Yes. When I questioned him about the apparent recurrent mutations (suggestive of convergent evolution) in the earlier trees compromising his molecular clock, I was given an over confident response regarding the timing of zoonosis
Brilliant, thorough, humble and honest and way over my head but I have a rock solid bullshit meter that did not go off. Thank you so much for putting this work out.
Can you explain how "asymptomatic spread" works in this case? It didn't exist before (despite the media wishing it did)… so how/why would this happen now?
The vax reduces symptoms (they claim) while still transmitting the disease.
My best guess is that severe symptoms like fevers (which might limit mobility) are diminished and this leaves patients with less severe symptoms that are easily written off as allergies by the vaccinated?
The vaccinated thus don’t reduce their mobility?
Maybe asymptomatic isn’t the right term, but symptoms that are easily written off as non-Covid and safe for socializing?
Agree that fever reduction could be giving people false confidence. And it could also be that vax doesn't reduce symptoms as well as they claim.
And I would argue that asymptomatic is not the right term here. "Allergies" are still mild symptoms, even if it's a runny nose and scratchy throat. So much of our pandemic response has been based on the myth of "asymptomatic super spreaders", and yet, like every other respiratory virus, that thankfully hasn't been the case. Yet so many experts, leaders and normal people believe that COVID can spread with ZERO symptoms. The WHO changing their definition of "asymptomatic" in June 2020 to include mild symptoms certainly didn't help matters.
"These are known to interact with Toll Like Receptors 4, 7/8 and reprogram the innate immune system and interfere with interferon."
Just a layman on these matters but the above seems highly problematic/ill-advised impact of the vaccines. I was shocked to once again come across TLRs after having read about them when researching my wife's cancer diagnosis a few years ago.
Was this looked at by the drug makers or regulators and dismissed as a concern or was it ignored? I l combined this with the work of the ethical skeptic and the alarming increase in cancer diagnosises and a deep rand horrifying revulsion consumes me.
from a 2016 study "Both in our clinical trials and in the literature review, several cases of neutropenia have been reported, in the first two weeks after vaccination. However, neutropenia was generally transient and had a benign clinical outcome, after vaccination with either multiple novel candidates or well-known licensed vaccines." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4974007/
Still no actual test for an original virus which may or may not exist, let alone any variants as Karl Mullins was clear that the rtPCR was never capable of being used as an infectious disease diagnostic. My money has always been on terrain over germ theory and forty years of no docs or illness based on operating out of that paradigm is convincing enough for me. Environmental, lifestyle and pharma toxicity explain all chronic illness. The rest is just chewing gum for the mind. And profit, of course.
Thanks for your comprehensive insights. Even though I understand this only roughly as a lay person it is really fascinating and I think I got the summary 😁🙏🏻
Delta is an escape variant even in a unvaccinated population, isn't that right? So, I may have missed your point, but I don't understand the reasoning behind associating the rise in delta and vaccination programs. Wouldn't this be expected in a unvaccinated population too?
one ref: On the contrary, the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose results in a reduction of cellular immunity in COVID-19 recovered individuals, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.22.436441v1. here's another: Long-Term Dangers of Experimental mRNA Shots
I've read others on this, but don't have the references.
He should have said immune system compromised, after the jab there is 14 days of immune compromised people walking around getting infected and selectively mutating the spike protein on the virus.
What happens specifically in those 14 days that makes it so specially different from an unvaccinated person? Are you referring to any study or just to what you think it is true?
Fine, so let's day that the chances of getting covid are higher between the first shot and 14 days after the second. If you are arguing that this is the basis to claim that vaccination poses higher risk for selecting escape variants then the problem is not the vaccine itself, it's a behavioral one: people should minimize social contacts and act as if they're unvaccinated until 14days after the 2nd shot pass. Correct? So I'm still confused whether you are trying to argue that *full vaccination* contributes more to the selection of escape variants than non-vaccination
This is the argument as I see if on this stack....quote form the article..."vaccines that drive Neutropenia and Lymphocytopenia for 7-14 days after the jab"...
Yes, I googled it and indeed found a paper about neutropenia being sometimes observed within 7-14 following vaccinations in general. But if this is what's behind the entire argumentation against covid vaccine, then the reasoning is moot since CDC considers people to be fully vaccinated only two weeks after the 2nd shot, and advises people to behave as if they were unvaccinated before that. So people "walking around and getting infected" within 14 days is a problem created by people's behavior, not by the vaccine. Of course the other important point is to know if unvaccinated people that get infected by covid also develop neutropenia and lymphocytopenia.
