COVID-19 (Coronavirus) discussion

[danswan]

It's what you said... Sceptics vs Sheep. I class sheep as people who just do as they're told with no investigation, and it is a derogatory term. I class a sceptic as someone who questions, I do not consider this a derogatory term. Both groups in your descriptions are potentially sheep. Only one group trusts recognisible authorities on the subject matter (I wouldn't class behaving that way as being a sheep), the other trust people with no recognisable authority.

OK then. My point was supposed to be that I think there's loads of people who aren't likely to pay attention to much at all, but are likely to behave in the ways I mentioned. And that I'm one of them. I guess I made that point badly.

Re-reading what I posted originally and I'm still struggling to find anything that may cause offence or even anything more than mild interest. Perhaps I used some trigger words. It was just a little 2p worth from someone not quite as invested as some are, it seems.

It's quite fascinating how quickly and tenaciously that was seized upon

 

[Freakbro]

Not sure why I posted, maybe just to get my MM post count up

GD posts don't increase your post count anymore

BowdonUK (a user on here) has the same thing due to Long COVID and it's also pretty common in ME/CFS (which as I've said before is very similar to Long COVID).

GGizmo is BowdonUK

 

[danswan]

GD posts don't increase your post count anymore

Ahh ****. I'm out

 

[SexyGreyFox]

But (afaik) it would've reduced that chance of passing it on due to a shorter infection window.

Infection Control are on the floor below, if I bump into one I'll ask.
Not denying it though I just thought you could catch it as easily with less symptoms.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

GGizmo is BowdonUK

Thank God for that, I've been looking for him and thought he'd died
I even said to the wife a couple of weeks ago there was a long Covid sufferer but he's gone and I got worried.

 

[Unseul]

Infection Control are on the floor below, if I bump into one I'll ask.
Not denying it though I just thought you could catch it as easily with less symptoms.

It depends on how you word the question , and how much time they have to explain. You can still absolutely catch it. But your body will react faster in fighting it off, because it doesn't have to develop the right approach to it, it will also detect it faster, since it will be able to recognise it sooner. Overall, this means you kill it off faster, and it never reaches the same levels as it would if you weren't vaccinated.

This in turn has the knock on effect of meaning each cough etc, will carry less of a viral load, for you in turn to pass it on to someone else.

So if you get hit with 100 viruses, they double every 4 hours (not suggesting this is the correct timing in the slightest). Your body recognises them, reacts, and your coughs only pass on 50 to the next person, who is also vaccinated, they have in turn more time to react, and only pass on less to the next.

Now if you weren't vaccinated, you could easily be passing on 8x etc higher viral load (again, made up number, though the numbers are available, and if I recall it's quite a big difference), which means whoever catches it from you, starts from a far higher point, vaccinated or not, they get hit with a harder dose.

The herd effect comes in twice here, the lower numbers can in some diseases simply prevent spread entirely, usually illnesses with longer life cycles, so people never even reach infectious levels. The other, is someone who is immunocompromised, or cannot take the vaccine for whatever reason, should they catch it in a herd vaccinated situation, likely gets a far smaller starting dose, giving them their best chance of survival etc.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

It depends on how you word the question , and how much time they have to explain. You can still absolutely catch it. But your body will react faster in fighting it off, because it doesn't have to develop the right approach to it, it will also detect it faster, since it will be able to recognise it sooner. Overall, this means you kill it off faster, and it never reaches the same levels as it would if you weren't vaccinated.

This in turn has the knock on effect of meaning each cough etc, will carry less of a viral load, for you in turn to pass it on to someone else.

So if you get hit with 100 viruses, they double every 4 hours (not suggesting this is the correct timing in the slightest). Your body recognises them, reacts, and your coughs only pass on 50 to the next person, who is also vaccinated, they have in turn more time to react, and only pass on less to the next.

Now if you weren't vaccinated, you could easily be passing on 8x etc higher viral load (again, made up number, though the numbers are available, and if I recall it's quite a big difference), which means whoever catches it from you, starts from a far higher point, vaccinated or not, they get hit with a harder dose.

