Post by: Jolly2 on 23/12/2020 17:39:46
Spoiler: show
Post by: Jolly2 on 23/12/2020 19:56:37
I am shocked. Frankly
Post by: alancalverd on 23/12/2020 20:40:36
Post by: Kryptid on 23/12/2020 20:46:37
Post by: RD on 24/12/2020 04:08:59
http://tapnewswire.com/2020/12/dr-wodarg-and-dr-yeadon-request-a-stop-of-all-corona-vaccination-studies-call-to-sign-the-petition/
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9856420671
Post by: Jolly2 on 24/12/2020 15:02:03
Assuming that this is true, then it sounds like COVID-19 itself would also potentially cause infertility. So if you got the vaccine you'd be risking infertility, or if you didn't and thus put yourself at risk for catching COVID-19, you'd also risk infertility (except with the vaccine, you'd avoid the potential health complications and possible death from catching the virus). Also, women past menopause and men wouldn't have that issue to deal with in the first place.
Sure it wouldn't surprise me at all if the people that created Covid in a Laboratory designed it to attack the reproductive system. We already know covid attacks the testicales.
Post by: Jolly2 on 24/12/2020 15:03:01
"suggested that COVID-19 vaccines will cause infertility because of a shared amino acid sequence in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 and a placental protein,” she said in an email. “The sequence, however, is too short to plausibly give rise to autoimmunity.”
I dont think it's fake news the scientists were asking for research.
The answer they are getting is fake news not possible even tho, the spike protein and the placental protein DO SHARE A Sequence.
Fake news scientists asked for research to check?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/12/2020 15:47:53
it isnt fake news simply because you say so.Quite.
It's nothing to do wit Colin. It's fake news because it's fake.
Just like this
the people that created Covid in a Laboratory
Post by: Kryptid on 24/12/2020 16:37:38
the spike protein and the placental protein DO SHARE A Sequence.
But how much? You'll find plenty of proteins in all living organisms that share a sequence at some point or another.
Post by: Jolly2 on 24/12/2020 17:08:57
the spike protein and the placental protein DO SHARE A Sequence.
But how much? You'll find plenty of proteins in all living organisms that share a sequence at some point or another.
Is that the issue, clearly some scientists have expressed a concern, and want research to discover if there is any risk.
To have them simply ignored and labelled as fake news based on the assumption "the sequence is too short" isn't science.
Assumption. That's it.
No experiment. Assumption.
For a vaccine technology that has never been used before. That has also been rushed. Before this new covid vaccine, 4 years is the quickest a vaccine was brought to market, now 6 months? They have also rushed the trails.
And scientists expressing concerns are dismissed based on assumption.
Right there is no science here, all the data we have is comming from the people that created it. And as always money buys the best info for those looking to sell.
Not fake news, scientists have requested a halt to the vaccination program and more testing to make sure they are safe.
https://m.beforeitsnews.com/eu/2020/12/dr-wodarg-and-dr-yeadon-request-a-stop-of-all-corona-vaccination-studies-call-to-sign-the-petition-2664752.html
Any scientist that actually care about humanity should sign the petition. I understand those who only care about their careers could cares less, oh the decency by which science operate is staggering
Post by: Kryptid on 24/12/2020 21:15:11
clearly some scientists have expressed a concern
How many, exactly?
To have them simply ignored and labelled as fake news based on the assumption "the sequence is too short" isn't science.
Assumption. That's it.
No experiment. Assumption.
That depends. If the sequence is indeed too short, then it's not just an assumption but a basic tenet behind how biology works. Let's say that the sequences only have a sequence of three amino acids in common. You'd expect such a short sequence to be extremely common in a wide variety of different proteins used throughout the body. So the immune system can't afford to target a sequence that small or else we'd all be having autoimmune reactions all the time.
So again, just how much of the sequence do they have in common?
Post by: Jolly2 on 24/12/2020 23:24:48
clearly some scientists have expressed a concern
How many, exactly?To have them simply ignored and labelled as fake news based on the assumption "the sequence is too short" isn't science.
Assumption. That's it.
No experiment. Assumption.
That depends. If the sequence is indeed too short, then it's not just an assumption but a basic tenet behind how biology works.
Clearly some scientists feel it isnt too short to make the claim. Hence rather then a back and forth of he said she said.
Isn't it prudent to just experiment to find out, before we vaccinate the entire human population as some people want to?
I'm sure there are some scientists that welcome the idea of eradicating humanity from the earth.
But they're sociopathic lunatics.
Honestly finding it hard to conceive of scientists working against the notion more experimentation, to find out.
Post by: evan_au on 25/12/2020 01:16:30
Quote from: Jolly2
Could the covid vaccine affect female fertility?It's pretty easy to test in laboratory mice (takes a few weeks).
It takes a bit longer to test in primates, but some monkeys have already been given the vaccine, so that reduces the elapsed time by 2 months.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/12/2020 06:01:36
Clearly some scientists
I've already asked you how many "some" scientists is. More importantly, what is their evidence? Have other coronavirus infections in the past (like MERS and SARS) been linked to autoimmune reactions that resulted in infertility? 10-15% of common cold cases are caused by coronaviruses as well. Why haven't we seen huge rates of infertility caused by colds?
Post by: Lemonshark89 on 25/12/2020 19:52:06
Here is the list of ingredients:
- Active Ingredient
- nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) encoding the viral spike glycoprotein (S) of SARS-CoV-2
- (4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis
- (2- hexyldecanoate),2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide
- 1,2-distearoyl-snglycero-3-phosphocholine
- cholesterol
A man named Zed Phoenix claiming to be a big pharma insider made a viral video:
In the video he states
Quote
the chemicals being used include an anti-hCG antigen and 37 amino acid carboxy terminal peptides - known as CTP - for a female-specific virus vaccine. He then alleges 63 women have been tested with “this concoction of chemicals”, leaving 61 of them infertile.And
Quote
a male-specific COVID-19 vaccine has also been developed using GnRH, and “results in decreased testicular size…drop of testosterone levels, and marked atrophy of the prostate.” This, he alleges, leads to the death of DNA inside sperm – and, therefore, results in fertility problems.
hCG is a protein containing sulfur and nitrate chains (Formula C1105H1770N318O336S26). The covid vaccine is reported to utilize sulfur chains in it's Spike glycoprotein.
We will be receiving a vaccine containing mRNA (comprised mainly of amino acids and peptides) and a sulfur chain protein.
And, forgive me for being blunt, but isn't (2- hexyldecanoate),2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide just an exaggerated way of saying GnRH?
Post by: RD on 25/12/2020 21:02:05
... chemicals being used include an anti-hCG antigen ...
zero marks for originality ...
https://www.reddit.com/r/vaxxhappened/comments/a9iq6t/antihcg_vaccines_for_population_control/
Post by: Jolly2 on 26/12/2020 04:14:36
Quote from: Jolly2Could the covid vaccine affect female fertility?It's pretty easy to test in laboratory mice (takes a few weeks).
It takes a bit longer to test in primates, but some monkeys have already been given the vaccine, so that reduces the elapsed time by 2 months.
Dont you think these studies should have been finished before the role out?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/12/2020 12:57:44
And, forgive me for being blunt, but isn't (2- hexyldecanoate),2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide just an exaggerated way of saying GnRH?No.
They are not even similar.
And the rest of your post shows a comparable lack of understanding.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/12/2020 12:58:00
Dont you think these studies should have been finished before the role out?How?
Post by: Jolly2 on 27/12/2020 22:25:37
Let's discuss the possibility of Pfizer's covid-19 vaccine containing ingredients causing infertility in women and men.
Here is the list of ingredients:Lipids
- Active Ingredient
- nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) encoding the viral spike glycoprotein (S) of SARS-CoV-2
- (4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis
- (2- hexyldecanoate),2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide
- 1,2-distearoyl-snglycero-3-phosphocholine
- cholesterol
A man named Zed Phoenix claiming to be a big pharma insider made a viral video:
In the video he statesQuotethe chemicals being used include an anti-hCG antigen and 37 amino acid carboxy terminal peptides - known as CTP - for a female-specific virus vaccine. He then alleges 63 women have been tested with “this concoction of chemicals”, leaving 61 of them infertile.AndQuotea male-specific COVID-19 vaccine has also been developed using GnRH, and “results in decreased testicular size…drop of testosterone levels, and marked atrophy of the prostate.” This, he alleges, leads to the death of DNA inside sperm – and, therefore, results in fertility problems.
hCG is a protein containing sulfur and nitrate chains (Formula C1105H1770N318O336S26). The covid vaccine is reported to utilize sulfur chains in it's Spike glycoprotein.
We will be receiving a vaccine containing mRNA (comprised mainly of amino acids and peptides) and a sulfur chain protein.
And, forgive me for being blunt, but isn't (2- hexyldecanoate),2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide just an exaggerated way of saying GnRH?
Published information related to covid and Male fertility
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.12907
This is the virus not the vaccine, but there appears to definitely be a direct attack by the virus on fertility. Certainly adds to my suspicion of a lab made virus released intentionally.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/12/2020 23:34:29
A man named Zed Phoenix claiming to be a big pharma insider made a viral video:
"Claiming" being the key word there. What evidence does he have?
This is the virus not the vaccine, but there appears to definitely be a direct attack by the virus on fertility.
Definitely? The article states, "the novel SARS‐CoV‐2 virus might generate pathogenic effects in male fertility", and, "might lead to male infertility." It also says, "should this causal link between SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and male infertility be confirmed", which implies that it has not been confirmed. Since when are "definitely" and "might" synonyms of each other?
And what does that have to do with syncytin, as per the original claims of this thread?
Certainly adds to my suspicion of a lab made virus released intentionally.
How does that follow?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/12/2020 13:19:21
there appears to definitely be a direct attack by the virus on fertility. Certainly adds to my suspicion of a lab made virus released intentionally.Reduced male fertility has been a well known effect of mumps for centuries.
Do you think it was created in a lab?
Do you see that your suspicion makes no sense?
Post by: Jolly2 on 28/12/2020 17:53:37
A man named Zed Phoenix claiming to be a big pharma insider made a viral video:
"Claiming" being the key word there. What evidence does he have?This is the virus not the vaccine, but there appears to definitely be a direct attack by the virus on fertility.
Definitely?
I said appears to definitely.
Quote: "which suggests a high possibility that the virus targets the testis and male genital tract during infection."
"Notably, ACE2 is highly tissue‐specific, with significant levels being detected only in the heart, kidneys, testes, and gastrointestinal tract.32"
"Accumulating evidence suggests that the coronavirus family has an affinity for these testes cells"
I think it is definite that Covid attacks the testes, and surrounding tissues. The question, is, how badly?
And what does that have to do with syncytin, as per the original claims of this thread?
Just that that the virus and the vaccine both have potential implications for fertility.
Certainly adds to my suspicion of a lab made virus released intentionally.
How does that follow?
Well as people love to state, covid is a terrible biological weapon, if it is one as it hardly kills anyone.
Yet it is highly contagious which has allowed it to travel the entire earth. Lockdowns and travel bans don't stop it, interms of contagion its been very effective, a very successful spreader as a virus, so if it is a bio weapon, it has been a successful one in terms of its contagiousness. Known to damage organs but doesn't kill so many people. I think its 0.03% morality currently.
Yet potentially damages fertility, as does the vaccine.
If Malthusians made and released covid, it makes sense as a bio weapon designed to reduce people in numbers, over time, simply by preventing reproduction.
They would be "saving" the world from the plague of humanity.
A highly contagious virus that destroys fertility is the perfect bio weapon for a malthusian, as such Covid 19 matching those criteria, increases my suspicion that it is a bio weapon.
As I have quoted before:-
"We have never seen a Corona virus with these properties anywhere in nature, therefore the most logical explanation is that this virus has come from a laboratory, anyone seeking to claim zoological origin now has the burden of proof"
virologist Birger Sørensen
We have seen these kinds of Corona virus' in labs it is known that Fort Detrick and Wuhan both worked on Corna virus'
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/1/21243148/why-some-labs-work-on-making-viruses-deadlier-and-why-they-should-stop
Earlier this week, Newsweek and the Washington Post reported that the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a lab near the site of the first coronavirus cases in the world, had been studying bat coronaviruses
Quote
There is currently no smoking gun, but the majority of evidence lines up with Covid19 being lab created
Christopher Martenson , PhD , is an American scientist by training, Within his scientific career he has carried out research in the field of biochemistry , neurotoxicology , applied pharmacology and in vitro techniques .
Taking their lead the evidence lines up with a released Bio weapon.
We know for a fact different laboratories were working on gain of function research with bat Corona virus'.
The evidence currently seems to imply a laboratory release. And this virus attacks reproduction.
We know they worked on them, and have as Birger Sørensen points out only seen a Corona viruses with these properties in a laboratory.
Suggests to me a bio weapon designed to attack human fertility.
Left with the question did it escape or did someone release it?
Post by: RD on 28/12/2020 18:56:17
Yet potentially damages fertility, as does the vaccine.
If Malthusians made and released covid, it makes sense as a bio weapon designed to reduce people in numbers, over time, simply by preventing reproduction.
They would be "saving" the world from the plague of humanity ...
In that scenario, (when the virus and the vaccine both cause infertility), how do the Malthusians avoid sterility ?.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/it-was-inevitable-that-antivaxxers-would-claim-that-covid-19-vaccines-make-females-infertile/
Post by: Kryptid on 28/12/2020 20:18:02
I think it is definite that Covid attacks the testes, and surrounding tissues.
Which does not mean that it causes higher rates of infertility than other illnesses. Such a thing has yet to be demonstrated.
A highly contagious virus that destroys fertility is the perfect bio weapon for a malthusian, as such Covid 19 matching those criteria, increases my suspicion that it is a bio weapon.
A highly contagious disease that kills people would also be the perfect bio weapon for a Malthusian, so does that mean the black plague epidemic of the 1300's was synthetic? What about the Spanish flu of 1918?
Post by: Jolly2 on 29/12/2020 19:07:38
Quote from: Kryptid link=topic=81273.msg623260#msg623260
A highly contagious virus that destroys fertility is the perfect bio weapon for a malthusian, as such Covid 19 matching those criteria, increases my suspicion that it is a bio weapon.
A highly contagious disease that kills people would also be the perfect bio weapon for a Malthusian, so does that mean the black plague epidemic of the 1300's was synthetic? What about the Spanish flu of 1918?
Human beings didnt have the requisite skills in 1300. BuT..
"On the basis of a 14th-century account by the Genoese Gabriele de’ Mussi, the Black Death is widely believed to have reached Europe from the Crimea as the result of a biological warfare attack."
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/9/01-0536_article
"The last known incident of using plague corpses for biological warfare occurred in 1710, when Russian forces attacked the Swedes by flinging plague-infected corpses over the city walls of Reval (Tallinn).[18] "
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_biological_warfare
Sickness as a means of warfare has been used throughout history. In America native people were given blackets infected with small pox.
"There’s evidence that British colonists in 18th-century America gave Native Americans smallpox-infected blankets at least once"
https://www.history.com/.amp/news/colonists-native-americans-smallpox-blankets
Spainish flu originated in an American military Hospital, it's only called spainish flu because Spain was the only country with media reporting on it during the first world war.
Was spainish flu somehow developed and released?
I dont know, but it wouldn't suprise me if it was.
Post by: Jolly2 on 29/12/2020 19:09:22
Yet potentially damages fertility, as does the vaccine.
If Malthusians made and released covid, it makes sense as a bio weapon designed to reduce people in numbers, over time, simply by preventing reproduction.
They would be "saving" the world from the plague of humanity ...
In that scenario, (when the virus and the vaccine both cause infertility), how do the Malthusians avoid sterility ?.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/it-was-inevitable-that-antivaxxers-would-claim-that-covid-19-vaccines-make-females-infertile/
Dont know, have to ask them?
What mechanism could undo that form of infertility?
Are we about to see the 'handmaids tail' in live action?
I dont know if you noticed but the Scientists asking for more researched expressed concern that mice given a Corona virus vaccine died once contracting the illness.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/12/2020 19:35:19
Lockdowns and travel bans don't stop it,Yes they do.
Ask New Zealand.
Was spainish flu somehow developed and released?So, you would not be surprised if someone developed a viral disease to use as a weapon before anyone knew what a virus was, never mind was able to do genetic engineering.
I dont know, but it wouldn't suprise me if it was.
Do you understand why rational people would be surprised by that scenario?
Do you understand that most people would recognise that it is impossible?
Post by: evan_au on 29/12/2020 20:29:04
Quote from: Jolly2
mice given a Corona virus vaccine died once contracting the illness.All mice die.
- Some mice die sooner if they contract a novel virus.
- What makes a successful vaccine is if fewer mice die after taking the vaccine and then are challenged with the novel virus.
An effect where the vaccine causes more mice to die when challenged with the virus was seen on one of the candidate vaccines developed against the original SARS virus (which was also a coronavirus, but a different one).
That's why vaccine developers usually test a vaccine candidate first on mice. If it fails in mice, they don't take it any further.
- it is hard to fully test a vaccine "in the dish", as cells in a petri dish don't usually have enough components of the immune system to demonstrate a robust immune response.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/12/2020 22:43:15
Human beings didnt have the requisite skills in 1300.
Which was exactly my point. If nature can come up with a pandemic that would conveniently achieve the goals of Malthusians, then there is no need to invoke human synthesis to explain it.
"On the basis of a 14th-century account by the Genoese Gabriele de’ Mussi, the Black Death is widely believed to have reached Europe from the Crimea as the result of a biological warfare attack."
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/9/01-0536_article
"The last known incident of using plague corpses for biological warfare occurred in 1710, when Russian forces attacked the Swedes by flinging plague-infected corpses over the city walls of Reval (Tallinn).[18] "
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_biological_warfare
Sickness as a means of warfare has been used throughout history. In America native people were given blackets infected with small pox.
"There’s evidence that British colonists in 18th-century America gave Native Americans smallpox-infected blankets at least once"
https://www.history.com/.amp/news/colonists-native-americans-smallpox-blankets
Which, of course, is not evidence that humans engineered those diseases.
Was spainish flu somehow developed and released?
How, exactly?
Dont know, have to ask them?
You're assuming that such virus-synthesizing Malthusians exist in the first place.
I dont know if you noticed but the Scientists asking for more researched expressed concern that mice given a Corona virus vaccine died once contracting the illness.
Source, please.
