It is my opinion -- and I tend to see confirmation in this piece -- that concerning "vaccines" we know nothing. You mention Jennerian smallpox "vaccine": never tested (smallpox was never really studied fully), never evaluated, pushed by public health authorities as a public health tool -- i.e. submitted to political propaganda data manipulation, suppression and invention -- for more than a century. What you conclude from the Leicester example is guessing, because who knows how the Leicester method affected virus transmission, blocking, protection...
And in my view the biggest error in this approach is believing that just using a same word -- vaccine -- allows one to compare a donkey and a wart as one same thing. There are comparisons possible -- f.i. for the political public health strategies (such as censorship, mandates, manipulation, fearmongering...) imagined and implemented -- but certainly, because of the political mess "vaccine" realities have always been evolving in -- one can't compare effects of "vaccines" through time, All we can really conclude from "vaccine" historical study is that the approach from the start (1798) up to today, was the wrong path to follow from a public health point of view.
That said, I love your blog. You are right all in all, in my opinion. Reading you is challenging and I really take in your courage in inviting me to look more carefully and honestly at the emperor's new clothes, at the beautiful variety of the colors of truth, whatever and however unglossed they might seem to me.
And thank you for the kind words and the honest score-card on the Leicester argument. For example if "arm to arm" vaccination merely set recipients up for straight-forward antibody dependent enhancement, and this is the explanation for Leicester's improved outcomes, it's not really a "Marek's falsification" at all. And then you could look at later comparative performance between the 20th-Century-pot-luck-strain-injected vaccinated and find vax-positive results (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2366379/), implying that at some point the vaccine ceased to be "leaky." As you say, we whiffed our chance to actually study the virus's natural behavior (even variolation coincided with its arrival, suspiciously) so inferring the effect of any of the modes of vaccination is largely guesswork.
In this table's case I am not sure what "modeled" is supposed to denote, since the numbers are a straight-forward calculation based on the given input - perhaps just that the input has a lot of limits, as given in the footnotes.
Flu is a good example. I asked this question many times and I never get an answer. Those vaccines are as "leaky" as they get and they don't seem to have much of a negative (or positive) effect. If I recall correctly, mass vaccination also took place during the H1N1 pandemic (at least in some countries -- ironically I watched a talk by chief Belgium virologist who was in charge of "selling" H1N1 vaccines to the public then) without dire consequences.
I am not sure if the '09 vax was "leaky" in the end. I wasn't even aware there was a vaccine at the time. It never came up on the parody swine flu twitter account.
Same with regular flu vaccine - I never heard of it as a child, but apparently it was promoted to seniors yearly throughout the 2nd half of the 20th century. Also was aggressively used in the military since Francis' first version in '43.
The military version, which was only 75% effective among soldiers, was sent to wide release in '46, failed to work due to the intervening antigenic drift. So began decades of pointless use, but the numbers from before 2004 seem to be really fuzzy. I have to use newspapers.com searches to piece together a picture.
Interesting on many levels (especially about how to deal with the pandemic)...
They (Fauci et co.) recommended two vaccines: one specifically for H1-N1 and regular seasonal flu shot. So, again, interesting that mass vaccination was done during the pandemic. Vanden Bossche doesn't talk about this -- we've done this before!
I think the flu idea is that it is so "scheduled," to the winter, yet detectable in advance, while SARS-CoV-2 was less discriminate (because it was a "novel" virus with "no pre-existing immunity" etc). Does that mean there is really some "ancient epidemiological wisdom" about never vaccinated during a "pandemic"? It's like a kid playing alone on a playground, suddenly yelling at you about a rule you are breaking when you get on the same see-saw.
So, ten years later we repeat the same thing? The talk itself is worth
watching just to remind ourselves that we learn nothing from the past.
I don't know if those flu vaccines were leaky. But I know flu vaccines are prepared 6 months in advance (traditional vaccines, takes a long time to
"grow" them) based on some prediction which strain will be dominant,
so if some new strain emerges and you vaccinate with "wrong" strain (like this year), isn't that exactly what we are doing now? Vaccinating with original Wuhan spike that is gone and it's been replaced by alpha/delta/omicron.
Thanks - I'd never seen the page that goes back to the 80s before (as opposed to the "fluvaxview" charts)! And there really was a shortage in 2004. I thought was just some type of psy-op to drum up demand (of course, could be both, but it didn't change the general growth rate)...
