Natural Immunity Is Awesome!

 

135 studies.  All tell the same story.  Natural immunity is one and done.  There are no reported cases of severe reinfection after contracting the disease.  Not a one.  Natural infection provides antibody response to 27 known COVID 19 proteins as well as a full white blood cell response (TCells and Killer Cells.)  The “Vaccine” provides antibody response to a single spike protein.  Before COVID 19, there was SARS COV1, a dangerous virus from China.   The genomes of these two COVID viruses share only 90% of their genetic map, yet those recovered from SARS COV 1 are still immune from COVID 19 seventeen years later.  So, natural immunity is both broad and lasting; one and done.  135 studies?  Why is this not being heralded around the world?

The drug giants are literally printing money.  So there is that.  Then there are the likes of Fauci.  His god-complex has become maniacal.  He’s addicted to the accolades even though he is complicit in the artificial and reckless creation of this awful virus and should actually be held to account and if not convicted, then at least exposed as the arrogant fraud that he is.  Instead, he’s found shelter in politics and realizes that the best place to defend himself is to wrap himself up in the adoration of political allies and declare himself above it all.  And then there are the Democrats who can’t help but maintain and milk a crisis, even if the crisis itself must be continually reimagined.  COVID 19 has been very very helpful to them.  Without it, they would never have won the presidency or the congress.

Now the Pharma companies, Fauci, and the complicit media are raising a panic over the Omicron COVID variant.

Hey, it’s worked so far…  Some people can’t help but follow along like lemmings.

How much longer will we allow this charade to go on?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 72 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Anyway, for half the population, natural immunity is probably the smart choice, rather than the fool’s choice.

    But multiple pharma execs with multiple boats require your compliance.

    • #31
  2. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Regarding this reference in my Comment:

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/c-19-pandemia-quo-vadis-homo-sapiens

     

    The paper explains the phenomenon of viral resistance to spike-specific (which he refers to as “S-specific”) neutralizing antibodies (“Abs”) through something called “antigenic shift” (certain mutations that alter the nature of the target that a virus presents to antibodies, enabling the latter to attack it) and gives a specific example of a strain in which it is known that this this could occur.

    “That viral resistance to S-specific neutralizing Abs may occur is anything but a myth. To my knowledge, the most compelling example of a variant capable of escaping neutralizing anti-S Abs is the lambda variant of Sars-CoV-2. This variant has incorporated an important change in the N-terminal domain (NTD) of its spike protein. This antigenic shift causes the virus to become resistant to neutralizing Abs. The change is caused by a deletion mutation and prevents neutralizing Abs from binding to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of S (11). Thanks to this mutation, the lambda variant may gain a substantial competitive advantage if the virus is suddenly put under substantial and widespread S-directed immune pressure. A prominent surge in cases (as has been observed, for example, in several South American countries) may lead to a dramatic increase in S-directed immune pressure, especially in healthy people who become rapidly re-exposed to the virus as a result of a steep increase in infectious pressure.”

    • #32
  3. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Regarding this reference in my Comment:

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/c-19-pandemia-quo-vadis-homo-sapiens

    The paper explains the phenomenon of viral resistance to spike-specific (which he refers to as “S-specific”) neutralizing antibodies (“Abs”) through something called “antigenic shift” (certain mutations that alter the nature of the target that a virus presents to antibodies, enabling the latter to attack it) and gives a specific example of a strain in which it is known that this this could occur.

    “That viral resistance to S-specific neutralizing Abs may occur is anything but a myth. To my knowledge, the most compelling example of a variant capable of escaping neutralizing anti-S Abs is the lambda variant of Sars-CoV-2. This variant has incorporated an important change in the N-terminal domain (NTD) of its spike protein. This antigenic shift causes the virus to become resistant to neutralizing Abs. The change is caused by a deletion mutation and prevents neutralizing Abs from binding to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of S (11). Thanks to this mutation, the lambda variant may gain a substantial competitive advantage if the virus is suddenly put under substantial and widespread S-directed immune pressure. A prominent surge in cases (as has been observed, for example, in several South American countries) may lead to a dramatic increase in S-directed immune pressure, especially in healthy people who become rapidly re-exposed to the virus as a result of a steep increase in infectious pressure.”

