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:
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?
Our discussion veered into leaky vaccines and the origins of omicron.
My position is that most people should avoid the COVID vaccines at this point in time and that it was irresponsible to push them on everyone. I assume that it was done to cast the net wide in hopes of catching more of the at-risk people who might have become today's problem. We can't discriminate directly against the at-risk. I think it was a medically irresponsible act of cowardice. Because we are dealing with a leaky vaccine that we knew at the time was leaky. Epidemiological models were putting vaccine induced herd immunity above 100% with delta and the Israeli data available to us in Fall 2021 told us we were just trying to slow it down (non-sterilizing).
Initially I only recommended the vaccine to people with the kinds of confounding factors that'd make them high risk for SARS and low risk for any long term unforeseen consequences relating to being dosed with the adjuvant lipid nanoparticles. People over 70. Younger people with many confounding factors (obesity plus cardiopulmonary issues plus diabetes, people with cystic fibrosis, etc.). I did actually recommend it to more than one person who was leaning on me to be their sense or proportionality.
I do think that someone under 50 who is considered to be in good health for their age should avoid the vaccines. Whether it be an mRNA vaccine or the chimpanzee adenovirus based vaccines. The proportionality argument isn't there. And yes there's a "long COVID" argument, but there's always a post-viral syndrome argument and a rare presentation argument. These are rare though and the former is often treatable if you have access to a sane doctor willing to let loose with anti-inflammatories, bloodwork, and temporary visits to nutritionists and dieticians. The latter is so rare that we write case studies when they come up. Like when someone gets a cold and it somehow bypasses the blood-brain barrier and kills the patient.
Today, I think that someone over 70 who has had omicron and dealt well with it shouldn't boost. I think there's a risk of original antigenic sin and they shouldn't be tuning an immune system, already flagging with age, any more toward the wild spike. I'd rather they focus on sleep and getting enough vitamin D. Did you know that waning vitamin D seems to signal our bodies that it's winter now and that we should ramp down our immune systems to save energy since we're probably barely leaving the cave. In the modern era where we collide with each other through 6 degrees of separation, it's a disastrous response. I'd rather someone over 70 supplement to avoid that response than take the same vaccine + one for an infection they've recovered from (bivalent) and have their body knee jerk a defense for a variant that may have escaped what their body is good at.
I guess I'd recommend the bivalent vaccine for an elderly or very at risk person who has not been infected by the omicron variant. Even then, I'd leave it up to them and tell them to manage their risks. Keep an eye on hospital capacity and reduce exposure crowds. If hospitals are triaging COVID-19 patients, then start wearing a respirator and vaccinate if there's a significant difference in outcomes between vaccinated and bivalent boosted people with your preexisting conditions.
Not in those words because I'd want them to understand what the fuck I'm talking about. And if they get belligerent, I'm not getting on my hands and knees to talk them out of it unless it's a healthy child. Their body, their hopefully informed choice.
Thank you.
LMAO
TRANSLATION:
I have no ability whatsoever to comprehend the content you just posted. I am completely defeated.
~ COVID NAZI, 2022