It’s Still Warp Five for the mRNA Vaccines

 

Star Trek: The Next Generation Warp on Make a GIF

Let’s start with the good, shall we? Like Captain Picard’s Enterprise going to warp, this newfangled mRNA vaccination stuff is pretty cool, and there’s a lot of potential for good stuff to happen in the future. Did I correctly hear Rob Long saying that we might get a malaria vaccine with this tech?  That’s terrific!  And have you looked up Israel lately on Worldometers and checked the updated vaccination rates?

The mRNA approach has the best immunity.  And it’s working.  These things are saving lives.  You can also check the rates in other places like the USA, UK, and UAE, and see coronavirus numbers going down as vaccination numbers go up.  (Hong Kong, for another example, lags behind those other places, but the same trend is there.)

Of course, different places are using different vaccines; I don’t think anywhere is solely using the mRNA shots. But they are working.

And no–it’s not designed to hijack our DNA, and I’m pretty sure Bill Gates didn’t put microchips in it.  Now, hypothetically, I’m willing to believe nearly anything, including this stuff.  But my homeboy Bill, from Ockham, has this razor, you see, and, well, I’m gonna need some impressive evidence for those claims.

Anyway, let’s look at what’s (maybe) bad or, at least, what’s unknown.  Don’t expect this to be thorough.  (If you want a more thorough look, scan the comments for more information!)

mRNA Vaccines at Warp Ten?

There’s only one original and best Star Trek. Kirk and Spock understood that it’s dangerous to boldly go where no man has gone before, whether you’re traveling on impulse or at a maximum speed of Warp Factor Ten!

Star Trek- The Motion Picture Appreciation Thread | Page 3 | The Trek BBS

Traditionally, a vaccine is a weakened or dead virus or bacterium.  This mRNA “vaccine” is a new thing.  If you don’t even want to call it a “vaccine,” I respect that.  I don’t mind an expansion of the word “vaccine,” as long as we’re prepared to add some adjective like “newfangled” or “non-traditional” when clarity requires it.  (Maybe we could call it an “inoculation” instead; would that be ok?)

(Note: I have been, unsurprisingly, uninformed on how many vaccines there already were that do not fit within my narrow description of the traditional vaccine.  See Kozak’s comment below, # 47.  And, in general, see comments for more information that didn’t make it into this post!)

Anyway, it’s entirely possible that there is some problem with this stuff that is difficult or even impossible to predict.  These things are still experimental.  I don’t mind being a guinea pig, but let’s admit that I actually am.  (It’s much better than being a tribble.)

Here’s Ricochet’s @doctorrobert:

I will tell anyone who cares to listen that the Pfizer and Moderna gene therapies are unproven and may have long term immunologic effects of which we are now unaware.  . . .

. . .

. . . the decision to take experimental gene therapy to prevent a virus that kills a small subset of people is serious and deserves reflection.

I don’t blame anyone for being concerned. For some the possible risk might well outweigh a relatively small need to protect yourself from coronavirus.  One important category of such people, pointed out by Doctor Robert in comments below: those who’ve already had the virus and recovered.

Maybe “Full speed ahead!” for these vaccines is a bad idea.  Let’s not keep this thing in space dock, but maybe we don’t need to jump to Warp Factor Ten just now.

Well, How About Warp Nine?

Science with Dr. Doug suggests a pathway by which the mRNA vaccines actually could alter our DNA. Now hang on; it’s not as weird as it sounds.

The key is a little thingummy that is sometimes in our cells because some viruses use it, an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. This thingy actually exists, and it even has its own Wikipedia page.  Normally, information in DNA is conveyed to RNA and then used to make proteins.  But this little doohickey sometimes causes information in RNA strands to be written into a cell’s DNA.  (As far as I can understand.)

If I understand this abstract correctly, this has actually happened with coronavirus RNA.  Not that that matters all that much if it just happens in a random cell in someone’s shoulder, but it could be dangerous if it happens to a stem cell or a gamete.

Now that is not likely to happen because of the mRNA vaccines, and it could even, in theory, happen because of the regular coronavirus! Dr. Doug’s point, if I’m not mistaken, is only that this could happen–and, if I understand correctly, it could only happen when a virus is infecting just the right cells at just the right time.

So it’s not likely; it’s just plausible, especially since the mRNA vaccines introduce so many bits of those RNA strands into our bodies.

I can’t confirm any of this, and even if it’s correct I still have questions. How long might it take before we know whether this has happened, or how bad it is? If you cut in half the number of RNA strands in some future vaccine, will we get less than half the risk and still get plenty of immunity?

And my working opinion of this is:  This doesn’t count much against the benefits of the mRNA vaccines in protecting the Covid-vulnerable, but it does explain one way they could lead to some harm.  It illustrates the fact that this new medical tech could have unintended consequences.

Voyager Warp GIF | Gfycat

The mRNA vaccines are not even half as dangerous as Voyager‘s epic journey through the Delta Quadrant, accompanied by the Star Trek franchise’s best opening music.  All the same, for some who are not at great risk from the virus, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that these newfangled shots don’t quite make it through a cost-benefit analysis.

It’s reasonable to not jump all the way to Warp Nine with this thing.  Maybe Warp Eight is better.

Before we move on, here’s Dr. Doug clarifying his speculations:

This probability may be miniscule, and may not even be noticeable in in vitro experiments, or even in clinical trials across tens of thousands of patients. The odds of this occurring may be 1 in 1 followed by many zeros; however, that miniscule probability flies out the window when you understand that the average human body has 30 trillion cells, and the vaccine will be deployed in up to 7 billion people. If you multiply these small probabilities across these large numbers, the probability that this could occur in a modestly large number of people is very real.

What happens if this occurs? There are two possible outcomes that are not mutually exclusive. First, modification of somatic cells, and in particular, stem cells, could result in a segment of the population with an increasing percentage of their tissues being converted over to genetically modified cells. These genetically modified cells will possess the genetic sequence to produce Spike Protein. Because Spike protein is a foreign protein to the human body, the immune systems of these individuals will attack the cells in their body which express this protein. These people will almost inevitably develop autoimmune conditions which are irreversible, since this foreign protein antigen is now permanently hardwired into the instructions contained in their DNA.

The second possibility is based on a pathway being found that transfers this genetic modification to germline cells (egg and sperm). This is certainly a more remote possibility, but if it occurred, this insertional genetic mutation would find itself in all future generations stemming from this individual or individuals.

Is Warp Eight Still a Go?

The side effects can be pretty rough sometimes–not that I haven’t had worse from the flu or a sinus infection.

There are also the kids to consider.  For kids young enough, the side effects of the vaccine are likely to be worse than the coronavirus itself.  Or so I’ve heard, e.g. from Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on a flagship Ricochet podcast awhile back.

Maybe we shouldn’t take this mRNA vaccine thing past Warp Seven.

But We At Least Stay in Warp Seven, Right?

Now that’s about the worst I can say about these things, and it wasn’t all that bad.  But let’s quickly check out three concerns I’ve come across that seems plausible to me.  Not that I can confirm them!  If you know of a refutation for any of these, please let me know!!!

First, here’s a website saying that the spike protein can cause problems even without the virus. Allegedly, they do something to a doohickey in a cell membrane that, in turn, causes some damage to mitochondria, which can lead to blood clotting problems.

I am absolutely the last person who should evaluate this claim.  I can’t tell you it’s right, and I can’t tell you it’s wrong, but I hope one of you can tell me it’s wrong.

Starfleet ships — the Phoenix entering warp speed I feel this blog...Ok, now let’s meet Dr. Peter McCullough.  Seems like a guy I can trust, right? He may not be Zephram Cochrane taking a human spaceship to warp speed for the first time ever, but he’s a smart and accomplished guy. Not a specialist in virology, but a good doctor who has specialized in this virus ever since it got to be a big deal.

This interview with Dr. McCullough is interesting. One thing he says here is a second claim that seems plausible to me: that the efficacy rates might be overstated.  Instead of efficacy in the range of 90-95%, it could be more like 70-90%, which is still pretty good.

Dr. M. thinks we can get a better reading of the efficacy rates by looking at the results of mass vaccination. The clinical studies, he thinks, could have accidentally missed some people who were vaccinated but still got the virus.

How’d that happen?  Simple: They could tell from the side effects that they’d taken the real vaccine and not some placebo, so they thought they were likely immune and didn’t bother to get tested when they had Covid symptoms.

That sounds possible to me, but I really wouldn’t know.  If you know better, let me know!  (I wonder why they wouldn’t use a tetanus vaccine as a placebo for that kind of study–or something else that at least that makes the shoulder sore.  If you know, let me know!)

Third, McCullough thinks there’s been too much emphasis on vaccines as a solution to coronavirus–at least as compared to the other coronavirus-fighting things that do work.  Like the complicated drug/vitamin therapy he’s been working with.  (Chloroquine and ivermectin are involved, along with other stuff including, as usual, early-treatment protocols, zinc, and antibiotics.)

Maybe these concerns are correct, to some extent or another.  I wouldn’t know.  But the chance that they are right inclines me to hang back just a bit further from “full speed ahead.”  Maybe we don’t take this thing past Warp Six.

Well, What About Warp Six?

And there’s more from Dr. McCullough.

Apparently, a number of people have died after taking a Covid vaccine; around 2,600 according to Dr. M. in the interview.  These are reported through the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.

Now hold on… that doesn’t prove a darn thing.  And if you already knew that, rest assured that I knew it too, and so did Dr. McCullough.

Those 2,600 post-vaccine deaths could be causality or just correlation.  I’d like to know how many of them were weak and frail before they took the vaccine.  I’d like to know how those numbers compare to general population deaths, deaths for the same demographics, deaths from non-vaccine takers, etc., etc. If someone who was already at death’s door died after taking a vaccine–even from taking a vaccine–that, in itself, just doesn’t tell us much about the vaccine being dangerous.

And Dr. McCullough doesn’t actually say the vaccine caused those deaths.

What he does say is this: Traditional standards are being neglected in order to support the vaccine orthodoxy.

That’s his conclusion.  His premises are a few remarks about how the FDA normally pulls new products after such-and-such a number of deaths, even without ruling on causality.  Specifically, after about 50 deaths, normally.

It’s not a bad argument; the premises provide some support for their conclusion.

Pin by Adora Mill on Enterprise NX-01 [Video] | Star trek starships, Star trek ships, Star trek universeBut even a solid starship like Captain Archer’s Enterprise can be defeated in battle with the Klingons, and a decent inductive argument can still be rebutted.  And, fortunately, my brother gave me what looks to me like a solid rebuttal to this one:

There’s no 50-deaths rule or even a typical approach as such; there are just people looking at the circumstances and trying to make the best decisions; if in the past this tended towards canceling a new product after 50 deaths, that wasn’t because of a rule or even a typical approach; it’s just because the decisions happened to turn out that way.

I think this counter-argument defeats Dr. M. on this point.  (Elsewhere on Ricochet, @josepluma has endorsed it as well.)

Still, I do not suffer from an overabundance of trust in our public health officials.  (If any of us ever did, I hope recent events have cured us of that malady.)  And I think we do need some more information about those deaths.  Without more information, it seems quite reasonable for people who are not at much risk from the virus to take this as another reason coming down on the side of playing it safe.  So . . . maybe no faster than Warp Five.

Warp Five It Is!

For most adults, I think we have good reasons to take a COVID vaccine, and I don’t think the mRNA vaccines are an exception.  The main reasons are the same as for polio vaccines: It’s an effective way of keeping the disease away from you, and away from others.

I haven’t talked much about that last part, but it’s an important part of any vaccine cost-benefit analysis.  An effective vaccine helps to build herd immunity, protecting others and not just you.

By the way, if you’re in a demographic that doesn’t suffer much from the virus and if you’re worried about the side effects, consider this strategy until you hear from someone smarter or better informed than I am: You can still get a lot of immunity with better odds of no major side-effects by taking only the first dose.  (A young friend who is at very little danger from the virus felt his heart doing weird things after the first Pfizer shot. My suggestion was to take the pretty good immunity from the first shot and leave it at that.  Maybe he heard something different from his doctor.  I should ask him next time I see him.)

Not that most of these concerns even apply to the Johnson and Johnson vaccine.  But I’m Team Pfizer myself, and I only needed 9 Tylenol pills to get through the side effects from the second dose.

In closing, I don’t know much about possible dangers from the mRNA shots, and from what I can tell few if any do.  What we do know is that the coronavirus is a spiky little monster that needs to die, and that these vaccines are working. I’m still a fan, based on what little I know at present.  Although I do not say this without qualification, I do say:

Die, coronavirus, die!  Die and be danged, you spiky little jerk!  Die under a full-phaser barrage from young Kirk’s Enterprise in the Kelvin Timeline!

Die at Warp Factor Five!

Star Trek "Into Darkness" Warp Jump Scenes on Make a GIF

Published in Science & Technology
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 140 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 title for this post was sort of inspired by a line from Jonah Goldberg, “It’s still only two cheers for capitalism.”

    • #1
  2. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Saint Augustine:

    (Hong Kong, for another example, lags behind those other places, but the same trend is there.)

    That first link is already outdated. For statistics updated to last night (local time), I go to the fixed government press release page and click on the day before on the little calendar box.  That takes me to a page with a link to the most recent set of statistics.

    • #2
  3. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    @josepluma tag, Take Two.

    @roblong tag, Safe Take.  (Lately, trying to make it work in the first paragraph has the odd effect of erasing a sentence or so.)

    • #3
  4. DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) Coolidge
    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!)
    @DonG

    Saint Augustine: The second possibility is based on a pathway being found that transfers this genetic modification to germline cells (egg and sperm). This is certainly a more remote possibility, but if it occurred, this insertional genetic mutation would find itself in all future generations stemming from this individual or individuals.

    And just like that you swung from Star Trek to X-Men: Origins.

    • #4
  5. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    Thank you, Saint Gus, for quoting me first.

    Let’s look at this article from last week.

    https://www.verywellhealth.com/heart-inflammation-and-covid-19-vaccine-link-unlikely-5184122

    Ignore all of the hand waving.  Here is the heart of the story: we have “tens” of young Israelis getting myocarditis–inflammation of the muscle of the heart–after getting a Covid mRNA “vaccine”.

    Myocarditis can be viral, or drug-induced, or it can be autoimmune.  Think Epstein-Barr virus, Cytomegaolvirus, Hep C, Herpes.  Think Lupus. 

    What is the incidence of myocarditis?  One study suggested 0.15 fatal cases for 100,000.   https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/165/5/570/67614#:~:text=The%20death%20certificate-based%20incidence%20of%20fatal%20myocarditis%20was,or%20underlie%20sudden%20cardiac%20death%20%28%201%20%29.

    The mortality rate of myocarditis is 20-70%.  Let’s call it 50%.   Thus, from 0.15 lethal cases per 100,000, we would  expect 0.3 total cases–lethal and non-lethal–per 100,000 persons per year.  That’s 3 total cases per million souls, 1.5 of them lethal.

    Israel has had 5,000,000 “vaccines”. Most were likely not young Israelis. So let’s say a million young Israelis have been “vaccinated”.   “Tens” of cases must be more than 19 and fewer than 100.  For 20-99 of these million young Israelis to have myocarditis when 3 total cases are expected strikes me as high, really high.

    I don’t know if this is coincidence or the tip of an evolving autoimmune iceberg.  Most such things are coincidences.  But remember, I predicted that these mRNA therapies would lead to autoimmune disease.   You read it here first, in Doc Robert’s free medical advice column on Ricochet.

    Like Senator Paul, I’ll be damned if I’m gonna take an experimental mRNA therapy for a disease I’ve already had.  And I urge all of you, if you must have a “vaccine”, go with a non-mRNA brand.  I say this from my myocardium heart.

    • #5
  6. Jack Shepherd Inactive
    Jack Shepherd
    @dnewlander

    It’s really hard to test the efficacy of a therapy when both the people being tested (vaccinated only get tested for COVID if they end up dead or in the hospital) and the method of testing (vaccinated only get a PCR amplification rate of 28, everyone else gets 35×). And when CDC claims antibody tests don’t prove immunity. (Sorry, everyone who got COVID and survived; if you want to be free, you still need a jab.)

    Science and medicine have very, very little to do with this. Anywhere.

    No, thanks.

    • #6
  7. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Thank you, Saint Gus, for quoting me first.

    Let’s look at this article from last week.

    https://www.verywellhealth.com/heart-inflammation-and-covid-19-vaccine-link-unlikely-5184122

    Ignore all of the hand waving. Here is the heart of the story: we have “tens” of young Israelis getting myocarditis–inflammation of the muscle of the heart–after getting a Covid mRNA “vaccine”.

    Myocarditis can be viral, or drug-induced, or it can be autoimmune. Think Epstein-Barr virus, Cytomegaolvirus, Hep C, Herpes. Think Lupus.

    What is the incidence of myocarditis? One study suggested 0.15 fatal cases for 100,000. https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/165/5/570/67614#:~:text=The%20death%20certificate-based%20incidence%20of%20fatal%20myocarditis%20was,or%20underlie%20sudden%20cardiac%20death%20%28%201%20%29.

    The mortality rate of myocarditis is 20-70%. Let’s call it 50%. Thus, from 0.15 lethal cases per 100,000, we would expect 0.3 total cases–lethal and non-lethal–per 100,000 persons per year. That’s 3 total cases per million souls, 1.5 of them lethal.

    Israel has had 5,000,000 “vaccines”. Most were likely not young Israelis. So let’s say a million young Israelis have been “vaccinated”. “Tens” of cases must be more than 19 and fewer than 100. For 20-99 of these million young Israelis to have myocarditis when 3 total cases are expected strikes me as high, really high.

    I don’t know if this is coincidence or the tip of an evolving autoimmune iceberg. Most such things are coincidences. But remember, I predicted that these mRNA therapies would lead to autoimmune disease. You read it here first, in Doc Robert’s free medical advice column on Ricochet.

    Like Senator Paul, I’ll be damned if I’m gonna take an experimental mRNA therapy for a disease I’ve already had. And I urge all of you, if you must have a “vaccine”, go with a non-mRNA brand. I say this from my myocardium heart.

    Well said. I’d disagree, but I can’t find any mistake.  I’d add some nuance or ask some questions, but you covered all the nuance and pointed to all the questions I could do!  A well-reasoned case for caution.

    You pointed to an important category of people for whom caution is especially warranted: those who’ve already recovered from the virus.  That’s important; I’d better work that into the post.

    • #7
  8. Weeping Inactive
    Weeping
    @Weeping

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):
    And I urge all of you, if you must have a “vaccine”, go with a non-mRNA brand.  I say this from my myocardium heart.

    So the Johnson & Johnson one?

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

    Weeping (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):
    And I urge all of you, if you must have a “vaccine”, go with a non-mRNA brand. I say this from my myocardium heart.

    So the Johnson & Johnson one?

    I look forward to Dr. R’s reply (presumably in the affirmative).

    I believe there is some moral issue with that one: Somewhere in the backstory of how the vaccine was developed, aborted fetal cells were used.

    I think I read somewhere that the official Catholic position was: It’s ok to take a vaccine like that if you don’t have another option.

    Let’s say that’s correct.  It leaves the question whether rational concerns with the newfangled mRNA tech count as leaving you no other option.  It well may, but I am not in a position to give a definitive answer.

    • #9
  10. Jack Shepherd Inactive
    Jack Shepherd
    @dnewlander

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Weeping (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):
    And I urge all of you, if you must have a “vaccine”, go with a non-mRNA brand. I say this from my myocardium heart.

    So the Johnson & Johnson one?

    I look forward to Dr. R’s reply (presumably in the affirmative).

    I believe there is some moral issue with that one: Somewhere in the backstory of how the vaccine was developed, aborted fetal cells were used.

    I think I read somewhere that the official Catholic position was: It’s ok to take a vaccine like that if you don’t have another option.

    Let’s say that’s correct. It leaves the question whether rational concerns with the newfangled mRNA tech count as leaving you no other option. It well may, but I am not in a position to give a definitive answer.

    For a virus with a 99.8% survival rate, you definitely have another option. That the media refuse to even talk about other therapies and continue to scaremonger everyone when almost no one is at risk is a crime against humanity.

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

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    For a virus with a 99.8% survival rate, you definitely have another option.

    That is true.

    Contributing to herd immunity is one reason that weighs in favor of getting one injection or another.

    But hey–that’s just part of the cost-benefit analysis.

    • #11
  12. Jack Shepherd Inactive
    Jack Shepherd
    @dnewlander

    Saint soAugustine (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    For a virus with a 99.8% survival rate, you definitely have another option.

    That is true.

    Contributing to herd immunity is one reason that weighs in favor of getting one injection or another.

    But hey–that’s just part of the cost-benefit analysis.

    So, claiming that a positive antibody count doesn’t grant immunity, and therefore you don’t count towards herd immunity is fairly frakin suspect, isn’t it?

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

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    Saint soAugustine (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    For a virus with a 99.8% survival rate, you definitely have another option.

    That is true.

    Contributing to herd immunity is one reason that weighs in favor of getting one injection or another.

    But hey–that’s just part of the cost-benefit analysis.

    So, claiming that a positive antibody count doesn’t grant immunity, and therefore you don’t count towards herd immunity is fairly frakin suspect, isn’t it?

    Yes.

    I’m not sure exactly what to suspect, but yes.

    • #13
  14. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):
    vaccinated only get a PCR amplification rate of 28, everyone else gets 35×)

    Got a cite for this?  I had never heard of it before.

    • #14
  15. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    Saint soAugustine (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    For a virus with a 99.8% survival rate, you definitely have another option.

    That is true.

    Contributing to herd immunity is one reason that weighs in favor of getting one injection or another.

    But hey–that’s just part of the cost-benefit analysis.

    So, claiming that a positive antibody count doesn’t grant immunity, and therefore you don’t count towards herd immunity is fairly frakin suspect, isn’t it?

    Who claims that a positive antibody count doesn’t mean immunity?  I’ve heard some people question whether it does, and I would lay money that the odds are low that it doesn’t, but who makes such a positive claim about a positive antibody count? 

    • #15
  16. Jack Shepherd Inactive
    Jack Shepherd
    @dnewlander

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):
    vaccinated only get a PCR amplification rate of 28, everyone else gets 35×)

    Got a cite for this? I had never heard of it before.

    • #16
  17. Jack Shepherd Inactive
    Jack Shepherd
    @dnewlander

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    Saint soAugustine (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    For a virus with a 99.8% survival rate, you definitely have another option.

    That is true.

    Contributing to herd immunity is one reason that weighs in favor of getting one injection or another.

    But hey–that’s just part of the cost-benefit analysis.

    So, claiming that a positive antibody count doesn’t grant immunity, and therefore you don’t count towards herd immunity is fairly frakin suspect, isn’t it?

    Who claims that a positive antibody count doesn’t mean immunity? I’ve heard some people question whether it does, and I would lay money that the odds are low that it doesn’t, but who makes such a positive claim about a positive antibody count?

    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antibody-tests-guidelines.html

    • Antibody testing is not currently recommended to assess for immunity to COVID-19 following COVID-19 vaccination or to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. Since vaccines induce antibodies to specific viral protein targets, post-vaccination serologic test results will be negative in persons without history of previous natural infection if the test used does not detect antibodies induced by the vaccine.”
    • #17
  18. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):
    vaccinated only get a PCR amplification rate of 28, everyone else gets 35×)

    Got a cite for this? I had never heard of it before.

    Did you know you can get a link for the tweet and just paste it in your comment? That way I could click on it. It’s not easy to hunt something like this down based only on a screenshot. 

    • #18
  19. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):
    vaccinated only get a PCR amplification rate of 28, everyone else gets 35×)

    Got a cite for this? I had never heard of it before.

    What would make you think that they haven’t been jerking around with their criteria for determining infections since this whole thing started? Our fact-based journalists?

    • #19
  20. Jack Shepherd Inactive
    Jack Shepherd
    @dnewlander

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):
    vaccinated only get a PCR amplification rate of 28, everyone else gets 35×)

    Got a cite for this? I had never heard of it before.

    Did you know you can get a link for the tweet and just paste it in your comment? That way I could click on it. It’s not easy to hunt something like this down based only on a screenshot.

    Unfortunately, the page I got it from had a screenshot. I’m on my phone, so it’s not fantastically easy to hunt down. Sorry.

    • #20
  21. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):
    vaccinated only get a PCR amplification rate of 28, everyone else gets 35×)

    Got a cite for this? I had never heard of it before.

    Did you know you can get a link for the tweet and just paste it in your comment? That way I could click on it. It’s not easy to hunt something like this down based only on a screenshot.

    Unfortunately, the page I got it from had a screenshot. I’m on my phone, so it’s not fantastically easy to hunt down. Sorry.

    Well, I’ll give it a check, but how would you give any credence to this guy’s tweet without being able to check the CDC article to see what it’s about? 

    Personally, though, if the CDC switched to a Ct value of 28 to see if a person is infectious, I’d say it’s about time. A Ct value of 35 might be useful for finding out if a person ever had covid, which might be something the vaccine testers would want to know, assuming they did a PCR test prior to administering the vaccine, too.  I’m not sure that’s what this is all about, though, without reading the article. 

    • #21
  22. Jack Shepherd Inactive
    Jack Shepherd
    @dnewlander

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):
    vaccinated only get a PCR amplification rate of 28, everyone else gets 35×)

    Got a cite for this? I had never heard of it before.

    Did you know you can get a link for the tweet and just paste it in your comment? That way I could click on it. It’s not easy to hunt something like this down based only on a screenshot.

    Unfortunately, the page I got it from had a screenshot. I’m on my phone, so it’s not fantastically easy to hunt down. Sorry.

    Well, I’ll give it a check, but how would you give any credence to this guy’s tweet without being able to check the CDC article to see what it’s about?

    Personally, though, if the CDC switched to a Ct value of 28 to see if a person is infectious, I’d say it’s about time. A Ct value of 35 might be useful for finding out if a person ever had covid, which might be something the vaccine testers would want to know, assuming they did a PCR test prior to administering the vaccine, too. I’m not sure that’s what thlong.all about, though, without reading the article.

    Oh, I agree. That was just one citation.

    PCR tests are insidious. That no one will reveal the amplication rate used last year is criminal.

    • #22
  23. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    Oh, I agree. That was just one citation.

    PCR tests are insidious. That no one will reveal the amplication rate used last year is criminal.

    I was saying similar things, not about the PCR tests, but about the way the results weren’t reported, or weren’t even being made available to researchers. But then I learned that not all Ct values of, say, 28, are created equal.  A Ct value of 28 within one lab might mean something different than a value of 28 from another lab. The labs aren’t calibrated against each other.  Still, I don’t know that that’s a good excuse for not doing some kind of calibration and reporting the adjusted results, given the importance of the issue and the money that has been spent for research on covid. 

    • #23
  24. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Personally, though, if the CDC switched to a Ct value of 28 to see if a person is infectious, I’d say it’s about time. A Ct value of 35 might be useful for finding out if a person ever had covid, which might be something the vaccine testers would want to know, assuming they did a PCR test prior to administering the vaccine, too.  I’m not sure that’s what this is all about, though, without reading the article. 

    Even if they change the PCR value for both vaccinated and unvaccinated, comparing post vaccine infection rates to pre vaccine infection rates will be apples to oranges and a totally worthless metric.

    Its just one more jot under the heading “Totally Made Up BS by Our Betters”.

    • #24
  25. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    2017 having higher excess deaths than 2020 and no one batting an eye also lends credence to the idea that we are being strung along.

    • #25
  26. Gossamer Cat Coolidge
    Gossamer Cat
    @GossamerCat

    Saint Augustine: I don’t mind being a guinea pig, but let’s admit that I actually am

    Entertaining and informative piece.  Believe it or not, one of my two main reasons for taking the vaccine was to be a guinea pig.  Because if this technology works, it will be a game changer for vaccines.  Others in the past were guinea pigs for my benefit, so I figured it was my turn.  I am old enough that if long term side effects do emerge, I won’t have to suffer them for long.  The only way to tell what these effects will be is to have large numbers of people take it and live out their lives.  Controlled trials will never uncover everything, particularly long term consequences.  

    The other reason is because I travel and was sick and tired of having a swab stuck up my nose.  But that doesn’t sound as noble. 

     

    • #26
  27. Jack Shepherd Inactive
    Jack Shepherd
    @dnewlander

    Stina (View Comment):

    2017 having higher excess deaths than 2020 and no one batting an eye also lends credence to the idea that we are being strung along.

    Amen.

    This is not about health, medcine, or science.

    Agruing about the shots when everything we’ve been told is a lie makes me more and more confident in that.

    And that’s before delving into the real conspiracy theory stuff, which I shan’t post here.

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

    Gossamer Cat (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine: I don’t mind being a guinea pig, but let’s admit that I actually am.

    Entertaining and informative piece. Believe it or not, one of my two main reasons for taking the vaccine was to be a guinea pig. Because if this technology works, it will be a game changer for vaccines. Others in the past were guinea pigs for my benefit, so I figured it was my turn. I am old enough that if long term side effects do emerge, I won’t have to suffer them for long. The only way to tell what these effects will be is to have large numbers of people take it and live out their lives. Controlled trials will never uncover everything, particularly long term consequences.

    Yes! Amen.

    I would have wanted to take Pfizer a year earlier than I did. If they’d let me. For that reason.

    The other reason is because I travel and was sick and tired of having a swab stuck up my nose. But that doesn’t sound as noble.

    But it sure does belong in a cost/benefit analysis!

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

    Stina (View Comment):
    Even if they change the PCR value for both vaccinated and unvaccinated, comparing post vaccine infection rates to pre vaccine infection rates will be apples to oranges and a totally worthless metric.

    I wouldn’t say it’s totally worthless, but you’re right that it could make comparisons harder.  However, if we got smart and started taking Ct values into account for decisions on infectiousness, as we should, we can still use the older Ct cutoff for comparison with old data.   This is assuming the labs would continue to run the tests to Ct40, which I think they should do. 

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

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):
      Jack Shepherd @dnewlander 2 Hours Ago

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    Saint soAugustine (View Comment):

    Jack Shepherd (View Comment):

    For a virus with a 99.8% survival rate, you definitely have another option.

    That is true.

    Contributing to herd immunity is one reason that weighs in favor of getting one injection or another.

    But hey–that’s just part of the cost-benefit analysis.

    So, claiming that a positive antibody count doesn’t grant immunity, and therefore you don’t count towards herd immunity is fairly frakin suspect, isn’t it?

    Who claims that a positive antibody count doesn’t mean immunity? I’ve heard some people question whether it does, and I would lay money that the odds are low that it doesn’t, but who makes such a positive claim about a positive antibody count?

    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antibody-tests-guidelines.html

    • Antibody testing is not currently recommended to assess for immunity to COVID-19 following COVID-19 vaccination or to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. Since vaccines induce antibodies to specific viral protein targets, post-vaccination serologic test results will be negative in persons without history of previous natural infection if the test used does not detect antibodies induced by the vaccine.”

    Maybe I’m being a little dense tonight, but I can see how a specific serological test wouldn’t necessarily give the same results for a vaccinated person as for a person who had covid-19.  The vaccine, since it causes production of only one of the proteins that the whole sars-cov-2 does, would cause only a subset of the antibody reaction. (I hope I’m saying that right.) But I’m having a harder time understanding what that has do with the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. 

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.