Vaccines are Pushing Pathogens to Evolve

a reply to: MykeNukem

The key point is that it provided protection from smallpox.

To make sure that I am not misconstruing this statement, are you saying that the COVID vaccines are ineffective?


I think you are mistaken. The data refutes it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MykeNukem

The key point is that it provided protection from smallpox.

To make sure that I am not misconstruing this statement, are you saying that the COVID vaccines are ineffective?


I think you are mistaken. The data refutes it.

I said that the smallpox vaccine protected you against catching smallpox.

The C-Jab doesn't protect you from catching the Vid.

At least not in a comparable way, that's for sure.

A few questions if I may.

Is the smallpox vaccine 100 percent effective.

Does the smallpox vaccine have any adverse side effects.

Can the smallpox vaccine cause death.



a reply to: MykeNukem

originally posted by: nonspecific

A few questions if I may.

Is the smallpox vaccine 100 percent effective.

Does the smallpox vaccine have any adverse side effects.

Can the smallpox vaccine cause death.



a reply to: MykeNukem

Would you like to do a comparison with ANY of the C-Jabs?

It wouldn't look pretty. I'd recommend against it, unless you want to change your mind.

We don't know enough about any of the covid 19 vaccinations to do a fair analysis yet do we.

If we go with some predictions most people vaccinated will be dead this time next year right?

I'm happy to come back in a few years and we can have another look if you like.



a reply to: MykeNukem

originally posted by: nonspecific
We don't know enough about any of the covid 19 vaccinations to do a fair analysis yet do we.

If we go with some predictions most people vaccinated will be dead this time next year right?

I'm happy to come back in a few years and we can have another look if you like.



a reply to: MykeNukem

Then, why are some people acting like we DO know enough?

I completely agree with you.

We don't know enough to do a fair analysis, yet.

Long term effects, especially.

Though we can see that they aren't very successful at actually protecting you from contracting the virus, unfortunately.

The same reason some people are saying we don't know enough or that vaccines will kill us all or make us magnetic.

Find enough people and one of them will say pretty much everything you could imagine.

Are we looking for a vaccine that will 100 percent stop everyone in the world from contracting covid 19 with zero adverse reactions? That's a pretty big task don't you think?

Or are we looking for a vaccine to slow the spread and cause the minimum number of deaths or long term issues to contain a global pandemic? Once that's done there's time to look at perfecting the vaccines.





a reply to: MykeNukem

Most here have a limited grasp on science these days.

Remember when ATS was all about science? I do.

Trying to convince people who are living in another reality isn't going to work.

So now, I mostly try ridicule.

Maybe if people are made to look foolish, that may change them. But I doubt it.

It's sad what ATS had become. But I'll hang on until the "fever" breaks on people who refuse to live in the real world, and want to push lies.

a reply to: Phage

originally posted by: nonspecific
The same reason some people are saying we don't know enough or that vaccines will kill us all or make us magnetic.

Find enough people and one of them will say pretty much everything you could imagine.

Are we looking for a vaccine that will 100 percent stop everyone in the world from contracting covid 19 with zero adverse reactions? That's a pretty big task don't you think?

Or are we looking for a vaccine to slow the spread and cause the minimum number of deaths or long term issues to contain a global pandemic? Once that's done there's time to look at perfecting the vaccines.





a reply to: MykeNukem

How exactly is the vaccination slowing the spread if vaccinated people are still getting the virus and spreading it? I know for sure that they are, there are people within my own circle testing positive that have the shot. A few have even gotten "ill" with Covid after getting the vaccine. So, if that's true, then what good is this vaccine for most people?
The response to this has been, "Well it keeps people from getting really sick, or keeps them from having to be hospitalized" which may be true. Hard to say, since that was the case before the vax anyway. Within my circle of friends and family, many of us have had the virus yet not one of them was hospitalized. Some were sicker than others, but all recovered just fine, young and old alike. That includes my 85 year old father out in Florida. He was airlifted after being hit by a car, hospitalized, contracted Covid while in the hospital, so they say. My dad didn't believe he had the virus because he said he wasn't sick.
So, I have to ask; of what real benefit is this vaccine to most people?

I imagine you will dismiss this as government propaganda but it's an interesting read if your wanting some answers to dispute.

www.imperial.ac.uk...



a reply to: odd1out

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Most here have a limited grasp on science these days.

Remember when ATS was all about science? I do.

Trying to convince people who are living in another reality isn't going to work.

So now, I mostly try ridicule.

Maybe if people are made to look foolish, that may change them. But I doubt it.

It's sad what ATS had become. But I'll hang on until the "fever" breaks on people who refuse to live in the real world, and want to push lies.

a reply to: Phage

Ah yes, ridicule has become the tool of choice these days in the attempt to corner anyone not in agreement with the so called science. I don't agree much with Nonspecific, but a few posts above they made the astute observation that we don't really know much about the vaccines. That is a fact, and one that forms a solid basis for treading carefully for many people. There are many other facts that most people on the side of vaccinations in the name of science are overlooking.
I'm not going to argue the science; I don't know enough about virology, epidemiology, or immunology to form any opinion even worth a dime to myself, let alone another person. So what background do you have? Your post is fairly arrogant; the same type of insolence I see from a doctor within my family when someone brings up a medical or scientific subject they know little of or are misinformed about. That same doctor was arguing against a vaccine just a few ago has now been vaccinated because of upcoming mandates.
I would argue most of the people that claim to be in the know where the science and efficacy of these vaccines is concerned, really have very little data to actually draw conclusions from. We also have very little in the way of elapsed time to base any claims of success. Most of the friends in my circle believe that their immersion into the news, and news shows, makes them well informed. Some of my friends can parrot the same talking points I hear on the rare occasion the news is on in my home. I know that NOT watching any of it has helped me tremendously in the staying open minded department. I try not to form opinions without facts.
Only fools rush in... From the pool of actual verifiable, absolute facts we do have, there doesn't seem to be any reason for most people to rush out and get a vaccine. This was the same thing the doctor in my midst was saying (though they did think the vax might be a benefit to certain people). What I see from just about everyone I know that has been vaccinated, none of them, not one, did it in the name of science. Morals and mandates, ridicule and fear of retribution, these seem to be the motivating factors for the ones willing to rush in before the facts are known.

originally posted by: nonspecific
I imagine you will dismiss this as government propaganda but it's an interesting read if your wanting some answers to dispute.

www.imperial.ac.uk...



a reply to: odd1out

Did I mention government propaganda? No, I really didn't mention the government at all. I'm hesitant, but I have good reasons for that. Those reasons have less to do with a government that really doesn't deserve my trust than it has to do with the facts (and lack thereof) on hand.

Thanks for the link.

If it's any consolation it's the UK government and we seem to be far less opressive and totalitarian when it comes to most things, vaccinations are high here without coersion as we have more trust in our medical system than you guys I think


a reply to: odd1out

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UnRepentantHarlequin

Yeah.
Smallpox, much worse than ever.
Polio, much worse than ever.
Measles, much worse than ever.
Mumps, much worse than ever...

I wasn't aware these were the leaky vaccines the OP article is referring to. And I noticed you backed off the leaky aspect almost immediately.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
So now, I mostly try ridicule.

Maybe if people are made to look foolish, that may change them. But I doubt it.

a reply to: Phage

Doesn't work, Sparky. You just end up coming off like a smart-mouth 16 year old jackass behind the BK register on Saturdays.

originally posted by: odd1out

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Most here have a limited grasp on science these days.

Remember when ATS was all about science? I do.

Trying to convince people who are living in another reality isn't going to work.

So now, I mostly try ridicule.

Maybe if people are made to look foolish, that may change them. But I doubt it.

It's sad what ATS had become. But I'll hang on until the "fever" breaks on people who refuse to live in the real world, and want to push lies.

a reply to: Phage

Ah yes, ridicule has become the tool of choice these days in the attempt to corner anyone not in agreement with the so called science. I don't agree much with Nonspecific, but a few posts above they made the astute observation that we don't really know much about the vaccines. That is a fact, and one that forms a solid basis for treading carefully for many people. There are many other facts that most people on the side of vaccinations in the name of science are overlooking.
I'm not going to argue the science; I don't know enough about virology, epidemiology, or immunology to form any opinion even worth a dime to myself, let alone another person. So what background do you have? Your post is fairly arrogant; the same type of insolence I see from a doctor within my family when someone brings up a medical or scientific subject they know little of or are misinformed about. That same doctor was arguing against a vaccine just a few ago has now been vaccinated because of upcoming mandates.
I would argue most of the people that claim to be in the know where the science and efficacy of these vaccines is concerned, really have very little data to actually draw conclusions from. We also have very little in the way of elapsed time to base any claims of success. Most of the friends in my circle believe that their immersion into the news, and news shows, makes them well informed. Some of my friends can parrot the same talking points I hear on the rare occasion the news is on in my home. I know that NOT watching any of it has helped me tremendously in the staying open minded department. I try not to form opinions without facts.
Only fools rush in... From the pool of actual verifiable, absolute facts we do have, there doesn't seem to be any reason for most people to rush out and get a vaccine. This was the same thing the doctor in my midst was saying (though they did think the vax might be a benefit to certain people). What I see from just about everyone I know that has been vaccinated, none of them, not one, did it in the name of science. Morals and mandates, ridicule and fear of retribution, these seem to be the motivating factors for the ones willing to rush in before the facts are known.