    The most obvious problem with the interpretation that the vaccines are ineffective b/c they do not confer ironclad protection against mutations (and may cause them-hence we are better off with natural immunity) is that the same “escape mechanisms” also works against those with naturally acquired immunity-as is proven by the influenza virus, the rhinovirus and the other coronaviruses…the idea that the virus wouldn’t mutate if we were foolish enough not to create vaccines & medications to counter it is a fallacy-the selection pressures would be different but not nonexistent. Other respiratory viruses ROUTINELY manage to mutate so as to negate naturally acquired immunity.

    • #33
  4. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Brian Clendinen (View Comment):

    No reinfection if the same variant. There have been plenty of people, I know two personally. Who caught both common US variants. The evidence is starting to stack up, in that it appears the rapid mutation of variants is being driven by the vaccines.

    Poppycock- delta et al, was here well before the vaccines-we have no vaccine for the cold nor the other coronaviruses yet they mutate on a regular basis so as to evade our immune system. Flu has been around and mutating for centuries before we had a vaccine.

    • #34
  5. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Regarding this reference in my Comment:

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/c-19-pandemia-quo-vadis-homo-sapiens

    The paper explains the phenomenon of viral resistance to spike-specific (which he refers to as “S-specific”) neutralizing antibodies (“Abs”) through something called “antigenic shift” (certain mutations that alter the nature of the target that a virus presents to antibodies, enabling the latter to attack it) and gives a specific example of a strain in which it is known that this this could occur.

    “That viral resistance to S-specific neutralizing Abs may occur is anything but a myth. To my knowledge, the most compelling example of a variant capable of escaping neutralizing anti-S Abs is the lambda variant of Sars-CoV-2. This variant has incorporated an important change in the N-terminal domain (NTD) of its spike protein. This antigenic shift causes the virus to become resistant to neutralizing Abs. The change is caused by a deletion mutation and prevents neutralizing Abs from binding to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of S (11). Thanks to this mutation, the lambda variant may gain a substantial competitive advantage if the virus is suddenly put under substantial and widespread S-directed immune pressure. A prominent surge in cases (as has been observed, for example, in several South American countries) may lead to a dramatic increase in S-directed immune pressure, especially in healthy people who become rapidly re-exposed to the virus as a result of a steep increase in infectious pressure.”

    The most obvious problem with the interpretation that the vaccines are ineffective b/c they do not confer ironclad protection against mutations (and may cause them-hence we are better off with natural immunity) is that the same “escape mechanisms” also works against those with naturally acquired immunity-as is proven by the influenza virus, the rhinovirus and the other coronaviruses…the idea that the virus wouldn’t mutate if we were foolish enough not to create vaccines & medications to counter it is a fallacy-the selection pressures would be different but not nonexistent. Other respiratory viruses ROUTINELY manage to mutate so as to negate naturally acquired immunity.

     

    • #35
  6. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    MiMac (View Comment):

     

    The most obvious problem with the interpretation that the vaccines are ineffective b/c they do not confer ironclad protection against mutations

     Nowhere in the article I linked to did the author even suggest such a preposterously false claim as you are attributing to him.

    • #36
  7. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    MiMac (View Comment):
    is that the same “escape mechanisms” also works against those with naturally acquired immunity

    If you read the article more carefully, you will see that the author is referring to a well-known mechanism (well-known from studies of the very same viruses you are using to refute him) that applies specifically to the spike-specific vaccine, as opposed to natural immunity.

    • #37
  8. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    is that the same “escape mechanisms” also works against those with naturally acquired immunity

    If you read the article more carefully, you will see that the author is referring to a well-known mechanism (well-known from studies of the very same viruses you are using to refute him) that applies specifically to the spike-specific vaccine, as opposed to natural immunity.

    1)The point is the same mechanisms will also be used to escape natural immunity-mutations do not just arise vs vaccine related immunity-as is proven by all the other coronaviruses that infect humans….not to mention rhinoviruses, influenza etc etc etc. There is no good reason to suspect that no viral variants will arise that will be unable to infect people with natural immunity.

    2)natural immunity will & does wane-just like the vax! Both will probably provide a significant measure against severe disease-but that will likely wane somewhat as well.

    3) Not everyone who survives COVID generates an adequate immune responses against further infection. Additionally, survivors can & do suffer longterm problems.

    • #38
  9. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    is that the same “escape mechanisms” also works against those with naturally acquired immunity

    If you read the article more carefully, you will see that the author is referring to a well-known mechanism (well-known from studies of the very same viruses you are using to refute him) that applies specifically to the spike-specific vaccine, as opposed to natural immunity.

