Free Republic

What are those things?

When I visited South Korea, I smelled something very funky in the market street. Then I saw someone with a big fryer full of things that looked somewhat like that. They were silkworm larvae. Apparently, during the Korean War, there wasn’t much food so people ate silkworm larvae. And they developed a taste for it, so silkworm larvae are still sold in South Korea.

I’ve nothing against midwives delivering babies, but they should do so in a facility where an emergency can be addressed immediately.

When I was last pregnant, all of my prenatal visits were with a midwife. Nurse Cranston. But when I went to the hospital to deliver the baby, an obstetrician that I didn’t know showed up to do the delivery. The delivery was uncomplicated and the midwife probably could have handled it. But the obstetrician was the one who happened to be on call for New Year’s Day. Yeah, a New Year’s baby.

I don't do internet searches for medical literature. I use Pubmed (www.pubmed.gov), which is a database containing citations, usually along with abstracts, and sometimes with the full text of the article.

The advantage of using Pubmed is that only legitimate medical and scientific journals are catalogued there.

Sure, I can search the internet and find all kinds of stuff claiming miracle cures for anything. But if it's not published in the accepted medical literature, I take it with a huge grain of salt.

So, let's take a look at the paper you found, "The Anti-Cytokine Storm Activity of Quercetin Zinc and Vitamin C Complex" PMID: 35721668.

This was a study in mice. That's all. The biology of mice is different than humans, meaning that we cannot simply extrapolate the results of mouse studies to humans. Before we can even test a drug in humans, we generally do studies in more than one animal species, from fish to rodents to rabbits to non-human primates. And only if we see the desired results in all of those animals, we move on to human studies. And even then, no matter how promising the animal studies were, the results might not pan out in humans.

Who said 'all the indoor air is filtered'? No one.

Ah, you read into my words something that I did not say. I never said that all indoor air is filtered. I said that if you want to avoid catching an airborne pathogen, you would have to stay inside where the air is filtered. Obviously, staying inside where the air isn't filtered won't help. The air should be filtered through HEPA filters, although I did not state that previously.

We all watched the vaccinated get Covid again and again and again - you're one of the few who are still trying to claim the 'vaccine' will prevent infection.

Let's try to understand how the immune system works. If someone who is vaccinated keeps catching Covid over and over, it means that their immune system is impaired. A vaccine is not a shield, it is a training program to teach the immune system how to respond to the pathogen without actually being exposed to it. I'm fully vaccinated and had the experience of driving a laboratory-confirmed Covid patient to the doctor then to the pharmacy. So, there I was, in a confined space with a symptomatic Covid patient. And I did not catch Covid. I tested myself twice. Nope, no Covid. My immune system learns very well from vaccines.

They don't need to be the same or even similar. Quercetin and Zinc work together well to mitigate Cytokine storm and other aspects of illness, and improve absorption of Zinc.

Only in mice. And quercetin and (H)CQ are different enough to tell me that they do not interact with the same targets. Look at those structures. The CQ has a chlorine side group, which is negatively charged, but it contains three nitrogens that are positively charged. Thus, it has an overall positive +2 charge. The addition of the hydroxy group to make HCQ reduces the charge to +1 and makes it more water soluble. On the other hand, the quercetin has five hydroxy groups and two other oxygen atoms, giving it an overall negative charge of -7. Chemically, those negative charges mean that it cannot interact with the same targets that the positively charged (H)CQ interacts with. And if they are not interacting with the same targets, they are not interchangeable.

SOME zinc is not absorbed by SOME cells

Nope. Zinc is a necessary ion for all cells. There is no need to take any supplements to increase zinc uptake, since all cells will transport it inside when they need it.

ALL OF THE ANIMAL STUDIES OF THE mRNA platform 'didn't pan out' because the animals sickened/died.

Um, animal studies of mRNA vaccines did not cause the animals to die. All living things contain mRNA, so the suggestion that it is somehow toxic is nonsensical.

