info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Vaccination deductions
122 views
Skip to first unread message
Don Y
Apr 25, 2021, 11:20:05 PM4/25/21
to
Friends have been discussing side-effects they've had with their
vaccinations (Pfizer & Moderna... we don't know any J&J victims).
Reactions range from nothing to "sore arm" to three days of flu
to persistent (weeks!) rash and body aches, etc.
No way to predict who will have a reaction. But, we've been
wondering if the reation may indirectly indicate how they
*would* have reacted to the actual virus. Not one:one
but, rather, folks who had stronger reactions might have had
more severe covid (?)
As the mRNA vaccines don't really have any "payload", any
reaction is just to the "shape" of the stuff the body is coerced
into producing (to mimic the virus' "shape").
So, if the vaccine evokes a given reaction WITHOUT any real payload,
might infection with the actual virus have produced that, *plus*?
[no one has opined on what a LACK of reaction might signify]
vaccinations (Pfizer & Moderna... we don't know any J&J victims).
Reactions range from nothing to "sore arm" to three days of flu
to persistent (weeks!) rash and body aches, etc.
No way to predict who will have a reaction. But, we've been
wondering if the reation may indirectly indicate how they
*would* have reacted to the actual virus. Not one:one
but, rather, folks who had stronger reactions might have had
more severe covid (?)
As the mRNA vaccines don't really have any "payload", any
reaction is just to the "shape" of the stuff the body is coerced
into producing (to mimic the virus' "shape").
So, if the vaccine evokes a given reaction WITHOUT any real payload,
might infection with the actual virus have produced that, *plus*?
[no one has opined on what a LACK of reaction might signify]
bitrex
Apr 25, 2021, 11:53:54 PM4/25/21
to
that develop as a reaction to the vaccine vs. how the person would do
when they actually were infected by the virus.
The very elderly are known to have lower rates of flu-like responses to
the vaccine but are obviously at the highest risk of severe
complications or death from infection with the virus, so stronger
reaction = more severe Covid doesn't follow if talking about the
population as a whole, at least.
IOW science knows that vaccines work, but there's a lot it doesn't know
about exactly how, or how the human adaptive immune system operates in
general. How "cross-presentation" which is at the heart of the adaptive
immune system itself actually works isn't fully understood:
<https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-11-10>
Sylvia Else
Apr 26, 2021, 12:31:56 AM4/26/21
to
might indicate that the virus wouldn't cause problems either, or it
could indicate that the immune system isn't responding, which would be a
big deal if the virus itself got into the body.
Similarly, a big reaction could indicate that trouble would have been
ahead had the virus entered the unvaccinated body, or it could indicate
that the immune system would quickly have got on top of the virus, which
would not have been an issue.
Most vaccines have concentrated on the spike protein. The virus contains
other proteins that the immune system could respond to, so that's an
additional variable.
Sylvia.
Bill Sloman
Apr 26, 2021, 12:52:46 AM4/26/21
to
The Astrazeneca vaccine is actually a DNA string that encode the aminoacid sequence for the spike protein, and persuades our cells to synthesise it. That DNA is packaged in an adenovirus protein shell, and our immune system could react to that too. The adenovirus has been crippled so that it can't replicate in our cells, so there won't be all that much of it.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
bitrex
Apr 26, 2021, 1:28:39 AM4/26/21
to
can feel like you're dying of smallpox when you get it for the first
time at that age, for me it was a truly miserable
sweat=drenched-and=thrashing-around Victorian-era nightmare-type of
experience.
It was like 6 months before the chicken pox vaccine was released in the
US. Does anyone have a "big reaction" to that one?
Don Y
Apr 26, 2021, 1:38:45 AM4/26/21
to
On 4/25/2021 9:30 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> One could infer things either way.
That's been the standpoint I've taken. I've had friends who've had
> One could infer things either way.
"significant" reactions claim, "Gee, IMAGINE what it would have been like if
that was the real thing!" And, others, with no reaction, claim, "Ha! My
body would OBVIOUSLY have shaken it off!"
And, of course, the folks who've already had the virus and subsequently
ALSO been vaccinated are no longer representative of their pre-virus selves.
> A lack of reaction to the vaccine might
> indicate that the virus wouldn't cause problems either, or it could indicate
> that the immune system isn't responding, which would be a big deal if the virus
> itself got into the body.
>
> Similarly, a big reaction could indicate that trouble would have been ahead had
> the virus entered the unvaccinated body, or it could indicate that the immune
> system would quickly have got on top of the virus, which would not have been an
> issue.
represents. But, what a pre-vaccinated person might encounter in the wild
is considerably more variable.
> Most vaccines have concentrated on the spike protein. The virus contains other
> proteins that the immune system could respond to, so that's an additional
> variable.
caused a "significant" reaction, the reaction to the nasties that would
follow would likely be worse.
Dunno.
Unlikely that there will be any studies that can rely on "big numbers"
to *suggest* what might have happened to these folks (e.g., percent
of people who show significant vaccine reaction correlation with percent
of pre-vaccinated people who show significant disease, etc.)
It would also be interesting to hear the explanation for the delayed
side-effects (from the vaccine) as well as relationship with the
lingering effects of "long covid".
Sylvia Else
Apr 26, 2021, 2:38:56 AM4/26/21
to
produced in the cell, and thereby present antigens. Even if the
resulting antibodies cannot attack the virus before it enters a cell,
they can still trigger the destruction of the cell before it produces
too many copies of the virus.
Sylvia.
Martin Brown
Apr 26, 2021, 4:12:23 AM4/26/21
to
On 26/04/2021 06:28, bitrex wrote:
> On 4/26/2021 12:30 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 26-Apr-21 1:19 pm, Don Y wrote:
>>> Friends have been discussing side-effects they've had with their
>>> vaccinations (Pfizer & Moderna... we don't know any J&J victims).
>>>
>>> Reactions range from nothing to "sore arm" to three days of flu
>>> to persistent (weeks!) rash and body aches, etc.
>>>
>>> No way to predict who will have a reaction. But, we've been
>>> wondering if the reation may indirectly indicate how they
>>> *would* have reacted to the actual virus. Not one:one
>>> but, rather, folks who had stronger reactions might have had
>>> more severe covid (?)
>>>
>>> As the mRNA vaccines don't really have any "payload", any
>>> reaction is just to the "shape" of the stuff the body is coerced
>>> into producing (to mimic the virus' "shape").
