Funeral for a Fact

Counter-examples in "leaky vaccine" discourse now 100% preventable by banning.

The apostles of “Leaky Vaccine Disaster Theories” - Marek’s Effect, “OAS,” superspreaders, etc. - have varying degrees of clout, income, and ego bound to their ability to speak authoritatively on the subject. There really isn’t much else in the anti-Covid-vaccine realm that generates so much engagement for so little investment. Never mind that it feeds back into the original hysteria over the virus that got us the Covid vaccines in the first place, and often results in comments attesting directly to minds changed in favor of the injections.¹

Rather unfortunately, this profitable association is threatened by real-life examples of “leaky vaccines” that have been used on humans for centuries - really² - without the Disasters coming about. Fortunately these examples are not well-known. The half-myths of Leaky Vaccines Disasters are thus sustained by nothing other than the historic myth that most human vaccines prevented infection and transmission all along.

Best Practice:

So long as the leaky vaccines are rare myth is sustained, we apostles can continue to wield our myths.

Never mind that this dulls the argument against the Covid vaccines, by suffusing the argument with “predictions” that are so readily refuted by real-world example that falsification can be found in the past.

Never mind that it weakens the argument, by allowing the argument to leave on the plate the moral claim that eventually it must affirm and own: The Covid vaccines should not have been released, even if they greatly reduced severe outcomes from infection with no magic “disaster” to wipe out those gains, because there were other effective therapeutics available, because natural immunity is real, and because the injections have killed and will continue to kill those who were not at risk from the virus.

Never mind that it leads those questioning the Covid vaccines into fallacy, instead of enlightenment.³

It drives the clicks. Boosts those shares.

But what if, within the community engaging with your click-generating Leaky Vaccine Disaster Discourse, someone brings up a counter-example from reality that contradicts your assertions? What if - God forbid - they bring up counter-examples to multiple points in Leaky Vaccine Dogma?

Don’t worry, there is a simple solution.

Just ban them.

Pro Tip:

If other members of the community engaging with your click-generating content ask why you have done so, feel free to acknowledge that the commenter supplies “sharp critiques.” But, lamentably, they display a certain “disingenuous element” (i.e., pointing out findings from reality and research that contradict your assertion), and last straws and all-that. After all, there is your “comfort” to consider.

With this awesome tool in our sweat-moistened hand, apostles, let us continue to lead the Covid vaccine skeptic crowd into a million engagement-years of panicked illiteracy!

Why, we might even make Fact Checking valid again!⁴

1. Either because it is the unvaccinated that will allegedly by harmed by the Leaky Vaccine Disaster, or because sterilization via booster is the only way out for the already-dosed.

2. The smallpox vaccine - literally the original “vaccine” - did not prevent infection or transmission, even when endless extra doses were mandated for adults. It was used for over a century, while the virus still caused outbreaks.

When Leicester, England, ended compulsory smallpox vaccination in the 1880s, and childhood vaccination ceased to be common, the rest of England continued with nearly universal use. This should have provided ample evidence for decades of increased virulence due to the imperfect resistance conferred by vaccination, a la “Marek’s Effect”: the children of Leicester should have been helpless against the “leaked” version of smallpox. As reported in Dissolving Illusions, and summarized once again by Colleen Huber, smallpox mortality instead plummeted in Leicester:

Catastrophic Vaccines: This is not the first one, Part One

Flu vaccines are leaky. They have been heavily used for two decades; again, the only people seemingly harmed are the recipients, but not to any extent that constituted disaster.

Injected, “inactivated” polio vaccines are likely to be leaky, as there is no plausible reason to expect that they induce durable mucosal immunity; hence the need for 4 doses on the current schedule. With this schedule, detectable circulating polio dies out and the “leakiness” can be disguised - much as was achieved for Measles and Mumps. As we have seen with those vaccines, adults are not in fact conferred immunity, and will be infected if the virus happens to reenter the population. If American children for the last two decades have not been generating durable mucosal immunity, we may be in for a return of the “adult-onset” paralyzations that characterized the virus in the 30s and early 40s.

The more effective oral polio vaccine requires universal uptake. If not all children are given the strain-2-inclusive version from the vaccine, they can catch it “wild” from the previously triple-strain vaccinated (Blake I. et al. “Type 2 Poliovirus Detection after Global Withdrawal of Trivalent Oral Vaccine,”) so transitioning from the OPV requires universal uptake of the IPV (Nakamura, T. et al. “Environmental Surveillance of Poliovirus in Sewage Water around the Introduction Period for Inactivated Polio Vaccine in Japan” - note how the virus vanishes from detection after the injection rolls out), which again likely leaves future adults susceptible to regional reintroduction of the virus. Thus the OPV, too, is “leaky” - though here what is described is that the vaccine is essentially the virus, delivered via the natural (seasonal) route of exposure, to take its rightful place in the hygiene-disturbed human virome. The disaster in this case stems from moving away from the “leaky” vaccine.

Sewage surveillance typically finds Sabin polio to be the only detectable strain, and for prevalence of the virus to match vaccination campaigns (Nakamura, T. et al.), but this only measures what can be successfully isolated and cultured from samples. In 2015, a descendent of the Sabin virus was detected in Russia with an estimated 20 years of mutations (Ivanova, O. et al. “Environmental Surveillance for Poliovirus and Other Enteroviruses: Long-Term Experience in Moscow, Russian Federation, 2004–2017”), implying 20 years of passage from primarily vaccinated human to human; the opposite of what would be possible if the oral polio vaccine were not “leaky” (note that the authors speculate that an immunocompromised patient is more likely to blame, naturally).

3. Behold, a table.

Have you seen this table before?

If yes, have you seen the portion on the right?

If no, read on:

Unvaccinated + infected real Omicron rate:

14 / (522 +14) = 2.6%

Unvaccinated + infected “if 50% efficacy against non-Omicron strains” Omicron rate:

14 / ((522x.5) +14) = 5.1%

Unvaccinated + infected “if 80% efficacy against non-Omicron strains” Omicron rate:

14 / ((522x.2) +14) = 11.9%

Risk Ratio, “if 80% efficacy against non-Omicron” unvaccinated / real

11.9% / 2.6% = 4.58

Triple-dosed Omicron rate:

21 / (164 + 21) = 11.35%

4. “You asked, we answered: Are leaky vaccines causing the new COVID-19 mutations?” (2021, October 5.) nebraskamed.com.

The question was then posed, is there a way to poke holes in this Fact Check?

Aside from Lawler’s ridiculous assertion that “Vaccinating a large portion of the population will reduce the overall number of infections. Reducing the number of infections reduces the opportunities the virus has to mutate into new variants.” (which obviously doesn’t answer anything about what will happen with a vaccine that does not reduce the overall number of infections) the core argument is simple and robust: The evidence that our current variants are the product of vaccine escape is thin. They emerged before the mass roll-out (only trials were ongoing).

Rescuing the vaccine-escape theory requires resort to obscure, hypothetical “selection without pressure” models. Such speculation is fine on its own, but it doesn’t change whether the Fact Check, in this case, has the stronger argument.

But acknowledging when your own argument is weak instead of circularly asserting your argument is true because there is “abundant evidence” (i.e., prior posts asserting the argument is true) is, what’s the word… Oh yes. “Disingenuous.”

Sheer blind faith.