Furthermore, if an experimental drug proves toxic in animals, the FDA won't allow testing in humans. We had a rabbit die after dosing it with our experimental drug. The FDA would not allow us to continue development on that drug until we could explain to them how the rabbit died and could assure the FDA that the problem was due to rabbit physiology and does not apply to humans. Our development effort was set back at least six months and tens of thousands of dollars because of that rabbit death.

But you're here pushing an experimental an inadequately test gene therapy. I say that because the FTC filing for the Covid 'vaccines' stated that these were gene therapy but would be allowed to be marketed as 'vaccines' in order to avoid 'vaccine hesitancy'.

I cannot find any verification of this. If you have a link to the FTC filing, post it. Scientifically, an mRNA vaccine cannot be a gene therapy agent because it does not interact with or alter DNA. In order for something to be classed as gene therapy, it must either be made of DNA or interact with DNA in such a way as to alter the DNA.

It is unfortunate that people understand so little of molecular biology that they don't even know that RNA and DNA are different and have different properties. If only people understood that, no one would believe the lie that mRNA is a gene therapy.

I don't know if anyone ever told you, but Vitamin D is commonly sold in unit of 5,000 U. Seems like you need to rush around and tell the industry not to sell those supplements. You should probably tell the public that if they follow your toxic advice and stay indoors to avoid exposure, they won't get enough sunlight to produce Vitamin D- just a thought.

Lots of vitamins are sold in doses that are far higher than the actual daily requirement. The research is only beginning in the area of effects of consuming mega quantities of necessary vitamins. The FDA does not usually step in to control the quantities of vitamins and minerals in supplements until there is a large body of evidence to warrant such control.

The concept of getting sunlight to induce vitamin D production is a bit problematic. The UV in sunlight directly damages DNA, and this DNA damage can eventually lead to carcinogenesis. So, a fair-skinned person who avoids sun exposure because of concerns about skin cancer might not be able to get enough vitamin D. The latitude also matters (a lot) since people in northern latitudes might not be able to get sufficient vitamin D through sun exposure alone. The only safe way to supplement vitamin D is through monitoring of blood serum vitamin D levels. When I moved from Maryland to Texas, my serum levels of vitamin D shot up and I had to cut back on the supplements.

I can’t imagine buying or selling without an agent. The agent is the one who goes to the various classes and learns everything about real estate. The agent is the one who can hook me up with property inspectors, repairmen, and so forth. The agent helps to provide the proper documentation to the lender. Those kinds of service are invaluable, especially if (as I have done several times) I am buying a home in another state.

I don’t want to have to take a real estate law course just to buy or sell my own house.

She should be a Darwin award recipient.

What kind of idiot stands in front of moving construction equipment?

What kind of mother would not give up her life for her child????

I have known two women who have had ectopic pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy is immediately life-threatening to the mother and must be removed. One of these women was as pro-life as one can be, but ended up having two ectopic pregnancies. That eliminated her ability to ever have a child of her own, so she elected to have a hysterectomy and adopt instead. The other woman went on to miscarry triplets (two boys and a girl, she told me) then successfully carried a son, her only living child, to term.

In the case of ectopic pregnancy, there is no possibility of saving the baby. The only option is to remove it and no 2 month old or less fetus is capable of living outside the womb.

Yes, abortion to save the mother's life is sometimes necessary, but only early in pregnancy. Past the point of fetal viability outside the womb, there is no reason to abort.

Thank you for posting that.

I have seen a number of stories about women who allegedly have been unable to receive care in FL or TX when they were having miscarriages or stillbirths. This law seems to make it clear that a pregnant woman with pregnancy complications absolutely does get appropriate treatment under the law. After all, if a fetus dies and the miscarriage fails to occur on its own, removal of the fetus (which is not technically abortion since it's already dead) is medically necessary for the mother's health.

