Sparks Posted August 27, 2022 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,159 Content Per Day: 2.03 Reputation: 2,513 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Online Share Posted August 27, 2022 32 minutes ago, one.opinion said: The authors of the Lancet paper never claimed that COVID vaccines suppressed overall immunity. They showed that vaccine effectiveness decreases over time with respect to SARS-CoV-2 infection. This is not a novel finding. Right, but I posted two studies: One you said you were not going to read (and obviously didn't) so I posted what it said in summary, and the other was the Lancet, countered by a peer review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted August 27, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 27, 2022 4 minutes ago, Sparks said: One you said you were not going to read You know you are making a false statement here. I said the exact opposite and you know it. 4 minutes ago, Sparks said: and the other was the Lancet, countered by a peer review. And I showed you why his comment was false. It's a little sad that you don't care enough about your argument to actually check any sort of detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted August 27, 2022 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,159 Content Per Day: 2.03 Reputation: 2,513 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Online Share Posted August 27, 2022 51 minutes ago, one.opinion said: You know you are making a false statement here. I said the exact opposite and you know it. I think you are just misunderstanding things. I posted two links leading to two studies, and then a third link that showed a letter written countering one study as a peer review. Right? Right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted August 29, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 29, 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted August 29, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 29, 2022 On to McCullough and his computer scientist co-author later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted August 30, 2022 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 30, 2022 Seneff, et al. begin with a claim that real life responses to viral infection and vaccination are different. "In this paper, we explore the scientific literature suggesting that vaccination with an mRNA vaccine initiates a set of biological events that are not only different from that induced by infection but are in several ways demonstrably counterproductive to both short- and long-term immune competence and normal cellular function." I would begin with the observation that of course body responses are different. The entire idea of a vaccine is to induce adaptive immune cells and responses into an alert state without the complications associated with a full infection. The point is to have the benefits of a primed adaptive immune response without the potential suffering of a full-blown infection. They continue in this quoted sentence to claim that vaccination is "demonstrably counterproductive" to immune competence and normal cellular function. They follow up this claim with a reference to a study from Ivanova, et al. titled "SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine elicits a potent adaptive immune response in the absence of IFN-mediated inflammation observed in COVID-19". Yes, Ivanova's article is still in pre-print status, so has not yet passed through the peer-review process, but it shows that the vaccine is effective at what it is designed to do - elicit a potent adaptive immune response - without the IFN (interferon) mediated inflammation that occurs in individuals with a viral infection. Folks, this is not a bad thing. IFN is critically important in fighting off a natural infection, but it comes with the major drawback of causing many of the signs and symptoms frequently associated with viral infection. Interferon production in the body causes malaise, muscle aches, headache, chills, fever, and others. In other words, many of the things that make you feel cruddy when you have a viral infection are due to interferon production in the body and not the virus. Additionally, interferon is frequently a trigger for the "cytokine storm" that has proved deadly in hundreds of thousands of cases of COVID. Preparing the body's adaptive immune response without the effects of interferon is a good thing for the body, not a bad thing. Seneff's article starts off badly enough, but gets worse. It claims that mRNA vaccines suppress IFN expression, but do not provide any evidence to support this claim. Here is another quote. "Differential gene expression analysis of peripheral dendritic cells revealed a dramatic upregulation of both type I and type II interferons (IFNs) in COVID-19 patients, but not in vaccinees." While this particular statement is indeed true, it does not match the claim that vaccines are suppressing IFN expression - merely not inducing increased IFN levels as a SARS-CoV-2 infection would. This is enough analysis for now. If anyone wants to contend with this first point, I'll be happy to discuss with you further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts