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.
It’s Still Warp Five for the mRNA Vaccines
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!
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.
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.
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 universe](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/56/72/b4/5672b4504af1d5f33a9c6a17ec9c22e3.gif)
But 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!
Me, too.
Look, all I’m saying is that the facts in evidence do not lead directly to the conclusion that the mRNA shots are effective, safe, and requisite for everyone.
Healthy skepticism is where I am.
Well, I wouldn’t say requisite for everyone.
We need more data on safety, which is about as critical as I know to go–critical, but not skeptical.
Was all the sciencey stuff back there supposed to show how we don’t know much about efficacy?
Actually, making it easier for grandkids to see their grandparents and stuff like that–that is noble.
I’m saying that the facts presented seem to be skewed deliberately to say that the shots are effective, but it’s really hard to say for sure. Which is fishy.
Where is the paper on native reverse transcriptase activity in human cells? @saintaugustine this is important for my day job. The only time we expect reverse transcription is when a cell is infected with a retrovirus. If random mRNA can integrate into cellular DNA, this is a big deal and something we need to consider in evaluating biohazard risks.
Ok. But I’m ill equipped even to understand the sciencey talk. I was lucky to get as far as I did in the post!
I linked to the only sources I have, and can’t pretend to understand them well. I believe the abstract I linked to is talking about that sort of thing.
I think I said that reverse transcriptase is in our cells, but it’s usually not, is it? I’d better clarify the post.
I guess that means . . . that the odds of what Dr. Doug is talking about really are incredibly low; a person would have to have the right kind of virus in just the right cells at just the right time.
So far, most of the objections that I have seen to the vaccines come from the same people who object to any vaccines. You don’t have to delve very far into their arguments to see them collapse. They rely on logical fallacies, bad math, deliberately misstated statistics, anecdotes, emotional appeals and outright lies. All of these are quickly picked apart, as I have done here:
https://ricochet.com/957818/if-the-truth-was-on-their-side-they-wouldnt-have-to-lie/
here:
https://ricochet.com/956837/mr-weeping-wants-me-to-get-one-of-the-covid-vaccines/comment-page-2/#comment-5463290
here:
https://ricochet.com/937760/breaking-news-moderna-rigged-its-effectiveness-study-to-show-a-rate-of-efficacy-the-vaccines-did-not-achieve/#comment-5403080
here:
https://ricochet.com/937760/breaking-news-moderna-rigged-its-effectiveness-study-to-show-a-rate-of-efficacy-the-vaccines-did-not-achieve/#comment-5396435
and here:
https://ricochet.com/934652/critical-attacks-made-on-astrazeneca-johnsonjohnson-covid-vaccine-researchers-search-for-clues-as-to-blood-clotting-bain-bleeds-and-strokes/comment-page-2/#comment-5394836
In each of those, I examined the claims and was easily able to refute them by pointing out simple mathematical, statistical, or logical errors, or by doing a bare minimum of research to show that they were lies. And I’m just a dumb nurse with a BS, no advanced education in logic, research, math or statistics.
I think @doctorrobert makes some good points, and I can’t refute them with the limited skills that I have.
The whole point is pretty moot, anyway, since the pandemic is over. Odd that it seemed to peter out after about 18 months, just like the last three viral pandemics.
Here’s the link to the tweet, and to the paper listed on the tweet:
Information-for-laboratories-COVID-vaccine-breakthrough-case-investigation.pdf
Good to hear!
I wonder if “the same people who object to any vaccines” is entirely fair. There is, I believe, at least one Ricochet member highly critical of these and some other vaccines but a fan of at least some classic vaccines including polio.
Well, that tops me. I’m not even smart enough to be a dumb nurse with a BS. My research is in things like religious epistemology and Augustine. Logic skills don’t help much until after you understand the sentences, and that ain’t easy for me with all these sciencey sentences.
I plan to do a post on John Dewey soon, probably tomorrow morning in my time zone. I am looking forward to being responsible for a thread on a topic I feel like I can handle.
Problem is, the people disseminating the information on infections are not being so nuanced with their reporting, which I think considering the actual way information reaches the majority of people on this subject makes it highly relevant. We should have been using the lower PCR value the entire time. The cdc took far too long in fixing that recommendation and it really does feel like a serious trick. This entire conversation would be so different if minuscule viral loads produced negative tests.
Right, but they are saying that someone who does have the natural antibodies (a complete set) from natural infection can’t use them to claim immunity. Must be vaccinated. All of us. Regardless of previous infection or risk.
Point is, the science around Covid is messed up and filled and corrupted with narrative and manipulation.
Received at 755 this morning, bright and early. From Massachusetts Dept of Public Health.
“MA DPH has received the following communication from CDC:
In recent weeks, there have been reports of myocarditis occurring after COVID-19 vaccination, including in Europe, where the EMA recently requested data from Pfizer and Moderna on reports of myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination – https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/meeting-highlights-pharmacovigilance-risk-assessment-committee-prac-3-6-may-2021
CDC is aware of these reports, which are rare given the number of vaccine doses administered and continues to monitor available data.
Myocarditis is the inflammation of the heart muscle and pericarditis is the inflammation of the lining outside the heart. In both cases, the body’s immune system is causing inflammation in response to an infection or some other trigger. While myocarditis can be serious, it is frequently mild and self-limited. Symptoms can include abnormal heart rhythms, shortness of breath, or chest pain.
As part of COVID-19 vaccine safety efforts, we have been closely monitoring myocarditis/pericarditis in multiple safety systems, including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) – https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/index.html and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) – https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/index.html.
To date, there has not been a safety signal identified in either VAERS or VSD. CDC will continue to evaluate reports of myocarditis/pericarditis occurring after COVID-19 vaccination and will share more information as it becomes available. Healthcare providers should consider myocarditis in an evaluation of chest pain after vaccination and report all cases to VAERS – https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html.
CDC continues to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for people 12 years and older.”
So I’m not the only one concerned. Notice the inevitable hand waving.
Well, well.
We’ve been doing vaccines using other methods for a while.
For example the HIB vaccine ( which transformed my practice in the ER) was made by using the cell wall components of the bacteria to initiate an immune response. No complete bacteria needed.
Hep B vaccine. The first recombinant DNA vaccine. Gene for a surface protein in Hep B virus inserted into yeast, that produced the protein in large quantity. No risk of introducing viral DNA in recipients. ( In Med School in 1982 my ID professor warned us not to take the then current Hep B vaccine which came from pooled plasma, much of it from IV drug users or homosexuals who had a high rate of Hep B infection. He was just starting to suspect, HIV and AIDS. He was right.)
Zoster vaccine. Another recombinant that generates a protein from the surface of the Herpes virus.
Lots of other examples. The new mRNA vaccines are an exciting leap forward and promise to help rapidly develop new vaccines for illnesses moving forward.
So safety signal would be something more formal and definitive than such a communication, I guess. What would a safety signal actually look like?
Thank you for the clarification. I think I can adjust the post in this direction. Or maybe just mention your comment and leave it at that!
Link to this pdf doesn’t work. It doesn’t include the domain name, etc.
It depends on the purpose of the PCR tests. If for diagnosis the large Ct value is probably relevant. If it’s for public health, it isn’t. So part of the scandal is not distinguishing between the two. However, that’s not the only area where our wise authorities did not properly distinguish between diagnosis and public health (or did, but didn’t care).
And I heard they are addition requiring symptoms to be counted as a breakthrough case. It is this kind of moving of the goalposts that makes people think Scam-demic.
And how hard would it have been to take every 1000th test and use both 25 and 40 cycles. Then we would have a ratio that we could apply to the other 999 and we’d have something useful for public health and medical diagnosis. A CDC that doesn’t use statistics makes people doubt the honesty of that entity.
There is still a bit of mystery about that to me, but it seems the testing labs just didn’t report those values to anyone–not to patients, not to doctors, and not even to researchers. The fact that things went on that way for so long seems to me a big scandal, but I’m not going to blame the CDC until I have more specific reason to blame the CDC. Any investigation into this certainly needs to put the CDC on the witness stand. It would be really interesting to find out just how this all came about, but making premature accusations based on nothing more than our suspicions is going to hinder that process.
My impression is that the CDC got its data from state public health authorities, not from the testing labs.
Thanks, fixed it.
I should have been more clear, though I did say “most.” I wasn’t only talking about people here on Ricochet; I’ve been looking around at other anti-vax sources. The people who are most “skeptical” about the Wuhan Virus vaccine are generally against all vaccines. The most laughable argument they make is that the vaccine was rushed and safety protocols were not followed when they are against the vaccines that followed those protocols.
To be quite honest, if they are skeptical of vaccines that did follow protocols, then they certainly wouldn’t be amenable to ones that don’t.
I don’t find this to be all that laughable. It’s normal prioritization of objection. Not following protocol and being incredibly new with limited short term testing is very low hanging fruit. You don’t have to go far in making a reasonable and cogent objection to it.
Now vaccines that don’t have those faults, you have to work harder to make reasonable objections. So why go far the harder objection when the easy one is right there?
My points remain. The mRNA vaccines are a novel mechanism and their long-term safety is unproven. Given the natural vanquishing of the pandemic, no one should be getting them now, except perhaps an 88 year old diabetic in a nursing home.
Kozak, I love ya, but you have the new mRNA stuff exactly bass-ackwards. We have zero long term data for a novel mechanism which has the potential to trigger immunity in bad ways. I would keep away for some years.
Zoster, Hep B (which I took as a resident in 1982, with the same concerns), HIB (haemophilus influenza type B) do not put genetic material into human cells nor trigger a response against proteins which are expressed on the patients’ cell walls. To “trigger a response against proteins which are expressed on the patients’ cell walls” seems awfully close to things like SLE and anticardiolipin syndrome, which of course are causes of catastrophic myocarditis. This is a rare occurrence, at least now…
Were it not for the societal panic over WuFlu, one doubts that these experimental gene therapies would be in use today.
I wouldn’t keep away. I look at it as just a tiny subset of what sars-cov-2 does in your body. The J&J vaccine makes me a little queasier, but not a lot.