PhilGeis

Think a bit oversold at this point. "International group" may not be so correct. French lab examination of sequences posted to a public genomic database by Chinese researchers and subsequently removed. Seems others could reproduce findings but see nothing in literature yet. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-evidence-supports-animal-origin-of-covid-virus-through-raccoon-dogs WHO asked for the data, not aware it's been released/ https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/03/17/1164226694/who-calls-on-china-to-share-data-on-raccoon-dog-link-to-pandemic-heres-what-we-k But there is relevant previous (to above) discussion relevant to racoon dog association. https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abm4454

China offers a new theory and vector for wet market source - "racoon dog' https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/new-covid-origins-data-suggests-pandemic-linked-animals-97936471

Fauci said Saturday that a coronavirus lab leak could still be considered a "natural occurrence" if the definition of lab leak meant that someone was infected in the wild and went "into a lab," was studied in a lab, and then "came out of the lab." and "The other possibility is someone takes a virus from the environment that doesn't actually spread very well in humans, and manipulates it a bit, and accidentally it escapes or accidentally infects someone and then you get an outbreak, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/dr-fauci-claims-a-coronavirus-lab-leak-could-still-be-considered-a-natural-occurrence/ar-AA18wSQD

To CharonY's point, to the possibility of lab worker infection , esp. in context of alleged inadequate controls https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/u-s-intel-report-identified-3-wuhan-lab-researchers-who-n1268327

declassification will help us understand FBI/DoE thinking https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/05/26/senate-unanimously-passes-hawley-bill-declassifying-intel-on-wuhan-lab/?sh=4e15e4f26844

So what? Not aware the virus was not found in the wet market. Again FBI and DoE both cite the lab as the probably source.

Both FBI and DoE reviews offered as probable the "lab leak" source based on their review. Please also recall Wuhan work was reportedly conducted in a BSL-2 lab - the limited contamination control standards used typically in micro 101 teaching labs.

Microwave treatment can indeed kill bacteria tho' a brief exposure such as heating yogurt prob will not eliminate all viability. Be aware - microbial populations in commercial yogurts are unstable and decrease of viable counts are common to the point that claimed benefits are more hype than substance.

Review - notes value in combined therapy - bacteriophage and antibiotic. Suggest folks remember their virology lab with bacteriophages and E. coli from sewage - the ease with which resistance was demonstrated

antibiotics-09-00135-v2.pdf

Please - let's not invest political bias in the discussion. Suggest you drop the ad hominem and read the assessments. Thanks for the critique editorial.. Afraid most of it is similarly ad hominem. What metrics would you think best to estimate impact of lockdowns? the articles included deaths per capita by state, in school days lost and economic impact. Flatten the curve 'til vaccine was the original purpose but infection rates are tough to see valid as reporting enjoyed no protocol and most likely went unreported.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w29928 https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf4 "While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

No. Just run an MIC.

Good point. And the mRNA-based vaccines ever more of a focused magic bullet.

Perhaps antibody therapy for relevant cancers https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22437872/ and https://www.criver.com/eureka/magic-bullets-the-next-evolution-in-targeted-cancer-therapy and the term has meaning in the history of micrpbiology https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/syphilis-cure-magic-bullet-180964644/

My comments addressed omicron strain.

The stated purpose and function of this vaccine and its controversial mandates is to address the pandemic. No - it does no mean effective immunity. There is an association with reduced morbidity and mortality. Coincidence is not cause and assuming "immunity" is not justified. Numbers are not normalized

The vaccine vs omicron is apparently useless as a "vaccine". Reportedly is associated with better outcome in morbidity and mortality

Covid has a high mutation rate - up to 10X greater than the already high rate of RNA viruses in general. Mutation shows the limitation of current mRNA based vaccine technology - so narrowly focused, variants move out of efficacy range. Tho' justified in part on the rapidity of development and warranted as you say by variant generation, it still takes too long to develop and administer. Appears there is no attempt to develop.

https://ufonline.ufl.edu/degrees/undergraduate/microbiology/

Wonder at the stats for this. With vaccine(s) showing efficacy in mitigating morbidity and mortality rather than infection and the dynamics of variant expansion, to what extent would broader vaccination constrain variant generation.

Waiting 15 minutes is conventional and is driven by the majority of reactions observed and the practical aspect of maintaining folks cooperation. but certainly does not indicate absence of subsequent reactions, including a anaphylaxis. "Symptoms of anaphylaxis often occur within 15-30 minutes of vaccination, though it can sometimes take several hours for symptoms to appear." https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/managing-anaphylaxis.html Where any reported subsequently? Was there a means of reporting >established for the vaccinated after exit? What was protocol for treatment - epinephrine? antihistamine? What was "successfully treated"? Recall anaphylaxis may manifest in those appearing to recover. How long did those folks stick around?

Poor surveillance reports anywhere - are poor reports. What was origin?

What does FDA have to do with this? It approves the vaccine and monitors and potentially responds to adverse repot data - https://vaers.hhs.gov/ . It would find comments such as -prob would happened anyway - and prompt and successful treatment - pretty poor. Any report would include qualification of those monitoring, whether active or passive, period through which monitoring was effected, voluntary reports from vaccinated after monitoring, specifics of reactions observed, how treated, criteria by which resolution was determined, etc. What protocol that? In any case, relevant protocols do not suggest - they are methodology. Clearly there are can be post release reactions - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/moderna/reactogenicity.html

Everyone was observed while present, beyio Everyone was observed for a time - beyond surveillance addressed time. Adverse reaction may not be within time of survelliance. I jumped to no conclusion. Prompt and successful is subjectiuve and would not be appropriate description for reporting adverse reaction to FDA.