https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-linked-to-decline-in-brain-function-study-finds-nqsxm06j3

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-linked-to-decline-in-brain-function-study-finds-nqsxm06j3


Covid linked to decline in brain function, study finds

The original article in Nature:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04569-5

SARS-CoV-2 is associated with changes in brain structure in UK Biobank

 

So the people that it doesn’t kill it makes dumber…

That is terrifying seeing the group primarily protesting it can’t afford to jettison much more of their reasoning ability

 

I am so mad at you. I almost made it a whole week without laughing at crazy stuff and now I have to start all over!!!

That's gonna sting a bit...

 

It has to be studied on larger groups of people and be reproduced by scientists in different cultures, but preliminary results are not good, especially for those who feel catching the virus is the best immunity.

Plus when you add in the results of the alcohol study, there’s going to be some very small-minded people running around.

 

Just as concerning is the increased risk of heart disease post infection

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3

yep! The “natural immunity” group may live to regret that choice

 

If you your concern was really with health and prevention of sequelae you would point out vaccination does not eliminate sequelae. You would also point out there are other options (like exercise) that can prevent these sequelae. You are clearly not as concerned with everyone’s HEALTH as you are with vaccination.

Your priorities are not aligned with what the priorities of healthcare providers should be. This is why most people ignore your advice. It’s often incorrect and in denial of science. This test of the time it’s not logic if health is top priority.

 

Number one example of “it is just fat old people dying and they deserve it because they aren’t super healthy”

 

nevermind

 

Vaccine Research & Development - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus ...
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu › vaccines › timeline
A typical vaccine development timeline takes 5 to 10 years, and sometimes longer, to assess whether the vaccine is safe and efficacious in clinical trials, complete the regulatory approval processes, and manufacture sufficient quantity of vaccine doses for widespread distribution. 1-10 Years.

https://www.marshall.senate.gov/wp-...i-Financial-Disclosures-for-2020-and-2019.pdf

 

Yes and ?


thing was there was pre existing research on the main vaccines as well as the jump start in knowing the genetic code

 

[QUOTE="Kokomojojo, post: 1073307152, member: [/QUOTE]

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...al-covid-19-issue-after-content-dispute-68721

 

https://covid19evidence.net.au/

Take it from me if Ivermectin were cheaper and better our cheap arse Federal government would be handing it out like lollies

https://covid19evidence.net.au/faqs/#Ivermectin

 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-about-pro-ivermectin-groups-study-toutin/

Some of the studies analyzed in the ivermectin meta-analysis were not peer reviewed, said Dr. David Gorski, a professor of surgery and oncology at Wayne State University and chief of breast surgery at the Karmanos Cancer Institute, who has criticized the June study.

"Pooling data from a large number of small, low-quality clinical trials does not magically create one large, high-quality clinical trial," wrote Gorski, who is also managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a website that evaluates medical claims.

He added: "The few existing higher quality clinical trials testing ivermectin against the disease uniformly have failed to find a positive result. It’s only the smaller, lower-quality trials that have been positive. This is a good indication that the drug probably doesn’t work."


https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/iv...e-take-2/?mc_cid=a29ac0a4a7&mc_eid=f12bb86e1e



A few weeks after the initial finding was published, a short paper appeared in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology that described the considerations for using ivermectin as an antiviral. While it acknowledged the antiviral properties of high concentrations of the drug in laboratory (in vitro) experiments, it noted that it would likely not be possible to achieve the same concentrations of the drug in the plasma of the blood, because the drug itself is tightly bound to blood proteins. Even giving 8.5 x the FDA-approved dose (1700mcg/kg) resulted in blood concentrations far below the dose identified that offered antiviral effects

 

Anyway, not sure why an article pointing out the negative effects of C19 on the brain causes a debate on Ivermectin.

 

You say that you are a vaccine supporter but you have also stated that you did not get the vaccine.

As an aside you seem to be stalking bowerbird which is not a good look
​

 

because its proven to work and it prevents the disease completely in many cases when used as a prophylactic

your 'opinion' link does not support your claim.

 

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

NOT only is it NOT peer reviewed its NOT even edited! LMAO

 

That’s a leap. A big leap.

and?

 

Here is the peer review file for you Koko.

https://static-content.springer.com...5/MediaObjects/41586_2022_4569_MOESM3_ESM.pdf

 

This is what is so frustrating. People have all these unsubstantiated opinions about Covid and sequelae and intelligence/stupidity but they can’t answer the most basic questions about epidemiology/virology.

