- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Joe Rogan takes HoRsE DeWoRmEr, beats Covid in 3 days
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:04 pm to crazy4lsu
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:04 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
You understand that immunity in this sense includes T-dependent responses and T-independent? Because if you don’t, then you won’t understand why both are regarded as vaccines.
You need to go talk to the drug manufacturers, you're problem is clearly with them. At the FDA level these are gene therapies at best, of course, they can change the definition.
Let's be honest here, we're talking about something that really doesn't work anyway... or soon won't.
You took The Jab, you have to live with that.
This post was edited on 9/2/21 at 1:06 pm
2
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:05 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
They do reduce the risk of disease severity. But again, you don't know enough about vaccines to understand something can be a vaccine, and provide temporary immunity.
However these "breakthrough" infections are proving that those vaccinated are still very capable of carrying and transmitting the virus.
This prevents the population from ever reaching herd immunity.
Given the apparent virulence on the majority of our population, are the means justified?
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:05 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
You need to go talk to the drug manufacturers, you're problem is clearly with them.
Not really. What they claim - specifically - is limited immunity of an unknown duration.
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:07 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
Not really. What they claim - specifically - is limited immunity of an unknown duration.
So, its a vaccine but it just doesn't work. Got it.
Why we even talking about all this still, all this vaccine/gene therapy shite... is a waste of time.
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:10 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
So, its a vaccine but it just doesn't work. Got it.
You seem to have a very skewed internal definition of what immunity is. No vaccine offers 100% disease resistance (some come statistically close enough, 99.9%). No vaccine offers a guaranteed permanent resistance to disease.
With certain pathogens our immune response is limited in duration.
Having to get a tetanus booster every 10 years doesn't indicate to me that it "doesn't work," simply that the human body has evolved to keep immune resistance for that period of time when triggered by a pathogen or vaccine equivalent.
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:10 pm to LSUbest
quote:
However these "breakthrough" infections are proving that those vaccinated are still very capable of carrying and transmitting the virus.
Which is an argument for what? You have a situation in which there is a decreased severity of infection, and one where you rely on some vague population demographics in the hope that the disease course is mild.
quote:
This prevents the population from ever reaching herd immunity.
What factors do you need to get herd immunity?
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:10 pm to LSUbest
quote:
However these "breakthrough" infections are proving that those vaccinated are still very capable of carrying and transmitting the virus.
This prevents the population from ever reaching herd immunity.
Given the apparent virulence on the majority of our population, are the means justified?
- It may or may not be gene therapy
- It may or may not be a vaccine
- It may or may not be a drug
- It may or may not be effective in any meaningful way
- It may or may not kill you
- It may or may not work for very long if at all
- It may or may not stop transmission
- It may or may not stop infections
Modern science = new religious cult
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:11 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Which is an argument for what? You have a situation in which there is a decreased severity of infection, and one where you rely on some vague population demographics in the hope that the disease course is mild.
Like horse medicine.
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:13 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
Here, let me help you.
It is not.
It is.
Semantic distinction, but it is.
True, as of all vaccines.
True, as of all vaccines.
True, as with many vaccines.
It does not.
True, as of all vaccines.
Glad I could help.
quote:
- It may or may not be gene therapy
It is not.
quote:
- It may or may not be a vaccine
It is.
quote:
- It may or may not be a drug
Semantic distinction, but it is.
quote:
- It may or may not be effective in any meaningful way
True, as of all vaccines.
quote:
- It may or may not kill you
True, as of all vaccines.
quote:
- It may or may not work for very long if at all
True, as with many vaccines.
quote:
- It may or may not stop transmission
It does not.
quote:
- It may or may not stop infections
True, as of all vaccines.
Glad I could help.
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:14 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
You seem to have a very skewed internal definition of what immunity is. No vaccine offers 100% disease resistance (some come statistically close enough, 99.9%). No vaccine offers a guaranteed permanent resistance to disease.
Yeah, but we have real research on the other vaccines, unlike the non-scientific methods going on today.
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:16 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
True, as of all vaccines. Glad I could help.
True, there is always risks vs reward. In this case, nobody can really reasonable say what those are.
Its called a cult.
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:18 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
True, there is always risks vs reward. In this case, nobody can really reasonable say what those are.
The same approaches went into the trials of these vaccines as others. There's simply less time for them.
You can choose not to take it. That's your internal risk/reward methodology and I respect it.
But doing a song and dance and pretending it's not a vaccine or some secret gene therapy is nonsense and I think you know it.
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:19 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
You need to go talk to the drug manufacturers, you're problem is clearly with them.
Is a vaccine that potentiates a IgM response from plasma cells considered a vaccine? It’s a very simple question.
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:20 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
Yeah, but we have real research on the other vaccines, unlike the non-scientific methods going on today.
There is a long line of molecular work that the mRNA vaccines directly cite, and there is more research into them than there was with any of the Smallpox vaccines. I honestly don’t know where you are coming up with this stuff.
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:21 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
Having to get a tetanus booster every 10 years doesn't indicate to me that it "doesn't work," simply that the human body has evolved to keep immune resistance for that period of time when triggered by a pathogen or vaccine equivalent.
Just for fun, the WHO says tetanus and diptheria boosters aren’t necessary in adults. Probably because the vaccines work.
This post was edited on 9/2/21 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:26 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
Like horse medicine.
I’m perfectly fine with the use of Ivermectin, but I’ve heard wildly different modes of action that definitely need clarity, because the promise of possible viral inhibition shouldn’t be neglected. I’ve read responses that range from it decreases inflammatory response to it allows zinc to enter viral infected cells. Doxycycline shows the same effects in vitro and the MOA was far more clear than with Ivermectin, as it blocks 3C-protease, as well as possibly blocking the spike protein itself. Why haven’t we seen the same push with doxycycline?
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:28 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Why haven’t we seen the same push with doxycycline?
What do you mean by “the same push?”
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:31 pm to the808bass
quote:
What do you mean by “the same push?”
As in I haven’t heard it mentioned as a possible treatment as much in comparison to Ivermectin.
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:31 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
But doing a song and dance and pretending it's not a vaccine or some secret gene therapy is nonsense and I think you know it.
There is no song and dance, the manufacturers are not claiming what you are claiming.
I would have to seriously consider a doctor recommending any of this to 99% of the population as beyond help.
This post was edited on 9/2/21 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 9/2/21 at 1:31 pm to the808bass
quote:
Just for fun, the WHO says tetanus and diptheria boosters aren’t necessary in adults. Probably because the vaccines work.
Actually, that's not why. It's because the incidence rates didn't warrant it.
The vaccines *do* work. For some time period. They're not the only ones like that.
Page 10 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News