Dozens of Scientists Around the World Are Giving Themselves DIY Coronavirus Vaccines (nypost.com) 143
schwit1 shares a report from the New York Post: As governments around the world scramble to approve a vaccine against the deadly coronavirus, an increasing number of scientists have started administering DIY vaccines to themselves and even their friends and family members. The methods, results, and claims have varied widely among the dozens of scientists around the world who have taken this unconventional route.
One such effort is by scientist Johnny Stine, who runs North Coast Biologics, a biotech company in Seattle. In June, Washington attorney general slapped Stine with a lawsuit for administering his DIY vaccine to San Juan Island Mayor Farhad Ghatan and around 30 people, charging them $400, the New York Times reported. Another vaccine effort going outside FDA approval is the Rapid Deployment Vaccine Collaborative, or RaDVaC, which has among its 23 collaborators Harvard geneticist George Church. Proponents have welcomed the idea of going outside the normal regulatory process, given the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic. But critics say these DIY vaccines are not being put to the test of placebo-controlled studies and could have unforeseen negative consequences.
One such effort is by scientist Johnny Stine, who runs North Coast Biologics, a biotech company in Seattle. In June, Washington attorney general slapped Stine with a lawsuit for administering his DIY vaccine to San Juan Island Mayor Farhad Ghatan and around 30 people, charging them $400, the New York Times reported. Another vaccine effort going outside FDA approval is the Rapid Deployment Vaccine Collaborative, or RaDVaC, which has among its 23 collaborators Harvard geneticist George Church. Proponents have welcomed the idea of going outside the normal regulatory process, given the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic. But critics say these DIY vaccines are not being put to the test of placebo-controlled studies and could have unforeseen negative consequences.
"Scientists' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Scientists' (Score:4, Funny)
but I hear he sells some great snake oil.
Make sure to test it, it could just be rancid olive oil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Scientists' (Score:2)
Science isn't a profession, but "scientist" is a profession with qualifications relevant to a claim.
If you've irrelevant or no qualifications, you are not a scientist with respect to that claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I'd want to lend credibility to Johnny Stine but is there some reason you'd need to be a doctor?
I've noticed this trend among people who spend too much time in college, they confuse the education meant as ONE WAY to prepare to start your path to doing something worthwhile with the actual doing.
Science is method, someone who as a hobby or profession engages in the pursuit of knowledge via that method is a scientist. David Ishee for example is a scientist. Pompous fools who think they are part of som
Re: "Scientists' (Score:2)
You can come up with great ideas without qualifications. That's why there's peer review.
What you can't claim is to be a scientist, without relevant qualifications.
Re: (Score:2)
"You can come up with great ideas without qualifications. That's why there's peer review."
Peer review is a system of blocking people who have great ideas but lack qualifications.
Sorry but 'qualifications' are irrelevant. Everyone who does science is a scientist and nobody has any authority or right to assert otherwise. Doing good science requires knowledge, 'qualifications' are not the only way to get that knowledge. I think you are confusing academics with scientists.
"A scientist is someone who conducts sc
Re: (Score:2)
Actually "formal qualification" is irrelevant.
Relevant is that the review process either says the publication has merit, or has not.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically yes, "formal qualification" is a more correct term. I used "qualifications" in the same manner which context indicated the GP had used it, to mean "formal." And technically it is not peer review that excludes those without "formal qualification" but since in practice that review process typically occurs in journals which require "formal qualification" to publish, in practice peer review creates a walled garden which only includes those who have learned via formal education. This is sad because f
Re: (Score:2)
The method also includes predicting your results, in advance of the experiment, and publishing your results either way. It's vital to keeping the science and the scientists honest. Science in China and other Marxist Communist states has a terrible habit of only publishing positive results.
Re: "Scientists' (Score:2)
What makes you think most scientists are doctors? Many of the people who do science research are undergraduates. There are even a few who do science without any formal education or degree.
Re: (Score:2)
''Science is mostly the idea that one can approach the truth through repeated observation''
Science is about having the ability to fully control all possible variations for a given proposition and repetitively testing all known variables to propose what the outcome is. Then publishing the controls to the experiment to peers to assure they find the same outcome.
