Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

[djpbaltimore]

The truth is that the Healight thing is probably junk science too. At least for Covid.

 

[Chris Gadsden]

The truth is that the Healight thing is probably junk science too. At least for Covid.

Which was well known back in April. As was HCQ efficacy.

One wonders what hindsight will tell us about the new vaccines months from now.

 

[Chris Gadsden]

It’s logical.

MILWAUKEE —
As the COVID-19 vaccine becomes more widespread, could a card proving recipients have been vaccinated soon be required to get on a plane, go to a concert or sporting events?

https://www.wisn.com/article/covid-19-vaccine-id-card-could-be-needed-for-return-to-normal/34993828

And;

Seventy-one percent of the U.S. public report that they would definitely or probably get a COVID-19 vaccine, marking an increase from 63 percent in September, according to the ongoing research project, the KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-12-percent-covid-vaccine.html

 

[Nomad]

Nomad really scouts the underbelly of the internet. "Children's Health Defense" = anti-vaxxer organisation.

Ha..Ha...Too Funny. Bobby Kennedy, Jr founded and is chair of the "Children's Health Defense." It's not an anti-vaxx site, but an organization where people can get information on the risks of vaccines.

This nonsense of labeling anyone that is pro-choice and concerned about the risks of vaccines as anti-vaxx is getting ridiculous. Several months ago, Kennedy debated renowned attorney Alan Dershowitz on the issue of the government mandating the Covid vaccine. At 1:14:15 in, Kennedy explains why he's not anti-vaxx clearly stating that it's an unfair classification for people and parents of children who would rather not vaccinate based on inform consent and their own risk/benefit analysis. In addition, the entire debate was actually conducted very respectfully - no ill-manners, no hostilities, no ad hominem attacks, etc:

View: https://youtu.be/IfnJi7yLKgE

As Keram posted: you're against vaccinations and against restrictions. What are you actually for?

I'm not against vaccinations - I'm simply pro-choice on the matter. I believe in informed consent and don't believe in forced medical procedures, where vaccinations would fall under if they're mandated.

Being a baby boomer, we didn't have the childhood vaccines and I got the Chicken Pox, Mumps, Measles, etc,...and I'm still here. Lol. Years ago, I got the flu shot but got sick a few days later, so I gave up on that. I did have a tetanus shot 3 yrs ago after my car accident where I had lacerations from broken glass.

I rely on a sound, healthy, nutritional program, supplements and excercise to build & maintain a strong immune system which seems to be vilified in this day & age of Covid fearmongering. I believe the foundation to good health at any age is healthy nutrition, certain dietary supplements & plenty of excercise. Sadly, the American medical model doesn't seem to encourage this but instead it's all pharmaceuticals & vaccines.

On restrictions: It's all politicized...no surprises there. Most of the Blue states are in some form of a lockdown or hard restrictions right now. California is looking like it's being run by hard-fisted hypocritical dictator (and the people there are so docile). The Red states aren't locking down, and instead many have only soft restrictions in place where people can still go out and indoor dine, go to a bar, go to a gym, etc. In fact, last week's Florida - LSU game at Gainesville had nearly 17,000 in attendance with the band and cheerleaders and all; looking & feeling more like a real college football game. Contrast that with the Pac-12 venues in CA, CO, OR, WA and nothing but dead, empty stadiums.

It's all politicized based on the conflicting ideologies of the Democrats & Republicans. If you're a Republican or Libertarian residing in a Democratic controlled state, you'll be frustrated as hell having to put up with the drocacian lockdowns or hard restrictions & the psychological enslavement that comes with lockdowns. And the constant fearmongering from the political leaders of these states gets real old after awhile. Conversely, if you're a Democrat, and particularly one of those Democratic-Socialists, living in a Republican controlled state, you're probably pissed off that the government isn't locking down and throwing away the key.

This polarization and divide between the two parties is only going to get worse, IMO.

 

[djpbaltimore]

See, I was right about Nomad. As for RFK jr, he has produced a doc with Wakefield. We don't have to pretend about him and his motives. It is inconvenient to be called anti-vaxx so he would rather be called a children defender, but if the shoe fits...

Which was well known back in April. As was HCQ efficacy.

