Survivalist Forum banner

61 - 80 of 89 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,777 Posts
Ok. I was in college a few centuries ago. Bio chem science. What I remember, and haven’t really read differently is that vaccines don’t do better than recovering from a natural infection. (Exceptions being immune and cancer issues).

You got vaccines because the results of infection were of the sort that the disease was worse. Rabies, death. Small pox, 33% death rate and scarring. Polio, death and paralysis. Measles, varied plus horrid if your mother was pregnant. And so on.

You were supposed to have a better, longer lasting immunity from catching the disease be it horrid or the the common cold than if you got the vaccine (other than the common cold doesn’t have a vaccine). Essentially, naturally acquired immunity > Vaccine immunity.

‘Natural covid original version’ seems to last 4 to six months, maybe a bit more.

The immunity of the ‘natural covid original version’ doesn’t seem to protect against some other versions — Brazil, Manuas with the P1 variant. Or the immunity is non-existent by a certain point.

So why would a vaccine immunity last longer?? (Ignoring the unproven science regarding the mRNA vaccine). (Also, am ignoring vaccines aren’t 100% protective).
 

·
Grevcon 10
Joined
·
13,727 Posts
Not suggesting they do or dont. The data says they will still have immunity ( not perfect, of course) after 6 months. So going into winter ( which by definition is 6 months after spring), they should still have immunity.
Which study are you referring to? Do you have a link to a paper showing no loss of vaccine immunity after 6 months? I hate being the 'give me a link' guy but I'm legitimately curious because everything I've seen shows a drop in antibodies and an increase in infections and I can't find what you're apparently finding.

As Jean says, vaccination immunity can't be better than natural infection as far as we've ever seen. This is why no one ever made a successful vaccine for a coronavirus. The coronavirus family doesn't give long term immunity. It has evolved to rely on this trait for its continued survival. Enough that it's developed mimicry traits that prevent the host from developing long term immunity without harming itself. Coronaviruses have always been considered incompatible with vaccination so there hasn't been much of an effort until now. If these new mRNA vaccines are changing all these basic rules of biomedicine, that's some pretty big news.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,686 Posts
Coronaviruses have always been considered incompatible with vaccination so there hasn't been much of an effort until now. If these new mRNA vaccines are changing all these basic rules of biomedicine, that's some pretty big news.
My question is HOW the mechanisms of such actually affect the human body.
We might remember the whole GMO thing from the 1990's with the "possible alteration" of human genomes as a result but no real proof ever shown.
Now however THAT IS the core of this "vaccine".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,461 Posts
Which study are you referring to? Do you have a link to a paper showing no loss of vaccine immunity after 6 months? I hate being the 'give me a link' guy but I'm legitimately curious because everything I've seen shows a drop in antibodies and an increase in infections and I can't find what you're apparently finding.

As Jean says, vaccination immunity can't be better than natural infection as far as we've ever seen. This is why no one ever made a successful vaccine for a coronavirus. The coronavirus family doesn't give long term immunity. It has evolved to rely on this trait for its continued survival. Enough that it's developed mimicry traits that prevent the host from developing long term immunity without harming itself. Coronaviruses have always been considered incompatible with vaccination so there hasn't been much of an effort until now. If these new mRNA vaccines are changing all these basic rules of biomedicine, that's some pretty big news.
follow up on the phase 3 participants. Separate issue for Moderna vs Pfizer Of course.
Here’s the Pfizer report on CNN. Moderna numbers have been reported as well.
Pfizer

The statement about vaccines not providing as long lasting protection as the disease itself, is true for previous recombinant or conjugate vaccines, but I’m guessing we don’t have a clue when the body produces the antigen vs it being injected in discrete doses. I know I had my Hep B shots 20 years ago and I’ve still making antibodies as of a few years ago- that’s a recombinant vaccine as well.
 

·
Grevcon 10
Joined
·
13,727 Posts
follow up on the phase 3 participants. Separate issue for Moderna vs Pfizer Of course.
Here’s the Pfizer report on CNN. Moderna numbers have been reported as well.
Pfizer
So according to that 4.7% of the people who received the vaccine ended up in the ICU despite the vaccine. What are your chances without the vaccine of ending up in the ICU with COVID during a 2 month period? It's ~15% for those diagnosed, and not counting undiagnosed cases. And what does that have to do with immunity?

Also, that's not science, nor a study. It's a website telling you 3rd hand about a press release from a company's marketing department.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
EXACTLY. He has actually gone back to work for the department -- just without the uniform and the car. Works with the same group of people even. And he's happy as a bug in a rug. And I feel a lot better. It's a win-win for us.

I can't in good conscience encourage ANYONE to get into law enforcement these days.
I agree, no way I’d be a cop.
 

