Viruses are intelligent. They exhibit a swarm intelligence (like an ant colony perhaps) and one of the things they are good at figuring out is how to create more of themselves, and how to bypass defenses. So a leaky vaccine promotes more diversity in the swarm, which is constantly trying out new combinations to bypass the vaccine. Seems to work out good for the virus, eh?
The "effectiveness" is also a term of misuse. The 95% number that had been bandied about so much was never true. It described a relative risk reduction, maybe, except for cherry picking the participants and kicking done out that made numbers look bad. But the absolute risk reduction, at least for a two month period of the trials was only 1 percent. And what was the measure to determine that? As you point out, poor measures.
So perhaps a piece on what is relative risk and absolute risk would be a good refresher for everyone?
Yes, I was vague with effectiveness in this and I was somewhat alluding to relative risk reduction with my car/seatbelt analogy, although I didn't expand on absolute risk reduction. RRR would be heavily dependent on the point of exposure/incident and whether the variable at play is effective. Absolute risk would measure the entire possibility of that incident occurring.
So in the case of RRR in a seatbelt analogy we would argue how effective a the seatbelt is at reducing severe harm or death while ARR would measure how often you are likely to get into an accident in the first place.
I never believed the 95%, but only included it as a reference to the values provided in the clinical trials even though I considered it to be both a severe overestimation as well as one that isn't a proper measure as indicated in the various mathematical models from some of the articles I cited.
Yes, the 95% figure set the narrative for subsequent discussion, so when I see someone saying that the effectiveness drops too some lower number over time,I find that meaningless other than telling me it works even less than the initial poor ARR.
Further complicating the picture is the impact of "leaky vaccines" on the mutation and evolution of the target virus. By not stopping disease spread in its tracks the COVID inoculations created conditions that favored the emergence of SARS-COV-2 variants particularly able to evade antibodies generated from an original SARS-COV-2 infection.
The broad phenomenon was described all the way back in the 19th century when Darwin wrote "Origin of Species".
While the emergence of Omicron is difficult to tie to the inoculations in this fashion, owing to the relatively low inoculation rates in South Africa and Botswana, arguably that variant, as well as BA4 and BA5, was facilitated by the mass inoculation campaigns conducted while community spread was raging.
Which means the "leaky" COVID inoculations potentially are a threat to the non-inoculated, as they are raising the probability that variants of SARS-COV-2 will emerge for which even previous infection and natural immunity will not provide much protection.
I may write a post about that soon. It's important to keep in mind that the vaccines may select for more pathogenic variants but does not create them.
I'm not sure how to compare South Africa, because on one hand South Africa may have been a site for some of the vaccine clinical trials, but it also has relative low vaccination. I'm not sure I can make a proper argument in stating that the vaccines caused the large spread of Omicron because of this factor.
"Cause" is probably the wrong word to use when discussing factors influencing mutations--which ultimately is what viral variants are.
No vaccine or inoculation "causes" or "creates" new viral variants per se. That notion runs contrary to the basic understanding of evolution from Darwin onward. However, selective pressure is pretty much basic biology. The inoculations are not going to be the only selective pressure guiding the emergence of new variants but it would be a most extraordinary claim to argue they present no selective pressure at all. The generation of antibodies, neutralizing or otherwise, is a discernible change in the environment within the host.
As a basic premise, the expected result of the selective pressure of antibody-generating inoculations would be to favor the emergence of variants better able to evade those antibodies. To the extent that the inoculations generate the same antibodies as natural infection, variants able to evade those antibodies are going to be more able to infect the previously infected, thus degrading or even eliminating natural immunity.
The rebuke that we see often in the media that the inoculations do not "cause" variants is somewhere between disingenuous and dishonest because of this, as it is ultimately a straw man. True, lay people might use words like "cause" or "create"--and that is technically inaccurate--but that technical flaw does not alter the broader reality that the selective pressures which almost certainly have to exist from the inoculations favor the emergence of variants able to defeat, not only the antibodies generated from the inoculations but also at least some of the antibodies generated from infection. That puts the inoculations in the position of increasing infection risk to uninoculated individuals with natural immunity from prior infection.