    The point is the same mechanisms will also be used to escape natural immunity-mutations do not just arise vs vaccine related immunity-as is proven by all the other coronaviruses that infect humans….not to mention rhinoviruses, influenza etc etc etc. There is no good reason to suspect that viral variants will be unable to infect people with natural immunity.

    I believe Mark’s point was that those vaccines that train the immune system to target the spike proteins have, compared to natural immunity which targets multiple aspects of the virus, the disadvantage of being more easy for mutations to get around.

    Therefore, while you are correct that the same mechanism will be used to get around natural immunity, that mechanism will be more dangerous in the case of those vaccines.

    • #39
  10. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    is that the same “escape mechanisms” also works against those with naturally acquired immunity

    If you read the article more carefully, you will see that the author is referring to a well-known mechanism (well-known from studies of the very same viruses you are using to refute him) that applies specifically to the spike-specific vaccine, as opposed to natural immunity.

    The point is the same mechanisms will also be used to escape natural immunity-mutations do not just arise vs vaccine related immunity-as is proven by all the other coronaviruses that infect humans….not to mention rhinoviruses, influenza etc etc etc. There is no good reason to suspect that viral variants will be unable to infect people with natural immunity.

    I believe Mark’s point was that those vaccines that train the immune system to target the spike proteins have, compared to natural immunity which targets multiple aspects of the virus, the disadvantage of being more easy for mutations to get around.

    Therefore, while you are correct that the same mechanism will be used to get around natural immunity, that mechanism will be more dangerous in the case of those vaccines.

    I agree with this, SA, assuming that by “more dangerous” you mean that the virus will more easily mutate around the vaccine than around natural immunity — not necessarily that it will result in more harm being done when and if it does.

    • #40
  11. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    is that the same “escape mechanisms” also works against those with naturally acquired immunity

    If you read the article more carefully, you will see that the author is referring to a well-known mechanism (well-known from studies of the very same viruses you are using to refute him) that applies specifically to the spike-specific vaccine, as opposed to natural immunity.

    The point is the same mechanisms will also be used to escape natural immunity-mutations do not just arise vs vaccine related immunity-as is proven by all the other coronaviruses that infect humans….not to mention rhinoviruses, influenza etc etc etc. There is no good reason to suspect that viral variants will be unable to infect people with natural immunity.

    I believe Mark’s point was that those vaccines that train the immune system to target the spike proteins have, compared to natural immunity which targets multiple aspects of the virus, the disadvantage of being more easy for mutations to get around.

    Therefore, while you are correct that the same mechanism will be used to get around natural immunity, that mechanism will be more dangerous in the case of those vaccines.

    I agree with this, SA, assuming that by “more dangerous” you mean that the virus will more easily mutate around the vaccine than around natural immunity — not necessarily that it will result in more harm being done when and if it does.

    Yes. That’s all I meant.

    • #41
  12. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Natural immunity is developed by more sites on the virus than simply the spike proteins.  Such selective vaccine-induced immunity is weaker than natural immunity and not as long-lasting.

    • #42
  13. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    MiMac (View Comment):
    the idea that the virus wouldn’t mutate if we were foolish enough not to create vaccines & medications to counter it is a fallacy

    MiMac,

    Yes, this assertion is utterly ridiculous.  But the author never even hinted at it.

    I know it is unintentional–I think you just haven’t read the article that you are criticizing–but still, it is a blatant straw man argument.

    • #43
  14. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    MiMac (View Comment):
    1)The point is the same mechanisms will also be used to escape natural immunity-mutations do not just arise vs vaccine related immunity-as is proven by all the other coronaviruses that infect humans….not to mention rhinoviruses, influenza etc etc etc. There is no good reason to suspect that no viral variants will arise that will be unable to infect people with natural immunity.

    MiMac,

    Please read the paper.  You will discover that nowhere does the author state, imply, or even hint at this ridiculous claim that you have attributed to him.

