ADVERTISEMENT

For Hack and others - Iceland chief epidemiologist just walked away from vaccines stopping spread and...

BigDaddyDawgBreath

Hairy Cooontex
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
25,835
42,755
197
Said natural immunity while protecting the sensitive with vaccines and other measures is the only way out.

Iceland, as one of the most vaccinated places on the planet, has officially abandoned vaccines as a tool to achieve herd immunity.

It cannot be overstated how significant this is as Iceland wanted to partner with Pfizer in February to find out if 70% vaccination rate would stop transmission and cause herd immunity. They got to 70%... and cases still exploded.

@HacksawDawg - read this please. The truth is right there for us to see if we will shake off the manure that has been piled on us. Vaccines were never tested to stop spread, and they do not.

This also says something about the utter incompetence in ignoring natural immunity. It also may be the first brick falling in the wall the public health establishment has put up to shut out those of us who have said since last March that protecting the vulnerable while trusting natural immunity would be the only sustainable way to handle this.

There is hope in a country making this admission but we got to fight like hell in the meantime to turn this around. The wrong-headed are winning right now IMO and it is going to take organized social action to counter it.

Here is the key quote: "Guðnason said in Sprengisandur in Bylgjan this morning that it is disappointing that herd immunity has not been achieved with vaccination. He says that only one other way is able to achieve herd immunity, to allow the virus to spread throughout the community."

On the first link click top R and choose English translation


 
@HacksawDawg - and check this data from Vermont. It is simply overwhelming at this point that vaccines do not make any difference in spread rates.

The problem here is with one false premise set aside (vaccines reduce spread) she falls back to another fallse premise (masks stop spread).

This will never end while myths infect every level of this. We need to force them to ignore cases and let us live our lives as we deem most safe and healthy and stay out of our business.

 
Yea, let's put Chittenden county in the conversation, their seven day average of cases is a whopping 24.

If 14% is unvaccinated, that leaves 23,000 folks in the county unvaccinated.

Sure, let's base a national Covid policy over a sample size of 24.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rednblack4life
Yea, let's put Chittenden county in the conversation, their seven day average of cases is a whopping 24.

If 14% is unvaccinated, that leaves 23,000 folks in the county unvaccinated.

Sure, let's base a national Covid policy over a sample size of 24.
If you're going to play games go away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elderdawg
If you're going to play games go away.
I'm not, you're the one posting nonsense.

You are trying so hard to have folks believe your false claims that you will post a statement regarding a small county in Vermont that has a whopping 24 cases.

You can do better than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rednblack4life
I'm not, you're the one posting nonsense.

You are trying so hard to have folks believe your false claims that you will post a statement regarding a small county in Vermont that has a whopping 24 cases.

You can do better than that.
Man, the 'believe the science' folks sure hate science.

It's a debate. Don't just say 'nonsense' and 'false claims'. Bring some examples from other places. How about the Iceland example? Israel? The US? Tell us what is false, not just how small that county is.
 
BDDB,

Here's where I am coming from. I'm in my 40s and, like most of us, I am a bit overweight. Otherwise, I have no known unusual risk factors. I got both doses as soon as I could and plan to get a booster if it's recommended. Having said that, I don't wear a mask and feel entirely comfortable in public. In my estimation, the risk of me getting seriously sick is small but significant and the risk of my elderly parents/relatives getting sick is small-ish, but too significant for me to risk not getting vaxxed. It further appears to me that the risks of the vaccine itself are infinitesimal.

I have a few genuine (i.e., non-trolling) questions for you (which I do not ask of my non-vaccinated friends/families because things get touchy). I appreciate your input.

1) Are you saying that I am at greater risk by getting the vaccine than I would be without getting the vaccine? If yes, please let me know the basis of that opinion.

2) Are you suggesting that vaccines do not stop the spread AT ALL? Of course, they are not 100% effective in stopping the spread. My question is whether you believe they stop the spread at all.

3) You seem to suggest that natural immunity is superior to vax immunity? Is that your position? If yes, why would natural immunity be better than vax immunity?

Thanks.
 
BDDB,

Here's where I am coming from. I'm in my 40s and, like most of us, I am a bit overweight. Otherwise, I have no known unusual risk factors. I got both doses as soon as I could and plan to get a booster if it's recommended. Having said that, I don't wear a mask and feel entirely comfortable in public. In my estimation, the risk of me getting seriously sick is small but significant and the risk of my elderly parents/relatives getting sick is small-ish, but too significant for me to risk not getting vaxxed. It further appears to me that the risks of the vaccine itself are infinitesimal.