I would like to see provision (c) expanded. There are abnormalities that are not immediately fatal, but result in an absolute lack of quality of life, such as severe growth restriction along with lack of any cerebral/intellectual development, etc. I'm not comfortable with telling a woman whose child has been diagnosed with such a condition that abortion is not an option (although I would want her to be completely aware of the nature of abortion so she can make an informed choice). And what about children with Tay-Sachs disease? The baby is apparently normal at birth, but intellectual development stalls and regresses after a year or so and the child dies before the age of 6 or so. No matter what the mother chooses, the decision is difficult.

And maybe the law should be expanded to include a requirement for fetal anesthesia in the cases the law does allow abortion.

The guidance set forth an interpretation that state abortion laws with more narrow exceptions than EMTALA are “preempted,” and that physicians “must” perform an abortion if they feel abortion is “the stabilizing treatment necessary” to resolve an emergency medical condition. Under the guidance, hospitals could lose federal funding for failing to comply.

If a woman has a life-threatening pregnancy complication (such as ectopic pregnancy, which I believe is the most common one), the attending physician is going to do whatever is necessary to save her. No legal coercion is needed. It sounds like the Biden administration is trying to turn ERs into abortuaries and remove any requirement for medical justification to do abortion.

I would be extremely cautious in using either of those references as justification for an "alternative treatment" protocol for Covid.

Quercetin and Vitamin C: An Experimental, Synergistic Therapy for the Prevention and Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Related Disease (COVID-19)

That is not a research paper. It is a review which collates the findings of previous research in order to present the hypothesis that quercetin and vitamin C might be efficacious against Covid. It does not constitute pre-clinical in vitro, cell culture, or animal studies and certainly is no substitute for rigorous clinical studies in humans. The FDA would never give market approval for the use of quercetin with vitamin C to treat Covid based on this extremely limited review that has no clinical or animal data to back it up.

I previously discussed limitations of this paper in my reply #11 to this thread, but apparently messed up on the link.

20-Week Study of Clinical Outcomes of Over-the-Counter COVID-19 Prophylaxis and Treatment

This paper has a number of limitations.

First, it does not show the usual indicator of peer-review. It shows a "published online" date, but does not show the date it was received or the date it was received in revised form or an acceptance date. Peer-reviewed articles usually show three or four different dates. I doubt that the authors would be able to get this published in any peer-reviewed journal.

Second, the size of the study (113 subjects split between control and study groups) is extremely small, too small for any robust statistical analysis. Clinical studies with high statistical power usually include several hundred, usually over a thousand patients.

Note: the statistical weakness of this "study" was apparently noticed by other readers, since the authors issued the linked explanation of their statistical method a few months later. Benefit of OTC Formula Against COVID-19—Statistical Analysis Explained. The explanation is not very convincing, either, to anyone who is familiar with the types of statistical analysis used in clinical studies.

Third, the outcome measure was whether people caught Covid or not. The study did not examine treatment outcomes in patients who actually had Covid and no conclusions on the efficacy of the protocol described can be made based on the data provided.

This one sentence from the linked paper encapsulates the problem: At an interim evaluation point of 5 weeks after implementation of the protocols, the only clinical and/or test-confirmed cases of COVID-19 arose in the non-compliant control group; on the other hand, none of the regimen-compliant subjects presented with symptoms of any viral illness.

The study was non-blinded and patients basically self-selected to be in one group or the other. The difference in whether or not they caught Covid is most likely explained by behavior. Those who were in the "compliant" group were probably more concerned about their health overall and likely took other measures to avoid Covid, such as diligent use of masks and avoiding being around other people unless absolutely necessary. And those in the "non-compliant" group probably were less concerned about Covid and took more risks.

Fourth: none of the authors have experience in medical (especially infectious disease) research. They are all affiliated with the Comprehensive Pain Management Institute, LLC, Columbus, OH. Pain management is a different specialty than infectious disease. Furthermore, medical research is very different from the practice of medicine. Their lack of experience explains why this paper is of such poor quality.

