PROvaxxer's... I need your help.

a reply to: nonspecific
What's the risk though....what have they to lose?

Well the party in power would certainly lose control for a start.

Here in the UK we have nationalised healthcare and insurance against severe vaccine reactions. A bad Vax would cost billions in payouts and care for those injured.

It's more a case of what they have to gain by giving 70-80 percent of the population a known deadly or dangerous injection.



a reply to: Itisnowagain

a reply to: nonspecific

That's a lot of different scientific bodies all taking the same risk isn't it.

How are the scientific bodies taking a risk?
What do the scientific bodies have to lose?

This is a pretty good link with furhter sources that debunks some of the myths arround vacines. av sent it to a few folks.

Over 4Bn jabs have been delivered, so far, less have died from the Jabs than the virius so its that simple for me.

I'm assuming they will be government funded. They also have reputations and many of the staff will have devoted their entire lives to science. Why would they all risk their integrity and livelyhoods?

How would they benefit from agreeing to support something they knew to be dangerous?



a reply to: Itisnowagain

a reply to: nonspecific
I don't know who is making your vaccine over there. But I would think they don't have to sell it to you, if you are going to hold them responsible for a barely tested vaccine. Your government may be able to force them to make it. Sell it and be responsible for it. I don't know. But over here you are hard pressed to make a drug company or any other company for that matter responsible for their intentional or accidental actions.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Isn't it the protein, that your cells manufacture, that has been gene modified?

You'll need to define "gene modified" to get a clear answer. But I'll try to explain what is going on. I am not a doctor, but I am a scientist and can read and comprehend most scientific literature (given enough time to sift through the terminology when it comes to medical).

Within each of your cells are mitochondria. These are little "protein factories"... they manufacture proteins based on information that mRNA gives them. The process is as follows:

• Segments of the DNA in the cell nucleus unravel at different points during the life process (so far as I know, we do not yet understand how this is activated).
  
• mRNA is constructed from these unraveled sections of DNA.
  
• The DNA then recloses on itself.
  
• The mRNA migrates to mitochondria.
  
• The mitochondria disassemble the mRNA and construct the needed proteins based on the mRNA configuration.

During mRNA vaccination, something very similar happens. Instead of the DNA unraveling to produce mRNA, the desired mRNA is instead ingested by the cells. To accomplish this, each molecule of mRNA is enclosed in a lipid, which the cell membranes identify as nutrition for the cell and absorb. The lipid is then digested for fuel, leaving the mRNA molecule free to migrate to a mitochondria. The mitochondria recognizes it as an mRNA molecule and proceeds to disassemble it and produce the desired protein.

That protein is not actually "gene modification" because it is not associated with your DNA. It is an artificial mRNA molecule sequenced specifically to produce a specific protein. That protein is the same as the protein that the Chinese virus uses to infect a cell (according to what we know, anyway). The proteins are not used for the life cycle, since their structure did not come from the DNA, and therefore they are not used up by the cell. Instead, they will migrate to the cell membrane. There, immune system components detect their presence and respond as though an infection exists.

The protein itself is not a virus, any more than a steering wheel is a car. The theory is that the vaccine will therefore be safe because it contains no virus and produces no virus. It cannot cause an infection of the virus targeted. Antibodies against the protein work because no antibodies exist, or can exist, for an actual virus; they all target proteins, which different virus particles use to infect cells. If one is immune to a specific virus, one is actually immune to the protein that virus uses.

That's how autoimmune diseases work: the body produces antibodies which target proteins that the body actually needs. I have a cholesterol problem... seems there is a protein (which ny body apparently makes too much of) that regulates LDL cholesterol uptake in the liver by destroying the structures on liver cells that absorb LDL cholesterol instead of allowing them to reappear after use. The medicine I take is actually an antibody shot against those proteins that regulate LDL cholesterol uptake. Thanks to it, my cholesterol dropped from around 500 to 77 in a few months, keeping me from developing more plaque in my arteries. Parkinson's, rheumatoid arthritis, schleroderma, and a whole host of other diseases have similar causes, but have simply not had the needed protein regulation mechanism understood yet.

