• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyway. The lifespan of a virus is supposed to run it's course in about a 18 months not even quite two years. Enough to ruin an economy most possibly.
Most natural viruses should be running a course by now. Unless history genetically mutates at this point.
There seems to be no pattern yet.
 
I know the principles, smash it all into peices sequence the bits then overlay the peices using processor power. Kind of like a jigsaw. if there is too much sky in the jigsaw it gets more difficult, and if two similar jigsaws get mixed it gets much more complex.

I am not ignoring your points about the sequencing methodology merely properly considering the implications of what you are saying given the emergence of this VUI 2020 variant has had serious repercussions on policy. Tell me if I misunderstood you, from a given pile of raw data out of a sequencer you can derive different sequences depending on the parameters of the algorithm used to rebuild the sequence?
Yes, roughly to your description (except f you depended on raw processor power the heat death of the universe would happen before you got an answer, that's where algorithms and engineering comes in, and an understanding of how it was smashed into pieces really helps) and absolutely to your second question. Depending on the parameters used and the algorithm itself. I personally am more interested in developing robust algorithms so the parameters shouldn't matter so much but most published algorithms only work well for the exact parameters and datasets used in the supporting paper, it does my nut in tbh. This is where biological knowledge is essential, for knowing which parameters and datasets can be validly analysed under the assumptions stated ib the papers. Unfortunately most authors massively overstate the generality of their algorithms which adds another spanner in the works, so I prefer to develop my own instead of just running other people's shitty code. I need wet lab input to validate assumptions.

I am watching a film but will read the paper after and get back to you on the rest of your post. what you say about it going via a non human host sounds plausible.
 
I too would be surprised if they screwed up this badly, I've read the paper now and there is no mention of the methods used for their phylogenetic analysis nor is there a reference to any algorithmic work. It seems like they are taking their phylogeny as gospel but without supplying details its impossible to tell how robust it really is

So the only thing I have to go on is that their figures look like they're plotted in R which, and this is prejudice but it has basis in fact, is not the language of choice of programmers. This suggests usage of an off the shelf package, of which none are good enough for their results to be taken as gospel. I could easily be wrong but without them detailing their computational methods its impossible to say either of way.

Tbh I'm really confused, I've never see anything state something so strongly without at least providing a supplementary section outlining methods and parameters. Hopefully it will be fleshed out in the full paper.
 
one final post before bed... i do find it odd, @novaveritas, that you are so quick to dismiss bioinformatics as just number crunching and sequence alignment, while asking me what i think of a paper that extrapolates results based on just that. either you respect the contributions of computer science to biology, in which case its fair to also respect papers built up on the results of computational analysis, or you don't, in which case why are you even bothered about that paper? you can't dismiss it when its my field but hold it on a pedestal for the authors who presumably haven't had the opportunity yet to debate their chosen field with you on an internet forum.

the authors will presumably have done some extra lab work to validate the specific genes in their sample so i'd like to make it clear that i don't dispute the existence of those variants. their phylogeny would be more interesting but could have been pulled out of a hat for all it says in the link you provided.
 
laymens terms for F's sake!
Okay, here is it dilluted...

We are experiencing a paradigm shift through the use of a huge global event that requires intervention from all involved.
The intervention is the shutdown of normality and the erosion of civil liberties, freedoms and rights for many around the world in the name of responding to this huge global event.
The response has been spun in a positive light in order to encourage people to support it and ensure it's adoption into society. A good example of this positivity is how people believe their new way of life despite being completely restricted with only a small amount of freedoms, is acceptable and for the greater good.
The goal is to shift to another form of governance from the one we are currently living under, albeit by the skin of our teeth.
This shift towards another form of governance will be a top-down global style of governance that attempts to model the Chinese (and many other authoritarian examples) but will apply globally as governments begin to adopt this approach and align themselves with each other according to particular scenarios. You have seen this worldwide in varying degrees, some countries flexing their muscles more than others.

