Elon Musk should buy Actualized

[Rokazulu]

2 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Rokazulu

   I don't see how it's connected to the mainthread, like is it tbe free speech issue? The misinformation in internet?

   Mostly from CNN and other reputable sources, and a few from my own direct experience. Also had an Uncle who caught Covid 3 times, the first 2 times he never had a vaccine, got it when he went bike riding in the Scotland area when this virus was spreading, and suffered terribly. The third time was after he was vaccinated twice and experienced much less suffering from the virus, but the virus was so bad it may have traumatized him. It ain't no cold or flu.

Yes, free speech (within moderation). Misinformation could be an assumption.

That is a good story. Though, I hear some viruses are less painful than others.

[Rokazulu]

1 minute ago, Hardkill said:

“Yeah, but we don’t know enough about the possible long-term negatives effects of these vaccines. We need wait at least 5-10 years....” says the fool.

Do you know the long-term negative effects? We do know the positive effects of a healthy immune system.

I am just a mirror, by the way.

[SeaMonster]

I don't understand why people complain about censorship on the forum.  Leo is the owner of the forum and is going to censor based upon his preferences and opinions of how things oughta be.  This is not a free speech forum.  Leo has particular political and philosophical beliefs and he wants to promote these beliefs.  So people who think that's a bunch of crap should stop whining and either find another forum or start their own.

Leo follows the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

[yetineti]

@RokazuluYou misunderstood what I was calling stupid. But I misunderstood you as well. 
 

Nonethless, yeah, lol, ideally. But also, this forum was almost specifically designed to help people who do not realize they are their own authority and the seriousness of these topics requires moderating.

[Hardkill]

19 minutes ago, Rokazulu said:

Do you know the long-term negative effects? We do know the positive effects of a healthy immune system.

I am just a mirror, by the way.

The experts on this matter know about the long-term negative effects of it from extensive years of research and testing on both this virus and on different vaccine methods. The mRNA COVID vaccine for decades has had such exceptional success that it even surpasses the effectiveness and safety that of the viral vector COVID vaccine. It even is a lot more efficient to create an mRNA vaccine than it is with the viral vector vaccines (the usual types of vaccines which have a deadened version of the virus). That's why the virologists, other related medical scientists, bioengineers, medical doctors, etc. were able to greatly reduce the time needed to study and test the both the efficacy and possible long-term negative effects of taking any of the COVID vaccines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvA9gs5gxNY

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Rokazulu said:

Tell me how you came to that conclusion that it was the vaccine that saved millions of lives and not the immune system.

Most Covid deaths and hospitalizations are from the unvaccinated. If you don't know this you shouldn't even be having this discussion.

Just the fact that I have to explain such a simple and basic point to you boarders on you spreading misinformation. You are speaking on a topic that you are not properly informed or educated on, and your free speech floods the zone with shit.

[undeather]

2 hours ago, Rokazulu said:

Tell me how you came to that conclusion that it was the vaccine that saved millions of lives and not the immune system.
 

Multiple clinical trials, hundreds of epidemiological analyses (comparing vaccinated/unvaccinated cohorts), the fact that we know how immunity works down to the tiniest detail, the fact that we have experience with vaccines and how they work against infectious diseases for at least 70 years, the fact that we can measure the antibody response and see a 1:1 causal link with fewer deaths....and so on....

Also: My personal, direct experience as a MD working in a hospital, as well as everyone who works in the intensive care unit who sees that approx. 80% of our patients with severe covid there did not get the vaccine, as well as basically 99% of doctors, nurses and health workers around the world who deal with  patients every day. 

 Either all of us are lying and deceiving, a huge conspiracy with millions of actors ...or....maybe the anti-vaxx clowns are just wrong. 

[zurew]

7 hours ago, vladorion said:

Just google "when science was wrong" and you'll get plenty of examples.

But this is vague. I was asking about the vaccines, how they are wrong on the vaccines right now?

 

7 hours ago, vladorion said:

I don't see how that contradicts anything. Sure, every corporation wants to make more money and outcompete other corporations.

THe point is, that some holes would be shown because they are incentivised to do so. 

 

7 hours ago, vladorion said:

etc, all are their “agenda contributors”. Check different people who are pushing vaccine mandates. Most of them you can find as WEF’s agenda contributors. Now, learn what their agenda is and tell me it’s not connected to vaccine mandates, vaccine passports etc.

How that makes the vaccine bad? Money making on some drug doesn't make it automatically bad. With every good leading drug you can earn millions or billions of dollars.

