2092 replies to this topic

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Hip can apparently read my mind (post #1770):

 

"You seem to think, erroneously, that it is only mRNA vaccines which manufacture viral proteins like the spike protein in your body."

 

Provide a quote from my post(s) which demonstrates your delusional assertion. Hint: you can't because I made no such claim.

 

And then he makes the determination that my stance on something that I haven't commented on in my posts, is wrong:

 

"You are completely wrong about this."

 

Typical Hip--claim an attribution which has no basis in reality, and then refute it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[joesixpack]

Re post 1767

 

Hip writes:

 

"You have detailed a completely speculative mechanism by which you claim COVID vaccines might cause myocarditis, yet you provide zero evidence to support your claim, and you don't cite any scientists who would agree with you. "

 

Connect the dots, Hip:

 

It is known that the mNRA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 were developed to select, as an antigen, the spike protein. The vaccines cause cells to produce spike proteins (see my reference in post #1766). And, to quote you:

 

"The myocarditis is caused by the spike protein itself."

 

Your lack of the ability to ratiocinate, in light of a nexus that almost literally shouts in your face what conclusion should be drawn, is truly astounding.

 

Thank you for this and your previous answer. I think you covered this next point, but in case you did not, there is the problem of the length of time the mrna vaccines cause our cells to produce the spike protein. It is not known how long it take for such production to stop.

Edited by joesixpack, 30 January 2024 - 08:44 PM.

[Hip]

Thank you for this and your previous answer. I think you covered this next point, but in case you did not, there is the problem of the length of time the mrna vaccines cause our cells to produce the spike protein. It is not known how long it take for such production to stop.

 

 

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines work by introducing mRNA (messenger RNA) into your muscle cells. The cells make copies of the spike protein and the mRNA is quickly degraded (within a few days).

 

https://www.nebraska...ike-proteins-go

[joesixpack]

 

Two issues with your quote.

 

The vaccine makers said the shot only goes into the muscle, and that the spike protein disappears in a few days.

 

This is not true. As you probably know, the instructions on giving the vaccine say, do not aspirate the needle. This could lead to injection in to a vein. I know this because I asked if they were going to aspirate the needle when I got the vaccine and was told that the instructions say no.

 

Additionaly, it is now common knowledge that the spike protein has been found everywhere in body, including crossing the blood/brain barrier, following vaccination.

 

Also, it is common knowledge that the presence of the spike protein in the body persists for months.

 

Sources: https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/36597886/ and

 

here: https://www.ncbi.nlm...es/PMC10222799/

[Hip]

Also, it is common knowledge that the presence of the spike protein in the body persists for months.
 
Sources: https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/36597886/ and
 
here: https://www.ncbi.nlm...es/PMC10222799/

 
OK, fair enough. 
 
Here is a relevant paragraph from your second paper:
 

The first claim was based on Intramuscular administration [15], and the second claim was based on the lability of RNA [17], with a typical RNA half-life of minutes [18]; however, biodistribution studies have found significant expression of spikes in other tissues and organs [12], and researchers have found both vaccine mRNA and spike protein (which is encoded by the vaccine sequence) two months post-administration [14], and even up to four months post-vaccination [13].
 
One preprint study of people with SARS-CoV-2 negative post-vaccination Long COVID-19-like symptoms showed spike protein persistence, on average, 105 days post vaccination [19]. Long COVID-19 patients (post SARS-CoV-2 infection) show spike protein persistence up to 15 months [20]. Another study showed spike protein persistence in the gut of long COVID-19 patients, but not in the bloodstream.

I wonder how long viral proteins remain in the body in the case of traditional attenuated virus vaccines? Has anyone ever even studied this?

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 30 January 2024 - 10:40 PM.

[DanCG]

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines work by introducing mRNA (messenger RNA) into your muscle cells. The cells make copies of the spike protein and the mRNA is quickly degraded (within a few days).

 

https://www.nebraska...ike-proteins-go

As joesixpack pointed out, this quote is not accurate. Even the quotes from the studies that supposedly support their point are weak.

