The Microchip in the Vaccine

[Mountain Man]

Which, again, is incredibly faster than normal. Superdooperfastpriorityapproval is by definition, not the norm.

I really get the sense that this is politically driven in order to prevent people from refusing the vaccine because it hasn't received full approval.

[TheLurch]

Yeah, no. It's simply a value they will continue to shift to try to increase mandate usage.

Really? Here's a description of how herd immunity thresholds are calculated:
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-...nity.pdf?la=en

You will find that my description is accurate.

Do you want to deal with evidence, or are you just here to argue? I'll ignore you if it's the latter.

Actual real world data from the entire country of Israel, and from a massive Cleveland Clinix study indicates no such difference in robustness of immune response. Indeed they indicate the same or better response in naturally infected.

I know at least one other study indicates that robustness of natural immunity is large and there doesn't even seem to be a difference between the amount of viral load they had to fight off, in giving that robustness.

In addition there is at least one study indicating that following such advice can actually inhibit t-cell response in people that were naturally inflected and then receive the vaccine.

Can you provide citations to these studies? I'd be curious to see them.


Here's a few that support my contention:

Antibodies from vaccination neutralize more variants than those generated by infection:
https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/13/600/eabi9915

This one describes the high variability of antibodies produced by infection:
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.1003656

Enhanced protection from vaccinations after infection:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1413
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03696-9

[Gondwanaland]

Really? Here's a description of how herd immunity thresholds are calculated:
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-...nity.pdf?la=en

You will find that my description is accurate.

Do you want to deal with evidence, or are you just here to argue? I'll ignore you if it's the latter.

That may be how some do so. But even when we thought covid was more contagious back at the start, even then they were saying only 60-70 percent for herd immunity.

Can you provide citations to these studies? I'd be curious to see them.


Here's a few that support my contention:

Antibodies from vaccination neutralize more variants than those generated by infection:
https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/13/600/eabi9915

This one describes the high variability of antibodies produced by infection:
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.1003656

Enhanced protection from vaccinations after infection:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1413
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03696-9

Massive 52,000 person Cleveland Clinic study finds no benefit for previously infected people obtained by further vaccinating them: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20...nic-study.aspx

Nationwide Israel study of 6.3 MILLION people indicating the already infected had protection levels of 94.8% from reinfection and 96.4% from severe illness versus effectiveness of 92.8% and 94.4%, respectively, from the vaccines:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...670v1.full.pdf

People with even mild prior infection have robust protection against, for example, the South African variant: https://twitter.com/andrewbostom/sta...50677591445507

Higher risk of vaccine side effects including severe ones, in people with natural immunity when getting vaccinated:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....26.21252096v1
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....15.21252192v1

Covid shots in naturally immune people causing contraction in T-cell response:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...441v1.full.pdf

Longitudinal study indicates broad and long-lasting immune memory and t-cell response across varying infection/viral-load levels: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8253687/

Another study showing durable immunity across a range of varying infection loads: https://science.sciencemag.org/conte.../eabf4063.full

And another: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z


More recently in Israel wrt variants: https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/n...israeli-health

[TheLurch]

That may be how some do so.

It's how it's scientifically defined.

In any case, thanks for the links - will look those over tonight. I can tell you i've already looked at the first link, and the relevant study population (previously infected, not vaccinated) was only 1,300 or so people, not 52,000.

[Gondwanaland]

It's how it's scientifically defined.

In any case, thanks for the links - will look those over tonight. I can tell you i've already looked at the first link, and the relevant study population (previously infected, not vaccinated) was only 1,300 or so people, not 52,000.

The study was of 52,000 people. The comparison is between previously infected, not vaccinated, and those who are vaccinated. Duh. Like!???!??!? no one said it was 52,000 of one type of person because that wouldn't give any sort of comparison.....

Given your post here, I won't hold my breath in you considering anything that might threaten your Branch Covidian belief system.

[TheLurch]

The study was of 52,000 people. The comparison is between previously infected, not vaccinated, and those who are vaccinated. Duh. Like!???!??!? no one said it was 52,000 of one type of person because that wouldn't give any sort of comparison.....

The relevant population is the previously infected and then not vaccinated. Yes, having controls is important. But things are called "experimental populations" for a reason - they're the ones that answer the question at issue.