One wonders what hindsight will tell us about the new vaccines months from now.

It wasn't hindsight when I was red flagging the research at the time. And you can look at the uv thing and see that it is probably junk. It was developed by gastroenterologists to treat bacterial infections in the gut. There is no evidence that it works and has been given no serious thought since. Understandable that non-scientists miss the nuances of these things, but that is what people in the labcoats are for.

It’s logical.

MILWAUKEE —
As the COVID-19 vaccine becomes more widespread, could a card proving recipients have been vaccinated soon be required to get on a plane, go to a concert or sporting events?

https://www.wisn.com/article/covid-19-vaccine-id-card-could-be-needed-for-return-to-normal/34993828

And;

Seventy-one percent of the U.S. public report that they would definitely or probably get a COVID-19 vaccine, marking an increase from 63 percent in September, according to the ongoing research project, the KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-12-percent-covid-vaccine.html

We don't listen to public health experts now with 3k deaths a day, why do you suppose they will be more influential than small business interests and 'freedom' types later as the pandemic wanes. Makes for a good white paper, but won't resemble reality IMO.

70%+ would be great. But as soon as the numbers shrink, people are going to shrug it off. The adverse effects focus has just started with the Tucker/ Berenson types. It will only get worse.

 

[hrotha]

Being a baby boomer, we didn't have the childhood vaccines and I got the Chicken Pox, Mumps, Measles, etc,...and I'm still here.

You might want to look into survivor bias.

It's all politicized based on the conflicting ideologies of the Democrats & Republicans.

Once again, this is a pandemic. By definition, it is global. Might want to look at what everybody else in the world is doing, without any Democrats or Republicans.

 

[djpbaltimore]

This one is worth paying attention to. Nothing conclusive, but could be significant. Unclear if this would have an impact on vaccines.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1340333147368677382

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/BillHanage/status/1340333147368677382

 

[Jagartrott]

This one is worth paying attention to. Nothing conclusive, but could be significant. Unclear if this would have an impact on vaccines.

I guess the first thing they should do, is test which variant is found in people vaccinated but still infected in England.
I read that in Belgium, they found 4/1600 cases with this variant, but I don't know from when the data are.

 

[Merckx index]

• lower mortality than normal in all age cohorts under 65
• highest 'under-mortality' in cohort < 25 y: 540 dead compared to 940 on average = a drop by more than 40%

Interesting. I'm guessing that this is at least in part because people weren't able to go out as much. E.g., I assume the number of deaths in auto accidents was reduced.

And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.

Sure sounds to me that he's suggesting injecting bleach. Of course, he can't stand looking stupid, so he lied later that he was only joking. After saying, with regards to fewer tests means fewer cases, I never joke, I always mean it.

It also turns out peer reviewed studies aren‘t all that. Just ask Didier Raoult and P.R. Hsueh.

What exactly do you think we should ask them? Not all peer-reviewed studies are replicated.

The Red states aren't locking down, and instead many have only soft restrictions in place where people can still go out and indoor dine, go to a bar, go to a gym, etc.

Like SD, leading the world in mortality rate? Like Florida, one of the highest rates of cases after the first wave?

I rely on a sound, healthy, nutritional program, supplements and excercise to build & maintain a strong immune system which seems to be vilified in this day & age of Covid fearmongering. I believe the foundation to good health at any age is healthy nutrition, certain dietary supplements & plenty of excercise. Sadly, the American medical model doesn't seem to encourage this but instead it's all pharmaceuticals & vaccines.

I agree that doctors don't promote a healthy lifestyle enough, and it's scandalous that more people don't take better care of their bodies. But part of the reason for this is that the effects that a healthy lifestyle has are relatively small and random, compared to the far more dramatic effects of many drugs, vaccines, and other modern medical treatments. A great illustration of this is Steve Jobs, who thought he could beat pancreatic cancer through healthy alternative methods, and thus missed the window of opportunity when more aggressive medical treatments might have saved him. There was also Jim Fixx, who became famous by promoting running for health, but died of a heart attack while he was running. The inconvenient truth is that lifestyle has relatively little effect on serious diseases, nor is it likely to play as much of a role as genetics. You would be really foolish to believe that any lifestyle--other than isolating yourself from contact with others--would protect you more from C19 than vaccination.

