ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

You're hung up on semantics and not science. This was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past. The lack of actual pathogen limited T cell inscription and we're discovering its long term efficacy in an active human trial. It has operated more like a therapeutic vaccine (limiting disease severity vs limiting infection and spread).

---

It was a completely novel approach in how the pathogenic material was presented to the immune system, but not a completely novel approach in using just a part of the disease-causing pathogen. Other vaccines that use just part of a pathogen (subunit vaccines) have been around for decades, so you are not correct when you say "[t]his was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past." Instead, it was a completely novel approach that did, in fact, operate like several other vaccines in the past.

---

Wrong. It skipped the pathogen part and used the body to mimic a specific antigen to generate an immune response. The problem is that the antigen was so specific (simple protein), unnatural (didn't act like the COVID protein because of the need for stability in replication), and absent a broader DNA profile of the pathogen that our T and B cell defenses struggled with even the simplest mutations and variants.

---

It is the "using the body" part that was novel. The hepatitis B vaccine does the same kind of thing except that it uses yeast instead of the body's own cells to create the surface protein for the body to recognize. For whatever reason, the Hepatitis B vaccine does not struggle to maintain its efficacy despite not having the "broader DNA profile of the pathogen." This would indicate that a vaccine does not always require the "broader DNA profile of the pathogen" to work well. Given that, one would suspect that the nature of the viruses rather than the nature of the vaccines is what accounts for the differences between the relative effectiveness of the those two vaccines.

---

Using the actual Hep B protein gene provides the full DNA profile. The yeast is simply the production catalyst/environment like chicken eggs for flu vaccine. The COVID vaccine isolated the spike protein RNA only not the full RNA pathogen profile. That part is also the novel part of this vaccine. (Edited above. Should have said RNA not DNA for COVID)

---

According to everything I have read, The Hep B vaccine does not contain hepatitis viral DNA. Nor does the NOVOVAX COVID vaccine contain COVID-19 DNA. Nor do protein-based flu vaccines contain the full DNA pathogen profile of influenza. Given those facts, this does not appear to be a novel part of the mRNA Covid vaccines.

---

It's in there. Never the full profile as that would be the equivalent of infection, but I used the term "broader" profile. They use several methods such as recombinant tech to present it, while weakening viral components that make it dangerous. And it's RNA in the case of diseases like Flu. COVID is an RNA virus, ala reason for my edit.

---

https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/types-of-vaccine

"Virus Like Particles

Virus-like particles (VLPs) are molecules that closely resemble viruses, but are non-infectious because they contain no viral genetic material. They can be naturally occurring or synthesized through the individual expression of viral structural proteins, which can then self-assemble into the virus-like structure. In some cases, the antigens in a VLP vaccine are the viral structural proteins themselves. Alternatively, the VLPs can be manufactured to present antigens from another pathogen on the surface, or even multiple pathogens at once. As each VLP has multiple copies of an antigen on its surface it is more effective at stimulating an immune response that a single copy. In some cases, the structural proteins of the VLP can act as adjuvants, helping to strengthen the immune response to the primary target antigen.
A handful of VLP-based vaccines are currently used worldwide:
Hepatitis B vaccine
HPV vaccine"

Where are you finding something different?

---

VLPs are the structures used to deliver things like the HepB antigen. So right there in what you quoted. I guess think of them as the vessel of delivering the broader viral information into these types of vaccines. Thus again making the way the mRNA vaccine is delivered novel.

Our T and B cells destroy and log everything within pathogens, bacteria, etc. and vaccine components. The more it has the better it can recognize not just the primary, but be ready for other variants. It's really amazing what our bodies can do naturally.

But if you need a direct quote source.

Quote:

---

Structural classification of VLPs

VLPs are formed by spontaneous interaction between one or more viral structural capsid proteins to form the final structure. VLPs are structurally and visually similar to live viruses but lack either a complete virus genome or lack the entire virus genome. The variety of structures adopted by different VLPs makes them structurally and functionally attractive.

---

https://jnanobiotechnology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12951-021-00806-7#:~:text=Viral%2Dlike%20particles%20(VLPs),plants%2C%20insects%2C%20and%20bacteria.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

A lot of talk about bringing masks back to fight long covid going on in legacy media right now.

The vaccines were so effective we need to bring back masks. Make it make sense.

---

How is anything going to make sense if you won't accept simple math? Not to pick on you, but your latest retweet is a perfect example of the blind leading the blind on this thread. The fact that a majority of deaths may be among vaccinated people means nothing by itself. If you vaccinated every person with a drug that was 99.9 percent effective, 100 percent of Covid victims would be vaccinated. This is basic stuff, not something that people with college degrees should even be arguing about. We should argue about things like lockdown policy and vaccine mandates, of course, but all in the context of a shared reality. There's little time for productive debate if we can't agree that 2+2=4.

Serious question. It's been almost three years -- is there some point where you start to work out the basics? Or do you just keep reacting to random social media accounts that appear to confirm you biases?

---

I'm talking about masks....

Its been three years of lies about the effectiveness of these vaccines and three years of masking.

I was right about them never coming off. It doesn't take much to realize western elites want to control the west just like China controls it's people.

---

We are in great company alongside thriving democracies like North Korea and Turkmenistan! Follow the science 🤡 https://t.co/0AUSHIW2CG

— Christina Pushaw 🐊 🇺🇸 (@ChristinaPushaw) November 28, 2022

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

You're hung up on semantics and not science. This was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past. The lack of actual pathogen limited T cell inscription and we're discovering its long term efficacy in an active human trial. It has operated more like a therapeutic vaccine (limiting disease severity vs limiting infection and spread).

---

It was a completely novel approach in how the pathogenic material was presented to the immune system, but not a completely novel approach in using just a part of the disease-causing pathogen. Other vaccines that use just part of a pathogen (subunit vaccines) have been around for decades, so you are not correct when you say "[t]his was a completely novel approach that doesn't operate like any vaccines in the past." Instead, it was a completely novel approach that did, in fact, operate like several other vaccines in the past.

---

Wrong. It skipped the pathogen part and used the body to mimic a specific antigen to generate an immune response. The problem is that the antigen was so specific (simple protein), unnatural (didn't act like the COVID protein because of the need for stability in replication), and absent a broader DNA profile of the pathogen that our T and B cell defenses struggled with even the simplest mutations and variants.

---

It is the "using the body" part that was novel. The hepatitis B vaccine does the same kind of thing except that it uses yeast instead of the body's own cells to create the surface protein for the body to recognize. For whatever reason, the Hepatitis B vaccine does not struggle to maintain its efficacy despite not having the "broader DNA profile of the pathogen." This would indicate that a vaccine does not always require the "broader DNA profile of the pathogen" to work well. Given that, one would suspect that the nature of the viruses rather than the nature of the vaccines is what accounts for the differences between the relative effectiveness of the those two vaccines.

---

Using the actual Hep B protein gene provides the full DNA profile. The yeast is simply the production catalyst/environment like chicken eggs for flu vaccine. The COVID vaccine isolated the spike protein RNA only not the full RNA pathogen profile. That part is also the novel part of this vaccine. (Edited above. Should have said RNA not DNA for COVID)

---

According to everything I have read, The Hep B vaccine does not contain hepatitis viral DNA. Nor does the NOVOVAX COVID vaccine contain COVID-19 DNA. Nor do protein-based flu vaccines contain the full DNA pathogen profile of influenza. Given those facts, this does not appear to be a novel part of the mRNA Covid vaccines.

---

It's in there. Never the full profile as that would be the equivalent of infection, but I used the term "broader" profile. They use several methods such as recombinant tech to present it, while weakening viral components that make it dangerous. And it's RNA in the case of diseases like Flu. COVID is an RNA virus, ala reason for my edit.

---

https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/types-of-vaccine

"Virus Like Particles

Virus-like particles (VLPs) are molecules that closely resemble viruses, but are non-infectious because they contain no viral genetic material. They can be naturally occurring or synthesized through the individual expression of viral structural proteins, which can then self-assemble into the virus-like structure. In some cases, the antigens in a VLP vaccine are the viral structural proteins themselves. Alternatively, the VLPs can be manufactured to present antigens from another pathogen on the surface, or even multiple pathogens at once. As each VLP has multiple copies of an antigen on its surface it is more effective at stimulating an immune response that a single copy. In some cases, the structural proteins of the VLP can act as adjuvants, helping to strengthen the immune response to the primary target antigen.
A handful of VLP-based vaccines are currently used worldwide:
Hepatitis B vaccine
HPV vaccine"

Where are you finding something different?

---

VLPs are the structures used to deliver things like the HepB antigen. So right there in what you quoted. I guess think of them as the vessel of delivering the broader viral information into these types of vaccines. Thus again making the way the mRNA vaccine is delivered novel.

Our T and B cells destroy and log everything within pathogens, bacteria, etc. and vaccine components. The more it has the better it can recognize not just the primary, but be ready for other variants. It's really amazing what our bodies can do naturally.

But if you need a direct quote source.

Quote:

---

Structural classification of VLPs

VLPs are formed by spontaneous interaction between one or more viral structural capsid proteins to form the final structure. VLPs are structurally and visually similar to live viruses but lack either a complete virus genome or lack the entire virus genome. The variety of structures adopted by different VLPs makes them structurally and functionally attractive.

---

https://jnanobiotechnology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12951-021-00806-7#:~:text=Viral%2Dlike%20particles%20(VLPs),plants%2C%20insects%2C%20and%20bacteria.

---

It makes sense that a whole pathogen vaccine would provide broader protection, but I am still not seeing a difference in how the immune system responds to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines vs a protein subunit vaccine where the protein is produced outside the body.

The way it is delivered is novel, but what it presents to the immune system isn't.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. You can't even address the actual topic. I'm literally making the efficacy argument. I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. You can't even address the actual topic. I'm literally making the efficacy argument. I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide.

---

You've made the efficacy argument before, and not well. What you're doing now is retreating to a definitional argument based on an ever-expanding collection of technical minutiae that you hope will somehow, eventually, distinguish the drug from a true vaccine. The problem is that your definition doesn't exist. It has no currency except in the world of the anti-vaxxers who made it up about ten minutes ago.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. You can't even address the actual topic. I'm literally making the efficacy argument. I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide.

---

You've made the efficacy argument before, and not well. What you're doing now is retreating to a definitional argument based on an ever-expanding collection of technical minutiae that you hope will somehow, eventually, distinguish the drug from a true vaccine. The problem is that your definition doesn't exist. It has no currency except in the world of the anti-vaxxers who made it up about ten minutes ago.

---

No, just making the case as to why the vax didn't work as you and so many others thought it would. I'm offering and have offered technical explanations as to the reasons why it possibly didn't. You spend your responses doing mental origami and parroting talking points because you don't understand math or the subject. You're emotionally vested for some unknown reason. It was a brand new approach and we didn't know what would happen over a normal development time frame. The active human trial and data are bearing out the realities. I believe we can do better. I'm not anti vaccines, I'm pro better vaccines and therapeutics. You want to shill for a sub par product, so keep grinding Sam.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. You can't even address the actual topic. I'm literally making the efficacy argument. I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide.

---

You've made the efficacy argument before, and not well. What you're doing now is retreating to a definitional argument based on an ever-expanding collection of technical minutiae that you hope will somehow, eventually, distinguish the drug from a true vaccine. The problem is that your definition doesn't exist. It has no currency except in the world of the anti-vaxxers who made it up about ten minutes ago.

---

No, just making the case as to why the vax didn't work as you and so many others thought it would. I'm offering and have offered technical explanations as to the reasons why it possibly didn't. You spend your responses doing mental origami and parroting talking points because you don't understand math or the subject. You're emotionally vested for some unknown reason. It was a brand new approach and we didn't know what would happen over a normal development time frame. The active human trial and data are bearing out the realities. I believe we can do better. I'm not anti vaccines, I'm pro better vaccines and therapeutics. You want to shill for a sub par product, so keep grinding Sam.

---

I want better vaccines too. You are unlikely to get them if you're constantly narrowing the definition to suit a political agenda.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. You can't even address the actual topic. I'm literally making the efficacy argument. I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide.

---

You've made the efficacy argument before, and not well. What you're doing now is retreating to a definitional argument based on an ever-expanding collection of technical minutiae that you hope will somehow, eventually, distinguish the drug from a true vaccine. The problem is that your definition doesn't exist. It has no currency except in the world of the anti-vaxxers who made it up about ten minutes ago.

---

No, just making the case as to why the vax didn't work as you and so many others thought it would. I'm offering and have offered technical explanations as to the reasons why it possibly didn't. You spend your responses doing mental origami and parroting talking points because you don't understand math or the subject. You're emotionally vested for some unknown reason. It was a brand new approach and we didn't know what would happen over a normal development time frame. The active human trial and data are bearing out the realities. I believe we can do better. I'm not anti vaccines, I'm pro better vaccines and therapeutics. You want to shill for a sub par product, so keep grinding Sam.

---

I want better vaccines too. You are unlikely to get them if you're constantly narrowing the definition to suit a political agenda.

---

I narrowed the definition to the mRNA approach (which was the first time ever) didn't work as anticipated and here are the likely medical/scientific reasons why. If that's political I don't know what to tell you.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "it worked better than anticipated"

Sam's Whopper is not as fresh or appetizing as the one from Burger King,

But it's way more expensive.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "it worked better than anticipated"

Sam's Whopper is not as fresh or appetizing as the one from Burger King,

But it's way more expensive.

---

I guess that depends on who is doing the anticipating. Certainly, they did work better than a lot of people anticipated.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "it worked better than anticipated"

Sam's Whopper is not as fresh or appetizing as the one from Burger King,

But it's way more expensive.

---

I guess that depends on who is doing the anticipating. Certainly, they did work better than a lot of people anticipated.

---

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDyfa-gIQOWzlo1KhbpLH6ehgOBYg9Kd01AA&usqp=CAU

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. You can't even address the actual topic. I'm literally making the efficacy argument. I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide.

---

You've made the efficacy argument before, and not well. What you're doing now is retreating to a definitional argument based on an ever-expanding collection of technical minutiae that you hope will somehow, eventually, distinguish the drug from a true vaccine. The problem is that your definition doesn't exist. It has no currency except in the world of the anti-vaxxers who made it up about ten minutes ago.

