This is why I fear mRNA vaccines.

a reply to: MetalThunder

Some official on the Radio just said the Unvaccianted (Those that are against being experimented on) are just going to be rolling the dice as far as catching Covid goes ....

Propaganda and gaslighting from MSM as always. If they wouldn't have funneled everyone to the vaccines and suppressed the safe and effective alternative treatments from the beginning. This would have been over already.

originally posted by: fotsyfots

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Violater1


And the process of testing and approval of a vaccine means that we have a good idea of how the human immune system responds to the vaccine, before we even approve it for the general populace.

I don’t know the status of approval in your country, but here in the US, NONE of these are approved for the general populace. The FDA has exempted them from having to be approved. They have not been approved.

The FDA allowed them to fast track, but they were fully tested and are now approved for significant portions of the populace. As confidence grows, they will likely be approved for other portions of the populace, like infants, children and the elderly. At no stage was an untrialled vaccine bulk approved.

No they are an experimental injection granted EUA- Emergency UseAuthorization.
Their own documentation states they will remain so until end of 2023 so how can you say " they were fully tested and are now approved " ?
Please correct your harmful statement.?

An EUA still has to be approved for release.

To get an EUA approved, phases 1 and 2 of standard testing protocols have to be complete, and phase 3 has to be mostly complete. There are 4 phases in a non-emergency approval process.

They aren't untested. They have been through several stages of test and approval.

So far, 1.19 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered worldwide. That is more than would have been required under all testing phases of FDA procedures.

Additionally, in the USA alone, over 1/2 a million people died with COVID-19 as cause of death in less than a year. To allow that situation to continue when a mostly tested and effective medicine is available, is untenable.

Even if the vaccines have adverse reactions (they have had some), the numbers would only be the tiniest fraction of those who would die untreated. It's a no brainer.

And, in regard to 'harmful' comments, if you actually cared for people, rather than being pedantic, you would opt for the solution that minimizes deaths and suffering, rather than one which maximizes it.

originally posted by: Bugman82
I don't know why it is even controversial whether or not the mRNA can in any way be taken up by the nucleus of the cell. The answer is that it cannot. It cannot altar our DNA because it cannot even cross the nuclear membrane. Entering through the membrane requires an access signal that it doesn't have. Even if it got into the nucleus, it is RNA not DNA. So in order for it to affect DNA it has to be converted to DNA. This requires an enzyme like reverse transcriptase, which it also does not have. Even if it was somehow miraculously converted to DNA, it still has to insert itself into the DNA of the cell. This would require an integrase enzyme, which it also does not have. You have a better chance of the vaccine giving you superhuman powers than that happening.

Your wrong.
Please review the thread and you will find the links, that will educate you.
Deny ignorance.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: fotsyfots

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Violater1


And the process of testing and approval of a vaccine means that we have a good idea of how the human immune system responds to the vaccine, before we even approve it for the general populace.

I don’t know the status of approval in your country, but here in the US, NONE of these are approved for the general populace. The FDA has exempted them from having to be approved. They have not been approved.

The FDA allowed them to fast track, but they were fully tested and are now approved for significant portions of the populace. As confidence grows, they will likely be approved for other portions of the populace, like infants, children and the elderly. At no stage was an untrialled vaccine bulk approved.

No they are an experimental injection granted EUA- Emergency UseAuthorization.
Their own documentation states they will remain so until end of 2023 so how can you say " they were fully tested and are now approved " ?
Please correct your harmful statement.?

An EUA still has to be approved for release.

To get an EUA approved, phases 1 and 2 of standard testing protocols have to be complete, and phase 3 has to be mostly complete. There are 4 phases in a non-emergency approval process.

They aren't untested. They have been through several stages of test and approval.

So far, 1.19 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered worldwide. That is more than would have been required under all testing phases of FDA procedures.

Additionally, in the USA alone, over 1/2 a million people died with COVID-19 as cause of death in less than a year. To allow that situation to continue when a mostly tested and effective medicine is available, is untenable.

Even if the vaccines have adverse reactions (they have had some), the numbers would only be the tiniest fraction of those who would die untreated. It's a no brainer.

And, in regard to 'harmful' comments, if you actually cared for people, rather than being pedantic, you would opt for the solution that minimizes deaths and suffering, rather than one which maximizes it.

The saying, "figures don't lie, but liars figure" comes to mind.
The most recent are the permanent complications in myocarditis. For those that don't know, once a heart cell or brain cell becomes damaged or dies, it never heals nor is it replaced.
The growing list's of complications and even deaths, are enough for an educated man to refuse to take the jab.

