Posted on 03/14/2021 10:12:18 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man
if you dont read the link, heres the key points:
“This is an mRNA, packaged in a fat envelope, delivered to a cell. This is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator.”
“...under CDC and FDA standards, a vaccine specifically has to stimulate, both an immunity within the person receiving it but it also has to disrupt transmission. And that’s not what this is. They have been abundantly clear in saying that the mRNA strand going into the cell is not to stop transmission. It is a treatment.”
Whether its technically a vaccine or not is not so important. The issues that stop me from taking it are two fold. One, its a new technology. While it barrows from the traditional vaccines, its not the same. And it has not been tested like the old vaccines. Yes, they did test. But short term tests are not at all the same as testing a group for a year, three years and five years. There has been zero testing past a few months.
The second thing that nobody is talking about but is likely a cause of many problems and deaths, is quality control. The vaccine doses were created in the hundreds of millions by some factories that were built to create this special vaccine. Don’t tell me the quality control was perfect, first time out. Its likely the people who are having bad reactions to this virus have gotten a bad dose. Either how it was made or the handling along the way. Or even the person administering the shot. This manufacturing process is brand new. And it virtually impossible to do it without mistakes.
I assume this will be the most tested vaccine ever. And I am waiting for the guinea pigs to sort out who lives and who dies. So I can decide which vaccine to take, and if I will take any at all (most likely I will forego). But most importantly, I will not be taking a batch from this year. I will wait until the manufacturing process is regimented.
They are slow walking it. Which is really bad.
It should be approved in the next couple of weeks but more likely it will be months.
People who are watching this and want to chose are accessing repurpsed drug therapies based on HCQ or Ivermectin in case they contract the illness in the meanwhile, waiting for the Novavax.
Yes, the mRNA vaccine is a vaccine.
But why is it being called a ‘vaccine’ when I’ve seen Fauci and others quoted saying that the immunity may only last a year or so, so we’ll probably need yearly shots?
But when I got a smallpox ‘vaccination’, it was for life. The same goes for polio, mumps, measles, chickenpox, whooping cough, and all the rest. One and done.
But we’re supposed to get a seasonal flu ‘shot’ every year.
In fact, the ‘annual’ flu ‘shot’ normally has 3 or 4 strains of flu in it, whichever ones they think will be prevalent that year. And they’re often wrong, sometimes ending up with a shot that’s only 10% effective for the strains active that year. And only about half the US population gets one anyway.
So if the CoVid ‘vaccine’ is still going to be once a year, why is it called a ‘vaccine’ and not a ‘shot’?
What makes it a ‘vaccine’?
jonrick46,
Sadly, you’re intentionally wrong.
Since the Covid-19 virus was not available in isolated form when the gene therapies were developed (Covid-19 has still not been isolated), the therapies were designed to respond to viruses similar, but not the same as Covid-19.
For this reason, a person with the vaccine will develop different antibodies than a person who actually had Covid-19.
This is a problem - it means that there are unknowns that could potentially cause severe problems, like ADE. People may be triggered by other viruses to over produce this antibody. Far too much was unknown but hey, they can call it a vaccine and get protection from liability so what’s to stop them?
The Vaccine companies have defined their Covid-19 as gene therapies in their own marketing information. Fauci has stressed a tiny portion of the true nature of these gene therapies by explaining to the public that you’d still be able to transmit the virus to others, you’d still be able to get the illness yourself, but it’s hoped that the vaccine will reduce the severity of the disease.
So when are we to believe vaccine companies? When they tell us their latest product lacks the basic properties of vaccines, by definition as well as by their marketing, should we accuse them of lying and say those gene therapies really WILL stop transmission and infection?
Your description of how the gene therapies work is best case scenario when in fact VAERS is filling up with the consequences of forcing experimental gene therapies on the public.
It’s a shame, too, ‘cause you tried so hard to make it sound legitimate.
Many people are describing the Pfizer and Moderna shots as “gene therapy” rather than “vaccines”.
Can you tell me the difference between “gene therapy” and a “vaccine”?
On the surface, I feel like there is a significant difference and we are being tricked into believing they are the same thing when they are not.
Mandating a vaccine seems like a plausibly acceptable thing for a government to do. I am personally against it but it is within the realm of possibility.
Mandating gene therapy does not seem like something that anyone would support if they understood the ramifications.
Except that's not true. When the vaccines (and yes, they are vaccines) first came out the disclaimer was that they didn't know if they would stop transmission, not that they didn't stop transmission. To make a statement that they're confident they stop transmission requires months of data, data they didn't have at the time because the vaccines hadn't been out long enough. The Israelis have published data now showing the vaccines do in fact stop transmission, something that was pretty obvious but couldn't be claimed as fact before because the data wasn't there to yet. It's there now.
The anti-vaxxer bunch took the statement that "we don't know if it stops transmission" and started screaming "it's not a vaccine! It doesn't stop transmission!", both of which are complete horse$hit. As soon as someone makes either of those claims you know you're dealing with a loon.
Can you tell me the difference between “gene therapy” and a “vaccine”?
I don’t work for free. Neither do any of the other people working in this clinic. There are 5 RNs giving shots making $30-$40/hrs. There’s a salaried ER manager running everything that probably makes $60/hr when you do the math. There are two mid level managers running registration at ~$50/hr x2. There’s another person circulating among the vaccinated people monitoring for reactions, and providing refreshments, There’s a pharmacist drawing up the vaccine and controlling it at ~$60/hrs. The clinic lasts 4-5 hrs and the government pays us ~$28/shot. We typically vaccinate about 105-110 people. You do the math. One of the local state owned hospitals will probably quit giving vaccines because they’re losing money. I think we’re probably losing money too. They should have put me in charge of it all. We’d have made a fortune.
The one where every test animal died from an overactive immune response? IIRC, they had to stop the trials.
Ofcourse, that was 10-15 years ago, maybe they've learned some things since then. But, then again, maybe not.
I guess it's a question of, "do ya feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya?"
In other news, water is wet, etc.
= = =
Not according to CNN, etc.
bkmk
I quoted post #11
You also quoted post #11 but replied to my post #100?
Who are you really replying too?
So the results are not to be considered based on your political judgment.
The data are the data
True, but these Covid19 “vaccines” do NOT do what an actual vaccine does. The article I referenced explains that.
Free Republic appears to be chock full of “vaccine” advocates willing to throw every red herring and false narrative they can in order to take our eyes off the real issues. Whether these experimental products meet the definition of vaccines is not really the point.
These experimental products are only allowed to be used today through Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs), which fall short of full FDA approval as their long-term safety has not yet been assured. According to the law, these EUAs remain valid only as long as no other safe, effective medical alternative exists.
Well, there are proven, safe, effective medical alternatives already in existence and used throughout the world today (such as including ivermectin and the anti-malaria medication hydroxychloroquine). I would like to know why these effective medical alternatives are not acceptable in the U.S.?
I didn’t ask what they said, I asked a biology question. Why didn’t you answer it?
I talked to my ex-wife (ER Nurse) yesterday and she says the J&J looks the most promising for safety and efficacy. She will be taking the J&J traditional type vaccine, once available. She also said the Doctors she talks to about the various vaccines are also looking toward J&J.
Until the mRNA "vaccines" that were just rushed through, traditional vaccines contained a small amount of the virus to stimulate the immune system. They have worked for decades against so many viruses that have been pretty much eradicated. Someone listed them above. I'm leary of anything that can affect genetic makeup of cells.
See my post #119.
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.