Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They’re just models. Ultimate test of a model is see if our results match that in nature to validate the model.
There are no way to validate these models since we don’t have a time machine to re run the pandemic. Since these models are unverifiable, they’re outside the realm of science and just really a commercial for the vaccines paid for by the orgs that profit from them.
Well, we will disagree. They are obviously not perfect much like a weather forecast, but there is certainly significant experience, math/science, etc. behind the models (particularly evidenced thru repeated independent modeling) that supports the validity of the modeling and result. Again, you offer no proof about the profit motivation dwarfing, or having anything to do with the validity and repeated verification of the effectiveness of vaccine, other than to point out there is a potential conflict of interest given money is involved. So, I while I understand the conceptual concern, between the regulatory bodies involved, the involvement of private, public, academic researchers in the development and testing of pharmaceuticals, and the fact that I’ve seen no credible evidence demonstrating wide spread fraud, I don’t share your concerns. By the way, is every drug that has ever been developed a sham because of the profit motive? Are Lipitor, Flomax, the MMR vaccine, Zofran all useless, or worse, causing I more harm than good?
Well, we will disagree. They are obviously not perfect much like a weather forecast, but there is certainly significant experience, math/science, etc. behind the models (particularly evidenced thru repeated independent modeling) that supports the validity of the modeling and result. Again, you offer no proof about the profit motivation dwarfing, or having anything to do with the validity and repeated verification of the effectiveness of vaccine, other than to point out there is a potential conflict of interest given money is involved. So, I while I understand the conceptual concern, between the regulatory bodies involved, the involvement of private, public, academic researchers in the development and testing of pharmaceuticals, and the fact that I’ve seen no credible evidence demonstrating wide spread fraud, I don’t share your concerns. By the way, is every drug that has ever been developed a sham because of the profit motive? Are Lipitor, Flomax, the MMR vaccine, Zofran all useless, or worse, causing I more harm than good?
When we create models to forecast the weather, these models are constantly tested by real world data. The model of how many lives the vaccines saved is not giving any such endpoint for us to validate. We have no way in addressing if the model is correct. It was merely done as an advertisement piece for vaccines.
You may remember all the early models on how many people would die from COVID and those were all widely incorrect.
Off topic quick responses.
Lipitor, yes. I've written in detail on statins elsewhere.
Flomax treats the symptoms and not the cause of an enlarged prostrate. The side effects are not worth it.
MMR vaccines seem to work, but the diseases they protect against (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) are mild.
Zofran seems to reduce nausea, and if taken just during a period of chemotherapy might have some utility.
I give the follow grades
Lipitor - E. Don't take it.
Flomax - D, re-consider addressing the root of the problem.
MMR - C, not a medical marvel some claim, but if you want to avoid those diseases and are cognizant of some of the adverse events.
Zofran - B. Take it if you have a lot of nausea for limited periods of time, if you're on chemotherapy.
People forget that the first job of your immune system is not to attack pathogens but kill cancerous cell (everyday, a few cells turn cancerous in your body but your body usually stays on top of it).
So what do you think?
This is getting a little absurd.
This is from a physician who has had cancer X2 and understands a little about the subject.
Vaccinations do not suppress, but INCREASE the activity of the body's immune system. SOME cancers, such as melanoma and renal cell, are VERY immune related. In fact, in the early 1900s, melanomas were "treated" by injecting attenuated TB bacillus into the lesion. BCG, or attenuated TB bacillus, is used today to irrigate the bladder in patients with bladder CA.
If anything, a vaccine would INCREASE the body's immune response to other pathogens, not DECREASE that response.
This is from a physician who has had cancer X2 and understands a little about the subject.
Vaccinations do not suppress, but INCREASE the activity of the body's immune system. SOME cancers, such as melanoma and renal cell, are VERY immune related. In fact, in the early 1900s, melanomas were "treated" by injecting attenuated TB bacillus into the lesion. BCG, or attenuated TB bacillus, is used today to irrigate the bladder in patients with bladder CA.
If anything, a vaccine would INCREASE the body's immune response to other pathogens, not DECREASE that response.
Let's break down this:
Quote:
Vaccinations do not suppress, but INCREASE the activity of the body's immune system.
