Comments by "Vary Olla" (@varyolla435) on "Biographics" channel.

  1. 65
  2. 5
  3. 4
  4. 4
  5. 4
  6. 4
  7. 4
  8. 4
  9. 4
  10. 4
  11. 4
  12. "Wrong question - wrong questions give wrong answers" - Master Gregory "Efficacy" is based upon multiple things. The old Smallpox vaccine was an attenuated form of Cowpox. Attenuated vaccines as a rule elicit the strongest immunological response by the body. While that may be good as far as generating a strong antibody generation response - it is not always so good for the person. The stronger the immune response = the potentially harsher the side effects can be. So with vaccines you want antibody generation - meaning you want an inflammatory response by the body triggering the immune cells to being to react. At the same time however you want a vaccine which is tolerated by people so that the vaccine does not generate side effects commensurate with the infectious illness you want to prevent - or worse. Newer recombinant vaccines tend to be less "immunogenic" than the old attenuated ones - BUT - they are also better tolerated while still generating antibodies. So it is a trade-off. Final thought. Before Smallpox was eradicated it still existed and hence outbreaks would periodically crop up and people would over time be exposed - even if they were not subsequently infected. That community exposure is akin to "booster shots" as it can re-stimulate your immune cells to produce more antibodies. If however a person vaccinated no longer encounters the virus because vaccine-induced "herd immunity" is such that incidence levels are low or nonexistent where they live then any immunity from vaccination can begin to wane over time. So the Smallpox vaccine had an "effective rate" in the 90% range for most. Its immunity however was known to wane and thus immunity after ~5 years was assumed to become less. That however is still sufficient to break the chain of infection such that outbreaks would end. Also as noted above you must factor in re-exposure via those periodic outbreaks. A person vaccinated 10 years earlier might have less immunity than when they were first inoculated - but upon being exposed again and not getting infected their antibody levels would climb once again. So lots of variables I'm afraid. Immunology is never cut & dry. 🤔
    4
  13. 4
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37.  @gregjames9875  The Measles vaccine in the MMR is the "gold standard" for vaccines with an "efficacy rate" of ~97%. What does this mean?? It means that under normal circumstances 97% will develop some level of immunity with the other 3% = not. So even the "ideal" vaccine as we see is not "100% effective" - as no vaccine can be because we are all individuals and hence our bodies react based upon numerous idiopathic variables unique to the person. Since you referenced Covid - let's look at that. The original variant of SARS-CoV-2 had an R0 of ~2-3. It then however began to mutate since it being a novel pathogen had no natural or vaccine-derived reservoir of immunity to slow it down. Today the variants in circulation having mutated several times now having an R0 on par with Measles = ~12-18. So what does this mean?? It means the original variant upon which vaccines were based could replicate at a certain level = whereas the newer ones generate exponentially higher viral loads. More viruses generated requires = more and more accurate antibodies to inhibit said replication. That is why booster shots as those stimulate higher levels of antibody production. Moral of the story: so are the Covid vaccines "100%" = nope - but so what as no vaccine actually is. Are their efficacy rates >50% = yup - and that is all that matters. It means that most will not catch Covid and those who do require higher levels of exposure and tend to get less ill because they already have antibodies inside of them to reduce their viral loads. If you have 10 "at risk" people and you vaccinate them. Subsequently 4 go on to still catch the illness = 6 did not - thus what began as 10 at risk was reduced to 4 actual cases. So you reduced your potential morbidity rate. By the way. Because vaccinated who go on to catch Covid tend to have lower viral loads = they then will usually shed less viruses as a result - meaning they are less likely to infect others compared to unvaccinated infected who have the highest viral loads and thus shed the most viruses into their environment. Methinks you should assume less = and learn the science more.... p.s. - SARS-CoV-2 = zoonotic viral pathogen. Zoonotic viruses which can jump between species are the most mutagenic. The MeV Measles virus and Poliovirus = "human-specific" - meaning they evolved to only infect people. As such they do not mutate as readily making vaccines more effective over time. The MMR is attenuated making it highly "immunogenetic" compared to recombinant vaccines like the mRNA Covid ones. Yet higher immunogenicity also comes with potentially harsher side effects. So recombinant vaccines sometimes have less efficacy compared to the older attenuated ones = but they are better tolerated - so it is a tradeoff.