 

“Vaccines mostly remain near the site of injection (the arm muscle) and local lymph nodes.” “Most of the mRNA vaccine stayed in the injection site muscle – where you get the shot. ...A lot of mRNA vaccine was found in local lymph nodes, which peaked about eight hours after the shot was given. A much smaller amount of mRNA vaccine went to farther away lymph nodes.”

 

Lay people reading this might not think to ask, "How much does it take?" 

 

Furthermore, it was known not to be accurate before it was published.

 

This study, for example was published 2 months earlier and it found vaccine mRNA in the breast milk of vaccinated women.

 

This source is a prime example of how "reliable sources" misled the public.

Edited by DanCG, 31 January 2024 - 12:54 AM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Can this short strand of mRNA that codes for spike protein end up in places inaccessible to the much larger SAR-CoV-2 virus?

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 31 January 2024 - 05:31 AM.

[Hip]

This source is a prime example of how "reliable sources" misled the public.

 

I am not sure we can say that. The fact that COVID vaccine mRNA can be found a sites distant from the injection site, and for months after injection, does not automatically imply that this mRNA poses any danger. Its levels may be low so that its effects are not significant. 

 

It reminds me of a news story I read decades ago, about a new super sensitive chemical molecule sensing machine. They took this machine to the Antarctic, and switched it on. It soon detected multiple different chemical pollutants. When this was reported, the environmentalists were up in arms, screaming about the supposedly pristine Antarctic having been already polluted with manmade chemicals.

 

But the scientists responded that this was nonsense: it was not that there were lots of chemical pollutants in the Antarctic; rather it was just the fact that this chemical molecule sensing machine was extremely sensitive, and so could detect even the most microscopically low levels of chemicals in the air. 

 

 

This story captures the problem we often see when trying to analyse medical research: we read about some finding, but we have no idea about the significance of that finding, or the magnitude of the effect. 

 

In our case with the mRNA, we don't know the significance of finding remnants of mRNA months after the vaccination, and what effect this might have. But maybe the experts do know, and have concluded that these mRNA remnants have no appreciable ill effects. 

Edited by Hip, 31 January 2024 - 05:48 AM.

[Mind]

 

 

I am not sure we can say that. The fact that COVID vaccine mRNA can be found a sites distant from the injection site, and for months after injection, does not automatically imply that this mRNA poses any danger. Its levels may be low so that its effects are not significant. 

 

Remember the experts said don't worry, "the injection stays in your arm". Glad to see no one believes this anymore. Of course the COVID injections are more harmful when they spread (peer-reviewed) all over the body . The goal of the injections is to take over your cells to produce the SARS-CoV2 spike protein...so that your body will produce antibodies. Your immune system eventually attacks the cells producing the spike protein. If it is just in your arm, maybe not so much damage, but when your immune system attacks other organs, like the heart, causing myocarditis, then you have problems.

 

Thankfully the lawsuits are starting to fly and people harmed from the COVID injections are starting to win in court.

 

Here is another white paper outlining how bad the whole COVID injection testing and rollout was.

 

I keep running into friends and acquaintances complaining about severe side effects from the COVID injections. The latest person developed numerous allergies immediately after taking the COVID injections. This person was wondering how to clear it out of their body. I know there are some "cleansing" protocols but I am not sure which ones work the best.

[DanCG]

 

In our case with the mRNA, we don't know the significance of finding remnants of mRNA months after the vaccination, and what effect this might have. But maybe the experts do know, and have concluded that these mRNA remnants have no appreciable ill effects. 

It is still a lie to say that the injection stays in the arm while knowing that is not true.

[Hip]

It is still a lie to say that the injection stays in the arm while knowing that is not true.

 

I disagree. If only minuscule amounts of mRNA are found elsewhere, that have no real effects, then it would be accurate to characterise it that the mRNA stays in the arm. 

 

If I ask you where you are at the moment, and you tell me your location, I don't say you are lying, because small pieces of you (your skin, hair and DNA) have fallen off your body are scattered all around your home, workplace, car, and other places or object that you have visited or touched. 