---

No, just making the case as to why the vax didn't work as you and so many others thought it would. I'm offering and have offered technical explanations as to the reasons why it possibly didn't. You spend your responses doing mental origami and parroting talking points because you don't understand math or the subject. You're emotionally vested for some unknown reason. It was a brand new approach and we didn't know what would happen over a normal development time frame. The active human trial and data are bearing out the realities. I believe we can do better. I'm not anti vaccines, I'm pro better vaccines and therapeutics. You want to shill for a sub par product, so keep grinding Sam.

---

I want better vaccines too. You are unlikely to get them if you're constantly narrowing the definition to suit a political agenda.

---

I narrowed the definition to the mRNA approach (which was the first time ever) didn't work as anticipated and here are the likely medical/scientific reasons why. If that's political I don't know what to tell you.

---

Except that it worked better than anticipated. There was never any guarantee that the Covid vaccine would remain effective through multiple seasons and viral variants. There was never any guarantee of 50 percent effectiveness, much less the 90 percent that was actually achieved. If you got your last flu shot a year or two ago, and you got flu this year, would you call the vaccine "sub-par?" Not without politics, you wouldn't.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam "it worked better than anticipated"

Sam's Whopper is not as fresh or appetizing as the one from Burger King,

But it's way more expensive.

---

I guess that depends on who is doing the anticipating. Certainly, they did work better than a lot of people anticipated.

---

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDyfa-gIQOWzlo1KhbpLH6ehgOBYg9Kd01AA&usqp=CAU

---

Sorry, but the vaccines worked better than the makers expected to the point they were stunned by the trial data. Go look at the contemporary reports. There was also a lot of speculation at the time, and before the vaccines were developed, about the virus mutating and becoming resistant to vaccines (as coronavirus viruses do tend to mutate quite a bit). Time did bear that out. As the virus mutated, the vaccines became less effective at preventing illness. None of this was hidden at the time.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. You can't even address the actual topic. I'm literally making the efficacy argument. I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide.

---

You've made the efficacy argument before, and not well. What you're doing now is retreating to a definitional argument based on an ever-expanding collection of technical minutiae that you hope will somehow, eventually, distinguish the drug from a true vaccine. The problem is that your definition doesn't exist. It has no currency except in the world of the anti-vaxxers who made it up about ten minutes ago.

---

No, just making the case as to why the vax didn't work as you and so many others thought it would. I'm offering and have offered technical explanations as to the reasons why it possibly didn't. You spend your responses doing mental origami and parroting talking points because you don't understand math or the subject. You're emotionally vested for some unknown reason. It was a brand new approach and we didn't know what would happen over a normal development time frame. The active human trial and data are bearing out the realities. I believe we can do better. I'm not anti vaccines, I'm pro better vaccines and therapeutics. You want to shill for a sub par product, so keep grinding Sam.

---

I want better vaccines too. You are unlikely to get them if you're constantly narrowing the definition to suit a political agenda.

---

I narrowed the definition to the mRNA approach (which was the first time ever) didn't work as anticipated and here are the likely medical/scientific reasons why. If that's political I don't know what to tell you.

---

Except that it worked better than anticipated. There was never any guarantee that the Covid vaccine would remain effective through multiple seasons and viral variants. There was never any guarantee of 50 percent effectiveness, much less the 90 percent that was actually achieved. If you got your last flu shot a year or two ago, and you got flu this year, would you call the vaccine "sub-par?" Not without politics, you wouldn't.

---

We don't even know how well it worked because we're still in a live human trial. And the longer term results have shifted far from not just initial expectations, but future utilization. The deadliest period of COVID occurred 3-6 months AFTER vaccines. I would be satisfied if it actually had a flu vaccine level of performance but the curve never flattened in infection or spread.

The problem is it's you who plays the politics. Like this 90% percent effectiveness is an absolute joke of an assertion. To flip your question, if you took a vaccine and 3 months later you got the virus it was protecting you from, would you call that a successful vaccine? That literally happened to millions of people around the world. If you're so inclined, research how minimal the mutation was between Delta and Alpha strains or even Alpha and Omicron. It's frightening how ineffective the vaccine was against such a minimal genomic change. The flu goes through much more complicated mutations all the time.

The earlier studies are continuing to get blown out of the water as we have greater visibility to longer term performance. And the nature of the vaccine combined with the nature of COVID mutation makes it nearly impossible to stay ahead of strains. Omicron boosters just recently came out but omicron peaked 6-8 months ago.

You really don't want a better vaccine. You want to argue for this one, and your credulity seems to have no bounds in defending it. That's the classic ideologue approach.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. You can't even address the actual topic. I'm literally making the efficacy argument. I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide.

---

You've made the efficacy argument before, and not well. What you're doing now is retreating to a definitional argument based on an ever-expanding collection of technical minutiae that you hope will somehow, eventually, distinguish the drug from a true vaccine. The problem is that your definition doesn't exist. It has no currency except in the world of the anti-vaxxers who made it up about ten minutes ago.

---

No, just making the case as to why the vax didn't work as you and so many others thought it would. I'm offering and have offered technical explanations as to the reasons why it possibly didn't. You spend your responses doing mental origami and parroting talking points because you don't understand math or the subject. You're emotionally vested for some unknown reason. It was a brand new approach and we didn't know what would happen over a normal development time frame. The active human trial and data are bearing out the realities. I believe we can do better. I'm not anti vaccines, I'm pro better vaccines and therapeutics. You want to shill for a sub par product, so keep grinding Sam.

---

I want better vaccines too. You are unlikely to get them if you're constantly narrowing the definition to suit a political agenda.

---

I narrowed the definition to the mRNA approach (which was the first time ever) didn't work as anticipated and here are the likely medical/scientific reasons why. If that's political I don't know what to tell you.

---

Except that it worked better than anticipated. There was never any guarantee that the Covid vaccine would remain effective through multiple seasons and viral variants. There was never any guarantee of 50 percent effectiveness, much less the 90 percent that was actually achieved. If you got your last flu shot a year or two ago, and you got flu this year, would you call the vaccine "sub-par?" Not without politics, you wouldn't.

---

We don't even know how well it worked because we're still in a live human trial. And the longer term results have shifted far from not just initial expectations, but future utilization. The deadliest period of COVID occurred 3-6 months AFTER vaccines. I would be satisfied if it actually had a flu vaccine level of performance but the curve never flattened in infection or spread.

The problem is it's you who plays the politics. Like this 90% percent effectiveness is an absolute joke of an assertion. To flip your question, if you took a vaccine and 3 months later you got the virus it was protecting you from, would you call that a successful vaccine? That literally happened to millions of people around the world. If you're so inclined, research how minimal the mutation was between Delta and Alpha strains or even Alpha and Omicron. It's frightening how ineffective the vaccine was against such a minimal genomic change. The flu goes through much more complicated mutations all the time.

The earlier studies are continuing to get blown out of the water as we have greater visibility to longer term performance. And the nature of the vaccine combined with the nature of COVID mutation makes it nearly impossible to stay ahead of strains. Omicron boosters just recently came out but omicron peaked 6-8 months ago.

