So this is getting into the weeds and falls well beyond the general claim of anti-vaxxers that "vaccines drive mutations". This is a concern about a specific type of vaccination pattern that could theoretically create a mutation proliferating environment.

One thing I want to point out first off, is this is speculation. We don't have direct evidence of marginally immune people creating immune variants in any disease I'm aware of, and definitely not in Covid since we don't have any variants identified that have reset immunity. One case study is not enough to say we have evidence. Case studies are single examples that are error prone and up to interpretation. They're an important foundation for further research but they do not constitute good evidence in themselves.

So the argument is basically that if you are semi-immune, you will breed virus, but in an inhibitory environment, and this will favor virus mutations that bypass immunity. It's important to understand something though. Mutations are random. An unvaccinated individual that is producing 10x more virus has a 10x greater chance to great one of those vaccine bypassing variants. The concern here is that you would have somebody with a 10% viral load, but 100% of the load is a bypassing variant, versus the person with a 100% viral load that has a 2% bypassing variant.



This is something you tend to do a lot, and you almost exclusively do it for things that come from the right and virtually never for things that come from the left. You tend to take things like "vaccines drive mutations" and then look for any kind of fringe case that could theoretically justify the claim. Even if we take everything you posted as fact, it wouldn't justify that claim, and if you sat down and thought it through you would realize that, but instead you just kind of charge forward as though the claim was nuanced and well thought out, when in reality it was made by a vaccine denier with no caveats. Basically, when a claim comes from what you perceive as the right, you give it a broad leeway to be true and stretch as much as you can to make it true, and when you see a claim coming from the left you go out of your way to do the opposite.

You are completely over- and misinterpreting my position. I did not claim that vaccinations breed mutations, and I personally consider this to be a quite stupid take. Just for the record: I didnt even follow your previous discussion - all I saw was that you were asking for examples where scientists were saying that vaccines could push mutations. I remembered this debate from the UK from this January and referenced it, assuming that you and most other readers of this thread did not follow or remember that debate as closely.

And just to make this clear: these scientists were making the exact type of argument you had been asking for. They said that having X fully vaccinated people and Y unvaccinated infected persons was preferable to having 2*X partially vaccinated persons and Y-X unvaccinated infected persons, based on the idea that infections among partially immune patients would steer the random mutations which are happening all the time toward partial immune escape, thus increasing the probability that a strain with said partial immune escape emerges; and that this risk of selection pressure toward dangerous mutations outweighs the risk reduction from having X fewer infected persons.

I did not weigh in on what I think of this argument, I only presented it because you were asking for it; and then elaborated on it because you stubbornly refused to understand/acknowledge what these scientists had been saying. Nothing about that has anything to do with my political inclinations or biases.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 4 2021 08:14pm

The previous conversation was just his post about vaccines and my post. You did weigh in because you quoted the entire conversation.

So no, the defense that "I didn't even see the previous conversation" doesn't hold, and it absolutely does fit with your pattern of political bias.

Yes there was. It was called Utiopia. They vaccinated everyone to make them infertile.

This may be obvious, but I won't be taking the vaccine -- ever. It's been 18 months and I don't know anyone who has suffered from COVID, let alone died from it.

its "vaccine"

I generally do not follow the anti-scientific antivaxxer discourse, so I wasn't even aware that "vaccines will breed mutations" is supposed to be one of their talking points. The scientific side of covid is really as nonpartisan as it gets, it's only the stance on various NPIs where opinions diverge wildly based on partisan ideology.

Do you at least admit that the specific debate among British virologists which I cited is an example of serious scientists arguing that vaccinations can foster dangerous mutations (in a narrow sense, under very specific, but practically relevant conditions)?

What are you talking about? Are you stupid or dumb? Where in that post, have I misspelled vaccine?

I want to wish you good luck as you move forward in life. It seems you'll need it.

I think it's actually a series on Prime...? I tried finding a movie along those lines but failed.

pardon me i will try to explain

its not a "vaccine" it is mRNA experimental gene therapy. dont call it a vaccine call it a "vaccine" or maybe *vaccine

It was a 2014 British TV series, which the Americans stole the idea of, remade -- and released on Prime last year, prime-time to let us know how these VAXXines are going to kill us all.



VAXXine good enough?

And you're right. I underestimated you. This is not a vaccine. It's a weaponized poison that they'll try to forcibly inject us all with, or maybe we won't get our passports and be segregated from society. The world has literally gone insane.