[Starfish]

Thanks so much to everybody who gave me pointers!

This came somewhat out of the blue earlier today, and I felt totally overwhelmed. I really appreciate your support!

Since it seems that I do have some influence (albeit not on the booster question itself), I’ll work through the material and come up with the things this person is likely to accept, than work my way from there. Teas, herbs, vitamins might be a good start – as long as it doesn’t sound like I’m “playing physician”.

I’ll see what I can do – and that’s all I can do. Sometimes it’s important to remember that we all lead our own lives, and make our own decisions. 🙂

Starfish

[Starfish]

Raúl,

Thanks for the reply. I don‘t think Ivermectin will be accepted… 😉

I might only be able to get the horse paste, which is most likely a no-go to this person – they are solidly grounded in the mainstream (still – things seem to be shifting). Plus, they know how to use the internet, and Ivermectin has probably been too solidly thrashed by the mainstream.

It‘s mostly me who is concerned about side effects, not them – they are more or less humouring me.

I‘ll save this link though, as the shot is still a month out. If things should be shifting a bit, I‘ll have it at hand. 🙂

But the Kirsch article had a link to a pdf splitting up the vaccine risk by type, and pfizer seems to be associated with the least deaths per x doses, so that‘s a good start!

If anybody else has any other suggestions, I‘d appreciate them.

Starfish

[Starfish]

Hoping that some of the smart and informed people here could help me with some advice…

Somebody near and dear to me is going to get a „booster“ shot in December. They made a personal risk assessment and have decided that in their particular situation right now, getting this shot is safer than not getting it.

(I happen to disagree, but a. it‘s their decision and not mine to make, and b. I can understand their reasoning, especially based on the information this person is consuming.)

I won‘t change that fact, but I do have at least a little bit of influence here – so I‘d like to minimise the chances that this person has any negative effects from that shot. The first two were biontech/pfizer, and apparently there were no negative effects (I didn‘t ask for light short-term stuff like a sore arm for a couple of days or similar things).

My questions, and I hope somebody here can help me based on that background:

1. I’m assuming it would be safest to go with biontech/pfizer again. But are there any (serious!) studies which have examined potential positive or negative effects of other „booster“ shots after Pfizer – mainly of moderna or j&j?

(I reckon it also depends on the person, gender, age etc, but maybe that would also be covered in such studies?)

2. Is there anything that person could take prophylactically before the shot, to minimise the chance for negative side effects?

I‘ve already recommended Vitamin D (although mainly as general infection prophylaxis, but also mentioned it could help here) and they didn‘t shy away from it.

Anything too „outlandish“ or too negatively-biased in MSM will probably not be appreciated (talking about stuff like Ivermectin here). Also, I‘m not a doctor, I will not play one, and I would hate to recommend stuff that might react with other treatments. I.e. vitamins and minerals on a level which is considered safe for self-treatment would likely be best. (And I could also frame them as infection prophylaxis, which would help me sell them…)

I hope my explanations make sense, and I‘d really appreciate any advice or pointers!

Thank you

Starfish

[Starfish]

I‘ve been thinking about that „Dads on Duty“ video from a few days ago and why that is so touching.

Back in the comments, somebody mentioned that these dads also should lead by example and lose a few pounds… Which is correct, of course, but that is exactly the point:

These guys aren‘t superheroes.

They‘re not former marines. They‘re not successful businessmen or lawyers.

The universe didn‘t throw rainbow shit and sparking unicorns at them.

They obviously carry their own stuff around with them, some of it quite literally.

And despite all this, they do the right thing and show up for their kids and for their community.

If these guys can do it, everybody can.

[Starfish]

Raúl,

Do you know the source of the screenshot right below the Rand Paul video at the very top?

I’d love to follow some of the references – might need them soon…

Thanks!

[Starfish]

@LudwigVon well, if you‘re not allowed to go inside to follow the call of nature, there is only really one place left, right? I mean, you ARE allowed to conduct your business on the terrace, so to speak, aren’t you? I reckon it‘s a bit simpler if you‘re a man, but hey – desperate times call for desperate measures. 😉

[Starfish]

@John Day,

Agreed about the rapid antigen tests. From what I got, they aren‘t any more reliable, though, especially as most are not done by medical personal (e.g. still no taking into account symptoms and context).

But: At least in my country, the official „case numbers“ are still the ones determined by PCR tests. When you have a positive rapid antigen test result, you are supposed to get a PCR test done asap. (Which really is another way to skew the numbers, since you now preselect whom to PCR-test and whom not – makes current numbers uncomparable to numbers from pre-antigen test months.)

So I think my point still stands (also for the other reasons I mentioned, in particular skewed testing regimes): Comparing anything based on „number of infected“ is not a solid basis. We might get some indications from case numbers, but they are just not reliable for any comparison, methinks.

[Starfish]

And then I have a question… hoping the smart people around here have come across this information somewhere, because I haven‘t…

Assuming we would see ADE at some point… how would booster shots affect this?

My understanding ist that ADE can happen if the ratio of certain antibodies compared to other antibodies dips into a certain range – if there are not enough „beneficial“ antibodies left to counter the „ADE-inducing“ antibodies.

So how would booster shots affect this mechanism?

A very simplistic example:

Let‘s assume (random numbers for illustration purposes!) as long as a person has at least half as many beneficial ab compared to ADE-inducing ADE, they wouldn‘t experience ADE when infected with a relevant virus.

Let‘s say a person who got the shot initially built 100 ADE-inducing and 100 beneficial antibodies. The latter wane over time, with a half-life of 6 months. So after 6 months, this person enters into ADE territory (with a 100:50 ratio).

If they got a booster shot after 6 months, they might build another 100 antibodies of each sort, and thus at this point have 200 vs. 150.

Of course, the latter wane again with the same half-life, but this time the 2:1 ratio is reached a lot earlier, i.e. this person is firmly in ADE territory even less than 6 months after the booster shot. On comes booster 2, etc etc.

Now, just to be clear: The numbers are arbitrary to illustrate my question. I‘m not even sure if it works that way – maybe the body doesn‘t build anymore ADE-inducing antibodies through a booster if it still has a sufficient number of them?

I simply would love to know what happens when people get booster shots if ADE should occur. Will this make the problem worse? Better? Not have any influence at all?

Any input would be highly appreciated – I haven‘t come very far in my search for answers…

[Starfish]

Hello everybody – first time commenter here. First, a big thanks to everybody for the insightful comments and the great discussions here. 🙂

Yesterday‘s ADE discussion… I‘m not quite convinced that the numbers from Israel and the UK are a sure sign for ADE. I am convinced that they show quite clearly that the injections are useless, at least after a few months.

The main issue, methinks, is that the PCR tests are somewhat meaningless for detecting real-life infections without taking clinical symptoms and the circumstances into account (which isn‘t done in any of the statistics).

The combination of problems with the tests (false positives, nobody knows how many; not taking symptoms etc into account; …) and of problems with the testing regime (certain groups tested more frequently than others; who is being tested changes constantly; how many cycles are the tests run with – and for which groups?; etc) means that any discussion based on the „number of cases“ (between groups, between time ranges, …) is pretty much meaningless. Alas.

No. of hospitalisations and deaths are a somewhat better indicator, but only to some extent: are people in hospital because of COVID, or do they just happen to have a positive test; did they catch it in hospital?; etc.

So in the end, much of our discussion is guesswork at best. (Which shouldn‘t keep us from discussing things – but one needs to be aware of these issues.)

[Author]

Posts