COVID-19

Posted by: Fast-Orange

Some possible good news for once on the Omicron front though. Early signs suggest this might just be the more infectious yet far less deadly mutation we've been waiting for. If this is the case it will become the dominant strain in time similar to how the deadly spanish flu turned into the regular flu that's still around today.

I'll take any hope I can get.

That's the prediction....Although it may be immune to the vaccines we already have, it will do a lot of damage to the elderly population.

Posted by: bux-bux

Posted by: Fast-Orange

Some possible good news for once on the Omicron front though. Early signs suggest this might just be the more infectious yet far less deadly mutation we've been waiting for. If this is the case it will become the dominant strain in time similar to how the deadly spanish flu turned into the regular flu that's still around today.

I'll take any hope I can get.

That's the prediction....Although it may be immune to the vaccines we already have, it will do a lot of damage to the elderly population.

I'm of the understanding that getting the 3rd booster will help with that. Some studies have shown the third shot can increase the scope of immunity which is interesting. Supposedly it can make the recipient resistant against even other cold like coranaviruses like SARS and MERS

Posted by: Fast-Orange

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: Fast-Orange

So my 26 year old active and fit non-smoking double vaxxed nephew caught covid last month.

Didn't have to go to the hospital but he said he's never been sicker in his life. 

Some would call this proof the vax doesn't work but there's also the possibility that without it he'd no longer be with us. He's also reported that he's felt 100% recovered for over a week now.

Just curious if he was tested for covid and since he's double vaxxed, how they can tell it apart on the false positive scale? ... I heard that that ade stuff is real..

I thought about antibody dependent enhancement too but after reading some stuff I learned that vaccines that resulted in this got discontinued and there's no legit evidence of this yet with the covid vaccines. 

I guess it all comes down to if you think they're out to get us or not then of course you would believe that evidence of ADE was being supressed. I'm not sure how they would be able to supress it though

Some possible good news for once on the Omicron front though. Early signs suggest this might just be the more infectious yet far less deadly mutation we've been waiting for. If this is the case it will become the dominant strain in time similar to how the deadly spanish flu turned into the regular flu that's still around today. 

I'll take any hope I can get.

Well, they'd supress it by calling it a different name and strain. Similar to how Delta usually infected the vaccinated. As for the 1918 Spanish Flu becoming our dominant one, I'll look into that but I'll also ask for a link to start. Only because I've read some stuff that they excavated corpses in Alaska looking for samples of said spanish flu to study. If it the dominant strain today was a derivative of it, they'd be able to sequence it like they did with the original sars2 cov19 and fill in the gaps.

If you dont have Faith, all you have left is Hope. And she's a dirty whoore so believe in something bruv ;)

Just going to leave this here for discussion purposes and random internet infotainment I guess?

MIT & Harvard Study Suggests mRNA Vaccine Might Permanently Alter DNA After All

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-vaccines-idUSL1N2PK1DC

From another article that refutes Dr. Corrigan's conclusions:

Now, a new paper from the lab of Whitehead Institute Member and MIT professor of biology Rudolf Jaenisch may offer an answer to why some patients continue to test positive after recovery from COVID-19. In the paper, published online May 6 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Jaenisch and collaborators show that genetic sequences from the RNA virus SARS-CoV-2 can integrate into the genome of the host cell through a process called reverse transcription. These sections of the genome can then be “read” into RNAs, which could potentially be picked up by a PCR test.

https://wi.mit.edu/news/new-research-reveals-why-some-patients-may-test-positive-covid-19-long-after-recovery

TL/DR

Integrating into the genome of a host cell is not the same as altering your DNA. The article by Dr Doug Corrigan is interesting, and in it he clearly states that the idea of covid changing DNA is theoretical and as such so is the idea of vaccince mRNA. He theorizes possible pathways - but there is no proof this is actually possible. There seems to be more talk refuting the possibility of vaccine mRNA altering DNA than talk supporting it. And at that, it may only change host cell DNA. There are lots of questions on the topic that need more research, but what I've read seems to indicate it is less likely that more likely.

An interesting note on the good Dr. Corrigan that shows a source of potential bias comes from the about page on his website:

I am a Christian and believe that God is the author of all science, mathematics, logic, reason, life, and love.

.

^^ It's a bunch of bullshit Pseudoscience that is being promoted by Anti-vaxxers.  Plenty of Science-based medicine, Skeptical community and microbiologists have refuted it.  Not sure why you even respond to Shogun's lies at this point given his track record.