    3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40.  @fueledbycoffee7391  You are missing the forest for the trees here I'm afraid. Follow the white rabbit: 1 - in infectious diseases an external pathogenic organism attacks the body. Yet ultimately = the IMMUNE SYSTEM remedies the situation to restore balance. 2 - in cancers however the immune system = FAILS in its job - for various reasons as noted. Moral of the story: cancer is a failure of the immune system itself. Your body regularly produces cancerous cells you know. Normally they are identified and destroyed to be replaced by healthy ones. When that system breaks down for some reason = cancers arise. So yes a virus can in some cases yield cancers down the road. Yet the virus per se did not cause the cancer as much as your immune system failed to defeat the virus and repair the resulting damage. That makes the virus "a trigger" with the real failure laying with the immune system = get it. Infectious illnesses routinely cause damage to your body but your immune system helps repair the damage. Cancers are your immune system broken. It would be great if we could defeat cancers. That however necessitates identify "why" the cells go bad so as to repair the damage or target the specific cells. Drugs can help with the process - but like with say antibiotics they do not actually cure as = help the immune system cure you. Give antibiotics to someone with a weakened immune system and they can still die as ultimately their immune system must carry the fight. The immune system is the key to everything. Have a nice day.
    3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3
  51. 3
  52. 3
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56. 3
  57. 3
  58. 3
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. Actually the risk of developing cVDPV has been known for decades. Any time you use an attenuated vaccine on a mass level then given the idiopathic variance seen in populations there is always a risk a number might fail to defeat the weakened organism as expected to subsequently develop a "subacute infection". What matters is the risk of this happening is infinitesimal. For these rare cases to then go on to infect others is even more remote and requires above all else = an unvaccinated population. If a person develops a mild case of what a vaccine works against and they are surrounded by vaccinated - it usually stops with them. If however said person is around lots of unvaccinated = the virus now has a reservoir from which to spread. Moral of the story: in the case of Poliovirus it can exist in the environment for up to 2 months + it is spread via the GI tract. In other words people use the bathroom to contaminate their sewage systems + they don't wash their hands to spread it around + if they have common water systems such as poor villages which use wells etc. they can further contaminate those = all of which can potentially infect another if as noted above they also are not vaccinated. So the recent instances of cVDPV noted of late occurred in communities with high levels of unvaccinated owing to religious objections. Had they been vaccinated then there would have likely been no spread. Actual cases of cVDPV are 1 out of millions of doses of OPV administered. The WHO and NGOs have encouraged poorer nations to stop using OPV for years and to switch to IPV - which costs more. cVDPV can not happen with the IPV vaccine. 🤔
    2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118.  @ronc7743  Cognitive dissonance - and conspiracy theory blinders. You seem to overlook the obvious in your attempt to justify your lack of understanding here. One does not have to work for a pharmaceutical to understand the science here. One need simply = learn the science............oops!! Moral of the story: all vaccines work upon the same basic principles - even mRNA ones. When a virus invades your cells - which coincidentally occurs many times in your life - it injects its DNA into the cell. From that point on the DNA is read via transcription and the "cellular machinery" reacts to = the mRNA that is formed as a result. The ribosomes read that mRNA - "translation" - and respond by creating the parts of the virus which amalgamate into new copies of itself which upon being released into the bloodstream = repeat the process. That is the basis of viral replication. So the mRNA itself is disassembled when it is read and corresponding protein segments are produced in the cell. The genome of the cell is not altered and it eventually is destroyed anyways via apoptosis as noted to be replaced by a normal cell. So all your "concern" is about a process which happens anyways upon your being infected with a virus such as happens countless times in your life - yet you are still here. A vaccine is a vaccine is a vaccine as it simply is introducing "antigens" to your immune cells triggering an inflammatory response leading to antibody formation. It is only how those antigens are introduced that varies based upon vaccine type. p.s. - your supposed "studies" = meaningless twaddle spread via social media. Had you any real understanding here - which you don't as you are obviously reacting to online claims from fringe flakes - you would have noted that = people infected with actual Covid also suffer from blood clots - save for more often and of a more severe nature. The virus triggers strong inflammatory responses in people which lead to clot formation. So if a weakened vaccine can in rare cases trigger clots in a subset of people = imagine what a full-on infection with actual Covid can do......... You need to think about the totality of what is happening and why rather than "reacting". 🤔
    2
  119. 2