The herd effect comes in twice here, the lower numbers can in some diseases simply prevent spread entirely, usually illnesses with longer life cycles, so people never even reach infectious levels. The other, is someone who is immunocompromised, or cannot take the vaccine for whatever reason, should they catch it in a herd vaccinated situation, likely gets a far smaller starting dose, giving them their best chance of survival etc.

Makes total sense because I'm not a CT'er
Thanks for that, I won't need to ask now.

 

[ltron]

GD posts don't increase your post count anymore



GGizmo is BowdonUK

I'd wondered where he'd got to .

 

[Rroff]

This in turn has the knock on effect of meaning each cough etc, will carry less of a viral load, for you in turn to pass it on to someone else.

So if you get hit with 100 viruses, they double every 4 hours (not suggesting this is the correct timing in the slightest). Your body recognises them, reacts, and your coughs only pass on 50 to the next person, who is also vaccinated, they have in turn more time to react, and only pass on less to the next.

Now if you weren't vaccinated, you could easily be passing on 8x etc higher viral load (again, made up number, though the numbers are available, and if I recall it's quite a big difference), which means whoever catches it from you, starts from a far higher point, vaccinated or not, they get hit with a harder dose.

Pretty sure with COVID they determined the vaccines don't reduce peak viral load much (though also complicated by the virus shed by vaccinated individuals having a slightly lower possibility of being viable "culture-positive" to cause an infection), but do reduce the window when someone is infectious quite substantially - unfortunately that isn't as meaningful as was made out as around 2/3rds of transmission events typically still occur inside the reduced window however. This can still play into herd immunity by making the environment harder for the virus to traverse which as you mentioned later in the post comes into play twice.

 

[Unseul]

Pretty sure with COVID they determined the vaccines don't reduce peak viral load much (though also complicated by the virus shed by vaccinated individuals having a slightly lower possibility of being viable "culture-positive" to cause an infection), but do reduce the window when someone is infectious quite substantially - unfortunately that isn't as meaningful as was made out as around 2/3rds of transmission events typically still occur inside the reduced window however. This can still play into herd immunity by making the environment harder for the virus to traverse which as you mentioned later in the post comes into play twice.

Interesting, taking a quick whizz around looking into this now....

Effect of Delta variant on viral burden and vaccine effectiveness against new SARS-CoV-2 infections in the UK - PMC

The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections requires continuous re-evaluation, given the increasingly dominant B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. In this study, ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Nice paper to read the discussion of. Highlights, vaccinated are less likely to get covid (suggesting you kill it off before it's even an issue/noticed), earlier on viral load was lower in vaccinated, but new strains of covid seem to balance this out (perhaps as the vaccine is less effective however....), vaccinated still seem to be infected less, and for a shorter period (infectious for a shorter period). They suspect it's possible that although it shows an equally high load, a greater percentage may be non-viable.

It suffers from all the same drawbacks as other similar studies (don't know necessarily if unvaccinated had been previously infected, giving them greater immune response etc) which may also explain why as time went by vaccinated and unvaccinated had more similar results, don't know exactly if the infection occurred before vaccination etc etc.

However, the other papers I checked (and referred to this one), all seemed to be in the 100s of participants, this was a UK wide initiative, and we're talking 100s of thousands of participants, which gives a much better window into the info.

 

[Freefaller]

And that's kind of the point I'm making, people say it's my choice and like i said i respect that however how can someone who's made that choice know that they’re not going to pass it onto someone with a compromised immune system?

It's not like people on immunosuppressant drugs go around with a sign around their neck or that we should tell them they need to isolate themselves until their immune system recovers whenever that maybe.

And in an ideal world that would be great - but for example if I crack open a bag of peanuts on a train or in a public place and someone has an allergic reaction - how was i supposed to know? People can't walk on eggshells or deny their lives for others all the time. Now don't get me wrong, if I knew someone was allergic, I'd not kick up a fuss - i.e. when the trolley dolleys on a plane say "we won't be serving nuts because of allergies" - I'm not one of those entitled people that would moan about it. The thought doesn't even enter my mind about the inconvenience, i just accept the fact that someone could potentially die if i eat this food.

unfortunately as callous as it sounds, the world cannot stop for everyone that feels blighted by it or that has been dealt a rough hand. If we lived in a society that was less rigid, and less capitalistic and materialistic i think it would be a lot different.

I think despite the conversation we're largely in agreement - people in general are good people, but because there's so many of us, it skews what "good" means and how it's viewed.

I mean a lot of articles agree with the majority in the thread but as often with caveats.

Here this article (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10477745/) states:

• Prioritising vaccination based on age groups with high daily person-to-person interactions can lead to significant reductions in total fatalities (up to 40%) when daily rollout rates are fast and children are eligible for vaccination. this ties in with what @Unseul was mentioning earlier
• If rollout rates are slower and overall vaccination coverage is high, prioritising the vaccination of the elderly is the most effective strategy, resulting in up to 10% fewer fatalities.
• When children are not eligible for vaccination, the differences between priority strategies become smaller.
• The impact of behavioural parameters, such as self-protection levels, is critical in determining the optimal vaccine prioritisation strategy.

Caveats:

• The model is based on several assumptions and simplifications, and the results may vary depending on the specific parameters used.
• The study focuses on a hypothetical emerging infectious disease similar to COVID-19, and the findings may not be directly applicable to other diseases.
• The study does not consider the potential impact of new variants or the waning of vaccine immunity over time.

then you have this article:

The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good

Vaccination policies have shifted dramatically during COVID-19 with the rapid emergence of population-wide vaccine mandates, domestic vaccine passports and differential restrictions based on vaccination status. While these policies have prompted ethical, scientific, practical, legal and...

gh.bmj.com

They conclude that COVID vaccine mandates and passports have had unintended negative consequences. These include a decrease in public trust, vaccine confidence, and social well-being. They suggest that these policies should be re-evaluated and that a more sustainable approach to increasing vaccination rates may be through public consultation and trust-based strategies.

Caveats to this conclusion are that they did not provide a comprehensive overview of the arguments for and against COVID vaccine mandates and passports. Additionally, the authors did not fully examine the contribution of these policies to COVID-19 morbidity and mortality reduction.

The figures around the deaths are still overwhelmingly in the elderly:

COVID-19 confirmed deaths in England (to 31 December 2022): report

www.gov.uk

Coronavirus Age, Sex, Demographics (COVID-19) - Worldometer

Age, sex, demographic characteristics such as pre-existing conditions, of coronavirus cases of patients infected with COVID-19 and deaths, as observed in studies on the virus outbreak originating from Wuhan, China

www.worldometers.info

this shows much of the same and comorbidities still factor hugely, also interestingly seems to show very low number of deaths "in spite of comorbidities or age" - meaning that covid still kills healthy people, just a very small amount only.


this one is quite interesting:

Model-informed COVID-19 vaccine prioritization strategies by age and serostatus - PMC

Limited initial supply of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine raises the question of how to prioritize available doses. Here, we used a mathematical model to compare five age-stratified prioritization strategies. A highly effective transmission-blocking vaccine ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It discusses factors that influence the outcome of vaccine distribution decisions, like vaccine efficacy and population demographics. The study found that prioritising adults over 60 minimised mortality and years of life lost in most scenarios. However, prioritising adults between 20 and 49 minimised cumulative incidence of the virus. The best strategies for minimising mortality varied across countries and depended on factors like transmission rate and vaccination rollout speed. The authors conclude that this framework can be used to compare the impacts of different prioritisation strategies across different contexts.

One caveat is that the study did not explicitly consider the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as mask-wearing and social distancing, which could affect the results. Additionally, the study relied on estimates of epidemiological parameters, such as age-structured seroprevalence and infection fatality rate, which can vary across populations.

