partington

34 minutes ago, frantick said:

99% worldwide unvaccinated maybe, but only because there wasn't much vaccination going on.

 

Check out countries with large percentages of vaccinated; Iceland, Israel. Their hospitalizations are now starting to become primarily the vaccinated which is logical because nearly everyone is vaccinated. Granted, the vaccines reduce those numbers, I've never denied, but the media doesn't like to report the fact that there will continue to be hospitalizations and death even if everyone gets vaccinated. It's almost impossible to find those vaccinated-hospital vs unvaccinated-hospital numbers, why is that?

There is no unwillingness to report these numbers, and it is simple common sense that when a vaccine is reported in the press to have efficacies of say, 85%, 70%, or 95% , it means that this is the percentage of people who are prevented from getting Covid after vaccination, compared to those who are unvaccinated.

Clearly this also directly informs you that 15%, 30% or 5% of people who are vaccinated will get Covid despite their vaccination status. There is nothing hidden or obscure about these statements!

Contrary to your implication that this is somehow hidden or deliberately obscured information, the mainstream UK newspaper The Guardian published a helpful article detailing exactly this only a month or so ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/jun/27/why-most-people-who-now-die-with-covid-have-been-vaccinated

"Why most people who now die with Covid in England have had a vaccination

David Spiegelhalter and Anthony Masters

It could sound worrying that the majority of people dying in England with the now-dominant Delta (B.1.617.2) variant have been vaccinated. Does this mean the vaccines are ineffective? Far from it, it’s what we would expect from an effective but imperfect vaccine, a risk profile that varies hugely by age and the way the vaccines have been rolled out.

Consider the hypothetical world where absolutely everyone had received a less than perfect vaccine. Although the death rate would be low, everyone who died would have been fully vaccinated.

The vaccines are not perfect. PHE estimates two-dose effectiveness against hospital admission with the Delta infections at around 94%. We can perhaps assume there is at least 95% protection against Covid-19 death, which means the lethal risk is reduced to less than a twentieth of its usual value."

58 minutes ago, ArcticFox said:

I keep hearing this too, but I never see the studies backing that assertion.  All we hear are 'experts' who tell the public to trust them.  My trust in government ran out decades ago.  I want to see studies, data, and hard facts. 

Now regarding the statement "Unvaccinated people are pools for the virus to mutate."  This animal study shows it's probably the other way around, i.e., Vaccinated people are likely the source of virus mutation.

According to the study, vaccinated people are pools for the virus to mutate - IF - the vaccination does not convey full immunity.  And guess what?  None of the current crop of Covid vaccines provide the recipient with full immunity.

So the commonly accepted narrative being floated out by politicians and the press is that the unvaccinated are creating mutants that creates severe disease in the vaccinated. 

This study shows the opposite to be true:  "Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts."

This is the exact opposite of what is being said by presidents, PMs, and high-level health care bureaucrats.
The former is a political statement; the latter is a scientific observation backed by research and analysis.

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198

This paper does not talk about "full immunity" - this is a term you seem to have pulled out of thin air.

 It talks about vaccines which do not prevent transmission of the pathogen - termed  'leaky' vaccines - , and it specifically talks about the effect of leaky vaccines after hyperpathogenic (fatal) strains of a virus have emerged.

It does NOT say that leaky vaccines created the hyperpathogenic strains that kill the host nor that vaccination was responsible.  Here is a direct quote:

"Our data do not demonstrate that vaccination was responsible for the evolution of hyperpathogenic strains of MDV, and we may never know for sure why they evolved in the first place."

What the  paper ACTUALLY says is that IF a hyperpathogenic (fatal) strain develops then a leaky vaccine can promote the survival of that strain because it will prevent the death of those infected long enough for the fatal strain to be passed on.  Normally a fatal strain dies out because it kills the host before transmission can occur. 

Vaccines prevent death, in other words. But this is one of the major reasons we vaccinate people-to save their lives.

You have evidently missed the point that this presents a danger only to unvaccinated people and is therefore an additional argument for prompt population-wide mass vaccination, exactly as is done for smallpox say.

More nonsense from you. This "study" includes results which are not statistically significant, that is they do not prove what they claim to and are therefore meaningless.  

ALL reputable meta-analyses automatically exclude not statistically significant studies, because the definition of a study that is not significant statistically is that it has proved nothing.

This is not science. This is emotionally motivated lobbying, and is interesting only for the light it sheds on human psychology rather than disease treatment.

1 hour ago, Freddy42OZ said:

 

Bangkok does not have to be expensive. 

The building I live in is 100m from a BTS station that will get you to Asoke in under 20 minutes. 

50 sq/m 1 bedroom condo will cost you 10-11,000 THB, a 50 sq/m 1 bedroom corner unit with balcony 14K, 70 sq/m 2 bed around 22K.  

 

20 minutes to Asoke means the terminal end of the BTS, either Mo Chit or Bearing, or an equivalent distance.  I consider that to exactly fit my description "way out" as you can't travel any further from the centre than that on BTS !

EDIT: Well I'm wrong here, as they have extended the BTS further than when I used to  live in Bangkok, so you CAN live further out and still be on the BTS.

Nevertheless I still consider my assessment of these former terminal stations as being "way out" to be a fair description...(I lived at Asoke)

8 hours ago, TigerandDog said:

that was a different statement. The one I'm referring to was saying the German report on the success of mixing single doses of AZ and Pfizer was incorrectly reported. The tests that the German report was referring to were actually for 2 doses of AZ then 2 doses of Pfizer. They also clarified in that report that testing was still ongoing in relation to mixing single doses of AZ & Pfizer. In fact WHO came out in a press release on 13 July ( one month after the German report and their subsequent statement saying that German report was incorrect ) and stated that single dose mixing and matching of different vaccines was not recommended until further testing had been completed.

I don't understand this at all  -  I think maybe you have misunderstood what you have read?

Firstly there are only two German studies that I can find that trial mixing doses of the Astra Zeneca (ChAdOx1) adenovirus vaccine and the Pfizer (BNT162b2) mRNA vaccine.

Both are published as preprint papers on the medrxiv server, and both clearly report in their methods section that they study the results of a single dose of each vaccine,  and not two doses of each.  I give you the links and actual extracts of the papers detailing their dosing methods below at the end of the post.

There is no way any WHO statement can override or correct the dosing methods stated in print by the actual researchers in their papers, so this seems a very unlikely statement for them to make.  

Moreover I can find no trace of any WHO statement which actually does this with reference to doses.   The one you link to on July 13th [https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/who-warns-against-mixing-matching-covid-vaccines-2021-07-12/] does not mention doses at all.  While they certainly recommend against mixing vaccines, they do not discount this altogether.

It says private individuals should not decide whether to mix vaccines, but state or public health agencies should make this decision. The actual Reuters article you link to specifically quotes the WHO saying:

"The WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on vaccines said in June the Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) vaccine could be used as a second dose after an initial dose of AstraZeneca (AZN.L), if the latter is not available."

I may have not been able to find the WHO statement you mention with dosing information-if so I apologise and would appreciate a link or quote.

***********

The German papers describing single dosing with each vaccine:

 1. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258172v1.full-text

Humoral and cellular immune response against SARS-CoV-2 variants following heterologous and homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2 vaccination Barros-Martins, J et al (2021) " Vaccinees who received one dose of ChAd were, according to the current vaccination strategy in Germany, offered to choose between ChAd and BNT vaccines for a second dose. "

2. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.19.21257334v2.full.pdf+html

Safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of homologous and heterologous prime-boost immunisation with ChAdOx1-nCoV19 and BNT162b2: a prospective cohort study Hillus D, et al (2021) "Study participants either received two doses of BNT three weeks apart or an initial dose of ChAdOx followed by a heterologous boost with BNT 10-12 weeks later, in accordance with the recommendations of the German standing committee on vaccination (STIKO)."

2 minutes ago, Strongheart said:

If you lack the knowledge to comprehend my comment then why don't you research STERILE IMMUNITY and Prophylactic Gene Therapy instead of twisting your panties into a bunch, comrade.

You are the one who lacks knowledge since the comment you are replying to is correct in every way whereas your original post is nonsense.

18 hours ago, Puccini said:

It looks like the police has not yet gone after this example of fake news:

 

SteriPlant sanitising product kills COVID-19 in 1 minute (proven in lab tests)

https://aseannow.com/topic/1218997-steriplant-sanitising-product-kills-covid-19-in-1-minute-proven-in-lab-tests/

 

There's no reason to assume this is fake news. Soap and water kills the Covid-19 virus in 20 seconds.

 It's just completely useless as a drug as, with 99.9% certainty, this will also turn out to be.

On 7/4/2021 at 5:49 AM, DeepSea said:

 

I posted a link to a totally transparent, real-time meta analysis of 61 studies (which also includes a couple of negative results), which I'm sure you haven't read, would you care to reciprocate by linking us to your list of negative clinical trials?

If you think a non-peer reviewed, anonymous, that is the authors don't actually dare to reveal who they are, (are they plumbers, geographers, experts in data analysis ?) screed on a commercial .com site is "transparent", then you have a rather elastic definition of this term.

They do declare they are "Ph.D scientists, and you can find our work in journals like Science and Nature," but of course it's not really possible to check is it?

I am a Ph.D scientist and you can also find my work in Science and Nature, if you look hard enough.

26 minutes ago, Harry Om said:

"The median time to resolution of symptoms was 10 days (IQR, 9-13) in the ivermectin group compared with 12 days (IQR, 9-13) in the placebo group"

 

It didn't reach statistical significance, but you were still better off being in the Ivermectin group.

 

It's worth noting that the claim with Ivermectin is that it works best if used early as possible to reduce viral load. Once you're in hospital then it's too late, the damage is already done. So some of these studies are after the horse has already bolted, so it's not suprising their findings aren't conclusive.

You aren't better off in the ivermectin group.  The P value is 0.53 which means that the chance of this being  purely random statistical fluctuation indicating no difference between groups is 53%- that is the same as tossing a coin.

The acceptable P value for a difference to be accepted in a study like this is 0.05, that is there is a 1 in 20 chance of this difference being a chance occurence .

47 minutes ago, tifino said:

dumped all the Scripts for  the 'Statins, and adopted CoQ10 over the counter...   '

 

 

whereas 'Statins rip the guts out of both HDL and LDL (one likens Statins as the medicine cabinet equivalent of 'RoundUp in the garden' - where they are non selective in what they get rid of!! 

 

 

Losing HDLs alongside the happy to be ridden of LDL - means the body then does not have enough HDL left inside, to do their ongoing battles on bad cholesterol.'

 

CoQ10 rids the LDLs, ut Not at the expense of the reserves of HDL that 'are' needed

Mostly wrong I'm afraid, being completely contrary to evidence gathered from numerous clinical trials.

The most incorrect statement you make is that statins reduce HDL.  In fact statins raise HDL, they don't decrease it!  Different statins do it to different degrees, but this has been seen with all.

See, for example, this paper -link-  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20513953/

Molecular mechanisms of HDL-cholesterol elevation by statins and its effects on HDL functions

Shizuya Yamashi ta 1, Kazumi Tsubakio-Yamamoto, Tohru Ohama, Yumiko Nakagawa-Toyama, Makoto Nishida

Journal of Atherosclerosis and Thrombosis  2010 May;17(5):436-51.

"Numerous large-scale clinical studies have revealed that the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering effect of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins) prevents coronary heart disease (CHD). Statins have not only LDL-C-lowering effects but also high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C)-elevating effects, which differ among statins." 

Statins  have been shown to reduce all cause mortality, in addition to mortality caused by coronary artery disease, which somewhat contradicts your unsubstantiated claim that statins don't allow the body to battle ' bad cholesterol'.

See, for example, this analysis of 18 separate randomised clinical trials of statins,  where results of all the trials are combined and statistically re-analysed as a whole -link- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23440795/

Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

Fiona Taylor 1, Mark D Huffman, Ana Filipa Macedo, Theresa H M Moore, Margaret Burke, George Davey Smith, Kirsten Ward, Shah Ebrahim   Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews  2013 Jan 31;2013(1):CD004816

"Main results: The latest search found four new trials and updated follow-up data on three trials included in the original review. Eighteen randomised control trials (19 trial arms; 56,934 participants) were included.[...]

All-cause mortality was reduced by statins (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94); as was combined fatal and non-fatal CVD [coronary vascular disease] RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.81), combined fatal and non-fatal CHD events RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.80) and combined fatal and non-fatal stroke (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89). [...] . There was no evidence of any serious harm caused by statin prescription."

 Finally CoQ10 has not been shown to have any significant effect at all on LDL levels, though it does seem to raise HDL levels in trials, so this is the single correct statement in your post!

- see link- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30296936/

The effects of coenzyme Q10 supplementation on lipid profiles among patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Mohammad Vahid Jorat 1, Reza Tabrizi 2, Naghmeh Mirhosseini 3, Kamran B Lankarani 4, Maryam Akbari 2, Seyed Taghi Heydari 4, Reza Mottaghi 5, Zatollah Asemi 6  Lipids in Health and Disease 2018 Oct 9;17(1):230

"Results: A total of eight trials (267 participants in the intervention group and 259 in placebo group) were included in the current meta-analysis. The findings showed that taking CoQ10 by patients with CAD significantly decreased total-cholesterol (SMD -1.07; 95% CI, - 1.94, - 0.21, P = 0.01) and increased HDL-cholesterol levels (SMD 1.30; 95% CI, 0.20, 2.41, P = 0.02). We found no significant effects of CoQ10 supplementation on LDL-cholesterol [...]"

You could try to phone them and ask.  It's probably OK, as there are now very  long delays in assigning  received payments to individual accounts. If you call them they will be able to tell you if the payment has been received and can assign it to your account immediately after you call.

I'm not overseas any more, but made a class 3 voluntary payment in the UK  on Jan 25th this year, and phoned them 5th March to check, as it had not shown up. They told me it had been received but was in the queue for being assigned, and that they would do it that day.

I appreciate it's expensive to call from abroad:  they play a  lot of prerecorded messages and I had about a 20 minute wait after that, but it may be worth it for your peace of mind.

The HMRC NI contributions help desk number I used in the UK was   03002003500, but I'm not sure if this works from abroad , so you may have to Google for  information about whether you need to contact a different department concerning overseas NI contributions.

1 hour ago, CALSinCM said:

Same with the PCR test.  Considering there are no globally accepted standards for PCR cycle counts, there is a (significant) risk of an inconclusive (false-positive) result.

The CDC recommends a cycle count of 28 for vaccinated people.  But that's the problem.  For vaccinated people.  So they themselves openly promote using non-standard cycle counts: one CT for vaccinated, and another for unvaccinated.
That's manipulating the outcomes.  Purposefully.  It's unethical.  And the fact is that labs world-wide to set the cycle count to anything.  Which is unreliable. 

The cycle-count should be set to 28 as a global standard for everyone.
But without a standard cycle-count?  There is too much risk to travel to Thailand imho.

I would like a reference or citation for these claims that you make, as they seem a bit nonsensical at first glance.

Firstly the quantitative PCR method used to detect  a positive or negative result is not based on a fixed number of cycles being defined.

Without going into too much detail: all samples are run for ~45 cycles, with a positive control standard (known RNA representing viral sequences) and a negative control (water). After the run curves are  drawn and a horizontal threshold line is drawn across joining where all the curves start to become exponential [see fig. below]. A positive result is when any sample crosses this threshold before 40 cycles.

reference from cdc https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

This being the case I find it hard to see how the cdc could recommend  a fixed number of cycles for any samples, from vaccinated people or not

If you can point to a reference or citation, [for example you might be referring to a completely different RT-PCR test that I'm unaware of] I  will quite happily admit that I am mistaken.

7 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

 

   Straight whiskey is also okay but still lots of sugar. 

   

No.

There is barely any measurable sugar in whisky at all.

https://www.verywellfit.com/scotch-whisky-nutrition-facts-and-health-tips-4844515

Scotch Whiskey Nutrition Facts 

The following nutrition information is provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for one shot (42g or 1.5 ounces) of scotch whiskey.1

* This also applies to US bourbon whiskies as well, by the way:

https://www.nutritionix.com/food/bourbon

7 hours ago, Cake Monster said:

Any Fruit combined with Alcohol will be a problem.

The Sugars that are omni-present in all Fruits will turn into Alcohol in the Gut while being digested.

Remember Fruit Punches ?

Biochemically this is nonsense. Humans do not possess enzymes that can turn sugar into alcohol, this is what yeasts do!

A medical condition does exist where some people have an abnormally high level of certain yeasts or abnormal bacteria in their small intestine, sometimes as a result of very prolonged  treatment with certain antibiotics.

This condition is incredibly rare, so that in  a study of the condition in the US, the authors considered themselves lucky to have been able to accumulate as many as 28 patients from the entire country (see  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6475837/).

This extreme rarity means the idea that fruit will be converted to alcohol in your gut applies to nearly no-one, and should not be taken seriously!