You’re too late.
FROM YOUR POSTED “STUDY”:
“...Current data on COVID‐19 vaccines is limited, but does not so far reveal evidence of ADE of disease. Non‐human primate studies of Moderna’s mRNA‐1273 vaccine showed excellent protection, with no detectable immunopathology. Phase 1 trials of several vaccines have not reported any immunopathology in subjects administered the candidate vaccines....”
Okay, Bagster, this should be quick and easy. [okay I came back to update the start time above because I got carried away].
“...Current data on COVID‐19 vaccines is limited, but does not so far reveal evidence of ADE of disease."
If you were a 'vaccine' apologist, you use the absence of sufficient data to prove it's a good product and to deny it's a bad product. 'Limited' current data on a technology with 16 years of failure (dead animal trials etc.) becomes the Good Housekeeping seal of approval.
The 16 years of failed studies revealed that the mRNA vaccines trialed had initially promising results and then the negative impacts to the immune system start showing up at the 3 to 6 months mark.
This is no doubt why Moderna choose to keep their human trials under 3 months in duration; they 'limited' the data on purpose.
All animals in 2005 and 2012 trials of previous mRNA trials were fine and 100% developed antibodies. A few months later, when exposed to the actual virus for which they had been 'vaccinated', 100% of the cats in the trials developed 'death'.
I have been told previously that Moderna had successful trials in 2017 involving mice. I have a few links to check out to learn more, but the mice were fine during the study period and became ill after a few months.
Take a really small sample size and a short, quick 'study' and praise the product when you know after 16 years of experience effects are delayed.
This delay explains "Non‐human primate studies of Moderna’s mRNA‐1273 vaccine showed excellent protection, with no detectable immunopathology. " You have to get those monkeys in and out of the lab before they develope ADEs as happened in prior mRNA experiments.
"Phase 1 trials of several vaccines have not reported any immunopathology in subjects administered the candidate vaccines....”
This argument can be summarized thusly: "pathetic"
For a fuller explaination, a whopping 45 healthy people aged 18 to 55 participated in Moderna's Phase 1 trial which lasted approximately 2 months. (that's 'limited alright!). They would add an older group later but Phase I reports only covered these 45 lucky winners. /s
42 out of 45 Phase I participants (a.k.a. walking lab rats) received both doses of the vaccine in the Phase i trial which lasted 57 days (hmmm....why did 3 not get the 2nd dose?) to determine dosage to pursue in Phases II and III. This wasn't a double-blind study with a control group (placebo).
Phase I had 3 groups of people, each group subjected to one of 3 dose rates (low medium high). This small sample size and lack of basic research requirements (double-blind, placebo) is really just an initial surivivability (57 day test) to see if you can move on to the next phase of research.
You know, for people who insist there's no proof the vaccines are dangerous, they sure are eager to use no proof to claim they are safe, eh?
A cohort of 45 healthy participants is statistically irrelevant in determining the safety of the bio-agent. Further, the cohort was broken into 3 groups of 15 people, so really, which ever of the dose rates selected to go forward to Phase II could only have had a test group of 15 persons (18 - 55 yrs) receiving that dosage.
Hopeful results from phase 1 Moderna COVID vaccine trial | CIDRAP (umn.edu)
The mRNA technology has demonstrated consistently negative effects which if they emerge in an individual, usually start happening in the 3-6 month window. Onset can be delayed much longer, with immune issues increasing incrementally - but the rule-of-thumb is 3-6 months.
Therefore, the mRNA trials had to be quick by design - hence they needed to implement the vaccine based on an EUA and not FDA approval. I wondered why the precursor technology never obtained FDA approval in 16 years. I now suspect they never applied for, or sought funding for, long-term trials because problems like ADE delayed onset would certainly be exposed.
Instead, I think they created their bio-agent, and waited to deploy later in an intentional rush (optics), once Hillary Clinton was installed as the Last President.