COVID-19 Vaccination for People with Comorbidities - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

vaccination in people with comorbidities. It discusses the safety and efficacy of the vaccines in this population, and summarises guidelines from the WHO, USA, and UK.

Important points from this article are that individuals with comorbidities are at higher risk of severe COVID, but the vaccines have shown similar efficacy and safety in people with and without comorbidities. The article also notes that there is limited data on severely immunocompromised patients, and more research is needed.

Health Alert on mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Safety | Florida Department of Health

Health Alert on mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Safety The COVID-19 pandemic brought many challenges that the health and medical field have never encountered. Although the initial response was led by a sense of urgency and crisis management, the State Surgeon General believes it is critical that as public...

www.floridahealth.gov

vaccine safety. It discusses a substantial increase in Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports from Florida after the COVID vaccine rollout. 1 The State Surgeon General is notifying the health care sector and public of this increase. There is a need for additional unbiased research to better understand the COVId vaccines' short- and long-term effects. The findings in Florida are consistent with various studies that continue to uncover such risks

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2103700118

This is an article about prioritising Cvoid vaccination by age. It discusses the need for prioritisation strategies to save the most lives and maximise years of life saved. The authors argue that vaccinating the elderly first would save the most lives despite their lower life expectancy. This is supported by data from the United States, Germany, South Korea, Brazil, and Amazonas state. However, the authors also note that vaccine hesitancy among the elderly and non-compliance with prioritisation strategies could threaten the effectiveness of this approach.


what I'm getting at is there are a lot of trusted sources out there but they all give good conclusions but with a long list of caveats and people latch onto the caveats. Should the caveats be ignored? for the most part these are generalisations and generally can be subsumed into the laws of averages and percentages. However, some people ARE wary of these caveats - the reassurance was not great from teh government and the narrative.

I think what was missing during the pandemic was honesty. "We don't know" "Yes the vaccine may harm a small number of people, but it'll save more lives than not taking it" etc... sure I'm not a spin doctor or comms wizz (can you tell? ) but there was honesty missing.

What you, @Unseul and others have said about vaccination to reduce viral load and the impact of transmission is of course correct, and I speak as someone that did get 2 jabs, but I wouldn't have cared being in the room with a bunch of unvaccinated people, as really it's none of my business. Going back to your immunocompromised example, if one of them said, I have issues, please wear a mask, or don't hug me today, or don't eat peanuts or whatever, I and I'm sure everyone in this thread would gladly comply. I think what a lot of people that are on the other side of the fence aren't happy about was the way it was done, and the fearmongering and unjustified segregation in society. there are lots of studies on the socio-economic inequalities of the vaccine roll out too, but that's a huge other debate.

I think if you look at the side effects it isn't any different to any medication, but I think the thing that makes people uneasy is the sheer volume of people taking it which means that by necessity the number of side effects reported will hugely increase. I mean myocarditis is now an accepted side effect especially common in young males under 25 especially after the second dose - whilst people generally respond well to the treatment that awareness of potential symptoms and what to look out for was not known because they were not that open or honest about it.

Our dear Tephnos has tinnitus, but that is also a suspected side effect of the vaccine - but also he could have got that from covid itself. Who knows.

I guess it's a gamble, do you risk getting long covid or getting some sort short/medium or longer term affliction via getting a bad case of covid if you're unvaccinated or do you go in with your eyes wide open have the vaccine but also have a responsible and reactive health service that will monitor/treat side effects from the vaccine. Let's face it the NHS is under so much strain that won't happen.

I'm not arguing against the vaccine, I'm suggesting that people being sceptical and cautious about taking it is perfectly justified, even more so if under 50 and healthy, but I also accept that the chance of getting a side effect which is dangerous is low, just like dying directly from covid is low if you're in that age group, but the longer term issues of the infection are not trivial. Ultimately it's impossible to run that control experiment, and who would want to segregate 100k+ people needed for a proper control trial to check the effectiveness of a vaccine or monitor the impact of the virus? I couldn't make that decision. With what I know now, I have largely been unaffected by covid (I don't think I have had it or at least was asymptomatic) so would it make a difference if I didn't take it? Probably not, other than travel would have been a damned site more annoying.

