- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Swedish study shows Vaccine Spike Protein Enters Nucleus
Posted on 11/21/21 at 1:31 pm to crazy4lsu
Posted on 11/21/21 at 1:31 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Geert's theory doesn't seem to be bearing out, as the Delts variant, which is incredibly infectious, is pre-vaccine and involves only a few mutations at the spike protein. Otherwise tying vaccination to the most pathogenic portion of the virus is the most sound molecular strategy. I don't think any of the variants of concern are from the post-vaccination era, as they all seem to have started in December of 2020. So far, Geert doesn't seem to be correct.
this is the fatal flaw of the leaky vax theory. all of the 'leaky mutants' being theorized existed before the vaccines. it also doesnt account for the fact that the virus mutates inherently as it is replicated and spread. it is confounding with the normal course of mutation
1
Posted on 11/21/21 at 1:36 pm to idsrdum
quote:
Are you implying that subclinical infection does not occur among the vaccinated?
Nope, just that in this case having some protection, which the vaccines do confer for a period of time, is better than than the inverse.
quote:
LINK
Interesting paper which I will read in a second, but at some point the naysayers have to produce some clinically significant results. There hasn't been a variant of concern during the vaccination era. Hell, even the variants of interest date back to the pre-vaccination era. Geert's concern about the vaccination program is the same as my concern about letting the infection run its course, as neither have happened, and both envision a 'worst case' scenario, which is probably a function of training and not a realistic description of what will happen in the real world. Still, in the data we have from letting the virus run wild, we developed several variants, with some being more infectious than the original version. Since the vaccine program started, suddenly no variant of concern or interest has been listed. What do you think that indicates?
The style of science is that we introduce caveat after caveat after caveat, which is an excellent thing, as it drives science to develop complete models of things, but there is a difference between statistically significant and clinically significant results. At this point, I think its fair to ask for clinically significant results rather than descriptions of worst case scenarios.
This post was edited on 11/21/21 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 11/21/21 at 1:51 pm to AMS
quote:
this is the fatal flaw of the leaky vax theory. all of the 'leaky mutants' being theorized existed before the vaccines. it also doesnt account for the fact that the virus mutates inherently as it is replicated and spread. it is confounding with the normal course of mutation
Exactly. The molecular strategy is very sound, as I've said for a long time, and in any other era, we would be praising the nuance of the mRNA technology, which is utterly amazing. The idea of posing selective pressure against the most pathogenic portion should be regarded as a moment of genius, but instead we get very silly caveats, like this paper for a virus which, like you and I (and others) have said many times, doesn't even infect lymphocyte precursors, making such a situation unlikely in a clinical setting.
And I also understand. It's an easy publication line. I've already gotten two COVID publication lines, and I'll tell you outright that those papers weren't clinically relevant.
This post was edited on 11/21/21 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 11/21/21 at 1:55 pm to Lawyered
quote:
Everyone was so hell bent on making a vaccine because we have to do something
When this whole thing goes to shite, suddenly it'll be the Trump Vaccine again.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 2:14 pm to AMS
You said
So I was quoting the opposing viewpoint of
From an expert, with experience in vaccine development and vaccine use in a population setting, who happens to believe mass vaccination has indeed prolonged the pandemic.
quote:
if the vaccines work then it reduces the potential reservoir and would shorten the course of the pandemic.
So I was quoting the opposing viewpoint of
quote:
As increasing vaccination rates will result in a gradually expanding reservoir of asymptomatic viral spreaders,
From an expert, with experience in vaccine development and vaccine use in a population setting, who happens to believe mass vaccination has indeed prolonged the pandemic.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 2:57 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
The molecular strategy is very sound, as I've said for a long time, and in any other era, we would be praising the nuance of the mRNA technology, which is utterly amazing.
It's not that people like myself are not amazed by modern scientific knowledge - it's just that we fear the limit of that knowledge.
Here is a very interesting piece on 'Secondary Vaccine Effects' and although it focuses mostly on the beneficial secondary effects of live vaccines rather than those that are detrimental, it shows there is much that is not fully understood. Because of this, can you see why some of us think it would be wiser to be more judicial with vaccine recommendations, reserving mass vaccination for only when truly necessary and not for a disease with a 99% survival rate?
LINK
Posted on 11/21/21 at 3:11 pm to idsrdum
quote:
It's not that people like myself are not amazed by modern scientific knowledge - it's just that we fear the limit of that knowledge.
Sure, but vaccination as an overall strategy has been so wildly successful that it is difficult to take certain types of caveats seriously. We don't know everything, and it would be very difficult to model every possible scenario of vaccination outcomes for every individual, but mammalian immunology makes it so that the health of the healthiest individual is tied to the health of the weakest individual.
And the 99% survival rate is not instructive, as the long-term sequalae of the virus appears to be very serious for a lot of people. A CFR of 1% would be exceedingly high too, and would be among the deadliest bugs in recent memory.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 3:17 pm to Lawyered
quote:
What if we just didn’t do anything? And let it blow through… hard to know what the long term affects are from the vaccine itself vs the risk of Covid itself
A massive strain on our healthcare system.
People dying without any medical care because hospitals would have been over run.
An exodus of medical care professionals as they burn out.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 3:22 pm to RiverCityTider
NO vaccine for me.....everyday that goes by, I am more and more happy with my decision.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 3:57 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
but vaccination as an overall strategy has been so wildly successful that it is difficult to take certain types of caveats seriously.
There is no mRNA vaccine history, period. Its long term effects are not known. Those who compare other vaccine histories with mRNA vaccines only muzzle their own voice.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 3:58 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
Its long term effects are not known.
Give me an example of some of the long-term effects of other vaccination programs. And define long-term for me too.
quote:
Those who compare other vaccine histories with mRNA vaccines only muzzle their own voice.
You understand the principle is the same as any subunit vaccine, correct?
Posted on 11/21/21 at 4:06 pm to crazy4lsu
Focused protection should have been the strategy from day 1.
If you look like the people that end up in hospital with severe case or death, you better give serious consideration to this vaccine but ultimately it's your call. Average age of death in the seventies and multiple co morbidities.
For the young and healthy to not want this vaccine is completely reasonable and for children, the risk, benefit for the vaccine is so out of whack it's criminal to force it.
If you look like the people that end up in hospital with severe case or death, you better give serious consideration to this vaccine but ultimately it's your call. Average age of death in the seventies and multiple co morbidities.
For the young and healthy to not want this vaccine is completely reasonable and for children, the risk, benefit for the vaccine is so out of whack it's criminal to force it.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 4:15 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Give me an example of some of the long-term effects of other vaccination programs.
I cannot without looking it up. That being said, I would imagine that all vaccines have some issues. The question is, how long have other vaccines been around (ones widely used...MMR, polio etc.) relative to the know issues with them. In short, I would suggest that we know way more about them than the Covid vaccines concerning issues (especially long term).
And define long-term for me too.
On the short end of the scale - 5 years
(admittedly, this is arbitrary and based on what I would feel comfortable with at my age - which is a sliding scale, hence the need for choice - not mandates).
Obviously the longest would be for the life of the patient
I would suggest, logically, the longer the duration of observation, the more confident the one can become in the degree of correlation (unless, of course, causation can be defined).
With the mRNA vaccines, the long term effects are speculation. Educated speculation for sure, but speculation nonetheless.
I am still in favor of those with health issues strongly considering getting vaccinated.
However, I don’t see the need for anyone under the age of majority being ostracized (not allowed to attend public school) for passing on the jab.
Additionally, I think that the parents that choose to do so, when their child has no major health issues, are enacting poor parental choices.
Nonetheless, it is their choice.
Oh, one more thing...
frick
A
Mandate
Posted on 11/21/21 at 4:25 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
I cannot without looking it up. That being said, I would imagine that all vaccines have some issues. The question is, how long have other vaccines been around (ones widely used...MMR, polio etc.) relative to the know issues with them. In short, I would suggest that we know way more about them than the Covid vaccines concerning issues (especially long term).
Of course all have some issues, but the rates of those issues has decreased significantly. The rate of myocarditis associated with the smallpox vaccine was 1 in 200, and the overall injury rate was alarmingly high, as was the breakthrough CFR.
The focus should be on things that the vaccine does that the virus itself cannot do. And it is exceedingly rare for a vaccination program to have long-term effects 5 years down the road. Usually the effects are immediate, not withstanding cases of vaccine injury that cause problems, which again requires immediate intervention.
quote:
I would suggest, logically, the longer the duration of observation, the more confident the one can become in the degree of correlation (unless, of course, causation can be defined).
With the mRNA vaccines, the long term effects are speculation. Educated speculation for sure, but speculation nonetheless.
Of course the issues are speculative but my suspicion is that the long-term data won't show anything significant.
