Covid-19 Outbreak of new SARS-like coronavirus (Covid-19)

[Jabberwocky]

As I said earlier in science it is a good idea to take nothing at face value and take no-ones' word, Nullis in verba.

Ideas stand or fall on the evidence, which is why I tend to be leery of the bio-proteomics-metabolomics-omics informatics revolution. on the whole it falls short of meeting the threshold for reproducible, repeatable, testable science. The most interesting feature of nu-science is the lack of supporting evidence, the lack of critical peer review and lack of engagement with people asking difficult questions like so..? and...? why..? response is Computer says yes. Model says yes. That is why I asked for your comment on the sequencing field where you are comfortable.

this is completely false- i consider it bad science to publish computational results without accompanying experimental validation. i came from theroretical physics (but actually computer science, long story) where they are really antsy about it, though in that case analytical proof is also expected, because of a number of high profile retractions over the years. i don't trust computational results without complementary evidence and its why i'm wary of your claims about this weird phylogeny- phylogeny is well known to be dodgy. i have never published without experimental verification of my results, the role of computing in my view is to reduce the burden on experimentalists, i can point them in the right direction and together we achieve results that would be impossible without computational input.

the results of this collaboration between bio and computer scientists speak for themselves, but i do agree as i said in a previous post, a lot of dodgy shit is done. unfortunately, this is because a lot of biologists who lack even basic mathematical skills, let alone complexity theory, think they can design and implement algorithms themselves, with no formal engineering tuition or experience. obviously i will defend my own profession but the things i've seen in code bases since moving to biosciences makes my skin crawl. thankfully people are wising up to it and people such as myself are able to find gainful and interesting employment as a result.

back to the sequencing:

I don't think using R is significant per se, R is commonly used all over the place because of the bundled stats and graphing features. Yes it would be more computationally efficient not to use R but the end rsult should be the same. What I am more interested in is your comment about how the sequencing was performed, from what I can determine it could be done using many different methods as CoG use rapid sequencing and many flavors of techniques in different labs, the CoG statement looks like hand waving.

My understanding is the depth of the sequence overlap and the reliability of the technique is key yet so far these data are not obviously public. Remember the variant was sequenced in early October from the MK sample, so at least 60 days ago. I am much more interested in how robust this all is, sequencing and tracking lineages has the potential to give useful information but knowing how fuzzy the info is would be very useful, no point knowing anything without knowing the error.

But if we go ahead with the assumption the sequence and genetic distance is correct then a plausible explanation of how this could happen is needed, the thing went stealth for a long time and re-appeared with a lot of nice new mutations, if this is something that can happen again and again then this mechanism may be a big deal.

the use of R signifies the plotting was probably done as part of an off the shelf package (as in part of bioconductor, i prefer seaborn which is also an off the shelf package but for a real programming language with a proper type system!). i said earlier there will be no good off the shelf package for this type of analysis, especially in light of the your suggestion that many different library prep and sequencing modalities were used to generate the data. usually packages are specific to one type of data, illumina, nanopore, illumina, pacbio, illumina, sanger cos it was written in 1996, illumina, illumina but claiming it can work for all sequencing modalities. anyway its possible that the data plotted were obtained using bespoke code so its just speculation, but when i see a graph plotted in R i can be pretty sure whoever plotted it doesn't know much about programming.

a possible explanation of how this could occur is needed. it really is too early to tell. until they have published their data and methods its not possible for an outside to suggest a plausible explanation, so the one mentioned in the paper is our best guess. it almost certainly can happen again and again and that is indeed a concern. thankfully if they change the spike protein too much it will no longer be able to bind to receptors, and hopefully the vaccine should work with more minor modifications of the spike protein.


@JGrimez quoting VAERS really merits no response. anyone can publish to it without demonstrating that the adverse event is linked to the vaccination.

the principle of vaccination has been around for hundreds of years, longer than the modern gold standard for clinical trials.

 

[JGrimez]

One month ago, WHO guidance on masks:

There seems to be a WHO-induced type of schizophrenia which causes people to think that the scientific consensus changes monthly.

On July 12, Deborah Cohen, the medical correspondent of BBC2’s Newsnight, revealed that the World Health Organisation (WHO) had reversed its advice on face masks, from ‘don’t wear them’ to ‘do wear them’ not because of scientific information – the evidence had not backed the wearing of face coverings – but because of "political lobbying".
Ask yourself: why would governments want people to wear masks for "political reasons" when there is no valid health reason to do so?
Then ask yourself: what else about this 'pandemic' is political rather than health related.


Imagine reading this in 2019:
"Twelve people have been fined after they were caught playing dominoes in a restaurant in east London. Police officers found the group hiding in a dark room when they entered the building in Whitechapel."
Coronavirus: Twelve fined for playing dominoes in Tier 4 breach

'Hospital intensive care no busier than normal for most trusts, leaked documents show'
What does it take for people to accept they're being lied to?
'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' should be applied to govt. claims, not those that seeks to counter them.
The claim that governments habitually lie to the people hasn't been extraordinary for a very long time.

Long term cancer, 90 years old, dodgy PCR test that "detected covid" by 45 amplification cycles that probably also found Dennis Quaid, so "covid death".
Over the last 9 months there have been an extremely large number of similar cases. It's likely, in fact, that they make up the majority of "covid deaths".

 

[JGrimez]

@JGrimez quoting VAERS really merits no response. anyone can publish to it without demonstrating that the adverse event is linked to the vaccination.

And that's the only surveillance system they have so you admit they virtually have NO tracking system for vaccine injuries.
And you don't seem to give a shit, either.

the principle of vaccination has been around for hundreds of years, longer than the modern gold standard for clinical trials.

This means nothing. The principle of vaccination has exactly what to do with pharmaceutical companies doing proper safety testing?

Way to ignore all the other data too. You're really good at this science stuff.

 

[Jabberwocky]

And you don't seem to give a shit, either.

i absolutely don't because the evidence is clear. vaccines do more good than harm.

Way to ignore all the other data too. You're really good at this science stuff.

you never responded to my questions about your proposed method for endogenous retroviruses to magically provide machinery to mRNA viruses to turn human beings into super virus machines.

the other 'data' as you call it, looked to be copypasta extraplotations made by someone without any basic understanding of what they are talking about, so also did not merit a response.

 

[JGrimez]

i absolutely don't because the evidence is clear. vaccines do more good than harm.

And what I've just shown you is that there's no proof of this. You're not basing this on any evidence (because it's simply not there).
You admitted that there is no legitimate surveillance system for vaccine injuries yet you claim that they do more good than harm.
Yet the only surveillance system shows that they do not.
This sounds more like religion than science.

you never responded to my questions about your proposed method for endogenous retroviruses to magically provide machinery to mRNA viruses to turn human beings into super virus machines.

I didn't ask you to comment on that, it was for someone else. I never claimed to fully understand all of it (I'm not a scientist) so I asked someone who I thought was qualified. Unfortunately only the less-qualified, fact-evading individual replied.
So to answer you I don't know - but it's also evident that there's a LOT that the scientific field doesn't understand and it's wise to err on the side of caution when fucking with DNA and super-deadly viruses.

the other 'data' as you call it, looked to be copypasta extraplotations made by someone without any basic understanding of what they are talking about, so also did not merit a response.

So I guess the findings of the Harvard scientists means nothing to you? Can't say I'm surprised based on your lack of intellectual honesty.
That's information direct from government sources and it completely demolishes your claims which is the reason why you're experiencing cognitive dissonance and you condescendingly choose to ignore it

 

[Jabberwocky]

You admitted that there is no legitimate surveillance system for vaccine injuries yet you claim that they do more good than harm.

i have admitted no such thing.

i have grown bored of this conversation, you're still just trotting out standard anti vax fare and there's no point trying to argue with you because your claims are so easily debunked by a simple google search.

the only original thing you've said was one of the most hilarious things i've read in a long time, but you refuse to discuss it with me despite me posing clear and simple questions about it because 'i don't know what i'm talking about.'

ultimately my time would be better spent doing literally anything else, and yours would be better spent learning about vaccines from reputable sources, so its best we end this discussion.

