On 2/7/2021 12:53 PM, 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.


And I say the same to you: read my previous statement; all of it; to
the end.
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.

And I told you that well documented studies have found covid antibody
plasma to be ineffective (that means it doesn't work) for patients with
severe (you used the words "very ill", same thing) disease. I also said
that covid antibody plasma is only effective against the specific
variant of covid virus that infected the patient that donated the
plasma. Immediately above you talk about patients whose "bodies are
fighting multiple infections causes [sic] by covid". Wrong! Covid
cause one infection - the covid infection. It doesn't "cause" secondary
infections. Inexact language easily leads to inexact thinking.

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?

Why not prevent people from becoming infected in the first place? Your
entire belief system with respect to this issue hinges on a single
anecdotal, uncontrolled case??? That's not science. That doesn't even
deserve mention when considering that the information I'm providing is
based on tens of thousands of carefully monitored cases from numerous
carefully configured experimental protocols designed to be amenable to
statistical analysis. I spent well over a decade managing huge
portfolios of human subjects medical research, including more than five
years as head of a very large Federal clinical investigation program
personally responsible for the safe and ethical use of tens of thousands
of human subjects enrolled in the program's projects. (For your
information, a medical research project is not ethical if, as one of
many other criteria, it isn't configured and executed to yield
statistically significant data.) You're way out of your league,
probably more than you realize.

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.

On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 11:35:56 AM UTC-5, 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?
--
Maggie

Because that route costs orders of magnitude more than a vaccine. And by then
it may not work? And by then you're in the hospital. What does that cost, compared
to getting the vaccine, stupid?

On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 1:58:43 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 2/7/2021 12:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/7/2021 11:35 AM, Muggles wrote:


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?


Because it has to be tested and deemed safe. Many treatments are tried
and some have failed. I'll let the scientists check it out first.
The science in favor of antibody plasma treatments is already available.

--
Maggie

So is the science in favor of the vaccine, stupid.

On 2/7/2021 10:59 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/7/2021 12:49 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/7/2021 12:03 PM, Muggles wrote:


I know the goal of vaccines: to trick the body into creating antibodies.

I also KNOW of a man who was literally close to dying with covid
caused pneumonia and a blood infection. He should have died.* BUT,
they gave him his first antibody plasma treatment and the same day he
began improving.* They continued to give him several other antibody
plasma treatments and 3 days later is tested negative, his pneumonia
and blood infection responded to treatment, and he DRAMATICALLY
IMPROVED in a relatively short period of time.

Why NOT use this approach with those who get very ill because of age
and comorbities? Antibodies literally STOP the reproduction of covid
and it dies.* This allows the individual to put all their bodies
energy into fighting the infections covid caused.



My friend Al got the same treatment Trump got.* Only difference, Al
died.* Just because it worked once does not prove anything.


geez .... It's worked more than once. The science and studies are out
there, already, that supports the use of antibody plasma treatments with
covid.



How many times have you donated plasma?

"Muggles" wrote in message ...
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.

Yes.

Why not skip traditional vaccines and go straight to treating the most
sick people with covid antibody plasma?

Because it makes a hell of a lot more sense to prevent
them getting infected in the first place by vaccinating
them and stop them getting seriously sick by
vaccinating them, and vastly cheaper, and vastly
safer too and its possible to vaccinate everyone
who wants to be vaccinated, but not possible to
give everyone the plasma if they get very sick.

"Muggles" wrote in message ...
On 2/7/2021 10:38 AM, Bod wrote:
On 07/02/2021 16:35, 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?


If it actually works, don't you think they'd be using it already instead
of vaccinating?

There are many more people who have had covid and recovered on their own.

But much harder and much more expensive to harvest
the plasma from them than to produce another dose
of vaccine and much more difficult and much more
expensive to use the plasma on someone who is
seriously sick too.

They have antibodies that can be donated and used to SAVE the most
vulnerable to this virus.

In fact plasma is only used on those who are
very seriously affected by the virus infection.
And doesn’t work anything like as well as
vaccination which prevents you getting
infected in the first place.

