I'll just leave this here for discussion.

It's worth clicking on.

It's Joe, it's always worth clicking on.

C@LAg said:

---

or post a summary to let us see if it is worth clicking on.

---

Scientific evidence that "breakthrough cases" enhancing the environment of more potent viruses.

"Vaccines that keep the host alive but still allow transmission can thus allow virulent strains to circulate in a population."

That's the biggest point he touched on. This isn't like a polio vaccine or others where you get the vaccine, and you're covered. You're safe and immune to the disease. This is more like "treatment" b/c it doesn't stop people from getting Covid, and it doesn't stop you from spreading it. It basically helps you get "less sick" if you contract Covid. That's what this "vaccine" does now. But does this allow the vaccine to mutate into more serious viruses.

He also touches on vaccine mandates.

worth the watch

i dont know how he hasnt been gagged yet, but i suspect its coming soon.

aggierogue said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

or post a summary to let us see if it is worth clicking on.

---

Scientific evidence that "breakthrough cases" enhancing the environment of more potent viruses.

"Vaccines that keep the host alive but still allow transmission can thus allow virulent strains to circulate in a population."

That's the biggest point he touched on. This isn't like a polio vaccine or others where you get the vaccine, and you're covered. You're safe and immune to the disease. This is more like "treatment" b/c it doesn't stop people from getting Covid, and it doesn't stop you from spreading it. It basically helps you get "less sick" if you contract Covid. That's what this "vaccine" does now. But does this allow the vaccine to mutate into more serious viruses.

He also touches on vaccine mandates.

---

Seems like this Chinese engineered bioweapon is more tricky than people have been giving it credit for. And China will never pay any real price for unleashing it on the world.

Most vaccines don't give you immunity to infection - sterilizing immunity. That includes some polio vaccines (inactivated poliovirus does not)

Zobel said:

---

Most vaccines don't give you immunity to infection - sterilizing immunity. That includes some polio vaccines (inactivated poliovirus does not)

---

Doesn't the series of polio vaccines get you to 99-100 percent immunity?

Zobel said:

---

Most vaccines don't give you immunity to infection - sterilizing immunity. That includes some polio vaccines (inactivated poliovirus does not)

---

Go back to the Covid board.

Sure, after three doses. One dose is 90% and does not give sterilizing immunity.

https://www.virology.ws/2021/03/11/how-vaccines-work/

But as far as I know most of the vaccines in our current schedule don't prevent infection, just illness. And most are in the 95% efficacy range.

I love me some Joe, but this argument is largely horse****.

1) The "vaccine" as y'all put it, did work. It worked great for the virus it was designed for. It unfortunately doesn't do **** for transmission of Delta which it wasn't designed for.

2) The weakass virus as SA constantly refers to it, did in fact leave over 99% of it's victims alive, so to try and blame the vaccine as a vector for mutation by keeping its breakthrough victims alive is asinine. Almost everyone that got it lived.

3) Delta was first detected in December 2020 when virtually no one was vaccinated.

Thanks for the response. You can disagree with his take on the vaccine. But the passport discussion is up for debate. What are your thoughts on the research he mentioned in the podcast?

Quote:

---

Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow transmission could thus allow very virulent strains to circulate in a population. Here we show experimentally that immunization of chickens against Marek's disease virus enhances the fitness of more virulent strains, making it possible for hyperpathogenic strains to transmit. Immunity elicited by direct vaccination or by maternal vaccination prolongs host survival but does not prevent infection, viral replication or transmission, thus extending the infectious periods of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts.

---

Link to Article

cmag said:

---

I love me some Joe, but this argument is largely horse****.

1) The "vaccine" as y'all put it, did work. It worked great for the virus it was designed for. It unfortunately doesn't do **** for transmission of Delta which it wasn't designed for.

2) The weakass virus as SA constantly refers to it, did in fact leave over 99% of it's victims alive, so to try and blame the vaccine as a vector for mutation by keeping its breakthrough victims alive is asinine. Almost everyone that got it lived.

3) Delta was first detected in December 2020 when virtually no one was vaccinated.

---

Please show proof for any of your 3 claims.

I guess I'm left wondering what the alternative is? We do this all the time with flu, every year. It seems like an argument against vaccines in general.

mazag08 said:

---

cmag said:

---

I love me some Joe, but this argument is largely horse****.

1) The "vaccine" as y'all put it, did work. It worked great for the virus it was designed for. It unfortunately doesn't do **** for transmission of Delta which it wasn't designed for.

2) The weakass virus as SA constantly refers to it, did in fact leave over 99% of it's victims alive, so to try and blame the vaccine as a vector for mutation by keeping its breakthrough victims alive is asinine. Almost everyone that got it lived.

3) Delta was first detected in December 2020 when virtually no one was vaccinated.

---

Please show proof for any of your 3 claims.

---

All three of those are common knowledge at this point. And Oann probably doesn't say it so you won't believe it anyway. Why waste my time?

Zobel said:

---

I guess I'm left wondering what the alternative is? We do this all the time with flu, every year. It seems like an argument against vaccines in general.