At least that's what they told me in 8th grade.
Re: (Score:2)
In many non-trivial scenarios, it's impossible to control for all variables or test all possible combinations of variables you are controlling. That's why statistics is so important.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... Proper experimental procedures should not be confused with the definition of what Science itself means - creating and performing experiments are just details of one step in the process (b/w Observing, formulating a question, more Observing and recording, creating Hypothesis, Testing/Experiment, Analyzing results to Conclude on hypothesis, and publishing), and what will make a practical experiment and give a useful answer depends on the subject matter an what you are trying to test.
Attempting to
Re: (Score:2)
Science is about having the ability to fully control all possible variations for a given proposition ...
Interesting explanation, but that is not the definition of Science.
Science is just an iterative process of learning about nature by iteratively observing, making falsifiable hypothesis, testing, and finding corrections to make to hypothesese.
Or in more detail:
Re: (Score:3)
Mr Stine developing this cocktail of peptides, injecting himself, and subsequently measuring titer levels counts as science. But as soon as he starts touting this re
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between medical science and snake oil is the science part.
Injecting yourself with something is not science. Injecting and studying a calculated number of people under conditions known to provide a good test of your vaccine is.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.discovermagazine.c... [discovermagazine.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Marshall performed a number of pathological studies, cell culture experiments, and experiments in mice. Due to prevailing belief in an unscientific hypothesis he was unable to perform scientific experiments in humans. So he conducted a stunt to make people take his idea seriously. He didn't prove anything with the stunt except his *belief* in his own hypothesis. Scientific evidence supporting that hypothesis came from the preclinical studies that convinced Marshall, and a number of subsequent human
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Aspirin has no problem demonstrating efficacy in scientific studies. Homeopathy, however, does. Remember, the opposition to Marshall's hypothesis was absolutely convinced, based on their great experience, logic, Reason (with a capital R) and many, many (unscientific) demonstrations, that ulcers were *not* due to bacterial infection. So convinced they wouldn't let Marshall do any human trials despite his (and others') considerable accumulation of scientific evidence.
Science isn't hard because of the tec
Re: "Scientists' (Score:5, Informative)
The common cold is caused by many different strains and types of virus. Itâ(TM)s possible to tackle individual strains. Antivirals work against at least some of them, but usually not worth the expense and hassle.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what you're getting at .. you're doubting there are multiple strains and types of cold viruses?
Also, Koch's postulates are not a good way to determine whether something is the cause of a disease .. Blindly sticking to something that was developed in the late 1800s before we even knew what the heck DNA was, how the immune system works, or that viruses existed is dumb. Let's see his postulates:
1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not
Throwing away the scientific method. (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the situational ethics for many of them- but at some point, you really have to reflect on the utter, UTTER absurdity of this scenario where this IS the ethical choice left - where the chain that binds so much of the scientific infrastructure around the world has been cut in so many places, and sold off for power and wealth in so many ways.
Not that it's ever been perfect - but usually something like a pandemic would trigger at least some self-preservation in the populace and set the time's politicians to at least give a better public impression.
But no - it's all pseudoscience and smokescreen, well, WELL ahead of actual science in front of the public eye, at least at the highest levels in the US at least.
This is the oddest timeline - where this Republican War on Science has blossomed and taken root, for the most absurd reasons.
Conservatism, I can understand - a default rejection of change quite reasonable as a exactly default - same with religious conservatism in the face of a complex universe - all quite understandable. I just can't understand this particular mutation - this Trump era of politics makes no sense, from rich to poor, it's like it's pining for a time before reason was a public concept.
Conservatism should at least be pining for an outcome that gets you something or preventing loss - this Trump politics though just seems to lose everyone as much a possible across time, including the very notion of shared scientific ideas.
