215 karma · joined March 12, 2021
2)Wrong again: "In the presence of mixed sera from multiple previously infected and/or vaccinated individuals these infections would create the appropriate conditions both for genetic recombination to occur, and for selection to rapidly sort multiple recombination-generated combinations of input immune evasion, cell entry and replication impacting mutations."
My original point is that people that made use of covid mrna therapy can be the source of new versions of the virus (because the therapy doesn't prevent infection nor spreading of the virus).
While it's true that the second study talks about mutations in both vaccinated and unvaccinated hosts, the first is clearly looking into the spike protein based therapy:
"The spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 is the molecular target for many vaccines and antibody-based prophylactics aimed at bringing COVID-19 under control. Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for these biomedical interventions."
These are not vaccines but gene therapies that have never been tested. History proves risks do exist when new therapies are given to people.
I suppose when a normal vaccine like the novavax is coming out there won't be as much opposition.
I can't tell how much of it is undercounting in India, how much is overcounting in the USA, and how much of it is that the friends and family networks in India count hundreds of people as opposed to the westerner ones.
On the contrary being this naive...
In April 1955, soon after mass polio vaccination began in the US, the Surgeon General began to receive reports of patients who contracted paralytic polio about a week after being vaccinated with Salk polio vaccine from the Cutter pharmaceutical company, with the paralysis limited to the limb the vaccine was injected into. The Cutter vaccine had been used in vaccinating 200,000 children in the western and midwestern United States.[76] Later investigations showed that the Cutter vaccine had caused 40,000 cases of polio, killing 10.[76] In response the Surgeon General pulled all polio vaccines made by Cutter Laboratories from the market, but not before 250 cases of paralytic illness had occurred. Wyeth polio vaccine was also reported to have paralyzed and killed several children. It was soon discovered that some lots of Salk polio vaccine made by Cutter and Wyeth had not been properly inactivated, allowing live poliovirus into more than 100,000 doses of vaccine.
2. You cannot force people into taking experimental therapies even if you tricked half of the population into taking them.
tot cases/1M pop -> usa 104525 india 22200 deaths/1M pop -> usa 1872 india 295
There is no single country in asia that did as bad as the USA in the deaths department. What's now your next extravagant excuse? That the usa has been overcounting its deaths to scare its people into covid mrna therpies?
But the final point I was trying to pass is that isolation of the sick will slowly push the virus to evolve in more contagious but less risky variants. Undetected infections in the vaccinated might cause strains that evade the vaccine and possibly be more dangerous (because of the lack of symptoms and isolation.)
But you are correct that the lower the transmission rate from vaccinated people, the lower the risk of enhanced viruses.
But your 95% is debatable. The number goes drastically down depending on which vaccine you use, the new strains, and probably time.
My point is that the myth that unvaccinated people are the part of the population creating enhanced variants is false. Before the vaccination propaganda started it was known to everyone that isolating the sick tends to forces the virus to evolve in less dangerous strains.
Saying that the virus is dangerous doesn't make the vaccine safe in the long term. You might be right, but you have no basis to suppose it's safe in the long run. You are just betting it because tv told you so.
> It's been proven non-poisonous hundreds of millions of times already.
You are talking about possible future unknown effects. No it hasn't been proven at all. They aren't even looking for possible long term damage.
Anyway they downplay it in the leaflet but its there: "The COVID-19 vaccine has gone through the same clinical trials and safety checks as all other licensed vaccines, however the vaccine is new and long-term side effect information is limited."
https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/newsfeatures/covid19-up...
Anyway I am sorry I didn't share an article about what I mentioned, I thought it was known enough to not need an article. (I might say the same about your numbers)
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/info:doi/10.13...
In general people hates to accept that not everyone reasons in the same way. Many societies aren't as trustworthy as you are to whatever decision is taken by their elites (being either for historical or cultural reasons). You need to accept that many would consider something in front of them poisonous until the contrary is proven (as opposed to more trustworthy people who sees everything safe until proven poisonous).
Anyone can check the comments in the article, or here https://osf.io/u7ewz/
Lowe mentions: "Objections have been raised to that trial’s use of an oral suspension formulation, I should note.". But by reading the linked article we can see that there is much more to note:
"In the statistical analysis subsection of the article, the authors acknowledged 2 RCT issues: i) they modified the primary end point to time from randomization to complete resolution of symptoms within the 21-day follow-up period and ii) a labeling error occurred between September 29 and October 15, 2020, resulting in an unblinded protocol during this time frame."
Seems weird that while everyone is pushing hard on the limitations of the studies that favor IVM, we get a pass for this study by making it so influential.
Also I'm not buying into this theory that we shouldn't allow an effective treatment, just because someone is supposedly overdosing the veterinary version of the drug. It might be partially true for addicting drugs I suppose, but even in this case, that's why we have doctors and prescriptions.