The discussion of the virus is the main ingredient in the ensuring of this transformation. The main goal regardless of this discussion is to ensure government has more far substantial reach with their authority into more and more aspects of peoples lives. These changes are not going away. What is currently happening is behavioural modification used similiarly in torture, domestic violence, interrogation, psychological operations to forcedbly adjust populations to a new reality as set out by those accountable for this behavioural modification. This ensures new behaviours are learned, social contracts are redrawn, laws can be rewritten, norms, values, cultural beliefs and societal constructs are phased out for ones suitable to the new form of governance.

The use of a global emergency has been utilized in order to push through emergency laws that otherwise would not be approved. In connection to this, national emergencies are used in the same way - to ensure your government can bring in sweeping changes under the intention of alleviating the national emergency. This brings increased powers across the board as well as changes in how the process of government works, essentially bypassing scrutiny, discussion and consent.
 
Okay, here is it dilluted...

We are experiencing a paradigm shift through the use of a huge global event that requires intervention from all involved.
The intervention is the shutdown of normality and the erosion of civil liberties, freedoms and rights for many around the world in the name of responding to this huge global event.
The response has been spun in a positive light in order to encourage people to support it and ensure it's adoption into society. A good example of this positivity is how people believe their new way of life despite being completely restricted with only a small amount of freedoms, is acceptable and for the greater good.
The goal is to shift to another form of governance from the one we are currently living under, albeit by the skin of our teeth.
This shift towards another form of governance will be a top-down global style of governance that attempts to model the Chinese (and many other authoritarian examples) but will apply globally as governments begin to adopt this approach and align themselves with each other according to particular scenarios. You have seen this worldwide in varying degrees, some countries flexing their muscles more than others.

The discussion of the virus is the main ingredient in the ensuring of this transformation. The main goal regardless of this discussion is to ensure government has more far substantial reach with their authority into more and more aspects of peoples lives. These changes are not going away. What is currently happening is behavioural modification used similiarly in torture, domestic violence, interrogation, psychological operations to forcedbly adjust populations to a new reality as set out by those accountable for this behavioural modification. This ensures new behaviours are learned, social contracts are redrawn, laws can be rewritten, norms, values, cultural beliefs and societal constructs are phased out for ones suitable to the new form of governance.

The use of a global emergency has been utilized in order to push through emergency laws that otherwise would not be approved. In connection to this, national emergencies are used in the same way - to ensure your government can bring in sweeping changes under the intention of alleviating the national emergency. This brings increased powers across the board as well as changes in how the process of government works, essentially bypassing scrutiny, discussion and consent.

If we don't return to normal after this, then I will start to re-evaluate my position. In America, anyway, I seriously doubt we won't get back to normal. I can already do almost whatever I want. They have never even enforced mask mandates in my state. If it's a sinister plot to take away all our freedoms, they're doing a piss poor job of it, where I live anyway. I can't speak for other places, it sounds like it's a lot more intense in Europe.
 
If we don't return to normal after this, then I will start to re-evaluate my position. In America, anyway, I seriously doubt we won't get back to normal. I can already do almost whatever I want. They have never even enforced mask mandates in my state. If it's a sinister plot to take away all our freedoms, they're doing a piss poor job of it, where I live anyway. I can't speak for other places, it sounds like it's a lot more intense in Europe.
In just a few words, I really do recognize and appreciate you trying to stay as open and potentially swayable as you can throughout this.

Especially as I know you have experienced several near losses for which I am truly sorry.

I don't know if you saw my earlier, more "cissy" like post earlier but I injured my knee severely last night stumbling left leg and knee bent against bathtubside.

Truly the worse pain of my life I swear, god knows what I did exactly. Ligaments, tendons, cartiallige anyone's guess.

But I cannot go into hospital due to unique conditions and complications, not lesst of all a 10-13 mg Etizolam current dependance, illegal here,,and severe allergies to all usual script benzos, unless by IV, let alone allergies to all hospital food etc.

