ADHD meds for VAIDS

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Is this where you read the words 'decades ago'?
You might want to read your link again.
I have bolded the bit you really need to read, to assist you, as I don't think you understood it, according to your post.

It's not in the link, it's from my original comment:

the concept is both hypothetical and highlight controversial, and is largely based on a single case study of a different virus and a different vaccine, and a different species, from decades ago.

You clearly didn't do your research, if you had, you'd know that the events that on which the article are based happened in the 1970s. Hence multiple decades ago.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: AaarghZombies
2015 wasn't decades ago.

Given that you're rehashing an old conspiracy, it seemed appropriate.

The paper in the link you kindly provided was dated 2015 (this)
... it's not old and it's not a conspiracy.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked. But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could create the ecological conditions that would allow hot strains to emerge and persist. This theory proved highly controversial when it was first proposed over a decade ago, but here we report experiments with Marek’s disease virus in poultry that show that modern commercial leaky vaccines can have precisely this effect: they allow the onward transmission of strains otherwise too lethal to persist.

Copied and pasted directly from your link.
journals.plos.org.../journal.pbio.1002198

a reply to: Ksihkehe

What you're saying is that multiple pharma companies in multiple countries simultaneously created products with the exact same flaw, in order to harness a phenomena that only existed hypothetically, and which has never been observed in humans with any other vax?

And which might create a slightly more dangerous version of a virus that kills less than 1% of the people that it infects, and then usually only if they are elderly or have multiple comorbidity.

AND they did it in the face of competing companies that used a completely different technology that would not only not have this flaw, but which would likely offer protection against any new variants that were created?

I've not seen a leap that big since I tried exploit that glitch in Spiderman on the PS4.

Why not just go the whole hog and blame it on space lizards. You know you want to.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: AaarghZombies
2015 wasn't decades ago.

Given that you're rehashing an old conspiracy, it seemed appropriate.

The paper in the link you kindly provided was dated 2015.... it's not old and it's not a conspiracy.

That wasn't the date of the conspiracy, that was the date of the leaky vax hypothesis.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: AaarghZombies

When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked. But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could create the ecological conditions that would allow hot strains to emerge and persist. This theory proved highly controversial when it was first proposed over a decade ago, but here we report experiments with Marek’s disease virus in poultry that show that modern commercial leaky vaccines can have precisely this effect: they allow the onward transmission of strains otherwise too lethal to persist.

Copied and pasted directly from your link.
journals.plos.org.../journal.pbio.1002198

That's the date that the hypothesis was proposed. It's based on events that happened in the 1970s.

a reply to: AaarghZombies
What conspiracy?

The date on the study that you provided a link for, is dated at the bottom of the page.....here is the link:this

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Elvicious1
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep better at night.

The person set forth a proposition and was resoundingly negated. The person supplied their resource and left it to debate, not insult. Intelligent discourse never entered the thread.
I stand by my words.
Prove otherwise.

They didn't leave the debate, they're well known for this, they aren't familiar enough with the subject to contribute once people start talking about science or math.

Who is "they"?
Why do you continue to insult?
What the hell is your point?
Are you really that obtuse or just an expert at obfuscation?
Why did your responses not address my point?
Thank you for proving my assertion: You and the others trolled this person because his belief did not align with yours. Period.
Again, prove me wrong. Show me how your responses were INTELLIGENT DISCOURSE.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Ksihkehe

What you're saying

I think your translator app is broken. What I said was

I'll assume all you future posts are sarcasm. It will make a lot more sense that way.

I should have included lies, my mistake.

If you would like to play "who claimed what" I'm more than willing to do that with quotes.

You haven't seemed eager to respond to actual science, just outlandish claims like OP. You have failed to ever quote me saying any of the things you've falsely claimed over the two years of astroturfing the forum.

If any of the COVID vaccine, mandate, hysteria, posters want to debate I'll gladly do so in the actual debate forum where you can't ghost when things get hot. There will be no specious bs from the peanut gallery to distract you from the very real facts that show I've been right.

We have lots of experts here. The more they support the vaccine they less they want to actually discuss science. Funny, that.

I don´t think it´s controversial at all. How can it possibly be? Science must have known this for decades.

If the "vaccine" let the virus mutate a resistant variant will have an advantage compared to others.

edition.cnn.com...

"The goal, they say, should be "to reduce infection of and transmission from vaccinated individuals," and to "reduce the possibility of variant selection in vaccinated individuals.

"COVID vaccines can't keep up with new Omicron subvariants"

news.yahoo.com...

"Mutations that confer resistance often develop in immunocompromised individuals whose immune systems do not effectively clear infections and thus allow multiple rounds of viral replication"

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

evolution.berkeley.edu...

This together with mass vaxxing seems insane. The world is like a giant gain of function lab.

"The approved COVID-19 vaccines, on the other hand, all target a single protein — and two of them only a short stretch of that protein. If mutations change the shape of that protein, it could easily make our vaccines less effective. Studies of this question are still underway, but the initial evidence is worrying. At least some of our vaccines seem to be somewhat less effective against some coronavirus strains now in circulation. Focusing on a single protein contributed to the record-breaking pace of COVID-19 vaccine development. But it also produced narrowly focused vaccines that could falter in the face of viral variation."

"We’ve had a polio vaccine for 65 years, a measles vaccine for 57 years, and a rabies vaccine for more than 100 years … and those viruses have never evolved resistance to the vaccines. They continue to work. The smallpox vaccine was so successful that, not only did no smallpox strains evolve resistance to it, but the virus was entirely eradicated. On the other hand, because of influenza’s rapid evolution, the flu vaccine usually works for a year or less. And we’ve yet to develop an effective vaccine against HIV, despite 35 years of trying. While some of the differences come down to quirks of each virus and the immune system, evolutionary theory still helps explain important patterns.

A big part of the explanation is variation: both genetic variation in the viral population, and the variation that our vaccines and immune systems are able to throw at the virus. Variation in the viral population is important because this is the raw material for evolution. A highly variable viral population (or a very large population, as we’ve allowed to happen with SARS-CoV-2 by not controlling its spread) is more likely to contain a variant that can evade an immune system primed by a vaccine — just by chance alone. And of course, when many people are vaccinated, any vaccine-resistant variants will be favored by natural selection."

"Harvard Epidemiologist Warns People About “Immune Escape” After New COVID-19 Vaccines.

In response to the many questions that he got regarding all of this, Harvard epidemiologist, immunologist, and physician Michael Mina went to Twitter to elaborate on why there’s also a great need for a contingency plan despite vaccines already reaching the public."


www.boredpanda.com...

More of the same?

"With immune escape to Omicron now seeming likely, the U.K. should follow other countries and extend fourth boosters for all At risk patients and over 50s.

Appreciate it doesn’t fit with the “Covid is Mild” narrative, but vaccines are what’s keeping severe disease rates lower."


twitter.com...

"Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein

The deployment of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 brings the question of mutational escape from antibody prophylaxis to the forefront. Rapid evolutionary evasion of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) poses a number of threats to biomedical interventions aimed at bringing the virus under control, namely the risk of reduced vaccinal efficacy over time as resistant variants continue to emerge (which may or may not be rectifiable with annual vaccine updates), the risk of waning effectiveness of natural immunity as a result of evasion of common nAbs, and the risk of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE)."

journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0250780

I just got an idea.

If you want to help and also perhaps make big money.

Then talk to medical scientists about this.

I assure you it is real.

Kali have told me many times. Was not sure if it was for VAIDS but i am now.

Don´t know what ADHD medication will help people but it should not be so difficult to find out perhaps right?

originally posted by: rickymouse
Some adhd meds are methyl donors, boosting methylation in the body protects a person from many viruses because it tightens up the dna and slows replication of everything, which gives people more energy at the expense of cells dividing. Niacin is the opposite and the body uses these two chemistries to balance things.

Coffee also contains chemistry...caffeine and caffeic acid, that has antiviral properties and also treats ADHD in people. By dampening repair of cells, it gives more energy to the brain to function properly I am guessing. The antidote for methyl and ethyl excess is niacin or nicotinic acid. Too much methyl can cause people to look older and also they get some problems with healing correctly, to pass a drug test the people take niacin but methyl and nicotinic acid will raise ammonia levels in the blood so they look for a high anion gap now in drug tests created from ammonia too these days.

Doing this from memory, so I might be a little off on this but it is generally correct.

A simple mint candy can elevate methyl in the body to help people avoid certain sicknesses....they used to have them at the cash register of restaurants years back. There are a lot of factors related to genetics involved with this too, a reason some people are more susceptable to viruses than others has relations to what I say too...epigenetic factors.

Very interesting. Thank you!