[silverleaf]

It’s both the Spike Protein AND the lipid used to deliver it to your cells.

BOTH are toxic.
With natural covid you just get the spikes.
BTW I read in autopsies they can distinguish between spikes from covid and spikes made by your own cells at the direction of the vaxx insertion

Here’s a bad science article on the “ safety and efficacy” of the vaxx written by idiots several years ago and published in a “ distinguished” medical journal.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

“BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. “

[grey_whiskers]

Too busy at work right at the moment, but I'll have to read it later. Also, there was a NEJM article on one of the 'safety and efficacy trial's on one of the jabs, published in NEJM, which used... *eight* (wait for it) mice.

So naturally, we know that the safety and efficacy of the jabs has been established beyond the possibility of question for all time, because

and

Smurter Then You™

Oh, wait, Dingbat here is Science-Gurl™©® Not a man.

Because she had "physics, biology, several kinds of chemistry,and calculus "

Dingbat.

[grey_whiskers]

CONCLUSIONS A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728. opens in new tab.)

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?

Dingbat Theme Song

Can someone dig up the discussion that showed Pfizer screwed up the calculations of relative risk vs. absolute risk reduction?