You really don't want a better vaccine. You want to argue for this one, and your credulity seems to have no bounds in defending it. That's the classic ideologue approach.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Seems to me that the vaccine did not work as promised. Do I really need to post quotes from the people saying you would not get Covid if you got the vaccine?

And sorry, since the CDC and other 'experts' did not downplay the promises from politicians about what the vaccines would do, they are for all practical purposes standing behind the politicians.

That does not mean we should trash the vaccines as useless, but pretending they were better than expected would be a lie, no matter how that claim is couched. It would be honest to say that the vaccines performed well, given the rush to get something out as soon as possible, but that is just not what those people are saying.

Even with legal immunity, the 'experts' refuse to admit errors and mistakes, even when admitting them would help them gain credibility with a public which right now does not trust anything they say.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. You can't even address the actual topic. I'm literally making the efficacy argument. I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide.

---

You've made the efficacy argument before, and not well. What you're doing now is retreating to a definitional argument based on an ever-expanding collection of technical minutiae that you hope will somehow, eventually, distinguish the drug from a true vaccine. The problem is that your definition doesn't exist. It has no currency except in the world of the anti-vaxxers who made it up about ten minutes ago.

---

No, just making the case as to why the vax didn't work as you and so many others thought it would. I'm offering and have offered technical explanations as to the reasons why it possibly didn't. You spend your responses doing mental origami and parroting talking points because you don't understand math or the subject. You're emotionally vested for some unknown reason. It was a brand new approach and we didn't know what would happen over a normal development time frame. The active human trial and data are bearing out the realities. I believe we can do better. I'm not anti vaccines, I'm pro better vaccines and therapeutics. You want to shill for a sub par product, so keep grinding Sam.

---

I want better vaccines too. You are unlikely to get them if you're constantly narrowing the definition to suit a political agenda.

---

I narrowed the definition to the mRNA approach (which was the first time ever) didn't work as anticipated and here are the likely medical/scientific reasons why. If that's political I don't know what to tell you.

---

Except that it worked better than anticipated. There was never any guarantee that the Covid vaccine would remain effective through multiple seasons and viral variants. There was never any guarantee of 50 percent effectiveness, much less the 90 percent that was actually achieved. If you got your last flu shot a year or two ago, and you got flu this year, would you call the vaccine "sub-par?" Not without politics, you wouldn't.

---

We don't even know how well it worked because we're still in a live human trial. And the longer term results have shifted far from not just initial expectations, but future utilization. The deadliest period of COVID occurred 3-6 months AFTER vaccines. I would be satisfied if it actually had a flu vaccine level of performance but the curve never flattened in infection or spread.

The problem is it's you who plays the politics. Like this 90% percent effectiveness is an absolute joke of an assertion. To flip your question, if you took a vaccine and 3 months later you got the virus it was protecting you from, would you call that a successful vaccine? That literally happened to millions of people around the world. If you're so inclined, research how minimal the mutation was between Delta and Alpha strains or even Alpha and Omicron. It's frightening how ineffective the vaccine was against such a minimal genomic change. The flu goes through much more complicated mutations all the time.

The earlier studies are continuing to get blown out of the water as we have greater visibility to longer term performance. And the nature of the vaccine combined with the nature of COVID mutation makes it nearly impossible to stay ahead of strains. Omicron boosters just recently came out but omicron peaked 6-8 months ago.

You really don't want a better vaccine. You want to argue for this one, and your credulity seems to have no bounds in defending it. That's the classic ideologue approach.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. You can't even address the actual topic. I'm literally making the efficacy argument. I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide.

---

You've made the efficacy argument before, and not well. What you're doing now is retreating to a definitional argument based on an ever-expanding collection of technical minutiae that you hope will somehow, eventually, distinguish the drug from a true vaccine. The problem is that your definition doesn't exist. It has no currency except in the world of the anti-vaxxers who made it up about ten minutes ago.

---

No, just making the case as to why the vax didn't work as you and so many others thought it would. I'm offering and have offered technical explanations as to the reasons why it possibly didn't. You spend your responses doing mental origami and parroting talking points because you don't understand math or the subject. You're emotionally vested for some unknown reason. It was a brand new approach and we didn't know what would happen over a normal development time frame. The active human trial and data are bearing out the realities. I believe we can do better. I'm not anti vaccines, I'm pro better vaccines and therapeutics. You want to shill for a sub par product, so keep grinding Sam.

---

I want better vaccines too. You are unlikely to get them if you're constantly narrowing the definition to suit a political agenda.

---

I narrowed the definition to the mRNA approach (which was the first time ever) didn't work as anticipated and here are the likely medical/scientific reasons why. If that's political I don't know what to tell you.

---

Except that it worked better than anticipated. There was never any guarantee that the Covid vaccine would remain effective through multiple seasons and viral variants. There was never any guarantee of 50 percent effectiveness, much less the 90 percent that was actually achieved. If you got your last flu shot a year or two ago, and you got flu this year, would you call the vaccine "sub-par?" Not without politics, you wouldn't.

---

We don't even know how well it worked because we're still in a live human trial. And the longer term results have shifted far from not just initial expectations, but future utilization. The deadliest period of COVID occurred 3-6 months AFTER vaccines. I would be satisfied if it actually had a flu vaccine level of performance but the curve never flattened in infection or spread.

The problem is it's you who plays the politics. Like this 90% percent effectiveness is an absolute joke of an assertion. To flip your question, if you took a vaccine and 3 months later you got the virus it was protecting you from, would you call that a successful vaccine? That literally happened to millions of people around the world. If you're so inclined, research how minimal the mutation was between Delta and Alpha strains or even Alpha and Omicron. It's frightening how ineffective the vaccine was against such a minimal genomic change. The flu goes through much more complicated mutations all the time.

The earlier studies are continuing to get blown out of the water as we have greater visibility to longer term performance. And the nature of the vaccine combined with the nature of COVID mutation makes it nearly impossible to stay ahead of strains. Omicron boosters just recently came out but omicron peaked 6-8 months ago.

You really don't want a better vaccine. You want to argue for this one, and your credulity seems to have no bounds in defending it. That's the classic ideologue approach.

---

Please tell me the specific dates you are talking about "3-6 months AFTER vaccines."

If I personally took a vaccine and three months later got the virus it was protecting from, that would not be relevant information for determining whether the vaccine was successful. I would still have to look at data in the aggregate and consider different rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

Saying that I "don't want a better vaccine" is just stupid on your part.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. You can't even address the actual topic. I'm literally making the efficacy argument. I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide.

---

You've made the efficacy argument before, and not well. What you're doing now is retreating to a definitional argument based on an ever-expanding collection of technical minutiae that you hope will somehow, eventually, distinguish the drug from a true vaccine. The problem is that your definition doesn't exist. It has no currency except in the world of the anti-vaxxers who made it up about ten minutes ago.

---

No, just making the case as to why the vax didn't work as you and so many others thought it would. I'm offering and have offered technical explanations as to the reasons why it possibly didn't. You spend your responses doing mental origami and parroting talking points because you don't understand math or the subject. You're emotionally vested for some unknown reason. It was a brand new approach and we didn't know what would happen over a normal development time frame. The active human trial and data are bearing out the realities. I believe we can do better. I'm not anti vaccines, I'm pro better vaccines and therapeutics. You want to shill for a sub par product, so keep grinding Sam.