  120.  @ronc7743  Superficial analysis invariably yields = superficial conclusions. As always confirmation bias rules for some. Sad - but typical. Moral of the story: the vaccine injury program is funded by a tax paid by vaccine makers. The government however administers the program. So your funding request is to hire additional people etc. to administer the program - something it has been asking of the Congress for years now by the way. It is for = administration - not compensation case funding which comes from the trust fund financed via the tax. As an aside. While the number of cases filed each year is low overall - very low in fact considering the millions of doses of vaccines administered each year in the US = not all who file a case are approved as what is claimed might lack credible documentation to tie it to vaccination. Also just as with VAERS many claims represent minor things like a claim of an injured/sore shoulder from the injection to other minor complaints. In case you missed the commercials in the US there are lawyers who make a living filing vaccine compensation cases much as there are for work injury or automobile accidents etc. - aka "ambulance chasers". The VICP is such that legal fees are paid = even if the claim is rejected. So you can not go by raw claim numbers - which the vaccine industry routinely misrepresents. You must look at actual compensation cases approved = which are infinitesimal. Perhaps one or two dozen cases a year are approved for say the MMR compared to on average 10 million doses administered each year in the US. You see only what you want to see. 🤔
    2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124.  @ronc7743  🥱 "Critical thinker" indeed... WHO = do you find in medical systems???? 🤔 Moral of the story: I am familiar with the study you allude to - as well as the joke of a channel you reference. In this case you are parroting classic superficial mischaracterization. So the study looked at employees of a medical system = in other words individuals who work with actively ill Covid patients. Thus they unlike the general public by definition incur vastly higher levels of exposure. Higher levels of exposure with a viral pathogen which has mutated several times now over the past several years into variants exponentially more infectious is like a person being squirted at first with a garden hose to now be doused with a fire hose. Firemen wear nomex which is fire retardant. Yet if caught in a conflagration they can still burn to death. Similarly vaccinated people when confronted with very high levels of exposure to the virus which has mutated to generate viral levels exponentially higher than when the vaccine was first developed to work against are concurrently at a greater risk for subsequent infection given that onslaught of viral exposure. Yet the metric here is not total prevention of infection as no vaccine has ever achieved that = it is reduction of adverse medical outcomes if said infection occurs - which your study did not address. It all still boils down = to being exposed in the first place. So by all means think harder and stop parroting superficial arguments such as your channel makes.
    2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 2
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. A bit more complicated than that of course. Your immune system is pure = "stimulus -----> response." Accordingly the stronger the stimulus the greater the response - or conversely the milder the stimulus the milder the response. This is why one sometimes sees "secondary infections". The immune system being preoccupied fighting off a massive infection allows opportunistic organisms to gain a foothold triggering a secondary infection. So yes your body reacts to the presence of infectious pathogens via generating corresponding protein segments which match up to the same found on the surface of the organism - aka antibodies. Those antibodies are in turn created by "mature B-Cells" which upon being exposed to a given antigen will react by generating said antibodies. The "problem" however is that many infections will actually only yield = temporary immunity - meaning antibody generation of a period consistent with the level of stimulus which led to their creation which wanes in time. In cases of severe infection - meaning a massive onslaught of pathogen replication in the body and corresponding cellular disruption - one can see the development of = "affinity cells". Affinity cells are B-Cells which have in essence become "specialized". They will exist for years afterwards continuing to manufacture the specific IgG antibody they were sensitized to create. These are the basis of your "lifetime immunity". Moral of the story: about 75% of infectious diseases which afflict man are of "zoonotic origin" = meaning they began in other species such as animals and subsequently "jumped" into humans. Given this ability to jump back and forth that lends to mutative changes occurring with enough infections so that the morphology of the pathogen begins to change up. So with enough change vis a vis the "antigenic" structures found on the surface of a virus which allows it to attach to and infect certain cells whose structures match to much as keys to a specific lock = subsequent antibodies generated against a previous iteration may or may not match up anymore. Antibodies attach to antigen binding sites blocking them --------> which prevents the pathogen from being able to attack cells and replicate itself. The "inactivated" pathogen is then enveloped by other immune cells and is destroyed. The crux here being that your immune system is like a blind person reading braille by touch. They encounter and attack things they do not recognize as belonging via "touch"/chemical messages while their mechanism of attack as far as antibodies and T-Cells is dependent upon the morphology of the organism. If that morphology changes then your immune response is lost and your system has to begin again. If however via vaccination your immune system was already exposed to a weakened version of some virus it can quickly mount a defense which either prevents infection altogether - or some replication ends up happening albeit at a lower level. Less replication = less viral load and a better outcome for you.
