health

Massive numbers of new COVID infections, not vaccines, are main driver of new coronavirus variants

36 Comments
By Vaughn Cooper and Lee Harrison

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© The Conversation

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

It is theoretically possible that in this situation, natural selection will lead to variants that can infect and cause serious disease in vaccinated people.

And that's why I made the personal choice not to get vaccinated.

For me, Natural immunity from actual infection is much more robust anyway.

-13 ( +14 / -27 )

It really do not matter, whether, you get the shot or not, as long as children can spread the virus, that are not eligible for the vaccination, Bush, hope you do be a product of natural selection

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Mass vaccination during a pandemic was predicted by experts as causing vaccine resistant variants through immune escape. Seems the above provaccine article was simply written to counter all the experts blaming the vaccinations for the variants.

I'll wait for their paper to come out before paying any attention to their claims, the above article does not provide anything convincing.

Most viruses in an infected person are genetically identical to the strain that started the infection. It is much more likely that one of these copies – not a rare mutation – gets passed on to someone else. Research has shown that almost no mutated viruses are transmitted from their original host to another person.

Yeah, in the unvaccinated person. But vaccinations will increase the chances of the mutated viruses to be transmitted over the unmutated ones. A bit like antibiotic use giving rise to antibiotic resistant bacteria.

The world has already witnessed the relationship between the number of infections and the rise of mutants.

The world has also witnessed the relationship between the number of vaccinations and the rise of mutants.

Having said that, another thing that gives rise to deadly variants is when the virus spreads among an animal reservoir, as was observed with the emergence of France's deadliest variant, which was found to come from mink farms.

-13 ( +8 / -21 )

And that's why I made the personal choice not to get vaccinated.

It its quite unusual for people to accept doing on purpose something that will put others at a higher risk, but at least you recognize it now that you are acting purposefully against public health.

Mass vaccination during a pandemic was predicted by experts as causing vaccine resistant variants through immune escape. Seems the above provaccine article was simply written to counter all the experts blaming the vaccinations for the variants.

Those "experts" have repeatedly been proven wrong, specially because the variants have appeared in unvaccinated populations. It is hard to be so definitely wrong but since they choose to risk their reputation on baseless conjectures that contradicted the available evidence it is understandable they ended up that way.

The article is not the one countering those failed predictions, the evidence is.

I'll wait for their paper to come out before paying any attention to their claims, the above article does not provide anything convincing.

For people that reject evidence of anything they don't want to believe this is not surprising, since they can't be convinced by logic or data obviously nothing can ever be "convincing" for them.

But vaccinations will increase the chances of the mutated viruses to be transmitted over the unmutated ones

That is of course false, because the antibodies are still neutralizing for new variants, so the premise is mistaken, compared with unvaccinated people even incompletely neutralizing antibodies means lower chances for the virus to be propagated and transmitted. By definition unvaccinated people begin with 0% neutralizing antibodies against the variants.

The world has also witnessed the relationship between the number of vaccinations and the rise of mutants.

Yes, an inversely correlated relationship, with places with better vaccination efforts not producing any variants, that appear in widely spreading communities, usually because of lack of vaccination. This is one of the strongest arguments to prove this failed theory as false.

Animal reservoirs produce exactly the kind of variants we don't worry about, because those variants are selected to infect cells with very different receptors and to avoid different immune responses, thus lowering their importance for humans.

4 ( +15 / -11 )

No mention of natural immunity again, which is better than the vaccines. Just compare Sweden to Israel, both countries with large urban populations. The pandemic has essentially finished in the one that's not relying on vaccines

-13 ( +8 / -21 )

No mention of natural immunity again, which is better than the vaccines.

No it is not, because to get natural immunity people need to have much higher risks for their health than with the vaccines, having the problems you are trying to avoid is the opposite of better.

Just compare Sweden to Israel, both countries with large urban populations. The pandemic has essentially finished in the one that's not relying on vaccines

It would help if you tried to inform you better, even if comparing wildly different countries with very different strategies against the pandemic were valid (it is obviously not) Sweden has actually a higher rate of vaccination than Israel, which would mean you just proved yourself mistaken.

7 ( +17 / -10 )

Those "experts" have repeatedly been proven wrong, specially because the variants have appeared in unvaccinated populations.

They appeared in unvaccinated populations, but they were created in vaccinated people.

No mention of natural immunity again, which is better than the vaccines.

Yes, much stronger, broader, and longer lived based on the observations of many experts treating patients. And according to this recent study:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

"This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant."