At least we still have folks that know how to get us closer to a working Covid trreatment over time - but we're losing our ability to improve over time, to learn from our mistakes and grow - by losing science and the scientific method as a part of our culture by way of our politics for seeking corrupted 'results' driven methods.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
If you try to figure out Trump in the context of conservatism, you are missing the point. Trump works as a businessman trying to solve problems quickly. Part of his method is observing that many of America's practices and standards have worked very well in the past, and should be repeated: that's related to conservatism. Another part is throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks, as part of the problem solving process, and that makes critics howl.
Griping about not neatly adhering to the minutia
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump works as a businessman trying to solve problems quickly.
What? He does no such thing. The only thing he does quickly is figure out how much money he can siphon from his business before it fails.
Part of his method is observing that many of America's practices and standards have worked very well in the past, and should be repeated:
Again, what? This is the guy who has refused to say people should wear masks, who didn't initiate quarantine protocols, who IGNORED a booklet specifically designed for this
Re: (Score:2)
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a perfect specimen of TDS. Avoid eye contact.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't refute a single word I said. Instead, ad hominem. This is what happens when the truth is spoken. No answer, just personal attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They are; they want to get back to living their lives and stop destroying the economy. The fact that you can't understand their reasoning doesn't mean that they're unreasonable; it just means you're either easily terrified or you're not trying very hard.
Awwww.. "they want to get back to living their lives." Poor babies. Tell that to the deadly pathogen.
This virus is parasite with a very short life-span. It DEPENDS on humans to pass it on to each other for its survival. Fortunately for the virus, there are plenty of humans who value their social lives more than real lives.
Re: (Score:2)
It may not be a life form.
Of course, this implies it cares even less.
Re: (Score:2)
That virii are "alive" is something of a contentious point - arguments both sides there I am sure you can find.
You might enjoy this read:
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
> Of course, this implies it cares even less.
Takes a brain to care - of that virii certainly have none!
Easy to use anthropomorphism of course.. in error as it were.
In bad Latin. But they reduce the traffics (Score:2)
For anyone interested, is Latin singular words that end in "-us" can be made plural by changing "us" to "ii", similar to how English adds "s" or "es".
So virus, virii, right?
Nope, in Latin virus is like "traffic" - there is no plural.
Re: (Score:2)
I think traffic is always plural. "I ran into a lot of traffic" (many) vs "I ran into traffic" (indeterminate amount) vs "I ran into a traffic" (singular).
Re: (Score:2)
No, wrong.
That rule applies only to some words ending in -us. Not to all.
And if I'm not mistaken, virii is the plural of vir, which means man/men.
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatism should at least be pining for an outcome that gets you something or preventing loss
They are; they want to get back to living their lives and stop destroying the economy.
Failing to control the spread of the disease is what's keeping them from getting back to living their lives. If you look at the countries that responded aggressively, with real lockdowns, mandatory mask orders and plenty of investment in testing and contact tracing, they are pretty much back to normal, and by "normal" I mean "really normal", not "government isn't imposing any restrictions but half the population is mostly barricaded in their homes".
For some reason, conservatives seem utterly blind to the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I think there's a real trade-off between dealing with the pandemic and economic considerations. Shutting down DOES crush the economy but works to contain the virus, and re-opening the economy allows the virus to spread.
You're missing two things:
First, the US never shut down. It had piecemeal, half-assed slowdowns that mostly just caused the rate of infection to plateau. This inflicted economic damage to minimal benefit.
Second, the US has never reopened, and it won't reopen until the virus is really dealt with. Oh, the government orders have been rescinded, but much of the poplulation is still staying home. This has inflicted more economic damage, and will continue to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're r
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives aren't gathering in large groups every single day and spreading the virus, the radicalised liberals/SJWs/BLM/Antifa/extremists/terrorists are. Why don't you go tell your worthless democrat leaders to get their houses in order?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't comprehend the difference between "I don't agree with everything they do" and "they're 100% p0wned by other stakeholders."
Your brain is too corrupted to provide any useful output.
That's really stupid! (Score:3)
Oops! Sorry BOB, we mixed up the vials! That wasn't COVID-19, it was for Ebola. Wait, no... it was LIVE Ebola, not the vaccine!
wow. dozens you say. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
jumping into volcanos
Yeah, but they don't let you advertise that as a tour, so it is hard to cash in.
