Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 80 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rolig Loon said:

Take a look at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190307081026.htm .. Among the key observations:

  • ... during the 16-year study period (2000 to 2016), the proportion of very young people having a heart attack has been increasing, rising by 2 percent each year for the last 10 years.
  • "It used to be incredibly rare to see anyone under age 40 come in with a heart attack -- and some of these people are now in their 20s and early 30s," said Ron Blankstein, MD, a preventive cardiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital, associate professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and the study's senior author. "Based on what we are seeing, it seems that we are moving in the wrong direction."
  • The study included a total of 2,097 young patients (<50 years) admitted for a heart attack in two large hospitals. Of these, 20 percent were 40 or younger. Researchers compared young heart attack victims (<50 years vs. ?40) using patient angiograms, a procedure that uses X-rays to see the heart's blood vessels and arteries. People in the very young heart attack group were more likely to have disease in only one vessel, suggesting that this disease was still early and confined, yet they had the same rate of bad outcomes.
  • In a related study, Blankstein and his team found that 1 in 5 patients who suffer a heart attack at a young age overall -- defined as younger than 50 years of age -- also have diabetes. Data show that if someone has diabetes they are more likely to die and have repeat events than heart attack survivors without diabetes. Not only is diabetes one of the strongest risk factors for having a heart attack, it also predicts future events in young people who have previously had a heart attack.

This should surprise no one. Our obesity epidemic has kids showing up with arterial plaque in their teens. During my time designing cardiac care monitors, I recall a Milwaukee cardiac surgeon saying he'd seen the beginnings of plaque in the cardiac blood vessels of a 9 year old gunshot victim. In 2000, 51% of Milwaukee's 911 paramedic calls were for diabetes issues, usually shock. The paramedics called them "candy calls" because the remedy was to give the patient a glucose IV to get them alert and strong enough to eat a candy bar on their own.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

At this point, unless you have a medical reason for not getting the vaccine, you could potentially be a murderer. 

Or maybe this is just survival of the smartest as 80% of deaths and hospitalizations now, with the Delta variant, are among the unvaccinated.  

Rowan, I don't agree with the "murderer" characterization, though I share the frustration that generates it. Those who refuse to vaccinate will pose a threat to the vaccinated and some will die, but the vast majority of vaccine refusals come from deep, if highly misinformed beliefs that the vaccine places them in danger. Look to the courts to see how hard it would be to press this idea forward in states that recognize religion as an excuse for dangerous behavior...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308147/

As for survival of the smartest, that's not clear either...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

Some years back, I smiled to hear Richard Dawkins, when asked about that idea, say that the fittest might not be the smartest, but rather those too dim to understand contraception. In a society that guarantees quality child care, rampant promiscuity looks like a potential evolutionary advantage.

While people have argued about the rankings of the various laws of physics, once you throw humans into the mix, it seems to me that one law rises to the top...

The Law of Unintended Consequences

This happens for a reason. If humans are not the pinnacle of evolution, they certainly seem to be the pinnacle of intent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Rowan, I don't agree with the "murderer" characterization, though I share the frustration that generates it. Those who refuse to vaccinate will pose a threat to the vaccinated and some will die, but the vast majority of vaccine refusals come from deep, if highly misinformed beliefs that the vaccine places them in danger. Look to the courts to see how hard it would be to press this idea forward in states that recognize religion as an excuse for dangerous behavior...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308147/

As for survival of the smartest, that's not clear either...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

Some years back, I smiled to hear Richard Dawkins, when asked about that idea, say that the fittest might not be the smartest, but rather those too dim to understand contraception. In a society that guarantees quality child care, rampant promiscuity looks like a potential evolutionary advantage.

While people have argued about the rankings of the various laws of physics, once you throw humans into the mix, it seems to me that one law rises to the top...

The Law of Unintended Consequences

This happens for a reason. If humans are not the pinnacle of evolution, they certainly seem to be the pinnacle of intent.

