I didn't think anything of the flu until I got one that had me bedridden for weeks, brainfogged for another year after, and my motivational energy never fully returned. Now, I get the flu shot every year. I'm glad this is finally getting the attention it deserves.
Aside from a virus, the sample set has hospitalization as a possible factor. Perhaps some have picked up an infection (bacteria), or another contributing virus? Also, what about pre-existing conditions? The already compromised having to be hospitalized might mean they left still compromised.
I'm not seeing how this analysis rules out these other possibilities. Lots of correlation here, but seemingly not much proven causation (i.e., it's all virus driven).
I always wondered if "common" colds always had a slight biological price to pay. That each time you caught a cold or flu it diminished you in a minor way that you cant perceive. Maybe the folks intentionally taking no precautions against illness are not building "strong immune systems," but are rather doing unnecessary damage to their body.
Now that we are noticing long term issues post flu or Covid, I wonder what future research will bring.
Maybe other aliments like metabolic issues were kicked off by a nasty cold? What about depression?
Please don't take this post as me trying to say any of this stuff is a fact. Just something I have wondered the past few years...
The problem with these long-something illnesses is that the diagnosis is mostly "vaguely differential".
My son is going through that right now. He has a set of symptoms that could point to long covid but this could also be 100 other things. He is going from specialist to specialist gathering a pile of medical tests.
He is young, very athletic and his condition is manageable so we honestly just hope for the best (= hope his body will fix this itself).
There was extensive censorship during covid. Originally starting under the guise of preventing 'misinformation harms'
This censorship framework hasn't been dismantled and is now expanding to basically all other health related concerns. Seemingly even climate change now.
The fact censorship is happening isn't in debate, but the debate should be allowed if we should be censoring these subjects at all. Unfortunately, the debate is censored.
Right-wingers like the authors of that essay like to claim that but the narrative falls apart when you look at the details. For example, the authors incorrectly make the general assertion that it was impossible to talk about the origins of COVID-19 or the efficacy of Ivermectin on Twitter, when anyone who used it then knows that there was tons of discussion and the few things which were blocked were false claims which were not just speculative but proven to be wrong. Actual scientists were discussing things like whether there could have been a lab leak, the people getting banned were making false claims about genetically-engineered Communist bio-weapons for political reasons or claiming that Ivermectin was a miracle cure in contradiction of all available scientific evidence. Despite being cursorily on the same topic, those aren’t the same conversation and only one of them was in good faith trying to learn the truth. If you grounded your statements in data and didn’t promise false certainty, you had nothing to fear.
Why do you immediately go to an attack? How do you even know their political affiliation? Israel does tend to be right wing I guess.
>For example, the authors incorrectly make the general assertion that it was impossible to talk about the origins of COVID-19 or the efficacy of Ivermectin on Twitter,
Which was absolutely true. This rule has since been rescinded.
>when anyone who used it then knows that there was tons of discussion and the few things which were blocked were false claims which were not just speculative but proven to be wrong
I disagree. There was clear censorship over topics which later on we found out to be true.
>Actual scientists were discussing things like whether there could have been a lab leak, the people getting banned were making false claims about genetically-engineered Communist bio-weapons for political reasons or claiming that Ivermectin was a miracle cure in contradiction of all available scientific evidence.
Lab leak is a great example. Universally censored across all major social media, turns out that's the only possible explanation. The idea it was zoological sources from a smaller animal and be so impactful and not be rapidly mutating is impossible. So why the censorship?
Ivermectin is a hilarious amount of censorship. I highly recommend you research and fully understand why. It has nothing at all to do with covid.
>. Despite being cursorily on the same topic, those aren’t the same conversation and only one of them was in good faith trying to learn the truth. If you grounded your statements in data and didn’t promise false certainty, you had nothing to fear.
> Why do you immediately go to an attack? How do you even know their political affiliation?
Two reasons: one is that the idea that there was mass censorship of scientific debate is a right-wing trope – anyone who was on Twitter knows that all of these topics were discussed continuously throughout without being censored, unless you crossed the line of making known false claims, personal attacks, etc. – and the second is that their list of purported victims is the right-wing grievance list, carefully worded to look more neutral if you weren’t already aware of the details. For example, they describe Robert Malone as “an internationally recognized virologist and immunologist” taking care not to mention that what lead to his Twitter account being banned was promulgation of known-false claims about Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine as cures and falsely claiming that the vaccines were cytotoxic. He was engaged in propaganda targeted at a particular audience, not science, and the careful selection of the purported victims and how they’re described makes it seem unlikely that this wasn’t intentional, as does the fact that the most charitable forms of these ideas were all extensively discussed by other who were not banned suggests that the reason was not scientific dissent but false claims, especially with regard to dangerous known-ineffective treatments.
Now look at who those groups are who distrust medicine the most. It is 'right winger priests' but also it's elected officials and journalists. They are generally speaking who got censored. Funny how so many medical professionals lost their job because they wouldn't take the vaccine? Weird.
But what is the consequences of this drop in trust? Less then half of people are getting the flu shot now. There was very low uptake on covid boosters.
So lets talk personally.
I am up to date on all sterilizing vaccines. I used to go first day for the flu shot, every year. I got 'fully vaccinated' for covid.
I never went for any boosters and haven't gotten flu shots since the censorship started. Seems to me the correct decision because I am unable to make an informed decision anymore. I believe I was intentionally misinformed about the covid vaccines. What's the medical profession's ethics on this?
I believe in the flu shot and similar, I think everyone should get the MMR, TDAP etc. But I'm censored from discussing the subject. Me and the many people like me are totally fine accepting that we are censored and we aren't going to get any more shots. If the medical profession thinks it's important for us to get our shots, perhaps they could try not censoring the subject?
>For example, they describe Robert Malone as “an internationally recognized virologist and immunologist” taking care not to mention that what lead to his Twitter account being banned was promulgation of known-false claims about Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine as cures and falsely claiming that the vaccines were cytotoxic.
I am vaguely familiar with Robert Malone. Looking at his wiki page, he literally is a doctor, is literally a person who worked on mrna and was censored. That wiki page is extremely biased, which is normal these days for political wiki. Clear political influence, not scientific or medical doing that.
I guess I'm not familiar with him because of censorship?
You're not helping your argument at all. Thanks for proving my case even more.
> That wiki page is extremely biased, which is normal these days for political wiki.
It’s interesting how you admit being unfamiliar with him, but instantly know that the things which were reported at the time must be false, presumably because it would be inconvenient for your political allies if not.
I certainly googled the person's name. I'm not sure why you focus on this random person. Counterpoint, perhaps no censorship happened and I never heard of them because I never researched enough? It doesn't matter to me.
I feel like you missed a great opportunity to explain why it's important to get vaccinated or get your flu shot.
The fight over 'how dare those right wingers believe lies' is completely moot isn't it. We obviously don't believe it's lies, but boy those consequences to public health measures when we decide no more shots thanks.
