The Mining Play

Global Health Effects on Markets and Mining Stock

Can we admit that we don’t know it all? We need to update our knowledge base with new information constantly. This is an interesting fact we can’t avoid dealing with. The following are only a few short excerpts from a recent article as the full article is a long read. I have included only a few key points. This is a topic that is far too important for the readers on this forum to simply ignore. Why is the article so controversial? In retrospect, what was controversial about the Great Barrington Declaration?

Origin of Covid — Following the Clues
Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?

Nicholas Wade - May 2 - 43 min read

The Covid-19 pandemic has disrupted lives the world over for more than a year. Its death toll will soon reach three million people. Yet the origin of pandemic remains uncertain: the political agendas of governments and scientists have generated thick clouds of obfuscation, which the mainstream press seems helpless to dispel. …

A Tale of Two Theories

After the pandemic first broke out in December 2019, Chinese authorities reported that many cases had occurred in the wet market — a place selling wild animals for meat — in Wuhan. This reminded experts of the SARS1 epidemic of 2002 in which a bat virus had spread first to civets, an animal sold in wet markets, and from civets to people. A similar bat virus caused a second epidemic, known as MERS, in 2012. This time the intermediary host animal was camels. …
… It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Dr. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Dr. Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”
… And that’s it. These are the two arguments made by the Andersen group in support of their declaration that the SARS2 virus was clearly not manipulated. And this conclusion, grounded in nothing but two inconclusive speculations, convinced the world’s press that SARS2 could not have escaped from a lab. A technical critique of the Andersen letter takes it down in harsher words.

Doubts about natural emergence

Natural emergence was the media’s preferred theory until around February 2021 and the visit by a World Health Organization commission to China. The commission’s composition and access were heavily controlled by the Chinese authorities. Its members, who included the ubiquitous Dr. Daszak, kept asserting before, during and after their visit that lab escape was extremely unlikely. But this was not quite the propaganda victory the Chinese authorities may have been hoping for. What became clear was that the Chinese had no evidence to offer the commission in support of the natural emergence theory.

This was surprising because both the SARS1 and MERS viruses had left copious traces in the environment. The intermediary host species of SARS1 was identified within four months of the epidemic’s outbreak, and the host of MERS within nine months. Yet some 15 months after the SARS2 pandemic began, and a presumably intensive search, Chinese researchers had failed to find either the original bat population, or the intermediate species to which SARS2 might have jumped, or any serological evidence that any Chinese population, including that of Wuhan, had ever been exposed to the virus prior to December 2019. Natural emergence remained a conjecture which, however plausible to begin with, had gained not a shred of supporting evidence in over a year.

And as long as that remains the case, it’s logical to pay serious attention to the alternative conjecture, that SARS2 escaped from a lab. …

The records of the Wuhan Institute of Virology certainly hold much relevant information. But Chinese authorities seem unlikely to release them given the substantial chance that they incriminate the regime in the creation of the pandemic. Absent the efforts of some courageous Chinese whistle-blower, we may already have at hand just about all of the relevant information we are likely to get for a while. …

The main takeaways concluding the article are well worth reading, even if the length and detail of Dr. Wade’s revelations are absolutely time consuming to get through. Here are partial excerpts of where Dr. Wade puts the blame followed by a very small excerpt from the conclusion.

1. Chinese virologists

First and foremost, Chinese virologists are to blame for performing gain-of-function experiments in mostly BSL2-level safety conditions which were far too lax to contain a virus of unexpected infectiousness like SARS2. If the virus did indeed escape from their lab, they deserve the world’s censure for a foreseeable accident that has already caused the deaths of 3 million people. …

2. Chinese authorities

China’s central authorities did not generate SARS2 but they sure did their utmost to conceal the nature of the tragedy and China’s responsibility for it. They suppressed all records at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and closed down its virus databases. …

3. The worldwide community of virologists

… Virologists knew better than anyone the dangers of gain-of-function research. But the power to create new viruses, and the research funding obtainable by doing so, was too tempting. They pushed ahead with gain-of-function experiments. They lobbied against the moratorium imposed on Federal funding for gain-of-function research in 2014 and it was raised in 2017. …

4. The US Role in Funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology

From June 2014 to May 2019 Dr. Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance had a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, to do gain-of-function research with coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Whether or not SARS2 is the product of that research, it seems a questionable policy to farm out high-risk research to unsafe foreign labs using minimal safety precautions. And if the SARS2 virus did indeed escape from the Wuhan institute, then the NIH will find itself in the terrible position of having funded a disastrous experiment that led to death of more than 3 million worldwide, including more than half a million of its own citizens. …

In Conclusion

… The US government shares a strange common interest with the Chinese authorities: neither is keen on drawing attention to the fact that Dr. Shi’s coronavirus work was funded by the US National Institutes of Health. One can imagine the behind-the-scenes conversation in which the Chinese government says “If this research was so dangerous, why did you fund it, and on our territory too?” To which the US side might reply, “Looks like it was you who let it escape. But do we really need to have this discussion in public?” …

If ignorance is bliss, you probably are better off not bothering to see what it is that has caused such a stir in the news lately. After all, does it really matter who is responsible for the devastation and upheaval this virus has caused across our world? Actually, we all know it matters. The truth is always worth the knowing. If you have an inquisitive mind, then read the full article in the link.

(https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038)
Spike Proteins on Corona Virus

Well China, if you say it came from a wet market why are they
ALL NOT SUT DOWN??? Didn’t you have a couple other human killing viruses come from the same type of markets??

At this point in time, it is a near certainty that the virus escaped a lab in Wuhan from infected lab researchers in November 2019. China has done what they could to spin the story in other directions using their considerable influence but there is no getting around it. It likely all began in a copper mine filled with bat guano in 2012 that infected workers cleaning out the tunnel and became sick/died and later studies done on this particular virus sequence being studied at Wuhan. It is possible that the virus may have been altered at the lab but that might be pushing it a bit. Yes, the U.S. may have even helped fund some of the research to add insult to injury.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/25/timeline-how-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-suddenly-became-credible/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&twclid=11398435274321956866

1 Like

When the Washington Post does a 180 degree turn on it’s stories over how the pandemic started, it’s probably past time to wake up and pay attention. The theory of Lab Origin for the SARS CoV2 virus was never a fringe conspiracy theory. It was the most likely origin theory that needed to be suppressed, so it was repeatedly reported and labelled as a fringe theory with no supporting facts. The opening line from the above posted article link by MG begins like this:

The source of the coronavirus that has left more than 3 million people dead around the world remains a mystery. But in recent months the idea that it emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) — once dismissed as a ridiculous conspiracy theory — has gained new credence.

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/25/timeline-how-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-suddenly-became-credible/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&twclid=11398435274321956866)

The embedded links does give the WP’s article the appearance of legitimacy and being well researched, but these “facts” have come out continuously over the past year and been largely ignored. The WP article recounts numerous snippets of news (with links) from the past 16 months pointing to the same conclusion that Nicholas Wade enumerated in his detailed article more than 3 weeks ago. Many journalists and scientific spokespersons over the past year chose to recount the Big Lie meant to cover-up what was so obvious to many. International politics is really very complicated with consequences needing to be weighed before policies are implemented or removed. It is quite obvious that China has a lot of leverage over global commerce in technology and health care. It really points to the problem governments have with conflicting goals in avoiding blame. Is the only course misreporting, or at least misrepresenting what governments “know” but cannot tell? Dr. Wade alluded to this quite succinctly in his conclusion when he said:

" In Conclusion
… The US government shares a strange common interest with the Chinese authorities: neither is keen on drawing attention to the fact that Dr. Shi’s coronavirus work was funded by the US National Institutes of Health. One can imagine the behind-the-scenes conversation in which the Chinese government says “If this research was so dangerous, why did you fund it, and on our territory too?” To which the US side might reply, “Looks like it was you who let it escape. But do we really need to have this discussion in public?” …

Why is this coming out in the open now? Both the much shorter WP article and Nicholas Wade’s article should be read to reach an informed conclusion. What policies need to be enacted?

There is improvement in those being testing.

Just when you thought it might be safe to take your mask off; new report out. The Delta variant(aka India variant) is taking over. A full 30% of deaths from this variant have happen in the fully vaccinated. It is 66% more infectious than the highly infectious U.K. variant. It is hitting the younger crowd much harder than previous variants as well. It now is the fastest growing variant in the U.S; already dominant in the U.K. Mostly driven by politics/business interests, the U.S continuously seems to open things back up just a little too soon before the science says its safe.

??? Mostly driven by politics/business interests, the U.S continuously seems to open things back up just a little too soon before the science says its safe.