Being a baby boomer, we didn't have the childhood vaccines and I got the Chicken Pox, Mumps, Measles, etc,...and I'm still here

I had all those, too--and also polio. I was lucky that my case was relatively mild. Those who have followed me have not had to rely on such luck.

 

[Chris Gadsden]

Sure sounds to me that he's suggesting injecting bleach.

Bleach, UV light... whatever. It’s all the same, right?

 

[Chris Gadsden]

It was developed by gastroenterologists to treat bacterial infections in the gut. There is no evidence that it works and has been given no serious thought since. Understandable that non-scientists miss the nuances of these things, but that is what people in the labcoats are for.

So you are smarter than the Doctors at Cedars that were looking in to UV light therapy? You should call Dr Pimentel and tell him everything he’s doing wrong. There’s a photo of him on the website wearing a labcoat. Does that help?

 

[Merckx index]

Bleach, UV light... whatever. It’s all the same, right?

Could hardly be more different. The Hippocratic oath is to do no harm. Injecting bleach will definitely do harm.

So you are smarter than the Doctors at Cedars that were looking in to UV light therapy? You should call Dr Pimentel and tell him everything he’s doing wrong. There’s a photo of him on the website wearing a labcoat. Does that help?

Pimentel's research with UV is primarily on cells in culture. Not only do treatments on cultured cells frequently fail to indicate that the treatments will work in vivo, but when you're working with UV light, a major problem--which doesn't exist to nearly the same extent with drugs--is how to expose internal organs or tissues to the light. Just because you can irradiate cells in culture doesn't mean you can expose cells in the body to the light.

Pimentel's group did study mice, and for this work, they inserted a rod up the anus into the colon. The same procedure could be adapted to humans, in that it's just like colonoscopy. There's no question that it could be done. But SARS-CoV-2 doesn't target solely or even primarily the colon. How in the world are you going to irradiate infected cells in other parts of the body? Maybe you could treat cells in some of the upper respiratory passages, but what about deep in the lungs, which is where the virus wreaks its greatest damage? What about in the heart or the brain, where the virus has some of its most insidious long-term effects?

I'm not dissing this research, it may have applications for some diseases. But it's very unlikely that it could be used to treat C19. Not in any near future where it would be relevant. Maybe in years to come, we can use nanotechnology to deliver light pulses to any place in the body, but that's sci-fi right now. By that time, all of us will have been infected, and one way or another, the pandemic will be mostly over.

Ultraviolet A light effectively reduces bacteria and viruses including coronavirus - PMC

Antimicrobial-resistant and novel pathogens continue to emerge, outpacing efforts to contain and treat them. Therefore, there is a crucial need for safe and effective therapies. Ultraviolet-A (UVA) phototherapy is FDA-approved for several ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Oldermanish]

Nevermind that he didn’t say that. Looks like realclearscience is taking cue’s from Jeff Zucker.

"A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?"

"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."

Turns out the Prez had just been briefed on an ongoing study at Cedars Sinai regarding UV light therapy for respiratory infections. It also turns out peer reviewed studies aren‘t all that. Just ask Didier Raoult and P.R. Hsueh.

But, ya know, your hindsight is amazing.

That only reemphasized the behavior that Trump always pursued: deny the data and speculate since they had no plan or intention of developing a plan. Like China is "maybe" behind the 'Uge data hack, not Rusher.

 

[movingtarget]

https://www.news.com.au/world/coron...s/news-story/8799bf925931d3036ab2d5721aba5933

shocking photos but she shared them for good reasons

 

[djpbaltimore]

Could hardly be more different. The Hippocratic oath is to do no harm. Injecting bleach will definitely do harm.



Pimentel's research with UV is primarily on cells in culture. Not only do treatments on cultured cells frequently fail to indicate that the treatments will work in vivo, but when you're working with UV light, a major problem--which doesn't exist to nearly the same extent with drugs--is how to expose internal organs or tissues to the light. Just because you can irradiate cells in culture doesn't mean you can expose cells in the body to the light.

Pimentel's group did study mice, and for this work, they inserted a rod up the anus into the colon. The same procedure could be adapted to humans, in that it's just like colonoscopy. There's no question that it could be done. But SARS-CoV-2 doesn't target solely or even primarily the colon. How in the world are you going to irradiate infected cells in other parts of the body? Maybe you could treat cells in some of the upper respiratory passages, but what about deep in the lungs, which is where the virus wreaks its greatest damage? What about in the heart or the brain, where the virus has some of its most insidious long-term effects?

I'm not dissing this research, it may have applications for some diseases. But it's very unlikely that it could be used to treat C19. Not in any near future where it would be relevant. Maybe in years to come, we can use nanotechnology to deliver light pulses to any place in the body, but that's sci-fi right now. By that time, all of us will have been infected, and one way or another, the pandemic will be mostly over.

Ultraviolet A light effectively reduces bacteria and viruses including coronavirus - PMC

Antimicrobial-resistant and novel pathogens continue to emerge, outpacing efforts to contain and treat them. Therefore, there is a crucial need for safe and effective therapies. Ultraviolet-A (UVA) phototherapy is FDA-approved for several ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I was just reading that abstract.

The group focuses on gi tract and microbiome stuff. It is smart to take your platform and use it to get Covid money. Because that is where the funding is. I think most of the people involved in this would say this work is a long shot for Covid for the reasons mentioned above. In grantspeak, this technology lacks feasibility. I don't even know if they have a prototype device now. They didn't in April. They said the idea was to target the trachea. Questionable if that would help people that are hospitalized. But it is the type of lottery ticket that should be funded in a pandemic. We just need to keep that perspective instead of selling it as the big 'cure'.

 

[Chris Gadsden]

The Hippocratic oath is to do no harm. Injecting bleach will definitely do harm.

I imagine it would. Who ever advocating doing it?

But it's very unlikely that it could be used to treat C19.

ok, sure. So back in April the leader of the free world was briefed on an on-going study and then he mentioned it in a comment to the press. In April.

We just need to keep that perspective instead of selling it as the big 'cure'.

Name someone/anyone who has done this?


So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?"

But it is the type of lottery ticket that should be funded in a pandemic.

So it’s junk science then, or not??

 

[Chris Gadsden]

I'm not dissing this research, it may have applications for some diseases

Diss don’t diss, I don’t care. You said bad orange man advocated injecting bleach. He didn’t. He was referring to UV light therapy.. and you know it but, ya know, keep hammering the propaganda.

 

[jmdirt]

Could hardly be more different. The Hippocratic oath is to do no harm. Injecting bleach will definitely do harm.



Pimentel's research with UV is primarily on cells in culture. Not only do treatments on cultured cells frequently fail to indicate that the treatments will work in vivo, but when you're working with UV light, a major problem--which doesn't exist to nearly the same extent with drugs--is how to expose internal organs or tissues to the light. Just because you can irradiate cells in culture doesn't mean you can expose cells in the body to the light.

Pimentel's group did study mice, and for this work, they inserted a rod up the anus into the colon. The same procedure could be adapted to humans, in that it's just like colonoscopy. There's no question that it could be done. But SARS-CoV-2 doesn't target solely or even primarily the colon. How in the world are you going to irradiate infected cells in other parts of the body? Maybe you could treat cells in some of the upper respiratory passages, but what about deep in the lungs, which is where the virus wreaks its greatest damage? What about in the heart or the brain, where the virus has some of its most insidious long-term effects?

I'm not dissing this research, it may have applications for some diseases. But it's very unlikely that it could be used to treat C19. Not in any near future where it would be relevant. Maybe in years to come, we can use nanotechnology to deliver light pulses to any place in the body, but that's sci-fi right now. By that time, all of us will have been infected, and one way or another, the pandemic will be mostly over.

Ultraviolet A light effectively reduces bacteria and viruses including coronavirus - PMC

Antimicrobial-resistant and novel pathogens continue to emerge, outpacing efforts to contain and treat them. Therefore, there is a crucial need for safe and effective therapies. Ultraviolet-A (UVA) phototherapy is FDA-approved for several ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

People won't even wear masks, but they might take a UV rod up the ars for dt?!

 

[Oldermanish]

People won't even wear masks, but they might take a UV rod up the ars for dt?!

As the fervent evangelical pulpits are pronouncing: Tithe to the Trump election defense fund, his faithful continue to spend money up their own a*s in their devotion. That's a fund raising tool DT learned from his new CorpReligionFranchise friends, to the dismay of the GOP who is seeing the $$$$ landing in an account they don't control. A portion of his most loyal followers literally believe he is a "flawed" angel that will save the faith (I am not indulging in hyperbole, here). They also believe in the End of Days and their eternal glory. Enter the Proud Boys who are eager to serve an end to any racial equal rights and stand atop a Euro heritage hill and you get where we are. Seriously; my deeply devoted "Christian" friends from childhood feel this way. Every socially distanced white guy into guns believes this now and I hear it at each gunshop I visit. They don't see the pandemic as a disease threatening society; they see an opportunity. It's that weird if you listen.

 

[Merckx index]

Several months ago, Kennedy debated renowned attorney Alan Dershowitz on the issue of the government mandating the Covid vaccine. At 1:14:15 in, Kennedy explains why he's not anti-vaxx clearly stating that it's an unfair classification for people and parents of children who would rather not vaccinate based on inform consent and their own risk/benefit analysis. In addition, the entire debate was actually conducted very respectfully - no ill-manners, no hostilities, no ad hominem attacks, etc:

That’s an interesting debate between RFK, Jr. and Dershowitz, but Kennedy makes several claims that beg comment:

1. He cited a Harvard study that found 2.6% of vaccinations resulted in an adverse reaction, but without more specificity on what counts as an adverse reaction, it doesn’t mean much. It’s common to have symptoms following vaccination, in fact, it’s a sign that the body is having a proper immune reaction. Kennedy also made a big deal that there was a large percentage of adverse effects from the coronavirus vaccines, but this was in the very small phase 1 trials. The much larger phase 3 trials, which occurred after this debate, have reported only a few serious issues, out of tens of thousands of subjects.

2. Kennedy cited a review article in support of the claim that smallpox is the only disease that has ever been eliminated by vaccination. His point was that most of the reduction of deaths from infectious diseases in the 20th century occurred as a result of better sanitation, not from vaccines or other medical treatments. This is correct; the article shows that the death rate from these diseases was reduced by about 90% by the middle of the century, when widespread childhood vaccination programs began. However, the article goes on to point out that there were still a large number of cases of diseases of these diseases by the 1950s, which were essentially eliminated by vaccination. As we have seen with C19, the case fatality rate can decrease by several fold even without vaccinations, because of better medical treatments, and people most at risk changing their behavior. That doesn’t mean that vaccination doesn’t play a major role.

3. Kennedy pointed out that numerous studies of vaccines only looked at adverse effects over a small window of time, just a few days. But most adverse effects do occur relatively shortly after vaccination.

Dershowitz says something profound: “I trust science, but I don’t trust scientists.” Individual scientists can be wrong, even I , but the institution of science is designed to be self-correcting; given enough time, science usually finds the most probable conclusions.

You said bad orange man advocated injecting bleach. He didn’t. He was referring to UV light therapy.. and you know it but, ya know, keep hammering the propaganda.

Was he? Maybe you should have been his Press Secretary, Chris, because then you could have interpreted his words for us ordinary mortals. KM certainly failed to shed light on these questions:

When Trump said “disinfectant”, was he referring to UV light? If so, why did he use that term, which most people would associate with a chemical, and right after he had repeatedly used the term “light”? And why would he begin his statement on disinfectant with, “And then I see”, which implies a new train of thought, different from the one about light?

The term disinfectant could be applied to UV light, though it would be bound to be misinterpreted, and it seems that most doctors who heard the statement understood it in terms of a chemical. If you really think Trump meant UV, then why did he use the term "inject"? Most people associate injections with a chemical, as in injection with a syringe. How does one inject UV light? If Trump meant simply a way of getting the light inside the body, why did he ask, “is there a way we can do that”, when in his previous statement he had already acknowledged that Pimentel was working on a way to apply UV to tissues inside the body?

When Trump said it “knocks it out in one minute”, was he referring to UV light? If so, where did he come up with the one minute, since Pimentel’s research never showed this? The shortest time period of exposure to UV the study used was ten minutes.