[DanCG]

Can this short strand of mRNA that codes for spike protein end up in places inaccessible to the much larger SAR-CoV-2 virus?

It is not so much the size that matters (I know, you've heard that before).  The virus enters cells by a specific, receptor-mediated mechanism. It preferentially enters only those cells having the right receptors.. The lipid nanoparticle generally slides through any cell membrane it comes in contact with.

Edited by DanCG, 01 February 2024 - 12:08 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re post #1781:

 

Hip writes:

 

"I disagree. If only minuscule amounts of mRNA are found elsewhere, that have no real effects, then it would be accurate to characterise it that the mRNA stays in the arm."

 

Wrong. It would not be accurate to make such a characterization. If mRNA is found in parts of the body that aren't the arm then, ipso facto, the mRNA has not stayed in the arm. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever if the errant mRNA has produced any effects or not. If it is detected elsewhere in any amount at all (miniscule amounts, e.g.), then it isn't all in the arm. Your apparent failure to grasp that, is astonishing.

 

"If I ask you where you are at the moment, and you tell me your location, I don't say you are lying, because small pieces of you (your skin, hair and DNA) have fallen off your body are scattered all around your home, workplace, car, and other places or object that you have visited or touched. "

 

Good grief. Yet another display of total cluelessness.

[Daniel Cooper]

Ok guys, enough of the back and forth slap fight.  

[Mind]

Even the FDA finds serious side effects from the COVID injections, years after hundreds of peer-reviewed studies found the same thing. Better late than never. The FDA - of course - still says the benefits outweigh the risks, which they base upon "modeling" of the lives saved by the injections.

 

Remember when the CDC said the COVID injections would stop new variants from emerging. Turns out (like most things they said during the COVID panic), they had/have zero evidence for this assertion.

[Hip]

Remember when the CDC said the COVID injections would stop new variants from emerging. Turns out (like most things they said during the COVID panic), they had/have zero evidence for this assertion.

 

D'oh! Aren't you stating the obvious?

 

Of course it is not possible to get empirical evidence for variant formation reduction before the COVID vaccines were rolled out! Nobody said they had evidence for that before vaccine rollout. How would it even be possible to gather evidence before the vaccines were available!

 

However, the assertion that vaccines can reduce viral variant formation comes from theoretical considerations. If a vaccine can reduce viral spread, then it can reduce the number of infections, which in turn reduces the opportunities for mutating into new variants. 

 

 

It's fine to use theoretical models in the absence of empirical evidence. Science does this all the time.

 

Science has two main pillars: theoretical models and empirical evidence. If one pillar is absent, you can fall back to the other. This is why science is so powerful, because of these two pillars.

 

If you did not use both pillars of science, you would rarely get any human advancements. NASA a few years back landed a probe on an asteroid for the first time. They had no empirical evidence about what the surface of an asteroid might be like, so using best guesses, they just worked with a theoretical model of the asteroid surface, and designed their lander for that surface. Now that we have actually landed a probe on an asteroid, we have empirical knowledge about its surface. But if we had to wait for empirical knowledge before landing a probe, we would have got nowhere.

 

Why don't you do something useful, and post these words of wisdom on Dr Jay Bhattacharya's Twitter account that you linked to. Clearly this man needs a refresher course on the scientific method. 

Edited by Hip, 06 February 2024 - 10:39 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

"If a vaccine can reduce viral spread, then it can reduce the number of infections, which in turn reduces the opportunities for mutating into new variants"

 

True, but with a virus that is globally endemic there are going to be sporadic variants generated, & the one that works best is what will replicate best and spread best. Over time, a highly evolved variant will become stable and consistent, and natural immunity will begin to keep it in check.  

 

Shut down one variant with a vaccine, but if it's not a sterilizing vaccine that halts the infection in its tracks, variants that normally wouldn't have survived and "outmatch" the previous best bug will survive and spread.   Keep playing whack-a-mole with variants, and you're going to drive a continuing stream of newer variants that might not have thrived to take over, requiring new vaccines onward to infinity, as well as disrupting any evolution of control through natural immunity.  