-11 ( +8 / -19 )

Just compare Sweden to Israel, both countries with large urban populations. The pandemic has essentially finished in the one that's not relying on vaccines

Another interesting comparison is between Israel and nearby Jordan.

Israel observed a nice decrease in cases after they started their aggressive vaccination campaign. BUT, nearby Jordan observed an almost identical decrease in cases with an about 5x lower vaccination. And now, cases have flared up again in Israel, but not in Jordan.

-6 ( +10 / -16 )

They appeared in unvaccinated populations, but they were created in vaccinated people.

Imaginations are not good arguments, they do more to prove irrational thinking from the people using them than what it is being said, If you have absolutely no proof of this (difficult to have since many of the variants appeared even before vaccines were used in the public) it becomes your word against the world scientific consensus, it is obvious who is more likely to be true.

Yes, much stronger, broader, and longer lived based on the observations of many experts treating patients. And according to this recent study:

I would trust the authors of that article that completely contradict you when they talk about how this study can't be overgeneralized because it compares symptomatic/hospitalized patients against people vaccinated many months ago with one single kind of vaccine. If they themselves say your conclusion from their article is not valid you have no argument to support what you personally believe.

And again, if you have to get all the risk from symptomatic/hospitalized disease to prevent those same risks that makes the natural immunity not better than vaccines but worse. Because the purpose is to avoid those risks in the first place.

3 ( +14 / -11 )

And now, cases have flared up again in Israel, but not in Jordan.

And strangely you keep forgetting to compare between hospitalization and death rates, which prove the opposite of what you are trying to say, even when it was how this comparison was defeated the last time you tried to use it. That of course without counting with the obviously multiple different factors that drive infection for the pandemic, pretending vaccination is the only difference between those countries is what make the amateur comparisons made by people that ignore completely epidemiology so easy mistaken.

4 ( +14 / -10 )

And now, cases have flared up again in Israel, but not in Jordan.

And strangely you keep forgetting to compare between hospitalization and death rates, which prove the opposite of what you are trying to say, even when it was how this comparison was defeated the last time you tried to use it.

What? The Covid deaths are lower in Jordan than Israel!

-11 ( +7 / -18 )

What? The Covid deaths are lower in Jordan than Israel!

What is the purpose of quoting something and then pretend it is not there, I clearly wrote "rates", In Israel the infections at this point are 10 times higher than Jordan (because of many different factors, not a single one like you like to misrepresent), the number of deaths is in comparison only between 2 to 3 times higher, this is the extremely important difference you keep trying to avoid recognizing, which makes terribly obvious an intention to mislead people.

1 ( +12 / -11 )

Oh, I see, "in Israel the infections at this point are 10 times higher than Jordan.... the number of deaths is in comparison only between 2 to 3 times higher" and the vaccination rate is twice that of Jordan... therefore vaccines good???

If anything, all your data shows is that Israeli hospitals are better.

I have yet to see anything convincing to support the above article's conclusion that "the best way to stop new variants is to stop their spread, and the answer to that is vaccination."

BTW, we would also need to stop the spread in the animal reservoirs, as the French learned at a great cost.

-7 ( +7 / -14 )

If anything, all your data shows is that Israeli hospitals are better.

Were not your only point that vaccines explains all the differences? I mean, being irrational is one thing, but being selectively irrational is much worse, if you use one standard to justify a mistaken personal opinion you have to apply that same standard also to what proves that opinion wrong, having two standards is a sign of intellectual dishonesty, people may begin to think you are trying to mislead completely on purpose.

I have yet to see anything convincing to support the above article's conclusion that "the best way to stop new variants is to stop their spread, and the answer to that is vaccination."

Which again is explained completely on your personal bias, where you irrationally reject the opinion of experts and instead replace it with your personal judgments of terribly lower quality. There are people that still insist in not having seen anything convincing about other things as well, from the shape of the planet to microbes being the cause of infection, not being convinced by valid evidence is not an argument that proves the evidence is not enough, it is an argument to prove the person is biased out of rationality.

Stopping reservoirs is fine, but thinking they are the more likely cause of variants of clinical importance is where you were wrong. Vaccinating people to delay or even stop the variants is a much more urgent matter.

2 ( +12 / -10 )

The discussion here seems to center on 'population biology' whereas the advantage to the virus is in the individual vaccinated but who can support a smaller population of replicating variants and then shed ONLY the variants. No explanation for the increased transmissibility of the Delta has been put forward but transmission by vaccinated carriers shedding the viable variants selected by the inhibition of the original wild type but allowing subclinical infection with the variant would bypass the 'bottleneck' and neatly explain Delta's advantage. The so-called "break through" clinical cases demonstrate quite conclusively the Delta's viability in vaccinated individuals.

Also the 'fading' of immune memory over such a short period of just a few months sounds more like Big Pharma obfuscation and Authoritative clutching onto 'fading' credibility than the possible biological fact of failed vaccination. Vaccination produces a narrow spectrum of effective 'recognition' by the adaptive arm of the immune system which, if a variant mutates recognition sites (epitopes) outside of that range, more of the same antigenic vaccine is unlikely to broaden that spectrum which might argue for 'heterogeneous' (mixed) vaccinations, but the production of variants might then be exacerbated.

MRSA is an example of an organism, albeit a self-reproducing bacterium, which illustrates the selection for 'variants' when the original design is blocked on a large scale. In MRSA, the 'large scale' was/is the massive overuse of antibiotics by Big Agra to squeeze a few cents more profit out of their meat animals, and the ignorance of physicians in prescribing antibiotics in inappropriate circumstances broadly inhibiting the wild type Staphlococci and allowing the 'resistant' Staph aureus to become dominant in their host populations. This is the 'classical' form of natural selection which the authors here seem to be arguing against.

Regarding "experts" and the asinine reference to "logic" in this circumstance, there are, so far, no "experts" in the area of COVID if the results, so far, are any example. But attempting to shift responsibility onto the unvaccinated for the failure of vaccination to do what the "experts" originally claimed is shameful. The unvaccinated are much more likely, as pointed out in the article, to invoke the 'bottleneck' than are the vaccinated carriers who then produce the variants able to survive subclinically in their, now, inadequately 'vaccinated' hosts who, feeling free to mingle unmasked, share their new friends with the virus naive.

Incidentally, something which I have not seen get much press is the much increased susceptibility and mortality in Vitamin D deficient individuals. Vitamin D is intimately involved in immune competency and many studies have pointed out this increased susceptibility but nowhere in the 'official' press have I seen this mentioned. Perhaps one of our resident 'virus experts' here could expand on this...

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

No explanation for the increased transmissibility of the Delta has been put forward but transmission by vaccinated carriers shedding the viable variants selected by the inhibition of the original wild type but allowing subclinical infection with the variant would bypass the 'bottleneck' and neatly explain Delta's advantage.

The increased transmissibility of the Delta strain is well characterized by the changes in the spike protein that increase its affinity with the human receptor, there is nothing "not explained" about it, much less a need for any way to surpass any "bottleneck", unvaccinated people transmit the infection more than vaccinated people, so your explanation is not only unnecessary, it is also easy to prove mistaken.

Also the 'fading' of immune memory over such a short period of just a few months sounds more like Big Pharma obfuscation and Authoritative clutching onto 'fading' credibility than the possible biological fact of failed vaccination.

That is false, not only because there is no need for any obfuscation, but because it also applies to natural immunity (specially on asymptomatic cases) so it would be still present and important even if no vaccine was ever used. You also completely misunderstand the purpose of boosters, immunity against the virus is not narrow and it can recognize several domains of the protein, including some that have not changed in the variants, that explains why there is still neutralization of them with the immunity from vaccines, that has been proved scientifically can be even more broadly neutralizing than the natural infection. A booster is is not intended to "broaden" this immunity, just to increase it so the neutralization observed is more effective even against variants.

but the production of variants might then be exacerbated.

This is also demonstrabily false, and depends completely on not understanding the difference between selecting variants and producing those variants. Even with the current vaccines it has become obvious the immunity do not produce the apparition of more variants, not even select them, because (again) the immunity is more effective in neutralizing them than what is possible for people without any specific immunity against the virus.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95025-3

Regarding "experts" and the asinine reference to "logic" in this circumstance, there are, so far, no "experts" in the area of COVID if the results, so far, are any example.

There are many experts on every kind of field that applies to the pandemic, from epidemiology to pathology, thinking that expertise on a specific case makes no sense, it would be like saying there is no medical specialty because every patient is unique, so nobody could be an expert at treating him.

Incidentally, something which I have not seen get much press is the much increased susceptibility and mortality in Vitamin D deficient individuals.

Then you should put more attention and read more, scientific publications have been very numerous, your problem may be expecting mass media to put every detail in your hand instead of going to the specialized media (and the primary sources) like people with a real interest do. For example this was discussed extensively a couple of months ago:

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003605

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Not suprisingly, there seems to be so many varying "conclusions" about the effectivness of these "experimental" vaccines against the original strain of covid and its ever mutating variants. We know that it takes many years of testing to develope vaccines and even then, there have been many devastating results. As recently as 2017, a vaccine called Dengvaxia was deveoped for over 10yrs by pharmaceutical company Sanofi Pasteur and that vaccine was supposed to combat dengue fever but it actually caused a worse form of the disease and children died. For me, I wont put my trust in, or be a "GUINEA PIG" for big Pharma and ill informed goverments, so instead I will do what has not been promoted by the media or goverment and that is "eat healthier and exercise" ! Why ? Because there is "actual evidence" that most deaths from covid happen to people with "underlying health" issues such as obiesity / diabeties / etc. Wake UP Time to take the "RED PILL" !!!

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

We know that it takes many years of testing to develope vaccines and even then, there have been many devastating results.

That is not a requirement that applies for new diseases, only for those for which there is a special difficulty or other vaccines are already available, none of those things applies for COVID.

As recently as 2017, a vaccine called Dengvaxia was deveoped for over 10yrs by pharmaceutical company Sanofi Pasteur and that vaccine was supposed to combat dengue fever but it actually caused a worse form of the disease and children died.

That is a huge misrepresentation of the situation, Dengvaxia is still used and is indicated for the prevention of Dengue and its complicated forms that can be lethal, the problem is for people that have not had the disease even once, for which the vaccine acted as a first infection and elevated the risk of ADE, but never to the degree of a real first infection, for anybody that have had dengue at least once (most of adults in endemic regions have had it at least once or twice) the vaccine still works very nicely in preventing subsequent infections and ADE.

For me, I wont put my trust in, or be a "GUINEA PIG" for big Pharma and ill informed goverments,

If you consider vaccinating the population as a human experiment then you are a guinea pig, just one that choose to be on the high risk group instead of the protected group.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Were not your only point that vaccines explains all the differences?

No! My main point, which I have made many times, is that vaccines do not help reduce the spread. The other is that the help bring about variants through immune escape.

Surprising how you seem to know what all the experts say and what the scientific consensus is, and yet you still have trouble understanding my very simple comments. You completely misunderstand my comments, and yet you accuse me of "being irrational", having "a mistaken personal opinion", being "intellectual dishonest", and "trying to mislead completely on purpose". I am certain that if I ever posted one tenth of that my post would be automatically deleted as being "offensive/vulgar" or "impolite to other user"; but somehow you continually get away with it...

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

MRSA is an example of an organism, albeit a self-reproducing bacterium, which illustrates the selection for 'variants' when the original design is blocked on a large scale. In MRSA, the 'large scale' was/is the massive overuse of antibiotics by Big Agra to squeeze a few cents more profit out of their meat animals, and the ignorance of physicians in prescribing antibiotics in inappropriate circumstances broadly inhibiting the wild type Staphlococci and allowing the 'resistant' Staph aureus to become dominant in their host populations. This is the 'classical' form of natural selection which the authors here seem to be arguing against.

Yes, the comparison of the emergence of viral variants with that of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a good one. But what makes the large scale vaccination during a pandemic even worse is that the good antibodies take time to be produced (selection, maturation, further selection and maturation....). It's like treating a bacterial infection with an extremely low antibiotic concentration and very gradually increasing it over several days; i.e., ideal for creating antibiotic resistant mutants.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

It is very interesting how antivaxxers will find one sentence to prove their point, but they ignore the rest of the article which rebuffs their theory and the sentence they used!

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Incidentally, something which I have not seen get much press is the much increased susceptibility and mortality in Vitamin D deficient individuals. Vitamin D is intimately involved in immune competency and many studies have pointed out this increased susceptibility but nowhere in the 'official' press have I seen this mentioned. Perhaps one of our resident 'virus experts' here could expand on this...

Yes, vitamin D is such an important part of a healthy immune system and there are many papers confirming its importance in protecting against Covid19. But indeed I have never heard the MSM address this, but we do hear frequent daily announcements regarding vaccines. We know that Fauci himself takes large doses of vitamin D daily, but I have never heard him say anything about it on the MSM. In fact, the vaccine cultists will often try to convince you to avoid vitamin D.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Vitamin D will not prevent you from getting a bad case of COVID. You can take as much of it as you like, but your body will only absorb what it needs and dump the rest. So good luck!