Why NOT do that?

Because it doesn’t work anything like as well as vaccination
and is vastly more expensive and vastly more risky and is only
used on those who are seriously sick. Much better to stop
them getting seriously sick in the first place with vaccination.

Antibodies are the goal of treating people with vaccines.

Yes, and the current vaccines do that much better
than even getting infected with the virus, unusually.

Those who are VERY SICK can (and do) benefit from infusions of antibody
plasma.

But its much better to stop them getting
VERY SICK in the first place with vaccination.

"Muggles" wrote in message ...
On 2/7/2021 10:44 AM, Bod wrote:
On 07/02/2021 16:43, Muggles wrote:
On 2/7/2021 10:38 AM, Bod wrote:
On 07/02/2021 16:35, 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?


If it actually works, don't you think they'd be using it already
instead of vaccinating?


There are many more people who have had covid and recovered on their
own. They have antibodies that can be donated and used to SAVE the most
vulnerable to this virus. Why NOT do that? Antibodies are the goal of
treating people with vaccines. Those who are VERY SICK can (and do)
benefit from infusions of antibody plasma.


Covid: 'Convalescent plasma no benefit to hospital patients'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55681051

Of course you know better than the experts.

I know the goal of vaccines: to trick the body into creating antibodies.

Which stops them getting VERY SICK in the first place.

I also KNOW of a man who was literally close to dying with covid caused
pneumonia and a blood infection.

You don’t know that those were covid caused. ALL you
know is that he tested positive for covid as well as those.

He should have died. BUT, they gave him his first antibody plasma
treatment and the same day he began improving.

You have no way of knowing what would have happened
if they had not done that. That’s why proper randomised
double blind trials are used to see what works and what doesn’t.

They continued to give him several other antibody plasma treatments and 3
days later is tested negative, his pneumonia and blood infection responded
to treatment, and he DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED in a relatively short period of
time.

Others have got the same result without the plasma treatment.

Why NOT use this approach with those who get very ill because of age and
comorbities?

Because it makes much more sense to vaccinate them
instead so they don’t get very sick in the first place.

Antibodies literally STOP the reproduction of covid and it dies.

And you get far more antibodys by vaccinating with these vaccines.

This allows the individual to put all their bodies energy into fighting
the infections covid caused.

In spades with vaccination.

"Muggles" wrote in message ...
On 2/7/2021 11:07 AM, Bod wrote:
On 07/02/2021 17:03, Muggles wrote:
On 2/7/2021 10:44 AM, Bod wrote:
On 07/02/2021 16:43, Muggles wrote:
On 2/7/2021 10:38 AM, Bod wrote:
On 07/02/2021 16:35, 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?


If it actually works, don't you think they'd be using it already
instead of vaccinating?


There are many more people who have had covid and recovered on their
own. They have antibodies that can be donated and used to SAVE the
most vulnerable to this virus. Why NOT do that? Antibodies are the
goal of treating people with vaccines. Those who are VERY SICK can
(and do) benefit from infusions of antibody plasma.


Covid: 'Convalescent plasma no benefit to hospital patients'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55681051

Of course you know better than the experts.

I know the goal of vaccines: to trick the body into creating antibodies.

I also KNOW of a man who was literally close to dying with covid caused
pneumonia and a blood infection. He should have died. BUT, they gave
him his first antibody plasma treatment and the same day he began
improving. They continued to give him several other antibody plasma
treatments and 3 days later is tested negative, his pneumonia and blood
infection responded to treatment, and he DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED in a
relatively short period of time.

Why NOT use this approach with those who get very ill because of age and
comorbities? Antibodies literally STOP the reproduction of covid and it
dies. This allows the individual to put all their bodies energy into
fighting the infections covid caused.


The trials disagreed with you.

Those trials are not recent, either.

Wrong, as always.

There wasn't a large sampling of people who HAD antibodies, either. Now,
there is.

Wrong, as always.

