Vaccine Redux - Vax up and go to Class

101,061 Views | 2318 Replies | Last: 7 hrs ago by smh
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

VAERS covid vaccine related deaths jumped from 7,000 to 9,000 overnight. Strange.


Anyone can make a report in VAERS and there are numerous anti-vax warriors out there who are motivated to make false claims. It's not really that surprising that they would target VAERS. As we've seen in this thread, they will go to great lengths to misinform the public in service of their agenda.

When all is said and done, is there really any doubt that the vaccines are not killing thousands of Americans? I mean come on. It's a ridiculous notion and there is no reason to believe that we would be experiencing vaccine related deaths that no other country in the world is experiencing for the same vaccines. But that won't stop people like oski from reporting on it as it if we're a valid concern - which justifies the abuse of VAERS. It's despicable but sadly part of a consistent campaign.


Your post lacks facts. It is just an appeal to an emotional defense of experimental mRNA and adenovirus vaccines, which have been reported to cause 50x more u.s. deaths than all flu vaccines combined in any given year. Yes, this is according to VAERS, which is the CDC Vaccine side effect reporting system.
That's not how VAERS works and you know it. But we've long since established that you are doing what you can to support your agenda.

You can't accurately say that the vaccines have been "reported" to cause those deaths because VAERS has no such causality nexus. The CDC broadened the reporting mandate for COVID EUA vaccines to encourage more reporting so that it could determine safety with a higher degree of likelihood. On top of that, the information in VAERS is unvetted and could be composed of numerous fake reports from dangerous anti-vaxxers. It's an early warning system designed to catch any possible adverse reaction and is used by the CDC to research and verify causality. As of now, there is no reason to believe the vaccines have caused even hundreds of deaths, let alone thousands. Meanwhile hundreds of unvaccinated people die every day because they buy into your anti-vax fearmongering. Congratulations for being part of a successful anti public health campaign.

You know all of this but are more than happy to carry on with your fake narrative to sow fear.


Again. Your post lacks facts. Yes, unvaccinated people are dying daily at a rate far surpassing vaccinated people. The vaccines are helping to control covid 19.

The rest of your post is garbage. Many of the 9,000 covid vaccine related deaths were likely caused by the vaccine. I don't subscribe to your conspiracy theory that anti-vaxxers are flooding VAERS for covid reporting and do not do so for every other existing vaccine, which they should certainly be against as well. I can see a few here and there as coincidental, but the data supports that these covid vaccines are the most dangerous vaccines given to people today.


Your post lacks facts. Your heart wants to believe these big bad vaccines are killing thousands of Americans but there is no support for that argument. These vaccines are being given all over the world with pretty consistent results. You know that you cannot use raw, unvetted VAERS data to support a causal link but you do so anyway because your crusade isn't about facts and never has been.

All you have is fear mongering.


There is VAERS data and articles about deaths in local news stories, along with scientific articles questioning the safety of mRNA and Adenovirus vaccines.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:



There is VAERS data and articles about deaths in local news stories, along with scientific articles questioning the safety of mRNA and Adenovirus vaccines.
You can't both argue that others are not supporting their arguments with facts (especially when most are) AND also state that 9,000 VAERS cases are verified deaths by vaccine. That is not a fact. The fact is that there are 9,000 reports of POTENTIAL deaths by vaccine on the reporting site.

Show us a clear fact. Show us the exact number of deaths that have been verified as caused by vaccines. You and I both know it is a statistical blip when put next to the number or vaccines administered and the number of deaths that there would be had those people not been vaccinated.

You are not engaged in an honest risk analysis, you are overblowing the case against vaccines to align with your politics. At least be honest about this.

"The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!"
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

oski003 said:



There is VAERS data and articles about deaths in local news stories, along with scientific articles questioning the safety of mRNA and Adenovirus vaccines.
You can't both argue that others are not supporting their arguments with facts (especially when most are) AND also state that 9,000 VAERS cases are verified deaths by vaccine. That is not a fact. The fact is that there are 9,000 reports of POTENTIAL deaths by vaccine on the reporting site.

Show us a clear fact. Show us the exact number of deaths that have been verified as caused by vaccines. You and I both know it is a statistical blip when put next to the number or vaccines administered and the number of deaths that there would be had those people not been vaccinated.

You are not engaged in an honest risk analysis, you are overblowing the case against vaccines to align with your politics. At least be honest about this.


The foxes are guarding the hen house. The ones verifying the vaccine deaths are the ones making policy decisions. They have done the risk analysis and have decided the best thing for everyone is that everyone get vaccinated. I don't dispute their conclusion, but I dispute their concealing of information.

Yes, VAERS shows 9,000 potential vaccine deaths. A few days ago it showed 7,000 potential vaccine deaths.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski believes nothing the CDC or any other public health official says but 100% of every unverified local news report.

Seems legit.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski believes nothing the CDC or any other public health official says but 100% of every unverified local news report.

Seems legit.


That is not true. Exaggerate much? Attempting to use wit here to appeal to others is pretty lame.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

oski003 said:



There is VAERS data and articles about deaths in local news stories, along with scientific articles questioning the safety of mRNA and Adenovirus vaccines.
You can't both argue that others are not supporting their arguments with facts (especially when most are) AND also state that 9,000 VAERS cases are verified deaths by vaccine. That is not a fact. The fact is that there are 9,000 reports of POTENTIAL deaths by vaccine on the reporting site.

Show us a clear fact. Show us the exact number of deaths that have been verified as caused by vaccines. You and I both know it is a statistical blip when put next to the number or vaccines administered and the number of deaths that there would be had those people not been vaccinated.

You are not engaged in an honest risk analysis, you are overblowing the case against vaccines to align with your politics. At least be honest about this.

Agree. Unvaccinated persons make up virtually all the deaths reported in the US.

Yet all we hear about from some people is a few thousand of unconfirmed deaths attributable to vaccines even though millions (hundreds of millions) have been vaccinated
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

blungld said:

oski003 said:



There is VAERS data and articles about deaths in local news stories, along with scientific articles questioning the safety of mRNA and Adenovirus vaccines.
You can't both argue that others are not supporting their arguments with facts (especially when most are) AND also state that 9,000 VAERS cases are verified deaths by vaccine. That is not a fact. The fact is that there are 9,000 reports of POTENTIAL deaths by vaccine on the reporting site.

Show us a clear fact. Show us the exact number of deaths that have been verified as caused by vaccines. You and I both know it is a statistical blip when put next to the number or vaccines administered and the number of deaths that there would be had those people not been vaccinated.

You are not engaged in an honest risk analysis, you are overblowing the case against vaccines to align with your politics. At least be honest about this.

Agree. Unvaccinated persons make up virtually all the Covid related deaths reported in the US.

Yet all we hear about from some people is a few thousand of unconfirmed deaths attributable to vaccines even though millions (hundreds of millions) have been vaccinated
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:


The foxes are guarding the hen house. The ones verifying the vaccine deaths are the ones making policy decisions. They have done the risk analysis and have decided the best thing for everyone is that everyone get vaccinated. I don't dispute their conclusion, but I dispute their concealing of information.

Yes, VAERS shows 9,000 potential vaccine deaths. A few days ago it showed 7,000 potential vaccine deaths.
So you are essentially saying you have one standard of "facts" for people you disagree with, and another for yourself. You are skeptical of "facts" reported by experts in the field, but take as true your own gut instincts that this information over here is falsified by gatekeepers, but this information over here is true.

You want any possible risk of the vaccine to be exposed and trumpeted and made as large as possible--to jump to a conclusion that puts the vaccine risk in some comparable range with the virus though NO)THING that has been reported anywhere in the world makes any conceivable equivalence between the two risks. That is analysis and thinking with an agenda and bias.

VAERS is not verification, it is a reporting system. Where as peer reviewed studies and the INVESTIGATION into the VAERS reporting is verification. Your standard of evidence and fact is reversed and you are either intentionally not seeing it or comfortable not seeing it because it comports with your beliefs.

To make a sports analogy, you are making the case that Alabama is the best team and should play for the national championship cuz they pass your eye test. So ignore that the results on the field where they lost two games.

"The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!"
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski believes nothing the CDC or any other public health official says but 100% of every unverified local news report.

Seems legit.


That is not true. Exaggerate much? Attempting to use wit here to appeal to others is pretty lame.
You deliberately misrepresent VAERS and accuse me of exaggerating. That's rich.

Here's the guidance from the CDC on VAERS:

Quote:

One of the main limitations of VAERS data is that it cannot determine if the vaccine caused the reported adverse event. This limitation has caused confusion in the publicly available data from VAERS WONDER, specifically regarding the number of reported deaths. There have been instances where people have misinterpreted reports of deaths following vaccination as deaths caused by the vaccines; that is not accurate. VAERS accepts all reports of adverse health events following vaccinations without judging whether the vaccine caused the adverse health event. Some reports to VAERS represent true vaccine reactions and others are coincidental adverse health events and not related to vaccination. Overall, a causal relationship cannot be established using information from VAERS report alone.

And a general disclaimer on VAERS:

Quote:

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to VAERS. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. As part of CDC and FDA's multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as "safety signals." If a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine.
You know all of this yet continue to misrepresent the VAERS data because you are trying to mislead people.

oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski believes nothing the CDC or any other public health official says but 100% of every unverified local news report.

Seems legit.


That is not true. Exaggerate much? Attempting to use wit here to appeal to others is pretty lame.
You deliberately misrepresent VAERS and accuse me of exaggerating. That's rich.

Here's the guidance from the CDC on VAERS:

Quote:

One of the main limitations of VAERS data is that it cannot determine if the vaccine caused the reported adverse event. This limitation has caused confusion in the publicly available data from VAERS WONDER, specifically regarding the number of reported deaths. There have been instances where people have misinterpreted reports of deaths following vaccination as deaths caused by the vaccines; that is not accurate. VAERS accepts all reports of adverse health events following vaccinations without judging whether the vaccine caused the adverse health event. Some reports to VAERS represent true vaccine reactions and others are coincidental adverse health events and not related to vaccination. Overall, a causal relationship cannot be established using information from VAERS report alone.

