The perils of autocorrect, as someone posted on another forum online...
Posted on 11/04/2023 1:36:46 AM PDT by RandFan
“We’re seeing a disturbing continued trend of cardiac arrests in people who have taken the vaccine,” reported world-renowned cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough Friday.
“Now we have data from Nakahara in a human cardiac PET study showing that positron emission tomography scans of the heart change in almost everybody who took the shot, at least for six months or longer, where the heart’s metabolism changes.”
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Well done!
Some of them, not all.
The lab virus does not have a lipid nanoparticles (those are the little bubbles of "oil" as it were, that some of the jabs have (such as Pfizer) to carry the chemically modified mRNA through the body until it attached to a cell).
Those nanoparticles, I've read, were a cast-iron bitch to design so they worked, and induce side effects all on their own.
The lab virus doesn't have that.
Instead, the lab virus normally enters through your nose (or sometimes, the mucus membranes in your eyes, yuck). The point there, is that it doesn't immediately get into the blood stream and/or lymph nodes, and get immediate access to you vasculature (and therefore, a free trip through the heart -- do not pass go, do not collect $200, and all that).
Major Houlihan here will be sure to correct me if I'm wrong, if Major Burns will leave her alone, but I'm almost sure I read in Tiger Best or Newsweek or some other top scientific journal at the top end of my reading comprehension, that the lab virus is primarily infective to the deep respiratory tract: down 👇 in the lobes if the lungs, not just your sinuses. Down where the alveoli perform gas exchange with the bloodstream, do that when a cell gets infected with the virus, and ends up exploding with lots of little baby viruses, those get right into he blood. It's one of the reasons the sickest Covid-1984 patients throw blood clots, such as DVTs(*). Of course, there's always the confounding variable(**) of bed rest: people with knee or hip replacements get lots of DVTs, maybe just from the bed rest, like very sick Covid-1984 patients are on, so you can't always be sure.
(*) DVT=="Deep vein thrombosis," a blood clot in the lower legs. Look, a real medical/scientific term, just like real doctors use!
(**) look, another one!
You have no idea what young women who work at convenience stores have to put up with. It seems like half the male customers think that the clerk is just waiting for Prince Charming to sweep her off her feet. That particular incident was one of the more memorable ones. Think about that the next time you go to a convenience store and the clerk is a young female. She's probably putting up with a lot of harassment.
And you're in the medical field, too.
Not everyone wanting a medical education is lucky enough to be born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Some of us come from poor families and have to fight every step of the way to get that education. So, yeah, I have quite the varied work history before I managed to get my college education.
😢😂
Good explanation. When it was so bad, I made a habit of using a Neti Pot with the usual salt mixture, boiled water, and I added a few drops of the Betadine antiseptic solution when I got home from town or had been around people. I also did the monthly IVM protocol, especially if I had to be in crowds in the cold months.
When my husband was in the hospital a year ago with clots in one lung, they kept asking if he had been vaxed. He kept telling them no. One day I was sitting in the corner when the doctor asked him again. The doctor didn’t see me in the corner, and it wasn’t visiting hours. He told the doctor no, again. The doctor looked at the nurse and said, “I guess we’ll have to look elsewhere for the source of the clots.” That told me all I needed to know.
I never had to worry about lying in bed too long and DVT’s. My husband needs 24/7 care and I have dogs. LOL
Thank you, Major Houlihan.
I’m beginning to see where your overcompensation comes from.
Dingbat.
And Rochelle Walensky, head of the CDC, is an MPH.
And they know how to run a large organization, which is a skill not taught in veterinary or MPH school. They know how to find the right people for the job, plus they do have some relevant expertise. Rachel Walensky is an internal medicine doc whose undergraduate degree major was biochemistry and molecular biology and who has an MPH in "clinical effectiveness." Albert Bourla has a DVM and his doctorate (PhD) in the biotechnology of reproduction shows that he has a strong research-oriented background. Not only do both of these people have education and experience in areas that are directly relevant to the work of their respective organizations, they have a lot of very intelligent people who are experts in their fields who report to them.
The point I was trying to make is that when someone uses their credentials to pass themselves off as an expert on a topic in which they have no demonstrated education or experience, they are probably trying to scam you. This is certainly the case with Peter McCullough.
Peter McCullough is not an infectious disease expert. He is a cardiologist. I would expect him to be able to speak knowledgeably on heart damage caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection (and he has published on that subject). Having an MPH (degree major not mentioned) qualifies him to work with public health experts, but, again, that is not the qualification needed to expertly discuss the immune response following vaccination or to discuss the pre-clinical and clinical research process and study results during vaccine R&D. That is a completely different skill set. What he is doing is using his degrees and experience in a different field to pass himself off as an expert in an unrelated field.
Rochelle Walensky, Albert Bourla, Peter A. McCullough.
You will notice that (unlike McCullough) I never claim expertise in subjects outside of my area of expertise. I do not claim any particular expertise in neurology, nephrology, ophthalmology, etc., nor do I claim any ability to diagnose or treat disease. That's because I didn't study those fields. I studied biochemistry and molecular biology, and my career was focused on aspects of infectious disease countermeasures development. So this is what I discuss.
I must be wrong or something, because SCIENCE™!
