link?
OPINION: Why mRNA Vaccines are failing.
- Thread starter Billy_Bob
- Start date
The durability of immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination remains unclear. Here, we longitudinally profiled vaccine responses in SARS-CoV-2 naïve and recovered individuals for 6 months after vaccination. Antibodies declined from peak levels but remained detectable in most subjects at 6 months. We found mRNA vaccines generated functional memory B cells that increased from 3-6 months post-vaccination, with the majority of these cells cross-binding the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants. mRNA vaccination further induced antigen-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, and early CD4+ T cell responses correlated with long-term humoral immunity. Recall responses to vaccination in individuals with pre-existing immunity primarily increased antibody levels without substantially altering antibody decay rates. Together, these findings demonstrate robust cellular immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 and variants for at least 6 months after mRNA vaccination.
Science | AAAS
www.science.org
Rigby5
Diamond Member
This is an interesting read I think you will find.
This about a fifth of the whole article.
Science | AAAS
www.science.org
{...
What mRNA is Good For, And What It Maybe Isn't
- 29 JUN 2021
- BY DEREK LOWE
Therapeutic mRNAs
The first distinction is between vaccines and therapeutics. It's hard to remember now, but Moderna did not really start out as a vaccine company - they were going to make mRNA-based therapeutics, and there are some key differences. It's an exciting idea to reach into the body and tell particular cells to start making particular proteins (of your choice) by sending mRNA messages into them. You can think of a lot of possibilities, but there are a lot of difficulties along the way to realizing that.
For one, you're not taking advantage of the memory that the immune system brings, which is what lets you vaccinate for a brief period and then have months, years, maybe even decades of protective effects. This sort of mRNA work isn't immune-driven at all, in theory, and if you need your target cells to keep producing your desired protein, you're going to have to keep telling them that by sending them more mRNA. Once a day? Once a week? Who knows? That'll need to be worked out by experiment.
A second problem is that "not immune driven" part. If you go back to the earliest attempts to treat cells with external mRNA constructs, the people running these experiments weren't trying to set off an immune response - they were trying to do that "make me a protein" trick. But foreign mRNA can be very immunogenic indeed - the innate immune system is constantly watching for various foreign nucleic acid species as a sign of infection. In fact, one thing that had to be worked out for the vaccines over the years was how to turn down that immediate immune response so that the more long-lasting adaptive immune one had a chance to kick in. (As mentioned in this post, that may well have been what sank the CureVac mRNA vaccine, which will continue to stand as a demonstration that mRNA technology is not the Magic Road to Efficacy. Nothing is the Magic Road to Efficacy). So if you're going to give patients an mRNA injection and you don't want to set off alarm bells in the innate immune system, you're going to have to carefully engineer your sequences at the very least.
...}
{...
Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He’s worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases.
...}
Rigby5
Diamond Member
The durability of immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination remains unclear. Here, we longitudinally profiled vaccine responses in SARS-CoV-2 naïve and recovered individuals for 6 months after vaccination. Antibodies declined from peak levels but remained detectable in most subjects at 6 months. We found mRNA vaccines generated functional memory B cells that increased from 3-6 months post-vaccination, with the majority of these cells cross-binding the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants. mRNA vaccination further induced antigen-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, and early CD4+ T cell responses correlated with long-term humoral immunity. Recall responses to vaccination in individuals with pre-existing immunity primarily increased antibody levels without substantially altering antibody decay rates. Together, these findings demonstrate robust cellular immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 and variants for at least 6 months after mRNA vaccination.
Science | AAAS
I read it but did not find it convincing.
For example:
{...
Immunological studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection show that memory B and T cell responses appear to persist for at least 8 months post-symptom onset (28, 29). However, the durability of these populations of memory B and T cells following vaccination remains poorly understood.
...}
If the person is getting boosters every 3 months, and that temporarily stimulated antibody production, then that would not indicate T-cell or B-cell memory at all.
The shortest T-cell memory I know of is from Pertussis, which is still at least over 3 years.
So when someone is referring to 8 months, that does not fit any T-cell memory I am familiar with.
Normally you measure T-cell memory in decades, not months or years even.
The problem I have is that I do not know what T-cells store, but I do not think those designing these mRNA injections know much more than I do.
And since these mRNA injections have nothing the immune system can trigger on, I don't see how they could possibly work?
They are claiming the lack of success is due to variants, but the variants have identical spike proteins, so the immune response should still be identical.
I think they are just deliberately pulling a fraud.
The high rate of reinfection, the % vaccinated having no effect on surges, and the ease with which re-infections spreads, implies all these mRNA injections do is temporarily stimulate a therapeutic antibody response.
Which is not at all remotely like a vaccine.
Examine the claim that the loss of effectiveness was due to variants.
Well then how come boosters are being recommended and they seem to help?
Since the boosters are identical to the original mRNA injection, they can not have any greater means of identifying the variants than the original shot.
So then that indicates actual identification was never a factor or capability.
All they are doing is temporarily stimulating antibody production.
Colin norris
Platinum Member
- Apr 25, 2021
- 10,427
- 4,110
- 928
- Banned
- #245
Why haven't you revealed your vast reservoir of knowledge to the government? You could have saved thousands of lives.
You work on pacemakers. Really, what work? Exactly what do you do because I'm suspicious you don't
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Yes the government could have easily saved over half a million lives.
All they had do was NOT "flatten the curve".
That is not a recognized, traditional, historic, or scientific strategy.
If an epidemic is very lethal, you do full quarantine, with contact tracing, and immediately wipe it out.
If it is less lethal, then you do deliberate variolation in order to quickly achieve herd immunity.
There is no third option I am aware of.
Vaccines have never been used to end an epidemic in progress, and they usually take over 6 years due to the extensive years of testing.
But even vaccines only help achieve herd immunity, and can't end an epidemic by itself.
A pacemaker is just a computer, with a processor, memory, etc.
If it paced all the time, its battery would not last a week, and the muscle the electrode is implanted in would become insensitive in a week.
So pacemakers are quite complicated, watching for evidence of tachycardia or bradycardia.
And my expertise is actually software.
But you would not believe what I have to know about medicine, to do the programming.
As a point of interest, the cpu is actually the old MOS Tech 6502 design, only miniaturized with the latest fab implementation.
Funny to think of having an old Atari in your chest, running for a decade off a tiny battery.
Colin norris
Platinum Member
- Apr 25, 2021
- 10,427
- 4,110
- 928
- Banned
- #247
You're right. I'd be surprised what you if anything. I Can tell you know nothing about vaccines. Have you been double sided yet. Yes or no
What's your expertise in? How does it justify you harping on anyone who doesn't agree with you on these experimental treatments?
Colin norris
Platinum Member
- Apr 25, 2021
- 10,427
- 4,110
- 928
- Banned
- #249
My opinion is good enough for me. If you don't line it, get a ticket get in line and kiss my butt.
His expertise is nothing but a big mouth. You'd believe anything.
So you are just spouting off garbage someone else told you. Not very compelling.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
It is you who know nothing about vaccines.
For example, do you know that vaccines came from variolation, like Gen. Washington ordered in 1777?
One Vaccination, Under God: When George Washington Kept a Smallpox Epidemic From Costing Him the American Revolution
Smallpox vaccination was banned in America during the Revolutionary War, but George Washington was determined to protect his army no matter what.
www.mentalfloss.com
Vaccines did not exist yet in 1777, and it was variolation instead.
Here is a simple test.
For any vaccine to work, the immune system has to store something in its memory to identify the particular pathogen.
What does an mRNA store to allow the immune system to identify covid in the future?
The answer is there is nothing. Since the mRNA injections do not contain a pathogen, it can't give the immune system anything to trigger on.
