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.

Data Star Trek Stop GIF - Data Star Trek Stop Stop It GIFsEveryone 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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 133 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Reticulator, my best guess as to what you’re talking about didn’t pan out. You’re not writing with any clarity. You a bunch of people liars, and your explanation for that accusation in # 44 made no sense that I could understand. My efforts to understand it have been led to repeated failures of either of us to understand the other.

    I suggest you go back to whatever your point was in # 44 and try to explain why you’re calling people–including a lot of people here on Ricochet–liars.

    If I ever think of a way to be more clear about it or write a better explanation, I’ll do so.

    In the meantime, it would be well for the people who complain about being lied to by the government to not to go around spreading lies saying that the mRNA vaccines are not vaccines.

    They’re not spreading lies.

    Please explain your theory that they are, or else leave me alone and go accuse people somewhere else.

    • #91
  2. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    My only question is what you’re talking about. Why don’t you tell me? Are you not saying the definition of vaccine does not change? Did you misspeak when you said the definitions get rewritten?

    Definitions get rewritten. The meanings of words change with changes in usage, and some changes in usage come about with changes in technology. I can’t say about “the definition” because there is no such thing (except perhaps in some regulatory context) and I am not going to accept your premise that there is.

    It’s not my premise. I’m asking what you were talking about.

    If I said “the” definitions get rewritten I would like to revise that because it can have the wrong implications. It would be better to say that definitions and descriptions get rewritten.

    And that part was perfectly clear. You’re still trying to fix imaginary problems. I know you said that the definitions get rewritten.

    Our current epic failure to communicate stems, apparently, from your remark that there was no change in the definition which makes it possible for this new technology to be correctly called a “vaccine.” It looked like your point was that there is some sort of fixed definition that hasn’t changed. Maybe you didn’t mean that. But I can’t make heads or tails out of what you do mean.

    No, there is no fixed definition that hasn’t changed, just as there is no fixed definition of “motor vehicle” that hasn’t changed.  However, our practical and common understanding of what constitutes a motor vehicle has been modified a lot in the last 100 years or so, but it hasn’t changed through the agency of changes in definitions.  Something similar is the case with descriptions of vaccines.

    That doesn’t mean it isn’t wise to make distinctions between mRNA vaccines and other types of vaccines, at least for now.

    I recently came across an example of where there is confusion about motor vehicles.  I did a bicycle ride of 1500 miles or so that ended up at the pedestrian bridge across the Ohio River at Louisville KY.  Last Thursday, at the end, I wanted to ride my bicycle across. I hadn’t been sure it was allowed, but as I got to the approach I saw that it was, and that the bridge is even referred to as a pedestrian/bicycle bridge.

    So there was no problem about what I wanted to do, but I got to wondering about others. At the base there is a sign saying motor vehicles and scooters aren’t allowed.  And near the the sign there were e-bikes for rent.  There were also e-scooters for rent a little further away. 

    So, is an e-bike a motor vehicle or not, and is it allowed on the bridge?  It has a motor, and there exist bicycle pathways where they are not allowed, and other public bicycle pathways where certain types are allowed and others are not. This is a case where the vocabulary has not quite clarified matters yet, though in the meantime it’s not a big deal.  Being Americans who tend to be somewhat loose about these things, you can probably ride any type of e-bike on that bridge without anybody complaining, but I’ll bet a Tesla would results in complaints right quick. (And there were a lot of people on the bridge with the potential to complain, touristy types as well as locals out enjoying the sun.) I don’t know about e-scooters, and I didn’t see any on the bridge.  Our vocabulary isn’t quite adequate to the task of quickly communicating what is and isn’t allowed given the new technologies, but it will eventually be.  There is an interplay between common vocabulary and legal definitions, and it just hasn’t settled out yet, and it won’t be settled by arbitrarily writing legal definitions that don’t somehow comport with common usage.

    The situation with vaccines is somewhat analogous but not so complicated.  Where it matters you can just say, “I don’t want an mRNA vaccine.” It’s not completely clear, though. For example, the J&J vaccine (which I guess is no longer offered in the U.S.) is not an mRNA vaccine, but it does use DNA.  I would think that if people object to mRNA vaccines they would object to those, too, but I’m not sure given some of the weird rhetoric we hear.  (Not all of which fits the definition of a lie, but it is weird.)