I have a few genuine (i.e., non-trolling) questions for you (which I do not ask of my non-vaccinated friends/families because things get touchy). I appreciate your input.

1) Are you saying that I am at greater risk by getting the vaccine than I would be without getting the vaccine? If yes, please let me know the basis of that opinion.

2) Are you suggesting that vaccines do not stop the spread AT ALL? Of course, they are not 100% effective in stopping the spread. My question is whether you believe they stop the spread at all.

3) You seem to suggest that natural immunity is superior to vax immunity? Is that your position? If yes, why would natural immunity be better than vax immunity?

Thanks.

I'll take #3, because I've been trying to research it like crazy after having a bad case in Dec. The surprisingly few tests being done talk about viral load, and in vaxxed people who haven't had covid, the viral load is about the same as unvaxxed. But in covid survivors, the viral load is not getting high enough to contract or transmit to others. Also, in the very rare cases of reinfection, the resulting sickness is also less severe.

Here is a study from Emory that talks about response and why serious, non-political doctors studying this believe survivors have long-term response to covid and variants that vaxxed may or may not.

Emory study on covid survivors
 
) Are you saying that I am at greater risk by getting the vaccine than I would be without getting the vaccine? If yes, please let me know the basis of that opinion.

2) Are you suggesting that vaccines do not stop the spread AT ALL? Of course, they are not 100% effective in stopping the spread. My question is whether you believe they stop the spread at all.

3) You seem to suggest that natural immunity is superior to vax immunity? Is that your position? If yes, why would natural immunity be better than vax immunity?
Looking forward to the answers from Big Daddy on these.

Great questions.
 
I'll take #3, because I've been trying to research it like crazy after having a bad case in Dec. The surprisingly few tests being done talk about viral load, and in vaxxed people who haven't had covid, the viral load is about the same as unvaxxed. But in covid survivors, the viral load is not getting high enough to contract or transmit to others. Also, in the very rare cases of reinfection, the resulting sickness is also less severe.

Here is a study from Emory that talks about response and why serious, non-political doctors studying this believe survivors have long-term response to covid and variants that vaxxed may or may not.

Emory study on covid survivors
A major part of any epidemic response is normally therapeutics. If you can't stop it spreading, then how do you reduce hospitalizations, shorten hospital stays and reduce deaths?

With your bad case in December, what therapeutic treatments were you given? We had therapeutics available then, which were getting some mention in the discussion. Why are we not hearing about that now?

There was even a push when the president had Covid to make the treatments he received more widely available. Where did that go?
 
Here is a study from Emory that talks about response and why serious, non-political doctors studying this believe survivors have long-term response to covid and variants that vaxxed may or may not.
The study cited by Emory looks at the immune response at the 8 month mark after Covid alpha infection. There is robust immunity to covid alpha as measured by antibody and immune response. However, It does not study vaccinated patients, nor does it include delta. Also, there are no hard clinical outcomes (infection, hospitalization, death, etc.) just immune response as based on antibody and other immune levels. The vaccine has just reached 8 months being available to the public. Hard to draw any clinical conclusions comparing vaccinated to natural immunity based on that report alone.
 
BDDB,

Here's where I am coming from. I'm in my 40s and, like most of us, I am a bit overweight. Otherwise, I have no known unusual risk factors. I got both doses as soon as I could and plan to get a booster if it's recommended. Having said that, I don't wear a mask and feel entirely comfortable in public. In my estimation, the risk of me getting seriously sick is small but significant and the risk of my elderly parents/relatives getting sick is small-ish, but too significant for me to risk not getting vaxxed. It further appears to me that the risks of the vaccine itself are infinitesimal.

I have a few genuine (i.e., non-trolling) questions for you (which I do not ask of my non-vaccinated friends/families because things get touchy). I appreciate your input.

1) Are you saying that I am at greater risk by getting the vaccine than I would be without getting the vaccine? If yes, please let me know the basis of that opinion.

2) Are you suggesting that vaccines do not stop the spread AT ALL? Of course, they are not 100% effective in stopping the spread. My question is whether you believe they stop the spread at all.

3) You seem to suggest that natural immunity is superior to vax immunity? Is that your position? If yes, why would natural immunity be better than vax immunity?

Thanks.
Not BDDB or a doctor, but take 5 minutes and listen to this Dr at a school board hearing in Indiana. Worth hearing what he says.