 

7 hours ago, Rokazulu said:

Also, if you say "you can't just make a protocol for billions of people" then what exactly are the vaccines for? There are more effective strategies that do not involve lockdowns, masks, and mandates.

 I was talking about a 'healthy immune system' protocol. How would that even look like. And again a healthy immune system is super vague in an of itself. How people are gonna change their whole lifestyle everywhere across the globe? Do you know how much money would it take , how much planning,and even then most people couldn't do it. You are completely ignoring the people who have really bad conditions , who can't exercise, who have a number of different diseases already, who are fat and can't just lose weight in a few days, those who have addictions , those who are really poor and can't afford a better diet or lifestyle etcetc.

Would you force people to have a better lifestlye? If not, then how your messages would have helped here, because you are not saying anything new with the 'just focus on being healthy' most people who care about their health they already have a healthy lifestlye, others who do not give a damn, they don't and your message won't change that. 

If your answer is yes, then how is your forcing other people is different positively in any way compared to the vaccine mandates? You would be forceing people to spend a lot of money, energy and time which is a much more invenstment on their part, if we compare it with the vaccine, where you just need to go to a place, you get your shot and go home.

7 hours ago, Rokazulu said:

Choice needs to be the point here. If you continue consuming the same diet suggested in the 1950's, you will likely undergo some type of disease. But, if you believe the vaccine is safe and effective, you should also have access to it.

The problem with the choice, is that even if the vaccine would be 100% effective for everyone, and it wouldn't have any side-effects people would not try it, because it comes from the mainstream. One of the biggest points was to give the vaccine to as many people as possible, because it slowed down the infection rate. If we maintain a pro-choice policy in a soicety where you can find a lot of people who just anti-vaxx and only care about themselves and not giving any shit about others, then it becomes a problem. One of the things spirituality should teach you, is to not be highly fixated only on yourself, but to take a very low risk of having some side effects to protect others around you and yourself. Again its about probabilities not black-white (that it either 100% works or not).

 

7 hours ago, Rokazulu said:

I don't see any evidence that can back up the claim that it will be more severe if you do not have the vaccine

I don't understand , how you see no evidence, when i can just google it under one minutes. This is why most of us thinks and assumes, that you are little bit anti-vaxx because this information can be found pretty easily. If you really tried to be objective about this subject, then this information shouldn't be suprising for you or hard to find.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status

https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf

Edited April 23, 2022 by zurew

[Hardkill]

3 hours ago, Rokazulu said:

Tell me how you came to that conclusion that it was the vaccine that saved millions of lives and not the immune system.
 

Let’s compared the stats for between the COVID pandemic and the Spanish flu  pandemic (which was the most previous kind of worldwide pandemic that occurred).

Spanish flu 1918 pandemic:

- virus killed approximately 25–50 million (generally accepted), other estimates range from 17 to 100 million throughout the entire world.

- about 500 million people worldwide were infected with the disease to varying degrees of severity.

- pandemic lasted for a little over 2 years (from February 1918 to April 1920)    

- estimated population of the whole world from 1918-1920 was about 1.8-1.9 billion.

- no vaccine or strong treatment of any kind was available for this virus

COVID-19 pandemic:

- Approximately no more than 6.21 million people have died from this virus.

- about 500 million people worldwide have been infected with the disease to varying degrees of severity.

- pandemic has lasted for more than 2 years (from December 2019 to present)

- estimated population of the whole world is currently 7.9 billion.

- various brands of highly effective and 99.99% safe vaccines and pills for this virus have been available for most of the general public worldwide and will of course continue to become increasingly accessible until practically every single living human on the planet can get vaccinated and easily get COVID pill prescribed by their nearest doctor.

Taking a look at the difference between the outcomes of each these viral pandemics you’ll see that there were MANY TIMES more people in the world per capita who were infected and killed by the spanish flu virus than those who have been infected and killed by the COVID-19. The major reason for this difference is not just because of the use of lockdowns for this virus and no lockdowns in the past for the Spanish flu. It’s really because there was no vaccine or even an effective treatment at all for the Spanish flu, whereas there has been incredibly effectively vaccines and pills for either preventing you from getting infected with COVID or at least saving you from dying or even being hospitalized (unless you have a disease that makes you immunocompromised). Even if you are 65+ years old you’ll have about a 95% chance of not dying or even being hospitalized as long as you are fully vaccinated and boosted (unless you are maybe 100+ years old and/or have a disease that makes you immunocompromised)

[a7xKingz]

The point here is being missed. 

