COVID-19

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • graphic-er
    I'm on a MAC!
    • Jan 2010
    • 12376

    Originally posted by Gamble1

    Full discloser it has been awhile since I looked at the data for this and even then this isn't my field but I will list off observations then list why I lean towards a certain direction.

    Observation 1: If direct link exist it should be relatively easy to find since the prevalence of childhood vaccinations is really high in rich countries and has been for a really long time. So this gives any researcher an ample sample size to show a cause and effect relationship. So autism is a spectrum and in my opinion is one of those diagnoses that is a phenotypic presentation of disease which is a fancy way of saying that there is probably are many causes of it and that one direct link is probably a foolish way to look at it. So for instance if you look at mental retardation there are many causes of it and some of them are genetic, some of them are chemical, some of them are nutritional. So in other words diagnosis of a disease can be a catch all when in reality the biology going on is much more complex than just saying autism or MR.

    Observation 2: So it just so happens that my wife early on treated autistic kids in southern California. IT was a family of 5 with all three kids have varying degrees of autism. To me as a researcher the obvious connection is a genetic one. The likelihood of this occurring by coincidence is really really low and that family years later found out they had a genetic problem that caused it. So this to me at least linked the diagnosis and the cause to be a large genetic component.

    Observation 3: How much of the increase in diagnosis of autism is do to improved diagnostics, reporting, health coverage, education? These questions do not explain all of the increase in numbers but the question does explain some of the increase in autism rates. In cardiology we know that these impact the increase in heart disease diagnosis and it sort of makes sense if you think about it. If I give the means, the knowledge and the technology to diagnosis then you will see an increase in the disease prevalence among a population.

    So for me if vaccinations are a risk for increasing autism it should be easier to show a cause and effect relationship than it actually is. In addition one should explain if there is direct link what biology is at play here that increases the risk. The chemical agents are given in so little quantity and for such a short period of time that they would have to be so harmful that it should be easy to study on nerve cells in a dish. In other words it should be easy to show a direct link. That to me just doesn't add up and is sort of like me saying that a women drinking one beer causes fetal alcohol syndrome which it doesn't.

    If vaccines trigger an autoimmune response that is high enough to see phenotypically then we should be able to see it in diagnostic panels for inflammatory markers, antibodies that bind to nerve cells, etc etc. This is why I do not believe vaccines trigger it because we should be able to pick this up with the the technology now.

    Lastly I wonder how much of the genetic component and the age play a factor in the increase in autism. That is to say that the age of the mom and the pregnancy's is known risk factor for genetic disorders. We all inherit our mother mitochondrial DNA which are the organelles that generate the energy for all of our cells. Nerve cells are chalked full of them and highly dependent on them in addition to this moms are having kids later in life than ever before. So the eggs themselves are older and hence the DNA is less stable overtime. This is why age is known risk factor for congenital disease. To me this is way more likely of an explanation to the increase rates of autism than say a vaccine which merely triggers an immune response that basically already gets triggered multiple times a year with live viruses and bacterium and fungi from nature.

    As for big pharma screwing over researchers well that is just not how it works in a basic laboratory. The NIH is federally funded and is independent of private industry. The whole reason is so basic research can be untainted by big pharma and so innovation happens without outside influence. IF I write a grant and suspect a conflict of interest on the panel of colleagues reviewing that grant I can suggest that my grant be reconsidered by another panel. IF the critics I receive on that grant are without merit I can appeal the score. The people ultimately scoring that grant have to disclose conflicts of interest or they will be barred from reviewing grants.
    I don't doubt anything you have said here. You obviously know your stuff. As a layperson with kids who has only read up on a few articles here and there over the years from biased articles on both sides of the issue, I generally wind up in a quandary about it all. Definitely the spectrum has broaden over the last 30 years and thus the diagnosis rate increases.

    I am more inclined to accept that environmental factors are a more prevalent leading cause like chemical runoff, dumping, ground water leaching. As you pointed out certain power plant pollution as well.

    But at the core of all this are parents who claim that their kids changed or dimmed with in a short time after receiving their recommended child hood vaccines. Maybe there are genetic markers that some how interact with these vaccines? All know is that if you are a parent and this happened to your kid, the first thing you are thinking is what occurred recently out of the normal that could cause such drastic change in my child. These parents aren't grasping at straws and saying my kid had vaccines 3 months ago. These changes are happening with in like 2 weeks of inoculation. There seems to be a push lately to completely discredit these parents and their experiences.

    There are people out there who are even discrediting alternative/delayed vaccination schedules as being dangerous and exposing your child and the public to diseases even though they all end up with the same vaccinations by school aged.

    The recommended vaccine schedule is based on two things:

    1.) When children are likely to be exposed to these infections

    2.) When their immune systems are developed enough to safely respond to the vaccine

    But are they considering the child's development milestones in these schedules? I don't think so. For instance, There is some speculation out there that the Rubella portion of the MMR vaccine is seen as an autism link. Because the actual disease itself can cause brain damage and mental retardation in toddlers. So why would you give a live version of the virus to a toddler during one of the most important brain development periods of their life? 12-24 months when they're brains are going into overdrive trying to recognize speech patterns and comprehension. This just also happens to be the most common diagnosis period for autism.

    Is the country really at risk for an MMR outbreak if children didn't get these vaccines until they are 30 months old? Probably not.

    I remember having this conservation with our pediatrician for our oldest daughter. We specifically chose her as our Ped because she had a background in vaccine studies. When we initially discussed this with her. She gave us a look of disbelief that we were nutjob anti-vaxers and she was going to recommend us find a different pediatrician. I had to explain to her that we were pro-vaccine, but like many new parents we are concerned about the amount of vaccines give at one time as they were much more than we had in the 80's, are the vaccines indeed preservative free - is there actually such a thing? What did she think of spreading some of these vaccines out, and that we thought she might have more informed opinions on these topics because of the her background. She was actually very supportive of our concerns about preservatives and spacing them out, but in the end we ended up doing the standard schedule because our daycare required it by the State. But if we actually had the opportunity we probably would have spread those shots out.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

    Comment

    • Gamble1
      Member
      • Apr 2007
      • 7257

      Originally posted by graphic-er

      I don't doubt anything you have said here. You obviously know your stuff. As a layperson with kids who has only read up on a few articles here and there over the years from biased articles on both sides of the issue, I generally wind up in a quandary about it all. Definitely the spectrum has broaden over the last 30 years and thus the diagnosis rate increases.

      I am more inclined to accept that environmental factors are a more prevalent leading cause like chemical runoff, dumping, ground water leaching. As you pointed out certain power plant pollution as well.

      But at the core of all this are parents who claim that their kids changed or dimmed with in a short time after receiving their recommended child hood vaccines. Maybe there are genetic markers that some how interact with these vaccines? All know is that if you are a parent and this happened to your kid, the first thing you are thinking is what occurred recently out of the normal that could cause such drastic change in my child. These parents aren't grasping at straws and saying my kid had vaccines 3 months ago. These changes are happening with in like 2 weeks of inoculation. There seems to be a push lately to completely discredit these parents and their experiences.

      There are people out there who are even discrediting alternative/delayed vaccination schedules as being dangerous and exposing your child and the public to diseases even though they all end up with the same vaccinations by school aged.

      The recommended vaccine schedule is based on two things:

      1.) When children are likely to be exposed to these infections

      2.) When their immune systems are developed enough to safely respond to the vaccine

      But are they considering the child's development milestones in these schedules? I don't think so. For instance, There is some speculation out there that the Rubella portion of the MMR vaccine is seen as an autism link. Because the actual disease itself can cause brain damage and mental retardation in toddlers. So why would you give a live version of the virus to a toddler during one of the most important brain development periods of their life? 12-24 months when they're brains are going into overdrive trying to recognize speech patterns and comprehension. This just also happens to be the most common diagnosis period for autism.

      Is the country really at risk for an MMR outbreak if children didn't get these vaccines until they are 30 months old? Probably not.

      I remember having this conservation with our pediatrician for our oldest daughter. We specifically chose her as our Ped because she had a background in vaccine studies. When we initially discussed this with her. She gave us a look of disbelief that we were nutjob anti-vaxers and she was going to recommend us find a different pediatrician. I had to explain to her that we were pro-vaccine, but like many new parents we are concerned about the amount of vaccines give at one time as they were much more than we had in the 80's, are the vaccines indeed preservative free - is there actually such a thing? What did she think of spreading some of these vaccines out, and that we thought she might have more informed opinions on these topics because of the her background. She was actually very supportive of our concerns about preservatives and spacing them out, but in the end we ended up doing the standard schedule because our daycare required it by the State. But if we actually had the opportunity we probably would have spread those shots out.
      So I totally support asking questions and hard question at that of scientist or medical professionals. I personally wish more people asked the questions like you did so these types of misconceptions or reasonable concerns can be addressed. No one person has all the answers but it is only by using all the resources and knowledge that we can all agree on what is reasonable for our society. That sounds hokey or idealistic but it is how I see things being argued out based on logic and facts.

