In a nearly dead forum in a city now famous for it's camping pleasures that can be enjoyed at any time, by anyone, anywhere (except in front of city hall apparently) - I made mention of preparing for the long dark winter ahead.
https://eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1...post1062481138
In thinking about the upcoming long dark winter, even though it hasn't even reached 100 degrees here yet - I was thinking about flu shots (Influenza type), because, you know - it's all safe and stuff. Basically, I was contemplating (it's what I do) about how the Powers That Be, like the CDC, are going to handle garden variety flu vaccines and the COVID jab, considering that some LSM puppets are floating the "booster" shot concept for the COVID already.
This will be the first winter season where both jabs are readily available, even though there was no influenza last year apparently. Anyway, ran across this article that I'm still digesting. I find it a teeny bit worrisome that settled science might actually be more of presumed science.
Pentagon Study: Flu Shot Raises Risk of Coronavirus by 36% (and Other Supporting Studies)
On March 12th, 2020, Anderson Cooper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta held a global town hall on “Corona Facts and Fears.” During the discussion, Anderson said to the viewing audience, “And, again, if you are concerned about coronavirus, and you haven’t gotten a flu shot…you should get a flu shot.”
Setting safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination aside, is Anderson’s claim that the flu shot will help people fight COVID-19 remotely true? The short answer is no.
In fact, the results of many peer-reviewed, published studies prove that Anderson’s recommendation may have been the worst advice he could have given the public...
No sense waiting to the last minute to solve a riddle that's stuffed into an enigma that's wrapped in a conundrum.
Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do
Interesting, thanks for that. From the conclusions of the paper:
Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections.
I didn't want to pay for the paper. But your blacklisted news article shows a graph that's probably from the paper. It shows the incidence of "all non-influenza viruses" is about 10% higher in people who've had the flu vaccine. Cases of coronavirus and metapneumovirus were significantly higher in the vaccinated, but, except for COVID 19, I don't think these kill many people. Given the protection the flu vaccine gives from influenza viruses, and given I've had the COVID 19 vaccine, which protects against the only deadly coronavirus out there right now, I'll probably go ahead and get the flu vaccine this fall, as always.
But, could this work the other way? Could the COVID 19 vaccine offer protection from infection by other coronaviruses? Would you be less likely to get the common cold if vaccinated? Possibly yes:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/...ction/13056718
I ran across this, about development of a vaccine that would work against most coronaviruses:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/h...s-vaccine.html
For vaccine lovers like me this is exciting. Not only would you have some protection from the common cold, but also from any coronaviruses like SARS, which came from bats in China, and MERS, which came from bats in Saudi Arabia. SARS and MERS have higher mortality rates than COVID 19. If you ever have something with the mortality rate of MERS (35%) and that's as infectious as COVID 19, we're in trouble unless there's a vaccine. The East Asians would get through it OK, but the western world would be fucked.