Covid-19 Vaccine Research, Development, Ingredients and Reactions

[califlorican]

1 minute ago, Bob said:

Yeah I mean it was quite silly for scientists to say there is no evidence the vaccine prevents the spreading of infectious covid when only 17 million are vaccinated as of this week. 
 

Of course there is no evidence because not nearly enough people are vaccinated. 

They can at least wait till the summer and then, people would need to actually interact and infect one another for them to have any data. 
 

Can’t get that data honestly, if we are masking and not interacting like normal.

 

Life needs to totally normalize for any real data is to be gathered. 

 

That’s a good point! I have heard some anecdotes of people (namely medical professionals) testing positive after their first dose, but I believe that’s to be expected. They had likely been exposed just prior to or right after getting the first dose of the vaccine. 
 

 

[Naturale]

13 minutes ago, AH173 said:

I believe this clear logic is made true with the vaccine for the polio virus decades ago.

See page 35,  post  #874

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Naturale

[Naturale]

27 minutes ago, califlorican said:

Yes I agree vaccines don’t end a pandemic entirely, but it definitely would appear to slow it down and protect the most vulnerable. And that’s what I’m asking: is the alternative to no vaccine just waiting for everyone to be exposed enough for it to become immune? As I understand it, the 1918-1919 flu became less deadly mostly because the majority of people had already been exposed to it. And THEN it started to mutate and become much less deadly. 

The H1N1 strain became endemic, an infectious disease that was constantly with us at less severe levels, circulating for another 40 years as a seasonal virus. It took another pandemic—H2N2 in 1957—to extinguish most of the 1918 strain. One flu virus kicked out another one, essentially, and scientists don’t really know how. Human efforts to do the same have failed. “Nature can do it, we cannot,” says virologist Florian Krammer of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.

[AH173]

5 minutes ago, Naturale said:

See page 35,  post  #874

 

Thank you for your information on that point.

 

My thoughts are based on this material from the branch. And I will stick with that.

 

Quote

*** g04 5/22 p. 8 Successes and Failures in Fighting Disease ***

  Polio, or poliomyelitis, a debilitating childhood disease, offered the prospect of similar success. In 1955, Jonas Salk produced an effective vaccine for polio, and an immunization campaign against polio began in the United States and other countries. Later an oral vaccine was developed. In 1988, WHO launched a worldwide program to eliminate polio.
  “When we began the eradication effort in 1988, polio paralysed more than 1000 children each day,” reports Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, then director general of WHO. “In 2001, there were far fewer than 1000 cases for the entire year.” Polio is now confined to fewer than ten countries, although more funds will be needed to help these lands finally eliminate the disease.

 

 

[Naturale]

The 1918 flu pandemic was so deadly as a direct result of the appalling living conditions at this tragic time. The trenches would have been the perfect breeding grounds for infections among the World War One soldiers. Patrick Saunders-Hastings at Carleton University in Ottawa says  “The virus emerged when populations, which previously had little contact with each other, were brought together on the battlefield,”   “And on a lot of cases they were dealing with other injuries and they were under-nourished.” Vitamin B deficiencies, in particular, have been noted to increase mortality rates in later pandemics, he says.

 

Those left at home were still living in closed, crowded conditions that led to greater exposure to the virus. This not only accelerated transmission, increasing the chances that people would become infected; it also increased the severity of the symptoms.   

[Naturale]

15 minutes ago, AH173 said:

Thank you for your information on that point.

 

My thoughts are based on this material from the branch. And I will stick with that.

 

It's just that so much has been learnt about it since 2004. No-one knew back then that a vaccine used to prevent polio has actually been doing the opposite.  

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Naturale

[califlorican]

32 minutes ago, Naturale said:

The H1N1 strain became endemic, an infectious disease that was constantly with us at less severe levels, circulating for another 40 years as a seasonal virus. It took another pandemic—H2N2 in 1957—to extinguish most of the 1918 strain. One flu virus kicked out another one, essentially, and scientists don’t really know how. Human efforts to do the same have failed. “Nature can do it, we cannot,” says virologist Florian Krammer of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.

