Search the Community

On another thread, there was an attempt at a reasonable discussion, but it unfortunately fell apart when a member became upset and resorted to dishonourable tactics. Almighty knows, I tried with ideas. While I'm willing to give someone patience, using fake gender-based accusations during a simple disagreement is not productive, so I'll start this one. This thread will begin by answering 20 Questions put forward by a Covid-19 Skeptic. Other things to come, later on. I prefer to focus more on the ideas and research I've come across, rather than my direct personal struggles. Quickly about the personal too, as an intro 😄 - I should mention that my busy work and longstanding trust in my family doctor have made it unnecessary for me to devote significant time to studying Covid-19. During the peak of the pandemic, I found myself working twice as much as I do now because many people were staying home and receiving government aid. This thread is about my search to confirm that I made the correct decision in trusting my physician. Doctors are doctors, engineers are engineers, and programmers are programmers, however it's not just about the job title. It's about the trust that has been built over years in my community with my doctor, who went to medical school and has the necessary qualifications to provide sound medical advice. If some of this research is out of date, please respond and will engage. However, if you are going to talk about my personal flaws that I volunteered and other low level language, will not engage, you can post, but will not engage you here, lots of other threads for that. --- --> / Series 1 responding to "1. Covid transmission: Those 'brilliant minds' couldn't even figure out the basics of viral transmission principles. Why didn't they perform experiments consisting of a control group?" A study conducted in Japan found that COVID-19 can spread through aerosols and respiratory droplets, even in outdoor settings, highlighting the importance of wearing masks to prevent transmission (source: The Lancet). Scientists have performed numerous studies on viral transmission principles, including the use of control groups. One such study conducted by the CDC found that individuals who had close contact with COVID-19 patients were more likely to contract the virus, providing evidence of person-to-person transmission (source: CDC). Earlier studies published in the journal Nature Medicine found that the virus can remain infectious in aerosols for up to three hours and on surfaces for up to three days, which supports the importance of wearing masks and maintaining good hand hygiene to prevent the spread of the virus. (source: Nature). https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 Centrist's View (=) it's important to recognize that scientific consensus is not always perfect, and that the scientific community is constantly learning and adapting to new information. As I am not a Covid-19 fanatic, maybe some information above is out of date, but still more reality-based than the wild theories I have been hearing around. 😄While it's important to be critical of claims made by experts, it's also important to acknowledge the vast amount of research and expertise that has gone into understanding the virus and developing effective strategies for prevention and treatment. Additionally, it's important to balance public health concerns with individual freedoms and personal responsibility, recognizing that both are important for a functioning society. --- --> / Series 2 responding to "2. Asymptomatic spread: Surprise, surprise, they got this one wrong too. It took ages for them to realize that there is nothing such as an asymptomatic spread spread. But to be honest, I am convinced they knew that since the beginning." 1. The delay in recognizing the potential for asymptomatic spread was due in part to the novelty of the virus and the rapidly evolving understanding of its transmission dynamics. However, the scientific community has been actively studying the issue since early in the pandemic, and the research continues to refine the understanding of the role of asymptomatic spread. A study published in JAMA Network Open focuses on that. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707 2. This study from Nature found that individuals who tested positive for Covid-19 were able to transmit the virus to others before showing symptoms of the disease, or even if they never developed symptoms at all. This suggests that asymptomatic transmission of the virus is indeed possible. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5 3. Centrist's view: It is important to acknowledge that during a pandemic, scientific understanding of the virus and its transmission can evolve as new evidence emerges. While the study cited earlier provides evidence for the possibility of asymptomatic transmission of Covid-19, it is possible that later in the pandemic, there was more information available on this topic. Please add to the conversation if you consider that my points are wrong. --- --> / Series 3 responding to "3. PCR testing: Flawed, over-sensitive, and generally misleading. Bravo, consensus! Bravo, Drosten! No test, no pandemic - which is why that PCR test was introduced." 1. A study conducted in Belgium, compared the diagnostic performance of four different PCR-based tests for Covid-19. The study found that all four tests had high levels of sensitivity and specificity, indicating that PCR testing is a reliable method for diagnosing COVID-19. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmv.26531 2. A study in South Korea found that widespread testing, including PCR testing, was crucial in controlling the COVID-19 outbreak in the country. The study reported that aggressive testing, tracing, and isolation measures helped to reduce the spread of the virus, even without the need for strict lockdowns. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-exemplar-south-korea 3. Centrist's View: While it is true that some people have raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of PCR testing, multiple studies have found that this method is an effective way to diagnose COVID-19. That being said, it is important to acknowledge that no testing method is perfect, and there may be some limitations to PCR testing. However, the medical community has been working hard to address any issues with testing accuracy. --- --> / Series 4 responding to "4. No early treatment: They were so adamant about waiting for the experimental shot that they discriminated against those who called for early interventions. Imagine if everyone was encouraged to take vitamin D, which would have caused a new record low for excess mortality while being in the middle of a dangerous pandemic!?" 1. While some studies suggest that vitamin D supplementation may have potential benefits for preventing and treating respiratory infections, there is insufficient evidence (unless you can present some new studies) to support the use of vitamin D as a treatment for COVID-19. A meta-analysis published in the BMJ found that vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of acute respiratory tract infections, but the studies included in the analysis were not specific to COVID-19. Additionally, a study published in JAMA found that high-dose vitamin D supplementation did not significantly reduce hospital length of stay, ICU admission, or mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.It's important to note that while vitamin D may have potential benefits for overall health, in my opinion, it should not be viewed as a substitute for COVID-19 vaccinations or other medical treatments. https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583 2. Several European studies have examined the efficacy of early treatments for COVID-19, including the use of antivirals such as remdesivir, and monoclonal antibodies such as bamlanivimab and casirivimab/imdevimab.A study conducted in France found that early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin did not improve clinical outcomes or reduce mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Another study conducted in the UK found that treatment with remdesivir did not significantly reduce mortality or hospital stay in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.In contrast, monoclonal antibody therapies have shown promising results in reducing hospitalization and death in high-risk COVID-19 patients. A study conducted in Germany found that treatment with bamlanivimab reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 70% in high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Another study conducted in the UK found that treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 70% in non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.While early treatment is important, it's crucial to rely on evidence-based medicine to determine the most effective and safe treatments for COVID-19. Monoclonal antibody therapies have shown promising results in reducing hospitalization and death in high-risk COVID-19 patients, while other treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir have not shown significant benefits in clinical trials. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109682 3. A centrist view would recognize the importance of early treatment for COVID-19, while also acknowledging the limitations of such treatments. Consulting with a healthcare provider (family doctor) is crucial in determining the most appropriate course of treatment based on individual circumstances. --- --> / Series 5 will be responding to "5. Fatality rate: Wildly overestimated (thanks to the fraudulent PCR test), causing unnecessary panic, which most likely caused the observed excess mortality. Great job, guys." *This will air in a few days, as information gets circulates better when is released gradually. 😎 Thank you.

I specialize in opening up controversial discussions. I was thinking about discussing Danielle Smith of Alberta, but I want to make it clear that questionable language is used by politicians from all sides, all the way to the Federal Level, AND not just conservatives, + this was in private. Some use "communists", not "nazis". I use both. 😄 Trudeau's public display of anger during the convoy protests makes me wonder what he may have said in private. Oh, I have some theories about that, when he stood around announcing the Emergency Act, before then, my theory is that he said a lot in private about the convoy group, which I don't agree with by the way, just looking at the politician's hypocrisy. SERIOUS NOTE - Danielle Smith recently apologized for comments linking COVID vaccinations to Nazi followers, which doesn't surprise me due to the prevalence of such tactics even here on the board, on a daily basis. If people are so angry over Covid-19, a self-defense mechanism kicks in, and the word "nazi" "communist" "deep state" "conspiracy" "sheep" come out. I think it's important to be open-minded and start a poll to gauge whether people find it appropriate to use the word "Nazi" when discussing COVID-19? Options: 1. Yes, it's appropriate 2. No, is not appropriate 3. Other opinion

Based on the ⬆️ Trending article from the Toronto Sun Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he didn’t force anyone to get vaccinated. Trudeau said as much to a gathering of students at the University of Ottawa this week and a clip of the comments has gone viral promping responses from his political opponents. Poll: Do you agree with Trudeau's statement that he did not force anyone to get vaccinated? 1. Yes, I agree with him. 2. No, requiring certain employees and enforcing proof of vaccination can be considered a form of coercion. 3. I'm not sure. 4. Other.

You know, I am not a "REAL" conservative. That is a big boys title. I am a conservative when is needed. 😄 I think this country needs a change towards the Conservative Party, so having said that, will not focus on stories such as a 80 year old man, now US President mixing up a name. I think with the VP that he has (no work) and the inability of the Democratic Party to put forward someone younger, he is doing an OK job considering the monsters that are patrolling this Earth: Like Xi or Putin, old communists now pretending to be Presidents in China and Russia. So, will leave the superficial stories and focus on what Poilievre said, "Allow unvaccinated Canadians to cross U.S. border, Poilievre asks President Joe Biden." That is a point which is complex but of what a Conservative needs to do and a PM needs to do, really. Representing even fringes. Not all unvaccinated Canadians are what we see on Internet Boards (people with no purpose harassing medical staff via lies). There are a lot of unvaccinated Canadians that are reasonable and chose their own road and don't need to resort to garbage tactics such as manipulation to push their own personal agenda by harassing medical authorities. For me, Poilievre looks like a sane choice this country needs, even though I do not agree with everything he says. Compromise is what politics should be about about though.

I found this trending on a newspaper: Toronto Sun: My daughter and her fiance are working on their wedding invitations. They wish to invite only those who have received the COVID vaccination who can also show a negative test result prior to attending the event. They want to protect vulnerable friends and family members with health risks (i.e. cancer patients and elderly people). However, the groom’s mother is putting a lot of stress on the bride and groom to invite her unvaccinated brother and his unvaccinated family because she doesn’t want them to be upset and wants to be able to keep peace within the family. What would you suggest to this mother? How should she approach the daughter to try to convince her to invite the brother? Is there a middle ground here?

This is an explanation on what viruses and vaccines are, why and how they operate, and what the particular root of the politics are that are creating a chaos of misunderstandings. I will try to relate this to the least knowledgeable by using a comparative analogy to chain letters, given many might make better sense of the background. What are viruses? A virus is just a packette of data in the form of rib(b)ons of linked amino acids that originated as a mechanism for single celled organisms to alert other cells of what to change in order to better protect themselves of some common external threat. They are 'dumb' in that they are identical in kind to a chain letter in function. These are much older than multi-cellular beings, like plants and mammals, and are originally something that had to exist in order to have evolved into more complex beings. If you are unfamiliar with chain letters, let's first discuss this to be sure the analogy makes sense. A chain letter is a letter that (1) contains some value in the form of information and (2) contains information on how to copy itself for redistribution. The idea relates to network marketing or pyramid schemes and is the actual foundation FOR them. A chain letter may thus look like: This is the simplest kind and note that you don't include what I wrote in the brackets, "[", "]". These are just to help explain the content's meaning. A virus is thus like an envelope plus the chainletter inside it. On any envelope you would place your friend's address. For a virus, this is done by designing a unique package or envelope plus some 'address' in the form of a key that defines who and how to open it. For a letter, the language and format of the address acts as a 'key' that the recipient can use to determine whether this was meant for them and where it came from. Think of the postal code, for instance as a 'format' unique to Canadians that act as a 'key' that Canadians understand. A virus uses chemicals usually in the form of some unique shape as its key. The outer packet of the virus is the same as the letter's shape of envelope (or package) and the keys the same as the envelope's written "To:" and "From: data as well as the stamp. But just like the possibility of some letters to be accidentally be sent somewhere else, a virus may be accidentally sent elsewhere unexpectedly. Normally, the post office or couriers have means to reduce the possibility of it being lost or sent to some unintended recipient. For living things, we have this too in the form of 'antibodies' and related immunity cells which act as wandering security gaurds seeking to remove unwanted 'bodies'. The 'virus' doesn't care whether the recipient is legitimate or not and so should not normally be a threat. Likewise, ANY letter doesn't care who receives it and we expect that if it has no use, the recipient is the one who decides whether to open it or not. Unlike letters, viruses are sent without delivery personel and so just wander about. Also the copies of it act more like the chainletter type of letters most specifically. They act like spam or unsolicited junk mail to which many copies are made and distributed. The recipient then chooses whether it will accept it versus tossing it out in the same way as antibodies and other related protection cells. [Note that the antibodies are more like the process of tossing out ones letters whereas our reading of the outer envelope is what is used to determine what is important or not before tossing them out. Thus, the antibodies are technically the response of immunity cells that have to first notice the foreign bodies before rejecing them by covering them with 'antibodies'. This is thus more like tagging the unwanted letters with something and putting it in a pile to be tossed out later. But I'm sure you get the point. So viruses, just like chainletters, do not necessarily represent anything harmful. It can also be comparatively used with sincerity like a public notice to watch out for some danger and spread it around. However, where they become harmful is if some recipient opens the letter if it was not intended for them. Of course chainletters are more formally understood to be the 'scamming' part even to those the letter is intended for. The analogy fits sufficiently though as we will later see. What is RNA, mRNA, DNA, and ribosomes? The actual structure of the letters or symbols of our language that creates the contents of the chainletter represents RNA, mRNA and DNA. The differences between these are like the difference between single sentences versus parargraphs or whole pages, etc. For biology, all RNA and DNA normally come only from the nucleus of the cell and represents the 'N' in "RNA" and "DNA". The "D" and "R" represent whether the string of data are mere segments or the whole collection. The RNA are simple segments or "ribbons" and what the "R" represents. [They just shortened it to "ribo"] Oxygen acts like cut ends that make the long string of DNA into small segments. So RNA has oxygen by default at its 'ends' so to speak that act as scissors whereas the 'D' for "deoxy(genated)" means that they are uncut. [It might have been better to name RNA (or "ribo-nucleic-acid") to RONA (for "ribboned-oygenated-nucleic-acid) and then DNA (for "deoxy(ribo)-nucleic-acid" as RUNA (for "ribboned-unoxygenated-nucleic-acid" instead, right? But it doesn't matter any more than how we might spell things differently in words like, "center" versus "centre". RNA are copied segments of DNA. The RNA act as individual protein creating instructions whereas the DNA is the 'masterplan' for ALL cells in the bocy. The DNA always stays in the nucleus. But the RNA once made is evicted out of the nucleus and is the referred to as "mRNA" for "messengerRNA". This term is was created after recognizing that viruses have RNA too but don't originate from the particular cell and so only the "mRNA" are used for the INTENDED cell's functioning. The collection of mRNA that defines the function of a particlar cell's construction and operation are approximately what we mean by the "gene". That is, a gene is actually the parts of the DNA that gets used in a particular cell that becomes the collection of mRNA outside the nucleus. Once outside the nucleus, the mRNA floats around until it runs into a unique creator complex protein, called the 'ribosome" that takes RNA or mRNA and translates it while it makes a more complex string that becomes the proteins. Proteins are the elements of construction for all parts of a cell. Comparative analogies to these using our chainletter would be like comparing a whole library to a mere sentence. The whole library is the DNA while the RNA are like books; or you can think of this as also a whole book versus a single page or sentence. The ribosomes are like the mind interpreting or creating sentences, books, or whole libraries. In the cell, the do the 'reading' of the RNA and 'interpreting' it by the final created protein; the creation of RNA might be understood as the reverse process, a protein that creates it to which the DNA has components that do this in the nucleus. Bacteria creation of viruses These processes in the cell also occur in single-celled organisms, like bacteria. Since all cells begun evolutionarily as individual cells like bacteria, viruses act as the original means of sharing information between distinct cells and what formed our DNA in stages of past evolution. The bacteria here are what act as the creators of the chainletters, even though larger cellular complexes may do this (?). The bacteria that runs into its own threats can communicate this to other bacteria, usually of its own kind. Thus the virus is more like the chainletter without intended deception, like a public service alert. The copies it intends to make when it reaches new bacteria recipients is likely limited in the same way I restricted the names at the top of the letter to five. Thus, they do not likely have the threat they pose to duplication in the cells they are intentionally sent to. The message part is the significant point of them whereas the copying part is just the means of assuring the message is more likely to get passed on. A single cell may even just make one copy before stopping the process. The chainletters within some community may be harmless and act as entertaining or useful simple 'memes' among friends. But they are relatively 'immature' and thus the bacteria can be compared to communication between less mature people or the young learning to read and write. As such, while recognized as a root of our more complex means of communicating, we often interpret the attraction of those who rely on chainletters are either potentially deceptive where it is used by someone more mature used to manipulate those less mature. To the recipient, they are more likley to pass on the deception immaturely or unaware of any intended harm. The problem begins when the message that the virus represents between bacteria gets accidentally sent out and intercepted by more mature cellular complexes of non-bacterial life and falsely interpreting it as valid intake. The destructive factor of viruses ...occurs because when it accidentally gets interpreted as a harmless friendly guest particle, it robs the normal functioning of a cell because the ribosome cannot differentiate between the mRNA versus foreign RNA. It accepts any RNA that is like its own nucleus, not foreign nucleii. Then given these created viruses have no other functional utiliity for the cell, it builds up, reopens some of its new creations when they get torn apart by other parts of the cell and eventually kills the cell as it then explodes filled of a much larger quanity of viruses that it begun with. Our immunity cells where they are themselves not attacked (like HIV/AIDS) normally have a list of identifiers they can use to notice foreign particles. They are expected to release antibodies that surround the foreign matter that flags them for removal. They can be removed by urination, sweating, defecating, saliva, semen, or the exhalation of the lungs. The 'exit' process depends upon things like the size of the particle and is how we infect others. Given it only takes one virus to begin the process of destruction, such a small amount of them are not always enough for the immune system to notice before a triggered cell is infected. Each kind of virus usually has a particular unusual key that opens an unintended host cell of one kind. So one virus might infect only lung cells for instance. The analogy using mail would be like how someone might be tricked into opening some junk mail (or spam for email) that could be disguised as legitmately for you. But it can be even undeceptive like should you quickly open any mail in an envelope without confirming that it is for you. You might get a letter for a neighbor only to discover something upon reading it that affects your behavior before you noticed it was a mistake. You might have difficulty trying to forget something that might be damaging of another person's reputation in your eyes, for instance. It is thus hard NOT to be affected by such reading as it can when a cell's ribosomes begins interpreting viral RNA. Discovering how this happens has led us to the creation of vaccinations: Vaccines are any set of possible intakes that contain 'hints' of the original virus used to trigger the system and grants it time enough to become immune to its potential harms. This can be compared to the difference of someone naively interpreting chainletters as literal. The deceptive forms attempt to draw upon your emotions the most. If you were fed less harmful or fake chainletters, like the one above as an example, it can "immunize" you without creating harm. The vaccines operate by taking the actual virus and create a nondestructive version of it. So it requires to be as close as possible to the real thing and in a large enough dose so that the immunity cells have a chance to notice the intruder before it gets to be affective. Because it is the envelope that holds the means to get noticed first, the usual means of creating a vaccine is to tear apart whole original non-destroyed viruses and destroy the inner RNA data. Then, using the leftover remnants of the envelope, use this to tease the immunity system into noticing it and give it time to develop the identification factors that the immunity cells can use to police them. It is akin to sending "wanted posters" used to catch a criminal. If you followed the logic here, you should have enough information to understand why vaccines have effectiveness. But note that this can still cause other side effects, one of which is that your system might over-react chaotically. You then may die from an 'allergic' reaction that acts 'scared' of unknown particles. It might be like if you discover some violent mass murder in your neighborhood but not know who it is. But nobody thinks that NOT informing the public of such danger is responsible. Well, maybe this does actually happen at times because the police might fear the overreaction of the public like how riots may be unintentionally created and become destructive. So this is the background that everyone should at least require before further speaking about the politics on vaccines. I hope this has helped and encourage others to add their own means of describing this by analogy. Note that what I did not mention about the chainletter above is that IF such a letter were convincing enough to get people to copy it, the destructive effects occur at the post office when they get flooded of them. This is the main reason they are no longer legal and why the skepticism against pyramid type schemes that many Network Marketing schemes constantly attempt to relegalize by technical means. Amway distributers, for instance, uses the soap as a 'legal' product that goes along with the chainletter role of the scheme. If you carried out the above scheme and it succeeded, by the time your name gets to the top of the list 6 layers down, you would gain a fortune in dollars being sent to you. It is exponential and is NOT able to actually operate far beyond that level because you'd end up having to get the whole world's population playing into the scheme. I won't deal with all the possible good math examples here given the awkward lack of means to express math terms here and that this may just be too much for many. However, take a simple online input in google, "6^6". It is 46656. Yes, I know I used 5 names in the above example. I chose '6' because it is somewhat a popular scheme that those Network marketers and other related schemes like to use and might make some of you familiar to it. That number means that the person on the top of a 6 person list would make $46, 656! Another simple six layers needed to permit the person on the bottom of the list to reach their $46, 656 means that the person on the top would require that number to the powet of 6 = 1.0314425e+28 which is $ 10,314,425,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and of course would need just as many people! So now copy my post and send it to all six friends and maybe we can get everyone to have the vaccine and eradicate Covid in a little over 6 levels! 🤑 This is my attempt to immunize you of the ignorance of viruses and vaccines with a bonus in immunizing you from pyramid-chainletter related schemes!