>>>
>>> So, if the vaccine evokes a given reaction WITHOUT any real payload,
>>> might infection with the actual virus have produced that, *plus*?
>>>
>>> [no one has opined on what a LACK of reaction might signify]
>>
>> One could infer things either way. A lack of reaction to the vaccine
>> might indicate that the virus wouldn't cause problems either, or it
>> could indicate that the immune system isn't responding, which would be
>> a big deal if the virus itself got into the body.
It could even be a bit of both. Not responding to it at all or dealing
> On 4/26/2021 12:30 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 26-Apr-21 1:19 pm, Don Y wrote:
>>> Friends have been discussing side-effects they've had with their
>>> vaccinations (Pfizer & Moderna... we don't know any J&J victims).
>>>
>>> Reactions range from nothing to "sore arm" to three days of flu
>>> to persistent (weeks!) rash and body aches, etc.
>>>
>>> No way to predict who will have a reaction. But, we've been
>>> wondering if the reation may indirectly indicate how they
>>> *would* have reacted to the actual virus. Not one:one
>>> but, rather, folks who had stronger reactions might have had
>>> more severe covid (?)
>>>
>>> As the mRNA vaccines don't really have any "payload", any
>>> reaction is just to the "shape" of the stuff the body is coerced
>>> into producing (to mimic the virus' "shape").
>>>
>>> So, if the vaccine evokes a given reaction WITHOUT any real payload,
>>> might infection with the actual virus have produced that, *plus*?
>>>
>>> [no one has opined on what a LACK of reaction might signify]
>>
>> One could infer things either way. A lack of reaction to the vaccine
>> might indicate that the virus wouldn't cause problems either, or it
>> could indicate that the immune system isn't responding, which would be
>> a big deal if the virus itself got into the body.
with it efficiently might well look very similar from the outside.
>> Similarly, a big reaction could indicate that trouble would have been
>> ahead had the virus entered the unvaccinated body, or it could
>> indicate that the immune system would quickly have got on top of the
>> virus, which would not have been an issue.
ZOE study in the UK has catalogued the responses of people to each of
the vaccines. Consistently women have stronger side effects than men.
>> Most vaccines have concentrated on the spike protein. The virus
>> contains other proteins that the immune system could respond to, so
>> that's an additional variable.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
> I didn't get the chicken pox until I was 16 for some reason, chicken pox
> can feel like you're dying of smallpox when you get it for the first
> time at that age, for me it was a truly miserable
> sweat=drenched-and=thrashing-around Victorian-era nightmare-type of
> experience.
>
> It was like 6 months before the chicken pox vaccine was released in the
> US. Does anyone have a "big reaction" to that one?
neighbour of mine was killed by its side effects a couple of year back.
Arguably he should never have been given it in the first place.
Chicken pox virus is one of those things you never actually get rid of -
it can hide in nerve cells out of reach of the immune system forever.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4754002/
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Don Y
Apr 26, 2021, 6:38:30 AM4/26/21
to
is considerably more *painful* than chicken pox. And, also, tends to only
(mainly) affect one dermatome.
You can also catch it more than once. I had it as a youngster and then, again,
a few years ago.
When I contacted my MD and told him that I suspected it was chicken pox
(despite KNOWING that I'd had it as a child... even citing the dates
that I was sick with it!), he promptly told me that I had shingles.
When I told him that it was bilateral involvement, no pain (just itching), a
pretty insignificant rash and *several* ganglia, his certainty faded.
After looking at me for a few seconds, "Yup! That's chicken pox! We'll
draw a titer to be sure, but I'm 99% positive! Odd, though, as you are
really healthy, fit, etc. Been around anyone that was infected?"
"Well, one of the charities I'm involved with serves disadvantaged kids
and families so you're never quite sure what *they* may have... I
figured I didn't have to worry about any of those diseases as I'd had
many and been vaccinated against others!"
Thankfully, a mild case (likely due to the previous "immunity" I'd had,
though many decades earlier). But, I'd forgotten how maddening the itching
can be when there's no real relief available!
"So, which *other* childhood diseases that I've had and to which I've
considered myself immune am I also susceptible???" <frown>
Perhaps the most distressing was my *hope* that the reinfection so
close to the time, in life, when shingles would have been a risk might
have given me some protection against *that*! Apparently not, at least
in his opinion. <frown>
Rick C
Apr 26, 2021, 10:02:49 AM4/26/21
to
On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 4:12:23 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
> Yes. But more often in the elderly as the anti-shingles vaccine. A
> neighbour of mine was killed by its side effects a couple of year back.
> Arguably he should never have been given it in the first place.
Are you saying your neighbor died from the side effects of the vaccine?
> Yes. But more often in the elderly as the anti-shingles vaccine. A
> neighbour of mine was killed by its side effects a couple of year back.
> Arguably he should never have been given it in the first place.
> Chicken pox virus is one of those things you never actually get rid of -
> it can hide in nerve cells out of reach of the immune system forever.
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4754002/
Since the infection is latent and no viruses are in the blood stream as well as no active reproduction which could result in the cell labeling itself for destruction, there is nothing for the immune system to attack.
There is no small amount of viral DNA in the human genome. Something like 5% of the human genome could be human endogenous retroviruses.
--
Rick C.
- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Rick C
Apr 26, 2021, 10:08:38 AM4/26/21
to
On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 6:38:30 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
>
> Perhaps the most distressing was my *hope* that the reinfection so
> close to the time, in life, when shingles would have been a risk might
> have given me some protection against *that*! Apparently not, at least
> in his opinion. <frown>
You get shingles because your immune system wanes. It's not a matter of the immune system memory waning, rather the immune system as a whole. That's why it is prevalent in the older population. So re-exposure to the disease does little to improve immunity from shingles.
>
> Perhaps the most distressing was my *hope* that the reinfection so
> close to the time, in life, when shingles would have been a risk might
> have given me some protection against *that*! Apparently not, at least
> in his opinion. <frown>
--
Rick C.
+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Bill Sloman
Apr 26, 2021, 10:23:16 AM4/26/21
to
On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 12:08:38 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 6:38:30 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps the most distressing was my *hope* that the reinfection so
> > close to the time, in life, when shingles would have been a risk might
> > have given me some protection against *that*! Apparently not, at least
> > in his opinion. <frown>
>
> You get shingles because your immune system wanes. It's not a matter of the immune system memory waning, rather the immune system as a whole. That's why it is prevalent in the older population. So re-exposure to the disease does little to improve immunity from shingles.