If I'm reading this right, the thesis here is that vaccines are responsible for mutations because increased number of mutations on spike protein sequence targeted by the vaccine. That is some high grade anti-vax fuel. Have you considered survivorship bias and why not?
I'd start with Directed Evolution Part 1. Vaccines are not responsible for the mutations directly. They alter the selective pressure such that viruses that have spike mutations become more prevalent than the Wuhan wild type strains that contain spike proteins the vax was designed from. Secondly, they lower white blood cells required to fight viral infections so the evolutionary experiment kicks into over drive. I've worked in a lab for 25 years and am vaccinated for everything but C19. Divisive binary pro vs anti ad-hominens will be deleted. As for survivorship bias, thats spelled out here - https://youtu.be/guMqyrmni4I
My understanding is that the delta variant spreads faster and escapes neutralizing antibodies even in unvaccinated individuals. Is there any reason to doubt that it would be the predominant strain even if everyone was unvaccinated?
Yes. The innate immunity active in unvaccinated individuals is by nature non-specific, and allows a variety of mutations to coincide in a given population. This is what we saw during the first year of the pandemic. The dominance of vocs did not begin occurring until last fall, when vaccine trials and rollouts were initiated on a large scale, placing selective pressure on the virus (see graphs in this clip: https://youtu.be/B_Z_ezKnCsc).
Geert explains selection pressure here, beginning at 34:45.
Isn't it so that right now a resourceful scientist can take existing variants and cultivate a newer mutation for higher virulence and other undesirable characteristics?
Is it even possible to distinguish between lab-directed mutations vs population level selective pressure directed mutations?
Trevor Bedford - the same guy that pushed 'zoonosis' theory from the very beginning while heavily discounting 'lab-origin' hypothesis.
https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1230634136102064128
Yes. When I questioned him about the apparent recurrent mutations (suggestive of convergent evolution) in the earlier trees compromising his molecular clock, I was given an over confident response regarding the timing of zoonosis
Brilliant, thorough, humble and honest and way over my head but I have a rock solid bullshit meter that did not go off. Thank you so much for putting this work out.
Do you have any documentation that GISAID has "Uncle Bill's" grant money?
Can you explain how "asymptomatic spread" works in this case? It didn't exist before (despite the media wishing it did)… so how/why would this happen now?
I don’t know.
I’m trying to resolve two data points.
The vax reduces symptoms (they claim) while still transmitting the disease.
My best guess is that severe symptoms like fevers (which might limit mobility) are diminished and this leaves patients with less severe symptoms that are easily written off as allergies by the vaccinated?
The vaccinated thus don’t reduce their mobility?
Maybe asymptomatic isn’t the right term, but symptoms that are easily written off as non-Covid and safe for socializing?
Agree that fever reduction could be giving people false confidence. And it could also be that vax doesn't reduce symptoms as well as they claim.
And I would argue that asymptomatic is not the right term here. "Allergies" are still mild symptoms, even if it's a runny nose and scratchy throat. So much of our pandemic response has been based on the myth of "asymptomatic super spreaders", and yet, like every other respiratory virus, that thankfully hasn't been the case. Yet so many experts, leaders and normal people believe that COVID can spread with ZERO symptoms. The WHO changing their definition of "asymptomatic" in June 2020 to include mild symptoms certainly didn't help matters.
I don't know anything about vaccinology but is this 7-14 day neutropenia phenomenon known with other historical vaccines?
Other vaccines can induce this however there are aspects of this that may be unique to the pseudouridine in the vaccines.
These are known to interact with Toll Like Receptors 4, 7/8 and reprogram the innate immune system and interfere with interferon.
Also, other vaccines that may induce neutropenia, tend to be sterilizing.
It’s a bad mix to be have non sterilizing vaccination while suppressing the innate immune system.
"These are known to interact with Toll Like Receptors 4, 7/8 and reprogram the innate immune system and interfere with interferon."
Just a layman on these matters but the above seems highly problematic/ill-advised impact of the vaccines. I was shocked to once again come across TLRs after having read about them when researching my wife's cancer diagnosis a few years ago.
Was this looked at by the drug makers or regulators and dismissed as a concern or was it ignored? I l combined this with the work of the ethical skeptic and the alarming increase in cancer diagnosises and a deep rand horrifying revulsion consumes me.
