Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[dirkfansince1998]

This was an important point raised by my friend   @"dirkfansince1998" which I did want to respond to at least briefly.  I and others have mentioned efforts to make it through the infection based around natural immunity.
The point about natural immunity is not as simple as some might imply.  

Studies, observations and efforts around natural immunity include the understanding that we can do more than just wait around to get deathly sick.  As deadly and serious as this disease is there are many people that get very mild cases of it and even some so mild that they didn't even know they had it.  

All the reasons for that great disparity between those getting deadly and severely ill and those whose immunity systems handle it better than a regular season flu, are simply not clear or known yet. 
So what people can all do, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated is take every effort to strengthen their Natural Immunity.  

What I have said if it wasn't understood is that we could have more studies done to compare various outcomes for those that use an array of efforts to build and strengthen their natural vs. those that don't or even compared to the outcomes of the vaccinated.  Not saying it isn't done but I haven't seen it much.  The push seems to imply that vaccination is the ultimate solution rather than an important component of solutions all built around natural immunity in the end. 

Here's an information page I like on potential solutions, both  Preventative and Treatments can be useful for everyone, vaccinated and unvaccinated: 

Speed The Spread Page here also has document link for printing handouts.  

I also would add Monoclonal Antibody Therapy to the list of treatments to consider.  I know lives have been saved by this treatment.  

This post shows a lack of understanding when it comes to the entire concept of immunity. You have to be careful with the way you phrase this.
Active immunity can be acquired through infection ("natural" immunity) or the vaccine. No other options.
People cannot strengthen their natural immunity. Because they don´t have it in the first place (pre infection). What they can do and what you are refering to is more about a "healthy" lifestyle. Avoiding potential risks like obesity, smoking and so on. Doing your best to take care of your body (and mind, mental aspects are often forgotten). Great idea. Has my full support.
Again...careful with the wording. Highly disputed topic. Pretty obvious that we can do things to improve our health. And in some cases we can even connect it to cellular mechanisms. But in the majority of cases it is still difficult to find specific mechanisms.

For more information (including the role of micronutrients): Spoiler - for the majority of people a balanced diet is enough. No need for supplements.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-h...une-system
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-h...-on-health

You are absolutely right we can do more than just wait around. Get vaccinated. It is that easy. Even "young" or "healthy" people can have severe or potentially deadly outcomes. Why risk it when a better option is available.
No vaccines (as of now, I am hopeful that we will see upgraded, even better versions in the future) aren´t perfect but they are by far the best option we have to avoid severe cases and deaths. I really don´t understand the entire it only has 70%...80%...90% efficacy that´s why we shouldn´t take it logic. That´s still better than anything else we have.
And no natural immunity is not the solution that everything is build around. For some reason that´s what you want it to be. Active immunity is the solution. As mentioned. Can be acquired through the vaccine or after an infection. Vaccine option is preferable because it comes with less risks.

To adress the mentioned lack of knowledge about different outcomes. Severe vs mild cases? You are right. We don´t know a lot. But through case studies we have a pretty good idea about potential risk factors and have seen some papers that focus on genetic predisposition.

For people that are interested. This is a very interesting paper that focuses on the impact of one specific group of cytokines and the connection to severe cases. Coming to the conclusion that an early release of the mentioned cytokine (TGFß) "impairs" the innate immune response in severe cases. Leading to follow up questions about genetic predispositions and treatment options. Could the inhibition of TGFß prevent severe cases? If that´s the case some substances that are used as rheumatic or cancer treatment are an option. I think some are already undergoing clinical trials.

https://www.charite.de/en/service/press_..._response/



Last part is the same stuff you have posted earlier. Presented by the same "experts". On a different page. I tried to explain the scientific consensus. Highlighted why the "work" of the mentioned persons is standing outside the scientific process. It´s not because they have other opinions. That´s part of the process. It´s about their choice to ignore scientific principles. I can disagree with the majority. Make my case. Provide evidence. Provide options to falsify my thesis. That´s what lead to some of the biggest scientific breakthroughs in history.
But that´s not what they are doing. They are standing outside the system. Science isn´t a democratic process. It is evidence based. There is no voting. There is no majority that decides. Strong evidence itself brings together a majority. Individuals arrived at the same conclusion. And not all opinions have equal scientific value. Strong evidence beats weak evidence.

I really think this is futile. You will continue to spread misinformation and justify it as an act unbiased of reporting.
Completly ignoring the political bias of your sources.

Sometimes I wonder if you actually listen to the things some of your sources are saying.
From Tenpenny (vaccine induces magnetism) to Zelenko and Yeadon (vaccination equals genocide). And I don´t even know where to start when it comes to the AFLD and Simone Gold. I have already mentioned her leading role in the attack on the capitol. I mentioned the snake oil salesmen schemes. You are questioning the role of the government and big pharma. You don´t have a problem to ignore the scientific consensus. But are happy to listen to a select group of right wing activists.

I have heard your complains about a politicized discussion. Your recent sources are the perfect example. But for some reason you don´t see it or choose to ignore it.