Advances in the fight against the coronavirus

[Obamot]

blessed you have

ABC2019 still so “flamboyant” to dodge the substantive debate.

[Janic]

vow it's true, it was the good time when smallpox wiped out one in ten children by Darwinian selection and left those who survived disfigured .. we can never say it enough.

another stupid speech! smallpox, or any other disease, does not appear by chance and do not disappear by chance either, it takes special conditions for them to appear or disappear, like everything in the living world, It does not there is nothing good or bad here, but a biological reality. Plants and animals struggle to survive by devouring each other to maintain a fragile balance between all forms of life, by eliminating the weakest (Darwien theory) and humans would like to escape this universal rule. But we are not in the world of care bears, even if some people want to believe it or believe it.
Now it is normal, understandable that each of us wants to escape this rule by using means that society has invented by making believe that their solution was the only, the best, that there was and not could not exist others: the miracle of synthetic drugs. The result is worse than before, the number of patients due to side effects is exploding in each country which submits to it and which ends up losing, forgetting, what successive generations had patiently accumulated to keep its populations healthy, without to avoid the death of the weakest, the most fragile (when the oil runs out in the lamp, the flame goes out!)
So ask yourself the question why and how smallpox, multi-millennia, turned off!?

[Robob]

A study that seems capital for pandemic management methods:

https://www.fr24news.com/fr/a/2020/11/l ... atifs.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

"New study from Wuhan: Asymptomatic COVID-19 patients are apparently not significant spreaders"
I like all the nuance in the title of FR24: I read the study and the "limits" given show that the researchers are quite certain of their conclusions. We can translate by: asymptomatic are not contagious.

If this is true, it completely calls into question the generalized confinement, the closures, the wearing of the mask! This would also explain that we have no difference in results between countries that confine and those that do not.

[ABC2019]

Now it is normal, understandable that each of us wants to escape this rule by using means that society has invented by making believe that their solution was the only, the best, that there was and not could not exist others: the miracle of synthetic drugs. Result is worse than before,

well yes that's exactly what I said: it was a good time.

[ABC2019]

So ask yourself the question why and how smallpox, multi-millennia, turned off!?

there are answers of course, but what interest I give them to you, since as usual you will say that you do not believe my sources while refusing to give yours? I don't play with cheaters.

[Janic]

ABC2019 »23/11/20, 20:20

Janic wrote:
So ask yourself the question why and how smallpox, several millennia, died out !?

there are answers of course, but what interest I give them to you, since as usual you will say that you do not believe my sources while refusing to give yours? I don't play with cheaters.

You couldn't give a single one! Your boast is matched only by your navel-gazing! I'm not asking your opinion, but it may be of interest to others with at least a credible and verifiable official source that does not come from your usual sect, which cheats and lies shamelessly!

[Obamot]

A study that seems capital for pandemic management methods:

https://www.fr24news.com/fr/a/2020/11/l ... atifs.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

"New study from Wuhan: Asymptomatic COVID-19 patients are apparently not significant spreaders"
I like all the nuance in the title of FR24: I read the study and the "limits" given show that the researchers are quite certain of their conclusions. We can translate by: asymptomatic are not contagious.

If this is true, it completely calls into question the generalized confinement, the closures, the wearing of the mask! This would also explain that we have no difference in results between countries that confine and those that do not.

I have my little theory (I just hope it's wrong), covid would have replaced the common cold, and it's a m..de cold! It wakes up when our immune defenses are weakened, when we get old, when we eat poorly, etc ... And CRAC! But it would already be there, in us, almost everywhere. The most favorable scenario for the human species would be for it to disappear on its own. Otherwise we would be wrong, this thing could kill in the long term hundreds of millions of people, if not more, who died early.

[sicetaitsimple]

I have my little theory (I just hope it's wrong), covid would have replaced the common cold, and it's a m..de cold! It wakes up when our immune defenses are weakened, when we get old, when we eat poorly, etc ... And CRAC! But it would already be there, in us, almost everywhere. The most favorable scenario for the human species would be for it to disappear on its own. Otherwise we would be wrong, this thing could kill in the long term hundreds of millions of people, if not more, who died early.

Finally a plausible explanation! Fortunately we have you!

[Obamot]

The explanation, I haven't given it yet.
But we wait for you to produce hypotheses then. Go ahead, be bold, stop your sterile words: we are listening to you!

[Obamot]

Here are some pieces of information and reflection, taken from an original article which was published in the Swiss magazine Weltwoche (and which agrees with many of my views on the situation and why I remain silent on many points).
The author, Beda M Stadler is former director of the Institute of Immunology at the University of Bern, biologist and prof. skilled. Stadler is an important health professional in Switzerland, he's a bit of the German-speaking Raoult, he also likes to use provocative language. I publish it in several times because it is quite long.

Coronavirus: why everyone was wrong (I) (by Beda M. Stadler)

~ The coronavirus is slowly receding. What has really happened in recent weeks? Experts have missed basic connections. The immune response against the virus is much stronger than previously thought.