 
The study cited by Emory looks at the immune response at the 8 month mark after Covid alpha infection. There is robust immunity to covid alpha as measured by antibody and immune response. However, It does not study vaccinated patients, nor does it include delta. Also, there are no hard clinical outcomes (infection, hospitalization, death, etc.) just immune response as based on antibody and other immune levels. The vaccine has just reached 8 months being available to the public. Hard to draw any clinical conclusions comparing vaccinated to natural immunity based on that report alone.
True, and I didn't link them all as I'm on my phone, but studies from around the world have the other parts I've mentioned and you're asking about, and all have been posted here in the Chat plenty of times. The Emory conclusions are robust response in multiple factors of tbe virus, and variants all have multiple similar components, so variants will also be attacked.

Hey, just ask one simple question, why would this virus not have natural immunity? The biggest question seems to be that it is very hard to do the lab testing to prove it, but one thing to go research is the % getting infected who are vaxxed only, vs % of reinfection of survivors. And, because this vaccine only targets the spike protein, variants will look for a way around that, whereas naturally immune means t-cells and antibodies are both needed, which Emory says is happening. Memory cell tests from bone marrow are only now being done on survivors, but early results are promising, but it will be a while.

BTW, anyone gets the virus, especially unvaxxed, look for a drug trial of molnupiravir, which was created 4 years ago and shelved, specifically for SARS Corona viruses and is now in phase III. If you get infected, find this drug...
 
BDDB,

Here's where I am coming from. I'm in my 40s and, like most of us, I am a bit overweight. Otherwise, I have no known unusual risk factors. I got both doses as soon as I could and plan to get a booster if it's recommended. Having said that, I don't wear a mask and feel entirely comfortable in public. In my estimation, the risk of me getting seriously sick is small but significant and the risk of my elderly parents/relatives getting sick is small-ish, but too significant for me to risk not getting vaxxed. It further appears to me that the risks of the vaccine itself are infinitesimal.

I have a few genuine (i.e., non-trolling) questions for you (which I do not ask of my non-vaccinated friends/families because things get touchy). I appreciate your input.

1) Are you saying that I am at greater risk by getting the vaccine than I would be without getting the vaccine? If yes, please let me know the basis of that opinion.

2) Are you suggesting that vaccines do not stop the spread AT ALL? Of course, they are not 100% effective in stopping the spread. My question is whether you believe they stop the spread at all.

3) You seem to suggest that natural immunity is superior to vax immunity? Is that your position? If yes, why would natural immunity be better than vax immunity?

Thanks.
While BDDB and others respond directly to your questions, let me ask you a few in the interest of discussion.

1) Real world feedback suggests that vaccinated people are superspreaders. I've been saying for over a month that people "returning to normal" are spreading the virus because they think they can't contract or spread it. So if you cease whatever mitigation steps you practiced prior to vaccination, then you are at greater risk because you changed your behavior that previously minimized risk.

2) Covid-19 vaccines do not stop the spread. Since the viral load of vaccinated and unvaccinated are about the same, then the opportunity for spread is present. The vaccinations do have the benefit of reducing the severity of infections which means people shouldn't be coughing or sneezing as much leaving excess droplets in their immediate environment for others to encounter, but the fact that people are back to mingling in tighter spaces in greater numbers means more opportunity for spread anyway so it's a wash. Why do you believe the vaccines reduce spread?

3) Why do you believe vaxxed immunity is superior to natural immunity? The immune system is in play no matter what the individual experience. The shots aren't injecting anything that fights the virus. The shots tell your cells to produce a specific spike protein which causes your immune system to take measures against that protein. So does it make sense that your immune response would be stronger only fighting detection of the spike protein or would it make more sense for your immune system to recognize and fight the entire virus?

The one significant benefit of the vaccines are for people without a previous infection. It does make sense to give your immune system a head start before encountering the actual virus. However, people who already recovered from a case should have adequate protection without need for the vaccine.

For anyone, the risks of adverse reactions to the shots should be considered. Everyone is different and that's why such considerations should depend on medical history and a conversation with their doctor instead of a blanket policy from the government or employer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirty Hairy Dawg
Hey, just ask one simple question, why would this virus not have natural immunity?

