Following NetBSD, DragonFlyBSD Now Has "COVID"

[coder]

some of them can cause myocarditis, these are facts,

Well, context is key. Of the 300 cases of myocarditis original reported in youths, none were fatal. It's supposedly a short-term condition.

Telling people to use their heads and actually think before they get shit like that injected into them (not telling them not to do it! just telling them to seriously consider what could go wrong and whether it's really less bad than just getting covid in the first place)

People are notoriously bad at weighing risks. You don't tell them not to go outside when it's raining, yet many more are killed by lightning than the vaccine.

attempts are clearly being made to conceal these things as most major news outlets seem conspicuously reluctant to report on any vaccine related deaths; of which there have been at least hundreds, possibly a lot more, we can't know because information about that is being actively censored and covered up right now, but some of it has managed to slip through the cracks, enough to know about hundreds.)

Do you have any evidence of this supposed censorship? In the USA, we have press freedom and the government has no mechanism or right to censor such information.

What's weird is that the media did report the rare complications & deaths with the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, as well as the incidents of myocarditis in the under-18.

But these vaccines are clearly not a perfect solution, since they can kill you just as surely as covid itself can kill you.

Well, dead is dead. What you seem to be missing is any sense of the relative risk. In the USA, you'd have been about 10,000 times as likely to die of Covid-19 than from getting vaccinated.

for certain groups the vaccine is for a fact more likely to kill them than covid is in the first place,

No, this is quite simply false.

[coder]

Well some is the result of: if one doesn't know the subject he tries to rely on the oppnion of an expert who knows the field better. Which is not a bad approach pre se - we are doing this every day. e.g. if you go to a chinese restaurant (not so obvious - chefs cooking skills), to the doctor, .. the laywer, ..etc. The culprit is that now people are not even able to judge if an expert is an real expert or an selfproclaimed expert. ..nobody sane would ask the chinese chef for an opinion on their stent surgery, or the lawyer to prepare chop sui instead of a contract, or his physician to sue some guy on pintrest for copyright infringement.

It's worse than that. When these credentialed experts get trotted out, it's not because the poster did a broad survey of different experts' opinions and is citing one(s) who most eloquently expressed the majority opinion. Instead, it's like getting tax advice from an accountant you meet on a forum for right-wing anti-government militias. That accountant might indeed be a CPA, but probably has views so far outside the norm that you shouldn't be surprised to get a knock on your door from the IRS, if you follow his advice.

IMHO that is the biggest problem - people can't reasonable point out experts...they already need an expert for this.

Again, it's even worse than you say. People are more likely to trust an expert who tells them what they want to hear.

It's like shopping around for second opinions on a cancer diagnosis until you get a doctor who tells you it's not cancer. Except, in this case, it's like there's an ad telling you which doctor will say it's not cancer, saving you the trouble of even having to search for yourself.

[coder]

mRNA vaccines and adenovirus vectored vaccines are gene therapies, they are described as such by their inventors. AFAIK all current emergency use authorized vaccines are gene therapy based;

You're just playing semantic games. As we've said, they're not designed to modify cellular DNA. There's no confusion about this point. There's no significance in that terminology, beyond what we already know.

there is one in development right now that isn't based on gene therapies though, Novavax

Why am I not surprised to see you pushing a Russian vaccine?

It's little coincidence that the Russians got caught spreading disinformation about Covid-19 vaccines. Maybe some of the same misinformation you're trotting out originated from them.

• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN2B0016
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...credit-russia/

[coder]

In the case of COVID, there are non-vaccine intervention groups with promising risk reduction, and the control group is not actually in much peril on average (unless they have significant known comorbidities).

Even with the known treatment regimes, deaths are still mounting at an alarming rate. And the Delta variant is both more infectious and more fatal, which the older statistics don't reflect.

The best protection is to get vaccinated:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimam...data-suggests/

[coder]

in Canada and the U.S. there are governments really pushing the idea that children (the second least affected group) and adolescents (the least affected group) should be vaccinated aggressively. Some of my young relatives have already been pressured into being vaccinated.

Children are at increased risk from the Delta variant, and they're also potential spreaders. We won't reach herd immunity without a significant portion of the under-18 getting vaccinated.

If you want kids in school, where they're most likely both to be exposed and to expose others, then they really should get vaccinated.

[coder]

You link to the "contraindications" section on the Wikipedia article for Ivermectin, which is conspicuously missing all of the things you said about it. What medications can it not be combined with?

