Another reason for vaccine hesitancy- it MAY reduce immune response to other viruses.

In attempt to avoid the deception perception experienced by certain people who view any skepticism as some nefarious political agenda- NOTE: THIS STUDY IS NOT PEER REVIEWED (yet) AND NOT RECOMENDING ANY ACTION OTHER THAN MORE STUDY

"In the current study (not peer-reviewed*), the research team from Radboud University Medical Center and Erasmus MC in the Netherlands, and the Helmholtz-Centre for Infection Research (HZI), Hannover Medical School (MHH), and the University of Bonn, in Germany, confirmed the efficacy of BNT162b2 vaccination at inducing effective humoral and cellular immunity against several SARS-CoV-2 variants.
"However, they also showed that the vaccine altered the production of inflammatory cytokines by innate immune cells following stimulation with both specific (SARS-CoV-2) and non-specific (viral, fungal and bacterial) stimuli.
"Following vaccination, innate immune cells had a reduced response to toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), TLR7 and TLR8 – all ligands that play an important role in the immune response to viral infection.
"Neta and colleagues also found that cytokine responses to fungi were increased following vaccination."
...
"The effect of the BNT162b2 vaccination on innate immune responses could also interfere with the responses to other vaccinations."
Research suggests Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine reprograms innate immune responses (news-medical.net)

Thus ends my quotation of the study and begins my own speculation.

If covid vaccination is negatively impacting the immune response to other infections, that could explain some things, like how its highly effective against 'vanilla covid' while delta just rampages harder and harder, why the vaccinated seem to keep showing up at the hospital in greater numbers than the non, and possibly even the seemingly random list of 'vaccine reactions' people are reporting- perhaps some 'reactions' are them getting other bugs as a result of the covid vaccine making them more susceptible to things that are not covid.

This is just another example of why I personally do not trust this vaccine (yet)- there's still some very important questions to answer.

 

I got my 2. Got my flu. Don't plan to do anymore. Whatever happens happens. I am worth far more dead than alive anyway.

 

That is factually incorrect, since 95% of the people who are hospitalized are non-vaccinated.

 

Not in Israel, for one example.
Why are there so many vaccinated people in hospital? (cosmosmagazine.com)

 

Maybe you should read that article, because it says that in their case it is actually a good thing. If everyone is vaccinated, then all patients would be vaccinated, but overall there would be very few people in hospital.

Should seatbelts be mandatory?

From your article:

People who wear seatbelts still die
We can see the above scenario playing out in many different situations. It all comes down to the number of people following a protocol. For example, seat belts are compulsory in Australia, so most people in car accidents are wearing a seatbelt. People that wear seat belts still get in car accidents, but fewer die.

In 1970, the year before seat belts became compulsory across Australia, 3,798 people died in car accidents. In 2019, only 1,195 people died in car accidents.

If you look at the people now in hospital as a result of car accidents, you’ll find that most were wearing a seat belt.

Of course, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t bother with a seat belt, because if you do end up in a car accident, you’re more still 10 times more likely to die if you’re not wearing a seatbelt than if you are.

The same goes with vaccines. The data is still clear: vaccines dramatically lower your risk of severe disease, hospitalisation and death from COVID-19.

 

SO you want to match disinformation for disinformation or do you think you and I should just use common sense and admit most of what we are told is TOTAL BULLSHIT!

 

Doesnt change the fact that in Israel, most of the people in hospital are vaccinated, just as I said. The attempt to spin a silver lining out of that fact has no bearing on the OP as it doesnt address the possibility that the vaccine could be causing increased infection of other illnesses that could cause an increase in the vaccinated being hospitalized.

 

If you think its spin, then I can't help but wonder why you offered it to support your argument.

 

Its a common tactic to cite a fact and try to spin a narrative from the fact. Surely you understand this very simple concept...

 

Surely you understand what the article says, and that it doesn't actually support your argument.

 

This should scare the hell out of you.


Engineering immunodeficiency. Manipulating a target population to have decreased immunity could increase the impact of a biological attack. This goal could be pursued either by manipulating a pathogen to simultaneously reduce immunity and cause disease (Jackson et al., 2001) or by separately introducing an immune-suppressing agent and a bioweapon into a target population. Agents used to cause immunodeficiency could be pathogens (e.g., the insidious spread of HIV [human immunodeficiency virus]) or chemicals (see NRC [1992] and IPCS [1996] for discussions of chemicals that contribute to immunotoxicity). It is also possible that a disease agent could be tailored to the immune state of a population, either by engineering the agent to avoid extant adaptive or innate immune barriers or by actually taking advantage of those barriers (for further discussion see Chapter 7, Health-Associated Data and Bioinformatics).

Engineering hyperreactivity. The flip side of engineering immune deficiencies would be to attempt to cause immune hyperreactivity. Both pathogens and chemicals have been demonstrated to create a cytokine storm, a dangerous state that results from a positive feedback loop in the immune response. It may be possible to engineer an agent to purposefully trigger such a cascade. For example, some have suggested that the introduction of anthrax lethal toxin into a more benign disease vector could trigger a cytokine storm (Muehlbauer et al., 2007; Brojatsch et al., 2014; however, see Guichard et al., 2012 for a differing point of view). Similarly, the fact that there are already widespread responses in the human population to a limited number of well-known allergens (ACAAI, 2017) may provide a means of engineering biological threats that would trigger life-threatening IgE-mediated immune responses. The development and testing of new immunotherapies could also provide a roadmap for potentially engineering threats; for example, actors could learn from clinical studies in which anti-CD28 antibodies caused life-threatening cytokine storms (Suntharalingam et al., 2006).

