A question about the covid vaccines

[commenter]

commenter:

Well, on issues with various ethical implications, coming to a Catholic forum is reasonable.

Actually, history is posting says otherwise. Much misinformation abounds on CAF. I go to Vatican, USCCB, NCBC, and other sources.

CAF threads generally lead people to information sources affiliated with the Church. I do myself.

But I find people who post here are also looking for a place to ask specific questions, or rather, learn what are the right questions to ask.

They sound out their feelings and get personal responses on CAF. (“Is there anyone else who thinks there’s something missing here?”)

 

[Beryllos]

I will pray for your health and peace of mind.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Deaths must be reported even if there’s absolutely no link to the vaccine.

Sounds like COVID alright.

 

[po18guy]

Thank you. At a very late stage of life, I am realizing some startling and fundamental things about myself, which will contribute to inner peace. Having faced death a minimum of three times from cancer, I am (mostly) ready to go at any moment.

 

[White_Tree]

It’s better actually, because the RNA vaccine is not self-replicating like the virus.

I think it depends on the type of mRNA they use.

This article from the PHG Foundation at the University of Cambridge suggests there are three types (note number 2):

Types of RNA vaccine

1. Non-replicating mRNA
   
   The simplest type of RNA vaccine, an mRNA strand is packaged and delivered to the body, where it is taken up by the body’s cells to make the antigen.
2. In vivo self-replicating mRNA
   
   The pathogen-mRNA strand is packaged with additional RNA strands that ensure it will be copied once the vaccine is inside a cell. This means that greater quantities of the antigen are made from a smaller amount of vaccine, helping to ensure a more robust immune response.
3. In vitro dendritic cell non-replicating mRNA vaccine
   
   Dendritic cells are immune cells that can present antigens on their cell surface to other types of immune cells to help stimulate an immune response. These cells are extracted from the patient’s blood, transfected with the RNA vaccine, then given back to the patient to stimulate an immune reaction.

However, even if the mRNA is replicated inside the cell, I don’t know whether it is possible for it to transmit into another cell, or what happens when the cell with the mRNA in it divides.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I don’t know whether it is possible for it to transmit into another cell,

I’m pretty sure mRNA never actually leaves cells and even if it could, it cannot replicate by itself.

or what happens when the cell with the mRNA in it divides.

The mRNA goes into the cell that had the area of the old one it occupied. It isn’t replicated during mitosis.

 

[White_Tree]

I’m pretty sure mRNA never actually leaves cells and even if it could, it cannot replicate by itself.

That’s good to know. That’s kind of what I figured. I wasn’t so concerned about the mRNA replicating outside of the cell. I was more pondering a scenario in which the mRNA is released from a cell (e.g. when the cell dies), can it find its way into another cell?

My suspicion was that, “No it couldn’t,” because from what I had read, the developers of the mRNA vaccines had to develop a sophisticated lipid nanomolecule to allow it to pass through the cell membrane, and without that nanomolecule, it couldn’t make it into new cells, but I didn’t know for sure.

The mRNA goes into the cell that had the area of the old one it occupied. It isn’t replicated during mitosis.

Also good to know. Thanks.

I didn’t really think it was replicated during the standard process of mitosis. But we do know that the cell is replicating the mRNA, in the case of the in vivo self-replicating mRNA vaccines described in the article I cited above.

Since the cell therefore likely has multiple copies of this mRNA inside it when it undergoes mitosis, how would it be determined which of the two copies of the cell gets the mRNA? That’s mainly what I was wondering.

The reason I was pondering that is because a U.S.-based healthcare company named Vizient had a comparison chart on their site describing the pros and cons of different vaccine technologies. And among the potential disadvantages of the mRNA vaccines, they listed “Biodistribution and persistence of the induced antigen expression,” which seems to imply the cells with the antigen (the coronavirus spike protein) somehow spread throughout the body, or continue to produce this antigen beyond the expected or desired time frame targeted by the vaccine.

And if they were concerned about that possibility, it made me wonder what type of scenario or mechanism would produce that kind of outcome. If the mRNA can’t travel from cell to cell, I thought maybe mitosis could produce the “biodistribution and persistence” they were worried about, but I’m not really sure.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I was more pondering a scenario in which the mRNA is released from a cell (e.g. when the cell dies), can it find its way into another cell?

mRNA is pretty much instantly destroyed after being transcribed into a protein. The only reason we stay alive and keep producing protein is because our cells keep making mRNA. That’s why we don’t need to worry about it spreading or getting transferred to other cells, it’s gonna be gone before it would have a chance and the body can’t make more of it.

 

[Socrates92]

You may blast me for this, but why go through the trouble? Just play along until the vaccine comes out and everything goes back to normal. Then nobody gets hurt or arrested and you don’t take the risk of infecting others or being infected if you’re wrong.

Where to even start…

First off, there’s no reason to assume things will just “go back to normal”. Every talking point has been about the “new normal”, not “going back to normal,” so there is no indication that returning to the old normal is part of the agenda. The vaccine in itself presents a whole host of problems. Vaccines normally take years to develop, and I’m supposed to believe a vaccine developed in less than 12 months is completely safe (or at least less dangerous than the virus - which is pretty safe for most)? The lockdowns haven’t exactly been safe - They have been put in place without any real concern for unintended (?) secondary effects. Why should I assume this vaccine will be any different? I’ll need a stronger argument than the assurance of public officials with a vested interest in it.

It is a simple fact that Covid is no more dangerous than a host of other ailments for the vast majority of people. Meanwhile the lockdowns measures have devastated vast swaths of people. The costs are undeniable; the benefits speculative, questionable, and unproven.

