Who made up the “safe and effective” lie?
(media.omegacanada.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (49)
sorted by:
Do I have this right? You're claiming that leaky vaccines are responsible for Omicron, and for evidence you are offering people presenting with Omicron who have not been shown to be vaccinated?
"All viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, change over time." https://www.who.int/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants.
I wonder what the reduction in damage from covid would have been if everyone who could get vaccinated did so right from the get go, given that it has been clearly demonstrated that vaccination reduces the impact of the virus. https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf and https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2796235?guestAccessKey=b5fa1eb3-0d40-4ef4-bdce-0bd40db52d45&utm_source=silverchair&utm_campaign=jama_network&utm_content=covid_weekly_highlights&utm_medium=email
[edited to add:] Your Nat. Geo. article quotes authorities on both sides of the argument.
An immunocompromised individual who was vaccinated and treated aggressively with monoclonal antibodies is supposedly where omicron happened. Worth noting is that these antibodies and whatever the patient's immune system produced by way of vaccination were not specific enough to clear the infection on their own.
Remember rebound COVID with Paxlovid? It's a similar principle. The patient's immune system isn't up to detecting and clearing the last of the infection's reservoir and so it comes back. Part of coming back is viral replication and this is an imperfect process.
A leaky vaccine just forgives mutations that'd retard transmission by way of incapacitating or killing an unvaccinated but not vaccinated host. This is only possible when the vaccine is not sterilizing. Whether this be because of an immunocompromised vaccinee or, as is the case with COVID-19 vaccines, we're producing bloodborne immunity to a something that can replicate in the upper respiratory tract to a degree that it's still contagious AND we're vaccinating against an ancestral strain that's already escaped dependence on the wild spike.
In the case of omicron, we ended up with a variant that's over 70x better at replicating in upper respiratory tissues. These have far poorer bloodborne antibody coverage than lower lung tissues which are constantly encountering large volumes of blood flow. This would be why, with wild spike antibodies interfering with covid replication, the lower lung tissue still proved a poor host to delta/omicron. Though omicron is already poor at lower lung replication, it bears bringing up that delta is more specific to the lower lungs + has a closer surface geometry (epitope) to the wuhan strain than omicron does. The vaccines worked far better for delta but were leaky.
Yes all viruses change over time. By their nature they actually change countless times in a single individual, but like someone born with their lungs outside their body or without genitals, almost all changes are not evolutionarily beneficial. Most are going to interfere with the virus gaining entry to a cell and/or hijacking the environment to assemble itself. They are best thought of as a self-assembling biotoxin with features that exploit entropy and enthalpy to increase their chances of landing them in the right place and time to do that self-assembly. They are not alive.
There'd have been little reduction unless you're talking about a what if where we contravened our Charter and forcefully discriminated against the sick, disabled, and elderly. We didn't do this. We applied mandates that they mostly wouldn't care about. Someone too sick to travel and too old to work is who we were most worried about.
In the beginning, short of putting gas tents over care homes and deploying the military to live in staff them, there isn't much we could have done after the head start we gave it. We'd have had to have done a 2002-2003 style quarantine on at-risk facilities.
Now, a sane response would have been to control airports as we did in SARS-2002. A saner response would have been to denounce the WHO's use of our SARS report to browbeat countries into keeping their airports open. That report more or less said that questioning people on the honour system catches too few cases per dollar spent. But Tam's name is on that report and maybe she was too enamored of something she contributed to being recognized internationally to speak out against it. That'd take a level of respect for epidemiology and resolve that she doesn't have. In 2002-2003 we reduced the damage to a thousands of cases and a double digit death toll and we were by far the most affected western country. A similarly infectious strain. Everyone did something right.
The report definitely did NOT say that airports should just be left open during the early stages of a spread. I say spread because there was fuckery early on with the word "pandemic". I'm assuming it has to do with pandemic bonds and having to liquidate and hand them over to the international poor once one is officially declared. But I digress. Any epidemiologist, especially one that worked and published on the SARS 2002-2003 pandemic knew what to do.
The alpha variant wasn't much more infectious than the 2002 strain in terms of R0. It needed a massive head start to become what it did and the WHO did that. And Canada actually produced 'The Science' that allowed for that particular.