The entire premise of flu vaccination is crazy. Whether for children or the elderly, the space that is occupied by flu will just be filled by another virus. Same with SARS-CoV-2. The most "virulent" virus is just shining a light on human immune health. Like trying to stop bad drivers from crashing by only allowing everyone to drive in the day.
I have been wondering; but, now I can imagine it. I do believe that relentless, righteous fury with malice aforethought would be very becoming on you...with stilletos, of course.
That's between me, and the cashier at the California St Loop Neighborhood Market who called my opinion about the poor aesthetics of their new white coffee cup caps "weird."
Whoa, a weird one. If the unvaccinated + Omicron sera isn't inhibiting Delta, all the results become a bit ambiguous. What if (naively generated) anti-Omicron antibodies "enhance" Delta (bearing in mind neutralization assays are meaningless simulations at the end of the day)? Who can say. As for the vax + Omicron immune response, the proof will be in the pudding of cellular immunity.
I can imagine a world where anonymised yet comprehensive data is available for analysis by anyone who has the inclination. A very different world, but I have a very good imagination :D
Dec 29, 2021·edited Dec 29, 2021Liked by Brian Mowrey
"circularly asserting your argument is true because there is “abundant evidence” (i.e., prior posts asserting the argument is true)"
Ah yes the woozle effect. As seen in many social science circles, studies and theses, not to mention creation of things like the cancerous Title IX.
Brief digression: I appreciate all and any discourse that is contrary to the narrative, however it does rankle when self-professed millionaires exhort "How you can help us end the vaccine madness for just $25". Does this offer come with a money back guarantee perchance?
This $25 offer is reminiscent of the multiple local legal cases we had where 100k+ was raised each time via gofundme etc, and then blown for no effect other than setting up deleterious precedents as the court cases were conducted by people who clearly did not know how to argue from a biological POV.
Back to OAS et al: I am slowly wrapping my head around B and T cell adaptive immunity. I can learn but it needs to be bedded down at an intuitive level before I am comfortable writing about it. You bolstered my initial misgivings re: claims of OAS, however the ongoing disbelief in the phenomenon tracks my growing B and T cell adaptive immunity understanding.
One thing that I have not read yet from the priests of the church of OAS is the description of the mechanism itself. No mention of epitopes or antigens, Th1 or Th2, Th17, t-cell independent B cell activation. Nothing. All we get is "this thing is a named thing and this data confirms it's happening."
Occam would ask us to look for simpler solution to the data first.
I am surprised you have been banned from commenting somewhere. Disappointed.
I would far prefer to be challenged in any assertions I made / writings I published. Encouragement is welcome too, but challenges can only make us (or our arguments) stronger. Just as with our immunity, I think we can develop a counter-argument debt that leads us down a path of argument weakness. If the challenge came from someone with understanding of the subject matter, all to the better.
As I said - my understanding of adaptive immunology continues to develop, but the further along the path I travel, the less sense OAS makes.
I have seen one other state that these variants were already in existence before vaccination and many state that the vaccines were not made for them. For whatever that is worth.
Vanden Bossche's explanation in one of his recent interviews has been that, yes, most variants exist or emerge regardless of vaccines (obvious). But his argument was that it's the environment that selects which variant becomes dominant.
So, the argument is not whether vaccines cause mutations (they don't), but whether they help "selecting" the dominant variant.
We'll never know, but the most plausible explanation for the evaporation of "infection efficacy" of the Covid vaccines over the summer implies that the Delta wave could just have easily been a 2nd "Wuhan strain" wave. Delta was "chosen" for general fitness, not for escape from spike antibodies that had already stopped being present in the mucosa to affect infection rates.
The beauty of the design, as I've insinuated in a few different posts. A faith in something higher than human reason insulates human reason from the poison of secular faith, which blinds one to observation and leaves one at the mercy of manipulation. "Thou shall have no other etc...."
It is my opinion -- and I tend to see confirmation in this piece -- that concerning "vaccines" we know nothing. You mention Jennerian smallpox "vaccine": never tested (smallpox was never really studied fully), never evaluated, pushed by public health authorities as a public health tool -- i.e. submitted to political propaganda data manipulation, suppression and invention -- for more than a century. What you conclude from the Leicester example is guessing, because who knows how the Leicester method affected virus transmission, blocking, protection...
And in my view the biggest error in this approach is believing that just using a same word -- vaccine -- allows one to compare a donkey and a wart as one same thing. There are comparisons possible -- f.i. for the political public health strategies (such as censorship, mandates, manipulation, fearmongering...) imagined and implemented -- but certainly, because of the political mess "vaccine" realities have always been evolving in -- one can't compare effects of "vaccines" through time, All we can really conclude from "vaccine" historical study is that the approach from the start (1798) up to today, was the wrong path to follow from a public health point of view.
That said, I love your blog. You are right all in all, in my opinion. Reading you is challenging and I really take in your courage in inviting me to look more carefully and honestly at the emperor's new clothes, at the beautiful variety of the colors of truth, whatever and however unglossed they might seem to me.
I thank you -- and I'll add an adverb -- greatly.
And thank you for the kind words and the honest score-card on the Leicester argument. For example if "arm to arm" vaccination merely set recipients up for straight-forward antibody dependent enhancement, and this is the explanation for Leicester's improved outcomes, it's not really a "Marek's falsification" at all. And then you could look at later comparative performance between the 20th-Century-pot-luck-strain-injected vaccinated and find vax-positive results (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2366379/), implying that at some point the vaccine ceased to be "leaky." As you say, we whiffed our chance to actually study the virus's natural behavior (even variolation coincided with its arrival, suspiciously) so inferring the effect of any of the modes of vaccination is largely guesswork.
Behold, a table whose description starts with the word "modelled", at which point I stop reading it.
Based. Based. Based!
In this table's case I am not sure what "modeled" is supposed to denote, since the numbers are a straight-forward calculation based on the given input - perhaps just that the input has a lot of limits, as given in the footnotes.
Flu is a good example. I asked this question many times and I never get an answer. Those vaccines are as "leaky" as they get and they don't seem to have much of a negative (or positive) effect. If I recall correctly, mass vaccination also took place during the H1N1 pandemic (at least in some countries -- ironically I watched a talk by chief Belgium virologist who was in charge of "selling" H1N1 vaccines to the public then) without dire consequences.
I am not sure if the '09 vax was "leaky" in the end. I wasn't even aware there was a vaccine at the time. It never came up on the parody swine flu twitter account.
Same with regular flu vaccine - I never heard of it as a child, but apparently it was promoted to seniors yearly throughout the 2nd half of the 20th century. Also was aggressively used in the military since Francis' first version in '43.
The military version, which was only 75% effective among soldiers, was sent to wide release in '46, failed to work due to the intervening antigenic drift. So began decades of pointless use, but the numbers from before 2004 seem to be really fuzzy. I have to use newspapers.com searches to piece together a picture.
I also came across an old Fauci video from 2009 about H1-N1 flu and vaccination:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsXEgJqR_vY
Interesting on many levels (especially about how to deal with the pandemic)...
They (Fauci et co.) recommended two vaccines: one specifically for H1-N1 and regular seasonal flu shot. So, again, interesting that mass vaccination was done during the pandemic. Vanden Bossche doesn't talk about this -- we've done this before!
I think the flu idea is that it is so "scheduled," to the winter, yet detectable in advance, while SARS-CoV-2 was less discriminate (because it was a "novel" virus with "no pre-existing immunity" etc). Does that mean there is really some "ancient epidemiological wisdom" about never vaccinated during a "pandemic"? It's like a kid playing alone on a playground, suddenly yelling at you about a rule you are breaking when you get on the same see-saw.
Here's official CDC data of flu vaccination:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccine-supply-historical.htm
It's been steadily rising over the years and a clear jump in 2010-11
(as a result of H1N1 the previous year).
Here's a talk by Marc van Ranst about H1-N1 flu pandemic in Belgium and
vaccination:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ANOVSjDUd4
So, ten years later we repeat the same thing? The talk itself is worth
watching just to remind ourselves that we learn nothing from the past.
I don't know if those flu vaccines were leaky. But I know flu vaccines are prepared 6 months in advance (traditional vaccines, takes a long time to
"grow" them) based on some prediction which strain will be dominant,
so if some new strain emerges and you vaccinate with "wrong" strain (like this year), isn't that exactly what we are doing now? Vaccinating with original Wuhan spike that is gone and it's been replaced by alpha/delta/omicron.
Thanks - I'd never seen the page that goes back to the 80s before (as opposed to the "fluvaxview" charts)! And there really was a shortage in 2004. I thought was just some type of psy-op to drum up demand (of course, could be both, but it didn't change the general growth rate)...
The entire premise of flu vaccination is crazy. Whether for children or the elderly, the space that is occupied by flu will just be filled by another virus. Same with SARS-CoV-2. The most "virulent" virus is just shining a light on human immune health. Like trying to stop bad drivers from crashing by only allowing everyone to drive in the day.
Dear Mr. Mowrey,
I have been wondering; but, now I can imagine it. I do believe that relentless, righteous fury with malice aforethought would be very becoming on you...with stilletos, of course.
That's between me, and the cashier at the California St Loop Neighborhood Market who called my opinion about the poor aesthetics of their new white coffee cup caps "weird."
Pretty sure this is anti-OAS:
Omicron infection enhances neutralizing immunity against the Delta variant
https://twitter.com/sigallab/status/1475584463941914635
Whoa, a weird one. If the unvaccinated + Omicron sera isn't inhibiting Delta, all the results become a bit ambiguous. What if (naively generated) anti-Omicron antibodies "enhance" Delta (bearing in mind neutralization assays are meaningless simulations at the end of the day)? Who can say. As for the vax + Omicron immune response, the proof will be in the pudding of cellular immunity.
I can imagine a world where anonymised yet comprehensive data is available for analysis by anyone who has the inclination. A very different world, but I have a very good imagination :D
OK unbanned. I don't actually disagree with most of this.
"circularly asserting your argument is true because there is “abundant evidence” (i.e., prior posts asserting the argument is true)"
Ah yes the woozle effect. As seen in many social science circles, studies and theses, not to mention creation of things like the cancerous Title IX.
Brief digression: I appreciate all and any discourse that is contrary to the narrative, however it does rankle when self-professed millionaires exhort "How you can help us end the vaccine madness for just $25". Does this offer come with a money back guarantee perchance?
This $25 offer is reminiscent of the multiple local legal cases we had where 100k+ was raised each time via gofundme etc, and then blown for no effect other than setting up deleterious precedents as the court cases were conducted by people who clearly did not know how to argue from a biological POV.
Back to OAS et al: I am slowly wrapping my head around B and T cell adaptive immunity. I can learn but it needs to be bedded down at an intuitive level before I am comfortable writing about it. You bolstered my initial misgivings re: claims of OAS, however the ongoing disbelief in the phenomenon tracks my growing B and T cell adaptive immunity understanding.
One thing that I have not read yet from the priests of the church of OAS is the description of the mechanism itself. No mention of epitopes or antigens, Th1 or Th2, Th17, t-cell independent B cell activation. Nothing. All we get is "this thing is a named thing and this data confirms it's happening."
Occam would ask us to look for simpler solution to the data first.
I am surprised you have been banned from commenting somewhere. Disappointed.
I would far prefer to be challenged in any assertions I made / writings I published. Encouragement is welcome too, but challenges can only make us (or our arguments) stronger. Just as with our immunity, I think we can develop a counter-argument debt that leads us down a path of argument weakness. If the challenge came from someone with understanding of the subject matter, all to the better.
As I said - my understanding of adaptive immunology continues to develop, but the further along the path I travel, the less sense OAS makes.
Counter-argument debt, aka echo chamber. Exactly.
"Mechanisms," what a dirty word. Don't you know a talented player keeps their cards close to the vest?
Especially if those cards are only worth a bluff.
I have seen one other state that these variants were already in existence before vaccination and many state that the vaccines were not made for them. For whatever that is worth.
Vanden Bossche's explanation in one of his recent interviews has been that, yes, most variants exist or emerge regardless of vaccines (obvious). But his argument was that it's the environment that selects which variant becomes dominant.
So, the argument is not whether vaccines cause mutations (they don't), but whether they help "selecting" the dominant variant.
We'll never know, but the most plausible explanation for the evaporation of "infection efficacy" of the Covid vaccines over the summer implies that the Delta wave could just have easily been a 2nd "Wuhan strain" wave. Delta was "chosen" for general fitness, not for escape from spike antibodies that had already stopped being present in the mucosa to affect infection rates.
Faith, the unmistakable signal of a cult.
Well, with the exception of the one true faith, I have none. Which is probably why I am usually cast out.
The beauty of the design, as I've insinuated in a few different posts. A faith in something higher than human reason insulates human reason from the poison of secular faith, which blinds one to observation and leaves one at the mercy of manipulation. "Thou shall have no other etc...."
Maybe he banned Brian and that is what prompted this whole post?
It seems he had banned Brian? Now unbanned?