But if there are approximately 50 mutations in the 2022 variant, how can anyone assume that the existing vaccines will still be effective? Are the genetic mutations in areas that the vaccines traditionally target? If they have evolved to evade the human immune system then is it not plausible they can avoid the vaccines too?
Keep in mind that the vaccines were never actually intended for monkeypox. It's just characteristic of the relative closeness of orthopoxviruses that a smallpox vaccine has an efficacy profile against monkeypox.
And neither ACAM2000 nor Jynneos are routinely administered even in Africa. So even prior to this current outbreak there's a whole lot of uncertainty about their actual efficacy against monkeypox.
The 85% efficacy figure is really more of a "best guess" given that the actual target pathogen, smallpox, is no longer endemic anywhere in the world.
There's nothing natural or 'gnarly' about any of this.
The over reliance and obsession with vaccines is making experts coos-coo and flippant when they decide if it's a 'concern'. They figure, foolishly, 'what's the big deal? We got a vaccine for that!'.
And these moronic 'X% effective' claims. Can we stop it?
I don't believe any of it. All Bullwinkle pull a rabbit out of hat nonsense.
Having deconstructed Pfizer's initial extravagant efficacy claims on their COVID-19 shot, no, we shouldn't believe those numbers. For smallpox, the claims are best guesses, because smallpox is not an endemic pathogen anywhere in the world anymore. There is no practical way to test such vaccines, since smallpox itself was eradicated decades ago.
Dec 18, 2021 I sent an email about the Atlantic's covid coverage that I found disturbing...this website, Weighty Matters.....http://www.weightymatters.ca/..... LOVES the Atlantic.....here it is...
Just a little note on the article that was just posted.....
Although I subscribe to the Atlantic and read a lot of their articles, something disturbs me.
At the end of every science article related to COVID, especially, you read this "The Atlantic’s COVID-19 coverage is supported by grants from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation."
This for me is a conflict of interest.
Chan Zuckerber is Mark Zuckerberg's wife and obviously tied to Facebook which is not a medical authority.
This organization is also funding vaccine projects......We also received $46,369 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in this quarter. SciCheck’s COVID-19/Vaccination Project is made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over our editorial decisions, and the views expressed on our website do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.
Given Big Tech's ham handed censorship over COVID topics--which I have had direct experience--I am more troubled by the Zuckerberg grant than the RWJ grant. Foundations like RWJ, in order to preserve their tax exempt status, have to maintain discrete distance from the corporations that spawned them, which would be from a corporate and journalistic ethics standpoint a pretty good rebuttal to general claims of conflict of interest as far as J&J is concerned.
Whether specific articles could be defended against such claims is inherently problematic--there's no good way for me to answer at that level.
However, the broader question is why a news magazine, particularly one with the Atlantic's history, would need private funding or to have news projects "commissioned".
From the Atlantic's original mission statement (signed by such literary luminaries of the 19th century as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, and Harriet Beecher Stowe):
"Third: In Politics, The Atlantic will be the organ of no party or clique, but will honestly endeavor to be the exponent of what its conductors believe to be the American idea. It will deal frankly with persons and with parties, endeavoring always to keep in view that moral element which transcends all persons and parties, and which alone makes the basis of a true and lasting national prosperity. It will not rank itself with any sect of anties, but with that body of men which is in favor of Freedom, National Progress, and Honor, whether public or private."
One point deserves emphasis here: ACAM2000 has 1104 adverse event reports in VAERS. I was unable to locate any for Jynneos.
While ACAM2000 does present a known elevated risk of myopericarditis, we should not lose sight of the fact that mortality in smallpox outbreaks had at times reached 30%, with effective reproduction rates as high as 19. Think a virus with the mortality of MERS and twice the highest reproduction rate of Omicron. If monkeypox were as lethal as smallpox the risk benefit argument might still go in favor of taking the vaccine.
Also, both ACAM2000 and Jynneos are whole virus vaccines. They are not experimental mRNA lunacy.
While we should be careful and skeptical about Big Pharma claims about even whole virus vaccines, and should be vocal and demand vaccines be quality products as well as legitimate disease mitigation modalities, we to evaluate each vaccine independently of others. COVID-19 is not monkeypox, and neither are the mRNA inoculations monkeypox vaccines.
What damage the mRNA inoculations have done to people's immune system is a question that will not be fully answered for years, if ever. Suffice it to say, there are strong signals that there is significant damage being done.
For most everybody, the current presentations of monkeypox makes vaccination wholly unjustifiable. The known safety risks of ACAM2000 (which, until there is a significant body of clinical data to suggest otherwise, must be imputed to Jynneos as well) make the strategy unwise, at least at this time.
If the Congo Basin clade were where the global outbreak's ancestors originated, with its greater virulence, there might be a different conclusion to be reached on vaccination. If monkeypox were as lethal as smallpox there would almost certainly be a different conclusion.
If it should be established that the COVID-19 inoculations impair the body's ability to process and accept vaccinations, the prepare for the mother of all disease resurgences. Before COVID almost everyone my age and younger had never seen or heard of people being quarantined for disease. Vaccines are a big reason why that is. If COVID-19 impairs the body's ability to process vaccination, given the mandates and the coercions that have been deployed to date, there would be no accounting for such a crime by the government.
Simple justice would demand the government be overthrown and new government erected in its stead.
But if there are approximately 50 mutations in the 2022 variant, how can anyone assume that the existing vaccines will still be effective? Are the genetic mutations in areas that the vaccines traditionally target? If they have evolved to evade the human immune system then is it not plausible they can avoid the vaccines too?
