re: "reverse HIV" with vaccine. Laboratory findings...

quote:

---

Again, there are specific autoimmune disorders associated with a possible CD8 deficiency

---

Just stop. You know you are digging a hole. You stated:

quote:

---

we should be seeing...upper respiratory and lower respiratory infections

---

Are you saying that there is no increase or that CD8 has no role to play against RSV and therefore not relevant to bring up.


Which is it?


We will get to the rest after. Which is it

quote:

---

I’m not saying you’re not owning jldoc here, because you probably are, but it could be said that you seem to be fighting an easily winnable battle while ignoring larger points that might substantiate people’s concerns about the vaccine.

---

What are people's concerns, specifically? I do think the history of HIV in terms of its discovery as a virus associated with immunodeficiency should be a reference point, because the relationship between specific disease patterns (two diseases, one now regarded as fungal, and one the manifestation of herpetic infection) and immunodeficiency was discovered within six months of the first reported clinical case. If there was an association between specific immunodeficiency and these vaccinations, outside of the traditional association of vaccination with Guillian-Barre, it would be discovered in a similar disease pattern as HIV, because the relationship between CD4 and CD8 cells is synergistic, and HIV has strategies to deal with both versions of those T-cells.

quote:

---

against RSV

---

You're pointing to this but RSV rose in children a couple months ago and they have not been vaccinated. It is unrelated to the vaccine.

quote:

---

So you are assuming what he did or didn’t say & applying transitive thought.

---

Lol, you don't understand, clearly. If there is depressed CD8 response, how is material that presents through MHC Class I APCs dealt with? Be specific if you could. You clearly don't understand the implications of such an assertion.

At this point these people don’t want to be reasoned with. Heels are dug in. Scientific consensus means nothing yet the opinion of a discredited quack reins supreme. As a healthcare provider, who works and consults with approx 20 other providers of varying disciplines, combating this stuff is almost as difficult as combating the actual pandemic.

quote:

---

Common sense, try it.

---

Lol. He mentions specific CD8 response in terms of viruses. Like I've already explained, CD8 is responsible for all intracellular pathogens. It's a nonsensical reference, because the implications of it would be so immediately identifiable that you wouldn't have this other moron pointing to Type II hypersensitivities to aid his idiotic point.

quote:

---

So all the way back to what he did not mention therefore he is wrong in his findings via his lab... one of the largest labs in the state.

---

Nah, it just means you are a mark and don't understand immunology. Again, a CD8 T-Cell deficiency would be associated with very specific non-viral intracellular pathogens. And it would also be associated with very specific disease patterns, which you somehow misinterpreted. I mean, can we talk about why you referenced Graves Disease? You understand what a CD8 deficiency would imply with respect to that specific disease, don't you?

quote:

---

Go on and knock the source.

---

He’s a certified quack.

I wouldn’t let him deliver my pizza.

quote:

---

You understand I have quite a few qualifications myself, correct? His qualifications don't matter if the actual content of his argument is poor, which it is.

---

You understand the audience that the presentation was meant for has a significant influence on what and how you present the information? If you had done the research and had all the data that convinced you that what you were presenting was true and you are presenting to a general audience, what would YOU present? If you have questions, spend the time to find an email address for his lab and send him an email rather than bitch through 30 posts about what he did not present. Sure, the thread would not be as entertaining, but the time may be productive for you.