Natural Immunity Vs. "Vaccine"--What Works Best?

a reply to: nonspecific

Well, a vaccine could be a "be all, end all" solution. Whether or not it is will not necessarily be determined by historical precedents though.

Im vague because the way I see it, nearly all information channels are compromised. From "scientific" institutions to the means we actually receive our information on a daily basis. The extent of this is either routinely dismissed as "vague," or when specified, as simply "a single anecdotal incident." (Im not saying this of you, just a general experience)

Perhaps it would be more illustrative if I describe what I believe should be the foundation of our approach, long preceding anything like vaccines or even medical intervention..

We would focus primarily on the root causes of poor baseline health in the population. While this will certainly be region specific, many factors are very widespread (obesity, diet, diabetes, heart disease, stress, etc.). We have (had?) the opportunity here to improve the entire worlds ability to handle a pandemic of any kind, as well as diseases and even general happiness.

Instead of spending nearly all time, effort, and resources on vaccine, lockdown, and mask propaganda, we would have primarily focused on, say, exercising more, eating better, and getting some good sunlight everyday. Super basic, but as the data shows, exceptionally relevant to the real world results of a pandemic.

Essentially, we would build up the baseline health of the population (the very thing that natural/innate immunity is derived from). This would affect the state of our civilization far beyond a single virus. This would also end up creating a clearer picture if a new auto-immune disease emerges that can indeed be precipitated by a single virus, but many other factors as well.

Then we would start to introduce the corporate products to fill in the gaps.

Notably, these things could all be worked on in tandem. However, when they are eschewed entirely, frequently viscerally, it speaks to the possibility that the concern simply is not the health of the population.


Lets say we run into a scenario where a (somewhat) new auto-immune disease emerges. Due to the diversity inherent in immune response, this has previously been described as a collection of diseases. Further down the line, a novel virus emerges (as they do quite often) that provokes and exacerbates this disease (as they do), bringing it to the forefront and also explicitly connecting it to a single virus.

We know that viral infections can lead to auto-immune diseases and severe inflammatory responses. Our only method for testing is either symptomatic, or testing for viral material. We also know that vaccines for one virus can create susceptibility to other viruses, leading to a higher likelihood of severe infection.

In this scenario, if we treat transmission or infection of a virus it wouldnt actually be treating the disease.

How do you believe this would play out? We can remove nefarious intent, corruption, misinformation, etc. Im not even saying that is what is happening here, though I absolutely believe it is a distinct possibility.

What methods and approaches can we deploy that dont result in myopism, frequently interwoven with hubris? Are there approaches that ameliorate the negative impacts of health threats in general, without a possibly detrimental level of focus on a single virus? Do we do everything we can to strengthen the foundation of human health, or rely on proprietary corporate products built on (and profiting from) already shaky ground? Should we work on preventative care and early treatment, or only when the cases become deathly serious?

I think your approach makes perfect sense.

As it happens here in the UK that does seem to be what we are aiming for as a nationalised healthcare system can benefit from a healthy population far better than one based on finance in the manner it is in other countries.

One thing just about to come into implementation is a tax on high sugar foods. The idea is it partly makes people buy less high sugar and processed foods and the revenue from the taxes will be used to fund both school lunches which allows kids from poorer families to have at least one decent balanced meal a day but also to fund incentives for eexercise. I believe the idea is your GP can issue you with a Fitbit type device that register's your exercise and if.you hit daily goals they can issue you with vouchers to spend on certain healthy foods at the supermarket.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: nonspecific

Well, a vaccine could be a "be all, end all" solution. Whether or not it is will not necessarily be determined by historical precedents though.

Im vague because the way I see it, nearly all information channels are compromised. From "scientific" institutions to the means we actually receive our information on a daily basis. The extent of this is either routinely dismissed as "vague," or when specified, as simply "a single anecdotal incident." (Im not saying this of you, just a general experience)

Perhaps it would be more illustrative if I describe what I believe should be the foundation of our approach, long preceding anything like vaccines or even medical intervention..

We would focus primarily on the root causes of poor baseline health in the population. While this will certainly be region specific, many factors are very widespread (obesity, diet, diabetes, heart disease, stress, etc.). We have (had?) the opportunity here to improve the entire worlds ability to handle a pandemic of any kind, as well as diseases and even general happiness.

Instead of spending nearly all time, effort, and resources on vaccine, lockdown, and mask propaganda, we would have primarily focused on, say, exercising more, eating better, and getting some good sunlight everyday. Super basic, but as the data shows, exceptionally relevant to the real world results of a pandemic.

Essentially, we would build up the baseline health of the population (the very thing that natural/innate immunity is derived from). This would affect the state of our civilization far beyond a single virus. This would also end up creating a clearer picture if a new auto-immune disease emerges that can indeed be precipitated by a single virus, but many other factors as well.

Then we would start to introduce the corporate products to fill in the gaps.

Notably, these things could all be worked on in tandem. However, when they are eschewed entirely, frequently viscerally, it speaks to the possibility that the concern simply is not the health of the population.

 

 

Lets say we run into a scenario where a (somewhat) new auto-immune disease emerges. Due to the diversity inherent in immune response, this has previously been described as a collection of diseases. Further down the line, a novel virus emerges (as they do quite often) that provokes and exacerbates this disease (as they do), bringing it to the forefront and also explicitly connecting it to a single virus.

We know that viral infections can lead to auto-immune diseases and severe inflammatory responses. Our only method for testing is either symptomatic, or testing for viral material. We also know that vaccines for one virus can create susceptibility to other viruses, leading to a higher likelihood of severe infection.

In this scenario, if we treat transmission or infection of a virus it wouldnt actually be treating the disease.

How do you believe this would play out? We can remove nefarious intent, corruption, misinformation, etc. Im not even saying that is what is happening here, though I absolutely believe it is a distinct possibility.

What methods and approaches can we deploy that dont result in myopism, frequently interwoven with hubris? Are there approaches that ameliorate the negative impacts of health threats in general, without a possibly detrimental level of focus on a single virus? Do we do everything we can to strengthen the foundation of human health, or rely on proprietary corporate products built on (and profiting from) already shaky ground? Should we work on preventative care and early treatment, or only when the cases become deathly serious?

a reply to: dragonridr

First, I certainly believe we have a long way to go in utilizing modern communication in a healthy manner. Thats a massive topic in and of itself, and not only have we seen wild opinions given as fact.. we have also seen immense levels of fallibility in "experts" and "institutions." I do not believe censorship is the answer.

As for "losing you," thats ok. Im not interested in converting you.

Even so, I dont see how what you are saying negates my points. Im saying that "big pharma" is transnational and has substantial global reach even if some facets of it are located in the US. However, there is no reason whatsoever why a medical apparatus that isnt part of, say, Pfizer couldnt develop a vaccine on their own. It would be entirely expected, even, for the reasons I gave.

In other words, "big pharma" wouldnt need to be omnipresent or absolutely ubiquitous to be "big pharma." They wouldnt even need to be directly involved to influence global events, if there is information sharing about research, techniques, etc. Thats relevant even without invoking any sort of nefarious intent, and can be an amazingly beneficial thing. If everything is on the up-and-up, no mistakes are made in our understanding of the situation, production is flawless, etc. Even there though, some vaccines could certainly be developed that are independent of that system. Id find it significantly more odd if there werent some instances of this.

I would also say that the confusion sure does present an excellent opportunity to gain power even if it didnt start out that way.

When it comes down to it, I just want to see one thing before I can even begin to imagine fostering trust: A concern about actual public health & innate immune system capability. Where we are presented with even the most basic ways to address it, with extra bonus points for expending the same effort and fervor as the current prevailing Narrative.

Until then, I assume ignorance, fault, or nefarious intent.

originally posted by: carewemust
Those of us who have immunity due to Covid recovery, and shun the Vaccination, should have a rally. Giving the middle-finger to Biden and all the other idiots who want to control individual lives.

I think that is a perfectly logical and scientific viewpoint.

As far as I'm aware there's no studies into the risks and benefits of vaccinating people who have already recovered - it's completely unknown territory. I have zero medical training but it doesn't seem medically or scientifcally recommended until the actual studies and data are in.

originally posted by: nonspecific
If talking about the political aspect of the "efforts" I've seens a few people say that the reason the UK was originally saying wearing masks was not effective or needed was because the government did not take the threat seriously enough to look at the supply chain and by the time they did it was too late to get suitable numbers into the country.

Once they had supplies they changed tack.

No evidence for this so take it as purely anecdotal.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Serdgiam

You lost me its not about big pharma several countries as you have mentioned have developed their own vaccine for Corona. Russia, India, UK, China, Iran and Switzerland, and soon France. The rest are purchasing it from countries that have vaccines.

Now I agree with you I think they went too far there was panic and people overreacted. This lead to alot of confusion at first wear masks don't wear masks etc. But that was because of this fear the virus caused. Part of that is a sign of the times information flows now more than any point in history. people have their phones giving them updates so everything becomes urgent.Ad everyone can instantly give their opinions on everything.

This isn't a power thing in fact the opposite this is a mass confusion caused by thousands giving their opinions as fact.

Pretty much bob on. They went for the herd immunity approach at first then scrambled they realised it wasn't working, NHS staff were dying and had to wear bin bags instead of PPE due to the government # up.

There is actually a big paper trail of corruption in the conrtracts and delivery of PPE. There was no tender. Hancock signed a £180m deal to his mate and ex Tory MP, Brooks Newmark, who was forcesd to resign after sending dick pics in Parliament.

At the time Brooks was lobbying the government on behalf of a dog food company and knew nothing of PPE. They went through a company in Hong Kong company but Brooks claiumed he had mnajor links and influence with powerful people in China and could swindle a good deal.

I think Jacob Rees Mogg made a few million from it but the memory is vague and he's involved in so many backroom deals and international futures ventures it's hard to keep track of him.

EDIT: Somerset Capital Management is the company Rees Mogg owns 15% in and made a few hundred million profit from Coronavirus - one of their contracts is a device to scan faces to see if people are wearing masks in China and other links with nations with major human rights breaches.

a reply to: nonspecific

I think that my "description" of the situation might differ quite a bit from many, but I do believe the "prescriptions" Im talking about can be a lot more agreeable.

In a similar vein, I do like the premise behind everything from universal healthcare to those taxes and vouchers, but I am not a fan of the execution at all.

I think its also relevant that pharmaceutical corporations not only have strict profit motives, but that they influence a system like the NHS just as much as the one in US. To the extent that they are nearly indistinguishable other than the direct cost to the consumer. They are not benevolent or a friend to the public, even if some individuals in them are, but in the right circumstances they can still save lives.

Either way, thats why Ive been working on things like automated, decentralized aquaponics systems. Not only is it "tricky" to have HFCS in food you produce yourself, it can directly feed everyone.. even the disabled. Funds for existing social safety nets and incentives could then be redirected towards installation and maintainence of these systems.

Hell, we could turn parks into big, imaginative, edible aquaponics systems. Thered be kinks to work though, for sure. Probably some pretty funny ones too..

Its a good opportunity to shamelessly promote the concept (lol), but if something like that is implemented, it would go a long way in addressing several very serious issues like food supply integrity, food supply chain integrity, general hunger, general public health, and would reduce stress (folks wouldnt need to worry about where their next meal is coming from).

Pragmatically, a paradigm shift of this nature would also have negative impacts too. Namely, the disruption of multiple existing industries. I might have my issues with something like corporations, but things exist as they do for a reason and it isnt "all bad."

The issue is, a lot of these are things that on-the-surface are seen to be only marginally connected to current events, at best. But, I believe it would go a long way in stabilizing everything from immune systems to food availability. Things that would greatly strengthen our capability to handle many things, including pandemics.

Instead, we are staring down the barrel of a gun of civil unrest, immense cultural division, and things like mandatory vaccines.

Simply put, I do not believe that is the best path forward. I think something is being built, unwittingly or not, that not too many of us will be happy about. Further, I believe that we have all we need to start building something else entirely.

a reply to: angelchemuel


Only on the second Tuesday of the month when the planets align.

My mates got one and is also dyslexic......


a reply to: dragonridr

a reply to: Serdgiam

We are on the verge of a new breakthrough in drugs. mRNA has the ability to cure cancer and in fac some trials have started for certain cancer research. This really is a big deal virtually any disease can be cured using our own body. No more drugs made for everyone but one made custom for your problems. Can be used to correct everything from diabetes to viruses.

A new virus pops up we can get vaccines out in months instead of years. Be very similar to star trek and their magic shots that cured everything.

I know this will scare a lot of people its happened before. As for big pharma, they ultimately will be hurt by this since you can no longer patent drugs because each one is custom-made. But lots of labs will pop up to get in on the money.

Im guessing the real money will be in testing to determine what you need

I think vaccine immunity is down to 65 or 70% now.

And you still have those insidious long-term health risks.

Natural immunity from recovery remains high at over 95%.

a reply to: dragonridr

Goodness, that sounds like a brochure written by a pharmaceutical company. Funny how so much of that appears on the internet these days.

Pharma has to pay the media to present such ads.

Which vaccine? And do you have a source for that info please.


a reply to: carewemust

Indeed.

Those cancer cures sound absolutely dreadful

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: dragonridr

Goodness, that sounds like a brochure written by a pharmaceutical company. Funny how so much of that appears on the internet these days.

Pharma has to pay the media to present such ads.

a reply to: nonspecific

Just listening to the medical editor on Fox News describe how vaccinated athletes are contracting covid-19 and vaccinated politicians are contracting covid-19. The 65 to 70% effectiveness is something he was discussing with the host.

Which vaccine?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: nonspecific

Just listening to the medical editor on Fox News describe how vaccinated athletes are contracting covid-19 and vaccinated politicians are contracting covid-19. The 65 to 70% effectiveness is something he was discussing with the host.

a reply to: bastion

Studies are on going with new ones being done all the time. About half the countries on the planet have a study going some many more than that. It appears the FDA is close to final approval but even then studies wont stop.


www.coronaviruspreventionnetwork.org...

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: bastion

Studies are on going with new ones being done all the time. About half the countries on the planet have a study going some many more than that. It appears the FDA is close to final approval but even then studies wont stop.


www.coronaviruspreventionnetwork.org...

Thanks for the link.

I'm aware of the huge phase IV optional studies and that it's the most thoroughly tested vaccine/drug in history due to the massive sample size, studies in various countries and participants being mainly middle class healthy volunteers instead of the usual drug/vaccine studies where test subjects are mainly homeless, drug addicts, ex-cons in the intial phase II trials. that provide dodgy data.

The risk of the vax is miniscule and fits the safety profile of all other vaccines according to UK studies on real world data. It's far safer than the flu vaccine but personally I was expecting a significantly better profile than all prior vaccines due to the newer/better technology used - the UK data may be skewed though as AZ was widely used.


I don't see any specific risk for someone who has recoverd from covid being vaxed I just don't see it providing a significant immunity/reward from a maths POV but could well be wrong.

I imagine the area is being studied somewhere but it would take a couple more months for good data to come in if it's done in a 'real wotld' scenario due to uncontrolled variables but may already exist if done via clinical trial.

If I was in the situation where I'd recovered from Covid I'd be waiting a bit longer until the studies in that area had concluded before making a decision.

originally posted by: nonspecific
So I ask for evidence and you turn nasty?

I didn't say you were and anti vaxxer. I asked you if the vaccines were proven safe and your immunity gained from contracting covid 19 became no longer efficient if you would take one and you said no?

If you wouldn't take a proven safe vaccine that would help you against a dangerous virus you had no adequate inherent protection against it seemed you might he against vaccines altogether so I asked?

There's nothing wrong with being against vaccines or modern medicine, some people prefer a fully holistic approach.


a reply to: angelchemuel

Yeah you did say she was an anti-vaxer, if I remember right you told me the same thing somewhere lately and I had to defend my opinion that some but not all the vaccines are needed and that for some the vaccines are dangerous.

I did contact my doctor last week through the porthole and he did send me a message that I should probably not take the vaccine but that I should be cautious and should do social distancing and wear a mask in crowded places.. I will believe my doctor before I believe someone pushing vaccines on the net. He cannot list that I am intolerant to this vaccine like I have for the flu vaccine though, because there is no verified evidence that I had a severe reaction to it like I have for the flu vaccine.

a reply to: rickymouse
Thank you Ricky
Rainbows
Jane

Well if she says she wouldn't take a vaccine even if it was proven safe and would benefit her how would you describe that stance?

That's the question I asked if you look back.


Edit. And it was a question I asked.

It had a question mark at the end so that's a question not a statement right?

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: nonspecific
So I ask for evidence and you turn nasty?

I didn't say you were and anti vaxxer. I asked you if the vaccines were proven safe and your immunity gained from contracting covid 19 became no longer efficient if you would take one and you said no?

If you wouldn't take a proven safe vaccine that would help you against a dangerous virus you had no adequate inherent protection against it seemed you might he against vaccines altogether so I asked?

There's nothing wrong with being against vaccines or modern medicine, some people prefer a fully holistic approach.


a reply to: angelchemuel

Yeah you did say she was an anti-vaxer, if I remember right you told me the same thing somewhere lately and I had to defend my opinion that some but not all the vaccines are needed and that for some the vaccines are dangerous.

I did contact my doctor last week through the porthole and he did send me a message that I should probably not take the vaccine but that I should be cautious and should do social distancing and wear a mask in crowded places.. I will believe my doctor before I believe someone pushing vaccines on the net. He cannot list that I am intolerant to this vaccine like I have for the flu vaccine though, because there is no verified evidence that I had a severe reaction to it like I have for the flu vaccine.

originally posted by: nonspecific
Well if she says she wouldn't take a vaccine even if it was proven safe and would benefit her how would you describe that stance?

That's the question I asked if you look back.


Edit. And it was a question I asked.

It had a question mark at the end so that's a question not a statement right?

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: nonspecific
So I ask for evidence and you turn nasty?

I didn't say you were and anti vaxxer. I asked you if the vaccines were proven safe and your immunity gained from contracting covid 19 became no longer efficient if you would take one and you said no?

If you wouldn't take a proven safe vaccine that would help you against a dangerous virus you had no adequate inherent protection against it seemed you might he against vaccines altogether so I asked?

There's nothing wrong with being against vaccines or modern medicine, some people prefer a fully holistic approach.


a reply to: angelchemuel

Yeah you did say she was an anti-vaxer, if I remember right you told me the same thing somewhere lately and I had to defend my opinion that some but not all the vaccines are needed and that for some the vaccines are dangerous.

I did contact my doctor last week through the porthole and he did send me a message that I should probably not take the vaccine but that I should be cautious and should do social distancing and wear a mask in crowded places.. I will believe my doctor before I believe someone pushing vaccines on the net. He cannot list that I am intolerant to this vaccine like I have for the flu vaccine though, because there is no verified evidence that I had a severe reaction to it like I have for the flu vaccine.

Science shows that a person with natural immunity is well protected, she had it she has immunity. The vaccines can cause side effects and sometimes they can be severe, if you are smart, and you have immunity, you would not take the extra risk when there is no real benefit.

This vaccine has not been proven safe for everyone, they excluded groups of people from the testing and noted it in the research parameters. Some people have no clue that they are in the risk group that was not tested...too much deceit going on...but I read the research exclusions and in actuallity, the FDA is being mute about it when peddling this vaccine, but does list it in some documents on their site.

I read official stuff and do not pay much attention to the crap the vaccine promotors say. Just like I will back the necessity of a vaccine that is ACTUALLY safe NECESSARY and argue with those who are cutting it down without proper evidence. If I get a bad cut, I always get a tetnus shot, but I had problems with the DTAP, but I will stick up for the necessity of the tetnus but not for the DTAP unless the person needs the protection. I got severe whooping cough symptoms from the DTAP, my immune system identified it as a threat of pertusis and the symptoms of pertusis are most often the reaction of your immune system.

If you want to get vaccinated with this vaccine, it is your right, but take note of the actual numbers of adverse reactions, do an informed decision. I know many ways to defend myself against this whimpy virus.