Posted on 09/12/2023 8:57:13 AM PDT by MNDude
"THE SINGLE DOSE COVID-19 VACCINE STUDY For unvaccinated adults and adolescents 12 years and older who have previously tested positive for COVID-19. Now enrolling"
(Excerpt) Read more at covidvaccinestudy.com ...
"Antivax". Nice.
These folks are not anti-vaccine. All of them took every vaccine but refused to take the Jim Jones Jab because it is NOT a vaccine regardless of what the CDC changed their definition to.
They're not leftists "attempting to make everyone believe lies". They oppose Pfascist diktats that include forced medical testing as clearly identified as non-permissable experiments in the Nuremberg Code.
Yet you, in support of forced medical testing on humans, claim to be conservative. Nice.
From the Nuremberg Code:
"The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:"
"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision."
"The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity."
"The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury."
"Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death."
"The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment."
"During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible."
Public trust broken.
The "vaccine" is/was totally useless and very dangerous for many. The ultimate example of "we have to do something" when a crisis presents itself when the best thing to do is already known and old school.
Actually, they are antivax. Many of the things said and the inflammatory language used are no different than things antivaxxers have said since the early 1800s. All they did was change a few words so that it would apply to Covid vaccines.
They're not leftists "attempting to make everyone believe lies". They oppose Pfascist diktats that include forced medical testing as clearly identified as non-permissable experiments in the Nuremberg Code.
I do not think you understood what I said.
I'm not talking about the professional antivaxxers who have existed since the early 1800s. I'm talking about leftists who suddenly jumped on the antivax bandwagon when Covid appeared. These would be people like Robert Malone and Naomi Wolf. I'm talking about leftists who have been spreading antivax lies for decades but who suddenly only told them to conservatives when the Covid outbreak started, like RFK Jr. and some Hollywood celebrities.
Don't you think that leftists would want to warn other leftists if there is a real danger from getting vaccinated? But none of them are hitting the liberal talk show and news circuits. They are making the rounds of conservative outlets.
Given that leftists are becoming more open about the fact that they want conservatives to disappear and that increasing numbers of them want humanity to go extinct, why on earth would I believe any leftist who is trying to tell me that FDA approved drugs designed to save lives are dangerous?
Science is not liberal or conservative. If something is dangerous to people's health, the scientists warn everyone regardless of political affiliation.
Yet you, in support of forced medical testing on humans, claim to be conservative. Nice.
Funny, I don't recall ever saying I support forced medical testing on humans. Furthermore, I have no idea what you are even referring to.
Throughout my career, I have reviewed many human research protocols. They all have two things in common: first, that they must be approved by an ethical review committee before any research can begin. Second, that all participants in the research must be volunteers who have provided informed, signed consent. It is illegal to conduct research on unknowing subjects.
In the real world of vaccine research, tens of thousands of people volunteered for the Covid vaccine clinical trials. Not one of them was forced to participate.
I can recognize instantly the difference between a blog and a link to a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal. I've been reading medical literature for years. While I can sometimes derive the original medical article that the blog misrepresents, it actually takes time to do this kind of in-depth research. And you had already provided a link to a real medical article that I could use to debunk at least one of the claims that you posted here.
You never explained why Pseudouridine was substituted for Uridine and what happens.
The purpose of substituting pseudouridine for uridine is to bypass the PAMP recognition function of the innate immune system which would normally react to RNA. This substitution does not change the mRNA interactions with the ribosome or alter its translation into protein. Nor does it affect the ability of RNAse to destroy the mRNA after translation. Pseudouridine is naturally produced by your body, so this is not some foreign substance being introduced.
Modifications in an Emergency: The Role of N1-Methylpseudouridine in COVID-19 Vaccines.
mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology. Note that this reference was published in 2018--before anyone ever even imagined something like Covid.
What these two references show is that the mRNA technology was in R&D long before Covid and that optimization of the technology has been a research topic for a while.
Explain this.
“Results: The specific PP-Spike fragment was found in 50% of the biological samples analyzed, and its presence was independent of the SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titer. The minimum and maximum time at which PP-Spike was detected after vaccination was 69 and 187 days, respectively.”