    1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. Meanwhile I am saying perhaps you should forgo such uninformed assumption to instead = seek to understand. Follow the white rabbit Neo: 1 - the Sphinx is carved from the limestone bedrock = and limestone is porous. 2 - beneath the Giza plateau is the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System = ergo there is groundwater 4-5 meters below the Sphinx. 3 - via pressure gradient variance as water in the ground is often under greater pressure than above - hence why if you dig a well water seeps into the hole you create = moisture from below upwells through the porous bedrock to the surface where salt crystals are formed. They denude the surface of the stone causing it to flake away to touch. The process is called = "efflorescence." Moral of the story: the Mokattam Formation which forms the plateau the Sphinx is carved from has 3 main layers of differing densities - and hence hardness levels. The hardest part of the Sphinx is the lower body. The next hardest part is the upper neck and head. The softest part is the upper back and neck area = which was also the most degraded. So yes the Sphinx spent most of its life buried in sand and hence rainfall could not reach it. Yet sand shifts about and the surface of the stone weakened by efflorescence would still flake away over time = yielding what we saw. The Egyptian government via a USAID grant installed some years back underground water pumps to lower the water table and divert it from the necropolis. The Sphinx itself is constantly being maintained being coated with a neutralizing agent to slow the erosive process with some areas now covered over. Thus the Sphinx dates to the dynastic Egyptians and its uneven erosion is not due to age nor rainfall = but efflorescence. So now you know. 🤔 p.s. - there was no "lost" civilization. Arguing such is classic argumentum ad ignorantiam - a logical/deductive fallacy. A thing does not exist until you provide tangible, compelling physical evidence to show proof of concept.
    1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178.  @AlexH8280  😴😴😴 It was apparent long ago that you desperately "want to believe" = just not "understand." Thus everything to date reflects you going round and round looking for excuses to ignore the evidence I have provided - while clinging to your assumptions. How sad -- if not unexpected. Moral of the story: I have provided you with evidence to explain why the Sphinx looks as it does + association to dynastic Egypt. Meanwhile you have responded as expected with continued inference to "some" supposed people for which you have provided exactly squat to demonstrate they exist outside of your imagination. That as so often is the case is all you seem to really have. Yet it is as I already noted for you classic argumentum ad ignorantiam. So here is your freebie as frankly this grows hackneyed. A thing is not real and hence true = unless you first can provide something tangible to ascribe validity to it. What you opt to believe - or not - in truth matters very little I'm afraid. Only credible evidence = plausibility - and hence "fact". You lack that. Enjoy your assumptions. p.s. - Gebel el-Silsila = GRANITE quarry. Granite is igneous stone and hence is not porous as limestone is - which the Giza Sphinx is carved from. Limestone is a sedimentary stone formed from ancient ocean floor and is naturally porous and is subject to erosion when exposed to fresh water which is akin to weak battery acid to it. That is why you see "sinkholes" develop in karst formations were flowing fresh water is present. Hopefully you at least have heard of them. Time to move on.
    1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186.  @StoneInMySandal  Yup. As mummies were typically wrapped up with valuables they were usually destroyed in the process of robbing them. Also the religious beliefs of the Egyptians were predicated upon the spirit (Ka) having a "vessel" to inhabit - hence why they mummified their bodies in the first place. So in their mind no body = and the spirit of the dead person was essentially "erased" from the afterlife. Later on they further believed that the Ka could inhabit - if not a body - then a statue or similar object bearing the name of the deceased. For them the "object" became the person. That is why so many statues saw their noses hacked off as the Egyptians believed doing so prevented the spirit of the person from inhabiting the object as they "could not breathe". So mummies - especially later mummies - were often coated with resins which hardened with time. So the only way to unwrap the mummy was often to tear it apart. Tut's mummy was damaged when Carter literally had to rip off his gold burial mask as his inner coffin was full of hardened resins which had simply been poured over his mummy. Sometimes they simply set them on fire to collect any melted gold and valuables afterwards. There was recently a doco on excavations in the West Valley of the Valley of the Kings. Looking for hidden tombs Egyptologists uncovered a large scorched area = and nearby was part of a mummy's leg. So a tomb had been robbed and the mummy torn apart and burned looking for valuables. Facts. 🤔
    1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. Back then there was only one strain of Smallpox in circulation. Later on a "milder" strain was identified. So any viral illness was by definition potentially lethal as we did not really begin to develop antiviral medications until the 1980's onward. Accordingly if you caught a viral infectious disease then all doctors could do is to treat your symptoms and hope for the best. Now any infectious disease which is novel is by definition the worst as no one has ever encountered it before and thus there is no "herd immunity" to slow its spread. After a time as people come to catch it and survive one can see its impact wane - a bit. Smallpox once established typically killed 20-30% of those infected. When first introduced to North and South America however where people had never before encountered it nor any virus similar to it their immune systems had no basis to counter it. Think Influenza. There are lots of respiratory viruses - some of which are morphologically similar. So antibodies created against one virus can sometimes also help to neutralize similarly shaped viruses via "cross-reactivity" - which is how the Smallpox vaccine worked. It used the Cowpox virus which was similar in shape to the Smallpox virus so that antibodies created against it - based upon its morphology = also worked against the Smallpox virus. Peoples of North/South America did not domesticate cattle and hence had never been exposed to viruses like Cowpox or related Smallpox. Thus they has nothing to help with their immunity upon making exposure far more deadly.
    1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. While your angst is understandable - it is misdirected. Ebola and HIV are as nothing from an epidemiological standpoint as they are not easily transmitted requiring physical contact. The same for rabies as one does not pick it up from the proverbial toilet seat. So from an infectious disease standpoint the infectious diseases which should cause you the most angst are = those easiest to spread - which means airborne. Moral of the story: for scale of "impact" the worst infectious disease is probably Influenza. It is endemic everywhere and its reach makes it ubiquitous. Yes most survive it = yet it still makes them ill for a time. This means people are sick ------> miss work/school -------> some see the doctor --------> most take medications of some type be they prescription or OTC ------> some end up hospitalized --------> some of those incur prolonged if not lifelong health problems as a result = and finally some die. Numbers are difficult to pin down because many nations do not track Influenza deaths among adults - especially older ones - seeing them as "a natural outcome" given other comorbidities the individual might have. All of above results in a massive "impact" across the socioeconomic spectrum which cost society an enormous amount of money and resources in addition to the mortality rate associated with it. So as terrible as some infectious diseases are on the surface if they really do not normally impact large numbers of individuals then their real impact is less. Influenza accounts for literally billions of cases annually worldwide. Think about what that represents. Have a nice day. 🤔
    1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210.  @meckerhesseausfrankfurt4019  ACAM200 uses attenuated Vaccinia. While Vaccinia is typically not considered to be dangerous to people - using attenuated vaccines in special populations - i.e. HIV infected - is contraindicated. Thus an alternative was developed for use in this population. The Jynneos vaccines is a recombinant vaccine which has seen the Vaccine virus "inactivated" via genetic alteration. It can be administered to people who might be immunocompromised but the virus is inhibited in that it can not successfully replicate. This differs from other inactivated vaccines where the virus has been completely killed or attenuated vaccines where the virus has been weakened but is not dead. Thus it is active enough to achieve an immunological reaction in the body = but attempts to replicate are unsuccessful. This is not unlike certain antibiotics which are "bacteriostatic" in that they do not directly kill the bacteria - but it is damaged so that attempts to replicate are stifled. The trick is to weaken/kill the virus yet still trigger an inflammatory response by the body. Not every introduction of inactivated pathogens yield a sufficient response by the immune system to yield IgG antibody generation - even with adjuvant use. So the recent mPox outbreak saw delay in vaccination because of who it impacted. The government had to obtain sufficient stocks of the newer Jynneos. Had it occurred in the general population rather than among HIV individuals the government would have probably responded quicker using ACAM2000. While not used in the general population ACAM is still administered to the military and researchers where needed.