3 ( +8 / -5 )

No! My main point, which I have made many times, is that vaccines do not help reduce the spread. The other is that the help bring about variants through immune escape.

And both points are mistaken according to scientific evidence that you think stops existing as long as you don't recognize it, this is obviously not true.

Surprising how you seem to know what all the experts say and what the scientific consensus is,

Anybody can, easily they make a huge effort to publish the information, an easy way to prove even yourself know about it is that you never produce any institution that supports your point, meaning that you are unable to find any. This is how it is easy to see your opinion is purely personal and not backed up by the scientific community.

But what makes the large scale vaccination during a pandemic even worse is that the good antibodies take time to be produced (selection, maturation, further selection and maturation....).

Which still is irrelevant when comparing between the immune response from vaccinated and unvaccinated people because vaccinated people still have an advantage thanks to the immunity developed by the vaccines, which explains how variants do not appear in populations with high vaccination rates but the opposite, even if some people desperately want to believe the opposite.

the vaccine cultists will often try to convince you to avoid vitamin D

Dietary deficiencies are one of the many different preexisting conditions that have been well described even on the mass media, and no, what scientist and doctors warn about is the disinformation from antivaxxer groups that try to convince people that it can replace social distancing measures or vaccination when in reality that is not the case. Once again trying to distort the information to discredit safe and effective measures against the pandemic betrays an interest different from the public health.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Yea, if anyone knows anything at University of Pittsburgh, I do believe it is being investigated for taking aborted fetuses to conduct its stem cell research.

Also, the author contradicts them self in the same paragraph

The delta variant has spread around the globe, and the next variants are already on the rise. If the goal is to limit infections, vaccines are the answer.

Even though vaccinated people can still get infected with the delta variant, they tend to experience shorter, milder infections than unvaccinated individuals.

if vaccinated people still get infected then it’s not limiting the spread of the virus.

University of Pittsburgh has skin in the game so I wouldn’t believe a word that comes out of that establishment.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Also, the author contradicts them self in the same paragraph

What is the supposed contradiction? If someone says

"If the goal is to reduce lung cancer to stop smoking is the answer"

Would you think contradictory if this person also say

"Even though some people will still get lung cancer even if they never smoke..."?

Your problem is thinking that if something is not 100% effective then automatically becomes 0% effective, that makes absolutely no sense, there is such a thing as making every effort to stop something even if that effort is not guaranteed to stop completely that thing from happening.

University of Pittsburgh has skin in the game so I wouldn’t believe a word that comes out of that establishment.

This source is not unique in the message being told, how about you bring ANY institution of the world that says vaccines have no role in limiting infections and the appearance of variants?

you can't find any? that is because this is the conclusion made from the best available science all around the world. Obviously you can't expect people to believe every single well respected institution of medicine or science in the whole world to be in some kind of conspiracy... do you?

0 ( +8 / -8 )

This article was written byVaughn Cooper who is Associate Professor; Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics at the University of Pittsburgh. and Lee Harrison, Associate Chief of Epidemiology and Education at the University of Pittsburgh. I read in and think that I guess those two would know what they're talking about.

Then randoms whose main claim to fame is being prolific commentators on a Japanese news website totally dismiss it because ....they know better?

Next time you need medical info, just ask the gaijin here. They know everything

4 ( +9 / -5 )

the contradiction is clear, as stated in the article. You all really think that a University that is being investigated has honest joes working there? By all means, keep taking their shots. One after another, it’ll never stop. If that’s what you like so be it.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

the contradiction is clear, as stated in the article. You all really think that a University that is being investigated has honest joes working there?

No contradiction whatsoever for anybody that can understand something can be extremely useful for a purpose even if not 100% effective.

And again, the source is just one of many that say the same thing. If you can't find any institution in the whole world that defend what you believe that means they are all on the opposite side, that say vaccines are safe, effective and a useful measure to prevent the appearance of variants.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

PaulToday 06:30 pm JST

Vitamin D will not prevent you from getting a bad case of COVID. You can take as much of it as you like, but your body will only absorb what it needs and dump the rest. So good luck!

Amid all of the egocentric ranting by a media educated echoer, did you miss the words "...Vitamin D deficient individuals..."? And the studies which showed correlation almost all pointed out that the hypovitaminosis was upon presentation, presumably long term, chronic low levels, NOT acute administration as a therapy.

