Fauci Sees An Answer In A Study... Never Mind It Was 1st Suspected By The Japanese

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Why does COVID-19 strike some and not others? Fauci sees an answer in new study

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said a new study could explain the extraordinary range that people experience with the novel coronavirus, from having no symptoms at all or a mild case to hospitalization or death.

The discovery, which found potential signs of immunity in people who had previously been exposed to other types of coronavirus, could also expand the hunt for a long-lasting COVID-19 vaccine.

Fauci and other scientists said the study published in Science this month held promising findings for understanding why some individuals exposed to COVID-19 for the first time have a modest reaction to the virus...

Uh... Hate to break it to you Doc, but... Ummm... As I posted in a couple of threads last month... Coronavirus: Japan's mysteriously low virus death rate

Tokyo University professor Tatsuhiko Kodama - who studies how Japanese patients react to the virus - believes Japan may have had Covid before. Not Covid-19, but something similar that could have left behind "historical immunity"...

He thinks it is possible a Sars-like virus has circulated in the region before, which may account for the low death rate, not just in Japan, but in much of China, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South East Asia

This has been met with some scepticism. [sic]

"I am not sure how such a virus could be restricted to Asia," says Professor Kenji Shibuya, director of Public Health at Kings College, London and a former senior adviser to the government.

Professor Shibuya does not discount the possibility of regional differences in immunity or genetic susceptibility to Covid. But he is suspicious of the idea of a "Factor X" that explains the mortality differences...

So... The 'answer' is some form of pre-existing 'historical immunity' and now that Fauci has 'discovered' it in someone else's research, we're less skeptical?

Am I reading that right?

[theLBC]

fauci is scum

he had one job, with decades to prepare and billions of dollars.
he didn't do schiff to prepare, except to fund dangerous GoF experiments in other countries that would allow it.
no ppe, no ventilators...even after he personally predicted a pandemic when trump was elected 3 years ago.

[dreyna14]

I have read a couple articles that mention just this. Asian counties probably have populations that have a relatively high exposure rate to mild coronaviruses and therefore maintain a high immunity to it. This is similar to European settlers and the diseases they passed on to North/South American natives. I lived in Korea for over a year and taught kids English. I got sick a lot! I have a feeling that exposure may offer me some benefits.

[five.five-six]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

So... The 'answer' is some form of pre-existing 'historical immunity' and now that Fauci has 'discovered' it in someone else's research, we're less skeptical?

Am I reading that right?

My theory, and it’s the inverse of the Japanese theory is that the historical immunity triggers an overreaction of the immune system that is more lethal.

[sealocan]

Put how dr. Fauci is being a jerk a side for just a second.

I haven't been following this story that closely but I believe the Chinese government has basically admitted that this did not come from eating bats and it came from a laboratory.

If this is man-made there's a very high likelihood that they knew about this pre-exposure to covid gives a community "historic immunity"....

And that means that they knew that the Chinese and possibly a lot of Asia would be less impacted than the West.

Bio weapon.

[five.five-six]

Originally Posted by sealocan

And that means that they knew that the Chinese and possibly a lot of Asia would be less impacted than the West.

Bio weapon.

Ok, but why would you want to crash the economy of your best customers?


serious question.

[sealocan]

^ We ("the west" /Western civilizations) are Still their Best customers .

...and probably always will be.
Even as the u.s. dollar is weekend and other currencies might replace it, we will still be their best customers. Why? Because it seems cheaper to us. But probably isn't in the long run.

When this first started to go down we could have made a massive change to producing more items (especially things like medicines) in the US that would have cost a lot more but made us better off in the far long run, but we didn't do that.

And I wasn't saying there's 100% proof that it was released on purpose just that it was quite possibly designed bio weapon to affect the West. For all we know it was an accident.

[Scota4570]

The idea is very old. It is a classic lesson in biology class. Among the earliest understanding of vaccines came from the observation that milk maids did not get small pox. They were exposed to cow pox, a very minor affliction. IT was close enough to small pox to provide immunity.