 

[novaveritas]

this is completely false- i consider it bad science to publish computational results without accompanying experimental validation. i came from theroretical physics (but actually computer science, long story) where they are really antsy about it, though in that case analytical proof is also expected, because of a number of high profile retractions over the years. i don't trust computational results without complementary evidence and its why i'm wary of your claims about this weird phylogeny- phylogeny is well known to be dodgy. i have never published without experimental verification of my results, the role of computing in my view is to reduce the burden on experimentalists, i can point them in the right direction and together we achieve results that would be impossible without computational input.

what is completely false? I said that publishing without the supporting evidence is dubious. this is not my paper I am merely reviewing and evaluating it on its merits. You may not fall into the category of publishing unsupported junk, that makes you the exception in bioinformatics that rather proves the rule. All my science is reproduceable exactly as written, but once again this is not my science this is Sangers' science... So we agree nu-science is shit, but it is what it is.

The question is really do we think there is enough published evidence to say on balance of probabilities the variant exists and the sequence is correct? if either of those are true then the next questions are obvious. If both of those are untrue then there is a much bigger problem. All great scientific discoveries begin with the magic phrase "hey thats weird.." but what would I know? I'm not a suitable person to be a researcher

the results of this collaboration between bio and computer scientists speak for themselves, but i do agree as i said in a previous post, a lot of dodgy shit is done. unfortunately, this is because a lot of biologists who lack even basic mathematical skills, let alone complexity theory, think they can design and implement algorithms themselves, with no formal engineering tuition or experience. obviously i will defend my own profession but the things i've seen in code bases since moving to biosciences makes my skin crawl. thankfully people are wising up to it and people such as myself are able to find gainful and interesting employment as a result.

I have seen plenty of logically dubious algorithms, some are mistakes made in good faith some are not. The problem is that mistakes can be arise from unexpected interactions between functions, or just because the logic is shit to start with or valid only within limited bounds. Or people don't understand threading and race conditions. I am sure an audit of your code would throw up some circumstances where it went odd, I used to break crypto algorithms for amusement, to err is human to really fuck up takes a computer. The idea that Information lost can be recovered using tricks is the classic one I tend to see, a minor bit of truncation and suddenly the true signal is gone replaced by an artifact. Bad algorithms are not actually the crux of the issue, In biology the output should be testable. Easiest and most robust way is to use the algorithm to predict a testable outcome then experimentally validate that outcome. if it doesn't match then hey Houston we have a problem.

I am free to ask difficult questions, no loyalty, no boss, no consensus which gives me extreme freedom to pursue whatever field interests me at the time, it is the edges you need to find, where terra nullis begins because that is where the real money is. If you discover some people are swimming without scientific trunks, wait for the tide to go out. Occam and Murphy's are the rules that work pretty much all the time.

 

[JessFR]

i think i'm familiar with virtually every argument anti vaxxers trot out because i find it utterly fascinating as a phenomenon. i know what a double blind placebo trial is and that in the case of vaccines its unethical, because they are SO safe and effective that to leave people unprotected from preventable disease would contradict the vow to 'do no harm' that doctors make.

vaccinations go wrong less often than many things you do on a daily basis and this has been shown time and again to be the case. on balance the risk is far, far smaller than that of complications when contracting vaccine-preventable diseases such as polio and measles.

That's the thing. These arguments aren't really about evidence no matter what their proponents claim. They're about emotion and psychology.

Hence why they continually want ever more evidence, it's a little like the endless search for election fraud. The decision that vaccines are harmful is made first, then an endless search for evidence begins.

If it were up to them we would keep doing studies until one says what they wanna hear. Then we take that one as proof and stop. Hey that's sounding like the election logic again.

That's my take on it anyway.

 

[novaveritas]

I miss nuance and the middle ground. I am neither pro nor antivaxx. There is no emotion here.

Facts.
Vaccines can and do cause harm.
Vaccines can and do prevent harm.
discuss..

the rational approach is let people make their own decisions based on their calculation of the relative risk/benefit.

So for me this is my rough calculation with COVID, this is my individual calculation your numbers may differ, risk of infection 0.1% per year, likely time coronavirus remains circulating 2 years, absolute risk of infection 0.2%. Risk of serious outcome following infection at most 2%, (rule of ten on demographic IFR). so 0.004% risk absolute over 2 years. Maximum personal benefit from vaccine over next 2 years (if it works that long), 0.004% and only if vaccine efficacy is 100% if it is 75% efficacious then the benefit is 0.003% absolute.
even if the infection risk was 1% per year the numbers are still small. If things change then recalculate. Its pretty trivial to work out.

This is why doctors and medics who can do math are not so bothered with it, it is not that they are antivax or whatever perjorative Jess may want to apply, simply the individual risk benefit calculation doesn't stack up and there is currently no evidence that the vaccine prevents infection and transmission.

if you recalculate as risk of death then the absolute risk falls another 10 times and the benefit falls 10 times as well.

As for risks from the vaccine are they higher than 0.003% absolute? I don't know, but bearing in mind exposure to the vaccine risks is guaranteed and front loaded if you take it, a pass at this point and wait and see is sensible.

@JessFR
shrieking about them, there damn antivaxxers, them, they is just divisionist extremist nonsense projection and just as irrational and dogmatic. Maybe you should use (((them))) so what you are saying truly looks as nasty as it is.

 

[Jabberwocky]

what is completely false?... So we agree nu-science is shit, but it is what it is.

i was probably a bit strong in saying completely false, i was referring to your assertion that bioinformatics results are presented with insufficient evidence. because we certainly agree there is a lot of crap out there, but there are also some really great algorithms that are elucidating all sorts of biological phenomena and opening applications ranging from improved food security to better disease control.

The question is really do we think there is enough published evidence to say on balance of probabilities the variant exists and the sequence is correct? if either of those are true then the next questions are obvious. If both of those are untrue then there is a much bigger problem. All great scientific discoveries begin with the magic phrase "hey thats weird.."

ime, once you have predicted that a specific short sequence is present in a genome, it is very easy for the lab to validate that small section. so i'm pretty certain that the variant exists. what i'm not remotely certain about is the analysis that suggests there are some 'missing steps' - it could be in the data but without details about how it is processed, we hav no idea. this doesn't address the issue of how quickly these variations appeared in comparison to the usual mutation rate, but with more results on the intermediate steps we would have a better chance of at least understanding how this variant arose.

I'm not a suitable person to be a researcher

in the light of new evidence (i.e. we seem to now be having a civil, respectful discussion) i would like to retract and apologise for my earlier statement. i am used to people who present the types of arguments i initially engaged with as being, well, a certain type of person- a type of person that is not capable to the sort of discussion we are now having.

I have seen plenty of logically dubious algorithms, some are mistakes made in good faith some are not. The problem is that mistakes can be arise from unexpected interactions between functions, or just because the logic is shit to start with or valid only within limited bounds. Or people don't understand threading and race conditions. I am sure an audit of your code would throw up some circumstances where it went odd, I used to break crypto algorithms for amusement, to err is human to really fuck up takes a computer. The idea that Information lost can be recovered using tricks is the classic one I tend to see, a minor bit of truncation and suddenly the true signal is gone replaced by an artifact.

oh yeah. the number of ways you can cockup is immense and unless you really dig into source code its almost impossible to tell. something like using a string class instead of bit encoding for bases should be easily detectable if you track memory usage. things like hard coding all contigs to have lengths no greater than a certain number can be a pain. setting global state inside individual threads is a classic that i have fallen foul of myself in the early days. you are right, no code is perfect, i've seen bloopers by far greater software engineers than me.

i have not seen people truncating signals and expecting to be able to get the information back hurts me. i've done a lot of fourier analysis in various guises and at least in that case you demonstrably cannot. bit loss is the only irreversable process in standard models of computing.