      So if you look at the Rebulla vaccine you brought up the pathology of that disease and the association of developmental disease is linked to the mother getting rebullla especially in the first trimester and then the fetus having all sorts of congenial malformations.

      So to understand the whole live virus vaccine I need to explain how it was developed. This all boils down to classic selection and a easier example is how you select for a miniature dog or some other feature you want like long hair or short hair. You just keep breeding the ones with the feature you want.

      So how is this done with a virus? A person takes the virus from a biopsy and put it in a dish with cells. Then they take the cells that are infected with the virus and put them in another dish with more cells and let them grow. Then do it again and again and again until you see the cells basically have a very very slow ability to infect those cells. The virus is there but it has been selected to have a very slow ability to infect and replicate in human cells. So when a person gets vaccinated the virus basically can not avoid or replicate fast enough to cause harm to a healthy person. The virus was selected to be very bad at being a virus so that the immune cells can beat the hell out of it.

      This selection process happens all the time in nature. It happened with covid 19 with a favorable mutation that gave it the ability to infect humans really really easily. The scientist developing the rebulla vaccine basically used the same methods that nature uses but for the opposite traits a virus wants.

      Last edited by Gamble1; 12-10-2020, 03:23 PM.

      Comment

      • Bball
        Jimmy did what Jimmy did
        • Jan 2004
        • 26906

        Are there any actual stats about how much we've really improved death rates with Covid-19? Obviously, we've learned some things since spring... But how much has really changed? What is the projected IFR and has it really lowered in any great way?

        I know I hear people talking about the "death rate" declining, but mostly what they are seeing (or repeating) is we're testing more and catching more cases throughout the summer. So, when you do the simple math on CFR (case fatality rates) of course that number will drop. Deaths are pretty much a fixed number, especially once we had the ability to properly recognize diagnose each Covid-19 case that died. But the other side of that equation has been growing larger as we were able to find and record more cases.

        We always knew there were more cases than we were catching.

        In the initial wave, once testing got anywhere at all, you had to be pretty bad with symptoms before you could get tested (outside of some select people). So of course, the CFR would be higher then.

        We're still not catching all of the cases... just more of them.

        So... what is the projected IFR now? Not CFR.

        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment

        • BlueNGold
          Banned
          • Aug 2005
          • 32249

          Originally posted by Gamble1

          https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-b...%20tuna%20fish



          https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...cury-get-into/

          So again this can be measured and we don't need some conspiracy riddled argument to just ask the question What is the main source of Mercury in the environment that is making its way into our bodies? The answer isn't vaccines.
          Exactly how do you know that injecting even a small amount of mercury directly into ~100% of all infant's blood isn't worse than the risk involving 10% of mothers having elevated levels in their blood? That isn't even comparable to an apples and oranges comparision.

          Also, keep in mind there were around 9 vaccines potentially given in 1990 and a couple more around 2000. Not all had thimerasol. Still I know several did.

          Of course, I'm not making the claim that thimerasol had anything to do with autism. I actually doubt it. But I don't believe it's been disproven and it's not irrational to think that...or at least have that as an opinion.

          Comment

          • BlueNGold
            Banned
            • Aug 2005
            • 32249

            Welp, maskless Sweden just dropped in 7 day rolling average per capita death rate. I get that Sweden isn't doing great. But they are, today at least, doing better than Germany yet no mask mandate in Sweden. IDK guys. Doesn't seem to matter now does it?


            Comment

            • Peck
              Administrator
              • Jan 2004
              • 19955



              Thank God I live in Indiana, we are among the first tier here. I feel betrayed for the EMS workers in NY state, they did not deserve this at all.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment

              • BlueNGold
                Banned
                • Aug 2005
                • 32249

                Originally posted by Peck
                https://cnycentral.com/news/local/em...5-CvfXpv8IPqGA

                Thank God I live in Indiana, we are among the first tier here. I feel betrayed for the EMS workers in NY state, they did not deserve this at all.
                If anyone should be tier 1a, it should be EMS. That's NY for you though.

                Comment

                • Gamble1
                  Member
                  • Apr 2007
                  • 7257

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold

                  Exactly how do you know that injecting even a small amount of mercury directly into ~100% of all infant's blood isn't worse than the risk involving 10% of mothers having elevated levels in their blood? That isn't even comparable to an apples and oranges comparision.

                  Also, keep in mind there were around 9 vaccines potentially given in 1990 and a couple more around 2000. Not all had thimerasol. Still I know several did.

                  Of course, I'm not making the claim that thimerasol had anything to do with autism. I actually doubt it. But I don't believe it's been disproven and it's not irrational to think that...or at least have that as an opinion.
                  Its called ppm and half life of a toxin. If the environmental exposer is greater than a couple of vaccines then vaccines are not the main source of mercury toxicity. You would the first person ever to suggest that postnatal mercury exposer is more harmful than in utero exposer. Even with that assumption the main source of mercury exposer is not vaccines. It is food and it makes its way into the breast milk or crosses into the placental barrier in utero.

                  This is the whole reason why pregnant moms are told not to eat a lot of shell fish. Again you also have to show that the equivalent of a can of tuna of mercury causes autism. Good luck with that.

                  Comment

                  • vapacersfan
                    Member
                    • Apr 2006
                    • 8614



                    Sarah Solomon
                    @sarahsolfails

                    The Indianapolis Star, Indiana, November 22, 1918

                    10:25 PM ? Dec 10, 2020


                    Comment

                    • Gamble1
                      Member
                      • Apr 2007
                      • 7257

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold
                      Welp, maskless Sweden just dropped in 7 day rolling average per capita death rate. I get that Sweden isn't doing great. But they are, today at least, doing better than Germany yet no mask mandate in Sweden. IDK guys. Doesn't seem to matter now does it?

                      https://ourworldindata.org/coronavir...ickerSort=desc
                      And now Sweden is above France, Germany, UK. etc etc. Again you completely ignore what has been already shown in my post. Sweden has a lag of deaths being reported. The 7 day average deaths are skewed since deaths are lagging over 7 days. This artificially lowers the average or makes the graphing inaccurate on certain days.

                      You are so bent on being right you are ignoring logical explanations for the data high and low points.

                      https://ourworldindata.org/coronavir...ickerSort=desc
                      Last edited by Gamble1; 12-12-2020, 12:08 PM.

                      Comment

                      • vnzla81
                        Member
                        • Jul 2008
                        • 68187

                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment

                        • dal9
                          Can see thru wooden doors
                          • Dec 2007
                          • 17462

                          ^damn, wonder if it's that heart complication that goes with covid...espn story didn't mention covid at all

                          Comment

                          • Bball
                            Jimmy did what Jimmy did
                            • Jan 2004
                            • 26906

                            That's one of those things that could cause some immediate ripples, due to knowns and unknowns. Will the NCAA take a pause to answer any questions, or continue on? I know Coach K has questioned why they are playing basketball in a pandemic.
                            Did having Covid have anything to do with his collapse? Make an existing condition worse? Create a long lasting condition? Would a longer break after having Covid mitigated the chances of this, or once you have Covid does it elevate these risks forever? Or did Covid have nothing to do with this and it's just coincidental and a ticking timebomb that finally went off?

                            These type of questions are why the Big Ten originally opted not to play football in the fall. Then they got pressure, and even pressure from you know who that even took credit for the return of Big Ten football this fall.
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment

                            • Bball
                              Jimmy did what Jimmy did
                              • Jan 2004
                              • 26906

                              I'm trying to find exactly when (or if) he actually tested positive for Covid-19 since the reporting is vague on when except "over the summer". I'm seeing this from less than a month ago though-
                              November 22, 2020
                              Johnson and the Gators won't participate in team activities for a week due to positive COVID-19 tests and contact tracing protocols.
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment

                              • Bball
                                Jimmy did what Jimmy did
                                • Jan 2004
                                • 26906

                                I can find plenty of news about that Nov 22nd shutdown due to Covid-19 but nothing specifically about 'who' was positive. I don't see anything about a summer issue... but the current news is dominating the search so I'm not exactly surprised it would be buried.
                                So, the only thing I can find for certain is the team had a Covid shutdown announced Nov 22nd due to "positive tests and contract tracing...", less than a month ago.
                                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                                ------

                                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                                -John Wooden

                                Comment

                                Working...