Post by: Jolly2 on 04/01/2021 10:22:09
Human beings didnt have the requisite skills in 1300.
Which was exactly my point. If nature can come up with a pandemic that would conveniently achieve the goals of Malthusians, then there is no need to invoke human synthesis to explain it."On the basis of a 14th-century account by the Genoese Gabriele de’ Mussi, the Black Death is widely believed to have reached Europe from the Crimea as the result of a biological warfare attack."
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/9/01-0536_article
"The last known incident of using plague corpses for biological warfare occurred in 1710, when Russian forces attacked the Swedes by flinging plague-infected corpses over the city walls of Reval (Tallinn).[18] "
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_biological_warfare
Sickness as a means of warfare has been used throughout history. In America native people were given blackets infected with small pox.
"There’s evidence that British colonists in 18th-century America gave Native Americans smallpox-infected blankets at least once"
https://www.history.com/.amp/news/colonists-native-americans-smallpox-blankets
Which, of course, is not evidence that humans engineered those diseases.Was spainish flu somehow developed and released?
How, exactly?Dont know, have to ask them?
You're assuming that such virus-synthesizing Malthusians exist in the first place.
Never heard of the Nazi party?
Interestingly Dr Francis Boyle recently claimed that the vaccinations should be halted because they are breaking international law and contraviening the laws on medical experimentation as stipulated in the Nuremberg trials. He also claims that the entire Vaccine program is being led by people dedicated to the same philosophy of 'the useless eaters' as employed by the Nazis, population reduction is the objective he claims.
That the elites are totally malthusian sociopaths, isnt a stretch when you look at what the leaders of the first world have engaged in to further their position, over the centuries.
"They looked from pig to man and from man to pig and couldn't see a difference"
because in the end there isnt one.
I dont know if you noticed but the Scientists asking for more researched expressed concern that mice given a Corona virus vaccine died once contracting the illness.
Source, please.
In the initial link. It was part of the list of reasons given as to why the vaccines programs should be halted and tested more before being given to the general population.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/01/2021 10:33:51
Never heard of the Nazi party?Yes. They died out at roughly the same time as we discovered what viruses do.
So they can't really be relevant.
Why did you mention them, rather than answering the point Kryptid made?
Were you hoping we wouldn't notice?
Dr Francis Boyle recently claimedDid he provide evidence, or should we ignore him?
That the elites are totally malthusian sociopaths, isnt a stretchThey aren't malthusians; they keep going on about economic growth.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/01/2021 10:36:04
In the initial link. It was part of the list of reasons givenThat link does not include the word "mice".
Post by: Kryptid on 04/01/2021 14:34:32
Never heard of the Nazi party?
When did the Nazis ever engineer a virus?
He also claims...
He can claim that if he wants to, but can he back that claim up with actual evidence?
In the initial link. It was part of the list of reasons given as to why the vaccines programs should be halted and tested more before being given to the general population.
Did you mean "cats" instead of "mice?"
If the COVID vaccines tended to kill people after they were exposed to COVID-19, then that should have been shown in the studies performed to confirm their safety. So the question now is, where is the data that supports that conclusion?
Post by: Jolly2 on 05/01/2021 04:59:30
Never heard of the Nazi party?
When did the Nazis ever engineer a virus?
I think the point I was making related more to the fact that the types of people that would engineer a virus have existed in the past.
And also as I previously also point out biological warfare has existed and been used for centuries. That the Nazis didn't have the ability to make virus' then is a moot point. Neo Nazis are very much still a thing.
GROWING EVIDENCE SUGGESTS COVID 19 ORIGINATED IN THE WUHAN LABORATORY
https://www.wionews.com/world/growing-evidence-suggests-covid-19-originated-from-wuhan-lab-senior-us-official-354410
Interestingly apparently Dr Fauci played a role in transferring Bat Corona research to Wuhan.
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3981833
https://nationalfile.com/faucis-niaid-funded-wuhan-lab-scientists-to-research-bat-coronavirus/
News report by Jimmy Dore on how Fauci is a pathological Lair
Fauci is now first on my list of suspects, he told everyone in America that masks did not work, which categorical allowed the virus to spread, he also had a hand in sending the research to wuhan, the very place some are saying evidence shows it has most likely come from. How he is incharge of Americas response to covid is a serious question.
He also claims...
He can claim that if he wants to, but can he back that claim up with actual evidence?In the initial link. It was part of the list of reasons given as to why the vaccines programs should be halted and tested more before being given to the general population.
Did you mean "cats" instead of "mice?"
If the COVID vaccines tended to kill people after they were exposed to COVID-19, then that should have been shown in the studies performed to confirm their safety. So the question now is, where is the data that supports that conclusion?
I think the issue is more down to research time, vaccine normally take between 4 to 10 years, These vaccines have been rushed and tested in a matter of months and we are forced to accept the data provided by those that made them, who will profit from them and who have also be given a legal exemption from prosecution should the vaccines cause any harm.
None of this is really correct in my opinion
Post by: evan_au on 05/01/2021 09:08:33
Quote from: Jimmy Dore
how Fauci is a pathological LairThe 60 to 70% immunity level is a calculation derived from the initial estimate that SARS-COV2 has an R0 around 2.5 to 3.5.
- The new virus strain seen in the UK is thought to have a higher R0, around 3 to 4. This automatically means that the needed level of herd immunity is even higher.
Let's say we deploy a vaccine that reduces the rate of severe disease and death by 90%.
- Trials are ongoing, and the figures are not yet available, but lets say that the vaccine only reduces the rate of transmission by (say) 60%. That means that you effectively need to increase the number of vaccinated people from 60% to almost 100% to prevent spread of the disease using herd immunity.
- This will be an uphill battle, because surveys show that only 60% of US citizens say that they would definitely get the vaccine
Again, we don't know how long the immunity will last (from the disease or the vaccine), and how long it will take for a mutation to evade the vaccine. So repeated vaccination may be necessary (we don't know yet).
The US pandemic response has been a farce - starting with Donald Trump dismantling the White House pandemic preparedness office when he got into power.
- In all of this disaster, Anthony Fauci has been the quiet voice of reason
- Fauci has had to walk a very thin tightrope - he works for the US Federal Government, and his boss (several levels up) is Donald Trump
- So he has been extremely restrained when he contradicts Donald Trump, and only do so to correct the most severe of errors
- Donald Trump has talked several times about firing him, and was grumpy because he had been told that this would be an unpopular move
- Once Donald Trump is no longer Fauci's boss (after January 20th), then Anthony Fauci can speak more freely
- But he will still be very limited in what he can say, because accurate data on vaccine impact on disease transmission will not be available for another few months
I expect the result will be: Wear masks and keep up social distancing until vaccination rates reach almost 100%.
- But there is a significant percentage of Americans who refuse to wear a mask, as a badge of honor.
- In the meantime, it is possible that masks may need to be mandated (and maybe regional lockdowns), which is definitely something Fauci cannot say while Donald Trump is president
- Masks & the vaccination campaign should eventually get the US virus wildfire under control
- By then, more data should be available that would allow a timetable for relaxing masks and social distancing rules
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/01/2021 10:26:33
Fauci is now first on my list of suspects,And that's your problem.
You have a prime suspect; but there isn't any evidence of a crime.
he told everyone in America that masks did not work, which categorical allowed the virus to spreadNo.
That's misrepresentation.
He said that most people shouldn't wear masks.
And that was because there were not enough masks for the people on the front line of healthcare.
If you don't have enough masks for everybody then you should discourage their use by those with the least need/ benefit.
Do you accept that, in those circumstances, Fauci's advice was correct?
Post by: Jolly2 on 09/01/2021 06:09:25
Quote from: Jimmy Dorehow Fauci is a pathological LairThe 60 to 70% immunity level is a calculation derived from the initial estimate that SARS-COV2 has an R0 around 2.5 to 3.5.
- The new virus strain seen in the UK is thought to have a higher R0, around 3 to 4. This automatically means that the needed level of herd immunity is even higher.
Let's say we deploy a vaccine that reduces the rate of severe disease and death by 90%.
- Trials are ongoing, and the figures are not yet available, but lets say that the vaccine only reduces the rate of transmission by (say) 60%. That means that you effectively need to increase the number of vaccinated people from 60% to almost 100% to prevent spread of the disease using herd immunity.
- This will be an uphill battle, because surveys show that only 60% of US citizens say that they would definitely get the vaccine
Again, we don't know how long the immunity will last (from the disease or the vaccine), and how long it will take for a mutation to evade the vaccine. So repeated vaccination may be necessary (we don't know yet).
The US pandemic response has been a farce - starting with Donald Trump dismantling the White House pandemic preparedness office when he got into power.
- In all of this disaster, Anthony Fauci has been the quiet voice of reason
- Fauci has had to walk a very thin tightrope - he works for the US Federal Government, and his boss (several levels up) is Donald Trump
- So he has been extremely restrained when he contradicts Donald Trump, and only do so to correct the most severe of errors
- Donald Trump has talked several times about firing him, and was grumpy because he had been told that this would be an unpopular move
- Once Donald Trump is no longer Fauci's boss (after January 20th), then Anthony Fauci can speak more freely
- But he will still be very limited in what he can say, because accurate data on vaccine impact on disease transmission will not be available for another few months
I expect the result will be: Wear masks and keep up social distancing until vaccination rates reach almost 100%.
- But there is a significant percentage of Americans who refuse to wear a mask, as a badge of honor.
- In the meantime, it is possible that masks may need to be mandated (and maybe regional lockdowns), which is definitely something Fauci cannot say while Donald Trump is president
- Masks & the vaccination campaign should eventually get the US virus wildfire under control
- By then, more data should be available that would allow a timetable for relaxing masks and social distancing rules
I have a question.
If mRNA vaccine cause your own body to create the protein pieces your immune system identifies, is there not a risk that the body could see them as part of your own genome or unthreatening and therefore destroy any resistance to the virus?
Post by: Kryptid on 09/01/2021 07:01:01
If mRNA vaccine cause your own body to create the protein pieces your immune system identifies, is there not a risk that the body could see them as part of your own genome or unthreatening and therefore destroy any resistance to the virus?
No. The proteins produced are the same as those possessed by the virus itself. White blood cells can't tell the difference.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/01/2021 11:57:24
If mRNA vaccine cause your own body to create the protein pieces your immune system identifies, is there not a risk that the body could see them as part of your own genome or unthreatening and therefore destroy any resistance to the virus?
No. The proteins produced are the same as those possessed by the virus itself. White blood cells can't tell the difference.
You're missing my point, which related to the fact that your body creates them.
My question was if your body is creating the proteins is there not a risk that your body could end up considering them friendly and therefore prevent any immune response.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/01/2021 14:08:25
You're missing my point, which related to the fact that your body creates them.You are missing the point that your question was already answered.
My question was if your body is creating the proteins is there not a risk that your body could end up considering them friendly and therefore prevent any immune response.
The answer is still "no".
The reason is still the same.
It's the same protein.
It doesn't have a "made in England" sticker on it, nor any other way of distinguishing it from a protein "made by the virus".
(and, for what it's worth; the virus doesn't actually make proteins, it hijacks the host cells into doing it).
So there's no way for the body to react differently to it.
If you ask the question a third time, the answer won't change.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/01/2021 14:33:16
You're missing my point
No, I'm not. What I said is still true. The immune system reacts to objects based on their chemical composition. If a protein produced by a cell is chemically the same as a protein produced by a virus, it will react in an identical manner.
My question was if your body is creating the proteins is there not a risk that your body could end up considering them friendly and therefore prevent any immune response.
No, such a risk does not exist. Like I said before, they are the same protein. If you can think of some plausible mechanism for how a white blood cell can tell the difference between a spike protein produced by the body and one of identical chemical composition from a virus, please explain it to us.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/01/2021 20:47:47
You're missing my point
No, I'm not. What I said is still true. The immune system reacts to objects based on their chemical composition. If a protein produced by a cell is chemically the same as a protein produced by a virus, it will react in an identical manner.My question was if your body is creating the proteins is there not a risk that your body could end up considering them friendly and therefore prevent any immune response.
No, such a risk does not exist. Like I said before, they are the same protein. If you can think of some plausible mechanism for how a white blood cell can tell the difference between a spike protein produced by the body and one of identical chemical composition from a virus, please explain it to us.
It's a speculation, for example when we are children there is a period of immunity assessment, where the body tests environmental contacts lack of contact to a dog in the early years can lead to an allergic reaction later in life.
So maybe this speculation relates more to children.
I find it an expression of arrogance to assume you know the immune function so well that you dont consider it possible that there may well be a reaction from the body if the body produces a protein. That reaction could cause an immune response but I speculate there may be a process we are not aware of that is caused by the production process that would make the proteins be seen as friendly and not invasive.
I'm am speculating ofcourse.
These mRNA treatments are experimental. We have vaccine technology to simply inject the virus after it is renderd inactive that work fine. 63% to 73% effective is the recently produced covac vacine.
As such I think the new experimental vaccine should be tested more before authorised. Especially for children. Seems to me extremely gung ho to run ahead with an experimental treatment that has only had a few months of testing
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/01/2021 21:04:42
It's a speculationNo.
It was a speculation. Then someone explained why it's not possible.
And you keep banging on about it, and now it's yet another error to add to the list.
I find it an expression of arrogance to assume you know the immune function so well that you dont consider it possible that there may well be a reaction from the body if the body produces a protein.I find it an expression of arrogance where you ignore facts from people just because you don't want to change your mind.
As Kryptid pointed out...
If you can think of some plausible mechanism for how a white blood cell can tell the difference between a spike protein produced by the body and one of identical chemical composition from a virus, please explain it to us.
Well, you haven't done so (because there isn't one), but you just said we are wrong.
How conceited is that?
you dont consider it possible that there may well be a reaction from the body if the body produces a proteinIt's more than that.
The virus can't produce a protein.
It gets a host cell to do it.
The vaccine can't produce a protein.
It gets a host cell to do it.
So what you are looking at ,in both cases, is the same protein, produced by the same host.
And yet you are both too dim to realise that it is impossible to distinguish them and too arrogant to recognise that you are clueless.
These mRNA treatments are experimental.Not any more. They are in clinical use.
As such ...It isn't "such"- your idea is wrong.
Especially for children.It's not being used for children.
As such I think the new experimental vaccine should be tested more before authorised. Especially for children. Seems to me extremely gung ho to run ahead with an experimental treatment that has only had a few months of testingNot nearly as "gung ho" as letting the virus keep killing hundreds of people per day.
Post by: Jolly2 on 12/01/2021 21:21:28
It's a speculationNo.
It was a speculation. Then someone explained why it's not possible.
And you keep banging on about it, and now it's yet another error to add to the list.I find it an expression of arrogance to assume you know the immune function so well that you dont consider it possible that there may well be a reaction from the body if the body produces a protein.I find it an expression of arrogance where you ignore facts from people just because you don't want to change your mind.
As Kryptid pointed out...If you can think of some plausible mechanism for how a white blood cell can tell the difference between a spike protein produced by the body and one of identical chemical composition from a virus, please explain it to us.
Well, you haven't done so (because there isn't one), but you just said we are wrong.
How conceited is that?
Isnt there a moon you can go howl at?
I wasnt speaking with you why you feel the need to troll is rather bothersome. I will wait for someone qualified to answer
Run along and and play with your chemicals.
Conceit hilarious.
Especially for children.It's not being used for children.
Quote from the CDC :-"states had requirements for children to be vaccinated before they entered school."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/health/Covid-Moderna-vaccine-children.html
Vaccine for children👆
One governor in America was demanding children be vacinated first
As such I think the new experimental vaccine should be tested more before authorised. Especially for children. Seems to me extremely gung ho to run ahead with an experimental treatment that has only had a few months of testingNot nearly as "gung ho" as letting the virus keep killing hundreds of people per day.
No ofcourse let's risk killing them with experimental treatments that are unnecessary, as actual vaccines now exists.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/01/2021 21:42:03
I find it an expression of arrogance to assume you know the immune function so well that you dont consider it possible that there may well be a reaction from the body if the body produces a protein.
I never said that. What I said is, and I quote, "If a protein produced by a cell is chemically the same as a protein produced by a virus, it will react in an identical manner." That's just it, though. If the body will have a bad reaction to the protein generated by the vaccine, then it will have a bad reaction to the same protein as generated by the virus. So let me ask you one more time, how is the immune system supposed to tell the difference when the proteins in both cases are identical?
That reaction could cause an immune response but I speculate there may be a process we are not aware of that is caused by the production process that would make the proteins be seen as friendly and not invasive.
There might be a process we aren't aware of that will cause the vaccine to give humans glowing green skin, but why should we seriously consider it when everything we know about biology says that won't happen?
why you feel the need to troll is rather bothersome.
Correcting scientific misconceptions isn't trolling.
No ofcourse let's risk killing them with experimental treatments
Based on the experimental data, what is the risk that these vaccines will "kill them"? What is that risk compared with the risk of dying from COVID-19?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/01/2021 22:32:50
I wasnt speaking with you
Yes you were.
That's the thing about a discussion forum; if you speak, you speak to everyone.
It's a pity you are not bright enough to realise that for yourself.
If you don't like that, feel free to leave.
why you feel the need to troll is rather bothersome.Posting unscientific nonsense on a science web page is trolling; and it isn't me who does that, is it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/01/2021 22:33:48
One governor in America was demanding children be vacinated firstWhich, if you have an IQ larger than your shoe size, shows that they are not using it on kids at the moment.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/01/2021 22:35:14
No ofcourse let's risk killing them with experimental treatmentsIf anyone was doing that, you might have a point.
But, of course, they aren't.
Post by: evan_au on 13/01/2021 10:03:17
Quote from: Kryptid
What is that (vaccine) risk compared with the risk of dying from COVID-19?Risk of death from COVID-19 is 1-3%. Risk of adverse reaction to COVID-19 is 10-20%.
Risk of adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccine is 21 cases in 1.9 million vaccinations, according to the CDC (measured on real people).
Quote from: Jolly2
These mRNA treatments are experimental.That was absolutely true a year ago.
Since then they have had Phase 1 & Phase 2/3 trials, and have been tried in a significant public deployment.
These mRNA vaccines are now production-quality.
- the logistics of maintaining a -70° cold chain are still a problem in "Western" countries, and a nightmare in most of the world, but that is a different topic.
Quote from: Jolly2
As such I think the new experimental vaccine should be tested more before authorised. Especially for children.You came to the same conclusion as the approval authorities.