·
M.R. Ducks
Joined
·
18,681 Posts
This coming winter is going to be something special when all those who think they are safe because in the sprin of 2021 they got their rona shots, find out those pesky antibodies dissapeared. .
Vaccines (and natural immunity) don’t cause the body to keep producing antibodies indefinitely. Vaccines teach your body how to make the right antibodies for the next time it’s challenged by a virus.
 

·
Grevcon 10
Joined
·
13,727 Posts
Vaccines (and natural immunity) don’t cause the body to keep producing antibodies indefinitely. Vaccines teach your body how to make the right antibodies for the next time it’s challenged by a virus.
Having a single memory B cell still floating around doesn't mean you're immune. Different types of immune cells are more or less effective at countering certain antigens quickly and effectively enough to prevent disease. And the length of their existence is also dependent on various factors such as the type of antigen, the age and genetics of the host, and the strength of immune response during the infection/vaccination. Coronaviruses are especially effective at overcoming anything short of IgM antibodies. Starting from memory cells are simply too slow to prevent infection and in fact IgG antibodies help it.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,461 Posts
So according to that 4.7% of the people who received the vaccine ended up in the ICU despite the vaccine. What are your chances without the vaccine of ending up in the ICU with COVID during a 2 month period? It's ~15% for those diagnosed, and not counting undiagnosed cases. And what does that have to do with immunity?

Also, that's not science, nor a study. It's a website telling you 3rd hand about a press release from a company's marketing department.
Cools story, but this isn’t the fiction section. Severe COVID as defined by the FDA is oxygen saturation below 94%, among other conditions- nothing about admission to ICU. If you go by the more strict CDC classification ( which alludes to ICU or ventilator useage) no vaccinated patients developed “ severe” COVID. And yeah, of course it’s not first hand information- that simply doesn’t exist In Double blind studies. It’s an update to the well published phase 3 trials. Like I posted here earlier, if you call it not science, please explain why you credentials exceed those of Emory University School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins, Tulane, and the other medical schools and research hospitals that participated in the phase 3 trails.

Here is the actual release Pfizer and BioNTech Confirm High Efficacy and No Serious Safety Concerns Through Up to Six Months Following Second Dose in Updated Topline Analysis of Landmark COVID-19 Vaccine Study | pfpfizeruscom
 

·
Grevcon 10
Joined
·
13,727 Posts
Cools story, but this isn’t the fiction section. Severe COVID as defined by the FDA is oxygen saturation below 94%, among other conditions- nothing about admission to ICU. If you go by the more strict CDC classification ( which alludes to ICU or ventilator useage) no vaccinated patients developed “ severe” COVID. And yeah, of course it’s not first hand information- that simply doesn’t exist In Double blind studies. It’s an update to the well published phase 3 trials. Like I posted here earlier, if you call it not science, please explain why you credentials exceed those of Emory University School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins, Tulane, and the other medical schools and research hospitals that participated in the phase 3 trails.

Here is the actual release Pfizer and BioNTech Confirm High Efficacy and No Serious Safety Concerns Through Up to Six Months Following Second Dose in Updated Topline Analysis of Landmark COVID-19 Vaccine Study | pfpfizeruscom
359842


That's still not the study. It's a press release sent to a business site to promote their product to investors. It doesn't come from Emory, John Hopkins, Tulane, and other medical schools and research hospitals. It comes from these people:

359841


There's no work shown here. And it's not evidence of immunity beyond 6 months even in their claims. It sounds like they pitted a control group that had 6 months of exposure including a period of far higher community exposure than existed later in the study against a test group that was vaccinated 6 months ago with no differentiation between 5 months ago and 5 days ago. Meaning that of the half of people who would have lost immunity at about 4 months, those had about 2 months worth. And then these people were averaged with the full test group's 4 months prior infection rates. They also did this with unknown exposures that were likely extremely low in general. And again vaguely decreased severity is not immunity.

This is the same company that earlier pulled similar shenanigans by taking a much larger control group against a much smaller test group and then compared the total number of infections in each group. Presenting it in a media release then too because they wouldn't get that through an official paper without getting caught.
 

·
M.R. Ducks
Joined
·
18,681 Posts
Starting from memory cells are simply too slow to prevent infection and in fact IgG antibodies help it.
Clinical trials clearly show COVID-19 vaccines offer protection for months. We’ll know later how long the immunity lasts. There’s no evidence that protection provided by the vaccines flip off like a switch. The likely worst case scenario is that immunity fades slowly.