Omicron is a conundrum on many levels. The prevailing hypothesis for its emergence is that the original viral strain infected an immunocompromised individual unable to clear the virus, and the extended period of infection/replication/mutation--presumably in the presence of whatever antibodies the infected host was able to generate--resulted in a variant able to evade more if not most of the antibodies generated both by inoculation and by infection from the original strain. If we could identify Patient Zero, we could establish whether or not inoculations were on board, which would establish the degree to which inoculations played a formative role.
On a side note, Omicron, while it may not have been facilitated by the inoculations, does point to another potential risk factor from the inoculations. If, as the media reporting on Paxlovid rebound appears to indicate (and its been awhile since I've looked at any data on that issue, so I might be out of date on this), inoculated patients have greater incidence of Paxlovid rebound than non-inoculated patients, we have a very strong signal that the inoculations may actually be degrading the immune system and rendering the patient less able to clear the virus. Immunosuppression from the inoculations has been shown to occur, although it is supposed to be a transitory effect, but if it is not transitory and if it is leaving patients less able to clear the virus naturally, then the inoculations, while not facilitating the emergence of Omicron, are helping create more such immunocompromised/immunodeficient patients, and thus could facilitate the development of more "Omicrons", as it were. At this point, that effect is still largely speculative, but, depending on what is actually happening with Paxlovid rebound, I'm not sure we can dismiss it as a possibility.
I think most people, like you Peter, understand the subtleties but I suppose it's a bit of a cautionary argument in the use of "cause" because I believe many people are stating that the vaccine is causing the mutations with the idea they do, in fact, cause the mutations which is not the case like you mentioned.
I usually like to think of it as a sieve, and everyone has a different sieve which allows things to escape. So technically both the vaccine recipients and those who are naturally immunized have their own sieves, but we are led to believe that the vaccine and natural immunity cause the same porous holes in the sieves when they really are likely to be different, and it's the difference that is important.
I actually don't believe that the immunocompromised patient argument is actually valid even though this is the predominate belief. In someone without an immune system, the virus would have no sieve to worry about, and instead would have to outcompete each other in order to gain a footing in the immunocompromised host. Therefore the more virulent, transmissible variant will reign supreme.
The issue is that Omicron isn't necessarily that. It's evolution isn't one that follows this path of increased virulence and pathogenicity, but instead appears to have been some tangential mutation. It's like instead of slowly turning at a curve you immediately pull your wheel to the right and start going straight.
It's also why, at the coming of Omicron, I've remarked that it's essentially as if everyone has to start new in both the vaccinated and naturally immunized because it is just so different that it likely escaped any prior immunity.
I partially believe that the argument about the immunocompromised host is ironically one similar to monkeypox- South Africa is dealing with AIDS, AIDS leads to immunocompromised, Omicron has many mutations and thus Omicron may have come from an immunocompromised host in South Africa who may have been infected with AIDS. It just feels like one of those ideas that's made to fit because the hypothesis allows it to fit.
As to PAXLOVID, I need more information about the immunocompromised nature playing a role. I think right now it feels a bit too inferential and, once again, it just fits too well into preconceived notions that we should be careful in making it fit for the sake of having it fit.
All trials and reports absolutely ought to report 3 figures: RRR, ARR, NNT for Relative Risk Reduction, Absolute Risk Reduction and Number Nedded to Treat. Almost invariably, they only repeat RRR (to maximize appearance of benefit) and, very occasionally ARR (when minimizing AEs). The much vaunted 90-95% efficacy of BNT162b2 was RRR; ARR was approximately 0.84% (net) with a NNT of more than 110.
Yes I remember people conducting actual ARR measures and it was somewhere around 1%. In the case of Omicron we could argue that the higher transmission rate would greatly affect the ARR as well as the RRR.
Jun 10, 2022·edited Jun 10, 2022Liked by Modern Discontent
I love your articles, even though most of them are over my head :) (and I initially went to University for a biochem major). This may be a typo or it just may be my lack of knowledge: "Leaky vaccines are an example of a vaccine in which the effectiveness is based on degree of effectiveness." ... Can you explain how "the effectiveness is based on ...[the effectiveness]"? It seems circular/tautological to me. Thank you!
So I changed "degree of effectiveness" to "infection reduction". I will try to release another post later today covering a leaky vaccine study but then add some corrections and context to this post.
Apologies for that! I'll try to fix that sentence. I tried being a bit vague because, depending on what you look at, the definition of an "effective" vaccine can vary. I tried to comment that a leaky vaccine is only as good as its ability to reduce infection in a large part of the population. But again, what one person defines as a leaky vaccine and effectiveness may differ and it may just come down to statistical modeling. I'll try to reword that sentence and make it less circular. I definitely see the problem with the phrasing.
Jun 11, 2022·edited Jun 11, 2022Liked by Modern Discontent
You rock!!! Thank you. Now I understand :-))) ...I want you to know I was NOT being picky. I'm trying to track everything you're writing and since I'm not as well-versed in the science, I read each word carefully (and haha I'm an attorney by training, so very "literal" by nature ((facepalm)).) I have a question for you. Peter McCullough has said (and I can try to find the clip I heard it on if you're interested), that there are 5 factors that make a substance a vaccine:
1. Must give you antibody immunity to virus or bacterium
2. Antibody must give protection from the virus or bacterium
3. Injection must show it reduces hospitalizations, deaths, or severe symptoms of the virus or bacterium
4. Stops you from carrying the virus or bacterium
5. Stops the transmission of that virus or bacterium from one person to the next
Dr. McCullough said the gene therapies do not meet any of the 5 criteria, and therefore, are not vaccines. I think #3 IS debatable, but for sure, the whole world now knows that the substances do not stop people from contracting Covid nor from transmitting Covid. So, I refuse to call them "vaccines" because a) based on the above, I was told they're not and b) this word implies a societal/moral obligation for people to take them, and I do not want to keep perpetuating that concept.
Curious what your thoughts are on Dr. McCullough's 5 criteria definition of what constitutes a "vaccine"? Many thanks!!
Oh no, it certainly isn't being picky! It was a circular comment, and I didn't explain it properly. I was trying to define what a leaky vaccine is without describing what a vaccine is in general, so that's my fault. I think I should try correcting that in the correction post.
I'm no vaccinologist so I have been very broad with my assumption as I try to piece these things together. That's an interesting list, I do wonder how he defines #1 and #2 separately. Those are partially true, and it's certainly true that #3->#5 are where many failures are. #3 comes down to how these are properly measured which is a fault of clinical trials.
I think to answer that I would have to look into the literature. I may have to write a separate post describing vaccines instead of jumping into describing what a leaky vaccine is.
I ***THINK*** he defines #1 as direct immunity, and not indirect as in ... we inject spike proteins into you and then the spike proteins are then catalysts to create immunity.
I included Dr. McCollough's outline above in my second vaccinology post if you don't mind.
Technically, direct effects are those that the vaccine recipient experience while indirect may be something such as hanging around vaccinated people when you yourself are not vaccinated.
Of course, I don't mind! After I wrote it to you, I actually looked for the video to share with you, but I didn't jot down the URL (I started keeping a spreadsheet of links to various information I came across so I can refer to it later...especially to open the minds of others.)
That is EXACTLY what happened to me regarding getting "lost" in a kind of circular/ tautological "reasoning". I'm no expert, but thought I had a better than average foundation for understanding this...but I'm lost. Even the explanation of a "leaky" vaccine was quite different than the understanding I had. Also the above reference to absolute and relative risk would be a good refresher as expressed by Paul R.
Hi Ann. What was your definition of a leaky vaccine? I tried to take this from some of the literature that I found, but like I stated above a lot of these terms have actually been derived from the types of failures that a vaccine has. A leaky vaccine is one considered to have an issue of "degree" effectiveness while an all-or-nothing/sterilizing vaccine is an issue of "take". I think when trying to reword that information it may have ended up even more confusing.
I was going to talk more about absolute or relative risk reduction but I wanted to keep it somewhat simplified. Certainly the absolute risk reduction at least takes into account a person's overall exposure risk while relative risk is heavily dependent on scenarios and behaviors.