- It is not yet approved for use in children
Quote from: Jolly2
if your body is creating the proteins is there not a risk that your body could end up considering them friendly and therefore prevent any immune response.The immune system is "trained" during childhood to recognize "self" and "non-self" proteins.
- Part of this education occurs in the Thymus gland
- Only then are they released into the rest of the body (eg lungs where they may encounter a SARS-COV2 virus particle, or an arm muscle where they may encounter a COVID-19 vaccine injection)
- Provided children aren't vaccinated in the Thymus gland, these proteins won't be considered "self"
- Often vaccines are used with an adjuvant, which causes some local irritation in the arm, so the immune system gets the clear message that "these are the bad guys".
We know that vaccination is capable of working in children - some vaccines are administered before a child reaches 2 years of age. It just remains to be demonstrated for the COVID-19 vaccines.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thymus
Quote from: evan_au
The new virus strain seen in the UK is thought to have a higher R0, around 3 to 4. This automatically means that the needed level of herd immunity is even higher.I saw this graph presented by Professor Raina MacIntyre (Biosecurity expert at UNSW).
- It shows the theoretical relationship between R0 and the minimum vaccination rate to achieve herd immunity - if the vaccine has 100% efficacy.
- If the efficacy is quite low (eg 60%), the vaccination rate has to be very high - probably including children.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/01/2021 20:40:25
Quote from: Jolly2These mRNA treatments are experimental.That was absolutely true a year ago.
Since then they have had Phase 1 & Phase 2/3 trials, and have been tried in a significant public deployment.
Thanks for the reply
Are you honestly suggesting that only after 1 year of testing, with no animal testing and all data coming from the producers. It can not be considered experimental anymore?
Ultimately there are I believe some seriously unanswered questions as scientists have stated.
"I don't know" cant be an answer, until we know if the vaccine will attack placenta, or cause issues as the other sars cov1 vaccines have, surely they have to stay classified as experimental. Apparently ferrets given the SARS cov1 vaccine all died when they came into contact with the wild virus.
These mRNA vaccines are now production-quality.
Surely that is a lower standard. I mean it's not independently assessed when the companies producing are not making their data available to the public.
- the logistics of maintaining a -70° cold chain are still a problem in "Western" countries, and a nightmare in most of the world, but that is a different topic.Quote from: Jolly2As such I think the new experimental vaccine should be tested more before authorised. Especially for children.You came to the same conclusion as the approval authorities.
- It is not yet approved for use in children
They have started trails in America
Quote from: Jolly2if your body is creating the proteins is there not a risk that your body could end up considering them friendly and therefore prevent any immune response.The immune system is "trained" during childhood to recognize "self" and "non-self" proteins.
- Part of this education occurs in the Thymus gland
- Only then are they released into the rest of the body (eg lungs where they may encounter a SARS-COV2 virus particle, or an arm muscle where they may encounter a COVID-19 vaccine injection)
- Provided children aren't vaccinated in the Thymus gland, these proteins won't be considered "self"
So its possible but unlikely... umm
- Often vaccines are used with an adjuvant, which causes some local irritation in the arm, so the immune system gets the clear message that "these are the bad guys".
We know that vaccination is capable of working in children - some vaccines are administered before a child reaches 2 years of age. It just remains to be demonstrated for the COVID-19 vaccines.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThymusQuote from: evan_auThe new virus strain seen in the UK is thought to have a higher R0, around 3 to 4. This automatically means that the needed level of herd immunity is even higher.I saw this graph presented by Professor Raina MacIntyre (Biosecurity expert at UNSW).
- It shows the theoretical relationship between R0 and the minimum vaccination rate to achieve herd immunity - if the vaccine has 100% efficacy.
- If the efficacy is quite low (eg 60%), the vaccination rate has to be very high - probably including children.R0_vs_Vaccination_Rates.png (403.15 kB . 1200x629 - viewed 3259 times)
Have you seen that Dr Fauci has announced that the MRNA vaccine will not prevent transmission. As such I see little use for it. There can be no herd immunity if people can not only catch covid again but can still transmit it.
As such surely the normal inactivated virus vaccines are a better option then the MRNA ones, 63 to 73% effective some have been shown to be. Is that not a better and safer route to take? I really believe the ethic of first do no harm, and air on the side of caution should drive these decisions
Post by: evan_au on 15/01/2021 21:24:41
Quote from: Jolly2
with no animal testingAnimal testing is cheap, and much easier than setting up a Phase 1 trial in humans.
Mice & ferrets: very easy, monkeys: hard, humans: very difficult (because of all the regulatory and ethical hoops).
Quote
only after 1 year of testing (of mRNA vaccines)mRNA vaccines have been in development for some time - the first experiments were around 1990.
Back in 2015, the Gates Foundation injected $US52 million into mRNA vaccine research, as a potential way to quickly develop vaccines for neglected tropical diseases. The traditional slow vaccine development process made it impossibly expensive to develop vaccines for countries that could not afford them (because they suffered these neglected tropical diseases...).
And it turns out that this more-agile process was the one that got 2 vaccines to emergency approval first.
See: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2015/03/CureVac-Collaboration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine
Quote
Apparently ferrets given the SARS cov1 vaccine all died when they came into contact with the wild virus.A vaccine making the disease worse is a risk the manufacturers are aware of, and one of the things that they specifically test for (in animals).
This reaction is one of the reasons that we never had an effective vaccine for SARS.
Post by: Jolly2 on 15/01/2021 22:47:15
Quote from: Jolly2with no animal testingAnimal testing is cheap, and much easier than setting up a Phase 1 trial in humans.
Mice: very easy, monkeys: hard, humans: very difficult (because of all the regulatory and ethical hoops).
That just adds questions as to why they havent been animal testing I heard they have just started recently and are not releasing the data
Quoteonly after 1 year of testing (of mRNA vaccines)mRNA vaccines have been in development for some time - the first experiments were around 1990.
Back in 2015, the Gates Foundation injected $US52 million into mRNA vaccine research, as a potential way to quickly develop vaccines for rare tropical diseases. The traditional slow vaccine development process made it impossibly expensive to develop vaccines for countries that could not afford them (because they suffered these rare tropical diseases...).
And it turns out that this more-agile process was the one that got 2 vaccines to emergency approval first.
See: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2015/03/CureVac-Collaboration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine
Yet surely the inactive vaccine process is quickier, and has far more historic data support to allow a safer rushed production?
QuoteApparently ferrets given the SARS cov1 vaccine all died when they came into contact with the wild virus.A vaccine making the disease worse is a risk the manufacturers are aware of, and one of the things that they specifically test for (in animals).
This reaction is one of the reasons that we never had an effective vaccine for SARS.
SARS COV1 is SARS we never had a vaccine for, this curent pandemic
is SARS Cov2 it's a SARS variant. I mean Years of research no effective vaccines, yet now they claim to have managed it for SARS cov2 seems a little uncrediable.
Thanks for the quick reply still you didnt really answer my question related to inactive vaccines compared to mRNA. Surely it's better to take the historically proven tried and tested method for a rushed vaccine then to explore new experimental technologies?
Would you not agree that people should be atleast allowed the choice of vaccine, treatment types? If not the patients themselves surely the medical professional should have the options available. As you said before mRNA vaccines are currently not permitted for children, I assume an inactive virus vaccine would potentially be a better option for children.
And also what is the point of giving everyone an mRNA treatment when it wont stop it being transmitted? There is no herd immunity possible there, no vacinated people will protect the unvaccinated, so it seems like an act of futility. Unless ofcourse there is actually some other motive...
Will add the fake news addition to this thread is an act of propaganda, as an addition to the scientists that approached the European Health authorities to have more trials into the mRNA vaccine. The association American Frontline doctors is advising that no women of child bearing age should take the vaccine, due to concerns related to the mRNA proteins attacking placenta.
Post by: Kryptid on 15/01/2021 23:07:26
And also what is the point of giving everyone an mRNA treatment when it wont stop it being transmitted?
Because those who have taken the mRNA vaccine very probably won't get sick (once they have reached full immunity, that is).
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/01/2021 23:31:13
And also what is the point of giving everyone an mRNA treatment when it wont stop it being transmitted?It will; that's the point.
Surely it's better to take the historically proven tried and tested method for a rushed vaccine then to explore new experimental technologies?Different research groups ran with different strategies.
The winner won.
So, it's clear that the answer to your question is no.
Post by: evan_au on 16/01/2021 00:37:19
Quote from: Jolly2
Yet surely the inactive vaccine process is quickier, and has far more historic data support to allow a safer rushed production?...Surely it's better to take the historically proven tried and tested method for a rushed vaccine then to explore new experimental technologies?There is a fundamental misunderstanding here: This objection assumes that all viruses are the same.
- Spoiler alert: Not all viruses are the same
That means that for every "traditional" vaccine against a new virus:
- You have to invent a whole new mechanism to safely and reliably inactivate or attenuate this new virus
- You have to invent a whole new process for bulk-growing this new virus (eg flu virus is grown in chicken eggs; Chimpanzee Adenovirus is grown in immortalized human adrenal gland cells, etc)
- That means you probably need a whole new factory (or major rework on an existing factory - which now is unusable for the original vaccine)
- You have to work out the optimum dosage for the vaccine: one dose, 2 doses, what separation in time?
- What adjuvant should be used, and how much?
- When is the best time to vaccinate children?
- What about immune-compromised people?
- How long does immunity last? (which partly depends on the vaccine, but also on the virus mutation rate)
- You have to go through Phase 1 Safety trials, then Phase 2 & Phase 3 Efficacy trials, which are very expensive and time-consuming
- This whole new product (and its new factory and new production processes) must go through regulatory approval in many countries, where they take a close look at the clinical data, because it is a new product
- The only reason this can be shortcut for the annual flu vaccine, is because it is (basically) the same virus, using the same production techniques in the same factory and the same dosing in the vaccine.
As I understand it, none of the approved vaccines are using inactivated or attenuated SARS-COV2 virus.
- None of them are "traditional" vaccines as you imagine them
In contrast, mRNA vaccines have the same production method and factory, and same technique for injection, and similar dosing strategy, regardless of what virus they are protecting against.
- So that greatly reduces the number of things that need to be re-assessed for a vaccine against a new virus, a new bacteria, a new parasite, or a new cancer
- Because it does not contain any live virus, you don't need to inactivate it, and you can give it to immune-compromised patients (transplant recipients, cancer patients, etc)
Quote
only after 1 year of testing (of mRNA vaccines)Nature's Coronapod podcast devotes this week's episode to the history and status of mRNA vaccines.
As I recall, at the end of 2019:
- One manufacturer had mRNA vaccines in process against 6 different viruses; several were in Phase 1 trial, one had entered Phase 2 trials
- Once the RNA sequence for SARS-COV2 was released in January 2020, this manufacturer produced a candidate mRNA vaccine within a week, and was conducting animal trials within a month. This was in February/March 2020.
- Another manufacturer (BioNTech) was producing mRNA for cancer immunotherapy. They quickly pivoted to mRNA for a SARS-COV2 vaccine.
Listen (20 minutes): https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLm5hdHVyZS5jb20vbmF0dXJlL3BvZGNhc3QvY3VycmVudA/episode/ZDA5ZGMwNjMtMDlhOC00ODZhLTk0MDctZWU4NzgyOTk3YWYz
Post by: Jolly2 on 16/01/2021 04:33:28
Quote from: Jolly2Yet surely the inactive vaccine process is quickier, and has far more historic data support to allow a safer rushed production?...Surely it's better to take the historically proven tried and tested method for a rushed vaccine then to explore new experimental technologies?There is a fundamental misunderstanding here: This objection assumes that all viruses are the same.
- Spoiler alert: Not all viruses are the same
That means that for every "traditional" vaccine against a new virus:
- You have to invent a whole new mechanism to safely and reliably inactivate or attenuate this new virus
- You have to invent a whole new process for bulk-growing this new virus (eg flu virus is grown in chicken eggs; Chimpanzee Adenovirus is grown in immortalized human adrenal gland cells, etc)
- That means you probably need a whole new factory (or major rework on an existing factory - which now is unusable for the original vaccine)
- You have to work out the optimum dosage for the vaccine: one dose, 2 doses, what separation in time?
- What adjuvant should be used, and how much?
- When is the best time to vaccinate children?
- What about immune-compromised people?
- How long does immunity last? (which partly depends on the vaccine, but also on the virus mutation rate)
- You have to go through Phase 1 Safety trials, then Phase 2 & Phase 3 Efficacy trials, which are very expensive and time-consuming
- This whole new product (and its new factory and new production processes) must go through regulatory approval in many countries, where they take a close look at the clinical data, because it is a new product
- The only reason this can be shortcut for the annual flu vaccine, is because it is (basically) the same virus, using the same production techniques in the same factory and the same dosing in the vaccine.
As I understand it, none of the approved vaccines are using inactivated or attenuated SARS-COV2 virus.
- None of them are "traditional" vaccines as you imagine them
No the chiense sinovac is an inactive virus vaccine
Over 50% effective in Brazil study
I also saw 63% effective in one trail carried out in one Asian country and 73% In another.
So I mean that's my point, they are already being authorised. So the suggestion mRNA is quicker is moot when they are arriving at the same time.
You might find this interesting it's a vaccine tracker
https://www.covid-19vaccinetracker.org/
This all current covid vaccine trails and there status what type they are.
240 being developed, 42 in clinical trials 8 are authorised for use.
Interestingly all 3 Chinese phase 3 vaccines are inactive virus vaccines, well sinovac is now authorized.
I am slightly inclined to tell the western money grabbing corporates to go stick it and demand the west takes an actual vaccine that will actually prevent transmission.
That Fauci is literally saying even after being "vaccinated" you need to keep wearing masks and keep the lock down is rediculas, they can blame Trump and order from China.
In contrast, mRNA vaccines have the same production method and factory, and same technique for injection, and similar dosing strategy, regardless of what virus they are protecting against.
- So that greatly reduces the number of things that need to be re-assessed for a vaccine against a new virus, a new bacteria, a new parasite, or a new cancer
- Because it does not contain any live virus, you don't need to inactivate it, and you can give it to immune-compromised patients (transplant recipients, cancer patients, etc)Quoteonly after 1 year of testing (of mRNA vaccines)Nature's Coronapod podcast devotes this week's episode to the history and status of mRNA vaccines.
As I recall, at the end of 2019:
- One manufacturer had mRNA vaccines in process against 6 different viruses; several were in Phase 1 trial, one had entered Phase 2 trials
- Once the RNA sequence for SARS-COV2 was released in January 2020, this manufacturer produced a candidate mRNA vaccine within a week, and was conducting animal trials within a month. This was in February/March 2020.
- Another manufacturer (BioNTech) was producing mRNA for cancer immunotherapy. They quickly pivoted to mRNA for a SARS-COV2 vaccine.
Listen (20 minutes): https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLm5hdHVyZS5jb20vbmF0dXJlL3BvZGNhc3QvY3VycmVudA/episode/ZDA5ZGMwNjMtMDlhOC00ODZhLTk0MDctZWU4NzgyOTk3YWYz
I seen many doctors saying that the mRNA isnt a vaccine but a treatment, and that it should not be called a vaccine because it will not stop transmission and may not even prevent people catching Covid.
If that is True what is it actually treating? I assume the inactive virus vaccines will prevent transmission one of the main vacine functions.
Post by: Kryptid on 16/01/2021 05:13:43
I seen many doctors saying that the mRNA isnt a vaccine but a treatment, and that it should not be called a vaccine because it will not stop transmission and may not even prevent people catching Covid.
Please give us your source for this information.
Post by: Jolly2 on 16/01/2021 05:40:26
I seen many doctors saying that the mRNA isnt a vaccine but a treatment, and that it should not be called a vaccine because it will not stop transmission and may not even prevent people catching Covid.
Please give us your source for this information.
I already did Dr Fauci is one he recently stated that the vacine will not stop transmission vaccinated people will still need to wear masks. The association American frontline Doctors is another. There are more.
Post by: Jolly2 on 16/01/2021 05:48:56
Hypotheses; as all hypotheses need to reference a theory...
Theory western civilisation is controlled by a bunch of despotic wanna bes.
Hypotheses: China is making an effective inactive virus vaccine because they already have a giant control grid over their society and therefore don't need an excuse to increase their dominate position over the society and as a country effected by the pandemic are acting in the best way possible to solve the problem. Ergo of this virus was released intentionally China most likley isnt responsible as some like to accuse them of being.
The west by contrast does not have a giant control grid and seeks to use the current pandemic to introduce one, therefore they are not creating an effective vaccine that will prevent transmission because they need the lockdowns and public restrictions the damage to the society to remain in place as long as possible to achieve it. Also points to a western origin of the virus if it was internally released.
How do we test this hypothesis?
Post by: evan_au on 16/01/2021 06:44:09
Quote from: Jolly2
I assume the inactive virus vaccines will prevent transmission one of the main vaccine functions.The early monkey tests of the Oxford-Zeneca vaccine showed that it reduced infection, but did not totally block transmission.
- So even an inactive virus vaccine does not prevent transmission
Unfortunately, statistics on transmission are harder to collect than statistics on disease, so they require a longer trial.
- You can expect that if you do catch the disease, that you will shed some virus, which other people may catch.
- So high efficacy = low chance of catching the virus means that you will probably transmit it less.
- Reduction in severe disease probably means lower viral load = you will probably transmit it less.
- Some early figures coming in do suggest that all the vaccines (including the mRNA ones) do reduce transmission.
Quote
sinovac is now authorized.As of 16th January, Sinovac is not yet authorized - they are still in Phase III trials.
- They applied for emergency use authorization in Brazil on 7th January, but they are still waiting for the efficacy documentation that is needed for approval.
- Trials of Sinovac in different countries have reported wildly different results - these need to be rationalized before regulatory authorities would really trust the results.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoronaVac
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 11:34:47
I already did Dr Fauci is one he recently stated that the vacine will not stop transmission vaccinated people will still need to wear masks.That does not answer the point raised, does it?
You keep doing this; posting a red herring and pretending that you have addressed a point,.
You said it's not a vaccine, but a treatment. Kryptid called you out on that
Please give us your source for this information.
And you said something irrelevant about how a vaccine isn't an instant cure for everything.
Well, it's not a treatment, it's a vaccine.
Because it can't be 100% effective, and because it will take some time to have an effect, there will still be a need for masks.