And a general disclaimer on VAERS:

Quote:

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to VAERS. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

The strengths of VAERS are that it is national in scope and can quickly provide an early warning of a safety problem with a vaccine. As part of CDC and FDA's multi-system approach to post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring, VAERS is designed to rapidly detect unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse events, also known as "safety signals." If a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be done in safety systems such as the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same limitations as VAERS, and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine.
You know all of this yet continue to misrepresent the VAERS data because you are trying to mislead people.




I have no issue with you posting the VAERS disclaimers in an effort to combat what you feel is some sort of misinformation campaign by me. No problem at all. I am not trying to silence you.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

oski003 said:


The foxes are guarding the hen house. The ones verifying the vaccine deaths are the ones making policy decisions. They have done the risk analysis and have decided the best thing for everyone is that everyone get vaccinated. I don't dispute their conclusion, but I dispute their concealing of information.

Yes, VAERS shows 9,000 potential vaccine deaths. A few days ago it showed 7,000 potential vaccine deaths.
So you are essentially saying you have one standard of "facts" for people you disagree with, and another for yourself. You are skeptical of "facts" reported by experts in the field, but take as true your own gut instincts that this information over here is falsified by gatekeepers, but this information over here is true.

You want any possible risk of the vaccine to be exposed and trumpeted and made as large as possible--to jump to a conclusion that puts the vaccine risk in some comparable range with the virus though NO)THING that has been reported anywhere in the world makes any conceivable equivalence between the two risks. That is analysis and thinking with an agenda and bias.

VAERS is not verification, it is a reporting system. Where as peer reviewed studies and the INVESTIGATION into the VAERS reporting is verification. Your standard of evidence and fact is reversed and you are either intentionally not seeing it or comfortable not seeing it because it comports with your beliefs.

To make a sports analogy, you are making the case that Alabama is the best team and should play for the national championship cuz they pass your eye test. So ignore that the results on the field where they lost two games.


Peer Reviewed studies take a long time. Pfizer and Moderna surely didn't wait for them before declaring their vaccine safe and effective (they later were declared such in peer review).

Meanwhile, Congress gives Pfizer (ex FDA Chief is now on their board and parroted as scientific expert by media without ever referencing Pfizer affiliation) and Moderna (NIH scientists have patents on this vax) hundreds of millions of dollars while declaring them great vaccines and failing to financially support safe vaccines.

Pifzer lobbies Congress. Congress gives the NIAID/NIH money. Money goes to Pfizer. It is beautiful.

For the hundredth time, I have never said the EUA vaccines are worse than having no vaccine. They did their job. There are many people in the USA that should be vaccinated and have chosen not to. My goal here is not to discourage people on the fence to not get vaccinated. It is possible that happens. Frankly, people have had months to get vaccines. Half the US supply has expired and is now being shipped to other countries.

It is also very possible that we are breeding a new generation of anti-vaxxers because we aren't being truthful about the EUA vaccines and openly developing safer ones.

Also, Alabama is Pfizer. Moderna is Oklahoma. JnJ is Texas. No other teams get to play.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CDC just posted information on myocarditis (and related conditions) and the good news is that, based on their review, the risks are quite low.

I won't cut and paste everything but do please read the link if you are interested in this and have questions about the data.

For the TL;DR, the CDC found 323 reported cases out of approximately 30 million eligible vaccine recipients (persons aged 12-29). Of those 323, almost all were hospitalized but the clinical courses were considered mild, 95% have been discharged and not a single person died. This is consistent with the reporting I've seen the last few months which says that young people typically fully recover from myocarditis.

Here's the raw disclosure (emphasis mine) regarding the review of the reports of myocarditis:
Quote:

As of June 11, 2021, approximately 296 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines had been administered in the United States, with 52 million administered to persons aged 1229 years; of these, 30 million were first and 22 million were second doses.

Within the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) (4), the national vaccine safety passive monitoring system, 1,226 reports of myocarditis after mRNA vaccination were received during December 29, 2020June 11, 2021. Among persons with reported myocarditis after mRNA vaccination, the median age was 26 years (range = 1294 years), with median symptom onset interval of 3 days after vaccination (range = 0179). Among 1,194 reports for which patient age was known, 687 were among persons aged <30 years and 507 were among persons aged 30 years; of 1,212 with sex reported, 923 were male, and 289 were female. Among 1,094 patients with number of vaccine doses received reported, 76% occurred after receipt of dose 2 of mRNA vaccine; cases were reported after both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. Informed by early reports, CDC prioritized rapid review of myocarditis in persons aged <30 years reported during May 1June 11, 2021; the 484 patient records in this subset were evaluated by physicians at CDC, and several reports were also reviewed with Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project investigators, including cardiologists. At the time of this report, 323 of these 484 cases were determined to meet criteria in CDC's case definitions for myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis by provider interview or medical record review (Table 1). The median age of the 323 patients meeting CDC's case definitions was 19 years (range = 1229 years); 291 were male, and 32 were female. The median interval from vaccination to symptom onset was 2 days (range = 040 days); 92% of patients experienced onset of symptoms within 7 days of vaccination. Of the 323 persons meeting CDC's case definitions, 309 (96%) were hospitalized. Acute clinical courses were generally mild; among 304 hospitalized patients with known clinical outcomes, 95% had been discharged at time of review, and none had died. Treatment data in VAERS are preliminary and incomplete; however, many patients have experienced resolution of symptoms with conservative treatment, such as receipt of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Follow-up is ongoing to identify and understand longer-term outcomes after myocarditis occurring after COVID-19 vaccination.
CDC analysis of relative benefit of vaccine risk relative to COVID:
Quote:

The benefits (prevention of COVID-19 disease and associated hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths) outweighed the risks (expected myocarditis cases after vaccination) in all populations for which vaccination has been recommended. However, the balance of benefits and risks varied by age and sex because cases of myocarditis were primarily identified among males aged <30 years, and the risks of poor outcomes related to COVID-19 increase with age. Per million second doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered to males aged 1229 years, 11,000 COVID-19 cases, 560 hospitalizations, 138 ICU admissions, and six deaths due to COVID-19 could be prevented, compared with 3947 expected myocarditis cases after COVID-19 vaccination (Table 2). Among males aged 30 years, 15,300 COVID-19 cases, 4,598 hospitalizations, 1,242 ICU admissions, and 700 deaths could be prevented, compared with three to four expected myocarditis cases after COVID-19 vaccination. This analysis did not include the potential benefit of preventing post-COVID-19 conditions, such as prolonged symptoms and MIS-C (6,7).

Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
blungld said:

oski003 said:



There is VAERS data and articles about deaths in local news stories, along with scientific articles questioning the safety of mRNA and Adenovirus vaccines.
You can't both argue that others are not supporting their arguments with facts (especially when most are) AND also state that 9,000 VAERS cases are verified deaths by vaccine. That is not a fact. The fact is that there are 9,000 reports of POTENTIAL deaths by vaccine on the reporting site.

Show us a clear fact. Show us the exact number of deaths that have been verified as caused by vaccines. You and I both know it is a statistical blip when put next to the number or vaccines administered and the number of deaths that there would be had those people not been vaccinated.

You are not engaged in an honest risk analysis, you are overblowing the case against vaccines to align with your politics. At least be honest about this.

The back-and-forth on this thread has been going on for so damn long, I think it is time to pull back the curtain on poster "oski003" and his motivations...

He is not a Trump Rightwing Ideologue like poster "zippergate", nor is he your garden-variety anti-vaxxer. His agenda is that he is against the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) and, to a lesser extent, against the "vector" vaccine(s) (J & J). He is pro-"traditional" vaccines.

About nine months ago, he wrote a long post predicting which of the vaccines would end up being the best. He knew of a NUMBER of pharma companies/cooperatives that were researching and attempting to develop COVID vaccines and he sounded very knowledgeable. Last on his list were Pfizer and Moderna. After that, J & J. His top predictions were all traditional vaccines, with his number one being Merck. At that time, he did not seem to be the least bit "anti-vax".

Not long after that, the Merck vaccine did not seem to be working out and they dropped the program. Ouch.

Anyway, "oski003" seems to have some sort of tie to one or all of the traditional vaccine makers (or at least their product) and thus is opposed to the other vaccines. I have no idea if this tie is professional, financial, philosophical, familial or what. Or maybe Moderna or Pfizer or someone who helped to develop the mRNA vaccines just "done him wrong" at some point (enemy-of-an-enemy-is-a-friend type of deal).

But that is what we have here, I suspect. Unit2Sucks, I guess you would argue that it doesn't matter, you are simply battling against anti-vaccine propaganda, whatever its origin story. So be it, but know what you are up against. He is quite persistent and even sincere (if you see his motives, which are actually somewhat transparent). I suppose to his credit, he often manages to counter my sarcasm with a certain grace.

oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

blungld said:

oski003 said:



There is VAERS data and articles about deaths in local news stories, along with scientific articles questioning the safety of mRNA and Adenovirus vaccines.
You can't both argue that others are not supporting their arguments with facts (especially when most are) AND also state that 9,000 VAERS cases are verified deaths by vaccine. That is not a fact. The fact is that there are 9,000 reports of POTENTIAL deaths by vaccine on the reporting site.

Show us a clear fact. Show us the exact number of deaths that have been verified as caused by vaccines. You and I both know it is a statistical blip when put next to the number or vaccines administered and the number of deaths that there would be had those people not been vaccinated.

You are not engaged in an honest risk analysis, you are overblowing the case against vaccines to align with your politics. At least be honest about this.

The back-and-forth on this thread has been going on for so damn long, I think it is time to pull back the curtain on poster "oski003" and his motivations...