Not a "hater", so not not meant in a disparaging way. Some who read this are actually sincere and may be struggling through the over abundance of words (which is fine...except when the words "seem" to contradict, gets confusing, and YES, trying to understand how a "vaccine" is intended to "work", is not for we armatures ! To put it very simply, the understanding I had of a "leaky" vaccine is one that creates a barrier that "leaks"; it creates an imperfect "barrier" that does not prevent the virus in the recipient, it simply "may" prevent a lessening of symptoms, a "milder" form so to speak. Now I have to add, my limited knowledge was taught to me long before Covid, and was taught in the context of virus spread in chickens ! But in "those days"....lol... a leaky vaccine was considered imperfect, and in some way ill advised or even "dangerous", because while it "may" lessen symptoms, it allows the virus enough time to be transmitted to others (a considerable down-side to consider when making decisions concerning use because it allows the virus to survive and spread through a population, or a "flock" in relation to chickens. Bottom line, the category of vaccines considered "leaky" often allow the virus to develop into some really nasty strains, and most worrisome of all, put all unvaccinated individuals (or chickens !) at much greater risk. Hence, I suppose (?) the government's constant pleading for every citizen, adult and child, to be vaccinated immediately. Of course you were explaining the same thing, I just wanted to add a less technical comment for any others, like myself, who have only a lay person's understanding of the "reactions" of various vaccine compositions. If this helps those like me, that don't have the depth of knowledge of chemical reaction to understand in detail was all. I used to tell my grad students that while it seems reasonable/logical to use as high a level of technical language as they knew in technical assignments, when writing articles for popular consumption, their challenge should be to simplify as much as possible while preserving the basic established facts. Now there is a challenge, lol, right ? Thank you are your interesting postings ! And apologies are never necessary !
Oh Ann, unless it's apparent that a comment is made in bad faith or as an ad hominem I take things as constructive criticism! So in the same way you hope I'm not taking it in a disparaging way I'd hope you don't think I perceive it as such as well!
You know, I've gotten a few comments that the information may be difficult to parse for the common person. It's a difficult predicament because, from my perspective, I think there's an issue where information is simplified so much that the actual intent and meat of a study gets lost. So I tend to hope that as I continue to post a study, provide some figures and context that hopefully people can begin to piece things together, but that also comes with it's own assumptions.
You're definition is true, but I suppose there's an issue as to how "imperfect" a leaky vaccine is, or even what defines "leaky". If it's a reduction of symptoms, then it requires us to examine the clinical studies and the participants. Then we need to figure out if the participants who experience minor symptoms are the ones who would have experienced more severe symptoms if not for the vaccines- more stratification of the data. Among other things, I suppose that there's a few factors that just add to the problems of defining an imperfect vaccine. But even then it may just be far too technical.
I always welcome people's comments. I understand how technical this information can be and the jargon can go over many people. It just seems too hard to sometimes simplify the information and make it more accessible. But any advice on how you approach such a thing would be greatly appreciated!
All so true ! I do believe there are some things (factors) that are simply unknowable. Your comments concerning study participants and a close examination in an attempt to know if they "would" have otherwise experienced more severe symptoms.... well, isn't that the type of question that does NOT occur to the general public when opening a popular publication and reading: " a recent study showed __________ (fill in the blank) ! I would say of all the things I've learned in formal education, none have changed how I analyze every word I read like the training I've had in how to conduct research. Finding how data can be manipulated through including and excluding variables, selection of the participants, even selecting the standard deviation. After learning all the "in's and outs" of setting up of a study..... I have definitely learned to read all studies with a very critical eye. I almost always have many more questions concerning HOW the decision was made as to what variable should be included or discarded, and always about the format; blind, double blind, etc. etc. I am such a cynic, knowledge is a wonderful thing, but, it can also result in a natural skepticism and this entire "Covid" event has certainly presented much to be skeptical of ! And now, here we are about to release the next "batch" of studies on the safety of Covid "vaccines" for very young children and babies. Want to place a bet on what the anxiously awaited recommendation will be ? ? ?
And that's one of my biggest issues. I don't want people to just read the title of a paper or hear something from a media outlet and then believe that they are informed about a study. But to get to the meat of it requires a bit of technical babble and then you run into the issue of whether your audience understands it all.
Apologies for responding late Ann, but I'm pretty sure we would have been on the same side of the bet, and would certainly win it! It's such a shame because these studies were horribly designed and yet so many are naïve to it.
Now going to be interesting to see how the most vaccinated individual on earth "spins" it. Will the famous doctor claim if not multiple vaccinations and multiple boosters, he'd be dead ? I wonder if we will ever get a "study" on ALL of this, so far, the stats coming from "studies" on effectiveness of Covid vaccination are not looking good AT ALL.... some at 37% and that's with all the "wiggle room", hummm !
