Vaccine is not a real vaccine

[CheeseWall]

Is what my colleague says. Dh and I have had both vaccines and will have our dc vaccinated as soon as this is possible.

My colleague says that the vaccine is not a vaccine per se but that it's 'gene therapy'. He claims to have researched the matter extensively and that people who have had Covid, even asymptomatically, have antibodies, which will protect them from getting very ill.

What spooked me was his claim that the vaccine kills off people's natural antibodies, which they have from having been exposed to the disease and that therefore people who have been vaccinated are only protected against that particular variant whereas those who have antibodies but aren't vaccinated have protection against a range of variants.

Please tell me this is nonsense.

@Lelivre

For one thing fully vax’d % is much higher in Denmark. There is a perception that Israel is leading the world with % but this is no longer the case

Denmark at 75%, Israel at 67%. I don't think vaccination rates explain the stark difference in recent infections. (For additional evidence, look at Gibraltar - earlier this year it was the highest vaccination rate in Europe, but also the highest infection rate...)

I would think that Israel has been seeing a new wave at roughly the same time as their vaccine protection is wearing off.

This would explain why Israel's recent figures look so bad, and also why you're no longer "fully vaccinated" in Israel unless you've had your booster (and they're looking at 4th jab as well).

@imeanreeally

Oh my goodness. It is nothing like gene therapy and your colleague is talking rubbish

I think we need to be careful here because there is definitely "scientific debate" surrounding this.

Saying things like this just... well, what good does it do? Have you ever changed someone's mind by telling them explicitly (and without any further explanation) they're talking rubbish?

Understandably, the people who make these important decisions have decided that calling it gene therapy applied to vaccines would put off too many people, due to the negative perceptions of gene therapy.

So they've distanced themselves from that.

But the people who believe this can pretty easily find the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology saying that both vaccines use gene therapy technology. He goes on to say that the people in public health messaging don't like it - because it turns people off - but "I'm a scientist".

It's also easy for these people to find out that the FDA themselves considered mRNA gene therapy.

And if you look hard enough... you'll find pharma companies like Moderna arguing in their initial offering under risk factors that: Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism

So someone could connect the dots (because remember humans always want to connect the dots) and say that both the scientists and the FDA considered mRNA to be gene therapy, but the pharma companies want the definition of gene therapy to apply specifically to only the certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA, due to negative impacts on public perception.

The problem is that rather than just being honest and actually educating people, you have the "fact checkers" and the "what a load of rubbish!!" Neither of which do anything at all to actually explain what has happened or why it's happened.

So it gets turned into this "smoking gun" where people think they're hiding things, they're in the pockets of big Pharma, they're suppressing information etc etc until it grows legs and runs away.

Why not just be honest with people?

Give those who are smart enough to do all that research above (which I found within about 2 minutes on reddit) the actual information... and give the ones who don't really care the simplest of definitions / analogies like the one I used below.

"The internet was first used for the military"
"mRNA technology was first considered gene therapy"
"The definition of communication changed with the development of the internet"
"The definition of vaccine changed with the development of mRNA technology"

Smoking gun averted, conspiracy theory explained with logic, intelligent thought (which includes questioning, imo) can resume?

I know this is an old post, but thank you for being a voice of reason.

There is a lot that we don't yet know (e.g. long term effect of infection or vaccination)
and various aspects of the debate are actually quite nuanced.

As you rightly point out, simply repeating the government mantra of "vaccines are safe and effective - you should get your jab" is not going to convince those with genuine questions. Similarly, shouting people down as "conspiracy theorist" or "tinfoil hat nutjob" only turns a potentially educational debate into a pointless slanging match.

There is a lot that we don't yet know (e.g. long term effect of infection or vaccination) and various aspects of the debate are actually quite nuanced.

@IncredulousOne

You cannot prove something if the time hasn't actually elapsed yet.

However there is no reason to think any vaccine, including mRNA ones, will be associated with side effects that only emerge in the long term.

Those speculating about things like cancer, AI disorders, prion disease & neurodegen are simply repeating the pseudoscience that has been spread by anti-vaccine groups with no basis in fact. Many of these claims were made about previous vaccines- this isn't a new thing, despite the smokescreen of anti-vaccine groups hiding behind the claims of "new technology".

There isn't a plausible mechanism by which this would happen, hence why experts are confident in rolling it out to the general population.

"vaccines are safe and effective - you should get your jab" is not going to convince those with genuine questions.

Also think this is a little redundant given anyone can go to a vaccine centre, discuss the pros and cons, make an informed decision and turn it down if they want to.

Why would you listen to twits like this instead of reading all the science by actual scientists??!

@riveted1

There is a lot that we don't yet know (e.g. long term effect of infection or vaccination) and various aspects of the debate are actually quite nuanced.

@IncredulousOne

You cannot prove something if the time hasn't actually elapsed yet.

However there is no reason to think any vaccine, including mRNA ones, will be associated with side effects that only emerge in the long term.

Those speculating about things like cancer, AI disorders, prion disease & neurodegen are simply repeating the pseudoscience that has been spread by anti-vaccine groups with no basis in fact. Many of these claims were made about previous vaccines- this isn't a new thing, despite the smokescreen of anti-vaccine groups hiding behind the claims of "new technology".

There isn't a plausible mechanism by which this would happen, hence why experts are confident in rolling it out to the general population.

I agree entirely regarding the cannot prove long term effect comment. It was why I felt like my intelligence was being insulted when the MSM explanation given for how quickly we aware able to roll out the vaccines was (I paraphrase) "instead of looking for a long time, we've looked at lots and lots of people, so we know it's safe".

Your comments are at least addressing the questions that people are asking. I've heard some plausible sounding mechanisms for some issues, but as it isn't my specialist field I will defer to your specialist knowledge of the topic.

If (as you assert) vaccination cannot produce long term effects, an the same be said of Covid infection, and if not, why not?

What a twat

@IncredulousOne plenty of scientists and clinicians have addressed these concerns though? Your posts make it sounds like no one has even considered it, which is obviously not the case.

A viral infection can cause long term effects in a whole host of ways and there's a precedent for this happening with existing viruses.

Still very interested in your rationale as to why Oxford & drug companies deliberately designed the vaccines to fail though?!

[quote riveted1]@IncredulousOne plenty of scientists and clinicians have addressed these concerns though? Your posts make it sounds like no one has even considered it, which is obviously not the case.

A viral infection can cause long term effects in a whole host of ways and there's a precedent for this happening with existing viruses.

Still very interested in your rationale as to why Oxford & drug companies deliberately designed the vaccines to fail though?![/quote]
I've heard arguments for and against the possibility of long term vaccine effects and of long term Covid effects.

You appear to be of the opinion that vaccines cannot cause long term effects, but that Covid can. I would be interested to hear your reasoning for that assessment.