If you said "spike proteins", you would be wrong because our own exosomes have to also use spike proteins.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
No, I have stated logic and reason. It is you who have to find a way to defend mRNA injects and find a way they could possibly work, because logically then can't.
And the evidence also is they do not work, and that is why they are trying to lie and claim it is the variants causing all the breakout infections of those supposedly vaccinated.
But for variants to not be recognized, they would have to be significantly different, and they are not. They use the same spike protein.
MarathonMike
Diamond Member
Billy_Bob That makes sense. It also happens to be the perfect money machine for the vaccine companies as you constantly have to get jabbed with their substandard vaccine. What are the long term effects on your body if people get annual or semi-annual mRNA based vaccines? Something tells me that is not the road we want to take.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Yes, unfortunately money has taken over our medical profession it seems.
As the saying goes, 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'
The term variolation refers solely to inoculation with the smallpox virus and is related to but not interchangeable with vaccination. The procedure was abandoned due to the danger of using a live virus. It was supplanted by vaccination after 1798. In 1842 an act of Parliament in England made the practice of variolation a felony in that country.
Over the last year a “variolation hypothesis” has arisen in which a controlled dose of the virus is introduced into the body through using masks to reduce the viral load. This remains a supposition supported by limited evidence. I doubt any scientist today in his right mind would suggest injecting a person with the live unattenuated SARS-Cov-2.
Variolation | Description, History, Smallpox, & Facts | Britannica
Variolation was a method of immunizing healthy individuals against smallpox by infecting them with substance from the sores of patients with a mild form of the disease (variola minor).
www.britannica.com
Last edited:
Rigby5
Diamond Member
As the saying goes, 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'
The term variolation refers solely to inoculation with the smallpox virus and is related to but not interchangeable with vaccination. The procedure was abandoned due to the danger of using a live virus. It was supplanted by vaccination after 1798. In 1842 an act of Parliament in England made the practice of variolation a felony in that country.
Over the last year a “variolation hypothesis” has arisen in which a controlled dose of the virus is introduced into the body through using masks to reduce the viral load. This remains a supposition supported by limited evidence. I doubt any scientist today in his right mind would suggest injecting a person with the live unattenuated SARS-Cov-2.
Variolation | Description, History, Smallpox, & Facts | Britannica
Variolation was a method of immunizing healthy individuals against smallpox by infecting them with substance from the sores of patients with a mild form of the disease (variola minor).
Yes I am aware variolation originally means deliberate infection with smallpox, but came to be known as any deliberate infection.
Variolation should always be abandoned for actual vaccination once one has a safe vaccine, because the risks inherent to deliberate infection.
But the point is that with covid, the chances of death are 400 times greater if over 70, as compared to under 40, so the risks of variolation with live unattenuated covid to those under 40, was completely insignificant compared to the risk to those over 70.
And the point is if about half the population had volunteered for deliberate infection with covid, last March, then the death toll would have been under 50,000, and the epidemic would have been completely ended in less than a month.
We had no vaccine yet at that time, (and I don't we still do have a vaccine yet), so flattening the curve for 1.5 years was not worth it.
We increased the death total by over a factor of 10.
The death toll from deliberate infection of volunteers under 40 would have been less than a tenth the death toll we have now, and now it is possible we will never be able to end this covid epidemic. We may have caused it to evolve into being permanent.
And it seems to me that these mRNA injections are a total and complete failure.
The only good they do is a temporary 4 month long stimulation of the production of additional antibodies.
As the saying goes, 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'
The term variolation refers solely to inoculation with the smallpox virus and is related to but not interchangeable with vaccination. The procedure was abandoned due to the danger of using a live virus. It was supplanted by vaccination after 1798. In 1842 an act of Parliament in England made the practice of variolation a felony in that country.
Over the last year a “variolation hypothesis” has arisen in which a controlled dose of the virus is introduced into the body through using masks to reduce the viral load. This remains a supposition supported by limited evidence. I doubt any scientist today in his right mind would suggest injecting a person with the live unattenuated SARS-Cov-2.
