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