SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Who exactly are these epidemiologists that are being censored? What are their claims?

This would be a GREAT search for people to do . People can see for themselves about the censorship and suppression without the epidemiologists names being the issue in this thread. I don't know if a google search would work...but I use duckduckgo as my search engine. That is where I found them when I typed in "media censored epidemiologists".

HFSSC...I heard on the news...and just read articles that show that alcohol and sunlight kill the virus. Why are you saying that isn't 100%? Do you mean it to be from whatisloveanyway's post...that there is a "dwell time" for them to kill the virus? I want to make sure I get it right...so thanks y'all for helping me .

When I checked the LDH website after noon today...they had the percentages for the week of 12/30-1/05. Unvaccinated people accounted for 65% of positive cases...which was down from 66% the week before. The hospitalizations stayed the same as the week before at 75%. Surprisingly...the deaths for unvaccinated people went down to 66%...from it being 74% of the deaths the week before. Wow...that is scary.

Hi Want2B,

I'm certainly no expert, but I'm not sure if I would agree that all of your suggestions are non-contentious. I will take a stab at it, but would very much be open to correction from someone who was an expert.

12. Reducing the viral load can keep people from having to go into the hospital.

This I agree with, but I don't think it needs to be a separate point. It seems subsumed by point 5 that I made above. The MNAs work by reducing viral load which, in turn, can decrease severe illness.

13. Most viruses tend to mutate to become more contagious but less deadly to the host.

Again I'm no expert, but my understanding is that there is an element of truth this theory (avirulence theory) but that it is ultimately incorrect (or at least not as straightforward as you posit). The theory goes that a virus survives by remaining in the host body long enough to replicate. If the host body dies quickly before the virus is able to replicate (ie. spread to someone else) then the virus would die too, and as such doesn't survive.

The problem is that there have been plenty of viruses that HAVE mutated to become more lethal. Delta is an example of this, fewer people died of it than they did of OG Covid but that is likely due to the fact that more was known about treating Covid, avoiding exposure, and most importantly that a huge number of people were vaccinated with a vaccine that was effective. Ebola, West Nile and the Spanish Flu are all examples of viruses that mutated to become more lethal.

In addition to the above, the theory doesn't take into account mutations in the virus that take place that make them more resistant to existing vaccines or treatment. This has happened with the flu virus several times which is why every so often we get strains that are particularly dangerous (H1N1 for example) and kill more people even if the symptoms aren't always, by themselves, lethal. The fact that MNAs do not seem to be effective for Omicron, seems like a good example of this.

Finally, the theory only takes into account death - it doesn't consider other injury. Death is not the only negative outcome the virus can have. We've all heard of long covid and other long term illnesses and injuries that people have had afterwards. Either the incidence or the degree of these long term effects could get worse in future strains of the virus - we have no way of knowing.

I have some comments about the supplements too but I'll start here.

This would be a GREAT search for people to do smile . People can see for themselves about the censorship and suppression without the epidemiologists names being the issue in this thread. I don't know if a google search would work...but I use duckduckgo as my search engine. That is where I found them when I typed in "media censored epidemiologists".

I was thinking you might have a particular claim from a particular one that you were concerned about being censored. I fear that if I just google that, I'll be down the rabbit hole of various people making claims that I, as a non-scientist, am not likely to do experiments on to determine the veracity of. Much like the dihydrogen monoxide example that BSR posted about, I might not have the education to understand why a person's ideas are being rejected by the majority of scientists.

But if you have a particular example of one that is being censored and ignored that you're concerned about, maybe I could google that one and see what reasons are given for it being rejected. There might be a wealth of information about a particular thing. A blanket google search is going to include crackpots in with the actual scientists and I'd rather those be filtered out since you've done more of this.

HFSSC...I heard on the news...and just read articles that show that alcohol and sunlight kill the virus. Why are you saying that isn't 100%? Do you mean it to be from whatisloveanyway's post...that there is a "dwell time" for them to kill the virus? I want to make sure I get it right...so thanks y'all for helping me smile .

Yes, that's what I'm saying. And I'll tell you why it matters to me. Because so many of the arguments against certain mitigation measures use false dichotomies and/or misinterpretation of the intent of the recommendation. Vaccine efficacy is a perfect example. From the very beginning, it has been stated that vaccines cannot promise 100 effectiveness. That's just real life. We also had no idea how long the protection from vaccine would last. So when vaccinated people began to be infected, people opposed to vaccines at all started using that real world "failure" to argue that the vaccines are useless.