Maybe you could expand on this …

Thanks in advance…

Politicians(not just conservatives), local governments, business are constantly interpreting various CDC guidance in a way that suits their own interests. They choose to be exceptionally optimistic.

Classic example is CDC saying that vaccinated don’t have to wear masks which promoted businesses to allow the vaccinated to not wear masks when inside their premises. Nice but ignores that fact that many nonvaccinated are entering stores without masks and of course nobody is checking or really has the ability to check. Restaurants are also now mostly completely open which is just about the worse place for COVID spread.

Another example is the enormous pressure to reopen schools without most school age children being vaccinated and choosing to ignore the growing threat of the variants which pose to younger people with the most infected age range being 12 to 20 years old where delta variant is present.

1 Like

Several news stories came out about the Delta Plus variant. The Delta variant in India has mutated further into a variant that has to potential to be worse. There is an increased risk that the current RNA vaccines will be rendered ineffective but not enough data yet.

The continued takeaway is that a return to more COVID restrictions is all but evitable. Simply too many cases World-wide allowing for too many opportunities for further mutations.

Chile shutdown as well.

Not only do we have the delta and delta plus variant to worry about, lets please welcome the epsilon and gamma variants! The gamma variant appears to have the highest hospitalization rate associated with it and maybe outcompeting the delta variant.

No comment needed…this graphic says it all.

Mike, do you have any information as to the breakdown of new cases re: fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, 2nd infection (and vaccinated), 2nd infection (never vaccinated), no vaccination or previous infection?

I have seen a few studies but there is no real consensus on what the numbers are. Too many variable involved and the true numbers won’t be available until the smoke clears. Part of the problem is that states provide the feds with variant data that is several weeks old so hard to compare that to current data. There is also a considerable lag time for hospitalizations to happen and deaths to occur.

I do know that fully vaccinated are having no trouble at all in catching the delta variant and spreading it around. It seems that they are much less likely to actually be hospitalized but even that isn’t completely rock solid.

For instance, in the very highly vaccinated country of Israel, 60% of those in the hospital in serious condition have been fully vaccinated. This isn’t exactly a vote of confidence for the vaccines. 'Pfizer COVID vaccine significantly less effective against Delta variant' - The Jerusalem Post

Here is another example. In the country of Malta, basically every adult has been vaccinated with the RNA version yet look at the chart. (What isn’t clear is that will the new cases result in excess deaths/hospitalizations which will be obvious in one month.)

Wiz,
Some “numbers” for the Delta strain as recently reported…

Israel National News [reports]> (Natural infection vs vaccination: Which gives more protection? - Israel National News) that this data was presented to the Israeli Health Ministry and yielded the following breakdown of breakthrough infections of those vaccinated vs. those with prior infection:

With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.

By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave .”

The Delta variant will likely become the dominant strain in the US, but it is unlikely to have an impact that overwhelms the nation’s hospitalization capacity. Most new cases are well managed therapeutically. The unvaccinated are clearly at the greatest risk. The “numbers” being reported as a percentage misrepresent the actual risk to an individual.

From the CDC:

Reported Cases

The current 7-day moving average of daily new cases (26,306) increased 69.3% compared with the previous 7-day moving average (15,541). The current 7-day moving average is 89.6% lower than the peak observed on January 10, 2021 (251,880) and is 129.3% higher than the lowest value observed on June 20, 2021 (11,472). A total of 33,797,400 COVID-19 cases have been reported as of July 14.

33,797,400
Total Cases Reported

26,306
Current 7-Day Average*

15,541
Prior 7-Day Average

+69.3%
Change in 7-Day Average since Prior Week

What was the original goal of lockdowns? Wasn’t the goal of interventions to prevent overwhelming hospitals with so many patients that care could not be provided? We are well beyond that, but unless we use common sense supported by sound science instead of bureaucratic decision makers we face a real potential for greater harm than from the direct harm inflicted by this virus.

It was recently reported that the median age of death from Covid-19 in the US was 83. Somewhat surprising given the median age at time of death from all causes pre- Covid-19 was 80. Hmmm.

Aside from the Delta and Gamma strains, the military recently (June 25, 2021) reported that of 302,685 total cases of Covid-19, 26 deaths were reported. I would surmise that the survival rate for healthy younger adults is currently very high, and in the military a 99.991% survival from COVID-19 (or a death rate of 0.009%)!

COVID-19 deaths reported in the U.S. as of July 7, 2021, by age

Published by John Elflein, July 14, 2021

Between the beginning of January 2020 and July 7, 2021, of 596,740 deaths caused by COVID-19 in the United States, around 177,322 had occurred among those aged 85 years and older. This statistic shows the number of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths in the U.S. from January 2020 to July 2021, by age.

Number of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths in the U.S. as of July 7, 2021, by age*

There is a great amount of controversy in the scientific community. Unfortunately there is censoring of some of the most significant information that greatly impacts the young. The facts show the psychological and physical harm from vaccinating and masking children far outweigh the potential benefits.

Just opinion or fact - Time will Tell
Covid Variants will be around seasonally, just like the common cold, for years to come.
This does not mean that testing positive to those who have been vaccinated or those who have natural immunity from having recovered from Covid need some of the extreme measures being contemplated.
It appears that seasonal influenza has more severe effects on children than Covid. Is this a result of T cell long lasting natural immunity? Additionally, adults who have been vaccinated appear to be largely protected from the most severe effects of re-infection. If you are in a risk group and have not been vaccinated it is something that should be considered and largely recommended unless contraindicated.
Below are a couple of excerpts (the articles are long) from some recent articles of interest.

The Flimsy Evidence Behind the CDC’s Push to Vaccinate Children

The agency overcounts Covid hospitalizations and deaths and won’t consider if one shot is sufficient.

By Marty Makary
July 19, 2021 1:52 pm ET

… My research team at Johns Hopkins worked with the nonprofit FAIR Health to analyze approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with Covid in health-insurance data from April to August 2020. Our report found a mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition such as leukemia. If that trend holds, it has significant implications for healthy kids and whether they need two vaccine doses. The National Education Association has been debating whether to urge schools to require vaccination before returning to school in person. How can they or anyone debate the issue without the right data?

…The CDC’s poor performance isn’t limited to kids or vaccine safety. Early in the pandemic the CDC left us all flying blind by not reporting the medical conditions of those who died of Covid. Collecting the information early would have made it easier to protect nursing-home residents and patients with renal failure or diabetes. It took until March 2021 for the CDC to report that 78% of Covid hospitalizations were among overweight or obese patients.

Most striking, the CDC has never systematically collected and reported the No.1 leading indicator of the pandemic – daily new hospitalizations for Covid sickness. Instead, the CDC offers the lagging indicator of hospitalization for anyone who tests positive for Covid.

No, Delta doesn’t mean the vaccinated — or children — need to mask up again

By Post Editorial Board

July 20, 2021 | 6:43pm

The vaccines almost eliminate the risk of severe illness and death from all variants. Public Health England found that Pfizer’s vaccine is 96 percent effective at preventing hospitalization due to the Delta variant. And the United Kingdom, where Delta surged after being first identified in India, has seen new cases dramatically drop in the last few days, from 54,674 on Saturday to 39,950 on Monday. In Israel, where about 60 percent of people are vaccinated, only 1.6 percent of COVID cases have become critically ill; it was 4 percent before vaccines were available.

Indeed, the data on Delta are “reassuring,” Drs. Leslie Bienen and Monica Gandhi wrote in The Wall Street Journal. Delta cases actually correlated with lower COVID hospitalization rates.

And calling for kids to mask up is ridiculous, Delta or no. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine prof Marty Makary and his research team analyzed childhood COVID cases and found “a mortality rate of zero among children without a pre-existing medical condition such as leukemia.” He notes that an “asymptomatic child who tests positive after being injured in a bicycle accident would be counted” as a COVID hospitalization.

(No, Delta doesn’t mean the vaccinated — or children — need to mask up again)

Pretty much complete nonsense and no wonder…Marty Makary is a Fox News lackey.
One doesn’t have to go any further than understanding the notion the unvaccinated kids remain a very important vector is spreading the virus to unvaccinated/vulnerable adults. This reason alone is enough to call for taking any reasonable measures to protect them from catching/spreading it.

Not to mention that COVID has killed thousands of kids world-wide and startling number of kids are showing signs of Long COVID…up to 30% by some accounts. Long COVID basically translates into brain damage.

And then the author seems to minimize the problem suggesting it is only an issue with high risk kids as if they don’t matter or not worth considering or perhaps they will just die anyway so why bother with them?

FYI…those here note that the current projection is that there will be peak of infections in the U.S. in middle October. It will peak and decline after that as basically every man, women and child in the U.S> will have been exposed the delta variant in one way or another as is so contiguous that it really can’t reasonable be avoided without the complete set of countermeasures like masks, social distancing above and behind what was needed for the Alpha variant.

For those that are still unvaccinated, good luck…

2 Likes

Some people would do better to read what they are opposing before making irrational emotional posts. MG, did you even read the Great Barring Declaration when it came out, or were you one spreading what the propagandists in the mass media were spreading and vehemently opposing it? Most of those opposing it had never even bothered to read it and followed others blindly in opposing it. If it had been followed as an endorsed official policy it would have saved many, many lives. I’ll post it again and you can let everyone know if you still think it is complete nonsense. FYI - There is a great deal of science supporting the role of T cells and long lasting natural immunity gained by previous exposure to Covid and Corona viruses, especially in children’s immune systems. Governmental bureaucrats don’t always get it right and the mass media has censored far too much information that is later shown to be correct.

The Great Barrington Declaration

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:

Dr. Martin Kulldorff , professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta , professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya , professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.

SIGN THE DECLARATION

Co-signers

Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners

Dr. Alexander Walker , principal at World Health Information Science Consultants, former Chair of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, USA

Dr. Andrius Kavaliunas , epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden

Dr. Angus Dalgleish , oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, England

Dr. Anthony J Brookes , professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England

Dr. Annie Janvier , professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada

Dr. Ariel Munitz , professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Boris Kotchoubey , Institute for Medical Psychology, University of Tübingen, Germany

Dr. Cody Meissner , professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA

Dr. David Katz , physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USA

Dr. David Livermore , microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, England

Dr. Eitan Friedman , professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Ellen Townsend , professor of psychology, head of the Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, England

Dr. Eyal Shahar , physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA

Dr. Florian Limbourg , physician and hypertension researcher, professor at Hannover Medical School, Germany

Dr. Gabriela Gomes , mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland

Dr. Gerhard Krönke , physician and professor of translational immunology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany

Dr. Gesine Weckmann , professor of health education and prevention, Europäische Fachhochschule, Rostock, Germany

Dr. Günter Kampf, associate professor, Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Greifswald University, Germany

Dr. Helen Colhoun , professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr. Jonas Ludvigsson , pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden

Dr. Karol Sikora , physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, England

Dr. Laura Lazzeroni , professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA

Dr. Lisa White , professor of modelling and epidemiology, Oxford University, England

Dr. Mario Recker , malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England

Dr. Matthew Ratcliffe , professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, England

Dr. Matthew Strauss , critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada

Dr. Michael Jackson , research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

Dr. Michael Levitt , biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA.
Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Dr. Mike Hulme , professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, England

Dr. Motti Gerlic , professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Partha P. Majumder , professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India

Dr. Paul McKeigue , physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr. Rajiv Bhatia , physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USA

Dr. Rodney Sturdivant , infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA

Dr. Salmaan Keshavjee , professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, USA

Dr. Simon Thornley , epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Dr. Simon Wood , biostatistician and professor, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr. Stephen Bremner ,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England

Dr. Sylvia Fogel , autism provider and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA

Tom Nicholson , Associate in Research, Duke Center for International Development, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, USA

Dr. Udi Qimron , professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer , professor and expert in virology, immunology and cell biology, University of Würzburg, Germany

Dr. Uri Gavish , biomedical consultant, Israel

Dr. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu , professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England

Selected Information from CDC for review that I found useful in drawing some of my conclusions and opinions are shown below in graphical form. Others are welcome to draw their own conclusions from all available information. There is no validity to any science without weighing and comparing all available information, including opposing scientific views:

From the above information it is clear to me that severity of Covid-19, not necessarily the incidence, is largely decreasing for a number of reasons. From the last chart above, it is clear that Obesity, Hypertension and Metabolic Disease (i.e. Diabetes) are the main factors contributing to negative outcomes from contracting Covid-19. The risk from the vaccine is minimal compared to the risk of the disease to individuals that have any one or more of the risk factors shown in the graph above. The 1st graph shows that once vaccines were widely available, hospitalizations from those with Covid-19 on board diminished dramatically. The middle graph shows that deaths have stabilized for the most severely affected.

Same selective cut & paste crap, eh “easy”? Not hard to find 30+ right wing wackos in any circle (even ones with puffed-up experience). I’ll trust the tens of thousands of experts leaning the opposite direction on this issue, but hey, you keep being you!