Not sure if I understand your question. Maybe: Why would this virus not confer natural immunity in the infected?
It certainly can confer natural immunity, but immunity is not an all-or-none phenomenon. There is a spectrum. Also the head to head comparison of natural immunity with vaccination has yet to be demonstrated in any study with hard clinical outcomes. The basic science studies are important, but the studies with real clinical information are better. The best publication I found on the effect of natural immunity versus natural immunity plus vaccine is here:

Natural immunity is good, natural plus vaccine is better

What I do not have a good grasp of are the long-term outcomes in 1) Covid-alpha infected versus mRNA vaccinated when exposed to delta 2) Covid-delta infected vs mRNA vaccinated. The problem is that we know exactly who got the vaccine but we do not know everybody who got alpha, delta or both.
 
While BDDB and others respond directly to your questions, let me ask you a few in the interest of discussion.

1) Real world feedback suggests that vaccinated people are superspreaders. I've been saying for over a month that people "returning to normal" are spreading the virus because they think they can't contract or spread it. So if you cease whatever mitigation steps you practiced prior to vaccination, then you are at greater risk because you changed your behavior that previously minimized risk.

Thanks for your questions.


Are you saying that masking + distancing gives me a better chance to avoid infection than the vaccine minus masking + distancing? That's hard to believe if the reported 90+% efficacy rate for the vaccine is close to accurate. (I'm willing to assume for sake of argument that it is less effect v. Delta). Of course, vaccine + masking + distancing is 'super safe" but I'm not interested in being a super safe hermit to avoid all risks.

2) Covid-19 vaccines do not stop the spread. Since the viral load of vaccinated and unvaccinated are about the same, then the opportunity for spread is present. The vaccinations do have the benefit of reducing the severity of infections which means people shouldn't be coughing or sneezing as much leaving excess droplets in their immediate environment for others to encounter, but the fact that people are back to mingling in tighter spaces in greater numbers means more opportunity for spread anyway so it's a wash. Why do you believe the vaccines reduce spread?

I believe the vaccines reduce the spread because everything I've read indicates they reduce the risk of getting infected in the first place. Unless I am misreading you, you are saying that people with COVID have similar viral loads whether they are vaxxed or un-vaxxed. That's fine, but if the vaccines reduce the number of people who get COVID in the first place, then there will be fewer people to spread the virus and, hence, reduced spread.

3) Why do you believe vaxxed immunity is superior to natural immunity? The immune system is in play no matter what the individual experience. The shots aren't injecting anything that fights the virus. The shots tell your cells to produce a specific spike protein which causes your immune system to take measures against that protein. So does it make sense that your immune response would be stronger only fighting detection of the spike protein or would it make more sense for your immune system to recognize and fight the entire virus?

I'm not suggesting vaxxed immunity is superior to natural immunity (although I'm open to persuasion on that). My question to BDDB was based on what I took to be his suggestions that natural immunity was better than vaxxed immunity and, moreover, that natural immunity was the quicker path to herd immunity. I'm open to what BDDB has to say on that, but I don't generally understand why one form of immunity would be better than another.

As a layperson, I don't believe I am qualified to state what "makes sense" or doesn't. I do know that the results of science are often counterintuitive. But again, I'm not saying that vaxxed immunity is better than natural immunity. I just don't know.



The one significant benefit of the vaccines are for people without a previous infection. It does make sense to give your immune system a head start before encountering the actual virus. However, people who already recovered from a case should have adequate protection without need for the vaccine.

I suspect you are correct that those who have had it don't need the vax, but, again, I don't know enough to say that with confidence.

For anyone, the risks of adverse reactions to the shots should be considered. Everyone is different and that's why such considerations should depend on medical history and a conversation with their doctor instead of a blanket policy from the government or employer.
Generally agree
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawg 'n IT
If you can't stop it spreading, then how do you reduce hospitalizations, shorten hospital stays and reduce deaths?
It’s clear that vaccine achieves all of the outcomes you mention. This came out today:
“As of Aug. 2, more than 164 million people in the United States were fully vaccinated against Covid-19, according to the CDC. Fewer than 0.001% of those individuals — 1,507 people — died and fewer than 0.005% — 7,101 people — were hospitalized with Covid-19.”
I believe these numbers are underestimations, but not by much.

There was even a push when the president had Covid to make the treatments he received more widely available. Where did that go?
My understanding is that Trump got antivirals, antibodies & Possibly steroids. We are still using remdesovir. Convalescent serum in only severe cases. Steroid use is variable.
 
So we are to take the advice of one GP in Indiana over almost all of the expert epidemiologists in the world.

Makes sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rednblack4life
So we are to take the advice of one GP in Indiana over almost all of the expert epidemiologists in the world.