Your immune system is a little bit more complex than just an (say) car engine, where adding or removing gas can increase/decrease the RPMs of your engine.
Your immune system is a multitude of different pathways, and stimulating 1 pathway requires by extension another pathway to be suppressed.
You're not up to date on cancer treatment regimens, all cancer is now understood to be a problem of the immune system, and current cancer therapies, like ICIs (immune checkpoint inhibitors - eg PD1+, CTLA4, CD137, ILT2) are all based on this premise. But as I said, your immune system is a series of pathways, so when we artificially block checkpoint proteins from binding with their partner proteins, we might see more immune activity on the cancerous cells (good!) but also a wide panoply of devastating autoimmune conditions (bad).
Evolution is not a fact it’s a scientific theory. To accept it as a fact would be not only unscientific but ignorant of basic definitions of words.
Evolution is a FACT. The currently accepted hypothesis about what causes evolution is a theory.
There is absolutely no alternative to the obvious fact that more complex species evolved from simpler species.
But the currently accepted scientific theory says that random variations and natural selection can adequately explain all biological evolution. Like some other modern scientific beliefs, it is ridiculous and completely lacking evidence.
There is absolutely no alternative to the obvious fact that more complex species evolved from simpler species.
A fact is something you can observe, like a data point. What's the temperature today is a fact.
We cannot observe species changing into different species in real time, we need to infer this from the fossil record, Aka, it's not a fact but a theory. The idea that there is no "alternative" is not what distinguishes fact from theory, also it's preposterous on its face.
We can observe some microevolutionary changes in simple organisms, I guess this could be considered a fact
But for a short summation for those not interested in the philosophical mumbo jumbo of what should be inherently obvious to anyone who took a science course at the university level:
Quote:
"I have heard too many scientists claim that evolution is a fact, often in retort to the claim that it is just a theory. Evolution isn't a fact. Rather than claiming so, I think scientists would be better served to agree that evolution is a theory and then proceed to explain what a theory is – a coherent explanation that undergoes constant testing and often revision over a period of time.
Evolution is a FACT. The currently accepted hypothesis about what causes evolution is a theory.
There is absolutely no alternative to the obvious fact that more complex species evolved from simpler species.
But the currently accepted scientific theory says that random variations and natural selection can adequately explain all biological evolution. Like some other modern scientific beliefs, it is ridiculous and completely lacking evidence.
Actually, it's a theory, just like the Big Bang is a theory. And interestingly, recent evidence has been suggesting it never actually happened. That's why we always said big bang "theory" because there was never proof that it actually happened, just a lot of evidence that it did and it made sense, and plus Einstein was a genius so who would argue against his theories? But now they are discovering a lot of evidence to suggest it did not happen, forcing people to re evaluate how the universe came to be in existence.
Same with evolution. We have tons of evidence to suggest it is the most obvious explanation for how we all came to be, from a biological standpoint. There is no evidence to suggest evolution isn't real. But like the Big Big theory, we weren't there in the beginning to see how this all went down. We also were not there millions of years ago to follow the progress. Hence, we say the theory of evolution. But for all we know, there could have been a giant galactic Naoh's ark dropping animals off every half a million years or something. Or something that we can't even wrap our minds around with our earth based logic. Certainly evolution makes the most sense. But that doesn't mean it's fact from a scientific standpoint. So we continue to call it "the theory of evolution".
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
This is getting a little absurd.
This is from a physician who has had cancer X2 and understands a little about the subject.
Vaccinations do not suppress, but INCREASE the activity of the body's immune system. SOME cancers, such as melanoma and renal cell, are VERY immune related. In fact, in the early 1900s, melanomas were "treated" by injecting attenuated TB bacillus into the lesion. BCG, or attenuated TB bacillus, is used today to irrigate the bladder in patients with bladder CA.
If anything, a vaccine would INCREASE the body's immune response to other pathogens, not DECREASE that response.
It was my understanding that the vaccines train the immune system to target COVID more specifically, which theoretically could make more likely to ignore cancer cells. I have no idea if there is any truth to this, only that it has been repeated numerous times by people critical or suspicious of the vaccine.
When we create models to forecast the weather, these models are constantly tested by real world data. The model of how many lives the vaccines saved is not giving any such endpoint for us to validate. We have no way in addressing if the model is correct. It was merely done as an advertisement piece for vaccines.
You may remember all the early models on how many people would die from COVID and those were all widely incorrect.
Off topic quick responses.
Lipitor, yes. I've written in detail on statins elsewhere.
Flomax treats the symptoms and not the cause of an enlarged prostrate. The side effects are not worth it.
MMR vaccines seem to work, but the diseases they protect against (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) are mild.
Zofran seems to reduce nausea, and if taken just during a period of chemotherapy might have some utility.
I give the follow grades
Lipitor - E. Don't take it.
Flomax - D, re-consider addressing the root of the problem.
MMR - C, not a medical marvel some claim, but if you want to avoid those diseases and are cognizant of some of the adverse events.
Zofran - B. Take it if you have a lot of nausea for limited periods of time, if you're on chemotherapy.
You and I have diametrically opposed perspectives on contemporary medicine and the scientific process for review and approval of pharmaceuticals. We aren’t going to agree on anything in this regard, so I won’t waste your time making you read and respond to my comments your posts. I can’t see anything productive coming from further discussions. Go in peace.
You and I have diametrically opposed perspectives on contemporary medicine and the scientific process for review and approval of pharmaceuticals. We aren’t going to agree on anything in this regard, so I won’t waste your time making you read and respond to my comments your posts. I can’t see anything productive coming from further discussions. Go in peace.
That's fine. Agreement is boring. Disagreement is fun, leads to exchange of ideas, and sharpening of one's convictions or reevaluation of one's convictions. I'm, one could say, an antivaxxer and cynical of modern medicine, but you'd never catch me posting on forums where those are the dominant members as I find echo chambers boring.
Moving on, I don't think we disagree on this: "contemporary medicine and the scientific process for review and approval of pharmaceuticals. "
I think we both want any new treatment (be it drug, vaccine, medical device, or surgery) to exhibit more benefit than harm to patients, and I think we both agree that RCT (double blind, placebo controlled whenever possible) are the best ways to go.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Where we disagree is if this is being implemented or not. My position is the FDA is currently captured, pharmaceutical companies are rigging trials and we're getting harmful medicines as a result. You may think the system is working well. So our point of disagreement is one of implementation and not of design.
It was my understanding that the vaccines train the immune system to target COVID more specifically, which theoretically could make more likely to ignore cancer cells. I have no idea if there is any truth to this, only that it has been repeated numerous times by people critical or suspicious of the vaccine.
It's more complicated than that. First, technically speaking, our COVID19 vaccines teach your body to target one protein from the virus, not the virus itself. But let's talk immune pathways with this beautiful example from pertussis vaccines.
Quote:
Further comparison of the ratios of IFNγ and IL-5 revealed that IFNγ strongly dominates the T cell response in wP-primed donors, while IL-5 is dominant in aP primed individuals. Surprisingly, this differential pattern is maintained after booster vaccination, at times from eighteen years to several decades after the original aP/wP priming. These findings suggest that childhood aP versus wP vaccination induces functionally different T cell responses to pertussis that become fixed and are unchanged even upon boosting.
If you didn't follow this, that's ok, I'll translate it.
Two different kinds of pertussis vaccines exist, acellular (aP) and whole bacteria formulation (wP).
If a kid is given aP, they were biased into a Th1 response/polarization (IL-5) even when given a wP later. And kids given a wP were biased into a Th2 response/polarization (IFNγ), and this was reinforced if given a wP later.
The key is that the initial vaccine given matters, as subsequent vaccinations don't change the polarization even with different vaccines. This is a permanent change to your immune system and one that may bias you to an unfavorable or favorable response to pertussis for the rest of your life - at least it will require a lot to change.
Th1 and Th2 are 2 of the many pathways of your immune system, a crude breakdown is Th1 is one where your body responds to an infection with more CD8+ cells (cytotoxic killer cells) but they also down-regulate macrophages and stimulate existing B cells to produce antibodies. Th2 pathway is more of a humoral response, cause you to create more memory B cells specifically for that antigen and lead to many circulating antibodies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