The point here is that information backed up by DATA should be permissible and needs to be permissible in a topic about science. 

Science is changing, science is evolving, conclusions change, data appears, again, science is an evolving topic. 

I see a lot of people here posting things that they really shouldn't be posting. 

 

Like the user saying that mRNA vaccines were in development for 30 years and for that reason, virologists and vaccinologists need to be trusted with what they're doing and saying. 

To this user I would ask, do you even know how an mRNA vaccine works ?

An mRNA vaccine contains genetic coding to get your body to produce whatever it is you want it to produce. 

 

In this case the mRNA vaccines produce the spike protein of the virus. 

Was the spike protein of this novel virus being studied for 30 years ? 

 

No, because it is a novel virus and novel protein, therefore you don't know what you are talking about. 

There is now a plethora of studies showing that the spike protein is an extremely toxic protein. 

 

I think if you are using appeal to authority as your argument for anything, you really shouldn't be posting anything at all. 

I see people in the "pro-vax" camp posting crap from google that I know very well they don't understand. 

And I've also seen people in the "anti-vax" camp posting stuff that probably isn't that helpful to people either. 

 

That being said, I do not think censorship is the answer because this is an evolving topic, and there is a lot of science that supports things on "both sides". 

I can say that the vaccines have most likely saved many lives, but also say at the same time that their effectiveness is not very long lasting and that there are some safety issues with the products (based off of DATA, of which there is plenty if you actually dive into it and not just resort to appeal to authority). 

Admitting that is NOT grounds for censorship. Censoring such information is harmful. 

I often don't like developing camps, "anti-vax", "pro-vax". I think developing such camps is a slap in the face to science. 

Science is not religion, it is evolving and not often black and white. 

 

How does censorship of things that promote "vaccine hesitancy" help a vaccinated person that ends up getting Covid because they didn't realize their antibodies waned over time ? 

I have mentioned that there are treatment options for Covid, which is backed up by copious amount of data, but that makes me an anti-vaxer and dangerous. 

But what was more harmful in the end, that information being available and widely known, or the vaccinated person that now has Covid that has no idea what to do because they weren't informed of such information ?

 

We need to stop acting like science is black and white, because it isn't. 

Please, data driven discussions are a MUST. Saying that something is impermissible because the CDC said so is NOT science. 

 

 

 

[zurew]

5 minutes ago, a7xKingz said:

and there is a lot of science that supports things on "both sides". 

So far nothing been provided to support the antivaxx claims.

 

5 minutes ago, a7xKingz said:

I see people in the "pro-vax" camp posting crap from google that I know very well they don't understand. 

Thats not a criticism, break those things down and call it out how those things are wrong.

So when someone provides stats that are facts, the only thing you can come back with is that 'that user probably don't understand it, so it is wrong'

9 minutes ago, a7xKingz said:

There is now a plethora of studies showing that the spike protein is an extremely toxic protein. 

Lets see those peer reviewed studies.

13 minutes ago, a7xKingz said:

Was the spike protein of this novel virus being studied for 30 years ? 

 

No, because it is a novel virus and novel protein, therefore you don't know what you are talking about. 

Thats totally reasonable when a pandemic breaks out to fear the vaccines based on 'what if they have long term bad side effects' and wait for everyone to die thanks to covid 19 compared to get the vaccine and significantly lower the deathrate and infection rate.

Society couldn't just sit around and wait for something that is 100% effective and bulletproof.

 

16 minutes ago, a7xKingz said:

I have mentioned that there are treatment options for Covid, which is backed up by copious amount of data, but that makes me an anti-vaxer and dangerous. 

Those links that you just provided in the other thread were really weak. None of them were peer review-ed ,  most of those methods require significant money from the individuals and they are all completely ignore the nuances of the problem of just focusing directly on your immunesystem boosting (ignoring handicapped individuals, poor people who can't afford lifestyle change, people who can't workout, people who are addicts and thanks to their addicitons they have a really weak immune system) and most of them didn't have that much trials on them.

So again you trust those drugs much better when they only have a few thousand tries on them compared to the vaccine which has billions of tries on it. You provided no studies that show how those methods are more effective compared to the vaccines.

So far we only know from you sources that your solution would be more expensive, less reachable for most people in the world, less reliable because of the lack of data on them, would require a huge significant change from people to change their life around, spend a lof of energy and time and money from their own pocket.

