181–190 of 287 posts
Either way, if not covid, then I think at least the lockdowns did have an impact on my health and ability to stay fit.
I think I'd attribute my newfound slowness to lockdowns, rather than COVID? Lack of practicing talking and remembering stuff is bad for talking and remembering stuff, and it definitely happened long before I caught COVID, because I caught COVID super late
Why do you assume that you weren't asymptomatic?
40.5% of people who contract the virus have no symptoms.Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rule number 1: don't argue with conspiracy theorists, they will come up with all sorts of nonsense. >„Fact checkers“ have been shown again and again to be politically biased up to active manipulation. Only people who always agree with the politics they want to push have not noticed at this point. Have they? Show me some of those manipulated fact checkers, please. With reputable sources, I'm not inclined to read bulls…
You seem to be really emotional about this. Need to say, the psychogram of those who defend pharma relentlessly to this day is very interesting. I see anger, insults, trampling onto what an obviously fascist authority teached them at the end of 2021 is „below them“ to elevate oneself. Ignorance of obvious data, sidelining. By now I have seen enough actual data - and on top of that a lot of sad „anecdata“ in my direct…
I'm not, don't worry :)
>Need to say, the psychogram of those who defend pharma relentlessly to this day is very interesting. I see anger, insults
The only one who is hurling insults and seems quite angry is you.
>fascist authority
ah yes, just call regulatory agencies "fascist", that makes total sense.
>attaching a label because it soothes you mentally
once again an insult instead of data
>The little section you got from google translating is a government-approved interpretation of this data
No it's not. It's what scientists say. Are they fascists too now?
The title is misleading, at least on the IQ claim. The underlying study was observational and did not claim causation. Medical journals and their associated media summaries are awash with low-certainty studies that get de-nuanced and overhyped. These studies are relatively easy to do - not to denigrate the work put in by the original study authors (it’s not their fault the press sensationalize their work). But for st…
Could it be just a correlation? Maybe something like people with lower IQ are less likely to do a job where they can work from home so they are more likely to have been exposed to the virus?
I went through a mild COVID-19 infection, and felt the sluggishness in my brain for quite some time. I think I recovered, but it was a jarring experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, in that case, good that Australia isn't the only country in the world: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde... which clearly shows that all-cause deaths in England were higher among the unvaccinated. Here is a Reuters fact check: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/no-evidence-link-uk-exces...
The UK ONS data used to have the obvious flaw that people dropping dead 3 days after their first dose were defined as „unvaccinated“. In this regard, the significant uptick in deaths in summer 2021 in „unvaccinated“ looked interesting to say the least. How are they doing their definitions now? Could not find it. Meanwhile this new Dutch data looks quite interesting, maybe someone here would like to give it a shot: ht…
> For the first mRNA vaccination, almost all [hazard ratios], for the different weeks after vaccination and different subgroups, are significantly lower than 1, which indicates a reduced risk of non-COVID-19 death shortly after vaccination.
Obviously vaccination is not supposed to reduce your risk from things unrelated to COVID-19 yet in their data it does. This isn't because it's some magical cure-all. It's because their data is biased. The correct hazard ratio is found only in the 12-49 age group.
As they say in their discussion, this is because "in the event of a very short remaining life expectancy, (a subsequent dose of) COVID-19 vaccination may be decided against ... Vaccination is also postponed in the event of a fever ... This is also called the 'healthy vaccine effect' and it is difficult to correct for this in observational research ... the results should be interpreted with caution"
They also have the problem that "people who have been vaccinated, but have not given permission for registration in CIMS, have been incorrectly classified as unvaccinated (5 to 7 percent of the people)" which means that "This will have influenced the analysis of the risk of death after the first vaccination, because in this analysis the unvaccinated person time served as a reference"
So this dataset is not usable for detecting vaccine side effects or induced deaths. It is a hopelessly corrupted dataset in which large numbers of people are misclassified and it's not a randomized study.
But this is public health research, so after saying results should be interpreted with caution they go ahead and make the totally incautious claim that "Based on these results there are no indications at a population level that COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of death due to an adverse event." which is a false statement. Their data doesn't allow them to draw such conclusions.
The reason this topic is neuralgic is because if you want to be scientifically correct then you can't actually know whether vaccines reduced deaths or not, but people really want to believe they did. The trials that were supposed to unambiguously measure this failed, in the sense that they showed no effect on deaths and yielded incorrect conclusions about reductions in infection rates (the number started at 95% effective and then was regularly revised, this is not supposed to happen and was due to their time windowing problems). Then attempts to measure it using mass datasets collected outside of RT context all yield incorrect conclusions due to dataset bias, but are presented as definitive anyway for political reasons.
Science is truly in a bad shape :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a very math-heavy competitive hobby which I found myself suddenly very bad at (relative to my previous performance) for 6-8 weeks after all my other covid symptoms were gone. I appear to have recovered within 90 days, but I don’t know if I was left with permanent damage or not. I had no way to objectively test.
Your competitive performance level seems like a pretty objective way to test
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet the zinc conspiracy is not the craziest thing that users has posted regarding COVID.
[flagged]
Zinc is not used to treat symptoms, the mechanism (observed in a test tube) is that intercellular zinc inhibits RNA virus replication.
Zinc supplementation above the RDI is NOT recommended for treatment of covid. Long term excess zinc can cause potentially irreversible neurologic manifestations (i.e., myelopathy, paresthesia, ataxia, spasticity).
Source: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/sup...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's less misleading then you might think. There are cases (enough to not be treated as just some random coincidence; with and without vaccination) where people after Covid had a sever reduction of cognitive abilities that they have problems filling out relatively simple forms. So we can clearly speak of a reduction of IQ. And while there is a lot of research needed and a lot of open questions and already half a year…
I do not think IQ tests are meant or designed to measure effects from illness. We do not say that IQ drops when you are sick with the flu and have high fever that makes it hard to think. IQ does not drop when you wake up groggy in the morning up until you drink coffee. I am not sure why people use IQ here instead of referring specifically to brain fog and other symptoms of post-COVID infection. IQ does not drop when…
If “intelligence” is just the degree/quality of someone’s brain function then your intelligence does drop when your brain function is impaired, and you would expect that to be picked up in an intelligence test.
Culturally we may want to imagine intelligence as something constant and innate to somebody’s soul, but in reality it’s innate to a fragile and fickle organ inside your skull.
Accelerated brain decay with the last and current politics in the planet is basically guaranteed.