The survival of the smartest was tongue in cheek.  As to murderers, sadly, a lot of the unvaccinated are also the ones who never believed masks made a difference so we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.  To me, it's much like the person with AIDS who knowingly had unprotected sex.  They're playing Russian roulette with other people's lives.

When the vast majority of people dying from or being seriously ill enough to be hospitalized, are the unvaccinated, what more proof do they need?  Those people are now putting our future, our children, at risk.

Fine, don't get vaccinated.  But please, do not go out in public without your mask.  We all know no vaccine and no mask go hand in hand much of the time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

The survival of the smartest was tongue in cheek.  As to murderers, sadly, a lot of the unvaccinated are also the ones who never believed masks made a difference so we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.  To me, it's much like the person with AIDS who knowingly had unprotected sex.  They're playing Russian roulette with other people's lives.

When the vast majority of people dying from or being seriously ill enough to be hospitalized, are the unvaccinated, what more proof do they need?  Those people are now putting our future, our children, at risk.

Fine, don't get vaccinated.  But please, do not go out in public without your mask.  We all know no vaccine and no mask go hand in hand much of the time.

I'm in complete agreement with you about how people should behave and share your frustration about how they actually do behave. I simply don't know what kind of rhetoric will help achieve the compliance necessary to save lives. I don't think history will judge us (in the US at least) kindly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chroma Starlight said:

image.thumb.png.637b7e564b6101046b9eae411cc27ac3.png

(from https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/variant-data)

What are they even doing besides obviously plotting a culling? How do I go to a country where they've sequenced more than 10% of the viruses in circulation to determine if variants are spreading naturally or artificially, etc? Are any of you running a co-op that needs an English speaker and a cat in Iceland, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, or Luxembourg? Can you get me there without forcing me to go through an airport or on a public jetliner? 

This is an example of a Chroma post of leaving the audience ) at least in this readers’ mind)  wholly confused if this is said sardonically or seriously. 
Cause if you’re serious- there’s far more efficient means of mass murder that doesn’t have fail safes such as vaccinations. 
 

ICBM 🚀 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Pixie Kobichenko said:

This is an example of a Chroma post of leaving the audience ) at least in this readers’ mind)  wholly confused if this is said sardonically or seriously. 
Cause if you’re serious- there’s far more efficient means of mass murder that doesn’t have fail safes such as vaccinations. 
 

ICBM 🚀 

Inefficient. Plus, they have an entire set of three ring binders set up around this. Extracting value is their business, and it's an ancient line. Why would anyone need an ICBM when they have both political parties in this laughably obsoletely 0-day-exploitable liberal democratic system now in their pocket and/or eating from their palm fearfully. They've already won. Everyone who matters gets a piece of their pie, which is made of us all. Also, nukes are inconvenient for property values, and they do have their investments to consider. It's an option of last resort in their calculations, but they don't say that or nukes lose their value to intimidate. They'll happily use nukes unbound by humanitarian or legal concerns, but they'll definitely false flag it or make a 'mystery terrorist nuke' because they know it's a shameful thing. If a "terrorist" uses a nuke, it'll be more calls for authoritarianism and pre-emptive wars, but if a state-level actor uses one openly, there could be strengthened calls for deproliferation from still more of the world than the majority that already demand it today. Even then, they can always just offload a bunch of fertilizer in a bustling city's port terminal and then have their local guys create the conditions needed for it to make a sizable burst, like Beirut or Halifax?

Of course, I'm writing my US Senator demanding that they do things about all this stuff, but they did send someone along to shoot his wife, Gabby Giffords, in the head ten years ago not far from here, and so I suppose he's got a lot to contemplate these days. He has not been quick to write back.

Edited by Chroma Starlight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:
On 7/25/2021 at 8:47 PM, Drake1 Nightfire said:

So, how did she survive the polio, pertussis (whooping cough) and tuberculosis in addition to smallpox and diphtheria? Was she not vaccinated as a child?

Those were well tested vaccines, not rushed, emergency use authorized, gene therapies.

mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/03/17/covid-19-mrna-vaccines-are-not-gene-therapy-as-some-are-claiming/?sh=3a7a35243d20

Your knowledge of the history of vaccine development appears nonexistent.

