ransomnote: Sorry, this is long. This kind of content will be absorbed into the Suppressed information thread for Covid.
Just push back on someone who told me to stop lying about the vaccines. I have to say, it makes for tedious reading but some of you are diggers so I thought I would put it here too.
I know I missed a few qualifiers ("according to Dr. So and SO") in places where I've read a good argument but haven't seen more of it from others. No doubt I will pay for that, but all information has been spoken by other physicians. It's late, I'm tired. G'night.
Stop spreading lies about the mRNA vaccines.I never even started spreading lies. Wish I could say the same for the pharma/Covid mafia.
From the Nature article on pfizer/biontec phase 1/2 trials:
"The RNA vaccine platform has enabled rapid vaccine development in response to this pandemic.
For 15 years that RNA vaccine platform has failed to cure HIV, Hep C, and other corona virus types, and it DID kill all the animals in the trials.
RNA vaccines provide flexibility in the design and expression of vaccine antigens that can mimic the structure and expression of the antigen during natural infection.
The flexibility of the vaccine antigen designs goes away in the Covid-19 therapies.
I think it's Moderna that has one articulation of one spike protein. The Pfizer can provide 16 different articulations of one specific spike protein. (like saying 16 different configurations for a snow flake - the therapy is capable for triggering the production of any of 16 shapes but each person's cells will settle on one of the 16 to produce)
The Covid mRNA therapies are intended to mimic, but will not mimic the antigens produced by the body specifically for the Covid virus because no one has isolated the virus. The manufacturers produced their products without the availability of isolated Covid virus samples.
The Covid therapy will mimic one antigen common among prior Corona Viruses and other illnesses. That's why there's no real benefit to the Covid mRNA therapies - most of us have already encountered similar viruses that caused our bodies to produce the antigen that the Covid therapy plans to give us.
This non-existant benefit, giving us an antigen most of us likely already have or had in the past, does not begain to warrant the risks.
More assumed flexible of the two vaccines immediately loses it's flexibility as the host cells (body) select one of those articulations and that one articulation is then expressed throughout the body.
The mRNA platform is believed to be flexible, but the companies narrow it down by selecting the antigen they want their product to make the body express, and then the body selects the articulation of that one antigen even if the Covid therapy supplies 16 from which to choose.
RNA is required for protein synthesis, does not integrate into the genome, is transiently expressed, is metabolized and eliminated by the natural mechanisms of the body and is therefore considered safe" (emphasis mine)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2639-4
I never said the mRNA integrates into the genome (DNA), nor will I. I've shared this graphic elsewhere wherein the NIH refers to mRNA as gene therapy.
I believe that presently there is no evidence that it integrates into the genome (DNA). That may also be because no one is willing to study it and the fact that the companies don't release their research.
The Covid therapies are considered safe by those incentivized to declare it safe. Those happen to be the same people who denied all treatment to patients dying of Covid by saying FDA approved Ivermectin and HCQ were too risky.
Those people wouldn't give HCQ Emergency Use Authorization that it gave to mRNA technology that has never been successful in 15 years.
Researchers and scientists who raise concerns are fired, stripped of their labls and funding and ostracized. Abusing countering medical and pharaceutical opinion is not the same as saying the product is safe.
It's largely unknown what the Covid mRNA therapies will do because prior versions have never succeeded there are no long-term studies to say what it will do, and the same is even more true for the Covid therapies as they have been tested on 46 people initially and then tested on hundreds of thousands of volunteers starting in July 2020.
Then they vaccines were given EUA and needed a few months to manufacture it - so really in between the kick off in July and the start of production there was probably 2 - 4 months (I've been seeing people say the therapies had 2 months of human trial period, but I haven't completed reading the materials yet).
You are relaying guesswork and optimism when you say, "is transiently expressed, is metabolized and eliminated by the natural mechanisms of the body"
Research is needed to prove what you say. There are no long-term studies paricularly since the Covid mRNA human trials lasted a few months. No evidence they are transient and eliminated. In the case of cats, the cats all died before the natural mechanisms of the body halted the production of anti-bodies.
You are playing semantic games to prove something that doesn't exist for the mRNA vaccines.
I've explained my reasoning and was never claiming that mRNA changes the genome. I've seen an area proposed for future study wherein initial observation indicates the mRNA attached to a genome and formed a loop (Have no idea what that means or if it's real - it warrants study based onobservation).
Your rebutting something I never said does look like the game is in motion on your side.
I'm not saying these vaccines are 100% safe (nothing is). They aren't 100% effective, nothing is.
NO ONE, and I do mean no one, I have read/watched has ever said these vaccines are 100% safe or any drug or vaccine is ever 100% safe. All refer to the cost/benefit analysis.
The problem is the only voices permitted in the public sphere are those exaggerating benefits. All those daring to mention risks historically faced by this mRNA platform are ridiculted as incompetent or knuckle dragging thoughtless beasts willing to kill others on personal whims and beliefs.
But you are spreading FUD on a decent therapy that people should discuss with their doctors to decide if the benefits outweigh the risks for their individual case.
This 'decent therapy' platform was patented in 2005 and failed to obtain FDA approval (it still has EUA) because it a) killed all the animals in the trials in 2005 and again in 2012 and b) has never cured the illnesses for which is was designed to treat. Never produced immunity, never worked. "She's dead, Jim."