Viruses are intelligent. They exhibit a swarm intelligence (like an ant colony perhaps) and one of the things they are good at figuring out is how to create more of themselves, and how to bypass defenses. So a leaky vaccine promotes more diversity in the swarm, which is constantly trying out new combinations to bypass the vaccine. Seems to work out good for the virus, eh?
The "effectiveness" is also a term of misuse. The 95% number that had been bandied about so much was never true. It described a relative risk reduction, maybe, except for cherry picking the participants and kicking done out that made numbers look bad. But the absolute risk reduction, at least for a two month period of the trials was only 1 percent. And what was the measure to determine that? As you point out, poor measures.
So perhaps a piece on what is relative risk and absolute risk would be a good refresher for everyone?
Yes, I was vague with effectiveness in this and I was somewhat alluding to relative risk reduction with my car/seatbelt analogy, although I didn't expand on absolute risk reduction. RRR would be heavily dependent on the point of exposure/incident and whether the variable at play is effective. Absolute risk would measure the entire possibility of that incident occurring.
So in the case of RRR in a seatbelt analogy we would argue how effective a the seatbelt is at reducing severe harm or death while ARR would measure how often you are likely to get into an accident in the first place.
I never believed the 95%, but only included it as a reference to the values provided in the clinical trials even though I considered it to be both a severe overestimation as well as one that isn't a proper measure as indicated in the various mathematical models from some of the articles I cited.
Yes, the 95% figure set the narrative for subsequent discussion, so when I see someone saying that the effectiveness drops too some lower number over time,I find that meaningless other than telling me it works even less than the initial poor ARR.
Thanks for all your sleuthing and writing!
Further complicating the picture is the impact of "leaky vaccines" on the mutation and evolution of the target virus. By not stopping disease spread in its tracks the COVID inoculations created conditions that favored the emergence of SARS-COV-2 variants particularly able to evade antibodies generated from an original SARS-COV-2 infection.
The broad phenomenon was described all the way back in the 19th century when Darwin wrote "Origin of Species".
While the emergence of Omicron is difficult to tie to the inoculations in this fashion, owing to the relatively low inoculation rates in South Africa and Botswana, arguably that variant, as well as BA4 and BA5, was facilitated by the mass inoculation campaigns conducted while community spread was raging.
Which means the "leaky" COVID inoculations potentially are a threat to the non-inoculated, as they are raising the probability that variants of SARS-COV-2 will emerge for which even previous infection and natural immunity will not provide much protection.
I may write a post about that soon. It's important to keep in mind that the vaccines may select for more pathogenic variants but does not create them.
I'm not sure how to compare South Africa, because on one hand South Africa may have been a site for some of the vaccine clinical trials, but it also has relative low vaccination. I'm not sure I can make a proper argument in stating that the vaccines caused the large spread of Omicron because of this factor.
"Cause" is probably the wrong word to use when discussing factors influencing mutations--which ultimately is what viral variants are.
No vaccine or inoculation "causes" or "creates" new viral variants per se. That notion runs contrary to the basic understanding of evolution from Darwin onward. However, selective pressure is pretty much basic biology. The inoculations are not going to be the only selective pressure guiding the emergence of new variants but it would be a most extraordinary claim to argue they present no selective pressure at all. The generation of antibodies, neutralizing or otherwise, is a discernible change in the environment within the host.
As a basic premise, the expected result of the selective pressure of antibody-generating inoculations would be to favor the emergence of variants better able to evade those antibodies. To the extent that the inoculations generate the same antibodies as natural infection, variants able to evade those antibodies are going to be more able to infect the previously infected, thus degrading or even eliminating natural immunity.
The rebuke that we see often in the media that the inoculations do not "cause" variants is somewhere between disingenuous and dishonest because of this, as it is ultimately a straw man. True, lay people might use words like "cause" or "create"--and that is technically inaccurate--but that technical flaw does not alter the broader reality that the selective pressures which almost certainly have to exist from the inoculations favor the emergence of variants able to defeat, not only the antibodies generated from the inoculations but also at least some of the antibodies generated from infection. That puts the inoculations in the position of increasing infection risk to uninoculated individuals with natural immunity from prior infection.