I understand what you’re saying, but doesn’t answer my initial question of what alternative there is to a vaccine that doesn’t allow many more lives to be lost? Is the only answer staying away from each other until somehow it becomes less deadly on its own? Because people sadly aren’t doing that already and it would mean potentially ending a few more million lives, which doesn’t seem worth it to me. I’m just trying to understand what the alternative would be long-term for everyone, not just those who can get it and recover easily. 

[califlorican]

31 minutes ago, Naturale said:

It's just that so much has been learnt about it since 2004. No-one knew back then that a vaccine used to prevent polio has actually been doing the opposite.  

 

I’ve read about the oral vaccine for polio, and as I understand it, that was a live virus vaccine. It used a weakened form of the virus. But the current COVID vaccines are not; they’re mRNA vaccines which do not use the live virus. They also don’t interact with our DNA at all. The “instructions” (mRNA) to make a harmless piece of spike protein found on the surface of the virus enter the muscle cells and the cells follow those instructions to create a protein piece. Then cell then breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them. The immune system realizes the protein doesn’t belong and starts making antibodies. Then it’s learned how to protect us from future infection. There’s no way for us to become infected with the virus from these instructions (the mRNA).

Edited January 26, 2021 by califlorican

[Naturale]

7 minutes ago, califlorican said:

the current COVID vaccines are not; they’re mRNA vaccines which do not use the live virus. They also don’t interact with our DNA at all. The “instructions” (mRNA) to make a harmless piece of spike protein found on the surface of the virus enter the muscle cells and the cells follow those instructions to create a protein piece. Then cell then breaks down the instructions and gets rid of them. The immune system realizes the protein doesn’t belong and starts making antibodies. Then it’s learned how to protect us from future infection. There’s no way for us to become infected with the virus from these instructions (the mRNA).

In order to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, the companies will have to prove there are no immediate or short-term negative health effects from taking the vaccines. But when the world begins inoculating itself with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines, it will know virtually nothing about their long-term effects.

... there are unique and unknown risks to messenger RNA vaccines, including local and systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions.

www.jpost.com/health-science/could-an-mrna-vaccine-be-dangerous-in-the-long-term-649253+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=im

[trottigy]

1 hour ago, Naturale said:

It's just that so much has been learnt about it since 2004. No-one knew back then that a vaccine used to prevent polio has actually been doing the opposite.  

 

I'm sorry I am not understanding this - are you saying there are more people per capita with polio now than there were before the vaccine?

 

I mean - that is the only way that it is "doing the opposite" - right??

 

note: I can NOT find anyone who actually agrees that polio is maiming and killing people at a HIGHER rate than what is was BEFORE the vaccine - maybe a source for that would be good.

 

EDIT: I can't but wonder - do you just Google the idea YOU have and just quote whatever source seems to verify your pre-conceived bias? 

 

Also, do you actually read the entire article that you link to? For example this statement in that article:

Quote

BUT MICHAL LINIAL, a professor of biological chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told the Post that she believes there is no cause for concern.

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/could-an-mrna-vaccine-be-dangerous-in-the-long-term-649253

 

Working off of just preconceived notions and looking for support RATHER than doing a factual analysis is DANGEROUS!!! And encouraging others to do the same is even MORE Dangerous. Blind guides lead others into pits!!!

Edited January 26, 2021 by trottigy

[Mykyl]

1 hour ago, Naturale said:

The H1N1 strain became endemic, an infectious disease that was constantly with us at less severe levels, circulating for another 40 years as a seasonal virus. It took another pandemic—H2N2 in 1957—to extinguish most of the 1918 strain. One flu virus kicked out another one, essentially, and scientists don’t really know how. Human efforts to do the same have failed. “Nature can do it, we cannot,” says virologist Florian Krammer of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.