Yes, there is an answer for preventing sequelae from EVERY infectious disease. It’s very simple. Don’t become infected! It’s impossible to suffer sequelae from a disease you don’t/didn’t have.

The secondary answer is to not get severely ill from a disease you do get. Long Covid is more likely in those who experienced six or more symptoms in the first week after infection.

Antibiotics work great— for bacterial infections. And they have drawbacks especially in the young. Antibiotic use in young children results in increased rates of asthma, diarrhea, and other various infections later in life. I believe it’s preferred to prevent infection and severe disease than to treat it after the fact.

But the bottom line is the best way to prevent sequelae is to prevent infection mainly and severe disease when infection does occur.

What if we used your tactics of calling people stupid who don’t use health practices to mitigate Covid? What if we said people who won’t eat more veggies and less processed meat to avoid Covid don’t deserve to live? Do you think that a portion of people willing to wear a mask sitting outside at the park wouldn’t be willing to go to bed earlier to avoid Covid infection? Again, if it’s acceptable to scare people or shame people into vaccination, why not at least inform them of other effective means to avoid infection and severe disease (and sequelae that result)? A certain demographic doesn’t want to be vaccinated and you want to ridicule them. A certain demographic doesn’t even want people to know about other mitigations and let them decide if they want to practice them or not. If health is the goal, this approach is illogical.

You defend purveyors of disinformation and you seem to think it’s OK to withhold lifesaving information because you think people won’t use it. I know that about you and that’s what I’ve pointed out. If you don’t want it to be at all about you, don’t defend misinformation and withholding of information.

Why not inform them how effective diet and exercise and other lifestyle choices are at preventing Covid? You have this perfect opportunity to show the great benefits of lifestyle and you seem opposed to even sharing the information.

Agree on the Twinkies. LOL. I’m glad to hear you exercise. You and nearly 25% of Americans do. I don’t think saying people won’t do a thing motivates them to do it. I prefer showing them how effective those things are at protecting from Covid since Covid seems to be a great concern. If it’s as concerning as the OP makes it out to be, maybe we should use that concern to motivate behaviors that can not only reduce Covid risk, but all cause mortality risk by around 40%. While Covid vaccination does appear to reduce all cause mortality a bit, it’s nowhere near 40%. So is health (and all cause mortality) our top priority, or is it Covid vaccination? And before you go to the “vaccination is to protect others” argument, consider if Covid went away tomorrow, the overweight and diabetics etc. would still be subjecting you to higher risks (through auto accidents, influenza infection, etc,) than healthy people do.

Then we need to stop referring to them as healthcare providers. Here is the definition of “care”.

Just because there are specialists doesn’t change the mission defined in the term healthcare.
​

I don’t do research on Covid. The little research I’m involved in involves meat animals and field crops. It’s not my evidence. But I’m happy to share published peer reviewed studies that contain the evidence. If it’s ok with you I’m going to link to my previous posts on the subject. All posts contain links to the published studies and pull quotes from the studies.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1073045677/

And:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1073179590/


If you read the studies, in most cases the authors advocate for using the results of their studies to fight the pandemic. The science is clear on the issue. The problem is the healthcare industry and public health entities are not using all these mitigations in a systems approach. You will note that not only do these lifestyle choices protect in the absence of vaccination, they also (especially exercise) increase efficacy of vaccination (especially in the aged). This is not new information. I’ve been advocating for exercise as a way to prevent infection and increase vaccine efficacy since April of 2020.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1071603217/

Now published research is showing how accurate my post was two years ago.

Again, none of this is my opinion. I’m open to discussion of published research but completely uninterested in unsubstantiated opinions or fallacious arguments.

 

Yeah, I can see some truth in that. I had sleep apnea so they sent me to get one of those pilot masks. I wore it for five seconds.

The next day I got back into my workout routine and a month or two later my breathing at night was fine because it was just unnecessary body weight that made me have apnea.

Most ailments I get, like apnea or heartburn, are just an indication that I have gotten lazy.

 

thats collaboration not peer review

 

It’s kind of funny that they call it a peer review file hey?

 

I it is NOT “proven to work”. I have great faith in my federal government finding the cheapest options for healthcare so it can spend my tax dollars on softer cushions for parliament