Not an insight that my doctor shares. My wife and I got booster shots against shingles a couple of years ago - it may not be spectacularly effective, but it does seem to be worth getting whatever limited amount of extra protection it does offer.
> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 6:38:30 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps the most distressing was my *hope* that the reinfection so
> > close to the time, in life, when shingles would have been a risk might
> > have given me some protection against *that*! Apparently not, at least
> > in his opinion. <frown>
>
> You get shingles because your immune system wanes. It's not a matter of the immune system memory waning, rather the immune system as a whole. That's why it is prevalent in the older population. So re-exposure to the disease does little to improve immunity from shingles.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Don Y
Apr 26, 2021, 11:13:59 AM4/26/21
to
On 4/26/2021 7:23 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
> Not an insight that my doctor shares. My wife and I got booster shots
> against shingles a couple of years ago - it may not be spectacularly
> effective, but it does seem to be worth getting whatever limited amount of
> extra protection it does offer.
Note that it is *expected* that you will need a booster for
> Not an insight that my doctor shares. My wife and I got booster shots
> against shingles a couple of years ago - it may not be spectacularly
> effective, but it does seem to be worth getting whatever limited amount of
> extra protection it does offer.
many diseases even while "young and virile": TDAP, Shingles,
Pneumonia, Chicken Pox, MMR, etc. (ignoring those that mutate
to require frequent reimmunization -- Covid, flu, etc.)
"In medical terms, a booster dose is an extra administration of a
vaccine after an earlier (primer) dose. After initial immunization,
a booster injection or booster dose is a re-exposure to the immunizing
antigen. It is intended to increase immunity against that antigen
back to protective levels, after memory against that antigen has
declined through time."
Given that vaccinations, in general, were a relatively "new" idea
when many of us were kids, it's not surprising that the long-term
consequences/requirements weren't well understood.
One wonders how the "newer" vaccines will fare, over time (e.g., HPV).
And, of course, "policy" is geared towards the masses -- not towards
individual exposure situations. Hence the recommendation for HepC
in folks my age, despite no real KNOWN exposure risk. And, the
serologic testing required of healthcare workers to determine which
boosters they may *need* (despite previous infection/innoculation).
[E.g., pregnant women are encouraged to TDAP for *each* pregnancy!]
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
Apr 26, 2021, 11:50:23 AM4/26/21
to
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:37:48 +1000, Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid>
wrote:
So a real infection must produce a broader immunity than a vaccine.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
The best designs are necessarily accidental.
wrote:
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
The best designs are necessarily accidental.
Ralph Mowery
Apr 26, 2021, 11:51:27 AM4/26/21
to
In article <s66lbj$ik0$1...@dont-email.me>, blocked...@foo.invalid
says...
their children. I forgot the name of the drug, but it was something
given to pregnant women in the 50's or 60's . That was fine, but their
daughters babies had the effect of not having arms, I am thinking they
had something resembling hands just sticking our of the shoulder.
Even a good portion of the people are not able to eat peanuts without
bad effects or dieing.
I do take most of the shots and take my chances. I do try to stay away
from any drug that is advertised on TV. I think the cholesterol drugs
are junk science made to make money from. My wife had to spend 10 days
in the hospital 2 years ago because of a relatively common drug. It
made her nutty as a fruit cake. It was for something not even related
to the brain.
says...
>
> Given that vaccinations, in general, were a relatively "new" idea
> when many of us were kids, it's not surprising that the long-term
> consequences/requirements weren't well understood.
>
> One wonders how the "newer" vaccines will fare, over time (e.g., HPV).
>
>
>
One never knows what the effects of medicine will be on a person, or
> Given that vaccinations, in general, were a relatively "new" idea
> when many of us were kids, it's not surprising that the long-term
> consequences/requirements weren't well understood.
>
> One wonders how the "newer" vaccines will fare, over time (e.g., HPV).
>
>
>
their children. I forgot the name of the drug, but it was something
given to pregnant women in the 50's or 60's . That was fine, but their
daughters babies had the effect of not having arms, I am thinking they
had something resembling hands just sticking our of the shoulder.
Even a good portion of the people are not able to eat peanuts without
bad effects or dieing.
I do take most of the shots and take my chances. I do try to stay away
from any drug that is advertised on TV. I think the cholesterol drugs
are junk science made to make money from. My wife had to spend 10 days
in the hospital 2 years ago because of a relatively common drug. It
made her nutty as a fruit cake. It was for something not even related
to the brain.
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
Apr 26, 2021, 11:55:12 AM4/26/21
to
101F fever and fatigue and such for a few days.
I did have cp as a kid.
I got mumps as a teenager, and spent a couple of days in the hospital.
There was concern that I would be sterile; false alarm.
Jeff Layman
Apr 26, 2021, 11:57:24 AM4/26/21
to
On 26/04/2021 16:51, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> In article <s66lbj$ik0$1...@dont-email.me>, blocked...@foo.invalid
> says...
>>
>> Given that vaccinations, in general, were a relatively "new" idea
>> when many of us were kids, it's not surprising that the long-term
>> consequences/requirements weren't well understood.
>>
>> One wonders how the "newer" vaccines will fare, over time (e.g., HPV).
>>
>>
>>
>
> One never knows what the effects of medicine will be on a person, or
> their children. I forgot the name of the drug, but it was something
> given to pregnant women in the 50's or 60's . That was fine, but their
> daughters babies had the effect of not having arms, I am thinking they
> had something resembling hands just sticking our of the shoulder.
I think you might be mixing up thalidomide
> In article <s66lbj$ik0$1...@dont-email.me>, blocked...@foo.invalid
> says...
>>
>> Given that vaccinations, in general, were a relatively "new" idea
>> when many of us were kids, it's not surprising that the long-term
>> consequences/requirements weren't well understood.
>>
>> One wonders how the "newer" vaccines will fare, over time (e.g., HPV).
>>
>>
>>
>
> One never knows what the effects of medicine will be on a person, or
> their children. I forgot the name of the drug, but it was something
> given to pregnant women in the 50's or 60's . That was fine, but their
> daughters babies had the effect of not having arms, I am thinking they
> had something resembling hands just sticking our of the shoulder.
(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide>) with DES
(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol>)
--
Jeff
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
Apr 26, 2021, 11:58:51 AM4/26/21
to
plus a big rash on her left arm, the one that got the shot.
Two weeks later she got the second dose in her right arm, and got the
rash again on her *left* arm.
This is a weird virus.