Part of the explanation of this is contained in the paper that you linked. The "PP-Spike" fragment is a spike protein in which two adjacent amino acids were replaced by proline in order to stabilize the structure and prevent it from entering the cell's cytosol. Normally, spike protein on the virus surface undergoes processing (cutting and refolding) that causes it to enter the cell cytosol, along with the rest of the virus.
The authors of the paper did not investigate how the PP-spike protein was in the blood. Spike protein is a membrane-bound protein which is unlikely to be free-floating in the blood. They used whole blood samples, which means that it could have been present on the surfaces of blood cells. They described taking blood samples from Covid survivors but did not show the MS-HPLC chromatograms from these patients. They only showed the chromatograms from vaccinated patients and unvaccinated patients who did not have Covid. So I would be curious to see how spike protein quantities compare between vaccinated patients and Covid survivors.
As I mentioned in a previous post, mRNA contained within a nanoliposome is protected from destructive enzymes. There is a property called "associative constant" which tells us how much of two molecules will actually attach to each other at various concentrations. For example, if both molecules are present at 50% concentration, 25% of them might attach to each other, leaving the other 25% unbound. But if both molecules are present at 5% concentration, only 0.1% of them might attach, leaving 4.9% still free-floating. These kinds of calculations are called kinetics. I do not know the specific kinetics of mRNA-containing nanoliposomes to the cells in the lymph nodes, but if it is anything like the kinetics of liposome attachment to cells in culture, it is probably rather inefficient. Those vaccine particles that do not attach immediately will eventually attach, but how long that will take can vary. This would explain continued PP-spike protein production. In theory, this would help to reinforce the immune response since that PP-spike protein remains to keep activating the immune system.
I should point out that actual SARS-CoV-2 virus (containing several viral proteins and mRNAs) can remain in circulation for prolonged periods in people who have had Covid. When you recover from a viral infection, the virus does not always disappear. Herpes viruses, for example, remain for the rest of your life. The persistence of SARS-CoV-2 virus after infection is one of the mechanisms hypothesized for long Covid. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that some people who have long Covid improve after receiving the Covid vaccine. This would be because the vaccine causes their immune system to make spike protein specific antibodies, which then target remaining virus particles for elimination by the immune system.
No doubt, whoever (Robert Malone?) is producing all of this material knows that the people he writes it for don't know how to read the scientific literature and do not have the educational background to interpret it. On the other hand, I try to keep my explanations as accessible as possible to ordinary people who do not have a STEM education.
Ethical review committee? Signed consent? You're kidding.
As for conducting research on unknowing subjects, that's exactly what they did worldwide.
Let's see the illegally hidden agreements between the Pfascist korporations and the corrupt governments they conspired with.
Good luck. Have another booster. May the odds forever be in your favor
You can look up specific clinical trials at the website www.clinicaltrials.gov. There are also resources here for those wanting to participate.
There is a large body of federal law regulating how clinical trials are conducted:
Regulations: Good Clinical Practice and Clinical Trials.
Note that line #3 specifically addresses informed consent and line #5 addresses the ethics reviews (Independent Review Boards). These are 21 CFR Part 50 and 21 CFR Part 56, if you actually want to read the regulations.
The federal regulations do not just cover human subjects, they also specify ethical treatments of animals in pre-clinical research.
If you think that any pharmaceutical company can somehow get away with skirting federal law, keep in mind that their data must be shared with the FDA. The FDA upholds federal law. Imagine if you had to share all of your financial data on a regular basis with an IRS agent--not a tax form but an actual agent who has access to all of your bank records. That is pretty much the situation with pharmaceutical companies or research institutions and the FDA. Companies have to spend $1-2 billion dollars per drug to conduct all of the research and clinical trials necessary to satisfy the FDA.
I was involved in pre-clinical testing of drug candidates. Once, we gave a drug to rabbits and one of them died. Our FDA representative stopped further research on that drug immediately. We had to investigate why the rabbit died and show that it died because of a physiological difference in drug metabolism between rabbits and humans before the FDA allowed us to proceed with our research. This investigation took months, and probably cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Since the FDA immediately halts research on a drug after a rabbit dies, do you seriously think the FDA is going to allow pharmaceutical companies to market a drug that is harmful to humans?