One thing that is clear is that the severity of illness the COVID virus causes is highly variable. Some folks have no symptoms, some get sick for a day or two, some are in the hospital for weeks. Clinical trials show vaccines greatly reduce the chances of a severe illness. That’s good enough for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,461 Posts
View attachment 359842

That's still not the study. It's a press release sent to a business site to promote their product to investors. It doesn't come from Emory, John Hopkins, Tulane, and other medical schools and research hospitals. It comes from these people:

View attachment 359841

There's no work shown here. And it's not evidence of immunity beyond 6 months even in their claims. It sounds like they pitted a control group that had 6 months of exposure including a period of far higher community exposure than existed later in the study against a test group that was vaccinated 6 months ago with no differentiation between 5 months ago and 5 days ago. Meaning that of the half of people who would have lost immunity at about 4 months, those had about 2 months worth. And then these people were averaged with the full test group's 4 months prior infection rates. They also did this with unknown exposures that were likely extremely low in general. And again vaguely decreased severity is not immunity.

This is the same company that earlier pulled similar shenanigans by taking a much larger control group against a much smaller test group and then compared the total number of infections in each group. Presenting it in a media release then too because they wouldn't get that through an official paper without getting caught.
if you read the P3 trials that pit a group that got the vaccine aagainst a group that was given a placebo shot. Of course it’s not evidence past 6 months. It’s evidence of immunity at 6 months. In 90 days thy will have data on 9 month immunity. IIRC, the P3 trail follow up expires at some point, maybe 2 years

please provide a reference to your data that shows half of the people lost their immunity 4 months ago?
 

·
MyPrepperLife
Joined
·
4,127 Posts
View attachment 359842

That's still not the study. It's a press release sent to a business site to promote their product to investors. It doesn't come from Emory, John Hopkins, Tulane, and other medical schools and research hospitals. It comes from these people:

View attachment 359841

There's no work shown here. And it's not evidence of immunity beyond 6 months even in their claims. It sounds like they pitted a control group that had 6 months of exposure including a period of far higher community exposure than existed later in the study against a test group that was vaccinated 6 months ago with no differentiation between 5 months ago and 5 days ago. Meaning that of the half of people who would have lost immunity at about 4 months, those had about 2 months worth. And then these people were averaged with the full test group's 4 months prior infection rates. They also did this with unknown exposures that were likely extremely low in general. And again vaguely decreased severity is not immunity.

This is the same company that earlier pulled similar shenanigans by taking a much larger control group against a much smaller test group and then compared the total number of infections in each group. Presenting it in a media release then too because they wouldn't get that through an official paper without getting caught.
The pharmaceutical companies pull this crap all the time, and the health authorities don't challenge them. Their behavior is unconscionable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,686 Posts
Clinical trials clearly show COVID-19 vaccines offer protection for months. We’ll know later how long the immunity lasts. There’s no evidence that protection provided by the vaccines flip off like a switch. The likely worst case scenario is that immunity fades slowly.

One thing that is clear is that the severity of illness the COVID virus causes is highly variable. Some folks have no symptoms, some get sick for a day or two, some are in the hospital for weeks. Clinical trials show vaccines greatly reduce the chances of a severe illness. That’s good enough for me.
And in true gov. fashion, rather than dealing with the severe cases, we all get EQUALLY mandated to live in seclusion.

The isolation alone by the definition of the pseudo-virologists at the NYT and WP should have shut this thing down. Fauci and his ilk instead continue to push quakary and false narratives to FORCE people to live in the most cruel and horrendous means possible.


Its disgusting!
 

·
Grevcon 10
Joined
·
13,727 Posts
if you read the P3 trials that pit a group that got the vaccine aagainst a group that was given a placebo shot. Of course it’s not evidence past 6 months. It’s evidence of immunity at 6 months. In 90 days thy will have data on 9 month immunity. IIRC, the P3 trail follow up expires at some point, maybe 2 years

please provide a reference to your data that shows half of the people lost their immunity 4 months ago?
Statistical Math Question: If immunity is 100% for 4 months and flips like a switch to 0% immunity after that and you count up the number of infections at 6 months, what percentage of people are immune at 6 months?

Bonus Question: If 96,000 people are in the original group measured at 3 months and 12,000 of those are in the group measured at 6 months, what percentage of people are immune at 6 months?

And again... severity and immunity are different things. You need to stop using them interchangeably.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,705 Posts
Vaccines (and natural immunity) don’t cause the body to keep producing antibodies indefinitely. Vaccines teach your body how to make the right antibodies for the next time it’s challenged by a virus.
Ummm not really... If you don't have Igg, then you don't have immune antibodies. Yes, the antibodies are "always" there if you have immunity. Do you have new science to this "theory"? You are discussing antibody imunity btw not T4's....
 

·
Grevcon 10
Joined
·
13,727 Posts
359938


If you go by the more strict CDC classification ( which alludes to ICU or ventilator useage) no vaccinated patients developed “ severe” COVID.

Here is the actual release Pfizer and BioNTech Confirm High Efficacy and No Serious Safety Concerns Through Up to Six Months Following Second Dose in Updated Topline Analysis of Landmark COVID-19 Vaccine Study | pfpfizeruscom
359940
 
61 - 80 of 89 Posts
Top