re: Study: MRNA Vaccines Increase Risk of Contracting COVID-19; Each Booster Shot Raises Risk

that's why all the people who didn't get the jab died when the virus first appeared

From my understanding, the issue with the mucosal vaccine approach is that healthy mucosa is a harsh environment that facilitates physiologic mechanisms of antigen clearance before the body can elicit antigen-specific immune responses. As such, such a vaccine system needs its own delivery method which can ensure an immune response while also not invoking severe cytokine response, as would be the case with any infection which provokes IL-1 among other cytokines.

There was a recent Japanese breakthrough with an oral vaccine which elicited immunity in a non-human primate cohort using a transgenic plant-based vaccine system so that you can make edible vaccines. They specifically used transgenic rice species, which also had stability at room temperature, avoiding the need for refrigerated storage.

In a perfect world, there could have been time to assess the novel virus and to see whether it had a latent period, whether it modulated immune response, as well as to see its antigenic variability from generation to generation. Then a tiered vaccination schedule could have been developed using a variety of techniques, based on pathogen morphology, to maximize the 'layers' of protective immunity. In this situation, the systemic injection of mRNA could have followed an oral vaccine with a wider antigenic profile, which would have given some protective effect systemically, and ideally, would have primed mucosal immunity through repeated exposure to the most pathogenic portion of the virus.

The biggest barriers to vaccine design at the moment is adherence to specific delivery methods, when the body has numerous ways it deals with antigenic material. If we expanded the scope of delivery while also mastering a method which uses physiologic barriers to elicit antigen-specific systemic response, that would open the door to preventing infection more broadly, as you could target different mucosa more specifically.

quote:

---

We just have to wait until a better vaccine is developed and hope the new findings about where ongoing viral replication has been found do not lead to severe disease in the future.

---

Can we stop paying the hapless Chinese to engineer superviruses in substandard labs first?

quote:

---

A protective effect in which regard?

Reinfection after vaccination? No it doesn’t suggest that.
Prevention of serious disease? No it doesn’t suggest that. In fact the authors say they couldn’t even evaluate to efficacy in regards to severe disease because there weren’t enough cases of severe disease.

---

I don't think they define 'protective' effect discretely outside of the hazard ratio, so I take it to mean that vaccination invoked some immune response.

quote:

---

Second, the study shows that the more vaccines you have the more likely you are to contract COVID. True, there may be confounding variables that we haven’t accounted for. However, at the very least this would result in the vaccines/boosters being equivocal at this point.

---

But the hazard ratios for vaccination are lower with any vaccine than they are with any type of infection, aren't they, regardless of dose number?

quote:

---

Third, buried in the study the authors say there was enough cases of severe disease to even determine if the vaccine is effective for severe disease.

---

Isn't this it's own conclusion though? As in, in a study where 87% of the population cohort that had some immune protection from vaccination, there wasn't a large population of severe disease. That isn't the purview of the study, but it suggests something meaningful about the population cohort, given its size. I wish they actually stated the number of severe cases, as it least it would have served as a point of reference.

quote:

---

In summary, according to this study we have a vaccine that AT THIS POINT (not previously in the pandemic) does not prevent infection and does not prevent severe disease. Couple that with the CDC acknowledging side effects such as myocarditis, and I fail to see why this vaccine is being recommended to people as young as 6 months.

---

I don't know how you can suggest it doesn't protect against severe disease from this study alone, as that absence can be read its own way. I don't think I've ever supported vaccination for children as protection unto itself other than as serving as protection for adults who might be at risk who interacted with the children, given that the disease could be asymptomatic in that cohort.

quote:

---

I think some people defended the vaccine so hard that they are unable to now reverse course and they are being guided by cognitive dissonance.

---

But this study fits in nicely with everything I've said about the vaccine previously, which was that the only way it could have 'worked' was with a worldwide rollout, and with the piecemeal approach, you were likely to prolong the course of the pandemic because you weren't standardizing epitope-response, which is one of the explicit benefits of a vaccine program.

People might misunderstand what I say because I'm a poor writer, and some posters (obviously, not you) are fond of using me as a proxy for a set of beliefs that I've never espoused. I've been variously accused of liking this vaccination scheme, which isn't true, though I did say that the molecular design of the mRNA vaccine was clever in that it took advantage of the unusual morphology of this virus, accused of supporting lockdowns, which I didn't, and accused of supporting Fauci, which I haven't.

For me, what this study is illustrative of is the need to always put things into a broader context. There's nothing definitive here, nothing that suggests we should upend any previously held framework, just areas for future research. The epistemology here is additive and subtractive at the same time, but it isn't whole-sum, if that makes any sense. We add morsels of information here and there until we get a picture that matches the theoretical and the experiential. That's more instructive for a general audience than using one study to definitively say one thing or another, but it is also deeply unsatisfying for the general audience whose life may have been upended in certain ways by the handling of the pandemic.

quote:

---

anti-vax people

---

Lol not wanting to take an experimental gend therapy with ZERO long term study or data (that doesnt stop infection or re-infection BTW) now = "anti-vax"

IQ < 75

quote:

---

I do find it amusing that you discredit all the studies that don’t agree with your opinion

---

I disagree with everything Fraudci says also

The “arguing in extremes” problem is killing intellectual debate. There were plenty enough, tangible evidence-based reasons to hesitate on these vaccines. But the so-called “scientific community” decided that all those folks needed to be silenced or ridiculed.

The odd part is, after virtually every initial vaccine promise fell horribly flat, and legitimate questions about the vaccine’s safety came to light, those same people are still doling out the ridicule… as dug in as ever.

quote:

---

It was pretty clear the medical establishment was being bullied to tow the line.

---

They are all getting bought up by big corporate players in the field. Doctors are now just cogs in a big machine where money is the goal, not healthcare. They will do what they are told as their whole life/career relies on it.

quote:

---

Long story short is this study is shite

---

Give us the long story. I have time. Tell us exactly why the study is shite.