mRNA does not cause harm. Then there can be no added defense.

originally posted by: TaiHaChen
You see, the body responds to infection by making antibodies. But mRNA does not burst cells, merely producing harmless spike proteins. As such, the body would not waste precious resources to make anti bodies to deal with the manufactured spike proteins. Which leads me to think the vaccine is ineffective and therefore only used for generating profits without preventing any diseases. Is this a fact or am I missing something here?

I don't know where this cell bursting stuff comes from. Covid vaccines do create antibodies. The Vaccine is extremely effective, it's incredibly ignorant to ignore the evidence.

a reply to: puzzled2

A 95% coincidence?

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: chr0naut

So that 95% number did they do a proper random controlled challenge test? or just hoped people walking about would make equal contact with some infected?

Do the also test for an asymptomatic case? seems very unscientific and just a hit or miss coincident.

First of all, 85%, not 95%.

Secondly, they stat out with animals in a lab. They vaccinate then then they deliberately infect them.

Then they do regular human trials. They vaccinate people, or give them a placebo, and let them live their lives. Then they record whether or not they get sick. The people in the control group should get sick at the same rate as the general populous, while the vaccinated group should get sick less. The difference if the efficacy rate.

They found that the difference in sickness rates was proximately 85%.

Everybody gets checked, symptoms or not. This is standard procedure in a vaccine trial.

Finally, "Controlled Challenge" trials have been done. I repeat that they HAVE been done.

www.nature.com...

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: TaiHaChen

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: TaiHaChen

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: TaiHaChen

Wouldn't the announced effectiveness of the vaccines, like 95% for the Pfizer vaccine, measured in clinical trials and now confirmed in use, be an indicator that what you just made up in your head is not how science works?

Could be fake numbers. How do you know what their trials are and what the real numbers are?

Because the numbers are consistent between independent bodies, and have been subject to external scrutiny.

If the numbers were faked then literally everybody would need to be in on the conspiracy, and you're talking about millions of people because there are multiple vaccines being used by multiple countries.

I think the real world numbers speak otherwise. It's nothing close to the 95% efficacy they advertised when the vaccine came out.

I believe that the number was closer to 85%, with two doses. For a normal adult.

Which the numbers back up.

85% is pretty good.

85% is pretty spectacular.

The poster was trying to create a strawman by using an unrealistic number like 95% that they could then tear into.

I was merely correcting them.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: chr0naut

So that 95% number did they do a proper random controlled challenge test? or just hoped people walking about would make equal contact with some infected?

Do the also test for an asymptomatic case? seems very unscientific and just a hit or miss coincident.

First of all, 85%, not 95%.

Secondly, they stat out with animals in a lab. They vaccinate then then they deliberately infect them.

Then they do regular human trials. They vaccinate people, or give them a placebo, and let them live their lives. Then they record whether or not they get sick. The people in the control group should get sick at the same rate as the general populous, while the vaccinated group should get sick less. The difference if the efficacy rate.

They found that the difference in sickness rates was proximately 85%.

Everybody gets checked, symptoms or not. This is standard procedure in a vaccine trial.

Finally, "Controlled Challenge" trials have been done. I repeat that they HAVE been done.

www.nature.com...

Real world data do not show 85% efficacy. Either they lied or their trials are not accurate or virus mutated. Who knows the reason.

a reply to: TaiHaChen

Yes it does. Real world data studies all show greater than 90% effectiveness.

a reply to: Nothin

If you’re a regular on TV and fit the definition of celebrity scientist then I have no interest in what BS you’re peddling. Brian Cox, Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye are perfect examples. Spend more time with their publicist than they do in the lab. Need to add some legitimacy to your argument, roll out the paid shill with a phd.

a reply to: Grenade

It's standard practice now to have an 'influencer' promoting your product.
Be it a celebrity, peddling breakfast cereal, or a cherry-picked ' Expert™ ' scientist .

Do all doctors, scientists, PHDs, and experts agree ?
No.
So why should what one says, be taken as truth ?

They don't posses truth.
They posses opinions, just like the rest of us.

When a multi-million dollar star athlete gets injured, what does the owner of his contract do ?
Do they get a second 'truth' ?
Or do they get a second 'opinion' ?

' Experts™ ' are nothing but chosen influencers, because people will believe them, without question.

And we haven't even touched on who gets chosen, and how...

As it all pertains to the OP : when is the last time you saw a 'specialist' or 'expert' in the employ of Big-Pharma™ : that said something, anything, negative about a Big-Pharma™ treatment, or product ?

If the press-release of the first product says 95% efficiency : it was laughably predictable to see the others come-out with equal, or better numbers.

That's not 'science' .
That's business.

a reply to: TaiHaChen

The spike protein is not harmless. It is the cause of the severe effects of covid.

When it is produced it is presented on the membrane and the cell will be killed just like in infection. Then the spike will be released and do its damage.