Sorry for the word dump. All in all I'm not disagreeing with anything you or others have said, I just think we need to be less aggressive towards people who are sceptical or worried - if anything that entrenches people more against vaccinations in the future. This is part of the problem with what happened was the extreme behaviours on both ends and the absolute language used.

 

[Rroff]

However, the other papers I checked (and referred to this one), all seemed to be in the 100s of participants, this was a UK wide initiative, and we're talking 100s of thousands of participants, which gives a much better window into the info.

I skimmed over a few papers on it awhile back and it depends a lot on the specific strain and vaccine - with some more effective combinations than others but the general take has been along those lines - it is quite complicated because amongst other things depending on strain and vaccine just because someone is shedding a large amount of the virus doesn't necessarily mean it is viable for infection with the vaccines having anywhere from a small or very large impact on that aspect.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I just think we need to be less aggressive towards people who are sceptical or worried

It's OK to be sceptical and worried but when people keep spouting complete garbage and even when presented with the evidence won't take it in then that's another level.

eg a poster has twice said that the vaxx is gene therapy but he won't back down when told by several people it isn't.
Twice he said we made a special Vaccine Damage Payment for Covid and they haven't done one before, no we haven't, it was added to the 1979 one.

It would be nice if these CT'ers at least acknowledged "Oh yeah I see that now" but they won't.

 

[Unseul]

I skimmed over a few papers on it awhile back and it depends a lot on the specific strain and vaccine - with some more effective combinations than others but the general take has been along those lines - it is quite complicated because amongst other things depending on strain and vaccine just because someone is shedding a large amount of the virus doesn't necessarily mean it is viable for infection with the vaccines having anywhere from a small or very large impact on that aspect.

Yep, saw some mentioning omicron etc (the latest paper from 24 I think that was). The one I linked is very good (though very big, discussion is massive on it's own!) simply due to the size.

It's a tough topic, since those pushing vaccines, like myself here, are expected to present a ton of evidence, reasoning etc, and unfortunately half of that is very complicated and hard to understand (not claiming to get it all myself), but others can make outrageous claims like it causing MS in 1 in 300 (higher rate than in the UK in general), and when you ask about their source you're expected to "do your own research".

It's also not great that people do say that yes, vaccines can cause harm, especially when combined with the fact that covid probably isn't that bad for healthy people for the most part. People don't seem to understand that on one side the vaccines cause harm 0.02% of the time, covid is doing it 5-10% of the time, but vague wording still makes it sound bad.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

By lessoning the severity you shortened the duration when you were contagious and risked spreading to immunocompromised people.

Also another overlooked factor, the longer your virally loaded the more chance of mutation.
I remember reading of a guy who was very ill pre COVID, he caught it and was hospitalised and was suffering COVID for months.
He was on pretty much life support for all that time and did eventually succumb.
They found multiple mutations within his tests.
Luckily due to his placement they never went anywhere as he was within a controlled environment.

In regards the Lab side. This https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(24)00901-2 was one of the last full studies I saw and it basically concludes that its pretty much statistically impossible someone in the lab leaked the virus and it ended up infecting the wet market where as its statistically almost guaranteed that the wet market infected humans.

Unfortunately the chinese didn't store the market tests well enough to repeatedly drill down and retest.
The WHO have been asking for more sharing but from what I can tell there isn't much left to share.
(Unless the Chinese are specifically lying about it all)

Also the human infesting the market would have required the virus to jump species to the market, something that can happen, but is very very unlikely in the timescales we are talking here.
Its possible, but its basically statistically impossible.

I have worked on two sites that have bio control. One in food and one in pharma, and I don't think people get how rigid and strict and how utterly unlikely it is that "stuff" will escape.
Compared to a wet market environment, I know which one I would say it happened in from an unscientific perspective.
I guess the Wuhan lab leak works for certain peoples biases though.