In biology the output should be testable. Easiest and most robust way is to use the algorithm to predict a testable outcome then experimentally validate that outcome. if it doesn't match then hey Houston we have a problem.

exactly, and that is my experience of bioinformatics algorithm development and i hope it will become the norm not the exception. i didn't actually realise bioinformatics had such a bad reputation. i guess i just see bad algorithms and don't use them, i'm not stuck trying to make sense of results predicted by a piece of software that overstates its abilities and can see how it undermines trust in the entire field.

 

[Jabberwocky]

the rational approach is let people make their own decisions based on their calculation of the relative risk/benefit.

this is the problem. most people are not capable of making their own decisions and a lot of people, like Larry Cook, are capitalising on this for nefarious purposes and presenting misinformation. going further, if you assume herd immunity is not broken then your risk of getting a vaccine-preventable disease is minimal. so at the individual level, purely selfishly, it doesn't make sense to take on the risk of vaccination. even though that risk is negligible at the population level, especially when compared to the risk of losing herd immunity.

 

[JGrimez]

i have admitted no such thing.

"anyone can publish to (VAERS) without demonstrating that the adverse event is linked to the vaccination." - You

So how do they accurately track vaccine injuries? Can you please answer this simple question?

i have grown bored of this conversation, you're still just trotting out standard anti vax fare and there's no point trying to argue with you because your claims are so easily debunked by a simple google search.

Smear, deflection, evasion.
Standard behavior for anyone who appeals to authority when faced with the facts about vaccines.

the only original thing you've said was one of the most hilarious things i've read in a long time, but you refuse to discuss it with me despite me posing clear and simple questions about it because 'i don't know what i'm talking about.'

I can admit when I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. You cannot (or you don't even realize).
You're attempting to deflect important questions by accusing me of not discussing something that I've admitted I'm not qualified to discuss.
I am qualified to discuss the politics behind vaccinations but you don't seem to want to get into that for some reason - if you don't know what you're talking about then that's completely fine but don't act like you know and then refuse to discuss it.

and yours would be better spent learning about vaccines from reputable sources, so its best we end this discussion.

So are you saying, the CDC, HHS, FDA, Harvard, Pharma companies are not reputable sources?
They have exposed and incriminated themselves with their own words and statements, thanks to investigators who have pushed them for answers (often in court).
Which is why you've got no reply to the facts.

 

[JGrimez]

Hence why they continually want ever more evidence, it's a little like the endless search for election fraud.

God forbid parents should want evidence that vaccines have been properly tested for safety. What stupid fucking idiots.

The decision that vaccines are harmful is made first, then an endless search for evidence begins.

The irony here is that's what the vaccine regulators are doing.
The decision that vaccines are safe is made first, therefore double-blind placebo safety testing isn't necessary (this is actually insane when you really think about it and also for the fact we are injecting babies with them).
Also ask yourself why people would even consider the thought that vaccines are harmful? Have you ever listened to one story of a parent with a vaccine-injured child? Probably not, or you'll call them stupid or crazy. Not very compassionate.

 

[JGrimez]

@JessFR
Parents who don't vaccinate kids tend to be affluent, better educated, experts say
Looks like you might not be in the affluent, educated class that you consider yourself to be.

'Hospitals have 13k FEWER patients taking up beds - so why are millions more in Tier 4?'
UK hospitals had almost fifteen percent fewer patients this December compared with 2019. But lock the country down to 'protect the NHS'?
Where happened to everyone's BS meters?

 

[AutoTripper]

Governments haven't been giving people this advice lately

Now usually I might call that an understatement, and to the distaste I'm sure of those who see "us" as "them" lol, I cannot disagree with you on anything much.

But the word "lately" has no valid place here IMO. Maybe replace it with "ever"?

On medicines, unfortunately as a result of the toxic and technological assault our bodies are under from literally day one in the woumb, nature, the provider of true medicine, isn't always enough, or is the wrong weapon in a showdown.