Also what i could observe from your studies, that there were information that contradicted you, and you clearly haven't read everything about those links that you provided. I could argue back using the links that you provided, that should make you think how you approach this subject.

You made others claims in your thread like "It's very clear these are unsafe products. " (this is not true, you can google it under 5 seconds)  and now you want to play the 'i am trying to be objective' claim, when you are clearly not even trying to be objective. 

 

 

31 minutes ago, a7xKingz said:

I can say that the vaccines have most likely saved many lives, but also say at the same time that their effectiveness is not very long lasting and that there are some safety issues with the products (based off of DATA, of which there is plenty if you actually dive into it and not just resort to appeal to authority).

So far the pros are significantly outweighs the cons.

 

31 minutes ago, a7xKingz said:

Admitting that is NOT grounds for censorship. Censoring such information is harmful. 

WHo is censoring that information? You can easily find information about the side effects on peer reviewed studies too. Its not like that is a secret.

 

35 minutes ago, a7xKingz said:

How does censorship of things that promote "vaccine hesitancy" help a vaccinated person that ends up getting Covid because they didn't realize their antibodies waned over time ? 

 What are those things that were or are being censored? ( I am asking for information here that is factually correct, not just a big narrative without anything holding it back up)

[Shawn Philips]

On 21/4/2022 at 11:16 PM, something_else said:

Aliens and UFOs are ultimately harmless things to discuss, and very thought provoking too

I have no idea what the second thing you mentioned there is

A lot of the pro-trump, right wing or anti-vax stuff is potentially much more harmful than talk about UFOs

The flat earth theory is also harmless. Talking about secret societies like the illuminati, masonry, jesuits is also harmless. Discussing about the origins of humanity from the annunaki theory, extraterrestrial origin is also harmless. 

We have to separate real dangerous hate speech like nazi propaganda, racism, sexism.. from harmless things.

I've seen users banned just because their harmless theories were labeled by Leo as crazy conspiracies.

[Rokazulu]

12 hours ago, Hardkill said:

The experts on this matter know about the long-term negative effects of it from extensive years of research and testing on both this virus and on different vaccine methods. The mRNA COVID vaccine for decades has had such exceptional success that it even surpasses the effectiveness and safety that of the viral vector COVID vaccine. It even is a lot more efficient to create an mRNA vaccine than it is with the viral vector vaccines (the usual types of vaccines which have a deadened version of the virus). That's why the virologists, other related medical scientists, bioengineers, medical doctors, etc. were able to greatly reduce the time needed to study and test the both the efficacy and possible long-term negative effects of taking any of the COVID vaccines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvA9gs5gxNY

 

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Most Covid deaths and hospitalizations are from the unvaccinated. If you don't know this you shouldn't even be having this discussion.

Just the fact that I have to explain such a simple and basic point to you boarders on you spreading misinformation. You are speaking on a topic that you are not properly informed or educated on, and your free speech floods the zone with shit.

Quote

I don't understand , how you see no evidence, when i can just google it under one minutes. This is why most of us thinks and assumes, that you are little bit anti-vaxx because this information can be found pretty easily. If you really tried to be objective about this subject, then this information shouldn't be suprising for you or hard to find.

9 hours ago, Hardkill said:

 

Taking a look at the difference between the outcomes of each these viral pandemics you’ll see that there were MANY TIMES more people in the world per capita who were infected and killed by the spanish flu virus than those who have been infected and killed by the COVID-19. The major reason for this difference is not just because of the use of lockdowns for this virus and no lockdowns in the past for the Spanish flu. It’s really because there was no vaccine or even an effective treatment at all for the Spanish flu, whereas there has been incredibly effectively vaccines and pills for either preventing you from getting infected with COVID or at least saving you from dying or even being hospitalized (unless you have a disease that makes you immunocompromised). Even if you are 65+ years old you’ll have about a 95% chance of not dying or even being hospitalized as long as you are fully vaccinated and boosted (unless you are maybe 100+ years old and/or have a disease that makes you immunocompromised)

 

 

I have to admit. The vaccine triggers an immune response which is therefore possible that this alone was enough for the immune system to be more effective in preventing death in certain cases. Though, again it is the immune system that is taking out the virus, and not the vaccine. I guess they say that the vaccine has a fallout of several months and then you need a booster so that would suggest you need to keep taking a booster every so often or it isn't effective. Which makes me wonder why that is necessary if I could trigger the immune response naturally. If that really effective for some people to do?

