Natural immunity

[JasperL]

Already answered it. Can't you read?

Actually, you didn't.

1) what are the [age] adjusted COVID death rates/million for FL and CA, specifically?

2) 2) "A bit better" is useless drivel. How much is a "bit" and how did you determine that FL did a "bit" "better" than CA?

Actually, the ones who need to provide credible verifiable evidence are the ones...

....making claims about what that evidence shows. You are making those claims and backing them up with nothing. Don't excuse your own failures here with BUTWHATABOUT?!! You claim to be an expert in science and research. If you are, you know how this works - claims are only as good as the evidence backing them up. Show your work, or else rational people will dismiss your claims as baseless, partisan BS.

 

[JasperL]

78% is a pretty darn big "factor". I wish people would also stop with the "it's too hard" routine about weight loss. I remember in driver's ed being told to “look where you want to go.” The idea is you are most likely to steer in the direction you’re looking, That bit of advice fits most aspects of life. Weight loss included. Repeating over and over that "it isn't easy" only makes it harder - hence the failure rate.

I don't think it's that easy. I doubt if you know anyone obese who hasn't tried many times to lose weight and keep it off, and the 95% or greater failure rate indicates that maybe it's not about effort, but that most traditional CICO-based 'diets' simply fail long term.

In this country we've recommended low fat, high carb diets for about 50 years and every year obesity gets worse and worse. At some point we should look to that basic advice for what's failed. Same with "hey, just eat a little less and exercise more and the weight will come off" advice. Something that fails more than 9 of 10 who try it is failed advice, and we can't assume that 1 in 10 was the only one who tried hard enough.

 

[screenwriter]

I don't think it's that easy. I doubt if you know anyone obese who hasn't tried many times to lose weight and keep it off, and the 95% or greater failure rate indicates that maybe it's not about effort, but that most traditional CICO-based 'diets' simply fail long term.

In this country we've recommended low fat, high carb diets for about 50 years and every year obesity gets worse and worse. At some point we should look to that basic advice for what's failed. Same with "hey, just eat a little less and exercise more and the weight will come off" advice. Something that fails more than 9 of 10 who try it is failed advice, and we can't assume that 1 in 10 was the only one who tried hard enough.

maybe 9 out of 10 were convinced they can't do it because they are supported by people like you to remain the way they are.

 

[JasperL]

maybe 9 out of 10 were convinced they can't do it because they are supported by people like you to remain the way they are.

OK, I guess society can keep blaming fat people, if what they want is to feel better about themselves. Otherwise, I'd think we'd recognize the evidence....

But maybe it will work eventually. That's rational right? Sure, the advice we've been promoting has made the problem worse, every year, with no letup in sight, so let's double down on THAT!!! WIN!! It's not the advice!!! It's the people who have failed US!!!

FWIW, I just lost about 50 pounds, so I'm not sure how I support those who don't lose weight. I also ignored the traditional dietary advice, almost entirely, to do that. I started reading about diet and weight loss, obesity, T2 diabetes, to try and understand and maybe help my brother in law, who is morbidly obese and on a fast train to an early death. I might start a thread about it, but the tl/dr conclusion is our government and healthcare system have failed us, miserably, on diet and nutrition advice for decades, and something needs to change. I know how I did it, and it was very easy for me, but what we don't know is if it works for others. We need the studies. What we don't need are more studies showing traditional nutrition and CICO based weight loss diets fail the obese - that finding has been replicated 100s of times, and it's conclusive - 95% or more failure, every time.

 

[Lycanthrope]

As with most things, natural is better. The immune system gets a better understanding of the virus if it is exposed to the whole virus, not just one of its proteins. Of course the medical authorities are saying the opposite, but they are lying to us for our own good.

This comment is so full of nonsensical (and dangerous) gibberish I don't even know where to begin.

What good is having an immune system with "a better understanding of a virus if exposed to the whole virus" if such exposure leads to death?

 

[bubbabgone]

Show us a single example of CDC claiming that?

What they are saying is that natural immunity PLUS vaccines is better than natural immunity alone - that's been backed up by multiple studies.

