How long did it take Humans to figure out smoking is harmful?

How long did it take Humans to discover that eating in excess causes diabetes?

How long did it take Humans to discover that sugar is more dangerous than fat?

Doctors/Scientists/etc are the most arrogant people on this planet by far.

Imagine Doctors were scrutinized as much as Police lol we would be living in a much different world. They cause over 100k deaths per year from malpractice alone yet we chastise the police officers for killing a few 100 unarmed people. Legit crazy world and then we have clowns who put all their faith in their work.

have faith friends

I think you and NC82 are basically saying the same thing.

One of the bad things I think has creeped into science, sadly due to its politicization, is that any raising of outstanding questions is often associated with being a 'denier'. Any skepticism is labeled being a 'denier'.

NC82 did not even raise skepticism, imo, and just point to the fact that some question may be answered in such a wide scale roll out that may not have been answered prior. He never tried to peg 'likelihood'.

But even skepticism needs to be tolerated. Demonizing skeptics as soon as a preponderance of evidence reaches or nears some form of consensus and trying to cancel or shame them is so counter productive. Science grows when skeptics test their alternative theories and fail. It lends support to the growing consensus.

And yes even a consensus should be tested, from time to time even the 'remote chance' competing theories.

When you exclude everything within the realm of the possible, no matter how remote you make the consensus theory stronger.

This here is pretty bad news at first sight: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...92867421002981

I haven't read it completely through, but as far as I understand this shows that some variants including the "South-African variant" evades the antibody mediated neutralization of vaccinees. Immunity response is broader than only antibodies but still, this is not good. Also a very top notch journal btw

QFT

jsb, I ask this as I do not know the answer.

Have kids as young as 6months old been getting mrna doses and if so is to the point where you think the science is basically settled and there is nothing really to learn there about potential side effects in a still forming system?

I am asking as that is the target age to eventually get to once we approach full population vaccinations.

exactly and people act like we don't have past data on new medicine/technology

it's always better to be skeptical than the opposite

The problem stems from the fact that modern people think the change in lifespan is due to modern medicine rather than plumbing

Medicine is extremely overrated in how much benefit it has proved to human longevity

I wouldn't give any covid vaccine to anyone that young as the virus doesn't really have any impact on that age group.

As far as the safety profile of mrna treatments in general, we are going to have a lot of info about them in the next few years that we didn't have before. So we will have a much better handle on side effects of the existing tech.

The next big step in the field is transitioning from vaccines to treatments, which will require a pretty big leap forward. But this segment of the industry is flush with cash right now, so that seems likely that will happen. If I was going to guess, I would say that improvements in the delivery systems and the molecule designs of the drugs themselves will lead to a reduction in side effects, which will increase the number of medical conditions these drugs can be used to treat.

It's somewhat important to remember that the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is cancer treatment. And that's when I think you would see a lot of children getting these medications. I honestly don't see the point in giving young children any mrna-based treatment right now, since there are a lot of unknowns and covid isn't dangerous to them. But obviously a potential treatment for brain cancer changes the game considerably.

49% of Republican men (vs 6% Democrat) say they won't take the vaccine. Well done, let's be anti-science and keep this pandemic rolling. Getting closer to 600k, come on 'Murica we can do it!

Horse ****. Countries with the longest average life expectancies largely do so due to modern medical science, and life saving surgical procedures and pharmaceutical treatments that add years or decades to the lives of people who would otherwise die.

99.99% of humans that eat healthy and exercise every day will never need to see a doctor until much later in life where all you are doing is fighting against the inevitable

I have not seen a doctor nor taken any medicine for over 20 years and I'm fine lol most of that **** is pointless and doesn't help unless you have some outlier disease

You are severely overestimating how much benefit those things have done for humanity at large when compared to plumbing. If anything I would say it has made humans unhealthier since they rely on these medicines to cure things that did not curing in the first place.

You clearly have a firm grasp on pathology and genetics.

I agree entirely.

And for the record your post (the bolded) contains skepticism. The science is not settled on health impacts, we have lots to learn from lots of new info yet to be gathered.

There are many questions that will be answered.

Now your skepticism may not necessarily include any doubt of harm. You may. as a betting man believe it is already 99.9999% proven enough that you think no real significant deleterious harmful affects will be shown and that is a fine extrapolation for you.

But that is why I would not equate NC82's post as denialism. He is not countering the prevailing science and saying it is wrong. He just says there are still questions to be answered. He may peg the risk differently than you but he certainly was not fear mongering.

And to me point, I see a real troubling trend if such 'skepticism' is labeled immediately with the 'denier' label. It can prevent or demonize legitimate issues being explored, and even outlier positions can and should be tested and included or excluded in science.

They are also now talking about "Passive Immunity".

They are finding now women who had the vaccine at some point during a known or not yet known pregnancy are passing off some immunity to the child who is born.

So they are suggesting that vaccinating her later in the pregnancy may be better in terms of improving that immunity.

Now while I don't necessarily think any thing wrong will come from this, we should admit this is an experiment in real time. It could potentially take decades to see some negative side effects.

Thought this was pretty interesting:

Norwegian experts say deadly blood clots were caused by the AstraZeneca covid vaccine
Doesn't bode well for future autoimmune disorders either imo

spirited debate

Rand Paul is an idiot

thanks for sharing

insightful

Rand Paul doesn't understand variants. The Brazil strain has reinfected thousands who already had the original wild strain. It's obvious that recommending masks when out in public, even to those who were infected or vaccinated, is simply a precaution until we reach herd immunity and the virus is no longer widely circulating. Which, given anti-vaxx Republicans and their distrust of science, might never happen in the US.

The obsession right wingers have with masks is hilarious. It's ok Rand you won't look like a sissy I promise.

I can't find the link, but apparently the original study of Brazil's infection rates that were used to disprove the notion of herd immunity were deeply flawed or misinterpreted. Additionally, there is a pretty big political battle going on where critics of the current president are using his covid response to attack him.

Basically, I think it would be a bad idea to use Brazil as an example of anything right now.

Edit: Found the discussion on the Brazil study issues.

https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/s...42419188350976

just stop man

you're like a broken record

first there was asymptomatic people getting permanent lung damage lol

then there was getting covid twice lol

now there is getting covid more than once from different strains

just stop this bs people like you who live perpetual angst always die early

it's not good for your body

it's also ****ing hilarious now that people want to get the vaccine then also want to continue wearing double masks

like what the **** is going on...

Fauci is the best lol

Guess we will be double masking forever now

Might as well triple mask just in case new virus' pop up in the future that can bypass two

Always fear the unknown

The whole episode has been somewhat tragic imo but the 'big' countries are resuming use of the vaccine and the rest will no doubt follow. fwiw the EMA who had always said the AZ vaccine should be used, now say it should be used!

Is there a genuine issue? Well maybe (I'd even say probably) but what doesn't and it's so small compared to the side effect of sitting on their arses.

Considering the indication we got on this virus at an early stage, I'm personally more than happy to be careful until more data is presented.

An ongoing study, where 300 people are being monitored closely, 60% of them are suffering long terms effects of corona. And this is 300 people who were not hospitalized in the agerange 16-30 years. 10-15% have consentration and memeory issues, while others are suffering of fatigue/tiredness, difficulties breathing and loss of smell/taste.

I would like to stay active for the last 40-60 years of my life, so I will definitelly not risk that ****. And if I have to live a bit differently for a year or two more, then that is fine by me.

The damage we saw to tissue early on, was a nobrainer warningsign that this was not something to mess around with. Death is one thing, to low chance to make me worry, but reduced lifequality for the rest of my life? No thanks.

I understand what Fauci is saying, its if its valid or hypocritical that is catching peoples attention. Is this analysis on the Brazil risk valid? Overstated? Understated? We've gone from you can wear a mask if you like but it's pretty much useless to wearing 2 masks is a good idea and once you get vaccinated you should continue to wear a mask. Those mixed signals are coming from the head expert. Is wearing a mask while vaccinated the only measure that's going to be taken to protect us moving forward?

When you get in to the idea of wearing masks for variants ect, where do we draw the line? There's an annual flu shot. Every year there's a flu strain we try to minimize. Wouldn't masking up help that effort also? Are masks the only thing/restriction?

We've beaten the numbers to death but people in the lower risk age groups want to have their lives back. They don't want restrictions decimating them financially and they don't want their quality of life attacked either. People are not happy with an isolated and masked existence. If being vaccinated isn't going to change that, they start to wonder how far this is going to be taken. It's been a year of 2 weeks to flatten the curve.