I thought I'd posted a history of the development and release of Salk's polio vaccine a while back, but I can't find it. (I regularly lose long-winded posts to various kinds of errors, mostly operator).

My aunt and mother both contracted polio in the early 1930s. My aunt was left with a slight limp (worse in her later years), mom with one that would only become apparent at the end of a grueling day. My aunt faced vaccinating her children with a mix of relief and dread, as the debut of the Salk polio vaccine and Cutter Incident occurred during her child raising years. Still, she had them vaccinated. It was easier for Mom, as I didn't come along until well after polio vaccinations were routine.

Pre-clinical trial work on inactivated live poliovirus vaccines progressed on different fronts through the 30s and 40s, akin to the pre-clinical mRNA work of the last couple decades. The first human trial of Salk's Polio vaccine was in March of 1952, on a handful of people, barely enough to qualify as a modern phase I clinical trial. Less than a year later, in Feb 1953, the vaccine was given to an additional small group of children in Pittsburgh, maybe as large as modern phase II trial.

Just over a year after that, the vaccine was administered to 440,000 children in a total trial population of 1.8 million. Though there was a control group, I'd call that a post-release or phase IV trial, not a pre release phase III trial. The FDA would never allow this development process today.

In the 1955 Cutter incident, 200,000 children were given polio vaccines in which the inactivating process was defective. The error caused 40,000 cases of polio, left 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis, and killed 10.

mRNA vaccines neither contain nor produce any replicating structures, so infection as in the Cutter incident isn't possible. The timeline for Covid-19 vaccine development was compressed by overlapping the three clinical trial phases (the last of which involved 45,000 people for Pfizer's vaccine) with production ramp-up work that would ordinarily begin afterwards to minimize financial risk to the producers should the clinical trials fail. The US Government stepped in to eliminate that financial risk, allowing production to ramp even before the FDA issued a green light.

Given the state of knowledge of inactivated live virus vaccines and immunology in general in 1954, and the risk presented by errors in understanding or implementation of such vaccines, I'd say the development of the Salk Polio vaccine was more rushed than for Covid-19.

In 1990, a new pertussis vaccine was developed to address safety concerns in the 50 year old vaccine that had been in common use until then. Much of modern vaccine wariness comes from inadequacies in early vaccines that took time to recognize and overcome.

You seem to be unsure of whether and unaware of why you trust or distrust vaccines, Arielle.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

This should surprise no one. Our obesity epidemic has kids showing up with arterial plaque in their teens. During my time designing cardiac care monitors, I recall a Milwaukee cardiac surgeon saying he'd seen the beginnings of plaque in the cardiac blood vessels of a 9 year old gunshot victim. In 2000, 51% of Milwaukee's 911 paramedic calls were for diabetes issues, usually shock. The paramedics called them "candy calls" because the remedy was to give the patient a glucose IV to get them alert and strong enough to eat a candy bar on their own.

So..will evolution win (those who die young will not spread disease genetically via breeding) or will science win (extending young lives will result in more disease as they breed)? 

Edited by Love Zhaoying
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Pre-clinical trial work on inactivated live poliovirus vaccines progressed on different fronts through the 30s and 40s, akin to the pre-clinical mRNA work of the last couple decades. The first human trial of Salk's Polio vaccine was in March of 1952, on a handful of people, barely enough to qualify as a modern phase I clinical trial. Less than a year later, in Feb 1953, the vaccine was given to an additional small group of children in Pittsburgh, maybe as large as modern phase II trial.

You mean, it wasn't tested on just 5 kids, a sick dog, and a mule? Egads!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/03/17/covid-19-mrna-vaccines-are-not-gene-therapy-as-some-are-claiming/?sh=3a7a35243d20

Your knowledge of the history of vaccine development appears nonexistent.

You seem to be unsure of whether and unaware of why you trust or distrust vaccines, Arielle.

