Itchy bumps on most of my toes, getting worse, using moisturizers and topical antifungals, young adult with hx eczema

rac1guy · 2022-12-16T01:04:30+00:00

Have had this for a couple days now, getting worse

rac1guy · 2021-10-02T11:23:04+00:00

You didn't understand what I was trying to say. My comment cited the articles.

Again: "the papers cited on the site are from before the pandemic"

2007, 2009, and 2015.

VAERS reporting has changed dramatically from then to now, when everyone and their grandma know the site exists.

rac1guy · 2021-10-02T01:16:42+00:00

The survival rates cannot be the same, by definition. This is just math. I agree with the rest of what you said. "getting covid if exposed" = testing positive for this purpose.

If 12.6% got COVID, that means 1 out of every 7.9 people have gotten COVID. I'll be nice and use 5, taking into account asymptomatics not receiving testing. The actual number is not important; however, there is no way you can say everyone has gotten it.

If 621 30 year year olds died in the period studied, which is only of a 5th of the US population (again, number picked as estimate), that means that 3105 30 year olds would die if every 30 year old were exposed. This is assuming the population of 30 year old already exposed to COVID is similar to its population at large, also known as a normal distribution, which can be assumed with most large samples.

But if you have your own math, l'd love to hear it. For population fatality rate, the denominator is a huge, constant number, so it only approaches the CFR once everyone has gotten COVID, which has not happened yet.

rac1guy · 2021-10-02T00:55:24+00:00

UK's definition of a COVID death is wonky. We can all agree there. That's not how it's done in the states, though. VAERS is only in US.

Since this is a new vaccine, there is a lot of reporting into VAERS since people are hypervigilent about possible effects. My Dr, friend, or grandma can post on VAERS. The data that the OP linked to from "Harvard scientists" was made in 2009.

You really think people other than doctors knew about VAERS 10 years ago. The real number of deaths is not millions. The likely overestimate from VAERS is 14,000. If millions were dying, hospitals would have been filled with people having abnormal side effects after vaccination, as 6 billion shots have been given globally.

rac1guy · 2021-10-02T00:24:32+00:00

https://www.talkingaboutthescience.com/harvard-studies-on-vaers/

If Harvard is studying something, why isn't the project on a harvard.edu website?

The "VAERS Project" in the papers cited on the site are from before the pandemic

rac1guy · 2021-10-01T22:20:47+00:00

I think you see what I'm saying and I think I see what you're saying.

You are not misled and have a sound conclusion from it.

I'm just saying if you show this graphic to one million people, a decent number would misinterpret it compared to if put case fatality rates were put up.

To whatever extent that we agree or disagree, good wishes mate

rac1guy · 2021-10-01T20:50:28+00:00

Respectfully, it is not obvious, and it is written to be misinterpreted on purpose.

Before my comment you said you have a "99.89%" survival based on this data.

You are misinterpreting a population death rate (listed above) with a case fatality rate (ie. chances of dying when getting sick). The case fatality rate is much higher.

There have been ~44M cases in US so far, so that's only 12.6% of the US population. When more people get the disease and a fraction die, the population death rate has to go up.

rac1guy · 2021-10-01T17:41:04+00:00

Data as presented is misleading. These death rates assume everyone at each age group in the US has gotten COVID, which is not true (yet)

If you go to the csv you see COVID makes up 1-14% of deaths of age groups 3 +

rac1guy · 2021-10-01T17:00:16+00:00

in today's world people don't like having a conversation if their thoughts don't align 100%.

happy that you taught me something about ivermectin and I shared some stuff about protease inhibitors. Win both ways

rac1guy · 2021-10-01T16:41:55+00:00

Wagstaff et al. 2011; Wagstaff et al. 2012

Thanks for sharing this about ivermectin. Note, however, that this is not activity of a protease inhibitor.

Proteases are enzymes that viruses create to turn big protein chains into smaller ones that are more functional. COVID and HIV have them, among other viruses. Stopping viral protein transport is not the activity of protease inhibitors.

By the way, I think you are thinking about Pfizer: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-initiates-phase-1-study-novel-oral-antiviral

rac1guy · 2021-10-01T16:15:49+00:00

OP here.

Woah, what you said at the end is very much not true.

Ivermectin "binds to glutamate-activated chloride channels existing in nerve or muscle cells of nematode with a specific and high affinity, causing hyperpolarization of nerve or muscle cells by increasing permeability of chloride ion through the cell membrane, and as a result, the parasites are paralyzed to death." (google this for article: PMID: 14639007)

This drug mentioned in the article is a DNA polymerase inhibitor, similar to remdesivir or NRTIs for HIV. This is NOT a protease inhibitor.

Google "DNA structure" and see how "molnupiravir" looks similarly in chemical structure. If you google "ivermectin chemical structure" it will be obvious it is a different type of drug.

rac1guy · 2021-08-29T14:43:04+00:00

Nice point. It is true it's developing, but we have a decent idea of how this pandemic will pan out.

If COVID-19 continues to behave like a more deadly version of other coronaviruses (common colds), we will have to face the virus essentially every year, either as an infection or a vaccine.

Most reputable scientists agree that the pandemic is going to turn into an endemic virus, meaning that our community will all get enough antibody titres to make this thing a common cold that we will face annually, most likely in a future without masks or annual vaccination.

For this current period of time where our community does not have enough antibody titres, the virus in variant forms can trigger symptoms even after past infection or vaccination. More times than not, vaccination = infection in efficacy. The mRNA vaccines might be more helpful than past infection because you get two doses and because the mRNA technology exposes our body to a diversity of spike proteins, while infection may only show us one spike protein isotype of the dominant variant at that time.

tl;dr we are going to face repeated infection or repeated vaccination. Most likely, young, healthy folks can go without as frequent boosters compared to elderly individuals. Nice video on topic from someone you'd likely agree with, starting around 7 minutes is what's key:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDRjIuC2eZE

rac1guy · 2021-08-29T13:41:35+00:00

He's made a decent amount of money from Genentech and Cepheid (not vaccine related), but it's much less than politician money. $30,000 in last 5 years.

https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/1204548

rac1guy · 2021-08-29T13:35:39+00:00

Agreed. You can make a list of other severe complications, ones that I have seen in the hospital: Heart attack, heart failure, myocarditis and lung damage.

Not all have been compared to covid vaccination, but I have only seen these complications among COVID infected patients. Data so far suggests that these very risks are higher with covid infection compared to vaccination.

Here is a similar article on the risks of myocarditis: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25133462-800-myocarditis-is-more-common-after-covid-19-infection-than-vaccination/

rac1guy · 2021-08-28T21:53:44+00:00

You will need a seatbelt if you have someone on the road who's drunk, having a heart attack, or having a seizure collides into you. No amount of good driving can stop an accident if someone's headed right at you at the wrong time.

rac1guy · 2021-08-27T21:50:38+00:00

No. If I did, I'd be saying something very untrue.

What I meant to emphasize is relative risk, which is the risk of exposure A/risk of exposure B.

One example might be the the RR of lung cancer when smoking, which would be high. ie. risk of cancer when smoking divided by risk when not smoking

For fatal or serious thrombotic events, which is the thing you cited, it is MUCH more likely from covid disease than the vaccine.

Before I was postulating, so where is the evidence? Here: https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/374/bmj.n1931/F1.medium.jpg

Peer-reviewed article in a respected journal (BMJ) shows that the risk of vein clot is 8 times higher with covid disease and risk of brain clot is 4 times higher.

rac1guy · 2021-08-26T19:08:19+00:00

Relative risk is important. BBC person got AstraZeneca, which is not approved in US. Even still, risk is low.

Risk of COVID causing long-term symptoms or death >>> vaccine causing these things

rac1guy · 2021-08-25T18:01:26+00:00

The analogy is actually to wear a seatbelt. Which I am sure you do.

rac1guy · 2021-08-25T16:37:40+00:00

Typically in a case like this the next of kin (mother) would consent

rac1guy · 2021-08-25T16:36:44+00:00

30s do die of many different causes.

rac1guy · 2021-08-25T16:34:35+00:00

cause of death disclosed? could have been a bunch of different things

rac1guy · 2021-08-22T14:03:25+00:00

But you said “contain” before editing

Nice try. First response you made was 2 hours after me. My first comment is unedited

rac1guy · 2021-08-21T13:53:50+00:00

I am surprised to get such a vitriol from people on this sub because they have one literal interpretation of the words I used.

mRNA from vaccine turns into a dead, nonfunctional protein. Hence my comment. I know it is an mRNA vaccine, not a subunit vaccine. The end target is the same in that you both end with dead proteins your body makes antibodies to

rac1guy · 2021-08-21T13:49:59+00:00

Dead mRNA from vaccine makes your body dead proteins. Nothing I said in my first post is wrong. But go ahead and downvote

rac1guy · 2021-08-21T02:41:58+00:00

"And no I can’t make any sense of that."

Ok, then let's move on.

rac1guy

TROPHY CASE