Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
All Stop on the mRNA Vaccines
Just How Bad Are the mRNA Vaccines? And just how wrong was I about them? I always knew not to trust them uncritically. I always took seriously the concerns with them. After a while, I concluded that “It’s Still Warp Five for the mRNA Vaccines,” although there were reasonable concerns and, certainly, there was no need to hassle Covid recoverees or children to take them. Later, after some work “Rethinking the mRNA Vaccines,” I was able to have some cautious optimism while recognizing that Omicron is an improvement on earlier forms of Covid and that, for young males at least, Omicron is almost certainly safer than the mRNA vaxxes.
Things look worse now. I think it’s time to call “All stop!” on this thing. Drop the ship out of warp! Or, to drop the Star Trek metaphors instead, it’s time to stop all public policies promoting, compelling, or paying for mRNA vaccines for Covid. At this point, a friendly suggestion to the very vulnerable (elderly, obese, etc.) to consider this or another vaccine from time to time is the most we should do.
Why is it time to quit?
Well, it’s complicated. I’ve saved over fifty URLs of things I’d like to look into concerning various claims about mRNA vax problems. This is a Gordian Knot of vaccine information, and as far as I can tell I only have four options:
1. Trust the experts.
2. Apply some heuristics.
3. Try to untangle the knot myself.
4. Cut through the knot.
A consideration of these options leads to the conclusion that it’s time to stop the push for mRNA vaxxes, especially when we look at Option 4.
Option 1: “Trust the experts” is right out.
I should be able to trust some public health officials, but I can’t after all their epic Covid policy failures. I now trust these guys like I trust Democrats to spend money responsibly. Internet independent thinkers are better, but just trusting them doesn’t solve all our problems either. For example, I’m pretty sure I can trust Dr. Vinay Prasad to be honest and knowledgeable, but it’s still possible to catch him falling for fallacious arguments.
Option 2: “Apply some heuristics” ain’t a bad idea.
Everyone else is doing it, and why shouldn’t they? For example, I could use a heuristic like “Follow the money” to conclude that it’s entirely plausible that the corrupting influence of money and power, maybe with a little help from groupthink and politics, supported these extra-big Big Pharma products much more than they deserved.
Or I could use a heuristic like “There’s a bit of a pattern here, don’t you think?” Then I could reasonably conclude that the vaccines that have all the known problems also have some of the other problems people are talking about. Drip by drip, we already have a lakeful of information on the failures of these vaccines; there is probably more to come. Or I could use the same heuristic to conclude that the people who badly botched over 90% of Covid policy badly botched vaccines too. Or to conclude that censored views will turn out to be true–again. Or that the people whose warnings about mRNA vax problems have already been shown to be correct will be shown to be correct in the future.
No, not a bad idea at all. I have plenty of tentative leanings in this direction. Option 2 ain’t looking good for the mRNA vaxxes.
Option 3: “Try to untangle the knot myself” is still on the table, but it’ll have to wait.
Do I look like I have that kind of time? Maybe I’ll try a little of it later. I still have those fifty-plus links! Maybe I can select a very few and drop some logic on them.
Option 4: “Cut through the knot” is the big one!
This approach is simple. It works well. And it’s not looking good for the mRNA vaccines.
Episode 1,596 of Ben Shapiro’s podcast is spot on. The best heuristic is to trust some trustworthy experts, but that only works when we have trustworthy experts. These days, until we get some new institutions to replace or at least compete with our old corrupt institutions, trustworthy experts is just what we don’t have.
So until I have more time to think, it sure would be nice to find some way of cutting through the whole problem. And there is a way. Here are a few things we know:
- The mRNA vaccines are a new, experimental technology.
- There is no long-term data on the effects of this technology.
- The mRNA globules don’t all stay where they’re supposed to.
- Myocarditis is a confirmed side-effect of the mRNA shots, for younger males especially.
- These shots don’t prevent infection.
- They don’t prevent transmission.
- Omicron is uncontrollable.
