Adenovirus is a bad design for vaccines that need repeated shots aka boosters. This is because the body develops resistance to the virus after an exposure. The vaccines designed by AZ afaik were built so that the vector would be changed while reusing the shell. That’s why there have been no boosters from them. The booster would’ve been destroyed by the body before it reached its target. AZ was a one trick pony right out of the gate. That may be why their business dried up.
As for Guillain-Barre, this happens with a lot of vaccines given to kids. I was surprised when a pediatrician casually mentioned that is par for the course.
This was covered early on in the vaccine development. It's one of the reasons why no adenoviruses common to humans could be used because prior immunity would block the adenoviral vectors beforehand. I believe J&J went with a rare form of the adenovirus while AstraZeneca went with an adenovirus common to chimps (hence the name ChAdOX1). It's true that repeat vaccinations would be an issue regarding the targeting of the vector, but that's sort of besides the point since it hasn't been something that has been discussed widely (even though it's likely).
It just seems that these vaccines were continuously targeted and early comments regarding the thrombosis caused people to freak out.
Guillain-Barre does happen with other vaccines, but when examining the COVID vaccines in particular there's a rather clear signal that's greater for the adenoviral vaccines relative to the mRNA ones. This at least suggests that there may be something different with the adenoviral vaccines that may account for this higher signal.
Conspicuous Theory: Its just a diversion and set-up to funnel everything to mRNA - Astra Z bad. JJ bad. adenovirus vaxx bad. Convince everyone that mRNA is basically Good, sure a few random issues (sorry a few died but hey, it would have happened eventually) but just tweak it a bit and we can even cure cancer. Just Say No (thanks, Nancy Reagan!)
In some sense I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case. Remember early on when there were all of those reports of nurses passing out after getting the mRNA vaccines? All of those just dissipated but the fear of thrombosis was continuously sustained since very early on. I also wouldn't be surprised if the idea of "novelty" made people more prone to getting the mRNA vaccines as if they were something fashionable and trendy.
One concern I have is that these sorts of things may just serve as symbolic victories that distract from the fact that we may not ever get any resolution for those experiencing adverse events. I mean, is it really a win to get these vaccines removed when, by all accounts, it doesn't seem like anyone but the most ardent COVID fanatics are getting them? As far as I can tell most people have just moved on. In all honesty this was my intent when writing this piece- to at least make that point known, but I ended up removing that portion at the end. 🤷♂️
The pharma companies have lost bundles in 2023 and 2024 from making far more jabs than they sold. It’s a learning experience for them that concealing adverse effects, and eroding trust is not a long term win for profitability. Helping to kill the economy will also hurt sales of all their elective an OTC products. Might take a little while for the lesson to sink in, but it will.
Adenovirus is a bad design for vaccines that need repeated shots aka boosters. This is because the body develops resistance to the virus after an exposure. The vaccines designed by AZ afaik were built so that the vector would be changed while reusing the shell. That’s why there have been no boosters from them. The booster would’ve been destroyed by the body before it reached its target. AZ was a one trick pony right out of the gate. That may be why their business dried up.
As for Guillain-Barre, this happens with a lot of vaccines given to kids. I was surprised when a pediatrician casually mentioned that is par for the course.
This was covered early on in the vaccine development. It's one of the reasons why no adenoviruses common to humans could be used because prior immunity would block the adenoviral vectors beforehand. I believe J&J went with a rare form of the adenovirus while AstraZeneca went with an adenovirus common to chimps (hence the name ChAdOX1). It's true that repeat vaccinations would be an issue regarding the targeting of the vector, but that's sort of besides the point since it hasn't been something that has been discussed widely (even though it's likely).
It just seems that these vaccines were continuously targeted and early comments regarding the thrombosis caused people to freak out.
Guillain-Barre does happen with other vaccines, but when examining the COVID vaccines in particular there's a rather clear signal that's greater for the adenoviral vaccines relative to the mRNA ones. This at least suggests that there may be something different with the adenoviral vaccines that may account for this higher signal.
Conspicuous Theory: Its just a diversion and set-up to funnel everything to mRNA - Astra Z bad. JJ bad. adenovirus vaxx bad. Convince everyone that mRNA is basically Good, sure a few random issues (sorry a few died but hey, it would have happened eventually) but just tweak it a bit and we can even cure cancer. Just Say No (thanks, Nancy Reagan!)
In some sense I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case. Remember early on when there were all of those reports of nurses passing out after getting the mRNA vaccines? All of those just dissipated but the fear of thrombosis was continuously sustained since very early on. I also wouldn't be surprised if the idea of "novelty" made people more prone to getting the mRNA vaccines as if they were something fashionable and trendy.
Yep. I always said that J&J got thrown under the bus because they hadn't paid off as many lobbyists as Pfiz & Moderna.
J&J got hit harder by the aborted fetal cell line controversy due to production methods.
Likely they’re hoping all the troubles go away if the jabs are disappeared.
One concern I have is that these sorts of things may just serve as symbolic victories that distract from the fact that we may not ever get any resolution for those experiencing adverse events. I mean, is it really a win to get these vaccines removed when, by all accounts, it doesn't seem like anyone but the most ardent COVID fanatics are getting them? As far as I can tell most people have just moved on. In all honesty this was my intent when writing this piece- to at least make that point known, but I ended up removing that portion at the end. 🤷♂️
The pharma companies have lost bundles in 2023 and 2024 from making far more jabs than they sold. It’s a learning experience for them that concealing adverse effects, and eroding trust is not a long term win for profitability. Helping to kill the economy will also hurt sales of all their elective an OTC products. Might take a little while for the lesson to sink in, but it will.