think they have tested babies yet, but they have done extensive double-blind tests of children. There is no question the risks of the disease are far higher than the risks from the vaccines. If there was any question, the FDA would never approve the vaccines for children. That would be crazy. They don't issue an approval when the risk/benefit does not merit it. The FDA is not in favor of giving vaccinations when they cause more harm than good.

    Death from COVID in children is rare, but risks include severe illness and long-term "long haul" symptoms. When you factor in these, children are at great risk. Many vaccines are given to children for diseases that seldom kill people, such as chickenpox. Even though chickenpox seldom kills you, it has many other serious effects. The risk/benefit clearly favors getting the vaccine. Even if the only benefit were to avoid the misery of a chickenpox infection, which lasts for weeks, the vaccination would still be preferable. See:

    Chickenpox complications
    Complications from chickenpox can be serious.

    This is emerging new data that may not pan out after gathering more observations, so no need for anyone to make plans based on it..

    Lots of "what if's" though if it turns out to be true.

    Okay, suppose it is true. What would you recommend? Do you think people should deliberately expose themselves to the virus, in order to get sick, in order to have more robust protection? It seems like a risky strategy.

    If so, it may turn those with only the vaxx acquired antibodies into junkies, waiting desperately for each new years jab from our drug dealer (big Pharma). With each new jab comes the compounding chance of adverse risks.

    No vaccine works that way. Ever. This is ridiculous. There is no compounding of adverse risks. They are exactly same in every instance. Like the chances of winning a lottery ticket. That fact that you won $10 last week (which you can with Georgia's lottery) does not make it more or less likely you will win this week.

    As you know, influenza evolves rapidly, so we have to get a flu vaccination every year, with 4 strains in it. The risk of an adverse reaction from a flu vaccine is the same this year as last year, and the year before. The risks from getting influenza are about the same every year too. Although as you get older they do increase somewhat. So, if it was a good idea to get a flu vaccine in 2010, it was just as good an idea in 2015. The risks do not compound or increase in any sense. If the balance of risk/benefit pointed to getting a flu vaccine in 2010, it still does. Nothing has changed that calculation.

    It is not yet clear whether COVID will need a booster shot every year. But it it does, the risk/benefits of the booster will the same in 10 years as they are this year, * unless you are my age, in which case you will be MUCH more likely to die if you get COVID.

    * With one obvious exception. If COVID become exceedingly rare years from now, the benefits may decrease to the point where it is not worth the risk. Or the bother. This will not happen with influenza. It will remain endemic. There are sure to be years in which influenza infects many people with dangerous cases. So the risks from influenza will not decrease. UNLESS they invent a vaccine that stops all forms of influenza permanently, in which case you will only need one shot, and in which case influenza may become increasingly rare in years to come.

    You aren't understanding. Vaccines are almost perfectly safe. The problem is that the adverse reactions are being imported from a near countless number of parallel universes, into ours.

    I realize this is a joke, but the fact is, there has been no increase in deaths or serious adverse reactions to the COVID vaccines. The only reactions are those listed in the vaccine information package, ranging from a sore arm to a short fever. None of these are serious, or unexpected. The number of deaths and reactions is the same as a control population of people who were not vaccinated. That would be a control population in a normal year such as 2018. Obviously, in an unvaccinated control population in 2021, many people would get sick from COVID.

    To put it another way, there have been a number of deaths following the vaccinations, but no more than there would be from eating bananas. There is no evidence for causality, any more than there would be from bananas.

    Since "N" antibodies are acquired from natural infection, this statement would indicate that for the more robust antibody protection, get infected first, then vaxxed, and not the other way around.

    Obviously, the problem with that method is, you might die from the infection, or you might be left with a lifelong debility. There is no point to "robust protection" that kills you. Even if vaccination first is somewhat less robust, it is still the preferred method.

    One method of ensuring robust protection against fire would be to burn your house to ashes, leaving nothing combustible. That would work, but the disadvantages are clear.

    Rather, the mystery is why they cause an exponential rise in coincidences that make it only appear like they cause such adverse events.

    They do not cause any such rise. Again, you are discussing a purely hypothetical event that has not occured. (You probably think it has, but you are wrong.) There is no increase in coincidences. If there were, the epidemiologists would take note of that fact, and find out why. That's the whole point of collecting a database of all events, including events that we know are extremely unlikely to be caused by the vaccine. A rise in coincidences would be the first indication there may be a problem, even without any apparent causality.

