Of Chicks and Men--Marek's Virus Vs. China Virus

So I think we can now all agree that the "science" is in...and that the much-vaunted China Virus "vaccines" DO NOT stop the "vaccinated" from becoming infected with or spreading the original China Virus...nor it's plethora of new and currently circulating variants.

So what does this mean for the future of the China Virus, it's endless line of incoming new variants...as well as those at most risk?

Let's first take a look at this Nat-Geo article from 2015 concerning something called Marek's Virus...

Leaky Vaccines Enhance Spread of Deadlier Chicken Viruses

Marek's is a deadly virus that ran rampant through the chicken population for over half a century...which was eventually treated with it's own vaccine developed in the 1970's. The Marek's vaccine eventually got the epidemic under control, but due to the "leaky" nature of the vaccine...

("Leaky" Vaccine being defined thusly in the NG article):

The Marek’s vaccine is “imperfect” or “leaky.”
That is, it protects chickens from developing disease, but doesn’t stop them from becoming infected or from spreading the virus.
Inadvertently, this made it easier for the most virulent strains to survive.

(emphasis mine)

...Marek's variants returned (in force and more virulently) to ravage the chicken population 10 years later...

Within ten years, it [Marek's] started evolving into more virulent strains, which now trigger more severe cancers and afflict chickens at earlier ages.

(emphasis mine)
www.nationalgeographic.com...

[Because a pay wall is involved with NG...I will continue with the following article (also 2015)]:

This chicken vaccine makes its virus more dangerous

In fact, rather than stop fowl from spreading the virus, the vaccine allows the disease to spread faster and longer than it normally would, a new study finds. The scientists now believe that this vaccine has helped this chicken virus become uniquely virulent.

www.pbs.org...
(emphasis mine)

Scientists find the Marek's example intriguing because it was one of the first times this virus-boosting phenomenon had been observed experimentally.

This phenomenon has come to be known as the 'Imperfect Vaccine Hypothesis'.

By contrast...a 'Perfect Vaccine' is one that confers lifelong immunity that never wanes and blocks both infection and transmission.
There are some vaccines that actually qualify as 'Perfect Vaccines' under this definition.
However, as we are now learning in real time...the China Virus "vaccine" is NOT one of these.

Like the Marek's vaccine...the China Virus "vaccines" are anything but 'perfect'.
Also, like the Marek's vaccine...the China Virus "vaccines" DO NOT block virus infection or transmission in 'vaccinated' individuals.
It also doesn't confer lifelong immunity that never wanes...Hello CV Booster Shots!

In short, the China Virus "vaccines" are (by definition) "leaky" and, as such, are subject to the 'Imperfect Vaccine Hypothesis'.

Should these comparisons between the Marek's and China Virus 'vaccines' hold true over time...we can expect it's possible we will see not only more virulent and more deadly China VIrus variants develop as a result of the current mass-"vaccination" program...

...but we can also logically assume that, in coming months and years...it will be the "vaccinated" who may represent the greatest risk to, not only the un-"vaccinated"...but to the entire human population.

I became aware of that study when I was researching the claims about how the vaccines are contributing to the new variants. That study adds to the validity of those claims IMO, but I didn't take notes or post that info. I tire of arguing these facts with people so I took mental notes on that one instead. So thanks for putting this up.

You are describing what is known as "hubris".

What I find especially dangerous is that openly debating things like this are now considered ‘false information’ and censored on most major sites. We need to be able to discuss these things openly and to encourage debate.

a reply to: IAMTAT

The COVID-19 "vaccines" are as leaky as the claims that they are safe and effective.

But, of course, "safe and effective" is a subjective term--there is no real objective defition for either, so they keep moving the goal posts every time the statistics start going against their narrative.

And to anyone who responds to me and says that 'they are working as planned and sold to the American people,' I will not respond, because that's just simply garbage. By using phrases like "vaccine" (which this technically is not) and "safe and effective," they sold this as something like a chicken-pox vaccine, where these COVID-19 injections are anything but. They preyed upon the average American's colloquial understanding of "vaccine" and "safe and effective" and ran with it, knowing full well that their phrasing and tone of messaging was misleading...and it was on purpose.

It got rather interesting a few years later.

www.poultryworld.net...



a reply to: IAMTAT

a reply to: IAMTAT

Makes me glad I didn't get that "vaccine".I will be
putting my foot down and digging my heels in.

Darn kill the chickens again, I remember when the chickens became the victim of the mass murdering because the infections.

In China, poor people were left without food to starve, after their government killed their chickens, the prices of poultry went up too.

Soo predictable.

a reply to: marg6043
Swoosh.

The OP isn't about killing chickens.

"Like the Marek's vaccine...the China Virus "vaccines" are anything but 'perfect'. "

to say the least; pasteboard.co...

originally posted by: nonspecific
It got rather interesting a few years later.

www.poultryworld.net...



a reply to: IAMTAT

Don't want to click for the site's cookies.
What the article say?

a reply to: IAMTAT

The vaccine made Marek's worse because the vaccine kept them alive.

Are you suggesting a vaccine that keeps people alive is bad and they should die?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
What the article say?

Researchers from the US Department of Agriculture’s Avian Disease and Oncology Laboratory (ADOL) and the Roslin Institute, Scotland, tested the impact of vaccination on Marek’s disease transmission. One group of birds received a leaky vaccine – this contained a related live virus originating from turkeys, which causes an immune response but no symptoms. A second group was given a sham vaccine, which contained no biological material. Both groups were then infected with Marek’s disease virus.

Results
Groups of infected birds were placed with sets of unvaccinated chickens and more than 97% of the birds became infected. However, unvaccinated chickens that had contact with vaccinated birds were less likely to develop full-blown Marek’s disease and there were also fewer deaths. This was found to be because vaccinated birds transmitted fewer copies of Marek’s disease virus.

a reply to: nonspecific

originally posted by: nonspecific
It got rather interesting a few years later.

www.poultryworld.net...



a reply to: IAMTAT

I don't click for cookies either.

Any chance you can write or copy and paste what you would like to share?

Sorry I should have provided a synopsis, it look like click bait doesn't it.

Numerous trials showed that although the vaccines were leaky they lowered infections and deaths in unvaccinated birds as the viral load of mareks was much lower resulting in lower spread.


a reply to: IAMTAT

a reply to: nonspecific
That's weird.
Only yesterday you wrote this:

I know that vaccinated chickens are very contagious and will easily infect and most likely kill unvaccinated chickens though.

Can you copy and paste from the article about......"how it got rather interesting a few years later".......please?

I keep chickens.

The last thing I'd read about mareks was about 3 years ago which was a similar article to the one in iamtats op.

When I went to have a refresh I came across this article and others which has more recent information about mareks and the vaccines.

That's why I said it got more interesting recently.



a reply to: Itisnowagain

a reply to: nonspecific
Is it possible that you could post the 'other articles' links (without cookies if possible)?

Or copy and paste what they say in the articles please?

I'm not sure I can but if I put up what I can find you might get one you deem acceptable.


www.ed.ac.uk...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Both articles I think refer to the same studies, but are from genuine academic websites.



a reply to: Itisnowagain

a reply to: IAMTAT

Imagine the human nightmare that could have happened if the OPV, sterilizing immunity,hadn't come out so soon after the IPV, leaky. The US gave them both, in sequence IPV then OPV for 20 years after last "wild" case of polio in the US.

I think the Marek's disease outcome is unlikely as long as there remains a sizeable unvaccinated cohort that develops natural immunity.

The thing about Marek's now, is when it gets in a poultry house, you have to cull the entire population.

The reason a vaccine that reduces symptoms but does not keep the infected from spreading it is bad, is that it breaks the natural aversion all creatures have to the obviously sick in their midst. In humans this is doubly bad. The sick don't realize they are sick and modify their behavior and spread it more while others miss out on the cues that will normally be present to avoid or take precautions around someone.

If we get a Marek's like situation out of COVID it would probably spawn a death toll similar to the Black Death, maybe worse, but I don't see that happening unless we get well over 90% vaccination take rate. Oh wait, what's the new vaccination goal?