<div dir='auto'>Hello to all<div dir="auto">About vaccinations I am somewhat
conflicted between my heart and my head. As a leader in a microbiology
company in Denmark I know about vaccines, testing and the things that can
happen during trials. We used to joke that Microbiology was the most
secure job in the world because just when you sorted out one disease God gave
you another one. </div><div dir="auto">I have personal experience
with drug testing and I have faith that, performed properly, the results and
outcomes are understood. I also believe that every medication or
treatment has a cost and a benefit. For different people the cost may be
more than the benefit and for another person the reverse. </div><div
dir="auto">My attitude about the vaccines is that, on a personal basis, the
cost is a risk of side effects and the benefit is a reduced risk of serious
COVID harm and death. Is it worth it....your choice.</div><div
dir="auto">However on a society basis and a to me a moral basis the cost is the
very low percentage of side effects and the benefit is reduction of the massive
number of deaths and long term disease. Aside from the deaths due to COVID I
have experienced more than a few friends with delayed kidney transplants,
cancer surgeries and worsening health outcomes caused by hospitals and staff
paralyzed by COVID patients.</div><div dir="auto">So I guess in summary I am
not so concerned with I divided choice as societal choice. I vote for
immunization.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">YITBOS
Jim</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Oct.
21, 2021 4:57 p.m., Bob Thomlinson <bthomlinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:<br
type="attribution" /><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div
style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><p><span
style="font-size:12pt">Don,</span></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt">
</span></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt">I believe your comment
“</span><b><i>Data has been filtered and interpreted in many cases to support
one’s personal position and often not objectively reviewed to see if it meets
accepted scientific standards on which one can make valid
recommendations</i></b>” is valid but it applies to both sides of the debate
and will not get sorted out until a lot more research has been done. At the
moment your comment about “<b><i>Finding the balance of economic/public
health/fiduciary responsibility of healthcare resource utilization and personal
accountability is and will be an ongoing challenge</i></b>” accurately
describes the situation.</p><p> </p><p>As I watch this debate play out, I can
see the parallels with another health controversy that we have had a very close
attachment to. As early as 1955 a young and ambitious nutrition researcher was
being published in scientific journals and legitimate news media regarding his
hypothesis that saturated fat was a significant contributor to heart disease.
We were all kids then and were probably all embroiled in the switch from animal
fats, eggs and some dairy products (e.g. butter) to “more heathy” proteins and
carbohydrates (e.g. sugar).</p><p> </p><p>The history of this debacle and the
subsequent tsunami of obesity in North American should be familiar to you as a
doctor. Right up to my retirement in 2008, Marilyn and I followed the nutrition
advice of our doctors and the Canada Food Guide, but continued to get fatter
and less healthy. Even then it wasn’t until 2014 that this nutrition advice was
exposed as being completely wrong and that the young researcher (now a powerful
spokesperson for nutrition) had fiddled his research. Along the way there were
many other researchers who were raising legitimate concerns and asking
questions about this issue. They were treated like pariahs and fired from jobs,
lost their research funding and were publicly criticized and silenced. Note
that the primary research funding came from the processed food industry. Sound
familiar?</p><p> </p><p>Today, Marilyn and I eat differently, are very healthy,
active and no longer obese (morbidly obese in my case). This medical mistake
took 59 years to finally be exposed and widely accepted as the fiasco it was.
For anyone who is interested in the history of this story, the pages of Time
magazine covered it frequently in both feature and cover stories starting in
1955 with updates in 1960, 1961, 1964, 1984, 2014, and finally the detailed
cover story in 2015 that documented the whole thing and tried to offer an
explanation about how it could have happened.</p><p> </p><p>So, we don’t
believe everything we are told about the Covid-19 vaccines and don’t
automatically brand the anti-vaxers as being stupid & selfish people with
no rights to health care. The ultimate success or failure of mRNA vaccines will
eventually become clear – hopefully, in a lot less than 59 years – but it is
not crystal clear now when long term effects are unknown. In the short term I
agree that mitigating the risks of serious outcomes from Covid-19, for people
with compromised immune systems or the specific pre-existing conditions that
are being tracked, is worth the risks of vaccine adverse reactions. However, I
believe the vaccine should remain a personal risk decision that needs to made
by individuals with the advice of their doctors – just like any other drug. The
vaccine decision is not cut and dried and vaccinating 100% of the population is
still not going to eliminate the viral infection problem. It may introduce a
lot of new problems that we are not even aware of today.</p><p> </p><p>Sorry if
this sounds like a criticism of you Don – it’s not. It’s just what we believe –
which is what Wynn challenged us to explore.</p><p> </p><p>Cheers,</p><p>Bob
T</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="font-size:12pt">
</span></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p><div><div
style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in
0in"><p><b>From:</b> dsp-ea-general-bounce@freelists.org
<dsp-ea-general-bounce@freelists.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Donald
Denmark<br /><b>Sent:</b> October 21, 2021 10:19 AM<br /><b>To:</b>
dsp-ea-general@freelists.org<br /><b>Subject:</b> Re: Covid-19
Vaccinations</p></div></div><p> </p><p>Great comments and insightful
perspectives presented by both Bob and Willow.</p><p>Vaccination with any of
the 3 currently approved vaccines clearly reduces your risk of hospitalization
and dying from COVID, however it is not a guarantee that you will not get COVID
if exposed – hence the mask and social distancing public health recommendations
are made to reduce exposure risk.</p><p>Protection of “individual freedom” are
at the root of many of the anti-vax stands that have led to conflict here in
the States. Unfortunately this anti-vax choice puts “my neighbor” at
risk.</p><p>Finding the balance of economic/public health/fiduciary
responsibility of healthcare resource utilization and personal accountability
is and will be an ongoing challenge.</p><p>Data has been filtered and
interpreted in many cases to support one’s personal position and often not
objectively reviewed to see if it meets accepted scientific standards on which
one can make valid recommendations.</p><p>Politics and political agendas have
muddied the waters as this national and international debate goes
on.</p><p>Don</p><p> </p><div><p>Donald M Denmark </p><p>820 North
Curtiswood Lane, Nashville, TN 37204</p><p>Cell: (520)-349-1893<span
style="font-size:14pt;color:black"></span></p></div><p> </p><p> </p><div
style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in
0in"><p><b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span
style="font-size:12pt;color:black"><<a
href="mailto:dsp-ea-general-bounce@freelists.org";>dsp-ea-general-bounce@freelists.org</a>>
on behalf of Bob Thomlinson <<a
href="mailto:bthomlinson@telus.net";>bthomlinson@telus.net</a>><br
/><b>Reply-To: </b><<a
href="mailto:dsp-ea-general@freelists.org";>dsp-ea-general@freelists.org</a>><br
/><b>Date: </b>Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 2:45 PM<br /><b>To: </b><<a
href="mailto:dsp-ea-general@freelists.org";>dsp-ea-general@freelists.org</a>><br
/><b>Subject: </b>Covid-19 Vaccinations</span></p></div><div><p>
</p></div><div><div><div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#cccccc 1pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5pt"><div><div><div><div><p><span
style="font-size:12pt">Willow,</span></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt">
</span></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt">It is always a pleasure to read your
well written updates and opinions. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt">
</span></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt">I would agree totally with you
except for one small concern about your wording. Your comments seem to imply
that you, like many of our friends, believe that the current COVID-19 vaccines
protect an individual from infection - and should therefore protect others.
Protection from infection was originally hoped for, but the past year has
proven that the vaccination has only been effective in reducing serious
outcomes. Vaccinated people can, and are, still getting infected and can, and
are, still infect others. The ongoing risk of infection no longer appears to up
for debate in the medical community. I do accept that the ongoing risk of
infection is probably deliberately being ignored in the public health
advertising to get people vaccinated - to avoid muddying the
message.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p><p><span
style="font-size:12pt">The best protections, and lowest recorded new case
counts, were during the lock downs and restrictions imposed all over the world.
However, forcing businesses to close has had huge economic impacts on people
and restricting social interactions had mental health repercussions, etc. There
are just no simple choices for public health officials and governments to find
a response policy that balances perfectly between what are essentially two
really bad choices of outcome.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt">
</span></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt">The present push for vaccinations is
probably not focused on eliminating infections (even New Zealand has realized
that ship has sailed). The current focus on vaccinations is intended to reduce
the level of serious outcomes that have overloaded our health care capacities.