Robert Latest
Apr 26, 2021, 12:08:22 PM4/26/21
to
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> So a real infection must produce a broader immunity than a vaccine.
One would naively think so. Alas, it doesn't have to be the case. In fact it
> So a real infection must produce a broader immunity than a vaccine.
seems that an earlier Covid infection protects less than a vaccine against
re-infection.
Seems like virology isn't as easy as electrical engineering, at least not to
electrical engineers.
robert
Robert Latest
Apr 26, 2021, 12:12:48 PM4/26/21
to
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> Mo had two covid shots. The first one produced the common reactions
> plus a big rash on her left arm, the one that got the shot.
>
> Two weeks later she got the second dose in her right arm, and got the
> rash again on her *left* arm.
Yeah, the immune system not only has a memory of what it needs to fight
> Mo had two covid shots. The first one produced the common reactions
> plus a big rash on her left arm, the one that got the shot.
>
> Two weeks later she got the second dose in her right arm, and got the
> rash again on her *left* arm.
against, but also where. So it seems to be predominantly watching out for
infections of the left arm. Considering that the virus normally enters the body
through the nose, a vaccine application as nasaly spray would seem logical, and
people are indeed working on that.
--
robert
Don Y
Apr 26, 2021, 12:24:30 PM4/26/21
to
On 4/26/2021 8:51 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> In article <s66lbj$ik0$1...@dont-email.me>, blocked...@foo.invalid
> says...
>>
>> Given that vaccinations, in general, were a relatively "new" idea
>> when many of us were kids, it's not surprising that the long-term
>> consequences/requirements weren't well understood.
>>
>> One wonders how the "newer" vaccines will fare, over time (e.g., HPV).
>>
>>
>>
>
> One never knows what the effects of medicine will be on a person, or
> their children. I forgot the name of the drug, but it was something
> given to pregnant women in the 50's or 60's . That was fine, but their
> daughters babies had the effect of not having arms, I am thinking they
> had something resembling hands just sticking our of the shoulder.
>
> Even a good portion of the people are not able to eat peanuts without
> bad effects or dieing.
Yes, but peanut allergies aren't related to prior medication.
> In article <s66lbj$ik0$1...@dont-email.me>, blocked...@foo.invalid
> says...
>>
>> Given that vaccinations, in general, were a relatively "new" idea
>> when many of us were kids, it's not surprising that the long-term
>> consequences/requirements weren't well understood.
>>
>> One wonders how the "newer" vaccines will fare, over time (e.g., HPV).
>>
>>
>>
>
> One never knows what the effects of medicine will be on a person, or
> their children. I forgot the name of the drug, but it was something
> given to pregnant women in the 50's or 60's . That was fine, but their
> daughters babies had the effect of not having arms, I am thinking they
> had something resembling hands just sticking our of the shoulder.
>
> Even a good portion of the people are not able to eat peanuts without
> bad effects or dieing.
A buddy is severely allergic to tomato products. Apparently, tomato
is used in many items that you might not suspect as being "tomatoey".
He rarely eats out. And, when he does, *grills* the waiter/ress on
how various menu items are prepared, STRESSING his allergy. Despite
reassurances from the staff that there are *no* tomato products in
the items he'll be ordering, he often has to use an epi-pen when
folks haven't considered cross-contamination as a vector.
[Apparently, this costs him about 3 days of health as the effects
of the pen and anaphylaxis overwhelm his system]
Thankfully, I can safely eat tomatoes (as I use them a lot)!
But, it also means there are many foods that I can't share with
him (e.g., when he's ill or dealing with some family "issue" -- like
death of his spouse). So, I stick to sweets (no tomatoes, there!)
> I do take most of the shots and take my chances. I do try to stay away
> from any drug that is advertised on TV. I think the cholesterol drugs
> are junk science made to make money from.
diet and exercise are the best Rx for many things.
> My wife had to spend 10 days
> in the hospital 2 years ago because of a relatively common drug. It
> made her nutty as a fruit cake. It was for something not even related
> to the brain.
a 'P'...
Thankfully, I've been able to avoid medications (touch wood). OTOH, I note
that *nothing* manages to control my seasonal allergies; this, in a place
where all five seasons bring some new offender! <frown> (April and Sept
being the absolute worst!)
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
Apr 26, 2021, 12:26:13 PM4/26/21
to
On 26 Apr 2021 16:08:15 GMT, Robert Latest <bobl...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
It doesn't seem to be very easy to virologists either.
More study is indicated.
wrote:
More study is indicated.
Rick C
Apr 26, 2021, 12:46:10 PM4/26/21
to
But that does not relate to increased immunity resulting from having outbreaks. So your vaccine information is irrelevant.
--
Rick C.
-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Rick C
Apr 26, 2021, 1:04:48 PM4/26/21
to
On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 12:26:13 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2021 16:08:15 GMT, Robert Latest <bobl...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> So a real infection must produce a broader immunity than a vaccine.
> >
> >One would naively think so. Alas, it doesn't have to be the case. In fact it
> >seems that an earlier Covid infection protects less than a vaccine against
> >re-infection.
> >
> >Seems like virology isn't as easy as electrical engineering, at least not to
> >electrical engineers.
> >
> >robert
> It doesn't seem to be very easy to virologists either.
You mean the people who came up with vaccines against the pandemic and got them into mass production in under a year? Yeah, they clearly don't know what they are talking about.
> On 26 Apr 2021 16:08:15 GMT, Robert Latest <bobl...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> So a real infection must produce a broader immunity than a vaccine.
> >
> >One would naively think so. Alas, it doesn't have to be the case. In fact it
> >seems that an earlier Covid infection protects less than a vaccine against
> >re-infection.
> >
> >Seems like virology isn't as easy as electrical engineering, at least not to
> >electrical engineers.
> >
> >robert
> It doesn't seem to be very easy to virologists either.
> More study is indicated.
That's always true. But what would be more useful is for more people to actually understand the research to the present stage. A friend who used to run the blood bank of a hospital is on the fence about getting the vaccine. I asked her why and she simply said she didn't think "they" could get a vaccine out so quickly and be sure it was safe. That shows a lack of understanding of the present state of vaccine technology.
Well, it was a long time ago that she worked. In fact, she tried returning to that job type later in her career and ended up quitting because it had grown in complexity. She is a very intelligent woman, but she has allowed her thinking to come from her feelings more than from logic. FUD is what keeps people from getting the vaccine, not logic.
--
Rick C.