He is not a Trump Rightwing Ideologue like poster "zippergate", nor is he your garden-variety anti-vaxxer. His agenda is that he is against the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) and, to a lesser extent, against the "vector" vaccine(s) (J & J). He is pro-"traditional" vaccines.

About nine months ago, he wrote a long post predicting which of the vaccines would end up being the best. He knew of a NUMBER of pharma companies/cooperatives that were researching and attempting to develop COVID vaccines and he sounded very knowledgeable. Last on his list were Pfizer and Moderna. After that, J & J. His top predictions were all traditional vaccines, with his number one being Merck. At that time, he did not seem to be the least bit "anti-vax".

Not long after that, the Merck vaccine did not seem to be working out and they dropped the program. Ouch.

Anyway, "oski003" seems to have some sort of tie to one or all of the traditional vaccine makers (or at least their product) and thus is opposed to the other vaccines. I have no idea if this tie is professional, financial, philosophical, familial or what. Or maybe Moderna or Pfizer or someone who helped to develop the mRNA vaccines just "done him wrong" at some point (enemy-of-an-enemy-is-a-friend type of deal).

But that is what we have here, I suspect. Unit2Sucks, I guess you would argue that it doesn't matter, you are simply battling against anti-vaccine propaganda, whatever its origin story. So be it, but know what you are up against. He is quite persistent and even sincere (if you see his motives, which are actually somewhat transparent).




I incorrectly assumed that the side effects of mRNA and Pfizer would not be acceptable. This was naive, given the severity of the pandemic. I also was naive to the power of BP and their influence. The ability to quickly large scale manufacture and get vaccine approvals was far more important than the efficacy and safety of the actual vaccines. America got vaccinated faster than I expected.

I believe Fauci always had Moderna as the front runner and is establishing his legacy. JnJ was determined to be marketed as a one shot "traditional" vaccine for those who didn't want mRNA.

I am now being more vocal because I believe more vaccine techs need to be supported. Those include protein, DNA, and traditional vaccines. I believe the support given to JnJ, Pfizer, and Moderna has actually crippled other companies like Novavax, Vaxart, Ocugen, and Inovio (and others) who were backups to BP (Novavax was given a lot of initial support which dried up when mRNA worked). I believe we can have covid vaccines that neither kill a small number of people (relative to historical covid deaths) nor put half the people who get it out of work for a day or two.

By the way, I predicted Merck would be a leader here because historically they have been the vaccine leader. I did not have any inside knowledge on whether their vaccine techs would work. They gave up early, likely acknowledging the frontrunner status given mRNA by Fauci. During the early white house covid briefings, Fauci only uttered the name of one company, Moderna. Trumo uttered JnJ. Fauci may have referenced JnJ in response to something trump had said.

Pfizer hasn't invented anything since Viagra, which was accidental. They certainly can lobby and manufacture.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So you don't think it's possible that more "traditional" vaccines just aren't as effective against a virus like COVID-19?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

So you don't think it's possible that more "traditional" vaccines just aren't as effective against a virus like COVID-19?


I don't believe that neutralizing antibodies are the best plan of attack against a coronavirus. I don't want to get an annual mRNA shot as antibodies wane and the vaccines develop resistance every six months or so. If mRNA was safer, I would be more willing.

T cells are more universal. Inovio had a MERS Coronavirus vaccine that was advanced into phase 2 in Asia (and now middle east where MERS still is prevalent) but was shunned by Fauci due to his belief that neutralizing antibodies will solve covid. Inovio's B & T Cell data was excellent but the FDA put a hold on their phase 3 and then the DOD pulled their funding due to the impossibilities of conducting a phase 3 trial with the existence of the EUA vaccines (after heavy FDA delays). Inovio was the second vaccine to start a phase 1 but was left high and dry by Slaoui's OWS. South Korea is advancing a version of Inovio's vaccine made by Geneone. South Korea is also ordering mRNA vaccines. China is also supporting Inovio's vaccine. FDA has put Inovio on clinical hold for a year due to concerns about their ability to scale their vaccine delivery device. FDA approved Moderna's and JnJ's covid vaccine production facilities without ever seeing them.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Meanwhile in the real world:



But sure, let's talk about how we wished vaccines were even better and discourage people from settling for approved vaccines for a variety of vague and unactionable reasons.

GoCal80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sycasey said:

So you don't think it's possible that more "traditional" vaccines just aren't as effective against a virus like COVID-19?


I don't believe that neutralizing antibodies are the best plan of attack against a coronavirus. I don't want to get an annual mRNA shot as antibodies wane and the vaccines develop resistance every six months or so. If mRNA was safer, I would be more willing.

T cells are more universal. Inovio had a MERS Coronavirus vaccine that was advanced into phase 2 in Asia (and now middle east where MERS still is prevalent) but was shunned by Fauci due to his belief that neutralizing antibodies will solve covid. Inovio's B & T Cell data was excellent but the FDA put a hold on their phase 3 and then the DOD pulled their funding due to the impossibilities of conducting a phase 3 trial with the existence of the EUA vaccines (after heavy FDA delays). Inovio was the second vaccine to start a phase 1 but was left high and dry by Slaoui's OWS. South Korea is advancing a version of Inovio's vaccine made by Geneone. South Korea is also ordering mRNA vaccines. China is also supporting Inovio's vaccine. FDA has put Inovio on clinical hold for a year due to concerns about their ability to scale their vaccine delivery device. FDA approved Moderna's and JnJ's covid vaccine production facilities without ever seeing them.
I am an expert in this area with no conflicts of interest.

mRNA vaccines stimulate both B cell and T cell responses because they cause cells in our body to produce the SARS-CoV2 spike protein. B cells then produce neutralizing antibodies active against the spike protein, protecting us from infection by the virus. In contrast to what is sometimes reported in the news, B cell immunity doesn't necessarily ever wane. What happens is that amount of antibodies circulating in the blood stream declines over time because they live about 180 days on average in the blood. But fear not! Memory B cells stand by post-vaccine or post-infection, primed to mount a rapid and robust antibody response even after the original antibody "titer" in the blood stream drops, so that protective neutralizing antibody production ramps up quickly and protection is in fact still in place. More great news about mRNA vaccines is that the spike protein encoded by these vaccines also elicits a robust T cell response, which is extremely good news because even if the virus mutates to a form that the neutralizing antibodies don't recognize as well, it is much harder for a mutant virus to evade the robust T cell response stimulated by the mRNA vaccine. However, should a variant emerge that evades immunity, mRNA vaccines are by far the best bet to keep us safe because they can be modified for booster shots against the variant much faster than any other type of vaccine.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

So you don't think it's possible that more "traditional" vaccines just aren't as effective against a virus like COVID-19?


I don't believe that neutralizing antibodies are the best plan of attack against a coronavirus. I don't want to get an annual mRNA shot as antibodies wane and the vaccines develop resistance every six months or so. If mRNA was safer, I would be more willing.

T cells are more universal. Inovio had a MERS Coronavirus vaccine that was advanced into phase 2 in Asia (and now middle east where MERS still is prevalent) but was shunned by Fauci due to his belief that neutralizing antibodies will solve covid. Inovio's B & T Cell data was excellent but the FDA put a hold on their phase 3 and then the DOD pulled their funding due to the impossibilities of conducting a phase 3 trial with the existence of the EUA vaccines (after heavy FDA delays). Inovio was the second vaccine to start a phase 1 but was left high and dry by Slaoui's OWS. South Korea is advancing a version of Inovio's vaccine made by Geneone. South Korea is also ordering mRNA vaccines. China is also supporting Inovio's vaccine. FDA has put Inovio on clinical hold for a year due to concerns about their ability to scale their vaccine delivery device. FDA approved Moderna's and JnJ's covid vaccine production facilities without ever seeing them.
I am an expert in this area with no conflicts of interest.

mRNA vaccines stimulate both B cell and T cell responses because they cause cells in our body to produce the SARS-CoV2 spike protein. B cells then produce neutralizing antibodies active against the spike protein, protecting us from infection by the virus. In contrast to what is sometimes reported in the news, B cell immunity doesn't necessarily ever wane. What happens is that amount of antibodies circulating in the blood stream declines over time because they live about 180 days on average in the blood. But fear not! Memory B cells stand by post-vaccine or post-infection, primed to mount a rapid and robust antibody response even after the original antibody "titer" in the blood stream drops, so that protective neutralizing antibody production ramps up quickly and protection is in fact still in place. More great news about mRNA vaccines is that the spike protein encoded by these vaccines also elicits a robust T cell response, which is extremely good news because even if the virus mutates to a form that the neutralizing antibodies don't recognize as well, it is much harder for a mutant virus to evade the robust T cell response stimulated by the mRNA vaccine. However, should a variant emerge that evades immunity, mRNA vaccines are by far the best bet to keep us safe because they can be modified for booster shots against the variant much faster than any other type of vaccine.


I pretty much agree with what is here although DNA seems like a safer alternative for booster shots. While many peer reviewed articles later touted the importance of B & T, the media, administration, Fauci, Pfizer and Moderna boasted about mRNA antibodies from within 30 days of vaccination. Do you think mRNA vaccines are the best boosters? Do you think there are safer alternatives for children? Does Novavax stimulat b and t cell response? Btw, the studies indicated pfizer was superior to Moderna in b and t cell response. Do you agree?
GoCal80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

So you don't think it's possible that more "traditional" vaccines just aren't as effective against a virus like COVID-19?


I don't believe that neutralizing antibodies are the best plan of attack against a coronavirus. I don't want to get an annual mRNA shot as antibodies wane and the vaccines develop resistance every six months or so. If mRNA was safer, I would be more willing.