They do now. They probably felt obliged.
" ... a new study published on Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that finds that natural immunity offers far weaker protection than does a vaccine."

Vaccine confers better protection than natural immunity, CDC finds

A study published on Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that natural immunity offers far weaker protection against COVID-19 than a vaccine does.

news.yahoo.com

 

[JasperL]

They do now. They probably felt obliged.
" ... a new study published on Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that finds that natural immunity offers far weaker protection than does a vaccine."

Vaccine confers better protection than natural immunity, CDC finds

A study published on Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that natural immunity offers far weaker protection against COVID-19 than a vaccine does.

news.yahoo.com

Or....that's what the data show.

Here's the study:

Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 Among Adults Hospitalized ...

This report describes mRNA COVID-19 vaccine recipients as having greater immunity from COVID-19 infection than previously infected, unvaccinated persons.

www.cdc.gov

 

[screenwriter]

OK, I guess society can keep blaming fat people, if what they want is to feel better about themselves. Otherwise, I'd think we'd recognize the evidence....

But maybe it will work eventually. That's rational right? Sure, the advice we've been promoting has made the problem worse, every year, with no letup in sight, so let's double down on THAT!!! WIN!! It's not the advice!!! What the people who have failed US!!!

FWIW, I just lost about 50 pounds, so I'm not sure how I support those who don't lose weight. I also ignored the traditional dietary advice, almost entirely, to do that. I started reading about diet and weight loss, obesity, T2 diabetes, to try and understand and maybe help my brother in law, who is morbidly obese and on a fast train to an early death. I might start a thread about it, but the tl/dr conclusion is our government and healthcare system have failed us, miserably, on diet and nutrition advice for decades, and something needs to change. I know how I did it, and it was very easy for me, but what we don't know is if it works for others. We need the studies. What we don't need are more studies showing traditional nutrition and CICO based weight loss diets fail the obese - that finding has been replicated 100s of times, and it's conclusive - 95% or more failure, every time.

You couldn't have it any more backward. The overweight should be blaming society. Society is working so very hard against them to convince them they can't lose it in the first place. And not only that they can't - but that they "shouldn't" - just change the definition of "normal" to encompass the abnormal and all is solved. Society shouldn't be feeling "better" about themselves - they should be ashamed.

With your attitude - good luck keeping it off. Based on what you've said, you have the negative mindset that tells you you won't - it's your paradigm through which you operate. Good thing about paradigms is they can shift.
We really don't need any more studies. The subject has been studied ad nauseum. There isn't one instance where CI<CO doesn't result in weight loss and CI=CO that doesn't result in weight stabilization (unless we are talking a cancer diagnosis of the extremely rare metabolic disorders that cause calories to store as fat instead of being burned - quite fatal conditions both.)

What's failing the obese is ignoring the psychological mindset of an obese person that programs/dooms them to failure.
Everyone is so hung up on the 95% diet failure rate - they ignore the fact there doesn't have to be a 95% failure rate.
There's a wonderful analogy called the 5 monkeys - about how stupid notions can become the majority thinking.

So monkey says we have to accept a 95% failure rate and do nothing about it - and we'll beat the crap out of anyone who dares suggest otherwise.

Covid is the perfect storm. A disease that has a higher morbidity and mortality rate predominantly in the overweight and obese - just happens to come along at a time in history where there is a GLOBAL obesity pandemic. Almost like sewing seeds into a fertile ground instead of casting them upon rocks.

If I had my way Dr. Nowzaradan would be surgeon general. He gets it and he could directly address our number one health crisis. He's never afraid to tell the patient to address their psychological barriers to weight loss. 8 out of the top 10 causes of death in America are directly linked to obesity. Cancer is on that list too but I didn't count it as only a portion of cancers are obesity related.

 

[RealityChecker]

That assumes that the death rates by age in both states are the same, and they are not. CA has lower death rates for 65 and over, and for those under 65. I'm not going to show my work, because you haven't, but I took the 5 minutes it takes to do a very rough adjustment by age. I took CA's population, assumed the same elderly rate as FL (about 21%) then used CA actual death rates by age group (under 65, then 65 and over, taken from this link) to estimate deaths for CA, assuming the CA had the same percent 65 and over as FL. The death rates per million were:

FL - 2,660 - unadjusted - I'm adjusting to FL's elderly rate
CA - 2,400 adjusted, versus 1,888 unadjusted.

Now I've just done far more work than you've shown in dozens of posts. So how do you argue Florida did better, now that we've adjusted for age, and nothing else? CA has lower death rates per million for under 65 (905 FL, 650 CA) , over 65 (9,303 FL, 9,022 CA), and overall (2,660 FL, 2,400 CA, adjusted for age).

Well you tried but apparently my hints did not help much!??! Perhaps I assumed you were better at math than you are?

So let's start with your unadjusted 1,888 COVID deaths per million raw data for CA. That does seem a lot better than FL's raw data unadjusted 2660 deaths with COVID per million residents. So for 2021 the best estimate I could find for FL was 19.36% of the population is 65y or older. And for CA the best estimate for 65y and older residents was 13.21%. So let's use those numbers.
19.36 - 13.21 = 6.21. Now divide 6.21 by 13.21 = 46.55. So to age adjust CA to see how it would do with as many older people as FL we expect 46.55% more deaths with COVD.

1888 X 1.4655 = 2767, right?

So 2767 is a bit higher than 2660, right?

Now, there are some other more complex adjustments we need to make because for example as I hinted FLs over 65y populations is not only 46.55% larger than CA's, but it is also a bit older on average. But all the other statistical adjustments I did mostly do not make much difference net-net so id you can simply admit the truth that the properly age adjusted death rate for CA is almost certainly a bit higher than FL. Of course, both CA and FL have far better age-adjusted COVID mortality rates than NY & NJ which as I recall were close to 4000/million. I don't want to make this too complicated because I realize most of the people here are not statisticians or mathematicians. So I am trying to keep this discussion as simple as possible.

So can we agree that FL does have a bit better age-adjusted deaths with COVID than CA and much better than NY and NJ?

 

[RealityChecker]

I don't think it's that easy. I doubt if you know anyone obese who hasn't tried many times to lose weight and keep it off, and the 95% or greater failure rate indicates that maybe it's not about effort, but that most traditional CICO-based 'diets' simply fail long term.

Well it is hard to lose weight and keep it off unless one is willing to understand what it is about the diet that promotes excessive calorie intake. That would be a diet with more calorie dense low fiber foods, a great % of calories from beverages, and consuming foods or calorie containing drinks when not hungry. Sadly, the government bureaucrats and even most nutrition researchers have not figured that out.

I see I failed to educate you about what the nutrition research does and does not show promotes obesity. Hard to teach people whose minds are closed to reality.

 

[RealityChecker]

You couldn't have it any more backward. The overweight should be blaming society. Society is working so very hard against them to convince them they can't lose it in the first place. And not only that they can't - but that they "shouldn't" - just change the definition of "normal" to encompass the abnormal and all is solved. Society shouldn't be feeling "better" about themselves - they should be ashamed.

With your attitude - good luck keeping it off. Based on what you've said, you have the negative mindset that tells you you won't - it's your paradigm through which you operate. Good thing about paradigms is they can shift.
We really don't need any more studies. The subject has been studied ad nauseum. There isn't one instance where CI<CO doesn't result in weight loss and CI=CO that doesn't result in weight stabilization (unless we are talking a cancer diagnosis of the extremely rare metabolic disorders that cause calories to store as fat instead of being burned - quite fatal conditions both.)

What's failing the obese is ignoring the psychological mindset of an obese person that programs/dooms them to failure.
Everyone is so hung up on the 95% diet failure rate - they ignore the fact there doesn't have to be a 95% failure rate.
There's a wonderful analogy called the 5 monkeys - about how stupid notions can become the majority thinking.

So monkey says we have to accept a 95% failure rate and do nothing about it - and we'll beat the crap out of anyone who dares suggest otherwise.

Covid is the perfect storm. A disease that has a higher morbidity and mortality rate predominantly in the overweight and obese - just happens to come along at a time in history where there is a GLOBAL obesity pandemic. Almost like sewing seeds into a fertile ground instead of casting them upon rocks.

If I had my way Dr. Nowzaradan would be surgeon general. He gets it and he could directly address our number one health crisis. He's never afraid to tell the patient to address their psychological barriers to weight loss. 8 out of the top 10 causes of death in America are directly linked to obesity. Cancer is on that list too but I didn't count it as only a portion of cancers are obesity related.

I agree with most of what you are saying and no one that understands physics and human physiology can debate the reality that Calories in > Calories burned leads to increased calories stored (mostly as body fat. And there certainly is something about the modern Western diet that seems to promote the over consumption of calories (or energy). Here's my simplest explanation why calorie counting fails.
The first thing one needs to understand is that WHAT one eats (more so than how much one eats) needs to be the focus for long term weight control to succeed. Why? Because not all foods and drinks provide the same amount of satiety for the same number of calories. Humans like monkeys, rodents, pigs, and most other omnivorous animals tend to prefer more calorie dense, lower fiber foods, and prefer beverages with calories over plain water (unless extremely thirsty).

Chefs and the commercial food industry know this intuitively and some may understand the science as I have explained it to some and was once a consultant to Quaker Oats. The result of this knowledge is that modern dietary habits tend to contain lots of low satiety/Kcal foods and drinks. If one consumes these low satiety/Kcal foods and drinks, one will tend to gain weight over time. If one tries eating smaller portions of these low satiety/Kcal foods one will lose weight but grow hungrier and hungrier until their will to eat less gets overwhelmed by their hunger drive.

This is also how nearly all eating disorders develop although again most researchers and clinicians that deal with eating disorders have not yet figured this out. So calorie counting or portion control won't work for most people for long. Even worse, calorie restricted diets may very well produce eating disorders in those most determined to lose weight and keep it off. If you are interested in this topic perhaps start a discussion here and I will be happy to add my two cents worth.

 

[screenwriter]

I agree with most of what you are saying and no one that understands physics and human physiology can debate the reality that Calories in > Calories burned leads to increased calories stored (mostly as body fat. And there certainly is something about the modern Western diet that seems to promote the over consumption of calories (or energy). Here's my simplest explanation why calorie counting fails.
The first thing one needs to understand is that WHAT one eats (more so than how much one eats) needs to be the focus for long term weight control to succeed. Why? Because not all foods and drinks provide the same amount of satiety for the same number of calories. Humans like monkeys, rodents, pigs, and most other omnivorous animals tend to prefer more calorie dense, lower fiber foods, and prefer beverages with calories over plain water (unless extremely thirsty).

Chefs and the commercial food industry know this intuitively and some may understand the science as I have explained it to some and was once a consultant to Quaker Oats. The result of this knowledge is that modern dietary habits tend to contain lots of low satiety/Kcal foods and drinks. If one consumes these low satiety/Kcal foods and drinks, one will tend to gain weight over time. If one tries eating smaller portions of these low satiety/Kcal foods one will lose weight but grow hungrier and hungrier until their will to eat less gets overwhelmed by their hunger drive.

This is also how nearly all eating disorders develop although again most researchers and clinicians that deal with eating disorders have not yet figured this out. So calorie counting or portion control won't work for most people for long. Even worse, calorie restricted diets may very well produce eating disorders in those most determined to lose weight and keep it off. If you are interested in this topic perhaps start a discussion here and I will be happy to add my two cents worth.

I never said a person can't be obese and malnourished at the same time. They most certainly can. What triggers people who have more calories than they need already on board to eat more is the body wanting nutrition not calories - so, no - simple calorie restriction won't solve things long term. But that's just another of those under the radar brainwashings the society monkeys in the cage tell the obese to absolve them of any control over their weight.

 

[JasperL]

You couldn't have it any more backward. The overweight should be blaming society. Society is working so very hard against them to convince them they can't lose it in the first place. And not only that they can't - but that they "shouldn't" - just change the definition of "normal" to encompass the abnormal and all is solved. Society shouldn't be feeling "better" about themselves - they should be ashamed.

Fat shaming might work!

More seriously, the obese suffering from all kinds of serious illnesses, like T2 diabetes, losing their sight, unable to walk because of gout, and much more don't need people to tell them they "should" lose weight. They know it's a matter of life and death, and yet, they fail. Not just a few, but nearly all of them.

With your attitude - good luck keeping it off. Based on what you've said, you have the negative mindset that tells you you won't - it's your paradigm through which you operate. Good thing about paradigms is they can shift.

You're dead wrong about every part of that assumption. I have a very positive mindset about my weight, my health, and how to maintain it indefinitely. I'm in fact certain I can keep it off because my current "diet" is easily sustainable forever, basically.

What's failing the obese is ignoring the psychological mindset of an obese person that programs/dooms them to failure.
Everyone is so hung up on the 95% diet failure rate - they ignore the fact there doesn't have to be a 95% failure rate.

But this hypothesis of yours is untestable. That's the beauty of it. You can blame the obese for getting and staying obese, conclude that they didn't try, don't care, and are somehow allowing themselves to be racked with all kinds of diseases that they know will kill them, and do nothing about it, because they are fat, lazy, worthless slobs, and you need NOTHING, zero, in the way of evidence.

And I don't think we should 'accept' the failure rate - quite the opposite. That's in fact your approach - seeing advice that has in fact resulted in decades of increasing obesity rates, that fails 95% of the obese, and saying - well, sure, that's fine advice. Why do you think it will work better next year, if only we as society do a better job of fat shaming the obese? Do you really think that's the secret ingredient that explains a half century of failure in this country and obesity epidemics all over the world?

So what I suggested is we figure out what is going wrong and try something different. That's "doing something about it."

Just for example, I listened to an interview of a GP (or whatever they're called) in the UK. He said in 30 years of practice he'd seen ZERO people reverse T2 diabetes with diet. Not one person. He then had a patient come in who DID reverse it, and it was with an approach other than the failed one, and he changed his advice, and now has seen hundreds do it, in a fraction of the time. It's anecdotal evidence, but what I'd like to see is the healthcare community go, "holy shit - that is promising!! Let's really do a deep dive into testing that approach!" That's versus - "hey, fat person - you're worthless. Eat less you slob, and you'll be less worthless!" I mean, that might work, but it's failed for a half century, so it doesn't look promising to me...

If I had my way Dr. Nowzaradan would be surgeon general. He gets it and he could directly address our number one health crisis. He's never afraid to tell the patient to address their psychological barriers to weight loss. 8 out of the top 10 causes of death in America are directly linked to obesity. Cancer is on that list too but I didn't count it as only a portion of cancers are obesity related.

Seems idiotic to believe that obesity is at the core a "psychological" problem versus a metabolic problem.... You gave a big hint - "GLOBAL." Would be amazing if everywhere we introduce the 'western' diet, we have a raft of psychological problems that follow, versus a problem with the diet high in refined carbs and sugar, grains, vegetable oils, and how those combined affect at least some people medically, chemically, hormonally and result in obesity because our bodies didn't evolve to eat that kind of garbage.

 

[JasperL]

I never said a person can't be obese and malnourished at the same time. They most certainly can. What triggers people who have more calories than they need already on board to eat more is the body wanting nutrition not calories - so, no - simple calorie restriction won't solve things long term. But that's just another of those under the radar brainwashings the society monkeys in the cage tell the obese to absolve them of any control over their weight.

What's "malnourished?" There are societies that live, and are healthy, on diets consisting almost mostly of animal fat with a bit of animal protein. Do you have any evidence that what people want are "nutrition" of some kind, versus a sugar or carb hit because their blood sugar dropped, high insulin levels prevents fat burning, so once the calories available from the last meal are burned or turned to fat, there's nothing else for the body to use as fuel?

 

[screenwriter]

Well it is hard to lose weight and keep it off unless one is willing to understand what it is about the diet that promotes excessive calorie intake. That would be a diet with more calorie dense low fiber foods, a great % of calories from beverages, and consuming foods or calorie containing drinks when not hungry. Sadly, the government bureaucrats and even most nutrition researchers have not figured that out.

I see I failed to educate you about what the nutrition research does and does not show promotes obesity. Hard to teach people whose minds are closed to reality.

and don't forget "modern" food is intentionally addictive.

 

[JasperL]

I agree with most of what you are saying and no one that understands physics and human physiology can debate the reality that Calories in > Calories burned leads to increased calories stored (mostly as body fat.

Yeah, it's physics, but it tells us nothing useful. CI is ultimately controlled by hormones - we eat when hungry and any diet that doesn't satisfy hunger, lead to satiety, will fail long term. CO is also controlled by our hormones, and is impacted by CI, and what we eat. So the CICO equation assumes at some level that if we cut CI, then CO will remain more or less constant and we'll lose weight. But that fails in practice, as you know. So why does it fail?

And there certainly is something about the modern Western diet that seems to promote the over consumption of calories (or energy). Here's my simplest explanation why calorie counting fails.
The first thing one needs to understand is that WHAT one eats (more so than how much one eats) needs to be the focus for long term weight control to succeed. Why? Because not all foods and drinks provide the same amount of satiety for the same number of calories. Humans like monkeys, rodents, pigs, and most other omnivorous animals tend to prefer more calorie dense, lower fiber foods, and prefer beverages with calories over plain water (unless extremely thirsty).

Right, most carnivores will first eat the fattiest part of any kill. Only after that's gone will they eat the lean meat, and the fattiest parts go to the baddest members - that's the member of that group of animals that gets first choice. Human hunter gatherer societies as well - they preferentially consume fats, then protein. And yet - no obesity.

And as you know, satiety is much more than volume - you can get 'full' on nothing but fat as a meal. Look to native populations who do just that, or did. Protein is more energy dense than broccoli, and yet it's not protein or fat that drive obesity in the natural world. Societies that live entirely on animal kills have almost no obesity.

Chefs and the commercial food industry know this intuitively and some may understand the science as I have explained it to some and was once a consultant to Quaker Oats. The result of this knowledge is that modern dietary habits tend to contain lots of low satiety/Kcal foods and drinks. If one consumes these low satiety/Kcal foods and drinks, one will tend to gain weight over time. If one tries eating smaller portions of these low satiety/Kcal foods one will lose weight but grow hungrier and hungrier until their will to eat less gets overwhelmed by their hunger drive.

Which food are low 'satiety'/kcal? And where's the research to show us when we eat only high satiety/cal foods, that solves the problem. What does seem to matter is avoiding sugars, and refined carbs but likely not because of low 'satiety' but because of the impact of those foods on blood sugar and insulin. As you know, high insulin levels impede fat burning, and T2 diabetics are awash in insulin but are insulin resistant. How does satiety impact those problems? How does satiety explain NAFLD? What's the role of fructose in satiety, then obesity and NAFLD?

This is also how nearly all eating disorders develop although again most researchers and clinicians that deal with eating disorders have not yet figured this out. So calorie counting or portion control won't work for most people for long. Even worse, calorie restricted diets may very well produce eating disorders in those most determined to lose weight and keep it off. If you are interested in this topic perhaps start a discussion here and I will be happy to add my two cents worth.

I've asked you before to show me the RCT that prove this point in real life, and you haven't done that in the past. Maybe you can do so on this thread.

 

[screenwriter]

What's "malnourished?" There are societies that live, and are healthy, on diets consisting almost mostly of animal fat with a bit of animal protein. Do you have any evidence that what people want are "nutrition" of some kind, versus a sugar or carb hit because their blood sugar dropped, high insulin levels prevents fat burning, so once the calories available from the last meal are burned or turned to fat, there's nothing else for the body to use as fuel?

Those societies are few in number, isolated, live in extreme conditions, and have done so for millennia. They also have a MUCH shorter life span.
There's nothing "adaptive" to the shit we eat and pretend it's "food".
That's okay - you just keep telling the obese they are just "normal" - just more fuel for the Covid fire.

