Stop Saying the Vaccine is CAUSING the Mutations

originally posted by: neutronflux

The only people laughing are those that will make money from booster shots.

The problem is they could talked once a month and it would have been better. They just say anything that happens to be flavor of the week and next week is a different flavor.

originally posted by: AcrobaticDreams
It makes you sound ignorant and hurts your cause.

Vaccines do not CAUSE mutations. It is easily provable that Delta was not caused by the vaccine. It is more correct to say that the vaccine causes one mutation to become dominant.

The mutations are caused naturally. The virus makes billions of copies and makes mistakes (mutations). This is what causes the variants. The vaccine, with its incomplete or partial immunity+leaky-ness will cause specific variants to be stopped by the vaccine induced immunity but will allow other variants to bypass that immunity and multiply in vaccinated hosts and they will spread that variant. This causes specific variants to be more dominant overall.

This is why it is NOT good to vaccinate with a leaky vaccine in the middle of a pandemic with just part of the world being vaccinated. Instead of the vaccinated halting the spread, they will halt SOME of the mutations but will let others spread which will increasingly be less like the original strain and will become more dominant. This is most likely why you are seeing Delta be the dominant strain in highly vaccinated countries. If we relied on natural immunity, you would most likely have many different strains that are out there and none are dominant because there is less SPECIFIC selective pressure with natural immunity.

I am not convinced the [not an actual] vaccine IS NOT a variant.

What is hilarious.....or maybe not so hilarious......not one single person can make a claim about anything since the [not really a] vaccine is still in experimental trial phase until May 2023. Everything is simply a GUESS, HOPE, ASSUMPTION....for years to come.

Good luck, test subjects.....*waiving from the sidelines*

originally posted by: thegeneraldisarray

Thank-you! That is an excellent chart.

It needs to be broken down to the country level.

Also NBC says College Football is responsible for "something" regarding the Delta thing.

www.msn.com...

Notice all the Chinese-sounding names affiliated with this article. From the author, to a quoted witness. Remember SOS Mike Pompeo sounding the alarm in early 2020 how the CCP/China has infiltrated all areas of our government and media???

RNA Viruses can and do (depending on the strain) arrive segmented on their way into the cell. Influenza arrives in 8 pieces and is reassembled by the cell once the pieces are absorbed into the cell. The cell then becomes a virocell and manufactures virus which it expells and those spread to other cells making them manufacture virus. If you get two different influenza viruses at the same time your body can assemble pieces from the two in random order, which creates a new strain. Thats why influenza mutates so quickly and consistently.

The "vaccine" for COVID is an RNA code (cutting edge science we do not understand) delivered in a lipid to the cell instead of a spike membrane like COVID. We do not understand enough about the assembly, different variations, and existing mutations to assume that the mRNA is not being randomly assembled in people cells with wild COVID causing these mutations. Coronaviruses do not normally reassemble RNA, but they also do not normal encounter mRNA which is a new variable in the mix. If it did cause mutations it would be congruent with current vaccine science since the RNA used in mRNA is not actually fully understood. They see good effect and say lets use it, the mechanisms behind it do not have a safe track record, its more like a huge bet.

Another thing to consider, are any of these cells the mRNA vaccines hijacks to turn into a virocells able to then be hijacked by a wild COVID strain? I can tell you we do not have the data to know the answer. This is all a huge experiment.

As for me, I am in the control group. I trust natural immunity and evolution more than the random RNA segment big pharma gambled on with everyone's health.

a reply to: carewemust

So CNN, NBC has no problems claiming that College Football is responsible for "something" regarding the Delta thing. But when our polticans like Nancy and others can gather break their own set of rules that is not a super spreader?

I have a huge problem with these mRNA vaxs and their vector ones...

a reply to: TrollMagnet

That would be odd, RdRp usually recognizes and identifies promoter regions of its template target to prevent accidental incorporation of mRNA or host genes. If it didn’t, the virus would just die because it would be grabbing the thousands of strands of random mRNA in the cell. Coronaviruses and RNA viruses evolved in the presence of host cell mRNA and other RNA transcripts in the cytoplasm. They have to be able to recognize what is theirs and what isn’t or they couldn’t reproduce. It’s why they jump between two coronavirus or the same virus template strands during elongation, the promoter sites and bouncing between sense and antisense confuses the RdRp.