It took me 10 minutes earlier after climbing out of bed, just to get to feet from knees for a dump I avoided a long time, and the pain in doing so had me howling in pain.

In 40 years, I have NEVER howled in pain.

I was scared this little knee damage and consequent immobility will be my end.

But I knew kava would help and boy has it. If nothing else, kava really takes the edge off of pain, anti inflames, and makes a rock into a jelly fish.

Tough patch ahead still, same time as legit 6 week OG flu.,one day at a time though.

In this case thank god for kava! 30 grams so far, 26 more just loaded.
 
Last edited:
Wow man, I'm sorry about your knee, that sounds awful.
Thanks. Just a bizarre accident. Shit happens hey? Except I can't afford shit. I'm hoping I will navigate my way through. I'm blessed to have an amazing mum here to help and look after me.

Hoping yourself and family are okay and keep safe in coming months, not from Covid (I mean, yesh, that too of course...it is REAL and it CAN be bad), but also any potential politically driven street violent antics.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I am concerned about what other people might do as a result of the political situation, but I think it'll all settle down in time. Hopefully people won't decide it's time to fight a war about it.
 
Thanks, I am concerned about what other people might do as a result of the political situation, but I think it'll all settle down in time. Hopefully people won't decide it's time to fight a war about it.
I feel that too. Once there is resolution which can no longer be disputed, whichever way, I can see these factions quickly falling back into the dust and shadows. It's just extra pandemonium on top at present, whoever is behind what.

Edit- just corrected another typo above. I've been having a real proper "Field day" in that regard, doing my bloody head in lol.

I must have corrected over 30 typos in a previous post I made tonight!
 
Last edited:
Okay, here is it dilluted...

We are experiencing a paradigm shift through the use of a huge global event that requires intervention from all involved.
The intervention is the shutdown of normality and the erosion of civil liberties, freedoms and rights for many around the world in the name of responding to this huge global event.
The response has been spun in a positive light in order to encourage people to support it and ensure it's adoption into society. A good example of this positivity is how people believe their new way of life despite being completely restricted with only a small amount of freedoms, is acceptable and for the greater good.
The goal is to shift to another form of governance from the one we are currently living under, albeit by the skin of our teeth.
This shift towards another form of governance will be a top-down global style of governance that attempts to model the Chinese (and many other authoritarian examples) but will apply globally as governments begin to adopt this approach and align themselves with each other according to particular scenarios. You have seen this worldwide in varying degrees, some countries flexing their muscles more than others.

The discussion of the virus is the main ingredient in the ensuring of this transformation. The main goal regardless of this discussion is to ensure government has more far substantial reach with their authority into more and more aspects of peoples lives. These changes are not going away. What is currently happening is behavioural modification used similiarly in torture, domestic violence, interrogation, psychological operations to forcedbly adjust populations to a new reality as set out by those accountable for this behavioural modification. This ensures new behaviours are learned, social contracts are redrawn, laws can be rewritten, norms, values, cultural beliefs and societal constructs are phased out for ones suitable to the new form of governance.

The use of a global emergency has been utilized in order to push through emergency laws that otherwise would not be approved. In connection to this, national emergencies are used in the same way - to ensure your government can bring in sweeping changes under the intention of alleviating the national emergency. This brings increased powers across the board as well as changes in how the process of government works, essentially bypassing scrutiny, discussion and consent.
See how much easier it is to say it the first time ..
err, 2nd
Umm nevermind
 
do you take any medication ever? i have some news to break to you about how its efficacy was tested that you might need to sit down for. (even in the case of non vaccines, where immunity is not granted, in practise its there- seroxat and the US opioid crisis bear testament to that)
I try to take as few pharma drugs as possible. I understand they generally just mask symptoms and long-term use can result in side effects and other problems. And tbh when I'm strict with my ketogenic/low-carb nutrition then I never get sick.
There are many easy, free or natural ways to improve your immune system. Governments haven't been giving people this advice lately though, and in many instances they've mandated things that objectively hurt overall public health (a few clues why this pandemic is not what it seems).