I suspect the same will turn out to be true of Covid 19. There are are several other corona viruses floating around. It is logical that they would provide some immunity to covid 19.

[balgor]

I know I may as well be explaining Ring Theory to penguins, but there is a difference between a supposition (japan) and a supposition that has been vetted by the scientific method (nature article).

[five.five-six]

Originally Posted by balgor

I know I may as well be explaining Ring Theory to penguins, but there is a difference between a supposition (japan) and a supposition that has been vetted by the scientific method (nature article).

Sounds more like explaining string theory to Ringwins.

[Den60]

Originally Posted by balgor

I know I may as well be explaining Ring Theory to penguins, but there is a difference between a supposition (japan) and a supposition that has been vetted by the scientific method (nature article).

Yeah, has to be hard for you to tolerate us neanderthals on here.

Maybe you should leave.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by balgor

I know I may as well be explaining Ring Theory to penguins, but there is a difference between a supposition (japan) and a supposition that has been vetted by the scientific method (nature article).

Not to be argumentative, but 'peer reviewed' is not some Divine sanctioning of the content. In fact, there has been a good deal of criticism of the process of peer review for some time. As an example, from 2006, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and posted by the National Center for Biotechnology Information...

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have...

But does peer review `work' at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts'...

So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.

That last sentence is something I've attempted to highlight for decades. So-called Science, in many ways, operates in exactly the way they claim they should not. Thus, criticism of any work performed by qualified individuals based on the idea that it wasn't produced using whatever system is then, currently 'sanctioned,' should be immediately suspect in that the critique is usually based, not on the facts being presented, but on supposed lack of adherence to the way some believe it should have been done. In fact, that is, in many ways, the very point of 'peer review;' i.e., compliance with 'accepted' methodology rather than investigation of the findings.

[five.five-six]

Originally Posted by balgor

I know I may as well be explaining Ring Theory to penguins, but there is a difference between a supposition (japan) and a supposition that has been vetted by the scientific method (nature article).

I’ll refer you to this well known quote attributed to Albert Einstein:

“If you can't explain it to a Penguin, you don't understand it yourself.”


― Albert Einstein




So please, tell us what you know of Ring Theory, oh great and enlightened keeper of massive student debt.

[theLBC]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Not to be argumentative, but 'peer reviewed' is not some Divine sanctioning of the content. In fact, there has been a good deal of criticism of the process of peer review for some time. As an example, from 2006, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and posted by the National Center for Biotechnology Information...

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

unfortunately, in this instance, "peer review" could just mean that the work was reviewed by other scum sucking parasites that have been bought by big pharma or other nefarious entities.

[Spanky8601]

Originally Posted by Den60

Yeah, has to be hard for you to tolerate us neanderthals on here.

Maybe you should leave.

THIS..

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by theLBC

unfortunately, in this instance, "peer review" could just mean that the work was reviewed by other scum sucking parasites that have been bought by big pharma or other nefarious entities.

That's a potential part of what does and has come into play with 'peer reviewed' articles. In this case, we have no evidence of that; at least not at this time. But, if you bear the following in mind...

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

In fact, that is, in many ways, the very point of 'peer review;' i.e., compliance with 'accepted' methodology rather than investigation of the findings.

You will realize that pre-determined methods/solutions often get in the way of scientific research, 'discovery,' and new information.

One of the more infamous examples oft cited related to this was Continental Drift. If you go to that link and even to Wikipedia, the succinct 'history' of that theory, as presented, denotes the problem...

The concept was independently and more fully developed by Alfred Wegener in 1912, but his hypothesis was rejected by many for lack of any motive mechanism...

What is expressed, now, is...

During his lifetime he was primarily known for his achievements in meteorology and as a pioneer of polar research, but today he is most remembered as the originator of the theory of continental drift by hypothesizing in 1912 that the continents are slowly drifting around the Earth...

What is downplayed...

Though he served in World War I and was wounded twice, he published his ideas in 1915. They constituted the first focused and rational argument for continental drift, but still they veered radically from the accepted beliefs of the time. Some scientists supported him. Still more scientists opposed him -- including his father-in-law, who seemed annoyed that Wegener had strayed from meteorology into the unknown territory of geophysics. The established reputation of many of his detractors probably gave more weight to their criticisms than was merited. Wegener often complained of their narrow-mindedness.

