- Joined
- Jan 9, 2020
I just read a very interesting report that had some data taken from University of Rochester Medical Center and others about some interesting reviews of "imprinting" with Covid-19.
I had myself wondered why the government went with mRNA technology so quickly when a common produced vaccine seemed like the way to go.
We were told speed was of the essence, but this data suggests something else was a foot. Moreover, they knew it but said nothing - probably because most of the public would have been confused by it - shit I still am but I am getting my head around it.
The data is suggesting that those that get a regular vaccine and/or are exposed to a natural infection are more likely going to suffer from imprinting and their immune systems will stop being very effective against Covid mutations.
Whereas with the vaccines using mRNA instead what will happen is that efficacy will drop, but updated mRNA vaccines with new coding will restore high levels of immunity - the reason is that the mRNA vaccine is having the immune system develop in a different way, whereas natural infection or using a "dead virus" exposes the persons immune system to another region of the virus that can be responsible for "imprinting" and thus the different anti-bodies do in fact differ.
So a vaccine using mRNA does impart something a "regular" vaccine or exposure does not - but what it is imparting is an omission rather than commission to prevent imprinting.
I'll try to read more on it to get a better grasp of the mechanisms at play, but it it beginning to paint a picture of why some countries were so ready to go ahead with mRNA - they were told something probably in confidence that couldn't be told to the public about the nature of the mRNA and why they should opt in on it versus a regular vaccine.
I had myself wondered why the government went with mRNA technology so quickly when a common produced vaccine seemed like the way to go.
We were told speed was of the essence, but this data suggests something else was a foot. Moreover, they knew it but said nothing - probably because most of the public would have been confused by it - shit I still am but I am getting my head around it.
The data is suggesting that those that get a regular vaccine and/or are exposed to a natural infection are more likely going to suffer from imprinting and their immune systems will stop being very effective against Covid mutations.
Whereas with the vaccines using mRNA instead what will happen is that efficacy will drop, but updated mRNA vaccines with new coding will restore high levels of immunity - the reason is that the mRNA vaccine is having the immune system develop in a different way, whereas natural infection or using a "dead virus" exposes the persons immune system to another region of the virus that can be responsible for "imprinting" and thus the different anti-bodies do in fact differ.
So a vaccine using mRNA does impart something a "regular" vaccine or exposure does not - but what it is imparting is an omission rather than commission to prevent imprinting.
I'll try to read more on it to get a better grasp of the mechanisms at play, but it it beginning to paint a picture of why some countries were so ready to go ahead with mRNA - they were told something probably in confidence that couldn't be told to the public about the nature of the mRNA and why they should opt in on it versus a regular vaccine.