T cells are more universal. Inovio had a MERS Coronavirus vaccine that was advanced into phase 2 in Asia (and now middle east where MERS still is prevalent) but was shunned by Fauci due to his belief that neutralizing antibodies will solve covid. Inovio's B & T Cell data was excellent but the FDA put a hold on their phase 3 and then the DOD pulled their funding due to the impossibilities of conducting a phase 3 trial with the existence of the EUA vaccines (after heavy FDA delays). Inovio was the second vaccine to start a phase 1 but was left high and dry by Slaoui's OWS. South Korea is advancing a version of Inovio's vaccine made by Geneone. South Korea is also ordering mRNA vaccines. China is also supporting Inovio's vaccine. FDA has put Inovio on clinical hold for a year due to concerns about their ability to scale their vaccine delivery device. FDA approved Moderna's and JnJ's covid vaccine production facilities without ever seeing them.
I am an expert in this area with no conflicts of interest.

mRNA vaccines stimulate both B cell and T cell responses because they cause cells in our body to produce the SARS-CoV2 spike protein. B cells then produce neutralizing antibodies active against the spike protein, protecting us from infection by the virus. In contrast to what is sometimes reported in the news, B cell immunity doesn't necessarily ever wane. What happens is that amount of antibodies circulating in the blood stream declines over time because they live about 180 days on average in the blood. But fear not! Memory B cells stand by post-vaccine or post-infection, primed to mount a rapid and robust antibody response even after the original antibody "titer" in the blood stream drops, so that protective neutralizing antibody production ramps up quickly and protection is in fact still in place. More great news about mRNA vaccines is that the spike protein encoded by these vaccines also elicits a robust T cell response, which is extremely good news because even if the virus mutates to a form that the neutralizing antibodies don't recognize as well, it is much harder for a mutant virus to evade the robust T cell response stimulated by the mRNA vaccine. However, should a variant emerge that evades immunity, mRNA vaccines are by far the best bet to keep us safe because they can be modified for booster shots against the variant much faster than any other type of vaccine.


I pretty much agree with what is here although DNA seems like a safer alternative for booster shots. While many peer reviewed articles later touted the importance of B & T, the media, administration, Fauci, Pfizer and Moderna boasted about mRNA antibodies from within 30 days of vaccination. Do you think mRNA vaccines are the best boosters? Do you think there are safer alternatives for children? Does Novavax stimulat b and t cell response? Btw, the studies indicated pfizer was superior to Moderna in b and t cell response. Do you agree?
I'm not sure that I understand your comment. In general, it would be in my opinion a rather bad idea to introduce DNA into a person because, unlike mRNA, it can recombine into the DNA of the person, causing mutations in the person's DNA. Mutations are not good for us and can among other things cause cancer. Perhaps you are referring to the adenovirus vector used in the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. Adenoviruses are DNA viruses. In this class of vaccines the viral DNA is introduced into a person's body when they are vaccinated and directs the person's cells to make mRNAs, which then make the spike protein. In effect, it is adding one more "upstream" step to the mRNA vaccines because the DNA has to direct the body to synthesize the mRNA which then directs the body to make the spike protein. The people who have developed the adenovirus vaccines assert that they are safe and don't integrate into our DNA, but I personally am much more comfortable getting an mRNA vaccine than an Adenovirus DNA vaccine. I hope that helps.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

So you don't think it's possible that more "traditional" vaccines just aren't as effective against a virus like COVID-19?


I don't believe that neutralizing antibodies are the best plan of attack against a coronavirus. I don't want to get an annual mRNA shot as antibodies wane and the vaccines develop resistance every six months or so. If mRNA was safer, I would be more willing.

T cells are more universal. Inovio had a MERS Coronavirus vaccine that was advanced into phase 2 in Asia (and now middle east where MERS still is prevalent) but was shunned by Fauci due to his belief that neutralizing antibodies will solve covid. Inovio's B & T Cell data was excellent but the FDA put a hold on their phase 3 and then the DOD pulled their funding due to the impossibilities of conducting a phase 3 trial with the existence of the EUA vaccines (after heavy FDA delays). Inovio was the second vaccine to start a phase 1 but was left high and dry by Slaoui's OWS. South Korea is advancing a version of Inovio's vaccine made by Geneone. South Korea is also ordering mRNA vaccines. China is also supporting Inovio's vaccine. FDA has put Inovio on clinical hold for a year due to concerns about their ability to scale their vaccine delivery device. FDA approved Moderna's and JnJ's covid vaccine production facilities without ever seeing them.
I am an expert in this area with no conflicts of interest.

mRNA vaccines stimulate both B cell and T cell responses because they cause cells in our body to produce the SARS-CoV2 spike protein. B cells then produce neutralizing antibodies active against the spike protein, protecting us from infection by the virus. In contrast to what is sometimes reported in the news, B cell immunity doesn't necessarily ever wane. What happens is that amount of antibodies circulating in the blood stream declines over time because they live about 180 days on average in the blood. But fear not! Memory B cells stand by post-vaccine or post-infection, primed to mount a rapid and robust antibody response even after the original antibody "titer" in the blood stream drops, so that protective neutralizing antibody production ramps up quickly and protection is in fact still in place. More great news about mRNA vaccines is that the spike protein encoded by these vaccines also elicits a robust T cell response, which is extremely good news because even if the virus mutates to a form that the neutralizing antibodies don't recognize as well, it is much harder for a mutant virus to evade the robust T cell response stimulated by the mRNA vaccine. However, should a variant emerge that evades immunity, mRNA vaccines are by far the best bet to keep us safe because they can be modified for booster shots against the variant much faster than any other type of vaccine.


I pretty much agree with what is here although DNA seems like a safer alternative for booster shots. While many peer reviewed articles later touted the importance of B & T, the media, administration, Fauci, Pfizer and Moderna boasted about mRNA antibodies from within 30 days of vaccination. Do you think mRNA vaccines are the best boosters? Do you think there are safer alternatives for children? Does Novavax stimulat b and t cell response? Btw, the studies indicated pfizer was superior to Moderna in b and t cell response. Do you agree?
I'm not sure that I understand your comment. In general, it would be in my opinion a rather bad idea to introduce DNA into a person because, unlike mRNA, it can recombine into the DNA of the person, causing mutations in the person's DNA. Mutations are not good for us and can among other things cause cancer. Perhaps you are referring to the adenovirus vector used in the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. Adenoviruses are DNA viruses. In this class of vaccines the viral DNA is introduced into a person's body when they are vaccinated and directs the person's cells to make mRNAs, which then make the spike protein. In effect, it is adding one more "upstream" step to the mRNA vaccines because the DNA has to direct the body to synthesize the mRNA which then directs the body to make the spike protein. The people who have developed the adenovirus vaccines assert that they are safe and don't integrate into our DNA, but I personally am much more comfortable getting an mRNA vaccine than an Adenovirus DNA vaccine. I hope that helps.


I was referring to DNA vaccines that do not enter cells through adenoviruses. Specifically, vaccines by Inovio, Zydus Cadilla, and Geneone. There has been no evidence of genome integration with DNA vaccines. Genome integration is something pushed by mRNA advocates as DNA is a competing tech because it has the same rapid response capabilities as mrna and is easier to manufacture. Pure DNA does not have the side effects of the adenovirus vaccines, and I believe it is because they are not injected with 5 billion adenovirus particles (monkey virus for AZN, human cold virus for JnJ). JnJ is a large dose.

Given your answer, is it safe to say that you fear the potential but never seen future side of DNA vaccines (genome integration) more than the currently seen and unseen side effects of mRNA vaccines? Given that the P1 and P2 trial data of these DNA vaccines have much better (by leaps and bounds) safety data than mRNA vaccines, do you attribute that to smaller sample size or other factors?
GoCal80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

So you don't think it's possible that more "traditional" vaccines just aren't as effective against a virus like COVID-19?


I don't believe that neutralizing antibodies are the best plan of attack against a coronavirus. I don't want to get an annual mRNA shot as antibodies wane and the vaccines develop resistance every six months or so. If mRNA was safer, I would be more willing.

T cells are more universal. Inovio had a MERS Coronavirus vaccine that was advanced into phase 2 in Asia (and now middle east where MERS still is prevalent) but was shunned by Fauci due to his belief that neutralizing antibodies will solve covid. Inovio's B & T Cell data was excellent but the FDA put a hold on their phase 3 and then the DOD pulled their funding due to the impossibilities of conducting a phase 3 trial with the existence of the EUA vaccines (after heavy FDA delays). Inovio was the second vaccine to start a phase 1 but was left high and dry by Slaoui's OWS. South Korea is advancing a version of Inovio's vaccine made by Geneone. South Korea is also ordering mRNA vaccines. China is also supporting Inovio's vaccine. FDA has put Inovio on clinical hold for a year due to concerns about their ability to scale their vaccine delivery device. FDA approved Moderna's and JnJ's covid vaccine production facilities without ever seeing them.
I am an expert in this area with no conflicts of interest.

mRNA vaccines stimulate both B cell and T cell responses because they cause cells in our body to produce the SARS-CoV2 spike protein. B cells then produce neutralizing antibodies active against the spike protein, protecting us from infection by the virus. In contrast to what is sometimes reported in the news, B cell immunity doesn't necessarily ever wane. What happens is that amount of antibodies circulating in the blood stream declines over time because they live about 180 days on average in the blood. But fear not! Memory B cells stand by post-vaccine or post-infection, primed to mount a rapid and robust antibody response even after the original antibody "titer" in the blood stream drops, so that protective neutralizing antibody production ramps up quickly and protection is in fact still in place. More great news about mRNA vaccines is that the spike protein encoded by these vaccines also elicits a robust T cell response, which is extremely good news because even if the virus mutates to a form that the neutralizing antibodies don't recognize as well, it is much harder for a mutant virus to evade the robust T cell response stimulated by the mRNA vaccine. However, should a variant emerge that evades immunity, mRNA vaccines are by far the best bet to keep us safe because they can be modified for booster shots against the variant much faster than any other type of vaccine.


I pretty much agree with what is here although DNA seems like a safer alternative for booster shots. While many peer reviewed articles later touted the importance of B & T, the media, administration, Fauci, Pfizer and Moderna boasted about mRNA antibodies from within 30 days of vaccination. Do you think mRNA vaccines are the best boosters? Do you think there are safer alternatives for children? Does Novavax stimulat b and t cell response? Btw, the studies indicated pfizer was superior to Moderna in b and t cell response. Do you agree?
I'm not sure that I understand your comment. In general, it would be in my opinion a rather bad idea to introduce DNA into a person because, unlike mRNA, it can recombine into the DNA of the person, causing mutations in the person's DNA. Mutations are not good for us and can among other things cause cancer. Perhaps you are referring to the adenovirus vector used in the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. Adenoviruses are DNA viruses. In this class of vaccines the viral DNA is introduced into a person's body when they are vaccinated and directs the person's cells to make mRNAs, which then make the spike protein. In effect, it is adding one more "upstream" step to the mRNA vaccines because the DNA has to direct the body to synthesize the mRNA which then directs the body to make the spike protein. The people who have developed the adenovirus vaccines assert that they are safe and don't integrate into our DNA, but I personally am much more comfortable getting an mRNA vaccine than an Adenovirus DNA vaccine. I hope that helps.


I was referring to DNA vaccines that do not enter cells through adenoviruses. Specifically, vaccines by Inovio, Zydus Cadilla, and Geneone. There has been no evidence of genome integration with DNA vaccines. Genome integration is something pushed by mRNA advocates as DNA is a competing tech because it has the same rapid response capabilities as mrna and is easier to manufacture. Pure DNA does not have the side effects of the adenovirus vaccines, and I believe it is because they are not injected with 5 billion adenovirus particles (monkey virus for AZN, human cold virus for JnJ). JnJ is a large dose.

Given your answer, is it safe to say that you fear the potential but never seen future side of DNA vaccines (genome integration) more than the currently seen and unseen side effects of mRNA vaccines? Given that the P1 and P2 trial data of these DNA vaccines have much better (by leaps and bounds) safety data than mRNA vaccines, do you attribute that to smaller sample size or other factors?
DNA vaccines have not proved effective in humans, possibly because DNA not only has to get into cells like mRNAs, but also into the cell's nucleus. I've not seen any credible evidence that there are safety issues with mRNA vaccines and, unlike DNA vaccines, they've been used on millions of people. The extraordinarily rare hyper immune response to mRNA vaccines is quite possibly something those rare individuals would have had to other forms of vaccines. At this point, one thing we can feel confident about is the extremely good safety profile of mRNA vaccines.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

So you don't think it's possible that more "traditional" vaccines just aren't as effective against a virus like COVID-19?


I don't believe that neutralizing antibodies are the best plan of attack against a coronavirus. I don't want to get an annual mRNA shot as antibodies wane and the vaccines develop resistance every six months or so. If mRNA was safer, I would be more willing.

T cells are more universal. Inovio had a MERS Coronavirus vaccine that was advanced into phase 2 in Asia (and now middle east where MERS still is prevalent) but was shunned by Fauci due to his belief that neutralizing antibodies will solve covid. Inovio's B & T Cell data was excellent but the FDA put a hold on their phase 3 and then the DOD pulled their funding due to the impossibilities of conducting a phase 3 trial with the existence of the EUA vaccines (after heavy FDA delays). Inovio was the second vaccine to start a phase 1 but was left high and dry by Slaoui's OWS. South Korea is advancing a version of Inovio's vaccine made by Geneone. South Korea is also ordering mRNA vaccines. China is also supporting Inovio's vaccine. FDA has put Inovio on clinical hold for a year due to concerns about their ability to scale their vaccine delivery device. FDA approved Moderna's and JnJ's covid vaccine production facilities without ever seeing them.
I am an expert in this area with no conflicts of interest.

mRNA vaccines stimulate both B cell and T cell responses because they cause cells in our body to produce the SARS-CoV2 spike protein. B cells then produce neutralizing antibodies active against the spike protein, protecting us from infection by the virus. In contrast to what is sometimes reported in the news, B cell immunity doesn't necessarily ever wane. What happens is that amount of antibodies circulating in the blood stream declines over time because they live about 180 days on average in the blood. But fear not! Memory B cells stand by post-vaccine or post-infection, primed to mount a rapid and robust antibody response even after the original antibody "titer" in the blood stream drops, so that protective neutralizing antibody production ramps up quickly and protection is in fact still in place. More great news about mRNA vaccines is that the spike protein encoded by these vaccines also elicits a robust T cell response, which is extremely good news because even if the virus mutates to a form that the neutralizing antibodies don't recognize as well, it is much harder for a mutant virus to evade the robust T cell response stimulated by the mRNA vaccine. However, should a variant emerge that evades immunity, mRNA vaccines are by far the best bet to keep us safe because they can be modified for booster shots against the variant much faster than any other type of vaccine.


I pretty much agree with what is here although DNA seems like a safer alternative for booster shots. While many peer reviewed articles later touted the importance of B & T, the media, administration, Fauci, Pfizer and Moderna boasted about mRNA antibodies from within 30 days of vaccination. Do you think mRNA vaccines are the best boosters? Do you think there are safer alternatives for children? Does Novavax stimulat b and t cell response? Btw, the studies indicated pfizer was superior to Moderna in b and t cell response. Do you agree?
I'm not sure that I understand your comment. In general, it would be in my opinion a rather bad idea to introduce DNA into a person because, unlike mRNA, it can recombine into the DNA of the person, causing mutations in the person's DNA. Mutations are not good for us and can among other things cause cancer. Perhaps you are referring to the adenovirus vector used in the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. Adenoviruses are DNA viruses. In this class of vaccines the viral DNA is introduced into a person's body when they are vaccinated and directs the person's cells to make mRNAs, which then make the spike protein. In effect, it is adding one more "upstream" step to the mRNA vaccines because the DNA has to direct the body to synthesize the mRNA which then directs the body to make the spike protein. The people who have developed the adenovirus vaccines assert that they are safe and don't integrate into our DNA, but I personally am much more comfortable getting an mRNA vaccine than an Adenovirus DNA vaccine. I hope that helps.


I was referring to DNA vaccines that do not enter cells through adenoviruses. Specifically, vaccines by Inovio, Zydus Cadilla, and Geneone. There has been no evidence of genome integration with DNA vaccines. Genome integration is something pushed by mRNA advocates as DNA is a competing tech because it has the same rapid response capabilities as mrna and is easier to manufacture. Pure DNA does not have the side effects of the adenovirus vaccines, and I believe it is because they are not injected with 5 billion adenovirus particles (monkey virus for AZN, human cold virus for JnJ). JnJ is a large dose.

Given your answer, is it safe to say that you fear the potential but never seen future side of DNA vaccines (genome integration) more than the currently seen and unseen side effects of mRNA vaccines? Given that the P1 and P2 trial data of these DNA vaccines have much better (by leaps and bounds) safety data than mRNA vaccines, do you attribute that to smaller sample size or other factors?
DNA vaccines have not proved effective in humans, possibly because DNA not only has to get into cells like mRNAs, but also into the cell's nucleus. I've not seen any credible evidence that there are safety issues with mRNA vaccines and, unlike DNA vaccines, they've been used on millions of people. The extraordinarily rare hyper immune response to mRNA vaccines is quite possibly something those rare individuals would have had to other forms of vaccines. At this point, one thing we can feel confident about is the extremely good safety profile of mRNA vaccines.


You obviously don't feel the need to directly answer my questions, so we will have to agree to disagree on most things. I acknowledge that non-adenovirus based DNA vaccines have not been tested in millions but they don't have the grade 2 and 3 severe events that mRNA vaccines had in trials. I cannot subscribe to DNA vaccines being ineffective, given JnJ recipients currently have vax cards. I understand you conclusion on safety as it is the prevailing opinion of the medical community, albeit said rather strongly. I don't see that changing with no alternative, safe effective vaccines.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

So you don't think it's possible that more "traditional" vaccines just aren't as effective against a virus like COVID-19?


I don't believe that neutralizing antibodies are the best plan of attack against a coronavirus. I don't want to get an annual mRNA shot as antibodies wane and the vaccines develop resistance every six months or so. If mRNA was safer, I would be more willing.

T cells are more universal. Inovio had a MERS Coronavirus vaccine that was advanced into phase 2 in Asia (and now middle east where MERS still is prevalent) but was shunned by Fauci due to his belief that neutralizing antibodies will solve covid. Inovio's B & T Cell data was excellent but the FDA put a hold on their phase 3 and then the DOD pulled their funding due to the impossibilities of conducting a phase 3 trial with the existence of the EUA vaccines (after heavy FDA delays). Inovio was the second vaccine to start a phase 1 but was left high and dry by Slaoui's OWS. South Korea is advancing a version of Inovio's vaccine made by Geneone. South Korea is also ordering mRNA vaccines. China is also supporting Inovio's vaccine. FDA has put Inovio on clinical hold for a year due to concerns about their ability to scale their vaccine delivery device. FDA approved Moderna's and JnJ's covid vaccine production facilities without ever seeing them.
I am an expert in this area with no conflicts of interest.

mRNA vaccines stimulate both B cell and T cell responses because they cause cells in our body to produce the SARS-CoV2 spike protein. B cells then produce neutralizing antibodies active against the spike protein, protecting us from infection by the virus. In contrast to what is sometimes reported in the news, B cell immunity doesn't necessarily ever wane. What happens is that amount of antibodies circulating in the blood stream declines over time because they live about 180 days on average in the blood. But fear not! Memory B cells stand by post-vaccine or post-infection, primed to mount a rapid and robust antibody response even after the original antibody "titer" in the blood stream drops, so that protective neutralizing antibody production ramps up quickly and protection is in fact still in place. More great news about mRNA vaccines is that the spike protein encoded by these vaccines also elicits a robust T cell response, which is extremely good news because even if the virus mutates to a form that the neutralizing antibodies don't recognize as well, it is much harder for a mutant virus to evade the robust T cell response stimulated by the mRNA vaccine. However, should a variant emerge that evades immunity, mRNA vaccines are by far the best bet to keep us safe because they can be modified for booster shots against the variant much faster than any other type of vaccine.


