re: point 3, another side of the argument is that there really is some valuable immune system training from being infected by a different corona virus. i.e. SARS-CoV-1 survivors from 20+ years ago were shown to be capable of mounting an immune response to SARS-CoV-2. and newer evidence shows that people who'd been infected with a totally…
re: point 3, another side of the argument is that there really is some valuable immune system training from being infected by a different corona virus. i.e. SARS-CoV-1 survivors from 20+ years ago were shown to be capable of mounting an immune response to SARS-CoV-2. and newer evidence shows that people who'd been infected with a totally different corona virus related to the common cold also had some cross immunity. finally, even the Covid 19 mRNA pushers themselves keep telling us that the original version of the Covid 19 mRNA vaccine benefited people long after the original strain was gone and newer SARS-CoV-2 strains became dominant (of course, what they refuse to say is that natural immunity is really valuable and protective).
Cross immunity from SARS-CoV-1 and from other corona viruses might bolster my point, since in those cases the immune systems had been exposed to a set of more than two dozen proteins, not just a single one.
The message from the mRNA pushers is suspect since they used abysmal math, dubious experimental techniques during trials, and inexcusable followup techniques. See Norman Fenton's work for a deep-dive on the math.
Bottom line: even if there is some possible benefits for weeks 2-13 (or whatever) after an mRNA jab, long-term the vactines (as Brandon calls them) are INeffective in addition to being UNsafe.
OTOH, on your point 3a it seems 50/50 because the human immune system can generalize to an extent. exposure to protein A may give some cross immunity to protein A'. but in support of 3a it does seem like it's better to target the currently live strain than to target an extinct strain.
so maybe it's "semi self-contradictory"? IDK. I recall Vinay Prasad questioning it when they kept on pushing the original version of the vaccine many months after the original and alpha strain were extinct in the wild. he noted that mRNA technology was supposed to let them swap out the viral protein mRNA easily. and yet they didn't do that until months later with the bivalent booster. so, once again, they misled everyone at the start.
You're right, I am way out of my depth to have a strong conviction on 3a. Of course it seems like the whole Vaccine Industrial Complex is way out of their depth too.
The problem is, according to my reading, that during such natural infections, each individual makes immune memory (via nk, tcell, epigenetic changes to secretory igA antibodies, and eventually Bcells) to very different protein fragments found in both structural (e.g. spike) and non-structural proteins (RNA- dependent RNA polymerase). This makes us all very different.
The only way to mimic this is via traditional live-attenuated vaccines which go through the same entry (e.g. mucosal).
They're not a whole lot safer than getting a natural infection at that point.
They're a very good reasons why this normal immune cascade (from innate to humoral, tcell confirmation of bcells etc..) needs to happen. Vaccines seem a poor approximation, especially for respiratory pathogens and mRNA transfections by their very design pose a terrible risk of autoimmunity issues.
re: point 3, another side of the argument is that there really is some valuable immune system training from being infected by a different corona virus. i.e. SARS-CoV-1 survivors from 20+ years ago were shown to be capable of mounting an immune response to SARS-CoV-2. and newer evidence shows that people who'd been infected with a totally different corona virus related to the common cold also had some cross immunity. finally, even the Covid 19 mRNA pushers themselves keep telling us that the original version of the Covid 19 mRNA vaccine benefited people long after the original strain was gone and newer SARS-CoV-2 strains became dominant (of course, what they refuse to say is that natural immunity is really valuable and protective).
Cross immunity from SARS-CoV-1 and from other corona viruses might bolster my point, since in those cases the immune systems had been exposed to a set of more than two dozen proteins, not just a single one.
The message from the mRNA pushers is suspect since they used abysmal math, dubious experimental techniques during trials, and inexcusable followup techniques. See Norman Fenton's work for a deep-dive on the math.
Bottom line: even if there is some possible benefits for weeks 2-13 (or whatever) after an mRNA jab, long-term the vactines (as Brandon calls them) are INeffective in addition to being UNsafe.
ok. I can see that it bolsters point 3.
OTOH, on your point 3a it seems 50/50 because the human immune system can generalize to an extent. exposure to protein A may give some cross immunity to protein A'. but in support of 3a it does seem like it's better to target the currently live strain than to target an extinct strain.
so maybe it's "semi self-contradictory"? IDK. I recall Vinay Prasad questioning it when they kept on pushing the original version of the vaccine many months after the original and alpha strain were extinct in the wild. he noted that mRNA technology was supposed to let them swap out the viral protein mRNA easily. and yet they didn't do that until months later with the bivalent booster. so, once again, they misled everyone at the start.
You're right, I am way out of my depth to have a strong conviction on 3a. Of course it seems like the whole Vaccine Industrial Complex is way out of their depth too.
The problem is, according to my reading, that during such natural infections, each individual makes immune memory (via nk, tcell, epigenetic changes to secretory igA antibodies, and eventually Bcells) to very different protein fragments found in both structural (e.g. spike) and non-structural proteins (RNA- dependent RNA polymerase). This makes us all very different.
The only way to mimic this is via traditional live-attenuated vaccines which go through the same entry (e.g. mucosal).
They're not a whole lot safer than getting a natural infection at that point.
They're a very good reasons why this normal immune cascade (from innate to humoral, tcell confirmation of bcells etc..) needs to happen. Vaccines seem a poor approximation, especially for respiratory pathogens and mRNA transfections by their very design pose a terrible risk of autoimmunity issues.