Russian Vaccine: A safe, reliable "old school style" flu vaccine?

originally posted by: tony9802
a reply to: Gnawledge

I do not go to that website, sorry. Neither do I visit World Health Organization.

I can see that.

a reply to: Gnawledge


www.bitchute.com...

MODERNA CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER ADMITS WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG! MRNA ALTERS DNA

Here's a good title for you.. it's a video .
mRNA alters DNA. I'm not a doctor or a scientist, but I'm trying to follow the discusssions revolving around the dangers these vaccines pose. I propose in this thread to somehow study the difference between SputnikV and the other vaccines, but discussion feels lacking in generousity and direction.

originally posted by: tony9802
a reply to: Gnawledge


www.bitchute.com...

MODERNA CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER ADMITS WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG! MRNA ALTERS DNA

Here's a good title for you.. it's a video .
mRNA alters DNA. I'm not a doctor or a scientist, but I'm trying to follow the discusssions revolving around the dangers these vaccines pose. I propose in this thread to somehow study the difference between SputnikV and the other vaccines, but discussion feels lacking in generousity and direction.

A title of a video. Impressive. You must be thoroughly convinced.

Go get vaccinated.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: chr0naut

At age 73 I have finally realized that all vaccines are harmful, and it is uncertain as to their efficacy

Yes, I would have to agree with you, thank you for your comment..

There are two kinds of people in this world....those you could talk too and those you have to slap..leave this turd alone for he not knows what he does.a reply to: tony9802

originally posted by: tony9802
a reply to: Gnawledge


www.bitchute.com...

MODERNA CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER ADMITS WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG! MRNA ALTERS DNA

Here's a good title for you.. it's a video .
mRNA alters DNA. I'm not a doctor or a scientist, but I'm trying to follow the discusssions revolving around the dangers these vaccines pose. I propose in this thread to somehow study the difference between SputnikV and the other vaccines, but discussion feels lacking in generousity and direction.

OK, here's a short comparison of the three main types of vaccines that are being used, today.

Let's start with the pure mRNA types (Pfizer, Moderna). They contain mRNA that's encoded to produce the spike protein. The mRNA is basically the instructions for making the protein. Those mRNA molecules are shrouded by lipid (i.e., fat) nanoparticles that keep the mRNA from falling apart and helps it get into your cell's cytoplasm. Once it's inside, the ribosomes in your cytoplasm read the instructions and turn it into spike protein. The spike protein floats around until it comes in contact with the cell wall, which it penetrates and sticks out of. If your immune system is functioning normally, it will recognize the spike proteins on the surface of the vaccinated cell and destroy the cell while figuring out how to make specific antibodies to the protein. The human cell nucleus has a membrane surrounding it that controls what molecules can get in or out of the nucleus. Coronavirus spike protein mRNA molecules are not on the list to make it inside. But let's say that for some reason the nucleus membrane made a mistake and let some vaccine mRNA inside. Human cells don't make reverse transcriptase as such, which turns RNA into DNA. However, there are portions of the human genome called LINE which some researchers speculate have some limited ability to reverse transcribe mRNA to DNA (there are a few research papers on it). IF that were to happen, then theoretically, that DNA might combine with your native DNA, thereby altering your genome. But, keep in mind that if one of your cells has either the virus in it or the spike protein in it, it is in the process of dying. So that cell won't have a chance to replicate and pass that altered DNA along.

Next, we have the adenovirus vector vaccines. The ones that have been used in the US and the UK are the Oxford-AstraZenaca type and the Johnson and Johnson type. Both of those also use the mRNA coded to produce the spike protein as the antigen, but they deliver it to the cell in a different way. They use a killed adenovirus shell with the spike protein mRNA contained inside. The adenovirus shell cannot reproduce itself, but it can get through the cell wall and on into the nucleus. That is because the adenovirus is a DNA virus, not an RNA virus like coronavirus. DNA viruses have evolved to get into the nucleus, where their DNA is transcribed into mRNA and then goes out through the pores in the nuclear membrane into the cytoplasm. In these vaccines, transcription is not required, because the mRNA coding for spike protein is already in the adenovirus shell. The mRNA contained in the adenovirus shell is released in the nucleus, is allowed to pass out through the nuclear membrane, where it goes into the cytoplasm. At that point, the ribosomes read the mRNA, produce spike proteins, and cause the cell to be attacked by your immune system, just as in the Pfizer and Moderna cases. The AZ vaccine uses a modified chimpanzee adenovirus and the J&J vaccine uses a modified human adenovirus.

Sputnik V is even more complicated. It uses a modified adenovirus as the vector to get the active ingredient through the cell wall and the nuclear membrane just as the AZ and J&J vaccines, but the active ingredient is actually a piece of DNA that codes for spike protein, not RNA. Once the DNA gets inside the nucleus, it starts producing mRNA, in the same way your native genetic material would. Once again, that mRNA goes through the nuclear membrane and into the cytoplasm where it then follows the same chain of events as Pfizer/Moderna, J&J, etc.

To summarize, the Sputnik V injects DNA directly into your cell nucleus. The AstraZeneca, and J&J vaccines inject RNA directly into your cell nucleus. The Pfizer/Moderna vaccines inject RNA into your cell cytoplasm which never gets into the nucleus.

In terms of risk of altering your genome, the Sputnik V vaccine is definitely the riskiest because it uses fully active DNA. There is no reverse transcription required for it to bind to your native DNA. The AstraZeneca and J&J vaccines are next riskiest because they put RNA directly into the nucleus. If there is a slight chance of reverse transcription of RNA to DNA, that would occur right in the nucleus where it would have a chance of binding to your native DNA. The Pfizer/Moderna vaccines are least risky from this standpoint because they are specifically engineered to stay out of the nucleus. In all cases, however, if the vaccine is producing the spike proteins the cell is dying and won't reproduce.

So the real factor that discriminates between the 3 different families of vaccines is the risk of adverse side effects. In terms of risk of adverse side effects, the order is the same. The more moving parts a vaccine has, the more possible interactions there are. The mRNA vaccines are about as simple as it gets.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: chr0naut

Reverse Transcription CAN occur so patently that is a false statement.

Reverse transcription can occur in a retrovirus (whole virus of a specific type) that includes the reverse transcriptase enzyme.

The Coronaviruses are not retroviruses.

The mRNA vaccines produce the spike protein, it is very specific - no reverse transcriptase.

You forgot to mention AZ and J&J which are DNA vaccines

originally posted by: fernalley

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: chr0naut

Reverse Transcription CAN occur so patently that is a false statement.

Reverse transcription can occur in a retrovirus (whole virus of a specific type) that includes the reverse transcriptase enzyme.

The Coronaviruses are not retroviruses.

The mRNA vaccines produce the spike protein, it is very specific - no reverse transcriptase.

You forgot to mention AZ and J&J which are DNA vaccines

Yes, instead of using single strand RNA, they bound the single gene responsible for the spike protein into an adenovirus which is known to be harmless to humans.

The adenovirus can infect cells, but cannot replicate itself once inside the cell. However, once the virus reaches the nucleus of the cell, it injects its DNA payload, which is essentially only the spike protein sequence. The normal transcription processes in the nucleus reads the gene and produce the same mRNA sequence that the mRNA vaccines have.

There is no insertion of the spike gene into existing DNA and so the sequence that makes the mRNA and is not heritable. This is because, while the gene can be transcripted from, to produce the mRNA, it fails the replication process and is therefore just leftover waste product for the body to clean-up.

The reason for using a DNA, rather than an RNA, vaccine is that the double stranded molecule of DNA is more chemically stable than the single stranded RNA. This means it lasts longer in the bottle and doesn't have to be kept so cold.

Additionally, it is believed that the possible blood-clotting adverse effect of the AZ and J&J vaccines are more from the adenovirus delivery system than the gene sequence or the mRNA it creates.

a reply to: tony9802
There's a thread on that video. Nowhere does the Modena chief say what the title of the video is. He says they are manipulating DNA to create treatments, he does not say the treatments manipulate DNA.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: chr0naut

At age 73 I have finally realized that all vaccines are harmful, and it is uncertain as to their efficacy

Yes vaccines are harmful, but to what?

And there are adverse effects, I won't deny that. The thing is, vaccines are usually deployed against chronically crippling or fatal pathogens and there is a regulatory framework to ensure that risk is minimal.

In my mind the question is how well do vaccines actually work? Some better than others I suppose.

We know the measles vaccines don't work very well, going by the number of cases seen amongst vaccinated individuals a few years back.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: chr0naut

At age 73 I have finally realized that all vaccines are harmful, and it is uncertain as to their efficacy

Yes vaccines are harmful, but to what?

And there are adverse effects, I won't deny that. The thing is, vaccines are usually deployed against chronically crippling or fatal pathogens and there is a regulatory framework to ensure that risk is minimal.

In my mind the question is how well do vaccines actually work? Some better than others I suppose.

We know the measles vaccines don't work very well, going by the number of cases seen amongst vaccinated individuals a few years back.

The measles vaccine works, but like the 'flu, the measles virus is prone to mutational strains. Also, our immune response to the vaccine, and measles, degrades over time if we have no further exposures.

The most popular vaccination against measles is the MMR triple antigen vaccine and the vaccinations have been effective where they were given. However, the vaccine has not been universally administered and the MMR vaccine was targeted by anti-vaxxers who claimed it caused Autism (now disproven). This caused many not to opt for vaccination, and therefore herd immunity was not achieved, and the disease has spread without limitation among a susceptible population.

The problem here was not with the vaccination.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Thank you for your post.. this is the direction in which I wish the thread might move..

a reply to: Salander

You display an amazing amount of ignorance on a subject you constantly post about.

Most of those infected never got the vaccine. Then like all vaccines there is a small number of people vaccinated that aren't protected, 5-10% which makes the vaccine extremely effective. Immune responses also wane with time. This isn't a problem when you have heard immunity but becomes a problem without it.

a reply to: 1947boomer


"How is the vaccine expected to work?

Sputnik V is expected to work by preparing the body to defend itself against infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This virus uses proteins on its outer surface, called spike proteins, to enter the body’s cells and cause COVID-19.

Sputnik V is made up of two different viruses belonging to the adenovirus family, Ad26 and Ad5. These adenoviruses have been modified to contain the gene for making the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein; they cannot reproduce in the body and do not cause disease. The two adenoviruses are given separately: Ad26 is used in the first dose and Ad5 is used in the second to boost the vaccine’s effect.

Once it has been given, the vaccine delivers the SARS-CoV-2 gene into cells in the body. The cells will use the gene to produce the spike protein. The person’s immune system will treat this spike protein as foreign and produce natural defences − antibodies and T cells − against this protein.

If, later on, the vaccinated person comes into contact with SARS-CoV-2, the immune system will recognise the spike protein on the virus and be prepared to attack it: antibodies and T cells can work together to kill the virus, prevent its entry into the body’s cells and destroy infected cells, thus helping to protect against COVID-19."

www.ema.europa.eu...

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tony9802

The assumption that mRNA vaccines alter genetics is wrong.

Stop gaslighting. No one said that.

What the mRNA vaxx does do is alter the messages sent by our DNA. In what way they alter those messages is up for debate, and according to the inventor of the tech, the potential alterations are endless - so, again, a round-about way to alter our DNA without actually altering the underlying DNA. Feel free to trust these mad-hatters. I don't.

Also, an inactivated whole virus vaccine is likely to have more side effects and adverse reactions than one made of a very specific sub-component of a virus. I.e: there's more stuff, with more unknowns, in a whole virus vaccine.

I agree, which is why I don't trust any vaccines, but prefer to rely on my god-given immune system and intelligence to determine safe and effective treatments.

The more I research Ivermectin, I'm even planning on adding it to my emergency med kit.

The actions by the medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex in denigrating and obstructing it's use as a treatment for CV is a crime against humanity, and is hopefully being exposed as we speak.

a reply to: LABTECH767

My opinion is that is most likely the BETTER vaccine.

The virus enters the body thru the air way and immediately attacks the
lung cells. The vaccine can't possibly kill a virus that disseminates in the
lung. Because the antibodies are almost non existent in the lung. No
vaccine can prevent the virus from entering the lung once it's in the air
way. The vaccine can only keep the virus from disseminating in the blood.
So basically what are they doing with these vaccines? Because this is
common knowledge as I understand it.

Ah yes I totes want a vaccine to create spikes that lodge themselves into the walls of my now compromised cells, so that my perfectly fine immune system will then attack.

And I most def can't wait to get older and be told I need to take a cocktail of drugs that suppress my immune system.

What could possible go wrong with suppressing my immune system, and then taking vaccines that cause my weakened immune system to become overburdened?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tony9802

The assumption that mRNA vaccines alter genetics is wrong.

Stop gaslighting. No one said that.

What the mRNA vaxx does do is alter the messages sent by our DNA. In what way they alter those messages is up for debate, and according to the inventor of the tech, the potential alterations are endless - so, again, a round-about way to alter our DNA without actually altering the underlying DNA. Feel free to trust these mad-hatters. I don't.

Also, an inactivated whole virus vaccine is likely to have more side effects and adverse reactions than one made of a very specific sub-component of a virus. I.e: there's more stuff, with more unknowns, in a whole virus vaccine.

I agree, which is why I don't trust any vaccines, but prefer to rely on my god-given immune system and intelligence to determine safe and effective treatments.

The more I research Ivermectin, I'm even planning on adding it to my emergency med kit.

The actions by the medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex in denigrating and obstructing it's use as a treatment for CV is a crime against humanity, and is hopefully being exposed as we speak.

mRNA does not alter the 'messages' sent by our DNA.

mRNA is a message, and specifically one that instructs our cells to build amino acid chains, such as the spike protein (which is a chain of amino acids).

mRNA doesn't alter anything.