So the logic is that 50 million deaths plus (estimated) was worth it as it finally got fixed naturally. It wouldn't have been handy to save a few million back then over the matter of a single jab if they had the capability we have now back then? 

How many deaths naturally would be acceptable for covid? 

We will be able to "naturally" deal with things when our bodies do what they were actually designed to do in the new world.

Our bodies work to a degree today but we have imperfect bodies no matter what we eat or what vitamins we load up on at the moment. 

 

It makes no sense to me. No life is worth losing. 

 

That doesn't mean we should not make up our own minds but to argue against it... 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Mykyl

[califlorican]

1 hour ago, Naturale said:

In order to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, the companies will have to prove there are no immediate or short-term negative health effects from taking the vaccines. But when the world begins inoculating itself with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines, it will know virtually nothing about their long-term effects.

... there are unique and unknown risks to messenger RNA vaccines, including local and systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions.

www.jpost.com/health-science/could-an-mrna-vaccine-be-dangerous-in-the-long-term-649253+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=im

The link you posted also mentions another opinion from a professor of biological chemistry saying that she doesn’t think it’s a concern, so I’m not sure that’s a very solid argument. Of course there will always be those who are more risk averse, and that’s their choice. 
 

Since COVID also has unknown long-term effects, and more and more saying they’re still dealing with serious side effects months later, is it really better to risk that than a possible unknown vaccine side effect? I guess that’s what everyone has to decide for themselves. 
 

Edit: I’m not trying to convince anyone, just really trying to understand other ideas and alternatives. I get that people have concerns, I really do. It does sound scary for a vaccine to have been developed so quickly if you don’t know about the science (and funding 😄) behind it.

 

But a LOT of the concerns people have are caused by misinformation about the virus or the vaccine itself, so sometimes clearing up misinformation make people think about it from another point of view. I will not judge anyone for any decision they make, but I would love if everyone was as informed as possible before deciding. 

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by califlorican

[Bob]

2 hours ago, califlorican said:

That’s a good point! I have heard some anecdotes of people (namely medical professionals) testing positive after their first dose, but I believe that’s to be expected. They had likely been exposed just prior to or right after getting the first dose of the vaccine. 
 

 

I remember an article reporting that, but they left out the possibility that the person could have been infected before the jab. I’m not sure what incentive there is to cast needless doubt on the vaccine. 
 

Secondly, vaccines aren’t really design to prevent infection - they give immunity in the event of infection. 
 

What’s actually important is if an vaccination person is shedding infectious covid. The vaccine is supposed to kill the “spike” protein. 
 

Who cares if dead covid is being spread. 

[Fallbrookian]

2 hours ago, AH173 said:

I believe this clear logic is made true with the vaccine for the polio virus decades ago.

Oops, let's not get off topic...this isn't about polio. Look back at other posts to see what was behind the "polio epidemic" and what stopped it.

[Shawnster]

21 minutes ago, Nancy M said:

Oops, let's not get off topic...this isn't about polio. Look back at other posts to see what was behind the "polio epidemic" and what stopped it.

Thanks for that reminder. 

 

Friends, this topic is about the Covid-19 Vaccine discussion.  Let's get back on topic. 

[Qapla]

No one knows what the long-term effects of COVID-19 may be - it has not been around long enough for there to be "long-term" anything. Likewise, no one knows what long-term effects the mRNA vaccines may have - they have not been around long enough for there to be "long-term" anything.

 

Ever hear someone say "I don't like that (name a food) ... even though they have never tasted it? I have, especially children.

 

Personally, I don't fly. I can't take heights. I have been told that being in an airplane is nothing like being on a ladder or roof. Doesn't matter. Not to me. I Don't Fly! I don't care to try it. Now, I could cite statistics of plane crashes, small number of survivors when large planes crash, the Bermuda Triangle, and an array of other hazards planes face. I could find others who share my view of flying and quote them. I could even mention and name some who I have personally known who died in a plane crash (yes, I do know some).