Makes sense.
Please point out and discuss the factual errors.

Here's one error: Actually, nobody said "we are to take the advice of one GP in Indiana over almost all of the expert epidemiologists in the world."

In a free society, there is room for discussion and debate of an issue. Only in totalitarian regimes must we remove any contrary information and repeat only the ruling party-authorized statements.

Here's one fact: All of the vaccines currently with emergency use authorization in the US slow symptoms, but do not stop the spread or infection with Covid-19.

Please continue, comrade.
 
Last edited:
BDDB,

Here's where I am coming from. I'm in my 40s and, like most of us, I am a bit overweight. Otherwise, I have no known unusual risk factors. I got both doses as soon as I could and plan to get a booster if it's recommended. Having said that, I don't wear a mask and feel entirely comfortable in public. In my estimation, the risk of me getting seriously sick is small but significant and the risk of my elderly parents/relatives getting sick is small-ish, but too significant for me to risk not getting vaxxed. It further appears to me that the risks of the vaccine itself are infinitesimal.

I have a few genuine (i.e., non-trolling) questions for you (which I do not ask of my non-vaccinated friends/families because things get touchy). I appreciate your input.

1) Are you saying that I am at greater risk by getting the vaccine than I would be without getting the vaccine? If yes, please let me know the basis of that opinion.

2) Are you suggesting that vaccines do not stop the spread AT ALL? Of course, they are not 100% effective in stopping the spread. My question is whether you believe they stop the spread at all.

3) You seem to suggest that natural immunity is superior to vax immunity? Is that your position? If yes, why would natural immunity be better than vax immunity?

Thanks.
Your introductory remarks contain a false premise. Your parents are unaffected by your vaccination. You can get and spread the virus to them both vaccinated and unvaccinated. *Their* vaccination status is what protects them.

By point...

1. If you have read what I have written many, many times, vaccines seem to pretty clearly reduce risk of hospitalization or death for those at risk. Are you at risk? That is an individual medical decision no one but you, your doctor and your family can say.

2. There is no data of which I am aware that shows any statistical difference between community spread rates among vaccinated or unvaccinated. The CDC director went on national TV and said "we are not seeing spread among vaccinated" several months ago. I immediately said at that time "this is not an accurate statement - the vaccine makers themselves said they did not test the vaccines to stop spread". It would take a lot of research to substantiate that claim and it had not been done. Just a few days ago the CDC Director went on TV and recanted that claim, saying vaccinated can spread it. All studies of which I am aware show equal propensity to get and spread between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Massachusetts study. French Guiana miner study. Icelandic data. British data. If there is any effect on spread by vaccines it is at most marginal but is not established. In addition spread is about more than just viral loading (which is the same between vaccinated and unvaccinated in 2 studies) but also about *symptoms*. Vaccinated show less symptoms (good) so stay around people more than symptomatic unvaccinated who stay home sick. So two cases with equal viral loading may turn out with vaccinated person actually spreading *more*. This is a point that needs more study now (fat chance of that in this dogmatic environment).

3. The evidence for natural immunity being *at least equal* grows by the day. It is becoming fair to say the evidence is pointing towards it being better. In the French Guiana miner study (on CDC website) 63% of miners fully vaccinated got COVID-19. However 0% of the miners previously infected and having natural immunity got COVID-19. Yet we cannot get public health authorities to even acknowledge natural immunity exists. Go look up Dr. Marty Markary Twitter account from Johns Hopkins. Just scroll and read what he says about the maddening anti-scientific dismissal of natural immunity.

Everything I just said underlay the decision by the Icelandic chief epidemiologist, which was the original post. I make up my own mind based on the reliable information I can find. Been saying for 18 months we were ignoring fundamental data that called into question almost everything we were doing to "attack" COVID-19. Just so happens that epidemiologist in one statement yesterday happened to agree with everything I have been pointing that whole time.

Maybe this is just a broke clock being right twice a day, or maybe we need to listen to different voices than the ones that have driven us into the ditch over and over again since March of last year.

Keep an open mind and make your own medical decisions with true informed consent.
 
So we are to take the advice of one GP in Indiana over almost all of the expert epidemiologists in the world.

Makes sense.
Look man, you want to keep trolling this thread have at it but let me remind you this thread started with a respected chief epidemiologist in a very rich, very educated, very vaccinated country saying vaccines will not provide herd immunity.

Do you disagree with him? If so why?
 