That's what Dr Fauci is talking about.
So, once again.
You said
I seen many doctors saying that the mRNA isnt a vaccine but a treatment,
Prove it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 11:54:35
Hypotheses: China is making an effective inactive virus vaccineNot really.
Their vaccine is about 50% effective.
That's good, but not good enough.
The R for the virus, if you take no control measures is about 3.
If the vaccine is 50% effective then, simplistically, you drop R to 1.5.
That's till above 1 so you still have an epidemic.
So, your premise is wrong.
Ergo of this virus was released intentionallyNon seq.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise (and the premise was wrong anyway).
China most likley isnt responsible as some like to accuse them of being.Who would say such a thing?
Oh, yes, I remember now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=32&v=9DhV-1LDmp4&feature=youtu.be
The west by contrast does not have a giant control gridYes it does. The shorthand version is "billionaires who own all the media" though in detail it's more complex than that.
seeks to use the current pandemic to introduce one,You would need to put forward evidence that:
1 There is no such grid (though in fact there is)
2 That they want to produce one (which they don't need to do)
3 That the virus actually helps them (which it doesn't because it's affecting economic productivity and also increasing awareness of the importance of social healthcare)
4 "they are not creating an effective vaccine" even though, they have a vaccine that's a whole lot better than the Chinese one which you describe as "effective"
How do we test this hypothesis?It's not an hypothesis.
An hypothesis needs to be internally consistent.
It's a rant.
Jolly, you need to take a good look at yourself and think about the fact that all your ideas fall apart when someone looks carefully at them.
Post by: Kryptid on 16/01/2021 17:49:14
I already did Dr Fauci is one he recently stated that the vacine will not stop transmission vaccinated people will still need to wear masks. The association American frontline Doctors is another. There are more.
What I'm asking for is evidence that the mRNA vaccines aren't vaccines.
How do we test this hypothesis?
Find some compelling evidence for it, like official documentation. Otherwise, it's just a conspiracy theory.
Post by: Jolly2 on 17/01/2021 19:39:24
Quote from: Jolly2I assume the inactive virus vaccines will prevent transmission one of the main vaccine functions.The early monkey tests of the Oxford-Zeneca vaccine
Are you sure I thought it was a non replicating viral vector vaccine?
showed that it reduced infection, but did not totally block transmission.
- So even an inactive virus vaccine does not prevent transmission
One example if true, is still only one example.
Unfortunately, statistics on transmission are harder to collect than statistics on disease, so they require a longer trial.
- You can expect that if you do catch the disease, that you will shed some virus, which other people may catch.
Sure there might always be some shedding but you should assume the increased immunity would seriously reduce viral loads and seriously shorten length of contagiousness.
- So high efficacy = low chance of catching the virus means that you will probably transmit it less.
- Reduction in severe disease probably means lower viral load = you will probably transmit it less.
- Some early figures coming in do suggest that all the vaccines (including the mRNA ones) do reduce transmission.Quotesinovac is now authorized.As of 16th January, Sinovac is not yet authorized - they are still in Phase III trials.
I heard they have already vaccinated 1.6 million people in China alone.
- They applied for emergency use authorization in Brazil on 7th January, but they are still waiting for the efficacy documentation that is needed for approval.
- Trials of Sinovac in different countries have reported wildly different results - these need to be rationalized before regulatory authorities would really trust the results.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoronaVac
Do you not have concerns about mRNA treatments?
Post by: Jolly2 on 17/01/2021 19:43:29
I already did Dr Fauci is one he recently stated that the vacine will not stop transmission vaccinated people will still need to wear masks. The association American frontline Doctors is another. There are more.
What I'm asking for is evidence that the mRNA vaccines aren't vaccines.
I've seen a few different doctors say that. As I already referenced the Association American Frontline Doctors claim it's not a vaccine in the normal sense. I'll find some others for you.
https://humansarefree.com/2021/01/mrna-covid-19-technology-is-not-a-vaccine.html
Dr David Martin
"This is not a vaccine. This is an mRNA packaged in a fat envelope, that is delivered to a cell.
It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator."
https://humansarefree.com/2021/01/dr-david-martin-on-experimental-mrna-technology-this-is-not-a-vaccine-it-is-a-medical-device.html
Doctors for truth is another association calling on people to not take the mRNA treatment.
https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/doctors-around-the-world-issue-dire-warning-do-not-get-the-covid-vaccine/
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2021 21:06:54
"This is not a vaccine. This is an mRNA packaged in a fat envelope, that is delivered to a cell.That is exactly what all vaccines do.
It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator."
It's a novel way of doing it, but it's still vaccination.
It's as if he thinks that anything except the use of vaccinia (cowpox) doesn't count.
It is not enough to find some doctor who will blindly say "it's not a vaccine" they have to explain why all the other doctors are wrong.
Post by: evan_au on 17/01/2021 21:47:20
I assume the inactive virus vaccines will prevent transmission.The Oxford-Zeneca vaccine is a non-replicating chimpanzee adenovirus.
The early monkey tests of the Oxford-Zeneca vaccine...
Are you sure I thought it was a non replicating viral vector vaccine?
- This is an "inactive virus vaccine", because "inactive" means "non-replicating"
- There are many viruses, and many ways to inactivate them
- For Astra-Zeneca, I understand they deleted a gene which is essential for virus replication (so it can't replicate in a living person). They then supply that gene product in the factory, so they can mass-replicate the virus to mass-produce the vaccine.
Quote from: Jolly2
Astra-Zeneca showed that it reduced infection, but did not totally block transmission.You have provided zero evidence, and yet you still claim mRNA vaccines are less effective than any other vaccine.
- So even an inactive virus vaccine does not prevent transmission
One example if true, is still only one example.
The reality is, unless a vaccine totally blocks infection (ie 100% efficacy), then it will not totally block transmission.
- And no vaccine has 100% efficacy (although the measles vaccine is pretty good, apparently - with R≈16, a measles vaccine needs to be good!).
Quote
Do you not have concerns about mRNA treatments?Regardless of whether you call it a vaccine or a treatment, all vaccines are a form of treatment!
I would happily take any vaccine that had been approved by my national regulatory authority (the Therapeutic Goods Administration, TGA).
- They will approve any vaccine which shows both safety and efficacy in Phase III trials.
- The known risks of catching COVID-19 far outweigh the known risks from the vaccine.
- And if you don't get a vaccine, you probably will catch SARS-COV2 (eventually).
As a public health issue, I expect the vaccine will be free to Australian citizens & residents.
- There is a supply issue around which manufacturers the government can agree on a contract for manufacture, timetable for supply and payment (pending TGA approval).
Quote
I heard they have already vaccinated 1.6 million people in China alone.And the Russians are doing mass vaccination with the Russian Sputnik vaccine....
They have not published the Phase III trial results.
- They have not been able to provide satisfactory Phase III trial results to regulatory authorities in other countries.
- This is unlike the Pfizer & Moderna mRNA vaccines (and the Astra Zeneca inactive virus vaccine), which have provided Phase III results, and have received regulatory approval in many countries
So is it a matter of:
- These are effective vaccines, but they just can't prove it, yet?
- or is it national pride, and it will be deployed anyway?
- or is it that even a low-effectiveness vaccine is better than nothing, if coupled with ongoing wearing of masks, social distancing, isolation of the aged, etc...
SInovac does not (yet) meet safety & efficacy criteria of your country, so if you want the sinovac vaccine, for now you will need to travel to China (and get in a queue that already has 1.4 billion people in it)...
Post by: alancalverd on 17/01/2021 22:56:00
All the vaccines are the product of Big Pharma apart for the ones that are produced by atheistic communists
All vacccinators are sadists paid by the enemies of Donald Trump, or his friends, to increase or decrease the population of dangerous leftists/rightists
COVID vaccines can reduce female fertility or make you pregnant with the offspring of Donald Trump, Kim Jong-un,
Michael Gove or aliens from Venus. Unless you are male in which case they will make you impotent or permanently erect and constantly ejaculating.
Every dose contains a microchip (sponsored by Uber) which allows the police/your spouse/the Martians to track your every move on a quantum supercomputer operated by Elvis on the dark side of the moon
Free-range organic vaccines are only available to the very rich idiots whose yachts are even now converging on Mustique with their concubine virgin goats.
You can't catch COVID if you have been baptised in the name of Jesus (other deities are available) or inhale fresh ferret urine.
Having thus evenhandedly and in the best Fox News / Daily Mail tradition aired every conceivable conspiracy, I can honestly say that COVID can make you very ill indeed, and a vaccine can save your life. But who cares about science? It's so 18th century.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2021 23:06:06
Do you not have concerns about mRNA treatments?Not nearly as many as I have about the virus.
Post by: Kryptid on 18/01/2021 00:51:24
https://humansarefree.com/2021/01/mrna-covid-19-technology-is-not-a-vaccine.html
This quote right here...
Quote
It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator.
...shows that this Dr. David Martin doesn't know what he's talking about. The following article also hurts his credibility: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/08/new-plandemic-video-peddles-misinformation-conspiracies/
He (ridiculously) denies that COVID-19 can be transmitted through the air: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-masks/fact-check-research-papers-have-put-forward-evidence-for-airborne-transmission-of-sars-cov-2-idUSKBN29H2UO
So I'd look elsewhere for a credible source of information about COVID or the vaccines.
That "Humans Are Free" website itself looks like it's peddling conspiracy theories, so it should be avoided as a source of reputable information.
Doctors for truth is another association calling on people to not take the mRNA treatment.
https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/doctors-around-the-world-issue-dire-warning-do-not-get-the-covid-vaccine/
Could you please cite reputable sources? Conspiracy theory websites do not count.
Post by: Jolly2 on 18/01/2021 07:55:05
I assume the inactive virus vaccines will prevent transmission.The Oxford-Zeneca vaccine is a non-replicating chimpanzee adenovirus.
The early monkey tests of the Oxford-Zeneca vaccine...
Are you sure I thought it was a non replicating viral vector vaccine?
- This is an "inactive virus vaccine", because "inactive" means "non-replicating"
Sorry Viral vector vaccine involves putting a gene for a viral protein into a different virus (one that will not cause illness but can replicate). Replication of the viral vector also produces copies of the viral protein, which triggers an immune response to that protein.
Non replicating involves that a viral gene is added to a different, non-replicating, virus and delivered to the vaccine recipient.
To claim as you did that non replicating viral vector vaccine is the same as inactivated virus vaccine is utterly incorret. So you are either unaware of the difference or being dishonest.
Non replicating viral vector vaccines has never before been authorised for use.
- There are many viruses, and many ways to inactivate themNo they add information to a viral package that cannot replicate.
- For Astra-Zeneca, I understand they deleted a gene which is essential for virus replication (so it can't replicate in a living person). They then supply that gene product in the factory, so they can mass-replicate the virus to mass-produce the vaccine.
Quote from: Jolly2Astra-Zeneca showed that it reduced infection, but did not totally block transmission.You have provided zero evidence, and yet you still claim mRNA vaccines are less effective than any other vaccine.
- So even an inactive virus vaccine does not prevent transmission
One example if true, is still only one example.
Well you just argued inactivated virus vaccine won't prevent transmission because a completely different non replicating viral vector vaccine didnt.
Apples wont because pears didnt, bad science.
Post by: Jolly2 on 18/01/2021 07:59:12
https://humansarefree.com/2021/01/mrna-covid-19-technology-is-not-a-vaccine.html
This quote right here...QuoteIt is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator.
...shows that this Dr. David Martin doesn't know what he's talking about. The following article also hurts his credibility: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/08/new-plandemic-video-peddles-misinformation-conspiracies/
He (ridiculously) denies that COVID-19 can be transmitted through the air: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-masks/fact-check-research-papers-have-put-forward-evidence-for-airborne-transmission-of-sars-cov-2-idUSKBN29H2UO
So I'd look elsewhere for a credible source of information about COVID or the vaccines.
That "Humans Are Free" website itself looks like it's peddling conspiracy theories, so it should be avoided as a source of reputable information.Doctors for truth is another association calling on people to not take the mRNA treatment.
https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/doctors-around-the-world-issue-dire-warning-do-not-get-the-covid-vaccine/
Could you please cite reputable sources? Conspiracy theory websites do not count.
Unfortunately associations like American Frontline Doctors, Doctors for Truth. Are all being black listed and scrubbed from the internet.
Facebook and Twitter medical experts they are along with the main stream media are all in cooperation to remove any voices that critic the government narrative.
Until that changes doctors and their concerns are going to be hard to find. Sadly money rules over science today, so speak out and risk your institution facing a financial backlash... bad time for science.
Post by: evan_au on 18/01/2021 08:08:46
Quote from: humansarefree
They’ve literally injected this pathogenic part of the virus into every cell of the bodyNo, they literally inject the vaccine into your arm muscle.
- The vaccine is not a pathogen, so it cannot multiply to infect every cell in your body
- The vaccine cannot even multiply to infect even every cell with an
Quote
… (the vaccine) can actually directly cause multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease … it can cause accelerated cancer … that’s what the expression of that piece of virus … has been known to do for decades.”That "part of the virus" (the SARS-COV2 spike protein) has only been known for a bit over 1 year, so how could it's effects have been known for decades?
Diseases like those quoted take years to manifest themselves.
- But the first vaccine trials in humans were only 6 months ago.
- If someone from the trial group did come down with those conditions:
- It would have been detected in the Phase 1/II/II trials, which have careful monitoring of all health outcomes for all the participants
- Rather than jump to "the vaccine caused the disease", researchers would first compare the number of people with the disease in the vaccine arm vs placebo arm of the trial
- Diagnoses of these conditions appearing in the couple of months after vaccination were probably undetected cases that had been getting worse for several years (indeed, decades) before the vaccination.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 08:45:16
To claim as you did that non replicating viral vector vaccine is the same as inactivated virus vaccine is utterly incorret.Nobody made that claim.
Facebook and Twitter medical experts they are along with the main stream media are all in cooperation to remove any voices that critic the government narrative.
No, they are cooperating to remove sources of misinformation, such as people who claim the disease can't be spread through air.
Sadly money rules over science todayNo.
Science makes money; lots of it.
(one that will not cause illness but can replicate).How does that work?
How come replication of the virus i.e. infection by that virus isn't a disease?
That idea is absurd- as are many of your views.
These sorts of absurd view which cause harm to others are the reason why conspiracy theorists get blacklisted.
Post by: Jolly2 on 18/01/2021 08:53:27
Quote from: humansarefreeThey’ve literally injected this pathogenic part of the virus into every cell of the bodyNo, they literally inject the vaccine into your arm muscle.
- The vaccine is not a pathogen, so it cannot multiply to infect every cell in your body
- The vaccine cannot even multiply to infect even every cell with an ACS-2 receptor, which is the target of SARS-COV2 virus. These receptors line your lungs and every blood vessel. So SARS-COV2 could affect every organ in your body.
Isnt that relative to the viral package? SARS cov2 proteins attack ace 2 but what if the viral package attacks a different receptor?
Quote… (the vaccine) can actually directly cause multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease … it can cause accelerated cancer … that’s what the expression of that piece of virus … has been known to do for decades.”That "part of the virus" (the SARS-COV2 spike protein) has only been known for a bit over 1 year, so how could it's effects have been known for decades?
Maybe they have access to other research you haven't seen.
Diseases like those quoted take years to manifest themselves.
- But the first vaccine trials in humans were only 6 months ago.
- If someone from the trial group did come down with those conditions:
- It would have been detected in the Phase 1/II/II trials, which have careful monitoring of all health outcomes for all the participants
Phase 1 trails normally take 2 years, the phase 1 trails for the covid vaccine have taken 3 months.
Time for phase 2 trails normally take is 2 to 3 years and the covid vaccine trials for phase 2 have taken less then 8 months.
Normal time scales for phase 3 trails is between 2 to 4 years and with the covid trails the phrase 2 and 3 have been combined together.
That's 11 months for a process that should be 9 years long.
I'm sure that is total sufficient to see the health effects the vaccine may cause. 14 people in Israel now have lost facial muscle motor function as part of the side effects, we are only a few weeks in.
COVID-19: 13 in Israel suffer facial paralysis after
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/covid-19-13-in-israel-suffer-facial-paralysis-after-receiving-coronavirus-vaccine-details-here/ar-BB1cPiSl
They have literally conducted all phases of testing in less time then they should use to conduct phase 1.
And they are using experimental technologies... what could possibly go wrong
Quote from: Jolly2sinovac is now authorized.As of 16th January, Sinovac is not yet authorized - they are still in Phase III trials.
Not true now authoritarised in China and in Brazil I believe in 2 other Asian countries also
Post by: Jolly2 on 18/01/2021 09:00:48
To claim as you did that non replicating viral vector vaccine is the same as inactivated virus vaccine is utterly incorret.Nobody made that claim.
It was made here
Quote
[author=evan_au link=topic=81273.msg625196#msg625196 date=1610779449]Quote from: Jolly2I assume the inactive virus vaccines will prevent transmission one of the main vaccine functions.The early monkey tests of the Oxford-Zeneca vaccine showed that it reduced infection, but did not totally block transmission.
- So even an inactive virus vaccine does not prevent transmission
That claim is expressly that the Oxford zenica a non replicating viral vector vaccine is, an inactive Vrius vaccine which it is not.
Facebook and Twitter medical experts they are along with the main stream media are all in cooperation to remove any voices that critic the government narrative.
No, they are cooperating to remove sources of misinformation, such as people who claim the disease can't be spread through air.
A claim made by the WHO at the begining of the pandemic.
Oh it's the troll, no feeding
Post by: alancalverd on 18/01/2021 10:41:44
Not closing borders and schools, nor instituting strong quarantine measures when others did so, could be regarded as ignorance, but to fail to take such action in the face of strong scientific and historical evidence is culpable negligence.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 11:18:42
Oh it's the troll, no feedingWell stop trolling.
Post by: Jolly2 on 18/01/2021 11:52:26
The only clear evidence we have of deliberate infection on a large scale was the UK government insisting on discharging infectious patients into unprotected nursing homes. Individuals who deliberately attempted or threatened to infect others have been prosecuted for assault - why not the government?
Cuomo in New York sent infected old people into old peoples homes.
Certainly a good candidate.
Not closing borders and schools, nor instituting strong quarantine measures when others did so, could be regarded as ignorance, but to fail to take such action in the face of strong scientific and historical evidence is culpable negligence.