Re: (Score:2)
That reminds me of a old saying I learned from my uncle.
"The operation was successful, but the patient died."
Dozens of Scientists Around the World (Score:2)
Because nothing else says "I Love You" like a double-blind study that literally makes you double-blind. And that's if you're LUCKY.
OTOH I guess if you get it right (how do you justify your proof?) you're an instant zillion-aire, and to some people it'd be worth it. At our local racetrack, I remember lots of people waiting at the $100 window while I think I'm foolish spending $2 on a ticket at a time there for entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you get it right, you're not an instant zillionaire. The public is still going to demand trials be performed. You may come out a zillionaire eventually but you're going to have to be patient.
More power to them (Score:2)
The rest of us would describe them as brain-dead guinea pigs.
Plumbing (Score:2)
If know how to check my own pipes why would I call a plumber?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what she said, but what if he wasn't the plumber?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what she said, but what if he wasn't the plumber?
https://media1.tenor.com/image... [tenor.com]
Re: (Score:2)
My buddy's dad is a plumber. He gets a significant part of his business from people who "know how to check their own pipes".
Re: (Score:2)
My buddy's dad is a plumber. He gets a significant part of his business from people who "know how to check their own pipes".
I get a significant part of my business by gutting my own bathroom down to the studs and floor joists and then running all new copper to a tub/shower, sink, and toilet. hot/cold water feeds in 1/2 inch drains in 3/4 inch. Yeah I watched videos, yeah I bought heat shields and wire brushes. Yeah i fluxed, and yeah I made sure to keep the heat off the joint and watch the solder suck in. 6 years later, no problems , and no need to call for your buddy's dad.
And I'm a fucking amateur. These are scientist who kn
Re: (Score:2)
Hell , i'm certain that given the proper access to equipment I could run the test, you probably could too.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I want to be sure the job is done right.
This is a great example, because I have a toilet that leaks. I turned off the water and considered my options. I could do it myself...probably. I've watched a few YouTube videos. I think I'm going to have to replace the whole thing and while that sounds simple*, I'd rather pay a professional to do it right than hope I don't make a mistake.
Nobody wants a toilet leaking all over their bathroom floor and I'm willing to pay to make sure that doesn't happen.
I'm
Critics are redundant. (Score:2)
When you go DIY you by definition could have unforeseen negative consequences. But that's true with any vaccine, whether you go through the process or not. The difference is that the "real" vaccine process tracks those negative consequences in a liability-shielding way whereas when you DIY you set yourself up to liability claims.
"Scientists" (Score:2)
Reminded of Fred Flintstone (Score:2)
Reminds me of this cartoon segment -
https://youtu.be/VEQILKohuY0?t... [youtu.be]
There was probably similar stuff going on in the 1918 pandemic.
I can be a scientist too! (Score:2)
I cleared a drain once, and can change a bicycle tire, I'm ready for my next challenge. Look out rona!
Re: (Score:2)
I still have to learn how to reed and rite...shoot.
Biohacking worked out well for this guy (Score:2)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... [nytimes.com]
or this one https://www.theatlantic.com/sc... [theatlantic.com]
Maybe the scientists will fare better
Questionable (Score:2)
If it was that simple, all vaccines would be administered in this way. But even injecting these peptides without provoking an immune response wouldn't provide a significant level of protection.
Sadly there are no shortcuts.
It's easy to protect yourself the old fashion way though; just #stayathome to #crushthecurv
Re: (Score:2)
I keep looking for documentation of mask related illness and deaths... can't find any. Care to share some data sets?
Open Source Vaccines, Crowd Source Tests (Score:2)
Then interested parties can tweak the process and come up with something.
I wonder where they'll find some of the more sketchier ingredients.
Or just wear a mask (Score:2)
This is how you get Super Mutants (Score:2)
(Especially when they reuse half the game assets in the sequel.)
Really? There was a more serious biohacker effort (Score:2)
Josiah Zayner and David Ishee of unnatural selection fame have been doing this alone with another woman from the Ukraine they are working with.
The DEADLY Coronavirus (Score:2)
Wonder where this writer is coming from .