Variolation | Description, History, Smallpox, & Facts | Britannica
Variolation was a method of immunizing healthy individuals against smallpox by infecting them with substance from the sores of patients with a mild form of the disease (variola minor).
Testing, quarantining, with contact tracing has proved very effective. In fact, South Korea made it their primary response to the alpha variant in March 2020 with great results. It works extremely well when the number of cases are small relative to the size of the testing, quarantining, and contact tracing effort. In South Korea when there was less than a few hundred known cases and tens of thousands of workers assigned to the effort, the number new cases dropped to nearly zero. However when the delta variant hit, the transmission rate was so high, this strategy simply required more resources than they had.
Once you have hundreds thousands of cases, the effort becomes so great that you can not contain the epidemic. It simple becomes another method of reducing the spread, like mask wearing and social distancing. Had the US had the resources in place in March 2020, we could have controlled the spread of alpha variant.
Last edited:
The biggest drawback in using a live virus is convincing people to take the vaccine. Scientists found ways of attenuated the Smallpox virus so the vaccine was very safe. However It took 200 years to get the world sufficiently vaccinated against smallpox to irradiate it. I remember as a young child, my parents complaining that they were being forced by the school board to have their kids vaccinated with a virus that might make them sick or worse. Today the anti-vax movement can be traced back to the fight against inoculating our children with one of the most deadly viruses in history. As we have seen with covid, a large segment of the population does not make health decisions based on scientific evidence.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Testing, quarantining, with contact tracing works great.
But that has nothing to do with "flattening the curve".
With testing, quarantining, and contact tracing, you intend to reduce R0 to as low as possible, definitely below 1.0, and then you can end an epidemic in a short time, like less than a month.
In contrast, with "flattening the curve", you do not do testing, quarantining, or contact tracing.
Instead you just have everyone one wear a mask and social distance.
That can never reduce the infection rate below 1.0, so then will always be totally and completely unproductive, since it just slows down the infection rate to prevent herd immunity, without actually doing anything to end the epidemic.
And the delta variant had nothing to do with it.
By then it was already way too late, because we had been doing the foolish "flattening the curve" for almost a year.
The point is that once the testing, quarantine, and contact tracing method is abandoned, for whatever reason, then the only remaining strategy is deliberate infection of those least likely to be harmed, in order to achieve herd immunity as quickly as possible.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Those under 40 were at so little risk, that there were more than sufficient volunteers available.
In fact, at spring break social gatherings like Daytona Beach, they had to arrest hundreds in order to prevent them from deliberately getting infected on their own.
If you deliberately infect by injection, it is vastly superior because then you know who and when to quarantine those deliberately infected.
The main portion of the population who does not make health decisions based on science is the government.
The point is with any epidemic, you have to use a fast strategy.
One extreme or the other.
You either totally quarantine, test, and contact trace to quickly wipe it out, or you deliberately infect in order to quickly achieve herd immunity and wipe it out.
Doing something in the middle, that cannot possibly end it, is insanely irrational.
Flattening the curve does absolutely no good at all, you are worse off than before, and all you did was give it more time to spread even more deeply and wider.
Look at the Spanish flu. It was a total disaster.
It was no more deadly, but was prevented from ending by the mask and social distancing mandates.
Spanish flu has returned since 1918, and was insignificant, because we did not mask or social distance, so it quickly burned out with herd immunity.
Same with covid.
We could have ended it quickly with either known scientific method, but instead went with flattening the curve with masks and social distancing, a method known to be a total disaster.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Vance Boelter, Minnesota Lawmaker assassin has been arrested- Started by TemplarKormac
- Replies: 0
-
What is the difference between a slave's and a free man's diet
- Started by newrebel
- Replies: 0
-
Democrat Party Is Crumbling, Teachers Union Boss Resigns From DNC- Started by RhodyPatriot
- Replies: 9
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canada are likely here to stay, U.S. ambassador insists- Latest: shockedcanadian