Put more accurately... He was nearly run out of the profession. He wasn't a geologist. He was proposing a theory/hypothesis which could not be tested or refined by the technologies of the time; having to wait nearly 40 years for that to develop to a point where it could begin to be tested/refined and until...

In 1960 Hess proposed the mechanism of sea-floor spreading, which would explain how the continents moved. Newly discovered exporation techniques were employed to prove this theory and ultimately, the correctness of Wegener's chief idea as well.

Perhaps the most 'balanced' portrayal is by the USGS...

The theory of continental drift would become the spark that ignited a new way of viewing the Earth. But at the time Wegener introduced his theory, the scientific community firmly believed the continents and oceans to be permanent features on the Earth's surface. Not surprisingly, his proposal was not well received, even though it seemed to agree with the scientific information available at the time. A fatal weakness in Wegener's theory was that it could not satisfactorily answer the most fundamental question raised by his critics: What kind of forces could be strong enough to move such large masses of solid rock over such great distances?...

In short, Plate Tectonics is, in large part, the theory of Continental Drift with the major refinement of a spreading mechanism which couldn't be 'discovered' until the technology was available 40 - 50 years after Continental Drift was proposed. In other words, Wegener pretty much had it and had it right, given the information then available; but, because he didn't (and couldn't at that time) check all the boxes, it was something which remained unaccepted for another half century. Yet, not only did it send the scientific community down the right road for, but his theories also form the core of, how Science views the world today.

What you are seeing in relation to the 'science' surrounding COVID-19 and drugs/vaccines/treatments is exactly the same thing. Maybe it's happening a bit 'faster' then a half century; but, what doesn't happen more quickly these days? Well... other than Government, the Post Office, and a restoration of fundamental rights.

[theLBC]

^ nobody likes to admit they have been wrong.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Originally Posted by theLBC

^ nobody likes to admit they have been wrong.

It's not so much admitting you've been 'wrong.' It's about taking your time in admitting that you didn't have enough data/information to make an accurate assessment. For instance...

Coronavirus updates: Fauci says temperature checks not reliable

As classrooms reopen for the fall, many school administrators say they're using temperature checks on students and teachers.

But Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Thursday that the White House and the National Institutes of Health have abandoned temperature checks as a screening tool.

Especially on hot summer days, temperature checks aren't a reliable way to screen for infection, Fauci said.

"We have found at the NIH, that it is much much better to just question people when they come in and save the time, because the temperatures are notoriously inaccurate, many times," Fauci said at an event with the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

Fauci added that in recent days his temperature read as high as 103 degrees before getting into the air conditioning.

A pharmacist and I were talking about that a couple of months ago when I was picking up something, he was on break, and we started a conversation. What took Fauci so long to assess this? A personal realization? Where's the data Doc? Oh... It's anecdotal? In fact, you're going to rely on questioning someone? Isn't that, by definition, 'anecdotal?' I thought we weren't relying on that?!?!

[theLBC]

Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

It's not so much admitting you've been 'wrong.' It's about taking your time in admitting that you didn't have enough data/information to make an accurate assessment. For instance...

Coronavirus updates: Fauci says temperature checks not reliable



A pharmacist and I were talking about that a couple of months ago when I was picking up something, he was on break, and we started a conversation. What took Fauci so long to assess this? A personal realization? Where's the data Doc? Oh... It's anecdotal? In fact, you're going to rely on questioning someone? Isn't that, by definition, 'anecdotal?' I thought we weren't relying on that?!?!

fauci is scum
did you see his love letter to shrillary kkklinton?
she is a murdering war monger.
she laughed at getting a pedo off, knowing he was guilty
she helped her husband get away with multiple rapes and sexual harassment.
she was (unlike trump) every good friends with weinstein and epstein.

anyone that likes shrillary is scum, period. end of discussion.

[Garand Hunter]

# 5, you are correct !

Psalm 1