Isn't it funny how the real science remains consistent over time, even though I use a variety of sources from the medical literature? This is one way in which people can tell whether they are getting information from the scientific community or from charlatans: charlatans change their story as needed to fit the narrative, and their claims are mostly not consistent with each other. For example, charlatans who began spreading misinformation before the WHO declared a pandemic claimed in the beginning that the physical measures used to control disease spread are dangerous and don't work and that the only sure way would be to get everyone vaccinated. Then, as soon as it looked like vaccines were about to be available, they did a big about-face and started talking about how dangerous and ineffective vaccines are.
You pharmas have to get your stories straight. WHen I posted a pubmed article from a doctor saying that the pharmas had not provided informed consent to their trial patients for the Covid 'vax', the trolls whinged that Pubmed lets any old yahoo post whatever they want. I knew they were lying, but I'm pointing to a lack of consistency in your pharma disinformation ranks.
Really? Where is this reference? Legally, a clinical trial in humans cannot be performed unless the volunteer participants have been fully briefed and signed forms indicating that they understand the purpose and the risks of the trial.
Also, "you pharmas"????? Lol. I have never worked for a pharmaceutical company. But, somehow, I'm a shill for them because I keep defending the science. I couldn't help but notice that you have accused me both of being consistent and of not having a straight story. Can't be both.
I'm wondering if you know the 'PMID' in the article of mine you cite is its PubMed identifier, because it's a PubMed article?
Um... the fact that I provided an analysis of the paper itself, an analysis that I could only perform by reading the original paper, should be a clue to you that I know what PMID is.
Seriously, would you, personally, be willing to take a prototype drug or drug combo based only on the results of a study of 30 mice, with no other animal or human testing? 'Scientists' and 'pharmas' were not deterred when the various species of animals tested with the mRNA platform (upon which Covid 'vaccines' are based) prior to Covid sickened and died, meaning the mRNA platform never made it to human trials until actively injected during a PCR-is-FAKE-TEST plandemic.
I'm sorry, but your claim that PCR is fake is an absolute giveaway that you have no clue about anything molecular biology. I've designed and performed thousands of PCR experiments--you have a pretty tough hill to climb to demonstrate adequately to me that PCR is fake.
As for the claims that mRNA is lethal to animals, yet the FDA allowed mRNA based drugs to proceed to human trials anyway--these claims are made to convince a target audience who knows nothing of science or of the regulatory environment that scientists have to work within. Do I need to repeat the story of how a single rabbit death halted our early drug development effort for six months until we could explain to the FDA's satisfaction that whatever killed the rabbit doesn't happen in humans?
That's a pathetically weak dodge. Lockdowns happened without a single mention of 'filtered' air; people were confronted if they didn't stay indoors or had limited access to outdoors. You just throw stuff against the wall and make up stupid deflections if questioned.
Was I talking about the lockdowns? I don't recall doing so. What I said was that the only surefire way to avoid exposure to a respiratory virus is to isolate indoors where the air is filtered. (HEPA filtration.) Staying indoors where unfiltered/unsanitized air enters from the outside won't stop virus transmission.
False, Sherlock. Science doesn't work that way. Science doesn't say, "well the experimental vaccine tested for a few weeks must work so therefore this is proof the patient's immune system is defective here."
How do you know how science works? Have you ever developed a hypothesis and designed an experiment to test it? I don't think so.
What I said was a general statement of ALL vaccines. No vaccine in existence can restore immune function to someone who doesn't have it. Remember, Colin Powell was fully vaccinated against Covid but it did nothing since his immune system was completely destroyed by his cancer and the treatment. All vaccines vary in efficacy because people's immune systems are variable. The antivax trope that a vaccine isn't "real" unless it protects everyone 100% from catching the disease places an unrealistically high expectation on vaccines. No drug works the same way in everyone. You take oxycodone and your pain goes away. I take oxycodone and get a horrible headache. Different people. Different responses.
The CDC became aware that the public was getting reinfections and hurriedly changed the definition of 'vaccine' online (seriously) to mean vaccines 'help' you not become as ill.
