"how much of an advantage is clearly subject to question."

Indeed. If you come across any information to support your theory, please share it.

I agree. I am not trying to persuade you to get vaccinated. I am simply addressing the statement that there is no advantage to getting vaccinated if you have already had the disease and built an immune reaction.

I think there is an advantage, how much of an advantage is clearly subject to question.

And the recent revelations that Dr. Fauci himself ignored the worldwide prohibition on conducting gain-of-function research and did so through an exception only he could authorize.

The aim of government is to protect and advance itself and its minions. Any benefit to the citizens is purely accidental and incidental.

I have thought the masks people wear just makes them feel good but doesnt protect against the virus. Too many air leaks, to much handling during the day, and most people reuse them.

I have this sneaking feeling that getting infected with the virus doesnt just end the next day. I think the virus stays in various organs and creates havoc for months.

4 people I work with have gotten mild covid. I have been vaccinated and escaped without getting it. Thats only one data point, but I am happy I took the stabs.

that applies wholeheartedly to the wuhan lab

"The argument is based on the fact that the vaccine is designed..." (emphasis mine)

I understand that. The premise, however, is that human medicine can produce a more effective response than the natural body. That is prima faciae a highly questionable premise. Again, see the video I posted above.

"I do think that conscious design is, at least theoretically, preferable to random reactions."

Ah, so you see a natural response as "random" and therefore less effective. A curious premise and hardly supported by anything scientific, but each is entitled to draw their own conclusions.

Your decision to get the vaccine was your choice and - based on your divulged medical conditions - not without merit. I'm on the other end where I have none of the vulnerabilities to the virus that make a vaccine more attractive. When coupled with the personal experiences of complications as a direct result of the "vaccine" - including two deaths - I hope you can appreciate that my risk-reward equation swings decidedly in the opposite direction.

The argument is based on the fact that the vaccine is designed to make your immune system to generate a reaction to the portion of the virus that is considered to be the "novel" and most dangerous aspect. This was a conscious design decision to make it more likely to produce an immune response to variants of the virus that contained this protein. The theory was that mutations that did not contain it would be less dangerous.

I do think that conscious design is, at least theoretically, preferable to random reactions.

I got the vaccine. Would I have done so if I had gotten Covid before hand? I don't know, I guess it would have been based on how my system reacted to getting it in the first place. I have a number of the risk factors and specifically am taking ACE2 inhibitors which may provide additional binding points for the virus spike (or might block some binding points -- studies are underway).

Your argument was that the vaccine provides superior protection to that of the body's natural immune response. That is the only logical reason I can come up with why someone who has had the illness would get the shots. I outlined several of the implicit claims such a theory is predicated upon. You bear the burden of proving your theory by addressing the concerns I outlined.

I never claimed that the pathogen can not generate serious side effects on its own. The evidence states otherwise. The question is one of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. I simply question the premises you present as being fundamentally flawed and as such leading to a flawed conclusion.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/K1RWgx...

This was presented on another thread here in the Gulch. It is an interview with the world's foremost vaccine engineer. Eye-opening to be sure.

I don't think I agree with #1 -- the spike protein was picked to make the vaccine most likely to still be effective with mutations. This is something your immune system wouldn't "know" to do.

I'm not sure if I would characterize an artificially induced response as more or less effective. I'm just talking about the target.

And, just to be clear, I am saying why one might want to get a vaccination after having the disease. One might also chose to forgo the theoretical advantage to avoid the risk of a vaccine. And any thing that triggers an immune reaction has a small risk of it getting out of control.

Natural Covid has a lot of evidence for serious side effects too, so saying I'll just get the disease and build immunity the natural way doesn't mean you are free from side effects.

The implied arguments, however, are severely flawed.
1) That the body's own immune system will create a response to the origianal pathogen inferior to that of an artificial vaccine
2) That the body's natural immune response will be less effective against mutations than an articially-induced response

and most dangerously
3) That an artificially-induced response will not have serious complications not present in a naturally-occurring immunity.

Neither 1) nor 2) above has been shown to be accurate. With respect to 3), the evidence of serious side-effects (with over 600,000 recorded to date) such as blood clots and the potential for placental separation are known concerns. Blood clots have been a serious concern in the UK and were what killed my wife's friend - only 40 years old - when one descended into her lungs. Placental separation causes miscarriage and renders the woman infertile.

I don't believe science's understanding of genomic biology is nearly as perfect as is necessary to claim superiority to that of nature itself.