 

This is Geert Vanden Bossche's theory on the dangers of vaccinating during a pandemic with a non-sterilizing vaccine.  It will invariably drive generation of new variants, which may eventually include a wicked combination of increased pulmonary damage combined with the higher transmission of omicron.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 07 February 2024 - 03:28 AM.

[Hip]

True, but with a virus that is globally endemic there are going to be sporadic variants generated, & the one that works best is what will replicate best and spread best. Over time, a highly evolved variant will become stable and consistent, and natural immunity will begin to keep it in check. 

 

Had the COVID vaccines been as effective as say measles vaccines — which totally kill off any measles epidemic and stop all further measles viral infections (provided most of the population are vaccinated) — then there is no doubt that such COVID vaccines would have prevented the emergence of new variants, as there would not have been any COVID infections going around whatsoever to create variants.

 

Unfortunately, the COVID vaccines did not substantially reduce viral transmission from person to person, so they were unable to kill off the global pandemic. All they could do was reduce transmission a bit, and reduce the chances of death by a lot, but they could not halt the pandemic.

 

But we did not know beforehand that the COVID vaccines would be unable to halt the pandemic, or would be unable to substantially quell the pandemic.

 

So I think we should not be condemning scientists for their hope that the COVID vaccines would substantially reduce viral transmission, even if it turned out that they didn't. 

Edited by Hip, 07 February 2024 - 03:33 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Had the COVID vaccines been as effective as say measles vaccines, which totally kill off any measles epidemic and stop all further measles viral infections, provided most of the population are vaccinated, then there is no doubt that such COVID vaccines would have prevented the emergence of new variants, as there would not be any COVID going around to create variants.

 

Unfortunately, the COVID vaccines did not substantially reduce viral transmission from person to person, so they were unable to kill off the global pandemic. All they could do was reduce transmission a bit, and reduce the chances of death by a lot, but they could not halt the pandemic.

 

But we did not know beforehand that the COVID vaccines would be unable to halt the pandemic, or be unable to substantially quell the pandemic. 

 

Agree...  Vaccines had a place in the pandemic in 2020 & '21.  Now that omicron has arrived?  Not so much.  

 

Time to start focusing on early treatment.  Every household should have a kit with enough medicine for the whole family.  This medicine should be cheap enough and safe enough so that all could start on it immediately if one falls ill.  Zelenko led the way with his protocol.  My September infection consisted of a scratchy throat for one day, followed by 2 days of low grade fever.  Sinuses drained for 2 more days after the fever broke, but I didn't even count these as "sick days".  

[Hip]

Time to start focusing on early treatment.   

 

Early treatment might help prevent COVID deaths, but will it help prevent long COVID, which arguably is a fate worse than death?

 

The vaccines are very good at reducing the risk of death from COVID, but they are not much good at reducing the risk of LC. 

 

And COVID antivirals like paxlovid seem to follow the same trend:

 

paxlovid is highly effective at reducing the risk of death from COVID;

 

but paxlovid treatment during acute COVID infection was not found to reduce the risk of LC. 

Edited by Hip, 07 February 2024 - 05:52 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Early treatment might help prevent COVID deaths, but will it help prevent long COVID, which arguably is a fate worse than death?

 

The vaccines are very good at reducing the risk of death from COVID, but they are not much good at reducing the risk of LC. 

 

And COVID antivirals like paxlovid seem to follow the same trend:

 

paxlovid is highly effective at reducing the risk of death from COVID;

 

but paxlovid treatment during acute COVID infection was not found to reduce the risk of LC. 

 

This is why I like Zelenko's protocol (HCQ+Zn).  I didn't die or develop long COVID; matter of fact, I had short COVID!  

 

The trick is to have your meds on hand in advance, & start on them at the first sign of infection.  

[Hip]

This is why I like Zelenko's protocol (HCQ+Zn).  I didn't die or develop long COVID; matter of fact, I had short COVID!  

 

The trick is to have your meds on hand in advance, & start on them at the first sign of infection.  