Well it was clear in January covid was airborne it took the WHO until the End of March to announce that I beleive. Fauci admitted he lied about the effectiveness of Masks as did the British government, they justified lying because they said the needed masks for health workers yet, people could have made their own. FOOL ME ONCE SHAME ON YOU.
They are liars and proven so, trust is gone and rightly so.
And as China has now managed to create a traditional inactivated virus vaccine, we should stop all the experimental mRNA DNA and viral vector programs in my opinion and either buy from China or invite China to share the technology.
We are already seeing serious side effects from these experimental treatments.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 13:07:47
And as China has now managed to create a traditional inactivated virus vaccine, we should stop all the experimental mRNA DNA and viral vector programs in my opinion and either buy from China or invite China to share the technology.Why?
Why do you want the virus to spread to everyone?
Why do you want about 2% of the population dead?
Are you really so stupid that you can not follow this calculation?
Not really.
Their vaccine is about 50% effective.
That's good, but not good enough.
The R for the virus, if you take no control measures is about 3.
If the vaccine is 50% effective then, simplistically, you drop R to 1.5.
That's till above 1 so you still have an epidemic.
Or are you a troll, making a stupid, obviously false argument, just to waste everyone's time?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 13:14:51
Fauci admitted he lied about the effectiveness of MasksNo, he did not.
It's just that, as usual, you don't understand anything beyond a simplistic interpretation.
FOOL ME ONCE SHAME ON YOU.You can't even quote proverbs properly.
We are already seeing serious side effects from these experimental treatments.Have you seen the effect of the virus?
Nobody is claiming that the vaccines are perfect; just that they are better than the virus.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/01/2021 13:30:15
Well it was clear in January covid was airborneAirborne, transmitted by sexual contact, or the Evil Eye, makes no difference, nor does whatever and whenever WHO said anything. It was plain from November 2019 that the vector was human, so quarantine was an effective means of suppression and still remains the best because it prevents all variants from spreading beyond their first victim.
Post by: Jolly2 on 18/01/2021 16:34:53
Well it was clear in January covid was airborneAirborne, transmitted by sexual contact, or the Evil Eye, makes no difference, nor does whatever and whenever WHO said anything. It was plain from November 2019 that the vector was human, so quarantine was an effective means of suppression and still remains the best because it prevents all variants from spreading beyond their first victim.
This is now the secound woman I have seen with these side effects, apparently there are many more...
I again urge the ending of these mRNA vaccines... this is disgraceful
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 17:15:45
I again urge the ending of these mRNA vaccines... this is disgracefulYes it is.
Urging that we stop using a vaccine without proposing an alternative, and on the basis of an anecdote is disgraceful.
It would lead to thousands of deaths.
Why are you doing it?
Post by: Jolly2 on 18/01/2021 17:21:42
I again urge the ending of these mRNA vaccines... this is disgracefulYes it is.
Urging that we stop using a vaccine without proposing an alternative, and on the basis of an anecdote is disgraceful.
It would lead to thousands of deaths.
Why are you doing it?
You really a total inhuman idiot.
If you had actually bothered to notice I have been recommending the Chinese vaccine repeatedly.
Go a troll somewhere else. And maybe go and explain to all the people now suffering mega side effects or that are now dead In Norway how they are better off after taking this experiment treatment.
We are already seeing serious side effects from these experimental treatments.Have you seen the effect of the virus?
Nobody is claiming that the vaccines are perfect; just that they are better than the virus.
You're disgraceful
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 17:25:14
If you had actually bothered to notice I have been recommending the Chinese vaccine repeatedly.I noticed.
And as China has now managed to create a traditional inactivated virus vaccine, we should stop all the experimental mRNA DNA and viral vector programs in my opinion and either buy from China or invite China to share the technology.Why?
Why do you want the virus to spread to everyone?
Why do you want about 2% of the population dead?
Are you really so stupid that you can not follow this calculation?Not really.
Their vaccine is about 50% effective.
That's good, but not good enough.
The R for the virus, if you take no control measures is about 3.
If the vaccine is 50% effective then, simplistically, you drop R to 1.5.
That's till above 1 so you still have an epidemic.
Or are you a troll, making a stupid, obviously false argument, just to waste everyone's time?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 17:27:24
maybe go and explain to all the people now suffering mega side effects or that are now deadOnly a troll or an idiot would suggest that I explained something to dead people.
Which are you: Idiot or troll?
Post by: Jolly2 on 18/01/2021 17:40:30
maybe go and explain to all the people now suffering mega side effects or that are now deadOnly a troll or an idiot would suggest that I explained something to dead people.
Which are you: Idiot or troll?
They all have families who are now in mourning. Triple down why dont you. One day you'll have to look in the mirror
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 18:35:58
They all have families who are now in mourning. Triple down why dont you. One day you'll have to look in the mirrorYou forgot to answer the questions.
Why did you think I should try to contact the dead people (or, for that matter, their families)?
And why do you keep advocating a vaccine that isn't good enough?
Just saying something rude about me isn't good enough- you actually have to add something to the discussion.
Why do you want so many more people to die?
Post by: Kryptid on 18/01/2021 18:49:06
Unfortunately associations like American Frontline Doctors, Doctors for Truth. Are all being black listed and scrubbed from the internet.
There's a good reason for that: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90536
Facebook and Twitter medical experts they are along with the main stream media are all in cooperation to remove any voices that critic the government narrative.
You can stop with the conspiracy claims any time now...
This is now the secound woman I have seen with these side effects, apparently there are many more...
Many millions of people have been vaccinated worldwide. What proportion of those people have had such profound negative reactions? Are those reactions indefinite, or do they eventually get better?
I again urge the ending of these mRNA vaccines... this is disgraceful
If you are going to make a case for this, then you need to show us that the vaccines are more dangerous than contracting COVID. Do you have those numbers?
They all have families who are now in mourning.
So do those who died of COVID, and there are over 2 million of them. By comparison, how many people have the vaccines killed?
Post by: evan_au on 18/01/2021 22:07:06
Quote from: Stella Immanuel, MD
the "luciferase vaccine."This makes it sound like the vaccine is the devil incarnate.
In fact, luciferase (the enzyme that lets fireflies glow) is used as a diagnostic tool to do laboratory tests of antibody levels in patients, and to test the effectiveness of lipid nanoparticles at entering cells.
- It does not mean that if you get a mRNA vaccine, your eyes will start glowing!
See, for example: https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/science-research-biologics/luciferase-immunoprecipitation-system-lips-assay-rapid-simple-and-sensitive-test-detect-antibody
Quote from: Jolly2
SARS cov2 proteins attack ace 2 but what if the viral package attacks a different receptor?Vaccines which express the SARS-COV2 spike protein on their surface (eg the Sinovac inactivated SARS-COV2, or the Astra-Zeneca non-replicating chimpanzee virus) do seek out cells with the ACE-2 receptor.
- Depending on the vaccine design, it may or may not actually infect the cell it reaches.
- But the immune system is alerted to the presence of a "foreign" protein (the spike protein) and generates an immune response over the subsequent days and weeks.
In contrast, the mRNA vaccines are encased in lipid nanoparticles, which do not display any proteins on the surface.
- They do not need to dock with a receptor on the cell surface to get into a human cell
- The lipid sphere merges with the lipid coat of human cells, and releases the mRNA inside the cell.
- The cell follows the mRNA instructions to manufacture the SARS-COV2 spike protein, which arranges itself on the surface of the human cell.
- Again, the immune system is alerted to the presence of a "foreign" protein (the spike protein) and generates an immune response over the subsequent days and weeks.
Since all of the current vaccines are injected into an arm muscle, it is most likely that the mRNA vaccine will enter a muscle cell.
Quote from: Jolly2
go and explain to all the people now suffering mega side effects or that are now dead In Norway how they are better off after taking this experiment treatment.I heard of an interview with a Norwegian public health official.
- He said that they were not worried about these events, and would not be stopping rollout of the mRNA vaccines
- They have not confirmed that the deaths were due to the vaccine, since these were very frail elderly people with terminal conditions, and months to live.
- He said that he had far more interest from the international press than Norwegian press
A possible outcome may be that the recommendations are changed to not vaccinate people who are about to die
- Or possibly, to give them a vaccine that provokes a lesser immune response (like the Astra-Zeneca one).
The mRNA vaccines are frequently followed by flu-like symptoms for a day or so
- This is a sign that your body is generating Interferons. This grabs the attention of the immune system.
- The problem with the SARS-COV2 virus is that it suppresses the interferon defense, so most people feel ok- until they have a really severe condition that can't be ignored (like low blood oxygen).
Quote from: Jolly2
Sadly money rules over science todayUnless you want all science to be done solely by wealthy gentlemen with nothing better to do with their time, you need money to do science.
Galileo needed to find wealthy patrons who could support his research program.
- Today we have bodies like the US NSF that funds science, and takes the advice of scientists in deciding which applications to fund.
In extreme cases like WW2, the British government funded development of Colossus to break German cyphers. This directly led to the development of commercial computers after WW2.
And in extreme cases like a COVID-19 pandemic, huge grants were given by national governments to vaccine makers in their own countries (US, China, Russia, UK, among others) to accelerate research and production of vaccines in their country.
- Other countries provided market certainty by issuing advance orders for these vaccines (if they passed safety & efficacy trials).
So, money has always directed science (and constrained science).
- Let's hope the available money is used wisely
- And not pushed around by politics (eg Donald Trump wanted to cancel all NASA's Earth-observation satellites, because they proved he was lying about climate change; Brazil's science minister was fired for releasing data on deforestation in the Amazon)
- And let's hope that science funding is not cancelled for the next decade, as governments attempt to pay back the money they spent on COVID vaccines and economic stimulus packages...
Quote from: Jolly2
multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer …I agree - if we were developing vaccines and running clinical trials and analyzing the data with the technology of 20 years ago, that is how long it would take (with ample funding).
....That's 11 months for (trials) that should be 9 years long.
But with a trial that long, there would be far more cases of death from all causes (including these slow, degenerative diseases).
- That is why the power of the placebo-controlled trial is vital, so you can compare the results with and without the vaccine.
- If the adverse events are similar in both arms of the trial, then you can say with confidence that the adverse effects were not the result of the vaccine.
- Untrained and unqualified Presidents espousing the virtues of hydroxychloroquine and bleach cocktails found lots of supporters amongst "America's Frontline Doctors" - but the placebo controlled trial closed the question. (The UV-activated bleach didn't make it to first base with the medical ethics committee).
But we know that with the vaccines that have passed Phase III placebo-controlled trials, the adverse effects are far less than the adverse effects of SASRS-COV2.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/01/2021 00:00:47
Post by: Jolly2 on 19/01/2021 17:11:53
Russia Today grumbling about Pfizer side-effects, suggests that Sputnik is ineffective, so they want to rubbish the competition. Pity, because I'm told that Sputnik is relatively cheap and robust.
That's a simplistic take in the situation, like suggesting the BBC rubbished a treatment to benefit British ones. No impossible but unlikely in the Sputnik 5 vaccine is another mRNA vaccine the story does more damage then good in that sense.
After 4 years of Russia gate nonsense it ere muh Russia.
California has now stopped the vaccine program for maderna due to severe allergic reactions.
https://summit.news/2021/01/19/california-issues-alarm-over-unusually-high-number-of-allergic-reactions-to-moderna-vaccine/
We should congratulate them on seeing sense.
Post by: Jolly2 on 19/01/2021 17:26:36
Stop it with the personal attacks, both of you.
Thankyou ktyptid I have no interest in engaging with him.
Unfortunately associations like American Frontline Doctors, Doctors for Truth. Are all being black listed and scrubbed from the internet.
There's a good reason for that: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90536
The association is complied of doctors all working and treating patients. They are expressing their expertise and experience relative to actually treating people.
The article you shared is misinformation designed to poison the well. Ever since Trump suggested using HCQ the media have done nothing but rubbish the treatment even tho the initial paper used to justify the claim has been retracted by the lancet as inaccurate.
The powers that be clearly do not want an effective treatment that interferes with their vaccination program.
Facebook and Twitter medical experts they are along with the main stream media are all in cooperation to remove any voices that critic the government narrative.
You can stop with the conspiracy claims any time now...
Literally a fact any doctor who has treated patients and had success with HCQ as just one example on publically suggesting it will be scrubbed from all official sites banned on Twitter and Facebook. Again since when are Facebook and Twitter medical expert's?
This is now the secound woman I have seen with these side effects, apparently there are many more...
Many millions of people have been vaccinated worldwide. What proportion of those people have had such profound negative reactions? Are those reactions indefinite, or do they eventually get better?
Good questions phase 1 testing normally takes 2 years for these new vaccines they had 3 months. And the combined time for phases 2 and 3 is around 7 years all done in 8 months for the new vaccines there has not been enough study, as I have been complaining about for days now.
If you have seen these side effects covid is not worse, I had covid last year, it's a bad case of flu, with chest pains and testicle pains. There is no comparison, if you are under the age of 70 chances of dying are 0.03%I again urge the ending of these mRNA vaccines... this is disgraceful
If you are going to make a case for this, then you need to show us that the vaccines are more dangerous than contracting COVID. Do you have those numbers?
They all have families who are now in mourning.
So do those who died of COVID, and there are over 2 million of them. By comparison, how many people have the vaccines killed?
We have barely started. Not to mention the risk of death as has been shown in animal testing once they come into contact with the wild virus
Post by: Jolly2 on 19/01/2021 17:48:04
Quote from: Stella Immanuel, MDthe "luciferase vaccine."This makes it sound like the vaccine is the devil incarnate.
In fact, luciferase (the enzyme that lets fireflies glow) is used as a diagnostic tool to do laboratory tests of antibody levels in patients, and to test the effectiveness of lipid nanoparticles at entering cells.
- It does not mean that if you get a mRNA vaccine, your eyes will start glowing!
See, for example: https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/science-research-biologics/luciferase-immunoprecipitation-system-lips-assay-rapid-simple-and-sensitive-test-detect-antibodyQuote from: Jolly2SARS cov2 proteins attack ace 2 but what if the viral package attacks a different receptor?Vaccines which express the SARS-COV2 spike protein on their surface (eg the Sinovac inactivated SARS-COV2, or the Astra-Zeneca non-replicating chimpanzee virus) do seek out cells with the ACE-2 receptor.
- Depending on the vaccine design, it may or may not actually infect the cell it reaches.
- But the immune system is alerted to the presence of a "foreign" protein (the spike protein) and generates an immune response over the subsequent days and weeks.
In contrast, the mRNA vaccines are encased in lipid nanoparticles, which do not display any proteins on the surface.
- They do not need to dock with a receptor on the cell surface to get into a human cell
- The lipid sphere merges with the lipid coat of human cells, and releases the mRNA inside the cell.
- The cell follows the mRNA instructions to manufacture the SARS-COV2 spike protein, which arranges itself on the surface of the human cell.
- Again, the immune system is alerted to the presence of a "foreign" protein (the spike protein) and generates an immune response over the subsequent days and weeks.
Since all of the current vaccines are injected into an arm muscle, it is most likely that the mRNA vaccine will enter a muscle cell.
Yet if it hits the blood stream potentially it could hit any cell. Still you didnt really answer my question. The nanoparticles do allow the possibility of all cells to be effected.
Quote from: Jolly2go and explain to all the people now suffering mega side effects or that are now dead In Norway how they are better off after taking this experiment treatment.I heard of an interview with a Norwegian public health official.
- He said that they were not worried about these events, and would not be stopping rollout of the mRNA vaccines
- They have not confirmed that the deaths were due to the vaccine, since these were very frail elderly people with terminal conditions, and months to live.
- He said that he had far more interest from the international press than Norwegian press
A possible outcome may be that the recommendations are changed to not vaccinate people who are about to die
- Or possibly, to give them a vaccine that provokes a lesser immune response (like the Astra-Zeneca one).
The mRNA vaccines are frequently followed by flu-like symptoms for a day or so
- This is a sign that your body is generating Interferons. This grabs the attention of the immune system.
- The problem with the SARS-COV2 virus is that it suppresses the interferon defense, so most people feel ok- until they have a really severe condition that can't be ignored (like low blood oxygen).Quote from: Jolly2Sadly money rules over science todayUnless you want all science to be done solely by wealthy gentlemen with nothing better to do with their time, you need money to do science.
That disingenuous, the issue is science publically funded and therefore not driven by the profit motives we see from corporations, sadly corporations have taken over, this is more about returning science to a publicly funded and publically responsible undertaking. We need big business out of scientific research they are literally dominating, there telos doesnt belong in science, science effectively is now hostage to plutocracy or even clepotocracy.
Galileo needed to find wealthy patrons who could support his research program.
- Today we have bodies like the US NSF that funds science, and takes the advice of scientists in deciding which applications to fund.
In extreme cases like WW2, the British government funded development of Colossus to break German cyphers. This directly led to the development of commercial computers after WW2.
And in extreme cases like a COVID-19 pandemic, huge grants were given by national governments to vaccine makers in their own countries (US, China, Russia, UK, among others) to accelerate research and production of vaccines in their country.
- Other countries provided market certainty by issuing advance orders for these vaccines (if they passed safety & efficacy trials).
So, money has always directed science (and constrained science).
- Let's hope the available money is used wisely
- And not pushed around by politics (eg Donald Trump wanted to cancel all NASA's Earth-observation satellites, because they proved he was lying about climate change;
He was expressing his opinion that's not lying. Jeremy Corbyns Brother is repeatedly denouncing climate change as a corporate agenda.
Brazil's science minister was fired for releasing data on deforestation in the Amazon)
There current president leaves a lot to be desired.
let's hope that science funding is not cancelled for the next decade, as governments attempt to pay back the money they spent on COVID vaccines and economic stimulus packages...Quote from: Jolly2multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer …I agree - if we were developing vaccines and running clinical trials and analyzing the data with the technology of 20 years ago, that is how long it would take (with ample funding).
....That's 11 months for (trials) that should be 9 years long.
The curent technology is still experimental, they have literally only just been authorized, and in a way that is utterly rushed. Sorry your suggests snacks of arrogant assumption.
But with a trial that long, there would be far more cases of death from all causes (including these slow, degenerative diseases).That's also disingenuous,
- That is why the power of the placebo-controlled trial is vital, so you can compare the results with and without the vaccine.
- If the adverse events are similar in both arms of the trial, then you can say with confidence that the adverse effects were not the result of the vaccine.
- Untrained and unqualified Presidents espousing the virtues of hydroxychloroquine and bleach cocktails found lots of supporters amongst "America's Frontline Doctors"
With HCQ Trump was quoting a French doctor, who had treated patients with it and found success, science:- experiment and good results. Frontline American doctors people in the frontline doing the work have the same experience. That the media feel the need to rubbish anything Trump suggests speaks more of there TDS.
With regards to the bleach, I think Trunp was simply stating the virus is easily killed I dont believe he ever suggested drinking it. It's as always Trump speak misunderstood and uncharitably presented, still helped sell papers.
- but the placebo controlled trial closed the question. (The UV-activated bleach didn't make it to first base with the medical ethics committee).
But we know that with the vaccines that have passed Phase III placebo-controlled trials, the adverse effects are far less than the adverse effects of SASRS-COV2.
No you don't the trails are too short.
I honestly have to speculate how you can compare side effects to virus? Considering we really dont understand either fully
Women shared her vaccine side effects from the maderna vaccine on Facebook.
https://gab.com/Yeholiverjolly/posts/105583821437848521
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/01/2021 18:05:34
California has now stopped the vaccine program for maderna due to severe allergic reactions.Are they still using the other vaccines?
The article you shared is misinformation designed to poison the well. Ever since Trump suggested using HCQ the media have done nothing but rubbish the treatmentThat's because it doesn't work.
The powers that be do not want am effective treatment that interferes with the vaccination program.Why?
Why do you imagine they want to waste their money on a vaccination program?
PS, real answer only, not paranoid conspiracies.
If you have seen these side effects covid is not worse,It is for those who it kills- roughly 2 million of them.
I had covid last year,How do you know?
He was expressing his opinion that's not lying. Jeremy Corbyns Brother is repeatedly denouncing climate change as a corporate agenda.One is a liar the other is a nutter.
So what?
I dont believe he ever suggested drinking it.Watch the video a few times. He actually talked about injecting bleach and disinfectant.
Then again. He also lied about it just magically going away.
Why don't you recognise that Trump is the swamp?
Post by: alancalverd on 19/01/2021 18:24:37
Large quantities kill idiots. Also true.
Problem is that you need to ingest or inject a large quantity in order to kill a small amount of virus hidden inside an idiot.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/01/2021 18:58:04
It is a very well known, very safe and widely used anti viral medication.(It sometimes kills, even at antimalarial doses.)
But it's a very bad antiviral.
So you would need to use lots of it.
And, at that level, it kills the patient.
Advocating that is nonsense.
Why are you doing it?
I still want you to explain why you want so many people to die.
Why do you advocate a vaccine that simply isn't good enough?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/01/2021 19:06:51
according to many doctors around the world been shown in combination with vitamin C and zinc to have profound impact on treating people with covid 19.But not according to any proper trial.
I still want you to explain why you want so many people to die.
Why do you advocate a vaccine that simply isn't good enough?
Post by: evan_au on 19/01/2021 20:29:20
Quote from: Jolly2
Ever since Trump suggested using HCQ the media have done nothing but rubbish the treatment even tho the initial paper used to justify the claim has been retracted by the lancet as inaccurate.Medical doctors took it seriously enough to run a placebo-controlled trial.
- When they found it didn't work, then they stopped the trial, and it didn't make its way into "best practice"
- As I recall, there was a paper that caused a pause in recruiting for the HCQ trial. But after general review, the trial continued.
- In the middle of a pandemic, communication between medical researchers becomes much more time-critical (as does communication between medical researchers and public health advisers and politicians)
- Many journals have sped up their review processes for papers related to COVID-19
- The Lancet in particular seems to have erred on the side of "the biggest peer review committee is everyone who reads the Lancet", and have retracted quite a few papers after this peer review.
- Most researchers don't wait for the traditional scientific press to publicize their results, but are relying on pre-print servers like medrxive. That's why it's vital that the public press append statements like "which has not been peer-reviewed" when breaking the news on the latest research results.
Quote from: Jolly2
Still you didn't really answer my question. The nanoparticles do allow the possibility of all cells to be effected.Yes, some nanoparticles will get from the injection site (arm muscle) into the bloodstream, and will reach some cells lining blood vessels in distant parts of the body.
Compare this to the virus, where it is estimated that:
Virus Entry: 10 minutes to infect a cell
Eclipse Period: New virions are budding out of the infected cells in 8-12 hours
Burst Size: Around 600 virions released from each infected cell
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7224694/
So, by the time a person becomes infectious, 4 days after being infected by just 1 virion, in theory (without an immune response) they could produce up to 6002x4 virions, or 2x1022 virions, far more than the 40 trillion cells in an adult body (4x1013).
- So the SARS-COV2 virus really could infect every cell with an ACE2 or TMPRSS2 receptor - which includes vital systems like the lungs, nose, heart, kidneys, gut, brain and blood vessels (which includes all the other organs).
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/receptors-for-sars-cov-2-present-in-wide-variety-of-human-cells-67496
But there is a small number of nanoparticles compared to the number of cells in the human body, so only a small fraction of cells will be affected (most of them in the arm muscle). Unlike the virus, the nanoparticles do not self-replicate.
Quote from: Jolly2
With HCQ Trump was quoting a French doctor, who had treated patients with it and found success,So you are happy to trust 1 untrained President and 1 French doctor (who treated an unknown number of patients).
... the (phase III) trials are too short.
- And the experiment was not blinded (no placebo-controlled trial), so with what was he comparing HCQ?
But a Phase III Trial with 30,000 patients in multiple countries with multiple doctors and close monitoring is "too short"?
Wishful thinking can color our impressions, which is why we need placebo-controlled trials...
- Undocumented factors can affect the results, which is why we need multi-site trials
Post by: Kryptid on 19/01/2021 20:39:12
The powers that be clearly do not want an effective treatment that interferes with their vaccination program.
More conspiracy talk.
Literally a fact any doctor who has treated patients and had success with HCQ as just one example on publically suggesting it will be scrubbed from all official sites banned on Twitter and Facebook.
Has HCQ treatment stood up to peer review and replicated experiments? If not, then it's to be expected that some people would get better after taking HCQ through chance alone.
Again since when are Facebook and Twitter medical expert's?
They don't have to be. They just have to be able to cite them.
Good questions phase 1 testing normally takes 2 years for these new vaccines they had 3 months. And the combined time for phases 2 and 3 is around 7 years all done in 8 months for the new vaccines there has not been enough study, as I have been complaining about for days now.
Which didn't address my questions. Where is the evidence that a significant portion of those who have taken the vaccine experience profoundly negative side effects?
if you are under the age of 70
Do people over the age of 70 not count? Surely you don't consider them expendable just because of their age?
chances of dying are 0.03%
I'm not sure where you get your math from, but since I do consider the lives of those over 70 to be important, then the average chances of dying from COVID-19 are much, much higher than that. The total cases worldwide stand at about 95.8 million, with the number of deaths at 2.58 million. That's about a 2.7% mortality rate. So in order for you to justify your claim that the vaccines are more dangerous that COVID-19, then date rate due to the vaccines needs to be at least comparable. The United Kingdom has vaccinated 4.72 million people as of Jan 18, 2021: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations So if the vaccine is deadlier than COVID-19, we should expect over 127,000 deaths to be caused by it. The reported vaccine deaths are nowhere remotely close to that figure.
Taking a look at Norway, this article states that 23 possible deaths of the elderly might be attributed to vaccinations (while 42,000 people in total were vaccinated): https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations Assuming that every single one of those deaths was indeed caused by the vaccine and not mere coincidence, that's a death rate of 0.055%, which is far, far less deadly than COVID.
We have barely started.
So how long is it supposed to take for the vaccines to start killing people? Vaccinations have been going on for over a month now.
Not to mention the risk of death as has been shown in animal testing once they come into contact with the wild virus
And what, statistically speaking, is that death rate?
Post by: Jolly2 on 19/01/2021 22:01:07
The powers that be clearly do not want an effective treatment that interferes with their vaccination program.
More conspiracy talk.
There is a clear conspiracy. The empirical evidence points in that direction. You really want keep the CIA talking point as a simplistic means to label 'invalid'. Its clearer by the day covid is a laboratory creation. You only need two people to have a conspiracy the world is full of them.
So repeating this CIA tool is really a unmeaningful.
Literally a fact any doctor who has treated patients and had success with HCQ as just one example on publically suggesting it will be scrubbed from all official sites banned on Twitter and Facebook.
Has HCQ treatment stood up to peer review and replicated experiments? If not, then it's to be expected that some people would get better after taking HCQ through chance alone.
As I have pointed out repeatedly doctor actually caring for people are seeing positive results and studies are being conducted unfortunately as the video I posted before the studies generally fail to use Zimc, do not start early in the treatment of patients or miss other factors. They are as Dr Martin's points out 'often bad studies'
Early treatment HCQ with vitamin C and zinc. If any study didn't do that its invalid. You miss zinc HCQ cant work.
Sorry If Facebook and Twitter feel justified in removing doctors statements they are claiming they know better then medical professionalsAgain since when are Facebook and Twitter medical expert's?
They don't have to be. They just have to be able to cite them.
Good questions phase 1 testing normally takes 2 years for these new vaccines they had 3 months. And the combined time for phases 2 and 3 is around 7 years all done in 8 months for the new vaccines there has not been enough study, as I have been complaining about for days now.
Which didn't address my questions. Where is the evidence that a significant portion of those who have taken the vaccine experience profoundly negative side effects?
Obviously miss that time will tell, there have not been enough time to note the side effects, 11 months of trails should take 9 years.
What about side effects that develop in year 2? Or month 13 or 14, the trials as they stand cannot pick them up. hhenceI completely answered you question you just missed it.
if you are under the age of 70
Do people over the age of 70 not count? Surely you don't consider them expendable just because of their age?
At 70 the death rate is 0.05 it's a 99.5% survival rate. The vaccination program is for everyone.
chances of dying are 0.03%
I'm not sure where you get your math from, but since I do consider the lives of those over 70 to be important, then the average chances of dying from COVID-19 are much, much higher than that. The total cases worldwide stand at about 95.8 million, with the number of deaths at 2.58 million.
If these numbers are accurate. They have been listing covid as cause of death for anyone who tested positive, even if they get hit by a car. :)
That's about a 2.7% mortality rate. So in order for you to justify your claim that the vaccines are more dangerous that COVID-19, then date rate due to the vaccines needs to be at least comparable.
Right so if covid will kill 2 million and the vaccine only
1.9 million the vaccine is ok. That's your position.
The United Kingdom has vaccinated 4.72 million people as of Jan 18, 2021: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations So if the vaccine is deadlier than COVID-19, we should expect over 127,000 deaths to be caused by it. The reported vaccine deaths are nowhere remotely close to that figure.
You are only considering death there are potentially long term health effects from the vaccine did you miss the video I posted.
Taking a look at Norway, this article states that 23 possible deaths of the elderly might be attributed to vaccinations (while 42,000 people in total were vaccinated): https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations Assuming that every single one of those deaths was indeed caused by the vaccine and not mere coincidence, that's a death rate of 0.055%, which is far, far less deadly than COVID.
No it isn't that's effectively the same
We have barely started.
So how long is it supposed to take for the vaccines to start killing people? Vaccinations have been going on for over a month now.
Again death is not the only issue. Wow a month.
Not to mention the risk of death as has been shown in animal testing once they come into contact with the wild virus
And what, statistically speaking, is that death rate?
As far as I remember with the sar cov1 vaccine all the ferrets involved died
Post by: Jolly2 on 19/01/2021 22:12:07
Quote from: Jolly2Ever since Trump suggested using HCQ the media have done nothing but rubbish the treatment even tho the initial paper used to justify the claim has been retracted by the lancet as inaccurate.Medical doctors took it seriously enough to run a placebo-controlled trial.
- When they found it didn't work,
Go check the study I guarantee they not only missed Zinc they also started in a late stage of the virus infection.
Go check seriously
then they stopped the trial, and it didn't make its way into "best practice"
- As I recall, there was a paper that caused a pause in recruiting for the HCQ trial. But after general review, the trial continued.
- In the middle of a pandemic, communication between medical researchers becomes much more time-critical (as does communication between medical researchers and public health advisers and politicians)
- Many journals have sped up their review processes for papers related to COVID-19
- The Lancet in particular seems to have erred on the side of "the biggest peer review committee is everyone who reads the Lancet", and have retracted quite a few papers after this peer review.
Yeah and the initial study claiming HCQ didnt work was retracted by the Lancet.
- Most researchers don't wait for the traditional scientific press to publicize their results, but are relying on pre-print servers like medrxive. That's why it's vital that the public press append statements like "which has not been peer-reviewed" when breaking the news on the latest research results.Quote from: Jolly2Still you didn't really answer my question. The nanoparticles do allow the possibility of all cells to be effected.Yes, some nanoparticles will get from the injection site (arm muscle) into the bloodstream, and will reach some cells lining blood vessels in distant parts of the body.
Compare this to the virus, where it is estimated that:
Virus Entry: 10 minutes to infect a cell
Eclipse Period: New virions are budding out of the infected cells in 8-12 hours
Burst Size: Around 600 virions released from each infected cell
See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7224694/
So, by the time a person becomes infectious, 4 days after being infected by just 1 virion, in theory (without an immune response) they could produce up to 6002x4 virions, or 2x1022 virions, far more than the 40 trillion cells in an adult body (4x1013).
- So the SARS-COV2 virus really could infect every cell with an ACE2 or TMPRSS2 receptor - which includes vital systems like the lungs, nose, heart, kidneys, gut, brain and blood vessels (which includes all the other organs).
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/receptors-for-sars-cov-2-present-in-wide-variety-of-human-cells-67496
But there is a small number of nanoparticles compared to the number of cells in the human body, so only a small fraction of cells will be affected (most of them in the arm muscle). Unlike the virus, the nanoparticles do not self-replicate.Quote from: Jolly2With HCQ Trump was quoting a French doctor, who had treated patients with it and found success,So you are happy to trust 1 untrained President and 1 French doctor (who treated an unknown number of patients).
... the (phase III) trials are too short.
It was 3000 at the time. Sure it's a lot more now.
- And the experiment was not blinded (no placebo-controlled trial), so with what was he comparing HCQ?
He wasn't conducting a study he was actively treating patients.
But a Phase III Trial with 30,000 patients in multiple countries with multiple doctors and close monitoring is "too short"?
Yes too short 3 months for phase 1. 8 months for 2 and 3 combined is too short.
Wishful thinking can color our impressions, which is why we need placebo-controlled trials...
- Undocumented factors can affect the results, which is why we need multi-site trials
They need more time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/01/2021 22:15:20
As I have pointed out repeatedly doctor actually caring for people are seeing positive resultsYes.
They are seeing the result of a billion years of evolution.
We have quite good immune systems.
If ew are lucky, we recover from infections.
This is true regardless of the power of prayer or of hydroxychloroquine.
That's why you need a proper trial.
When we did one, it turned our that HCQ isn't any good.
You miss zinc HCQ cant work.Most people are not zinc deficient. Indeed, since it's present in meat, most non-vegetarians have stacks of it.
Sorry If Facebook and Twitter feel justified in removing doctors statements they are claiming they know better then medical professionalsThey are doing it on the advice of medical professionals (the sort who understand proper trials).
11 months of trails should take 9 years.And with 1600 people dying each day in the UK that's about a tenth of the population gone.
Now, I realise that's not the way the stats really work out, but 9 years is simply far too long to wait.
What about side effects that develop in year 2? Or month 13 or 14, the trials as they stand cannot pick them up. hhenceI completely answered you question you just missed it.What about the effects of the virus that occur in year 2?
Your answer is meaningless.
If these numbers are accurate. They have been listing covid as cause of death for anyone who tested positive, even if they get hit by a car.Most people who died in the UK yesterday died from covid.
We can actually ignore very nearly every other possible cause of death as too small to bother with.
Post by: Jolly2 on 19/01/2021 22:16:41
Small quantities of hydroxychloroquine and sodium hypochlorite kill viruses. True.
Large quantities kill idiots. Also true.
Problem is that you need to ingest or inject a large quantity in order to kill a small amount of virus hidden inside an idiot.
What are you talking about?
HCQ is a malaria medication taking by millions of people all over the world routinely. It is a very well known, very safe and widely used anti viral medication. It has also according to many doctors around the world been shown in combination with vitamin C and zinc to have profound impact on treating people with covid 19.You are taking nonsense.
Post by: Jolly2 on 19/01/2021 23:43:37
Post by: Kryptid on 20/01/2021 00:57:46
There is a clear conspiracy.
Then how about showing us unambiguous evidence for that from a reputable source?
The empirical evidence points in that direction.
Then show us that evidence. So far, you've posted a combination of conspiracy websites and non-sequiturs.
As I have pointed out repeatedly doctor actually caring for people are seeing positive results and studies are being conducted unfortunately as the video I posted before the studies generally fail to use Zimc, do not start early in the treatment of patients or miss other factors. They are as Dr Martin's points out 'often bad studies'
So where are those peer-reviewed, replicated studies that show it does work?
Sorry If Facebook and Twitter feel justified in removing doctors statements they are claiming they know better then medical professionals
Not when they are citing the medical majority as evidence against the claims of the fringe (In before, "the medical majority are part of the conspiracy").
Obviously miss that time will tell, there have not been enough time to note the side effects
Then you are admitting that not enough time has passed for us to be alarmist about the side effects and that not enough evidence has been gathered to show that the vaccine is worse than COVID.
What about side effects that develop in year 2? Or month 13 or 14, the trials as they stand cannot pick them up. hhenceI completely answered you question you just missed it.
You're obviously talking about complete speculation. You don't know that there will even be such side effects in year two or beyond. So no evidence to justify an alarmist position.
At 70 the death rate is 0.05 it's a 99.5% survival rate.
What is your source? What about people older than 70?
If these numbers are accurate.
Do you have a reason to show that they are not?
They have been listing covid as cause of death for anyone who tested positive, even if they get hit by a car.
Evidence?
Right so if covid will kill 2 million and the vaccine only
1.9 million the vaccine is ok. That's your position.
COVID isn't done killing. It's only 2 million so far. What we are looking for is if the vaccine will reduce the total number of deaths. The existing evidence strongly suggests that it will.
You are only considering death there are potentially long term health effects from the vaccine did you miss the video I posted.