---

I want better vaccines too. You are unlikely to get them if you're constantly narrowing the definition to suit a political agenda.

---

I narrowed the definition to the mRNA approach (which was the first time ever) didn't work as anticipated and here are the likely medical/scientific reasons why. If that's political I don't know what to tell you.

---

Except that it worked better than anticipated. There was never any guarantee that the Covid vaccine would remain effective through multiple seasons and viral variants. There was never any guarantee of 50 percent effectiveness, much less the 90 percent that was actually achieved. If you got your last flu shot a year or two ago, and you got flu this year, would you call the vaccine "sub-par?" Not without politics, you wouldn't.

---

We don't even know how well it worked because we're still in a live human trial. And the longer term results have shifted far from not just initial expectations, but future utilization. The deadliest period of COVID occurred 3-6 months AFTER vaccines. I would be satisfied if it actually had a flu vaccine level of performance but the curve never flattened in infection or spread.

The problem is it's you who plays the politics. Like this 90% percent effectiveness is an absolute joke of an assertion. To flip your question, if you took a vaccine and 3 months later you got the virus it was protecting you from, would you call that a successful vaccine? That literally happened to millions of people around the world. If you're so inclined, research how minimal the mutation was between Delta and Alpha strains or even Alpha and Omicron. It's frightening how ineffective the vaccine was against such a minimal genomic change. The flu goes through much more complicated mutations all the time.

The earlier studies are continuing to get blown out of the water as we have greater visibility to longer term performance. And the nature of the vaccine combined with the nature of COVID mutation makes it nearly impossible to stay ahead of strains. Omicron boosters just recently came out but omicron peaked 6-8 months ago.

You really don't want a better vaccine. You want to argue for this one, and your credulity seems to have no bounds in defending it. That's the classic ideologue approach.

---

You've been invested in the failure of these vaccines since before they were even invented. You rejected the whole idea of a coronavirus vaccine because you saw it as an incentive for lockdowns and other policies that you don't like. That political agenda is what's led you down countless scientific rabbit trails, through statistical interpretations ranging from the dubious to the absurd, and finally to social media tropes that border on outright hoax-mongering.

To answer your question, if I got sick after three months but the data showed the vaccine to be 90 percent successful, then of course I would consider it successful. I'd be a fool not to. Likewise, if I got sick a year after my last shot, I'd be a fool to blame the vaccine.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. You can't even address the actual topic. I'm literally making the efficacy argument. I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide.

---

You've made the efficacy argument before, and not well. What you're doing now is retreating to a definitional argument based on an ever-expanding collection of technical minutiae that you hope will somehow, eventually, distinguish the drug from a true vaccine. The problem is that your definition doesn't exist. It has no currency except in the world of the anti-vaxxers who made it up about ten minutes ago.

---

No, just making the case as to why the vax didn't work as you and so many others thought it would. I'm offering and have offered technical explanations as to the reasons why it possibly didn't. You spend your responses doing mental origami and parroting talking points because you don't understand math or the subject. You're emotionally vested for some unknown reason. It was a brand new approach and we didn't know what would happen over a normal development time frame. The active human trial and data are bearing out the realities. I believe we can do better. I'm not anti vaccines, I'm pro better vaccines and therapeutics. You want to shill for a sub par product, so keep grinding Sam.

---

I want better vaccines too. You are unlikely to get them if you're constantly narrowing the definition to suit a political agenda.

---

I narrowed the definition to the mRNA approach (which was the first time ever) didn't work as anticipated and here are the likely medical/scientific reasons why. If that's political I don't know what to tell you.

---

Except that it worked better than anticipated. There was never any guarantee that the Covid vaccine would remain effective through multiple seasons and viral variants. There was never any guarantee of 50 percent effectiveness, much less the 90 percent that was actually achieved. If you got your last flu shot a year or two ago, and you got flu this year, would you call the vaccine "sub-par?" Not without politics, you wouldn't.

---

We don't even know how well it worked because we're still in a live human trial. And the longer term results have shifted far from not just initial expectations, but future utilization. The deadliest period of COVID occurred 3-6 months AFTER vaccines. I would be satisfied if it actually had a flu vaccine level of performance but the curve never flattened in infection or spread.

The problem is it's you who plays the politics. Like this 90% percent effectiveness is an absolute joke of an assertion. To flip your question, if you took a vaccine and 3 months later you got the virus it was protecting you from, would you call that a successful vaccine? That literally happened to millions of people around the world. If you're so inclined, research how minimal the mutation was between Delta and Alpha strains or even Alpha and Omicron. It's frightening how ineffective the vaccine was against such a minimal genomic change. The flu goes through much more complicated mutations all the time.

The earlier studies are continuing to get blown out of the water as we have greater visibility to longer term performance. And the nature of the vaccine combined with the nature of COVID mutation makes it nearly impossible to stay ahead of strains. Omicron boosters just recently came out but omicron peaked 6-8 months ago.

You really don't want a better vaccine. You want to argue for this one, and your credulity seems to have no bounds in defending it. That's the classic ideologue approach.

---

You've been invested in the failure of these vaccines since before they were even invented. You rejected the whole idea of a coronavirus vaccine because you saw it as an incentive for lockdowns and other policies that you don't like. That political agenda is what's led you down countless scientific rabbit trails, through statistical interpretations ranging from the dubious to the absurd, and finally to social media tropes that border on outright hoax-mongering.

To answer your question, if I got sick after three months but the data showed the vaccine to be 90 percent successful, then of course I would consider it successful. I'd be a fool not to. Likewise, if I got sick a year after my last shot, I'd be a fool to blame the vaccine.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. You can't even address the actual topic. I'm literally making the efficacy argument. I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide.

---

You've made the efficacy argument before, and not well. What you're doing now is retreating to a definitional argument based on an ever-expanding collection of technical minutiae that you hope will somehow, eventually, distinguish the drug from a true vaccine. The problem is that your definition doesn't exist. It has no currency except in the world of the anti-vaxxers who made it up about ten minutes ago.

---

No, just making the case as to why the vax didn't work as you and so many others thought it would. I'm offering and have offered technical explanations as to the reasons why it possibly didn't. You spend your responses doing mental origami and parroting talking points because you don't understand math or the subject. You're emotionally vested for some unknown reason. It was a brand new approach and we didn't know what would happen over a normal development time frame. The active human trial and data are bearing out the realities. I believe we can do better. I'm not anti vaccines, I'm pro better vaccines and therapeutics. You want to shill for a sub par product, so keep grinding Sam.

---

I want better vaccines too. You are unlikely to get them if you're constantly narrowing the definition to suit a political agenda.

---

I narrowed the definition to the mRNA approach (which was the first time ever) didn't work as anticipated and here are the likely medical/scientific reasons why. If that's political I don't know what to tell you.

---

Except that it worked better than anticipated. There was never any guarantee that the Covid vaccine would remain effective through multiple seasons and viral variants. There was never any guarantee of 50 percent effectiveness, much less the 90 percent that was actually achieved. If you got your last flu shot a year or two ago, and you got flu this year, would you call the vaccine "sub-par?" Not without politics, you wouldn't.

---

We don't even know how well it worked because we're still in a live human trial. And the longer term results have shifted far from not just initial expectations, but future utilization. The deadliest period of COVID occurred 3-6 months AFTER vaccines. I would be satisfied if it actually had a flu vaccine level of performance but the curve never flattened in infection or spread.

The problem is it's you who plays the politics. Like this 90% percent effectiveness is an absolute joke of an assertion. To flip your question, if you took a vaccine and 3 months later you got the virus it was protecting you from, would you call that a successful vaccine? That literally happened to millions of people around the world. If you're so inclined, research how minimal the mutation was between Delta and Alpha strains or even Alpha and Omicron. It's frightening how ineffective the vaccine was against such a minimal genomic change. The flu goes through much more complicated mutations all the time.

The earlier studies are continuing to get blown out of the water as we have greater visibility to longer term performance. And the nature of the vaccine combined with the nature of COVID mutation makes it nearly impossible to stay ahead of strains. Omicron boosters just recently came out but omicron peaked 6-8 months ago.

You really don't want a better vaccine. You want to argue for this one, and your credulity seems to have no bounds in defending it. That's the classic ideologue approach.

---

You've been invested in the failure of these vaccines since before they were even invented. You rejected the whole idea of a coronavirus vaccine because you saw it as an incentive for lockdowns and other policies that you don't like. That political agenda is what's led you down countless scientific rabbit trails, through statistical interpretations ranging from the dubious to the absurd, and finally to social media tropes that border on outright hoax-mongering.

To answer your question, if I got sick after three months but the data showed the vaccine to be 90 percent successful, then of course I would consider it successful. I'd be a fool not to. Likewise, if I got sick a year after my last shot, I'd be a fool to blame the vaccine.

---

You have me confused with some others you're arguing with. I'm vaxxed and have had a booster. Of course I thought the approaches to remedy were absurd, as they turned out to be. Once the virus was aerosolized, especially a highly infectious coronavirus, they were futile. I was angered at the lack of strategy by not addressing the specifically vulnerable. You have an ax to grind on that. You simply don't like what the data shows, and/or don't understand how to evaluate the root, like getting embarrassed on that Arizona school study.

You are the one who continues to parrot failed studies that don't match reality and when you've been called out on it, you fall back into "you're an anti vax nut". At some point people have to have the hard conversations about what happened so we don't do what governments always do in situations like these, and that is default to precedent and power.

You're claiming to be 90% protected from something you don't need protection against.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. You can't even address the actual topic. I'm literally making the efficacy argument. I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide.

---

You've made the efficacy argument before, and not well. What you're doing now is retreating to a definitional argument based on an ever-expanding collection of technical minutiae that you hope will somehow, eventually, distinguish the drug from a true vaccine. The problem is that your definition doesn't exist. It has no currency except in the world of the anti-vaxxers who made it up about ten minutes ago.

---

No, just making the case as to why the vax didn't work as you and so many others thought it would. I'm offering and have offered technical explanations as to the reasons why it possibly didn't. You spend your responses doing mental origami and parroting talking points because you don't understand math or the subject. You're emotionally vested for some unknown reason. It was a brand new approach and we didn't know what would happen over a normal development time frame. The active human trial and data are bearing out the realities. I believe we can do better. I'm not anti vaccines, I'm pro better vaccines and therapeutics. You want to shill for a sub par product, so keep grinding Sam.

---

I want better vaccines too. You are unlikely to get them if you're constantly narrowing the definition to suit a political agenda.

---

I narrowed the definition to the mRNA approach (which was the first time ever) didn't work as anticipated and here are the likely medical/scientific reasons why. If that's political I don't know what to tell you.

---

Except that it worked better than anticipated. There was never any guarantee that the Covid vaccine would remain effective through multiple seasons and viral variants. There was never any guarantee of 50 percent effectiveness, much less the 90 percent that was actually achieved. If you got your last flu shot a year or two ago, and you got flu this year, would you call the vaccine "sub-par?" Not without politics, you wouldn't.

---

We don't even know how well it worked because we're still in a live human trial. And the longer term results have shifted far from not just initial expectations, but future utilization. The deadliest period of COVID occurred 3-6 months AFTER vaccines. I would be satisfied if it actually had a flu vaccine level of performance but the curve never flattened in infection or spread.

The problem is it's you who plays the politics. Like this 90% percent effectiveness is an absolute joke of an assertion. To flip your question, if you took a vaccine and 3 months later you got the virus it was protecting you from, would you call that a successful vaccine? That literally happened to millions of people around the world. If you're so inclined, research how minimal the mutation was between Delta and Alpha strains or even Alpha and Omicron. It's frightening how ineffective the vaccine was against such a minimal genomic change. The flu goes through much more complicated mutations all the time.

The earlier studies are continuing to get blown out of the water as we have greater visibility to longer term performance. And the nature of the vaccine combined with the nature of COVID mutation makes it nearly impossible to stay ahead of strains. Omicron boosters just recently came out but omicron peaked 6-8 months ago.

You really don't want a better vaccine. You want to argue for this one, and your credulity seems to have no bounds in defending it. That's the classic ideologue approach.

---

You've been invested in the failure of these vaccines since before they were even invented. You rejected the whole idea of a coronavirus vaccine because you saw it as an incentive for lockdowns and other policies that you don't like. That political agenda is what's led you down countless scientific rabbit trails, through statistical interpretations ranging from the dubious to the absurd, and finally to social media tropes that border on outright hoax-mongering.

To answer your question, if I got sick after three months but the data showed the vaccine to be 90 percent successful, then of course I would consider it successful. I'd be a fool not to. Likewise, if I got sick a year after my last shot, I'd be a fool to blame the vaccine.

---

You have me confused with some others you're arguing with. I'm vaxxed and have had a booster. Of course I thought the approaches to remedy were absurd, as they turned out to be. Once the virus was aerosolized, especially a highly infectious coronavirus, they were futile. I was angered at the lack of strategy by not addressing the specifically vulnerable. You have an ax to grind on that. You simply don't like what the data shows, and/or don't understand how to evaluate the root, like getting embarrassed on that Arizona school study.

You are the one who continues to parrot failed studies that don't match reality and when you've been called out on it, you fall back into "you're an anti vax nut". At some point people have to have the hard conversations about what happened so we don't do what governments always do in situations like these, and that is default to precedent and power.

You're claiming to be 90% protected from something you don't need protection against.

---

You're the one who should have been embarrassed by that mask study. And for the hundredth time, the virus was never not aerosolized. Can't believe you're still on that.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. You can't even address the actual topic. I'm literally making the efficacy argument. I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide.

---

You've made the efficacy argument before, and not well. What you're doing now is retreating to a definitional argument based on an ever-expanding collection of technical minutiae that you hope will somehow, eventually, distinguish the drug from a true vaccine. The problem is that your definition doesn't exist. It has no currency except in the world of the anti-vaxxers who made it up about ten minutes ago.

---

No, just making the case as to why the vax didn't work as you and so many others thought it would. I'm offering and have offered technical explanations as to the reasons why it possibly didn't. You spend your responses doing mental origami and parroting talking points because you don't understand math or the subject. You're emotionally vested for some unknown reason. It was a brand new approach and we didn't know what would happen over a normal development time frame. The active human trial and data are bearing out the realities. I believe we can do better. I'm not anti vaccines, I'm pro better vaccines and therapeutics. You want to shill for a sub par product, so keep grinding Sam.

---

I want better vaccines too. You are unlikely to get them if you're constantly narrowing the definition to suit a political agenda.

---

I narrowed the definition to the mRNA approach (which was the first time ever) didn't work as anticipated and here are the likely medical/scientific reasons why. If that's political I don't know what to tell you.

---

Except that it worked better than anticipated. There was never any guarantee that the Covid vaccine would remain effective through multiple seasons and viral variants. There was never any guarantee of 50 percent effectiveness, much less the 90 percent that was actually achieved. If you got your last flu shot a year or two ago, and you got flu this year, would you call the vaccine "sub-par?" Not without politics, you wouldn't.

---

We don't even know how well it worked because we're still in a live human trial. And the longer term results have shifted far from not just initial expectations, but future utilization. The deadliest period of COVID occurred 3-6 months AFTER vaccines. I would be satisfied if it actually had a flu vaccine level of performance but the curve never flattened in infection or spread.

The problem is it's you who plays the politics. Like this 90% percent effectiveness is an absolute joke of an assertion. To flip your question, if you took a vaccine and 3 months later you got the virus it was protecting you from, would you call that a successful vaccine? That literally happened to millions of people around the world. If you're so inclined, research how minimal the mutation was between Delta and Alpha strains or even Alpha and Omicron. It's frightening how ineffective the vaccine was against such a minimal genomic change. The flu goes through much more complicated mutations all the time.

The earlier studies are continuing to get blown out of the water as we have greater visibility to longer term performance. And the nature of the vaccine combined with the nature of COVID mutation makes it nearly impossible to stay ahead of strains. Omicron boosters just recently came out but omicron peaked 6-8 months ago.

You really don't want a better vaccine. You want to argue for this one, and your credulity seems to have no bounds in defending it. That's the classic ideologue approach.

---

You've been invested in the failure of these vaccines since before they were even invented. You rejected the whole idea of a coronavirus vaccine because you saw it as an incentive for lockdowns and other policies that you don't like. That political agenda is what's led you down countless scientific rabbit trails, through statistical interpretations ranging from the dubious to the absurd, and finally to social media tropes that border on outright hoax-mongering.

To answer your question, if I got sick after three months but the data showed the vaccine to be 90 percent successful, then of course I would consider it successful. I'd be a fool not to. Likewise, if I got sick a year after my last shot, I'd be a fool to blame the vaccine.

---

You have me confused with some others you're arguing with. I'm vaxxed and have had a booster. Of course I thought the approaches to remedy were absurd, as they turned out to be. Once the virus was aerosolized, especially a highly infectious coronavirus, they were futile. I was angered at the lack of strategy by not addressing the specifically vulnerable. You have an ax to grind on that. You simply don't like what the data shows, and/or don't understand how to evaluate the root, like getting embarrassed on that Arizona school study.

You are the one who continues to parrot failed studies that don't match reality and when you've been called out on it, you fall back into "you're an anti vax nut". At some point people have to have the hard conversations about what happened so we don't do what governments always do in situations like these, and that is default to precedent and power.

You're claiming to be 90% protected from something you don't need protection against.

---

You're the one who should have been embarrassed by that mask study. And for the hundredth time, the virus was never not aerosolized. Can't believe you're still on that.

---

I should be embarrassed by a study that was eventually retracted? Hmmm... And it took the WHO two years to admit it was aerosolized. Perhaps you should look toward your lords and stewards of talking points and not me. I mean social distancing is pretty irrelevant with an aerosol virus, but that policy guidance has been ingrained for years.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. You can't even address the actual topic. I'm literally making the efficacy argument. I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide.

---

You've made the efficacy argument before, and not well. What you're doing now is retreating to a definitional argument based on an ever-expanding collection of technical minutiae that you hope will somehow, eventually, distinguish the drug from a true vaccine. The problem is that your definition doesn't exist. It has no currency except in the world of the anti-vaxxers who made it up about ten minutes ago.

---

No, just making the case as to why the vax didn't work as you and so many others thought it would. I'm offering and have offered technical explanations as to the reasons why it possibly didn't. You spend your responses doing mental origami and parroting talking points because you don't understand math or the subject. You're emotionally vested for some unknown reason. It was a brand new approach and we didn't know what would happen over a normal development time frame. The active human trial and data are bearing out the realities. I believe we can do better. I'm not anti vaccines, I'm pro better vaccines and therapeutics. You want to shill for a sub par product, so keep grinding Sam.

---

I want better vaccines too. You are unlikely to get them if you're constantly narrowing the definition to suit a political agenda.

---

I narrowed the definition to the mRNA approach (which was the first time ever) didn't work as anticipated and here are the likely medical/scientific reasons why. If that's political I don't know what to tell you.

---

Except that it worked better than anticipated. There was never any guarantee that the Covid vaccine would remain effective through multiple seasons and viral variants. There was never any guarantee of 50 percent effectiveness, much less the 90 percent that was actually achieved. If you got your last flu shot a year or two ago, and you got flu this year, would you call the vaccine "sub-par?" Not without politics, you wouldn't.

---

We don't even know how well it worked because we're still in a live human trial. And the longer term results have shifted far from not just initial expectations, but future utilization. The deadliest period of COVID occurred 3-6 months AFTER vaccines. I would be satisfied if it actually had a flu vaccine level of performance but the curve never flattened in infection or spread.

The problem is it's you who plays the politics. Like this 90% percent effectiveness is an absolute joke of an assertion. To flip your question, if you took a vaccine and 3 months later you got the virus it was protecting you from, would you call that a successful vaccine? That literally happened to millions of people around the world. If you're so inclined, research how minimal the mutation was between Delta and Alpha strains or even Alpha and Omicron. It's frightening how ineffective the vaccine was against such a minimal genomic change. The flu goes through much more complicated mutations all the time.

The earlier studies are continuing to get blown out of the water as we have greater visibility to longer term performance. And the nature of the vaccine combined with the nature of COVID mutation makes it nearly impossible to stay ahead of strains. Omicron boosters just recently came out but omicron peaked 6-8 months ago.

You really don't want a better vaccine. You want to argue for this one, and your credulity seems to have no bounds in defending it. That's the classic ideologue approach.

---

You've been invested in the failure of these vaccines since before they were even invented. You rejected the whole idea of a coronavirus vaccine because you saw it as an incentive for lockdowns and other policies that you don't like. That political agenda is what's led you down countless scientific rabbit trails, through statistical interpretations ranging from the dubious to the absurd, and finally to social media tropes that border on outright hoax-mongering.

To answer your question, if I got sick after three months but the data showed the vaccine to be 90 percent successful, then of course I would consider it successful. I'd be a fool not to. Likewise, if I got sick a year after my last shot, I'd be a fool to blame the vaccine.

---

You have me confused with some others you're arguing with. I'm vaxxed and have had a booster. Of course I thought the approaches to remedy were absurd, as they turned out to be. Once the virus was aerosolized, especially a highly infectious coronavirus, they were futile. I was angered at the lack of strategy by not addressing the specifically vulnerable. You have an ax to grind on that. You simply don't like what the data shows, and/or don't understand how to evaluate the root, like getting embarrassed on that Arizona school study.

You are the one who continues to parrot failed studies that don't match reality and when you've been called out on it, you fall back into "you're an anti vax nut". At some point people have to have the hard conversations about what happened so we don't do what governments always do in situations like these, and that is default to precedent and power.

You're claiming to be 90% protected from something you don't need protection against.

---

You're the one who should have been embarrassed by that mask study. And for the hundredth time, the virus was never not aerosolized. Can't believe you're still on that.

---

I should be embarrassed by a study that was eventually retracted? Hmmm... And it took the WHO two years to admit it was aerosolized. Perhaps you should look toward your lords and stewards of talking points and not me. I mean social distancing is pretty irrelevant with an aerosol virus, but that policy guidance has been ingrained for years.

---

Debunked.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023131118

---

Quote:

---

greater social distancing on the virtual behavior measure related strongly to a number of individual difference variables, such as greater trust in scientists, lower confidence in President Trump, lower conspiratorial ideation tendencies, greater interpersonal compassion, greater scientific literacy, less exposure to FOX News, and more accurate knowledge regarding COVID-19. Moreover, these individual difference variables and virtual social distancing behavior were themselves associated with expressed concerns about the pandemic and the severity of the threat it posed.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact that it's totally ineffective as therapy should be your first clue that it's not a therapeutic. The worst you might say is that it's an inferior vaccine. Which it isn't, but that argument would at least be theoretically defensible.

---

Let the rational adults talk Sam. %A0You can't even address the actual topic. %A0I'm literally making the efficacy argument. %A0I referred to a therapeutic vaccine because they lower/alleviate symptoms instead of stopping spread or establishing immunity, which is what this has turned out to provide. %A0

---

You've made the efficacy argument before, and not well. What you're doing now is retreating to a definitional argument based on an ever-expanding collection of technical minutiae that you hope will somehow, eventually, distinguish the drug from a true vaccine. The problem is that your definition doesn't exist. It has no currency except in the world of the anti-vaxxers who made it up about ten minutes ago.

---

No, just making the case as to why the vax didn't work as you and so many others thought it would. %A0I'm offering and have offered technical explanations as to the reasons why it possibly didn't. %A0You spend your responses doing mental origami and parroting talking points because you don't understand math or the subject. %A0You're emotionally vested for some unknown reason. %A0It was a brand new approach and we didn't know what would happen over a normal development time frame. %A0The active human trial and data are bearing out the realities. %A0I believe we can do better. %A0I'm not anti vaccines, I'm pro better vaccines and therapeutics. %A0You want to shill for a sub par product, so keep grinding Sam.

---

I want better vaccines too. You are unlikely to get them if you're constantly narrowing the definition to suit a political agenda.

---

I narrowed the definition to the mRNA approach (which was the first time ever) didn't work as anticipated and here are the likely medical/scientific reasons why. %A0If that's political I don't know what to tell you. %A0

---

Except that it worked better than anticipated. There was never any guarantee that the Covid vaccine would remain effective through multiple seasons and viral variants. There was never any guarantee of 50 percent effectiveness, much less the 90 percent that was actually achieved. If you got your last flu shot a year or two ago, and you got flu this year, would you call the vaccine "sub-par?" Not without politics, you wouldn't.

---

We don't even know how well it worked because we're still in a live human trial. %A0And the longer term results have shifted far from not just initial expectations, but future utilization. %A0The deadliest period of COVID occurred 3-6 months AFTER vaccines. %A0I would be satisfied if it actually had a flu vaccine level of performance but the curve never flattened in infection or spread. %A0

The problem is it's you who plays the politics. %A0Like this 90% percent effectiveness is an absolute joke of an assertion. %A0To flip your question, if you took a vaccine and 3 months later you got the virus it was protecting you from, would you call that a successful vaccine? %A0That literally happened to millions of people around the world. %A0If you're so inclined, research how minimal the mutation was between Delta and Alpha strains or even Alpha and Omicron. %A0It's frightening how ineffective the vaccine was against such a minimal genomic change. %A0The flu goes through much more complicated mutations all the time. %A0

The earlier studies are continuing to get blown out of the water as we have greater visibility to longer term performance. %A0And the nature of the vaccine combined with the nature of COVID mutation makes it nearly impossible to stay ahead of strains. %A0Omicron boosters just recently came out but omicron peaked 6-8 months ago. %A0

You really don't want a better vaccine. %A0You want to argue for this one, and your credulity seems to have no bounds in defending it. %A0That's the classic ideologue approach. %A0

---

You've been invested in the failure of these vaccines since before they were even invented. You rejected the whole idea of a coronavirus vaccine because you saw it as an incentive for lockdowns and other policies that you don't like. That political agenda is what's led you down countless scientific rabbit trails, through statistical interpretations ranging from the dubious to the absurd, and finally to social media tropes that border on outright hoax-mongering.

To answer your question, if I got sick after three months but the data showed the vaccine to be 90 percent successful, then of course I would consider it successful. I'd be a fool not to. Likewise, if I got sick a year after my last shot, I'd be a fool to blame the vaccine.

---

You have me confused with some others you're arguing with. %A0I'm vaxxed and have had a booster. %A0Of course I thought the approaches to remedy were absurd, as they turned out to be. %A0Once the virus was aerosolized, especially a highly infectious coronavirus, they were futile. %A0I was angered at the lack of strategy by not addressing the specifically vulnerable. %A0You have an ax to grind on that. %A0You simply don't like what the data shows, and/or don't understand how to evaluate the root, like getting embarrassed on that Arizona school study. %A0

You are the one who continues to parrot failed studies that don't match reality and when you've been called out on it, you fall back into "you're an anti vax nut". %A0At some point people have to have the hard conversations about what happened so we don't do what governments always do in situations like these, and that is default to precedent and power. %A0

You're claiming to be 90% protected from something you don't need protection against. %A0

---

You're the one who should have been embarrassed by that mask study. And for the hundredth time, the virus was never not aerosolized. Can't believe you're still on that.

---

I should be embarrassed by a study that was eventually retracted? %A0Hmmm... %A0And it took the WHO two years to admit it was aerosolized. %A0Perhaps you should look toward your lords and stewards of talking points and not me. %A0I mean social distancing is pretty irrelevant with an aerosol virus, but that policy guidance has been ingrained for years. %A0 %A0

---

Debunked.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023131118

---

Good grief man. %A0If you want me to acknowledge that large droplet spread is curbed (20% according to the study) by social distancing, I'll acknowledge it.

---

“Almost certain” pic.twitter.com/JBsS1y4Kj3

— Rothmus 🏴 (@Rothmus) November 29, 2022

Redbrickbear said:

---

“Almost certain” pic.twitter.com/JBsS1y4Kj3

— Rothmus 🏴 (@Rothmus) November 29, 2022

---