-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Cydrome Leader
Apr 26, 2021, 1:34:43 PM4/26/21
to
Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:
> On 4/25/2021 9:30 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> One could infer things either way.
>
> That's been the standpoint I've taken. I've had friends who've had
> "significant" reactions claim, "Gee, IMAGINE what it would have been like if
> that was the real thing!" And, others, with no reaction, claim, "Ha! My
> body would OBVIOUSLY have shaken it off!"
>
> And, of course, the folks who've already had the virus and subsequently
> ALSO been vaccinated are no longer representative of their pre-virus selves.
>
>> A lack of reaction to the vaccine might
>> indicate that the virus wouldn't cause problems either, or it could indicate
>> that the immune system isn't responding, which would be a big deal if the virus
>> itself got into the body.
>>
>> Similarly, a big reaction could indicate that trouble would have been ahead had
>> the virus entered the unvaccinated body, or it could indicate that the immune
>> system would quickly have got on top of the virus, which would not have been an
>> issue.
Here's another point not mentioned. Those have had covid already and have
> On 4/25/2021 9:30 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> One could infer things either way.
>
> That's been the standpoint I've taken. I've had friends who've had
> "significant" reactions claim, "Gee, IMAGINE what it would have been like if
> that was the real thing!" And, others, with no reaction, claim, "Ha! My
> body would OBVIOUSLY have shaken it off!"
>
> And, of course, the folks who've already had the virus and subsequently
> ALSO been vaccinated are no longer representative of their pre-virus selves.
>
>> A lack of reaction to the vaccine might
>> indicate that the virus wouldn't cause problems either, or it could indicate
>> that the immune system isn't responding, which would be a big deal if the virus
>> itself got into the body.
>>
>> Similarly, a big reaction could indicate that trouble would have been ahead had
>> the virus entered the unvaccinated body, or it could indicate that the immune
>> system would quickly have got on top of the virus, which would not have been an
>> issue.
immunity may have a very strong and immediate reaction to a vaccine
itself. Their immune system is already ready.
> There's also a question of dosing; you KNOW the dose that the vaccination
> represents. But, what a pre-vaccinated person might encounter in the wild
> is considerably more variable.
get an exra shot. Tiny folks don't get a half dose either.
Rick C
Apr 26, 2021, 3:18:36 PM4/26/21
to
On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:34:43 PM UTC-4, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> The one size fits all for vaccinations is interesting to me. Fatties don't
> get an exra shot. Tiny folks don't get a half dose either.
That is one of the shortcomings of the medical system. While it likely makes no difference for a vaccine, it can make a large difference for drugs where the effectiveness is related to the mg/kg of body weight. It is considered that it is too complex to use body weight adjustments to medicine doses, so they don't even try.
> The one size fits all for vaccinations is interesting to me. Fatties don't
> get an exra shot. Tiny folks don't get a half dose either.
People are goofy. I've met people who feel they don't need as much medicine as others who take medicine "all the time" as if taking any medicine makes you immune to the benefits of all medicine.
--
Rick C.
- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Martin Brown
Apr 26, 2021, 4:35:48 PM4/26/21
to
There is a lot of magic that goes into vaccine formulations using
adjuvants that make the active component generate an immune response
often many times more powerful than a normal infection.
It was known last year that a recent BCG vaccination against TB confers
some level of immunity against Covid. It was considered as a cheaper
option that was better than nothing until AZ & J&J. Seems to be still
under consideration :
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.632478/full
It will be interesting to see how the natural acquired immunity vs
vaccine acquired immunity compares when the dust finally settles.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Ralph Mowery
Apr 26, 2021, 4:56:32 PM4/26/21
to
In article <b4baf694-8b78-4e8b...@googlegroups.com>,
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com says...
looking at the lables.
Sometimes you take two or more pills if only one is not strong enough
for yur particular problem.
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com says...
>
> That is one of the shortcomings of the medical system. While it likely makes no difference for a vaccine, it can make a large difference for drugs where the effectiveness is related to the mg/kg of body weight. It is considered that it is too complex to use body weight adjustments to medicine doses, so they don't even try.
>
>
>
That part is not true. Many medicines come in different strengths. Try
> That is one of the shortcomings of the medical system. While it likely makes no difference for a vaccine, it can make a large difference for drugs where the effectiveness is related to the mg/kg of body weight. It is considered that it is too complex to use body weight adjustments to medicine doses, so they don't even try.
>
>
>
looking at the lables.
Sometimes you take two or more pills if only one is not strong enough
for yur particular problem.
Rick C
Apr 26, 2021, 5:05:08 PM4/26/21
to
--
Rick C.
+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Martin Brown
Apr 26, 2021, 5:47:10 PM4/26/21
to
On 26/04/2021 20:18, Rick C wrote:
> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:34:43 PM UTC-4, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>> The one size fits all for vaccinations is interesting to me.
>> Fatties don't get an exra shot. Tiny folks don't get a half dose
>> either.
>
> That is one of the shortcomings of the medical system. While it
They do vary the dose for statins according to body mass at least in the
> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 1:34:43 PM UTC-4, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>> The one size fits all for vaccinations is interesting to me.
>> Fatties don't get an exra shot. Tiny folks don't get a half dose
>> either.
>
> That is one of the shortcomings of the medical system. While it
UK ISTR steps of 5mg. They come with warnings never to take a double
dose and not to consume grapefruit which radically alters the uptake and
retention time of some drugs (not just statins).
> likely makes no difference for a vaccine, it can make a large
> difference for drugs where the effectiveness is related to the mg/kg
> of body weight. It is considered that it is too complex to use body
> weight adjustments to medicine doses, so they don't even try.
tend to get more severe side effects from the Covid vaccine. In addition
to having a better immune system from two X chromosomes they also have a
lower circulating blood volume and body mass compared to males.
It really only makes a big difference in children where they do have to
be a lot more careful with drugs where the therapeutic dose isn't that
far off the onset of toxic effects or potential liver damage.
> People are goofy. I've met people who feel they don't need as much
> medicine as others who take medicine "all the time" as if taking any
> medicine makes you immune to the benefits of all medicine.
get the same therapeutic effect. It is one of the reasons for the huge
prescribed opioid epidemic in the USA.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Don Y
Apr 26, 2021, 6:29:32 PM4/26/21
to
On 4/26/2021 1:56 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> That part is not true. Many medicines come in different strengths. Try
> looking at the lables.