Trump later said, in response to criticism that he was advocating injecting bleach into the body, that he was being sarcastic. If he never was referring to bleach, but rather to UV light, why didn't he just say so? Why didn't Trump, or KM, explain, oh, he was referring to UV light, that's all. On the other hand, if he was referring to UV light, why did he say that his statement was sarcastic? Does this mean he was completely dismissive of Pimentel’s research, didn't take it seriously at all?

Just a little analysis of what you posted shows how illogical Trump's speech can be, loaded with non-sequiturs. A President has to be able to communicate clearly, though of course if he doesn't do that, it opens the door to interpreting whatever he says in whatever way one wants. Which is what I think you're doing. If you can seriously read that word salad, and conclude that Trump clearly was talking about UV light and not bleach in the second paragraph, even after Trump himself said he was being sarcastic, you don't speak the same language I do.

 

[Jagartrott]

Belgium and The Netherlands both lock their borders for incoming travellers from the UK - until the situation gets clearer.

Some thoughts by a specialist:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1340553044031844354

 

[Chris Gadsden]

When Trump said “disinfectant”, was he referring to UV light?

Yes.

What Trump said about disinfectants
After Bryan’s presentation, Trump floated the idea of using disinfectants to treat COVID-19 patients. He did not say Americans should ingest chemicals to prevent or treat the virus.

Here’s the full context:

"A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?"

"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful."

Later, Trump clarified his comments after a reporter asked Bryan whether disinfectants could actually be injected into COVID-19 patients.

"It wouldn’t be through injections, almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object."


UVC in wavelengths between 207 and 222 nanometers kills covid on surfaces in as little as 30 seconds. I think reasonable people could have excused bad orange man for asking about possibilities. But a corporate press that traffics in propaganda is really effective.

https://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(20)30809-9/fulltext

A President has to be able to communicate clearly, though of course if he doesn't do that, it opens the door to interpreting whatever he says in whatever way one wants. Which is what I think you're doing.

It’s actually what you are doing.

 

[djpbaltimore]

That’s an interesting debate between RFK, Jr. and Dershowitz, but Kennedy makes several claims that beg comment:

1. He cited a Harvard study that found 2.6% of vaccinations resulted in an adverse reaction, but without more specificity on what counts as an adverse reaction, it doesn’t mean much. It’s common to have symptoms following vaccination, in fact, it’s a sign that the body is having a proper immune reaction. Kennedy also made a big deal that there was a large percentage of adverse effects from the coronavirus vaccines, but this was in the very small phase 1 trials. The much larger phase 3 trials, which occurred after this debate, have reported only a few serious issues, out of tens of thousands of subjects.

2. Kennedy cited a review article in support of the claim that smallpox is the only disease that has ever been eliminated by vaccination. His point was that most of the reduction of deaths from infectious diseases in the 20th century occurred as a result of better sanitation, not from vaccines or other medical treatments. This is correct; the article shows that the death rate from these diseases was reduced by about 90% by the middle of the century, when widespread childhood vaccination programs began. However, the article goes on to point out that there were still a large number of cases of diseases of these diseases by the 1950s, which were essentially eliminated by vaccination. As we have seen with C19, the case fatality rate can decrease by several fold even without vaccinations, because of better medical treatments, and people most at risk changing their behavior. That doesn’t mean that vaccination doesn’t play a major role.

3. Kennedy pointed out that numerous studies of vaccines only looked at adverse effects over a small window of time, just a few days. But most adverse effects do occur relatively shortly after vaccination.

Dershowitz says something profound: “I trust science, but I don’t trust scientists.” Individual scientists can be wrong, even I , but the institution of science is designed to be self-correcting; given enough time, science usually finds the most probable conclusions.



Was he? Maybe you should have been his Press Secretary, Chris, because then you could have interpreted his words for us ordinary mortals. KM certainly failed to shed light on these questions:

When Trump said “disinfectant”, was he referring to UV light? If so, why did he use that term, which most people would associate with a chemical, and right after he had repeatedly used the term “light”? And why would he begin his statement on disinfectant with, “And then I see”, which implies a new train of thought, different from the one about light?

The term disinfectant could be applied to UV light, though it would be bound to be misinterpreted, and it seems that most doctors who heard the statement understood it in terms of a chemical. If you really think Trump meant UV, then why did he use the term "inject"? Most people associate injections with a chemical, as in injection with a syringe. How does one inject UV light? If Trump meant simply a way of getting the light inside the body, why did he ask, “is there a way we can do that”, when in his previous statement he had already acknowledged that Pimentel was working on a way to apply UV to tissues inside the body?

When Trump said it “knocks it out in one minute”, was he referring to UV light? If so, where did he come up with the one minute, since Pimentel’s research never showed this? The shortest time period of exposure to UV the study used was ten minutes.

Trump later said, in response to criticism that he was advocating injecting bleach into the body, that he was being sarcastic. If he never was referring to bleach, but rather to UV light, why didn't he just say so? Why didn't Trump, or KM, explain, oh, he was referring to UV light, that's all. On the other hand, if he was referring to UV light, why did he say that his statement was sarcastic? Does this mean he was completely dismissive of Pimentel’s research, didn't take it seriously at all?

Just a little analysis of what you posted shows how illogical Trump's speech can be, loaded with non-sequiturs. A President has to be able to communicate clearly, though of course if he doesn't do that, it opens the door to interpreting whatever he says in whatever way one wants. Which is what I think you're doing. If you can seriously read that word salad, and conclude that Trump clearly was talking about UV light and not bleach in the second paragraph, even after Trump himself said he was being sarcastic, you don't speak the same language I do.

You are a masochist to watch that. Citing factual information to mislead is a staple anti vaxx strategy. As if eradicating small pox is a small acheivement. It is true that no other human disease has been eradicated, but polio is on the verge and measles could be with better vaccine logistics. The truth is that any organism that can grow on its own (bacteria and fungi) or has an animal reservoir (most viruses) can't be eradicated in any practical sense. Ebola has an effective vaccine, but it keeps coming back because it can jump from its reservoir into humans. If eradication is your benchmark for success, the Covid vaccines will also be failures as RFK will almost certainly claim in the future.

He might also want to read up on Polio. It was a disease that was effectively created by the advent of sanitation and then cured by vaccination. I always wonder if he knows what he is arguing is mostly bs.

So it’s junk science then, or not??

Probably so.

The truth is that the Healight thing is probably junk science too. At least for Covid.

 

[Keram]

I pray to god this new strain doesnt change efficacy of vaccines. Not this all over again when we saw light at the end of a tunnel. This news about travel bans resemble me early to mid february and I am quite nervous about it.

 

[Merckx index]

Later, Trump clarified his comments after a reporter asked Bryan whether disinfectants could actually be injected into COVID-19 patients.

"It wouldn’t be through injections, almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object."

You conveniently left out that William Bryan, the DHS official Trump brought in to support his notion of using UV to kill the virus, specifically also mentioned chemicals such as alcohol and bleach.

After the administrator, William N. Bryan, the head of science at the Department of Homeland Security, told the briefing that the agency had tested how sunlight and disinfectants — including bleach and alcohol — can kill the coronavirus on surfaces in as little as 30 seconds, an excited Mr. Trump returned to the lectern.

Trump Muses About Light as Remedy, but Also Disinfectant, Which Is Dangerous (Published 2020)

At a briefing, the president promoted unproven treatments and asked Dr. Deborah Birx if she had heard of the success of sunlight as a tool against viruses.

www.nytimes.com

That makes it pretty clear that when Trump used the word disinfectant, he was referring to bleach, or some other chemical, and not UV light. I was wrong about one thing: it was you, not Trump, who has been conflating the two. Trump "clarified" his use of the word inject, which he did mean to refer to a chemical like bleach, when it was clear that he had said something stupid. That's also why he later said he was being sarcastic. If he had actually been talking only about Pimentel's research with UV, and the Healight that a company has tried to promote based on it, there would have been no need to say he was being sarcastic. There is nothing wrong with touting an unproven technology as a possible future benefit. There is no evidence the Healight works, and it could make a patient's condition worse, by killing healthy cells. But it's certainly reasonable to explore the notion. There is nothing to explore when talking about injecting a chemical like bleach.