Seriously? The "Adverse effects" section is right after it. Do you really need me to include 2 links?

So, you can't give it to:

• Children under 5
• People with liver or kidney disease
• Women who are breast feeding or might potentially be pregnant
• People on:
  • statins
  • HIV protease inhibitors
  • many calcium channel blockers
  • lidocaine
  • benzodiazepines
  • glucocorticoids such as dexamethasone (which is a potent anti-inflammatory often used in the treatment of Covid-19)

This excludes some who received the Covid-19 vaccines. In particular, most of the deaths due to blood clots were women of childbearing age, who probably wouldn't take Ivermectin (and are at much higher risk of blood clots if they take birth control pills, FWIW).

yeah sure it has “adverse effects” but they are rare and minor;

Except that you were suggesting it be taken to prevent Covid-19 infections, which involves much longer-term use than how it's been tested. We don't know how much the frequency and severity of things like liver and kidney toxicity could be, if used in that way.

when you compare any of these considerations to the equivalent considerations for the current COVID vaccines, it just seems like you're saying whatever you can think of without considering the tradeoffs.

The vaccines have proven efficacy and are much safer than the disease they prevent. Otherwise, they would not be authorized.

Ivermectin has not been proven effective in a large, double-blind, and placebo-controlled study. Oxford University is conducting one, but the existing data is very mixed and of low quality. Since you're so invested in the matter, you should take 9 minutes and listen to this podcast about it:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct2dk5

then for further comparison, here is the drugs.com index of interactions for Aspirin

People don't need to take Aspirin. There are other options, if they require pain relief.

But, at this point, you're really bike shedding. It's pointless to talk about any of the safety or practical issues around Ivermectin until there's at least one high-quality study proving its effectiveness. It could be the cheapest, safest drug in the world, but that's irrelevant if it's ineffective against Covid-19.

let's say that, since you are so concerned about drug interactions in high risk groups, we only administer the prophylactic chemotherapy to the portion of the population not in high risk groups, and only to those people who are uninterested in the vaccine for one reason or another; can you then justify your objections?

How good do you think compliance will be? If there were a non-vaccine prophylactic, I think most people would only take it when they start to feel at imminent risk. There will probably be poor uptake compliance by low-risk populations, since most seem unconcerned or unaware of SARS-CoV-2's pernicious pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic spread.

The nice thing about a vaccine is that you only have to convince them to get a couple shots.

an order of magnitude cheaper (or two, depending on who packages it),

Cost is so far a non-issue. Between the G7 and Covax, there are even a few billion vaccine doses committed for the developing world, already.

https://www.reuters.com/world/g7-provides-1-billion-covid-vaccine-doses-will-work-give-more-communique-2021-06-13/

dramatically safer, than the vaccines.

You can't say it's dramatically safer, because it hasn't been administered to the same populations as the vaccines.

Ivermectin doesn't require coldchain storage,

Most of them now require only normal refrigeration. Definitely Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, but I think also AstraZeneca The extreme cold temperatures were initially due to lack of prior experience with mRNA vaccines.

And notice how I say prophylactic and you keep going back to "treatment". There is no particular reason that somebody who would be comfortable with treating with Ivermectin, should avoid prophylaxis (at least if the campaign is just a few months).

That's not consistent with how it was tested or is normally used. The cost and safety data you keep quoting are based on using a course of it as a treatment.

There are surely also practical problems with distributing that much and getting enough people to take it for long enough to sustain herd immunity until the virus stops spreading.

once you're in the treatment stage, you should consider a wider array of drugs, including ones that are not as safe over long periods.

What drugs are those?

So far, the existing treatments for Covid-19 haven't stopped the deaths.

[CochainComplex]

So far, the existing treatments for Covid-19 haven't stopped the deaths.

Even recovalescentenplasma (dont know engl word) ..Rekonvaleszentenplasma (GER) - simply the Cocktail of Antibodies gained by donated blood of former infected patients - does not guarantee a successful outcome. With the surge of different strains the effectiveness goes down additionally.

BTW complications with prescription free medicine is way higher then "felt". In Germany there is once in a while the question if generic painkillers like aspirin, ibuprofen, paracetamol should be still prescription free.

Especially paracetamol and alcohol is a common and a severe interaction. Hepatic coma can be easily induced by this combination. A lot of people think paracetamol is a good cure for a hangover.

I don't know about the information sheet provided with the medicine in US. But here we have this list of side effects given with probability: common (>=1:10), less common (>=1:100)....some of the normal "everyday" pharmaceutical stuff have severe side effects in the rare category which is around 1:1000. It is highly likely that 1 out of this 100 rare cases will end deadly.
Which sums up to 1:100 000 -> deadlier or equally fatal as covid vaccine's.

As mentioned already just compare sideffects and case fatality of vaccine vs covid infection 'nough said

[Gonk]

mRNA vaccines and adenovirus vectored vaccines are gene therapies,

No they are not. Gene therapy by definition involves the modification of the target cell's DNA. The mRNA and viral vectored vaccines cause the cell to be modified, but do not enter the nucleus, let alone modify the DNA within.

they are described as such by their inventors.

[citation needed]

AFAIK all current emergency use authorized vaccines are gene therapy based; there is one in development right now that isn't based on gene therapies though, Novavax (or more accurately, the gene therapy is on a moth, and the immunogens are then extracted from the moth and attached to little blobs of fat).

Partly correct. Novavax's NVX-CoV2373 (expected to be marketed as Covovax) is a protein subunit (AKA virus-like particles) vaccine that uses a viral vectored vaccine as part of its manufacture. A modified virus is used to infect a moth cell culture (no actual moths involved) which causes the cells to express the spike protein. The spike proteins are then somehow separated from the cells (I'm guessing how is a closely guarded trade secret) and then stuck onto a lipid nanoparticle (a bit more sophisticated than a little blob of fat). But again, no part of this process is gene therapy.

[CochainComplex]

The mRNA and viral vectored vaccines cause the cell to be modified, but do not enter the nucleus, let alone modify the DNA within.

AFAIK this is generally how EVERY Virus is working. A virus can not reproduce it self like Bakteria or Fungi - it needs a host cell reprogrammed doing this replication job. That is the whole point why COVID emerged. Compared to former COVID like Viruses they never had the possibility to enter the human cells. Now this COVID-19 does because some mutation helped it to bind to humanoid ACE receptors with its Spikeprotein.

...frankly spoken...every f***** human virus injects its mRNA into our body and everyone of us already had couple 100ts of infections - flu, cold,
gastrointestinal infection, herpes,.... some of them with symptoms some of them without.

J&J, Sputnik, Astra are using an Adenovirus as Vector to transport the mRNA into the human cell to trigger an immunreaction without the hazards of a real COVID infection. Issue vector information gets injected too. Some immunresponse against the vectorvirus (carrier vehicle and mechanism) itsself is also triggered. so second or booster jab might not work anymore or is less effective. Btw an initial immunity might also occure. So the virus is not even able to inject the crucial mRNA information into the human cell. No response can be innitiated

Sinovac is using inaccivated viruses. The left overs are identified by the immunesystem - issue here sometimes broken virus parts look like omnipresent parts - less effective or wrongly directed immune response. Not the gold std anymore - but was better then the small pox virus back in the days.

Moderna, Biontech are using some Lipidcapsules around the mRNA snippet containing the Spikeprotein information. Thats it. The most effective way to trigger a strong response.

When someone is talking about Genetic Editing in context of COVID Vaccins ...they mean that they cut the initial virus mRNA so that not the whole COVID Virus will be reproduced in your body cells after injection. They want to have essentially identifiable parts of the COVID virus without any harming function in your body (e.g. only Spikeprotein) so that your immune system learns to identify those parts.

[piotrj3]

I would recommend ignoring microcode as simply troll.

About how viruses ends up in genome of cells and stuff around, it is actually sometimes by design. (on example of bacteria cells) If cell survived an attack of virus, they sometimes store part virus in DNA archive called CRISPR. That archive then can be used by protein CAS9 as mean to compare DNA with stuff inside cell. If it notices that it matches, it cuts RNA away and this way it can prevent viruses in future from being succesful again.

So stuff modify your DNA? Well... yes, but:
a) CRISPR is archive. It is not "effective" DNA used to determine function of cells etc. only defines immunity
b) mRNA (in vaccine) is not subject of CRISPR mechanism. So vaccines do not cause it (and btw. if it caused it, you would be likely to get pernament immunity)

Of course i simplified stuff here a lot, there is a lot of processes in between like crRNA/tractRNA/gRNA.

And CRISPR mechanism itself (with CAS protein) can be actually used for gene editing. Simply put into CRISPR stuff you don't want and you will succesfully remove from genetic code of cells "undesired" stuff.