I agree with you,number of people involved in vaccination-this in itself is a driving force String of impossibilities connect with each other in large sequence "That a particular specified event or coincidence will occur is very unlikely. That some astonishing unspecified events will occur is certain. That is why remarkable coincidences are noted in hindsight, not predicted with foresight." David G. Myers
So they want to inject something into the nurses to prevent a disease that they have been facing daily without any problem?
Drbeen (one of the most famous doctors on Youtube) admitted that his wife is still experiencing the side effects from JnJ even after a few months. Such as fatigue and so on.
The other thing to note is that a huge majority of the these protestors outside of medical facilities are not healthcare workers despite trying to claim they work there -- they are merely unhinged anti-vaxxers. In this particular children's hospital protest under a half-dozen actually worked at the facility -- and I expect that the rest of the medical staff is refusing to work any shifts with these anti-vax clowns and the hospital executives are finding ways to send these anti-vax clowns packing.
DrBeen is an outlet for Mobeen Syed who is a scam artist pushing unproven cures on the Internet including Ivermectin as a cure for COVID. He has appeared with "Americas's Frontline Doctors" and other fringe idiots. The guy is a joke.
Let's take a look at what the author of the 2015 study about vaccines, Marek' disease and chickens has to say. Short edition: The author says anti-vaxxers are full of shiat and are wrongly portraying his paper to claim that vaccines cause transmission of more virulent viruses. My 2015 study on virus evolution went viral among anti-vaxxers — but they don't understand it Vaccines against COVID-19 are the safest — and fastest — way to prevent the spread of variants https://www.salon.com/2021/08/30/my...vaxxers--but-they-dont-understand-it_partner/ A 2015 paper on a chicken virus showed vaccines could enable more deadly variants to spread – in chickens. But that outcome is rare. Only a minority of human and animal vaccines have affected the evolution of a virus. In most of those cases, evolution didn't increase the severity of the pathogen. The hypothetical possibility that the COVID-19 vaccines could result in more harmful variants is no reason to avoid inoculation. Rather, it shows the need to continue developing vaccines. In 2015, my collaborators and I published a scientific paper about a chicken virus you have likely never heard of. At the time, it got some media attention and has been cited by other scientists in the years since. But now, by late-August 2021, the paper has been viewed more than 350,000 times – and 70% of those views were in the past three weeks. It has even appeared on a YouTube video that's been seen by 2.8 million people, and counting. The paper has gone viral because some people are using it to stoke paranoia that the COVID-19 vaccines will cause the virus to evolve in the direction of even more severe variants. Doctors have told me that patients are using the paper to justify their decision to not get vaccinated. Some pundits are even using it to urge an end to vaccination campaigns in order to prevent the sort of viral evolution we were studying in chickens. I am receiving emails daily from people worried about getting vaccinated themselves or worried about people rejecting vaccination because of misunderstandings about the paper. Nothing in our paper remotely justifies an anti-vaccine stance. That misinterpretation – if it causes people to choose not to be vaccinated – will lead to avoidable, and tragic, loss of life. A new study estimates that as of early May 2021, vaccines had already prevented nearly 140,000 deaths in the U.S. For over 20 years I've been working with collaborators and colleagues on how vaccines might affect the evolution of disease-causing organisms like viruses and malaria parasites. Nothing we have discovered or even hypothesized justifies avoiding or withholding vaccines. If anything, our work adds to reasons for investigating new vaccine schedules – and for developing second- and third-generation vaccines. But in the context of the COVID-19 virus, our work does prompt a fair question: Could vaccination cause the emergence of even more harmful variants? From chickens to COVID-19 In the 2015 paper, we reported experiments with variants of Marek's disease virus – the name of the chicken virus we were studying. It is a herpesvirus that causes cancer in domestic chickens. A first-generation vaccine against it went into widespread use in poultry in the early 1970s. Today, all commercial chickens and many backyard flocks are vaccinated against Marek's. Chickens with Marek's disease virus became capable of transmitting the virus about 10 days after they get infected. In our lab experiments, we worked with variants of Marek's disease virus that were so lethal they would kill all unvaccinated birds in 10 days or fewer. So prior to the vaccine, the birds died before they could transmit the lethal variants to other birds. But we found that the first-generation vaccine protected the birds from dying. In other words, the Marek's-infected chickens lived and were thus able to spread the highly virulent strains to other birds. Penn State biologist Andrew Read (right) and research assistant Chris Cairns studied Marek's disease virus in poultry chickens. In the case of COVID-19, it's becoming increasingly clear that even vaccinated people can contract and transmit the highly transmissible delta variant. Since viral transmission from vaccinated chickens is what allowed more lethal variants to spread in Marek's, it's reasonable to ask whether COVID-19 transmission from vaccinated people could allow more lethal variants to spread. Evolution can go in many directions As evolutionary ecologist David Kennedy and I have written about previously, the evolutionary path that the Marek's disease virus took is one of many that are possible – in rare cases where vaccines drive evolution. Only a minority of human and animal vaccines have influenced pathogen evolution. In nearly all of those cases – which include the hepatitis B virus and bacteria that cause whooping cough and pneumonia – vaccine efficacy was reduced by new variants. But in contrast to Marek's, there was no clear evidence that the evolved variants made people sicker. In nature, we know of course that not all viruses are equally lethal. Biological differences in things like the linkage between disease severity and transmission can cause lethality to increase or decrease. This means that the future of one virus cannot be predicted by simply extrapolating from the past evolution of another. Marek's and SARS-CoV-2 are very different viruses, with very different vaccines, very different hosts and very different mechanisms by which they sicken and kill. It is impossible to know whether their differences are more important than their similarities. Evolutionary hypotheticals are important to consider. But up against the hugely beneficial impact of COVID-19 vaccines on reducing transmission and disease severity – even against the delta variant – the possibility of silent spread of more lethal variants among the vaccinated is still no argument against vaccination. As novel variants of the coronavirus spread in the months and years ahead, it will be vital to work out whether their evolutionary advantage is arising because of reduced disease severity among the vaccinated. Delta, for instance, transmits more effectively from both unvaccinated and vaccinated people than did earlier variants. Extrapolating from our chicken work to argue against vaccination because of the delta variant has no scientific rationale: The delta variant would have become dominant even if everyone refused vaccination. But what if? If more deadly variants of the coronavirus were to arise, lower vaccination rates would make it easier to identify and contain them because unvaccinated people would suffer more severe infections and higher death rates. But that kind of "solution" would come at considerable cost. In effect, the variants would be found and eliminated by letting people get sick, many of whom would die. Sacrificing chickens was not the solution the poultry industry adopted for Marek's disease virus. Instead, more potent vaccines were developed. Those newer vaccines provided excellent disease control, and no lethal breakthrough variants of Marek's have emerged in over 20 years. There are probably ways the available COVID-19 vaccines could be improved in the future to better reduce transmission. Booster shots, larger doses or different intervals between doses might help; so too, combinations of existing vaccines. Researchers are working hard on these questions. Next-generation vaccines might be even better at blocking transmission. Nasal vaccines, for instance, might effectively curtail transmission because they more specifically target the location of transmissible virus. As of late August 2021, more than 625,000 Americans have died from a disease that is now largely vaccine-preventable. It is sobering for me to think that some of the next to die might have avoided lifesaving vaccines because people are stoking evolutionary fears extrapolated from our research in chickens. In the history of human and animal vaccines, there have not been many cases of vaccine-driven evolution. But in every one of them, individuals and populations have always been better off when vaccinated. At every point in the 50-year history of vaccination against Marek's disease, an individual chicken exposed to the virus was healthier if it was vaccinated. Variants may have reduced the benefit of vaccination, but they never eliminated the benefit. Evolution is no reason to avoid vaccination. Andrew Read, Professor of Biology, Entomology and Biotechnology, Penn State
A 2015 paper on a chicken virus showed vaccines could enable more deadly variants to spread – in chickens. But that outcome is rare. Don't pull that stawman bullshit here... on me. As I said the science shows risk of deadly variants rising up out of the vaccinated is an unquantifiable risk. (I don't care about his opinion I care about the science.) The NIH and others have said its unquantifiable. So unquantifiable or small is there guesses. Variants will likely come out of the sick. (vaxxed or not) But the variants out of the unvaxxed may not be governed by the rules of nature that we know in the past. The sick are likely the high risk. The high risk need to be protected better. You were focusing your hate on the unvaccinated... acting like the low risk were dangerous. You are a moronic lying little piece of satan. You don't know the answers but you lie and spread propaganda as if you do. If you are a believer you should check your conscience... because there is a unquantifiable but a really bad result... that the deaths of healthy people... which will be own your team's hands. Which is what this guys study shows... He believe the risk is small. Other scientists including the NIH study have stated its unquantifiable. (could be very small could be higher... we don't know.)
GWB and other ET trolls who are addicted to vaccines should be very pleased at their 3rd and 4th booster shots. After all, Fauci says that will give them 100% protection or maybe not? Do you not love those booster shots, ET trolls? A good number of extreme liberals in their fear of Corona Virus did just that, get their booster shots since, there is an abundance of vaccines out there. Let us see what happens. You, assclowns have been spreading lies and disinformation about Ivermectin. It is just poetic justice for you guys to suffer adverse reactions from your vaccines. https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdc-advisors-raise-concerns-over-165543690.html