Tam says the federal government is 'examining' all vaccine mandates

[AlbertaFarmer5]

From Chuck's article:
“As soon as the pandemic hit, I thought; oh no, this is going to be bad for neurological health,” said Michelle Monje
Does that strike anyone else as a very unscientific statement?
Why would she think that at the very beginning, before there is any indication or evidence?
Using the statement "this is going to be bad", as opposed to theorizing and asking the question if there could be consequences, sounds a lot like having a predetermined conclusion then creating a study to prove that conclusion.
Completely opposite to the scientific method

[chuckChuck]

That's why the science will face peer review and other studies will over time look at this same question to confirm or not confirm the conclusions.

Michelle Monje, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University seems more than qualified to make the statement that covid inflammation is likely going to cause neurological issues.

Unlike your personal amateur arm chair opinions which are usually wrong right from the start, Monje went on to do the science to understand whether her assumption was correct or not correct.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

That's why the science will face peer review and other studies will over time look at this same question to confirm or not confirm the conclusions.

Michelle Monje, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University seems more than qualified to make the statement that covid inflammation is likely going to cause neurological issues.

Unlike your personal amateur arm chair opinions which are usually wrong right from the start, Monje went on to do the science to understand whether her assumption was correct or not correct.

Except that isn't what she said. She stated in the affirmative:. oh no, this is going to be bad . The word likely does not exist in that statement. So, now you are putting words into the mouth of a professor of neurology, because you know better than she does.
This idea of abusing science to legitimize a predetermined outcome sounds like something straight out of climate " science", not actual medical science.

[chuckChuck]

Okay what ever you say there A5.

You should write the journal that she publishes her study in and tell her she's wrong that covid is good and don't worry about long covid and neurological damage. Say it's all good based on your home science kit and some good old Alberta ingenuity, speculation and home research!

I am sure they will write back with praise for your astute observations. You may even be awarded the Nobel prize in neuroscience.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Okay what ever you say there A5.

You should write the journal that she publishes her study in and tell her she's wrong that covid is good and don't worry about long covid and neurological damage. Say it's all good based on your home science kit and some good old Alberta ingenuity, speculation and home research!

I am sure they will write back with praise for your astute observations. You may even be awarded the Nobel prize in neuroscience.

It's almost as an if we are having a completely different conversation.
Either that or else you can't be bothered reading what I post.

[chuckChuck]

Here A5 now you can take a look at the science in "question" authored by numerous researchers working in neurology not just one who speculated that covid which clearly caused severe damage to organs, also could cause brain damage. She then worked with her colleagues to prove or disprove her hypothesis using the scientific method. Was she and her numerous colleagues wrong? If you think so, show us the evidence! LOL

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.07.475453v1

Mild respiratory SARS-CoV-2 infection can cause multi-lineage cellular dysregulation and myelin loss in the brain

Anthony Fernández-Castañeda, Peiwen Lu, Anna C. Geraghty, Eric Song, Myoung-Hwa Lee, Jamie Wood, Belgin Yalçın, Kathryn R. Taylor, Selena Dutton, Lehi Acosta-Alvarez, Lijun Ni, Daniel Contreras-Esquivel, Jeff R. Gehlhausen, Jon Klein, Carolina Lucas, Tianyang Mao, View ORCID ProfileJulio Silva, Mario A. Peña-Hernández, Alexandra Tabachnikova, Takehiro Takahashi, Laura Tabacof, Jenna Tosto-Mancuso, Erica Breyman, Amy Kontorovich, Dayna McCarthy, Martha Quezado, Marco Hefti, Daniel Perl, Rebecca Folkerth, David Putrino, View ORCID ProfileAvi Nath, View ORCID ProfileAkiko Iwasaki, View ORCID ProfileMichelle Monje

Abstract

Survivors of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection frequently experience lingering neurological symptoms, including impairment in attention, concentration, speed of information processing and memory. This long-COVID cognitive syndrome shares many features with the syndrome of cancer therapy-related cognitive impairment (CRCI). Neuroinflammation, particularly microglial reactivity and consequent dysregulation of hippocampal neurogenesis and oligodendrocyte lineage cells, is central to CRCI. We hypothesized that similar cellular mechanisms may contribute to the persistent neurological symptoms associated with even mild SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infection. Here, we explored neuroinflammation caused by mild respiratory SARS-CoV-2 infection – without neuroinvasion - and effects on hippocampal neurogenesis and the oligodendroglial lineage. Using a mouse model of mild respiratory SARS-CoV-2 infection induced by intranasal SARS-CoV-2 delivery, we found white matter-selective microglial reactivity, a pattern observed in CRCI. Human brain tissue from 9 individuals with COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 infection exhibits the same pattern of prominent white matter-selective microglial reactivity. In mice, pro-inflammatory CSF cytokines/chemokines were elevated for at least 7-weeks post-infection; among the chemokines demonstrating persistent elevation is CCL11, which is associated with impairments in neurogenesis and cognitive function. Humans experiencing long-COVID with cognitive symptoms (48 subjects) similarly demonstrate elevated CCL11 levels compared to those with long-COVID who lack cognitive symptoms (15 subjects). Impaired hippocampal neurogenesis, decreased oligodendrocytes and myelin loss in subcortical white matter were evident at 1 week, and persisted until at least 7 weeks, following mild respiratory SARS-CoV-2 infection in mice. Taken together, the findings presented here illustrate striking similarities between neuropathophysiology after cancer therapy and after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and elucidate cellular deficits that may contribute to lasting neurological symptoms following even mild SARS-CoV-2 infection.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Once again Chuck, you are having a different discussion. I'm not arguing the outcomes or denying the long term side effects of Covid. Stop putting words in my mouth, or the doctors mouth.
I'm pointing out that the Doctor specifically stated what the outcomes would be before there was the possibility of any evidence to support any such conclusion. That doesn't mean she was wrong, or that there would be no long term side effects.
I'm just pointing out that this isn't how ethical science works. You don't start out with a predetermined outcome then design a study to prove it, unless of course it is in the field of climate science, where the rot seems to have spilled over into other previously ethical fields of science.

Try reading and comprehending what other people post before going off on an incoherent rant about unrelated topics.

[chuckChuck]

"You don't start out with a predetermined outcome then design a study to prove it," Huh?

Hypothesis. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

If you are going to make this allegation then you should have some evidence other than her informal hypothesis in the media that she and her colleagues designed a study to come to a predetermined outcome.

Because that's not likely the case.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

"You don't start out with a predetermined outcome then design a study to prove it," Huh?

Hypothesis. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

If you are going to make this allegation then you should have some evidence other than her informal hypothesis in the media that she and her colleagues designed a study to come to a predetermined outcome.

Because that's not likely the case.

It is only a direct quote from the author.

[chuckChuck]

So no evidence that the study was designed to deliver the desired outcome? Figured as much! LOL

You should really pick an argument you can win sometime with some actual evidence.