Ok, I will put up this Investment magazine writer against yours as at least mine bases their source on the definition of gene therapy from the Mayo Clinic guidelines.

"COVID mRNA Vaccines are a Form of Gene Therapy

Late last year, the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines jabs were both licensed for emergency use only by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As the vaccinations begin to spread among the world population, the growth of other gene therapies as a type of vaccination could increase. Institutional investors like sovereign funds and biotech venture capitalists have invested in a wide range of companies engaged in these therapies......

Form of Gene Therapy

The mRNA vaccinations area a form of gene therapy, according to its definition in many parts of the world, including Europe. Gene therapies remain under strict regulation and few gene therapeutics have been approved by health authorities because of safety concerns....

Gene therapy replaces a faulty gene or adds a new gene in an attempt to cure disease or improve your body’s ability to fight disease. Gene therapy holds promise for treating a wide range of diseases, such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, diabetes, hemophilia and AIDS.”
Source: https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/gene-therapy/about/pac-20384619

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

Quote

Your knowledge of the history of vaccine development appears nonexistent.

Even if, why is it important other than for some easy picking of low hanging fruit for you?

Quote

You seem to be unsure of whether and unaware of why you trust or distrust vaccines, Arielle.

After all these threads on this topic and you still don't get why I and many others have some hesitancy about these Covid19 vaccines? Sounds like it is you who is unsure. After a million plus post vaccine adverse events, how many more are needed before you would consider yourself sure there is a problem? 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

So..will evolution win (those who die young will not spread disease genetically via breeding) or will science win (extending young lives will result in more disease as they breed)? 

Well, I don't think disease spreads genetically, though resistance to disease might. Those who succumb don't reproduce.

I was introduced to the idea that humans are the first species to evolve the capability to intentionally alter their own evolution by my father. He also taught me the distinction between capability and ability.

We had fascinating conversations about this. Let's imagine, hypothetically, that IQ is an advantageous attribute, and that children inherit the average IQ of their parents. We decide that we want to improve the average human IQ by sterilizing everyone who's below it. That would be very difficult to implement, as half the world would immediately object. But, let's presume that "majority rule" wins the day. It's all good, right?

Gender bias in IQ tests would create a firestorm of protest from the favored gender, as potential mates would be in short supply. The "dumber" sex will be beating the smarties off with sticks. Half the current majority will fall below the average line within a couple generations, and IQ tests will always favor the young, as they're the most recent products of the IQ improvement effort. The duration of female reproductive viability is shorter than for males, so males will be disproportionately curtailed by sterilization.

It doesn't take much imagination to see how horribly wrong things will go. Yet natural selection IS going on right now. Education level currently correlates negatively with reproduction rate. Well-to-do couples don't feel the need to create offspring to help hunt and gather. To the extent there are human traits that improve one's chance of success in modern societies, modern societies might be selecting those traits... out.

Finally, I'm not sure that selection pressure tops the list of things to worry about. Surviving long enough for it to have an impact does.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Finally, I'm not sure that selection pressure tops the list of things to worry about. Surviving long enough for it to have an impact does.

Ah, short-term goals!

20 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Well, I don't think disease spreads genetically, though resistance to disease might. Those who succumb don't reproduce.

Example: Cystic Fibrosis (I knew someone with it who survived to 40 with it due to modern science).

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Gene therapy replaces a faulty gene or adds a new gene in an attempt to cure disease or improve your body’s ability to fight disease. Gene therapy holds promise for treating a wide range of diseases, such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, diabetes, hemophilia and AIDS.”

That definition is quite correct.

Covid-19 vaccines neither add nor replaces genes. By the definition you have presented, Covid-19 vaccines are not gene therapy.

25 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:
Quote

Your knowledge of the history of vaccine development appears nonexistent.

Even if, why is it important other than for some easy picking of low hanging fruit for you?

You have just argued that ignorance of history is of no importance in arguments comparing the present to... history.

In any conversation, the general level of one's knowledge of the subject area is important. You can't argue that Covid-19 development was rushed in comparison to previous vaccines if you don't know anything about development of previous vaccines.

As for picking low hanging fruit, its the only kind you bring here.

5 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

After a million plus post vaccine adverse events, how many more are needed before you would consider yourself sure there is a problem? 

If one has little grasp of the subject matter and are wrong far more often than right, additional posts don't generally work in one's favor, do they? With each successive post on any particular subject, my certainty about people's asymptotic lines grows.

Certainty is a difficult thing for me to come by, but you do make it easier.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

As for picking low hanging fruit, its the only kind you bring here.

 

banana.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Ah, short-term goals!

Example: Cystic Fibrosis (I knew someone with it who survived to 40 with it due to modern science).

I've had this discussion with others, usually around CF or Down's Syndrome. We now have the ability to prolong the lives of people, who's genes would once have doomed them quickly, well into their reproductive years. This is new moral and ethical ground. Even the anticipated arrival of gene therapies that might "correct" genetic "defects" doesn't end the discussion. (Those scare quotes indicate the nuance needed here.) These are deep questions that challenge us, both as societies and individuals.

I hope that we can all put our heads together, and with compassion and wisdom, navigate these issues gracefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's getting really bad here....again. The worst increase of cases in the state, and mostly with the new variant. Around 50% are unvaccinated.

I'm so sick of this. Now it's dangerous to go anywhere again.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I've had this discussion with others, usually around CF or Down's Syndrome.

I only mentioned CF in the context of your statement "don't think disease spreads genetically".  Because to me, you are always right! 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I only mentioned CF in the context of your statement "don't think disease spreads genetically".  Because to me, you are always right! 

Oooh, ya got me, Love!

Though CF is classified as a disorder, it's also called an "inherited disease". I was thinking of passing down a disease one had acquired, not a genetic disorder, itself inherited. The first might be impossible (we're finding that Lamarck wasn't completely wrong, epigenetics is real) and the latter happens all the time.

Always right?

Stop that!!!*

 

*As you just did ;-).

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

After all these threads on this topic and you still don't get why I and many others have some hesitancy about these Covid19 vaccines? Sounds like it is you who is unsure. After a million plus post vaccine adverse events, how many more are needed before you would consider yourself sure there is a problem? 

Maybe these will help you understand the vaccine better

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

 

After all these threads on this topic and you still don't get why I and many others have some hesitancy about these Covid19 vaccines? 

 

Maybe you're also missing why we persist.

This isn't some silly game or ideological battle to win.

We like you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

After a million plus post vaccine adverse events, how many more are needed before you would consider yourself sure there is a problem? 

 

Where are you sourcing this from?  Have you looked at data from the cdc in the section (open to the public but also used by medical professionals) for “the vaccine adverse event recording system” (for all vaccines)   I took a bit of time & the system requires you to narrow your search down in a variety of ways, but I selected COVID, 2021& a few others.
https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=CAC68A70965257DD399E7C656A55.  
 

At first glance, it seems that the vaccines are in fact causing folks to drop like flies.  However, when you search to determine the purpose of the site, you learn:

After clinical trials, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) monitors vaccine safety. VAERS is intentionally set up to capture adverse events that are not thought to be caused by vaccines. It is the best tool we have to find what may be previously unrecognized and extraordinarily rare adverse events that may eventually be linked.

VAERS cannot and does not determine whether a vaccine caused something. The CDC states this clearly in their disclaimer: "A report to VAERS does not mean that the vaccine caused the adverse event, only that the adverse event occurred some time after vaccination." The disclaimer continues, "The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental or unverifiable."

Reporting even unrelated deaths

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires health care providers to report any serious adverse event (including death) that happens after a COVID-19 vaccination – whether or not the provider thinks there is any link. The CDC says, "Health care providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination…regardless if the reporter thinks the vaccine caused the AE." AE stands for adverse event and includes death.

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/does-vaers-list-deaths-caused-by-covid-19-vaccines

So.  Where are you getting the information that you draw a conclusion that these events are all attributed to vaccines?  Honestly would like to know.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 80 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...