 

However, does that mean I should expect everyone share my view of flying?

 

Should I try to convince others they shouldn't fly because I don want to? Should I continually quote crash statistics and eyewitness reports of plane crashes to "prove my point"?

 

Should others try to convince me how safe planes are these days. Should they continually quote statistics and eyewitness reports of how many people fly each year with no problems?

 

Neither!

 

It is my personal decision if I want to fly. It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not. It is not my place to try to convince you to adopt my view of flying any more than it is your job to convince to adopt you view.

 

The     same     holds     true     of     vaccines.

 

It is one thing to have a "discussion" about a subject, in this case vaccines - it is another to constantly try to convince the other side to adopt our view of the subject, in this case vaccines ... or even vaccines for this particular virus.

 

This thread is 40 pages long ... I think I have read all the posts to date. Way to many of them fall into the category of trying to "convince the other side" - at least, that is my opinion.

 

The GB has stated that taking a vaccine is an individual decision and we should not try to make others decisions for them nor should we try to make them feel their decision is wrong.

 

I know that I am still grateful that, when I applied to work at Warwick during the construction, the Branch did not tell me I had to fly to NY from Florida. They let me decide how I would get there - and they arranged to pick me up when I got to NY with my chosen method of travel. I took the train. They did not try to make me feel I was making the wrong choice or make it sound like they were "going out of the way" to pick me up at the train station instead of the airport. The Brothers I rode the bus with each day, the ones I ate with, the Brother I shared a room with and the ones I worked with each day all made me feel welcome to be there. They did not care that I rode the train instead of how they got there. They all respected my decision.

 

We should do the same when it comes to vaccines. It is a personal decision. Let's quit trying to convince others that "our view" is the correct one - please  

 

 

[Lance]

Amen...🙏🙏❤️
A voice of reason in a wilderness of confusion...and extremes...

Wow...

This is going to be the theme for this subject moving forward...

 

If you want to beat  the drum of your single minded view of pro or anti vaccine ... go start your own website....seriously...😳

The moderators have had their fill,of hiding comments and trying to herd, the cats of extreme viewpoints. 🙀
 

If you are confused.... read.. the above comment again on the practice of your God given conscience in a Christ directed organization..❤️

We have to respect each others conscience in word and deed... this is a good  place to start.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Lance

[Lee49]

4 hours ago, Bob said:

Basically, if you’re protected via a vaccine, you can’t become a carrier of active virus. 

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/you-can-still-spread-develop-covid-19-after-getting-a-vaccine-what-to-know

 

You Can Still Spread, Develop COVID-19 After Getting a Vaccine: What to Know

• Experts say people can still spread and even develop COVID-19 after getting a vaccine.
• They note the immunity from the vaccine doesn’t begin to emerge until at least 12 days after inoculation.
• They add the vaccine doesn’t prevent coronavirus infection. It helps protect against serious illnesses.
• Experts advise people who get vaccinated to continue wearing a mask, washing their hands, and maintaining proper physical distancing.

There’s growing evidence that even after you receive a COVID-19 vaccine, you still should mask up and maintain your physical distance.

That’s because you can still be infected by the novel coronavirus.

 

The vaccine works to keep you from getting severely ill.

But if you get infected, it may not prevent you from spreading the virus to others.

That’s something scientists are studying now.

[Beyond the Sky]

My aunt got the vaccine, she has to go back in 20 some days.

[Shawnster]

My daughter in law is an ER nurse at a hospital.  She had her second vaccine dose last week. I think she said it was Moderna.  

[Bob]

1 hour ago, Lee49 said:

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/you-can-still-spread-develop-covid-19-after-getting-a-vaccine-what-to-know

 

You Can Still Spread, Develop COVID-19 After Getting a Vaccine: What to Know

• Experts say people can still spread and even develop COVID-19 after getting a vaccine.
• They note the immunity from the vaccine doesn’t begin to emerge until at least 12 days after inoculation.
• They add the vaccine doesn’t prevent coronavirus infection. It helps protect against serious illnesses.
• Experts advise people who get vaccinated to continue wearing a mask, washing their hands, and maintaining proper physical distancing.

There’s growing evidence that even after you receive a COVID-19 vaccine, you still should mask up and maintain your physical distance.

That’s because you can still be infected by the novel coronavirus.

 

The vaccine works to keep you from getting severely ill.

But if you get infected, it may not prevent you from spreading the virus to others.

That’s something scientists are studying now.

Well, if a vaccine changes nothing as far as our social lives go, it’s really an unnecessary risk in taking the shot.

 

The point of the vaccine is so we can eventually get rid of the restrictions. If we have the keep them going indefinitely, the vaccine really serves no social purpose. And will be pointless because the restrictions will just neutralize any benefit (like preventing serious illness). 
 

But if they wish to study the benefits of the vaccine with real data, the restrictions frankly must go. 
 

When a vaccine is being tested in Phase III trials, they NEED people to mingle and get infected. Otherwise, how is it possible to know if it works?

 

But it doesn’t appear science is driving this or they would push for ending restrictions the more people get vaccinated. 
 

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Bob

[Bob]

In short, by pushing endless restrictions even though you’re vaccinated, they’re making a tacit admission that they developed a vaccine that doesn’t work. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Bob

[Bob]

Here’s why the continued restrictions point, though vaccinated, is unscientific:

 

Someone designs and builds a new engine. The manufacturer tells you not use like a normal engine it because it may not work like one as is still being “studied”. 

 

An HVAC tech install a new Furnace. He’s tells you keep the heat below below 60 in the winter because he doesn’t know if it can handle 65 and above in the cold. It needs to be “studied”. 

 

A doctor gives you a cold remedy. But tells you to stay away from family members because they’re still “studying” if it protects them.

 

I have to be honest. The above scenarios are patently absurd and blatantly UNscientific.
 

It’s basically admitting that you’re accepting untested faulty products. 
 

Before a product is mass-produced and given to

people, all of the restrictions placed on said products should have long been “studied” and corrected - not done after the fact. 
 

And here’s the kicker. You CANNOT know the limitations of a product if you don’t PUSH it to its limitations.

 

Catch-22. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Bob

[califlorican]

1 hour ago, Lee49 said:

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/you-can-still-spread-develop-covid-19-after-getting-a-vaccine-what-to-know

 

Just to add to this, the article mentioned a lot about timing specifically that I thought was interesting. 

 

Quote

Experts say there are a number of ways you could test positive after receiving your vaccine.

For starters, you might have been infected before you even got your shot.

“That happened in the clinical trials,” said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Tennessee.

“Some people were unknowingly infected before they received their first dose,” he told Healthline. “Then, that infection manifested itself.”

There is also a lag time between when you get your first shot and when your body starts building immunity.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine says protection from the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine doesn’t start for about 12 days, then it’s estimated to be about 52 percent effective a few weeks later.

Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require two doses.

Both reported being about 95 percent effective, but that’s at least a week or two after the second dose.

And it still could leave some people unprotected.

“That’s not 100 percent,” said Dr. Paul A. Offit, an infectious disease expert and director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an interview with NPR. “That means one out of every 20 people who get the vaccine could still get moderate to severe infection.”

 

[carlos]

5 hours ago, Bob said:

In short, by pushing endless restrictions even though you’re vaccinated, they’re making a tacit admission that they developed a vaccine that doesn’t work. 

I don't view things that way. Restrictions can be lifted when most of the population are already vaccinated. Until then, you need to avoid infecting others. The vaccine protects you from suffering bad consequences or dying, but it doesn't protect others who aren't vaccinated yet. It doesn't mean the vaccine doesn't work, it means not everybody has taken it.