Let me put it this way: you could increase the control population to 5 billion, and it wouldn't change the statistical significance of this result.

Given your post here, I won't hold my breath in you considering anything that might threaten your Branch Covidian belief system.

Is there a reason you're resorting to insults when i haven't?

[Gondwanaland]

The relevant population is the previously infected and then not vaccinated.

Not when the topic is comparison of effectiveness between vaccinated and natural immunity without vaccination.....

[TheLurch]

Not when the topic is comparison of effectiveness between vaccinated and natural immunity without vaccination.....

Uhm, no. If you go back to the post where all fo this started, you'd find that the issue in question was whether immunity due to prior infection was equivalent to immunity due to vaccination.

I'll also note that "natural immunity without vaccination" is the infected but unvaccinated population. So you appear to be agreeing with me in the sentence you're using to tell me i'm wrong.

[Teallaura]

Large portions of your post are simply false. I'm going to go through and offer corrections.

No, it wasn't.

This is only a minor technical correction. Coronaviruses pick up mutations at a relatively slow pace compared to most other viruses, because its polymerase has a built in proof reading function that corrects errors while replication is in progress. The frequent appearance of new strains is largely a function of its population size, which is incredibly large because we as a global society have done an absolutely horrific job of adapting the measures that could contain it.

If we were just discussing then you could do this - but since you changed the rules - citation please.
Even if you were right - and seriously, you just argued for a specific definition of 'breakneck speed' when I didn't say anything about relative speeds so you aren't right - so what? The point was that mutation speed - and the speed being observed presently - is likely to mess up your proposed methodology. By the time they can evaluate the delta, they will be dealing with several others.

This is completely false. I follow the literature, and there are typically dozens of papers every month of groups that have tested existing drugs and compound panels against coronavirus proteins. A lot of that work is government funded. Pfizer has indicated it already has a drug in safety trials. It's safe to assume that if they do, other companies have some in the pipeline as well. Drug development has gone on at a rapid pace, and three different ones received Emergency Use Authorizations before any vaccines did.

BS - I've seen exactly ONE presumptive - and I posted it yesterday. ONE.

Case management is SEPERATE from public health INTERVENTION. You were the one complaining that I didn't specify symptom versus disease management - now you fail to recognize the difference between case management (which encompasses both) and presumptive treatment - which is what I'd been talking about the entire time.

I have both professional training and experience - and I have been following along, The CDC barely mentions tx and nothing in the media has been about presumptive. But presumptive IS the gold standard of public health policy.

So show me all these papers on presumptive tx you claim exist.

It's been done so much that already back in January people were analyzing the lessons learned from the early efforts in the hope of improving the success rate. And it hasn't stopped since.

Didn't say otherwise.

Outbreak intervention, sure. Pandemic control, less so. Public health authorities from the start have indicated that a vaccine would be necessary to control this pandemic. This is especially true because the virus spreads extensively prior to the onset of symptoms, and most people would not even know they needed treatment before spreading the virus. This would again keep the viral population large, and increase the probability that drug resistant strains would evolve.

There's no question that it would be great to have a COVID treatment. But it's clear that the experts in this area feel we need both, and it's not hard to see why. And, in the absence of an effective treatment, it shouldn't be in the least bit surprising that vaccines are the focus. I fail to understand why you seem to object to that.

Great, you spent two paragraphs rephrasing my statement.

Quit assuming that I object to vaccination - I don't. I object to mandatory vaccination, especially now and I am VERY critical of how this was done from a public health stand point. They went after vaccines and did little in the presumptive treatment field - and it was the FDA that got that part done. (It's limited to contact use but that's the definition of presumptive tx - and if it pans out, it's GREAT.)

What side effects are not rare? What vaccine has been pulled for side effects that are more rare? Specifics please, not vague, unsupported generalizations.

Are you kidding? Virtually every HIV drug and most psychiatric medications either begin with or have common side effects - for that matter, so do most prescription drugs. Read those labels sometimes. Common side effects means exactly that - side effects commonly observed, not rare side effects very rarely observed.

The original SARS, if memory serves. I'll track down the article later - the doctor that wrote it listed several recent (relatively) ones.

As for the rest, there's now tens of millions of people who are several months out from the shot. Unless you're proposing that side effects will develop six months after all the vaccine components have been cleared from the body, then we have sufficient data to conclude that side effects are rare. Remember, the FDA was able to identify an extremely rare blood clotting issue with the J&J vaccine even though it's the least frequently used vaccine in the US.