“do you seriously think the FDA is going to allow pharmaceutical companies to market a drug that is harmful to humans? “
Why not the pharmaceutical companies are protected from consequences and large amounts of money are in the mix.
You are surprisingly naive if you believe the FDA functions as a functional regulatory body any more given their incestuous relationship with the pharmaceutical companies.
Scott Gottlieb anyone?
Over 96,700 people die from drug overdoses in a year.Opioids are a factor in 7 out of every 10 overdose deaths.
Drug overdoses have killed almost a million people since 1999.
Oh my.
My PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology means that I have actually studied the biological principles underlying practices such as vaccination, masking, social distancing, and other public health measures. But if you believe that my education and experience in infectious disease prevention makes anything I say on the matter suspect, I don’t know what to say.
BUT... I have absolutely no training and experience in auto mechanics. By your criteria, I am the most qualified to fix your car. I charge $50 per hour, PM me.
Trials are before approval, except in this case the Scamdemic overseers claimed it was an emergency and that could release the bioweapon without testing. Pfizer even dismissed their test group.
Those who were coerced into it, especially with their livelihood at stake weren't willing participants.
It's an absolute farce to pretend the Jim Jones Jab is a vaccine and that it went through clinical trials.
It looks like a basic molecular biology/biochemistry lesson is in order.
The spike protein is not toxic, not when it is made as a result of a bit of vaccine mRNA directing ribosomes to produce it, and not when a virus takes over the cell and using its mRNA to force all of the cell's machinery into make viral proteins including the spike. The role of the spike protein is to attach the virus to the cell surface and then to move the virus contents across the cell and virus membranes so that the virus can take over the functions of the cell. The spike protein alone cannot take over a cell's functions because it does not have the other virus proteins or mRNAs necessary for that to happen. The spike protein coded in the vaccine cannot even enter the cell like a virus-attached spike protein because that ability was modified out of it.
The vaccine mRNA does not alter your cells to produce mRNA. It can't. mRNA is produced in a process called "DNA transcription." This means that enzymes "read" the DNA and make a matching mRNA molecule. This only happens in the cell nucleus or mitochondria (or chloroplasts in plants). I do not know of any human enzyme that can use mRNA to make more mRNA.
I will skip much of what you said, as it appears to have come directly from some charlatan website. Charlatans love to tell you that studies show all kinds of scary things, but if you read the studies (and have the education and experience to understand them), you quickly ascertain that the studies don't prove what the charlatan said at all.
As for the ingredients that are supposedly being kept secret for 75 years? You saw that on some antivax site, yes? I found the ingredients right on the CDC website, available for anyone to read: Overview of COVID-19 Vaccines
Just as a general piece of advice, if specific pieces of "information" published on the antivax website are demonstrably false, then it really is up to the publisher of that website to prove that anything they post is true and has a proper context.
I do not state a percentage because long covid is still being characterized. Without a standard case definition, it is hard to determine exact numbers. I've seen statements that long Covid afflicts up to 40% of Covid survivors, but, again, it's hard to define. Variability in estimates no doubt is related to the lack of a standard definition compounded by the fact that some people's symptoms resolve after several months and others still have symptoms two years later. So, hard to say.
However, for your reading enjoyment:
Nearly One in Five American Adults Who Have Had COVID-19 Still Have “Long COVID”
Why unconvincing? Some assertions speak: "Nearly One in Five American Adults Who Have Had COVID-19 Still Have “Long COVID,” Page last reviewed: June 22, 2022.
Surveying our family and rather large group of friends, we don't replicate that percentage. In our rather large circle, we know none. For this your circle of family and friends might make up the difference for the calculation of such an average? Have you forty percent of your circle to offset out zero percent?
Additionally, given that "Warp Speed" forward, and with about 80 percent having participated in some of the SARS CoV2 mRNA injections, whether first doses or succeeding boosters, neither of the other CDC articles even mention "vaccine" as a part of the study which could have been part of the whole.
I mention this as we know only two family members who tested positive, both were inoculated beforehand, and one had rebounds to include the so-called Paxlovid rebound. More prominent stories include public figures experiencing reinfection after one or more injections, and several "fully boosted." To not mention this in a study about Covid and long Covid seems methodologically unsound.
