OPINION: Why mRNA Vaccines are failing.

[Circe]

It's an admission that efficacy wanes, but saying their "worthless" is ridiculous. Vaccines work a LOT better than nothing. That much is 100% clear.

No, it isn't. That is one of the many things that is very, very UNCLEAR.

Boy, the medical industry sure screwed this up big time. I suppose the basic problem is that they weren't given the usual 20 years to develop a vaccine. Not that they always can even so: HIV still doesn't have anything at all after 40 years, and it's an mRNA virus like Covid. Looking back, that fact was a bad sign.

Hubris. They didn't know what they couldn't do. They thought they were Magic Men, could do Anything and be Superheroes.

Not so much.

 

[colfax_m]

No, it isn't. That is one of the many things that is very, very UNCLEAR.

How many studies do you need demonstrating that vaccines are beneficial? At the very least they’re clearly beneficial in reducing likelihood of severe COVID and death.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Adjusting data is always a major part of how science works especially when you’re going off retrospective data.

That may be how LIbtARd “science” works. The same “science” that asserts that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

In genuine science, what you call “adjusting data”, real scientists call fraud.

 

[colfax_m]

That may be how LIbtARd “science” works. The same “science” that asserts that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

In genuine science, what you call “adjusting data”, real scientists call fraud.

Uh, no. That’s how all science works.

 

[Circe]

How many studies do you need demonstrating that vaccines are beneficial? At the very least they’re clearly beneficial in reducing likelihood of severe COVID and death.

You sure??? They swore it was total prevention and you'd never catch Covid, they swore it protected others, they swore the shots would stop it and we could go back to normal, they swore masks would protect the wearer, others, etc. ---- not a single thing was ever correct, all turned out to be lies.

Now they are saying the vaccines keep anyone and everyone from getting so sick they need to be hospitalized, and that would be nice! But since many celebrities -- fully vaccinated -- have ended up in well-publicized hospital stays, I think we'd be pretty silly to believe a word these fraudsters say. They are just trying to justify their intense propaganda campaign, which makes the medical industry a LOT of money.

If people lie and lie and lie and lie, how long are you willing to keep believing each new iteration of another lie? I myself have reached my limit some time ago; apparently you are willing to go on believing them indefinitely. I bet you buy a lot of insurance policies and overpriced new cars.

 

[colfax_m]

They swore it was total prevention and you'd never catch Covid

Who is “they”?

 

[Circe]

Who is “they”?

The self-described elites who think they know everything.

 

[colfax_m]

The self-described elites who think they know everything.

Do you have any examples of this?

 

[Circe]

Do you have any examples of this?

Sure --- you're one of them, right?

 

[colfax_m]

Sure --- you're one of them, right?

Nope.

There’s a problem with language. People hear what they want to hear. I say the vaccine prevents infection, some people assume that means it prevents every infection. It does prevent many infections. That’s what I mean. That’s how we’ve always used the word.

 

[Circe]

Nope.

There’s a problem with language. People hear what they want to hear. I say the vaccine prevents infection, some people assume that means it prevents every infection. It does prevent many infections. That’s what I mean. That’s how we’ve always used the word.

Naaaaaaah, "vaccine" used to mean something good, reliable ---- you won't get smallpox ever, ever. Now it's just one fallback position after another as nothing they advertise proves true.

 

[Flopper]

What China says and what's really happening are two separate things. They have harsh measures, but what numbers they present are hardly credible. There is no doubt that they doing more than any other nation. They are successful. How successfully, there is no way of knowing. They are vaccinating more than 20 million a day.

 

[Flopper]

One such study CONCLUDED on March 3, 2021. Right, when vaccines were at their most effective. As I said, this is obvious. As it is obvious that these "vaccines" are not so much.

No vaccines that I have ever encountered are basically useless after, say, 9 months.

Here: Effect of vaccination on transmission of COVID-19: an observational study in healthcare workers and their households

The Flu vaccine works for about 4 months and then falls off. At best Flu vaccines are no more than 60% effective. This is why so many people were so excited when the mRNA vaccine clinical trials showed they were both over 94% effective at preventing serious illness and hospitalization. At 4 moths both were still near 90% at preventing serious illness and hospitalization. The concern is that we are having more breakthrough minor infections while protection against serious infections remains about the same. When this happens, the effeteness at preventing more serious infections starts falling off. This why the FDA is finally getting off their but and acting to approve more boosters and vaccinations for kids.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Flu vaccine works for about 4 months and then falls off. At best Flu vaccines are no more than 60% effective. This is why so many people were so excited when the mRNA vaccine clinical trials showed they were both over 94% effective at preventing serious illness and hospitalization. At 4 moths [sic] both were still near 90% at preventing serious illness and hospitalization. The concern is that we are having more breakthrough minor infections while protection against serious infections remains about the same. When this happens, the effeteness [sic] at preventing more serious infections starts falling off. This why the FDA is finally getting off their but and acting to approve more boosters and vaccinations for kids.

