Homesteading Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
15,046 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The current vaccines for Covid-19 are imperfect vaccines. Imperfect means it is not nearly 100% effective at preventing the replicating and spread of the disease. They are defined as leaky vaccines, meaning a person or animal vaccinated with an imperfect vaccine can become infected, replicate the virus, spread the virus to others, while being protected from serious illness.

Several doctors and scientists pointed this out during the development and testing of the Covid-19 vaccines, but the information was labeled as misinformation, and the reputations of those making the claims were attacked.

Here is an article from PBS in 2015. I wonder if they stand by the article.

This is the first time that this virus-boosting phenomenon, known as the imperfect vaccine hypothesis, has been observed experimentally.
The reason this is a problem for Marek’s disease is because the vaccine is “leaky.” A leaky vaccine is one that keeps a microbe from doing serious harm to its host, but doesn’t stop the disease from replicating and spreading to another individual. On the other hand, a “perfect” vaccine is one that sets up lifelong immunity that never wanes and blocks both infection and transmission.
It’s important to note childhood vaccines for polio, measles, mumps, rubella and smallpox aren’t leaky; they are considered “perfect” vaccines. As such, they are in no way in danger of falling prey to this phenomenon.
So we see another flaw in Fauci logic - the smallpox and polio vaccines are considered perfect vaccines while the Covid-19 vaccines are imperfect. As someone pointed out in an article I read yesterday, the dangers from a leaky vaccine were well known in the scientific community until 2020.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
It's kind of a rock and a hard place situation. A leaky vaccine can cause problems down the road, but depending on what you are dealing with, a leaky vaccine may be far better than no vaccine at all. Using the Marek's example from the article, if you don't vaccinate for Marek's, it's conceivable that you will lose all chickens. As they say near the end of the article, “Even if this evolution happens, you don’t want to be an unvaccinated chicken,” Read said. “Food chain security and everything rests on vaccines. They are the most successful and cheapest public health interventions that we’ve ever had. We just need to consider the evolutionary consequences of these ones with leaky transmission.”
 

·
Registered
Acta non verba
Joined
·
1,213 Posts
I’ve been a practicing scientist for over 30 years, have studied molecular biology, genetics, development, immunology, epidemiology, and have taught most of those subjects. During my most active publishing years, I coauthored papers in top shelf scientific journals that have been cited over 1500 times. I have been a professor at two universities, and am still active.
....
The vaccine mRNA encodes just a tiny snippet of the COVID-19 spike protein, enough to train our immune system to recognize this virus, and attack it. That is good, and is the basis for immunity in vaccinated persons. The vaccine cannot give you COVID-19. -Terry Delaney
I'm more familiar with Marek's than COVID but it seems we always have conflicting data somewhere.
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
15,046 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I'm more familiar with Marek's than COVID but it seems we always have conflicting data somewhere.
There s no conflict between your quote and the original article. What he didn't mention is that the vaccines don't and never were meant to be 100% effective at preventing Covid-19 but to greatly reduce the risk of severe illness or death.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
There s no conflict between your quote and the original article. What he didn't mention is that the vaccines don't and never were meant to be 100% effective at preventing Covid-19 but to greatly reduce the risk of severe illness or death.
I don't know if I agree with "never meant to be". If a vaccine is found that is 100% effective, I'm confidant it will go onto the market just like polio and others. I'm more of the school of thought that, while nearly everything is money-driven at some level, most medical researchers and doctors actually want to help people, not repress cures in order to milk them of their life savings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,530 Posts
I don't know if I agree with "never meant to be". If a vaccine is found that is 100% effective, I'm confidant it will go onto the market just like polio and others. I'm more of the school of thought that, while nearly everything is money-driven at some level, most medical researchers and doctors actually want to help people, not repress cures in order to milk them of their life savings.
True, but for the most part medical researchers are funded by those who want to see certain results and they lose the funding if they dont produce the desired results
It absolutely is about the money, but not the fault of the researchers
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
15,046 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I don't know if I agree with "never meant to be". If a vaccine is found that is 100% effective, I'm confidant it will go onto the market just like polio and others. I'm more of the school of thought that, while nearly everything is money-driven at some level, most medical researchers and doctors actually want to help people, not repress cures in order to milk them of their life savings.
As the covid-19 vaccines don't target the virus in the nasal passage where the infection and replication begins, I don't believe it was designed to prevent infection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
True, but for the most part medical researchers are funded by those who want to see certain results and they lose the funding if they dont produce the desired results
It absolutely is about the money, but not the fault of the researchers
In the case, I believe the "certain results" they were trying to attain was stopping covid. If a company today came up with a safe, 100% effective vaccine, that company would make billions, if not trillions of dollars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
As the covid-19 vaccines don't target the virus in the nasal passage where the infection and replication begins, I don't believe it was designed to prevent infection.
I don't think it was a matter of trying not to target the virus in the nasal passage, I think the goal was just to come up with a way to keep covid from killing people. A 100% vaccine would be fantastic. A vaccine that saves X number of lives, is great too. Fill in the X with whatever number you are comfortable with, I'm tired of that game.
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
15,046 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I don't think it was a matter of trying not to target the virus in the nasal passage, I think the goal was just to come up with a way to keep covid from killing people. A 100% vaccine would be fantastic. A vaccine that saves X number of lives, is great too. Fill in the X with whatever number you are comfortable with, I'm tired of that game.
You think that based on what? The vaccines were designed to create an IgG response, not an IgA response.

Current COVID-19 vaccine candidates are administered by injection and designed to produce an IgG response, preventing viremia and the COVID-19 syndrome. However, systemic respiratory vaccines generally provide limited protection against viral replication and shedding within the airway, as this requires a local mucosal secretory IgA response. Indeed, preclinical studies of adenovirus and mRNA candidate vaccines demonstrated persistent virus in nasal swabs despite preventing COVID-19. This suggests that systemically vaccinated patients, while asymptomatic, may still be become infected and transmit live virus from the upper airway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
You think that based on what? The vaccines were designed to create an IgG response, not an IgA response.

Current COVID-19 vaccine candidates are administered by injection and designed to produce an IgG response, preventing viremia and the COVID-19 syndrome. However, systemic respiratory vaccines generally provide limited protection against viral replication and shedding within the airway, as this requires a local mucosal secretory IgA response. Indeed, preclinical studies of adenovirus and mRNA candidate vaccines demonstrated persistent virus in nasal swabs despite preventing COVID-19. This suggests that systemically vaccinated patients, while asymptomatic, may still be become infected and transmit live virus from the upper airway.
I think it based on what I consider common sense. The information you quoted explains how it works. It doesn't at all mean to me that a group of scientists sat down and said "let's try to come up with a vaccine that doesn't target the virus in the nasal passages". This "systemic respiratory vaccines generally provide limited protection against viral replication and shedding within the airway, as this requires a local mucosal secretory IgA response." tells me that this is a known issue with respiratory vaccines, not that is was the goal.

Let's look at it another way. Do you think the people that created the vaccine purposely created one that would allow people to get the virus and still spread it, rather than creating one that they knew would be 100% effective and stop the spread of the virus? That seems to be your insinuation, and if it is, I disagree.
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
15,046 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
So the scientists are in a room and one says "Let's try a little of this and a little of that and see what happens".

Or maybe they got a copy of the Emergency Use Requirements for a Covid-19 Vaccine and developed a vaccine that met those requirements.

"that the product may be effective to prevent, diagnose, or treat such serious or life-threatening disease or condition that can be caused by SARS-CoV-2"​
The guidance also discusses the importance of ensuring that the sizes of clinical trials are large enough to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine. It conveys that the FDA would expect that a COVID-19 vaccine would prevent disease or decrease its severity in at least 50% of people who are vaccinated.​
So the requirement was to prevent disease or decrease its severity in at least 50% of people who were vaccinated. Nothing at all about stopping infection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
So the scientists are in a room and one says "Let's try a little of this and a little of that and see what happens".

Or maybe they got a copy of the Emergency Use Requirements for a Covid-19 Vaccine and developed a vaccine that met those requirements.