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: fotsyfots

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Violater1


And the process of testing and approval of a vaccine means that we have a good idea of how the human immune system responds to the vaccine, before we even approve it for the general populace.

I don’t know the status of approval in your country, but here in the US, NONE of these are approved for the general populace. The FDA has exempted them from having to be approved. They have not been approved.

The FDA allowed them to fast track, but they were fully tested and are now approved for significant portions of the populace. As confidence grows, they will likely be approved for other portions of the populace, like infants, children and the elderly. At no stage was an untrialled vaccine bulk approved.

No they are an experimental injection granted EUA- Emergency UseAuthorization.
Their own documentation states they will remain so until end of 2023 so how can you say " they were fully tested and are now approved " ?
Please correct your harmful statement.?

An EUA still has to be approved for release.

To get an EUA approved, phases 1 and 2 of standard testing protocols have to be complete, and phase 3 has to be mostly complete. There are 4 phases in a non-emergency approval process.

They aren't untested. They have been through several stages of test and approval.

So far, 1.19 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered worldwide. That is more than would have been required under all testing phases of FDA procedures.

Additionally, in the USA alone, over 1/2 a million people died with COVID-19 as cause of death in less than a year. To allow that situation to continue when a mostly tested and effective medicine is available, is untenable.

Even if the vaccines have adverse reactions (they have had some), the numbers would only be the tiniest fraction of those who would die untreated. It's a no brainer.

And, in regard to 'harmful' comments, if you actually cared for people, rather than being pedantic, you would opt for the solution that minimizes deaths and suffering, rather than one which maximizes it.

The saying, "figures don't lie, but liars figure" comes to mind.
The most recent are the permanent complications in myocarditis. For those that don't know, once a heart cell or brain cell becomes damaged or dies, it never heals nor is it replaced.
The growing list's of complications and even deaths, are enough for an educated man to refuse to take the jab.

At this present time, more than 2.8 billion doses have been administered.

I am educated, and I have had the Pfizer vaccination.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: fotsyfots

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Violater1


And the process of testing and approval of a vaccine means that we have a good idea of how the human immune system responds to the vaccine, before we even approve it for the general populace.

I don’t know the status of approval in your country, but here in the US, NONE of these are approved for the general populace. The FDA has exempted them from having to be approved. They have not been approved.

The FDA allowed them to fast track, but they were fully tested and are now approved for significant portions of the populace. As confidence grows, they will likely be approved for other portions of the populace, like infants, children and the elderly. At no stage was an untrialled vaccine bulk approved.

No they are an experimental injection granted EUA- Emergency UseAuthorization.
Their own documentation states they will remain so until end of 2023 so how can you say " they were fully tested and are now approved " ?
Please correct your harmful statement.?

An EUA still has to be approved for release.

To get an EUA approved, phases 1 and 2 of standard testing protocols have to be complete, and phase 3 has to be mostly complete. There are 4 phases in a non-emergency approval process.

They aren't untested. They have been through several stages of test and approval.

So far, 1.19 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered worldwide. That is more than would have been required under all testing phases of FDA procedures.

Additionally, in the USA alone, over 1/2 a million people died with COVID-19 as cause of death in less than a year. To allow that situation to continue when a mostly tested and effective medicine is available, is untenable.

Even if the vaccines have adverse reactions (they have had some), the numbers would only be the tiniest fraction of those who would die untreated. It's a no brainer.

And, in regard to 'harmful' comments, if you actually cared for people, rather than being pedantic, you would opt for the solution that minimizes deaths and suffering, rather than one which maximizes it.

The saying, "figures don't lie, but liars figure" comes to mind.
The most recent are the permanent complications in myocarditis. For those that don't know, once a heart cell or brain cell becomes damaged or dies, it never heals nor is it replaced.
The growing list's of complications and even deaths, are enough for an educated man to refuse to take the jab.

At this present time, more than 2.8 billion doses have been administered.

I am educated, and I have had the Pfizer vaccination.

I had a patient here in New Mexico that had the Pfizer jab. Something destroyed his kidneys from the time he received it to the 1.5 week period when he entered the ER. No Hx of AKI. He went home on hospice to die.

I hope, and I really mean it, that you fair well with your jab. But only time will tell. Mean while, more and more evidence is coming out on how destructive this mRNA jab is.

4 anecdotal incidents within my personal circle:

1. Daughter got the mRNA shot. After second dose she got sick and her legs wouldn't work for a day or so. She is a young adult so I had no say in her decision.