My concern is that the protein itself might have undesirable effects on the body. It is a part of the virus; the possibility exists, even if slight, that the spike protein itself could be responsible for some of the ill effects from the Chinese virus. Others discount that potential... and I cannot dispute them on their belief any more than they can effectively dispute my concern. Time will determine whether the concern is valid... nothing else.

So no, in the strict sense of genetic therapy targeting DNA structure, the vaccines do not do that. The protein, however, is likely not one normally found in the human body and is produced according to artificially-introduced instructions. Therefore the protein could be considered artificial, which would lie on the outskirts of the common (mis)conception of what constituted "gene modification."

Of course, so could a lot of other procedures we accept as "common." One can say that almost all medical procedures are, in essence, artificial direction of bodily mechanisms.

TheRedneck

Over here we've used the Pfizer and moderna but also the astra zenica, that's the one I had. It was developed independently at Oxford university and astrazenica agreed to manufacture and distribute it at cost price so it's around £3 a shot, the US versions I think are around ten times that.

Oxford university is one of the most revered and established scientific centres in the world and has been for hundreds of years, astrazenica is a British/German company that does not have a history of making vaccines and to my knowledge does not have a shifty history like some of the other big pharma companies. As I said the UK has "free" medical care for all so any costs of treatment needed from a bad reaction to the jab comes from the same organisation that gave emergency approval for the vaccines. We also have automatic compensation for severe illness caused by any vaccinations and a pretty decent welfare system that would be hammered if people were made sick and unable to work.


a reply to: Uknownparadox

a reply to: nonspecific

many of the staff will have devoted their entire lives to science. Why would they all risk their integrity and livelyhoods?

You are proceeding from a false assumption.

Scientists are like everyone else. They have a sense of humor, they enjoy leisure activities, they like to eat, drink, and be merry. We simply have the ability to analyze scientific data and make good conclusions. Some call it "intelligence"; I prefer to think of it as "mathematical and logical aptitude."

Funding for science comes from people who have access to funds. People who have access to funds generally did not get that access via consistent funding of things that do not benefit them. Every scientist who runs experiments based on outside funding is working under someone's expectation of profitable results. If they do not produce profitable results, the funding will be suspended and they'll get the pleasure of looking for new funding... a quite trying experience, let me tell you.

I still believe that most scientists have personal integrity... but given the choice between maintaining that integrity and eating, the need for food will tend to override the concept of integrity at some point. That is not an indictment of all scientists; it is an explanation of the pressures they find themselves in. Given the choice between "fudging" a few conclusions or losing lucrative funding, which would you choose? It's easy to say one will maintain integrity in that situation, but the reality is that most will not.

I have; I have lost funding before because I would not fudge results. It wasn't very lucrative funding, however, and I will not stand here and say there could not be a situation where I would not fudge something for my greater good given the proper circumstances. Anyone who would say that is deceiving themselves. Hunger hurts after a while. Very much badly hurts.

In simpler terms, it is not risking "integrity and livelyhoods"... it becomes a choice between "integrity and livelyhoods."

TheRedneck

But once an individual or organisation loses a reputation then there's going to be no more funding anyway is there?

I do understand now things work but I was looking at this from the global pandemic in full view of the world angle.

It's one thing to shuffle some figures to give a positive outcome on some trials here and there or to put aside ones morals to ensure your own personal survival but this is an unprecedented situation right?

And with over a dozen vaccines in development and use with the need for indefinite booster shots and varient accentuated shots then it's going to be the companies putting out the safest product with the best results that cashes in on the long game.

I can't see how it would be beneficial from either an academic or financial standpoint.

I'm not a scientist but that's the way I see it.



a reply to: TheRedneck

a reply to: nonspecific

Again, funding does not come from those who wish to see actual science in many cases. It comes from those who wish to make profit from positive results. In the vernacular, it seems the title "scientist" is simply one applied to anyone who operates in an official capacity and presents conclusions which are acceptable to TPTB. Scientific integrity has become irrelevant.

I have been told many times debating the Global Warming hoax that this or that scientist worked for an oil company and that somehow made their statement biased... well, it works the same way for scientists working for a government organization that supports Global Warming. A scientist who is willing to fudge conclusions can always find funding from well-funded sources who have a vested interest in having conclusions fudged. Unchecked, science will spiral inward to simply support whoever can pay, facts and evidence be damned. Conclusions become accepted or rejected based on who has the money to fund scientists who will support their position. Financially squeeze the opposition, and they can't afford to have scientists verify their position.