One thing this thread has done though is made me think I need to get a docs appointment.
I do find I get a bit out of breath at times and I know I have had COVID at least twice so maybe I have some remaining hang over from that.
Last case was early 2024

 

[Nutty667]

I have worked on two sites that have bio control. One in food and one in pharma, and I don't think people get how rigid and strict and how utterly unlikely it is that "stuff" will escape.
Compared to a wet market environment, I know which one I would say it happened in from an unscientific perspective.
I guess the Wuhan lab leak works for certain peoples biases though.

It's a very strange coincidence that the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention facility, was in the middle of moving buildings right near where the Covid virus was 1st detected. As stated in news article, it didn't have as strict protocols as the Virology institute.

A Danish head of a WHO team said;

“It’s interesting that the lab relocated on the 2nd of December 2019: That’s the period where it all started,” Embarek, a food safety and animal diseases expert, said in a documentary that aired on the Danish television channel TV2.

“We know that when you move a lab, it disturbs everything…That entire procedure is always a disruptive element in the daily work routine of a lab,”

"In the documentary, Embarek also revealed that his team was pressured by Chinese officials not to pursue the lab leak theory."

 

[Rroff]

Also another overlooked factor, the longer your virally loaded the more chance of mutation.

Yeah that is an important side often overlooked.

In regards the Lab side. This https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(24)00901-2 was one of the last full studies I saw and it basically concludes that its pretty much statistically impossible someone in the lab leaked the virus and it ended up infecting the wet market where as its statistically almost guaranteed that the wet market infected humans.

There are several bits of information that are too often overlooked including the presence of S and L type variants of COVID (I believe what is denoted A and B in that article) present from almost if not day 1 in Wuhan - which almost certainly means it was in circulation, in humans, for at least a month elsewhere before the emergence at the market. Personally I don't hold too much by the presence of zoonotic genetic material as presented in that article though as there is far too much missing information and the lack of intermediate variants of the virus found in animals (also compared to the nearest known ancestor in the wild). Not sure we'll ever know the truth but currently I hold most of the leading possibilities as equally plausible and and equally falling short of a conclusive explanation.

 

[Simon]

It's OK to be sceptical and worried but when people keep spouting complete garbage and even when presented with the evidence won't take it in then that's another level.

eg a poster has twice said that the vaxx is gene therapy but he won't back down when told by several people it isn't.
Twice he said we made a special Vaccine Damage Payment for Covid and they haven't done one before, no we haven't, it was added to the 1979 one.

It would be nice if these CT'ers at least acknowledged "Oh yeah I see that now" but they won't.

No worth replying as you used CT. Nor did I say gene twice. Freefaller has said what I would have said if I was as good at posting as him.

He’s a back at you, ‘I see that now’

mRNA: Vaccine or Gene Therapy? The Safety Regulatory Issues - PMC

COVID-19 vaccines were developed and approved rapidly in response to the urgency created by the pandemic. No specific regulations existed at the time they were marketed. The regulatory agencies therefore adapted them as a matter of urgency. Now that ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

5. Conclusions​

Although the principle of action of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines corresponds to the definition of gene therapy products (GTPs), they have been excluded from the regulation of GTPs by the regulatory agencies (US-FDA and EMA) and subjected to the regulation of vaccines against infectious diseases. No scientific or ethical justification is given for this exclusion, and there remain inconsistencies in the regulations. For example, under European and French regulations, a vaccine must contain an antigen, which is not the case for mRNA vaccines. These products could be considered “pro-vaccine”. In fact, mRNA vaccines do not contain an antigen, but make the vaccinee produce it. They can therefore be classed as pro-drugs or “pro-vaccine”.

several sources. Not just his opinion.

I do see a uk bias here on a global issue too. I mean you guys mentioning ‘vaccine’ ignore the fact there are several versions all with different testing and ways of working.

 

[Unseul]

No worth replying as you used CT. Nor did I say gene twice. Freefaller has said what I would have said if I was as good at posting as him.

