How vaccines work against the COVID-19 Delta variant

Dr. Harvey Risch, MD, PhD, Professor of Epidemiology Yale University on Hydroxychloroquine :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2DxP-6wHoY

What this article fails to mention is that the Astrazenaca vaccine is not effective against the South African strain of the virus. And as the article states clearly the Pfizer vaccine is far more effective against the Delta variant. Japan has tens of millions of doses of the Astrazenaca vaccine that will expire in September so first they announced that they are going to approve it for use for those 60 and older. Apparently they figured out thy would still have vaccine left over so now they are going to approve it for people 18 and over. They have secured enough Pfizer and Moderna vaccine to vaccinate everyone in Japan, but because they didn’t act soon enough they are stuck with these Astrazenaca doses they need to avoid wasting. And so people like me who are 60 years old and haven’t received their coupon yet will receive the inferior Astrazenaca vaccine.

While I agree that the Russians etc... aren't inherently credible, I have lost all respect and trust for the major western health authorities as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Masks are pointless and open all borders according to the establishment consensus one year ago.

Not only do the links contradict your statement , but they indicate a very serious problem. There is a narrative that is quashing and subverting alternate opinion and investigation.

No they don't even if you want to mis represent them as if they were. In the first it was not even about the scientific community, and in the second it is only describing the same situation that has always been the case, because neither journals are supposed to check every detail nor pre publication peer review is supposed to detect every problem ever. And specially it is not something that applies to any journal in particular, much less the Lancet. Once again, your sources do not support your mistaken conclusion.

If you haven’t realized that growing mistrust in the management and supporting data behind this “pandemic” is growing, then so be it.

No longer "the scientific community"? that is called moving the goal posts, and it is still irrelevant, people can disagree with scientific measures for many wrong reasons, specially when they don't have any scientific basis to defend that disagreement.

Please refrain from stating what is obvious. Retraction after you have been completely exposed for irresponsible and subversive behavior holds no moral high ground.

Duh! the problem is when you try to hold the responsibility of the retraction in a Journal when it acted exactly as the system is designed to do. Do you also blame the police when they catch a criminal after he does something illegal instead of keeping everybody under vigilance 24/7 just in case?

Do you want to know what is actually an example of unethical, irresponsible behaviour? presenting incomplete/misleading information to exaggerate the risks of vaccines and trying to disguise the actual risk from the COVID infection just to justify not giving people the freedom to vaccinate even if they have a very high risk of death from COVID.

Neither of your links even contradict the statement.

You claimed that “Except of course for all the scientific community that have no problem with either of them, “. Them being these organizations and journals.

Not only do the links contradict your statement , but they indicate a very serious problem. There is a narrative that is quashing and subverting alternate opinion and investigation.

If you haven’t realized that growing mistrust in the management and supporting data behind this “pandemic” is growing, then so be it.

The journal would be responsible if it is notified of problems and do not retract the articles (or takes years to do it), this obviously did not happen here.

Please refrain from stating what is obvious. Retraction after you have been completely exposed for irresponsible and subversive behavior holds no moral high ground.

Hence the justification for mistrust.

We really need to get as many people vaccinated as quickly possible. Mutations suck.

One thing I hope this epidemic will result in is for the anti-vaxxer movement to lose steam and numbers.

Except that the above statement is incorrect. There is a serious problem .

Neither of your links even contradict the statement. There will always be people that disagree, specially if they are not scientifically inclined, doctors and nurses are not by default part of the scientific community. So it is understandable that they can't understand the process of originating and evaluating information of primary sources as a scientist is trained to.

The second is again describing the same misconception you have, Journals are not the ones that hold the responsibility to vouch for the raw data from the studies, and peer review is not perfect, retractions are expected and desirable, because they mean the science is working as it is supposed to be. A maxim of science is that post publication peer review is more important that pre publication, because things that can escape 2-3 reviewers are not so easily missed by the whole world scientific community.

The journal would be responsible if it is notified of problems and do not retract the articles (or takes years to do it), this obviously did not happen here.