As you say, "it is hard to determine exact numbers." I agree with the general tone, "So, hard to say."
The mortality rate calculation for this entire 3 1/2 years is easy to do, according to which ever sources with which one agrees, and it still reckons out to something less than 1/10th of one percent over these last years of media frenzy.
I think I shall look around the topic of "long Covid" a bit more. I imagine you shall as well. Thanks again for the links.
Um... what do drug overdoses have to do with the FDA?
Those drug abusers aren’t getting prescriptions for the drugs they overdose on. They’re getting those drugs from cartels who bring the drugs in on major corridors like the I-95 freeway or US 40 on the East Coast. No medical person advised them to take a drug in a manner it wasn’t prescribed for.
People who take opiates according to prescription aren’t going to overdose on them.
If you won’t believe the scientific community, then I don’t know what to say. The scientific community really is the only source, because we do the research, gather the data, and do the statistical analyses. No one else does that.
Any CDC articles are based on communications from scientists. State health departments provide information to the CDC.
Looking at my family and friends does not give me population level statistical data. That is the kind of data you need to study in order to understand the incidence of a disorder, not anecdotal stories. Anecdotally, 33% of the people I know who caught Covid developed serious long-term health impairments (intestinal damage requiring surgery) from it, and 66% got long Covid. The other 33% of people I know who caught Covid felt bad for a few days but recovered uneventfully. That 33% was also vaccinated with one booster. This accounts for why his illness was so mild when the other two people I know who had Covid had such serious outcomes. But, as I already said, my personal anecdotal experience is not a substitute for population level data.
So far, the number of people diagnosed with Covid in the US is 108,288,061. Of these cases, 1,174,570 have died. This puts the death rate at 1.085%. Any death rate calculation that is not based on the number of cases is not a real death rate calculation. A lot of calculations (by charlatans) based a pseudo death rate on the total population rather than on the actual cases. This is invalid. Only people who catch Covid can die from it, so death rates can only be calculated based on the number of cases.
By the charlatan method of calculating death rate, you have nothing anly 1-2 people in the US die from rabies every year, giving the charlatan population based death rate of 0.000000606% from rabies. However, the real calculation based on number of cases and number of deaths shows that rabies is 100% fatal.
Ah, no. Only those who volunteered to participate in clinical trials were part of the clinical trials. The rest of us are just recipients of an FDA approved vaccine.
I don't know why you keep referring to Jim Jones. He used cyanide to murder his followers. Vaccines don't contain cyanide or any other poison.
No. The FDA approved the Jim Jones Jab under an Emergency Use Authorization. Pfizer and Moderna have intentionally kept it under that status to avoid liability for all the people who have died or were injured.
Everyone who took the Jim Jones Jab was part of the test group.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_rate
"Looking at my family and friends does not give me population level statistical data. That is the kind of data you need to study in order to understand the incidence of a disorder, not anecdotal stories."
That is obfuscation. Individual anecdotes amass from datum to data, such that one could calculate -- looking at your family -- a rate based on that "family" population. Anecdotes are individual datum. "Population level statistical data" are the sum of anecdotes across a larger family -- a population. A state. A nation. The world.
Data are for the U.S."1,043.8 deaths per 100,000 population" is equivalent to 1.0438 percent.
Number of deaths: 3,464,231
Death rate: 1,043.8 deaths per 100,000 populationSource: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
"The mortality or death rate is the number of deaths in a population in a period with a particular disease as the underlying cause, such as an annual death rate per 100,000 population."--- "Any death rate calculation that is not based on the number of cases is not a real death rate calculation."Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/mortality-rate
"Death rate compares the average annual number of deaths during a year per 1,000 population at midyear; also known as crude death rate."
Source: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/death-rate/country-comparison/
This is incorrect. You cite the "case fatailty rate," and call it the "death rate." An "observed case-fatality ratio" is not a "death rate."
You prose indicates your stance: "a pseudo death rate." And yet...
"Mortality is another term for death. A mortality rate is the number of deaths due to a disease divided by the total population."I think our conversation is at an end. "Charlatan" and "pseudo" when flying in the face of sourced definitions is not a best strategy to convince.Source: https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/chronic/basicstat.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.