Please point out and discuss the factual errors.
Here you go:
He states he is a functional family medicine doctor and is an expert in inflammation and inflammatory disease. The specialists for these types of disease are rheumatologists, allergist and immunologists. Big red flag there.

The bit about the mask pore size is correct.

“Vaccines derange the immune system to make people more susceptible to infection.” This statement is so wrong it’s laughable.

“Why did the CDC not take these measures for prior flu years or RSV?” Is this guy for real?

The part about antibody mediated worsening of disease as a result of the vaccine. Seriously, how can he say that with a straight face with the current rates of vaccinated & unvaccinated in the hospital & ICU.

The kicker is his claim that Vitamin D therapy is an effective strategy based in his own care of a whopping 15 patients.

This man is part of the problem.
 
Last edited:
Here you go:
He states he is a functional family medicine doctor and is an expert in inflammation and inflammatory disease. The specialists for these types of disease are rheumatologists, allergist and immunologists. Big red flag there.

The bit about the mask pore size is correct.

“Vaccines derange the immune system to make people more susceptible to infection.” This statement is so wrong it’s laughable.

“Why did the CDC not take these measures for prior flu years or RSV?” Is this guy for real?

The part about antibody mediated worsening of disease as a result of the vaccine. Seriously, how can he say that with a straight face with the current rates of vaccinated & unvaccinated in the hospital & ICU.

The kicker is his claim that Vitamin c therapy is an effective strategy based in his own care of a whopping 15 patients.

This man is part of the problem.
Not doubting you because no basis to do so. Assuming what you say is correct then - yeah - that is part of the problem.

Bulls--- on both sides. Unfortunately from my perspective this Indiana dude is an Internet one hit wonder. Wollensky makes the laws.

I would be glad to see both sent packing.
 
So we are to take the advice of one GP in Indiana over almost all of the expert epidemiologists in the world.

Makes sense.
I cannot find a better response than what he said:

As Dawg'n IT said above:

Everyone is different and that's why such considerations should depend on medical history and a conversation with their doctor instead of a blanket policy from the government or employer.

But I'll try:
If you are sick, do you take the advice of your treating physician, or do you go to "experts" on WebMD and the Mayo clinic web site instead?
 
Your introductory remarks contain a false premise. Your parents are unaffected by your vaccination. You can get and spread the virus to them both vaccinated and unvaccinated. *Their* vaccination status is what protects them.

By point...

1. If you have read what I have written many, many times, vaccines seem to pretty clearly reduce risk of hospitalization or death for those at risk. Are you at risk? That is an individual medical decision no one but you, your doctor and your family can say.

2. There is no data of which I am aware that shows any statistical difference between community spread rates among vaccinated or unvaccinated. The CDC director went on national TV and said "we are not seeing spread among vaccinated" several months ago. I immediately said at that time "this is not an accurate statement - the vaccine makers themselves said they did not test the vaccines to stop spread". It would take a lot of research to substantiate that claim and it had not been done. Just a few days ago the CDC Director went on TV and recanted that claim, saying vaccinated can spread it. All studies of which I am aware show equal propensity to get and spread between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Massachusetts study. French Guiana miner study. Icelandic data. British data. If there is any effect on spread by vaccines it is at most marginal but is not established. In addition spread is about more than just viral loading (which is the same between vaccinated and unvaccinated in 2 studies) but also about *symptoms*. Vaccinated show less symptoms (good) so stay around people more than symptomatic unvaccinated who stay home sick. So two cases with equal viral loading may turn out with vaccinated person actually spreading *more*. This is a point that needs more study now (fat chance of that in this dogmatic environment).

3. The evidence for natural immunity being *at least equal* grows by the day. It is becoming fair to say the evidence is pointing towards it being better. In the French Guiana miner study (on CDC website) 63% of miners fully vaccinated got COVID-19. However 0% of the miners previously infected and having natural immunity got COVID-19. Yet we cannot get public health authorities to even acknowledge natural immunity exists. Go look up Dr. Marty Markary Twitter account from Johns Hopkins. Just scroll and read what he says about the maddening anti-scientific dismissal of natural immunity.

Everything I just said underlay the decision by the Icelandic chief epidemiologist, which was the original post. I make up my own mind based on the reliable information I can find. Been saying for 18 months we were ignoring fundamental data that called into question almost everything we were doing to "attack" COVID-19. Just so happens that epidemiologist in one statement yesterday happened to agree with everything I have been pointing that whole time.