Nicely put.

I agree.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Most here have a limited grasp on science these days.

Remember when ATS was all about science? I do.

Trying to convince people who are living in another reality isn't going to work.

So now, I mostly try ridicule.

Maybe if people are made to look foolish, that may change them. But I doubt it.

It's sad what ATS had become. But I'll hang on until the "fever" breaks on people who refuse to live in the real world, and want to push lies.

a reply to: Phage

This say's all I need to know.

Anytime you wanna give it a shot, I'm here.

Did you even read the article or are you just arguing because you want to prove you are a disagreeable person even though you willfully “rolled up your sleeve” thus exposing yourself as an agreeable person lacking critical thinking skills at a critical moment in time? a reply to: Phage

What is a leaky vaccine?

We know that with bateria we have had big issues by over prescribing antibacterial medication and not doing the full treatment in many parts of the world that has given us some very resistant strains, but viruses are so much different.

So we see this in the article...

Three days after a bird is bitten by a mosquito carrying West Nile virus, one milliliter of its blood contains 100 billion viral particles, roughly the number of stars in the Milky Way. And with each replication comes the opportunity for genetic change. When an RNA virus replicates, the copying process generates one new error, or mutation, per 10,000 nucleotides, a mutation rate as much as 100,000 times greater than that found in human DNA.

RNA viruses have a lot of errors as a natural course in their reproduction, so what does vaccines have to do with that as the OP's title suggests? It seems viruses will mutate as long as it is spreading, so anything that reduces the spread will reduce mutation too, and the data is showing that the vaccines are reducing the spread.

One interesting part in mRNA is they can pick a protein that doesn't really mutate and is still in all mutated viruses, so no matter what changes a virus goes through the body still triggers on the one protein. This is why they suggest by naturally catching COVID the resistance is not as strong as what the vaccine provides.

d2r55xnwy6nx47.cloudfront.net...

Please see the illustration in the article. The visual offers a clearer understanding of the following explanation (posted under the image in the link). Fascinating and allows a layman insight as to the variants.

Vaccines stimulate the immune system to make antibodies that attack features on a pathogen. Because pathogens naturally mutate, random changes in a pathogen’s features can make a vaccine ineffective over time. But scientists are now seeing signs that, in some cases, the vaccines themselves can drive pathogen populations to become resistant. Natural Evolution of Pathogens Vaccine is effective against antigens on targeted pathogens (antibodies attach to 6 antigens) Random mutations in the pathogens change their antigens. (antibodies attach to 3 antigens. There are 3 mutant antigens with no antibodies attached) Vaccine loses its effectiveness against the pathogen population. (antibodies attach to 1 antigen. There are 5 mutant antigens with no antibodies attached) Vaccine-Driven Evolution of Pathogens Population of pathogen antigens (11 circles and one triangle) Add vaccine Antigens on survivors (2 circles and one triangle) Time passes Surviving population expands (9 circles and 3 triangles) Antigens on survivors (1 circles and 2 triangles) Time passes Surviving population expands (4 circles and 8 triangles) Pathogens are less vulnerable to vaccine

From the article I originally posted:

Just as pathogens have different ways of infecting and affecting us, the vaccines that scientists develop employ different immunological strategies.

Most of the vaccines we get in childhood prevent pathogens from replicating inside us and thereby also prevent us from transmitting the infections to others.

But scientists have so far been unable to make these kinds of sterilizing vaccines for complicated pathogens like HIV, anthrax and malaria.

To conquer these diseases, some researchers have been developing immunizations that prevent disease without actually preventing infections — what are called “leaky” vaccines. And these new vaccines may incite a different, and potentially scarier, kind of microbial evolution.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
What is a leaky vaccine?

We know that with bateria we have had big issues by over prescribing antibacterial medication and not doing the full treatment in many parts of the world that has given us some very resistant strains, but viruses are so much different.

So we see this in the article...

Three days after a bird is bitten by a mosquito carrying West Nile virus, one milliliter of its blood contains 100 billion viral particles, roughly the number of stars in the Milky Way. And with each replication comes the opportunity for genetic change. When an RNA virus replicates, the copying process generates one new error, or mutation, per 10,000 nucleotides, a mutation rate as much as 100,000 times greater than that found in human DNA.

RNA viruses have a lot of errors as a natural course in their reproduction, so what does vaccines have to do with that as the OP's title suggests? It seems viruses will mutate as long as it is spreading, so anything that reduces the spread will reduce mutation too.