• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * - 4 votes

Regarding the vaccines, I think this is a question we All should be asking as members of a longevity-promoting website.

coronavirus

  • Please log in to reply
2102 replies to this topic

#1111 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 15 July 2023 - 03:29 PM

Researchers studying long COVID have every reason to believe they won't get published if they don't take a supportive stance toward the COVID vaccine program.  That means not taking into consideration the mounting data about vaccine side effects when it comes to the design of their long COVID studies.

 

Where researchers are constrained from asking the questions that most need to be asked, their studies aren't worth much.

 

Seems that the antivaxers on this forum have the following policy:

 

• When a study shows negative effects from the COVID vaccines, it is considered true.

 

• When a study shows positive effects from the COVID vaccines, they deny the study, citing conspiracy theories to cast doubt on the positive effects. 


Edited by Hip, 15 July 2023 - 04:08 PM.

  • Agree x 2
  • Unfriendly x 2
  • Good Point x 1

#1112 Empiricus

  • Guest
  • 335 posts
  • 112
  • Location:Pergamon

Posted 15 July 2023 - 04:06 PM

 

• When a study shows positive effects from the COVID vaccines, they deny the study, citing conspiracy theories to cast doubt on the positive effects. 

 

The realization that vaccine industry sponsored study after vaccine industry sponsored study had fatal design flaws naturally leads to skepticism about industry-serving findings.  


  • Needs references x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#1113 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 15 July 2023 - 04:19 PM

By the way, Empiricus, if you spend some time reading the Reddit long COVID forums I linked to above, you will find many cases of LC patients who caught COVID once, developed LC, and then slowly recovered, or partially recovered, only to be develop LC once again after contracting the virus a second time. And on catching it again, the LC may become more permanent. 

 

In other words, people may dodge a bullet the first time they catch COVID, but may not be so lucky the second time.

 

So the fact that you are susceptible to LC after developing it once means that you could easily get it again, and so might want to look into protective measures. One study found that metformin might protect from developing LC. But this study is questionable, since it had a very broad definition of LC (which included non-ME/CFS LC).

 

Vaccination does not offer much protection against long COVID, it reduces your chances of getting LC by only around 30% (whereas vaccines reduce the chances of death from COVID by around 2000%).

 

 

My pre-existing ME/CFS (which was caused by enterovirus) was made considerably worse after I caught COVID over a year ago. The next time I catch COVID, I may get worse still. 


  • Good Point x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Informative x 1

#1114 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,217 posts
  • 992
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 15 July 2023 - 05:38 PM

"whereas vaccines reduce the chances of death from COVID by around 2000%"

 

Again, are we living in the past?  

 

 

Is your data confirmed for COVID 2023, for those who've already been exposed to omicron, and have or have not gotten the new bivalent booster?  


  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#1115 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 15 July 2023 - 05:43 PM

Is your data confirmed for COVID 2023, for those who've already been exposed to omicron, and have or have not gotten the new bivalent booster?  

 

Longecity, the forum where the same questions come up time after time, and even when answered, the same people keep asking them.

 

I've posted Australian omicron data showing the vaccines reduce death rates by 2000%. I am not going to post it again.


Edited by Hip, 15 July 2023 - 05:43 PM.

  • like x 3
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#1116 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,497 posts
  • 432
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 15 July 2023 - 05:49 PM

The realization that vaccine industry sponsored study after vaccine industry sponsored study had fatal design flaws naturally leads to skepticism about industry-serving findings.  

 

It's wrong to suggest all researchers are presenting only positive findings. Researchers may suffer from biases in either direction, it's true—but generally we hope they remain as honest as possible.

 

Numerous studies that have NO association to vaccine providers (and therefore no conflict of interest with them) have been published, which do indeed show some severe adverse reactions. But they are not reporting anywhere near the case fatality rate members here are claiming (see below). Posters here seem to believe vaccine recipients are dropping dead in mass waves.

 

If you're going to make claims, there ought to be evidence and data behind them. If you're going to dismiss academic publications, there needs to be valid critique of that particular publication... not a blanket claim like "vaccine studies are all corporate backed and therefore all unreliable."

 

It's also important to qualify "adverse" events, based on severity, duration, and presence of any permanent impairment. Someone who has low platelets from the vaccine could technically require hospitalization but will likely recover fully. Individuals afflicted with myocarditis or retinopathy may similarly recover, but afaik have more risk of permanent damage. These are all incredibly important things to qualify and quantify in a population. I understand it is difficult to find highly specific data in an evolving and chaotic situation, but it's absolutely imperative to proper scientific investigation. We cannot make premature assumptions.

 

Evaluation of mortality attributable to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine administration using national level data from Qatar
Jan 2023
https://www.nature.c...467-022-35653-z

Among 6,928,359 doses administered, 138 deaths occurred within 30 days of vaccination; eight had a high probability (1.15/1,000,000 doses), 15 had intermediate probability (2.38/1,000,000 doses), and 112 had low probability or no association with vaccination. The death rate among those with high probability of relationship to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was 0.34/100,000 unique vaccine recipients, while death rate among those with either high or intermediate probability of relationship to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was 0.98/100,000 unique vaccine recipients. In conclusion, deaths attributable to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are extremely rare and lower than the overall crude mortality rate in Qatar.

 

 

You can still find studies in 2023 showing that vaccines are a net positive. There may be concerning data in young males, and Omicron may be "less fatal" than previous waves (but this is difficult to measure accurately, due to confounding variables). But that in itself does not make a convincing argument that vaccines have become a net negative. As I stated above, a convincing argument requires substantial data to back it up. More data has been presented so far by Hip and I, than by members of the opposite side—who often appeal to generalizations and social narratives as evidence to justify their positions.

 

Factors associated with hospitalisations and deaths of residential aged care residents with COVID-19 during the Omicron (BA.1) wave in Queensland
Dec 2022
https://onlinelibrar...5694/mja2.51813

Most characteristics that influenced the likelihood of hospitalisation or death of RACF residents with COVID-19 were non-modifiable factors linked with frailty and general health status. Having received three COVID-19 vaccine doses was associated with much lower likelihood of hospitalisation or death.


  • Disagree x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1

#1117 Empiricus

  • Guest
  • 335 posts
  • 112
  • Location:Pergamon

Posted 16 July 2023 - 05:40 AM

If you're going to make claims, there ought to be evidence and data behind them. If you're going to dismiss academic publications, there needs to be valid critique of that particular publication... 

 

Nope.  The major medical journals censor the publication of studies contradicting the pharmaceutical industry's narrative that vaccine benefits outweigh their risks.  Scientific institutions and scientists dependent on pharmaceutical funding self-censor. The mainstream media censors anything coming from outside of this bubble as "disinformation."    

 

This deplorable situation has been going on for a long time, and predates COVID and the current cover-up. One of the first to blow the whistle was Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine:

 

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” 

 

https://www.cancerac...ical-trialsquot


  • Good Point x 3
  • Needs references x 1
  • Agree x 1

#1118 Empiricus

  • Guest
  • 335 posts
  • 112
  • Location:Pergamon

Posted 16 July 2023 - 07:40 AM

As I stated above, a convincing argument requires substantial data to back it up. More data has been presented so far by Hip and I, than by members of the opposite side—who often appeal to generalizations and social narratives as evidence to justify their positions.

 

You presented us with a big European data set on "excess mortality" and characterized it as supporting the safety of COVID vaccines.  I showed you that researchers came to the opposite conclusion when they analyzed it: https://www.preprint.../202302.0350/v1

 

VAERS is one of the biggest data sets.  Pharma lackeys can't argue against it, so they allege the data is fake.  Disabilities data set of the Dept. of Labor is another.  Cancer drug sales.  Rasmussen polling. The Tricare data leak. That's just to name a few of the big US data sources pointing to the emergence of a new health crisis that tracks COVID vaccination rates.  


Edited by Empiricus, 16 July 2023 - 07:49 AM.

  • Good Point x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#1119 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,497 posts
  • 432
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 16 July 2023 - 11:36 AM

Nope.  The major medical journals censor the publication of studies contradicting the pharmaceutical industry's narrative that vaccine benefits outweigh their risks.

 

What about minor medical journals, less common ones? Major journals often have a more stringent peer-review process and content guidelines.

 

As you point out, there are some journals publishing more critical pieces. I was able to read the pre-print you posted, but they do not include a scatter plot. The paper is not peer-reviewed at this point (being a preprint).

 

You can see based on some comments to the paper, a guy did a computed regression analysis and found their conclusions to be mistaken. I am not sure if this was done deliberately or by accident.

 

Attached File  Fr1XpW8XwAU815c.jpeg   61.47KB   0 downloads

 

 

 

The VAERS data is not "fake", but the adverse events may be mildly inflated and the deaths may include some from outside the US.

 

Cancer drug sales don't necessarily have anything to do with vaccination. Correlation doesn't imply causation.

 

Regarding the data from the Disabilities department and from Tricare, it's not clear which data sets specifically you're referring to or how they support your claim. But assuming there is an association... This is again a case of correlation. It's unclear the extent to which this is due to other factors, besides the vaccine.


  • WellResearched x 1

#1120 Empiricus

  • Guest
  • 335 posts
  • 112
  • Location:Pergamon

Posted 16 July 2023 - 03:49 PM

What about minor medical journals, less common ones? Major journals often have a more stringent peer-review process and content guidelines.

 

As you point out, there are some journals publishing more critical pieces. I was able to read the pre-print you posted, but they do not include a scatter plot. The paper is not peer-reviewed at this point (being a preprint).

 

You can see based on some comments to the paper, a guy did a computed regression analysis and found their conclusions to be mistaken. I am not sure if this was done deliberately or by accident.

 

attachicon.gif Fr1XpW8XwAU815c.jpeg

 

 

As another commenter pointed out, the Twitter guy's attempt to debunk the preprint is unhelpful because what the Twitter guy claims to be "deaths at the end of 2022" is actually "cumulative deaths since 2020 at the end of 2022." https://www.preprint.../202302.0350/v1 (see response 2 to comment 5)


  • Informative x 2

#1121 Empiricus

  • Guest
  • 335 posts
  • 112
  • Location:Pergamon

Posted 16 July 2023 - 03:56 PM

Here's a chart showing excess deaths in England since 2020. Something began taking the lives of young English people in mid-2022. And the deaths continue into June 2023.  What could explain it?    

 

https://twitter.com/...766754179039232

 

It's a remarkable chart. @EthicalSkeptic comments that "[the data for England] indeed confirms the US data, which looks exactly like this - with the implicated ICDs being myocarditis and cancers in younger persons (<64)."


Edited by Empiricus, 16 July 2023 - 04:04 PM.

  • Informative x 2

#1122 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 16 July 2023 - 04:04 PM

Here's a chart showing excess deaths in England since 2020. Something began taking the lives of young English people in mid-2022. And the deaths continue into 2023.  What could explain it?    

 

https://twitter.com/...766754179039232

 

Longecity, the forum where the same questions come up time after time, and even when answered, the same people keep asking them.

 

I've pointed out many times that after people catch COVID, and this virus starts to live in their body (most viruses we catch stay in our bodies for our entire life), there is a much higher risk of dying in the following year or so. 

 

See: COVID-19 patients may retain elevated risk of death 18 months after infection


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 3
  • Good Point x 2
  • Needs references x 1
  • unsure x 1

#1123 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,217 posts
  • 992
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 16 July 2023 - 05:22 PM

We interrupt this circular debate for a wee bit of levity.  

 

https://www.cnn.com/...trnd/index.html

 

A doctor known for assessing Covid risk fell ill with the virus. Here’s what he wants you to know

 

It seems Dr. Robert Wachter who's hobby apparently is vaccine & mask promotion fell ill with the dreaded omicron a couple of weeks back, but no worries folks...  He'd just gotten his second bivalent vaccine booster in April.  

 

How well did it work?  Well apparently, he got so sick he keeled over in the shower & wound up in hospital with a subdural hematoma.  

 

He is now taking safe & effective Paxlovid, which will perhaps extend his COVID adventure into extra innings with a rebound infection.  