     

    • #44
  15. Doug Kimball Thatcher
    Doug Kimball
    @DougKimball

    Any successful, highly contagious virus that harms, but does not kill the host is provided with a reservoir of hosts in which to proliferate.  A virus that infects different species has available exponentially more hosts, hence a larger overall reservoir in which to proliferate.  The virus must mutate to survive, as eventually, all the hosts readily available for infection will either die or have survived infection, hence be resistant.  But undoubtedly, billions of new viruses are created when a host is infected, and as infected cells become packed with new viruses and detritus, the gestation media gets pretty toxic and available resources for viral assembly are wanting.  Incomplete and mutant viruses result and most are not viable.  Those mutants that survive can be shed.  If they are viable, find a host and can initiate cell infection and replication, then that is a potential new variant.  In some, the mutation is so inconsequential that a previously infected host’s immune system will quickly recognize and destroy it.  Other mutations, often multiple mutations, can create a virus that is more difficult for a healthy immune system to recognize and deal with.  Given the strong immune reaction of those recovered from SARS COV 1 to COVID 19, which share only 90% of their genome, I think natural immunity to this particular type of corona virus is both robust and lasting.  Given this virus’ proliferation success (it is new to the world, is it not?) one should expect viable mutations and new strains.  A narrow vaccine designed to spur antibodies to a single viral protein, has proven to show down the virus and provide some protection from an immune overreaction to infection, but the reservoirs remain and variants emerge.  We’ve slowed it down a little.  Natural herd immunity is the best scenario, but it will not likely be enough to eradicate COVID completely.  We’re probably stuck with it so it is time to really dial in on the post infection treatment of those vulnerable to a poor COVID 19 outcome.    

    • #45
  16. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    MiMac (View Comment):
    2)natural immunity will & does wane-just like the vax! Both will probably provide a significant measure against severe disease-but that will likely wane somewhat as well.

    The paper doesn’t claim that natural immunity does not wane. 

    This is a straw man argument.  Please read the article, and then offer criticisms only to things that are in the article that you think are incorrect. Not things that you imagine he must have written or implied or hinted at, but did not.

    • #46
  17. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Speaking purely as a layman possessed of common sense but no knowledge of epidemiology, it seems obvious to me that, IF all of the following are true:

    1. current strains of the virus are mercifully benign across a large demographic (i.e., young healthy people), and
    2. the virus mutates fairly quickly, and
    3. the virus is much better at defeating currently available vaccines than it is at defeating natural immunity,

    THEN it makes sense to let those healthy young people catch one of the current benign strains and enjoy robust protection than to leave them exposed to a potential mutant version that is both able to circumvent the latest vaccine AND poses a significant health risk to that demographic.

    I don’t understand the thinking behind those who advocate vaccinating children. Perhaps they have a good reason for their position. Unfortunately, the entire history of COVID has been long on diktat, short on coherent explanation and accountability.

     

    • #47
  18. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    is that the same “escape mechanisms” also works against those with naturally acquired immunity

    If you read the article more carefully, you will see that the author is referring to a well-known mechanism (well-known from studies of the very same viruses you are using to refute him) that applies specifically to the spike-specific vaccine, as opposed to natural immunity.

    The point is the same mechanisms will also be used to escape natural immunity-mutations do not just arise vs vaccine related immunity-as is proven by all the other coronaviruses that infect humans….not to mention rhinoviruses, influenza etc etc etc. There is no good reason to suspect that viral variants will be unable to infect people with natural immunity.

    I believe Mark’s point was that those vaccines that train the immune system to target the spike proteins have, compared to natural immunity which targets multiple aspects of the virus, the disadvantage of being more easy for mutations to get around.

    Therefore, while you are correct that the same mechanism will be used to get around natural immunity, that mechanism will be more dangerous in the case of those vaccines.

    I agree with this, SA, assuming that by “more dangerous” you mean that the virus will more easily mutate around the vaccine than around natural immunity — not necessarily that it will result in more harm being done when and if it does.

    Correct.  “Will it do more harm?” is a separate question.

    The paper also addresses that question, which is the only important one.  It would be nice if we were far enough along in this discussion to look at what the paper says about it.

    The paper is tough sledding for us, the general public.  But if you have time, I think you will find it interesting to see what he has to say.

    There is nothing difficult to understand about virology and epidemiology, for a curious person with just a general background in science and math.  It is just an exhausting amount of webwork. You read a sentence and have three technical terms to look up.  Each of them gives you two or three more. You have to navigate to the end of about 15 definitions before you understand all of them–before you get to something that you ACTUALLY REMEMBER from high school or college classes, or that time 30 years ago when you suddenly decided to understand or re-understand protein transcription or glycolysation or whatever.

