> Come on. If humanity were unable to survive without the help of artificial vaccines, we would never be here.
I never said that humanity couldn't survive without a vaccine. Clearly we can. We also can survive with rotten meat and with poor shelter and with rampant war and famine. Sure a larger portion of us would die, but humanity would certainly survive.
Anyway my point was that when you're infected with a virus, your body basically builds up the ability to recognize certain proteins that the virus expresses and uses that to fight it off. It takes time to build up the ability to fight it off. The vaccine exposes you to basically the same proteins so that your body is able to identify and fight off the virus more quickly after infection. So really the vaccines are just priming your immune system so that it can better do its job.
You are wrong or tartuffe. Vaccines focus only on Spike protein. And beside turning your cells into a toxin (spike) factory there are lot of other concerns. Any medical drugs is defined by a specific calibrated quantity and a locality to achieve a specific effect, cure,heal , or prevent a disease.
Traditionals vaccins comply with this definition. Injecting in a specific area, a calibrated quantity of weakened virus to train immune system to recognise and fight this specifcic virus is ouite safe and achieve the target on most peoples.
RNA technology is quite different as far as what is injected is the recipe for human cells to produce a protein in order for them to be released into blood as foreign body to train immune system to identify associated virus.
There is no way to control the specific and calibrated quantity of this production. Also there is no control about impacted area with the fact that produced proteins in a random quantity can migrate everywhere in the body.
Also for the produced protein to exit the cell there is several mechanism with observed risk that the protein sticks on the surface of the cell turning it into a foreign cell (to be destroyed) from immune system perspective.
So basically calling such technology "vaccin" is a lie. And adverse events are more likely to be far more massive than safe traditionals vaccins.
Not talking about injections conditions where basic health checkup to judge if the future jabbed is in optimal health conditions to be injected are not done.
Not talking about countries such as Israel where those products did not demonstrated the marketed level of protections.
> How would you feed the world, if all these people had survived?
I'm not really sure what your point is. We shouldn't try to help those with weaker immune systems survive? How far should we take this? Should we as a society not make an effort to help the physically disabled, the old, the blind, etc. survive? Looking to the wild, basically no members of those groups survive. Is that what we should aim for?
> Yeah, what does the vaccine do that the virus doesn't? There's a lot the latter does that the former doesn't. That's the part I don't get.
Well the main feature of the vaccine over the actual virus is that the vaccine doesn't give you covid. The vaccine doesn't cover all of the multitude of compounds your body might recognize on the virus, but it covers enough for most people to build a better immune response to the actual virus than nothing. There is the issue that the viral strains are mutating and so over time so that a recently-vaccinated person today will probably do worse than a recently-vaccinated person 6 months ago, but there's not really much you can do about that.
To be fair, this is what the vaccines do.
reply