Posted on 02/07/2021 1:32:14 AM PST by RandFan
DR. WAKEFIELD WARNS : ”THIS IS NOT A VAX, IT IS IRREVERSIBLE GENETIC MODIFICATION”
Video..
(Excerpt) Read more at bitchute.com ...
Sort of. The monoclonal antibodies are directed antibodies against the virus. It’s called passive immunity. They will fade away usually in about 90 days. The real kicker question then is fo you have immunity from the disease. The monoclonal are shown to stop progression to severe disease and death
If I had the monoclonal treatment I would get vaccinated 90 days after treatment as it would make some logical sense that infusing passive immunity would reduce natural immunity through a negative feedback loop and possibly that the neutralization and reduction of viral load would also likely blunt immune response.
Exactly. Because people like you and I challenge the narrative and the so called facts we are branded Anti-Vaxxers. I want the truth and more information and if I have read people who write blogs that are investigating these vaccines then I will.
So to get This straight you are asked for evidence and say there is plenty of evidence but won’t provide it. You are aware of the concept of a circular argument?
It’s fine to base your opinion on a blog. But this is neither fact nor evidence. But thank you for pointing out that you are happy to stake your position on unverified opinion on the internet
bkmk
So the body does not learn (T cells) to fight off the virus if it is infused with the directed stuff? My understanding is that it reduces viral load to where the body is able to successfully fight off the virus and in doing so acquire T cells for the virus. Isnt that massive immune response what kills most? Wouldnt that response produce loads of T cells? Is this wrong?
I mean it should be easy to check for T cells in some of these patients would it not be, or are the T cells hard to check for? No matter how hard this info is needed.
Actually it’s hard to find T cells programmed for certain memory. As I said the theory would suggest passive immunity conferred would reduce active immunity. There is no great answer or study. So in my judgment if I had the passive antibody If it were me I would be vaccinated at 90 days. If I had the disease and no monoclonal antibodies I would be inclined to not be vaccinated.
When called on it by another physician you fail to demonstrate any knowledge or credential to validate your opinion.
That is simply a flat out lie. More vague, non-specific broad brushed noise.
They made several claims. To one I posted CDC statistics. One I rebutted with current clinical studies that made the NIH change their recommendation. Do you too claim that treatment X is effective or not, just because a few of your patients claim to have taken it, with out you knowing the amount, the frequency, the duration, other special factors that might have worked against it's effectiveness? That is what I called out. Junk medical conclusions on effectiveness that would get laughed at.
Well reasoned and well stated. I agree with your assessment 100%.
The Wuhan Coronavirus has been a political football since very early on. Democrats used it as an assault on our freedoms, logic, nursing homes, PDJT, and ultimately for their own power. . I put no faith in what is being reported in the media, NIH, CDC, and others. My internal logic results in thinking the same way you do.
And yet you still haven’t shared your clinical credentials. You also make several untrue assumptions. The number patients I have treated with both regiments I have a count. The overall efficacy is poor and the subject pool is statistically significant. The reason I know you have no scientific training is because you base your flawed theory on incorrect assumptions that you post as fact.
You repeat talking points that are incorrect. You don’t discern between valid evidence and what you want to be the truth.
It’s ok. You have been asked several times and your avoidance of the answer speaks quite loudly on its face
So to get This straight you are asked for evidence and say there is plenty of evidence but won’t provide it. You are aware of the concept of a circular argument?
*********************************
You didn’t ask me for evidence. I already said that I don’t care what you believe. I only care that you want to prosecute people that have a different opinion than you. That WAS my argument.
Plus, there is enough evidence if you really care to read it. However, it does take a little work, because the government and social media work hard to block anything that isn’t pro vaccination. Although, that really should be your first red flag.
It’s amazing to me that you don’t see the parallel of your talk with everything that they are doing to conservatives, and anyone that questions the covid.
They say we are dangerous, we need to be banned, we promote conspiracy theories, we need re education, and if that doesn’t work... lock us up.
It doesn’t seem that way to me, either. It’s a bit of modified viral RNA that tricks some of your cells into producing a spike protein, which the body perceives as foreign, provoking the eventual immune response, as far as I know.
Hopefully, I have that right.
“’Tis but the flu, brother.” — George Washington
I didn’t ask for evidence bjr someone else did and your answer was you didn’t care to share it. Most of the time what this represents is someone who is repeating talking points and doesn’t understand the evidence. All evidence has pros and cons to the interpretation which allows a judgment. Obviously you blindly follow evidence you like while excluding evidence toj don’t like and base your statements on what you hope to be true. When someone asks for evidence they are generally trying to get a feeling of why you think what you think. Your statement I don’t care what anyone thinks and you can look it up is a surprisingly shallow statement and demonstrates a position that is settled in your mind. Most people who think scientifically are always open to challenges and refining of their position based on evidence and intellectual curiosity.
You offer none of the former and surprisingly little of the latter pivoting to paranoid attacks instead of answering a simple question. It tells quite a story.
Evidently your much vaunted credentials are not in reading comprehension. A basic reading lesson for you... When I say "Do you too claim", I am not stating you did claimed anything. So what wrong assumption did I make? Answer: NONE.
You repeat talking points that are incorrect. You don’t discern between valid evidence and what you want to be the truth.
More vague broad brushed garbage with no specifics. We seem to not understand what the word "specific" means. Either that or you can't refute with specifics and so the desperate clinging to vagueness time and time again.
You truly drink the Kool Ade by the barrel don’t you?
kara37 wrote: “There is a ton of facts and evidence. Although, I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince you. Especially, since you never had any intellectual curiosity to read anything other than statements from the government, or studies paid by the government .”
I’m willing to read most any credible source. Wakefield isn’t a credible source. Nor are AFLDs.
kara37 wrote: “Except, when you start calling for the prosecution of non believers.”
When did I call for prosecution of ‘non-believers’. And what are ‘non-believers’? lAnd that raises the question, if tghe are ‘non-believers’, then there must be ‘believers’. Who are the ‘believers’? =Is that like some kind of cult?
Sorry you’re right. I only read your initial post and replied to that. As for your follow up questions, I’m probably not the best person to ask. I’m a chemist with some knowledge of biochemistry, so while I understand the protein synthesis mechanism pretty well, more technical issues surrounding the vaccine are not within my realm of expertise.
With that disclaimer , my understanding is that it is only the spike protein that is encoded by the vaccine mRNA. Whether it’s 109% accurate or not, I am not sure. It’s accurate enough to elicit immune response that is effective against the virus, as shown in the clinical trials.
As for the composition of the vaccine, I believe it’s the mRNA, preservatives, and lipid nanoparticles designed to facilitate transfer of the mRNA through the cell membrane. There may be other ingredients; I truly don’t know.
I truly can’t even venture a guess on your third question; I have no idea what the infection mechanism of the virus is, nor any knowledge of what differences are present in the variant forms of the virus.
Antibodies typically are mostly harmless to human tissue. There are some with autoimmune disorders for whom this is untrue. Again this is far outside of my expertise, but the effects you mention on sperm counts and motility were among men infected by the virus. There’s no reason to think that whatever effects turn out to be confirmed were caused by or related to antibodies rather than effect of the viral infection. If it’s infection rather than antibodies causing the effects, then vaccination would tend to reduce the prevalence of them.
Again, though I’m certainly not the best person to ask about this, and I’ll gladly defer to any of the medical professionals who have already been posting on this thread if they have different/better answers.
Project much?
Care to say something more specific? What is the kool aid and what have I said that is untrue?
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.