What have they done? Please tell me no.
from a 2016 study "Both in our clinical trials and in the literature review, several cases of neutropenia have been reported, in the first two weeks after vaccination. However, neutropenia was generally transient and had a benign clinical outcome, after vaccination with either multiple novel candidates or well-known licensed vaccines." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4974007/
Nothing new from you?! That's a pity. No ''Directed Evolution III''?
Still no actual test for an original virus which may or may not exist, let alone any variants as Karl Mullins was clear that the rtPCR was never capable of being used as an infectious disease diagnostic. My money has always been on terrain over germ theory and forty years of no docs or illness based on operating out of that paradigm is convincing enough for me. Environmental, lifestyle and pharma toxicity explain all chronic illness. The rest is just chewing gum for the mind. And profit, of course.
Thanks for your comprehensive insights. Even though I understand this only roughly as a lay person it is really fascinating and I think I got the summary 😁🙏🏻
Delta is an escape variant even in a unvaccinated population, isn't that right? So, I may have missed your point, but I don't understand the reasoning behind associating the rise in delta and vaccination programs. Wouldn't this be expected in a unvaccinated population too?
the vaccinated have their immunity compromised, so are more susceptible to Delta
"vaccinated have their immunity compromised" where did you find this information? It is, to say the least, very counterintuitive.
one ref: On the contrary, the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose results in a reduction of cellular immunity in COVID-19 recovered individuals, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.22.436441v1. here's another: Long-Term Dangers of Experimental mRNA Shots
I've read others on this, but don't have the references.
He should have said immune system compromised, after the jab there is 14 days of immune compromised people walking around getting infected and selectively mutating the spike protein on the virus.
What happens specifically in those 14 days that makes it so specially different from an unvaccinated person? Are you referring to any study or just to what you think it is true?
Look at the Pfizer trial.
409 people in the vax arm got C19 after the first jab.
287 in the placebo arm.
Why?
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n783/rr
Fine, so let's day that the chances of getting covid are higher between the first shot and 14 days after the second. If you are arguing that this is the basis to claim that vaccination poses higher risk for selecting escape variants then the problem is not the vaccine itself, it's a behavioral one: people should minimize social contacts and act as if they're unvaccinated until 14days after the 2nd shot pass. Correct? So I'm still confused whether you are trying to argue that *full vaccination* contributes more to the selection of escape variants than non-vaccination
This is the argument as I see if on this stack....quote form the article..."vaccines that drive Neutropenia and Lymphocytopenia for 7-14 days after the jab"...
Yes, I googled it and indeed found a paper about neutropenia being sometimes observed within 7-14 following vaccinations in general. But if this is what's behind the entire argumentation against covid vaccine, then the reasoning is moot since CDC considers people to be fully vaccinated only two weeks after the 2nd shot, and advises people to behave as if they were unvaccinated before that. So people "walking around and getting infected" within 14 days is a problem created by people's behavior, not by the vaccine. Of course the other important point is to know if unvaccinated people that get infected by covid also develop neutropenia and lymphocytopenia.
If I'm reading this right, the thesis here is that vaccines are responsible for mutations because increased number of mutations on spike protein sequence targeted by the vaccine. That is some high grade anti-vax fuel. Have you considered survivorship bias and why not?
I'd start with Directed Evolution Part 1. Vaccines are not responsible for the mutations directly. They alter the selective pressure such that viruses that have spike mutations become more prevalent than the Wuhan wild type strains that contain spike proteins the vax was designed from. Secondly, they lower white blood cells required to fight viral infections so the evolutionary experiment kicks into over drive. I've worked in a lab for 25 years and am vaccinated for everything but C19. Divisive binary pro vs anti ad-hominens will be deleted. As for survivorship bias, thats spelled out here - https://youtu.be/guMqyrmni4I
My understanding is that the delta variant spreads faster and escapes neutralizing antibodies even in unvaccinated individuals. Is there any reason to doubt that it would be the predominant strain even if everyone was unvaccinated?
Yes. The innate immunity active in unvaccinated individuals is by nature non-specific, and allows a variety of mutations to coincide in a given population. This is what we saw during the first year of the pandemic. The dominance of vocs did not begin occurring until last fall, when vaccine trials and rollouts were initiated on a large scale, placing selective pressure on the virus (see graphs in this clip: https://youtu.be/B_Z_ezKnCsc).
Geert explains selection pressure here, beginning at 34:45.
https://youtu.be/qP31cfD3YOY
Isn't it so that right now a resourceful scientist can take existing variants and cultivate a newer mutation for higher virulence and other undesirable characteristics?
Is it even possible to distinguish between lab-directed mutations vs population level selective pressure directed mutations?