 

It sounds plausible in theory, I agree, but I don't think Zelenko made any observations as to whether his protocol could reduce long COVID. 

 

We really need a proven protocol that can reduce the risk of long COVID.

[Dorian Grey]

It sounds plausible in theory, I agree, but I don't think Zelenko made any observations as to whether his protocol could reduce long COVID. 

 

We really need a proven protocol that can reduce the risk of long COVID.

 

Long COVID is still a bit of a mystery, but we know it was more likely during the pre-omicron variants, so it seems more severe disease increases the risk.  

 

Vaccines may decrease the risk, but proper early treatment theoretically should too.  With my 2 day low grade fever experience with COVID in September, I never even worried about long COVID.  I was back in action before I knew it.  

 

We can either keep on bostin' like mad, & hope there are no adverse events; or perhaps just be prepared, and treat early, which may reduce the risk of long COVID as well or better than the jabs.  

 

Risk/Reward...  I see less risk with early treatment than dozens of vaccines over the next decade.  I may be wrong, but I'm placing my bets on early treatment. 

[Empiricus]

Early treatment might help prevent COVID deaths, but will it help prevent long COVID, which arguably is a fate worse than death?

 

As pointed out earlier in this thread, my personal experience with so-called Long Covid doesn't support this kind of fear-mongering. And neither does the science. We know recovery from COVID can take a while. Most case where COVID becomes "a fate worse than death" have stemmed from misguided medical interventions, including the rushed mRNA vaccines. Fortunately there are many ways to support recovery from COVID.  Thousands of studies have been published on this topic. There are a multitude of promising treatment options available to patients.  In most cases, time is proving the best medicine.  

 

On the other hand, COVID vaccination is associated with cancers, turbo-cancers, neurological impairment, circulatory issues, cardiac injuries, and auto-immune conditions. Many of these issues are extremely challenging to treat.  The medical establishment's refusal to recognise the extent of vaccine injuries means even the mechanisms behind many vaccine injuries aren't well understood, impeding identification of appropriate treatment options.

Edited by Empiricus, 07 February 2024 - 10:49 AM.

[Hip]

 my personal experience with so-called Long Covid doesn't support this kind of fear-mongering. And neither does the science. We know recovery from COVID can take a while.

 

Your personal experience of long COVID is shared by many people. A lot of those who developed ME/CFS symptoms after COVID, and had these symptoms for 6 to 12 months, eventually got better and recovered. 

 

That temporary period of experiencing ME/CFS symptoms before eventual recovery is called post-viral fatigue, and such post-viral fatigue appears after infection with many viruses (Epstein-Barr, cytomegalovirus, Coxsackie B virus, echovirus, etc), not just after SARS-CoV-2. So it is a well-known phenomenon. There is nothing new about the post-viral fatigue that COVID patients experience, medical science has known about this for decades.

 

 

 

For a lot of people, their post-viral fatigue eventually clears up, mercifully. 

 

But for others, the post-viral fatigue never goes away, and for those people, it appears that sadly the temporarily post-viral fatigue has turned into long-term myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). 

 

There was actually a good study of people who developed post-viral fatigue after mononucleosis from Epstein-Barr virus. This study found that the percentage of these post-viral fatigue patients who recovered after some time was the following:

 

Percentage still with ME/CFS symptoms at various time intervals after EBV infection:

• At start of study — 100% of the study cohort had post-viral fatigue
• After 6 months — 13% still had post-viral fatigue
• After 12 months — 7%
• After 2 years — 4%

 

You can see that in the first 6 months, most recovered, going from 100% down to 13% with post-viral fatigue ME/CFS symptoms.

 

But after 2 years, you can see that 4% were still ill. Some of those 4% may never recover, and develop long-term ME/CFS. 

 

So recovery from ME/CFS symptoms due to EBV is most likely in the first 6 months. 

 

 

 

To me, it is a great mystery of why many people naturally recover from post-viral fatigue, but others never recover, and get ME/CFS which lasts decades or a lifetime. Once you have long-term ME/CFS, studies have shown that the chances of recovery become slim.