I pretty much agree with what is here although DNA seems like a safer alternative for booster shots. While many peer reviewed articles later touted the importance of B & T, the media, administration, Fauci, Pfizer and Moderna boasted about mRNA antibodies from within 30 days of vaccination. Do you think mRNA vaccines are the best boosters? Do you think there are safer alternatives for children? Does Novavax stimulat b and t cell response? Btw, the studies indicated pfizer was superior to Moderna in b and t cell response. Do you agree?
I'm not sure that I understand your comment. In general, it would be in my opinion a rather bad idea to introduce DNA into a person because, unlike mRNA, it can recombine into the DNA of the person, causing mutations in the person's DNA. Mutations are not good for us and can among other things cause cancer. Perhaps you are referring to the adenovirus vector used in the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. Adenoviruses are DNA viruses. In this class of vaccines the viral DNA is introduced into a person's body when they are vaccinated and directs the person's cells to make mRNAs, which then make the spike protein. In effect, it is adding one more "upstream" step to the mRNA vaccines because the DNA has to direct the body to synthesize the mRNA which then directs the body to make the spike protein. The people who have developed the adenovirus vaccines assert that they are safe and don't integrate into our DNA, but I personally am much more comfortable getting an mRNA vaccine than an Adenovirus DNA vaccine. I hope that helps.


I was referring to DNA vaccines that do not enter cells through adenoviruses. Specifically, vaccines by Inovio, Zydus Cadilla, and Geneone. There has been no evidence of genome integration with DNA vaccines. Genome integration is something pushed by mRNA advocates as DNA is a competing tech because it has the same rapid response capabilities as mrna and is easier to manufacture. Pure DNA does not have the side effects of the adenovirus vaccines, and I believe it is because they are not injected with 5 billion adenovirus particles (monkey virus for AZN, human cold virus for JnJ). JnJ is a large dose.

Given your answer, is it safe to say that you fear the potential but never seen future side of DNA vaccines (genome integration) more than the currently seen and unseen side effects of mRNA vaccines? Given that the P1 and P2 trial data of these DNA vaccines have much better (by leaps and bounds) safety data than mRNA vaccines, do you attribute that to smaller sample size or other factors?
DNA vaccines have not proved effective in humans, possibly because DNA not only has to get into cells like mRNAs, but also into the cell's nucleus. I've not seen any credible evidence that there are safety issues with mRNA vaccines and, unlike DNA vaccines, they've been used on millions of people. The extraordinarily rare hyper immune response to mRNA vaccines is quite possibly something those rare individuals would have had to other forms of vaccines. At this point, one thing we can feel confident about is the extremely good safety profile of mRNA vaccines.


You obviously don't feel the need to directly answer my questions, so we will have to agree to disagree on most things. I acknowledge that non-adenovirus based DNA vaccines have not been tested in millions but they don't have the grade 2 and 3 severe events that mRNA vaccines had in trials. I cannot subscribe to DNA vaccines being ineffective, given JnJ recipients currently have vax cards. I understand you conclusion on safety as it is the prevailing opinion of the medical community, albeit said rather strongly. I don't see that changing with no alternative, safe effective vaccines.


Oski003 goes down on a called Strike 3. But he is now arguing with the referee saying the last pitch should have been called a Ball. But he is willing to agree to disagree.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

So you don't think it's possible that more "traditional" vaccines just aren't as effective against a virus like COVID-19?


I don't believe that neutralizing antibodies are the best plan of attack against a coronavirus. I don't want to get an annual mRNA shot as antibodies wane and the vaccines develop resistance every six months or so. If mRNA was safer, I would be more willing.

T cells are more universal. Inovio had a MERS Coronavirus vaccine that was advanced into phase 2 in Asia (and now middle east where MERS still is prevalent) but was shunned by Fauci due to his belief that neutralizing antibodies will solve covid. Inovio's B & T Cell data was excellent but the FDA put a hold on their phase 3 and then the DOD pulled their funding due to the impossibilities of conducting a phase 3 trial with the existence of the EUA vaccines (after heavy FDA delays). Inovio was the second vaccine to start a phase 1 but was left high and dry by Slaoui's OWS. South Korea is advancing a version of Inovio's vaccine made by Geneone. South Korea is also ordering mRNA vaccines. China is also supporting Inovio's vaccine. FDA has put Inovio on clinical hold for a year due to concerns about their ability to scale their vaccine delivery device. FDA approved Moderna's and JnJ's covid vaccine production facilities without ever seeing them.
I am an expert in this area with no conflicts of interest.

mRNA vaccines stimulate both B cell and T cell responses because they cause cells in our body to produce the SARS-CoV2 spike protein. B cells then produce neutralizing antibodies active against the spike protein, protecting us from infection by the virus. In contrast to what is sometimes reported in the news, B cell immunity doesn't necessarily ever wane. What happens is that amount of antibodies circulating in the blood stream declines over time because they live about 180 days on average in the blood. But fear not! Memory B cells stand by post-vaccine or post-infection, primed to mount a rapid and robust antibody response even after the original antibody "titer" in the blood stream drops, so that protective neutralizing antibody production ramps up quickly and protection is in fact still in place. More great news about mRNA vaccines is that the spike protein encoded by these vaccines also elicits a robust T cell response, which is extremely good news because even if the virus mutates to a form that the neutralizing antibodies don't recognize as well, it is much harder for a mutant virus to evade the robust T cell response stimulated by the mRNA vaccine. However, should a variant emerge that evades immunity, mRNA vaccines are by far the best bet to keep us safe because they can be modified for booster shots against the variant much faster than any other type of vaccine.


I pretty much agree with what is here although DNA seems like a safer alternative for booster shots. While many peer reviewed articles later touted the importance of B & T, the media, administration, Fauci, Pfizer and Moderna boasted about mRNA antibodies from within 30 days of vaccination. Do you think mRNA vaccines are the best boosters? Do you think there are safer alternatives for children? Does Novavax stimulat b and t cell response? Btw, the studies indicated pfizer was superior to Moderna in b and t cell response. Do you agree?
I'm not sure that I understand your comment. In general, it would be in my opinion a rather bad idea to introduce DNA into a person because, unlike mRNA, it can recombine into the DNA of the person, causing mutations in the person's DNA. Mutations are not good for us and can among other things cause cancer. Perhaps you are referring to the adenovirus vector used in the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. Adenoviruses are DNA viruses. In this class of vaccines the viral DNA is introduced into a person's body when they are vaccinated and directs the person's cells to make mRNAs, which then make the spike protein. In effect, it is adding one more "upstream" step to the mRNA vaccines because the DNA has to direct the body to synthesize the mRNA which then directs the body to make the spike protein. The people who have developed the adenovirus vaccines assert that they are safe and don't integrate into our DNA, but I personally am much more comfortable getting an mRNA vaccine than an Adenovirus DNA vaccine. I hope that helps.


I was referring to DNA vaccines that do not enter cells through adenoviruses. Specifically, vaccines by Inovio, Zydus Cadilla, and Geneone. There has been no evidence of genome integration with DNA vaccines. Genome integration is something pushed by mRNA advocates as DNA is a competing tech because it has the same rapid response capabilities as mrna and is easier to manufacture. Pure DNA does not have the side effects of the adenovirus vaccines, and I believe it is because they are not injected with 5 billion adenovirus particles (monkey virus for AZN, human cold virus for JnJ). JnJ is a large dose.

Given your answer, is it safe to say that you fear the potential but never seen future side of DNA vaccines (genome integration) more than the currently seen and unseen side effects of mRNA vaccines? Given that the P1 and P2 trial data of these DNA vaccines have much better (by leaps and bounds) safety data than mRNA vaccines, do you attribute that to smaller sample size or other factors?
DNA vaccines have not proved effective in humans, possibly because DNA not only has to get into cells like mRNAs, but also into the cell's nucleus. I've not seen any credible evidence that there are safety issues with mRNA vaccines and, unlike DNA vaccines, they've been used on millions of people. The extraordinarily rare hyper immune response to mRNA vaccines is quite possibly something those rare individuals would have had to other forms of vaccines. At this point, one thing we can feel confident about is the extremely good safety profile of mRNA vaccines.


You obviously don't feel the need to directly answer my questions, so we will have to agree to disagree on most things. I acknowledge that non-adenovirus based DNA vaccines have not been tested in millions but they don't have the grade 2 and 3 severe events that mRNA vaccines had in trials. I cannot subscribe to DNA vaccines being ineffective, given JnJ recipients currently have vax cards. I understand you conclusion on safety as it is the prevailing opinion of the medical community, albeit said rather strongly. I don't see that changing with no alternative, safe effective vaccines.


Oski003 goes down on a called Strike 3. But he is now arguing with the referee saying the last pitch should have been called a Ball. But he is willing to agree to disagree.


Wow, didn't expect this to be starred blue. I thought it was clear that the above poster was just stating unsupported conclusions and presenting a couple known facts, such as how adenovirus vaccines work.
There was no called strike three. I was just being respectful. There is plenty of credible evidence of safety issues with mRNA vaccines.

Lemmings.

Anyway, here is an article by Dr. Margaret Liu, an expert on mRNA and DNA vaccine technologies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6631684/
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

So you don't think it's possible that more "traditional" vaccines just aren't as effective against a virus like COVID-19?


I don't believe that neutralizing antibodies are the best plan of attack against a coronavirus. I don't want to get an annual mRNA shot as antibodies wane and the vaccines develop resistance every six months or so. If mRNA was safer, I would be more willing.

