Brain implant thinner than hair: How a novel technology may allow people to use devices with their mind
Story by Angelica Stabile • 7h ago

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4975fe88476f5f9ccba8

You first.

I can see some advantages for the locked in type handicapped- think ALS...

But I would not think it is a good idea for the normal folks... certainly not short term.

One only has to look to dystopian SF to see what might come of it- especially when we are already having social issues for kids with too much social media making it not just a figment of some writer's imagination.

Dystopian SF notwithstanding, I want a brain transplant to a young body.

I actually wrote and had published a SF story involving brain implants, which can be found in this anthology. https://www.amazon.com/Years-B...pbooks%2C166&sr=1-10

Pretty soon they’ll be installing SD card slots in the back of babies heads. The first outfit to do it gets to create their own zombie society.

The writers of Star Trek & their “Borg” may have been prophetic - if you’re old enough to remember Dick Tracy and Buck Rogers, you’ll understand how science fiction has a funny way of becoming reality. Just imagine 1.5 billion disposable Chinese under the unquestioned control of Xi’s mind.

I can see something like this to become very popular and easy to initiate. Many people readily lined up for an experimental shot out of fear, loathing and no data. They allowed themselves to become GMO's without a second thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
I can see something like this to become very popular and easy to initiate. Many people readily lined up for an experimental shot out of fear, loathing and no data. They allowed themselves to become GMO's without a second thought.

Maybe read up a little about vaccine trials and what they actually test, and on how many subjects at each stage.

quote:

Originally posted by BushPeter:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
I can see something like this to become very popular and easy to initiate. Many people readily lined up for an experimental shot out of fear, loathing and no data. They allowed themselves to become GMO's without a second thought.

Maybe read up a little about vaccine trials and what they actually test, and on how many subjects at each stage.

Oh yea of little faith, unwilling to take your medical advice from high school dropouts, conspiracy theorists and Google gurus.

Don’t you know that all those scientists who’ve spent their lives studying a subject are simply out to fool you for some obscure reason that only God and his prophet Donald Trump (PBUH) can comprehend?

quote:

Originally posted by BushPeter:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
I can see something like this to become very popular and easy to initiate. Many people readily lined up for an experimental shot out of fear, loathing and no data. They allowed themselves to become GMO's without a second thought.

Maybe read up a little about vaccine trials and what they actually test, and on how many subjects at each stage.

Betchoo believe masks 'work' too.

No, surgeons just wear them ‘cause they look cool.

Surgeons wear masks because they have been proven to reduce post op bacterial wound infections.

They also prevent the surgeon from inhaling spray or matter from the wound site.

As to vaccine trials, they are usually rather comprehensive… but not always. The rotavirus vaccine from a while back passed, but was later pulled due to causing excessive intussussception issues.

The COVID vaccine (which I think was the point) did not go through the whole process, but was released on an emergency basis. We still are not hearing all the adverse effect details, and the feds granted immunity from lawsuits over it…

quote:

Surgeons wear masks because they have been proven to reduce post op bacterial wound infections.

They also prevent the surgeon from inhaling spray or matter from the wound site.

Exactly ^^^

Nothing to do with viral infections.

It’s funny how the woke give so much weight to their own opinion, isn’t it?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Surgeons wear masks because they have been proven to reduce post op bacterial wound infections.

They also prevent the surgeon from inhaling spray or matter from the wound site.

As to vaccine trials, they are usually rather comprehensive… but not always. The rotavirus vaccine from a while back passed, but was later pulled due to causing excessive intussussception issues.

The COVID vaccine (which I think was the point) did not go through the whole process, but was released on an emergency basis. We still are not hearing all the adverse effect details, and the feds granted immunity from lawsuits over it…

Which part did they not go through? They usually start using vaccines after a phase III trial. They fast-tracked the processing and approving of the data from those trials, but the trials ran up to their pre-defined end-points (nr of deaths and/or severe Covid cases in trial group).
The recording of side-effects is something which continues, as they do with all medical interventions, they still look at side-effects from things like ibuprofen and paracetamol. So they can learn, adapt and improve. Phase I and II are focused on safety, phase III is efficacy (for which there are various measures, but the main one was protection against death from the Covid).

Something I have not found an answer to.
They said the vaccine used known data from SARS research, along with the protein type vaccine. No virus involved.
My cousins husband, a healthy 40 yr old. Had covid before the vaccine was available. In order to travel, he had to get vaxed. He ended up in the hospital for a week, trying to stay alive from blood clots all through his legs and lungs.
If this is a well known and used platform for the vaccine, why was there not info released about side effects from the other uses? Maybe Doc Butler can explain? I have not found anything from computer research.

Did they have 3 part trials? Yes.

All parts were extremely abbreviated by Warp Speed, at least in the US. (Trump).

I do think the vaccine showed efficacy against the original variant. However, there has not been a modern drug released any where near as rapidly as this vaccine. That they have not shown much of the long term safety data is concerning. Their claims of having to evaluate the data before releasing ring somewhat hollow.

Maybe Lane can comment on veterinary use, but the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines used a new mechanism (the mRNA carrier method) as far as human use.

The commentary on clotting being an adverse effect of the vaccine is anecdotal so far- with the mRNA vaccines. The other types (Janssen) are associated with some clotting abnormalities.

One needs to remember that there is a background rate of these processes happening in otherwise healthy individuals absent the vaccine. Thus the data (which needs to be compared to a baseline/nonimmunized folks) is critical. These things in the best of situations are years in the analyzing by the appropriate authorities, so having the raw data available for other scientists to examine is certainly good.

I would also point out that COVID is known to cause hypercoaguable states, as is decreased activity... what we did is a perfect storm for increased coagulation problems that could well be tricky to sort out.

I've had the full dose and booster... I am not really certain that I fit the full high risk group, but other than feeling like I have the flu for a few days after getting it, I haven't noticed much there.

I would agree that the vaccine is less likely to cause morbidity and mortality overall than just letting all and sundry get the disease and develop herd immunity that way... and herd immunity in a rapidly differentiating virus like COVID is probably impossible.

I would feel a lot more confident in my recommendations if the data on safety and efficacy was publicly available and that the CDC/NIH and WHO hadn't been shown to be playing so many political games... including in the COVID arena.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Did they have 3 part trials? Yes.

All parts were extremely abbreviated by Warp Speed, at least in the US. (Trump).

I do think the vaccine showed efficacy against the original variant. However, there has not been a modern drug released any where near as rapidly as this vaccine. That they have not shown much of the long term safety data is concerning. Their claims of having to evaluate the data before releasing ring somewhat hollow.

Maybe Lane can comment on veterinary use, but the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines used a new mechanism (the mRNA carrier method) as far as human use.

The commentary on clotting being an adverse effect of the vaccine is anecdotal so far- with the mRNA vaccines. The other types (Janssen) are associated with some clotting abnormalities.

One needs to remember that there is a background rate of these processes happening in otherwise healthy individuals absent the vaccine. Thus the data (which needs to be compared to a baseline/nonimmunized folks) is critical. These things in the best of situations are years in the analyzing by the appropriate authorities, so having the raw data available for other scientists to examine is certainly good.

I would also point out that COVID is known to cause hypercoaguable states, as is decreased activity... what we did is a perfect storm for increased coagulation problems that could well be tricky to sort out.

I've had the full dose and booster... I am not really certain that I fit the full high risk group, but other than feeling like I have the flu for a few days after getting it, I haven't noticed much there.

I would agree that the vaccine is less likely to cause morbidity and mortality overall than just letting all and sundry get the disease and develop herd immunity that way... and herd immunity in a rapidly differentiating virus like COVID is probably impossible.

I would feel a lot more confident in my recommendations if the data on safety and efficacy was publicly available and that the CDC/NIH and WHO hadn't been shown to be playing so many political games... including in the COVID arena.

Look, not trying to bust anyone's balls. I know as time goes on more will be known. I do want to know what you think of Dr. James Thorp's, OBGYN findings conclude?

It is very troubling to me that media and other so-called professionals are doing/continue to block data and findings.

Thorpe undoubtedly believes what he does, but his sample size of folks he has seen is too small to render it accurate. The folks that report to him are undoubtedly involved in selection bias. Is the covid vaccine in his experience correlation or causation?

Its anecdotal.

That is why open data is so important.

Could he be right in that there are issues? Yes. He could also be an agenda driven charlatan... OB-GYN's are not necessarily more trained in scientific evaluation than any other doc.

Could it be that COVID in and of itself could be a cause?
Maybe.

The fact that they are not releasing the data openly and in a timely manner allows there to be the uncertainty here.

I am certainly not seeing that much of an issue in post vaccine people, but I also understand that I would not necessarily know it.

To some extent, we have to take something as being a fact, and our personal observations do not necessarily equate to accuracy or proof.

My suspicion is that the complication rate is higher than what is being reported by the government, and that it is not as effective as they claim, especially due to antigenic shift; but not as doom and gloom as folks like Thorpe claim. But that is a combination of personal observation, review of the literature that is available that I have had time to look at, and my experience with preexisting data.

I have no issue with folks saying they don't think that they are willing to get the vaccine for whatever reason... I do have issues with folks trying to state opinions are facts.

Hope that makes it clear.

I do think this "pureblood" stuff is crap. I don't buy that people are modifying their DNA in some sinister way by the mRNA vaccines. I don't care if that is your reason to refuse the vaccine, but its not a logical one. No one has offered any proof that is the case, at best it is that the benefits are overstated, and the risks are understated.

As to pregnancy, when I did my obstetrical rotations, we were always taught that adding nothing is best if you can get away with it- we do know that giving a eclamptic woman Magnesium sulfate reduces the risk of bad outcomes, but giving it to a woman without the condition may have its own risks- so we don't start everybody on IV MgSO4 when they become pregnant, as an example.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Something I have not found an answer to.
They said the vaccine used known data from SARS research, along with the protein type vaccine. No virus involved.
My cousins husband, a healthy 40 yr old. Had covid before the vaccine was available. In order to travel, he had to get vaxed. He ended up in the hospital for a week, trying to stay alive from blood clots all through his legs and lungs.
If this is a well known and used platform for the vaccine, why was there not info released about side effects from the other uses? Maybe Doc Butler can explain? I have not found anything from computer research.

What they discoverd in the studies for SARS and MERS, was that these type of viruses use a specific protein to enter human cells, SARS-CoV-2 had that protein too, so they used that to produce the vaccins.

I'm sorry for him, but as Dr Butler says, many things can trigger clots, including reduced activity and a Covid-infection. It's not impossible that reduced activity, and the covid infection, made him more susceptible to clots, which was then triggered by the vaccine. But it's very hard to determine the actual cause in individual cases, and it's increasingly difficult when the time between events increases. Clots happen all the time.

In many countries there was a period with more deaths than expected, and they wondered how that could be, many people attributing it to the vaccines. However, quite a few studies have found an increased of death 1-12 months after a Covid infection. This makes sense, a virus has an impact on a body, can damage organs, which can be permanent. This can cause, aggrevate, trigger or speed up other medical conditions, leading to death. You can look at the number of people dying in 1-12 (or 24) months after being infected with Covid and compare with known death rates (after correcting for age, sex and comorbidities like obesity, other medical conditions etc), or you can compare with a similar group at the same time, who wasn't infected (and still correct for other factors). The other way around is harder though. If more than expected people die, it's hard to determine which were the ones you didn't expect to die (of course you can cross of those dying of car crashes etc). But then you have to dig in their medical histories, to see if they had Covid in the 12 months previous (and if they weren't vaxxed or not). This can be tricky with privacy laws, and even then, it might be a minority of the dead people who got Covid in the 12 months preceding, but that still might be enough to cause more than expected deaths. It gets even more complicated, as it seems only the first waves, before the vaccines, might be responsible for the more than expected deaths later on. There is a noticeable reduction in more than expected deaths in the past few months, and that could well be because of the large vaccine rollouts. And since the large vaccine rollouts, and subsequent also large waves of infections which caused little trouble, the window to detect the reasons for the higher than expected deaths is closing rapidly.

He certainly wasnt less active. He was a plumbing/heating contractor and was balls to the wall busy. When not working he was an avid hiker to remote fishing spots. It was a little over a year from when he had covid, pre vaccine, to when he got vaxxed for the trip. Clots landed him in the hospital on the third day after the shot.
So if there were no cases of clots happening when the protein base vaccines were used before, it pretty must have to be having covid first caused it?

There were cases of clots (DVT, PE) before the vaccine.

Injury, decreased activity, infection, cancer are all known causes of increased likelihood but there are and always have been cases without a known predisposing cause.

Could it be related to the vaccine? Sure, maybe.

That’s the problem with not releasing the adverse effects database.

We don’t know. Either way.

Why would they not release the data. thats an important part of learning for any future work.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
There were cases of clots (DVT, PE) before the vaccine.

Injury, decreased activity, infection, cancer are all known causes of increased likelihood but there are and always have been cases without a known predisposing cause.

Could it be related to the vaccine? Sure, maybe.

That’s the problem with not releasing the adverse effects database.

We don’t know. Either way.

But even if they release that database (and I don't see why they shouldn't do that), that doesn't mean you could draw causative relationships. Releasing the database will probably lead to more questions than answers.

You are right that it would not prove causation.

It would prove correlation and a need to run specific studies to prove causation.

As it is now, we are allowing folks like Thorpe to make claims with no proof either way.

More data is always better for science.

Wow, when I posted the OP I didn't know what to expect in response.

This is better than expected.