"that the product may be effective to prevent, diagnose, or treat such serious or life-threatening disease or condition that can be caused by SARS-CoV-2"​
The guidance also discusses the importance of ensuring that the sizes of clinical trials are large enough to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a vaccine. It conveys that the FDA would expect that a COVID-19 vaccine would prevent disease or decrease its severity in at least 50% of people who are vaccinated.​
So the requirement was to prevent disease or decrease its severity in at least 50% of people who were vaccinated. Nothing at all about stopping infection.
So, your answer is yes, you think they purposely tried to create a vaccine that wouldn't be 100% effective, and, as I said, we disagree. By the way, when they say "at least 50% effective", that doesn't mean that is the number they are striving for. If you expect that everyone has some dark and sinister motive for everything, it's easy to get to the point that that is all you see. I see it as, the vaccines we have were the best vaccines they could come up with in a limited amount of time to try and save lives. They also far exceeded the 50% goal. I understand there are people in the world that think most everyone else is terrible, out for themselves, and doesn't care about helping anyone else. I also understand that if you think not everyone is evil and that some people are good and truly want to help others that there are people that will think you are naive, or possibly just too stupid to see what is going on all around you. I disagree with that as well.
 

·
SM Entrepreneuraholic
Joined
·
15,046 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
So, your answer is yes, you think they purposely tried to create a vaccine that wouldn't be 100% effective, and, as I said, we disagree. By the way, when they say "at least 50% effective", that doesn't mean that is the number they are striving for. If you expect that everyone has some dark and sinister motive for everything, it's easy to get to the point that that is all you see. I see it as, the vaccines we have were the best vaccines they could come up with in a limited amount of time to try and save lives. They also far exceeded the 50% goal. I understand there are people in the world that think most everyone else is terrible, out for themselves, and doesn't care about helping anyone else. I also understand that if you think not everyone is evil and that some people are good and truly want to help others that there are people that will think you are naive, or possibly just too stupid to see what is going on all around you. I disagree with that as well.
Do you know what a strawman argument is?

You keep saying I said things I never said. When a company wants to provide a good or service to the government, they get the government specifications. Then the company determines the best way to meet the government's requirements. Sometimes they make the determination based on cost, sometimes on profit, sometimes in terms of long-term profit, sometimes based on time, if it is an emergency, etc. I expect both companies with mRNA vaccines knew they would be comparable in efficacy.

In this case, the government said nothing about preventing infection with the Sars-Cov2 virus. All their requirements had to do with the Covid-19 disease, so there was no requirement for a company to develop a vaccine that prevented infection. What the vaccines do is to fight the Sars-Cov2 virus and try to prevent it from causing the Covid-19 disease, or at least prevent it from causing a severe case of Covid-19 or death.

The fact that the vaccines do reduce infection seems to just be a benefit of the way the vaccines work rather than goodwill on the part of the vaccine companies.

This was an emergency situation. Companies didn't have the time to create the best vaccine they could. They had to put something together quickly that would keep people out of the hospitals.
 

·
Sock puppet reinstated
Joined
·
24,878 Posts
No vaccine prevents infection. You have to get the infection inside your body before your immune system can fight it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
Do you know what a strawman argument is?

You keep saying I said things I never said. When a company wants to provide a good or service to the government, they get the government specifications. Then the company determines the best way to meet the government's requirements. Sometimes they make the determination based on cost, sometimes on profit, sometimes in terms of long-term profit, sometimes based on time, if it is an emergency, etc. I expect both companies with mRNA vaccines knew they would be comparable in efficacy.

In this case, the government said nothing about preventing infection with the Sars-Cov2 virus. All their requirements had to do with the Covid-19 disease, so there was no requirement for a company to develop a vaccine that prevented infection. What the vaccines do is to fight the Sars-Cov2 virus and try to prevent it from causing the Covid-19 disease, or at least prevent it from causing a severe case of Covid-19 or death.

The fact that the vaccines do reduce infection seems to just be a benefit of the way the vaccines work rather than goodwill on the part of the vaccine companies.