Maybe this is just a broke clock being right twice a day, or maybe we need to listen to different voices than the ones that have driven us into the ditch over and over again since March of last year.

Keep an open mind and make your own medical decisions with true informed consent.
Thanks for the response, BDDB.

I haven’t been following your posts. My afternoon unexpectedly freed up and I decided to ask some questions of a vax skeptic (for want of a better term) after seeing a couple of your posts whike lurking

To get down to the key point which you reference in part 2: in your opinion, by getting vaccinated I did not at reduce my chances of contracting covid. I only (at best) reduced the chances of getting seriously sick. Is that what you’re saying?
 
Thanks for the response, BDDB.

I haven’t been following your posts. My afternoon unexpectedly freed up and I decided to ask some questions of a vax skeptic (for want of a better term) after seeing a couple of your posts whike lurking

To get down to the key point which you reference in part 2: in your opinion, by getting vaccinated I did not at reduce my chances of contracting covid. I only (at best) reduced the chances of getting seriously sick. Is that what you’re saying?
Not BDDB, but yes this is what Pfizer and Moderna claimed before the emergency use was approved. The media an politicians chose to ignore it.
 
Here you go:
He states he is a functional family medicine doctor and is an expert in inflammation and inflammatory disease. The specialists for these types of disease are rheumatologists, allergist and immunologists. Big red flag there.

The bit about the mask pore size is correct.

“Vaccines derange the immune system to make people more susceptible to infection.” This statement is so wrong it’s laughable.

“Why did the CDC not take these measures for prior flu years or RSV?” Is this guy for real?

The part about antibody mediated worsening of disease as a result of the vaccine. Seriously, how can he say that with a straight face with the current rates of vaccinated & unvaccinated in the hospital & ICU.

The kicker is his claim that Vitamin c therapy is an effective strategy based in his own care of a whopping 15 patients.

This man is part of the problem.
Thank you for your response.

You included as a direct quote “Vaccines derange the immune system to make people more susceptible to infection.” The actual statement was "The natural history of all viruses is that they circulate all year long, waiting for the immune system to 'get sick' through the winter or get 'deranged' as has happened recently with these vaccines, and then they [the viruses] cause symptomatic disease."

I thought that was a lay interpretation of the phenomenon of cytokine storm or the hypersensitivity/anaphylactic response seen in allergies, applied to the immune response to this virus.

He didn't say Vitamin C therapy. He said the combination of Vitamin D, zinc and Ivermectin offered therapeutic benefits.

I was wondering about the 15 patient thing, and wondered if he mis-stated his point there. Wondering if he was talking about Vitamin D levels, hospitalized or chronic patients, or if he really meant 15 total patients, which would not be a resounding endorsement of anything.

My biggest sticking point with public health policy, other than the constantly changing advice and requirements, is the lack of information and emphasis on therapeutics, which do seem to be the answer to long term management of this virus.

Existing therapeutics seem to be slow played, with limited or questionable studies used to dismiss them. I understand that it is difficult to get a pharmaceutical company to invest in research for drugs/treatment with limited revenue potential, or no ability to patent. That's where your federally funded agencies can step in.

Remdesivir and monoclonal antibody treatments got pushed to the front, although remdesivir has limited application, but these are new, expensive treatments. Meanwhile, drugs like ivermectin, fenofibrate, tocilizumab and sarilumab (remap-cap), and dexamethasone in some cases, and some of the above combined with zinc and a Z-pack that don't get the private funding or attention, seem equally promising and more accessible.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: elderdawg
So we are to take the advice of one GP in Indiana over almost all of the expert epidemiologists in the world.

Makes sense.
They have finally found 1 doctor that says what they want him to say. Of course his BS will spread like wildfire through the uneducated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoyDawgMercer
They have finally found 1 doctor that says what they want him to say. Of course his BS will spread like wildfire through the uneducated.
Nope he is one of two that I found today. Started a thread with the other Dr’s comments.
Would you rather go the a clinician who treats patients or take medical advice from a lifelong bureaucrat who never practiced?

And what about Iceland? Or do they not count?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: elderdawg
Thank you for your response.

You included as a direct quote “Vaccines derange the immune system to make people more susceptible to infection.” The actual statement was "The natural history of all viruses is that they circulate all year long, waiting for the immune system to 'get sick' through the winter or get 'deranged' as has happened recently with these vaccines, and then they [the viruses] cause symptomatic disease."
Yeah I paraphrased. “Immune system … deranged as has happened with these vaccines” is the part I disagree with. I see no basis for this

I thought that was a lay interpretation of the phenomenon of cytokine storm or the hypersensitivity/anaphylactic response seen in allergies, applied to the immune response to this virus.
Yes the pulmonary cytokine storm is the signature lethal part of this virus. The cytokine storm has been rendered almost non-existent in vaccinated

He didn't say Vitamin C therapy. He said the combination of Vitamin D, zinc and Ivermectin offered therapeutic benefits.
I was wrong, he did say vitamin D. Still not true

I was wondering about the 15 patient thing, and wondered if he mis-stated his point there. Wondering if he was talking about Vitamin D levels, hospitalized or chronic patients, or if he really meant 15 total patients, which would not be a resounding endorsement of anything.

My biggest sticking point with public health policy, other than the constantly changing advice and requirements, is the lack of information and emphasis on therapeutics, which do seem to be the answer to long term management of this virus.
The only thing I can say to this is that nothing has ever stressed the medical system so hard and so fast. The medical leaders made mistakes and mis-statements but there was no modern precedent for what happened. For example, HCQ was a disaster at my hospital that we stopped using in the first month. Intubation was over used early on. You have to take the best evidence available and adapt as new information comes in. It was like battlefield medicine last spring


Existing therapeutics seem to be slow played, with limited or questionable studies used to dismiss them. I understand that it is difficult to get a pharmaceutical company to invest in research for drugs/treatment with limited revenue potential, or no ability to patent. That's where your federally funded agencies can step in.


Remdesivir and monoclonal antibody treatments got pushed to the front, although remdesivir has limited application, but these are new, expensive treatments. Meanwhile, drugs like ivermectin, fenofibrate, tocilizumab and sarilumab (remap-cap), and dexamethasone in some cases, and some of the above combined with zinc and a Z-pack that don't get the private funding or attention, seem equally promising and more accessible.
All of those therapies pale in comparison to the overall effectiveness of the vaccine. The vaccine is the most cost effective strategy as well. There is certainly a financial bias in drug development, but not in this situation.
 
Nope he is one of two that I found today. Started a thread with the other Dr’s comments.
Would you rather go the a clinician who treats patients or take medical advice from a lifelong bureaucrat who never practiced?

And what about Iceland? Or so they not count?
I’d hope you can re-read what you have written and come to a clearer conclusion in the morning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: celticdawg
I’d hope you can re-read what you have written and come to a clearer conclusion in the morning.
I take it that you agree with Iceland's position then as you have utmost faith in government. Logic says you also must be a fan of single-payer healthcare.

Just waiting on you to come up with some reputable “independent” Dr.s to refute what he said….sitting back and taking pot shots is easy. Though I do realize hearing things that conflict with the narrative can be difficult.
 
Last edited:
All doctors are independent you potato.
Best laugh I've had all day.

dies-out-of-laughter_c_7263342.jpg
 
Seriously you should do more research - just a few touchstones.

95%+ of Dr's are captive to huge hospital practice groups. No thinking allowed. Toe the line.
They dare not speak out against the alphabet agencies CDC/FDA/NEJM/AMA for fear of reprisals and/or loss of their job.

State licensing boards will notice and can put their professional license in jeopardy.

Healthcare providers- only a few massive companies out there. Makes it extremely hard to speak out and challenge the "science". If one of the consolidated providers (including your Uncle Sam as the biggest) won't approve them in their system for payment for "reasons" good luck making a living outside of insurance. The others will fall in line because of optics.

Pharma - do I really need to explain this one?

It isn't that hard. I can add more reasons Dr's are not Independent as you may dream they are.
 
Last edited:
Seriously you should do more research - just a few touchstones.

95%+ of Dr's are captive to huge hospital practice groups. No thinking allowed. Toe the line.
They dare not speak out against the alphabet agencies CDC/FDA/NEJM/AMA for fear of reprisals and/or loss of their job.

State licensing boards will notice and can put their professional license in jeopardy.

Healthcare providers- only a few massive companies out there. Makes it extremely hard to speak out and challenge the "science". If one of the consolidated providers (including your Uncle Sam as the biggest) won't approve them in their system for payment for "reasons" good luck making a living outside of insurance. The others will fall in line because of optics.

Pharma - do I really need to explain this one?

It isn't that hard. I can add more reasons Dr's are not Independent as you may dream they are.
Of course everything is some conspiracy. Who knew? Have you received the Covid vaccine? No? So you have your last will & testament up to date? Adios!
 
ADVERTISEMENT