...
Responding to each quote without double quoting...
Spike proteins could attach themselves to different cells and tissues, for instance muscle tissue, joints, heart, lungs, nerves, kidneys, intestines, brain, etc.
mRNA vaccines work by entering the cell and that cell then produces copies of the spike protein - there is no spike protein produced by mRNA COVID-19 vaccines outside of cells. The spike protein never leaves the cell that the vaccine enters.
The spike protein binds with ACE2 receptors so it can 'attach' itself to any cell with an ACE2 receptor, but only if it is outside the cell, whice the mRNA spike proteins never are.
Spike proteins by themselves can cause damage
Spike proteins can't produce any damage in and of themselves.
and the outcome could be even worse if and when inflammatory substances recognize those cells as foreign and attack.
"Inflammatory substances" the only thing in physiology that has a meaning close to that is cytokines, which don't interact at all with the spike protein. Immune recognition of a foreign protein can lead to cytokine production.
This leads to muscle pain, joint pain, changes in heart rate, shortness of breath, ringing in the ears, dizziness or strange nerve sensations, and a host of symptoms that I discuss in detail -- along with my thoughts on spike protein shedding or transmission -- at Covid Vaccine Side Effects.
So lets look at his link,
Many who get the shots are having only minor side effects such as arm pain or light flu-like symptoms, and some have none. Others are having more serious reactions, especially after the second dose or after a prior Covid-19 infection. We are basically introducing toxins into our bodies (the spike proteins, polyethylene glycol (PEG), and other ingredients such as the lipid nanoparticles) and our immune system reacts by creating antibodies against them (good) and also launching inflammatory substances (not good).
What a complete moron. It is literally impossible to produce antibodies without creating cytokines. It isn't a 'bad thing' - it is always the response of the body to a novel antigen. They do make you feel bad, but they aren't bad.
The "lipid nanoparticles" are literally just a shell of fat. The body doesn't create antibodies to lipids. There is a small amount of PEG, the body rarely creates antibodies to it, but even so they are fairly irrelevant.
There are cases of delayed, or ongoing, immune responses such as skin rashes, hives, joint pains, cardiac and blood pressure problems, fatigue, and a variety of neurological issues that start a week or two later. I am now reading case reports of people having persistent health issues several months post vaccine (I recently met someone who is having heart rhythm disturbances 10 months after). Adverse reactions are often more intense after the second dose and having had a recent Covid-19 infection
These likely have nothing to do with the vaccine. There is a 2 week reporting window after a vaccine. At 2 doses in one year. That means a 1 in 13 chance that if they have an illness of any sort during that year - it will overlap with the reporting window. At 211 million people fully vaccinated in the US that means of 16.2 million - if they had an illness during the year it would correspond by chance with their vaccination period.
Some of them will get it properly diagnosed as whatever illness it is, but the quacks will claim it is due to the vaccine.
This article is a work in progress and I frequently update it as I learn more. Trying to make sense of this complicated process is humbling. I am not sure if anyone on the planet completely understands in molecular detail what exactly is going on with these new shots; and furthermore has connected the dots to the clinical signs and symptoms that certain vaccinated people are experiencing. I have a strong urge to solve at least part of the puzzle.
He should first get some basic training in immunology so he doesn't make such bone head mistakes. If he can't even understand absolute basics, he has no hope of 'solving the puzzle.
In order for a vaccine to have a chance at helping achieve herd immunity it should be very safe
Safety has zero to do with herd immunity. Variolation (similar to vaccination using substance from pustules of the infected) had a 2-3% death rate (since small pox had a 30% death rate it was a vast improvement).
prevent the vaccinated from transmitting the virus to others
Nope it just has to reduce the rate of transmission.
and be at least 80% effective for a period lasting several years or a lifetime.
No again, completely lacks understanding of a basic topic.
Let us explain herd immunity 101. Herd immunity is when Reffective (the effective transmission rate) drops below 1. The percentage vaccinated + prior infected, needed to acquire herd immunity depends on
1) Ro - the base rate of transmission without any measures to prevent transmission. Ro is somewhat fuzzy, since population density, local hygeine habits (hand washing, cough covering method, etc.), local social mores (loud talking, distance when talking, greeting methods such as hand shaking or kissing, indoor vs outdoor activity, group sizes) all impact the Ro.
2) Vaccine effectiveness (reduction in transmission, reduction in transmission time, etc.)
3) Percentage of population infected or vaccinated
The 80% was based on an Ro of 2-4, and a 96% vaccine effectiveness, they used the 'worst case' of 4 (which was the actual for Alpha).
The formula is
(1 - 1/4)* 100 /(96) * 100 = 78% (which was rounded to 80%)
However Ro of 4 was the pessimistic case for the original variant. This is what the claims of herd immunity were based on, and it was true at the time that the vaccines were created and were initially distributed. Had people in the US got vaccinated when they were first available, we would have had herd immunity for the original variant and Alpha variant.