    • #48
  19. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    This is a straw man argument. Please read the article, and then offer criticisms only to things that are in the article that you think are incorrect. Not things that you imagine he must have written or implied or hinted at, but did not.

    your entire thread is an attempt to promote getting infected over getting vaccinated-that is what I am replying to- it is an astonishingly foolish choice. Most of the criticisms of the vaccines apply to getting infected-but in spades-many studies list one quarter to one half of post COVID patients have longterm symptoms-

    “Overall, one in two survivors experienced long-term COVID manifestations.”  [NB median age 54 ]

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211013114112.htm

    “cardiac MRIs on 100 people who had recovered from COVID-19 within the past two to three months. Researchers found abnormalities in the hearts of 78% recovered patients and “ongoing myocardial inflammation” in 60%. The same study found high levels of the blood enzyme troponin, an indicator of heart damage, in 76% of patients tested, although heart function appeared to be generally preserved. Most patients in the study had not required hospitalization.”  [NB-in studies of perioperative patients with elevated troponin but no coronary artery disease the follow up death rate was significantly higher-so elevated troponin with preserved heart function is not an ‘all clear”] –

    https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/09/03/what-covid-19-is-doing-to-the-heart-even-after-recovery

    “Fifteen percent of healthcare workers at a Swedish hospital who recovered from mild COVID-19 at least 8 months before report at least one moderate to severe symptom disrupting their work, home, or social life,”

    https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/04/health-workers-report-long-covid-after-just-mild-illness

    another study:

    “Of patients who had COVID-19, 23.2 percent had at least one post-COVID condition.

    Post-COVID conditions were found to a greater extent in patients who had more severe cases of COVID-19, but also in a substantial share of patients whose cases lacked symptoms. Of patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, the percentage that had a post-COVID condition was 50 percent; of patients who were symptomatic but not hospitalized, 27.5 percent; and of patients who were asymptomatic, 19 percent.”

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/media2.fairhealth.org/whitepaper/asset/A%20Detailed%20Study%20of%20Patients%20with%20Long-Haul%20COVID–An%20Analysis%20of%20Private%20Healthcare%20Claims–A%20FAIR%20Health%20White%20Paper.pdf

    the vax will not eliminate long COVID (studies point to a 50% reduction or more and some studies show the vax may be a treatment of long COVID). Interestingly, a study reported that the YOUNGER patients got the greatest reduction in long COVID symptoms by being vaccinated). If we has chosen “natural immunity” we would have allowed the virus to infected 300+ million people and accepted 30-150 million people with long term sequel -looks like a very bad idea

    • #49
  20. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    This is a straw man argument. Please read the article, and then offer criticisms only to things that are in the article that you think are incorrect. Not things that you imagine he must have written or implied or hinted at, but did not.

    your entire thread is an attempt to promote getting infected over getting vaccinated-that is what I am replying to- it is an astonishingly foolish choice. Most of the criticisms of the vaccines apply to getting infected-but in spades-many studies list one quarter to one half of post COVID patients have longterm symptoms-

    MiMac,

    Thanks for your replies.

    But I have to admit that in my view, we are no closer than we were at the beginning of even starting an intelligent discussion of the implications of the paper for public policy, after this, your sixth response or so.  We are still sorting through your proposals for what the article, or my comments, might have said, in your mind.

    • #50
  21. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    MiMac (View Comment):

    “Overall, one in two survivors experienced long-term COVID manifestations.” [NB median age 54 ]

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211013114112.htm

    “cardiac MRIs on 100 people who had recovered from COVID-19 within the past two to three months. Researchers found abnormalities in the hearts of 78% recovered patients and “ongoing myocardial inflammation” in 60%. The same study found high levels of the blood enzyme troponin, an indicator of heart damage, in 76% of patients tested, although heart function appeared to be generally preserved. Most patients in the study had not required hospitalization.” [NB-in studies of perioperative patients with elevated troponin but no coronary artery disease the follow up death rate was significantly higher-so elevated troponin with preserved heart function is not an ‘all clear”] –

    https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/09/03/what-covid-19-is-doing-to-the-heart-even-after-recovery

    “Fifteen percent of healthcare workers at a Swedish hospital who recovered from mild COVID-19 at least 8 months before report at least one moderate to severe symptom disrupting their work, home, or social life,”

    https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/04/health-workers-report-long-covid-after-just-mild-illness

    another study:

    “Of patients who had COVID-19, 23.2 percent had at least one post-COVID condition.

    Post-COVID conditions were found to a greater extent in patients who had more severe cases of COVID-19, but also in a substantial share of patients whose cases lacked symptoms. Of patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, the percentage that had a post-COVID condition was 50 percent; of patients who were symptomatic but not hospitalized, 27.5 percent; and of patients who were asymptomatic, 19 percent.”

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/media2.fairhealth.org/whitepaper/asset/A%20Detailed%20Study%20of%20Patients%20with%20Long-Haul%20COVID–An%20Analysis%20of%20Private%20Healthcare%20Claims–A%20FAIR%20Health%20White%20Paper.pdf

    the vax will not eliminate long COVID (studies point to a 50% reduction or more and some studies show the vax may be a treatment of long COVID). Interestingly, a study reported that the YOUNGER patients got the greatest reduction in long COVID symptoms by being vaccinated). If we has chosen “natural immunity” we would have allowed the virus to infected 300+ million people and accepted 30-150 million people with long term sequel -looks like a very bad idea

    Ok, but the vaccinated get and transmit the virus too. If these long term conditions are unrelated to severity or proportional to severity – then this applies to the vaccinated too.

    Besides, the only choice we have to us is whether to get the vaccine, not whether we will get covid. We are ALL going to get covid at some point. If we are all going to get covid at some point then we will be subject to these long term conditions you reference, regardless.

    • #51
  22. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    Besides, the only choice we have to us is whether to get the vaccine, not whether we will get covid. We are ALL going to get covid at some point. If we are all going to get covid at some point then we will be subject to these long term conditions you reference, regardless.

    In addition to the known long-term effects of covid disease, some unknown percentage of the vaccinated will have already-known plus as-yet-unknown serious harmful effects from the unanticipated persistence and toxicity of the spike protein.  Unanticipated for one reason only: the morally indefensible political decisions to bypass

    • existing public safety and medical ethics standards
    • standards of honesty and transparency in sharing scientific data
    • the normal efforts to develop multiple treatment options
    • legal standards to deter reckless corporate behavior to maximize short-term profit and compensation at the expense of public health
    • #52
  23. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Just out of curiosity, what is “long COVID” (a phrase that inspires skepticism in me) as it relates to children?

     And, in the demographic most likely to experience severe symptoms, how many normally — absent COVID — exhibit heart abnormalities, etc.?

    I distrust what is represented as “the science” on COVID — as well as those reporting it. 

    • #53
  24. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    “Overall, one in two survivors experienced long-term COVID manifestations.” [NB median age 54 ]

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211013114112.htm

    “cardiac MRIs on 100 people who had recovered from COVID-19 within the past two to three months. Researchers found abnormalities in the hearts of 78% recovered patients and “ongoing myocardial inflammation” in 60%. The same study found high levels of the blood enzyme troponin, an indicator of heart damage, in 76% of patients tested, although heart function appeared to be generally preserved. Most patients in the study had not required hospitalization.” [NB-in studies of perioperative patients with elevated troponin but no coronary artery disease the follow up death rate was significantly higher-so elevated troponin with preserved heart function is not an ‘all clear”] –

    https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/09/03/what-covid-19-is-doing-to-the-heart-even-after-recovery

    “Fifteen percent of healthcare workers at a Swedish hospital who recovered from mild COVID-19 at least 8 months before report at least one moderate to severe symptom disrupting their work, home, or social life,”

    https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/04/health-workers-report-long-covid-after-just-mild-illness

    another study:

    “Of patients who had COVID-19, 23.2 percent had at least one post-COVID condition.

    Post-COVID conditions were found to a greater extent in patients who had more severe cases of COVID-19, but also in a substantial share of patients whose cases lacked symptoms. Of patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, the percentage that had a post-COVID condition was 50 percent; of patients who were symptomatic but not hospitalized, 27.5 percent; and of patients who were asymptomatic, 19 percent.”

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/media2.fairhealth.org/whitepaper/asset/A%20Detailed%20Study%20of%20Patients%20with%20Long-Haul%20COVID–An%20Analysis%20of%20Private%20Healthcare%20Claims–A%20FAIR%20Health%20White%20Paper.pdf

    the vax will not eliminate long COVID (studies point to a 50% reduction or more and some studies show the vax may be a treatment of long COVID). Interestingly, a study reported that the YOUNGER patients got the greatest reduction in long COVID symptoms by being vaccinated). If we has chosen “natural immunity” we would have allowed the virus to infected 300+ million people and accepted 30-150 million people with long term sequel -looks like a very bad idea

    Ok, but the vaccinated get and transmit the virus too. If these long term conditions are unrelated to severity or proportional to severity – then this applies to the vaccinated too.