In a clean, green ideal world, natural medicine is all we would need. It pains me, or maybe it used to, to acknowledge that medicines, aka pharmaceutical, can have a deserved, or rather necessary place in certain cases and situations in this world and bodies gone so wrong due to overtoxicity (which is all very accidental of course and not contrived at all- why would the world leaders behind stage curtains (perfect analogical term or what?) be poisoning us from every angle our entire lives?).

I'm not arguing for medicines vs nature. I just see it as an unfortunate consequence of the pendulum of toxicity and un-naturalness that it's almost impossible to get by without pharma meds in all cases, on the whole.

I'm not disagreeing with you here. The root of the trouble of course, as I'm sure you understand well, is that medicines are designed to suppress symptoms, which are displayed for a purpose- one is a signal of a problem. And not exclusively, due to the mass of autoimmune disruptions, in many instances the symptoms which medicines suppress are the body's efforts and actions to heal itself.

A good example is pain. The bane of our 3D lives ultimately. Be it physical, or mental. But the process, experience and sensation of pain is vital to our chances of wellbeing and survival in this world. Imagine walking all the way home from town before realising you have a big knife sticking out of your back when you go to take off your previously white (now red) jacket lol!

In my own current case of an acute soft tissue knee injury- I could not actually take any pain killing pills, Im very allergic to all prescription medicine excipients and additives for a start, even moreso than the medicines themselves....but the twinges of pain as I move around I would not want to block from my consciousness, with any sense, because it's a lantern in a maze.

The pain is giving me instant, direct feedback, and already in 2 days I have used the pain feedback process to establish exactly how to move, shuffle, and crawl around.

If I can prevent the painful shooting sensations as much as possible, by being observant, careful and moving accordingly, my knee injury has a much better chance of healing itself, sooner.

To block it all out as if on PCP and walk through brick walls, would not enable, let alone help me to recover.

But again, I'm not actually saying let's banish pain medicines from this world, which has gone so far from ideal. I feel that pain medicines are unfortunately needed in many cases. We first need to fix the world by stopping the toxicological/technological assault, and explore the entirety of what natural medicine has to offer, IMO, the vast majority of which has been so horrifically demonised, villified, or simply outlawed.

that probably also found Dennis Quaid

You forgot Jim Morrison, and Adolph!

And that's the only surveillance system they have so you admit they virtually have NO tracking system for vaccine injuries.

This got me thinking. I reckon somewhere in her beautiful, rapidly developping "mind" as consciousness I don't think can ever be applied, Alexa may be able to provide some very thorough intel on these real statistics.

I mean I'm sure she will be privvy to the special A.I. programme which was created specifically to keep monitor and record of the huge number of adverse harmful reactions "expected", anticipated- Predicted! from the perfectly safe Covid vaccine.

If I was not so aware of the inherent toxicity of Alexa, let alone extra refined spying capabilities, I might get one myself, purely to see what I could fish out of her. Seriously! If I had two houses, and kept one abandoned, I would consider it. She could be a phenominally revealing looking glass, as many people, it seems, have been discovering over the course of the past year (I was going to say "this" year as in past out of habit, but saying "last" year doesn't sit right with me now that "Monday" and "Saturday" have lost all emotional and situational significance for me. Hence- the "past" year seeming like the fairest, most honest, realistic and meaningful term.)

This whole Us and Them thing persists. We need to start a new political movement IMO.

"ThemLivesMatter."

 

[Xorkoth]

My friend's grandma just died of covid. She went from no symptoms to trouble breathing in 2 days, and she chose not to go on a ventilator as she just felt it was her time. She died a day later. She was quite old, but healthy otherwise. Her nursing home had an outbreak.

That brings the total count of people I know personally who have died from covid (those who were otherwise healthy beforehand, except in the case of my aunt who was diabetic, but even then, it would be silly to say diabetes killed her) to 5, 1 of whom was ~40 years old and healthy, 1 of whom was in her 90s, and the others of whom were between 55 and 70. I cannot recall any flu season where even one person I know has died. I'm not saying covid is horribly deadly or anything, but my experience this year suggests it certainly is at least several times more deadly than the flu.

