I have become informed of the horrifying existence of Demodex mites, which live in everyone's facial pores. One source says that these "animals" could be capable of transmitting viruses. Is this a possibility that virologists have discussed?
Anyone who has followed the Walgreen's data over the last year saw the potential for an enhanced chance of c19 infection (negative VE) increasing with multiple doses. This signal has been apparent for quite some time. Unfortunately, now the Walgreen's data no longer separates 0, 1, 2, and 3, ad infinitum doses in their data, so the data is salted. Many other studies also showed negative VE in data sets a solid year ago. This negative VE offsets to some degree any "protection" this drug may offer to individuals at risk. It should be noted that all VE calculations in the clinical trials ignored the first 2 weeks post vaccination and only followed VE for a short period of time thereafter. If the drug increased one's chance of c19 infection (suppressed immune system) in those first two weeks or shortly after 2-6 months, then we should have been informed. Also, the risk calculus for taking any drug has always been way different for a healthy individual versus someone who is truly at risk for a given disease. All drugs have cost/benefit and side effect concerns all the time and dosage always matters, but if you go back and read all the articles concerning the c19 mRNA drug in the Telluride Daily planet, and all the San Miguel County CO PH meetings you would think it is a magic, miracle drug with zero downsides. Remember, "the vaccine is our way out of the pandemic" battle cry? Multiple doses of c19 mRNA drug were uniformly recommended to our fellow county citizens as if there were not the thousand fold risk differential for c19 infection between the old and the young, the sick and the healthy (know since spring 2020). Lastly, back in my day vaccines were meant to prevent infection/transmission (not perfect, of course, but to a very significant degree) but recently, and very conveniently for makers of experimental tech, that definition has been changed to "protection".
Love your inclusion of political humor. We all need an occasional laugh-- given all the craziness in DC and around the country and world. Thanks 🙂.
I have become informed of the horrifying existence of Demodex mites, which live in everyone's facial pores. One source says that these "animals" could be capable of transmitting viruses. Is this a possibility that virologists have discussed?
Typo: "...verses (=versus) no bivalent booster."
Thanks for reading!
Anyone who has followed the Walgreen's data over the last year saw the potential for an enhanced chance of c19 infection (negative VE) increasing with multiple doses. This signal has been apparent for quite some time. Unfortunately, now the Walgreen's data no longer separates 0, 1, 2, and 3, ad infinitum doses in their data, so the data is salted. Many other studies also showed negative VE in data sets a solid year ago. This negative VE offsets to some degree any "protection" this drug may offer to individuals at risk. It should be noted that all VE calculations in the clinical trials ignored the first 2 weeks post vaccination and only followed VE for a short period of time thereafter. If the drug increased one's chance of c19 infection (suppressed immune system) in those first two weeks or shortly after 2-6 months, then we should have been informed. Also, the risk calculus for taking any drug has always been way different for a healthy individual versus someone who is truly at risk for a given disease. All drugs have cost/benefit and side effect concerns all the time and dosage always matters, but if you go back and read all the articles concerning the c19 mRNA drug in the Telluride Daily planet, and all the San Miguel County CO PH meetings you would think it is a magic, miracle drug with zero downsides. Remember, "the vaccine is our way out of the pandemic" battle cry? Multiple doses of c19 mRNA drug were uniformly recommended to our fellow county citizens as if there were not the thousand fold risk differential for c19 infection between the old and the young, the sick and the healthy (know since spring 2020). Lastly, back in my day vaccines were meant to prevent infection/transmission (not perfect, of course, but to a very significant degree) but recently, and very conveniently for makers of experimental tech, that definition has been changed to "protection".