    1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248.  @stephaniegormley9982  You are misinterpreting what is said and missing the obvious. 1 - Polio exists in the environment as I noted = specifically contaminated water sources. 2 - passive immunity from the mother to infant does not last. In so much as an infant must be exposed + that exposure occurs from their environment = timing of exposure does not matter as the problem is not "when" a child is exposed - but that they are exposed in the first place. 3 - Polio typically elicits what Salk alluded to. Some - REGARDLESS OF AGE OF EXPOSURE - will become infected yet will only incur mild symptoms. Some however will progress to the more severe form of the disease resulting in neurological involvement. Moral of the story: so the solution here was vaccination as the cause of Polio was infected people who contracted Poliovirus from their environment to re-contaminate the same. To assume an infant being exposed "hopefully" acquiring the mild form of Polio via maternal immunoglobulins lending to a possible reduction in incidence down the line is an unwarranted assumption. Despite improvements on sanitation Polio persisted. Upon the advent of a vaccine incidence of Polio dropped like a stone so that today is it virtually gone now from the world. "Wild" Polio today only exists in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan where conflict and the tribal nature of the areas prevent vaccination efforts. So the cure to Polio was never sanitation and it continued to persist before and after sanitation improved in many places. The cure was vaccination.
    1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289.  @gregjames9875  No response to what I noted huh. Accordingly I can deduce you have no understanding of microbiology - but I do. You have no understanding of physiology - and hence immunology or infectious disease pathophysiology.......but I do. No understanding of the nature of epidemiology either then........ = but I do. So the vaccines were created based upon the original variant of Covid = except it has mutated - and continues to do so. That of course can be commonplace for zoonotic viral pathogens such as represent about ~75% of the infectious diseases which afflict man. This means the current variants in circulation having mutated to alter their antigenic "protein spikes" now allow them to attach more readily to the various cellular membranes to infect those cells + to transfer their DNA better + and having picked up a Furin Cleavage Site to allow Furin which your body is chock full of and which acts upon proteins to facilitate said better binding to cells = generating an exponentially higher viral load as a response. More viruses in circulation = more antibodies required of a more accurate nature to counter that. Think guards. If you are attacked by 3 thugs - you respond by hiring 5 guards. If you are then attacked by 15 thugs...... = you need more guards - read antibodies. Still all is not lost. While the antibodies generated by the vaccines are not a perfect match they can still act to help attenuate the viral onslaught while the action of the vaccine in stimulating an immunological response helps to "prime" the immune system towards a similar invader upon exposure. So you may still catch Covid - with enough exposure - but you tend to get less sick because your immune system is already activated against a similar viral agent. Meanwhile as noted unvaccinated lacking that = are the easiest to infect and tend to shed the most viruses making them the main infectors of others. So even with a vaccine which is not "100% effective" at stopping infectious - an unrealistic expectation as noted = it can if enough are vaccinated still help to reduce local morbidity levels. Less infected = less transmission = eventually the chain of infection halts because = a virus can not maintain itself absent "a host". There is your free lesson on immunology and infectious disease epidemiology. Perhaps you should learn the science after all. 🤔
    1
  290. 1
  291.  @gregjames9875  Digging the hole deeper now I see. So now you rationalize the deaths of innocents whose only "crime" is getting older and often being exposed by selfish egocentric individuals who are loathe to seek genuine understanding and who suffer from a dearth of empathy for others. So here is a freebie for you: Benefits from Immunization During the Vaccines for Children Program Era — United States, 1994–2013 "To summarize the impact of the U.S. immunization program on the health of all children (both VFC-eligible and not VFC-eligible) who were born during the 20 years since VFC began, CDC used information on immunization coverage from the National Immunization Survey (NIS) and a previously published cost-benefit model to estimate illnesses, hospitalizations, and premature deaths prevented and costs saved by routine childhood vaccination during 1994–2013. Coverage for many childhood vaccine series was near or above 90% for much of the period. Modeling estimated that, among children born during 1994– 2013, vaccination will prevent an estimated 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations, and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, at a net savings of $295 billion in direct costs and $1.38 trillion in total societal costs. With support from the VFC program, immunization has been a highly effective tool for improving the health of U.S. children." Excerpt from an epidemiological report. As we see the "impact" of vaccine-preventable infectious diseases on society across the socioeconomic spectrum is not limited to the actual deaths they cause. They rather cost society writ large = a massive amount of money and resources dealing with all that illness as well as the direct impact of deaths - and people who do not die yet end up with lifelong health problems. So people as always only see what they want to see instead = of what is actually there before their eyes. Look harder.