This is like saying:
The deadly flu (cause it is) the deadly cancer (cause it is) the deadly head cold (cause it can kill also)
I suppose you could just write:
The deadly life (cause we all die)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Re: Good (Score:2)
Not yet. If someone gets a bad vaccine and then gets the coronavirus, though, they could have a very bad reaction.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you know anyone injured or harmed by their DIY vaccine? I haven't heard of it -- by now there are quite a few people who have done it.
Not only did this get posted, but some idiot modded it +1 Informative.
"I haven't heard of it" is now the basis for determining if a "DIY" vaccine is safe? Awesome.
Re: Good (Score:2)
It seems sufficient for Trump.
DIY Vaccine differences? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Made some drug company or ETF index rich"
Your bias was showing loud and proud before you added this. You didn't need to say it.
Do. Your. Fucking. Homework.
Vaccines aren't big moneymaker for the pharmaceutical industry. Hell, the government had to subsidize MMR2 vaccination to keep the production lines running because it was losing money for a while. Vaccines are bragging rights for who pulls it off, a lot of knowledge gained that becomes the basis for other vaccines, but a big money maker? Nope.
Re: (Score:2)
Do. Your. Fucking. Homework.
Translation: I don't have any evidence supporting what I say, but I'm going to pretend I know what I'm talking about by spouting nebulous things and shifting the burden of proof on to others by telling them to do my research for me.
Re: (Score:2)
How do they know their vaccine works? I haven't caught the virus either so that means my daily cup of coffee worked just as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Wally, is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is in no way easy to make a vaccine and there is no point in a personalized one. I don'tr have a problem with people testing on themselves, but you are posting nonsense.
Re:What else builds antibodies? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's dumb. That's like vaccinating yourself with an unweakened live virus that is still capable of spreading. It only has a chance of working if everyone who did that quarantined themselves! Otherwise, you would speed up delivery of the virus to vulnerable populations and risk overwhelming the hospitals. It's better to avoid the virus and thereby slow it down so that as few as possible vulnerable people get it before a vaccine is made available (which should become available in months).
Re: (Score:3)
There's another way of building antibodies and resistance and it's all natural - letting yourself get sick. So go out and play in the mud so to speak. Healthy people at any age appear relatively safe with rare exceptions. We need more healthy people to get a little sick to help build resistance in the population.
This was always the plan, the only thing we ever hoped for was to diminish the peak(s). You remember "flatten the curve" right? It was never eliminate the chart.
The flu isn't cured, the common cold isn't cured. Nor will this. We just want to slow it down.
Re:What else builds antibodies? (Score:4, Informative)
Oops, the virus often causes long-term health problems in people who are asymptomatic during the active infection. Not all damage is immediately obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
Oops, the virus often causes long-term health problems in people who are asymptomatic during the active infection. Not all damage is immediately obvious.
What do you mean by "often", and what do you mean by "long term"?
Re: (Score:3)
Some studies and articles on the topic:
https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.2020200110 and https://www.npr.org/sections/g... [npr.org] . There are dozens of other reports.
By often, the number range somewhere between 30 and 60 percent. For long term, we are talking of at least several months, but it is too early to say if that will be permanent. From the close relative of the virus, SARS-CoV-1, we already know that it can make people not able to return to work for years (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC
Re: (Score:2)
No, its pretty much a flu. Apparently https://unherd.com/2020/06/kar... [slashdot.org]">50% of us are already partially immune because this coronavirus shares much of its makeup with other coronaviruses, like flu. (the link is news, but contains a link to the actual science) Remember the flu vaccines are only partially effective, about 50%, generally reducing symptoms, not preventing them.
The paper says:
Re: (Score:3)
#2 You stated that "because this coronavirus shares much of its makeup with other coronaviruses, like flu". The flu is not caused by a coronavirus, it is caused by the influenza virus.
#3 That article was from June, almost three months ago. I can find nothing more recent matching the claim
Re: (Score:2)
You are living under a rock, right?
Flu is an influencia virus.
Corvid19 is a corona virus.
Nothing in common at all, except for similar symptoms.