From the same journal article:
Titers in the study from patients given the vaccine were compared with patients who recovered from PCR confirmed COVID-19:
It would really help if you read the post before you objected to it. Here's an article about the PCR, since you're avoiding the actual thread post.
"These RBD-binding antibody concentrations were 5,880–16,166 U ml−1 compared to 602 U ml−1 in the panel of human convalescent sera."
So you get a higher titer than in measurements on people who recovered from the disease on their own. The take away here is thet isolating the virus is a red herring. They have isolated an antibody titer from the disease and the vaccine is able to induce it in patient's that have not been exposed.
That's a crucial part in which the companies are lying to the public. They are saying that their products are up to 95% effective. They are intentionally leading the public to think their statement means 95% effective against Covid-19. It does not mean that. The products are actually 95% percent effective in triggering the production of the antibodies specified by the companies.
The effectiveness of Covid gene therapies in actually mitigating severity of Covid in patients (the claim Fauci, Moderna, Pfizer and others make for these products) is uknown because the companies won't release the rest of their data and it has not been sufficiently studied.
A physician who's an editor at a British medical publication has been evaluating the portions of the research that have been released and so far, the effecitveness in mitigating illness is around 19%. Plug that into the ol' cost/benefit analysis.
The thing to remember is the mRNA platform that's been around for 15 years was about 100% effective in triggering the production of antibodies in their test animals (cats). However, when these cats were then exposed to the actual illness, 100% of the animals died.
So you can see this information decimates your happy report that the identity of the virus doesn't matter, it's how many antibodies are produced. 100% wrong.
The article goes on with some technical information of other antibody responses that are more indicative of possible protective effect and again the vaccine provided more of these antibodies than in people recovered from natural infection.
That's nothing to celebrate. It is overproduction of antibodies that many believe is behind the death of 100% of the cats in the mRNA platform trials. Their immune systems overheated.
In reading negative reactions to the Covid-19 vaccine, many people talk about physically overheating etc. Both hyper-immunity and hypo-immunity side-effects can and have resulted from the mRNA platform trials because of the inaibility to manage the production of antibodies once the gene therapy is released in the body and tells cells to crank out this new spike protein.
The body'd DNA is likely no longer in charge (more study needed). Normally the body would control the mRNA but technology has stepped in and ordered the cells to produce the Covid therapy antigen without brakes.
I hate to defend Fauci but the reason he says we may not be protected even with the vaccine has to do some limitations in our knowledge. Again from the Phase 1/2 article:
"Our study had several limitations. Although we used convalescent sera as a comparator, the kind of immunity (T cells versus B cells or both) and level of immunity needed to protect from COVID-19 are unknown"
Fauci is indefensible.
Ironically, Fauci won't listen to experts, researchers, doctors who say that T-cell immunity is little understood (one called it the dark side), and has no track record of success with mRNA technolgies because we seem to be missing one or more pieces of the puzzle.
The point here is we don't even know if you are protected if you catch SARS-COV-2 and recover.
So just blast away at it with risky, failed technology? I know t-cell immunity holds great promise, but all agree it's little understood, so how can you insist it's safe?
For Sars-1, the public emerged with sufficient immunity after a year, as is often the case. The viruses burn out in a population. Many researchers, doctors I've read say the only way you get increasingly virulent, dangerous 'variants' is to lie or release stronger bioweapons.
The real point here is Ivermecting and HCQ/AZ/Zinc have far better histories, are FDA approved, are well tolerated, effective and don't require the assumption of extremes of risks inherent in mRNA gene therapy nor the concomitant risks.
At this point in time we believe you have at least 3 months of immunity (maybe 6 months) but we don't know. We are still collecting data.
True of many illnesses. When did we decided to outsource immunity to companies who test on humans for about 3 months technology that has failed to serve any benefit to human health for 15 years? Companies reported to have been infiltrated by China?
WHy should we give up 6000 years of human existance to declare we must now attach ourselves with an umbilical to big pharma and our captured medical hierarchy. If they wanted to help us they would have allowed the 'right to try' HCQ.
Another reason for this is that Phase 1/2 trials don't test for efficacy, that comes in phase 3 of a trial. That phase 3 trial reports a 95% efficacy substantially higher than the 30% efficacy needed to gain FDA approval. Out of about 45000 participants there were 8 cases of COVID-19 in the vaccine group and 162 cases in the placebo group.
Remember, they were using the PCR test which is not accurate. Most of the asymptomatic postive PCR tests are simply healthy people. The test can also render false negatives.
Since the PCR test can identify Covid in fruit, Coca Cola and in the case of the vaccine produced by WHO, a sequence found in the human genome because it doesn't identify a virus, it identifies a string of molecules, the 'results' of the fake vaccines are meaningless.
The side effects and risks are meaningful and are not based on fake tests.
The study goes on to say that due to the exceptional statistics it would be unethical to maintain a placebo group for 2 years and that the placebo group would need to be offered the vaccine going forward.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?query=featured_home
Unethical, thy name is Moderna, Fauci, Pfizer, Moderna, Cuomo, Newsom....I'm tired. I'm not going to list all the establishements and people compromised and lying to us.