T cells are more universal. Inovio had a MERS Coronavirus vaccine that was advanced into phase 2 in Asia (and now middle east where MERS still is prevalent) but was shunned by Fauci due to his belief that neutralizing antibodies will solve covid. Inovio's B & T Cell data was excellent but the FDA put a hold on their phase 3 and then the DOD pulled their funding due to the impossibilities of conducting a phase 3 trial with the existence of the EUA vaccines (after heavy FDA delays). Inovio was the second vaccine to start a phase 1 but was left high and dry by Slaoui's OWS. South Korea is advancing a version of Inovio's vaccine made by Geneone. South Korea is also ordering mRNA vaccines. China is also supporting Inovio's vaccine. FDA has put Inovio on clinical hold for a year due to concerns about their ability to scale their vaccine delivery device. FDA approved Moderna's and JnJ's covid vaccine production facilities without ever seeing them.
I am an expert in this area with no conflicts of interest.

mRNA vaccines stimulate both B cell and T cell responses because they cause cells in our body to produce the SARS-CoV2 spike protein. B cells then produce neutralizing antibodies active against the spike protein, protecting us from infection by the virus. In contrast to what is sometimes reported in the news, B cell immunity doesn't necessarily ever wane. What happens is that amount of antibodies circulating in the blood stream declines over time because they live about 180 days on average in the blood. But fear not! Memory B cells stand by post-vaccine or post-infection, primed to mount a rapid and robust antibody response even after the original antibody "titer" in the blood stream drops, so that protective neutralizing antibody production ramps up quickly and protection is in fact still in place. More great news about mRNA vaccines is that the spike protein encoded by these vaccines also elicits a robust T cell response, which is extremely good news because even if the virus mutates to a form that the neutralizing antibodies don't recognize as well, it is much harder for a mutant virus to evade the robust T cell response stimulated by the mRNA vaccine. However, should a variant emerge that evades immunity, mRNA vaccines are by far the best bet to keep us safe because they can be modified for booster shots against the variant much faster than any other type of vaccine.


I pretty much agree with what is here although DNA seems like a safer alternative for booster shots. While many peer reviewed articles later touted the importance of B & T, the media, administration, Fauci, Pfizer and Moderna boasted about mRNA antibodies from within 30 days of vaccination. Do you think mRNA vaccines are the best boosters? Do you think there are safer alternatives for children? Does Novavax stimulat b and t cell response? Btw, the studies indicated pfizer was superior to Moderna in b and t cell response. Do you agree?
I'm not sure that I understand your comment. In general, it would be in my opinion a rather bad idea to introduce DNA into a person because, unlike mRNA, it can recombine into the DNA of the person, causing mutations in the person's DNA. Mutations are not good for us and can among other things cause cancer. Perhaps you are referring to the adenovirus vector used in the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. Adenoviruses are DNA viruses. In this class of vaccines the viral DNA is introduced into a person's body when they are vaccinated and directs the person's cells to make mRNAs, which then make the spike protein. In effect, it is adding one more "upstream" step to the mRNA vaccines because the DNA has to direct the body to synthesize the mRNA which then directs the body to make the spike protein. The people who have developed the adenovirus vaccines assert that they are safe and don't integrate into our DNA, but I personally am much more comfortable getting an mRNA vaccine than an Adenovirus DNA vaccine. I hope that helps.


I was referring to DNA vaccines that do not enter cells through adenoviruses. Specifically, vaccines by Inovio, Zydus Cadilla, and Geneone. There has been no evidence of genome integration with DNA vaccines. Genome integration is something pushed by mRNA advocates as DNA is a competing tech because it has the same rapid response capabilities as mrna and is easier to manufacture. Pure DNA does not have the side effects of the adenovirus vaccines, and I believe it is because they are not injected with 5 billion adenovirus particles (monkey virus for AZN, human cold virus for JnJ). JnJ is a large dose.

Given your answer, is it safe to say that you fear the potential but never seen future side of DNA vaccines (genome integration) more than the currently seen and unseen side effects of mRNA vaccines? Given that the P1 and P2 trial data of these DNA vaccines have much better (by leaps and bounds) safety data than mRNA vaccines, do you attribute that to smaller sample size or other factors?
DNA vaccines have not proved effective in humans, possibly because DNA not only has to get into cells like mRNAs, but also into the cell's nucleus. I've not seen any credible evidence that there are safety issues with mRNA vaccines and, unlike DNA vaccines, they've been used on millions of people. The extraordinarily rare hyper immune response to mRNA vaccines is quite possibly something those rare individuals would have had to other forms of vaccines. At this point, one thing we can feel confident about is the extremely good safety profile of mRNA vaccines.


You obviously don't feel the need to directly answer my questions, so we will have to agree to disagree on most things. I acknowledge that non-adenovirus based DNA vaccines have not been tested in millions but they don't have the grade 2 and 3 severe events that mRNA vaccines had in trials. I cannot subscribe to DNA vaccines being ineffective, given JnJ recipients currently have vax cards. I understand you conclusion on safety as it is the prevailing opinion of the medical community, albeit said rather strongly. I don't see that changing with no alternative, safe effective vaccines.


Oski003 goes down on a called Strike 3. But he is now arguing with the referee saying the last pitch should have been called a Ball. But he is willing to agree to disagree.


Lemmings.

Are you familiar with the apocryphal tale of lemmings? I mean, it's not true, but you are referencing the myth that they follow a crowd to their mass suicide. In this case, there is precisely one group of people who appear to be in a death cult and are willingly subjecting themselves to an increased risk of death. It's the group that you are supporting and encouraging.

Like many disingenuous political leaders in the death cult, you are fully vaccinated but encouraging other people to forego vaccination. Thousands of people per week are dying in the US of COVID right now, virtually all of whom are unvaccinated. Those are the lemmings, not the people, like you, who avail themselves of safe and effective vaccines while convincing everyone else of how dangerous they are and propagating conspiracy theories.

oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

So you don't think it's possible that more "traditional" vaccines just aren't as effective against a virus like COVID-19?


I don't believe that neutralizing antibodies are the best plan of attack against a coronavirus. I don't want to get an annual mRNA shot as antibodies wane and the vaccines develop resistance every six months or so. If mRNA was safer, I would be more willing.

T cells are more universal. Inovio had a MERS Coronavirus vaccine that was advanced into phase 2 in Asia (and now middle east where MERS still is prevalent) but was shunned by Fauci due to his belief that neutralizing antibodies will solve covid. Inovio's B & T Cell data was excellent but the FDA put a hold on their phase 3 and then the DOD pulled their funding due to the impossibilities of conducting a phase 3 trial with the existence of the EUA vaccines (after heavy FDA delays). Inovio was the second vaccine to start a phase 1 but was left high and dry by Slaoui's OWS. South Korea is advancing a version of Inovio's vaccine made by Geneone. South Korea is also ordering mRNA vaccines. China is also supporting Inovio's vaccine. FDA has put Inovio on clinical hold for a year due to concerns about their ability to scale their vaccine delivery device. FDA approved Moderna's and JnJ's covid vaccine production facilities without ever seeing them.
I am an expert in this area with no conflicts of interest.

mRNA vaccines stimulate both B cell and T cell responses because they cause cells in our body to produce the SARS-CoV2 spike protein. B cells then produce neutralizing antibodies active against the spike protein, protecting us from infection by the virus. In contrast to what is sometimes reported in the news, B cell immunity doesn't necessarily ever wane. What happens is that amount of antibodies circulating in the blood stream declines over time because they live about 180 days on average in the blood. But fear not! Memory B cells stand by post-vaccine or post-infection, primed to mount a rapid and robust antibody response even after the original antibody "titer" in the blood stream drops, so that protective neutralizing antibody production ramps up quickly and protection is in fact still in place. More great news about mRNA vaccines is that the spike protein encoded by these vaccines also elicits a robust T cell response, which is extremely good news because even if the virus mutates to a form that the neutralizing antibodies don't recognize as well, it is much harder for a mutant virus to evade the robust T cell response stimulated by the mRNA vaccine. However, should a variant emerge that evades immunity, mRNA vaccines are by far the best bet to keep us safe because they can be modified for booster shots against the variant much faster than any other type of vaccine.


I pretty much agree with what is here although DNA seems like a safer alternative for booster shots. While many peer reviewed articles later touted the importance of B & T, the media, administration, Fauci, Pfizer and Moderna boasted about mRNA antibodies from within 30 days of vaccination. Do you think mRNA vaccines are the best boosters? Do you think there are safer alternatives for children? Does Novavax stimulat b and t cell response? Btw, the studies indicated pfizer was superior to Moderna in b and t cell response. Do you agree?
I'm not sure that I understand your comment. In general, it would be in my opinion a rather bad idea to introduce DNA into a person because, unlike mRNA, it can recombine into the DNA of the person, causing mutations in the person's DNA. Mutations are not good for us and can among other things cause cancer. Perhaps you are referring to the adenovirus vector used in the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. Adenoviruses are DNA viruses. In this class of vaccines the viral DNA is introduced into a person's body when they are vaccinated and directs the person's cells to make mRNAs, which then make the spike protein. In effect, it is adding one more "upstream" step to the mRNA vaccines because the DNA has to direct the body to synthesize the mRNA which then directs the body to make the spike protein. The people who have developed the adenovirus vaccines assert that they are safe and don't integrate into our DNA, but I personally am much more comfortable getting an mRNA vaccine than an Adenovirus DNA vaccine. I hope that helps.


I was referring to DNA vaccines that do not enter cells through adenoviruses. Specifically, vaccines by Inovio, Zydus Cadilla, and Geneone. There has been no evidence of genome integration with DNA vaccines. Genome integration is something pushed by mRNA advocates as DNA is a competing tech because it has the same rapid response capabilities as mrna and is easier to manufacture. Pure DNA does not have the side effects of the adenovirus vaccines, and I believe it is because they are not injected with 5 billion adenovirus particles (monkey virus for AZN, human cold virus for JnJ). JnJ is a large dose.

Given your answer, is it safe to say that you fear the potential but never seen future side of DNA vaccines (genome integration) more than the currently seen and unseen side effects of mRNA vaccines? Given that the P1 and P2 trial data of these DNA vaccines have much better (by leaps and bounds) safety data than mRNA vaccines, do you attribute that to smaller sample size or other factors?
DNA vaccines have not proved effective in humans, possibly because DNA not only has to get into cells like mRNAs, but also into the cell's nucleus. I've not seen any credible evidence that there are safety issues with mRNA vaccines and, unlike DNA vaccines, they've been used on millions of people. The extraordinarily rare hyper immune response to mRNA vaccines is quite possibly something those rare individuals would have had to other forms of vaccines. At this point, one thing we can feel confident about is the extremely good safety profile of mRNA vaccines.


You obviously don't feel the need to directly answer my questions, so we will have to agree to disagree on most things. I acknowledge that non-adenovirus based DNA vaccines have not been tested in millions but they don't have the grade 2 and 3 severe events that mRNA vaccines had in trials. I cannot subscribe to DNA vaccines being ineffective, given JnJ recipients currently have vax cards. I understand you conclusion on safety as it is the prevailing opinion of the medical community, albeit said rather strongly. I don't see that changing with no alternative, safe effective vaccines.


Oski003 goes down on a called Strike 3. But he is now arguing with the referee saying the last pitch should have been called a Ball. But he is willing to agree to disagree.


Lemmings.

Are you familiar with the apocryphal tale of lemmings? I mean, it's not true, but you are referencing the myth that they follow a crowd to their mass suicide. In this case, there is precisely one group of people who appear to be in a death cult and are willingly subjecting themselves to an increased risk of death. It's the group that you are supporting and encouraging.

Like many disingenuous political leaders in the death cult, you are fully vaccinated but encouraging other people to forego vaccination. Thousands of people per week are dying in the US of COVID right now, virtually all of whom are unvaccinated. Those are the lemmings, not the people, like you, who avail themselves of safe and effective vaccines while convincing everyone else of how dangerous they are and propagating conspiracy theories.




Public Service Announcement for adults:

Get vaccinated, especially if you are 30+.

Wear a mask while indoors in close proximity to others, even if vaccinated, unless in a community absent known covid 19.

Wearing a mask is not a big deal. It saves lives. Let's keep business open but do it safely.

Happy? I will continue to post information as it comes available.

I live in a community with the Delta variant. I took my toddlers to a playground yesterday. My toddlers were the only people there wearing masks. I took them to one today, and it was a little better. About half the kids wore masks.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

GivemTheAxe said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

GoCal80 said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

So you don't think it's possible that more "traditional" vaccines just aren't as effective against a virus like COVID-19?


I don't believe that neutralizing antibodies are the best plan of attack against a coronavirus. I don't want to get an annual mRNA shot as antibodies wane and the vaccines develop resistance every six months or so. If mRNA was safer, I would be more willing.

T cells are more universal. Inovio had a MERS Coronavirus vaccine that was advanced into phase 2 in Asia (and now middle east where MERS still is prevalent) but was shunned by Fauci due to his belief that neutralizing antibodies will solve covid. Inovio's B & T Cell data was excellent but the FDA put a hold on their phase 3 and then the DOD pulled their funding due to the impossibilities of conducting a phase 3 trial with the existence of the EUA vaccines (after heavy FDA delays). Inovio was the second vaccine to start a phase 1 but was left high and dry by Slaoui's OWS. South Korea is advancing a version of Inovio's vaccine made by Geneone. South Korea is also ordering mRNA vaccines. China is also supporting Inovio's vaccine. FDA has put Inovio on clinical hold for a year due to concerns about their ability to scale their vaccine delivery device. FDA approved Moderna's and JnJ's covid vaccine production facilities without ever seeing them.
I am an expert in this area with no conflicts of interest.

mRNA vaccines stimulate both B cell and T cell responses because they cause cells in our body to produce the SARS-CoV2 spike protein. B cells then produce neutralizing antibodies active against the spike protein, protecting us from infection by the virus. In contrast to what is sometimes reported in the news, B cell immunity doesn't necessarily ever wane. What happens is that amount of antibodies circulating in the blood stream declines over time because they live about 180 days on average in the blood. But fear not! Memory B cells stand by post-vaccine or post-infection, primed to mount a rapid and robust antibody response even after the original antibody "titer" in the blood stream drops, so that protective neutralizing antibody production ramps up quickly and protection is in fact still in place. More great news about mRNA vaccines is that the spike protein encoded by these vaccines also elicits a robust T cell response, which is extremely good news because even if the virus mutates to a form that the neutralizing antibodies don't recognize as well, it is much harder for a mutant virus to evade the robust T cell response stimulated by the mRNA vaccine. However, should a variant emerge that evades immunity, mRNA vaccines are by far the best bet to keep us safe because they can be modified for booster shots against the variant much faster than any other type of vaccine.


I pretty much agree with what is here although DNA seems like a safer alternative for booster shots. While many peer reviewed articles later touted the importance of B & T, the media, administration, Fauci, Pfizer and Moderna boasted about mRNA antibodies from within 30 days of vaccination. Do you think mRNA vaccines are the best boosters? Do you think there are safer alternatives for children? Does Novavax stimulat b and t cell response? Btw, the studies indicated pfizer was superior to Moderna in b and t cell response. Do you agree?
I'm not sure that I understand your comment. In general, it would be in my opinion a rather bad idea to introduce DNA into a person because, unlike mRNA, it can recombine into the DNA of the person, causing mutations in the person's DNA. Mutations are not good for us and can among other things cause cancer. Perhaps you are referring to the adenovirus vector used in the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. Adenoviruses are DNA viruses. In this class of vaccines the viral DNA is introduced into a person's body when they are vaccinated and directs the person's cells to make mRNAs, which then make the spike protein. In effect, it is adding one more "upstream" step to the mRNA vaccines because the DNA has to direct the body to synthesize the mRNA which then directs the body to make the spike protein. The people who have developed the adenovirus vaccines assert that they are safe and don't integrate into our DNA, but I personally am much more comfortable getting an mRNA vaccine than an Adenovirus DNA vaccine. I hope that helps.


I was referring to DNA vaccines that do not enter cells through adenoviruses. Specifically, vaccines by Inovio, Zydus Cadilla, and Geneone. There has been no evidence of genome integration with DNA vaccines. Genome integration is something pushed by mRNA advocates as DNA is a competing tech because it has the same rapid response capabilities as mrna and is easier to manufacture. Pure DNA does not have the side effects of the adenovirus vaccines, and I believe it is because they are not injected with 5 billion adenovirus particles (monkey virus for AZN, human cold virus for JnJ). JnJ is a large dose.

Given your answer, is it safe to say that you fear the potential but never seen future side of DNA vaccines (genome integration) more than the currently seen and unseen side effects of mRNA vaccines? Given that the P1 and P2 trial data of these DNA vaccines have much better (by leaps and bounds) safety data than mRNA vaccines, do you attribute that to smaller sample size or other factors?
DNA vaccines have not proved effective in humans, possibly because DNA not only has to get into cells like mRNAs, but also into the cell's nucleus. I've not seen any credible evidence that there are safety issues with mRNA vaccines and, unlike DNA vaccines, they've been used on millions of people. The extraordinarily rare hyper immune response to mRNA vaccines is quite possibly something those rare individuals would have had to other forms of vaccines. At this point, one thing we can feel confident about is the extremely good safety profile of mRNA vaccines.


You obviously don't feel the need to directly answer my questions, so we will have to agree to disagree on most things. I acknowledge that non-adenovirus based DNA vaccines have not been tested in millions but they don't have the grade 2 and 3 severe events that mRNA vaccines had in trials. I cannot subscribe to DNA vaccines being ineffective, given JnJ recipients currently have vax cards. I understand you conclusion on safety as it is the prevailing opinion of the medical community, albeit said rather strongly. I don't see that changing with no alternative, safe effective vaccines.


Oski003 goes down on a called Strike 3. But he is now arguing with the referee saying the last pitch should have been called a Ball. But he is willing to agree to disagree.


Lemmings.

Are you familiar with the apocryphal tale of lemmings? I mean, it's not true, but you are referencing the myth that they follow a crowd to their mass suicide. In this case, there is precisely one group of people who appear to be in a death cult and are willingly subjecting themselves to an increased risk of death. It's the group that you are supporting and encouraging.

Like many disingenuous political leaders in the death cult, you are fully vaccinated but encouraging other people to forego vaccination. Thousands of people per week are dying in the US of COVID right now, virtually all of whom are unvaccinated. Those are the lemmings, not the people, like you, who avail themselves of safe and effective vaccines while convincing everyone else of how dangerous they are and propagating conspiracy theories.



My personal "favorites" are the dozens of GOP Representatives who politely decline to state if they've been vaccinated or not. I'd say that I think we all know what that means, except I guess some suckers in their districts don't.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why is Pfizer not publishing this data? They were so quick to publish preprints during the P1/2/3 process. Why is this meeting behind closed doors? I am really curious what Pfizer is going to teach the FDA here about how their vaccine actually doesn't last as long as Fauci says it does. Are they done hyping the longevity as the best vaccine and into making money from boosters? This might mean they feel that everyone who was going to get the vaccine got it already. The CDC is still trying to influence people to get it.


oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Follow up:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-officials-say-fully-vaccinated-dont-need-booster-2021-07-12/
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They have not only been vaxxed but they have access to Regeneron, reserved for the Illuminati and which was the drug that brought the Tub of Guts back from death's doorstep so that he could deliver his Covita Speech from the Truman Balcony.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

It takes a special kind of thread nowadays to get moved from Growls to Off Topic! Congrats to all who've worked so hard on this!
philbert
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


It takes a special kind of thread nowadays to get moved from Growls to Off Topic! Congrats to all who've worked so hard on this!
it was long overdue
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philbert said:

Big C said:


It takes a special kind of thread nowadays to get moved from Growls to Off Topic! Congrats to all who've worked so hard on this!
it was long overdue

Agreed. It was drowning out both of the threads about Cal Football.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.