Engineering autoimmunity. Natural autoimmune diseases cause significant disability and death. It may be possible to engineer a disease that causes the body to turn on itself. Mouse models for the stimulation of autoimmunity now exist. For example, Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis, which mimics the symptoms of the human malady multiple sclerosis, has been induced in mice by immunization with antigens that cause an immune response (autoantigens; see Miller et al., 2007). Normally, such self-immunization is prevented by the mechanisms that ensure exclusion of antibodies and T-cells that are self-reactive, but some pathogens may present antigens that are similar enough to the body's own proteins that the original immune response spreads from the pathogen to the new human target. Research into checkpoint inhibitors, compounds designed to unleash the human immune system to eradicate tumors, could also potentially inform efforts to purposely engineer autoimmunity. By overstimulating the immune system, checkpoint inhibitors have been shown to lead to autoimmunity, often in the form of colitis (June et al., 2017). In addition, particular compounds have been shown to lead to an autoimmune disease of the liver (Tanaka et al., 2017, 2018). One potential route of attack could be to introduce such compounds via the microbiome.

 

This is one of many reasons why one should be able to opt out. I am vaccinated, but will probably not do the next booster or the many more boosters to come. I don't have stock in drug companies, but I would check the motives of those that do! Especially in the areas of political contributions!

 

Its supports my statement about more vaccinated people in the hospital. Thats all it was intended to support (and why its hyperlinked making only that specific point). The rest of the article is unrelated to the OP, as it doesn't have anything to do with the covid vaccine potentially reducing our resistance to other illnesses.

 

When China unleashes the next bioweapon I wonder if it will target the vaccinated or unvaccinated?

I'm betting vaccinated since they are in the major cities.

I'd be curious to see the flight volume out of Wuhan in the early stages of Covid. Has anyone looked into this? Probably not...

 

The 95% claim is not factual either.

 

Why would the hospitals lie about it?

 

Admissions for what reason? The comment provided no explanation.

 

I don’t know. It’s certainly possible a hospital somewhere did have 95% unvaccinated occupancy at one point. But it would be a statistical anomaly, not representative of reality. it’s probably a media outlet lying. They probably dig up one hospital with ten patients, nine of which were unvaccinated, one partially vaccinated, and wrote a story claiming it’s representative of a region or the US.

Here is some actual data. First from a couple weeks ago and then today.

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-response-reporting#covid-19-vaccine-report-

From the above link. Current hospitalizations FOR COVID. As of October 7, 2021 there are 562 patients hospital for Covid. Of those, 179 are fully vaccinated. That’s 31% fully vaccinated and 69% unvaccinated. As of October 7.

Today there are 519 total hospitalized and 180 fully vaccinated for a percentage of 34% vaccinated vs. 66% unvaccinated.

I’m using Massachusetts because it’s the 5th most vaccinated state and one I follow.

Even the CDC hasn’t reported 90% since June. It was down to 86% in July.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm


I don’t know of newer CDC data. The above was published in September 2021.

Even Mississippi a with a very low percentage vaccinated reports 88% unvaccinated and 12% vaccinated in hospitalized Covid patients.
https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/14,23549,420,971.html

It seems you may want to start questioning your information sources.

If you are interested here is why the vaccinated are getting infected at higher and higher rates.


I’ve done a little reading up on the latest concerning vaccine efficacy over time and transmission rates amongst the vaccinated.

First, there is a pre print on actual transmission out of the UK. Here’s Nature’s take on it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y

Here is a published study in NEJM from Qatar on longevity of efficacy. Qatar has much more comprehensive testing of asymptomatics than we do so their breakthrough rates are much different.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114

And

If we take these studies at face value (until there is more data we can’t really, but as we see below real world observation fits), 3-5 months after second dose, difference in transmission rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated are not significant enough to sneeze at, especially when you consider protection from asymptomatic (and all other) infection falls to 20% by month 5.

The situation in Vermont bears this out. They are the #1 state for vaccination rate at over 70%, yet are seeing the highest infection rates they have had at any time during the pandemic. Many citizens of Vermont would be well past month 5 and be transmitting at nearly the same rate as the unvaccinated because only 20% of total (symptomatic and asymptomatic) infections may actually be prevented—not the big numbers like 99% being bandied about based on (very incomplete) US data.

To be honest I’ve always expected a call for boosters and annual vaccination regardless of long term efficacy. But when I dig into the data it looks like boosters are a Hail Mary last ditch attempt at getting meaningful pandemic mitigation out of vaccination alone.

In closing, the 90% claim is urban legend. There is no data supporting it. It’s time to start looking at actual data, not media stories intended to mislead.

 

Try harder..

The claim and counter claim were no more than 24 words combined. I'm shocked that it confused you, well not really

 

@Pro_Line_FL
I forgot to include the pull quote from the CDC link. Sorry.

 

It was not some hospital someplace at some time, - it was the norm.

 

But it isn’t. There is no evidence ANYWHERE it’s 95%. You done been snookered.

Of course you could try and present some evidence but you would be wasting your time. You fell for a lie.

 

It was not a lie, it was true. I don't know what the numbers are now, but during the height of the last spike, 95% of the hospitalized were unvaccinated, and the same was true in majority of other countries as well.

 

Nope. Even the CDC hasn’t reported over 90% since June 2021. As I’ve shown you. You done been snookered.

I just gave you the numbers now. LOL. It’s around 12-40% vaccinated in hospitals depending on the state. You claimed 5%.

 

There are no more gullible than the willfully ignorant.