    1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323.  @kevinstreeter6943  Anecdotal evidence = is merely evidence of anecdotes. So rather than "generalizing" so as to assume = educate yourself. Here is a freebie: Benefits from Immunization During the Vaccines for Children Program Era — United States, 1994–2013 "To summarize the impact of the U.S. immunization program on the health of all children (both VFC-eligible and not VFC-eligible) who were born during the 20 years since VFC began, CDC used information on immunization coverage from the National Immunization Survey (NIS) and a previously published cost-benefit model to estimate illnesses, hospitalizations, and premature deaths prevented and costs saved by routine childhood vaccination during 1994–2013. Coverage for many childhood vaccine series was near or above 90% for much of the period. Modeling estimated that, among children born during 1994– 2013, vaccination will prevent an estimated 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations, and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes, at a net savings of $295 billion in direct costs and $1.38 trillion in total societal costs. With support from the VFC program, immunization has been a highly effective tool for improving the health of U.S. children." Excerpt from epidemiological report - and evidence as to why anecdotes are of no value in consideration of impact of infectious diseases across the socioeconomic spectrum. It is not what "you see" = but what you do not that usually reflects the totality of a situation. As we see above those "innocuous" vaccine-preventable diseases are far more impactful than you assumed. It highlights what would have happened absent intervention of vaccination programs. Dig deeper. 🤔
    1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. Not necessarily. You are generalizing on what is actually a multi-factorial process. How long a countermeasure like a vaccine takes to develop is contingent upon what is known about the pathogen + how it acts in the body + and any previously existing technology which can be applied towards a new application. Here are 2 examples: 1 - the HIV virus attacks your immune system itself. You meanwhile rely upon that immune system = to defeat infectious pathogens. So it is exceedingly difficult to craft a vaccine - which requires your immune system to work - when what is being defended against disables that same immune system. Thus 40 years later = no viable HIV vaccine as yet. 2 - when the Model T Ford first came out it was years later before new model automobiles began to be produced. Today meanwhile mechanical engineers can push out new model cars sometimes every year or two = how??? Answer: by applying what was known from previous automobile technologies and adapting that to some new variation...........so it is with vaccines. Moral of the story: if you understand the structure of a virus and what part it uses to attack your cells - called antigens + you are able to replicate those in some form either via artificially reproducing them in a lab or modifying a "vector" via CRISPR to manifest those antigen structures = you can plug that into some "vaccine model" based upon previously proven vaccines to yield something which can work. They are not necessarily "starting from scratch" all the time you know. We've learned quite a bit about vaccine development the past 50+ years.
    1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. The only Covid vaccines which employ the actual Covid virus are the Indian and Sino ones which are "inactivated" - read a dead virus. So to answer your question = it depends upon what type of vaccine you are attempting to make as there are different "models". That is a good thing by the way as not all vaccine models are conducive to use everywhere. The mRNA vaccine models require special storage and handling requirements not plausible for use in say parts of Africa etc.. Meanwhile a simple inactive vaccine which can be stored for weeks in a home refrigerator is better suited for use in underdeveloped areas where infrastructure is lacking. Thus depending upon the type of vaccine determines what is required to generate it. There were already samples of the Covid virus available after it first was seen. Since then other variants are also identified and thus would also "be on ice". They are useful as far as learning the viral structure and testing of vaccines against it = but you do not need them to actually produce the recombinant DNA vaccines which are made via CRISPR. Only the inactive vaccines need the virus which is artificially replicated and used to create vaccine. The "modified vector vaccines" use an Adenovirus while the mRNA ones use the gene found in the Covid virus responsible for antigen creation which has been slightly modified to lessen its reaction by the body. To introduce raw mRNA into the body would trigger an inflammatory cascade by the immune system - aka "cytokinetic storm". So the strand has had some nucleotide analogs inserted into it so reduce the chances of that occurring and it as well is artificially reproduced in large amounts. It still is structurally similar and thus yields antibodies which match up to the actual Covid virus as evidenced by their high efficacy rating = 95%.
    1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1