The Ro for Delta was higher than the worse case for delta Ro = 5, but it also was capable of lingering in the nose longer and injected vaccines don't develop nasal antibodies as robustly. It also had spike protein mutations that decreased the ability of antibodies to neutralize it (reducing effectiveness to 80%, but restorable to 96% by boosting) Also Delta produced drastically more virus so it could overwhelm the antibodies resulting in breakthrough infections (1 in 5000 for the original variant; about 1 in 100 for the delta variant).
(1 - 1/5)* 100 /(80) * 100 = 100% if no third dose; but (1 - 1/5)* 100 /(80) * 100 = 83% with third dose. So again about 80%.
Unfortunately Omicron has more mutations to the spike protein reducing current vaccine effectiveness - about 30-40% effective against infection (unboosted, boosted is about 70-75%); result in more breakthroughs and easier spread. It also has a drastically shorter reproduction time so it spreads far faster since it infects people quickly.
The Ro for Omicron is reported as 7.
(1-1/7)* 100/(35) *100 = 245% if no third dose; but (1-1/7)* 100/(72.5) *100 = 118%
So the current vaccine and infections can't create herd immunity alone for Omicron.
However, other mitigation strategies, such as masking can reduce the Rt to the level for herd immunity.
So basically - he had no clue what he was talking about.
The CDC announced in August that the vaccinated transmit the virus just as easily as the unvaxed.
No they did not. He completely misunderstood what the CDC said. Here is from September,
The risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus. Early data suggest infections in fully vaccinated persons are more commonly observed with the Delta variant than with other SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, data show fully vaccinated persons are less likely than unvaccinated persons to acquire SARS-CoV-2
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.htmlTherefore it is unfair, intellectually dishonest, and frankly not supported by scientific evidence to bully and blame the unvaccinated for failure to achieve herd immunity.
It was entirely their fault for failure to achieve herd immunity from variants prior to Omicron.
Viruses will mutate in the unvaccinated, they will mutate in those who are immune compromised, they will mutate in the vaccinated, and they will continue to mutate unless we eradicate them completely which is not achievable anytime soon through the currently-implemented strategies.
While mutation occurs in vaccinated individuals, the rate of mutation is drastically slower since mutation rate is proportional to total amount of virus reproduction cycles which is drastically higher in the unvaccinated. This is like saying 'Selena Williams and I both play tennis' or 'Wayne Gretsky and I can both shoot a hockey puck'. Technically true but completely deceptive without further clarification.
Eradication or at least controlled and limited outbreaks is achievable with vaccination and masking.
Tens of thousands of people in the United States die from the flu virus each year, yet the seasonal mutations are not blamed on those who forgo the annual flu shot.
Each year the influenza strain that infected people for that year is wiped out by herd immunity. We aren't getting new variants due to lack of vaccination.
People who truly believe these current vaccines provide excellent protection should, by their logic, not be overly concerned being around others who choose to decline the needle.
They provide excellent, but not perfect protection. The protection is diminished vs Omicron. Unvaccinated serve as a source of new variants, and there are people who have compromised immune systems which the unvaccinated endanger - and if viruses are transmitted to those with compromised immune systems they provide the highest risk of new variants.
If the vaccines are effective as claimed, why are the CDC and the WHO recommending masks to be worn indoors -- and third or fourth booster shots?
If he had any knowledge of the topic, then I wouldn't have needed to bother explaining the basics above. Congratulations your knowledge of immunology and epidemiology now greatly exceeds that of the doctor who has been quoted here (not hard - since he appears to have close to no actual accurate knowledge of the topic as relates to COVID-19. I definitely wouldn't want someone with such a poor grasp of the topic as my doctor).
Some of the highest vaccinated countries in the world -- for instance the United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Seychelles, Chile, Israel, Malta, and others -- have not been able to suppress the rate of new infections.
UAE has 182 infections per 100,000 for the past 7 days, the USA has 1119 per 100,000 for the past 7 days (and the USA is likely a massive undercount).
https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/united-arab-emirates/https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/united-states/UAE has had 2,240 total deaths from COVID-19 ; the USA has had 883,000 total deaths from COVID-19. At 1/33rd or so the US population - they have had about 1/400th the deaths.
https://www.google.com/search?q=uae+deaths+covid-19 We all have different reasons for getting these shots, or deciding not to (at least for the time being). We should hold no judgment against anyone who has been vaccinated or who wants to wait for additional safety and efficacy studies. Or, perhaps, wait for an improved second generation vaccine that protects against the new variants and is safer.
The vaccine is safe and there is no reason to think they are not. The only items of concern are the same thing as if you caught COVID-19 but drastically less harmful. We should certainly judge people who originate and spread vaccine disinformation harshly - I think yanking medical licenses for such blatant disinformation would be warranted when using ones medical license to give naive individuals the false belief that the individual is spreading scientifically or medically supported information.