Look here to see if you can discern any apparent impact of various measures - to me there seems to be zero correlation between mask and lockdowns and a reduction in cases (which are a problematic indicator in themselves, but I digress).
https://rationalground.com/mask-charts/

Eliminating all risk is simply not possible, and is therefore an absurd policy. There is only trade-offs and risk mitigation, based on a cost-benefit that considers both sides of the coin. This has not happened. Public officials have been brainlessly (to give the benefit of the doubt) following the same approach that had been adopted, based on the Neil Fergusan’s apocalyptic and discredited model. As soon as it became clear that the model was complete bogus, the approach should have been reconsidered. There is no indication that this ever happened, and in fact, measures have become more severe, even as it became clear that this thing is much less dangerous than was originally thought.

What’s more, the officials making the decisions have shown very little interest in actually considering the costs of their policies. I realize the Hippocratic Oath doesn’t really apply anymore, but if it did, many public health officials would be in severe breach of it.

You make it sound like compliance is a risk-free proposition. It is clearly not. Compliance will simply enable more of the same, and is quite frankly, the cowards way out.

 

[Beryllos]

Say, what was the topic of this thread?!

 

[commenter]

It is a simple fact that Covid is no more dangerous than a host of other ailments for the vast majority of people. Meanwhile the lockdowns measures have devastated vast swaths of people. The costs are undeniable; the benefits speculative, questionable, and unprovthe en.

Your analysis ignores the vast response by the health care professionals. Keep in mind no governor mandated people go to the hospital. They all chose to go there, demanded to be admitted.

Their families demanded they get the full measure of treatment, which often included ICU or ventilators. Politicians didn’t require nurses to push to heavy overtime, to extremely uncomfortable conditions. That was caused by individual sick people.

Saying Covid is 99 percent safe, as some do, is preposterous. The “low” death rate was caused by the intervention, that doesn’t prove the intervention was unnecessary.

Fewer people have died in car crashes in recent years. Does this mean the enormous development in safety features is unnecessary?

 

[ValleyCatholic]

This irrational fear of the Corona virus many display here is anti-Christian. God is Life and love. Living in fear, to irrational degrees, is placing the ideology of death above the power and supremacy of God. The Pfizer vaccine, according to Pfizer itself, will have a 95% efficacy rate. Our immune systems, according to the CDC, UN, and WHO have between a 97-99% efficacy rate, with the overwhelming majority of those under 65 being in the 99%. This is aside from the serious moral questions of taking a vaccine that builds on knowledge from studies built on the backs of aborted children. Two of the three largest vaccines were not tested or created using aborted embryonic material, however, their foundations are based on such. Cafeteria Catholicism should not override what we know in our conscience to be right; Reason and God’s supreme Love.

A Catholic Analysis of the Corona Vaccine

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Yeah, because everyone who survives COVID survives unscathed, and it’s not worth further reduction of cases rather than letting people get it.

Totally.

The Pfizer vaccine, according to Pfizer itself, will have a 95% efficacy rate. Our immune systems, according to the CDC, UN, and WHO have between a 97-99% efficacy rate, with the overwhelming majority of those under 65 being in the 99%.

That is not how this works at all. The vaccine prevents you from ever getting sick 95% of the time. Your own body can prevent you from being killed 97-99% of the time. See how those are two very different numbers?

 

[Fauken]

Yeah, because everyone who survives COVID survives unscathed, and it’s not worth further reduction of cases rather than letting people get it.

Totally.

Not to mention that a 1% fatality rate still means that 3,000,000 people die in just the US.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

But if everyone were vaccinated, the total vulnerable pool goes down to maybe about 5 million, and we could easily see only 50k deaths.

 

[Fauken]

But if everyone were vaccinated, the total vulnerable pool goes down to maybe about 5 million, and we could easily see only 50k deaths.

Or at least enough to establish herd immunity. Nevermind starting to bring things back to some level of normalcy as we try to recover from the social and economic consequences of the pandemic, such as unemployment, increased homelessness (which further spreads the virus, by the way), and higher rates of depression as a result of the social isolation.

 

[ValleyCatholic]

The vaccine DOES NOT prevent you from being killed, but from being infected, and that is working on the assumption you would have ever been infected and symptomatic. You are being disingenuous. Further, have you seen the studies on the long term effects of the vaccine? Nope, because there aren’t any. What we do know is that 6 people have died in the vaccine trials. We also know that one must follow their conscience. If many here felt their conscience allowed them to vote for pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and anti-nuclear family Biden, then they should not judge those of use who see the vaccine as a moral wrong.

 

[ValleyCatholic]

And yet when the WHO, CDC, and even the UN were asked why, without a vaccine the numbers have not reached the catastrophic levels predicted earlier there was silence…

 

[Fauken]

And yet when the WHO, CDC, and even the UN were asked why, without a vaccine the numbers have not reached the catastrophic levels predicted earlier there was silence…

Because we still are trying to learn about this virus? This is not something that one just snaps one’s fingers at and learns everything all at once.

If you’re concerned about the expedited release of the vaccine, you ought to be equally concerned with the prognosis of the survivors of the virus. Because I’ve been hearing stories from nurses I know that their colleagues are still unable to breathe like they used to months after recovering.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

The vaccine DOES NOT prevent you from being killed, but from being infected.

That’s…what I said.

Further, have you seen the studies on the long term effects of the vaccine? Nope, because there aren’t any.

mRNA vaccines have been under study since the Ebola crisis. We know that they’re safe long-term and there’s theoretically no long-term consequences that could happen.

What we do know is that 6 people have died in the vaccine trials.

You do know that anyone who dies during a medical trial must be recorded, even if it’s for completely unrelated?

We also know that one must follow their conscience.

Their well-formed conscience. If your conscience is based on misunderstandings of basic medical science, I would bet good money it isn’t well-informed.