And again, you need to show us that the long term health effects are the rule and not the exception.
No it isn't that's effectively the same
You do know that 2.7% is far greater than 0.055%, don't you? If you have a different COVID death rate, then please post the source (and make sure that it is reputable and not a conspiracy website).
Again death is not the only issue. Wow a month.
And, again, show us that the complications you are worrying about are statistically more common than COVID complications.
As far as I remember
Your memory isn't exactly a reputable source.
Post by: Jolly2 on 20/01/2021 05:58:16
What about side effects that develop in year 2? Or month 13 or 14, the trials as they stand cannot pick them up. hhenceI completely answered you question you just missed it.
You're obviously talking about complete speculation. You don't know that there will even be such side effects in year two or beyond. So no evidence to justify an alarmist position.
Again it's not alarmist, I wonder why you think we should bother with any trial? why not just give people concoctions, until there is evidence they do harm, you can give people anything. That is highly irresponsible idea
You didn't watch this.
https://rumble.com/vcwdir-side-effects-from-covid-vaccine.html
Right so if covid will kill 2 million and the vaccine only
1.9 million the vaccine is ok. That's your position.
COVID isn't done killing.
Neither is the vaccine, so that is your position. Science is a very soulless pursuit
It's only 2 million so far. What we are looking for is if the vaccine will reduce the total number of deaths. The existing evidence strongly suggests that it will.
Existing evidence is limited, and again death isnt the only issue
Post by: Kryptid on 20/01/2021 06:32:32
Again it's not alarmist
Implying that the vaccine will injure and kill more people than COVID without evidence is alarmist.
I wonder why you think we should bother with any trial? why not just give people concoctions, until there is evidence they do harm, you can give people anything.
That's just it, though. Trials were done. The evidence for harm done during those trials was minimal. Given the way that we know the vaccine works and the way the immune system works, there is no reason to claim that it is as harmful as COVID. It produces the same spike protein as COVID, but without the other parts of the virus necessary to cause infection.
You didn't watch this.
https://rumble.com/vcwdir-side-effects-from-covid-vaccine.html
Do you remember when I said that this was the exception and not the rule? Bad things can come from people driving cars too. But we need cars right now (just like we need the vaccine right now). Car accidents are, like negative vaccine side effects, the exception and not the rule. If you want to prove me wrong, then get me some actual numbers that support your position.
Neither is the vaccine, so that is your position. Science is a very soulless pursuit
Deaths from COVID are at massively higher rates than from the vaccine (and I've shown you the math to back that up), but since I've already said that, I'm not sure what you're not getting.
Existing evidence is limited
Which is why your alarmist position is irrational in the face of a pandemic. If you are going to propose that the vaccine "might" have severe side effects for a significant number of people months or years down the line, then you are going to have to provide a good reason for us to expect those kinds of effects. Please do so using known biology while staying away from speculation.
death isnt the only issue
It isn't for COVID either.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/01/2021 13:05:39
QuoteQuote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 18:24:37
Small quantities of hydroxychloroquine and sodium hypochlorite kill viruses. True.
Large quantities kill idiots. Also true.
Problem is that you need to ingest or inject a large quantity in order to kill a small amount of virus hidden inside an idiot.
What are you talking about?
HCQ is a malaria medication taking by millions of people all over the world routinely. It is a very well known, very safe and widely used anti viral medication. It has also according to many doctors around the world been shown in combination with vitamin C and zinc to have profound impact on treating people with covid 19.You are taking nonsense.
Quote
One of the world's largest studies - the Recovery trial run by Oxford University - has involved 11,000 patients with coronavirus in hospitals across the UK and included testing hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness against the disease, along with other potential treatments.
It concluded that "there is no beneficial effect of hydroxychloroquine in patients hospitalised with Covid-19" and the drug has now been pulled from the trial.
HCQ is an antimalarial (malaria is a parasite, not a virus) and anti-inflammatory. It was hoped it might reduce COVID symptoms (it didn't) but its antiviral properties have never been demonstrated.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2021 13:09:54
why not just give people concoctions, until there is evidence they do harm, you can give people anything. That is highly irresponsible ideaSo, you worked out that what Trump was doing when he was talking about disinfectant and HCQ is irresponsible.
That's a good start.
Everyone else knew it when this happened.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2020/03/23/man-dead-from-taking-chloroquine-after-trump-touts-drug-for-coronavirus/
Post by: Jolly2 on 20/01/2021 14:19:49
Again it's not alarmist
Implying that the vaccine will injure and kill more people than COVID without evidence is alarmist.
We don't know what the vaccine will do, as the initial point of this thread raised, scientists are concerned about damage to the placenta that potentially could leave all women infertile. They also raised concerns about the SARS cov1 vaccine and ferrets that died once they came into contact with the wild virus, that's their implication, not alarmist, it's a potential reality, and it's highly irresponsible to go ahead ignoring that potential. That's not even discussing the other side effects we are not seeing, people have lost motor function In facial muscles, some.people as the Russia today report showed and the video I posted here have consistent convulsions and others have died not from contact with the wild virus but from the vaccine.
I wonder why you think we should bother with any trial? why not just give people concoctions, until there is evidence they do harm, you can give people anything.
That's just it, though. Trials were done. The evidence for harm done during those trials was minimal.
The science behind the trials is well established and should take years. To ignore the standard and rush ahead is highly irresponsible. To do so with an unproven experimental technology is even more so.
Given the way that we know the vaccine works and the way the immune system works,
This is not true there is much about man still not understood, hence this is arrogance speaking.
there is no reason to claim that it is as harmful as COVID. It produces the same spike protein as COVID, but without the other parts of the virus necessary to cause infection.
That's not the only thing these vaccines contain there are also many metals added, God knows what else.
You didn't watch this.
https://rumble.com/vcwdir-side-effects-from-covid-vaccine.html
Do you remember when I said that this was the exception and not the rule? Bad things can come from people driving cars too.
Too early to say.
But we need cars right now (just like we need the vaccine right now). Car accidents are, like negative vaccine side effects, the exception and not the rule. If you want to prove me wrong, then get me some actual numbers that support your position.Neither is the vaccine, so that is your position. Science is a very soulless pursuit
Deaths from COVID are at massively higher rates than from the vaccine
To be listed as a covid death in Britian you have to die 28 after being given a positive result to the virus, that's it. There is nothing to say the people that died didnt die of something else. The number are being manipulated.
(and I've shown you the math to back that up), but since I've already said that, I'm not sure what you're not getting.Existing evidence is limited
Which is why your alarmist position is irrational in the face of a pandemic. If you are going to propose that the vaccine "might" have severe side effects for a significant number of people months or years down the line, then you are going to have to provide a good reason for us to expect those kinds of effects.
No that's what years of trails are meant to do, rushing ahead as they are and saying no evidence yet is utterly reckless.
Please do so using known biology while staying away from speculation.death isnt the only issue
It isn't for COVID either.
Sure. Do you even understand what I am actually arguing for in this thread Kryptid? Please tell me your words what you think I am arguing for
,Sorry If Facebook and Twitter feel justified in removing doctors statements they are claiming they know better then medical professionals
Not when they are citing the medical majority as evidence against the claims of the fringe (In before, "the medical majority are part of the conspiracy").
Sorry if there is a disagreement between different experts Facebook and Twitter have no qualification to pick a side. Your point is nonsense.
"There are no Authorities in science at best there are experts" Carl Sargan
Post by: alancalverd on 20/01/2021 16:43:27
"There are no Authorities in science at best there are experts" Carl SarganTrue, and I believe that Carl Sagan also said it.
Anyway I am about to become an expert. Cultural poseurs will note that the French word for experiment is the same as for experience. I have been invited for my first vaccination on Saturday. If you don't hear from me again, you may assume Jolly's case is proved.
Post by: Jolly2 on 20/01/2021 16:44:36
"If we are not able to ask sceptical questions to interrogate those who tell us something is true, to be sceptical of those in authority then we are up for grabs for the next charlatan political or religious who comes along" Carl Sargan
You are all sold on an experimental treatment, actively defending it, theres no real independent verification all data is in the hands of the producers, debate is being closed down critics and skeptics removed and purged from Facebook Twitter and the internet in general, by authorities that should have no say over science at all. And you all go along. There isnt a scientist here as best I can tell
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2021 17:35:53
The utter lack of skepticismWe are very sceptical.
That's why we noticed things like Trump kept lying about stuff.
We noticed that the proper trials of HCQ showed that it didn't work.
We noticed lots of things.
Why don't you see them?
scientists are concerned about damage to the placenta that potentially could leave all women infertile.Not any more, because they actually did science.
They also raised concerns about the SARS cov1 vaccine and ferretsI'm sorry but if it's a choice between people and ferrets- screw them.
The good news is that people are different from ferrets.
The science behind the trials is well established and should take years.We do not have years; people are dying today.
To ignore the standard and rush ahead is highly irresponsible.Not nearly as irresponsible as letting the virus kill people.
To do so with an unproven experimental technologyIt has been proven.
That's what the trials are for.
This is not true there is much about man still not understoodSpeak for yourself.
Seriously, if we didn't know how the immune system worked, how did we come up with a selection of vaccines so quickly?
Your point is obviously false.
That's not the only thing these vaccines contain there are also many metals added,My breakfast cereal also has metals added to it.
So what?
To be listed as a covid death in Britian you have to die 28 after being given a positive result to the virus, that's it. There is nothing to say the people that died didnt die of something else. The number are being manipulated.That might have been a point some months ago.
Today, most people who died died within 28 days of having tested positive for covid.
But most people people in the UK were not tested.
So covid must be the cause o, at least, the majority of the deaths attributed to it.
You can stop arguing about that now.
COVID IS THE BIGGEST KILLER IN THE UK TODAY; THERE AREN'T ENOUGH "OTHER CAUSES" TO SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE DEATH TOLL.
There isnt a scientist here as best I can tellThen you are an idiot.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/01/2021 18:25:08
Can't say more for reasons of confidentiality but I'm satisfied with the trial outcome of the vaccines currently available in the UK.
Post by: Jolly2 on 20/01/2021 19:55:33
Being a proper scientist, I was among those asked to evaluate certain vaccine and treatment development program proposals.
Can't say more for reasons of confidentiality but I'm satisfied with the trial outcome of the vaccines currently available in the UK.
They have all been rushed, I could accept a rushed trail phase for traditional inactivated virus vaccines there is a wealth of historic data related to them and issues that can arise.
However a rushed trial phase for a new experimental technology that hardly any scientists have experience with, that has never before been used in humans, where the data is literally being withheld by the producers, and there is no historic data to understand any of the potential problems, that is intended to vaccinate an entire population even planet is the height of insanity. In my opinion. And now unnecessary as we have traditional vaccines ready.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/01/2021 20:15:53
We don't know what the vaccine will do, as the initial point of this thread raised, scientists are concerned about damage to the placenta that potentially could leave all women infertile.
And those scientists you speak of are in the minority and (at least as far as the evidence in this thread has shown), not made a compelling case for their claims.
They also raised concerns about the SARS cov1 vaccine and ferrets that died once they came into contact with the wild virus, that's their implication, not alarmist, it's a potential reality
So how about showing us the details of that experiment where the ferrets died?
it's highly irresponsible to go ahead ignoring that potential.
It's the lesser of two evils. You are talking about something which only might be more dangerous than COVID (based on speculation). It would be even more irresponsible to let COVID go on injuring and killing when you have yet to demonstrate a good, biologically-informed reasoning as to why the mRNA vaccines are more dangerous than COVID.
That's not even discussing the other side effects we are not seeing, people have lost motor function In facial muscles, some.people as the Russia today report showed and the video I posted here have consistent convulsions and others have died not from contact with the wild virus but from the vaccine.
When are you going to give us some actual numbers to work with?
The science behind the trials is well established and should take years. To ignore the standard and rush ahead is highly irresponsible. To do so with an unproven experimental technology is even more so.
It's the lesser of two evils. You are weighing a "might be" (the vaccine) against a "certainly will be" (COVID). So it's better to choose the vaccine.
This is not true there is much about man still not understood, hence this is arrogance speaking.
So then go ahead and give us a biologically-informed reason as to why we can expect these vaccines to cause grave injury and death in the future. Phase I trials for the Pfizer vaccine were started in April of 2020. That was about nine months ago. So how long, exactly, are we supposed to wait before the volunteers who took part in those trails are supposed to experience the dire side effects you postulate? So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the vaccines are more dangerous than we currently know them to be, not on us to show that they aren't.
That's not the only thing these vaccines contain there are also many metals added, God knows what else.
Those metals you speak of are sodium and potassium. Guess what the body already contains? Sodium and potassium.
Too early to say.
Obviously not, otherwise nobody would be having those convulsions yet in the first place.
To be listed as a covid death in Britian you have to die 28 after being given a positive result to the virus, that's it. There is nothing to say the people that died didnt die of something else. The number are being manipulated.
Please supply a reputable source for this information.
No that's what years of trails are meant to do, rushing ahead as they are and saying no evidence yet is utterly reckless.
I would agree with you if we had the luxury of time. We don't.
Do you even understand what I am actually arguing for in this thread Kryptid? Please tell me your words what you think I am arguing for
You seem to be arguing that we should stop vaccinating people based on things that only might happen and on bad things that we know have happened but are unable to give us an incident rate for.
Sorry if there is a disagreement between different experts Facebook and Twitter have no qualification to pick a side. Your point is nonsense.
That's like saying evolution vs. creationism is a disagreement between different experts. It's not quite that extreme, but the point stands.
You are all sold on an experimental treatment, actively defending it, theres no real independent verification all data is in the hands of the producers, debate is being closed down critics and skeptics removed and purged from Facebook Twitter and the internet in general, by authorities that should have no say over science at all. And you all go along. There isnt a scientist here as best I can tell
We are not saying that the vaccine is totally safe. It isn't. We acknowledge that some people have negative side effects. What we are saying is that it isn't as bad as the pandemic.
Then you are an idiot.
Cut it out. I'm serious.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2021 20:26:42
However a rushed trial phase for a new experimental technology that hardly any scientists have experience with, that has never before been used in humansNo
In 2000, German biologist Ingmar Hoerr published an article on the efficiency of RNA‐based vaccines, which he studied as part of his doctoral degree
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine
As far as I can tell, this thread asked a question; and that question has been clearly answered.
It is now only acting as a focal point for more disinformation.
Perhaps it should be closed.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/01/2021 23:24:21
They have all been rushed,OK, since infection is an exponential function, we can measure time linearly as log(COVID deaths). How many years would have been acceptable in your view?
Post by: evan_au on 21/01/2021 08:53:16
The circle ends here...
Post by: Jolly2 on 21/01/2021 16:36:45
The answer is "possibly, but no evidence to date".
Next question, please.
That doesn't answer the question. That reply relates to the question could the Covid vaccine damage fertility?
And it doesn't answer it, it leaves it as UNKNOWN.
The question was how can a question be fake news?
Post by: Jolly2 on 21/01/2021 17:07:39
When it is just a ploy to push an agenda.The answer is "possibly, but no evidence to date".
Next question, please.
That doesn't answer the question. That reply relates to the question could the Covid vaccine damage fertility?
And it doesn't answer it, it leaves it as UNKNOWN.
The question was how can a question be fake news?
The agenda protect people from potential harm?
The only agenda I see from the scientists that approached the European Health Authorities was a concern for potential damage to human beings.
Those attacking the very suggestion on the other hand certainly appear to have an agenda, money is to be made.
Something I find rather troublesome is that the request is for more testing, for more studies, for more data and ultimately for more science. The idea scientists want less science is rather weird and worrying
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/01/2021 17:25:29
The agenda protect people from potential harm?We discussed that earlier.
Your agenda- to use an ineffective (but traditional) equally "untested" vaccine- would definitely harm people because the vaccine doesn't work well enough to stop the virus.
Post by: Jolly2 on 21/01/2021 21:57:12
Scientist have approached the European health authorities with concerns related to proteins attacking placenta.
There are scientists that deny evolution too.It is possible
It's also "possible" that everyone who catches COVID will drop dead exactly 1 year after infection.
Sure, let's hope that's not the case.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/01/2021 22:13:04
It is possible, that possibility need to be explored and testedHow do you do the test?
Post by: Kryptid on 21/01/2021 22:39:13
that possibility need to be explored and tested
It has been, albeit accidentally: https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210112/why-covid-vaccines-are-falsely-linked-to-infertility
To quote the relevant part of the article:
Quote
Even Wodarg, in his petition, writes “there is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies.”
Indeed, data from the human studies of the Pfizer vaccine don’t bear out this theory. In the Pfizer trial, which included more than 37,000 people, women were given pregnancy tests before they were accepted to the study. They were excluded if they were already pregnant. During the trial, 23 women conceived, likely by accident. Twelve of these pregnancies happened in the vaccine group, and 11 in the placebo group. They continued to be followed as part of the study.
To add to that:
Quote
Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, says this idea really crumbles when you consider that more than 22 million people in the United States have been infected by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In fact, experts believe that number is much higher because 22 million is just the number who have been tested and found. Most think the real number is at least 3 times that high.
Offit says to consider that 70 million Americans have been infected, or about 20% of the population. If the infertility theory was true, he says, you’d expect that the body making antibodies against the natural infection would show up in our fertility statistics. It hasn’t.
“There's no evidence that this pandemic has changed fertility patterns,” Offit says.
So we have strong evidence against such infertility claims.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/01/2021 23:10:44
It is possible, that possibility need to be exploredIt is possible that the vaccine could turn a gullible halfwit into a polite, intelligent and amusing skeptic. Let's explore that too.
Post by: Jolly2 on 21/01/2021 23:14:12
that possibility need to be explored and tested
It has been, albeit accidentally: https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210112/why-covid-vaccines-are-falsely-linked-to-infertility
To quote the relevant part of the article:QuoteEven Wodarg, in his petition, writes “there is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies.”
Indeed, data from the human studies of the Pfizer vaccine don’t bear out this theory. In the Pfizer trial, which included more than 37,000 people, women were given pregnancy tests before they were accepted to the study. They were excluded if they were already pregnant. During the trial, 23 women conceived, likely by accident. Twelve of these pregnancies happened in the vaccine group, and 11 in the placebo group. They continued to be followed as part of the study.
To add to that:QuotePaul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, says this idea really crumbles when you consider that more than 22 million people in the United States have been infected by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In fact, experts believe that number is much higher because 22 million is just the number who have been tested and found. Most think the real number is at least 3 times that high.
Offit says to consider that 70 million Americans have been infected, or about 20% of the population. If the infertility theory was true, he says, you’d expect that the body making antibodies against the natural infection would show up in our fertility statistics. It hasn’t.
“There's no evidence that this pandemic has changed fertility patterns,” Offit says.
So we have strong evidence against such infertility claims.
Wow only took one month and 2 days to actually get an answer. Cool. Thanks for actually replying.
Although.. During the trial, 23 women conceived
Did they carry to full term? The entire phase 1 was 3 months. 8 months for 2 and 3 pregnancy lasts 9 they conceived during the trials, so would have carried on being pregnant after the trail. Did they keep the children or lose them?
Nearly a full answer.
The secound section relates to covid infection as far as I am aware its only the testicles that have ace2 receptors or do Ovaries also.
And the issues related to the SARS cov1 and animal experiments?
Post by: Jolly2 on 21/01/2021 23:17:55
It is possible, that possibility need to be exploredIt is possible that the vaccine could turn a gullible halfwit into a polite, intelligent and amusing skeptic. Let's explore that too.
So these synthetic spikes the vaccine makes they attach to cells then the body sees them as foreign. So the immune system destroys the entire cell?
How many packets carrying the RNA code? And how many spike proteins does each packet create?
Post by: alancalverd on 21/01/2021 23:28:22
Wow only took one month and 2 days to actually get an answer. Cool.Of course! If you announce the results too quickly, some idiot will complain that the work has been rushed through and is incomplete.
Post by: Jolly2 on 21/01/2021 23:39:09
Wow only took one month and 2 days to actually get an answer. Cool.Of course! If you announce the results too quickly, some idiot will complain that the work has been rushed through and is incomplete.
Not a full answer, the women only conceived, if the vaccine attacks placenta they could lose the children mid or late term. And as pregnancy last nine months and the phrase 2 and 3 last a combined 8, with the women conceiving during the trail, the pregnancy continue after the trial is finished need to know if they managed to give birth.
Post by: Kryptid on 21/01/2021 23:41:46
Not a full answer, the women only conceived, if the vaccine attacks placenta they could lose the children mid or late term. And as pregnancy last nine months and the phrase 2 and 3 last a combined 8, with the women conceiving during the trail, the pregnancy continue after the trial is finished need to know if they managed to give birth.
This right here...
Quote
Offit says to consider that 70 million Americans have been infected, or about 20% of the population. If the infertility theory was true, he says, you’d expect that the body making antibodies against the natural infection would show up in our fertility statistics. It hasn’t.
...should answer that.
Post by: Jolly2 on 21/01/2021 23:47:14
Not a full answer, the women only conceived, if the vaccine attacks placenta they could lose the children mid or late term. And as pregnancy last nine months and the phrase 2 and 3 last a combined 8, with the women conceiving during the trail, the pregnancy continue after the trial is finished need to know if they managed to give birth.
This right here...QuoteOffit says to consider that 70 million Americans have been infected, or about 20% of the population. If the infertility theory was true, he says, you’d expect that the body making antibodies against the natural infection would show up in our fertility statistics. It hasn’t.
...should answer that.
No the first relates to the vaccine trail. The secound covid 19 infections.
The question is about how the vaccine effects placenta not the virus.
Post by: Kryptid on 21/01/2021 23:48:30
No the first relates to the vaccine trail. The secound covid 19 infections.
The question is about how the vaccine effects placenta not the virus.
The spike protein in both is the same, so it answers the same question.
Post by: Jolly2 on 21/01/2021 23:49:17
halfwit
Do we have to result to insults?And the issues related to the SARS cov1
And what would those be, specifically?animal experiments
Show us the original paper about it and we can discuss it.
I found this still looking however apparently China had passed phase 1 human trails for a SARS vaccines in 2004?
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2004/12/sars-vaccine-linked-liver-damage-ferret-study
"In an unrelated SARS vaccine investigation, the Chinese government yesterday announced that a vaccine proved safe and effective in a phase 1 clinical trial. Thirty-six volunteers who had been vaccinated reported no unusual physical reactions after 56 days, Agence France-Presse reported (AFP). In addition, antibodies were found in 24 of those vaccinated, the story said.
Testing began in May with 18 men and 18 women from 21 to 40 years old following what the government termed successful animal tests, AFP reported. The vaccine won't be ready for commercial use until two more testing phases are completed."
Post by: Jolly2 on 21/01/2021 23:51:24
No the first relates to the vaccine trail. The secound covid 19 infections.
The question is about how the vaccine effects placenta not the virus.
The spike protein in both is the same, so it answers the same question.
No the issue was something else, its not the spike protein it relates to how the immune response caused by the vaccine might attack the placenta. Spike proteins are used to trigger that responce.
So no sorry that's not an answer.
Post by: Kryptid on 21/01/2021 23:54:32
I found this still looking however apparently China had passed phase 1 human trails for a SARS vaccines in 2004?
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2004/12/sars-vaccine-linked-liver-damage-ferret-study
That vaccine is not an mRNA vaccine:
Quote
Cao had created a vaccine from recombinant modified vaccinia virus Ankara (rMVA)
Modified vaccinia Ankara uses an actual virus. The mRNA vaccines don't, so I'm not sure what the relevant comparison is.
its not the spike protein it relates to how the immune response caused by the vaccine might attack the placenta.
The spike protein is the very thing that triggers the immune response in the first place. So please explain to us how the reaction to spike proteins produced via the vaccine could possibly be different from those same spike proteins when they are on a virus.
Post by: Jolly2 on 22/01/2021 00:00:33
I found this still looking however apparently China had passed phase 1 human trails for a SARS vaccines in 2004?
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2004/12/sars-vaccine-linked-liver-damage-ferret-study
That vaccine is not an mRNA vaccine:QuoteCao had created a vaccine from recombinant modified vaccinia virus Ankara (rMVA)
Modified vaccinia Ankara uses an actual virus. The mRNA vaccines don't, so I'm not sure what the relevant comparison is.its not the spike protein it relates to how the immune response caused by the vaccine might attack the placenta.
The spike protein is the very thing that triggers the immune response in the first place. So please explain to us how the reaction to spike proteins produced via the vaccine could possibly be different from those same spike proteins when they are on a virus.
It was as originally posted
"The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women."
The suggestion made by some was that the protein string is too short. But that's just a speculation. A longer study that saw the women give birth would be better.
They must still have the information of the women involved in the trials. It's simply a question of finding out if they all managed to give birth or of any lost their child and if so how many?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/01/2021 00:02:06
It was as originally posted
"The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women."
The suggestion made by some way the string is too short. But that's just a speculation. A longer study that saw the women give birth would be better.
They must still have the information of the women involved in the trials. It's simply a question of finding out if they all managed to give birth or of any lost their child how many?
That did not address what I said:
So please explain to us how the reaction to spike proteins produced via the vaccine could possibly be different from those same spike proteins when they are on a virus.
Post by: Jolly2 on 22/01/2021 00:08:46
So please explain to us how the reaction to spike proteins produced via the vaccine could possibly be different from those same spike proteins when they are on a virus.
Oh because you are asking a different question.
Well I'm sure you could see a difference if you took a wild virus spike and one of the spikes from the mRNA vaccine, you would notice a difference I'm sure. It's a question of how closely the mRNA can match the spikes of wild virus, as previously discussed mutations might make the current treatment in effective, hence speculative as we are, these differences could cause different immune responses. There's my hypothesis.
You didnt address my point. The covid virus and the immune response to it are different. Just because the virus doesn't attack the placenta doesn't mean the antibodies wont.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/01/2021 00:18:34
Well I'm sure you could see a difference if you took a wild virus spike and one of the spikes from the mRNA vaccine, you would notice a difference I'm sure.
Unless you've got actual evidence for that, "I'm sure" isn't good enough.
It's a question of how closely the mRNA can match the spikes of wild virus
Modern technology can sequence complete viral genomes, so we can make it a 100% match to at least some strains of the virus.
There's my hypothesis.
Which doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If there was a significant portion of COVID strains with significantly different spike protein sequences from those produced by the vaccines, then the vaccines wouldn't work on those strains (or wouldn't work as well). However, there is evidence that even mutant variants of the virus can be stopped by the Pfizer vaccine: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-20/pfizer-biontech-shot-likely-to-defeat-mutant-new-study-shows
Here's the thing about the immune system: if the spike protein produced by the vaccine causes the immune system to attack the spike proteins on the virus (and thus produce an immunity to them), then that means the immune system is treating them as the same threat. So even if they did not have a 100% identical sequence, they are close enough (and that's what matters). If the body reacts the same way to the virus as it does to the vaccine, then that means infertility caused by the vaccine must also be caused by the virus. Yet that isn't what we see.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/01/2021 00:22:02
The covid virus and the immune response to it are different.
So please tell us what that difference is (while supplying evidence in the process).
Just because the virus doesn't attack the placenta doesn't mean the antibodies wont.
Nobody said anything about the virus attacking the placenta. It's the antibodies in both cases. If an antibody will attack the spike proteins on the virus, and those spike proteins are the same as those produced by the vaccine, then those antibodies created by a viral infection are just as likely to attack the placenta as those produced by the vaccine.
Post by: Jolly2 on 22/01/2021 00:44:31
The covid virus and the immune response to it are different.
So please tell us what that difference is (while supplying evidence in the process).
Thanks for the clarification I missed your point.Just because the virus doesn't attack the placenta doesn't mean the antibodies wont.
Nobody said anything about the virus attacking the placenta. It's the antibodies in both cases. If an antibody will attack the spike proteins on the virus, and those spike proteins are the same as those produced by the vaccine, then those antibodies created by a viral infection are just as likely to attack the placenta as those produced by the vaccine.
It's a lot of ifs. The initial concern was about syncytin-1. It's a question of how closely the mRNA created protein spikes match the wild viruses. The mRNA will be uniform spike proteins, the wild virus spike proteins will not be.
Honestly right now more concerned about finding the 11 women and knowing what happened. It's the final answer for all the speculative back and forth those 11 women hold the experimental answer to the question.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/01/2021 01:47:56
The initial concern was about syncytin-1
Okay, so let's talk about that. Here is the original quote:
"The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women."
Now let's modify that quote to this:
Quote
"The immune system is expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that an immune response against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in infected women."
Do you think that the first quote is a valid concern, but my modified version of the quote is not? Despite the fact that the spike protein of the virus must also contain syncytin-homologues? How is the immune system supposed to know that it isn't supposed to attack the placenta when presented with viral syncytin homologue proteins, but is supposed to attack the placenta when presented with the vaccine syncytin homologue proteins?
It's a question of how closely the mRNA created protein spikes match the wild viruses.
Closely enough (otherwise the vaccines wouldn't work). If the antibodies created by vaccination attack the virus, then obviously the body is treating the vaccine proteins and the viral proteins as the same thing.
The mRNA will be uniform spike proteins, the wild virus spike proteins will not be.
And, as I just said:
Quote
If the antibodies created by vaccination attack the virus, then obviously the body is treating the vaccine proteins and the viral proteins as the same thing.
It's the final answer for all the speculative back and forth those 11 women hold the experimental answer to the question.
The only speculation in this back-and-forth is coming from you. I've given you the facts about the way that the immune system works. The question is answered:
(1) If the vaccine caused infertility, then the virus would as well.
(2) If the vaccine proteins were sufficiently different from the viral proteins so that their fertility effects are different, then the vaccine would be ineffective because the antibodies formed against the two would be different.
(3) The vaccine is both highly effective (95%) and COVID-19 has not caused a notable change in fertility rates.
(4) Because all three of the above statements are true, we must conclude that the spike proteins from the vaccine will not cause any greater infertility than the virus itself.
Post by: Jolly2 on 22/01/2021 16:27:04
It's the final answer for all the speculative back and forth those 11 women hold the experimental answer to the question.
The only speculation in this back-and-forth is coming from you. I've given you the facts about the way that the immune system works. The question is answered:
(1) If the vaccine caused infertility, then the virus would as well.
Here is the main point of disgareeemt, it's an assumption that immune response to the virus will be the same as the immune response to the vaccine.
(2) If the vaccine proteins were sufficiently different from the viral proteins so that their fertility effects are different, then the vaccine would be ineffective because the antibodies formed against the two would be different.
Again I find that an assumption
(3) The vaccine is both highly effective (95%) and COVID-19 has not caused a notable change in fertility rates.
Again you assume the natural immune response matches that triggered by the vaccine.
(4) Because all three of the above statements are true, we must conclude that the spike proteins from the vaccine will not cause any greater infertility than the virus itself.
I don't know hence the question. I accept the possibility, but the initial question relates to the vaccine and not to natural immune response.
We are almost there 11 women isn't much but if they all delieved children without any problems that's actual experimental evidence. Which we would need to know to be conclusive. Any idea how we could find out?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/01/2021 17:25:24
. These theories are not mine, I simply considered the implications so dire I sort an answer.If you had been seeking an answer then, when you got one, you would have shut up, rather than continuing to post nonsense.
It is most likley the vaccine will not attack placenta however seeing what happened with the 11 womenUntil the fertilised egg fuses to the uterine wall you won't get a positive pregnancy test.
Since the women are known to be pregnant, we can assumes that they have passed this stage.
But the attachment requires placental cells, so we know there's a placenta there.
So we know it wasn't blocked by the vaccine.
We already knew this as soon as we knew they were pregnant.
Post by: Jolly2 on 22/01/2021 19:30:55
Against my better judgement I will in this case actually respond to you.. These theories are not mine, I simply considered the implications so dire I sort an answer.If you had been seeking an answer then, when you got one, you would have shut up, rather than continuing to post nonsense.
I got an answer yesterday. Took over a month to get an actual answer.
Still the answer is incomplete, just because the immune response to the wild virus potentially does not attack placenta(which it might still do a small amount of antibodies might be) does not mean that the antibodies created by the vaccine wont.
It is most likley the vaccine will not attack placenta however seeing what happened with the 11 womenUntil the fertilised egg fuses to the uterine wall you won't get a positive pregnancy test.
Since the women are known to be pregnant, we can assumes that they have passed this stage.
But the attachment requires placental cells, so we know there's a placenta there.
So we know it wasn't blocked by the vaccine.
We already knew this as soon as we knew they were pregnant.
That's not the issue, if antibodies attack the placenta, that wont necessarily stop conception, but could cause miscarriage later in the pregnancy.
The 11 women who conceived during the trails would show experimental data atleast sufficient for a phase 1 analysis of the question. We should looking to find out if they managed to actually give birth. If they all miscarried there may actually be an issue, if 50% did there may also be a reduction in fertility of women vacinated.
Those 11 women hold the answer.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/01/2021 20:35:46
Here is the main point of disgareeemt, it's an assumption that immune response to the virus will be the same as the immune response to the vaccine.
It's not an assumption. It's a simple biological fact. If the response wasn't the same, then the antibodies wouldn't be the same and thus the vaccines wouldn't work.
Again I find that an assumption
Then you don't know how vaccines work.
Again you assume the natural immune response matches that triggered by the vaccine.
If it wasn't the same, then the vaccine wouldn't work.
the initial question relates to the vaccine and not to natural immune response.
And that is why I asked this (which you have not yet addressed):
Okay, so let's talk about that. Here is the original quote:
Quote from: Jolly2 on Yesterday at 07:00:33
"The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women."
Now let's modify that quote to this:
Quote
"The immune system is expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that an immune response against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in infected women."
Do you think that the first quote is a valid concern, but my modified version of the quote is not? Despite the fact that the spike protein of the virus must also contain syncytin-homologues? How is the immune system supposed to know that it isn't supposed to attack the placenta when presented with viral syncytin homologue proteins, but is supposed to attack the placenta when presented with the vaccine syncytin homologue proteins?
According to our current policy, yes we do.
I strongly disagree. It is better to fight misinformation with evidence and reasoning, not insults.
We have to let Jolly keep on posting unsupported nonsense which accuses vast numbers of scientists of either stupidity or fraud.
His view that we should stop trying to contain the virus is an insult, not only to the science, but to the memory of those who have died.
So the forum's policy is that we let him insult a vast swathe of people who have no way to reply.
If that's such a big concern, then we can lock his threads and warn him against posting about it in the future. Still no need for insults.
Post by: Jolly2 on 22/01/2021 20:53:30
Here is the main point of disgareeemt, it's an assumption that immune response to the virus will be the same as the immune response to the vaccine.
It's not an assumption. It's a simple biological fact. If the response wasn't the same, then the antibodies wouldn't be the same and thus the vaccines wouldn't work.Again I find that an assumption
Then you don't know how vaccines work.Again you assume the natural immune response matches that triggered by the vaccine.
If it wasn't the same, then the vaccine wouldn't work.the initial question relates to the vaccine and not to natural immune response.
And that is why I asked this (which you have not yet addressed):Okay, so let's talk about that. Here is the original quote:
Quote from: Jolly2 on Yesterday at 07:00:33
"The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women."
Now let's modify that quote to this:
Quote
"The immune system is expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that an immune response against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in infected women."
Do you think that the first quote is a valid concern, but my modified version of the quote is not?
I see them as the same. Essentially it's the immune system doing the work.Despite the fact that the spike protein of the virus must also contain syncytin-homologues? How is the immune system supposed to know that it isn't supposed to attack the placenta when presented with viral syncytin homologue proteins, but is supposed to attack the placenta when presented with the vaccine syncytin homologue proteins?
I think the concerns are related to increased functionality that yes the antibodies will attack SARS but they might also attack placenta, it not that they have to attack both but potentially could.
Thanks for the reply Kyrptid.According to our current policy, yes we do.
I strongly disagree. It is better to fight misinformation with evidence and reasoning, not insults.
That's partly why I asked this question, many people are spreading these concerns. Rather than simply blocking the discussion I think its best to find out the truth.
I do not know if the vaccine will damage female reproductive ability. But as some scientists believe it could, I am as best I can with my limited scientific background trying to find out. As I said previously this thread can be shown to people with those concerns. I am after this discussion less concerned than I was, however I still see there is a potential issue and hope the 11 women that conceived might hold a final answer.
Hopefully there is no risk to female reproduction. Still i am not as yet 100% convinced and will as best I can continue to seek the truth of the matter.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/01/2021 20:58:39
Quote
I see them as the same.
Then you admit that vaccines causing infertility is the same as the virus causing infertility, as both of them contain syncytin homologues.