He’s a back at you, ‘I see that now’

mRNA: Vaccine or Gene Therapy? The Safety Regulatory Issues - PMC

COVID-19 vaccines were developed and approved rapidly in response to the urgency created by the pandemic. No specific regulations existed at the time they were marketed. The regulatory agencies therefore adapted them as a matter of urgency. Now that ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

5. Conclusions​

Although the principle of action of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines corresponds to the definition of gene therapy products (GTPs), they have been excluded from the regulation of GTPs by the regulatory agencies (US-FDA and EMA) and subjected to the regulation of vaccines against infectious diseases. No scientific or ethical justification is given for this exclusion, and there remain inconsistencies in the regulations. For example, under European and French regulations, a vaccine must contain an antigen, which is not the case for mRNA vaccines. These products could be considered “pro-vaccine”. In fact, mRNA vaccines do not contain an antigen, but make the vaccinee produce it. They can therefore be classed as pro-drugs or “pro-vaccine”.

several sources. Not just his opinion.

I do see a uk bias here on a global issue too. I mean you guys mentioning ‘vaccine’ ignore the fact there are several versions all with different testing and ways of working.

That articles author seems to cut short their definitions...

Yes, mRNA vaccines fall under the first part of the definitions I could find that mentions the what the product is made of, however they fall down at the part where the definitions go on to mention that they alter the persons genetic material.

The article itself goes on to say how the FDA and EMA define it, and neither of the definitions would include the mRNA vaccine for covid.

"According to the FDA [12], gene therapy is a medical intervention based on the modification of the genetic material of living cells. Cells may be altered in vivo by gene therapy given directly to the subject.

According to EMA 2009 [13], a GTP: (a) contains an active substance which contains or consists of a recombinant nucleic acid used in or administered to human beings with a view to regulating, repairing, replacing, adding or deleting a genetic sequence; and (b) in its therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic effects, relates directly to the recombinant nucleic acid sequence it contains, or to the product of the genetic expression of this sequence."

Reading on, their main issue seems to be more the old definition of vaccine that the groups were using. It's a new treatment, that needed new definitions. It doesn't modify genetic code, and therefore can easily be not considered a gene therapy. And yes, not every institution have fully updated their definition of a vaccine yet.

This is an article rather than a study. Giving a point of view. A point of view that had it's publication paid for by a group that doesn't seem to like mainstream science. Going to their website, the topic I was recommended was this: https://www.aimsib.org/2024/03/31/a...meopathie-grace-au-concept-de-leau-quantique/

Homeopathy. Sorry, but any serious scientific group should not be pushing homeopathy.

 

[Murphy]

And in an ideal world that would be great - but for example if I crack open a bag of peanuts on a train or in a public place and someone has an allergic reaction - how was i supposed to know? People can't walk on eggshells or deny their lives for others all the time. Now don't get me wrong, if I knew someone was allergic, I'd not kick up a fuss - i.e. when the trolley dolleys on a plane say "we won't be serving nuts because of allergies" - I'm not one of those entitled people that would moan about it. The thought doesn't even enter my mind about the inconvenience, i just accept the fact that someone could potentially die if i eat this food.

Because virus' are not even remotely like allergies, peanut or not.

unfortunately as callous as it sounds, the world cannot stop for everyone that feels blighted by it or that has been dealt a rough hand. If we lived in a society that was less rigid, and less capitalistic and materialistic i think it would be a lot different.

Getting a vaccine is not the end of the world. You're using absurdo reductum's and not in a good way, not in a way that proves a point but in a way that makes your point look silly.

I mean a lot of articles agree with the majority in the thread but as often with caveats.

Articles that i CBA to read, let alone whatever gish gallop you say after this sentence, that AFAICT has almost nothing to do with how achieving herd immunity through vaccinations protect the most vulnerable in society.

Like i said i support your right to choose whether to put the most vulnerable in society at risk because you want to treat your body like a temple, it's not a choice i would personally make but you be you.