    But you’re only going to shut yourself up in a communication bubble of your own specialized vocabulary if you claim that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines, and people are going to learn not to trust you for accurate and useful information, especially when the reasons given are so bogus. The working knowledge of how vaccines do their work and how they interact with the immune system applies to all vaccines in a way that doesn’t apply to other medical treatments. And for practical reasons and utility, the workers in those medical fields are going to drive the terminology. I.e. the people who know the science and technology and whose knowledge matters are going to drive the terminology. People sitting in their vax-bashing ivory towers are not going to.  But it’s hard to pin it down with definitions without getting really wordy and specific, and if you do that your definitions will probably need frequent adjustment, just as they do if they’re oversimplified.

     

    • #92
  3. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    I’m not seeing any clear disagreement here.

    You mentioned that the vaccines don’t stop infection or transmission.  That may very well be true with Covid-19, but also may be a function of Covid-19 and not mRNA vaccines.

    • #93
  4. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    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.

    I am reminded of the story of the development of one of the original Smallpox vaccines based on the use of Cowpox pustules.  Cowpox was similar to Smallpox, but not as deadly.  

    It wasn’t until May 1796 that the world’s first vaccine was demonstrated, using the same principle as variolation but with a less dangerous viral source, cowpox. Having heard of local beliefs and practices in rural communities that cowpox protected against smallpox, Dr Edward Jenner inoculated 8-year-old James Phipps with matter from a cowpox sore on the hand of Sarah Nelmes, a local milkmaid.

    Phipps reacted to the cowpox matter and felt unwell for several days but made a full recovery. Two months later, in July 1796, Jenner took matter from a human smallpox sore and inoculated Phipps with it to test his resistance. 

    Phipps remained in perfect health, the first person to be vaccinated against smallpox.

    At the time people thought that it would turn people into cows.

    Which just goes to show that people don’t change much.  Did cowpox totally prevent smallpox, or did it simply make it so much less severe that it was neither deadly, nor exhibited the usual pustules?  

    • #94
  5. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Reticulator, my best guess as to what you’re talking about didn’t pan out. You’re not writing with any clarity. You a bunch of people liars, and your explanation for that accusation in # 44 made no sense that I could understand. My efforts to understand it have been led to repeated failures of either of us to understand the other.

    I suggest you go back to whatever your point was in # 44 and try to explain why you’re calling people–including a lot of people here on Ricochet–liars.

    If I ever think of a way to be more clear about it or write a better explanation, I’ll do so.

    In the meantime, it would be well for the people who complain about being lied to by the government to not to go around spreading lies saying that the mRNA vaccines are not vaccines.

    They’re not spreading lies.

    Please explain your theory that they are, or else leave me alone and go accuse people somewhere else.

    I’ve already explained.  I’d prefer to do so here where people are throwing out the term “liar.” 

    • #95
  6. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):
    Did cowpox totally prevent smallpox, or did it simply make it so much less severe that it was neither deadly, nor exhibited the usual pustules? 

    As best I can remember it did both.  I don’t know that there are any data on how much of each it did, which doesn’t mean there aren’t any such data. 

    • #96
  7. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    I’m not seeing any clear disagreement here.

    You mentioned that the vaccines don’t stop infection or transmission. That may very well be true with Covid-19, but also may be a function of Covid-19 and not mRNA vaccines.

    One problem is that when somebody says “stop infection,” it isn’t always clear what they mean by that. Do they mean stop it 100 percent of the time or stop it in a good percentage of cases, or what? If I draw the lucky number and it stops it in me, I call that useful and am grateful that the vaccine stopped the infection in me. If it stops it in a good percentage of people that can end the pandemic.  But the mRNA vaccines don’t seem to be that good.  But just saying “the vaccine doesn’t stop the infection” may or may not be true depending on what they meant.  And what they meant may or may not be very relevant to clinical medicine.  

    And do they mean stop symptomatic infection or any infection of cells at all. I don’t know if there are any any vaccines against any disease that do the latter. 

    But that isn’t the end of the difficulties. 

    Do they mean stop symptomatic infection of any kind?  The covid disease is almost like two diseases in sequence.  The first one involves an attack on the upper respiratory tract.  It’s hard to develop something that stops that, but it  depends (among other things) on where the immune system antibodies are in your body, i.e. circulating in the blood and/or elsewhere.  The second stage is an attack on endothelial cells in the lungs and blood vessels. That is more serious.  “Severe” covid and hospitalization can result.  The mRNA vaccines tend to do a better job against that, for a complex combination of reasons that I’ve tried before to describe in my poor layman’s terms (and probably never get completely right). 

    A lot of people don’t want complicated explanations like that. They demand simple answers to extremely complex questions, and then when the results aren’t as black-and-white as they want they might complain that they were lied to.  It’s made more complicated by the fact that sometimes they actually were lied to by the same people who also tried (unsuccessfully) to help by giving oversimplified answers. 

     

     

    • #97
  8. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    I’m not seeing any clear disagreement here.

    You mentioned that the vaccines don’t stop infection or transmission. That may very well be true with Covid-19, but also may be a function of Covid-19 and not mRNA vaccines.

    Perhaps.

    • #98
  9. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    No, there is no fixed definition that hasn’t changed, just as there is no fixed definition of “motor vehicle” that hasn’t changed.

    Thank you.

    That’s all you needed to say.

    • #99
  10. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Reticulator, my best guess as to what you’re talking about didn’t pan out. You’re not writing with any clarity. You a bunch of people liars, and your explanation for that accusation in # 44 made no sense that I could understand. My efforts to understand it have been led to repeated failures of either of us to understand the other.

    I suggest you go back to whatever your point was in # 44 and try to explain why you’re calling people–including a lot of people here on Ricochet–liars.

    If I ever think of a way to be more clear about it or write a better explanation, I’ll do so.

    In the meantime, it would be well for the people who complain about being lied to by the government to not to go around spreading lies saying that the mRNA vaccines are not vaccines.

    They’re not spreading lies.

    Please explain your theory that they are, or else leave me alone and go accuse people somewhere else.

    I’ve already explained.

    Not with any clarity. They aren’t spreading lies. They’re honestly sticking with an older definition.

    In # 44 you apparently said they are spreading lies because, after all previous changes in the definitions that they never complained about, this is the first time they’ve stopped accepting new definitions.

    If that’s what you meant, it was a weak argument, as I explained at the time.

    • #100
  11. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Saint Augustine: Omicron confers superb immunity.

    But for how long?  I thought the official line was still that immunity wanes after 6-9 months, hence the need for annual boosters.

    • #101
  12. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine: Omicron confers superb immunity.

    But for how long? I thought the official line was still that immunity wanes after 6-9 months, hence the need for annual boosters.

    Fair question, and if I had to guess I’d say it lasts about as long as immunity to whatever version of cold or flu you had last.

    For some vulnerable people a vax might make sense after 6 to 12 months. Maybe even an mRNA vax. Maybe that was the hole in my thinking about the different categories of people in the opening post.

    Or maybe not. Why we should think these newfangled and largely failed things are better than something more traditional I don’t know. And in any case the likely relative mildness of Omicron must be weighed against the chance of any mRNA vax side-effects.

    I don’t know. I don’t know. I hate the whole situation. I wish I could trust more experts. It’s obscene that I have to try to think about this myself.

    • #102
  13. Brian Clendinen Inactive
    Brian Clendinen
    @BrianClendinen

    Percival (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine:

    • These shots don’t prevent infection.
    • They don’t prevent transmission.

    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.

    They did they just unmasked the double-blind so there would be no long-term tracking.

    • #103
  14. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    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?

     

    The J&J vaccine had issues too, with blood clotting.

    Actual Covid infections can cause myocarditis as well.  My own (decidedly non-expert) opinion is that the common denominator here is the spike protein, regardless of whether it comes from a real virus, vaccine, or mRNA vaccine. 

    Personally I don’t (yet) see any reason to suspect the mRNA technology itself, it still holds promise for rapid development of vaccines against future deadlier pandemics.

    • #104
  15. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Personally I don’t (yet) see any reason to suspect the mRNA technology itself, it still holds promise for rapid development of vaccines against future deadlier pandemics.

    Inshallah.

    • #105
  16. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine: Omicron confers superb immunity.

    But for how long? I thought the official line was still that immunity wanes after 6-9 months, hence the need for annual boosters.

    We really don’t know. My old boss caught Covid-19 three times. Sucks for sure and obviously that natural immunity didn’t work 100%. He likely caught three variants which describes an endemic disease pretty well. 

    • #106
  17. Brian Clendinen Inactive
    Brian Clendinen
    @BrianClendinen

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    I’m not seeing any clear disagreement here.

    You mentioned that the vaccines don’t stop infection or transmission. That may very well be true with Covid-19, but also may be a function of Covid-19 and not mRNA vaccines.

    Nope. The issue is they lied about it. Influzian shots have never done either of these. They only reduce the risk of Hoptiziation and death. The lie that we don’t know because it had not been tested. Was such a moronic statement because it had never been true before with any Flu strain for  50 years? Claiming to have to prove that this strain could be unique in all of medical history therefore we can say it can stop infection and transmission, until proving otherwise lie only the ignorant would believe. Yes this was the first COVID shot we had come up with. But COVID is not that different from A & B influenza. To not assume the science would really be any different.  The dumb statement also had no understanding the basic science behind how the preventive shots actually work. So it could not happen. Otherwise, our basic understanding of the science of the flu shots would be seriously wrong.

    • #107
  18. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine: Omicron confers superb immunity.

    But for how long? I thought the official line was still that immunity wanes after 6-9 months, hence the need for annual boosters.

    We really don’t know. My old boss caught Covid-19 three times. Sucks for sure and obviously that natural immunity didn’t work 100%. He likely caught three variants which describes an endemic disease pretty well.

    Was he vaccinated?  They say vaccination reduces the immune system’s overall effectiveness with the small variations of the virus.

    • #108
  19. Brian Clendinen Inactive
    Brian Clendinen
    @BrianClendinen

    Flicker (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine: Omicron confers superb immunity.

    But for how long? I thought the official line was still that immunity wanes after 6-9 months, hence the need for annual boosters.

    We really don’t know. My old boss caught Covid-19 three times. Sucks for sure and obviously that natural immunity didn’t work 100%. He likely caught three variants which describes an endemic disease pretty well.

    Was he vaccinated? They say vaccination reduces the immune system’s overall effectiveness with the small variations of the virus.

    The MRNA are actually worse. Its way more targeted. Not sure at the science behind the more traditional preventive shots. I don’t know if they have the same issue like JJs one.  JJ used some of the same new tech as the MRNA vaccines did to isolate the strain.  So the MRNA shots you don’t get some general protection from slight mutations like the traditional flu vaccine du.

    • #109
  20. Hammer, The (Ryan M) Inactive
    Hammer, The (Ryan M)
    @RyanM

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Gazpacho Grande’ (View Comment):

    The mRNA vaccines aren’t effective, in toto – that *is* true.

    Indeed.

    If it’s a vaccine, and I took the shot, and got Covid, that’s not a vaccine. Apply the same logic to smallpox and get back to me.

    But thanks.

    Why not just call it a lousy vaccine?

    Yes, the “vaccine definition” discussion is quite tiresome.

    Agreed.  I think most people know what we’re talking about – it’s actually pretty simple without having to get into major debates about it:

    This is new technology.  It may serve the same purpose as older technology, but it is new technology.  To refer to it by the same name is inherently misleading, because it pretends that the new technology is no different from that which we are already familiar with.  In the same sense, a car is not a carriage.  Even though it accomplishes the same end, it is a quite different thing.  We should acknowledge that.

    But more importantly, we don’t generally test new technology by forcing it on entire populations.  At least, it would be highly unethical to test new technology in that manner, and a great many people feel lied to when those doing the testing/forcing say that “no, this is the same thing as what you are already familiar with.”  No, it’s not.  It is different, even though you might call it the same thing.  Even though, after thorough testing, it may be similar enough that we even adopt the same name.  At present, though, it is new technology – and we are being treated by a great many people with ulterior motives (lust for power, money, maybe even their own twisted sense of doing something for our own good) as lab rats.  If they were honest about this (here’s where “lies” comes into play) by simply saying “this is a new technology that we need to test,” they would have plenty of willing test subjects.  But that is not what these people chose to do.  They were not honest with us, and we are now finding out that that lack of honesty (call it lies if you wish, call it whatever you want, but it is not honesty) either came at a high cost, or has in the very least presented enough evidence that honest people can debate whether the cost is worth the benefit.

    That debate has – until very recently – been shut down.  And that is 100% unacceptable, 100% of the time.  That much is non-negotiable. 

    • #110
  21. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):

    If they were honest about this (here’s where “lies” comes into play) by simply saying “this is a new technology that we need to test,” they would have plenty of willing test subjects.  But that is not what these people chose to do.  They were not honest with us, and we are now finding out that that lack of honesty (call it lies if you wish, call it whatever you want, but it is not honesty) either came at a high cost, or has in the very least presented enough evidence that honest people can debate whether the cost is worth the benefit.

    That debate has – until very recently – been shut down.  And that is 100% unacceptable, 100% of the time.  That much is non-negotiable. 

    Can I Get An Amen Dear Mama Vh1 GIF by VH1 - Find & Share on GIPHY

    • #111
  22. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Gazpacho Grande’ (View Comment):

    The mRNA vaccines aren’t effective, in toto – that *is* true.

    Indeed.

    If it’s a vaccine, and I took the shot, and got Covid, that’s not a vaccine. Apply the same logic to smallpox and get back to me.

    But thanks.

    Why not just call it a lousy vaccine?

    It’s like calling The Last Jedi “Star Wars” or Ghostbusters 2016 “Ghostbusters.” It may have the same form, some of the same actors, maybe even a snatch of John Williams or Elmer Bernstein in there, but if anything like the original is what you were looking for, you got rooked.

    • #112
  23. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Flicker (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine: Omicron confers superb immunity.

    But for how long? I thought the official line was still that immunity wanes after 6-9 months, hence the need for annual boosters.

    We really don’t know. My old boss caught Covid-19 three times. Sucks for sure and obviously that natural immunity didn’t work 100%. He likely caught three variants which describes an endemic disease pretty well.

    Was he vaccinated? They say vaccination reduces the immune system’s overall effectiveness with the small variations of the virus.

    He wasn’t the first time because there wasn’t a vaccine yet. Pretty sure he got vaccinated later on but caught the Delta variant and itbwas a bad case. Then he caught Omicron when our company had an open house in Austin and about 50 people showed up and one had Covid-19 and didn’t realize if and got about 20 others sick. 

    • #113
  24. Hammer, The (Ryan M) Inactive
    Hammer, The (Ryan M)
    @RyanM

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine: Omicron confers superb immunity.

    But for how long? I thought the official line was still that immunity wanes after 6-9 months, hence the need for annual boosters.

    We really don’t know. My old boss caught Covid-19 three times. Sucks for sure and obviously that natural immunity didn’t work 100%. He likely caught three variants which describes an endemic disease pretty well.

    Was he vaccinated? They say vaccination reduces the immune system’s overall effectiveness with the small variations of the virus.

    He wasn’t the first time because there wasn’t a vaccine yet. Pretty sure he got vaccinated later on but caught the Delta variant and itbwas a bad case. Then he caught Omicron when our company had an open house in Austin and about 50 people showed up and one had Covid-19 and didn’t realize if and got about 20 others sick.

    It’s not that natural immunity doesn’t work well, it’s that every body is individual.  If he’s getting really sick 3 times, I’d imagine there’s a lot more going on w/ this guy than just “does natural immunity work.”  Lifestyle very likely plays an enormous role in it.  Of course, that is one thing we’ve known since day 1, but which never was allowed to be discussed.  I had an interesting discussion with one of the trainers at my gym sometime last winter…  the covid was going around, and of course everyone got it (nobody quit going to the gym because of being sick, and nobody else minded).  He wondered if you were to poll all crossfit gyms if you’d find even a single covid death.  The answer is:  probably not.

    Some of that should be intuitive – can anyone spot the differences between, say, a crossfit gym and a nursing home?  It is an amazingly simple mental exercise, and probably far more informative than we’d even think.  But again, we haven’t been permitted to make these basic observations and apply them to public health.  Instead of “here are some obvious risk factors,” what we got was “EVERYONE MUST WEAR A MASK” and “everyone must become vaccinated!”  We’re all the same, we must all take the same actions, we’re all in this together.

    It is amazing to me how quickly the ruling class defaulted to what is essentially a communistic mindset (and if I were to have some fun, I’d even point out the celebrity parties and events where famous people didn’t wear masks while their servants did – from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right?) and how quickly people accepted this.  And of course it’s not just that.  In a society where “body positivity” is taken seriously, no wonder we couldn’t discuss risk factors…

    • #114
  25. Hammer, The (Ryan M) Inactive
    Hammer, The (Ryan M)
    @RyanM

    Also saw this one just this morning.  Worth a read:

    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/vaccines-never-prevented-transmission-covid-alex-gutentag

    • #115
  26. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    No, there is no fixed definition that hasn’t changed, just as there is no fixed definition of “motor vehicle” that hasn’t changed.

    Thank you.

    That’s all you needed to say.

    No, it isn’t. 

    • #116
  27. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    No, there is no fixed definition that hasn’t changed, just as there is no fixed definition of “motor vehicle” that hasn’t changed.

    Thank you.

    That’s all you needed to say.

    No, it isn’t.

    Perhaps. But it did answer the only question I was asking you for rather a long time.

    • #117
  28. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
    This is new technology.  It may serve the same purpose as older technology, but it is new technology.  To refer to it by the same name is inherently misleading, because it pretends that the new technology is no different from that which we are already familiar with.  In the same sense, a car is not a carriage.  Even though it accomplishes the same end, it is a quite different thing.  We should acknowledge that

    Most every vaccine that has ever come out is based on new technology.  The old technology alone is rarely sufficient to produce a new vaccine. It’s never a cookbook process. And yet the new ones are still called vaccines.

    You don’t need a great scientific or medical education to know that. A curious layperson can figure it out by spending a little quality time on the web, which is a good idea for any lay person who is going to spout off about something to an  audience. The people who came up with these lies about the new vaccine not being a vaccine did not do that.  Either that, or they are liars of a more evil, bloodthirsty nature than I had suspected. 

    In the case of the mRNA vaccines, it is sufficient to add the adjective mRNA to them to distinguish them from old technology.  In the case of cars, early ones were called horseless carriages for the same reason.  But in that case, the new field quickly turned out to be so different that the old carriage business was hardly relevant to the new one. The early developers did not need a strong and deep immersion in the field of horse-drawn carriages in order to develop cars.  That is not the case with vaccines.  There is so much molecular biology and developmental technique of the old vaccines that is fundamental to the development and clinical application of mRNA and DNA vaccines, that it would be impractical, disruptive, and misleading to draw a name-changing distinction when it comes to hiring people to work on them or use them, or to educate students about them, or use them in medical practice.

    Some people say the mRNA vaccines are “therapeutics” and not vaccines.  But in the broad sense, all vaccines are therapeutics, including the smallpox and influenza vaccines.  In more common usage, you would be spreading false information to imply that they don’t use your immune system to fight disease in the same way the old ones did.

    How the antigens are produced before presentation to your immune system is different, but that’s been true of almost every new vaccine.  But it is a big enough difference that it’s useful to add the adjective “mRNA” to the discussion. 

    Distinctions like that also continue to be important in the various polio vaccines.  The differences in how the antigens of the various polio vaccines are prepared are very important, probably more important than the difference between mRNA vaccines and others, but we still call them all vaccines, and rightly so. 

     

    • #118
  29. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    No, there is no fixed definition that hasn’t changed, just as there is no fixed definition of “motor vehicle” that hasn’t changed.

    Thank you.

    That’s all you needed to say.

    No, it isn’t.

    Perhaps. But it did answer the only question I was asking you for rather a long time.

    I don’t think it did.  If I had stopped at, “No, there is no fixed definition,” that would have been a better answer for your purposes. 

    • #119
  30. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    Most every vaccine that has ever come out is based on new technology.  The old technology alone is rarely sufficient to produce a new vaccine. It’s never a cookbook process. And yet the new ones are still called vaccines.

    I don’t want to sound like I am spouting off in public. God forbid anyone posting here on Ricochet should be accused of that! So please correct me if I am wrong. Haven’t all previous vaccines been tested for years before release? Wasn’t this mRNA product rushed to the market with minimal testing and no long-term studies? Are you comfortable that governments mandated people to take these shots or lose their careers and their freedom? Or are these questions irrelevant to your discussion?

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.