But saying I think the vaccine is mostly benign isn't support for mandates, as I've repeated time and again that the best vaccine strategy has to be worldwide and done fairly quickly. That's the only situation in which mandates make sense, otherwise it's a pointless strategy, and uses a quiver in the arrow of infectious disease rather pointlessly (just like lockdowns), especially as there might come a time when we actually need to use such a strategy.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 4:47 pm to NC_Tigah
So adaptive immunity seems to be damaged by both the vaccine and the virus itself. If I read that correctly, the vaccine induced damage seems to be temporary but time varies. With the virus producing the adaptive immunity issues occur but for how long they don't seem to know.
So the OP or someone said this long term could make you more susceptible to cancer.
Here are dates of the paper:
Received: 20 August 2021 / Revised: 8 September 2021 / Accepted: 8 October 2021 / Published: 13 October 2021
Is it under peer review? I don't know where to find that.
Has anyone done or plan to try to replicate the study to test the results?
I can see why RiverCity didn't won't to tackle it. I have been reading scientific papers for 50 years but normally in my area of interest. This crap is Greek.
So the OP or someone said this long term could make you more susceptible to cancer.
Here are dates of the paper:
Received: 20 August 2021 / Revised: 8 September 2021 / Accepted: 8 October 2021 / Published: 13 October 2021
Is it under peer review? I don't know where to find that.
Has anyone done or plan to try to replicate the study to test the results?
I can see why RiverCity didn't won't to tackle it. I have been reading scientific papers for 50 years but normally in my area of interest. This crap is Greek.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 4:55 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
So adaptive immunity seems to be damaged by both the vaccine and the virus itself. If I read that correctly, the vaccine induced damage seems to be temporary but time varies. With the virus producing the adaptive immunity issues occur but for how long they don't seem to know.
you did not read that correctly. essentially the study was that inoculating those cells with the spike proteins in a petri dish can suggest that would happen, but they acknowledge there is no evidence this can affect the cells involved in adaptive immunity being studied with the vaccine or covid in vitro.
quote:
Has anyone done or plan to try to replicate the study to test the results?
not sure that would be super relevant. we need in vitro studies to determine any realistic significance.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 5:17 pm to AMS
Thanks - I think I will just ignore RiverCityTiger's dumbass.
Posted on 11/21/21 at 5:29 pm to Diamondawg
I have a question--not directly related to the topic, but somewhat...
We know that EUA could not be obtained if there was an effective treatment available. Otherwise, this vaccine would be in the works for YEARS before being released. Now that Merck and Pfizer are coming out with a treatment pill that nearly guarantees against hospitalization or death, why shouldn't we rely on that in the event we catch covid, and continue doing long term studies on the vaccine?
We know that EUA could not be obtained if there was an effective treatment available. Otherwise, this vaccine would be in the works for YEARS before being released. Now that Merck and Pfizer are coming out with a treatment pill that nearly guarantees against hospitalization or death, why shouldn't we rely on that in the event we catch covid, and continue doing long term studies on the vaccine?
Posted on 11/21/21 at 5:31 pm to WeeWee
quote:
Unless high school science class has changed a lot from the early 2000s I highly doubt that anyone with just a high school science class's worth of knowledge and an ounce of common sense can understand the complexities of the research presented. VDJ recombination was not in my high school science class curriculum or any of the science classes I took in undergrad. The earliest I remember hearing about VDJ recombination was in graduate school and then again in medical school. Did your high school science classes cover VDJ recombination?
Unfortunately, because of the complexities involved, we lay citizens are indeed wholly dependent upon experts to decode such studies for us.
The problem here — and indeed the wellspring of this entire crisis — is the reigning medical establishment in Washington — if not the entire healthcare industrial complex — has proven time and again that it is a captured asset and dutiful tool of Big Pharma® and is willing to promote outright propaganda as “science” to achieve a political agenda.
So for those who work in the healthcare industry, I suggest that rather than blaming us dumb peasants for drinking from a poisoned well, it seems a more productive task would be to acknowledge who poisoned the well in the first place.
This post was edited on 11/21/21 at 7:26 pm
Posted on 11/21/21 at 5:39 pm to skeeter531
quote:You are addressing it to me but I will defer to one of the scientists (or RiverCityTiger).
I have a question--not directly related to the topic, but somewhat...
We know that EUA could not be obtained if there was an effective treatment available. Otherwise, this vaccine would be in the works for YEARS before being released. Now that Merck and Pfizer are coming out with a treatment pill that nearly guarantees against hospitalization or death, why shouldn't we rely on that in the event we catch covid, and continue doing long term studies on the vaccine?
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News