Six months - if it's not out in days then you're talking fat soluble - which seems unlikely. But the truth is, we've seen things go south years after a drugs full approval (which has made getting full approval harder) - it's like you haven't read any of the history.

Here's a quick example.

Blatantly false. We have data from numerous countries, including the US, that clearly indicates this. Here's one example of many: "88% effectiveness against hospitalization and 91% effectiveness against severe illness." Here's another: "CDC: Less than 1% of COVID-19 breakthrough cases led to hospitalization or death."

Uh-huh. So you have articles. Great. Here's the claim you made:

The vaccines dramatically reduce the risk of death and hospitalization, even against the delta variant.

And how, exactly, did they isolate for this variable? Neither article you cited indicates the methodology - and citing articles that give a conclusion you like does NOT refute my statement in the least.

I'll go ahead and answer for you - it's almost certainly an extrapolation from the observed differences - which might work in a study but in case reviews? Not hardly - and it's not that easy to isolate in studies, either. That might well explain the 39% number from that first article headline.

There's a number of things wrong here. The first is that there are a huge number of studies that show these measures reduce infection rates. It's not even hard to find; the very top hit for "effectiveness of mask use" is this JAMA summary of multiple studies, which states plainly that "Compelling data now demonstrate that community mask wearing is an effective nonpharmacologic intervention to reduce the spread of this infection, especially as source control to prevent spread from infected persons, but also as protection to reduce wearers’ exposure to infection." And that's from February; further data's come in since.

And you ignore th4e elephant in the room - let's see the pre-C19 studies, shall we? That's right - there aren't very many and they don't really support the premise.

And these are all crap - communal studies with MULTIPLE VARIABLES? You did notice the lockdowns and the social distancing and the rest, right? Surely variable isolation came up in college/

They do not eliminate infections, so yes, you still see new cases even if these measures are widely adopted. And that last bit is an incredibly important caveat; the US has generally been terrible at adopting basic pandemic control measures of any sort. So, the fact that we are still being new cases wouldn't be an indication of their ineffectiveness anyway.

Massive effort and negligible tangible results - but this worked? Seriously? We need to vaccinate everyone because this WORKED?

Finally, i'll point out that what you term "relatively low numbers of new cases" presently involves roughly 1.5x the surge of cases we saw at the beginning of last summer, and just under half the all-time peak in the US. This one you don't even have to click a link, as Google shows the graph on its search results page.

They did mention apples and oranges, right?

I don't use Google - this would be one of many reasons why.

The CDC has this terribly unhelpful page - can you find the countrywide numbers by month? Week? Anything?
It took two clicks and a download to get this thing from the CDC - and the current spike isn't anywhere near the size of the one last summer.
cases_073021.jpg?noicon.jpg


And a magnifying glass to find out the dates on this graph - even enlarged, they are microscopic. Gee, wonder why?

Actually, the one thing that we have data on is that contact spreading is extremely rare, so washing your hands makes little difference. In contrast, social distancing and mask use is supported by extensive data from multiple countries.

And refuted by non-use in others - see chart above - that's a typical curve for a disease outbreak and shows no actual sign of a successful intervention - quite the opposite, in fact.

Eh, MAYBE a delay in the second wave - I'll grant that from just this. But since we don't understand its morphology all that well (longitudinal studies only, please - because that's what it takes to know a disease 's full cycle - and yes, we're getting better, just not there yet) it could just as easily be the normal cycle and we wouldn't know it.

Conversely, we could also have made things worse initially which would throw off the analysis. This is why we do longitudinal studies, boys and girls.

One thing that's striking about all of this is that your entire post is free of corroborating evidence; you just make blanket statements, and expect them to be accepted because you said so. Yet, when checked, nearly every single one of your statements contained an error. Maybe if you spent time trying to find supporting evidence, you'd come across the accurate information.

Except that you didn't do a very good job 'checking' - in fact, you couldn't even tell the difference between diagnostic and presumptive tx and assumed an error that wasn't there. Then you cited ARTICLES rather than papers when the issue was methodology - like CNBC was going to explain variable isolation. That first one - that's more up my alley and I'll give you over reacting and not realizing that there's a distinction - but that second one? Nah, you fully understood that I had to be talking about methodology - but you cited articles rather than the studies.

Physician, I think ya might wanna get a band aid.

[Teallaura]

Wow, thanks for taking the time and effort!

[Teallaura]

But apparently no faster than normal.

Eh, faster than what normal used to be - and priority review is by definition faster than normal.

The FDA gets its posterior kicked much more regularly than the CDC - although I worked more closely with the CDC, I tend to trust the FDA more. They have their issues - a bunch of them - but the FDA doesn't get a pass when they screw up, and they know it.. The CDC, not so much. and mostly because there aren't decades of subsequent litigation to check them up.

[Teallaura]

They've shifted the herd immunity goalposts again:
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/e...w-90-due-delta

No fair - you get a nice chart and I had to hunt mine down!

[Teallaura]

Hospitalizations are rapidly rising FWICT.

And they coincide with the vaccination program. Seriously, look at the chart. Yeah, it's just a correlation, but it is funny.

A rise in hospitalizations isn't terribly surprising - we've got a lot of people now seeking treatment for other things that should have been in treatment months ago - honestly, even without the variants, we expected to see rising hospitalizations with the relaxing restrictions - and sick people are the most vulnerable to C19.

Or it's the second wave finally showing up for dinner.

[TheLurch]

No, it wasn't.
If we were just discussing then you could do this - but since you changed the rules - citation please.

Sure thing:
https://www.cell.com/molecular-cell/...20)30518-9.pdf

Note that this paper is premised on the idea that developing a drug that blocks the proofreading function would cause so many errors in the virus that it would be inviable. Which brings us to this.

BS - I've seen exactly ONE presumptive - and I posted it yesterday. ONE.

Let me remind you of what you originally said:

But only because we foolishly shoved all our eggs in the vaccination basket and spent very little on treatment - other than to refute a president.

And later in your present response you say, "They went after vaccines and did little in the presumptive treatment field".
That is what i'm saying is false: the idea that we want after vaccines, and largely ignored the possibility of developing a treatment. We have not "shoved all our eggs in one basket. We've spent a lot of time and money trying to develop drugs that target the virus. I cited a paper that is a review, and therefore contained multiple references to other papers on the topic. Since that doesn't satisfy you, here's some more.

If you'd like to seem more of the research, this search is good:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...ng+covid&btnG=
but limited to repurposing existing, approved drugs.

Here's one that shows chemical libraries in general. This will include some of the studies in the earlier list, but will be significantly broader, and include some things that aren't relevant.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...es+covid&btnG=

Here's the attempts to develop neutralizing monoclonals to treat covid:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...al+covid+treat

Here's a list of all the programs the NIH runs in order to foster the development of drugs in parallel with vaccines:
https://www.nih.gov/research-trainin...tiatives/activ

We are trying very hard, and spending lots of money on trying to develop effective treatments.We have not put all our eggs in a basket labelled vaccines, and none of this has anything to do with the former president. Unless your argument is something other than what your words indicated - a prospect i can't rule out - your argument is wrong.


I've now spent about 15 minutes digging up material that clearly indicates your claim was wrong, and attempting to summarize them. Your response to my original evidence was to essentially say "no", repeat your claim, and provide no evidence.

I could go through the rest of your statements, but it would cost me about 3 hours of my life, and you could respond in the same way: just repeat what you said the first time, tell me i'm wrong, and produce no evidence. It would take you all of about a minute to do it, since there's a fundamental asymmetry between evidence based arguments and other stuff. So, i'd like to see how you respond to this before making the effort to do so.

[Teallaura]

For anyone who's curious, this is what we expect to see for a successful intervention* - a taper then a precipitous drop.

Successfull Intervention Curve Appearance Example.jpg




Waves almost never follow in STD - but to be fair, I'm not sure about respiratory sine its vectors are very different. They could reasonably happen even after a successful intervention - but I'd expect them to be muted .





*Exception prevention by education - that one is rarely very effective in STD and it's probably worse for respiratory. Telling people not to have sex is one thing - kinda hard to tell them not to breathe. Education is the ugly stepchild we use when there's nothing else available. It DOES have some effect but it's usually very short term. There are successful programs - just not in the US - and even they just break the 20% mark which is huge in this intervention but paltry compared to presumptive tx or vaccination (relative time scales do apply).