Posted on 05/12/2024 3:50:42 AM PDT by Libloather
I was told by medical professionals (Docs & nurses) that aside from the dementia she has Parkinson's type symptoms. It was not a Parkinson's diagnosis. Two of three said it was most likely a vaxx reaction. One would not render an opinion.
Two of three docs, that is. Including her GP and a neurologist. The third was not willing to render an opinion.
Oh please! 200 years. This is an mRNA creation not a ‘live virus’ compilation it wasn’t even a vaccine until the CDC had to change the definition of a ‘vaccine’ for cripes sake. Stop drinking their water.
Neurological diseases develop over a period of time.
Degenerative neurological diseases have never, to my knowledge, been associated with vaccines. Adverse events following vaccination are caused by the immune system, not the vaccine.
You said that your wife had Covid multiple times. Why wouldn’t an active virus infection, in which the virus settles into and physically damages multiple tissues, be orders of magnitude more dangerous than a vaccine that only contains a fragment of a virus? How do we know that her neurological damage did not arise from the SARS-CoV-2 infections, since Covid is documented to cause neurological damage?
The first vaccine was rolled out in 1796. That was over 200 years ago. And we have continued to research vaccines ever since.
The first antivax propaganda started appearing in the early 1800s, over 200 years ago. And many of the claims are still being used in antivax propaganda today.
The fact that the vaccine is only a single mRNA molecule from the virus and not a whole virus means that the vaccine cannot do anything that an actual intact virus can do. Because it takes a whole virus to take over a cell. A single mRNA type can’t do that.
And why should I care about CDC updating the definition of vaccine to better encompass what a vaccine actually is? I’m a scientist. In my work, the majority of vaccines are not used to protect against pathogens at all. They are used to generate antibodies for use in research. A vaccine is simply an antigen which stimulates the immune system to produce T-cells, B-cells, and antibodies. This is exactly what the Covid vaccine does, ergo, it is a real vaccine.
mRNAs weren’t invented until the 1960s and it took a decade to figure out how to introduce it to cells. It is NOT a vaccine or at least a classical one until the CDC to lie about it. You can keep your Covid cult information it’s nothing g but sham government BS AFAIC.
No, no, and no.
You should have learned about mRNA in high school biology class. mRNA is an essential component of every living organism and every virus (viruses are not alive). Without mRNA, life is impossible. mRNA is the carrier of instructions coded in the DNA to make the proteins that do all of the work and provide physical structure to the cell.
In the area of vaccine technology and, indeed, in all of molecular biology, all we humans can do is harness for our own use what already exists.
FYI, when you are infected with a virus, it takes over your cells and forces them to make mRNA. If mRNA is so dangerous, then why didn't the abundant virus mRNA spread throughout your body kill you the first time you ever caught a virus?
You are entitled to your version of mRNAs but you are not entitled to your personalized version of the FACTS.
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/the-long-history-of-mrna-vaccines
The reinfections were AFTER the neurological problems. She was fine after the recovery from the November '20 infection, until she got the jab and the boosters. Within ten days of the third jab the problems commenced.
You appear to be of the opinion that it is not possible for the vaxx to cause these problems. But this is not a vaccine in the traditional sense- a sample of the virus weakened or killed to get the immune system to ramp up and fight it.
My “personalized version of the FACTS” is simply a recount of the science.
What you linked to was an incredibly simplified story of mRNA vaccine development.
Scientists did not invent mRNA. It would be impossible for scientists to invent something that has the central role that mRNA does in maintaining biological functions. We can’t invent life. We can only copy its processes. This is exactly what we did to make mRNA vaccines—use already existing biological mechanisms for our own purposes. It’s no different than using fire for our own purposes. We didn’t invent fire, but we came up with ways to use it.
Sorry if my scientific explanations are too technical. I try to make them as accessible to laypeople as possible.
Sorry if you think a Johns Hopkins story about the long history of mRNA and its development/use is a little to ‘simple’ for me, a poor layman to understand. All I know is that deaths ‘due to Covid as a not-tested diagnosis’ reached about 169 in my county. They were not able to pump up those numbers until the brilliant idea of ‘cases’ came along. The truth is there was no mass deaths or hospitalizations, no overcrowded beds or a line of morgue wagons going in and out of the hospital. It just did not happen.
I will try to be as diplomatic as possible.
When people post anecdotal stories of a major medical condition that was diagnosed right after vaccination, and that medical condition is not associated with immune system function, I am highly skeptical.
Immune system function has been studied for over 200 years, since the first vaccine became available. By now, infectious disease and immunology specialists have a pretty good idea of what kinds of side effects occur following immune system challenge with an immunogen.
I have read several anecdotal stories which are frankly unbelievable. And I will not say more on this subject.
Guess what.
Some of the side effects are claimed to be due the biochemical or physiological processes distinct from "the immune system": which is itself a pretty nebulous term.
E.g. NLPs introducing the mRNA to cells which don't express the ACE2 receptor and thus were never envisaged as being a target if the jabs.
Or the zeta potential of the NLPs.
Secondly, in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, they're not.
Are the spike proteins whose construction within the cell, simple enough that they will assume the physiologically active, desired conformation, solely br virtue of the amino acid sequence called for by the mRNA? Or do they require helper proteins to reach the "real" 3D structure?
Has anyone looked into that?
Or, for that matter, frame shifting based on ghe modified mRNA?
(You Vax trolls don't even have the ghost of a hint of a putative mechanism for the bold clots and myocarditis following the jabs, because to be honest about them would give the whole game away.)
The problem is that you are writing at a 6th grade level for people you take to be bewildered breeland peasants: to the point that you think people can't read and comprehend outside of their formal training: e.g. the CEO of Pfizer is a veterinarian, the CEO of Moderna was a Chem Engineer, and Francis Collins had a PhD in physical chemistry. And if they can do it, other people can too.
But you are projecting your own ineptitude and ignorance when you imply that only those with a formal degree in a field are capable of understanding it.
And you ignore the fact that anyone who had a loved one drop dead or get turbo cancers after the clot shots, is not going to be assuage by your kind loftily dismissing them as kooks or hysterically imagining things because they JUST. DON'T. UNDERSTAND. SCIENCE.TM
Troll...!
Remember that university STEM textbook reading list I provided you a while back (with helpful links to their Amazon.com listings)?
E.g. NLPs introducing the mRNA to cells which don't express the ACE2 receptor and thus were never envisaged as being a target if the jabs.
Well, perhaps if you would start studying those books, you would understand why natural language processing--for which "NLP" is an acronym--doesn't have a biological function.
Maybe you were trying to abbreviate "nanolipid particles." The actual term is "lipid nanoparticles" and it does not have an acronym, if this Nature review article is any clue: Lasting impact of lipid nanoparticles. Not that you would know it, but when scientists use scientific terms that have an acronym, they spell out the term the first time it appears in the manuscript, then use the acronym for the rest of the article.
It literally is irrelevant that the vaccine nanoparticles are not endocytosed by cells that express the ACE2 receptor. ACE2 receptor binding with subsequent endocytosis is necessary for the virus to establish an infection. But it is not needed for the functions of antigen presenting cells that mediate the adaptive immune response.
The vaccine was *always* intended to be analyzed by immune system cells. No one ever designed the vaccine to target the cells that are targeted by viruses. The purpose of a vaccine is not to mimic the activity of a pathogen on the body; it is to cause the immune system to respond as if there were a pathogen present.
Are the spike proteins whose construction within the cell, simple enough that they will assume the physiologically active, desired conformation, solely br virtue of the amino acid sequence called for by the mRNA? Or do they require helper proteins to reach the "real" 3D structure?
Whatever host proteins within the endoplasmic reticulum assist the wild-type spike protein to fold correctly during infection will also help the vaccine spike protein fold correctly. Typically, the endoplasmic reticulum is the site of considerable protein modification, such as glycosylation, ubiquitination, methylation, etc. In order for the immune system to properly learn to recognize the spike protein, the vaccine spike must be naturally modified in the same way as the virus spike. If these modifications do not happen, then the immune system will not produce antibodies that recognize the spike on the surface of a virus because the protein they are targeting does not have the physicochemical properties of the wild-type spike.
Or, for that matter, frame shifting based on ghe modified mRNA?
I'm not sure what "ghe modified mRNA" is. But the effect of frame-shifts is usually to cause the production of short non-functional proteins (which are quickly destroyed) or to prevent protein synthesis at all. It is possible that there are some frame-shifted mRNAs in the vaccine, due to natural errors that occur during the process of translation (making an RNA copy of a sequence from the genome). But they won't have an effect. The ribosome can also shift during translation, leading to the production of altered proteins. Frame shifts happen quite frequently; this is why organisms have evolved mechanisms to identify and destroy incorrect proteins. There are, of course, no intentional frame-shift mutations in the mRNA, since the purpose of the mRNA is to function like the virus mRNA.
Vax trolls don't even have the ghost of a hint of a putative mechanism for the bold clots and myocarditis following the jabs
The blood clots were associated with the adenovirus-based vaccines, the AstraZeneca and the Johnson & Johnson, both of which have been pulled from market. The risk of blood clots from either of those vaccines was low, but still high enough above the background rate of blood clots for there to be concerns about vaccine safety. I suspect that since the blood clots were only observed following vaccination with the adenovirus vectors, the issue was due to the adenovirus backbone, not the DNA copy of the spike gene that had been inserted into the adenovirus.
As for the myocarditis, it is immune-mediated. Most often, it is triggered by infections, but it can also be triggered by other inflammatory processes. (Inflammation is an immune system function.) Here is a review on the current (as of 2020) understanding of myocarditis:
Myocarditis and inflammatory cardiomyopathy: current evidence and future directions.
Basically, if a pathogen can cause a condition like myocarditis, there is a small possibility that the vaccine against that pathogen will trigger myocarditis. This is because the immune response to a vaccine is so similar to the immune response to a pathogen.
The problem is that you are writing at a 6th grade level for people you take to be bewildered breeland peasants: to the point that you think people can't read and comprehend outside of their formal training: e.g. the CEO of Pfizer is a veterinarian, the CEO of Moderna was a Chem Engineer, and Francis Collins had a PhD in physical chemistry.
First of all, you yourself have complained that the scientific/medical research articles I have posted in the past were gibberish. After that complaint, do you really think I'm going to provide you the same highly technical descriptions I would give to people who hold PhDs in STEM fields similar to my major? No, writing at a sixth grade level is a tool to communicate to people who do not have a STEM education.
And don't feel bad. I was advised once, when I had to write a report of scientific research for Congress, to keep it at the sixth-grade level so that they could read it. On this forum, I actually write at above a sixth grade level.
FYI, your mentions of CEOs and Francis Collins really don't make the point you seem to think it makes. Even Nobel Prize winners can be spectacularly wrong when it comes to areas outside of their fields of expertise.
But you are projecting your own ineptitude and ignorance when you imply that only those with a formal degree in a field are capable of understanding it.
Really? When did I imply that? I have, in fact, spoken with quite a few lay people who, through their own efforts, have learned the science and can hold their own quite well in a highly technical discussion. But that's the thing--they actually read real scientific material, which is not the type of stuff you see on antivax sites.
And you ignore the fact that anyone who had a loved one drop dead or get turbo cancers after the clot shots, is not going to be assuage by your kind loftily dismissing them as kooks or hysterically imagining things because they JUST. DON'T. UNDERSTAND. SCIENCE.TM
Why should I give any scientific credence to things that were outright invented by professional antivaxxers (e.g. "turbo cancer") or deliberately presented out-of-context by said antivaxxers with the intent of convincing people that the vaccine is worse than the disease? I know full well that people who don't understand science are their primary targets for their propaganda. People who understand science or at least have enough of an understanding recognize the competence of those who make science their career.
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.