Omicron is a conundrum on many levels. The prevailing hypothesis for its emergence is that the original viral strain infected an immunocompromised individual unable to clear the virus, and the extended period of infection/replication/mutation--presumably in the presence of whatever antibodies the infected host was able to generate--resulted in a variant able to evade more if not most of the antibodies generated both by inoculation and by infection from the original strain. If we could identify Patient Zero, we could establish whether or not inoculations were on board, which would establish the degree to which inoculations played a formative role.
On a side note, Omicron, while it may not have been facilitated by the inoculations, does point to another potential risk factor from the inoculations. If, as the media reporting on Paxlovid rebound appears to indicate (and its been awhile since I've looked at any data on that issue, so I might be out of date on this), inoculated patients have greater incidence of Paxlovid rebound than non-inoculated patients, we have a very strong signal that the inoculations may actually be degrading the immune system and rendering the patient less able to clear the virus. Immunosuppression from the inoculations has been shown to occur, although it is supposed to be a transitory effect, but if it is not transitory and if it is leaving patients less able to clear the virus naturally, then the inoculations, while not facilitating the emergence of Omicron, are helping create more such immunocompromised/immunodeficient patients, and thus could facilitate the development of more "Omicrons", as it were. At this point, that effect is still largely speculative, but, depending on what is actually happening with Paxlovid rebound, I'm not sure we can dismiss it as a possibility.
I think most people, like you Peter, understand the subtleties but I suppose it's a bit of a cautionary argument in the use of "cause" because I believe many people are stating that the vaccine is causing the mutations with the idea they do, in fact, cause the mutations which is not the case like you mentioned.
I usually like to think of it as a sieve, and everyone has a different sieve which allows things to escape. So technically both the vaccine recipients and those who are naturally immunized have their own sieves, but we are led to believe that the vaccine and natural immunity cause the same porous holes in the sieves when they really are likely to be different, and it's the difference that is important.
I actually don't believe that the immunocompromised patient argument is actually valid even though this is the predominate belief. In someone without an immune system, the virus would have no sieve to worry about, and instead would have to outcompete each other in order to gain a footing in the immunocompromised host. Therefore the more virulent, transmissible variant will reign supreme.
The issue is that Omicron isn't necessarily that. It's evolution isn't one that follows this path of increased virulence and pathogenicity, but instead appears to have been some tangential mutation. It's like instead of slowly turning at a curve you immediately pull your wheel to the right and start going straight.
It's also why, at the coming of Omicron, I've remarked that it's essentially as if everyone has to start new in both the vaccinated and naturally immunized because it is just so different that it likely escaped any prior immunity.
I partially believe that the argument about the immunocompromised host is ironically one similar to monkeypox- South Africa is dealing with AIDS, AIDS leads to immunocompromised, Omicron has many mutations and thus Omicron may have come from an immunocompromised host in South Africa who may have been infected with AIDS. It just feels like one of those ideas that's made to fit because the hypothesis allows it to fit.
As to PAXLOVID, I need more information about the immunocompromised nature playing a role. I think right now it feels a bit too inferential and, once again, it just fits too well into preconceived notions that we should be careful in making it fit for the sake of having it fit.
All trials and reports absolutely ought to report 3 figures: RRR, ARR, NNT for Relative Risk Reduction, Absolute Risk Reduction and Number Nedded to Treat. Almost invariably, they only repeat RRR (to maximize appearance of benefit) and, very occasionally ARR (when minimizing AEs). The much vaunted 90-95% efficacy of BNT162b2 was RRR; ARR was approximately 0.84% (net) with a NNT of more than 110.
Yes I remember people conducting actual ARR measures and it was somewhere around 1%. In the case of Omicron we could argue that the higher transmission rate would greatly affect the ARR as well as the RRR.
I love your articles, even though most of them are over my head :) (and I initially went to University for a biochem major). This may be a typo or it just may be my lack of knowledge: "Leaky vaccines are an example of a vaccine in which the effectiveness is based on degree of effectiveness." ... Can you explain how "the effectiveness is based on ...[the effectiveness]"? It seems circular/tautological to me. Thank you!
So I changed "degree of effectiveness" to "infection reduction". I will try to release another post later today covering a leaky vaccine study but then add some corrections and context to this post.
