yes I will. My sister works in hospital surgery in southern California. She described the vaccine will not keep me from getting covid but it is targeted at preventing lung scarring.

Deal. I am in.

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:
Are most of the patients you're seeing COVID only or did something else bring them into the ER in the first place?

Here we are seeing a lot of COVID, plus all the other stuff that is still out there. I'd estimate that 25-30% of volume right now is COVID related.

Got my 1st dose about 2 hours ago, haven't sprouted a tail or started transmitting data to the government yet.

quote:

Originally posted by barndg00:

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:
Are most of the patients you're seeing COVID only or did something else bring them into the ER in the first place?

Here we are seeing a lot of COVID, plus all the other stuff that is still out there. I'd estimate that 25-30% of volume right now is COVID related.

Got my 1st dose about 2 hours ago, haven't sprouted a tail or started transmitting data to the government yet.

I'm sure you didn't get the same magic formula.
Not everyone will get the same COVID-19 vaccine. You got the "No Tail/No Transmit" version.

Hundreds of Florida Labs report a 100% positivity rate. This same shenanigans has been repeated at other places around the world.

https://thefederalist.com/2020...r-coronavirus-tests/

Pfizer COVID vaccine trial shows alarming evidence of pathogenic priming in older adults.

This position is shared by thousands of Doctors/Researchers/Scientists all over the world.


https://www.lifesitenews.com/o...ming-in-older-adults

Katalin Kariko, the scientist behind the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine

Issued on: 18/12/2020 - 16:52
Modified: 18/12/2020 - 16:55

Hungarian-American researcher Katalin Kariko's expertise on RNA played a pivotal role in the development of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine.
Hungarian-American researcher Katalin Kariko's expertise on RNA played a pivotal role in the development of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine.
The development of the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine, the first approved jab in the West, is the crowning achievement of decades of work for Hungarian biochemist Katalin Kariko, who fled to the US from communist rule in the 1980s.

When trials found the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine to be safe and 95 percent effective in November, it was the crowning achievement of Katalin Kariko’s 40 years of research on the genetic code RNA (ribonucleic acid). Her first reaction was a sense of “redemption,” Kariko told The Daily Telegraph.

“I was grabbing the air, I got so excited I was afraid that I might die or something,” she said from her home in Philadelphia. “When I am knocked down I know how to pick myself up, but I always enjoyed working… I imagined all of the diseases I could treat.”

Born in January 1955 in a Christian family in the town of Szolnok in central Hungary – a year before the doomed heroism of the uprising against the Soviet-backed communist regime – Kariko grew up in nearby Kisujszellas on the Great Hungarian Plain, where her father was a butcher. Fascinated by science from a young age, Kariko began her career at the age of 23 at the University of Szeged’s Biological Research Centre, where she obtained her PhD.

It was there that she first developed her interest in RNA. But communist Hungary’s laboratories lacked resources, and in 1985 the university sacked her. Consequently, Kariko looked for work abroad, getting a job at Temple University in Philadelphia the same year. Hungarians were forbidden from taking money out of the country, so she sold the family car and hid the proceeds in her 2-year-old daughter’s teddy bear. “It was a one-way ticket,” she told Business Insider. “We didn’t know anybody.”

Not everything went as planned after Kariko’s escape from communism. At the end of the 1980s, the scientific community was focused on DNA, which was seen as the key to understanding how to develop treatments for diseases such as cancer. But Kariko’s main interest was RNA, the genetic code that gives cells instructions on how to make proteins.

At the time, research into RNA attracted criticism because the body’s immune system sees it as an intruder, meaning that it often provokes strong inflammatory reactions. In 1995, Kariko was about to be made a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, but instead she was consigned to the rank of researcher.

“Usually, at that point, people just say goodbye and leave because it’s so horrible,” Kariko told medical publication Stat. She went through a cancer scare at the time, while her husband was stuck in Hungary trying to sort out visa issues. “I tried to imagine: Everything is here, and I just have to do better experiments,” she continued. Kariko was also on the receiving end of sexism, with colleagues asking her the name of her supervisor when she was running her own lab.

Kariko persisted in the face of these difficulties. “From outside, it seemed crazy, struggling, but I was happy in the lab,” she told Business Insider. “My husband always, even today, says, ‘This is entertainment for you.’ I don’t say that I go to work. It is like play.”

Thanks to Kariko’s position at the University of Pennsylvania, she was able to send her daughter Susan Francia there for a quarter of the tuition costs. Francia won gold on the US rowing team in the 2008 and 2012 Olympics.

It was a serendipitous meeting in front of a photocopier in 1997 that turbocharged Kariko’s career. She met immunologist Drew Weissman, who was working on an HIV vaccine. They decided to collaborate to develop a way of allowing synthetic RNA to go unrecognised by the body’s immune system – an endeavour that succeeded to widespread acclaim in 2005. The duo continued their research and succeeded in placing RNA in lipid nanoparticles, a coating that prevents them from degrading too quickly and facilitates their entry into cells.

The researchers behind the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna jabs used these techniques to develop their vaccines. Both of them use the same strategy of introducing genetic instructions into the body to trigger the production of a protein identical to that of the coronavirus, thereby eliciting the desired immune response.

Katalin Kariko and Drew Weissman are now favourites to win the Nobel Prize for Medicine. Kariko has a senior post at German research firm BioNTech, after years on the fringes of her profession.

Despite this triumph after decades of struggle, Kariko said it’s not yet time to crack open the champagne bottles. She is waiting for mass vaccinations to eradicate the virus’s threat. “Then, I will really be celebrating,” she told CNN.

https://www.france24.com/en/am...id-19-vaccine?ref=em


Hmmm...

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:
Pfizer COVID vaccine trial shows alarming evidence of pathogenic priming in older adults.

This position is shared by thousands of Doctors/Researchers/Scientists all over the world.


https://www.lifesitenews.com/o...ming-in-older-adults

I thought there were posts earlier about the flu vaccine possibly making it easier to catch covid and/or make the symptoms worse. Can't remember, can't find but basically suggested that the flu vaccine was not good for covid.

Is this consistent w/ that? Or some other point of concern?

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:
Pfizer COVID vaccine trial shows alarming evidence of pathogenic priming in older adults.

This position is shared by thousands of Doctors/Researchers/Scientists all over the world.


https://www.lifesitenews.com/o...ming-in-older-adults

I thought there were posts earlier about the flu vaccine possibly making it easier to catch covid and/or make the symptoms worse. Can't remember, can't find but basically suggested that the flu vaccine was not good for covid.

Is this consistent w/ that? Or some other point of concern?

Yes it is. You have thousands of Doctors from around the world warn of the dangers. When they speak out, they have been censored, fired/medical licenses revoked, Twitter/Facebook/Youtube accounts suspended/removed, websites pulled by Service providers, etc..

Just watch your National/Local news. For the most part, you only see one side of the story. Not surprising since Corporations control 95% of the media in this country.

America's Frontline Doctors speak out.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QoD4GgHrsWdY/

Facebook and YouTube Ban Video Of Doctors Talking COVID, Silenced Doctors Hold Press Conference.
Removed by the platform after accumulating 17 million views within hours.
https://www.realclearpolitics....ss_conference.html#!


Some of he Doctors brave enough to speak out.
Also banned from Facebook/Youtube/

https://brandnewtube.com/watch...qIsNohSIeSgfz2J.html

Another video with Bill Gates talking about how Vaccines will reduce the world population.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAJ3YhlUegk

Just do a little research and find out what this Psychopath has done in Africa. I guess he feels because they are Black, he can get away with it.

Another Video of Bill Gates discussing the digital IDs they are planning.
He is proposing to make it mandatory.
This POS and many other enablers need to be arrested, tried, convicted and hung for crimes against Humanity.

https://www.armstrongeconomics...gDYpOdD7gAOT-Ja719vg

I posted this link earlier but it's worth posting again.
When you watch this video, remember this Simulation at the beginning is from Nov. 2019. Sponsors by the Bill and Malinda Gates foundation.


https://www.bitchute.com/video/MZ11m6zIxDch/

Is a Coronavirus Vaccine a Ticking Time Bomb?

https://sciencewithdrdoug.com/...a-ticking-time-bomb/

Will a vaccine to SARS-CoV-2 actually make the problem worse? Although not a certainty, all of the current data says that this prospect is a real possibility that needs to be paid careful attention to. If you stay with me, I’ll explain why.

First, let’s set aside the debate surrounding the topic of whether vaccines work and the negative health consequences due to the components of the vaccine. No matter where you stand on the vaccine issue, I’m not asking anyone to capitulate on this point. I’m just asking that this issue be set aside, because in this instance this argument is completely irrelevant. Even without bringing any other issue into the vaccine debate, a coronavirus vaccine is a highly dangerous undertaking due to a peculiar trojan horse mechanism known as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE). Regardless of someone’s conviction about vaccines, this point needs to be acknowledged. In the remaining portion of this article, I’m going to explain how ADE works and the future perils it may bring.

For a vaccine to work, our immune system needs to be stimulated to produce a neutralizing antibody, as opposed to a non-neutralizing antibody. A neutralizing antibody is one that can recognize and bind to some region (‘epitope’) of the virus, and that subsequently results in the virus either not entering or replicating in your cells.

A non-neutralizing antibody is one that can bind to the virus, but for some reason, the antibody fails to neutralize the infectivity of the virus. This can occur, for example, if the antibody doesn’t bind tightly enough to the virus, or the percentage of the surface area of the virus covered by the antibody is too low, or the concentration of the antibody is not high enough. Basically, there is some type of generic binding of the antibody to the virus, but it fails to neutralize the virus.

In some viruses, if a person harbors a non-neutralizing antibody to the virus, a subsequent infection by the virus can cause that person to elicit a more severe reaction to the virus due to the presence of the non-neutralizing antibody. This is not true for all viruses, only particular ones. This is called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), and is a common problem with Dengue Virus, Ebola Virus, HIV, RSV, and the family of coronaviruses. In fact, this problem of ADE is a major reason why many previous vaccine trials for other coronaviruses failed. Major safety concerns were observed in animal models. If ADE occurs in an individual, their response to the virus can be worse than their response if they had never developed an antibody in the first place.

An antibody can be rendered a non-neutralizing antibody simply because it doesn’t bind to the right portion of the virus to neutralize it, or the antibody binds too weakly to the virus. This can also occur if a neutralizing antibody’s concentration falls over time and is now no longer of sufficient concentration to cause neutralization of the virus. In addition, a neutralizing antibody can subsequently transition to non-neutralizing antibody when encountering a different strain of the virus.

What does ADE entail? The exact mechanism of ADE in SARS is not known, but the leading theory is described as follows: In certain viruses, the binding of a non-neutralizing antibody to the virus can direct the virus to enter and infect your immune cells. This occurs through a receptor called FcγRII. FcγRII is expressed on the outside of many tissues of our body, and in particular, in monocyte derived macrophages, which are a type of white blood cell. In other words, the presence of the non-neutralizing antibody now directs the virus to infect cells of your immune system, and these viruses are then able to replicate in these cells and wreak havoc on your immune response. One end of the antibody grabs onto the virus, and the other end of the antibody grabs onto an immune cell. Essentially, the non-neutralizing antibody enables the virus to hitch a ride to infect immune cells. You can see this in the picture above.

This can cause a hyperinflammatory response, a cytokine storm, and a generally dysregulation of the immune system that allows the virus to cause more damage to our lungs and other organs of our body. In addition, new cell types throughout our body are now susceptible to viral infection due to the additional viral entry pathway facilitated by the FcγRII receptor, which is expressed on many different cell types.

What this means is that you can be given a vaccine, which causes your immune system to produce an antibody to the vaccine, and then when your body is actually challenged with the real pathogen, the infection is much worse than if you had not been vaccinated.

Again, this is not seen in all viruses, or even in all strains of a given virus, and there is a great deal that scientists don’t understand about the complete set of factors that dictate when and if ADE may occur. It’s quite likely that genetic factors as well as the health status of the individual may play a role on modulating this response. That being said, there are many studies (in the reference section below) that demonstrate that ADE is a persistent problem with coronaviruses in general, and in particular, with SARS-related viruses. Less is known, of course, with respect to SARS-CoV-2, but the genetic and structural similarities between the SARS-CoV-2 and the other coronaviruses strongly suggests that this risk is real.

ADE has proven to be a serious challenge with coronavirus vaccines, and this is the primary reason many have failed in early in-vitro or animal trials. For example, rhesus macaques who were vaccinated with the Spike protein of the SARS-CoV virus demonstrated severe acute lung injury when challenged with SARS-CoV, while monkeys who were not vaccinated did not. Similarly, mice who were immunized with one of four different SARS-CoV vaccines showed histopathological changes in the lungs with eosinophil infiltration after being challenged with SARS-CoV virus. This did not occur in the controls that had not been vaccinated. A similar problem occurred in the development of a vaccine for FIPV, which is a feline coronavirus.

For a vaccine to work, vaccine developers will need to find a way to circumvent the ADE problem. This will require a very novel solution, and it may not be achievable, or at the very least, predictable. In addition, the vaccine must not induce ADE in subsequent strains of SARS-CoV-2 that emerge over time, or to other endemic coronaviruses that circulate every year and cause the common cold.

A major trigger for ADE is viral mutation. Changes to the amino acid sequence of the Spike Protein (which is the protein on the virus that facilitates entry into our cells via the ACE2 receptor) can cause antigenic drift. What this means is that an antibody that was once neutralizing can become a non-neutralizing antibody because the antigen has slightly changed. Therefore, mutations in the Spike protein that naturally occur with coronaviruses could presumably result in ADE. Since these future strains are not predictable, it is impossible to predict if ADE will become a problem at a future date.

This inherent unpredictability problem is highlighted in the following scenario: A coronavirus vaccine may not be dangerous initially. If the initial testing looks positive, mass vaccination efforts would presumably be administered to a large portion of the population. In the first year or two, it may appear that there is no real safety issue, and over time, a greater percentage of the world population will be vaccinated due to this perceived “safety”. During this interim period, the virus is busy mutating. Eventually, the antibodies that vaccinated individuals have floating around in their bloodstream are now rendered non-neutralizing because they fail to bind to the virus with the same affinity due to the structural change resulting from the mutation. Declining concentrations of the antibody over time would also contribute to this shift towards non-neutralization. When these previously vaccinate people are infected with this different strain of SARS-CoV-2, they could experience a much more severe reaction to the virus.

Ironically, in this scenario, this vaccine made the virus more pathogenic rather than less pathogenic. This is not something that vaccine producers would be able predict or test for with any level of real confidence at the outset, and it would only become evident at a later time.

If and when this does occur, who will be liable?

Does this vaccine industry know about this problem? The answer is yes, they do.

Quoting a Nature Biotechnology news article published on June 5th, 2020:

““It’s important to talk about it [ADE],” says Gregory Glenn, president of R&D at Novavax, which launched its COVID-19 vaccine trial in May. But “we can’t be overly cautious. People are dying. So we need to be aggressive here.””

And from the same article:

“ADE “is a genuine concern,” says virologist Kevin Gilligan, a senior consultant with Biologics Consulting, who advises thorough safety studies. “Because if the gun is jumped, and a vaccine is widely distributed that is disease enhancing, that would be worse than actually not doing any vaccination at all.””

The vaccine industry is aware of this problem. The degree to which they are taking it seriously, is another question.

While many vaccine developers are aware of the problem, some of them are approaching the problem with more Laissez-faire attitude. They see this problem as “theoretical,” and not guaranteed, with the idea that animal trials should rule out the potential of ADE in humans.

As a side note, it is not ethical to conduct “challenge” studies in humans. However, challenge studies are conducted in animals. In other words, a clinical trial for a vaccine does not include administering the vaccine to a person, and then exposing this person to the virus post-vaccination to monitor their reaction. In clinical trials, humans are only given the vaccine, they are not “challenged” with the virus afterward. In animal studies, they do conduct a challenge test to observe how the animals respond to being infected with the actual virus after being vaccinated.

Will conducting animal studies solve the issue and remove the risk?

Not at all.

Anne De Groot, CEO of EpiVax argues that testing for vaccine safety in primates does not guarantee safety in humans, mainly because primates express different major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules, which alters epitope presentation and the immune response. Animals and humans are similar, but they are also very different. In addition, as pointed out above, the development of different viral strains in subsequent years could present a major problem not noticeable during the initial safety trials in either humans or animals.

What about unvaccinated people who are naturally infected with the virus and develop antibodies? Could these people experience ADE to a future strain of SARS-CoV-2?

The ADE response is actually much more complicated than the picture I outlined above. There are other competing and non-competing factors in our immune system that contribute to the ADE response, many of which are not fully understood. Part of that equation is a variety of different types of T-cells that modulate this response, and these T-Cells respond to other portions (epitopes) of the virus. In a vaccine, our body is normally presented with a small part of the virus (like the Spike protein), or a modified (attenuated or dead) virus which is more benign. A vaccine does not expose the entirety of our immune system to the actual virus.

These types of vaccines will only elicit antibodies that recognize the portion of the virus which is present in the vaccine. The other portions of the virus are not represented in the antibody pool. In this scenario, it is much more likely that the vaccine-induced antibodies can be rendered as non-neutralizing antibodies, because the entire virus is not coated in antibodies, only the portion that was used to develop the vaccine.

In a real infection, our immune system is exposed to every nook and cranny of the entire virus, and as such, our immune system develops a panacea of antibodies that recognize different portions of the virus and, therefore, coat more of the virus and neutralize it. In addition, our immune system develops T-Cell responses to hundreds of different peptide epitopes across the virus; whereas in the vaccine the plethora of these T-Cell responses are absent. Researchers are already aware that the T-Cell response plays a cooperative role in either the development of, or absence of, the ADE response.

Based on these differences and the skewed immunological response which is inherent with vaccines, I believe that the risk of ADE is an order of magnitude greater in a vaccine-primed immune system rather than a virus-primed immune system. This will certainly become more apparent as COVID-19 progresses over the years, but the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the vaccine industry to demonstrate that ADE will not rear its ugly head in the near term or the far term. Once a vaccine is administered and people develop antibodies to some misrepresentation of the virus, it cannot be reversed. Again, this is a problem that could manifest itself at a later date.

Although this article focused on the problem of ADE, it is not the only pathway or mechanism that could present a problem for people being infected after vaccination. Another pathway is governed by Th2 immunopathology, in which a defective T-cell response initiates an allergic inflammation reaction. A second pathway is based on the development of faulty antibodies that form immune complexes, which then activate the complement system a consequently damage the airways. These pathways are also potential risks for SARS-CoV-2.

Right now, the fatality rate of the virus is estimated to be approximately 0.26%, and this number seems to be dropping as the virus is naturally attenuating itself through the population. It would be a great shame to vaccinate the entire population against a virus with this low of a fatality rate, especially considering the considerable risk presented by ADE. I believe this risk of developing ADE in a vaccinated individual will be much greater than 0.26%, and, therefore, the vaccine stands to make the problem worse, not better. It would be the biggest blunder of the century to see the fatality rate of this virus increase in the years to come because of our sloppy, haphazard, rushed efforts to develop a vaccine with such a low threshold of safety testing and the prospect of ADE lurking in the shadows. I would hope (and this is a big hope), that this vaccine WILL NOT BE MANDATORY.

Hopefully, you now know a little more about the topic of Antibody Dependent Enhancement, and the real, unpredictable dangers of a coronavirus vaccine. In the end, your health should be your decision, not some bureaucrat’s that doesn’t know the first thing about molecular biology.

Man, it would be awesome if there were a thread for discussion beyond the simple yes/not/why question posed by the OP.

I wonder.....

Thanks for that wcb6092.

A huge concern for me is that if/when these reactions occur, it will be blamed on the Virus and not the vaccine.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
“available today” was intended to indicate that it was appropriate for the patient today and it wouldn’t be depriving someone more deserving.

But what I should have also stated clearly was that “today” means we have only the information that’s available today about the vaccines. And that’s somewhat of a contradiction of the “available” part because someone who won’t be eligible/able to receive the vaccine for several months will have much more information about possible side effects and effectiveness than what we can know this “today.”

So try to wrap your heads around those two differing conditions.

And although I always try to avoid getting involved in debates too early when I start a poll, my own reasons for Yes:

I am definitely concerned about the unknowns of not only a novel type of vaccine, but any new vaccine (although that doesn’t prevent me from getting every year’s new flu shot). I am not, however, deterred by the fact that it’s not effective for a small percentage of people and that it has been demonstrated to cause problems for an even smaller percentage. Despite the fact that many people are evidently not aware of it (or studiously choose to ignore it), the danger of the disease isn’t a black/white or live/die issue. Some not-zero percentage of the people who are getting COVID-19 are suffering from serious long term effects: Possible bad reaction to the vaccine versus more likely and possibly much worse consequences of the disease itself? No question there.

The most important reason for my wanting to be vaccinated as soon as possible, though, is because my situation isn’t just about me. My wife is disabled and seldom leaves the house. If she were to get the disease, it would be almost certainly from me. Am I willing to run a certain level of risk myself to help protect her? Also no question.

Extremely lucid reasoning!!!

I have no reason to doubt this guy. He has undoubtedly forgotten more about virology than I will ever know. My question is, if this is true, why aren’t others talking about this? The smartest virology researchers from all over the planet are working on this issue. Why is this guy alone in his concerns?

To answer the question asked originally about 12 pages ago, yes. I'll take it when its offered.

quote:

Originally posted by bogeyman:
I have no reason to doubt this guy. He has undoubtedly forgotten more about virology than I will ever know. My question is, if this is true, why aren’t others talking about this? The smartest virology researchers from all over the planet are working on this issue. Why is this guy alone in his concerns?

I don't know. If true, seems like the scientific community should be discussing. But based on prior posts, these are some possibilities why the discussion is not more widespread:

1) the guy is a quack and his concerns are not valid

2) his concerns are valid but it doesn't fit the narratives that democrats want nor the vaccine companies searching for a payday. power and greed overpower reason.

3) #2 - media is complicit with both democrats and companies and shutdown the discussions

4) Scientific community is largely academic. Academics are biased toward democrats. Concerns are inconvenient truths to be ignored since it complicates the narrative.

I can completely understand why some people will accept the vaccine, even with risks. Everyone is trying to make the right decision for themselves. Only in retrospect will we know who made the correct decisions.

quote:

Man, it would be awesome if there were a thread for discussion beyond the simple yes/not/why question posed by the OP.

I wonder.....

^^^^^^^^
Apparently some prefer a wall of text.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
^^^^^^^
When you get a flu shot it takes about two weeks to achieve maximum immunity. Probably any shot for a viral disease would have that interval too.

I understand how vaccines work and I have no illusions about instant immunity from it. Just figured that with my 2 week stay in Phoenix over Christmas it was the prudent thing to do.