re: Anecdote on Vaccine Effectiveness

quote:

---

As the Covid 'vaccine' doesn't create antibodies which target live virus, but rather create antibodies to a protein that the virus creates, and needs to enter cells, it really isn't a vaccine at all, it is a therapeutic biopharmaceutical.

---

BOOM! And as such it doesn't trigger the acquired immune system that "remembers" past pathogens. This is why the therapeutic shot is only temporary.



(To others)
And yes states may make laws deciding what they call vaccines and what they don't, just like they decide gender fluidity. That's not science.

quote:

---

Depends on your definition. I define vaccine differently.

---

What exactly is your definition?

But I already explained the immunology behind the mRNA vaccine. It is literally the same process as regular immunity, which you don't seem to understand. Suggesting it is an agonist isn't correct, nor is your reference to benzos. Your body produces protein-attached antibodies all the time. You're confusing the specific choice of valuing a specific epitope with the notion that all antibodies created in an immunologic response are the same, which isn't true, as it is dependent on epitope sites, epitope density, and the specific features of the particular RNA viruses, which once reproduced inside a cell represent a large range of genome sequences. This is advantageous for RNA viruses, which are less stable than DNA viruses, as if a predominant strain invokes immune-complex response, there are still a massive variety of strains which survive the selective pressure. The explicit point of the mRNA vaccine is to target what scientists feel is the most infectious and dangerous aspect of the virus, without the more complex immune response that comes with natural infection.

You're definition of vaccines is nonsensical, because not all vaccines are inactivated or attenuated. There are fractional protein-based vaccines which involve only subunits of pathogens, such as Hep B, HPV, and Pertussis. There are protein-based toxoids like Diphtheria and Tetanus. And there are conjugated polysaccharide vaccines like PCV13 and Hib.

I caught it in early 2020...I know FAR more people that are vaccinated that have caught it than those that haven't.

quote:

---

In aggregate the data suggests it's better to get the jab

It's not 100 percent but nothing is

---

No it doesn't because they don't even account for people that have natural immunity.

quote:

---

the data suggests

---

Give us a single data set related to Covid that we can believe in. I can’t think of one.

quote:

---

Strangely most anecdotes say otherwise...maybe the data is flawed

---

Ultimately, are we asking the right questions? The inability of public health officials to describe the complications associated with RNA viruses is a major contributing factor to hesitancy about the vaccines. The mRNA vaccines probably won't prevent you from getting the virus, but they do verifiably prevent serious disease, because they direct the antibody response on what is considered the most pathogenic portion of the virus genome, sidestepping the massive advantage RNA viruses get from having a high mutation rate. It forces massive selective pressure on the sequence which is responsible for the degree of pathogenesis of the virus itself, which has other implications for people who do get the virus after vaccination. What I mean here is that the likelihood of meaningful drift due to individualized epitope site selection raises the possibility that vaccination through targeting the most pathogenic site could push along the 'quasispecies' process so that it exceeds the intrinsic 'error threshold' in an attempt to build a stable population in light of decreasing pathogenicity. If you can ensure that the virus doesn't become more pathogenic, and indeed, limit genetic selection on that site, what could possibly occur is for the frequency of non-viable mutations to increase to the point where it makes a viable stable population oblique.

quote:

---

If it doesn't make you immune to the effects...

Can we still call it immunology?

I vote since it's pseudo-immune, we call it pseudoimmunology...you know, like the other pseudosciences.

---

Again, this is extremely silly. You can take issue with what was chosen as the most pathogenic site in the genome, but the immunologic principles are the same. I can describe the process in excruciating detail if you would like? You're body does this process for antigens all the time, with 2-3 grams of antibodies produced for antigens, both pathogenic and non-pathogenic, every day. Why this reaches some illusory standard of 'pseudo'-immunology is, on its face, extremely silly.

quote:

---

Ultimately, are we asking the right questions?

---

Is there a benefit to vaccination for a person with natural immunity? If so, in what sense and to what degree?

quote:

---

Or testing method.

---

Its possible, but I am moving from the stand point that that the data is correct and the collection/determination is correct for the data.

The problem is they are not really collecting data that is useful at all.

Trust us, the vaccine works!!!

I would have to question the trust worthiness of a doctor recommending I take the vaccine right now, after winning a prior infection battle.