This was an emergency situation. Companies didn't have the time to create the best vaccine they could. They had to put something together quickly that would keep people out of the hospitals.
You keep running around in circles contradicting yourself within the same post. "In this case, the government said nothing about preventing infection with the Sars-Cov2 virus. All their requirements had to do with the Covid-19 disease, so there was no requirement for a company to develop a vaccine that prevented infection. What the vaccines do is to fight the Sars-Cov2 virus and try to prevent it from causing the Covid-19 disease, or at least prevent it from causing a severe case of Covid-19 or death."

Preventing infection is what vaccines do, that is their purpose. By preventing infection, you prevent the disease. That means the areas you wrote, and that I bolded, are in direct conflict with one another.

From the CDC page. "A new CDC study provides strong evidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections in real-world conditions among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential workers. These groups are more likely than the general population to be exposed to the virus because of their occupations.

The study looked at the effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections among 3,950 study participants in six states over a 13-week period from December 14, 2020 to March 13, 2021.

Results showed that following the second dose of vaccine (the recommended number of doses), risk of infection was reduced by 90 percent two or more weeks after vaccination. Following a single dose of either vaccine, the participants’ risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 was reduced by 80 percent two or more weeks after vaccination.

"The fact that the vaccines do reduce infection seems to just be a benefit of the way the vaccines work rather than goodwill on the part of the vaccine companies" It has nothing to do with goodwill or anything else. The vaccines reduce infection because that is what vaccines do. It is the purpose of a vaccine.

and your quote here: "This was an emergency situation. Companies didn't have the time to create the best vaccine they could. They had to put something together quickly that would keep people out of the hospitals." certainly seems similar to what I wrote in the post you were answering. "I see it as, the vaccines we have were the best vaccines they could come up with in a limited amount of time to try and save lives."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,327 Posts
No vaccine prevents infection. You have to get the infection inside your body before your immune system can fight it.
Your thought is right, but stated a little clumsily...You need to be exposed to the bug for the immune response to be recruited into action...Infection implies the bugs are present internally in high enough numbers to be causing damage & symptoms.

In regrads other comment & quotes in earlier posts-- It's not accurate to say that the vax was desinged to produce an IgG response...They should have said the vax was designed, and it turns out it produces a vigorous IgG response and not so much of an IgA response.

In natural exposure & response, the bug gets in the upper airways first and mount an IgA attack on it...That reduces the amount of bugs gettig into the system, but isn't usually enough to prevent further invasion. Then wemake IgM and a couple days later IgG goes up. ..Because the vax byasses the upper airways, no real IgA response is mounted so any bugs naturally breathed in after vax will seem to be attacking a non-immune person...Once they do get past that--Surprise, surprise, Barney!

Vaccines are "designed" only t present the immune system with an antigen (live attenuated virus, dead virus, viral protein or now mRNA) without causing disease. They can't really control the response they get.

It's nice when the vax causes strong immunity. Rubella vax, for instance gves something like 95-99% perfection...Others, like pertussis (the P in DPT) only reduces illness down to around 40 or 50%, but it's much milder illness with almost no mortality for a disease that used to have a high mortality rate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,530 Posts
Do you know what a strawman argument is?

You keep saying I said things I never said. When a company wants to provide a good or service to the government, they get the government specifications. Then the company determines the best way to meet the government's requirements. Sometimes they make the determination based on cost, sometimes on profit, sometimes in terms of long-term profit, sometimes based on time, if it is an emergency, etc. I expect both companies with mRNA vaccines knew they would be comparable in efficacy.

In this case, the government said nothing about preventing infection with the Sars-Cov2 virus. All their requirements had to do with the Covid-19 disease, so there was no requirement for a company to develop a vaccine that prevented infection. What the vaccines do is to fight the Sars-Cov2 virus and try to prevent it from causing the Covid-19 disease, or at least prevent it from causing a severe case of Covid-19 or death.

The fact that the vaccines do reduce infection seems to just be a benefit of the way the vaccines work rather than goodwill on the part of the vaccine companies.

This was an emergency situation. Companies didn't have the time to create the best vaccine they could. They had to put something together quickly that would keep people out of the hospitals.
Thank you for the logical fallacy lesson😍
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top