    Besides, the only choice we have to us is whether to get the vaccine, not whether we will get covid. We are ALL going to get covid at some point. If we are all going to get covid at some point then we will be subject to these long term conditions you reference, regardless.

    Sort of-there is a 50% reduction (vs the unvaxxed) in long term sequela IF you are vaccinated-that is a substantial difference. There seems to be a correlation between the severity of COVID and the longterm sequela- therefore vaccines may both reduce the likelihood & severity of “long COVID”-but it isn’t absolute. As it stands now, we will have to deal with COVID in perpetuity- unless and until we make serious breakthrus in viral therapeutics-and the Merck pill isn’t it (the Pfizer one looks much more promising but the data is early). COVID will probably result in 18-70K additional deaths per year (on top of the 36K/yr from the flu). There will be an added strain on hospital & ICU beds probably every Jan-March-we will need more capacity. The added cost to the typical “flu season”will not be inconsequential and I would bet there will be a push for more efforts to mitigate respiratory virus outbreaks-that will be fun.

    • #54
  25. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Until we realise who is runnin’ the show
    there’ll be variant strains that’ll come and go
    all the efforts to contain it won’t eliminate the flow
    if the virus ain’t the problem but the people in the know
    slow it down . . . .

    Until we realise who is runnin’ the show
    there’ll be variant strains that’ll come and go
    all the vaccine in the world cannot fight a secret foe
    if the virus ain’t the problem but the people in the know
    slow it down . . . .

    Until we realise who is runnin’ the show
    there’ll be variant strains that’ll come and go
    all the will-power in the world won’t impede the wind that blow
    if the virus ain’t the problem but the people in the know
    slow it down . . . .

    • #55
  26. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    MiMac (View Comment):

    “Overall, one in two survivors experienced long-term COVID manifestations.” [NB median age 54 ]

    I’m going to give you an acknowledged non-medical reply to your meticulous listing of studies claiming that half of all Covid patients experience long-term Covid manifestations.

    The CDC estimates that about 1/3 of all Americans have contracted Covid at some point during the Pandemic.  That would be 110 million people.  You are telling me that 55 million people in the U.S., or every sixth person, is walking around with long-Covid symptoms?  I don’t buy that for a minute!  If one-sixth of the population were sick, we would have massive work shortages, the country would come to a halt, let alone the rest of the World.  It sounds like Night of the Living Dead.

    This may be anecdotal, but I know dozens of people who have been infected with Covid, especially family members, and I haven’t heard a single one of them complaining about symptoms after they they had finished their infection.  And this would include my 91 year-old Uncle.  The closest I’ve seen of lingering symptoms is a lady who had trouble sleeping at our house two weeks after ditching Covid because she is allergic to our cats.

    I’ve seen you cherry pick data before, citing two microscopically small studies to try and prove that the Delta variant was more deadly than the original Covid, so I am skeptical.  For what it’s worth, here’s a quote from an interview with Jason Maley, an instructor at Harvard Medical School, when asked about how many people get  long Covid:

    “We don’t know for sure. To get the actual percentage, there would have to be an accurate survey of a group of people who are representative of all the people who have had COVID. Most of the surveys that have been done have gone out through social media or engaged people in a way that probably over-selects for people who are looking for long COVID information or who are concerned about it. I’ve seen everywhere from 2 percent to over 20 percent. My suspicion is that many people with COVID need at least several weeks — if not a month or two — to feel back to normal, which isn’t unusual for bad viruses. Even the flu can really knock people out for a month. But for true long COVID and the prolonged severe symptoms we’re seeing, 20 percent is probably an overestimate and 2 percent may be an underestimate, so it may be somewhere in the middle.”

    https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/04/harvard-medical-school-expert-explains-long-covid/

     

    • #56
  27. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    “Long COVID”

    In the ongoing strategic fetishization of the Wuhan coronavirus, “long COVID” is one of those ideas about which I’m particularly skeptical.

    In the immediate aftermath of the January 6th Capitol riot, we were told that a significant number of Capitol Police had been injured. I think the official number was 142, that coming from reports from the union to which the Capitol Police belong. If you looked at the actual “injuries,” you discovered that they included things like swollen ankles and eye strain, silly stuff like that. I’ve never seen an accounting of real, significant injury, and my suspicion is that there wasn’t much of it, but that it was politically advantageous to inflate the account to make the event seem more significant than it was.