 

This study found that only 6% of ME/CFS patients improved their health after 5 years (and improved does not necessarily even mean recovery). 

 

If we knew what led to the recovery of post-viral fatigue in some patients but not others, we could probably find a cure for long-term ME/CFS patients. 

 

 

 

ME/CFS has been shown in studies as the second worse disease you can get in terms of quality of life (the very worst disease is COPD). Before the pandemic, there were 17 million people in the world suffering with this cursed disease. Now after the pandemic, that number has probably doubled or tripled. 

Edited by Hip, 07 February 2024 - 04:39 PM.

[Hip]

There are a multitude of promising treatment options available to patients. 

 

I am always reading long COVID forums daily, looking for promising treatments. 

 

Catching COVID made my ME/CFS permanently worse — not surprising really, given that SARS-CoV-2 seems to be just one of several viruses that may trigger ME/CFS.

 

A lot of ME/CFS patients get worse after COVID. I know two people with mild ME/CFS (meaning still able to work) who caught COVID and that pushed them permanently to severe ME/CFS (bedbound most of the day and night). COVID was a disaster for them.

 

 

Before COVID, I had two active viral infections underpinning my ME/CFS: coxsackie B4 virus, and cytomegalovirus. I know these are active, because I have chronically super high IgG antibody levels to these two viruses.

 

After COVID, I now suspect I have active SARS-CoV-2 in my body as well (though I have not yet taken a SARS-CoV-2 antibody test, to see if I have chronically high antibody levels).

 

So with three viruses driving my ME/CFS, it's going to be more difficult to treat. It was bad enough with two viruses. 

 

 

 

On long COVID forums, two of the most successful treatments appear to be lactoferrin, and certain antihistamines. 

 

Paxlovid has not helped LC much. 

 

COVID vaccination can improve LC, but it can also worsen it. One study on LC patients found that 62% improve and 19% get worse after a COVID vaccination.

 

 

 

The trouble with long COVID forums however is that many LC patients have not worked out what illness they actually have. COVID infection can lead to ME/CFS, POTS, and other autonomic illnesses. These illnesses have precise diagnostic criteria. But on LC forums, LC patients just say that they have LC, and do not specify which type of LC (they don't say if they have ME/CFS, POTS, etc). 

 

So when these LC patients report that a treatment helped them, it's often not clear what disease the treatment worked for. 

Edited by Hip, 07 February 2024 - 09:01 PM.

[Empiricus]

I am always reading long COVID forums daily, looking for promising treatments. 

 

Catching COVID made my ME/CFS permanently worse — not surprising really, given that SARS-CoV-2 seems to be just one of several viruses that may trigger ME/CFS.

 

A lot of ME/CFS patients get worse after COVID. I know two people with mild ME/CFS (meaning still able to work) who caught COVID and that pushed them permanently to severe ME/CFS (bedbound most of the day and night). COVID was a disaster for them.

 

 

Hey, what's with the use of the word "permanently."  Nobody could know if such a condition is permanent or not.  Your use of the word here defies logic, science and common sense.  I don't see any advantage to patients to describing their condition as permanent, and profound disadvantages to doing so.  

 

As soon as Long Covid became a thing, speculation that Long Covid might be "permanent" became rampant in the media.  In retrospect, such baseless speculation was likely integral to a grand strategy to fear-monger the public into getting vaccinated.   

 

Frankly, Hip, I believe use of such a word is irresponsible.  Such language can be expected to adversely impact the mental health of patients and reduce motivation to explore treatment options.

Edited by Empiricus, 08 February 2024 - 08:46 AM.

[Hip]

Hey, what's with the use of the word "permanently."  Nobody could know if such a condition is permanent or not.  Your use of the word here defies logic, science and common sense.  I don't see any advantage to patients to describing their condition as permanent, and profound disadvantages to doing so.  

 

As soon as Long Covid became a thing, speculation that Long Covid might be "permanent" became rampant in the media.  In retrospect, such baseless speculation was likely integral to a grand strategy to fear-monger the public into getting vaccinated.   