Also, when the statement is made, "alchohol and sunlight kill COVID" then it's very easy for a certain set of people to decry any other mitigating measures as unnecessary or potentially dangerous, compared to alcohol and sunlight. I'm not suggesting you had done so. I'm just familiar with enough people in my world who would make (and have made) that jump.

A virus particle sitting on a window ledge in bright sunlight will "die." (Whether viruses are actually "alive" to begin with is a WHOLE other discussion, lol). Virus particles on one's hands will most likely "die" with 20-30 seconds of exposure to an alcohol based hand rub meeting the concentration requirements. (65% I think?) But there is no way to guarantee 100% effectiveness.

And that's why all of the recommendations are stressed. Yes, there are some people who cannot and should not receive the mRNA vaccines because of medical issues. Yes, there are some people who cannot use alcohol based hand rubs. And there are (very few, IMO) people who may not be able to tolerate wearing a mask for extended periods of time. But the more people are using more than one mitigating measure, the sooner we can get to the other side of this.

The problem is that there have been plenty of viruses that HAVE mutated to become more lethal. Delta is an example of this, fewer people died of it than they did of OG Covid but that is likely due to the fact that more was known about treating Covid, avoiding exposure, and most importantly that a huge number of people were vaccinated with a vaccine that was effective. Ebola, West Nile and the Spanish Flu are all examples of viruses that mutated to become more lethal.

Also, viruses don't think and plan. It's not like playing Plague, Inc. Mutations occur often and only the ones that are successful at spreading become something we talk about. A pocket mutation here and there killing off more people than the main ones is also pretty uncool and to be avoided if possible by limiting the spread of all of the strains. And a mutation that is slightly less deadly than Omicron but that vaccines have little effect on would be pretty successful too and kill off a bunch of people with medical conditions who tried their level best to do everything right with vaccines and masks and social distancing. People who would have lived decades longer would die in that scenario.

This would be a GREAT search for people to do.

I tried. I didn't find anything of much interest. I found some articles about a group of epidemiologists who were arguing against lockdowns and instead pushing herd immunity. Want2B - is that what you are referring to?

This I agree with, but I don't think it needs to be a separate point. It seems subsumed by point 5 that I made above. The MNAs work by reducing viral load which, in turn, can decrease severe illness.

Point 5 talks mainly about the monoclonal antibody treatments...but there are other ways to decrease the viral load. I am hoping that antiviral mouthwash I bought today will be one of them !!

I can see your point about #13. It seemed to me that Covid was one of the viruses that has been mutating to be less deadly...that is why Omicron is now without the spike protein. I will put "some" instead of "most" on my update tomorrow. Thanks .

I was thinking you might have a particular claim from a particular one that you were concerned about being censored.

I do have that exact issue...but I can't talk about it. I did a search with "media censored epidemiologists" and the names of several epidemiologists came up that would show that there ARE qualified professional epidemiologists being censored or suppressed. People can judge for themselves if what is said is legitimate or not .

HFSSC...thank you for the clarification . I will change it also when I do my update tomorrow .

Respectfully,

I do have that exact issue...but I can't talk about it.

Then it isn't verifiable. Why it is identified as viable without the ability for everyone to read and understand to assess for themselves? I'd love to know if we are being purposely deceived.

On the topic of the virus and mutations, it makes perfect sense to me that the mutations are as a result of the virus' ability to survive. The parts of the virus that can make it through a mask or not be killed or deemed unviable by current vaccines are exactly the parts that will flourish. It may mean that those parts are less or more virulent.

No malice intended in my comments.

Then it isn't verifiable. Why it is identified as viable without the ability for everyone to read and understand to assess for themselves? I'd love to know if we are being purposely deceived.

People can believe what they want to believe. I am not risking my anonymity. If people want to do a search they can find that there ARE qualified epidemiologists who are being suppressed from talking about the adverse reactions to the vaccines. THIS thread is NOT about epidemiologists being suppressed. Thank you for intending no malice in your statement .

I can understand not supplying details of your personal life. I am less clear on why you can't give the name of a researcher whose work is supposedly broad enough to be relevant to general vaccine safety.

I can understand not supplying details of your personal life. I am less clear on why you can't give the name of a researcher whose work is supposedly broad enough to be relevant to general vaccine safety.

This IS my personal life on other social networks. I don't understand why MY personal specific issue keeps being questioned when it is real EASY to do a search to see for yourselves that qualified epidemiologists ARE being censored. I made blanket statements about them...it doesn't have to go to a specific one for my statements to be shown as truthful.

I won't be discussing this part anymore and I would really appreciate it if people would just look for themselves because they WILL find there are qualified epidemiologists that are being censored and suppressed. SEEK and you will FIND !