 

--------------------------

 

We now welcome you back my friends, to the show that never ends!  

Attached Files


Edited by Dorian Grey, 16 July 2023 - 05:35 PM.

  • Cheerful x 3
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

#1124 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,062 posts
  • 640
  • Location:United States

Posted 16 July 2023 - 07:27 PM

New data out of Israel

 

"Data from Clalit Health Services (Israel's largest healthcare organization representing more than 50% of the population) 

 

CARDIAC ARREST Diagnoses per 1M population increased 225% from 2021 to 2022!"


  • Informative x 2

#1125 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,062 posts
  • 640
  • Location:United States

Posted 16 July 2023 - 07:33 PM

Denmark Researcher Dr. Vibeke Manniche Shares Alarming Excess Death Data Being Seen Around the World

 
“You had some excess mortality in 2020…and then there was a little in the start of 2021…and then bang! In May 2021 it just raised…
 
For me this is man made, for me this is a sign of a humanitarian crisis put on the public by the government.”
 
Full interview (skip to 3:12 and 4:00 for graphs or directly in this link)

Edited by Gal220, 16 July 2023 - 07:37 PM.

  • Informative x 2
  • Ill informed x 1
  • like x 1

#1126 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 16 July 2023 - 08:07 PM

“You had some excess mortality in 2020…and then there was a little in the start of 2021…and then bang! In May 2021 it just raised…

 
For me this is man made, for me this is a sign of a humanitarian crisis put on the public by the government.”
 
Full interview (skip to 3:12 and 4:00 for graphs or directly in this link)

 

 

 

FACT CHECK:

 
In the video at timecode 2:00 she says excess mortality started in May 2021 in Denmark, as well as Finland and Norway. 
 
In fact, if you look at this global excess death chart from The Economist, in nearly all countries, the excess deaths started in around April 2020, which was the approximate time when COVID started hitting countries hard. 
 
 
 
And note that the Economist data looks nothing like the excess death data Dr Vibeke Manniche has provided. 
 
Neither does her data look anything like the excess data provided by Our World in Data
 
So where is she getting her data from?
 
 
 
Notice that New Zealand, which had no COVID until much later, and no excess deaths until much later.
 
So we can conclude:
 
NO COVID = NO EXCESS DEATHS.
 
FULL ROLLOUT OF COVID VACCINES IN NEW ZEALAND = NO EXCESS DEATHS.
 
Once COVID arrives, the excess deaths appear.

  • Ill informed x 3
  • like x 2
  • WellResearched x 1

#1127 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 16 July 2023 - 08:21 PM

Here is another excess death graph for more countries around the world.

 

You can see that there is no relationship at all between the global COVID vaccine rollout start date (around January 2021), and these excess deaths.

 

So it looks like Dr Vibeke Manniche is talking rubbish.

 


  • like x 2
  • Informative x 1
  • Agree x 1

#1128 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 16 July 2023 - 10:59 PM

Some information about COVID YouTuber John Campbell, from his Wikipedia article:

 

"In August 2022 David Gorski wrote for Science-Based Medicine that while at the beginning of the pandemic Campbell had seemed semi-reasonable, he later became a total COVID-19 crank".

 

 

 

 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Good Point x 1

#1129 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,062 posts
  • 640
  • Location:United States

Posted 16 July 2023 - 11:18 PM

"So it looks like Dr Vibeke Manniche is talking rubbish."

 

I look forward to seeing who is right as well

 

 

Many more graphs from our world in data here

 

https://twitter.com/...ped_query&f=top


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Informative x 1

#1130 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,497 posts
  • 432
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 17 July 2023 - 02:15 AM

How well did it work?  Well apparently, he got so sick he keeled over in the shower & wound up in hospital with a subdural hematoma.

 

Syncope, or fainting is one of the possible symptoms. Feel bad for this guy.

 

 

Here's a chart showing excess deaths in England since 2020. Something began taking the lives of young English people in mid-2022. And the deaths continue into June 2023.  What could explain it?    