Because your immunity "to a pathogen" is a simplification. You actually build triggers to specific proteins on the pathogen. If you are infected your system will build pick which proteins to become alerted by.

If the virus mutates, and they do all the time, the protein your system picked might be one that changes and it doesn't do a good job of recognizing the threat.

The vaccine picked the protein for the "spike" which is the most dangerous part so as long as it's still there you will recognize it. And if it mutates away the virus will be less dangerous.

We're vaccinating those kids for profit.

As a senior-level engineer who's worked in the medical industry for almost two decades, specializing in infection control, I haven't taken a vaccine in over 15 years. Does that last fact make me "anti-science" or anti-vax? Since when does government health programs make people healthier? That's funny... You raise a good question. What makes somebody an anti-vaxxer?

Good that you're enjoying trolling people and getting priceless reactions on the internet, I guess.

Let me try to be helpful. Given my past, where I've worked, and who I've worked with I can say with complete conviction that the problems arise when government thinks it's going to help your health AND WHENEVER medicine is given via a government mandate. ALWAYS.

I don't pretend to understand that logic at all. The entire point of a vaccine is to spur the body to create immunity to a pathogen artificially in lieu of contracting the illness. If you've already contracted the illness, what immunity do you hope to gain from a vaccine that you didn't gain from natural immunity?

As do I. I think one of the technocracy which has taken over the United States has given undue deference to so-called experts, ignoring their hidden agendas. One of my favorite movie lines remains the one from "Jurassic Park:" "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they didn't stop to think if they should."

I prefer the application of common sense logic to the prattling of dr Fauci with his hidden agendas

"everyone is so scared because the rules are relaxed."
My theory, which is really just a guess, is this is an indirect result of good portable video devices. Parents have the option of giving them to kids, and it's hard not to if the parents themselves occasionally watch video on the phone. That results in less motivation for kids to go out into the kid world of playing in the neighborhood. That results in well-meaning parents always being on hand to resolve any difficulties, difficulties that the children would have had to muddle through on their own a generation ago. This means the kids don't learn "to adult" until their 20s. They can stay on their parents' insurance until 26 now. There's no stigma about someone in his early 20s saying he needs his mom to review documents before signing them. There's no sigma about a 13 year old whose mom walks him to school. Technology makes it easier for us to hear about the rare shooting or kidnapping, while it simultaneously allows us to keep the kids inside to protect them from these extremely rare perils.

The result, according this theory, is people of an age where mobile video was available in early childhood are afraid of everything. They never had the experience of learning to solve problems on their own. This also makes them more open to arguments for socialism and central management of people's lives. It makes them honestly terrified of taking off a mask, even though the level of risk is basically zero.

I keep saying "according to this theory" because I note it sounds like "kids these days have no grit... why, when I was their age..." When I was young, I said I would never say that. So this could be all wrong. But if I'm right, they're truly scared, and this is a slow-moving crisis. We need to get the kids taking risks, making their own decisions, talking to strangers, with no parents nearby.

They have proven themselves enemies of liberty. I won't ever give them my business. They want government to destroy all competition. $%^& them.

The funny thing is that I find the TV series "walking dead" quite instructive as to dealing with the coronavirus. Think of the virus as a zombie. Let them invade your town and you get more infections. Close the borders, wait to kill all zombies already in the town, and the problem is gone.

I agree 100%. A little bit of just about anything and the body can fight it off. A lot of just about anything and the body can be overwhelmed.

I think the whole covid thing is very complex. It seems to me that in order to catch covid, you have to be xposed to a viral load that exceeds your body's immediately available antibody response. If your immune system was weak at the time of the exposure, or the viral load was particularly large, you come down with it and yor body has to fight it. The problem is that we hardly EVER know the severity of the viral load, OR the state of a person's immune system . The vaccine probably DOES increase the immune sresponse of a vaccinated person, but I bet there is a viral load number which will overcome even a vaccinated person's abilty to resist covid. (how come 6% of the vaccinated people still can get covid)

"Some very leftist businesses still require the mask, but I will just NOT frequent them until they come to their senses."

Agreed. Most stores in my town saw huge business booms the day after the State finally lifted the mask mandate. Most business owners hadn't been pushing the masks for weeks prior because they recognized that they were just antagonizing a huge part of their customer base. So they posted their signs but were pretty lax on enforcement. There are still a few die-hards but they have their own rabid clientele and might as well post a "Zombies Welcome" sign on their doors.