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.
The Covid mRNA therapies will not mimic the antigen specific 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 protein 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, does not begain to warrant the risks.
Even the more flexible of the two vaccines immiediately 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 proten even if the Covid therapy supplies more than one articulation.
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. It's considered safe by those incentivized to declare it safe. 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 50K volunteers starting in July. Then they decided to use it and needed time 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 2 months 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 and even 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 over heated.
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 DNA is no longer in charge. Normally the body would control the mRNA but technology has step 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. Like how we were ever to control the experssion of the spike protein after the mRNA was released in the body.
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 we insist it's safe?
For Sars-1, the population emerged with sufficient immunity after a year, as is often the case. The viruses burn out in a population. 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?
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, they 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.
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. The article and graphic you shared "mRNA: Fulfilling the Promise of Gene Therapy". Is typical of the semantics I see being played. If someone was just scanning your post the take away is mRNA is gene therapy and from the perspective of the general public the take away is "they are playing with my DNA". Without reading the article or studying the graphic (with some underlying knowledge of cellular biology) you would miss the important fact that the mRNA is inserting itself downstream of the typical cellular protein manufacturing process.
On close inspection of the diagram, the mRNA box has a dashed outline indicating this class of therapy skips the first step of DNA transcription into RNA. Further you would need some knowledge of cellular biology to understand that cellular schematic which shows delivery of mRNA into the cytoplasm and that the nucleus of the cell is not involved in the process.
While this is considered "Gene" therapy the "Gene" in this instance of mRNA exists in lab used to manufacture the mRNA. Delivery of the mRNA is only targeted at the cytoplasm. In the nucleus of the cell the enzymes and DNA remain untouched.
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.
Mice and Pigs protamine encapsulated mRNA for rabies (different from lipid nanoparticles) 2016:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918980/
and in human volunteers from 2013 to 2016 reported in 2017 (abstract only):
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28754494/
By 2016 the current lipid nanoparticle technology reported on:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5439223/
2017 used in mice to target melanoma:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5523404/
moderna mRNA influenza vaccine tested in mice, ferrets, monkeys and interim report on human trials 2017:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5475249/
Finally animal trials were conducted on the current moderna vaccine reported 2020:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2024671
So there are positive animal trials on mRNA technology. Most recently the study in Macaques. This leads to where we are now with human Phase 1, 2 clinical trials completed on 2 different mRNA vaccines. With both vaccines completing primary endpoint in Phase 3 trials and those trials continuing observation over vaccine recipients.
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.
They calculate 95% based on how many people have confirmed COVID-19, vaccine vs placebo:
Pfizer results:
"8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose were observed among vaccine recipients and 162 among placebo recipients. This case split corresponds to 95.0% vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.3 to 97.6; Table 2)"
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
Moderna Results:
"Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001)"
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389
ERROR CORRECTION to my earlier post 42:
I had said before that cellular effects were local this was incorrect. There is lymphatic spread and distant lymph nodes and the spleen will get a significant dosing of this vaccine. From there it can spread to other organs (likely through the blood) but at a reduced amount. The total dosing received is dependent on the size of the dose of the vaccine. This data is based on trials in mice. This is similar to how other vaccines spread (modified virus type vaccines included).
As a postscript I will add this link to a detailed review of the various types of mRNA technology that is in use or being researched:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2024671