I think the reduction of serious outcomes, especially in people with
compromised immune systems and/or having pre-existing conditions is one of the
only goals that policy makers think they have a chance to achieve. I accept
that a policy of putting pressure on people to get vaccinated makes sense,
including the additional restrictions now placed on the unvaccinated. Like
everyone though, I still wish we weren’t in this situation and pine for the
good old days.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p><p><span
style="font-size:12pt">You should remember I suggested that we should met up
after you got settled in your new Alberta home. After all, I am now the DSP
brother who lives closest to you. We have not done that for a reason. Despite
the general illusion of vaccination protection, Marilyn and I both believe we
need to remain very careful about where we go and who we see (vaccinated or
not) to protect both ourselves and others from infection. We still don’t go to
restaurants and movie theatres or entertain indoors, etc. despite the lifted
restrictions. I am still optimistic that we will get to meet up someday and
hopefully that day will be sooner rather than later.</span></p><p><span
style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p><p><span
style="font-size:12pt">Cheers,</span></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt">Bob
T</span></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p><p><span
style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size:12pt">
</span></p><p><b>From:</b> <a
href="mailto:dsp-ea-general-bounce@freelists.org";>dsp-ea-general-bounce@freelists.org</a>
<a
href="mailto:dsp-ea-general-bounce@freelists.org";>dsp-ea-general-bounce@freelists.org</a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Willow Arune<br /><b>Sent:</b> October 19, 2021 8:30 PM<br
/><b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:dsp-ea-general@freelists.org";>dsp-ea-general@freelists.org</a><br
/><b>Subject:</b> Re: FW: Delta Sig Discussions</p><p> </p><p>Mandatory COVID
Vaccines.</p><p> </p><p>In my view, yes. This should never have been a
personal freedom or political issue. It is a public health issue, just as we
all got shots before we were allowed to go to school. </p><p> </p><p>What
should happen to those who refused the vaccine? One would be tempted to
withdraw medical services for the unvaccinated who check into ER with Covid.
That is not an answer. It is contrary to our Judeo-Christian values. </p><p>
</p><p>We confron the same type of problem when the rules of some religions
clash with what we as a society deem right. If a Jehovah Witness Child
requires a blood transfusion, we let courts decide. When a parent uses
unproven “health store” treatment for a sick child instead of going to a
hospital, we use courts. Quakers and other religions do not allow military
service and we have developed ways to address that issue. RCMP now allow
turbans for members of certain faiths. On the other hand, we denied the use of
“social drugs” to those who claimed such use was a fundamental part of their
religion. </p><p> </p><p>Simply put, as a Society, as a Democratic society
which allows so many freedoms, we do draw certain lines or come to
accommodations. There is little consistency. With children where is a matter
of life or death and positive action is normally deemed necessary. We developed
a process to individually resolve such problems. Where the situation is a
passive non-action we seem to fail back to the rule that one does not have to
help is another person is drowning, with special rules for those who try and
fail to avoid common law liability. The reverse is true at sea. A vessel must
attempt rescue even in dangerous circumstances if another vessel is sinking.
</p><p> </p><p>For these and other conflicts between religion or morality, we
simply do not seem to have fixed universal rules.</p><p> </p><p>Public health
is totally different. Where the common good needs to prevail, it should. Your
freedom does not allow you to refuse matters that are necessary to protect
others. Religion sometimes aside, your personal viewpoint does not and, In my
opinion, should not prevail when you can cause me harm by refusing to take
what science agrees is necessary for the common good. If you develop certain
symptoms, you can be forced to isolate. If you personally decide your child
will not be vaccinated, you put others at risk, not just your child. The
present guidelines are both necessary and proven to be preventative, with few
exceptions. Wearing a mask does not protect you, it prevents you from
potentially doing harm to others. Distant requirements are intended to both
protect you from others and protect you from harming others. The vaccination I
safe, you protect others,over 700,000 have died in the US - there is no reason
for anyone to avoid this duty save for valid medical reasons...</p><p><span
style="font-size:12pt">
</span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
