On 2/9/2021 11:18 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 1:55:04 PM UTC-5, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 2/8/2021 12:45 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/7/2021 1:45 PM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 2/7/2021 1:44 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/7/2021 11:56 AM, Bod wrote:
On 07/02/2021 17:53, Muggles wrote:
On 2/7/2021 11:36 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 2/7/2021 11:35 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/6/2021 10:57 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 2/5/2021 9:32 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/05/2021 10:20 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 2/5/2021 11:14 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/4/2021 10:29 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2021-02-04, Muggles wrote:
Gene therapy ...

I will not be vaccinated. Period.


I ONLY consider being vaccinated after such shots have been
tested for
several years. By then, the majority of negative reactions
have been
documented, along with why those reactions happened. I get a
flu shot
every fall because I've seen those work with very little
allergic
reactions. The covid "vaccines" have not been tested long
enough for
me to even consider taking one of those shots. I'm no
guinea pig.
If other people WANT to be experimented on, that's their
business.


When in the history of vaccination approval and administration
in the
U.S. was there was a vaccine that demonstrated a statistically
significant incidence of delayed side effects (serious or
otherwise)
occurring more than a few months following inoculation?
Please provide
a reputable reference. I don't think that you'll be able to
find one.
Yet, on the basis of fear, unsubstantiated by any facts, you
consider
the potential risk of such a situation greater than the
extremely well
documented substantial risk of becoming crippled or killed by an
infection with one of the COVID variants. For the sake of
yourself,
your family members, friends, and possible co-workers, examine
the facts
and reconsider your decision!


When in the history of vaccination approval and administration
in the U.S. was there was a mRNA vaccine?


That's a non sequitur; completely irrelevant. In the past, many
new vaccines when first approved and administered, were
developed by novel techniques and had never before been used to
develop a safe and effective vaccine. You think the smallpox
vaccine was safe? How about the Sabin polio vaccine? Not even
discussing vaccines, how many people have life-threatening
allergies to the penicillins or other families of life-saving
medicines? Should we ban penicillin? Should we place a strict
embargo on peanuts and ban them entirely from the marketplace
because a small percentage of the population is at risk? All
decisions involving public health constitute best judgement
after a risk vs. benefit analysis.

Risk vs. benefit. Yes, we might be able to extend experimental
vaccine protocols for many months or even years but there's no
objective endpoint that can be set. How long is long enough?
Why choose any particular length of followup? Usually it's a
compromise between recruiting and retaining sufficient subjects
to enable an appropriate magnitude of statistical significance
when the data is analyzed, the cost per month of keeping a
research team funded to maintain the protocol, the severity of
the disease threat, and what is known about the biology of how
we respond to the introduction of similar foreign substances
into our bodies. mRNA is not a novel molecule, recently
synthesized in the lab. It's produced by cells and viruses and
needed to maintain that specie's viability in nature. Our cells
need mRNA to fabricate proteins. We've known about corona
viruses for decades and none have ever even been suspected much
less documented of being either mutagenic or carcinogenic. We
know how lethal and transmissible the COVID corona virus has
been. The risk vs benefit of administering mRNA vaccines against
the COVID virus strongly favors the use of the preapproval human
clinical trial period that was selected.



The goal of vaccines is to trick our immune systems into
producing antibodies that target a specific virus attacking our
bodies. Why not skip traditional vaccines and go straight to
treating the most sick people with covid antibody plasma?


Muggles, you are mistaken again. The goal of vaccines is to use
an extremely low risk method to induce our immune system to
develop the ability to fight an extremely dangerous high risk
pathogen. In other words, it is a preventive treatment, given to
totally avoid or minimize the severity of disease in a patient who
may become exposed to a high risk pathogen.

geez ... you think because I used different words to describe the
SAME process that I'm "mistaken."


Our immune system, whether through exposure to an effective
vaccine or exposure to a pathogen, activates numerous mechanisms
of immune response IN ADDITION TO CIRCULATING ANTIBODIES. In
contrast, COVID immune antibody plasma doesn't induce our immune
system to develop the full



Another advantage of vaccines is that in the case of pathogens that


See my previous statement.

I also specifically mentioned that covid antibody plasma could be
good to use for people who are very ill where their bodies are
fighting multiple infections causes by covid.

The GOAL is to get antibodies to attack the virus. I don't care
what one study said last month or even last year. I'm aware of one
friend (with multiple physical issues) who should be dead but is
NOT dead because he was given covid antibody treatments.

Evidently, it WORKS! Why not treat more people who need life
saving antibodies to fight covid?


Again! the NHS trial disagrees with you.

geez Try researching. I hear Google scholar is a great source.


"The adjusted models (as defined in Table 2) generally showed a
similar association — a lower relative risk of death among patients
who received plasma transfusions with high anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG
antibody levels..."

"In a retrospective study based on a national registry,
*convalescent* *plasma was identified as a potentially beneficial
therapy in* *hospitalized patients with Covid-19*. Our principal
finding was that among patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving
mechanical ventilation, the transfusion of plasma with high antibody
levels was associated with a lower risk of death than the transfusion
of plasma with low antibody levels. We found no such relationship
(between antibody level and the risk of death) among patients with
Covid-19 who were receiving mechanical ventilation. In addition,
patients who received plasma within 3 days after receiving a
diagnosis of Covid-19 had a lower risk of death than those who
received transfusions later in the disease course."

"These data were consistent with a mortality benefit associated with
high-titer plasma administered earlier in the course of the disease.
Our findings parallel the recent findings from a trial of the
antiviral agent remdesivir in which clinical benefit was evident
among patients who were not receiving advanced respiratory support
and absent among patients who were receiving noninvasive high-flow
oxygen or mechanical ventilation.32,36,37 Our findings are also
consistent with aggregate data from observational studies and
randomized trials of convalescent plasma,7,9,38,39 as well as with
historical evidence regarding antibody therapy for infectious
diseases.3 Our data and those from other studies provide support for
the use of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays as an indicator of the
potency of Covid-19 convalescent plasma."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2031893


Muggles, you don't even understand what you're quoting. The
statements you quote with respect to convalescent plasma directly
contradict your position, they don't support it. Patients who don't
require mechanical ventilation are in the mild-moderate illness
category. Those that require mechanical ventilation are in the severe
illness category. I'm supposing that your not a trained health care
scientist or clinician, and as such, it's not surprising that you're
having difficulty understanding an article in the New England Journal
of Medicine. But please have the humility to accept when you're being
corrected by someone who can understand those articles and is taking
the time to try to correct your misunderstandings.


The article/study said specifically, "convalescent plasma was identified
as a potentially beneficial therapy in hospitalized patients with
Covid-19."

And "hospitalized" is different than "require mechanical ventilation".
Not all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 disease require mechanical
ventilation. It's easy to defend grossly incorrect statements when one
ignores distinctions that make a difference.

And, "potentially beneficial" was appropriate in the study you cite
because that study included patients prior to July 2020. More recent
studies have concluded that convalescent plasma as a treatment for COVID
is indicated for outpatients within only about one week or so of being
symptomatic with mild-moderate symptoms but are at high risk for
progression to more severe disease.

I tried to explain that as part of the problem with this treatment being used
as a widespread solution. It has to be given by IV, which means time and
resources are involved, in addition to whatever limited supply of plasma
is available. Yet it's apparently only effective with mild to moderate
symptoms. We have 120K new cases a day. At what point do you
treat them? First symptoms? When it gets worse? How would we
deal with the numbers? Where would you have it done? Have Covid
people travel to get it, infecting others? To what facilities? It's
a very bad fit. And AFAIK, it is available as a treatment if doctors
want to use it.







Exactly! I can't decide whether Muggles is trolling us and being
willfully argumentative, or is truly incapable of understanding what
we're saying. In any case, I've decided not to waste any more time
replying to her inane posts.