Posted by: Couch_Surfer

^^ It's a bunch of bullshit Pseudoscience that is being promoted by Anti-vaxxers.  Plenty of Science-based medicine, Skeptical community and microbiologists have refuted it.  Not sure why you even respond to Shogun's lies at this point given his track record.

There's a couple of reasons I decided to respond. The first is that it seems he presented the link simply for discussion purposes and made no claim about the info being accurate or fact.

The second is that after reading that linked article and more info on the topic a few things came up. One is the idea that the covid virus itself is possibly altering some of our DNA via reverse transcription. This discovery came about via investigation into a different problem - why some people who have had covid and apparently cleared the virus are still testing positive for it on a PCR test. The scientists in the link study came up with a hypothesis and found a pathway that potentially allows for covid to alter DNA in some cells. That study has been met with some skepticism/doubt though and more research on the subject needs to be done. Dr Corrigan had proposed this same potential pathway before as a means for the vaccines to alter DNA before this paper was published, so the findings in the paper prompted his blog post on the article (which at the time had not yet been peer-reviewed).

The discussion aspect comes from it previously being reported/stated that there is "no possible way" that the mRNA vaccines can alter our DNA and the study in question shows that may not be true. That's just science doing it's thing - making a discovery and then doing more research/investigation on new info. The chances of mRNA vaccines actually being able to re-write our DNA is pretty damn low from what I've read, however, it's not possible at this point to say with certainty that it can't happen. Where things have gone wrong is partly in what you've said - some people have taken Dr Corrigan's blog post and misrepresented it to be fact. The thing is, if people take the time to read through his blog post he states right in there that the idea of mRNA changing DNA it is still hypothetical at this point and needs more research. He even goes out of his way to mention people are taking his blog post out of context and misrepresenting what he says.

So this topic is a bit Hegelian in nature - the idea that mRNA vaccines can alter our DNA isn't true, but also isn't not true at this point either. There's a cat somewhere that might have something to say about it too. After the last round of discussion I initiated I was a bit hesitant to say anything at all, but like you've mentioned before there are aspects (possibly many) of this whole covid thing that are nuanced. Sure there are general ideas we can follow, but there are also lots of things in the corners that aren't 100% clear and imo it's good to talk about those things. When I consider these things I do my best to follow the science and consider what it and the data tells us and avoid infusing my own beliefs/perceptions into things. Easier said than done I know, but it's how I try to look at the world. Same for pretty much any issue I look at. I don't expect people to like or agree with what I say, but I at least expect people to consider information as it's presented and then go from there. In this case, shogun presented info I found interesting and has some merit that is worth investigating. The collective "we" here should be able to have a discussion on it without it going sideways as the info presented does not fall into the pseudoscience basket of deplorables bs nonsense. The idea presented is not presented as fact, it's not very probable and the exact science is enough above my paygrade that I can't read through the actual research w/o stopping and looking things up so I fully understand what I'm reading, but there appears to be some evidence to show that we can't 100% for certain say that mRNA can't alter DNA either. That's all the conversation has to be if one wants to engage in it.

Not presenting it as fact or truth is just the latest game played by all these Tucker Carlson wannabe types. I don't know that this isn't true, but I just want to ask the question. I don't know that this isn't true, but look at this link. I don't know that this isn't true, but isn't it interesting that...

What all of these links, questions, thoughts have in common is that they are built on a foundation of bullshit. Maybe they're dressed up a little, maybe they've found someone with some 'credentials' that can convey some false sense of authority, but it's still bullshit. Engaging with it as though it's a credible form of discussion is the trap laid out to raise it's rhetorical value.

Put another way, how many times do you give your money to the con-man to buy that bridge before you realize its the same game on repeat?

its not about fact or truth or science or whats right, its  all about the win

I thought it may be helpful to see the derivation of the discussion, and why it's relevant. Anti-vax groups claimed that the Vaccine would alter your DNA, some even went as far as claiming it was a plot to strip us of our human rights, because we would no longer be genetically human.

I can't seem to find a direct quote of any scientist saying that it is impossible, though a bullet-point on the CDC site about vaccines does use the word 'cannot', but bullet point summaries aren't exactly famous for explaining nuanced concepts in detail, are they? I would certainly be open to reading an entire direct quote in context if anyone could find it. I think it's highly likely that in order to address the wave of vaccine 'DNA' misinformation, rather than provide a soft response like 'There is no evidence that mRNA vaccines alter DNA', or 'It's plausible that mRNA vaccines can change your DNA, but not probable', some poor science communicator somewhere (Again, I can't actually find a direct quote of a credible expert saying that it is outright impossible) opted for an assertive response and just said it was impossible.