Except of course for all the scientific community that have no problem with either of them, specially the Lancet, 

Except that the above statement is incorrect. There is a serious problem .

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210609/trust-in-cdc-fda-took-a-beating-during-pandemic

https://bioethics.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/Pandemic_Claims_Victims.pdf

I would listen to these guys before the Lancet, WHO and CDC combined.

So did countries that used the Sputnik vaccine believing the Russian scientists evaluation of the efficacy, then it came out the data that supposedly leads to that conclusion is full of problems and its unreliable.

Completely agree. All three of these organizations are no longer credible.

Except of course for all the scientific community that have no problem with either of them, specially the Lancet, since anybody even remotely involved with science know that retractions are an inevitable part of scientific publications (and that letters are not scientific reports). Only people that don't understand what is the role of the scientific publications and who is actually responsible for the integrity and veracity of the data mistakenly think journal routinely corroborate raw data.

This link gives number of deaths due to Delta:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57525891

34 (unvaccinated)

10 (after first vax)

26 (after two doses)

The numbers of those who contracted Delta should be available somewhere in Public Health data:

The number of unvaxx contracting Delta: ca 35,500

The number of vaxxed contarcting Delta: 4087

The death rate among unvaxxed is 34/35,500 ca 0.1%

The death rate among the vaxxed is 26/4087 ca 0.6% (six times higher)

I would listen to these guys before the Lancet, WHO and CDC combined.

Completely agree. All three of these organizations are no longer credible.

And the Lancet in particular has already been routed out as complicit in Peter Daszak’s unethical and unauthorized activities.

https://theprint.in/theprint-essential/the-lancet-worlds-most-credible-medical-journal-whose-trust-has-been-hit-by-hcq-scandal/436452/?amp

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9710875/amp/Peter-Daszak-removed-COVID-commission-following-bombshell-conflict-report.html

Absolutely fake scientific reporting

the study by the Gamaleya Center, a Russian research institute, had been submitted for publication in an international peer-reviewed journal.

I would listen to these guys before the Lancet, WHO and CDC combined.

the mRNA vaccines quickly leave the injection site, with the lipid nanoparticles spreading throughout the body and accumulating in the ovaries, brain, spleen....

A small fraction of the vaccine, not the whole thing and this is expected and has no real importance, specially when compared with the viral infection where this process is multiplied hugely because of not only the protein is distributed and accumates, but replicating viruses do, which means cells get infected around the body and continuously produce it,

If you are healthy, the infection will have no or little effect; but we do not yet know the long-term effects of the vaccines.

The vaccine has much less negative effects than the infection proved scientifically, and the viral infection is simply much more likely to produce long term effects, even if only because it already produces them. The chance that COVID-19 produces permanent effects is already 100%.

This “Variant” development was expected. Especially under an overblown emergency that allowed the opportunity for EUA medicines to be deployed by opportunists.

The scientific consensus is the opposite, lack of access to vaccines is a much more likely explanation for the emergence of variants, because immune people interrupt transmission and make the development of variants hugely less likely, specially compared with failed medication that have demonstrated to be useless like HCQ.

Even the most promising studies about ivermectin fall short of the effects that vaccines have protecting immunized people, and the difference is that vaccines have not contradicting studies that show a much lower effect like happens with ivermectin.

More contagious, but not more deadly to the infected:

When talking about populations more contagious means more deadly, even with the same fatality rates, because it will produce more infected people and therefore more fatal victims,

Until his papers get retracted, these are just pharma-sponsored whining...unlike the numerous convictions of pharma companies for falsifying data, bribing officials,....

The data he produced is false, not being retracted do not change that, duplicated figures, falsified ethical approvals, analysis giving impossible results, that is enough to completely tarnish his name in science, as it is happened, threatening to sue the people that found the problems is an extra that convinced the scientific community that his interest is not science.

Raoult's group has tested thousands of people, and he found that those who recovered from Covid19 were more unlikely to get reinfected than a fully vaccinated person.