    I know it’s probably unscientific of me to ignore what appear to be legitimate studies regarding the Wuhan coronavirus, but the truth is that I distrust the experts where this virus is concerned, in the same way that I distrust the experts where climate science is concerned. 

    Common “long-term” effects of infection are reported as fatigue, shortness of breath, and loss of taste and/or smell. That last one seems pretty distinct and unambiguous, but self-reported fatigue is notoriously subjective. Shortness of breath probably falls between the other two in terms of its reporting accuracy, particularly given the lifestyle changes imposed by various lockdowns and mandates, including reduced activity, weight gain, and frequent masking.

    I’m not saying it isn’t a real thing, possibly even different from the lingering effects of influenza. But I think we’ve wildly overreacted to this virus, and I think the experts bear a lot of responsibility for that.

    • #57
  28. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    “Long COVID”

    In the ongoing strategic fetishization of the Wuhan coronavirus, “long COVID” is one of those ideas about which I’m particularly skeptical…………

    Common “long-term” effects of infection are reported as fatigue, shortness of breath, and loss of taste and/or smell. That last one seems pretty distinct and unambiguous, but self-reported fatigue is notoriously subjective. Shortness of breath probably falls between the other two in terms of its reporting accuracy, particularly given the lifestyle changes imposed by various lockdowns and mandates, including reduced activity, weight gain, and frequent masking.

    I’m not saying it isn’t a real thing, possibly even different from the lingering effects of influenza. But I think we’ve wildly overreacted to this virus, and I think the experts bear a lot of responsibility for that.

    I’m also skeptical, as is the Wall Street Journal in an article titled “The Dubious Origins of Long Covid.” Since this article is behind a paywall I’ll give you a couple of early paragraphs:

    “The topic deserves serious study. Some patients, particularly older ones with co-morbidities, do experience symptoms that outlast a coronavirus infection. But such symptoms can also be psychologically generated or caused by a physical illness unrelated to the prior infection. Long Covid is largely an invention of vocal patient activist groups. Legitimizing it with generous funding risks worsening the symptoms the NIH is hoping to treat.

    The concept of long Covid has a highly unorthodox origin: online surveys produced by Body Politic, which launched in 2018 and describes itself atop its website’s homepage as “a queer feminist wellness collective merging the personal and the political.” In March 2020, the group’s co-founders created the Body Politic Covid-19 Support Group, and as part of their mission of “cultivating patient led research,” the organization coordinated a series of online surveys on persistent symptoms. Based on the results of these, Body Politic produced the first report on long Covid in May.

    But many of the survey respondents who attributed their symptoms to the aftermath of a Covid-19 infection likely never had the virus in the first place. Of those who self-identified as having persistent symptoms attributed to Covid and responded to the first survey, not even a quarter had tested positive for the virus. Nearly half (47.8%) never had testing and 27.5% tested negative for Covid-19. Body Politic publicized the results of a larger, second survey in December 2020. Of the 3,762 respondents, a mere 600, or 15.9%, had tested positive for the virus at any time.”

    • #58
  29. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    “Long COVID”

    In the ongoing strategic fetishization of the Wuhan coronavirus, “long COVID” is one of those ideas about which I’m particularly skeptical.

    Don’t be too skeptical. It really is a thing. I have family members who are in this situation. One who was finally improving after several months, then got the vaccine, and everything went south again, and now almost a year later can no longer work and is going on disability.

    Which is why, if you’ve had COVID, definitely do NOT let them jab you. Enjoy your naturally-acquired immunity. It works.

     

    • #59
  30. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    “Long COVID”

    In the ongoing strategic fetishization of the Wuhan coronavirus, “long COVID” is one of those ideas about which I’m particularly skeptical.

    Don’t be too skeptical. It really is a thing. I have family members who are in this situation. One who was finally improving after several months, then got the vaccine, and everything went south again, and now almost a year later can no longer work and is going on disability.

    Which is why, if you’ve had COVID, definitely do NOT let them jab you. Enjoy your naturally-acquired immunity. It works.

    If I had covid and had not been vaccinated, I’d probably get one jab.  It might depend on how much covid I actually had, though. And I would let a decent interval pass before doing it, because that seems to be important in developing long-lasting immunity. 

    I wouldn’t make simple, blanket statements that apply to everyone.  That’s a problem with the CDC.  It tries to make one-size-fits-all rules, or one-size-fits-as-many-as-possible.  We shouldn’t be like the CDC.  

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.