3 ms·

Also: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33688681/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.ni

Also: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33688681/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33688681/

adriancr 5y ago
Those are interesting, although they do not help your original statement. > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ This in essence states that given a immune population (either vaccine or natural), virus will evolve strains to escape anti-bodies... which is logical... if one such variant evolves, it will have a huge potential for multiplication. It then states that strategies for viral elimination should be diversified... I would argue vaccinating everyone will lead to viral elimination... Otherwise virus is free to mutate in non-immune people. > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33688681/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33688681/ It's a study on the viruses natural mutation potential... and it's worrying... nothing regarding vaccines and so on... it's basically a warning that it can evolve to bypass vaccines and we'll be back to square one... Again... nothing to help your argument about 'leaky' vaccines... Have you read them yourself?
- codeflow2202 5y ago
  1) Wrong. It does help my original statement: "In this context, vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity (and therefore continue to permit transmission) will lead to the buildup of large standing populations of virus [47], greatly increasing the risk of immune escape." ... "Thus, our findings speak to the need for both public health and biomedical intervention strategies targeting SARS-CoV-2 to be designed to account for the risk of rapid evolutionary response to biomedical interventions." 2)Wrong again: "In the presence of mixed sera from multiple previously infected and/or vaccinated individuals these infections would create the appropriate conditions both for genetic recombination to occur, and for selection to rapidly sort multiple recombination-generated combinations of input immune evasion, cell entry and replication impacting mutations." My original point is that people that made use of covid mrna therapy can be the source of new versions of the virus (because the therapy doesn't prevent infection nor spreading of the virus). While it's true that the second study talks about mutations in both vaccinated and unvaccinated hosts, the first is clearly looking into the spike protein based therapy: "The spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 is the molecular target for many vaccines and antibody-based prophylactics aimed at bringing COVID-19 under control. Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for these biomedical interventions."
  - adriancr 5y ago
    > "vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity" Here's the flaw in your argument. All vaccines provide immunity so the study does not apply. > because the therapy doesn't prevent infection nor spreading of the virus) Wrong. Biontech - 95% of the population is immune. It prevents spread to 95% of vaccinated people. The rest for some reason or another it doesn't work. So you build your whole argument on a logical fallacy. I think I repeated this a few times so no point in continuing if you can't wrap your head around this.
    - codeflow2202 5y ago
      Wrong. Again: Pfizer's chief scientific officer, Mikael Dolsten, said the recently reported dip in the vaccine's effectiveness in Israel was mostly due to infections in people who had been vaccinated in January or February. The country's health ministry said vaccine effectiveness in preventing both infection and symptomatic disease fell to 64% in June. 95% is based on faulty/old data. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizer-ask-fda-authorize-booster-dose-covid-vaccine-delta-variant-spreads-2021-07-08/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
      - adriancr 5y ago
        > vaccine effectiveness in preventing both infection Oh man... so you do agree with me it prevents infection... You are contradicting yourself... So, its not 95 its 64, it still gives immunity... check mate?
        codeflow2202 5y ago
        Wrong. Definition of immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm If it prevents infection in 64% of cases it doesn't grant immunity.

Also: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33688681/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33688681/

adriancr 5y ago

Those are interesting, although they do not help your original statement. > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ This in essence states that given a immune population (either vaccine or natural), virus will evolve strains to escape anti-bodies... which is logical... if one such variant evolves, it will have a huge potential for multiplication. It then states that strategies for viral elimination should be diversified... I would argue vaccinating everyone will lead to viral elimination... Otherwise virus is free to mutate in non-immune people. > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33688681/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33688681/ It's a study on the viruses natural mutation potential... and it's worrying... nothing regarding vaccines and so on... it's basically a warning that it can evolve to bypass vaccines and we'll be back to square one... Again... nothing to help your argument about 'leaky' vaccines... Have you read them yourself?

codeflow2202 5y ago
1) Wrong. It does help my original statement: "In this context, vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity (and therefore continue to permit transmission) will lead to the buildup of large standing populations of virus [47], greatly increasing the risk of immune escape." ... "Thus, our findings speak to the need for both public health and biomedical intervention strategies targeting SARS-CoV-2 to be designed to account for the risk of rapid evolutionary response to biomedical interventions." 2)Wrong again: "In the presence of mixed sera from multiple previously infected and/or vaccinated individuals these infections would create the appropriate conditions both for genetic recombination to occur, and for selection to rapidly sort multiple recombination-generated combinations of input immune evasion, cell entry and replication impacting mutations." My original point is that people that made use of covid mrna therapy can be the source of new versions of the virus (because the therapy doesn't prevent infection nor spreading of the virus). While it's true that the second study talks about mutations in both vaccinated and unvaccinated hosts, the first is clearly looking into the spike protein based therapy: "The spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 is the molecular target for many vaccines and antibody-based prophylactics aimed at bringing COVID-19 under control. Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for these biomedical interventions."
- adriancr 5y ago
  > "vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity" Here's the flaw in your argument. All vaccines provide immunity so the study does not apply. > because the therapy doesn't prevent infection nor spreading of the virus) Wrong. Biontech - 95% of the population is immune. It prevents spread to 95% of vaccinated people. The rest for some reason or another it doesn't work. So you build your whole argument on a logical fallacy. I think I repeated this a few times so no point in continuing if you can't wrap your head around this.
  - codeflow2202 5y ago
    Wrong. Again: Pfizer's chief scientific officer, Mikael Dolsten, said the recently reported dip in the vaccine's effectiveness in Israel was mostly due to infections in people who had been vaccinated in January or February. The country's health ministry said vaccine effectiveness in preventing both infection and symptomatic disease fell to 64% in June. 95% is based on faulty/old data. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizer-ask-fda-authorize-booster-dose-covid-vaccine-delta-variant-spreads-2021-07-08/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
    - adriancr 5y ago
      > vaccine effectiveness in preventing both infection Oh man... so you do agree with me it prevents infection... You are contradicting yourself... So, its not 95 its 64, it still gives immunity... check mate?
      - codeflow2202 5y ago
        Wrong. Definition of immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm If it prevents infection in 64% of cases it doesn't grant immunity.