As for safety testing, are you aware that not one vaccine has ever been properly safety tested in a double blind against a placebo? That's the gold standard for medical safety testing and vaccines aren't put through that process. Other medications are. So when you view a drug commercial they have to inform you of the laundry list of potential side effects - in case those things happen to you and they are sued. But with vaccines they have zero liability so they have no obligation to list all of the potential dangers. If they were forced to and they told parents all the things that could possibly (and do often) go wrong, before each and every vaccine - you'd see vaccination rates DROP precipitously. Most people simply aren't aware and vaccine injuries are criminally under-reported.

Influenza is significantly less lethal and there are effective vaccines for influenza.

But it's completely redundant because the same measures that have kept Australians safe from covid have meant there is almost no influenza around this year anyway. So the odds of me giving that are also extremely low.
The mortality rates are similar and covid is significantly less deadly for children. This entire global "pandemic" is comparable to a bad flu season.
And the reason why there's no influenza deaths is because they've been misclassifying them as covid deaths. CDC even admits they're grouping PIC (pneumonia, influenza, covid) as a category so even if the SARS-CoV-2 virus burns itself out they can theoretically keep the "covid" fear/restrictions going indefinitely as they can just point to common pneumonia/influenza deaths. Covid didn't cure influenza and neither did the restrictions. In fact many facets of the transmission of influenza remains unknown and we've been studying it for decades. But by your logic, you should never leave the house. That way you'll dramatically reduce the risk of you ever hurting anyone. Every time you drive you are seriously putting the lives of others at risk. So please be a good considerate citizen and never leave your house.


Anyway. The lifespan of a virus is supposed to run it's course in about a 18 months not even quite two years. Enough to ruin an economy most possibly.
Most natural viruses should be running a course by now. Unless history genetically mutates at this point.
There seems to be no pattern yet.
Just a pattern of deception.
 
As for safety testing, are you aware that not one vaccine has ever been properly safety tested in a double blind against a placebo? That's the gold standard for medical safety testing and vaccines aren't put through that process. Other medications are. So when you view a drug commercial they have to inform you of the laundry list of potential side effects - in case those things happen to you and they are sued. But with vaccines they have zero liability so they have no obligation to list all of the potential dangers. If they were forced to and they told parents all the things that could possibly (and do often) go wrong, before each and every vaccine - you'd see vaccination rates DROP precipitously. Most people simply aren't aware and vaccine injuries are criminally under-reported.

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.
 
one final post before bed... i do find it odd, @novaveritas, that you are so quick to dismiss bioinformatics as just number crunching and sequence alignment, while asking me what i think of a paper that extrapolates results based on just that. either you respect the contributions of computer science to biology, in which case its fair to also respect papers built up on the results of computational analysis, or you don't, in which case why are you even bothered about that paper? you can't dismiss it when its my field but hold it on a pedestal for the authors who presumably haven't had the opportunity yet to debate their chosen field with you on an internet forum.
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.

It is not a matter of faith in a paper or a particular field, or technique or an author, that is a religion and not science.

Review. Evaluate.

The meta point earlier was the hyper-focus on narrow specialty in academic science has lead to people being masters of their own tiny field without a generalist overview of what it means in the bigger picture. This is not a personal criticism of you, Pandas have their uses but If you cannot explain a result to a scientific generalist, then there is a problem. If a skilled person cannot reproduce or evaluate exactly the soundness of what its presented with the information that is published then there is a problem. Any specialist should have enough knowledge to engage specialists in outside their own immediate field and be able to sniff out bullshit, remember bullshit baffles brains, otherwise there is a problem. That requires that you understand not only your field but other related fields too, perhaps not to the same level but understand the principles.
The consensus is mostly self declared experts, high priests bullshitting and no one challenging for fear of the backlash and the inevitable bullshit-baffles-brains response. The people who should be challenging are not because they hope one day to assume the mantle of the expert. Sadly if you take this expert work product and look under the hood you see a complete mess.