 

[JessFR]

My friend's grandma just died of covid. She went from no symptoms to trouble breathing in 2 days, and she chose not to go on a ventilator as she just felt it was her time. She died a day later. She was quite old, but healthy otherwise. Her nursing home had an outbreak.

That brings the total count of people I know personally who have died from covid (those who were otherwise healthy beforehand, except in the case of my aunt who was diabetic, but even then, it would be silly to say diabetes killed her) to 5, 1 of whom was ~40 years old and healthy, 1 of whom was in her 90s, and the others of whom were between 55 and 70. I cannot recall any flu season where even one person I know has died. I'm not saying covid is horribly deadly or anything, but my experience this year suggests it certainly is at least several times more deadly than the flu.

I'm really sorry to hear that.

 

[AutoTripper]

My friend's grandma just died of covid. She went from no symptoms to trouble breathing in 2 days, and she chose not to go on a ventilator as she just felt it was her time. She died a day later. She was quite old, but healthy otherwise. Her nursing home had an outbreak.

That brings the total count of people I know personally who have died from covid (those who were otherwise healthy beforehand, except in the case of my aunt who was diabetic, but even then, it would be silly to say diabetes killed her) to 5, 1 of whom was ~40 years old and healthy, 1 of whom was in her 90s, and the others of whom were between 55 and 70. I cannot recall any flu season where even one person I know has died. I'm not saying covid is horribly deadly or anything, but my experience this year suggests it certainly is at least several times more deadly than the flu.

Again sorry for your losses and those of your friends.

One thing which continually infuriates me, if she had been treated at any stage, from the onset to the final overrun, with the shamefully outlawed and suppressed electromedicine treatments available, I would bet a fortune she would not have succumbed to the respiratory side of the virus.

Honestly when my current flu set in on about 25th December, my lungs were quickly full of flu pneumonia. I treated all areas over 3 days, like cutting back Ivy, and since then the level and severity of respiratory infection has been literally one tenth of what it was initially and would have progressed into.

Both Covid and Flu respond very very well to electromedicine therapy in my own solid experience.

Anybody who is genuinely concerned about respiratory infections, would only benefit enormously by actually employing these treatments which can be done at home, 365 days a year, cost of 9V battery replacements allowing.

 

[Shady's Fox]

My friend's grandma just died of covid. She went from no symptoms to trouble breathing in 2 days, and she chose not to go on a ventilator as she just felt it was her time. She died a day later. She was quite old, but healthy otherwise. Her nursing home had an outbreak.

That brings the total count of people I know personally who have died from covid (those who were otherwise healthy beforehand, except in the case of my aunt who was diabetic, but even then, it would be silly to say diabetes killed her) to 5, 1 of whom was ~40 years old and healthy, 1 of whom was in her 90s, and the others of whom were between 55 and 70. I cannot recall any flu season where even one person I know has died. I'm not saying covid is horribly deadly or anything, but my experience this year suggests it certainly is at least several times more deadly than the flu.

is the test itself man

 

[Xorkoth]

Again sorry for your losses and those of your friends.

One thing which continually infuriates me, if she had been treated at any stage, from the onset to the final overrun, with the shamefully outlawed and suppressed electromedicine treatments available, I would bet a fortune she would not have succumbed to the respiratory side of the virus.

Honestly when my current flu set in on about 25th December, my lungs were quickly full of flu pneumonia. I treated all areas over 3 days, like cutting back Ivy, and since then the level and severity of respiratory infection has been literally one tenth of what it was initially and would have progressed into.

Both Covid and Flu respond very very well to electromedicine therapy in my own solid experience.

Anybody who is genuinely concerned about respiratory infections, would only benefit enormously by actually employing these treatments which can be done at home, 365 days a year, cost of 9V battery replacements allowing.

Interesting, I have never heard of electrotherapy for pneumonia. Do you have any links to info about that?