Regardless of whether we can attribute the 'impossible' claim to anyone relevant, this seems to be a semantic response to the fact-checking of anti-vaccine misinformation.

'The COVID Vaccines alter your DNA, you won't even be human anymore!'

'Sorry, that's impossible'

'Here's a scientific paper that says it's possible'

'Well, yeah. It's not very probable though, there are a few other more plausible explanations'

'So you lied, GOTCHA! NUREMBERG 2.0!' (I wish I was joking, if you scroll to the post below the good-doctor's and click the first citation, https://www.flemingmethod.com/ Sidebar: The hot-Fleming method also sounds like a euphemism for having someone poo on your chest)

This is my impression of the broader context of the discussion, but hey, I'm not an expert. I snuck a peak at the paper and I'm sure I don't know enough about the nuances of genetics to really draw a conclusion from the data contrary to that of experts in the field.

Posted by: Schnickelfritz

I thought it may be helpful to see the derivation of the discussion, and why it's relevant. Anti-vax groups claimed that the Vaccine would alter your DNA, some even went as far as claiming it was a plot to strip us of our human rights, because we would no longer be genetically human.

...

'Well, yeah. It's not very probable though, there are a few other more plausible explanations'

'So you lied, GOTCHA! NUREMBERG 2.0!' (I wish I was joking, if you scroll to the post below the good-doctor's and click the first citation, https://www.flemingmethod.com/ Sidebar: The hot-Fleming method also sounds like a euphemism for having someone poo on your chest)

This is my impression of the broader context of the discussion, but hey, I'm not an expert. I snuck a peak at the paper and I'm sure I don't know enough about the nuances of genetics to really draw a conclusion from the data contrary to that of experts in the field.

Since you mentioned it, I'd like to know if Nuremburg 2.0 is legit. If there is any truth to it actually being underway and its completely unheard of (or brushed aside as woo woo), I think that says ... something. As for memes...

This is sort of all over the place but choose your own adventure.

- This is probably somewhat misphrased but I read of men who received a (full) blood transfusion, have different DNA than pre-transfusion. Down to the sperm if I'm not mistaken. If there's any credence to that, then to me its possible both a virus and vaccine could change a hosts DNA. Then throw micro-chimerism into the mix... that ones a different thread though.

- Did the CDC admit it cannot procure any document that shows a person with natural immunity from the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) transmitting the virus to others? Answer: yes b/c of the CDC's lack of documention. You think they'd have that aspect in the bag.

- A possible nbr friendly link: https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/11/19/fda-2076-vaccine-data/ -  Whats interesting about the link is when you consider the time it took the FDA to approve the 300,000+ pages of vaccine data: 108 days was it? Also, in todays world, that information is already digital - FTP still a thing?

- What does characterizing the viral sequence mean? Basic assumption leads me to believe its a fill in the gaps method of computer sequencing?

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

This is sort of all over the place but choose your own adventure.

- This is probably somewhat misphrased but I read of men who received a (full) blood transfusion, have different DNA than pre-transfusion. Down to the sperm if I'm not mistaken. If there's any credence to that, then to me its possible both a virus and vaccine could change a hosts DNA. Then throw micro-chimerism into the mix... that ones a different thread though.

I usually make a point of not responding to your posts. This one is particularly disjointed and incomprehensible.

As to blood transfusions, I thought I would clarify things as we don't need people being unnecessarily scared due to your lack of knowledge.

For anyone wanting to know how blood transfusions actually work, here are the basic bits.

Blood cells don't live very long. Transfused blood even shorter, about a month I believe.

Blood is transfused, lives in your body for the life of the cells and then they die. There is no mixing of DNA. Sperm is not affected, nor any other parts.

It could be that you are thinking of a bone marrow transplant, which is very different from a blood transfusion (and also very cool). They wipe out your bone marrow with chemo (and sometimes radiation) and then transfuse someone else's bone marrow. The donor marrow populates your bones and starts making blood cells. After about a month, all your old blood has died off and you now have the donor blood cells circulating rather than your own. In this case if you were to take a sample of your blood, your blood DNA would be that of the donor, not you. If you were to take a sample of any other tissue (sperm, hair, skin etc) the DNA would be yours.

Humans wouldn't be who they are without mutations caused by viruses.  Deal with it.