I will end the analysis here.

Disclaimer: I am purposely open about my sources so that anyone who wishes to debunk me can look at the sources and explain exactly how I misrepresented them, how the sources themselves are suspect, or how I outright lied. (No one has debunked me yet.)

You’re, by self admission, a ex-dem.

I'm an ex-dem because I was raised in a very leftist environment and gradually came to realize that democrats are pushing socialism, which, in turn, leads to totalitarianism when allowed to grow unchecked.

Please explain to me how medical misinformation is a fundamentally conservative position. Given that my early experiences with medical misinformation all came from leftist sources, I am rather puzzled as to how charlatanism came to be embraced by conservatives at all.

I'm sorry.

I should have put a disclaimer in. I provide links to the medical literature and other pertinent information. If you want to debunk me, you have only to look at those links and identify what I have misrepresented or even lied about.

“I surmise that you have never actually been in a biosafety or biosurety room”

BEEP. WRONG. Again. This is becoming a disturbing trend with you.

I made that assumption because your previous response appeared to have been written by someone who is completely unfamiliar with biosafety/biosurety protocols.

Fact is, you push the term vaccination when, as related to covid, its nothing of the sort. Nor does it stop someone from contracting it, nor does it stop someone from transmitting it.

A Covid vaccine is a vaccine because it causes the immune system to produce specific T-cells, B-cells, and antibodies against the spike protein coded in the vaccine. (Fun fact: a vaccine doesn't have to target a pathogen. Most vaccines target proteins of non-pathogenic organisms and are not used in medicine at all.)

Like any other vaccine, how well the Covid vaccine works depends on the immune function of the person receiving it. Because the vaccine actually doesn't do anything; the immune system does all the work. If your immune system is impaired for whatever reason, getting vaccinated won't be as effective. But, as long as you have some immune function, the vaccine *will* help to decrease severity of illness by training your immune system ahead of time.

FYI, the trope that a vaccine isn't a "real" vaccine if it doesn't protect 100% of the people receiving it from catching the disease has been around for decades. It was just dusted off and reused for Covid antivax propaganda.

People who were exposed to SARS COVID in 2003 still had the antibodies in 2019.

Really?

First, where is/are the citation(s)?

I would like to know how the researchers are completely certain that those antibodies were actually induced by SARS1 and not one of the commonly circulating coronaviruses that cause the common cold? Antibodies tend to be cross-reactive. In my experience doing western blots, antibodies against a certain protein worked on extracts from a variety of species--human, mouse, rat, guinea pig, monkey, hamster, etc. And there was considerable cross-reactivity in each sample, as well, against proteins that were not the protein I was studying.

Since coronaviruses all have pretty much the same proteins, I would expect antibodies against coronaviruses to be fairly reactive against all strains.

Western blot analysis of G proteins of wheat seedlings grown in different light regimes.

This is a random western blot image that I pulled off the internet to illustrate the cross-reactivity of antibodies. Look at how many protein bands the antibody highlighted. The only way you can tell which protein is the "right" one is through size analysis (which is not included on this blot).

The third way to prevent catching a viral disease is to have natural immunity from beating one of it's related strains.

Catching a disease in order to avoid catching it makes absolutely no sense. This particular piece of misinformation is so illogical and ridiculous, I don't see how people fall for it in the first place.

It's also very dangerous.

If I am in danger of exposure to rabies, would it make any sense at all to go out and catch it deliberately? Well, that *would* prevent me from catching it in the future. But probably not in the way I want.

Disease-induced immunity is not as broad or protective as vaccine-induced immunity. In addition, no immunity against coronaviruses lasts for more than a few months. Ever catch a cold, then another cold, then another cold? You keep catching them because immunity is not permanent.

