The Microchip in the Vaccine

[Teallaura]

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.


Let me remind you of what you originally said:

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.

It took you fifteen minutes to do three IRRELEVANT Google searches? Not a SINGLE one of those article titles (first page) even mentioned presumptive treatment - and a grand total of one mentioned preventative treatment.

One ARTICLE - not one page of searches. ONE. ARTICLE.

Zero refutation of my claim, that in context, says we put all our (public health intervention) eggs in the vaccine basket. Not one. So let's look at the NIH link you gave - this should be fun...


And here we have it: An overview of a working group - that at least IS RELEVANT.

The Preclinical Working Group focused on:

• Establishing a centralized process and repository for harmonizing and sharing methods and evaluating animal models
• Extending access to high-throughput screening facilities, especially in biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) labs
• Increasing access to validated animal models
• Enhancing comparison of approaches to identify informative assays
• Generating a process to assess viral variant effects on vaccines and therapeutics

Which proves one thing - you couldn't refute me with a fifteen minute search of Google.

Last I looked, people doing glorified literature reviews aren't doing the actual research. To be fair, at least someone was doing SOMETHING to keep these guys busy - presumably. But this doesn't tell us what they were doing, let alone how much of it they did.

So six months after the vaccine role out, the FDA grants a release for one presumptive treatment. Yeah, sounds like ta lot of research there...

[NorrinRadd]

Vaxperts -- Could you comment on these remarks from the free edition of Alex Berenson's Substack newsletter?

They relate to this link, for which he recommends Google Translate. It's about Covid vaxing in Israel.

"[N]ew serious cases have risen 10-fold since the beginning of July - from roughly five a day to about 40 over the last week. The overall number of patients has soared too - from 30 to more than 200.

But how many of those people are vaccinated?

The vast majority. Israel has broken out the data in various ways at various times, but throughout July most new patients were vaccinated."

....


"What is useful is examining the trend among serious illness in older vaccinated people.

And it is terrible. The rate of cases has risen 12-fold IN A MONTH. On July 4th, fewer than 1 older vaccinated person in 100,000 became seriously ill. Today the rate is 10 in 100,000."

...

".[T]though we cannot be sure what will happen next, it is worth noting that rates of serious illness among the vaccinated are now as high as they were among the unvaccinated only TWO WEEKS AGO."

[Teallaura]

Given that every medicine/drug/treatment inevitably has side effects in some people, you won't need anyone "claiming" that the cure has adverse side effects.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried to determine what sort of side-effects placebos might have. And yes, I'm serious.

Yeppers.

The funny one


I suspect they use lactose to avoid the possibility - which doesn't mean it can't be contraindicated. I wonder if they ask about lactose intolerance ?

[Teallaura]

Vaxperts -- Could you comment on these remarks from the free edition of Alex Berenson's Substack newsletter?

They relate to this link, for which he recommends Google Translate. It's about Covid vaxing in Israel.

"[N]ew serious cases have risen 10-fold since the beginning of July - from roughly five a day to about 40 over the last week. The overall number of patients has soared too - from 30 to more than 200.

But how many of those people are vaccinated?

The vast majority. Israel has broken out the data in various ways at various times, but throughout July most new patients were vaccinated."

....


"What is useful is examining the trend among serious illness in older vaccinated people.

And it is terrible. The rate of cases has risen 12-fold IN A MONTH. On July 4th, fewer than 1 older vaccinated person in 100,000 became seriously ill. Today the rate is 10 in 100,000."

...

".[T]though we cannot be sure what will happen next, it is worth noting that rates of serious illness among the vaccinated are now as high as they were among the unvaccinated only TWO WEEKS AGO."

I want to see specificity data first - it's possible to interpret a couple different ways. Without anything else to go on it sounds like just the failure rate (some are pretty high) but the changes in status are interesting. Could be a statistical artifact - or observer bias - or declining immunity which is a failure . Dunno, need to look at it better.

And I'm not an expert on vaccination - don't play one on TV. I did more cross training in TB than vaccination. But I had to field patient questions so we covered some of it in HIV training.

[rogue06]

Yeppers.

The funny one


I suspect they use lactose to avoid the possibility - which doesn't mean it can't be contraindicated. I wonder if they ask about lactose intolerance ?

I was thinking along the lines that if a placebo can trigger a psychological reaction have they ever noticed psychological-based side effects (something like people saying it made them itch), or even actual physical reaction because they took a "drug" (increase heart rate)

[Mountain Man]

Vaxperts -- Could you comment on these remarks from the free edition of Alex Berenson's Substack newsletter?