And medications are different from vaccines. Vaccines typically
> That part is not true. Many medicines come in different strengths. Try
> looking at the lables.
only have different indications for different populations (e.g.,
elderly tend to get a higher dose flu vaccine than the normal
public).
Any MD worth his salt starts with a "safe" (often ineffective)
dose for a medication. Then, monitors whatever the "problem"
(indication) happens to be to determine effectiveness AT THAT
DOSAGE. Then, bumps it up a bit to enhance the performance.
An upper limit indicates when doing so is no longer prudent.
Then, he switches to a different treatment plan (which may
include additional or replacement medications).
Note that there are often completely different (or even "not
approved for minors") dosing instructions for smaller bodies.
> Sometimes you take two or more pills if only one is not strong enough
> for yur particular problem.
more effective than 2X mg q.d. OTOH, if the pt is likely to miss one of
those doses, the higher single dose may be preferred, even though suboptimal.
Formulations also have a dramatic effect on dosing. E.g., different
coatings and inactives can make the active disperse into the body at
a slower rate (defined by chemistry). Osmotic pumps can arrange for
a more uniform delivery rate. Etc.
Joe Gwinn
Apr 26, 2021, 7:17:01 PM4/26/21
to
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:50:13 -0700, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:
This is generally true. This is a good part of how we acquire
(broader but often partial) immunity to an entire virus family.
As with everything in biology, there are asterisks.
Joe Gwinn
wrote:
(broader but often partial) immunity to an entire virus family.
As with everything in biology, there are asterisks.
Joe Gwinn
Rick C
Apr 26, 2021, 9:45:48 PM4/26/21
to
--
Rick C.
++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Tom Gardner
Apr 27, 2021, 2:20:28 PM4/27/21
to
On 27/04/21 02:45, Rick C wrote:
> Biology is very, very complex. If you consider that life has been in
> evolution for so many generations and the only requirement is for each change
> to allow the organism to continue to survive in the present environment. The
> end result is something that works, most of the time, and has some level of
> adaptability. The organization is inordinately complex and intricate,
> working in ways that we may never understand, not just by accident,
> but*because* it has resulted by accident. Evolution is a drunkard's walk
> Biology is very, very complex. If you consider that life has been in
> evolution for so many generations and the only requirement is for each change
> to allow the organism to continue to survive in the present environment. The
> end result is something that works, most of the time, and has some level of
> adaptability. The organization is inordinately complex and intricate,
> working in ways that we may never understand, not just by accident,
> through the solution space.
Sounds like the software that drives the banking and telecom sectors :)
(Or, less understandably, is inside your laserprinter)
Martin Brown
Apr 27, 2021, 5:08:07 PM4/27/21
to
On 26/04/2021 15:02, Rick C wrote:
> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 4:12:23 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
>> Yes. But more often in the elderly as the anti-shingles vaccine. A
>> neighbour of mine was killed by its side effects a couple of year
>> back. Arguably he should never have been given it in the first
>> place.
>
> Are you saying your neighbor died from the side effects of the
> vaccine?
Essentially yes. It is just possible it was a coincidence but he went
> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 4:12:23 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
>> Yes. But more often in the elderly as the anti-shingles vaccine. A
>> neighbour of mine was killed by its side effects a couple of year
>> back. Arguably he should never have been given it in the first
>> place.
>
> Are you saying your neighbor died from the side effects of the
> vaccine?
downhill rapidly just days after having it and from being the sort of
big physical guy who could yield a sledgehammer with real power.
>> Chicken pox virus is one of those things you never actually get rid
>> of - it can hide in nerve cells out of reach of the immune system
>> forever.
>>
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4754002/
>
> Just to be clear, the virus as a whole does not hide in the nerve
> cells. VZV is a retrovirus that incorporates it's DNA into the host
> DNA with no other part of the virus present. The viral DNA is
> normally not expressed until some event happens that triggers this
> expression. Then the cell produces viruses, if the immune system is
> working properly it will respond quickly and the new infection is
> stopped before symptoms can be produced. If the immune system is
> compromised the virus spreads and causes shingles.
>
> Since the infection is latent and no viruses are in the blood stream
> as well as no active reproduction which could result in the cell
> labeling itself for destruction, there is nothing for the immune
> system to attack.
> There is no small amount of viral DNA in the human genome. Something
> like 5% of the human genome could be human endogenous retroviruses.
Various other related herpes viruses have a similar strategy.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Rick C
Apr 27, 2021, 10:52:49 PM4/27/21
to
On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 5:08:07 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 26/04/2021 15:02, Rick C wrote:
> > On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 4:12:23 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
> >> Yes. But more often in the elderly as the anti-shingles vaccine. A
> >> neighbour of mine was killed by its side effects a couple of year
> >> back. Arguably he should never have been given it in the first
> >> place.
> >
> > Are you saying your neighbor died from the side effects of the
> > vaccine?
> Essentially yes. It is just possible it was a coincidence but he went
> downhill rapidly just days after having it and from being the sort of
> big physical guy who could yield a sledgehammer with real power.
Of course it is "possible" it is coincidence, likely in fact. How was his death attributed? That's not the kind of thing that is taken lightly and anyone not associated with making the vaccine would have any interest in hiding such a death. So no reason to think your guesses are better than the medical profession's judgement.
> On 26/04/2021 15:02, Rick C wrote:
> > On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 4:12:23 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
> >> Yes. But more often in the elderly as the anti-shingles vaccine. A
> >> neighbour of mine was killed by its side effects a couple of year
> >> back. Arguably he should never have been given it in the first
> >> place.
> >
> > Are you saying your neighbor died from the side effects of the
> > vaccine?
> Essentially yes. It is just possible it was a coincidence but he went
> downhill rapidly just days after having it and from being the sort of
> big physical guy who could yield a sledgehammer with real power.
> >> Chicken pox virus is one of those things you never actually get rid
> >> of - it can hide in nerve cells out of reach of the immune system
> >> forever.
> >>
> >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4754002/
> >
> > Just to be clear, the virus as a whole does not hide in the nerve
> > cells. VZV is a retrovirus that incorporates it's DNA into the host
> > DNA with no other part of the virus present. The viral DNA is
> > normally not expressed until some event happens that triggers this
> > expression. Then the cell produces viruses, if the immune system is
> > working properly it will respond quickly and the new infection is
> > stopped before symptoms can be produced. If the immune system is
> > compromised the virus spreads and causes shingles.
> >
> > Since the infection is latent and no viruses are in the blood stream
> > as well as no active reproduction which could result in the cell
> > labeling itself for destruction, there is nothing for the immune
> > system to attack.