Apologies for that! I'll try to fix that sentence. I tried being a bit vague because, depending on what you look at, the definition of an "effective" vaccine can vary. I tried to comment that a leaky vaccine is only as good as its ability to reduce infection in a large part of the population. But again, what one person defines as a leaky vaccine and effectiveness may differ and it may just come down to statistical modeling. I'll try to reword that sentence and make it less circular. I definitely see the problem with the phrasing.
You rock!!! Thank you. Now I understand :-))) ...I want you to know I was NOT being picky. I'm trying to track everything you're writing and since I'm not as well-versed in the science, I read each word carefully (and haha I'm an attorney by training, so very "literal" by nature ((facepalm)).) I have a question for you. Peter McCullough has said (and I can try to find the clip I heard it on if you're interested), that there are 5 factors that make a substance a vaccine:
1. Must give you antibody immunity to virus or bacterium
2. Antibody must give protection from the virus or bacterium
3. Injection must show it reduces hospitalizations, deaths, or severe symptoms of the virus or bacterium
4. Stops you from carrying the virus or bacterium
5. Stops the transmission of that virus or bacterium from one person to the next
Dr. McCullough said the gene therapies do not meet any of the 5 criteria, and therefore, are not vaccines. I think #3 IS debatable, but for sure, the whole world now knows that the substances do not stop people from contracting Covid nor from transmitting Covid. So, I refuse to call them "vaccines" because a) based on the above, I was told they're not and b) this word implies a societal/moral obligation for people to take them, and I do not want to keep perpetuating that concept.
Curious what your thoughts are on Dr. McCullough's 5 criteria definition of what constitutes a "vaccine"? Many thanks!!
Oh no, it certainly isn't being picky! It was a circular comment, and I didn't explain it properly. I was trying to define what a leaky vaccine is without describing what a vaccine is in general, so that's my fault. I think I should try correcting that in the correction post.
I'm no vaccinologist so I have been very broad with my assumption as I try to piece these things together. That's an interesting list, I do wonder how he defines #1 and #2 separately. Those are partially true, and it's certainly true that #3->#5 are where many failures are. #3 comes down to how these are properly measured which is a fault of clinical trials.
I think to answer that I would have to look into the literature. I may have to write a separate post describing vaccines instead of jumping into describing what a leaky vaccine is.
I ***THINK*** he defines #1 as direct immunity, and not indirect as in ... we inject spike proteins into you and then the spike proteins are then catalysts to create immunity.
I included Dr. McCollough's outline above in my second vaccinology post if you don't mind.
Technically, direct effects are those that the vaccine recipient experience while indirect may be something such as hanging around vaccinated people when you yourself are not vaccinated.
Of course, I don't mind! After I wrote it to you, I actually looked for the video to share with you, but I didn't jot down the URL (I started keeping a spreadsheet of links to various information I came across so I can refer to it later...especially to open the minds of others.)
That is EXACTLY what happened to me regarding getting "lost" in a kind of circular/ tautological "reasoning". I'm no expert, but thought I had a better than average foundation for understanding this...but I'm lost. Even the explanation of a "leaky" vaccine was quite different than the understanding I had. Also the above reference to absolute and relative risk would be a good refresher as expressed by Paul R.
Hi Ann. What was your definition of a leaky vaccine? I tried to take this from some of the literature that I found, but like I stated above a lot of these terms have actually been derived from the types of failures that a vaccine has. A leaky vaccine is one considered to have an issue of "degree" effectiveness while an all-or-nothing/sterilizing vaccine is an issue of "take". I think when trying to reword that information it may have ended up even more confusing.
I was going to talk more about absolute or relative risk reduction but I wanted to keep it somewhat simplified. Certainly the absolute risk reduction at least takes into account a person's overall exposure risk while relative risk is heavily dependent on scenarios and behaviors.