 

[JasperL]

Those societies are few in number, isolated, live in extreme conditions, and have done so for millennia. They also have a MUCH shorter life span.
There's nothing "adaptive" to the shit we eat and pretend it's "food".
That's okay - you just keep telling the obese they are just "normal" - just more fuel for the Covid fire.

I never said obesity was normal. Just the opposite. What I am sure doesn’t work is fat shaming them. And I know the nutrition advice we’ve gotten for decades is a massive failure. Catastrophic. Why you defend that record is a mystery. Look at the evidence. What do you see worth keeping?

And do you think insulin plays no role in all this? That it’s not nutrition but refined carbs people crave? If your blood sugar crashes you don’t want broccoli but a donut. So your theory makes no sense.

 

[bubbabgone]

Or....that's what the data show.

Here's the study:

Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 Among Adults Hospitalized ...

This report describes mRNA COVID-19 vaccine recipients as having greater immunity from COVID-19 infection than previously infected, unvaccinated persons.

www.cdc.gov

And other data shows otherwise so the CDC can't let it just hang out there.

 

[Fledermaus]

And other data shows otherwise so the CDC can't let it just hang out there.

Which is?

 

[JasperL]

And other data shows otherwise so the CDC can't let it just hang out there.

Why would they do that - let "it" just hang out there? That would be dishonest to hide contrary data, so of course they release this study.

You're implying it's fake news or something, and you have no evidence of that.

 

[screenwriter]

I never said obesity was normal. Just the opposite. What I am sure doesn’t work is fat shaming them. And I know the nutrition advice we’ve gotten for decades is a massive failure. Catastrophic. Why you defend that record is a mystery. Look at the evidence. What do you see worth keeping?

And do you think insulin plays no role in all this? That it’s not nutrition but refined carbs people crave? If your blood sugar crashes you don’t want broccoli but a donut. So your theory makes no sense.

I'm not fat shaming. The shame belongs to those who are working ever so hard to make them believe their body is healthy. Covid is proof enough that it isn't. Yet, I never hear PSAs directed at weigh loss as a means to survive Covid. Why is that?
Sounds like you believe "nutritional advice" and the latest fad "diet" are one and the same. Nutritional advice has changed very little over the years - no matter how hard society has strained to get the abnormal called "normal". Like breastfeeding. Just because society frowned upon it for those stupid monkey reasons I posted earlier - nutritionists never changed their stance that it's best for both mother and child.

 

[JasperL]

and don't forget "modern" food is intentionally addictive.

How is it 'addictive?' If you have the answer to that, maybe you have part of the answer for why we have an obesity epidemic. And if it truly is 'addictive' then we might address "addictive" foods as part of the solution but we don't. Can you explain why we don't identify the 'addictive' foods and then move heaven and earth to rid the country of their use, like we did cigarettes and trans fats, that proved to be deadly?

 

[bubbabgone]

Which is?

Study: Natural immunity 'stronger, longer' than vaccine immunity

New Israeli study shows recovered patients tended to have better outcomes than vaccine alone - though vaccine can enhance natural immunity.

www.israelnationalnews.com

Why would they do that - let "it" just hang out there? That would be dishonest to hide contrary data, so of course they release this study.

You're implying it's fake news or something, and you have no evidence of that.

I meant the counter-data that was reported months ago that I just posted in this reply. Couldn't let that remain the only story.

 

[Fledermaus]

Study: Natural immunity 'stronger, longer' than vaccine immunity

New Israeli study shows recovered patients tended to have better outcomes than vaccine alone - though vaccine can enhance natural immunity.

www.israelnationalnews.com

I meant the counter-data that was reported months ago that I just posted in this reply. Couldn't let that remain the only story.

Ah, yes.... The oft quoted Israel study.

From the article:

Researchers found that natural immunity is stronger and longer-lasting than vaccination, but also noted that a single-dose of vaccine likely can offer additional protection from the Delta Variant to those who recovered from SARS-CoV-2.