https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/88036/jaw-dropping-academic-study-shows-natural-immunity-superior-to-covid-vaccine

The vaccine has caused several deaths as well, and has the possibility of causing many more.
https://yournews.com/2021/12/08/2262859/report-shows-nearly-300-athletes-worldwide-collapsed-or-suffered-cardiac/

But, how are we to determine it was the vaccine that caused these deaths and not... as some articles suggest... climate change? I feel it is up to our choice in the manner, and not the government. I would rather be spending these billions of tax dollars on solar, unconditional basic income, and houses for homeless, and subsides for organic produce. I still don't feel everyone needs a vaccine. Some actually prefer to use Ivermectin as it costs pennies, and is off patent. I would not even want to have Ivermectin mandated for me. No thanks.
https://www.brightworkresearch.com/how-the-media-lied-about-japan-not-using-ivermectin-for-coronavirus/



The thing is, can we agree that mandating was a hasty move? I am a healthy 33 year old unvaccinated individual. Please inform me why I need to take the vaccine if I know I won't die from any disease in the future.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Rokazulu

[zurew]

@Rokazulu we are looping right now. This discussion is not productive anymore, because i can bring up my past points to answer the questions that you came up with. You keep asking questions that already been answered before.

 

[Rokazulu]

32 minutes ago, zurew said:

@Rokazulu we are looping right now. This discussion is not productive anymore, because i can bring up my past points to answer the questions that you came up with. You keep asking questions that already been answered before.

 

Just go back to the beginning of the loop, then. I can change my position. I pretty much already did. See! You can help with the sharing of ideas!

Edited April 23, 2022 by Rokazulu

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Rokazulu said:

The thing is, can we agree that mandating was a hasty move? I am a healthy 33 year old unvaccinated individual. Please inform me why I need to take the vaccine if I know I won't die from COVID.

You may won't be effected by the virus in a very serious way because you are a healthy individual but you can't be sure. There were people who were high level athletes and when they got the virus they had to go to the hospital with very severe symptoms. Also keep in mind that you can catch the virus multiple times, and also there were people who had to go to the hospital multiple times, even though immunity would be assumed after the first catch. So catching the virus can significantly help you to deal with the second catch if you get it again, but it isn't bulletproof.

Does it likely that you will be hospitalized by it? I don't think so, but you can't know that until you catch it. The only thing you can know, that by taking the vaccine you can lower your chance to get hospitalized by the virus significantly. Also even when doctors say nowadays that there is a really high chance that everyone will catch the virus and we can't do much about it, it does really matter, how fast everyone get infected by it. Again its an argument about hospitals not getting flooded by covid19 patients (by taking the vaccine ,you can slow down the infection rate, so you are helping health workers)

 

There is this argument, that there shouldn't be any regulations because we should let through the virus across everyone because that way we can achieve herd immunity in a much faster way. there are some problems with that suggestion.

Firstly, if we would have done that way, then our whole healthcare system would have collapsed, and hospitals would have been full with covid19 patients, and there would have been a lot more deaths. This argument would only work in a reasonable way, if we had such a covid variant which is much less severe. But then again its a difficult ethical argument, cause how many elder and weak people's death worth achieving herd immunity.

Edited April 23, 2022 by zurew

[Rokazulu]

15 minutes ago, zurew said:

You may won't be effected by the virus in a very serious way because you are a healthy individual but you can't be sure. There were people who were high level athletes and when they got the virus they had to go to the hospital with very severe symptomps. Also keep in mind that you can catch the virus multiple times, and also there were people who had to go to the hospital multiple times, even though immunity would be assumed after the first catch. So catching the virus can significantly help you to deal with the second catch if you get it again, but it isn't bulletproof.

Does it likely that you will be hospitalized by it? I don't think so, but you can't know that until you catch it. The only thing you can know, that by taking the vaccine you can lower your chance to get hospitalized by the virus significantly. Also even when doctors say nowadays that there is a really high chance that everyone will catch the virus and we can't do much about it, it does really matter, how fast everyone get infected by it. Again its an argument about hospitals not getting flooded by covid19 patients (by taking the vaccine ,you can slow down the infection rate, so you are helping health workers)

 

There is this argument, that there shouldn't be any regulations because we should let through the virus across everyone because that way we can achieve herd immunity in a much faster way. there are some problems with that suggestion.