 

[Flopper]

Several countries with the highest vaccination rates are experiencing surges. Think about it man. It is the vaccinated spreading the virus much more than the unvaccinated, particularly when the unvaccinated aren't even out as much because they aren't allowed in places and are getting fired from their jobs. Who spreads the virus more, a group of 25 unvaccinated persons congregating together or a group of 80,000 fully vaccinated attending a football game where the unvaccinated aren't allowed in? Who spreads the virus more, unvaccinated health care workers who get tested weekly or vaccinated health care workers who don't do weekly tests?

That might make sense if the only factor involved was the percent vaccinated. Vaccination rates have been increasing but unfortunately so has the delta variant which is far more infections than previous strands. The proof that vaccinations work can be seen by looking at the following graphs. Both new cases and deaths of the alpha variant rose rapidly last Fall peaking about January and February when the vaccines first became available to the general public. New cases and deaths fell rapidly as the vaccination numbers rose reaching a lowest point in epidemic in July as the Delta Variant began spreading across the country. Both cases and deaths along with the new vaccinations rose till October.

In short the peaks in deaths and new cases and lows in deaths and new cases rose prior to vaccine introduction. After the vaccine was introduced the peaks and lows fell interrupted only by the Delta variant reaching a low in July and peaking in Sept. If the increasing number of vaccinations continues through the fall we are likely to see an all time low in both deaths and new cases before the Spring.

 

[ClaireH]

This is anecdotal evidence. Maybe it's true or maybe it isn't or maybe you are just exceptional or just plain lucky. I will go with scientific evidence that vaccine do work at saving lives and preventing serious illness.

The problem with relying on natural immunity is that it's not very reliable. In a study at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, researchers found that 58 percent of those who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in April tested negative only two months later. Their antibody levels dropped so precipitously, they were no longer detectable. Even the 42 percent of personnel whose antibody levels remained above threshold still experienced a significant decline. In a study done at MIT of students who tested positive for Covid-19, a year later 20% had no detected antibodies at all, 35% had antibodies but not enough to have a strong immunity and the remaining 45% had a level believed to be high enough to provide at some immunity to the virus.

Another fact which the CDC used in it's decision not to consider previous infections in recommendations is the number of people who were seriously ill but had tested positive covid months early.

Bottom line is if you want to gamble, natural immunity might be a go bet but then again maybe not. I think I will stick with the scientific evidence from clinical trials of tens of thousands people and studies of serious infection among those that receive 400 million vaccinations which shows that the vaccines have been very effective at preventing serious illness and death.

Why We Can’t Rely On Natural Immunity To Protect Us From Covid-19

A new study, compounded with recent reports of reinfection, shows why building immunity to Covid-19 is trickier than we'd like to believe.

www.forbes.com

From your post: “The problem with relying on natural immunity is that it's not very reliable.” Inaccurate information.

The following sources state otherwise, with consensus that natural immunity following viral infection is superior to the short length of time 2-3 months effective antibodies. BTW- these sources support the use of the 3 current concoctions (marketed by amateurs, literally, considering this is the first vaccine they’ve ever produced) so the claim these are “anti-vax sources” would also be inaccurate. NIH really set itself up by financing Moderna’s rushed product and testing, a bit hard to retract now.

“Natural infection triggered antibodies that continued to grow in potency and their breadth against variants for a year after infection, whereas most of those elicited by vaccination seemed to stop changing in the weeks after a second dose. Memory B cells that evolved after infection were also more likely than those from vaccination to make antibodies that block immune-evading variants such as Beta and Delta.”

COVID super-immunity: one of the pandemic’s great puzzles

People who have previously recovered from COVID-19 have a stronger immune response after being vaccinated than those who have never been infected. Scientists are trying to find out why.

www.nature.com

That year out time reference for effective antibodies following natural infection? That’s doubled following recent studies with detection of antibodies with time continuing to play out.

“Nussenzweig’s group has published data showing people who recover from a SARS-CoV-2 infection continue to develop increasing numbers and types of coronavirus-targeting antibodies for up to 1 year. By contrast, he says, twice-vaccinated people stop seeing increases “in the potency or breadth of the overall memory antibody compartment” a few months after their second dose”.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

 

[Flopper]

From your post: “The problem with relying on natural immunity is that it's not very reliable.” Inaccurate information.

