Thanks. Vaccines are being worked on and produced worldwide. I don’t believe all those entities are trying kill off the population.
My main curiosity is why prior respiratory vaccines were made using a dead or live virus and today’s offered vaccines are experimental and not using an actual dead or live virus.
Would full approvals be faster/easier if the vaccines were using live/dead virus? Maybe it’s the opposite, and that’s why we are being offered experimental vaccines that don’t use the virus itself. Perhaps it was decided that speed of delivery was paramount.
My question has nothing to do with claims about bad intent in production of vaccines. That’s a different subject.
From my reading/study it’s as you say,”speed of delivery.” Not sure about your other question. I don’t believe intent to harm on a mass scale but would suggest the speed of delivery without a complete testing( again time of essence) has enhanced the nasty side effects/adverse reactions.
My wariness is why a vaccine when recovery rate is 99.74% and why vaccines for people who have already had it, and young people who rarely get is and not fatal?
Politics rears its ugly head in these questions.
You’d have to direct some questions to a doctor if you can find an honest one without political `and personal feelings versus science( which science?). Questioning the efficacy and even the logic behind shutting down the whole world for a virus that is bad but not shutting down the planet bad is wise.
Some doctors will tell you the mRNA is safe, others will say no. One thing is certain, we’ve never done this before nor will we see the endpoint of mRNA vaccines for years to come despite what anyone tells you. It has not been tested long term.
And that brings up the question as to how long one holds out( becoming a leper and stamped unvaccintated) or taking the jab and which one is the best? It’s a crap shoot.
Hope someone answers your questions.