 

Frankly, Hip, I believe use of such a word is irresponsible.  Such language can be expected to adversely impact the mental health of patients and reduce motivation to explore treatment options.

 

If you knew anything about ME/CFS history, and the downright evil politics involved in ME/CFS, arising from corrupt multinational insurance companies who manipulated the narrative behind ME/CFS, you would realise you are on the side of evil here. 

 

In order to avoid paying out disability support to very sick patients with ME/CFS, international disability insurance companies starting promoting the false narrative that ME/CFS was not a real physical disease, but an imaginary "all in the mind" condition that was just down to the poor attitude of patients. The idea was pushed that if ME/CFS patients made up their minds to get better, they would overcome their illness, because it was just a psychological condition, and could be overcome by the right attitude.

 

They also promoted the poisonoud idea that ME/CFS was not a lifelong chronic illness, but something patients would be expected to recover from in due course. Therefore any patient who remained ill was either faking it, or had poor attitudes towards life. 

 

This narrative was introduced by insurance companies the early 1990s, because in the 1980s there was an inexplicable and incredible 8-fold rise in ME/CFS incidence, and these companies may have gone bankrupt if they had not invented this scam.

 

These insurance companies paid many psychiatrist to promote this idea that ME/CFS is psychologically caused. Once this incorrect psychological view of ME/CFS became accepted in the medical world, research funding for ME/CFS dried up, so this toxic idea had a very deleterious effect on the whole of ME/CFS science.

 

You are promoting the same malicious and poisonous narrative, that ME/CFS is something that is not a lifelong disease, but something that people will automatically recover from. If you posted your views on ME/CFS forums, you would be denounced by many ME/CFS patients, who are sick people trivialising their illness, and sick of people saying that ME/CFS is not as serious as other chronic illnesses such as Parkinson's or multiple sclerosis.

 

Also, science does not support your toxic views: there are studies showing that recovery from ME/CFS is rare. Therefore it is a permanent disease. 

 

But as usual on this forum, you were not aware of the salient facts, this ME/CFS Machiavellian politics history, so you are not aware that you are promoting a toxic idea.

 

 

 

I appreciate that long COVID patients that have the ME/CFS form of LC might not like to hear that their disease is permanent, but we live in an adult world, where you have to face the medical facts.

 

And by the way way you are also wrong in assuming that knowledge that ME/CFS is permanent will prevent ME/CFS patients from seeking treatments or experimenting with drugs and supplements. I am in several ME/CFS forums where there is constant intense experimentation with treatments. And sometimes patients do find a treatment which does substantially improve their condition. 

 

Indeed, I don't know any group of patients who are so determined to improve their health as ME/CFS patients. I am proud to be part of this ME/CFS community of patients who are so pro-active and enthusiastic regarding experimenting with possible treatments. 

 

 

Note that the POTS form of LC can more easily be improved or cured: POTS responds well to exercise, and if you do a LOT of exercise regularly for a year, you can overcome and cure POTS. I know people who have done this. 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 08 February 2024 - 04:55 PM.

[Hip]

Any by the way, there are many people on long COVID forums who are ill informed as to the nature of ME/CFS.

 

You get these LC patients who did not have ME/CFS, but just post-viral fatigue, and when they automatically get better and recover after 6 to 12 months, they go around posting on these forums that "you see, you can recover from long COVID!".

 

Well these people are like you, Empiricus: they think that because they recovered, everyone can. 

 

But those who are more educated in ME/CFS medical science know this is false, and that there are millions of patients who have had ME/CFS for decades.

Edited by Hip, 08 February 2024 - 04:43 PM.

[Mind]

There are different threads for the discussion of the mysterious ill--defined long COVID.

 

People were told, don't worry, the COVID injection just stays in your arm. This was a lie as proven by hundreds of peer-reviewed studies over the last couple of years. Here is another one showing that the COVID injection ends up in the placenta of pregnant mothers.

 

In other news, researchers who claimed that getting the COVID injection is good for pregnant mothers will not share their data (plus there are many other obvious issues with the study). Nothing says "trustworthy" like hiding your data.