New guidelines from the CDC Friday bring Covid precautions in line with with those of other respiratory viruses like the flu.
Here are the new CDC guidelines for respiratory viruses including COVID, flu and cold.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Really? An associate of mine just died of covid at age 58.
Sure, COVID is now aligned to a flu, BUT the FDA still considers COVID an “EMERGENCY” because if it wasn’t the Emergency Use Authorization would not be valid and the related vaccines would not be able to be liability free. Yoda might say: Corruption is (still) strong with this one.
I honestly do not understand why anyone would ever listen to the CDC about anything at all.
Agreed.
Because people that do not, tend to die more
Depends on what you’re listening to them about. Child immunization for Covid? Nope, there the people who listened tended to die more.
As i think i already said here on NBF I have a Ph.D. in molecular biology (focused on cancer bioligy and susceptibility to infections in relation to cellular ageing) so i tend to listen to experts opinions in the relevant fields. While EVERY therapy and drug has side effects, the scientific consensus on vaccines (including the relatively new RNA vaccines developed against covid19) is that antivax fear mongering is baseless and pseudoscience at best. Conspiracy theories want us to believe that WHO the CDC and all the experts are joined in a secret pact and support eachother in covering some dark secret. This is false and naive, researchers compete for funding (public and private) human resources and prestige. If your colleague publish/develop something false/ineffective/harmful you are the one better positioned to spot the error and gain advantage from pointing it out. Even here on NBF expert opinions are praised (like the one’s if GoatGuy and other regular contributors that clearly know their stuff). I find the demonization of expert opinions quite absurd and a cheap way to bost the ego of scientifically illitterate crowds. That being said if you can provide me peer reviewed artucles backing your claim i will read them.
Expert opinions in nuclear energy are worthless. The experts just want to raise funds for their pet projects. There’s truth in jest that 99% of scientists agree with whoever’s funding them… drug companies in this case. You can keep your RNA shots; I’ll keep mine unadulterated.
You got it backwards: scientists want to be founded, sure, but those that pay scientists are interested in NEW stuff. Vaccines are a 200 years old concept and even standard vaccine production is decades old. The novax movement already before covid was claiming that all the immunologists and vuroligists were involved in a project to spread autism, yet this powerful Brotherhood that had billions, decades of headstart and a well established projectbto destry mankind from theur position of power could not prevent the arrival if a radically new tech. There is no conspiracy. Newer products and ideas replace the old ones. There is always someone that remains behind, that thinks horses are better than cars, steam is better than oil and so on… They usually think that they are special and enlightened. The rest of the world just moves on.
Your “experts“ don’t have the right to inject anything into MY body. Is that farking clear?
As a Phd you probably already have read the sentence “There was no conflict of interest.” at the end of medical papers. There is a reason for this sentence. If you understand this reason you have your answer.
Companies should not perform there own safety/approvel tests. Period. See Volkswagen and Boeing in the recent past.
Experts said that it is possible to create a non addictive opiod and thought it was a great idea to prescribe it for joint pain. Look up “opiod crisis” to learn more about that.
Experts from Johnson and Johnson found it was a good idea to continue selling baby powder that causes cancer. Parents might disagree with this….
I think you get the point. Science works if the scientific method is applied without conflicts of interest. Science does not work if politics and funding is involved. Simple truth.
I was rather busy, or I’d have gotten back to you sooner.
I would identify two groups for which the CDC’s earlier recommendations likely outright failed, rather than simply exaggerated, a rational cost/benefit analysis: Healthy juveniles, and people who’d already had Covid.
In the case of the juveniles, virtually the entire Covid mortality/morbidity was limited to children with pre-existing medical problems such as diabetes. This subset of children might sensibly have been given the vaccine. But healthy children derived essentially no benefit at all from it, they got nothing but harm. And yet, the CDC recommended the vaccine for everybody above the age of 6 freaking months!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9347915/
They were insisting on vaccination for the population at the very least risk from Covid, but who had an elevated risk from the vaccine!
In the case of adults, the CDC insisted on vaccination recommendations which completely failed to take into account whether somebody had already HAD Covid, (By the time the vaccine was available, a fairly large fraction of the population!) and thus already had the immunity the vaccine was intended to induce. This group, too, got no benefit from the vaccine, only harm.
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101
And the CDC knew this: After you’d been vaccinated, they only recommended the reduced dose booster. Why? Because vaccinating people who are already immune carries an elevated risk of adverse reactions.
The exact same reasoning applied to people who’d already had Covid, and yet the CDC not only recommended that we get the full series, but saw to it that the booster was not available to us. (I had to schedule the full series, and just skip the second dose, just to approximate being boosted. And I still got a lot more of the vaccine than they’d have given to somebody who had been previously vaccinated.)
In both cases I think bureaucratic convenience was displacing medical science.
I’d add that a great deal of the risk from the Covid vaccine probably derives, not inherently from the vaccine, but instead due to a change in recommended injection protocols that was rolled out before the pandemic. Previously it had been recommended that the needle be put in, then an attempt be made to draw rather than inject. If you got blood, you were in a blood vessel and needed to relocate in order to avoid injecting into the blood stream rather than solid tissue.
They no longer do this, and the adverse cardiovascular side effects are likely a result of injecting the vaccine directly into the blood stream, resulting in the injection site inflammation occurring instead in the heart and vasculature.