Why do you distrust science so much? I sense that you do not understand the scientific process and you do not have even a high school level of understanding of science. Still, that can be said of most people, but most people are at least able to recognize expertise and tell the difference between a real expert (like Paul Offit) and a scammer (like Barbara Loe Fisher who founded the antivax scam organization National Vaccine Information Center).
Do you even sense the irony in rejecting everything the scientific community has to say about vaccines, while claiming that Peter McCullough and his ilk are giving you the scientific "truth"?
FReepmail.
A book by RFK Jr. is not a credible scientific source.
We know why there have been excess deaths starting early in 2020 and continuing to this day. We’re having a pandemic of a particularly deadly and harmful pathogen. You don’t need conspiracy theories to explain why people are dying during a pandemic.
This reads like either an undergraduate lab project or an advertisement for Pfizer.
I'm going to have to reconsider my respect for NEJM as a real journal.
95%? Where have I heard that before?
Can someone dig up the discussion that showed Pfizer screwed up the calculations of relative risk vs. absolute risk reduction?
"Treatment and vaccine efficacy in clinical trials are often reported in the media and medical journals as the relative risk reduction. The present article explains why the relative risk reduction is a misinformative measure that promotes disinformation when reporting efficacy in clinical research studies such as randomized controlled trials for COVID-19 vaccines."
nig.gov !!
Why, that’s all science and stuff.
Don’t yaw’ll be getting too big for your britches.
Try Newsweek. That’s all you’re uneducated minds can handle.
Srsly, stop it. Y’all are not a horse.
The real question is how long does the MRNA instruction in the vaccine last after the final injection is given. An real evidence out there?
NIH, not NIG.
Stupid keyboard.
I wasn’t implying the Nigerian national soccer team.
That’s one of several questions.
Dingbat here said several hours at most, but that’s natural mRNA.
Some pro-jab “we’re doctors but you’re not, you ignorant peon” sites say “within a few days”.
But since they lie, that means a few days is the shortest length of time they think they can get away with saying.
I don't remember you specifically repeating that claim, but I've seen it plenty of times. That claim, which consists of semantic word-play by professional antivaxxers does not change the scientific understanding of what a vaccine is or how the immune system adaptive response occurs.
The professional antivax working definition of a vaccine seems to be that it is a magical shield which completely protects everyone who receives it from getting sick with a vaccine-preventable disease. Professional antivaxxers imply that the vaccine is a substance which stays in the body forever (or at least for years) providing protection, and that if it doesn't completely protect everyone, it isn't a vaccine.
However , the professional antivax characterization of a vaccine does not match reality at all.
In reality, a vaccine is a vehicle to deliver an antigen in order to produce a specific adaptive immune response. An antigen is any protein that provokes the immune response. The result of the immune system activation is the maturation of T-cells and B-cells that recognize the antigen. The B-cells, in turn, make antibodies that attach to the antigen. The antigen itself does not remain in the body for more than a few days.
The adaptive immune response is just that: the production of antigen-specific T-cells, B-cells and antibodies.
No amount of word-play and obfuscation by professional antivaxxers can change what an immune response is.
The antigen in a vaccine doesn't have to come from a pathogen at all. The vast majority of vaccines are used to cause animals to make antibodies. Antibodies have many different uses in research. A subset of vaccines cause animals to make antibodies for medical or diagnostic use. Another subset of vaccines are intended to make humans (or domestic animals) make antibodies. While most vaccines used in humans or domestical animals are used to cause them to make antibodies against pathogens, some (still in research, I don't think any have attained FDA approval yet) are intended to cause humans to make antibodies against proteins that are prevalent on cancer cells.
The reason a vaccine against, for example, measles "works" is that it causes the body to make T-cells, B-cells, and antibodies against measles proteins. Later, if measles viruses enter the respiratory passages of the vaccinees, the antibodies attach to proteins on the outside of the measles virus. This both inhibits the virus's ability to attach to and enter cells. The antibodies also target the virus for destruction by other immune cells. Depending on how well the immune system responded to the initial exposure to the antigen from vaccination, the vaccinee's immune system will clear out the viruses without the person ever being aware that they inhaled virus particles.
Immunology textbook: Immunology: A Short Course, 8th Edition.
Overview of some uses of antibodies in research: Immunological Techniques in Research and Clinical Medicine.
Not as much Marxist, Orwellian Newspeak covering for corruption.
And then compare to the definitions given after Pfauci took over.
Obvious lie is obvious: given the obvious changes, you know, from dead or attenuated virus, or pieces thereof, to an LNP enclosing synthetic mRNA.
And, you know, given the specious promises given by PFauci et al at the start of the scamdemic.
And Pfizer's hiding the pitch to their investors about continuing revenue streams.
Nice chatting with you Dingbat.
Thanks for ducking the questions about the 16-subject, 2-month long trial SPONSORED BY PFIZER in the New England Journal of Graft, I mean, Medicine.
Dingbat.
The perils of autocorrect, as someone posted on another forum online...
I never heard of either of them.
So they cannot have formed any element of my opinion.
It's nice playing logical fallacy with you on seemingly every single post of yours, Dingbat.
In this last post, "pin-the-{nonexistent}-fail-on-the-strawman".
Just cause something is published -- and yes, even if it has passed the sacred ritual of PEER-REVIEW! -- is not enough to make it true, accurate, honest, or reliable.
Did you ever dig up the link to the Harvard Cardiologist who got thrown out on his ear?
Dingbat.
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.