Are we talking about Dr Malone?

Sorry, just saw your post.

From what I read he is doing more harm than good so probably not who you are talking about.

I can do searches but it's not very helpful if I don't know what doctor/doctors I'm searching for.

Also, if we don't know which doctor you are talking about we can't discuss it.

[This message edited by zebra25 at 8:34 AM, January 14th (Friday)]

[This message edited by zebra25 at 2:34 PM, Friday, January 14th]

Here are the lists with the updates from yesterday. This is not just MY list...but a compilation of different people who have contributed :

1. Covid is real (not a hoax).
2. Masks are effective at reducing the transmission of disease (not 100%)
3. Vaccines are effective at reducing the transmission of severe disease (not 100%)
4. The vast majority of people do not experience severe side effects from the vaccines.
5. Monoclonal antibodies are a treatment that can be effective at reducing the chance of severe illness in people who have already been infected. Most are more effective in treating previous strains of Covid than they are in treating Omicron.
6. Unvaccinated people who get covid are significantly more likely than vaccinated people to get severe illness and require hospitalization.
7. Hospital resources are not unlimited and are already strained.
8. The more people that are infected with Covid, the more likely the virus is to mutate.
9. We do not know whether the treatments we do have against covid (vaccines, monoclonal antibodies) will be effective against new strains of the virus.
10. Sunlight and alcohol help to kill the virus (not 100%)
11. Most hand sanitizers approved for use contain alcohol (ethanol), isopropyl alcohol, or benzalkonium chloride (BZK).
12. Reducing the viral load can keep people from having to go into the hospital.
13. Some viruses tend to mutate to become more contagious but less deadly to the host.
14. Some vitamins can help boost the immune system.
15. New vaccines are being tested to combat the virus and not have adverse reactions that other vaccines have had.
16. Oral anti-viral mouthwash helps to reduce the viral load in the throat.

Number 16 I tried out myself yesterday . There are several mouthwashes that have anti-viral ingredients...but the only one I could find at my local Walmart was Crest Pro Health Intense. It has the active ingredient of cetylpyridinium chloride...and will supposedly kill 99% of germs. I was worried it was going to be nasty compared to what I usually use...but it was actually not bad at all . One more weapon in the arsenal to FIGHT Covid!!!

Since I've been taking vitamin D and zinc...my sinuses are very HAPPY. Now THIS could help me too with other allergies NOT related to Covid...WIN-WIN !!

"Yes, all Scope mouthwashes kill bad breath germs, especially those associated with morning breath."

"While many of our mouthwashes have been proven to kill bad breath germs or 99% of germs that cause plaque and gingivitis. None of our mouthwash products have been tested against the coronavirus and are not intended to prevent or treat COVID-19. Consumers should follow the preventative measures recommended by their health care provider."

Well I've found foolishness with a blanket search. I've found herd immunity stuff but that seems sociopathic cull the herd kind of stuff and I kinda like some of the herd who would be culled. There's drinking urine. There's "I'm not a scientist but I think" kind of stuff. A blanket search is not exactly showing me anything impressive. That's why I asked. I wasn't being a smartass. If there's genuinely something out there that I need to know, I'd like to know. My blanket searches are so far quite unhelpful in that regard.

I'm not trying to catch you out, WTBHA. It's just a claim you've made and if it's a thing, it matters. If you're worried about sharing it because it is a thing that we'd just disagree on because it's an opinion and not fact kind of thing, you can say so. Unless you are the actual person being censored, probably it wouldn't threaten your anonymity. I can't imagine how it would unless you're the only person on earth on the internet talking about this one thing.

I used google and found one page that had links to many many others.
I haven't had the time this morning to read all the linked articles just the main one.

That article speaks about the body creating a deadly toxin after receiving the vaccine and that the vaccine given to children contains a viral gene thats injected into the cells causing the body to make toxic spike proteins which causes permanent damage to organs.

I think i got that all right.

If this was true wouldn't there be more cases of it?

We already knew as soon as it started to happen that there was a risk of blood clots with Az and a chance of myocarditis. These side effects weren't censored. Why would other ones be?

None of our mouthwash products have been tested against the coronavirus and are not intended to prevent or treat COVID-19.

That is FALSE. Povidone-iodine(PVP-I) or cetylpyridinium chloride(CPC) have been tested and shown to reduce the viral load of Covid. A good side effect is not having bad breath .

That quote came from the crest mouthwash website.

I wasn't saying it was true or false.

I'm confused.

sunlight kills Covid

I stopped reading after this drivel.
You all are better ppl than I am keeping with this discussion for 12 pages.

I'm out.