 

https://twitter.com/...766754179039232

 

It's a remarkable chart. @EthicalSkeptic comments that "[the data for England] indeed confirms the US data, which looks exactly like this - with the implicated ICDs being myocarditis and cancers in younger persons (<64)."

Keep in mind the UK is only one country, plenty of other countries are reporting the opposite trend.

 

What could explain it? Apparently a health care crisis in the NHS.

 

The crisis in healthcare

A number of doctors are blaming the wider crisis in the NHS.

At the start of 2022, death rates were looking like they'd returned to pre-pandemic levels. It wasn't until June that excess deaths really started to rise - just as the number of people waiting for hours on trolleys in English hospitals hit levels normally seen in winter.

On 1 January 2023, the president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine suggested the crisis in urgent care could be causing "300-500 deaths a week".

It is not a figure recognised by NHS England, but it's roughly what you get if you multiply the number of people waiting long periods in A&E with the extra risk of dying estimated to come with those long waits (of between five and 12 hours).

It is possible to debate the precise numbers, but it's not controversial to say that your chances are worse if you wait longer for treatment, be that waiting for an ambulance to get to you, being stuck in an ambulance outside a hospital or in A&E.

And we are seeing record waits in each of those areas.

In November, for example, it took 48 minutes on average for an ambulance in England to respond to a suspected heart attack or stroke, compared to a target of 18 minutes.

    England: Record number of ambulances queue outside A&E
    Northern Ireland: Inquiry into deaths after ambulance waits
    Scotland: Why is the NHS under so much pressure?
    Wales: NHS on a knife-edge, warns health leader

Lasting effect of pandemic

Some of the excess may be people whose deaths were hastened by the after-effects of a Covid infection.

A number of studies have found people are more likely to have heart problems and strokes in the weeks and months after catching Covid, and some of these may not end up being linked to the virus when the death is registered.

As well as the impact on the heart of the virus itself, some of this may be contributed to by the fact many people didn't come in for screenings and non-urgent treatment during the peak of the pandemic, storing up trouble for the future.


  • Good Point x 1

#1131 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,062 posts
  • 640
  • Location:United States

Posted 17 July 2023 - 03:29 AM

McCullough explains the mechanism for increased cancer rates

 

SV40 promoter in Pfizer(not in Moderna) and spike suppresses part of our immune system that fights turmors

https://twitter.com/...746636606328832


Edited by Gal220, 17 July 2023 - 03:29 AM.

  • Informative x 2
  • Good Point x 1

#1132 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 17 July 2023 - 03:46 AM

McCullough explains the mechanism for increased cancer rates

 

SV40 promoter in Pfizer(not in Moderna) and spike suppresses part of our immune system that fights turmors

https://twitter.com/...746636606328832

 

As soon as we debunk one piece of quackery you post, Gal220, you go straight ahead and post another! A never-ending source of bogus material!


Edited by Hip, 17 July 2023 - 04:26 AM.

  • Unfriendly x 2
  • Cheerful x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#1133 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,700 posts
  • 642
  • Location:USA

Posted 17 July 2023 - 08:34 PM

Longecity, the forum where the same questions come up time after time, and even when answered, the same people keep asking them.

 

I've pointed out many times that after people catch COVID, and this virus starts to live in their body (most viruses we catch stay in our bodies for our entire life), there is a much higher risk of dying in the following year or so. 

 

See: COVID-19 patients may retain elevated risk of death 18 months after infection

 

I'm skeptical of the claim that most viruses stay in our body our entire lifetime, depending on what you mean.

 

Some viruses do stay in our body our entire lifetime - herpes zoster for instance. It seems to sequester itself deep in the core of the peripheral and perhaps central nervous system in areas that are not readily accessible to the immune system.  And it retains the ability to break out and become active at a later date after long periods of dormancy (causing shingles and perhaps some cases of Alzheimer's).

 

Influenza on the other hand does not remain in the body very long in a healthy human. It is eventually completely eliminated.

 

Other viruses - particularly retroviruses actually modify cellular DNA. In some cases, the inserted sequences remain, except there are instructions inserted before them so that they no longer actively code for any proteins (these sequences are skipped over but are reproduced during cellular reproduction). This is one source for the the "junk DNA" in the human genome. Apparently about 8% of human DNA are sequences from ancient viral infections, many of which are still identifiable. But, as a rule these sections of inactivated viral DNA can not product infections at a later point.