That's just a reiteration of the antivax trope that all vaccines should be 100% effective in 100% of recipients. I suspect it came directly from an antivax site, and is meant for consumption by people who understand nothing of immunology or infectious disease. What is a definition, anyway? It's just words. Revising the words to better explain the biological process of immunity does not constitute a change in how the immune system functions when exposed to a vaccine. When I describe a vaccine, I do not use or care about definitions. I do my best to explain the biological process. I have said it before: most vaccines do not contain pieces of pathogens at all. Most vaccines are made for the purpose of stimulating antibody production against a variety of proteins, since antibodies have many uses in research. The vast majority of vaccines are not intended for medical use.
The Covid 'vax' training program is based on failed toxic logic. The spike protein 'trains' the body to attack spike proteins which are distributed throughout the body of a vaxxed person. Then some patients experience autoimmune illnesses as a result of the body attacking spikes on vital organ tissues.
Oh my goodness. This is a pure antivax lie. Spike protein is a viral protein. Mammals do not produce it unless the mRNA for it is present. The mRNA encoding spike can only be present if a person has been recently vaccinated or has an active Covid infection. mRNA itself has a half-life of hours; spike mRNA is no different.
Moderna said the mRNA PLATFORM was gene therapy in its quarterly report here:
So, a lawyer's interpretation of the FDA regulations now means that the FDA considers mRNA a "gene therapy", despite the fact that mRNA does not interact with DNA or even enter the cellular compartments where the DNA is stored. Nope, that's not how it works.
Here is the FDA's definition of gene therapy: What is Gene Therapy? And a list of gene therapies: Approved Cellular and Gene Therapy Products. Do you see any vaccine listed among those products?
Finally, the FDA has a body of regulations on gene therapy. Cellular & Gene Therapy Guidances
I'll leave it up to you to peruse the various regulations and learn what a gene therapy actually is. Hint: a gene therapy uses DNA, not RNA.
We understand they are different and have different properties.
If you understand that DNA and RNA are different, with different chemical properties and different functions, then why do you keep talking about mRNA as if it somehow affects DNA? If you really understood that difference, you would never say such a thing.
HINT - the laboratory confirmed means nothing since the PCR assay was not based on the actual Covid virus, but on a 'related corona virus'. WHo knows what your 'patient' actually had, if anything.
Again, the demonstration of complete lack of understanding of what PCR is and how it functions.
You don't need a virus to develop a PCR assay against it. You only need its sequence. There are thousands of SARS-CoV-2 sequences available. As I said above, I've designed hundreds of PCR assays. Never, in the process of designing one of those assays, did I use any biological material. In fact, I designed all of my PCR experiments using computers. No biological material is used until after the experiment is designed and all reagents and primers ordered. At that point, the use of the PCR is to determine whether the target nucleic acid is present in the sample. PCR is one of the most specific and sensitive assays in existence.
May I respectfully suggest that if you truly want to debunk me, stick with the original regulatory or scientific sources. I don't want to read screeds lifted from antivax sites.
You may not have been around for the Daily Expose article that claimed that the Covid virus doesn’t exist at all. Some antivax genius posted that article here. I wonder who it was.
The illness and deaths, you see, resulted from “fake vaccines” that were secretly administered to everyone before “the Plandemic” began.
This may have been peak conspiracy idiocy from a source that never disappoints. And don’t ask how “fake vaccines” were given to everyone before 2020 without anyone remembering a mass vaccination event. Don’t question the story!
The Daily Expose is put out by a bunch of English poseurs, and this particular fantasy reads like the ravings of David Icke, who also believes in interdimensional lizard people. Not kidding.
Donald Trump, btw, still believes in the efficacy of the Covid vaccines. Trump, vs the Gnostic Lizard People of The Daily Expose.
I didn’t read your latest screed because your prior screed was distorted, ignorant retread arguments you’ve used over and over again.
I think you’re either getting paid by the word, so recycling is cost effective, and/or you are running a distraction campaign - soaking up people’s time to draw attention from other hot topics. What is it you are distracting from? Nah, don’t answer- it would just be more of your retread distortions.