"Muggles" wrote in message ...
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!

We know it doesn’t work anywhere near as well as
vaccination and doesn’t stop an uninfected person
from getting infected in the first place.

Why not treat more people who need life saving antibodies to fight covid?

Because it makes a lot more sense to stop them
getting infected or serious disease in the first place.
And vastly cheaper and vastly safer too.

On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 15:24:13 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 15:39:46 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile pest's latest troll**** unread


--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 11:35:56 AM UTC-5, 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?
--
Maggie

There are treatments for many diseases, yet we vaccinate because it greatly
lessens suffering, save lives, and a lot of healthcare spending, and lost productivity.
But we don't expect you to understand that.

On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 12:53:55 PM UTC-5, 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.

Multiple infections cause by Covid? Covid only causes Covid and if they
have another infection on top of that, Covid convalescent plasma isn't
going to do squat.




The GOAL is to get antibodies to attack the virus. I don't care what
one study said last month or even last year.

Obviously, that's why you're the village idiot.


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.

Bingo. Ignore studies, instead go by what you saw in one case,
with no proof that the convalescent therapy is what caused the
improvement. That's why we do studies.




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

--
Maggie

AFAIK, it is approved and doctors can prescribe it. I would think there are
a number of problems. One is that from what I have seen, it apparently works
best in patients with mild to moderate cases. Yet those people are mostly
not hospitalized, the therapy requires infusion. I would also expect that there
simply isn't much of a supply at this point. We would have to ramp production
and infrastructure to administer it to early, mild cases, maybe 50K a day.
It's going to be expensive, you'd be the first one to say, I'm not that sick,
I'm not going to take some expensive infusion, made from sick people's blood.
If that was going to be the approach, then Trump's operation Warpspeed should
have done it, but from what I've seen, it doesn't look like a good fit. We can't even do
more than 10 mil vaccines a week and at least that gives protection that lasts
months, maybe a year or more.

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."

--
Maggie

"Muggles" wrote in message ...
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."

The word POTENTIALLY means that its worth looking at.
When that was studied properly with proper randomised
double blind studys, it turns out that there is no evidence
that it is effective with those that are very sick due to the virus.

On 2/8/2021 12:26 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
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."

The word POTENTIALLY means that its worth looking at.
When that was studied properly with proper randomised
double blind studys, it turns out that there is no evidence
that it is effective with those that are very sick due to the virus.

There IS evidence it is effective in patients who are sick in the
hospital, but NOT "patients with Covid-19 who were receiving mechanical
ventilation." Do any of you actually read the words?

--
Maggie

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. That's how science is supposed to
work. What was best available evidence in the past is continually
updated and refined as newer data is acquired and analyzed. Don't cite
out of date data to defend an obsolete conclusion that has been
contradicted by more recent data.

I can already predict that you want to answer by saying that the NEJM
article was published only last month. That's a different issue - what
can be done to peer review and publish potentially important studies
more efficiently? However, it doesn't change the fact that the NEJM
article was more of historical than current importance by the time it
was published. A recently published study of obsolete data in a rapidly
evolving field of study is never definitive.

On 2/8/2021 12:54 PM, 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".

Hello? I never said they were the SAME thing, either. It specifically
refers to using on patients NOT requiring ventilation.




--
Maggie

"Muggles" wrote in message ...
On 2/8/2021 12:26 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
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."

The word POTENTIALLY means that its worth looking at.
When that was studied properly with proper randomised
double blind studys, it turns out that there is no evidence
that it is effective with those that are very sick due to the virus.

There IS evidence it is effective in patients who are sick in the
hospital,

Nope. Not when that treatment is tested properly
with a proper randomised double double blind trial.

but NOT "patients with Covid-19 who were receiving mechanical
ventilation." Do any of you actually read the words?

You are too stupid to comprehend the words and too
stupid to realise that it makes a hell of a lot more sense
to vaccinate to avoid getting infected in the first place
and to avoid getting hospitalised at all than it does to
use a very expensive and risky proceeded on those who
end up in hospital after they have been infected with the
virus.

On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 07:31:24 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

Learn to trim your quotes, you trolling senile *******!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 20:44:17 -0800, Bob F posted for all of us to digest...


On 2/6/2021 11:57 AM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 22:20:30 -0500, posted for all of us to
digest...


On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 08:17:34 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 11:15:07 AM UTC-5, 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.

--
Maggie

Let's see what you say when you're hospitalized with Covid. What are guys
like Herman Cain, who wouldn't distance, wouldn't wear a mask, saying?


Imagine how those who always wore a mask, washed their hands and tried
to distance feel when they get infected.

Like my BIL...


Probably just like the many more that did not take those precautions feel.

He was in a nursing home. He was a cognizant, thriving human being. They
followed the rules.

--
Tekkie

On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 16:21:43 -0800, Bob F posted for all of us to digest...


On 2/7/2021 10:59 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/7/2021 12:49 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/7/2021 12:03 PM, Muggles wrote:


I know the goal of vaccines: to trick the body into creating antibodies.

I also KNOW of a man who was literally close to dying with covid
caused pneumonia and a blood infection. He should have died.* BUT,
they gave him his first antibody plasma treatment and the same day he
began improving.* They continued to give him several other antibody
plasma treatments and 3 days later is tested negative, his pneumonia
and blood infection responded to treatment, and he DRAMATICALLY
IMPROVED in a relatively short period of time.

Why NOT use this approach with those who get very ill because of age
and comorbities? Antibodies literally STOP the reproduction of covid
and it dies.* This allows the individual to put all their bodies
energy into fighting the infections covid caused.



My friend Al got the same treatment Trump got.* Only difference, Al
died.* Just because it worked once does not prove anything.


geez .... It's worked more than once. The science and studies are out
there, already, that supports the use of antibody plasma treatments with
covid.



How many times have you donated plasma?

How many times have YOU done something for humanity, other than spout off here?

--
Tekkie

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.

On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 4:23:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 20:44:17 -0800, Bob F posted for all of us to digest...


On 2/6/2021 11:57 AM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 22:20:30 -0500, posted for all of us to
digest...


On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 08:17:34 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 11:15:07 AM UTC-5, 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.

--
Maggie

Let's see what you say when you're hospitalized with Covid. What are guys
like Herman Cain, who wouldn't distance, wouldn't wear a mask, saying?


Imagine how those who always wore a mask, washed their hands and tried
to distance feel when they get infected.

Like my BIL...


Probably just like the many more that did not take those precautions feel.

He was in a nursing home. He was a cognizant, thriving human being. They
followed the rules.

--
Tekkie

No one promised that by following the rules you won't still get infected. The
only promise that was made was that following the rules and common sense
can significantly reduce your chances of being infected and that is true.

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.

On Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 1:21:21 PM UTC-5, Retirednoguilt wrote:

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.

How about all of the above? I take it that you don't have much experience
with her. She's like this on just about everything.

On 2/9/2021 10:21 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
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.

It's just like talking to a brick.

"Retirednoguilt" wrote in message
...
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.

Not incapable of understanding what we are saying,
so stupid that she cant even manage to work out that
it makes a hell of a lot more sense to vaccinate and
avoid being infected or getting very sick with the
virus than it does to wait till you are very sick and
get treated with a very expensive and risky plasma,

Or even work out that masks help.

And too stupid to work out that vaccination stops
you getting infected with a virus, even tho she does
get vaccinated with the least reliable vaccine, for flu.

Ear to ear dog **** imo.

In any case, I've decided not to waste any more time replying to her inane
posts.

On 09/02/2021 18:51, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 1:21:21 PM UTC-5, Retirednoguilt wrote:

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.

How about all of the above? I take it that you don't have much experience
with her. She's like this on just about everything.


Agreed.

On 2/9/2021 1:53 PM, Bob F wrote:


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.

It's just like talking to a brick.

That is why good newsreaders have kill files. Nothing will change her.
Change yourself instead.