Not a "hater", so not not meant in a disparaging way. Some who read this are actually sincere and may be struggling through the over abundance of words (which is fine...except when the words "seem" to contradict, gets confusing, and YES, trying to understand how a "vaccine" is intended to "work", is not for we armatures ! To put it very simply, the understanding I had of a "leaky" vaccine is one that creates a barrier that "leaks"; it creates an imperfect "barrier" that does not prevent the virus in the recipient, it simply "may" prevent a lessening of symptoms, a "milder" form so to speak. Now I have to add, my limited knowledge was taught to me long before Covid, and was taught in the context of virus spread in chickens ! But in "those days"....lol... a leaky vaccine was considered imperfect, and in some way ill advised or even "dangerous", because while it "may" lessen symptoms, it allows the virus enough time to be transmitted to others (a considerable down-side to consider when making decisions concerning use because it allows the virus to survive and spread through a population, or a "flock" in relation to chickens. Bottom line, the category of vaccines considered "leaky" often allow the virus to develop into some really nasty strains, and most worrisome of all, put all unvaccinated individuals (or chickens !) at much greater risk. Hence, I suppose (?) the government's constant pleading for every citizen, adult and child, to be vaccinated immediately. Of course you were explaining the same thing, I just wanted to add a less technical comment for any others, like myself, who have only a lay person's understanding of the "reactions" of various vaccine compositions. If this helps those like me, that don't have the depth of knowledge of chemical reaction to understand in detail was all. I used to tell my grad students that while it seems reasonable/logical to use as high a level of technical language as they knew in technical assignments, when writing articles for popular consumption, their challenge should be to simplify as much as possible while preserving the basic established facts. Now there is a challenge, lol, right ? Thank you are your interesting postings ! And apologies are never necessary !
Oh Ann, unless it's apparent that a comment is made in bad faith or as an ad hominem I take things as constructive criticism! So in the same way you hope I'm not taking it in a disparaging way I'd hope you don't think I perceive it as such as well!
You know, I've gotten a few comments that the information may be difficult to parse for the common person. It's a difficult predicament because, from my perspective, I think there's an issue where information is simplified so much that the actual intent and meat of a study gets lost. So I tend to hope that as I continue to post a study, provide some figures and context that hopefully people can begin to piece things together, but that also comes with it's own assumptions.
You're definition is true, but I suppose there's an issue as to how "imperfect" a leaky vaccine is, or even what defines "leaky". If it's a reduction of symptoms, then it requires us to examine the clinical studies and the participants. Then we need to figure out if the participants who experience minor symptoms are the ones who would have experienced more severe symptoms if not for the vaccines- more stratification of the data. Among other things, I suppose that there's a few factors that just add to the problems of defining an imperfect vaccine. But even then it may just be far too technical.
I always welcome people's comments. I understand how technical this information can be and the jargon can go over many people. It just seems too hard to sometimes simplify the information and make it more accessible. But any advice on how you approach such a thing would be greatly appreciated!
All so true ! I do believe there are some things (factors) that are simply unknowable. Your comments concerning study participants and a close examination in an attempt to know if they "would" have otherwise experienced more severe symptoms.... well, isn't that the type of question that does NOT occur to the general public when opening a popular publication and reading: " a recent study showed __________ (fill in the blank) ! I would say of all the things I've learned in formal education, none have changed how I analyze every word I read like the training I've had in how to conduct research. Finding how data can be manipulated through including and excluding variables, selection of the participants, even selecting the standard deviation. After learning all the "in's and outs" of setting up of a study..... I have definitely learned to read all studies with a very critical eye. I almost always have many more questions concerning HOW the decision was made as to what variable should be included or discarded, and always about the format; blind, double blind, etc. etc. I am such a cynic, knowledge is a wonderful thing, but, it can also result in a natural skepticism and this entire "Covid" event has certainly presented much to be skeptical of ! And now, here we are about to release the next "batch" of studies on the safety of Covid "vaccines" for very young children and babies. Want to place a bet on what the anxiously awaited recommendation will be ? ? ?
And that's one of my biggest issues. I don't want people to just read the title of a paper or hear something from a media outlet and then believe that they are informed about a study. But to get to the meat of it requires a bit of technical babble and then you run into the issue of whether your audience understands it all.
Apologies for responding late Ann, but I'm pretty sure we would have been on the same side of the bet, and would certainly win it! It's such a shame because these studies were horribly designed and yet so many are naïve to it.
Now going to be interesting to see how the most vaccinated individual on earth "spins" it. Will the famous doctor claim if not multiple vaccinations and multiple boosters, he'd be dead ? I wonder if we will ever get a "study" on ALL of this, so far, the stats coming from "studies" on effectiveness of Covid vaccination are not looking good AT ALL.... some at 37% and that's with all the "wiggle room", hummm !