They relate to this link, for which he recommends Google Translate. It's about Covid vaxing in Israel.

"[N]ew serious cases have risen 10-fold since the beginning of July - from roughly five a day to about 40 over the last week. The overall number of patients has soared too - from 30 to more than 200.

But how many of those people are vaccinated?

The vast majority. Israel has broken out the data in various ways at various times, but throughout July most new patients were vaccinated."

....


"What is useful is examining the trend among serious illness in older vaccinated people.

And it is terrible. The rate of cases has risen 12-fold IN A MONTH. On July 4th, fewer than 1 older vaccinated person in 100,000 became seriously ill. Today the rate is 10 in 100,000."

...

".[T]though we cannot be sure what will happen next, it is worth noting that rates of serious illness among the vaccinated are now as high as they were among the unvaccinated only TWO WEEKS AGO."

And this is precisely why FDA approval for a new vaccine is supposed to take as long as a decade of study and testing. At the moment, the FDA is looking at rushing to full approval in less than a year, but there is still so much we don't know about these vaccines.

[Roy]

Herd immunity is calculated using a formula that considers the infectiousness of the virus. If you get a more infectious virus, it takes a higher level of protection before you reach herd immunity. It's not goal post shifting as much as basic math.

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

TheLurch is correct.

Herd immunity requires that infected people be unable to pass the virus on to anyone who is susceptible. The more infectious a virus is, the more people will be exposed to it via each infected person, and the more people need to be immune in order to prevent it spreading.

The simplest way to picture this is by comparing the spreading potential of a two viruses, one of which can travel further between people.

[TheLurch]

It took you fifteen minutes to do three IRRELEVANT Google searches? Not a SINGLE one of those article titles (first page) even mentioned presumptive treatment - and a grand total of one mentioned preventative treatment.

One ARTICLE - not one page of searches. ONE. ARTICLE.

That's just false, unless you define "presumptive" in a way that's inconsistent with its English definition.

First link from my first link: "Number of drugs such as remdesivir, favipiravir, ribavirin, lopinavir, ritonavir, darunavir, arbidol, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab and interferons have shown inhibitory effects against the SARS-CoV2 in-vitro as well as in clinical conditions."

Second link:
" Following the COVID-19 outbreak in December 2019, a few existing BSAAs have been rapidly introduced into clinical trials, spanning Phases II though IV. Umifenovir is a membrane fusion inhibitor targeting viral entry and lopinavir/ritonavir is a drug combination targeting viral protease, both approved for the indications of Influenza and HIV. They are currently being considered in different combinations in a Phase IV clinical trial for pneumonia associated with COVID-19"

I know you're wrong because the time i put in that you're mocking was spent confirming that the searches produced relevant results.

I'm done with this "discussion".

[Teallaura]

I was thinking along the lines that if a placebo can trigger a psychological reaction have they ever noticed psychological-based side effects (something like people saying it made them itch), or even actual physical reaction because they took a "drug" (increase heart rate)

That's a good question but I don't know the answer.

[Mountain Man]

told Swedish newspaper Aftonbladethttps://www.breitbart.com/europe/202...vaccine-shots/

It's like they're making it up as they go.

[Teallaura]

That's just false, unless you define "presumptive" in a way that's inconsistent with its English definition.

First link from my first link: "Number of drugs such as remdesivir, favipiravir, ribavirin, lopinavir, ritonavir, darunavir, arbidol, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab and interferons have shown inhibitory effects against the SARS-CoV2 in-vitro as well as in clinical conditions."

Second link:
" Following the COVID-19 outbreak in December 2019, a few existing BSAAs have been rapidly introduced into clinical trials, spanning Phases II though IV. Umifenovir is a membrane fusion inhibitor targeting viral entry and lopinavir/ritonavir is a drug combination targeting viral protease, both approved for the indications of Influenza and HIV. They are currently being considered in different combinations in a Phase IV clinical trial for pneumonia associated with COVID-19"

I know you're wrong because the time i put in that you're mocking was spent confirming that the searches produced relevant results.

I'm done with this "discussion".

Presumptive treatment is defined as treatment for a disease that has not been confirmed but is reasonably possible to be present - as in treatment of a contact to the disease. It is not prophylaxis nor is it a preventive - which is what the paragraph you just quoted describes. Treatment is either (and most commonly) a cure or a very effective therapy in this context - and nothing you cited does that.

It was never a discussion - just a revenge piece for my having gone off on you. You just weren't expecting me to fight back, let alone sort through your half - you know what links. You've gotten over confident in your reputation and expect deference. That you literally cited Google is clear evidence of that.

I can accept that I can be wrong - but deliberately misconstruing my points and irrelevant cites don't prove anything more than my assessment of the attack as mere revenge is likely correct.

[Teallaura]

TheLurch is correct.

Herd immunity requires that infected people be unable to pass the virus on to anyone who is susceptible. The more infectious a virus is, the more people will be exposed to it via each infected person, and the more people need to be immune in order to prevent it spreading.

The simplest way to picture this is by comparing the spreading potential of a two viruses, one of which can travel further between people.

Er, not quite - vectors radically affect spread. HIV isn't terribly infectious outside its main vector (not counting coinfection for simplicity) and only spreads aggressively under certain circumstances related to human behavior. That doesn't work in the formula they used and wouldn't be calculated - yet any vaccine program has to take it into account to achieve a successful intervention (herd immunity - actually population immunity might describe it better with HIV).


That formula looks reasonable for a respiratory with an airborne vector so I don't have an issue with the application, but it is not just simple math.

And to be fair, it's not hard to misuse a formula so Go's point didn't seem clearly addressed to me.

[TheLurch]

Presumptive treatment is defined as treatment for a disease that has not been confirmed but is reasonably possible to be present - as in treatment of a contact to the disease. It is not prophylaxis nor is it a preventive - which is what the paragraph you just quoted describes

Antivirals are treatments for ongoing infection. The entire list of drug are antivirals, and chosen entirely for their safety profiles, which indicates they'd be safe to give without a formal diagnosis. They are precisely what you're asking for.

I am not deliberately misconstruing your points or seeking revenge. I'm taking your points seriously, and addressing them with evidence. I have no idea what in the world you're doing.

[Teallaura]

Antivirals are treatments for ongoing infection. The entire list of drug are antivirals, and chosen entirely for their safety profiles, which indicates they'd be safe to give without a formal diagnosis. They are precisely what you're asking for.

I am not deliberately misconstruing your points or seeking revenge. I'm taking your points seriously, and addressing them with evidence. I have no idea what in the world you're doing.

Dude, I've made it clear several times now that antivirals are rarely presumptive treatment - look at the only presumptive the FDA has given a tentative green light to (linked a couple pages back). Antibodies, last I looked, aren't anti-retrovirals. Even with HIV where they are actually effective, it's a therapy, not a treatment (yeah, yeah, there's a lot of definitional overlap there - but I spelled it out for Sparky so I shouldn't need to spell it out for like the third time for you). It works as an intervention but extremely slowly - took better part of a decade to really see the downswing from treatment efficacy on spread.

It's one thing to say, hey, that's not clear enough - it's a whole 'nother thing to come out calling me a liar by inference. Get off your high horse - if you're going to call me out like that you do NOT get to hide behind sanctimony. Polite muckraking is still muckraking - only an idiot wouldn't understand why that ticks people off.

And if you can't understand me, maybe that's because you aren't coming at it from the same perspective - but you didn't give me that benefit of the doubt, did you? I apologized - twice - for my screw up in jumping down your throat - you didn't even acknowledge them. So nah, the holier than thou crap isn't a good hunting blind.

And I too, provided evidence on subsequent points - notice you didn't bother addressing any of that.



Huh, well, one good thing - it just dawned on me how similar anti-retroviral therapy is to the early vaccination programs.

[Teallaura]

told Swedish newspaper Aftonbladethttps://www.breitbart.com/europe/202...vaccine-shots/

It's like they're making it up as they go.

Nah, it's that they aren't owning the obvious - these aren't long term vaccines. We have other vaccines that have limited efficacy - tetanus is the easiest example - but they aren't usually measured in months rather than years. If the vaccine immunities are all short term - which is a real possibility up against a virus - then there's no way to sell the public on the idea that they will need quarterly shots for the rest of their lives to avoid a disease that is itself low risk to their demographic,

Bright spot - short term might actually work out better for the immunocompromised. It's still a lot of shots but that constant boost would take the load off of their own immune systems. Assuming they can take the vaccines - a lot of work left to do on contraindications so it's iffy, but the possibility is there. (That FDA thing I linked might be even better - but again, too soon to call).