 

Does covid remain in our body for our entire lifetime? Right now the consensus seems to be "no", but this is still pretty new so the consensus is always open to change.


  • Good Point x 2

#1134 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 17 July 2023 - 09:15 PM

I'm skeptical of the claim that most viruses stay in our body our entire lifetime, depending on what you mean.

 

Some viruses do stay in our body our entire lifetime - herpes zoster for instance. It seems to sequester itself deep in the core of the peripheral and perhaps central nervous system in areas that are not readily accessible to the immune system.  And it retains the ability to break out and become active at a later date after long periods of dormancy (causing shingles and perhaps some cases of Alzheimer's).

 

Influenza on the other hand does not remain in the body very long in a healthy human. It is eventually completely eliminated.

 

If you look at the Baltimore virus classification system, you will observe that viruses are divided into either DNA or RNA types, depending whether their genome consists of DNA or RNA. 

 

DNA viruses are able to enter into latent states, where they live inside our cells indefinitely. So latency is a mechanism by which such DNA viruses can remain in our bodies for our whole lives.

 

Latency is divided into two types: chromosomal integration, where as you state, the virus inserts its DNA into our own DNA; and episomal latency, where the virus builds a little house (called an episome) within our cells in which to live. 

 

Herpes simplex is an example of a DNA virus, as are all the 9 viruses in the human herpesvirus family (named HHV-1 to HHV-8). Most of us by adulthood are chronically infected with at least around 5 or 6 of these herpes family viruses, with these viruses living in our cells in a latent state. These latent herpesviruses are linked to many chronic diseases. For example, epilepsy may involve a latent HHV-6 infection of brain cells. Chronic latent HHV-6 infection is also found in the uterus of infertile women. 

 

HHV-6 uses chromosomal integration to insert itself into our cells. Most of us catch HHV-6 before the age of 3, so most of us have this virus's genes spliced into our own genes.

 

DNA virus families include the herpesviruses just mentioned, the adenoviruses (which are found in obese people, and may in part be the cause of the global obesity epidemic), papillomaviruses (which can cause cervical cancer), polyomaviruses, and others. 

 

 

RNA viruses on the other hand are NOT able to enter into latent states, so in principle should be completely eliminated from the body by the immune response, as they have no "official" mechanism by which to live long term in the body.

 

The orthomyxoviridae family of viruses is an example of an RNA virus, and influenzavirus is in this family. So in principle, influenzavirus and the hundreds of other RNA viruses which infect humans are not able to form chronic infections, as they lack a latency mechanism.

 

However, it's not quite this simple: it has been observed that several RNA viruses, including the nasty coxsackievirus B that I caught, are able to undergo mutations in their genome while infecting a human, to become what is known as a defective virus. These defective viruses are then able to live inside human cells as a chronic but low-level viral infection. 

 

Coxsackievirus B and its close relative echovirus (both RNA viruses from picornavirus family) have been demonstrated to live as defective viruses in human tissues in many chronic diseases. This has been proven by taking tissue biopsies from the diseased organs, and testing the tissues for the virus by PCR.

 

 

So while it is true that many viruses are fully eliminated by the immune system during the acute infection state, it is also true that many viruses are capable of forming long-term, low-level persistent infections in the body tissues. And studies find that those persistent infections are often linked to a chronic disease.


Edited by Hip, 17 July 2023 - 09:41 PM.

  • Informative x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • WellResearched x 1

#1135 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 17 July 2023 - 09:30 PM

Does covid remain in our body for our entire lifetime? Right now the consensus seems to be "no", but this is still pretty new so the consensus is always open to change.

 

Coronavirus is an RNA virus, with no latency mechanism, so "officially" it should not be able to remain in the body as a chronic infection. However, some studies have found SARS-CoV-2 lingering for 8 months after the acute infection was over, including within the brain.

 

So this lingering might be the basis of long COVID. 

 

I've yet to see a long COVID study take tissue samples from living patients and test those for the virus. But these sort of studies need to be done, to determine whether or not a persistent coronavirus infection might be the cause of long COVID.

 

 

In the case of myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome triggered by enteroviruses such as coxsackievirus B, these viruses have certainly been found in the tissues of ME/CFS patients as a chronic low-level infection.


Edited by Hip, 17 July 2023 - 09:33 PM.

  • Good Point x 2

#1136 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,062 posts
  • 640
  • Location:United States

Posted 17 July 2023 - 10:13 PM

"As soon as we debunk one piece of quackery you post, Gal220, you go straight ahead and post another! A never-ending source of bogus material!"

 

Her graphs aren't percents like the world data, but this link shows several countries were ok till vaccination

Will be interesting to see her final paper.  Denmark aspirated their injections

https://ourworldinda...NOR~DNK~FIN~GBR

 

 

Its ok if you don't believe the Cancer data, its mainly 0-54 getting hit, 22% excess

https://twitter.com/...192357495767041

https://twitter.com/...532789359378434


Edited by Gal220, 17 July 2023 - 10:13 PM.

  • Good Point x 2
  • Informative x 1
  • Cheerful x 1

#1137 Empiricus

  • Guest
  • 335 posts
  • 112
  • Location:Pergamon

Posted 18 July 2023 - 06:19 AM

 

What could explain it? Apparently a health care crisis in the NHS.

 

If your theory explained the excess deaths, then the people most dependent on the NHS, the elderly, would be the most adversely effected.  But the chart shows it's the age cohorts least reliant on NHS services that are dying in greater numbers. 



#1138 Empiricus

  • Guest
  • 335 posts
  • 112
  • Location:Pergamon

Posted 18 July 2023 - 06:30 AM

Some information about COVID YouTuber John Campbell, from his Wikipedia article:

 

"In August 2022 David Gorski wrote for Science-Based Medicine that while at the beginning of the pandemic Campbell had seemed semi-reasonable, he later became a total COVID-19 crank".

 

Campbell was thoughtful early on, pointing to the benefits of things like vitamin D that the experts were ignoring, but when the vaccines came out he began trusting the "experts."  To his credit, he's been open to data that contradicted his previous opinions. 


  • Agree x 2

#1139 Empiricus

  • Guest
  • 335 posts
  • 112
  • Location:Pergamon

Posted 18 July 2023 - 06:46 AM

By the way, Empiricus, if you spend some time reading the Reddit long COVID forums I linked to above, you will find many cases of LC patients who caught COVID once, developed LC, and then slowly recovered, or partially recovered, only to be develop LC once again after contracting the virus a second time. And on catching it again, the LC may become more permanent. 

 

In other words, people may dodge a bullet the first time they catch COVID, but may not be so lucky the second time.

 

 

"On catching it again the long COVID became more permanent."

 

Hip's language is problematic. Something that's been around only three years cannot be said to have any permanence whatsoever.  Since the beginning the media has been fear-mongering that LC might be permanent.

 

The purpose of this spin on LC was to frighten people into taking the vaccines. Such cynical behavior on the part of the healthcare establishment and media. They drove a small group of LC victims into the worst depression to sell the masses on something they don't need.  

 

Our knowledge of treating of LC has always been far outstripped our knowledge of treating mRNA injection injuries. That's another reason it was always a mistake to promote the latter as a means to avoid the former.  


Edited by Empiricus, 18 July 2023 - 06:53 AM.

  • Good Point x 1

#1140 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,497 posts
  • 432
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 18 July 2023 - 11:41 AM

If your theory explained the excess deaths, then the people most dependent on the NHS, the elderly, would be the most adversely effected.  But the chart shows it's the age cohorts least reliant on NHS services that are dying in greater numbers. 

 

What is the datasource for the chart? Where is the data coming from? Even if real, most of the red in the 50-64 group.

 

They claim it is from the "Office for Health Improvement & Disparities", but when I navigate to their official website the charts seem to be HEAVILY weighted to the older age brackets.

 

Any comments on the discrepancies between the Twitter chart and the official data?







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: coronavirus

4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users