The one thing that prevents that, or that did prevent that for a long time, is peer review in unbiased journals. Unfortunately, few journals are completely unbiased today, instead presenting a thinly-veiled agenda to present studies that an editor wants to see presented; don't think for a moment that scientific journals are not supported by donations or that money doesn't flow under the table to editors. Peer review itself is completely misunderstood by the public; I have peer-reviewed many scientific reports on this very site in my time, only to be informed that I am disputing peer-reviewed literature! In truth, anyone with the ability to analyze and comprehend the reports (aka, a peer) can review any study at any time in any forum they wish, and the result is peer review.

This is why I have stated many times, and continue to believe, that we as a global society are returning to a new version of the "Dark Ages," where science no longer has influence on our progress. The last time, religion dominated societal actions; this time it will be a new religion which I have watched develop, which I refer to as "Scientism." Under Scientism, actual facts and evidence are easily refuted simply by various individuals who have been granted the title of "scientist" speaking out against them. Anyone not granted that title has no right to refute anything... they are to accept the principles of Scientism as expressed by "scientists" without question.

The only defense against this movement is for one to learn the basic scientific principles themselves and be ready to peer review themselves anything that is presented before accepting it as truth... something far too many are unwilling or unable to do.

TheRedneck

Interesting. When I went for a physical in February, my doctor asked if I got the shot, (she did
NOT say vaccine,) I said no, she said, "good".
She would talk no further, even with me asking why.
So, why wouldn't I trust my GP???
I trust her with my life..


reply to: nonspecific

a reply to: nonspecific

Hope you don't mind me jumping into your discussion.

I'd suggest this for a little bit of information;

Trust The Science

Unfortunately, I tend to agree with TR. There appears now to be only $cience. The corporations are the Kings, The $cientists are the High Priests and the politicians are the Court Jesters.

originally posted by: snrRog
Interesting. When I went for a physical in February, my doctor asked if I got the shot, (she did
NOT say vaccine,) I said no, she said, "good".
She would talk no further, even with me asking why.
So, why wouldn't I trust my GP???
I trust her with my life..


reply to: nonspecific

Your trust may be misplaced.

You trust her when she supposedly would not even answer your questions?

You infer some relevance about a difference between calling it a "shot" or a "vaccine".

Why?

Sounds like she had had enough of you.

Well your GP knows your situation, what existing conditions do you have that would make her advise against the vacination?


a reply to: snrRog

a reply to: nonspecific

UK has "free" medical care for all so any costs of treatment needed from a bad reaction to the jab comes from the same organisation that gave emergency approval for the vaccines.

Does that mean the tax payer? Because over here that is who usually pays to clean up the mess from big business. Not the actual business. And if a business does have to pay. It's usually a fraction of what they made in profits off the defective product. The opioid epidemic comes to mind.

We pay into national insurance, a tax that pays for things including healthcare.

So if the vaccines caused a lot of illness and injury it would be dealt with by the NHS.

It's pretty much the same people who are approving and administering the vaccines that are responsible for any issues that arises from them.

It would be like ford giving you bad engine oil knowing they would need to fix your car for free under warranty.


a reply to: Uknownparadox

a reply to: nonspecific
You might like to read this:

In fact, the UK government has passed regulations reducing legal protection for anyone injured by a COVID-19 vaccine approved for emergency use.

UK citizens get less legal protection for COVID jabs than other vaccines.
theconversation.com...

I'm aware of it.

Bear in mind however that the existing system will still cover you and theres no medical bills to pay like in the states plus automatic benefits if out of work or you become disabled etc.

We don't sue for 100 million if we break a nail or trip on a pavement like in the US really so that side of thing is far less of an issue here.


a reply to: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: joejack1949
Here's a link to a study:

www.nature.com...

"SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-based vaccines are about 95% effective in preventing COVID-19"

Data in the public experiment already indicates the vaccines are nowhere near 95% effective. The paper linked to here is rather easily debunked by the fact that the CDC advises the vaxed to be masked. The fact that a booster is also about to be recommended is another big piece of evidence that the studies used to come to that 95% efficacy score were greatly flawed. But keep it coming, as at least it's a comment that is on topic, so thank you for that.