> That is a pretty good definition of being hidden.
> > There is no small amount of viral DNA in the human genome. Something
> > like 5% of the human genome could be human endogenous retroviruses.
> Indeed although few are able to play hide and seek like VZV does.
> Various other related herpes viruses have a similar strategy.
--
Rick C.
--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Martin Brown
Apr 28, 2021, 3:20:07 AM4/28/21
to
On 28/04/2021 03:52, Rick C wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 5:08:07 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 26/04/2021 15:02, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 4:12:23 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown
>>> wrote:
>>>> Yes. But more often in the elderly as the anti-shingles
>>>> vaccine. A neighbour of mine was killed by its side effects a
>>>> couple of year back. Arguably he should never have been given
>>>> it in the first place.
>>>
>>> Are you saying your neighbor died from the side effects of the
>>> vaccine?
>> Essentially yes. It is just possible it was a coincidence but he
>> went downhill rapidly just days after having it and from being the
>> sort of big physical guy who could yield a sledgehammer with real
>> power.
>
> Of course it is "possible" it is coincidence, likely in fact. How
Not at all likely. The medics and hospital admitted their mistake PDQ.
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 5:08:07 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 26/04/2021 15:02, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 4:12:23 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown
>>> wrote:
>>>> Yes. But more often in the elderly as the anti-shingles
>>>> vaccine. A neighbour of mine was killed by its side effects a
>>>> couple of year back. Arguably he should never have been given
>>>> it in the first place.
>>>
>>> Are you saying your neighbor died from the side effects of the
>>> vaccine?
>> Essentially yes. It is just possible it was a coincidence but he
>> went downhill rapidly just days after having it and from being the
>> sort of big physical guy who could yield a sledgehammer with real
>> power.
>
> Of course it is "possible" it is coincidence, likely in fact. How
> was his death attributed? That's not the kind of thing that is taken
> lightly and anyone not associated with making the vaccine would have
> any interest in hiding such a death. So no reason to think your
> guesses are better than the medical profession's judgement.
vaccine (due to a pre-existing blood condition) and should never have
been given it. The extent of the damage done was extreme - as in fatal.
Basically an administrative mistake in the hospital.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Rick C
Apr 28, 2021, 11:46:06 AM4/28/21
to
"Arguably" he should never have been given it in the first place.??? Not "arguably", in fact he should not have been given the vaccine! Why do you say crap like this?
--
Rick C.
--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Robert Latest
Apr 29, 2021, 5:36:53 AM4/29/21
to
Rick C wrote:
> That's always true. But what would be more useful is for more people to
> actually understand the research to the present stage. A friend who used to
> run the blood bank of a hospital is on the fence about getting the vaccine.
> I asked her why and she simply said she didn't think "they" could get a
> vaccine out so quickly and be sure it was safe. That shows a lack of
> understanding of the present state of vaccine technology.
I work in semiconductor manufacturing. Any normal release of (say) a new tool
> That's always true. But what would be more useful is for more people to
> actually understand the research to the present stage. A friend who used to
> run the blood bank of a hospital is on the fence about getting the vaccine.
> I asked her why and she simply said she didn't think "they" could get a
> vaccine out so quickly and be sure it was safe. That shows a lack of
> understanding of the present state of vaccine technology.
can take up to several months, depending of the complexity. Yet in case of an
emergency (single tool down, sudden customer demand, ...) we've managed to do
such a release in as few as two weeks without skimping on any quality standard.
This is possible if the problem at hand is so severe that other running
projects are put on hold and all resources are thrown into that one problem. Of
course (like with a vaccine) we have done "risk releases" where certain checks
are initially omitted but are carefully monitored during ramp up.
So speed alone is not a valid metric of diligence. Granted, the US "risk
released" some vaccines, but by now the avaliable data exceeds anything that
would have been studied before a normal release.
--
robert
none albert
Apr 29, 2021, 5:41:47 AM4/29/21
to
In article <702a6a00-abb9-4f75...@googlegroups.com>,
metroprolol. Now what are you talking about ?
>
>--
>
>Rick C.
Groetjes Albert
--
"in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
die from Covid 19 lol" duc ha
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 4:56:32 PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>> In article <b4baf694-8b78-4e8b...@googlegroups.com>,
>> gnuarm.del...@gmail.com says...
>> >
>> > That is one of the shortcomings of the medical system. While it likely
>makes no difference for a vaccine, it can make a large difference for drugs
>where the effectiveness is related to the mg/kg of body weight. It is
>considered that it is too complex to use body weight adjustments to medicine
>doses, so they don't even try.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> That part is not true. Many medicines come in different strengths. Try
>> looking at the lables.
>>
>> Sometimes you take two or more pills if only one is not strong enough
>> for yur particular problem.
>
>Sure, you can take as many pills as you wish. But there are no instruction for
>dosing according to body weight. The dosing recommendations are either fixed,
>or indicate to try a range to test results. That is nothing like dosing by
>body weight.
My practitioner has choosen between 10 mg 25 mg 50 mg and 100 mg of
>On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 4:56:32 PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>> In article <b4baf694-8b78-4e8b...@googlegroups.com>,
>> gnuarm.del...@gmail.com says...
>> >
>> > That is one of the shortcomings of the medical system. While it likely
>makes no difference for a vaccine, it can make a large difference for drugs
>where the effectiveness is related to the mg/kg of body weight. It is
>considered that it is too complex to use body weight adjustments to medicine
>doses, so they don't even try.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> That part is not true. Many medicines come in different strengths. Try
>> looking at the lables.
>>
>> Sometimes you take two or more pills if only one is not strong enough
>> for yur particular problem.
>
>Sure, you can take as many pills as you wish. But there are no instruction for
>dosing according to body weight. The dosing recommendations are either fixed,
>or indicate to try a range to test results. That is nothing like dosing by
>body weight.
metroprolol. Now what are you talking about ?
>
>--
>
>Rick C.
Groetjes Albert
--
"in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
die from Covid 19 lol" duc ha
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
Rick C
Apr 29, 2021, 10:18:39 AM4/29/21
to
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:41:47 AM UTC-4, none albert wrote:
> In article <702a6a00-abb9-4f75...@googlegroups.com>,
> Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 4:56:32 PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> >> In article <b4baf694-8b78-4e8b...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> gnuarm.del...@gmail.com says...