The following sources state otherwise, with consensus that natural immunity following viral infection is superior to the short length of time 2-3 months effective antibodies. BTW- these sources support the use of the 3 current concoctions (marketed by amateurs, literally, considering this is the first vaccine they’ve ever produced) so the claim these are “anti-vax sources” would also be inaccurate. NIH really set itself up by financing Moderna’s rushed product and testing, a bit hard to retract now.

“Natural infection triggered antibodies that continued to grow in potency and their breadth against variants for a year after infection, whereas most of those elicited by vaccination seemed to stop changing in the weeks after a second dose. Memory B cells that evolved after infection were also more likely than those from vaccination to make antibodies that block immune-evading variants such as Beta and Delta.”

COVID super-immunity: one of the pandemic’s great puzzles

People who have previously recovered from COVID-19 have a stronger immune response after being vaccinated than those who have never been infected. Scientists are trying to find out why.

www.nature.com

That year out time reference for effective antibodies following natural infection? That’s doubled according to the following source (again, from a pro-vax source not anti-vax).

“Nussenzweig’s group has published data showing people who recover from a SARS-CoV-2 infection continue to develop increasing numbers and types of coronavirus-targeting antibodies for up to 1 year. By contrast, he says, twice-vaccinated people stop seeing increases “in the potency or breadth of the overall memory antibody compartment” a few months after their second dose”.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

This is from the Israel study which has not been peer reviewed. This study focused on the serious cases, those hospitalized. It did not look at the less serious cases and those that were asymptomatic which make up over 95% of the cases. Before the study we knew that people with mild cases had much weaker immune response than those with more serious cases. Going into the hospital with a serious case of Covid is a heavy price pay for a strong long lasting immunity. The report even mentioned this.

There is a real danger in misinterpreting the results. Many people that hear about this study and had a positive tests that was asymptomatic or only had mild symptoms may draw the conclusion that they have a strong long lasting immunity, better than the vaccines even thou there are large number of reinfections among mild and asymptomatic cases.

The value of the study is that it raises the question as to how the body produces such a strong long lasting immunity after a serious infection of corvid when other similar diseases do not.

 

[ClaireH]

This is from the Israel study which has not been peer reviewed. This study focused on the serious cases, those hospitalized. It did not look at the less serious cases and those that were asymptomatic which make up over 95% of the cases. Before the study we new that people with mild cases had much weaker immune response than those with serious cases. Going into the hospital with a serious case of Covid is a heavy price pay for a strong long lasting immunity. The report even mentioned this.

High-risk groups include known specific comorbitities. All people should make an informed decision to determine about relying on their immune system. Considering the survival rate is 98.4% or greater, depending on which source you read, high-risk groups should be a separate category to show two different stats for the sake of accuracy. I have yet to see any studies but if you have please share . Since the overall survival rate does not separate healthy individuals from individuals with pre-existing conditions (obesity and asthma top two groups) I wonder what the survival rate is for a healthy person without risk factor?

Peer review is an interesting concept. We have a subset of articles in print that are authored by an owner of media outlet. One top US medical journal (I’ve linked this previously)decided to add an additional layer of screening PRIOR to being released for preprint/peer review. Teams of of researchers interviewed lost 18 months of hard work due to their results being blocked. I understand the value of peer review, but it’s far from being a level playing field for all SARS2 (the more logical name for it) research. If it doesn’t fit the narrative…

My point is that natural immunity following infection lasts longer than the current concoctions that are available.

 

[EvMetro]

That may be how LIbtARd “science” works. The same “science” that asserts that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

In genuine science, what you call “adjusting data”, real scientists call fraud.

"Science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech."
-Albert Einstein

The problem with lefty science is that it does not take Einstein's words seriously. Flopper and colfax_m want to cite studies, but they do not take into account the circumstances of the studies. Studies that come up with results that are in conflict to covid narratives are canceled, censored, deplatformed, and forbidden. Money for studies that won't support the official political narrative is not available, and those who conduct studies that may be in conflict face getting fired. All of this is in conflict with the basic scientific model that requires scientists to establish doubt. Studies that survive censorship, deplatforming, and political filtering can not be taken seriously.

 

[colfax_m]

"Science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech."
-Albert Einstein

The problem with lefty science is that it does not take Einstein's words seriously. Flopper and colfax_m want to cite studies, but they do not take into account the circumstances of the studies. Studies that come up with results that are in conflict to covid narratives are canceled, censored, deplatformed, and forbidden. Money for studies that won't support the official political narrative is not available, and those who conduct studies that may be in conflict face getting fired. All of this is in conflict with the basic scientific model that requires scientists to establish doubt. Studies that survive censorship, deplatforming, and political filtering can not be taken seriously.

This is the fantasy story you’ve created to justify your world view. It’s not based on real world knowledge.