This study from Denmark shows little vaccine effectiveness against Omicron beginning two months after "peak" protection, and sharply negative protection three months out.
In other words, vaccinated people were much MORE likely to get Omicron beginning about 100 days after the second dose. What about boosters? They did very little.
There's no doubt the vaccines are not very effective in preventing infection of these recent variants. There is ample evidence they are effective in preventing severe disease. And that's what matters. They keep you out of the hospital and/or the morgue.
"Not certified by peer review" is all I needed to see.
Cue next attempt at misinformation.
Nothing you say is peer reviewed therefore it is all misinformation. What a dork.
Why are you opposed to peer review?
I didn't say I'm opposed to peer review. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Voltaire wrote in 1772, "the best is the enemy of the good", warning against the fallacy that something is worthless if it is not perfect - a sentiment that seems common in scientific peer review today.
"Not certified by peer review" is all I needed to see.
Cue next attempt at misinformation.
Nothing you say is peer reviewed therefore it is all misinformation. What a dork.
Why are you opposed to peer review?
I didn't say I'm opposed to peer review. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Voltaire wrote in 1772, "the best is the enemy of the good", warning against the fallacy that something is worthless if it is not perfect a sentiment that seems common in scientific peer review today.
If this ends up being supported, and the vaccines do augment omicron infection, what then?
I wouldn't say the data indicates "vaccines augment omicron" as much as it indicates the vaccines do nothing after a couple months and may hinder more robust natural immunity in some way. Regardless, no vaccine would be approved or mandated if initial testing proved to be this ineffective especially against a virus with such low lethality and without any data regarding possible long term effects of the vaccination.
Our findings provide evidence of the spike protein hijacking the DNA damage repair machinery and adaptive immune machinery in vitro. We propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may impair adaptive immunity by inhibiting DNA damage repair. Although no evidence has been published that SARSCoV2 can infect thymocytes or bone marrow lymphoid cells, our in vitro V(D)J reporter assay shows that the spike protein intensely impeded V(D)J recombination. Consistent with our results, clinical observations also show that the risk of severe illness or death with COVID19 increases with age, especially older adults who are at the highest risk [22]. This may be because SARSCoV2 spike proteins can weaken the DNA repair system of older people and consequently impede V(D)J recombination and adaptive immunity. In contrast, our data provide valuable details on the involvement of spike protein subunits in DNA damage repair, indicating that fulllength spikebased vaccines may inhibit the recombination of V(D)J in B cells, which is also consistent with a recent study that a fulllength spikebased vaccine induced lower antibody titers compared to the RBDbased vaccine [28]. This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARSCoV2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the fulllength spike. Taken together, we identified one of the potentially important mechanisms of SARSCoV2 suppression of the host adaptive immune machinery. Furthermore, our findings also imply a potential side effect of the fulllength spikebased vaccine. This work will improve the understanding of COVID19 pathogenesis and provide new strategies for designing more efficient and safer vaccines.
Our findings provide evidence of the spike protein hijacking the DNA damage repair machinery and adaptive immune machinery in vitro. We propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may impair adaptive immunity by inhibiting DNA damage repair. Although no evidence has been published that SARSCoV2 can infect thymocytes or bone marrow lymphoid cells, our in vitro V(D)J reporter assay shows that the spike protein intensely impeded V(D)J recombination. Consistent with our results, clinical observations also show that the risk of severe illness or death with COVID19 increases with age, especially older adults who are at the highest risk [22]. This may be because SARSCoV2 spike proteins can weaken the DNA repair system of older people and consequently impede V(D)J recombination and adaptive immunity. In contrast, our data provide valuable details on the involvement of spike protein subunits in DNA damage repair, indicating that fulllength spikebased vaccines may inhibit the recombination of V(D)J in B cells, which is also consistent with a recent study that a fulllength spikebased vaccine induced lower antibody titers compared to the RBDbased vaccine [28]. This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARSCoV2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the fulllength spike. Taken together, we identified one of the potentially important mechanisms of SARSCoV2 suppression of the host adaptive immune machinery. Furthermore, our findings also imply a potential side effect of the fulllength spikebased vaccine. This work will improve the understanding of COVID19 pathogenesis and provide new strategies for designing more efficient and safer vaccines.
If you start combining information like this, and the Denmark study, and the studies from Germany and England indicating that "all cause" mortality has increased in areas that are highly vaccinated, and it seems problematic. But hey, what do we know. I've been told to get a shot and everything would be fine. Then I was told I had to get another shot because mine was undermined by people who didn't get one, and now I'm being told another shot is in order. Certainly, the pharmaceutical companies aren't winging it.
The only reason for vaccinating kids and young healthy people was to "stop the spread". Now that it's clear existing vaccines are ineffective at preventing transmission, mandates make no sense at all. High risk people still seem to benefit from protection against severe symptoms but for everyone else, we should put this issue to bed. Especially if Pfizer's pill works as well as advertised.
Our findings provide evidence of the spike protein hijacking the DNA damage repair machinery and adaptive immune machinery in vitro. We propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may impair adaptive immunity by inhibiting DNA damage repair. Although no evidence has been published that SARSCoV2 can infect thymocytes or bone marrow lymphoid cells, our in vitro V(D)J reporter assay shows that the spike protein intensely impeded V(D)J recombination. Consistent with our results, clinical observations also show that the risk of severe illness or death with COVID19 increases with age, especially older adults who are at the highest risk [22]. This may be because SARSCoV2 spike proteins can weaken the DNA repair system of older people and consequently impede V(D)J recombination and adaptive immunity. In contrast, our data provide valuable details on the involvement of spike protein subunits in DNA damage repair, indicating that fulllength spikebased vaccines may inhibit the recombination of V(D)J in B cells, which is also consistent with a recent study that a fulllength spikebased vaccine induced lower antibody titers compared to the RBDbased vaccine [28]. This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARSCoV2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the fulllength spike. Taken together, we identified one of the potentially important mechanisms of SARSCoV2 suppression of the host adaptive immune machinery. Furthermore, our findings also imply a potential side effect of the fulllength spikebased vaccine. This work will improve the understanding of COVID19 pathogenesis and provide new strategies for designing more efficient and safer vaccines.
If you start combining information like this, and the Denmark study, and the studies from Germany and England indicating that "all cause" mortality has increased in areas that are highly vaccinated, and it seems problematic. But hey, what do we know. I've been told to get a shot and everything would be fine. Then I was told I had to get another shot because mine was undermined by people who didn't get one, and now I'm being told another shot is in order. Certainly, the pharmaceutical companies aren't winging it.
This has been discussed pretty thoroughly but clearly you are selective about your information uptake. Plenty of logical conclusions like delayed health interventions due to the burden COVID has put on the healthcare industry etc. But you guys love to focus on that data, but just conveniently ignore that vaccinated individuals are having better healthcare outcomes FOR ALL CAUSES OF MORTALITY
But let's put on our tin foil hats about pharmaceutical companies and ***** about "messaging" because it's my cover for being deliberately ignorant and obtuse.
As for the shot situation the only country on the planet offering a 4th is Israel. There likely will be another shot in America probably next fall alongside a flu shot. Oh the ****ing horror.
"Not certified by peer review" is all I needed to see.
Cue next attempt at misinformation.
It is hilarious that you dismiss this paper for lack of peer review in favor of vaccines that are barely a year old, began as Emergency Use with no FDA approval, and have shown to be less and less effective by the day.
On another thread it was claimed that older sicker people get vaccinated at higher rates and that's the reason for stats that don't look good. That was refuted by a flu shot study that showed that people getting the flu shot skewed healthier. Because healthy people care about their health more than unhealthy people. Seems like that could apply here.