For the nat geo article, there's also a study that shows lower viral loads being passed on and surmising that the reduced inoculum (initially transmitted viral load) can allow for natural immunity to get started in unvaccinated chickens before the more severe symptoms kick in. It can go a lot of ways but it's highly probably that that version of chicken herpes exists because of a leaky vaccine. The consequences today are that a partially vaccinated flock might be fine. A naïve flock not so much.
It both reduces the impact of the virus and likely allowed for the existence and dominance of the more fatal strain in the first place.
Got a reference for that? I hope you're not offended if I ask for more than the word of an anonymous individual on social media.
Concerning the chickens: given that the earlier covid variants (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta) began to show up in May of 2020 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_SARS-CoV-2), while the vaccines weren't introduced until the end of the year, what's the rationale for assuming the Omicron variant wasn't a 'regular' mutation?
No one cares what your feelings and Google searches tell you Fat Covid Nazi. Keep following your lying experts!
u/itlivesinthewind/, The Covid Nazi doesn’t have the ability to understand your content. He admitted being a car mechanic, who did not have any math or science background. To this day, the fat covid Nazi, still doesn’t understand the formula for ARR or RRR and still thinks an NNT of 125 or an ARR of 0.8% are “effective”.
The Covid Nazi plugs words into Google and copy pastes “studies” from the internet without understand or reading the raw data. That all the Covid Nazi is trained to do.
Concerning the chickens, ALL leaky vaccines need to be handled with care. It's an outcome that shows a worst case with leaky vaccines removing an evolutionary pressure rendering them more deadly. A successful virus balances incapacitation of the host, dormancy period, and transmission vectors. Having a large portion of the population vaccinated to remove "incapacitation of the host" changes the virus' environmental selective pressures. It's dangerous and is why, barring a sterilizing vaccine, we generally do not jab healthy people unless they work in care services. We generally want someone home sick for a few days so we can quarantine them.
There are other cautionary tales in immunology. Dengue fever being another that's not as relevant here.
The point with the chickens is that it's a similar situation. Not 100% because of how herpes will hang around in reservoirs in the host and so the non-sterilizing aspect is more extreme where in COVID-19 most people clear the infection so we're talking weeks of replication instead of small scale reservoir replication for however long a factory farm chicken lives. But the sheer number of COVID-19 hosts gives us a vast number of per cell replication hours. Especially compared to the biomasses of infected tissue in the respective hosts.
Here is why I assume omicron was not a regular mutation:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(22)00120-3/fulltext
I'm not pulling the precise reference on a quick pass but here's one from the Lancet explaining variant evolution being driven in immunocompromised patients being treated with sotrovimab.
I read a ways back from South African clinicians that the same thing was going on right where the first cases of omicron were detected. Impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt because they weren't intentionally keeping their patients in a clean room and testing them 24/7 for evolved strains, but the correlation was common sense. Now, I'd not expect to see it trumpeted in the press because this would make people go off on monoclonal antibodies, but someone with an immunological background or an understanding of microbiological evolution knows that this is a risk.
Same principle as antibiotics being used in situations where 99.9% sterilization leaves 0.1% to reproduce. If there isn't a second sterilization pass either by a host immune system or a cleaning solvent or what have you, there is now a super bug. That super bug probably dies off outside of a body before it can parasitize, but in an immunocompromised body or a hospital where not everyone has intact skin, things happen.
Omicron is more an issue with insufficiently specific monoclonal antibodies. But these antibodies are identical or similar to vaccine induced antibodies depending on which one we're looking at and result in an analogous situation to leaky vaccines. A leaky COVID-19 wild spike monoclonal antibody (we wouldn't typically use this term with monoclonal antibodies) is phenotypically similar or identical to a leaky COVID-19 vaccine induced antibody.
I can't see winning you over on believing that this has already occurred, but it might be worth following for people on here who read up on Mareck's and are interested in how and why this is an issue and how our wild spike round peg square hole approach to monoclonals and vaccines creates risks. Mareck's is a vaccinology equivalent of cautioning people against jumping from the second story of a building. Sometimes you land it. Sometimes you break something. Once in awhile you die. You usually advise against doing it unless absolutely necessary and, in COVID-19 terms, doing young people and children was like jumping out of your window because there's a rat in your apartment. Reckless.
The discussion seems to have veered a bit. OP's post questions the safety and effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine, but your link recommends "a reinforced virological follow-up" for immunocompromised patients treated with monoclonal antibodies.
I take your point that "these antibodies are identical or similar to vaccine induced antibodies", but are you supporting OP's contention that people should avoid the covid vaccines?