I have spent years around Biotech. This year biotech has slithered out into new areas and we are in a brave new biotech world, but I know from experience in the world of biotech things are never as certain or definitive as they are presented. The politicians and public scientists are wowed by the new shiny, unfortunately they appear lacking in the mental skills and ability to asses the credibility of the new shiny. It is OK to stand on the shoulders of giants, but only if they are actually giants not midgets with good PR.

back to the topic:
I am bothered about evaluating that paper because the emergence of the new strain, VUI202012/01 was used to justify measures that lead to a lot of people not seeing their loved ones this Christmas, some of those people will never see their loved ones again as a consequence.
For that reason it is important to independently assess and review the evidence. To actually follow the science, and ask the difficult questions which gives the following so far:

Likely there is a new variant. but where did it come from and how is it so far from the viruses around at the time it emerged? Is it special?

The claimed increased viral load as a consequence of the spike mutations is totally unproven by the papers that claim it. The same papers contain issues which put a large question mark over the reliability of many results from the Thermofisher TaqPath PCR test and trace protocol.

The wet science supporting higher viral load vs lower Ct is flawed,

The fergusonian computer modeling supporting higher transmission rate relies on unproven assumptions and logical errors and make no testable predictions to validate the model. Key parameters are hidden, just like the previous model.

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.
 
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.
both Pfizer and Moderna COVID phase 3 vaccine trials were double blind against placebo (saline which as placebo as placebo ever gets). The issue is that both pfizer and moderna are rough reactive vaccines and so there was inevitaly participant unblinding because of the side effects in the active. Saline doesn't cause fever and malaise and put you in bed or in hospital.

Oxford was not true placebo as it used various meningitis vaccine in the control arm, but there was still inadvertent unblinding because Oxford adenovirus is a much rougher vaccine.

The ethical justification of using an active placebo in the control arm, like oxford or practically any other trial is not that sound because the vaccine used in the control arm is unlikely to provide any benefit to the recipient. for example HepB is commonly used or HepA and in the trial it is very unlikely recipients will gain any benefit. It is useful though to muddy the waters regarding adverse events by raising the incidence of adverse events in the control arm. Saline does no harm either.
 
Last edited:
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.
Thank you so much chinup.
This is the type of circular logic that I find so utterly fascinating:
"We don't need to properly test them for safety using the scientific method because they are SO safe already."
"uhh but how can you prove that they're safe then?"
"Trust us"
"and if it turns out that you were wrong/lying and my child is injured, I cannot sue you and instead have to go up against the DOJ and in the unlikely event that I do win the case, the compensation is paid out by taxpayers?"
"That's right, now shut up and stick this Hep B vaccine into your 1-day old baby".

Absolutely incredible...

You realize that argument is complete BS since there are many parents who refuse to give their children vaccinations who would be more than happy to take part. Or that the CDC would be able to collate the info from a national database of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children and to properly compare health records - yet they refuse to do so when requested. Why would they refuse? Doing so would prove that the vaccinated population is much healthier overall, RIGHT? So the only logical explanation for their refusal is that people will see the truth - that the vaccinated population is FAR less healthy and that's what smaller studies of vax vs unvax populations has shown us already.

EG said:
The Journal of Translational Sciences, compared 261 unvaccinated children with 405 partially or fully vaccinated children, and assessed their overall health. What it found about increases in immune-mediated diseases like allergies and neurodevelopmental diseases including autism, should make all parents think twice before they ever vaccinate again:

*Vaccinated children were over four-fold more likely to be diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum (OR 4.3)
*Vaccinated children were 30-fold more likely to be diagnosed with allergic rhinitis (hay fever) than non-vaccinated children
* Vaccinated children were 22-fold more likely to require an allergy medication than unvaccinated children
*Vaccinated children were over five-fold more likely to be diagnosed with a learning disability than unvaccinated children (OR 5.2)
*Vaccinated children were 340 percent more likely to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder than unvaccinated children (OR 4.3)
* Vaccinated children were 5.9-fold more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia than unvaccinated children
*Vaccinated children were 3.8-fold more likely to be diagnosed with middle ear infection (otitis media) than unvaccinated children (OR 3.8)
*Vaccinated children were 700 percent more likely to have had surgery to insert ear drainage tubes than unvaccinated children (OR 8.1)
* Vaccinated children were 2.4-fold more likely to have been diagnosed with any chronic illness than unvaccinated children

"I'm sure there's a completely logical explanation for all of this though. It's simply a correlation and there's no evidence that vaccines are linked to any of these conditions."
"can you show us the safety studies?"
"nah we don't do them because they're so safe"
:rolleyes:

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.
In 2016, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) received 59,117 reports (aren't we told they're one in a million? - what's the population of the US?)
- 432 deaths
- 1,091 permanent disabilities
- 4,132 hospitalizations
- 10,284 emergency room visits

Doesn't it seem unethical to force parents to vaccinate with this type of safety record? The government knows that they're going to create catastrophic brain swelling in children every year (BTW Sweden, when looking at forcing vaccines, ruled their constitution does not allow them to murder their own citizens, therefore they cannot have a forced vaccine program). Whether it's for the good of the whole or not, the Hippocratic oath is to do no harm, not some harm.

And yet every doctor will tell you: 'of course some kids will die, some will be injured but that is the accepted casualty of herd immunity'. The CDC head in Washington was asked how many people in the following year they expected to die, or have a neurological event that will damage them for life and she said, "we don't have the data on that". So they state that it is an "accepted casualty" yet they don't know what casualty they're accepting. Is that good science?

But it gets worse. Investigators requested to run data studies on the VAERS system to try and get to the bottom of some major questions and the authorities said "well you can't use VAERS because we don't trust it" - the only surveillance system they have. They said "because it's under-reported". The US Department on Health & Human Services did their own study of the system (that they're in control of) and they found: "fewer than 1% of adverse effects are reported" (Source: Report funded by HHS)
Either doctors don't know about VAERS, they're afraid to use it, don't use it or don't want to take the time to so nobody is reporting to this system: "Former FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events." (Source: U.S. Congressional Report)

So if we are to go by HHS's own statement, then 59,000 injuries becomes 5.9 million injuries in the year 2016.
432 deaths could be 43,000 deaths.
10,000 emergency room visits becomes 1 million emergency room visits.

So one way in our amazing technological age to get to the bottom of the autoimmune disease crisis would be to automate the system so that when someone comes in with an injury it automatically logs itself to the national collection of medical data.
In 2010, the CDC hired the Harvard medical team to look into automating VAERS. They asked them to use the Harvard Pilgrim Insurance Plan to see if they could automate the VAERS system inside of that. This is what they found:
"Preliminary data were collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified."

^
That's not 1 in a million. That's 1 in 10.
Who would buy a product that injures 1 in 10?? But people simply aren't given this information.
So at the end of the study - instead of the CDC modernizing the national health services online and getting to the bottom of these epidemics - Harvard wrote:
"Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation."

Well that's a shame, again I wonder what the motivation was for that decision.





Meanwhile:

'Hamilton PSW suffers rare, but severe reaction to COVID-19 vaccine'
A little CPR, no big deal!

"When Deborah Tilli got the call last week telling her she’d be one of the first long-term-care workers in Hamilton vaccinated for COVID-19, she felt a mix of emotions.
A part of her was nervous, a part excited.
But what happened in the minutes after Tilli rolled up her sleeve for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on Christmas Eve has her cautioning those with allergies ahead of getting the jab.
“I thought I was doing the right thing,” said Tilli, who is a personal support worker at Dundurn Place Care Centre, which is currently in outbreak with two cases in staff. “Especially for my residents at work.”
Tilli, 27, is one of the rare people to have had a severe reaction to the vaccine — and a week later she’s still not fully recovered."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top