---

Perhaps it's not an argument against vaccines, but more of an argument for rushing vaccines to the public.

Some people are asking what the long-term unforeseen dangers of rushing the vaccines. And they are ridiculed as anti-science or uneducated or whatever else to dismiss them.

Here you go.

I'll play.

Effectiveness of Pfizer vaccine in the phase 3 trial during 2020 - 95% efficacy vs symptomatic illness with 43,000 participants.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

Effectiveness of Pfizer vaccine in follow up study testing against both alpha and delta finds 93% efficacy against alpha and 88% against delta
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891

Delta first detected in India in October 2020, UK and UK in February 2021.

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-cases-of-variant-b-1-617-the-indian-variant-being-investigated-in-the-uk/

When did Pfizer become Moderna?

cmag said:

---

mazag08 said:

---

cmag said:

---

I love me some Joe, but this argument is largely horse****.

1) The "vaccine" as y'all put it, did work. It worked great for the virus it was designed for. It unfortunately doesn't do **** for transmission of Delta which it wasn't designed for.

2) The weakass virus as SA constantly refers to it, did in fact leave over 99% of it's victims alive, so to try and blame the vaccine as a vector for mutation by keeping its breakthrough victims alive is asinine. Almost everyone that got it lived.

3) Delta was first detected in December 2020 when virtually no one was vaccinated.

---

Please show proof for any of your 3 claims.

---

All three of those are common knowledge at this point. And Oann probably doesn't say it so you won't believe it anyway. Why waste my time?

---

So you've got nothing?

Why does it matter if you rush them or not? If they're not 100% effective, you're potentially going to have circulation in your vaccinated population. So this is a binary question, where either you have perfect vaccines or no vaccines.

Poster Dilettante answered this objection much better than I could here.

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3213883/replies/59808068

Quote:

---

There are 2 mechanisms by which viruses can overcome host immunity (which vaccination confers).

The first mechanism is by hiding from the immune system. This is done by changing pieces of the protein in the region recognized by antibodies so that they're no longer recognizable. In general this should decrease pathogenesis, since it places an additional constraint on the protein sequence. In a vaccinated person, the virus has to balance the competing goals of host avoidance and receptor binding. This generally produces less effective viruses than if selection is only promoting receptor binding. So we would not expect vaccination to promote more dangerous variants from this mechanism.

The other mechanism is by a general increase in infectivity and/or replication competence. The binding of neutralizing antibodies is a concentration dependent phenomenon, and viruses which replicate very well have a better chance of winning this titration. Delta exhibits some features of this type of mutant, like high virus titers and improved receptor binding. These mutants are produced by the error-prone polymerase mechanism which RamblinAg described, and they have higher fitness than wild type virus in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Their replication is reduced in vaccinated individuals relative to unvaccinated individuals. Vaccinated individuals are therefore less likely to be the source of this type of mutant, and do not provide this type of mutation with any kind of extra fitness advantage relative to unvaccinated individuals. Vaccination is strictly beneficial against this type of mutation, and we would not expect vaccination to promote more dangerous variants from this mechanism either.

That's both mechanisms. You might recognize them as fight and flight. A vaccinated population skews mutations slightly in general toward weaker receptor binding, and is less likely to produce and sustain feisty pathogenic mutants than an unvaccinated population.

---

Zobel said:

---

I guess I'm left wondering what the alternative is? We do this all the time with flu, every year. It seems like an argument against vaccines in general.

---

If we just offer a vaccine and leave it at that, like we do the flu, no one has any issue with this. What is your point?

Modernas numbers are similar. And I don't think recent numbers show the efficacy of either being nearly as good against delta as the initial claims. Like not even close.

BNT162b2 Is Pfizer. mRNA-1273 Is the name for the Moderna vaccine.

cmag said:

---

Modernas numbers are similar. And I don't think recent numbers show the efficacy of either being nearly as good against delta as the initial claims. Like not even close.

---

Moderna which never even got through a Phase 2 study? The same Moderna that's never gotten ANY product under their umbrella through a Phase 3? That's never gotten anything FDA approved or taken to market until emergency approval allowed a Phase 1 drug all the way to market?

That Moderna?

Show me the trials of the Moderna vaccine comparable to ANY other drug in the country gaining FDA approval.

Ok

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389

Rogan gives about as good of an argument to vote for someone like Trump/Desantis/Crenshaw as can be made.

Rogan will not vote for any of those people for federal office, though.

I wasn't talking about mandates or passports. I'm against both. I was answering this objection that imperfect vaccines are going to put selective pressure to breed superviruses. If I understand the argument correctly - and I might not be - it would seem that any vaccine that isn't 100% effective could do this. But most of our vaccines aren't 100% effective.

If the vaccines or recovery from the illness doesn't give you long term immunity, the mutation curve is most likely to trend towards versions of the disease that are more communicable and less dangerous.

We are already seeing that with Delta. Lots of new infections. Deaths are closer to the flu than the original COVID.

If it mutates further, it will likely be in that direction. The versions of the virus that can survive the longest in a sick person will become the most spread.

Too many people compare viruses and their treatment to bacteria and antibiotics. They are just really different. A virus is part microbe, part parasite. Bacteria just want to eat nutrients available in your body, they're not hijacking your cells or DNA. Mutating around antibiotics doesn't really make them more dangerous to an untreated individual, they just make the bacteria tougher to treat. We haven't found a really good way to treat a virus. The mutation is around getting infected in the first place. It's really two very different situations.

It's unfortunate that immunity doesn't seem to last very long. That said, the virus should start to look a lot like its common cold brethren. In most cases, it's already there.

Zobel said:

---

Ok

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389

---

Nice link. Thanks for sharing.

It would be nice if the CDC would collect data on breakthrough cases, including severe cases, so we could monitor how well the vaccines are doing over time.

Zobel said:

---

Ok

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389

---

Quote:

---

It is important to note that all the severe Covid-19 cases were in the placebo group, which suggests that mRNA-1273 is likely to have an effect on preventing severe illness, which is the major cause of health care utilization, complications, and death. The finding of fewer occurrences of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection after a single dose of mRNA-1273 is encouraging; however, the trial was not designed to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose, and additional evaluation is warranted.

---

Quote:

---

Overall, the local reactions to vaccination were mild; however, moderate-to-severe systemic side effects, such as fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, and headache, were noted in about 50% of participants in the mRNA-1273 group after the second dose.

---

Quote:

---

A risk of acute hypersensitivity is sometimes observed with vaccines; however, no such risk was evident in the COVE trial, although the ability to detect rare events is limited, given the trial sample size.

---

Maybe try actually doing a study with enough participants?

Quote:

---

The anecdotal finding of a slight excess of Bell's palsy in this trial and in the BNT162b2 vaccine trial arouses concern that it may be more than a chance event, and the possibility bears close monitoring.16

---

Quote:

---

Key limitations of the data are the short duration of safety and efficacy follow-up. The trial is ongoing, and a follow-up duration of 2 years is planned, with possible changes to the trial design to allow participant retention and ongoing data collection.

---

Quote:

---

Another limitation is the lack of an identified correlate of protection, a critical tool for future bridging studies. As of the data cutoff, 11 cases of Covid-19 had occurred in the mRNA-1273 group, a finding that limits our ability to detect a correlate of protection.

---

Quote:

---

As cases accrue and immunity wanes, it may become possible to determine such a correlate. In addition, although our trial showed that mRNA-1273 reduces the incidence of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, the data were not sufficient to assess asymptomatic infection

---

Quote:

---

Pregnant women and children were excluded from this trial, and additional evaluation of the vaccine in these groups is planned.

---

Quote:

---

Dr. Baden reports being funded by the NIH to conduct clinical trials in collaboration with Crucell/Janssen and Moderna;
Dr. Rouphael, receiving grant support from Pfizer, Merck, SanofiPasteur, Eli Lilly, and Quidel;
Dr. Creech, receiving grant support from Merck, consulting fees from Horizon Pharma and GSK, and fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board from Astellas;
Dr. Neuzil, receiving grant support from Pfizer;
Dr. Graham, holding pending patent WO/2018/081318 on prefusion coronavirus spike proteins and their use and pending patent 62/972,886 on 2019-nCoV vaccine;
Dr. Bennett, being employed by and owning stock and stock options in Moderna;
Dr. Pajon, being employed by and owning stock in Moderna;
Dr. Knightly, being employed by and owning stock and stock options in Moderna;
Drs. Leav, Deng, and Zhou being employees of Moderna;
Dr. Han, being employed by and owning stock and stock options in Moderna;
Dr. Ivarsson, being employed by and owning share options in Moderna;
Dr. Miller, being employed by and owning stock and stock options in Moderna; and
Dr. Zaks, being employed by and owning stock options in Moderna.

No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

---

Only half the doctors of this "study" are incredibly biased /luaghcry

Next time try posting a link to a study performed by non-affiliated "doctors", that actually tests a reasonable amount of people, actually tests people who have been or will be exposed to COVID, actually studies pregnant women and children, actually studies asymptomatic people, and actually has a normal timeframe of efficacy followup.

This "study" was a pre conceived conclusion needing to be fed "data". Swing and a miss. As a Phase 3, this would get slapped down by the FDA pre-Covid.

Why did the CDC stop tracking breakthrough cases?

Walt Luddiger said:

---

i dont know how he hasnt been gagged yet, but i suspect its coming soon.

---

Yeah, man. Been wondering this for a long time.

If I was Joe, I would use some of that 100 mill to set up my own platform.

He know he ain't gonna gonna run the gauntlet, hope he's setting up a good turnkey contingency plan.

It's a double blind study with over 30,000 participants. Phase 3 trials for the fda usually have 3,000 participants or less. And they're always done by doctors from the drug companies. That's why they're double blinded. Neither the patients or the researchers know who got what.

Pregnant women are excluded from almost all trials as a matter of course.

The fact that you think you've made a good argument against this trial is pretty revealing.