Do vaccines make us healthier ?

thanks much

You have been doing some work with the election steal commenting on the voting machine algorithm hypothesis. A mechanism is proposed and we look to see if the hypothesis is even feasible and if so then look to see if there is any evidence of something like that actually happening. If so, then we consider what to do about it. Please correct me but this is how I understand your approach.

So my question regards using this same approach with anti-vaccine allegations. I am accepting your public health argument as intuitive and unremarkable, so please understand the actual nature of my question. I have tried asking around about this without success. Since you seem to have good sense, I thought of trying my question on you. I confess I am not embroiled in any of the anti-vaccine debates here on our wonderful forum.

I have studied the blood clot issue with Vaxzevria since the two nurses in Austria died from a “bad batch” and I am satisfied that I know what happened. Blood clots AND low platelets?!? Well when you have few platelets, they get sticky. So now the task will be to verify if that is the case and if so then decide what to do about it. Here is the latest I have on that:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00940-0
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine-ema-finds-possible-link-very-rare-cases-unusual-blood-clots-low-blood

Has any fatal mechanism been proposed for any other Covid-19 vaccines?
I understand the “all vaccines bad” argument.
I understand bagster’s “government bad” argument.
Someone gave me some links to anti-vaxxer websites, and I read all those, their idea being that vaccines are fatal because they work exactly as they are designed to do.
I understand the theory behind mRNA vaccines but I cannot imagine how they make the “lipid nanoparticel carrier.”
Here’s what I know about mRNA vaccines:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243
Please don’t think I am asking you to read these links, and I do not ask you to take any position on the controversy.

Given for the sake of argument that the Moderna vaccine is killing people, how does it do that?

Thanks!

I agree with your philosophy on vaccines, just try to follow the evidence and be neutral about it. I read the nature article about "low platelets". First the the guy Eichinger seems to be looking under the lampposts because that's where the light is shining. Secondly, platelet count is one measurement you can make in a human. You can make thousands of other measurments and what do those measurements say?

Nature did not interview anyone else with any other theories. They did not even take a holistic view of the HIT syndrome. H is for heparin and that's a binary input. HIT without heparin? That's impossible, ok maybe it's possible but it's "exceedingly rare" at least under these lamp posts.

The EMA is at least taking a more open-minded approach: One plausible explanation for the combination of blood clots and low blood platelets is an immune response, leading to a condition similar to one seen sometimes in patients treated with heparin (heparin induced thrombocytopenia, HIT). The PRAC has requested new studies and amendments to ongoing ones to provide more information and will take any further actions necessary.

The magic words are immune response. My friend had his second shot and came down with shingles. He's about 75 and never sick with flu or any other communicable disease. I told him that the fatality rate from COVID might be 1 in 100 or 1 in 500, but getting that shot lowered his likelihood of catching COVID by about 100X, depending on his day-to-day exposure. But I thought about it and it seems to me intuitively that if you overstimulate one part of the immune system, that might steal resources from some other part. As the EMA says: "As for the mechanism, it is thought that the vaccine may trigger an immune response leading to an atypical heparin-induced-thrombocytopenia like disorder. At this time, it is not possible to identify specific risk factors."

The mRNA article (your third link) is scary "Despite this success, there remain major hurdles to vaccine development against a variety of infectious pathogens, especially those better able to evade the adaptive immune response." Translation: current vaccines don't tinker with the immune system enough. And The development of more potent and versatile vaccine platforms is therefore urgently needed.

First, safety: as mRNA is a non-infectious, non-integrating platform, there is no potential risk of infection or insertional mutagenesis. Tinkering is safer than being accidentally infected. Is that true for COVID? "The inherent immunogenicity of the mRNA can be down-modulated to further increase the safety profile" Translation: mRNA already slips by the body's defenses but we can enhance that ability.

Crucially, it was discovered that the incorporation of naturally occurring chemically modified nucleosides, including but not limited to pseudouridine9, and 1-methylpseudouridine, prevents activation of TLR7, TLR8 and other innate immune sensors, thus reducing type I interferon signalling.

I have no idea what they are talking about, but it doesn't sound good to me. Thanks for the links. I think we will have to wait and gather more evidence.

Thanks

“Care to explain what changes to genes occurs with the COVID mRNA vaccine?”

The vaccine introduces viral genes in to the cell where the viral genes are expressed.

“And as I said earlier, considering DNA contains one’s genes while not technically altering DNA people rightly don’t differentiate between the two in regards to changes to the human body.”

This sentence is incoherent.

Do you actually know anything about molecular biology? Or is it just an interest of yours?

Thank you for your thoughts!
If you keep an eye out for me I will be so grateful. You are probably someone who would discount something and not send it to me I know. Which is fine...don’t send me everything, but if I have put the bug in your ear and you can throw something my way? More evidence, you said, more evidence indeed.

I asked a church friend today, a phlebotomist, and also close friends with a GP here in Winston, who is warning all his patients against the vaccines. I don’t know him, but she said she would shoot me what he was reading and what he had given her. She did not think that it would answer my question, as all that info was about the vaccines being unnecessary, same unremarkable point you were making.

She made a good point, “Why should fatalities be the benchmark?” She told a story of Aunt Pat who now has a drooping face one side after her first Pfizetr(?) shot.

I could, at the risk of over-simplification which is my curse, try to translate those quotes, but that may not be important to you.

Thanks again for your thoughts, and when time permits I may look again through you comment history. Till the next one!

Here’s your quote from the FDA:

“Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:

Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene
Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly
Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease.”

And no, I’d only be interested in gene therapy if I or someone I loved were in need of a cure that gene therapy could cure.

“Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease.””

Thank you.

This is what the vaccines do and I have consistently stated the above.

As I stated before also, one could say the vaccine isn’t meant to treat a disease but prevent a disease making it technically not therapy.

Sigh. How many times do I have to explain to you that the mRNA is NOT introducing anything that is incorporated into our genome?

I suspect you know that not but the urge to convince others that this vaccine is some sort of Frankenstein monster that will modify our genes is irresistible.

“Sigh.”

What do you mean sigh?

I’m the one who should be sighing.

“How many times do I have to explain to you that the mRNA is NOT introducing anything that is incorporated into our genome?”

Please read carefully - from the definition you posted:

“Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease.””

Notice the definition here states “in to the body”.

I have told you over and over that gene therapy does not need to incorporate in to the chromosome (or genome as you put it).

Your mistake has always been that you think gene therapy by definition must integrate in to the genome/chromosome which is not the case.

I’ve been quite patient and polite with you. Do you understand now?

“My opinion on possible long term consequences is something I have not seen mentioned which is leukemia or other blood cancers arising due to chromosomal integration.”

Does this not imply otherwise?

And yes I do consider gene therapy to mean manipulation of one’s genes to correct a defect.

““My opinion on possible long term consequences is something I have not seen mentioned which is leukemia or other blood cancers arising due to chromosomal integration.”

Does this not imply otherwise?

—

Yes it does, although imply is not the correct description. Suggest is better.

You’re changing the subject from what is gene therapy, which is what we’ve been discussing, which is ok if you want to do that.

We have established now that gene therapy does not need to integrate in to a chromosome (incorporate in to the genome, as you put it).

Now would you like to discuss theoretical considerations of the RNA vaccines’ possibility of integrating in to a chromosome? Which is a different subject than how is gene therapy defined.

We have established now that gene therapy does not need to integrate in to a chromosome

No we haven't. Gene therapy is designed to introduce genetic material into cells to compensate for abnormal genes or to make a beneficial protein. If a mutated gene causes a necessary protein to be faulty or missing, gene therapy may be able to introduce a normal copy of the gene to restore the function of the protein. A gene that is inserted directly into a cell usually does not function. Instead, a carrier called a vector is genetically engineered to deliver the gene. Certain viruses are often used as vectors because they can deliver the new gene by infecting the cell. The viruses are modified so they can’t cause disease when used in people. Some types of viruses, such as retroviruses, integrate their genetic material (including the new gene) into a chromosome in the human cell. Other viruses, such as adenoviruses, introduce their DNA into the nucleus of the cell, but the DNA is not integrated into a chromosome.

RNA is not used in gene therapy and viral vectors are not used in RNA vaccines, which makes the comparison to gene therapy fundamentally faulty.

And no, I'm, not interested in "speculative" "theoretical considerations of the RNA vaccines’ possibility of integrating into a chromosome". Unless of course, you have clinical proof of even one instance of either of the mRNA vaccines having managed to have done so. I have zero interest in speculative fear-mongering.

“We have established now that gene therapy does not need to integrate in to a chromosome.”

No we haven’t.

—

If you think thus you did not read or understand what you yourself posted.

I’m referring to post 47.

You have no idea what you’re talking about regarding gene therapy vectors.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for gene therapy, but you don’t understand molecular biology well enough to present your knowledge based on lay readings.

I will try to find time today to go through your post which is well written and presented to clarify the points you are trying to make.