While I await Brilliant Inspiration to create my next blogosaurus (and BTW, I’ll be asking your opinion on that, below, so hang in there), I thought I’d do a little updating, question-asking, and picture-posting.
I found this on Pixabay while looking for scrap (old illustrators’ term pre-Internet) for a drawing.
It wasn’t what I was looking for, but wow.
A heads-up and a question related to the forums
As of Saturday we have a new participatory feature at the Living Freedom Forums. It’s a weekly sticky thread in which members can share the latest progress on their preparedness, ask questions, post new finds, and give advice.
These strange and scary days I hope all experienced preppers are buffing up their storage goods, equipment, and skills, and that non-preppers are making a good start. Wherever you are in disaster preparedness, the group at the forums is a great one to trade info with.
This came up on the forums, but it’s related to what some of you have (or haven’t) experienced in the real world, particularly if your real world is the United States.
If you’ve taken COVID shots (any of the varieties available), were you asked to sign consent forms for participating in research, and specifically were you given a separate form with large-print warning of the possibility that the inoculation could lead to antibody‐dependent enhancement (ADE) of disease if you did happen to catch COVID?
This study is from a peer-reviewed journal (for whatever that’s worth, these days) and found on PubMed Central, a National Institutes of Health site.
It was published last year before any of the current vaccines won Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). But given that drugs under EUA are still experimental even though widely distributed, the requirement for consent the authors write about seems still to apply. The study’s authors clearly believe that even after full approval, which none of the COVID treatments have earned yet, patients should still receive such warnings.
Results of the study
COVID‐19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralizing antibodies may sensitize vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralizing antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID‐19 disease via antibody‐dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID‐19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.
Conclusions drawn from the study and clinical implications
The specific and significant COVID‐19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, as well as those being recruited for the trials and future patients after vaccine approval, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.
This isn’t conspiracy theory material. A big reason there isn’t yet the proverbial vaccine for the common cold is that previous tests of coronavirus immunizations have ended in disaster before ever reaching the stage of being tested on humans. As I understand it (and of course I’m neither a doctor nor a medical researcher), test animals would at first show what looked like appropriate immune-system response, then become deathly ill when exposed to the actual virus. (This article from the beginning of the pandemic isn’t the best but it gives a brief, user-friendly picture of the problem.)
According to this study quoted above, even people who understood they were participating in research (pre-authorization) didn’t receive enough information to give informed consent. I’m wondering if that’s changed for you who are still getting any of these experimental treatments.
And in other cheery COVID news …
You may have heard by now (though probably not via the mainstream media) that The Salk Institute (also not an outfit inclined to conspiracy theories) says that the spike protein alone, completely aside from any virus it contains, is dangerous. And that COVID is a vascular disease.
This could help explain “long COVID,” in which patients fail to recover fully after months. And if The Salk Institute’s claim is true — still an if — explain how post-vac disease may eventually manifest itself in mysterious heart, lung, liver, and other internal organ maladies.
(H/T to S for both the above medical items.)
But seriously now, on to a genuinely cheery development …
In the summer of 2018, I showed you a wonderful thing that The Wandering Monk did for me on the spur of the moment. He created me something akin a greenhouse window, even though he started that work day off having no idea what a greenhouse window was.
It was nifty, but on that day still unfinished. To wit:
Finishing the interior was supposed to be a winter project for 2018.
Then a winter project for 2019.
Well, spring 2021 arrived and here we are:
Looking good, yes?
FINALLY, what topic should my next blogosaurus cover?
A. The role of the Freedom Outlaw Cockapoo in the age of hyperinflationary government largess (a take-off on April’s post on the importance of Freedom Moles.)
B. How good freedomista women can encourage good freedomista men (and vice versa)
C. Books and movies for building strong, determined, courageous boys
D. Something else — and if so, what?
Please comment away!