    The repeated story about chickens and transmuted eggs, presuming (very incorrectly) a lack of calcium in the soil of Brittany is interesting from a historical perspective but completely laughable when presented as fact. Elemental calcium makes up about 4% of the Earth’s crust and its content in soils reflects that fact strongly.

    Are you sure calcium is evenly distributed in the earth's crust? Are you sure Kervan did not measure the calcium content of the local soil? I know little about him, but I believe he did. I do not think he merely stated that it is rare in this soil. I doubt any scientist would take him seriously if he simply stated this as fact without measuring.

    I cannot judge these claims because I have not looked closely. Jean-Paul seems to take it seriously. He is a smart fellow, but even smart people sometimes believe stupid things.

    If you have not examined Kervan's work closely, I recommend you tone down your critique. You might be wrong. Cold fusion and other discoveries in experimental science show that nature is full of surprises, including things we all thought were impossible.

    it is true that only a few children die, that is the COVID exponential age/death curve.

    Recent data shows that children usually survive, but even mild cases sometimes result in long-haul effects. This happens more often than previously thought. So the risk of death is not the only reason to vaccinate children.

    Long-Haul COVID-19 in Children and Teens
    Most children and teens who test positive for COVID-19 have mild, or even no, symptoms. But some are experiencing symptoms more than a month after they've been…

    Long COVID and kids: scientists race to find answers
    Children get long COVID too, but researchers are still working to determine how frequently and how severely.


    Paediatrician Danilo Buonsenso, at the Gemelli University Hospital in Rome, led the first attempt to quantify long COVID in children. He and his colleagues interviewed 129 children aged 6–16 years, who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 between March and November 2020.

    In January, they reported in a preprint that more than one-third had one or two lingering symptoms four months or more after infection, and a further one-quarter had three or more symptoms. Insomnia, fatigue, muscle pain and persistent cold-like complaints were common — a pattern similar to that seen in adults with long COVID. Even children who’d had mild initial symptoms, or were asymptomatic, were not spared these long-lasting effects, Buonsenso says. . . .

    Data released by the UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) in February and updated in April also sparked concern. They showed that 9.8% of children aged 2–11 years and 13% aged 12–16 years reported at least one lingering symptom five weeks after a positive diagnosis. Another report released in April found that one-quarter of children who were surveyed after discharge from hospital in Russia post-COVID-19, had symptoms more than five months later. . . .

    Big Pharma greed knows no bounds. Pharmaceutical corporations abuse their monopoly power to rip off Americans en mass. Whatever your political affiliation, background, or zip code, you are harmed by the outrageous prices set by the pharmaceutical companies.

    I agree with this. On the other hand, Big Pharma did a wonderful job with COVID vaccines. So, it is good in some ways and bad in others. Corporations often are like that. AT&T used to have a monopoly on telephone service. They charged a lot of money. After the monopoly was broken up, costs fell a lot and service improved. However, during the monopoly AT&T did provide highly reliable service to everyone in the U.S., even in low population places where they lost money stringing up poles and wires. They provided better service than the phone service in many other countries. It was expensive, but not ruinously expensive. So it wasn't all bad.

    U.S. healthcare overall is in a terrible state. It has all the disadvantages of both capitalism and communism. As I see it, one of the core problems is the most people do not do comparison shopping when they are sick, or their life is in danger. They pay whatever the hospitals charge. So healthcare is not amenable to the usual mechanisms of capitalism that keep costs in line. Another core problem may be that medical technology is improving rapidly so we end up paying first generation costs for all the gadgets. Before a gadget falls to commodity pricing levels, a new version is invented. People have 20-year-old computers and televisions at home, but no one wants a hospital to have 20-year-old equipment.

    Should we force vaccination with adverse events in under 40s to “protect” above 70s?

    There are no significant adverse events from the vaccination. You are describing a hypothetical option in a parallel reality, not something we need to worry about. In any case, in the U.S. it would not be politically possible to force vaccinations on adults. Only on children if their parents want to send them to school.

    Here is a 300 MW solar installation, on 1,800 acres. 300 MW is a lotta megawatts. That's would be about 1/3rd of a typical U.S. nuke, except it only works during daylight hours. That is not as big a problem as you might think, because most demand is during the day. So, it is roughly 1/6th of a nuke. I'll bet it costs a lot less than 1/6th of a nuke. This installation is mainly to serve one customer: a steel mill.

    Colorado steel mill becomes 'world's first' to be run almost entirely on solar - Renewable Energy World
    Lightsource bp announced that its 300 MW project will position EVRAZ's Pueblo steel mill as the world's first steel mill to run almost entirely on solar.

    The only nuke being constructed in the U.S. is in Georgia. It is 1,117 MW. It is an economic disaster. Quoting the Wall Street Journal:

    Vogtle has been beset by numerous delays and cost overruns. It was originally scheduled to open in 2016, and the total cost of the two planned Vogtle reactors tops $27 billion—more than double the initial estimates approved by state regulators in 2008.

    That's $13.5 billion for one unit so far, and still years away from completion. That's $12 million per megawatt of capacity. The Bighorn Solar Project described above costs $285 million. Taking the capacity at 150 MW (for daytime only), that is $2 million per megawatt. You can see why no one wants to build any more nukes.

    Vogtle Nuclear Plant in Georgia Faces More Construction Delays

    Southern Co. project is only one of its type in U.S., and could cost $2 billion more than expected

    Vogtle Nuclear Plant in Georgia Faces More Construction Delays
    The Southern Co. project is the only one of its type in the U.S. and is likely to cost $2 billion more than expected.

    See also estimate of $11.1 billion for one unit:

    "Georgia Power’s share of the initial estimated total project cost, $6.1 billion, has ballooned to $11.1 billion at the latest estimate."

    GDPR Support

    Georgia Power website description of reactors:

    Plant Vogtle

    This is hilarious:

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    This is too:

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Yes, I know it was in vitro. I was responding to this THH comment to show him Ivermectin has a strong in vitro effect, and at safe levels:

    What do you mean by "safe levels"? Do you mean it does not kill the cells in the sample? That may be true, but the levels are much higher than a human dose. You would kill the patient with that much. Furthermore, very little of the doses that have been administered reach the lungs. Not enough to have any effect even if there is an antiviral effect. See:

    The approved dose of ivermectin alone not useful in treating COVID-19
    A new paper published on the preprint server medRxiv in April 2020 shows that the use of the already approved drug ivermectin in clinical trials to treat…

    Don't laugh about that Thomas as stupid as it may be. Remember every time you step out of your home you are under some sort of video surveillance all available to authorities through judicial process.

    I do not see what that has to do with implanting microchips in people's arms to track them. That is not possible. It is ridiculous. The only thing you can implant are RfID devices that only work from a meter or two away. Video surveillance is nowhere near as effective as following cell phones, credit card transactions and social media. The latter we do to ourselves, voluntarily. If you are seriously concerned about being watched, you should not use a cell phone or Facebook.

    I myself don't have a cell phone, but only because I have no use for one. I am not concerned about being watched. Partly because I have experience living in small towns (mainly in Japan) where everyone knows everyone else's business. When you step out of your house people know who you are and where you are going. Before the growth of large cities, starting around 1870, in most place privacy did not exist. There was not much anonymity. Yes, there were large cities such as London or New York, but most people lived in places where everyone knew their business, including local authorities and the police. Privacy is a modern invention, lasting from around 1870 to 2000. There were few references to the right of privacy before 1900, and the concept is now more or less defunct.

    When privacy began to erode in the 1990s, I thought this would bother me, but I find that I care less about it than I thought I would. I make no effort to cover my tracks on the internet. In all online forums, such as this one or the New York Times, I always use my full name, and you can find my name, address, e-mail address and phone number at Many people use made-up names. Especially the people at Wikipedia. I think that should not be allowed at Wikipedia. I often say that when you evaluate cold fusion, you can look at peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals written by scientists with CVs at university websites, or you can look at anonymous comments at Wikipedia by people who name themselves after comic book characters. Which do you think has more credibility?

    We report here that Ivermectin, an FDA-approved anti-parasitic previously shown to have broad-spectrum anti-viral activity in vitro, is an inhibitor of the causative virus (SARS-CoV-2),

    This study is also in vitro. It does not prove that the much smaller doses you can give to a person would be effective. This study was published in April 2020. Subsequent double-blind tests with patients showed the ivermectin does not work.