Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 176

[ecosophia]

We are now in the fourth year of these open posts. When I first posted a tentative hypothesis on the course of the Covid phenomenon, I had no idea that discussion on the subject would still be necessary more than three years later, much less that it would turn into so lively, complex, and troubling a conversation. Still, here we are. Crude death rates and other measures of collapsing public health are anomalously high in many countries, but nobody in authority wants to talk about the inadequately tested experimental Covid injections that are the most likely cause; public health authorities government shills for the pharmaceutical industry are still trying to push through laws that will allow them to force vaccinations on anyone they want; public trust in science is collapsing; and the story continues to unfold.

So it's time for another open post. I have added a new rule (see below, #6):

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry and its government enablers are causing injury and death on a massive scale. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its wholly owned politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here. 
 
3. If you plan on using rent-a-troll derailing or disruption tactics, please go away. I'm quite familiar with the standard tactics used by troll farms to disrupt online forums, and am ready, willing, and able -- and in fact quite eager -- to ban people permanently for engaging in them here. Oh, and I also lurk on other Covid-19 vaccine skeptic blogs, so I'm likely to notice when the same posts are showing up on more than one venue. 

4. If you plan on making off topic comments, please go away. This is an open post for discussion of the Covid epidemic, the vaccines, drugs, policies, and other measures that supposedly treat it, and other topics directly relevant to those things. It is not a place for general discussion of unrelated topics. Nor is it a place to ask for medical advice; giving such advice, unless you're a licensed health care provider, legally counts as practicing medicine without a license and is a crime in the US. Don't even go there.

5. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. Also, please don't drag in current quarrels about sex, race, religions, etc. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

6. Please don't just post bare links without explanation. A sentence or two telling readers what's on the other side of the link is a reasonable courtesy, and if you don't include it, your attempted post will be deleted.

Please also note that nothing posted here should be construed as medical advice, which neither I nor the commentariat (excepting those who are licensed medical providers) are qualified to give. Please take your medical questions to the licensed professional provider of your choice.

With that said, the floor is open for discussion.

Comments

Re: mRNA

[ecosophia]

As I noted above, my remaining trust in the pharmaceutical industry clutched its chest and died suddenly a few years ago. I have no independent way of knowing whether you're right about mRNA technology or not; what I do know is that the industry that produces such things is so riddled with graft, arrogance, and incompetence that I'd have to be an idiot to let any of its products be injected into my body.

Your mileage may vary, of course, and you have the freedom to make your own choice. I'm simply saying what my decision is.

Re: mRNA

[(Anonymous)]

I nod my head reading this and agree.

But this was a really radical statement to have 4 years ago, and you did, and you gave us this outlet to share. Share our fears, watch as the gestapo turn our worst fears into reality and then turn it up to 11.

I survived, with the threat of being fired. Fill out this religious exemption or we will let you go. Sword of Damocles above my head every day for 3+ years and they still have not 'accepted or denied' my exemption request.

Thank you for this space, and for this community. I am stronger for it.
rq

Re: mRNA

[degringolade]

Sir: As you can tell, I am a fanboy and do take your opinion quite seriously. Distrust in what the pharmaceutical/diagnostic industry has become is just common sense (I did say that I am happily retired and out of that particular whores game).

I cannot say that there is a "bad" technology. Opiates are a godsend to the end of life and those with chronic pain, but a serious problem for others. mRNA has similar profile, it can work in cases where nothing else can work, but there is a price and it really doesn't cure, it merely delays.

I think that the reason I ended up voting for Trump is his relationship with RFK and the angst toward the industry we discuss. It seems that "first do no harm" needs to be re-examined without corporate profits being in the discussion.

I'll ponder this again today. Who knows, I have changed my mind before. But I do think that there may well be a use for mRNA in medical use, just not in a semi-mandatory, population level event

Re: mRNA

[ecosophia]

I'm not saying that it should be banned -- at least not until extensive, honestly assessed testing shows that it ought to be banned. I'm saying that I personally will have nothing to do with mRNA technology. At 62 I've already lived a good share of my potential life span, and I'm comfortable with the fact that I'm going to die of something or other one of these days; that inevitably shapes my attitude.

I do think that this, and all pharmaceuticals, need rigorous testing and systematic monitoring after approval; that anyone who is offered them needs also to be offered accurate, detailed information on their side effects and actual effectiveness; and that anyone who pushes a pharmaceutical that kills people, under any conditions other than fully informed consent from the patients, should be tried by a jury of their peers and, if found guilty, hanged by the neck until dead. But that's just my opinion.

Re: mRNA

[(Anonymous)]

My thoughts exactly.
I had my eyes opened a few years ago when my father, at my suggestion, took vioxx for a year. Merck, the pharmaceutical company that developed vioxx, put it on the market knowing it had severe side effects (heart attack, stroke). They eventually coughed up a few billion dollars, without admitting any guilt, in personal injury settlements. Hundreds of thousands of people were affected, including about 60,000 deaths. Is it possible to hang an entire industry by its neck until dead?
Btw, this is one reason I am in full sympathy with Luigi Mangione. If I were on a jury, I would vote to acquit.

Re: mRNA

[scotlyn]

I will say that there is a difference between the makers/purveyors of vioxx (say) and the people who will either approve or not approve that the vioxx (say) be paid for on your behalf. The man murdered, reputedly, is an icon of the people who sometimes refuse permission for you to be reimbursed if you WANT to take the (say) vioxx, and not the people making or supplying the (say) vioxx and selling it to whether you want it or not.

Re: mRNA

[(Anonymous)]

I like how you put that. I agree.
SDPM

Re: mRNA

[(Anonymous)]

My concern about mRNA and cancer use is the potential for people who have undergone sucessful treatment then having children. This is based upon the assumption that the mRNA spreads around the body in an uncontrolled manner and there is always going to be some uncontrolled retrotranscription, possibly into germ cells, even if they do a better job of producing clean products.

Also it seems like shedding via exosomes and the shared bacterial ecosystem will be an inevitable issue. Which, while we do deal with something analogous in people who have consumed various radioactive substances for scanning purposes etc, this seems much harder to manage.

Re: mRNA

[(Anonymous)]

This is a very well thought exposition of one of the serious risks in the paradigm!


One of the biggest risk IMHO is that we don't know yet how the body is made... we are still in this paradgim of the human biocomputer... so the biggest risk outside of the paradigm is good old Iatrogenesis, where the medic thinks that he did input all the data, but the result still eludes or even kills

Re: mRNA

[(Anonymous)]

Or worse: what if it turns out that they do something weird to eggs that are still undergoing development? This would not appear until sometime in the 2030s. Because eggs are developed while in the fetal stage, it would only become apparent something has gone wrong once women who were exposed in utero try to have children.

It is known to concentrate in the ovaries; and presumably if it reached a fetus it would behave similarly. So it is worth asking, does the spike protein, or worse, the mRNA itself (whether free or still in the lipid nano-particle) cross the placenta? Some lipid nano particles can cross the blood brain barrier, so it is an open question...

Re: mRNA

[(Anonymous)]

It is known to concentrate in the ovaries; and presumably if it reached a fetus it would behave similarly. So it is worth asking, does the spike protein, or worse, the mRNA itself (whether free or still in the lipid nano-particle) cross the placenta? Some lipid nano particles can cross the blood brain barrier, so it is an open question...

AFAIK the mRNA should not contain the spike protein, but it will contain other protein, if it contains the spike protein to kill the cancer cell this is very, very bad...