2. My sister in law got the covid rash. She is now having to monitor her food intake to see what is causing it. She got it a few weeks after her second mRna shot.

3. My mother-in-law to be got so sick after the first one that her children told her not to get the second one.

4. My sister just told me yesterday that a friend died from a stroke just after his second shot. He was healthy before. In his 50s.

Those are all from my small little pocket of relatives. That is a lot of occurances for such a small sample group. None of these are from social media. All I have either witnessed myself or been told directly. That should be a bit concerning if you take a minute to think about what it could mean...

Choice is always a personal one but I'm sticking to my decision and glad I went the route I did....


Thanks,
Blend

a reply to: chr0naut

“Our research demonstrates that the use of leaky vaccines can promote the evolution of nastier ‘hot’ viral strains that put unvaccinated individuals at greater risk,” Nair said.

Marek’s disease used to be a minor ailment that did little harm to chickens in the 1950s, but the virus has grown stronger and today is capable of killing all the unvaccinated birds in poultry flocks, sometimes within 10 days.

www.healthline.com...-More-Virulent-Virus-Strains

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: chr0naut

“Our research demonstrates that the use of leaky vaccines can promote the evolution of nastier ‘hot’ viral strains that put unvaccinated individuals at greater risk,” Nair said.

Marek’s disease used to be a minor ailment that did little harm to chickens in the 1950s, but the virus has grown stronger and today is capable of killing all the unvaccinated birds in poultry flocks, sometimes within 10 days.

www.healthline.com...-More-Virulent-Virus-Strains

Vaccines, even 'leaky' ones, do not cause the rise of new strains. That is mutation that causes the rise of new strains, and mutation is highly unpredictable and will occur regardless of the immune status of the host.

What vaccines will affect are the selection pressures that potentially make a particular strain epidemic. If a host has either natural immunity, or vaccinated immunity, they do not offer a population base upon which a strain can gain a foothold and become epidemic. This is the concept of herd immunity, where immunity in 80% of a population is usually sufficient to prevent the spread of a pathogen because it cannot gain a 'critical mass' of un-checked infections in the population. And an epidemic is all about the numbers, because growth in infections follows an arithmetic progression.

Similarly, the concept that natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity is mostly untrue. With natural immunity, results may vary greatly, from being 100% effective to being ineffective. The history of epidemic diseases on earth shows this variability. That isn't to say that vaccination results are always perfect. However, there are historical diseases that are now ended by vaccination campaigns. This shows that in these cases, vaccination is more effective than natural immunity.

Then we come to the issues of strains that emerge that are not controlled well by vaccination, and the suggestion that the imperfect control over the pathogen is the cause of the more severe strain. Clearly, the emergence of the strain is unrelated to the vaccine, coming as it does from mutation. So it would have occurred if the vaccination had not been given. If it is a more infectious or pathogenic strain, then its genesis would have happened in nature just as likely as in a vaccinated population.

Similarly, the speed and epidemic growth of the strain would most likely be similar for both naturally immune and vaccinated populations, within the constraints that we don't know exactly how comparatively effective either situation is, and the fact that both are variable.

I think that drawing conclusions about all vaccinations from an individual instance is stretching things because immunization campaigns have eliminated some disease that nature has not. Results may vary...

a reply to: chr0naut
So you don't believe the science in the link I posted....ok.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: chr0naut
So you don't believe the science in the link I posted....ok.

Please make note of the language used in the article, and the PLOS paper; Words like "can", "could", "theory", "might", and so forth, speak to the fact that the paper, and the article that reports it, are, in fact, speculative.

I wasn't particularly disagreeing with any of the science, but the singular possible interpretation of the data, and absence of consideration and removal/disproof of alternate interpretations, was not compliant with a well designed paper according to scientific method, and where the theoretical basis can be falsifiable and examined in that light. But this may be acceptable in this case, if one views the paper as theoretical and part of a wide spectrum of possibilities.

Similarly just because something may apply in one particular situation, does not mean that it is applicable, as a rule, to every situation. To prove only one interpretation to be the sole and superior paradigm requires clear disproofs of all alternates, rather than just the establishment of a theory.

I was not saying that this paper or explicatory article are wrong. I was saying they aren't the whole story.

Additionally, mutations arise more frequently in larger populations, than the do in smaller populations.

So, a population that is curtailed by vaccinations IS a smaller base from which a mutation is likely to arise.

Taking a perhaps ridiculous case; if there were no progenitor strain left, then it cannot give rise to a mutation, and therefore another strain, at all.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yes they do, but that is one of the many things big pharma does not wants regular Americans to think too much about it, because the truth is that no even big pharma can tell what the outcome of human cell manipulation will be.

Not very long into reading some of the replies I get lost...it is as if there are a lot of serious educated people swapping thoughts and facts which are above my paygrade. So I can not do other than to keep it simple.

From what I understand is that there is a new tool...a vaccine technology which is developed by some guy.. Chances are that this tech is patented and the big pharma has to pay if it wants to use that tech in their product.

Next is that a company like Phizer is developing a vaccine with that tech and legally protect their product so other companies are not allowed to copy their vaccine. .

What I do not understand is why all these different companies do not end up making an identical medicine. I mean..its an exact science and it should be clear what to do to attack that specific covid virus.

From where I am sitting this can mean that these companies on purpose do something with their product so it will not be identical as one of the other players....which can result in certain and different side effects.

Or is the reason why one vaccine is not the other because these companies do honestly not entirely know what they are doing....and that is why there are side effects.

With other words, they understand the theoretical mechanism how to fight the virus but do not precisely know how to manifacture a medicine that will do the job as clean and efficient nature does it.

Or...do all these companies know what they are doing and are all the different covid-19 vaccines the same but do the side effects depend on the health of the patient.


Do I make any sense or...what do you guys make of it

a reply to: chr0naut
It's quite interesting if you put the sentence below into google or duckduckgo.

"Vaccines, even 'leaky' ones, do not cause the rise of new strains."

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: chr0naut
It's quite interesting if you put the sentence below into google or duckduckgo.

"Vaccines, even 'leaky' ones, do not cause the rise of new strains."

That is because search engines echo whatever is popular, and lots of people are talking about the media articles that draw a single conclusion from this paper, and do not acknowledge it's speculative nature, but take it as a definitive and unassailable proof, representative of all possibilities.

In an argument that relies upon popularity, rather than the non-theoretical, one might well respond "a billion flies can't be wrong - eat $#..".

a reply to: Violater1

Your posts about the harm caused by the shots, and what I see going on in the world around me, remind me of the wisdom of the old saying "Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread."

It still blows my mind that so many pregnant women have taken the shots.

a reply to: Violater1

I just don't understand the whole protein concept.

I signed up for Covid Antibodies Reseach, part of "essential personnel" studies out of the U of A. The antibodies test, well it tests for a specific protein. If you have the protein, then you are said to have Covid antibodies.

The vaccines are based off the same concept. The vaccines try to stimulate the human body to produce the very same protein.

But there are those out there, myself included, who have contracted several different strains of Covid and our immune sysrems have fought off those strains, but we test NEGATIVE for the protein in an antibody test.

I'm not alone. There are lots of others around the world who's immune systems have fought off Covid without the famed protein of the antibodies test and without tge famed protein of the vaccines.

People with Hidden Protection From Covid-19

So what's the purpose of this protein if there are so many people who have fought off Covid without the protein? Obviously it means that the human body does not need the vax protein if so many people have fought off Covid withour it.

So from my perspective, I caught either the Seattle-China strain first or the NYC-Italy strain first (as both baseball teams were in town for Spring Training- March 2020. (Or both strains?) My immune system fought it off, but no protein in an antibodies test.

Next, I catch the British-Alpha strain. My immune system fought it off. Then I catch the Arizona strain (which is a variation of the Beta strain out of South Africa). My immune system fought it off. Yet still on an antibodies test, I test NEGATIVE for the protein. The very same protein that the vaccines are trying to stimulate.

So clearly, people do not need the protein to fight off Covid. The human immune system is capable of fighting off different strains of Covid without the protein.

And I'm not the only one. There are lots around the world as the above article mentions.

a reply to: MapMistress

I just don't understand the whole protein concept.

Clearly.

The antibodies test, well it tests for a specific protein.

Incorrect. The antibody tests test for antibodies, not the spike protein which is what the mRNA vaccines cause cells to produce. The immune system then creates antibodies which destroy the spike protein. That's the whole point. Because the virus is covered by the spike protein, it cannot continue to do its thing.

So clearly, people do not need the protein to fight off Covid. The human immune system is capable of fighting off different strains of Covid without the protein.

Clearly, there very many people who are not able to do so. Very many have been very ill. Very many have been hospitalized. Very many have died.

Trump was apparently very ill from the disease. He had access to treatments that few do. Fortunate for him, since he is clearly in a high risk category. Old and fat.

a reply to: MapMistress

Yes, stating the obvious here, individual differences amongst the quality of the immune system must be widespread.

I'm lucky to have a fairly robust immune system