- Omicron, when there are symptoms at all, tends to range in severity from mild cold to bad flu.
- A majority of us have almost certainly had Omicron by now.
- Omicron confers superb immunity.
In order to know whether there is any ongoing need for the mRNA vaccines, I don’t have to know whether there ever was. I don’t have to evaluate dozens of claims and counter-claims about VAERS. I don’t have to learn how to do statistics. I don’t have to learn new vocabulary words. I don’t have to figure out how strong is the insurance data evidence that they’re killing people. I don’t have to wait for someone to provide me with the relevant information on how often European footballers suddenly fell over and died before 2020, how many after Covid hit but before mass vaccination, and how many after mass vaccination. I don’t have to spend a few hours studying reverse transcriptase. I don’t have to determine whether Peter McCullough, once a strong candidate for the position of Texas’ Greatest Research Doctor, is somehow a nut or whether he’s still a great research doctor and the establishment that made him a pariah were fools to do so.
All of that stuff matters, and I hope to look into at least some of it eventually, and the heuristics indicate it won’t turn out well for the mRNA vaccines if I ever do.
But we can know enough now, even without all that, to know whether it’s time to stop. If there was ever a need for these vaccines, the time has passed. If anyone actually needs the mRNA vaccines, it’s probably someone who’s a member of both of two minority groups: Those who have not yet had Covid in any form, and those whose age or obesity makes Omicron a real threat.
Meanwhile, everyone who is a member of either of two majority groups–those who have had Covid and those who are not particularly vulnerable–should not be pressured into taking an experimental biotechnology injection they don’t need. And the public should not have to pay for it.
It’s time to stop.Published in Domestic Policy
I had a check-up recently. Got my ‘flu shot (regular old ‘flu, of the sort that kills lots of people every year, including children, without provoking panic) and was asked if I wanted a booster for COVID? I said “nah.”
I had COVID, back in May. Presumably the omicron type that provides “superb immunity” (just used that phrase to buck up my husband…thanks, Saint A!) and figured I was good to go.
My good news is that the doctor just moved right along to the next question (do I want a mammogram?). Now if I can only persuade people that they really don’t need to wear masks anymore. Even in the doctor’s office.
I’m glad I’ll be able to get another booster some time next year, though I wouldn’t mind seeing some data on how long the B- and T-cells from the vaccine last in someone my age.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence based on tests with humans for the bivalent booster being an improvement over the older booster. I agree with Paul Offut that it was irresponsible for the FDA to approve it without those tests.
If I was half my current age I wouldn’t get any of them.
And after those two, the only thing they have left is that the disease is subsequently “less severe.”
A) They didn’t check for the prevention of transmission. Did they check on the “suppression of severity?” Where’s the data? I wanna see.
B) What is their basis for determining severity?
The severity argument sounds like a fairy tale, and I’ve always been partial to the ones where the brave knight rescues the damsel in distress.
What’s the worst part of the mRNA jabs? Is it the passing through the blood-brain barrier? Is it the spike proteins floating around blood stream and “attacking” all the organs? Or, is the problem that blood based immunity is just not the right kind of immunity for respiratory Covid? If a doctor offered to inject you in the vein with a few CC’s of spike protein, would that be a bad idea?
Yes, they tested that, though they didn’t test for that (or anything else) in the latest bivalent booster, unless you count their testing for antibodies in 8 mice as a test.
I used to follow those data, though, and posted links to it long ago. It has been several months since I’ve seen those data, and don’t remember where. If I thought it was important (or I wasn’t so lazy) I’d go look at them to see if anything has changed. But if people didn’t want to look at those data when they were in everybody’s face, they probably won’t want to look at them now. Some of the tests that were done for original approval of the vaccine were based on severity. If memory serves, that’s what the JnJ makers used as an endpoint. That raised a few eyebrows back then, because the Pfizer and Moderna tests used symptomatic infection as an endpoint and the results looked pretty good for that, so why would anyone want protection that only protected against severity? That was the talk among some (not all) of the YouTube medical people back at the time.
Now there are a lot of vaccine alarmists and fearmongers who will tell you, “But, but, but! We were told…”
I suggest that instead of believing somebody who tries to tell you what we were told, you look at this video from February 2021 (*), starting at about 3:35, to see what people were actually saying at the time the J&J vaccine was submitted for approval. (I was passing this information on to others at the time.) I have no idea and little interest in what the news droids were saying at the time. They had long before proven themselves to be unreliable purveyors of covid information.
Usually in these studies, as in the one discussed in the video, hospitalization is taken as a pretty good indication of severity. I haven’t heard of any better ideas.
(*) I hope that whichever new product manager at Google came up with the idea of removing publication dates from the videos will soon be fired and blacklisted from ever working for a tech company again. Unfortunately, it seems the main path to advancement for Google product managers is to remove valuable features from products. Fortunately, in the case of this video the MedCram people who posted the video put the recording date in the description of the video. Chronology is important.
I don’t know of any worst part. It’s just a subset of the virus itself.
As for blood-based immunity, I think part of the problem with respiratory viruses is that they can infect you without getting from the mucosal membrances to circulation in the blood stream. But my knowledge of that part is rather sketchy.
I see that by clicking the “more” on the video description I can usually (maybe always) see the publication date. What a nuisance. But I suppose a metaphorical firing would suffice for the product manager who came up with that change, and it wouldn’t have to involve literal fire.
I tend to look at the mechanistic side of things – are results biochemically plausible? A lot of stuff that freaks out a lot of you does not bother me, because I have a pretty solid understanding of the biochemistry involved. However, we don’t seem to be closer to answers on a lot of very pertinent questions than we were before.
Why is the Pfizer / Moderna vaccine the only one being selected for boosters? Has anyone looked into the Johnson & Johnson vaccine or Novovax? I’d imagine using an alternate method to induce immunity is worth investigating.
What is the mechanism on the myocarditis that has occurred? Is this an auto-immune disease? Does this occur in isolated cell culture or mouse models?
What is the cost-benefit on mass vaccination for Coronavirus at this point?
It is a darn shame that so many experts are so compromised.
Disagree with you a bit on this one, but not majorly. It’s entirely possible that the real issue here isn’t the mRNA vaccines, but rather that Covid-19 is a slippery virus that defies most of our attempts to control it. The old adage about curing the common cold comes to mind because that’s spent of what Covid-19 is…a more virulent common cold, well from a virology aspect at least. We all know there isn’t a vaccine for the cold and that the flu shot is hit or miss because they mutate so rapidly that it’s difficult to control them and getting the flu doesn’t confer lifelong immunity like other diseases do.
So, we have a disease that mutates rapidly, that is much more virulent than similar coronavirus ailments, and initial observations show it having a 8-10% CFR. That’s a scary proposition. Of course, it wasn’t as perfect a storm as we thought it was. The CFR was much lower and the IFR would end up even in the early days) below 1%, perhaps even in the 0.1% range. Having a disease with a 40% infection rate and an 8% fatality rate would make it in the league of the Bubonic Plague which killed close to 25% of Europe (yes a 3.2% overall mortality rate isn’t as bad as 25%, but the sheer number of deaths would overwhelm the system).
That was the fear, and the worry I’ve had since January of 2020 was that this cannot be controlled AND that it maintains a high lethality. Lucky for us, it isn’t nearly as deadly as we feared, though no one knew that certain, or that it will stay that way.
So, while there is plenty of blame to go around and tons of really stupid things that got done, don’t assume that the mRNA vaccines aren’t effective in toto, because that likely isnt true.
I’m not seeing any clear disagreement here.
Told ya so. Back in February. February 2021. Probably before that too, but it is too much trouble to find my comments.
These mRNA vaccines carry substantial unknown risks. We should avoid them until we have at least 5 year data.
Which won’t be that long now.
I have no words to express how upset I am that anyone anywhere is vaccinating kids with this vaccine. I am fairly openminded about the vaccine, but not for children. I am so glad my kids are grown up and I don’t have to deal with this. I’d be so angry that anyone was even considering doing this.
Some days I wonder if something has gone really wrong at the top of the pediatrics professional pyramid.
I thought making it mandatory to keep your job was terrible and vaccine passports were/are ridiculous; making this mandatory for kids to go to school is criminal.
And avoid them even after that.
The key to the fallacy being imposed on mankind, up to this point, are mandates. Forcing people to take the experimental shot or else give up their careers and their ability to live freely by their own choices is totalitarian, mean, scary and so many other worse things that I start to boil over with anger thinking about them.
Your points listed @saintaugustine are superb. I will copy and paste them on a card to present to anyone wishing to push me into taking any more of the mRNA injections.
I wondered when first given the “less severe” rationale, how do they test for that data? How can they possibly know other than anecdotal evidence. Without prevention of infection nor prevention of transmission the shot becomes simply a therapeutic, just like HCQ or Ivermectin, only without the long term testing that the latter two have received.
I’ve been thinking to myself, “Self, how come the FDA was able to see the dangers of Thalidomide, and what can we learn from that episode in history?”
The TL;DR version goes that in the early 1960s the FDA wanted to approve Thalidomide, but the determination of one FDA researcher (Frances Oldham Kelsey) managed to turn the tide until the FDA capitulated.
So what’s different between the Thalidomide story and the COVID vaccine story?
salvation from an extinction-level pandemica vaccine for a serious respiratory virus. Keeping Thalidomide off the market wouldn’t result in the deaths of lots of people, even if Kelsey had turned out to be wrong. As such, the PR machine against her could characterize her as an obstructive bureaucrat, but they couldn’t really characterize her as a mass murderer. This is not the case for anybody in the FDA in late 2020 who may have had qualms about approving COVID vaccines.
Conclusion?: I don’t really have one. I’m just spitballing here.
Your point 4 is a lot worse than you describe. There has been political interference in the FDA approval process under Biden. We never had that before.
By the way, I’m glad the “All” in the OP title is contradicted somewhat by the article itself.
Big ups to you.
I’m all for forgiveness, but not until there is accountability and justice.
We were lied to from day 1 of this mess – from where and how the virus originated, to the ridiculous mandates to get vaccinated, to forcing this poison on children.
Some of the longest running lies come from the anti-covidvaxers. Liars abound on both sides.
Quibble: It was (mostly) President Trump that pushed accelerated FDA approval. The Pfizer EUA was granted before Biden was inaugurated.
Publicly. I wish Trump had done more of it, publicly. I’m talking about the behind-the-scenes interference by Biden over subsequent approvals, some of which also involve conflicts of interest on the part of the FDA.
I saw some news anchor discussing this with … was it Bill Maher, maybe? Regardless, he mentioned that he had had 2 shots and boosters, but still ended up in the hospital. Maher (if that’s who it was) said “ok, and you still think it works?” (or, more importantly, that it should be forced on people) – and the guy responded, “well, they say that if I hadn’t had the vaccine, I’d be dead.”
So that’s where we are, now. “Suppression of severity” when argued in that manner cannot be tested (or will not be tested). It is just like everything else the left argues – “but for” this, things would be so much worse!
What makes you think that’s where we are now?
Forgiveness comes when the other side agrees it screwed up.
Ret, I haven’t been following the medicine angle as closely as you have. Data’s my game.
Question: Why insist on universal vaccination of the non-vulnerable, even that of children, who very rarely get Covid?
Answer: Those are the people that are least likely to require hospitalization if they catch Covid.
Question: But whyever would they do that?
Answer: To make their numbers better. “See? The data clearly shows that hospitalizations are reduced for those who get the jab!” The bigger they make the number of the vaccinated, the better the results will look, whether or not it is actually responsible for that result.
Not only have the books been cooked, the kitchen is still open.