Even if it could and they were somehow being shady it would just be reincorporated at the correct site, giving it a disadvantage using the original template that we derived from SARS-CoV-2 18 months ago. Immune response would knock it pretty quickly.

You right with respiratory RNA virus and natural immunity being better than the vaccine. Way more antigen recognition sites and our cells evolve with the virus as it changes in us and during the cleanup process, learning even more targets. Should be longer lasting too because the infection was longer lasting with more adaptive immune (B and T) and natural killer cells, which remember, being produced.

Who knows though at this point, they could be Jurassic Parking us.

a reply to: BrujaRebooted

Look, I apologise if I came off wrong when I first asked if you were sure about a specific part of your comment. I do not doubt that you understand the science better than I do. I am also sure it is both my lack of knowledge and poor articulation (I'm not using sarcasm or gaslighting, I actually mean that)

I genuinely asked that initial question the way I did because I was having trouble interpreting exactly what you were meaning, I could have approached it better i'm sure, but there is a difference between asking clarification on something ("is this what you mean") and directly miss quoting a person.

I was careful to ask if that was what you were meaning. Yet, you still came back at me about miss quoting you, Which I certainly did not.

I did not "cherry pick" your quote either. I asked about the part that was confusing me in the context of what you said. And I was ok with your response, and you attack me again.

I do not pick fights, but if I feel I have been miss-understood I will try and clear it up, if i feel wrongly attacked, I will defend myself.

I'm in this to learn, nothing else. My understanding is/was the common cold is said to have around 200 strain/mutations/variants (I know they have independent definitions, but to my limited knowledge, they are the same excrement in a different bucket)
Again, im totally happy and expecting to be wrong here. I thought that, your natural immune would fight off a second infection of the same cold, I have three kids and it seems like the case to me. And I think you acknowledge that.

The way I read your quote says (to me) you are saying that the flu rapidly mutates, but the cold does not. That is why we have the flu vaccine. I don't have the knowledge to question that, I have no idea how many mutations or how rapid it is compared to the common cold (is that where I am off track? Am I getting my definitions wrong, as in strains of cold are not the same thing as mutations?)

I don't quite understand why that means we have a vaccine for the flu and not the cold. But I do still say that you can have immune protection/advantage from natural immune to the common cold, and I agree that it wont help preventing a different variant of the cold. if taking just "Natural immunity does nothing to stop a cold" is only valid in context with your full quote, then I apologise again.

I'm an uneducated farmer in my late 40's. I don't have any great expertise in any science or trade. I don't do social media and that makes me hesitant to get involved in these, i fear people my poor gramma doesn't portray my expression (like it did when you felt attacked, and I had been cherry picking your quote) and over many, many years here, I have made very few posts for that reason.
I wish I didn't say "last time" that's not me, and again I wear that, and I'm sorry I said it.

a reply to: AcrobaticDreams

So. What did you learn from the posts?

a reply to: tanstaafl

they are much more likely to cause more virulent mutations than the unjabbed.

Why?

Mutation is random. What is it about a vaccine which loads the dice? Why is a vaccine more likely to produce any particular sort of mutation?

a reply to: loveguy

Your source is about a computer model which makes several assumptions. The primary one being this:

While the vaccinated population is immune to the wildtype, it can be infected by the vaccine-resistant strain

In other words, the assumption of the model which you quote is that any mutation which occurs will occur in unvaccinated people and there is a chance that a mutation may be vaccine resistant.

Each day and for every individual infected with the wildtype strain, Iwt, there is a small probability p, that a vaccine-resistant strain emerges in that individual.

The point of the article about the model is this:

Indeed, it seems likely that when a large fraction of the population is vaccinated, especially the high-risk fraction of the population (aged individuals and those with specific underlying conditions) policy makers and individuals will be driven to return to pre-pandemic guidelines and behaviours conducive to a high rate of virus transmission

And that could be problematic because it increases the likelihood of a vaccine resistant mutation proliferating.

They were right, it seems, about the premature relaxation of mitigation efforts anyway.

www.nature.com...


But, if vaccination is so dangerous and pointless since COVID is pretty harmless anyway (right?), who cares if a variant resistant to that vaccine arises?

originally posted by: kangawoo
a reply to: BrujaRebooted

Look, I apologise if I came off wrong when I first asked if you were sure about a specific part of your comment. I do not doubt that you understand the science better than I do. I am also sure it is both my lack of knowledge and poor articulation (I'm not using sarcasm or gaslighting, I actually mean that)

I genuinely asked that initial question the way I did because I was having trouble interpreting exactly what you were meaning, I could have approached it better i'm sure, but there is a difference between asking clarification on something ("is this what you mean") and directly miss quoting a person.

I was careful to ask if that was what you were meaning. Yet, you still came back at me about miss quoting you, Which I certainly did not.

I did not "cherry pick" your quote either. I asked about the part that was confusing me in the context of what you said. And I was ok with your response, and you attack me again.

I do not pick fights, but if I feel I have been miss-understood I will try and clear it up, if i feel wrongly attacked, I will defend myself.

I'm in this to learn, nothing else. My understanding is/was the common cold is said to have around 200 strain/mutations/variants (I know they have independent definitions, but to my limited knowledge, they are the same excrement in a different bucket)
Again, im totally happy and expecting to be wrong here. I thought that, your natural immune would fight off a second infection of the same cold, I have three kids and it seems like the case to me. And I think you acknowledge that.

The way I read your quote says (to me) you are saying that the flu rapidly mutates, but the cold does not. That is why we have the flu vaccine. I don't have the knowledge to question that, I have no idea how many mutations or how rapid it is compared to the common cold (is that where I am off track? Am I getting my definitions wrong, as in strains of cold are not the same thing as mutations?)

I don't quite understand why that means we have a vaccine for the flu and not the cold. But I do still say that you can have immune protection/advantage from natural immune to the common cold, and I agree that it wont help preventing a different variant of the cold. if taking just "Natural immunity does nothing to stop a cold" is only valid in context with your full quote, then I apologise again.

I'm an uneducated farmer in my late 40's. I don't have any great expertise in any science or trade. I don't do social media and that makes me hesitant to get involved in these, i fear people my poor gramma doesn't portray my expression (like it did when you felt attacked, and I had been cherry picking your quote) and over many, many years here, I have made very few posts for that reason.
I wish I didn't say "last time" that's not me, and again I wear that, and I'm sorry I said it.

You say I attacked you, multiple times. Where? Quote me, please.

Generally I ignore your posts for obvious reasons, but...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tanstaafl
"they are much more likely to cause more virulent mutations than the unjabbed."

Why?

Ever heard of superbugs that are a direct result of the overuse of antibiotics? Same principle.

Of course, as a pro-vaxxer, I know you'll discount actual evidence since it contradicts your favored narrative.

Mutation is random. What is it about a vaccine which loads the dice? Why is a vaccine more likely to produce any particular sort of mutation?

Apparently you have never heard of simple things like the concept of ADE (antibody dependent enhancement), and the fact that these jabs don't actually prevent anyone from 'catching' COVID, creates a very serious concern they can and will cause ADE mutations.

Of course, as a pro-vaxxer and true believer in the religion of government controlled 'science', I know you'll point to CDC and other mutant ninja government propaganda articles claiming 'there is no evidence that these COVID jabs can create ADE'... so, don't bother responding, you just go on doing you.

Good vaccines don't.. and bad vaccines do

This is a bad vaccine.

Without data this looks like a rant post and your opening line is about ignorance?

Show the data and we can discuss, you’re coming from a place of ignorance yourself...

a reply to: AcrobaticDreams

Even for a NOVEL virus? That was engineered? Arent we dealing with a new animal here so to speak? What data can you offer to support your claim for novel engineered viruses mutating naturally, and not by design?

I’d suggest the vaccine is some sort of “key” which unlocks or directs the next mutation which is not random, but specified or preconceived in some way.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tanstaafl

they are much more likely to cause more virulent mutations than the unjabbed.

Why?

Mutation is random. What is it about a vaccine which loads the dice? Why is a vaccine more likely to produce any particular sort of mutation?

a reply to: AcrobaticDreams

It sounds like you are arguing semantics, nothing more.

For months now the data has been growing--in any given population, more shots have led to more infections.

"Cause" "result from" who cares? More shots result in more infections in any given population.

Why? Because it's a scam.