Posted on 10/25/2023 9:36:31 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Remember when Sen. Rand Paul accused Dr. Anthony Fauci of funding China’s Wuhan virus lab?
Fauci replied, “Sen. Paul, you do not know what you’re talking about.”
The media loved it. Vanity Fair smirked, “Fauci Once Again Forced to Basically Call Rand Paul a Sniveling Moron.”
But now the magazine has changed its tune, admitting, “In Major Shift, NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan … Paul might have been onto something.”
Then what about question two: Did COVID-19 occur because of a leak from that lab?
When Paul confronted Fauci, saying, “The evidence is pointing that it came from the lab!” Fauci replied, “I totally resent the lie that you are now propagating.”
Was Paul lying? What’s the truth?
The media told us COVID came from an animal, possibly a bat.
But in my new video, Paul points out there were “reports of 80,000 animals being tested. No animals with it.”
Now he’s released a book, “Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up,” that charges Fauci and others with funding dangerous research and then covering it up.
“Three people in the Wuhan lab got sick with a virus of unknown origin in November of 2019,” says Paul. The Wuhan lab is 1,000 kilometers away from where bats live.
Today the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Energy and others agree with Rand Paul. They believe COVID most likely came from a lab.
I ask Paul, “COVID came from evil Chinese scientists, in a lab, funded by America?”
“America funded it,” he replies, “maybe not done with evil intentions. It was done with the misguided notion that ‘gain of function’ research was safe.”
Gain of function research includes making viruses stronger.
The purpose is to anticipate what might happen in nature and come up with vaccines in advance. So I push back at Paul, “They’re trying to find ways to stop diseases!”
He replies, “Many scientists have now looked at this and said, ‘We’ve been doing this gain of function research for quite a while.’ The likelihood that you create something that creates a vaccine that’s going to help anybody is pretty slim to none.”
Paul points out that Fauci supported “gain of function” research.
“He said in 2012, even if a pandemic occurs … the knowledge is worth it.” Fauci did write: “The benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”
Paul answers: “Well, that’s a judgment call. There’s probably 16 million families around the world who might disagree with that.”
Fauci and the National Institutes of Health didn’t give money directly to the Chinese lab. They gave it to a nonprofit, EcoHealth Alliance. The group works to protect people from infectious diseases.
“They were able to accumulate maybe over $100 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars, and a lot of it was funneled to Wuhan,” says Paul.
EcoHealth Alliance is run by zoologist Peter Daszak. Before the pandemic, Daszak bragged about combining coronaviruses in Wuhan.
Once COVID broke out, Daszak became less eager to talk about these experiments. He won’t talk to me.
“Peter Daszak has refused to reveal his communications with the Wuhan lab,” complains Paul. “I do think that ultimately there is a great deal of culpability on his part … They squelched all dissent and said, ‘You’re a conspiracy theorist if you’re saying this (came from a lab),’ but they didn’t reveal that they had a monetary self-incentive to cover this up,” says Paul.
“The media is weirdly un-curious about this,” I say to Paul.
“We have a disease that killed maybe 16 million people,” Paul responds. “And they’re not curious as to how we got it?”
Also, Our NIH still funds gain of function research, Paul says.
“This is a risk to civilization. We could wind up with a virus … that leaks out of a lab and kills half of the planet,” Paul warns.
Paul’s book reveals much more about Fauci and EcoHealth Alliance. I will cover more of that in this column in a few weeks.
Every Tuesday at JohnStossel.com, Stossel posts a new video about the battle between government and freedom. He is the author of “Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.”
Sorry, have to disagree with you here.
Me and my family did and are doing very well with no vaccinations.
We acquired the Omicron Covid in 2021 and had hardly any symptoms.
Naturally acquired immunity is just as good if not better than these mRNA vaccines.
And if as you say, these mRNA vaccines have had the same length of study as the traditional ones I’ve mentioned, I would not have seen the in again off again suspensions by several countries on these vaccines.
Plus, you have not even addressed the infections people have had despite being vaccinated and boosted several times. I have friends who have been reinfected more than once despite vaccination and boosting.
The policy I support is the same as Rand Paul’s and the Surgeon General of Florida, Joseph Ladipo and the health minister of Sweden — the Covid vaccines should be treated like the flu shot — encourage it, but NO COERCION.
I stick to that and will prefer to vote for any leader who advocates for this policy. You are free to vote for Joe Biden if you wish ( who holds the same stance as you). It’s a free country.
Just because you and your family are lucky does not mean everyone is. When 1% of the people who catch Covid die, and another 20-30% experience long-term health impairments because of Covid, that actually does mean that the majority of people will get over it and feel fine afterwards. Is smoking safe because most smokers don't develop lung cancer?
From a public health perspective, a disease that kills off 1% of those who catch it is devastating. And the 7% or so of people whose long Covid will not relent represent a huge burden on our health care system and social welfare systems.
Naturally acquired immunity is just as good if not better than these mRNA vaccines.
I think you mean "disease-induced immunity," so that is how I will answer this. Since immunity is only valuable if it keeps you from catching a disease, then what is the point of immunity if your method of getting it is by catching a disease? And recatching the disease whenever your immunity fades after a few months? How is that protective and how can that possibly benefit your health?
I am aware that many professional antivaxxers try to promote the idea of immunity as a health goal in itself. And then they stress the superiority of disease-induced immunity over vaccine-induced immunity. But immunity in itself, being immune just for the sake of being immune, is useless. You are highly unlikely to catch Japanese encephalitis without leaving the US, so what possible health benefit is there in developing an adaptive immunity against it? There isn't one. No one gets a Japanese encephalitis vaccine unless they are traveling to a place where it is endemic. Only then is there benefit in being protected.
I should also point out that due to the nature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the damage it causes seems to be cumulative. You might not have noticed any heart, lung, kidney, etc., damage after your first bout of Covid. But each subsequent bout causes more damage. You can avoid that damage by getting vaccinated. The good news is that Covid survivors typically have an excellent immune response to the vaccine.
Plus, you have not even addressed the infections people have had despite being vaccinated and boosted several times. I have friends who have been reinfected more than once despite vaccination and boosting.
Actually, I did address that in another post. I explained how the immunity following vaccination is only as good as the immune function of the person receiving the vaccine. I explained that there are several reasons a person's immune system might not work well.
Catching a contagious disease is more complicated than just a simplistic "I was exposed to a virus and I got sick." Whether the exposure leads to illness is dependent on how large the dose of virus was and whether you have preexisting specific immunity and how strong that immunity is. Thanks to the nucleases (nucleic acid destroying enzymes) and antiviral systems in the innate immune system, your body destroys virus particles if the exposure is low enough. An infection can only occur if you are exposed to enough virus particles to overwhelm the innate immune system. If you do not already have pathogen-specific T-cells, B-cells, and antibodies developed by the adaptive immune system, you will get sick.
But let's say that you have adaptive immunity through disease or vaccine. Then, whether you get sick depends on how strong your immune response was and how much time has elapsed since the last immune response provoking event occurred. If you have what is called a breakthrough infection, meaning that you do not have sufficient antibodies to prevent an infection, the illness will be less severe (assuming you actually do have pathogen-specific antibodies). That is because even though the amount of antibody is insufficient to prevent an infection, there was still antibody that neutralized a significant number of viral particles that you were exposed to. Plus, the infection will cause your immune system to spring into action and produce new T-cells, B-cells, and antibodies. In the worst case scenario, despite vaccination, you do not become immune at all. Then you have an increased chance of dying or developing long-term health issues.
As for your friends who have become ill despite being vaccinated and boosted--how much time elapsed between their last vaccination and their catching of Covid? Are they elderly people whose immune systems don't work well, or do they have a disease that impairs the immune system? There are any number of reasons even a vaccinated and boosted person can catch Covid. The purpose of vaccines is not to restore immune system to optimal performance, but to train the immune system to fight pathogens.
RE: Just because you and your family are lucky does not mean everyone is.
And Just because someone does well as a result of vaccination does not mean that everyone does well.
RE; From a public health perspective, a disease that kills off 1% of those who catch it is devastating.
You are assuming that vaccination always prevents death from Covid. But isn’t true. See here:
https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/why-do-vaccinated-people-represent-most-covid-19-deaths-right-now/
Vaccinated or unvaccinated, death comes to the individual depending on his personal condition.
RE: And the 7% or so of people whose long Covid will not relent represent a huge burden on our health care system and social welfare systems.
Uh Huh, and you are assuing that vaccination helps prevent long Covid. Again. not true. See here:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/neurology/longcovid/103708
RE: Since immunity is only valuable if it keeps you from catching a disease, then what is the point of immunity if your method of getting it is by catching a disease? And recatching the disease whenever your immunity fades after a few months? How is that protective and how can that possibly benefit your health?
Well, the question you ask can also be asked of those who are vaccinated. The effectivenes of the vaccine wanes in a few months as well. Whenever your immunity fades in a few months, you have to get boosted again. So how does continous MRNA vaccination become good for your health?
In fact, there is evidence to show that naturally acquired immunity lasts longer than the immunity provided by vaccines. See here:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
COPY AND PASTE:
Conclusions: This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.
RE: I should also point out that due to the nature of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the damage it causes seems to be cumulative. You might not have noticed any heart, lung, kidney, etc., damage after your first bout of Covid. But each subsequent bout causes more damage. You can avoid that damage by getting vaccinated.
Errr... you are assuming that those vaccinated will never suffer the above health problems you enumerated.
First off, it is important to understand a little bit about the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein.
The only difference in the actual protein sequence between the original “Wuhan” strain Spike protein of the virus, and that coded for by the genetic vaccines, is two amino acids which have been changed in the S2 region of the protein.
These were not introduced to make that vaccine version less toxic (as some “factcheckers” have asserted), but rather to make it better able to stimulate an antibody-based immune response. Whether vaccine encoded or virus encoded, the S1 subunit (which includes the receptor binding domain (to which the majority of “neutralizing” antibodies are directed) gets cut free (“proteolytically cleaved’) to yield an S1 subunit which is free to circulate in the blood, bind ACE2 receptors, interact with platelets, neurons, open up vascular endothelial tight junctions etc.
HOW IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE S1 SUBUNIT RELEASED FROM THE VACCINE SPIKE PROTEIN AND THE S1 SUBUNIT RELEASED FROM THE VIRUS SPIKE PROTEIN?
The question then is how much and for how long does this free S1 subunit spike protein, including the receptor binding domain, become produced by the mRNA vaccines, versus how much and for how long by natural infection?
Surely this was well understood and characterized by Pfizer before these vaccines were widely deployed? Surely the FDA required that these studies be performed?
Well no, it took over a year for another study to come out.
SEE HERE:
It says:
“Immunohistochemical staining for spike antigen in mRNA-vaccinated patient LNs varied between individuals but showed abundant spike protein in GCs 16 days post-second dose, with spike antigen still present as late as 60 days post-second dose.”
So, the vaccine produces far more spike S1 subunit for far longer than the natural infection does. Hmm. Curiouser and curiouser.
But is the S1 subunit (which is identical between the virus and the vaccine) actually a toxin? Good question.
First question - does spike S1 subunit get into the brain across the blood brain barrier?
Well, yes it does according to this paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-020-00771-8
TITLE: The S1 protein of SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood–brain barrier in mice
Next question. Does Spike S1 do any damage to the brain when it hits nerve cells (neurons)?
Looks like it does! Who would have guessed. read it for yourself here:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2021.777738/full
TITLE: SARS-CoV-2 S1 Protein Induces Endolysosome Dysfunction and Neuritic Dystrophy
AND THEN THERE IS THIS ONE:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666354621002027
As I read this, I can’t help but say to myself: There does not seem to be a significant difference between the symptoms of long COVID and post vaccination syndrome.
If you want to take that risk, be my guest.
RE: As for your friends who have become ill despite being vaccinated and boosted—how much time elapsed between their last vaccination and their catching of Covid?
I know of 5 of them ( 2 colleagues ) who became ill after being vaccinated and boosted. I don’t know the specific details of the 3 others.
But 2 of them are quite close to me.
of these 2, one got reinfected after boosting 4 months later.
The other got reinfected not long after the first one ( since both work in the same company ). I would say 5 months after boosting.
They are both WORKING AGE — in their late 40’s.
There have been studies to show that 94% of the US population were estimated to have been infected by SARS-CoV-2 at least once.
See here:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.11.19.22282525v3
[COPY AND PASTE]
Results:
“By November 9, 2022, 94% (95% CrI, 79%–99%) of the US population were estimated to have been infected by SARS-CoV-2 at least once. Combined with vaccination, 97% (95%–99%) were estimated to have some prior immunological exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Between December 1, 2021 and November 9, 2022, protection against a new Omicron infection rose from 22% (21%–23%) to 63% (51%–75%) nationally, and protection against an Omicron infection leading to severe disease increased from 61% (59%–64%) to 89% (83%–92%). Increasing first booster uptake to 55% in all states (current US coverage: 34%) and second booster uptake to 22% (current US coverage: 11%) would increase protection against infection by 4.5 percentage points (2.4–7.2) and protection against severe disease by 1.1 percentage points (1.0–1.5).”
I read the above study and here’s my take:
Highlights:
If 22% (double the 11% currently boosted) of the US population would be boosted a second time, the initial increased protection against infection would rise by 4.5 percentage points (2.4–7.2), and furthermore…
If 22% (double the 11% currently boosted) of the US population would be boosted a second time, the protection against severe disease would increase by 1 percentage points. Of course, as the CDC has implied above - that extra ONE percent protection would wane rapidly and be gone in sixty days…
It doesn’t get any more clear than this. These “boosters” don’t look to be effective.
And then, I read this:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36436751/
TITLE:
SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persist up to 12 months after natural infection in healthy employees working in non-medical contact-intensive professions
[COPY AND PASTE]
Conclusions: In this cohort, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persisted for up to one year after initial seropositivity, suggesting long-term natural immunity.
Juxtapose the results of the booster study above that shows very little protection against severe disease with this study - which documents long-term natural immunity in a vaccine free population and what can I conclude?
Clearly, the results are in. Natural immunity is best ( at least against Omicron ). But why can’t it be the same for later variants?
So, my friend, if you want to be continually boosted, that’s your prerogative. But please, leave me out of it. And please remember that America ( last I saw ) is still a free country where our rights to put whatever we want in our body are ( at least OUGHT ) to be protected by law.
And worse come to worst, if I want to take the vaccine, I’ll wait till maybe 2027 or 2028 ( about the same time it took for other vaccines to be fully approved ). These mRNA vaccines came out first as Emergency Use Authorizations, only approved after a year of COERCIVE use. I can wait till more detailed peer reviewed studies are published.
But before we continue, I want to ask you a question and please answer me directly:
DO YOU ADVOCATE TO GIVE POWER TO THE GOVERNMENT TO FORCE EVERYONE TO TAKE THE COVID VACCINES ( AND BOOSTERS ) UNDER THREAT OF LOSING THEIR JOBS?
A simple Yes or No will suffice.
Hi Dingbat. Blowing smoke again?
Hey look Russia Russia Russia, right out of the Peter Hotez playbook. And that funny nerurolinguistic programming, focus-group-approved, Orwellian newspeak term "misinformation".
Look, if you have not read about the Russian troll farms and their activities, I can't help that.
This is getting boring. You have provided no medical misinformation for me to debunk. I use the debunking to educate people about what the real science says and to learn new things myself. You can insult me all you want (it only tells me that you recognize my expertise), but unless you can provide some material I can use, I am not going to reply further.
Acceptable material:
--Biologically implausible claims of, for example, how vaccines function.
--Links to blogs that use real studies to "prove" some grievous harm from vaccines (which the studies never show).
--Links to real studies that some blogger said was "smoking gun" proof of some horrible consequence of vaccines but aren't.
--Links to blogs claiming conspiracies to hide information from the public by health agencies such as CDC, NIH, FDA, etc.
--Any other health-related conspiracy material that fits into the same general theme.
Most people who have fallen into the antivax/anti-science trap do have a fairly good grasp on the kind of material they need to provide for me to debunk. When you provide that material, I will respond.
Yes.
The government (both state and federal) already mandates vaccines for people working in certain professions and for people attending school. Given that Covid is at least ten times as deadly as influenza (which is a mandated vaccine) and far more likely to cause long-term health problems which are, in some cases, severe enough to place a person on the disability rolls, it makes sense to mandate Covid vaccines.
Before attending college, I had to take a measles vaccine.
In order to work with human cells in a research lab, I had to take hepatitis A and B vaccines.
Before traveling to Korea on a special assignment, I had to take smallpox, anthrax, and Japanese encephalitis vaccines.
As a medical researcher, I had to take the influenza vaccine yearly.
I don't have my vaccination record in front of me, but there are vaccinations on it that I don't even remember receiving but which were mandated.
So why should I have any problem with another vaccine being added to the mandated vaccines list?
RE: Yes
I’m not going to converse further with you then.
Politically, you and I are ideological opponents.
You advocate a big government approach to Covid, while I, like Rand Paul, Ron DeSantis and other red state governors advocate a libertarian approach.
We will see you and your likeminded fellows either in court or the ballot box ( if it is fair ). Hopefully, we won’t have to end up exercising our second amendment rights.
And Just because someone does well as a result of vaccination does not mean that everyone does well.
It really helps to understand the concept of relative risk here.
I have found no reports of verifiable deaths caused by Covid vaccines. To be honest, others who are scientific-minded like me have found up to a couple of dozen deaths attributable to vaccination.
However, one way to see if there are excess deaths is to compare the death rate between two similar populations, one which received the intervention, the other which has not. When I did my own calculations, I found that the death rate DROPPED in the vaccinated population. Now, since I am retired and have no lab, research staff, or medical library access*, my own calculations remain unpublished. Other researchers who have done the same analysis with the same result have published their data.
For context, the death rate of Covid remains at 1%. It would be higher, but the most at-risk population (the elderly) is highly vaccinated.
A safety study evaluating non-COVID-19 mortality risk following COVID-19 vaccination
Tl;dr version: you are less likely to die if you have received Covid vaccines.
Serious adverse effects:
Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). This is a rare autoimmune disorder of uncertain etiology which follows most frequently after viral (including Covid) or bacterial infections. A study did find that the J&J adenovirus-based Covid vaccine caused a higher than expected incidence of GBS. However, the rate of GBS among recipients of the mRNA based vaccines was the same as the background rate. The FDA has pulled the authorization for the J&J vaccine for this and other concerns.
Myocarditis and Pericarditis. The professional antivaxxers have really hyped this one because the rate of myo- and pericarditis following vaccination actually is higher than background in certain groups. So an analysis of relative risk is very necessary to understand this.
The highest rate of peri- or myocarditis in the group at highest risk following vaccination was "1 in 30 000 doses after second dose of the primary series."
However, the rate of peri- and myocarditis in Covid patients was at least 15 fold higher than background levels. The incidence of myo- and pericarditis among Covid patients is between one in 25 and one in 667 cases. This is clearly a far higher rate than in vaccinees.
For further context, the myo- or pericarditis following vaccination is most likely due to an inflammatory response and is mild and self-limiting.
Q&A: What Causes Rare Instances of Myocarditis After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines?
The peri- or myocarditis following Covid disease results from physical virus-caused heart damage which, in some cases, might even necessitate a heart transplant for the patient to survive.
COVID-19, Myocarditis and Pericarditis.
I am not going to discuss the other severe adverse events which follow vaccination, but if you are interested, you can peruse the CDC vaccine safety page that summarizes the data and provides links to the relevant studies:
Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination.
I will point out that severe adverse events occur after any vaccine. The context in which to analyze vaccine safety is, what is the risk following vaccination versus the risk from catching the disease?
Uh Huh, and you are assuing that vaccination helps prevent long Covid. Again. not true. See here:
The article you linked is not so much a discussion of long Covid, but a discussion of what is commonly called "brain fog," which is a serious manifestation of long Covid. The study referred to in that article apparently is a comparison of brain fog between vaccinees and Covid patients. I cannot read the study article as it is behind a paywall. The abstract suggests that at least some of the vaccinees experiencing brain fog are experiencing psychosomatic symptoms (that is, their symptoms arise from anxiety and are not physically caused by vaccination). Furthermore, the brain fog of vaccinees was clinically different than the brain fog of Covid survivors.
Vaccination does decrease the incidence of long Covid, as well as the chance of catching Covid in the first place, of developing serious disease in a breakthrough infection, or of dying.
I think that professional antivaxxers try to instill the belief that a vaccine is an impervious shield that protects the vaccinee against pathogenic assault. This is a belief that they have promoted for centuries which they are now employing in their campaign against Covid vaccine.
The truth is that a vaccine is not a shield. A vaccine is an immune system training aid. An antigen is presented to the immune system, which studies the antigen and forms a defense against it. The defense is in the form of specialized T-cells, B-cells, and antibodies. But, in much the same way as people have varying levels of intelligence (some get Fs on the test, some get As, and most are in the middle), individual immune systems have variable levels of "intelligence." There are a lot of reasons for this, which I have mentioned in previous posts.
Basically, if your immune system has little to no function, no vaccine in the world can restore that function. So, if you are unfortunate like Colin Powell whose immune system was completely destroyed by cancer, getting vaccinated against Covid is completely useless. He died because his immune system didn't work, not because of any shortcoming or flaw of the vaccines.
Well, the question you ask can also be asked of those who are vaccinated. The effectivenes of the vaccine wanes in a few months as well. Whenever your immunity fades in a few months, you have to get boosted again. So how does continous MRNA vaccination become good for your health?
This statement indicates to me that you have (consciously or not) absorbed the professional antivaxxer trope that immunity is a primary health goal in itself, independent of disease protection. It is not. Being immune to, e.g., yellow fever is completely useless if you never travel to a place where yellow fever is endemic.
How long immunity lasts against a pathogen is a function of how the immune system interacts with that pathogen. It has nothing to do with vaccine quality. The immune system typically does not retain memory of coronaviruses for more than a few months. This includes coronaviruses that cause the common cold as well as the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It doesn't remember other respiratory pathogens very well, either (why do you think people keep catching colds over and over). On the other hand, the immune system (at least in some people) is apparently able to remember some viruses forever. My medical record states that I am medically exempt from receiving any further measles vaccinations because a titer test in 2015 showed that I still had protective levels of antibody against measles after a single dose of vaccine that I received in 1984. But I recently had a cold, which I keep getting every 5-6 years despite the fact that I've had many colds before.
It is unrealistic to expect a vaccine to change how the immune system responds to different species of virus. The reality is that most vaccines require boosters to remind the immune system to maintain immunity. In fact, it's about time for my family (human and pet members) to get our annual round of immunizations. Yes, we will get the newest Covid booster.
Due to the length of this post, the volume of information contained within it, and the time required to properly research each response, I have elected not to address at this time some of the other misunderstandings you have expressed.
*The significance of medical library access is that it allows me to read articles for free that are behind a paywall for the general public.
From August...
For anyone interested in following the money...
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/KKR/insider-roster/
Wonder why S&S published it.
And if Paul had to leave anything out to get it published.
Someone really should dig into that.
I just noticed this. (I mean, I did read it before, but I missed a significant point.)
The media did not tell us anything of the sort. The above sentence is supposed to make us believe that journalists behind the scenes are busy fabricating a load of hooey to feed to us in the form of news.
What the media did was to report what the scientific community has learned about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The scientific community examined the pattern of spread of the outbreak from the point source at Huanan seafood market. The scientific community collected environmental samples from walls, floors, tables, etc., at the Huanan market and found remnants of SARS-CoV-2. The scientific community analyzed SARS-CoV-2 sequence and found enough homology between it and other coronaviruses circulating in bats during that time to conclude that it originated in bats.
As for the media, they consulted the scientific community and reported what the scientific community found.
RE: Before attending college, I had to take a measles vaccine. In order to work with human cells in a research lab, I had to take hepatitis A and B vaccines.
You are again comparing NON-mRNA vaccines that have had MANY years of testing before final FDA approval with a Covid vaccine that was forced on people under an EUA. Hepatitis vaccines had to go through 8 years of exhaustive testing before being approved for use ( I have been vaccinated with both by the way ).
Speaking of colleges....
There are many colleges in the United States that do not require Covid vaccination for attendance. As of October 28, 2023, here are some of the colleges that have announced that they will not have a vaccine mandate for the 2023-2024 school year:
Ave Maria University (Florida)
Liberty University (Virginia)
Hillsdale College (Michigan)
Patrick Henry College (Virginia)
Taylor University (Indiana)
Grove City College (Pennsylvania)
North Central University (Minnesota)
Colorado Christian University (Colorado)
Oklahoma Baptist University (Oklahoma)
William Jessup University (California)
Lancaster Bible College (Pennsylvania)
Cairn University (Pennsylvania)
It is important to note that this list is not exhaustive and that some colleges may have changed their policies since this list was compiled.
Question : Do you see a huge outbreak of Covid n these colleges compared to those that require the jab?
Please explain to me how explaining the science equates to having a leftist ideology.
Please explain why belief in conspiracy theories and antivax/ anti-science/ anti-medical rhetoric is inherently conservative.
And since you called me a communist, please go back through my posting history and tell me where I have ever advocated elimination of free-speech, overturning the Constitution, state ownership of businesses, or any of the other hallmarks of a totalitarian society.
And no, supporting vaccines and other public-health measures is not an indication of totalitarianism. Governments throughout human history have always promoted public health. Being disease-free because your government mandated for you to get a vaccine does not impinge on freedom. Do you consider it a statement of freedom to catch a disease, be sick, feel horrible, and potentially die?
RE: How long immunity lasts against a pathogen is a function of how the immune system interacts with that pathogen. It has nothing to do with vaccine quality. The immune system typically does not retain memory of coronaviruses for more than a few months. This includes coronaviruses that cause the common cold as well as the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It doesn’t remember other respiratory pathogens very well, either ...
____________________________
Since the Athenian plague of 430 B.C. it has been known that prior infection is protective against severe disease.
Natural immunity works for nearly every other virus. The CDC website tells you not to get the chickenpox vaccine if you had chickenpox. And the only 2 other coronaviruses that cause severe disease in humans other than Covid (SARS & MERS) both resulted in long-term immunity. Oddly, public health oligarchs hypothesized that COVID-19 would break the rule. They got it terribly wrong.
A recent Lancet review studied the top 65 studies from 9 countries and concluded that natural immunity is at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, and probably better. The evidence was there all along. But health officials never talked about it. SEE HERE:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-power-of-natural-immunity-11623171303
TITLE:
The Power of Natural Immunity: Studies show it’s durable and widespread. If you’ve had Covid, you can get by with one shot of vaccine.
The author was Dr. Marty Makary, M.D., M.P.H.
See his bio here:
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/profiles/details/martin-makary
Instead they dismissed it by dangling uncertainty about it, saying we don’t know how long it lasts. They bizarrely assumed that vaccinated immunity was durable and natural immunity was not. Not so.
A 2022 study that Dr. Makaryand his Johns Hopkins colleagues and conducted found that antibodies were present up to nearly 2 years after infection and follow-up studies showed this was protective. The JAMA website listed their study as their 3rd most discussed study of 2022.
See here:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788894
TITLE:
Prevalence and Durability of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies Among Unvaccinated US Adults by History of COVID-19
QUOTE:
“In this cross-sectional study of unvaccinated US adults, antibodies were detected in 99% of individuals who reported a positive COVID-19 test result, in 55% who believed they had COVID-19 but were never tested, and in 11% who believed they had never had COVID-19 infection. Anti-RBD levels were observed after a positive COVID-19 test result for up to 20 months, extending previous 6-month durability data.”
As I said, I am not against Covid vaccination, I am against COERCING people to take it without at least 5 YEARS of observing its effects and wothout considering the opinions of many other experts who are reluctant to recommend it to certyain age groups ( especially among the young and healthy ) without years of observation like the traditional vaccines.
Why? Because Though it is hard to assess precisely the actual severity and breadth of vaccine-related adverse events, it is very clear that vaccination against COVID-19 isn’t as harmless as pharmaceutical companies, mainstream media, academia, health authorities and the medical community have been saying. And, in contrast to high risk individuals who are still susceptible, recovered people have no real benefit to balance the additional risks of vaccination.
SEE for instance, a Norwegian study published in May 2021:
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1372
TITLE: Covid-19: Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is “likely” responsible for deaths of some elderly patients, Norwegian review finds
For over a year, mainstream media, health authorities as well as many “experts” have been downplaying the power of the immune system, dismissing natural immunity and proclaiming that immunity to COVID-19 was short-lived. Simultaneously, vaccines have been portrayed as the silver bullet to this crisis, an incidental procedure with no risk whatsoever. The data shows a different picture and many are coming forward, to challenge the official narrative.
See here:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-covid-vaccines-riskier-than-advertised-11624381749
and here:
This is from a group of scientists ( not conspiracy theorists mind you ):
The human immune system is one of the most sophisticated achievements of evolution. The survival of our species has depended on it for millennia. Today, we still very much rely on it. For the record, 99% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 recover without treatment. Only 1% of SARS-CoV-2 patients, who did not receive early home-based treatment, end up hospitalised. In other words, the immune system overwhelmingly protects.
Even vaccines are entirely dependent on the immune system: vaccines essentially teach our immune systems what viral markers to be prepared for, they are not cures per se. Without a functional immune system, there can be no effective vaccine. SEE HERE:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/05/18/immunocompromised-coronavirus-vaccines-response/
I agree that Once recovered, the immune response recedes, notably via a decrease in antibodies. But It is not only natural; it is indispensable to restore the body to a normal, balanced state.
Just as a permanent state of fever is harmful, a high number of target-less antibodies or T-cells constantly circulating throughout the body could create serious complications, such as autoimmune diseases. Taking an evolutionary perspective, only those whose antibody and T-cell count waned post-infection survived. So, a decreasing number of antibodies and T-cells is reassuring, even healthy.
But this decrease in T-cells and antibodies doesn’t mean that immunity is lost . It means the immune system has adapted to the new situation, and is now just on sentinel mode: Memory B- and T-cells, circulating in the blood and resident in tissues, act as vigilant and effective sentinels for decades:
SEE HERE:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23333-3
and HERE:
Notice:
* survivors of the Spanish Flu epidemic were tested for their immunity to the 1918 influenza virus 90 years later -, and still demonstrated immunity;
SEE HERE:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/flu-survivors-still-immune-after-90-years
TITLE: Flu survivors still immune after 90 years ( that’s the Spanish Flu for you )
and here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07231
TITLE : Neutralizing antibodies derived from the B cells of 1918 influenza pandemic survivors
* people who had recovered from the 2003 SARS infection demonstrated robust T-Cell responses seventeen years later.
SEE HERE:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z
TITLE: SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls
* the wide-spread prevalence of high cross-immunity— gained from past common cold infections—further demonstrates the resilience of natural immunity for coronaviruses.
SEE HERE:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420306103
TITLE: Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals
and here:
https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/146316
TITLE: A majority of uninfected adults show preexisting antibody reactivity against SARS-CoV-2
Indeed, all recent studies show that specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity remains effective, possibly for a lifetime. Our immune system is a modular platform, it can combine in an infinite number of ways to address a multitude of threats in a variety of contexts. As such it is neutral to the viral threats it faces. In other words, there is absolutely no reason to believe that those recovered from Covid-19 would lose their immunity over the years, or even the decades to come.
See HERE:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-021-00902-8
TITLE: Naturally enhanced neutralizing breadth against SARS-CoV-2 one year after infection
and here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4
TITLE: SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans
and here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/health/coronavirus-immunity.html
TITLE: Immunity to the Coronavirus May Last Years, New Data Hint: Blood samples from recovered patients suggest a powerful, long-lasting immune response, researchers reported.
We all have also heard of people becoming reinfected by SARS-CoV-2. Indeed, immunity, natural or vaccine-induced, isn’t the impenetrable shield described by many. Essentially harmless and asymptomatic reinfections do take place. That is, in fact, the very mechanism by which adaptive immunity is triggered. SEE HERE:
However, SYMPTOMATIC reinfections are very rare. Like an army that adapts its response to the size and the progression of its enemy forces, adaptive immunity provides a specific, rapid and resource-optimized response. As such reinfections are mostly asymptomatic and recovered patients are protected from severe disease.
SEE HERE:
https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(20)30781-7/abstract
TITLE: Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with protection against symptomatic reinfection
and here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2034545
TITLE: Antibody Status and Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Health Care Workers
[QUOTE]
CONCLUSIONS:
The presence of anti-spike or anti-nucleocapsid IgG antibodies was associated with a substantially reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in the ensuing 6 months.
In fact, innocuous reinfections can play a positive public health role by acting as continuous immune updates for the population. They can help form a seamless and progressive adaptation to emerging variants and strains.
And indeed a recent study showed that couples with children were more frequently asymptomatic than couples without, most likely because children act as natural and harmless immunisation vehicles.
The most likely reason why high density countries mostly have very low death tolls is that they have asymptomatic reinfections that regularly and widely update the population’s immunity .
SEE HERE:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.07.434227v1
TITLE: Development of potency, breadth and resilience to viral escape mutations in SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies
In my personal case, I tested Covid positive during the spring of 2022 when it transitioned from winter and the fast spreading Omicron was the major circulating variant. I NEVER FELT A THING. How did I know I was infected? Well I got a free test kit from the government and because I usually have slight coughs during transition from winter to spring, I decided to test myself instead of wasting something given for free. Lo and behold, I was POSITIVE !! I isolated myself for 6 days and re-tested. I came out negative.
I haven’t tested myself since Spring of 2022, but I suspect that if I did, it could just be possible that I might have tested positive again sometime between then and now. I have been circulating among crowded places many times. But I never felt sick anytime since.
There is ample evidence of the sophistication and breadth of the human immune system, and it is clear that a few minor gene changes in the virus cannot evade its arsenal.
The vaccine should be encouraged for very vulnerable people — the elderly, the already sick with morbid conditions, etc.
But I do not believe it should be FORCED on the young and health, especially those under 40 years old. It should be VOLUNTARY. But of course, you want to force it on these group. What’s worse, you approve of government threatening them with lost of livelihood if they don’t.
RE: Please explain to me how explaining the science equates to having a leftist ideology.
I am not against your explaining the science. I of course, disagree with some of your INTERPRETATION of the data.
But what concerns me ( and I suspect a lot of FReeers ) most is your PREFERRED POLICY when it comes THIS PARTICULAR mRNA vaccines. One that came out of an EUA with not even 5 years of THOROUGH testing before approval.
I don’t know what your voting priorities are, but based on what I read about what you want for the American public in regards to this particular mRNA vaccines, YOU SUPPORT JOE BIDEN’s POLICIES and are AGAINST TRUMP’s POLICIES.
If this particular issue is top priority for you, then I cannot help but conclude that you will vote for another Joe Biden term.
I suspect a BOTmobile.
Chat or Google AI, most likely.
You are so focused on that mRNA technology. Without the efforts of professional antivaxxers to turn people against it, you would have no idea how the vaccines are even produced.
mRNA technology has been in development since the 1990s. That constitutes thirty years of research, so not new.
Other new vaccine technologies have resulted in FDA-approved vaccines after a shorter R&D timeline than the mRNA platform.
There is, right now, an approved influenza vaccine that uses antigens grown in cell-culture. No chicken eggs or virus is involved. Why haven't the professional antivaxxers turned out in force to scare people about those? They've certainly attacked influenza vaccines (they aren't "real" vaccines because they don't prevent everyone from catching influenza). But they've left the cell-culture platform alone, despite the fact that there is plenty of material related to cell-culture with which to scare people.
The J&J Covid vaccine was built on an adenovirus platform. This means that part of its mechanism of action was identical to the mRNA vaccines: it caused cells to produce spike protein. However, the method of delivery to the cells is different. The adenovirus vaccine vector literally infects cells and takes over their function, but instead of forcing them to make all of the proteins and nucleic acids needed to make new viruses, it just forces them to make spike mRNA and protein. Once the cells make the spike mRNA, the events following vaccination are the same as with the mRNA vaccines.
Adenovirus is a double-stranded DNA virus which is a common cause of infection in humans. Because our genome consists of double-stranded DNA, wild-type adenovirus can and does integrate into the human genome. This makes adenovirus a potential oncovirus, since the location of insertion of the virus DNA into the genome can disrupt cell-cycle control, leading to oncogenesis.
The adenoviruses used in vaccines are modified so that they cannot produce virus DNA or integrate into the genome. But they are infective.
Medical Microbiology. 4th edition. Chapter 67 Adenoviruses.
The Johnson & Johnson adenovirus vaccine explained.
There are currently a number of adenovirus vaccines in clinical and pre-clinical trials.
What are Adenovirus-Based Vaccines?
It is rather ironic that the professional antivaxxers chose to attack the mRNA platform rather than the adenovirus platform. There is actually a lot more material regarding the adenovirus platform with which to fear-monger than there is with mRNA vaccines. I mean, a double-stranded DNA that can actually integrate directly into a chromosome? Wow. (mRNA cannot do that.)
One reason the mRNA was selected as a vaccine platform is that it is extremely straightforward to make DNA in a lab. (The DNA is the template for the mRNA.) You don't need any actual virus, you only need the sequence. Then you synthesize the DNA, put it into a plasmid for production (of both the plasmid and the mRNA) in bacteria, and do the quality control testing.
This method goes far more rapidly than other methods of vaccine development, since nucleic acids can be synthesized fairly rapidly in the lab. The production of mRNA is also much safer than working with viruses to produce vaccines. You only have to grow E. coli bacteria (what I call laboratory workhorses), which is rapid and safe.
Another advantage of mRNA is that it is a ubiquitous molecule that exists in all living organisms no matter how simple or complex. All cells contain mRNA. Because of the ubiquity of mRNA and all RNA in general, we have evolved quite a few enzymes for the metabolism of RNA. We make and destroy RNA constantly. When the mRNA of the vaccine enters a cell, that cell "sees" it as just like any other mRNA and treats it the same way. Everything about the process is completely natural.
I suspect that the reasons professional antivaxxers focused on the mRNA platform are similar to the reasons that the medical community focused on it: the rapidity of development and ease of manufacture makes mRNA technology a very attractive choice for vaccine development in a situation where rapid vaccine development is needed, as for the Covid pandemic. The goal of professional antivaxxers is to make as many people as possible refuse to get vaccinated (and, therefore to die or have serious health issues). So they have to target the very properties of the vaccine that make the scientific community consider it almost a wonder drug. (There is a reason the developers of mRNA vaccines got Nobel Prizes this year.)
Oh, and don't let the professional antivaxxers tell you that development was rushed. Besides the 30 years of research into the technology, there were extensive clinical trials. Because of the concern about the pandemic and people's desire to help, those clinical trials were able to recruit tens of thousands of participants in record time. Other clinical trials sometimes take years to recruit participants. In addition, certain red tape was circumvented, allowing different types of clinical trials to run concurrently. In the typical clinical trial process, those trials would have run sequentially. So, between the ability to recruit volunteers rapidly and running the trials concurrently, several years were shaved off the clinical trial process without in any way limiting the quantity or quality of data collected. By now, of course, over 81% of the US population has been vaccinated, giving a HUGE source of post-market data.
I will not participate in a clinical trial because they always require blood draws. I absolutely hate blood draws. But when I got vaccinated, I agreed to participate in a CDC post-vaccination study (no blood draws required). The CDC has now published their findings of the study:
The v-safe after vaccination health checker: Active vaccine safety monitoring during CDC’s COVID-19 pandemic response. And references therein.
Do you see a huge outbreak of Covid n these colleges compared to those that require the jab?
I can find no publications that describe and compare rates of Covid on different college or university campuses. I also do not have the resources to conduct such a study on my own.
However, I could find this: Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
The authors found that Republicans are more likely to die than Democrats from Covid. Before the vaccines became available, the excess death rate of Republicans was 15% higher than the excess death rate of Democrats. After vaccines became available the excess death rate of Republicans grew to 43% higher than the excess death rate of Democrats.
This makes sense. Although antivax/anti-science rhetoric was more apolitical prior to the pandemic, it was aimed primarily at Republicans when the pandemic hit. This misinformation effort started at least a month before the WHO even called Covid a pandemic. Faster than warp speed: early attention to COVD-19 by anti-vaccine groups on Facebook.
I think the reason why they hit Republicans so hard was political: at the time, the left was hysterical about the horrors of Trump, so this was one more way to undermine and discredit Trump. (And it worked.) And the effort, as the reference just above shows, was incredibly successful. The increased deaths of Republicans means there are fewer of us to vote in elections. (The left loves this fact, but I will not link to websites where they gloat about all the dead Republican antivaxxers.) Trump was discredited and blamed for all of the antivax rhetoric, despite his overall excellent response to the pandemic and his initiative to make a vaccine available in a few months. Trump should have been reelected in a landslide for his economic measures alone, but voters chose Biden instead--despite Biden's promise to destroy the economy--purely because they wanted someone that they perceived was taking the pandemic more seriously than Trump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.