> >> >
> >> > That is one of the shortcomings of the medical system. While it likely
> >makes no difference for a vaccine, it can make a large difference for drugs
> >where the effectiveness is related to the mg/kg of body weight. It is
> >considered that it is too complex to use body weight adjustments to medicine
> >doses, so they don't even try.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> That part is not true. Many medicines come in different strengths. Try
> >> looking at the lables.
> >>
> >> Sometimes you take two or more pills if only one is not strong enough
> >> for yur particular problem.
> >
> >Sure, you can take as many pills as you wish. But there are no instruction for
> >dosing according to body weight. The dosing recommendations are either fixed,
> >or indicate to try a range to test results. That is nothing like dosing by
> >body weight.
> My practitioner has choosen between 10 mg 25 mg 50 mg and 100 mg of
> metroprolol. Now what are you talking about ?
Actually the question is what are YOU talking about? Please read each message in this sub thread more carefully.
> In article <702a6a00-abb9-4f75...@googlegroups.com>,
> Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 4:56:32 PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> >> In article <b4baf694-8b78-4e8b...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> gnuarm.del...@gmail.com says...
> >> >
> >> > That is one of the shortcomings of the medical system. While it likely
> >makes no difference for a vaccine, it can make a large difference for drugs
> >where the effectiveness is related to the mg/kg of body weight. It is
> >considered that it is too complex to use body weight adjustments to medicine
> >doses, so they don't even try.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> That part is not true. Many medicines come in different strengths. Try
> >> looking at the lables.
> >>
> >> Sometimes you take two or more pills if only one is not strong enough
> >> for yur particular problem.
> >
> >Sure, you can take as many pills as you wish. But there are no instruction for
> >dosing according to body weight. The dosing recommendations are either fixed,
> >or indicate to try a range to test results. That is nothing like dosing by
> >body weight.
> My practitioner has choosen between 10 mg 25 mg 50 mg and 100 mg of
> metroprolol. Now what are you talking about ?
--
Rick C.
-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Cydrome Leader
Apr 29, 2021, 12:25:11 PM4/29/21
to
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
staggering.
Jon Elson
Apr 29, 2021, 10:06:06 PM4/29/21
to
Jeff Layman wrote:
>> One never knows what the effects of medicine will be on a person, or
>> their children. I forgot the name of the drug, but it was something
>> given to pregnant women in the 50's or 60's . That was fine, but their
>> daughters babies had the effect of not having arms, I am thinking they
>> had something resembling hands just sticking our of the shoulder.
>
> I think you might be mixing up thalidomide
>> One never knows what the effects of medicine will be on a person, or
>> their children. I forgot the name of the drug, but it was something
>> given to pregnant women in the 50's or 60's . That was fine, but their
>> daughters babies had the effect of not having arms, I am thinking they
>> had something resembling hands just sticking our of the shoulder.
>
> (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide>) with DES
> (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol>)
>
Nope, Thalidomide was the "wonder drug" for morning sickness, the US FDA
never approved it, to great protest. When the horrible birth defects to the
children of the mothers who were given it started to appear, few remembered
how smart or lucky the FDA was. Most of the defects were missing hands and
feet, and partial extremities.
The one that goes down several generations is DES (Diethyl Stilbestrol).
And, it is almost exclusively related to genital defects.
Jon
none albert
Apr 30, 2021, 7:56:10 AM4/30/21
to
In article <4c7cc083-9713-4d9f...@googlegroups.com>,
120 kg. That is what I'm talking about.
Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:41:47 AM UTC-4, none albert wrote:
>> In article <702a6a00-abb9-4f75...@googlegroups.com>,
<SNIP>
>On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:41:47 AM UTC-4, none albert wrote:
>> In article <702a6a00-abb9-4f75...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >Sure, you can take as many pills as you wish. But there are no
>instruction for
>> >dosing according to body weight. The dosing recommendations are
>either fixed,
>> >or indicate to try a range to test results. That is nothing like dosing by
>> >body weight.
>> My practitioner has choosen between 10 mg 25 mg 50 mg and 100 mg of
>> metroprolol. Now what are you talking about ?
>
>Actually the question is what are YOU talking about? Please read each
>message in this sub thread more carefully.
My practioner is responsible for doubling the dose if I were to weight
>instruction for
>> >dosing according to body weight. The dosing recommendations are
>either fixed,
>> >or indicate to try a range to test results. That is nothing like dosing by
>> >body weight.
>> My practitioner has choosen between 10 mg 25 mg 50 mg and 100 mg of
>> metroprolol. Now what are you talking about ?
>
>Actually the question is what are YOU talking about? Please read each
>message in this sub thread more carefully.
120 kg. That is what I'm talking about.
Rick C
Apr 30, 2021, 9:55:34 AM4/30/21
to
On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 7:56:10 AM UTC-4, none albert wrote:
> In article <4c7cc083-9713-4d9f...@googlegroups.com>,
> Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:41:47 AM UTC-4, none albert wrote:
> >> In article <702a6a00-abb9-4f75...@googlegroups.com>,
> <SNIP>
> >> >Sure, you can take as many pills as you wish. But there are no
> >instruction for
> >> >dosing according to body weight. The dosing recommendations are
> >either fixed,
> >> >or indicate to try a range to test results. That is nothing like dosing by
> >> >body weight.
> >> My practitioner has choosen between 10 mg 25 mg 50 mg and 100 mg of
> >> metroprolol. Now what are you talking about ?
> >
> >Actually the question is what are YOU talking about? Please read each
> >message in this sub thread more carefully.
> My practioner is responsible for doubling the dose if I were to weight
> 120 kg. That is what I'm talking about.
Try reading the information available on the drug. Also read my post. Then you will see what I'm talking about.
> In article <4c7cc083-9713-4d9f...@googlegroups.com>,
> Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:41:47 AM UTC-4, none albert wrote:
> >> In article <702a6a00-abb9-4f75...@googlegroups.com>,
> <SNIP>
> >> >Sure, you can take as many pills as you wish. But there are no
> >instruction for
> >> >dosing according to body weight. The dosing recommendations are
> >either fixed,
> >> >or indicate to try a range to test results. That is nothing like dosing by
> >> >body weight.
> >> My practitioner has choosen between 10 mg 25 mg 50 mg and 100 mg of
> >> metroprolol. Now what are you talking about ?
> >
> >Actually the question is what are YOU talking about? Please read each
> >message in this sub thread more carefully.
> My practioner is responsible for doubling the dose if I were to weight
> 120 kg. That is what I'm talking about.
--
Rick C.
-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
0 new messages