Firstly, if we would have done that way, then our whole healthcare system would have collapsed, and hospitals would have been full with covid19 patients, and there would have been a lot more deaths. This argument would only work in a reasonable way, if we had such a covid variant which is much less severe. But then again its a difficult ethical argument, cause how many elder and weak people's death worth achieving herd immunity.

Yes. I just feel more emphasis can be placed on achieving a healthier immune system.

If the immune system cannot create immunity to the virus after the second catch, then of course the vaccine won't be able to achieve that either, because the vaccine works on the same principle. People are susceptible to disease because they are eating meat, dairy, refined sugars, gmos, and glyphosate every other night, drinking impure water, and breathing in impure air. They have no concept of fasting. They aren't exercising every day. They aren't breathing correctly, and have no concept of meditation. I can only suggest that this would be a more effective of a strategy for our health officials to consider keeping people out of hospitals. Not to say that you can't have the vaccine if you feel it will help your immune system. But, it seems as though, there has been a great emphasis on the vaccine being a panacea to the virus and future viruses.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Rokazulu

[zurew]

12 minutes ago, Rokazulu said:

I feel more emphasis could have been placed on achieving a healthier immune system (and can still be). If the immune system cannot create immunity to the virus after the second catch, then of course the vaccine won't be able to achieve that either, because the vaccine works on the same principle. People are susceptible to disease because they are eating meat, dairy, refined sugars, gmos, and glyphosate every other night, drinking impure water, and breathing in impure air. They have no concept of fasting. They aren't exercising every day. They aren't breathing correctly, and have no concept of meditation. I can only suggest that this would be more effective of a strategy. Not to say that you can't have the vaccine if you feel it will help your immune system. But, we can't consider it a panacea to the virus.

This is why i said, that we are looping.

I agree with you, that more people should have a healthier lifestyle, but lets be realistic here. This message that you should be eating healthily, you should exercise, you should have a less stressful life etcetc been given since the beggining of time. Most people don't give a damn about it, and people who give a shit about it, already doing it. And again there are people who can't afford any big change, or can't do big change because he/she don't have enough money, have addictions, have severe illnesses, being old etcetc (and i am talking about people who are the most likely to get hospitalized or be dead by the virus). So the group who is the most vulnerable for the virus would have a very serious and bad time, if we would only be using your solution. So overall the vaccine approach is still relevant and effective.

Also when you say this: "If the immune system cannot create immunity to the virus after the second catch, then of course the vaccine won't be able to achieve that either, because the vaccine works on the same principle." you are doing the 'its either works 100% or not work at all' priciniple again. If you combine the vaccine with a virus catch you have a bigger immunity compared to the situation where you wouldn't have the vaccine but you would have 1 catch of the virus.

Edited April 23, 2022 by zurew

[The0Self]

On 4/21/2022 at 0:55 PM, something_else said:

He censors anti-vax and pro-trump stuff. That's about the only stuff I've actually seen him censor

It's better if some things are censored. Otherwise it's just a free for all of untrue but seemingly plausible ideas that further confuse people. Unfortunately you can't get around this.

[Rokazulu]

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

This is why i said, that we are looping.

I agree with you, that more people should have a healthier lifestyle, but lets be realistic here. This message that you should be eating healthily, you should exercise, you should have a less stressful life etcetc been given since the beggining of time. Most people don't give a damn about it, and people who give a shit about it, already doing it. And again there are people who can't afford any big change, or can't do big change because he/she don't have enough money, have addictions, have severe illnesses, being old etcetc (and i am talking about people who are the most likely to get hospitalized or be dead by the virus). So the group who is the most vulnerable for the virus would have a very serious and bad time, if we would only be using your solution. So overall the vaccine approach is still relevant and effective.

Also when you say this: "If the immune system cannot create immunity to the virus after the second catch, then of course the vaccine won't be able to achieve that either, because the vaccine works on the same principle." you are doing the 'its either works 100% or not work at all' priciniple again. If you combine the vaccine with a virus catch you have a bigger immunity compared to the situation where you wouldn't have the vaccine but you would have 1 catch of the virus.

The vaccine approach is relevant if you place emphasis away from health, yes.

It is just my perspective, that the emphasis of the vaccine is not as productive as the emphasis on achieving a healthier immune system. The immune system can detect any virus, and destroy any disease if you allow it to function properly. With or without a vaccine.

Can the vaccine enhance a weakened immune system? Absolutely. You have shown me evidence of that.
Can it enhance a perfect immune system? Of course not.

It is ok to loop around this. That is necessary to grasp the idea of what is being said.