(* facepalm *)
Re: (Score:2)
Influenza (ofvten called "flu" by the ignorant) is a coronavirus too. Coronavirus is a term for these viruses of which sars-cov-2 (commonly known as the covid-19 virus) and influenza (commonly known as "flu") fall under the same category.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.ynhhs.org/patient-... [ynhhs.org]
https://www.who.int/westernpac... [who.int]
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/sympto... [cdc.gov]
Influenza (Flu) and COVID-19 are both contagious respiratory illnesses, but they are caused by different viruses. COVID-19 is caused by infection with a new coronavirus (called SARS-CoV-2) and flu is caused by infection with influenza viruses.
From the last link.
Re: (Score:2)
Some studies and articles on the topic:
https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.2020200110
That study says "often" = "up to 54%" and "long term" = "?"
and https://www.npr.org/sections/g... [npr.org]
That article says "often" = "57%" and "long term" = "temporary"
There are dozens of other reports.
Yes there are, and I've read a few. They've all said the same things as your papers/articles say. But obviously I haven't read all of them, so I have been on the lookout for additional info - especially when someone uses the phrase "long term" when talking about damage or health problems.
...but it is too early to say if that will be permanent.
Exactly. In fact, most of the articles I've read (like yours) say any injury is likely temporary.
Re: (Score:2)
Long term means damage that is known to not heal, like most of the lung damage found.
Re: (Score:2)
Long term means damage that is known to not heal, like most of the lung damage found.
So by "long term", you mean "permanent". OK. What do you mean by "most"? Words like "most" or "some" are the kind of words I'm trying to get away from. They don't really tell me much.
Have you got any sources that show what percentage of COVID cases suffer permanent lung damage? I've found articles like this [newscientist.com] from a couple of months ago that seem to indicate such damage occurs in 1% of cases (or less). Or like this study of hospitalized patients, [biomedcentral.com] which says lung abnormalities steadily improved after di
Re: (Score:3)
Staying alive doesn't mean the virus is safe for the person. There are countless of studies that anywhere between 30% to 80% get all kinds of internal organ damage. This includes damage to lungs, heart, kidneys, central nervous system. It might even reduce fertility in males. People should already stop just looking at the mortality and think about the other implications. It's not like a bad flu. It's like a really bad polio.
Re: (Score:2)
That's highly irresponsible. You might stay asymptomatic or get off with a light case, but if you carry on as before you'll still infect others - who might not be as lucky.
Re:What else builds antibodies? (Score:5, Insightful)
We still don't know jack shit about the long term effects, which seem to affect even people that have been symptomless and are not comparable to the long term effects of most other diseases that remain since we've vaccinated away most diseases with similar long term effects. Heart disease, vacsular disease, extreme fatigue that does not improve with rest, loss of cognitive functions ("brain fog"), loss of taste and smell (temporary in most but the jury is still out on whether there will be people with permanent damage), nerve damage (resulting in paralysis in some), headaches and joint pains.
Don't underestimate COVID-19, no matter how healthy you are. Chances are you will never be the same. And those chances are very high, at least 10% and possibly much higher. The chances of you indirectly causing someone else to develop such live long ailments is much higher than that.
Oh and then there's the slight problem that immunity is not permanent and likely does not fully protect against other strains of COVID-19. Herd immunity is not an acceptable answer, especially not because you won't stay immune for long and will only have limited immunity for other strains.
Also, don't think the economic damage is worse than the disease. It is not. Countries like Sweden that did not lock down had their economy affected worse and will now have to deal with many more people that have long term problems.
Diseases cause permanent damage. Luckily for us we almost forgot that because we've developed vaccines for diseases that are as shitty as this. Just wait it out.
Re: (Score:2)
letting yourself get sick.
Sure, why not. Nothing like having frostbitten-like toes, organ damage or possibly brain damage. And this is on top of losing my sense of smell and taste or losing my balance. And all this after being laid up for 2 - 4 weeks.
I'm all for people playing in the mud to build up a better defense, but I don't recommend it for things like the mumps, which is still around, whooping cough or covid-19.