This is not an accusation, but a ruthless toll [of the current situation]. I could slap myself, because I watched Sars-CoV2- far too long in panic. I am also somewhat annoyed by many of my colleagues in immunology who until now have left the discussion of Covid-19 to virologists and epidemiologists. I think it's time to criticize some of the main and completely untrue public statements about this virus.

First, it was wrong to claim that this virus was new. Second, it was even more false to claim that the population did not already have some immunity against this virus. Third, it was the crowning of stupidity to claim that someone could have Covid-19 without any symptoms or even transmit the disease without showing any symptoms.

But let's look at this one one by one.

1. A new virus? Really?

At the end of 2019, a coronavirus, considered to be new, was detected in China. When the gene sequence, i.e. the blueprint of this virus, was identified and given a name similar to the Sars identified in 2002, namely Sars-CoV-2, we should have already wondered in how much [this virus] is related to other coronaviri, which can make humans sick. But no, we instead discussed which animal on a Chinese menu the virus might have come from. In the meantime, however, many more people think that the Chinese were so stupid that they released this virus on themselves in their own country. Now that we are talking about developing a vaccine for the virus, all of a sudden we see studies that show that this so-called new virus is very strongly related to Sars-1 as well as other beta-coronaviri that make us suffer. every year in the form of a cold. Besides the pure homologies in sequence between the different coronaviri that can make people sick, [scientists] are currently working to identify a number of areas on the virus the same way human immune cells identify them. It's no longer about the genetic relationship, but about how our immune system sees this virus, i.e. what parts of other coronaviri could potentially be used in a vaccine.

So: Sars-Cov-2 is not that new, just a seasonal cold virus that has mutated and disappears in the summer, as all cold viruses do - which we are currently seeing around the world. Influenza viruses mutate a lot more, by the way, and no one would ever claim that a new strain of influenza virus was completely new. Many veterinarians have therefore been annoyed by this novelty claim, as they have for years vaccinated cats, dogs, pigs and cows against coronaviri.

2. The fad of a “virus without immunity ”

From the World Health Organization (WHO) to all the virologists on Facebook, everyone has claimed that this virus is particularly dangerous because there is no immunity against it because it is a new virus. Even Anthony Fauci, the Trump administration's top adviser, noted early on with every public appearance that the danger of the virus lay in the fact that there was no immunity against it. Tony and I often sat side by side at immunology seminars at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, USA, as we were working in related fields at the time. So for a while I didn't criticize his statements because he was a respectable colleague of mine. The penny fell only when I realized that the first commercially available antibody test [for Sars-CoV-2] was set up from an older antibody test that was intended to detect Sars. -1. This type of test assesses whether there are antibodies in a person's blood and whether they are the result of an early fight against the virus. [The scientists] even extracted antibodies from a Lama that would detect Sars-1, Sars-CoV-2 and even the Mers virus. It was also learned that Sars-CoV-2 had a lower impact in areas of China where Sars-1 had previously raged. This is clear evidence to urgently suggest that our immune system considers Sars-1 and Sars-Cov-2 at least partially the same and that one virus could likely protect us from the other.

It was then that I realized that the whole world was just claiming that there was no immunity, but in reality, no one had a test ready to prove such a claim. It wasn't science, but pure speculation based on a gut feeling that was then picked up by everyone. To date, there is not a single antibody test that can describe all possible immunological situations, such as: if someone has been immunized, since when, what the neutralizing antibodies are targeting and how many structures exist on them. other coronaviri which can also lead to immunity.

In mid-April, a work was published by Andreas Thiel's group at Charité Berlin. An article with 30 authors, including the virologist Christian Drosten. It showed that in 34% of people in Berlin who had never been in contact with the Sars-CoV-2 virus nevertheless had T-cell immunity against it (T-cell immunity is another type of immune response, see below). This means that our T lymphocytes, i.e. white blood cells, detect the common structures appearing on Sars-CoV-2 and regular cold viri and therefore fight both.

A study by John PA Ioannidis of Stanford University - according to the Einstein Foundation in Berlin, one of the ten most cited scientists in the world - showed that immunity against Sars-Cov-2, measured as antibody, is much higher than previously thought. Ioannidis is certainly not a conspiracy theorist who just wants to swim against the tide; nonetheless, it is now under criticism, as the antibody tests used were not extremely accurate. With that, his critics admit they don't have such tests yet. And aside, John PA Ioannidis is such a scientific heavyweight that all German virologists combined are light in comparison.

3. The myth of theoretical models ex nihilo

Epidemiologists also fell in love with the myth that there was no immunity in the population. They also didn't want to believe that coronaviri were seasonal cold viri that would go away in the summer. Otherwise, their curve models would have looked different. When the initial worst-case scenarios haven't materialized anywhere, some still cling to models predicting a second wave. Let’s give them their hopes - I’ve never seen a branch of science that has gone so far out of the game. I have yet to understand why epidemiologists were so much more interested in the number of deaths than in the numbers that could be saved.