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
The data I’ve seen are age-adjusted, so that wouldn’t help at all. Has anyone even been presenting these data in non-adjusted form? (I wouldn’t rule out anything the news media would present, so that is not a rhetorical question.)
I won’t rule out the interest some parties have in making money off the vaccines as being a factor, much as I dislike looking for such mundane motivations.
The vaccines do little to prevent transmission. I am OK with schools and hospitals requiring MUMPs vaccines because Mumps prevents immuno-compromised people and people who react badly to vaccines from getting very nasty diseases. But if vaccines don’t prevent transmission the there isn’t a justification to interview with their freedom. (Do you hear me Trudeau?)
Even if they reduce transmission (a more reasonable objective) they don’t do enough of it enough to justify the mandates and lockdowns.
Yeah I agree. Look, I would be against vaccine mandates even if vaccines were mana from heaven because I am against government mandates. But immuno-compromised do deserve special consideration from the larger society.
Meaning I’m not advocating a total ban?
Yeah, it’s more like an All Stop on government support.
And we can’t do all our thinking in Star Trek metaphors.
Example?
The vaccine is not really a vaccine.
That wasn’t a lie. That was sticking with older definitions.
No, it wasn’t. It may have been sticking with a sloppy, over-simplified older definition you might have found somewhere, but it was not sticking with the older definitions.
I fully endorse Star Trek metaphors.
Ok, what was the correct older definition?
A live or attenuated (dead) virus is injected into you to develop an immuno response towards the more horrible version of the disease. The mRNA vaccines inject proteins to create an immuno response which is similar but not quite the same.
Or parts of a virus or bacterium.
https://ricochet.com/948761/its-still-warp-five-for-the-mrna-vaccines/comment-page-2/#comment-5485376
But these newfangled things temporarily program our own cells to make the virus parts.
There were lots of older definitions. Probably every medical textbook writer had his own. There were also different definitions for different audiences. The thing was, they were intended to be descriptions of what vaccines do, intended to help people understand what they did, how they worked in a general way, and what they were for. I wouldn’t be surprised if every time a new variation on vaccine technology came along, the definition had to be rewritten to cover it. But nobody objected that the new ones weren’t really vaccines just because, for example, they found that it worked in some diseases to use just a a particular portion of the virus (subunit vaccines) as an innoculant. They all involved getting one’s adaptive immune system prepped to deal with the virus.
And they all included influenza vaccines as vaccines. The people who came up with the notion that we never called the flu vaccine a vaccine are even bigger (and lazier) liars, as can be seen by any perusal of old newspapers.
Here is a 2019 web page from at the NIH web site that lists some of the different kinds of vaccines then being used or being worked on: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/vaccine-types
Just about every new vaccine is not quite the same as those that had come before.
Ok, so like I said they were sticking with an old definition.
Your objection, I suppose, is that this one new definition is the first time they stuck with older definitions, and you take that as evidence they were lying.
Pretty lousy evidence. This is the first time it uses our cells to make the virus parts. There are reports that in some official documents it’s called “gene therapy.” This was Covid. Things were big. Things were complicated. Things were confusing. The Powers That Be were showing signs of being untrustworthy. There are probably over a dozen reasons people might take this opportunity to stick with old definitions that don’t involve them lying.
Ok, maybe that was a lie.
Any substance that when injected, results in a profit for either Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J.
Benefits: TBD.
Side Effects: Strenuously denied and ruthlessly suppressed.
Oh come on. That is silly. It’s fine if companies get money for doing the right thing. But we should have a high standard for language and for ethical medical practices regardless of the powers that be.
Shut up Wesley.
;-)
I don’t grok. What “this one new definition” are you talking about?
They are lying because they intend to deceive. There are usually 2 parts to these lies.
One is that traditional vaccines use inactivated or weakened viruses, therefore this one is not a vaccine. But it’s not true that all former vaccines use inactivated or weakened viruses. Most of them do, but there are a few others, and those are also vaccines. All of them try to present antigens to a person’s immune system that are close enough to the virus to induce the induce the immune system to protect against the actual virus.
The other point they make is that traditional vaccines provide some sort of binary, absolute immunity, and this one does not, therefore it is not a vaccine. But no traditional vaccines are 100 percent effective, no matter how you measure effectiveness. Some are close to that, but that doesn’t mean the others are not vaccines.
It doesn’t matter whether some CDC web page definition is or was adequate to cover all these cases. This is what the state of vaccines is like.
The originators of these fables are deliberate liars. The others who pass them on are guilty of being lazy or gullible.
It’s probably true that this is the first time a vaccine uses our cells to make virus parts. That has nothing to do with whether these are vaccines. (The covid virus also uses our cells to make virus parts, except for the fact that it makes whole viruses and not just parts of them.)
The powers that be were showing signs of being untrustworthy, and the people who lie about whether the vaccines are vaccines are showing signs of being untrustworthy. If they want to hang their hats on a tortured use of one definition on a CDC web page, they are not people to be relied on. I don’t see any sign that they have looked up any uses of the term “vaccine,” new or old, to make sure they have a good grasp on how the term is and has been used.
The last new one. The change that allows this new tech to be called a vaccine. The one you were talking about.
Who was intending to deceive? You’re on Ricochet. You’re surrounded by people who prefer the older definitions and aren’t trying to deceive.
Who are these originators?
Do you feel that have any clear idea what my point was in the paragraph about the lousy evidence? You seem to be talking about something different.
First make the animated icons stop. Please for the love of humanity, make them stop.
Second, Omicron was the mildest cold I’ve ever had in my life.
Third, I got some serious health problems I’ve never had before immediately after getting my first dose of the vaccine (the one that starts with an m). I can’t say the vaccine caused it, but it got worse again after the second dose. That was enough for me. I wouldn’t do it again. I’m finally mostly recovered.
They say some outrageous number of people died from the corona. I’d like to see a list of names. Where are the j-urinalysts that should be chasing down statistics to confirm they are correct? Why are we accepting these claims without any confirmation beyond twitter or facebook fact checkers?
I had pneumonia early in 2o22. I blame the incessant mask wearing. Rebreathing the same bacteria over and over. Tested COVID-negative throughout. Finally got over the pneumonia. Tested positive for COVID a couple of weeks later. It was the sniffles and a bit of a headache.
There was no change that allowed this to be called a vaccine. It was a vaccine no matter what.
I don’t know who the originators are. But nobody on Ricochet thought up this nonsense by himself/herself. When I hear people repeating, in unison, mantras they could only have been gotten from elsewhere, I assume there is a source somewhere.
No, I don’t have a clear idea about your point. I hope you have a clear idea about mine, though.
So even though definitions have to be rewritten the definitions aren’t changing?
This is confusing. It’s like you’re not even reading what you say. (I bolded above what I was reading when I wrote.)
I assume nothing of the sort. I could have thought of this one myself–“Hey, didn’t they tell us when we were all kids what a vaccine was? Wasn’t it something pretty different from this?”
If your point is that the critics are sometimes liars, yes.
I don’t even know that I disagree, but I wish you would explain yourself more clearly with examples that make a lick of sense.
My point above was that you apparently had a bad argument, since you apparently gave as a conclusion “They’re lying” and as a premise that this most recent change to the definition of “vaccine” was the first one they didn’t accept, when in fact there any number of alternative likely reasons for this to be the first one they didn’t accept.
Even if the CDC web site said that a vaccine consisted of eye of newt and toe of frog, the mRNA vaccines would be vaccines and would be discussed that way at the CDC, the FDA, in immunology labs, and in public. But textbook authors, in order to instruct their students, would probably come up with better descriptions and would adjust them accordingly if old ones had somehow managed to have been written in a way that that excluded new technology. Probably it’s not as much of an issue with medical school texts as with, say, high school texts, but we’d have to do an analysis to know for sure. Old definitions tend to be inadequate when they were oversimplified in the first place, and that’s not as likely to have been done in materials used in med school.
I went looking for my old microbiology text from the mid 70s to see if it had a description/definition of vaccines, but it seems to have fallen victim to the book-eliminating project we’ve been on for over 3 years now. A lot has changed since the 70s, and that wasn’t exactly an immunology text, but it may have had something. I’ve sometimes done projects to analyse how textbooks have changed over time (got an A on such a project back in my undergrad days) but I’ll let someone else do this one. My access to my university library has gotten more complicated since covid, so that doesn’t help.
So even though definitions have to be rewritten, the definition isn’t changing?