Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 22:27:00 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> Facts are usually backed up with evidence which you've not done.
>
> Hi Chris,
> I welcome any _adult_ discussion, given this is one of my fields of study.
>
> It is true that I've claimed quite a few facts w/o providing the cites.
> I'm glad you asked for a cite for the facts that you openly dispute, Chris.
>
> Which of the facts that I've claimed are facts do you openly dispute Chris?
>
>>> a. This "shot" does not even strictly meet CDC definitions of a "vaccine".
>>
>> False.
>
> It's interesting that you provide zero cites to your bold claim.
>
> I'm not ever afraid of facts, Chris.
> Are you?

Let me highlight it for you:

> Here's the definition. <https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/glossary.html>
> "A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms
> (e.g. bacteria or viruses) or

"fractions thereof administered to induce immunity"
RNA is a fraction of the SARS-CoV-2 virus so fits the definition perfectly.

> and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae.
> Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide
> of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B);
> others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined
> (e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses)."

The CDC list is not exhaustive.

> Do you even have the comprehensive skills to notice what is missing, Chris?
> HINT: You have absolutely no clue _how_ this shot works inside the body!

I'll show you how you're the ignorant one.

>>> b. This "shot" is _clearly_ not needed by most people (more than 60%).
>>
>> No different to any other vaccine.
>
> Chris... the fact you can claim that means you have absolutely zero
> comprehension whatsoever of _how_ this shot works once inside your body.
>
> What "other vaccine", for example, causes your cells to explode

The COVID vaccines don't cause cells to explode.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8418359/

Cells produce the spike protein and then via an MHC-mediated process
*present* the antigens on the surface which then raises an immune response.
No explosion reqiured.

>
>>> c. Certainly for kids (whose immune systems are naive) it's even less!
>>> d. The chance of any one person dying from Covid in the USA is 0.2%
>>
>> Which is why a treatment is required. That's a dangerous disease.
>
> The danger to children is 0.002% fatality, with a 100% infection rate.
> The danger to adults is 0.2% fatality, with a 100% infection rate.
> Most people are completely immune to the disease with respect to symptoms.

You're completely missing the point and falling for the ageist and ableist
propaganda pushed by antivaxxers that it doesn't harm me so it doesn't
matter that a few old and infirm people die. That's subhuman thinking.

COVID has killed over 5 million people FFS.

>>> e. That _includes_ the very sick and the very old already in that number.
>>> f. The chance of a kid (5-11) dying from Covid in the USA is 0.002%.
>>> g. That means any one person has a 99.998 (kids) to 99.8% chance of living.
>>
>> You've avoided separating out the old and sick.
>> Their risk of death can be over 10%.
>> https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator
>
> I never once "avoided" the old and sick as in another post I gave the
> percentages for those over 60, and that it essentially doubled for each
> decade thereafter.
>
> Did you miss that statement?

I was replying to this post only.

>>> h. However, the chance of getting "infected" is nearly 100% (essentially).
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
> Given we know there are human coronaviruses which are endemic throughout the
> world, and we know that it's not unusual for people to get the same virus
> multiple times in a single year, let alone many times in their lifetimes,
> what makes you think _this_ human coronavirus isn't at least as infectious?
>
> What do you think the risk is of getting infected then, Chris?

See the reference I gave you below.

>>> i. And the chance of passing it on during that phase is also nearly 100%.
>>
>> No it isn't. Even measles which is the most infectious disease doesn't
>> infect everyone who comes into contact with am infectious person.
>
> Wow. I'm impressed. You know the R0 (aka "R naught") for measles ranges from
> about 12 to about 18 (it depends _greatly_ on the situation), which is much
> _higher_ than that of the SARS-Cov2 virus (which is about 1.5 to about 3.5)
> and which is greatly adversely affected by the prevalence of "super
> spreaders" in the population.
>
> Kudos to you for knowing something Chris.
>
> The well known problem with such a low R0 is that most people are immune to
> covid symptoms, so we have to account for that in our calculations (which
> aren't in the 1.5 to 3.5 R0 as far as I know - simply because that data is
> unknown until _everyone_ (or most everyone) is tested - and they're not.
>
>> COVID in this study has a 2% infectivity rate.
>> https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32651-9/fulltext
>
> December 18, 2020
> Infectivity of asymptomatic versus symptomatic COVID-19
> <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32651-9/fulltext>
> a. Little is known about asymptomatic infectivity
> b. Singapore tests cases and close contacts (2m for at least 30 min)
> c. Seronegative cases are thought to be more infectious than seropositive
> d. Studied people between August 1 2020 and October 11 2020
> e. They threw out those who didn't have the complete battery of tests
> f. They threw out migrant workers who lived in close proximity to people
> g. That left them with 628 test subjects & 3790 "close contacts"
> h. Each index case averaged 6 people quarrantined
> i. Overall 89 (2% of the 3790 close contacts) developed symptoms
> j. Of those 89 people that developed covid symptoms
> 56% were put in quarrantine due to an asymptomatic index case
> 44% were put in quarrantine due to a seronegative index case
> 46% were put in quarrantine due to a seropositive index case
> k. They calculated 3.85 times more transmission from symptomatic cases
> l. They therefore concluded asymptomatic people were "less infectious"
>
> The article concluded with the normal list of inaccuracies and further
> studies where their goal was to bolster support for contact tracing.

Disappointing that you reject evidence so glibly.

>>> j. The chance of "feeling sick" is about %40 once you are infected.
>>> k. Back to the shot, the chance of dying from the shot itself is negligible.
>>
>> Correct. In the UK following over 100 million vaccinations there have been
>> ~15 deaths directly attributed to the vaccine.
>
> It's good that you recognize that fact which, for some strange reason, many
> of the "Republicans" don't acknowledge, which is that the shot itself isn't
> killing people in any great manner.
>
> To be sure, the shot causes our cells to explode creating one protein, which
> itself has been shown in studies to cause appreciable vascular damage in and
> of itself, but most people seem to weather that vascular damage quite well.

Still wrong.

>>> l. And the shot doesn't give you chips or anything crazy that people say.
>>> m. The shot is either mRNA or RNA spliced onto DNA of a zoonotic adenovirus.
>>
>> As well as the other types.
>
> What "other types" are there that are approved for use in the USA Chris?
> a. mRNA
> b. RNA spliced onto chimpanzee adenovirus DNA
> c. ?

Who cares about the USA!? Get your blinkers off. This is a global pandemic
and requires a global response.

There are many other vaccines:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine

>>> n. That causes your cells to explode after making tons of one spike protein.
>>
>> Nope. That's what the virus does.
>
> Chris,
> What do you _think_ happens

I don't need to think at all. The research has *shown* how the vaccines
work and it's not via cytotoxicity.
See my reference above.

The virus on the other hand does self-replicate causing the targetted
(lung) cells to lyse. This is what causes the viral symptoms of the
disease.

You're confusing disease with vaccine. Of course they have very different
modalities.

> And that's _before_ we talk about the B-cells and T-cells which begin to
> recognize the "infected" cells as "no longer self" and attack them too.

Correct, but you need to get the basics right.

>>> o. That spike protein itself is toxic to your body but it's in low amounts.
>>
>> Not on its own it isn't.
>
> Now it's _your_ turn to read a paper, Chris.
> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=spike+protein+causes+vascular+damage>
> Pick one.

Again you're confusing disease with vaccine. The *viral and complete* Spike
protein is the primary vector for disease. The vaccines only have an
incomplete version of the Spike protein which has none of the effects.
Obviously, as we don't want to cause harm with the vaccine.

>>> p. Because it's toxic (it damages vascular tissue) your body reacts to it.
>>
>> It's a foreign antigen - not a toxin - which is why it raises an immune
>> response.
>
> Did you _read_ any of the papers that you found in the above search, Chris?

I suggest you read them again. Together with the ones I shared above.
You've a fundamental misunderstanding.

>>> q. Your body makes an assemblage of attack vehicles, some of which are Ab.
>>
>> Vehicles? What kind of vehicles? Cars?
>
> Idiot.
>
> If you knew immunology, you'd know "vehicle" is a common term.
> *Novel adjuvants & delivery vehicles for vaccines development*
> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3928709/>
> "The pure recombinant and synthetic antigens used in modern day
> vaccines are generally less immunogenic than older style live/attenuated
> and killed whole organism vaccines. One can improve the quality of
> vaccine production by incorporating immunomodulators or adjuvants
> with *modified delivery _vehicles_ viz. liposomes*, immune stimulating
> complexes (ISCOMs), micro/nanospheres apart from alum, being used
> as gold standard."
>
> *How do you Solve a Problem Like Autoimmune Attack*
> <https://www.technologynetworks.com/immunology/news/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-autoimmune-attack-308738>
> "The abridged gene fits snugly into a *viral delivery _vehicle_ designed*
> some time ago by Jeffrey Chamberlain, PhD, a co-author of the study
> and a professor of neurology, medicine and biochemistry at the
> University of Washington."
>
> Google Patent
> *Antigen-and-drug _vehicle_ which enables the changeover*
> from the selective production of lgA antibody to the production of both of
> lgA and lgG antibodies, and transnasal/transmucosal vaccine
> <https://patents.google.com/patent/CN101257919A/en>
> "An antigen-and-drug _vehicle_ (AD _vehicle_) which enables the
> transnasal, transmucosal and transdermal applications; a killed
> vaccine which can induce both of mucosal immunization and humoral
> immunization simultaneously by using the AD _vehicle_; a technique
> for preparation of the vaccine; an AD _vehicle_ which enables the
> changeover from the induction of the selective production of IgA
> antibody to the induction of the production of both of IgA and IgG
> antibodies; a transnasal vaccine, transmucosal vaccine or
> therapeutic/prophylactic agent for allergy using the AD _vehicle_;
> and others."

None of those confirm your statement that the body makes an "assemblage of
attack vehicles". These are delivery vehicles manufactured to help the
activity of a drug or vaccine.

>>> r. The antibodies don't last all that long with a high titre unfortunately.
>>
>> True.
>
> At least you're aware that whether or not you get the shot or if you get
> infected, the antibody titre isn't high for very long.
>
> This fact has _huge_ implications for my assessment that this virus will be
> with us forever.

There are many factors. No single one is most important: viral variation,
vaccine uptake, vaccine efficacy and longevity etc.

>>> s. Nobody knows exactly how long so we are doomed to boosters (forever?).
>>
>> Why is it dooming? We already do this with flu.
>
> You're _agreeing_ with me, so you agree we're stuck with "boosters" forever
> (even as we don't do "boosters" for the flu, but let's ignore that for now).

The use of the word "dooming" is not factual. That's subjective.

> What you didn't seem to comprehend is my assessment that if we left the 60%
> or so of the population who is completely immune to Covid symptoms alone,
> then _they_ would not need the boosters forever (most likely) given there is
> no evidence that you get "not immune" once you're known to be immune.

Again just like flu. As we slowly move to the next phase we may be doing
annual boosters for the most vulnerable only. That decision is yet to be
made.

The pandemic is still rude so we still need to deal with that first.

> What that means, mathematically, is that most people are getting boosters
> for the rest of their lives and they never even needed the shot in the first
> place.

False. During a live outbreak you vaccinate everyone as a blanket to get on
top of the infection. Vaccination is for targeting the disease not
individuals.

> What amazes me is how little people have thought about such ramifications.

What amazes me how little people understand the basics when claiming to
have done their own research.

>>
>>> t. It's no different with the full-blown disease in that respect though.
>>> u. But what _is_ different from full-blown disease are the attack vehicles.
>>
>> Trucks?
>
> See above where different delivery vehicles are a common term in immunology.
>
>>
>>> v. The attack vehicles are _vastly_ more complex with a full-blown disease.
>>
>> Helicopters!
>
> See above where different delivery vehicles are a common term in immunology.
>
>>> w. Which means our response under inevitable senescence will be _different_.
>>
>> That makes no sense.
>
> Correction. It makes no sense _to you_ (because you're an idiot).

Ad hominem attacks are an indication that you've lost the argument.

> But it's a commonly known attribute of our immune systems.
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=immune+system+senescence>
> Pick one.
>
>>> x. I believe when we get older, our immune system will "go to hell" quickly.
>>
>> It's gradual and inevitable. The older you are the weaker your immune
>> system.
>
> What do you _think_ happens in these two very different scenarios as we age?
> a. Person A has an _initial_ insult that elicits a single spike protein, vs,
> b. Person B has an initial insult that elicits _multiple_ complex antigens
>
> Thought questions:
> A. Whose immune response is likely to be "complex" (versus naive)?
> B. What will happen to each person above when their immune system senesces?
> C. Which person is more likely to be able to fend off greater variations?
> etc.

D. which one is most likely to still be alive?

> While I commend you Chris for knowing some stuff, have you ever _thought_ of
> those ramifications above?

More than you can imagine.

Just to be utterly explicit your Person A is equivalent to a vaccinated
individual and Person B is equivalent to herd immunity gained by catching
the disease.

Your questions A-C are highly affected by survivor bias. If you kill all
your susceptible people, then of course the remainder will appear to have a
better immune response. However, in a humane society we need to *protect*
the vulnerable not lead them to slaughter.

So the natural thing is to immunise the whole population to benefit the
vulnerable. Just like we do with all childhood vaccines.

>>> y. Then those with a shot (a simpler response) will have _less_ protection.
>>
>> The point of the vaccine is to confer MORE protection not less.
>
> See above thought questions.
>
> Essentially dumbing down the immune system response to respond almost
> completely to only a _single_ antigenic insult is not "more protection"

It is compared to a naive immune system and there's plenty of evidence to
support it. Search COVID vaccine efficacy.

> Chris, when you consider that most people have an initial response to quite
> a few antigenic insults inherent in the coronavirus, Chris.
>
>>> z. While those with the disease (more complex) will have _more_ protection.
>>
>> Or, more likely, end up in hospital.
>
> We can go into the details of what % needs hospitalization if you like.

No-one needs hospitalisation.

> But the fact remains that most people are completely immune to Covid.

Asymptomatic infection is not the same as immune.

>>> I ran out of one-line observations and assessments so that's all you get.
>>
>> Shame... your "facts" are entertaining.
>
> Overall, I assess that you made quite a few idiotic comments but they simply
> show you don't know what you don't know about immunology - and yet - you at
> least recognized the basic facts of the matter as I had presented them.
>
> That's better than most people, Chris, in my humble assessment of your
> abilities.
>
> I welcome your response given you've never heard from the people who
> surround you the thoughts and ideas that I've presented to you, as I have a
> far greater knowledge of this subject than it seems you are exposed to.

You have no idea who I am nor what I know, yet you're so arrogant to
believe your own theoretical knowledge. Which in fact is full of holes and
misunderstandings.