I wish pro-abortion women would think just a little about what kind of person is drawn to committing abortion. Someone who is comfortable with and even enjoys killing innocent babies is not someone who has respect for the life of any human at any age. But, every time they decide to get pregnant and have an abortion, they put their own life into that ghoul’s hands.

Even if they don’t care an iota for their baby’s life, they should be at least a little concerned for themselves, shouldn’t they? I know *I* wouldn’t want to entrust a murderer with my health and life.

I am not sure how to destroy them.

I once talked to a man selling a very high-tech biochemical analyzer. I told him I was not in a position to buy and had no immediate need for it, but he still wanted to talk. And one of the things he told me was that a research institute had purchased one of the analyzers in order to study prion proteins. After the study, they elected to destroy the machine since there is no good way to sterilize it after using it for prions. This was a half-million dollar analyzer. I do not know, in the years since, if adequate methods to sterilize equipment after prion exposure have been developed. Simply autoclaving equipment doesn’t do the job.

I don’t understand and the story never explained why Oman drove all the way to Philadelphia to buy those items. I’m pretty sure they are available in Williamsburg.

A prion is a protein that is misfolded.

The proteins that can be misfolded into a prion form are present in everyone. But they are folded correctly. In the vast majority of people, they will never misfold.

I think that some mutations make the protein more likely to misfold. And the misfolding is contagious, as if proteins are using misfolded proteins as a folding guide.

When these proteins are misfolded, they can no longer be enzymatically destroyed by the cell. Most proteins are destroyed within hours of being made. But the prions just stick around. This probably has something to do with the pathogenic process.

Advocating for abortion while decrying the “evils” of contraception?

Sounds to me like they have stock in abortion businesses.

Yes, women do need to stand up for their rights. But these “feminists” have it all wrong. A woman’s right to not be bamboozled into thinking that abortion is an acceptable form of routine birth control is, I think, paramount.

There is also an issue with gullibility among leftists.

If only public schools taught skills like critical thinking.

Thats not surefire as you failed to mention eliminating exposure via other people entering said environment.

If you are staying confined indoors in an area with filtered air, why would you allow other people to enter that area without taking precautions? Such as requiring them to wear PPE and sanitizing the surfaces of that PPE?

I surmise that you have never actually been in a biosafety or biosurety room. For preventing the spread of pathogens, nothing is better.

You have no idea how medical professionals can all collude on the covid topic (hint:government influence and financials)

This is in pure conspiracy territory. If everyone in the medical community (and I assume you meant to include the medical research community, as well) were colluding to invent and spread lies, then how is it that they present such a consistent description of Covid? Where you find "descriptions" that are all over the place is in the charlatan/antivax literature. Not only is the antivax narrative inconsistent, but it seems that claims can change in an instant if it helps to scare people. How do tens of thousands of highly educated people cooperate on such a conspiracy, anyway? Most of them are too busy treating patients or doing research to even have time to conspire.

If you claim to be a medical professional post-covid you have got a LONG road ahead of you if you expect me, and the majority of Americans to trust A SINGLE DAMN THING YOU SAY.

I have never claimed to be a medical professional. I am a medical researcher. I know more than the vast majority of physicians about the topic of infectious disease because most physicians are not trained to do research. They are trained to diagnose and treat patients, which is a completely different skill set.

FYI, the majority of Americans actually do accept the information provided by the scientific community. If I use vaccination rates as a proxy for people who get their information from the scientific community, then at least 70-80% of people accept the science. I say this because by May 2023, 81% of the population had received at least one dose and 70% was considered fully vaccinated. US Coronavirus vaccine tracker.

Only people who believe antivax propaganda instead of scientists refuse to get vaccinated. And, since the propaganda was targeted mostly at Republicans, this means that Republicans remain more likely to die from Covid than Democrats. It looks like the goal of the antivaxxers is to get more Republicans to die, thereby causing more elections to go to Democrats and pushing us closer to a totalitarian socialist government.