Terribly sorry but just you saying they did something or found anything has no objective value, unless properly curated data validated by professionals that have not dozens over dozens of papers with confirmed falsifications this is completely irrelevant information. For all we know he is again manipulating the information or producing it from his imagination.

This “Variant” development was expected. Especially under an overblown emergency that allowed the opportunity for EUA medicines to be deployed by opportunists.

Always following the “science” of their choice under the TINA banner. There have been other options and data available throughout this crisis that has indicated medical alternatives to EUA experimental trial vaccines.

file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Data/Application/353AEDB2-83A5-4828-B5DF-5BA1953A6AC7/tmp/TempDocs/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.pdf

“For this study, published on June 17 in the American Journal of Therapeutics, a group of scientists reviewed the clinical trial use of ivermectin, which has antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, in 24 randomized controlled trials involving just over 3,400 participants. The researchers sought to assess the efficacy of ivermectin in reducing infection or mortality in people with COVID-19 or at high risk of getting it.

Using multiple methods of sequential analysis, the researchers concluded with a moderate level of confidence that the drug reduced the risk of death in COVID-19 patients by an average of 62 percent, at a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.19-0.79, in a sample of 2438 patients.

Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the risk of death was found to be 2.3 percent among those treated with the drug, compared to 7.8 percentfor those who were not, according to the review.

“Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease,” the authors wrote.

And obviously the huge difference with the vaccines is that getting infected comes with much greater risks in the first place. This would make previous infectious not efficient at preventing problems, even if they were more effective than the vaccines.

All attention has been placed on the negative effects of the infection, and the positive effects of the vaccines. A FOIA request was needed to get Pfizer data that showed that, unlike conventional vaccines, the mRNA vaccines quickly leave the injection site, with the lipid nanoparticles spreading throughout the body and accumulating in the ovaries, brain, spleen....

If you are healthy, the infection will have no or little effect; but we do not yet know the long-term effects of the vaccines.

Raoult has demonstrated to not be above fabricating or manipulating data so it fits with whatever he wants to say (as demonstrated with close to 100 papers with false data recently discovered), so the minimum necessary would be independent studies that show this.

Until his papers get retracted, these are just pharma-sponsored whining...unlike the numerous convictions of pharma companies for falsifying data, bribing officials,....

Raoult's group has tested thousands of people, and he found that those who recovered from Covid19 were more unlikely to get reinfected than a fully vaccinated person.

Got it. The question is: so what? I still don't want to catch it, so the first option isn't one.

And you might never catch it. But if you are vulnerable, get the vaccine if that will put you at ease.

The Delta variant of the coronavirus, first identified in India, is a cause for global concern with studies showing it is more contagious and resistant to vaccines than other forms of COVID.

More contagious, but not more deadly to the infected:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOu7jx3snQ

So far, the natural infection appears to be slightly more effective than vaccines

Catching a disease and surviving it provides better protection against catching the virus than vaccinating against it.

Got it. The question is: so what? I still don't want to catch it, so the first option isn't one.

So far, the natural infection appears to be slightly more effective than vaccines (according to Didier Raoult and others), and I suspect this difference will only increase as more variants appear.

Any data to support this? I mean, Raoult has demonstrated to not be above fabricating or manipulating data so it fits with whatever he wants to say (as demonstrated with close to 100 papers with false data recently discovered), so the minimum necessary would be independent studies that show this.

And obviously the huge difference with the vaccines is that getting infected comes with much greater risks in the first place. This would make previous infectious not efficient at preventing problems, even if they were more effective than the vaccines.

Or as the article have very clearly written.

Scientists agree that the best defense against the Delta variant is to get a full two-dose vaccination against coronavirus.

The vaccines retain some effectiveness against variants as some of the produced antibodies recognize conserved epitopes on the spike protein.

So far, the natural infection appears to be slightly more effective than vaccines (according to Didier Raoult and others), and I suspect this difference will only increase as more variants appear.