Keep in mind that the vaccines were never actually intended for monkeypox. It's just characteristic of the relative closeness of orthopoxviruses that a smallpox vaccine has an efficacy profile against monkeypox.
And neither ACAM2000 nor Jynneos are routinely administered even in Africa. So even prior to this current outbreak there's a whole lot of uncertainty about their actual efficacy against monkeypox.
The 85% efficacy figure is really more of a "best guess" given that the actual target pathogen, smallpox, is no longer endemic anywhere in the world.
Excellent, thank you for explaining
There's nothing natural or 'gnarly' about any of this.
The over reliance and obsession with vaccines is making experts coos-coo and flippant when they decide if it's a 'concern'. They figure, foolishly, 'what's the big deal? We got a vaccine for that!'.
And these moronic 'X% effective' claims. Can we stop it?
I don't believe any of it. All Bullwinkle pull a rabbit out of hat nonsense.
Having deconstructed Pfizer's initial extravagant efficacy claims on their COVID-19 shot, no, we shouldn't believe those numbers. For smallpox, the claims are best guesses, because smallpox is not an endemic pathogen anywhere in the world anymore. There is no practical way to test such vaccines, since smallpox itself was eradicated decades ago.
Dec 18, 2021 I sent an email about the Atlantic's covid coverage that I found disturbing...this website, Weighty Matters.....http://www.weightymatters.ca/..... LOVES the Atlantic.....here it is...
Just a little note on the article that was just posted.....
Although I subscribe to the Atlantic and read a lot of their articles, something disturbs me.
At the end of every science article related to COVID, especially, you read this "The Atlantic’s COVID-19 coverage is supported by grants from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation."
This for me is a conflict of interest.
Chan Zuckerber is Mark Zuckerberg's wife and obviously tied to Facebook which is not a medical authority.
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is connected to the J&J vaccine...conflict of interest?? https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/collections/our-history.html
This organization is also funding vaccine projects......We also received $46,369 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in this quarter. SciCheck’s COVID-19/Vaccination Project is made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over our editorial decisions, and the views expressed on our website do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.
https://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/
Anyway, not sure if you noticed who supports this science but for me it's problematic. I am not sure how these writings can be unbiased.
Thoughts?
Thanks in advance,
....by the way...who thinks he has responded to me??
Given Big Tech's ham handed censorship over COVID topics--which I have had direct experience--I am more troubled by the Zuckerberg grant than the RWJ grant. Foundations like RWJ, in order to preserve their tax exempt status, have to maintain discrete distance from the corporations that spawned them, which would be from a corporate and journalistic ethics standpoint a pretty good rebuttal to general claims of conflict of interest as far as J&J is concerned.
Whether specific articles could be defended against such claims is inherently problematic--there's no good way for me to answer at that level.
However, the broader question is why a news magazine, particularly one with the Atlantic's history, would need private funding or to have news projects "commissioned".
From the Atlantic's original mission statement (signed by such literary luminaries of the 19th century as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, and Harriet Beecher Stowe):
"Third: In Politics, The Atlantic will be the organ of no party or clique, but will honestly endeavor to be the exponent of what its conductors believe to be the American idea. It will deal frankly with persons and with parties, endeavoring always to keep in view that moral element which transcends all persons and parties, and which alone makes the basis of a true and lasting national prosperity. It will not rank itself with any sect of anties, but with that body of men which is in favor of Freedom, National Progress, and Honor, whether public or private."
https://www.theatlantic.com/history/
Private commissions for news coverage rather flies in the face of this commitment.
Wow!......thanks for explaining this...
One point deserves emphasis here: ACAM2000 has 1104 adverse event reports in VAERS. I was unable to locate any for Jynneos.
While ACAM2000 does present a known elevated risk of myopericarditis, we should not lose sight of the fact that mortality in smallpox outbreaks had at times reached 30%, with effective reproduction rates as high as 19. Think a virus with the mortality of MERS and twice the highest reproduction rate of Omicron. If monkeypox were as lethal as smallpox the risk benefit argument might still go in favor of taking the vaccine.
Also, both ACAM2000 and Jynneos are whole virus vaccines. They are not experimental mRNA lunacy.
While we should be careful and skeptical about Big Pharma claims about even whole virus vaccines, and should be vocal and demand vaccines be quality products as well as legitimate disease mitigation modalities, we to evaluate each vaccine independently of others. COVID-19 is not monkeypox, and neither are the mRNA inoculations monkeypox vaccines.
What damage the mRNA inoculations have done to people's immune system is a question that will not be fully answered for years, if ever. Suffice it to say, there are strong signals that there is significant damage being done.
For most everybody, the current presentations of monkeypox makes vaccination wholly unjustifiable. The known safety risks of ACAM2000 (which, until there is a significant body of clinical data to suggest otherwise, must be imputed to Jynneos as well) make the strategy unwise, at least at this time.
If the Congo Basin clade were where the global outbreak's ancestors originated, with its greater virulence, there might be a different conclusion to be reached on vaccination. If monkeypox were as lethal as smallpox there would almost certainly be a different conclusion.
If it should be established that the COVID-19 inoculations impair the body's ability to process and accept vaccinations, the prepare for the mother of all disease resurgences. Before COVID almost everyone my age and younger had never seen or heard of people being quarantined for disease. Vaccines are a big reason why that is. If COVID-19 impairs the body's ability to process vaccination, given the mandates and the coercions that have been deployed to date, there would be no accounting for such a crime by the government.
Simple justice would demand the government be overthrown and new government erected in its stead.