Originally posted by dlhawes All very good points, thank you, though I think there are problems with the article you cited. First, there have never been any long term studies of the sort that could either prove or disprove the hypothesis. I have explained why it can take a really long time for symptoms to become noticable. Secondly, aluminum salts is the only adjuvant they discuss, and omit references to the neurotransmitter amino acids that are usually included. It does mention the fact that people vary a lot in the degree to which their immune system may be hyper-aggressive, which as it states, will make it very difficult to sort out what's really going on.
I think the problem here is that some folks may have rushed through what I actually said and assumed that I'm "anti-vaccine". While I agree that the majority should get one of the available vaccines, there is a limited group of people who should not have the vaccine for medical reasons. I think that the fact that almost all the "side effects" that have been reported are autoimmune disorder symptoms is telling. People who have that genetic characteristic have way too aggressive an immune system already and (1) don't need the vaccine, because their immune systems are already more than capable of producing the antibodies needed to allow them to remain asymptomatic (which is all the vaccine does, by the way, it doesn't keep the virus out of the body, what it does is provide a method of dealing with it when it does penetrate the outer defenses); and (2) the immune system triggering event the vaccine represents can be dangerous to such people (e.g., people with autoimmune disorder coming down with Guillian-Barre as a result of that triggering event). That may not apply to people who are taking various drugs and monoclonal antibodies designed to suppress their immune responses generally (e.g., things like Humira and methotrexate), who probably ought to be treated as normal people for vaccination purposes.
Oh, and the real killer isn't the aluminum salts, which do have a deleterious effect on metabolism of calcium (which is obviously an issue for autoimmune people, or it wouldn't have been used as an adjuvant). The real killer is glutamate or salts of glutamic acid. I noticed that not all the various flavors of vaccine contain glutamate, and I would predict that those will result in fewer serious side effects overall.
One more observation: the fact that I cited two articles doesn't mean that's all the reading I've done. I've done quite a lot of research on this topic over the past ten or fifteen years, since I happen to be afflicted with autoimmune disorder, myself.
I don't think it is clear if there is a pattern to who gets serious reactions to COVID vaccines and who doesn't. To me, it feels very random. Patients who are on immunosuppressant medications like hydroxychloroquine and methotrexate often have little reaction at all to the vaccinations. On the downside, when I have tested them after the fact, they often don't form antibodies to it, as well.
Unfortunately, I have seen plenty of people get sick who have autoimmune disorders and some of them get really sick. I am not sure that there is any way to predict that, although researchers have been working hard to identify specific genes that will trigger severe disease.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01827-w Originally posted by MarkJerling Who are you quoting? It may be better to use the forum's "quote" function.
Mask use is a problem because many of the masks being used, and the way they are used, have limited benefit for the mask wearer and others. If the correct types of masks were used, correctly, and regularly changed (correctly) for a fresh mask, then it would be a different matter, but that's not the case for the vast majority of users. I do support the use of masks on public transport and in other situations where it's necessary to be in close proximity to others, for instance when indoors in community spaces. We also see the problem of people who are not used to wearing masks constantly fidgeting and touching the masks they're wearing and their faces, thereby completely negating the benefit of wearing the mask in the first place.
I think if masks were correctly used, then it would really help, but the way they are generally used has marginal benefits, at best. What can really help is when every person who does have some sort of airborne infection uses a mask, correctly, and preferably, stay home until they're well and also practice good hand hygiene. I think we can learn a lot from some Asian countries where mask use, when the user is slightly unwell, is pretty much a given.
I think most people do stay home when they are feeling unwell. The issue is the groups of people who are pre-symptomatic (will develop symptoms in a couple of days, but are currently shedding virus) and low symptom people (have slight cough that they think are allergies). Those folks probably are a major driver of COVID spread.
Obviously masks are a mixed bag. Some are just a gaiter pulled over mouth and nose. Some people actually wear N-95s. Most are somewhere in the middle. My experience is that when COVID is hot in a community, people tend to do a better job of wearing masks and when its level drops, they ease off -- even before restrictions are pulled. Obviously, people aren't 100 percent mask wearers. They take them off when they are with friends, in eating establishments, and plenty of other times each day.
I think it is clear that even though people didn't wear masks perfectly, their use really curtailed influenza and respiratory season in most of the United States. It is also clear that COVID is quite a bit more contagious because it did (and does) continue to spread in communities with sub-optimal mask wearing procedures.