~~~~~~~~~~~~
Article on the web:
Monkey Data Support Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine | MedPage Today
Same article I posted on FR, medpagetoday.com (freerepublic.com)
mRNA 'vaccines' a terrible experimental history in which they never made it past animal trials until Covid-19. In prior mRNA research 2005 and 2012, all cats injected with a platform mRNA 'vaccine' developed antibodies. When exposed to the virus, all cats died. The ability to trigger anti-body production is not sufficient to calls something a 'vaccine' since pathogens also trigger that response.
mRNA never succeeded as HIV, Hep C or other Corona virus vaccines. That's why the mRNA technology has never been FDA approved; it failed.
There have been mRNA mouse studies - they exposed the mice to SARS-1 and then sacrificed (killed) the mice to examine their lungs. Despite 'vaccination', the mice had infected lungs.
SO these 'monkey' trials are cited as proof that the experimental Covid-19 'vaccine' is finally proving mRNA technology is safe for humans and works to protect against Covid-19. There's just so much wrong with this assertion, where to begin....
8 Rhesus macaques were given a high dose of the 'vaccine' and 8 were given a low dose of the 'vaccine'. The vaccine developers chose one of the dose levels to move forward with, meaning 8 macaques are standing in for the safety of the entire world's popuation if they used the same dose on humans, but why would they? So the macqaque study is irrelevant and all involved knew it.
8 subjects of any speciies is statistically inadquate sampling. Even if that had been tried on 8 unfortunate humans at each dose, and then used that dose on people, humans have too many variations in their response to drugs/'vaccines' etc. to make any claim that '8 is enough.'
Further, Covid-19 is not available as an isolated sample (also here and here) which would be required to test exposure to it, right? They used a slurry they 'think' has Covid-19 in it but they don't know as theirs contains a mixture which is likely one or more straings of influenza and a variety of other materials.
Moreover, the 'test' for Covid-19 does not detect the presence of what researchers claim is the Covid-19 virus (see same 3 links in above paragraph). So it's unknown whether or not the animals had or did not have what the researchers claim is Covid-19 because they weren't testing for it. They could observe symptoms of influenza or other, but wouldn't know what it was. They could have tested for the flu, but given theirs is not mere incompetence, but is instead the weaponization of science against the public, I don't believe they would.
So the macaques were exposed to some version or other of Corona virus or maybe none at all. It turns out rhesus macacques never really become severely ill from SARS-1; their symptoms are mild and they recover completely. That's why they chose this type of primate. If SARS-1 was present in their slurry, it may be that 2 days is not long enough for the animals to display symptoms.
So you have researchers using a fake PCR 'test' and an unidentified slurry they claim, but can't prove, conatains at least 'some' Covid-19 - do you see the problem here. They are lying. The vaccines are China's biowarfare so I'm not surprised they claim their tiny little sample of macaques did well for TWO WHOLE DAYS following infection! That's right! When known adverse effects usually settle in at the 3 to 6 month mark, the Moderna team tested the macaques 2 days after exposure to the sludge sample and declared it a success.
For more about the inadequate trials for the mRNA's now being Phase III tested on the world, click the link: