We also have 150+ million people around the world who've had the virus walking around without damage.

The point is how should we change our recommendations? Are older people or others with certain medical conditions more susceptible to damage?

I don't see how shrugging off this new information is reasonable or scientific.

Start by telling people to take more zinc.

People downvoting nutrition…I don’t get it…or maybe I do.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240545772...

Vitamin D levels had a significant difference between the case and control groups (p = 0.008). Serum calcium and serum zinc levels also had statistically significant differences between the two groups (p < 0.001).

Or walking around damaged, and they don’t know it yet.

Didn’t it take us thousands of years to realize lead was poisonous?

It didn't. Western medicine new lead was poisonous dating back at least to the second century BCE. What changed was the belief that only acute lead exposure could cause poisoning... We came to understand the mechanisms by which chronic exposure causes buildup and poisoning over a long term.

This makes the analogy even more appropriate. We know the spike protein is harmful in some amount, but we think a small enough amount produced forever should be safe. Maybe we'll learn otherwise.

Why do you think it is produced forever? The mRNA quickly degrades in the body and the injected cells will stop producing the spike protein. That's why there has to be a second injection.

Is there a source? 100% believe you, but due to the conflicting posts I’d love to read the source (and I don’t know what to Google). Thanks!

(m)RNA is inherently unstable in our body: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA#Degradation

> small enough amount produced forever should be safe

does 'forever' modify 'produced' or 'should be safe'? if the former, what produces a small amount of the spike protein forever (continuing, not just a small amount one time)?

It's a question hacker mindset would ask. What follows from first principles given the headline; it's not an unreasonable question, even if there is no empirical evidence the vaccines are unsafe