Regarding "experts" and the asinine reference to "logic" in this circumstance, there are, so far, no "experts" in the area of COVID if the results, so far, are any example.

There are many experts on every kind of field that applies to the pandemic, from epidemiology to pathology, thinking that expertise on a specific case makes no sense, it would be like saying there is no medical specialty because every patient is unique, so nobody could be an expert at treating him.

The problem with some 'self-styled' experts is that they sound so obnoxious and hysterical that listening to them makes your head feel like you're listening to a trumper... and they constantly, like a trumper, claim 'experts say' without any citations but the inside of their own head and ABSOLUTELY no doubt as to the superiority of their chosen 'experts' or themselves.

Raw BeerToday 06:03 pm JST

Surprising how you seem to know what all the experts say and what the scientific consensus is, and yet you still have trouble understanding my very simple comments. You completely misunderstand my comments, and yet you accuse me of "being irrational", having "a mistaken personal opinion", being "intellectual dishonest", and "trying to mislead completely on purpose". I am certain that if I ever posted one tenth of that my post would be automatically deleted as being "offensive/vulgar" or "impolite to other user"; but somehow you continually get away with it...

Yeah. But the 'secret' seems to be to not mention the source but pick out one sentence from a comment which might be disputed and then add an ad hominem attack on the commenter to that. An 'expert' might diagnose such hysterical behavior as what we see also in incels unaccustomed to rational, give and take discussions with living Human beings...

This virus is an ongoing educational experience for all of Humanity and experts, that is, "Authorities", have demonstrated by what we see actually happening that they are still just as ignorant of future events, their 'advice' changing with whatever unexpected wrinkle appears, and liable to lay blame wherever they can. Being an "Authority" has the burden of maintaining that 'authority' in whatever way one can including ad hominem attacks on anyone with the temerity of offering a different view.

Let's feed the monster...Has ANYONE seen mention of daily tobacco smoking in ANY reputable list of co-morbidities related to COVID susceptibility?

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

The identification of Covid-19 variants is done by genetic sequencing of its spike protein only in very highly specialized research laboratories. The commercial PCR test does not identify variants so how can they say all these new infections in a hospital/clinical setting are the Delta variant, for example. I am sure virus_rex, our resident troll extraordinaire, will have a rambling and pathetic answer. Wait for it.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

virus_rex, our resident troll extraordinaire

resident pharma troll farm - some of them are incredibly silly

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Por ejemplo (but hardly 'exhaustive' and NOT touting Vitamin D as a therapy post infection), FYI solamente. The first as an intro and the second as a rather exhaustive explanation of WHY:

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/942497

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7276229/

0 ( +4 / -4 )

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7276229/

Great reading!

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Relying only on any vaccination is severely flawed. The article fails to acknowledge that every vaccination is not 100% effective and everyone vaccinated must get Covid in order understand if their inoculation worked. During that wait and see period the infected person sheds Covid. The real issue is DON'T GET COVID! Maintain the barrier method of protection at all times. Apply foaming soap to all of your exposed skin, wear eye protection, and wear a N-95 mask with a stretchy neck bandana to keep it in place. Remember, after human vaccinations come animals. This is a long road with only one answer, Stay Safe and Stay Strong...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The commercial PCR test does not identify variants so how can they say all these new infections in a hospital/clinical setting are the Delta variant

It should be terribly obvious, people can send a sample to those "very specialized" laboratories for sequencing, something that do not take much time or effort. That is how it is done since literally decades ago for other pathogens, why would you think it would become more difficult now?

The problem with some 'self-styled' experts is that they sound so obnoxious and hysterical that listening to them makes your head feel like you're listening to a trumper... and they constantly, like a trumper, claim 'experts say' without any citations but the inside of their own head and ABSOLUTELY no doubt as to the superiority of their chosen 'experts' or themselves.

There is nothing wrong with no doubting the experts are superior to baseless claims or terribly bad misunderstanding from people that have no knowledge about the topic, that is why they became experts. And you can always ask for references for things you don't understand or believe, the problem with many people is that they depend on a pretended ignorance to keep pushing false information so they will never ask for a reference because they are not interested in things that are true, just in things that reinforce their mistaken perceptions. The example of Vitamin D is terribly clear, experts discussed very extensively the clear report of no relationship between the genetic markers of deficiency of vitamin D and COVID pathology, but people that endlessly depend on it to oppose vaccines (for example) actively ignore this discussion because it spoils completely their purposes, even when it is provided in the discussion.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites