COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease

[Quantifier]

When most people are vaccinated you expect more cases among those who are vaccinated, that's not surprising. The important questions are:
1) Probability of becoming infected upon being exposed, vaccinated vs non-vaccinated
2) Probability of developing severe illness or dying among those infected, vaccinated vs non-vaccinated.

[TheBrain]

When most people are vaccinated you expect more cases among those who are vaccinated, that's not surprising. The important questions are:
1) Probability of becoming infected upon being exposed, vaccinated vs non-vaccinated
2) Probability of developing severe illness or dying among those infected, vaccinated vs non-vaccinated.

Why would we expect more cases among those who are vaccinated?

I need to move onto to other things and can't easily locate the source at the moment, but I've read that the death rate is the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

[Quantifier]

When (for instance) 2/3 of the population is vaccinated, there are twice as many vaccinated people as there are unvaccinated ones. If the vaccine protects from infection at just under 50% you will have just more cases among vaccinated people than among unvaccinated people. If the protection from infection is higher, then the vaccination rate at which infection rates among vaccinated vs non-vaccinated equalize is higher.

As far as I have seen, vaccinated people do not develop severe illness.

[Quantifier]

See https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/ ... ove-trump/ - and look at the graphics. Unvaccinated people are over-represented among those dying.

[Dod]

Taking pharmaceuticals to protect others - where does that end?

We have been taking pharmaceuticals to protect others for many decades. This is a standard aspect of many vaccination programs. It is part of what it means to be a society, and necessary in dealing with highly contagious diseases. We have seen before what happens when intake of the measles vaccine or the pertussis vaccine drops. We get outbreaks. And there are always highly vulnerable people who cannot be vaccinated. We need to deprive pathogens of potential hosts to infect.

Again, where does this end? what risks do people need to go to to "protect" others that they don't know. Children have had next to zero risk from covid. Taking an experimental jab is infinitely much more risky for them than catching the virus.

There are plenty of steps that everyone can take to drastically improve their chances.

...and the most effective of these is to get vaccinated. This virus is not going away any time soon, since humanity failed to contain it and failed to distribute vaccines everywhere fast enough. One failure of your 'plenty of steps' sometime in the coming years and your wall is breached. But getting vaccinated requires very little effort per protection time. Even if we end up needing to get revaccinated annually (like with flu), or every few years (like with tetanus), or just whenever a new strain shows up.

This is your opinion. This idea is propagated by the mainstream bought-and-paid-for vaccine lobbyists who exclude from discussion the evidence from frontline doctors, researchers, Nobel prize winners, even the inventor of mrna vaccine technology himself?! The fact that these sources ONLY promote the jab with ZERO emphasis on the extremely effective measures that can be taken to reduce severe disease from our pandemic speaks for itself. If they actually cared why not emphasise both?

Asymptomatic spread - for example both Fauci and a WHO rep clearly stated last year that it is not a factor in driving a pandemic. If they changed their minds then even more reason not to listen to them unquestioningly. Common sense says the same

This isn't about any particular individual changing their mind, it is about the pathogens themselves changing. If you look at How much is asymptomatic spread driving Covid-19? Here's what the evidence says. and read in detail, you can see that the different views being expressed depend on what assumptions are made about how contagious the virus is. This varies among strains of the virus.

?? You seemed to miss my point that the so-called experts that people seem to listen to change their mind on CRUCIAL ideas, like asymtomatic spread, which underpins the whole Corovid industry: mass lockdowns, masks, jabs, tests. Their opinions are therefore useless. I read the first couple of paragraphs of the study in your link. They start with the assumption that asymtomatic people are 75% as infectious as symptomatic - where did they pull that from? Any conclusions they make are therefore useless

The idea that someone can carry a viral load that is so low that it doesn't give them symptoms, but they are highly contagious to others doesn't pass the sniff test. And how are they even deemed to have the virus - through they thoroughly discredited PCR test. I'm afraid we could have a tennis match of going back and forward for months. My overall advice to anyone is switch off the TV, throw it out the window, and do your own research before rushing into anything that you can't undo.

[Quantifier]

?? You seemed to miss my point that the so-called experts that people seem to listen to change their mind on CRUCIAL ideas, like asymtomatic spread, which underpins the whole Corovid industry: mass lockdowns, masks, jabs, tests.

Wait, you expect experts to know of the bat how to deal with a novel pathogen? In science you form a hypothesis based on what you know, including similar past instances, and you change it as you learn new facts, and as the situation evolves. And now we have evidence that mass lockdowns, masks, tests, and jabs work. In my state spread has been curbed successfully in populous areas with good masking compliance, and then dropped as 4th wave was starting when vaccinations became really common, and meanwhile rural areas with low masking and low vaccination uptake are still having mass outbreaks.

I read the first couple of paragraphs of the study in your link. They start with the assumption that asymtomatic people are 75% as infectious as symptomatic - where did they pull that from? Any conclusions they make are therefore useless

The reason I linked it was not about proving a specific level of asymptomatic transmission occurred. Please read the whole thing, including the discussion by other scientists. My point was that you have 3 people arriving at different conclusions about the significance of asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 based on different possible traits ascribed to the virus, which on the meta level models different strains of the virus. It is entirely possible for asymptomatic transmission to be less significant at one stage of the pandemic, when the predominant strain behaved in a certain way, and more significant as more infectious strains evolve.

The idea that someone can carry a viral load that is so low that it doesn't give them symptoms, but they are highly contagious to others doesn't pass the sniff test.

Really? Never heard of Mary Mallon, AKA 'Typhoid Mary'? Asymptomatic transmission is known for many diseases, both bacterial and viral. It is not a new concept invented for the purpose of the current pandemic.

And how are they even deemed to have the virus - through they thoroughly discredited PCR test.

Discredited by whom exactly? Be specific. Not only do such people end up positive by PCR test, they also go on to raise antibodies against the virus that are then detected by serological tests. How does that happen? (My dad is one of them, BTW.)

I'm afraid we could have a tennis match of going back and forward for months. My overall advice to anyone is switch off the TV, throw it out the window, and do your own research before rushing into anything that you can't undo.

Well, I don't even have a TV, so I guess I'm good? You know what else you can't undo? Getting a bad case of COVID-19. Getting a mild case that evolves into long-COVID. Getting a not-so-bad case, but then losing a limb or dying from blood clots.

[MarcR]

With my moderator's cap on, I want to commend the contributors here for avoiding a total meltdown. This is a difficult topic that in most venues devolves into acrimony and chaos. That said, I do have concern with respect to this clause of our Community Guidelines:

Respect. All posts and private messages should be courteous. Disagree with ideas, not people. You may not attack, insult, undermine, or belittle anyone. This broad prohibition extends beyond other members and this community to the world at large.

We're near the line overall and over it on the "world at large" aspect. To keep this topic open for new posts, please refrain from inferring and impugning others' motives and intentions. Stick to facts and objective evidence. From the Humility clause:

Support your opinions with personal or clinical experience, your physician’s perspective, and/or published medical research.

[Dod]

*** thank you for your reply

Wait, you expect experts to know of the bat how to deal with a novel pathogen?

*** Again that is not my point (although there were scientists like Michael Levitt, Nobel prize winner for science, who were able to make accurate predictions in March 2020), my point is that if our provided "experts" change their mind on crucial points people are better off studying for themselves, which was the point of my original post

My point was that you have 3 people arriving at different conclusions about the significance of asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19...

*** OK, I could give you 3 people who say asymtomatic transmission is insignificant in driving a pandemic

It is not a new concept invented for the purpose of the current pandemic. (Asymtomatic spread)

*** I'm sure it happens, but it is insignificant compared with the massive cost in terms of loss of life life and economic harm that has been caused by the restrictions and everything else that is based on it

Discredited by whom exactly? Be specific.

*** The inventor of the PCR test - Kerry Mullis. hope that is specific enough. he stated clearly that the test should not be used to diagnose infectious disease because it can detect fragments that are not associated with being ill. Anyone seriously discussing our current situation should really know about the uselessness of the PCR test and the huge false positive rate when it is used for the general asymptomatic population. This is at the very heart of the pandemic fear-porn statistics!
(interesting also that the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology does not support the mass roll-out of his invention)

*** Also the Portugese high court upheld the advice from scientists that the PCR test could give more than 90% false positives (German tourists prevented from travelling home because someone (or a contact) had been pinged by a PCR test took the Portugese govt to court and won based on the uselessness of the test).

Not only do such people end up positive by PCR test, they also go on to raise antibodies against the virus that are then detected by serological tests. How does that happen? (My dad is one of them, BTW.)

*** No, "case" numbers that scare the population (when deaths numbers are too low?) are positive PCR results not antibody tests. This is amazingly not known even by intelligent colleagues of mine. Even if antibody tests were added that would be a good thing - the person now has long-term full-spectrum natural immunity, and there is one less person for the virus to use

Well, I don't even have a TV, so I guess I'm good? You know what else you can't undo? Getting a bad case of COVID-19. Getting a mild case that evolves into long-COVID. Getting a not-so-bad case, but then losing a limb or dying from blood clots.[/quote]

*** Pleased to hear about your lack of TV...We knew who was at risk from a bad case of covid-19 and there are effective safe immediate steps that can be taken and ultimately long term life-style changes that will improve your chances with covid AND the much more important pandemics of of heart disease, cancer, AD etc. these things were known early on, not just with hindsight.

*** I am surprised you mentioned blood clots as that is one of the effects of the vaccine unfortunately reportedly experienced by many

*** Here is a new article for everyone who is sure that taking the jab can only do good to the community - maybe even with the best intentions it will be disastrous? By Geert Vanden Bossche (virologist and ex-vaccine developer). This is before any discussion on short-term damage from the jab or the Orwellian future that it will bring of electronically restricting people
https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/post ... sars-cov-2

[ApropoE4]

It's hard not to get angry about the anti-vaxxer idiocy on this thread, but as usual I wish every one of you who did their "research" and concluded that there may be "long term effects" and that "main stream media" is hiding the truth from you that when you get covid, you'll get it real good

[TheresaB]

as usual I wish every one of you who did their "research" and concluded that there may be "long term effects" and that "main stream media" is hiding the truth from you that when you get covid, you'll get it real good

And I'd like to remind you of the community guidelines of this site which includes:

Respect. ... Disagree with ideas, not people. You may not attack, insult, undermine, or belittle anyone. ...