Posted on 05/04/2023 6:11:25 AM PDT by Red Badger
Jeez, talk about prejudice.
The trouble is, mRNA "vaccine"s don't walk like a duck. Any rational person knows the mRNA concoction doesn't walk like a duck, doesn't quack like a duck, and doesn't perform like a duck. It's not a "vaccine" just because the suits in marketing say so. If Pfizer et al were proud of its performance, they wouldn't even want to associate it with vaccines. They'd say "it's new!, it's different!, it's a revolution in medicine!, this isn't simply an old-fashioned "vaccine", it's a remarkable, historical departure and a novel approach to medicine, all for the betterment of humanity! It's the mRNA miracle!"
Instead, since they can't sell it as something that will safely stand alone or be of great benefit, they have to piggyback onto something that the general public trusts: "vaccines". Only then can they push their snake oil out the door (for "free") to a gullible public, and that's only possible since they've planted their agents in the regulatory agencies, then greased the palms of the people's elected representatives, conning them into using public funds to pay for just about all of it. It must be nice.
Cool! Good to know. Obviously, I have, we have(?), trust issues with FedGov, and as of late the CDC & FDA for obvious reasons.
Yep. Before COVID, I would have been thrilled by the news. Now, I’m cautiously hopeful. I really hope there is a vaccine for babies before my kids have kids. My daughter is getting married in less than a month
Fauci said the mRNA was so successful it would be used in all vaccines going forward. :(
“GSK’s trial showed that protection from its vaccine lasted at least six months. “
Still redefining what the word ‘vaccine’ means....
Tellurian wrote: “Instead, since they can’t sell it as something that will safely stand alone or be of great benefit, they have to piggyback onto something that the general public trusts: “vaccines”.”
Now, why would the pharmaceutical companies do that?
Why would the regulators participate in that scheme?
Why would hundred of thousands of medical professionals play along?
Why would the politicians provide the billions of dollars to develop and pay for the vaccines?
Why hasn’t the media jumped all over this?
And, it wasn’t the marketing suits that called it a vaccine. It was the entire medical profession. mRNA techology has been in development for at least 20 years.
I’m gonna get one.
Not really.
Why would the regulators participate in that scheme? Money.
Why would hundred of thousands of medical professionals play along? Money.
Why would the politicians provide the billions of dollars to develop and pay for the vaccines? Money.
Why hasn’t the media jumped all over this? Money.
“Safe and effective”
In case nobody knew already, we are the carbon that they want to reduce. Just say no to everything this government offers.
Also, I’ve never heard of RSV. Sounds like a trim package on a 4WD Audi.
already had my pneumonia shot, not getting this one ever
Tellurian wrote: “Money.”
You’re overlooking one very big thing. You are essentially accusing the pharmaceuticals, the regulators, all the medical professionals of fraud, a criminal expense. And accussing them of medical malpractice bordering upon homicide. Do you really think you’re local doctor would go to jail to protect Fauci, et al?
Thank you for reminding yourself as well as us all that you have your confirmed biases. Yup. Nothing like admitting all your biases posted as comments to others are biases. We can now move from discussing issues to "apples," as you so cleverly wrote.
You are amusing. How about them apples?
Yes. They were either pulled aside into the swamp, or of their own volition they waded into the swamp. The swamp offered plausible deniability and lucrative compensation for their cooperation. Even with that, many objected or even said no, but they were stymied with protocols that they were prohibited from violating, threatened with ostracism, or sanctioned.
Worldtraveler once upon a time wrote: “You are amusing. How about them apples?”
Do you get paid for being a spell checker?
Unlike other posters, I recognize confirmation bias. Too bad those who spend hours scouring the web for anti-vaxxer propaganda don’t recognize their biases.
HELL NO!!!!
But the theme is not a simple pro-vax or anti-vax, given that not all vaccines are similar, not all definitions of vaccines are identical and not changed in the last decades, and when an official from Bayer identifies the mRNA injections as "vaccines" which are “cell and gene therapy,” obviously there are those who disagree with your simplistic and sometimes pejorative style of breaking the “vaccine” discussion into two simple pieces like a good little amateur Hegelian, even though somewhat emotional at times.
As to "scouring" the internet, a previous post of yours shows you and I can"scour" too. You wrote "What is misleading is to imply that these vaccines are gene therapy."
One reads: "Ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example for that — cell and gene therapy — I always like to say that if we had surveyed two years ago in the public, 'would you be willing to take a gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body' — we would have had probably a 95% refusal rate."
So there's bias aplenty, and you are as mired in it as you say others are.
Perhaps you need to "scour" the internet. There might be some way through all that bias, including yours.
Worldtraveler once upon a time wrote: “an official from Bayer identifies the mRNA injections as “vaccines” which are “cell and gene therapy,”
Not so:
"For us, therefore, we're really taking that leap — us as company, Bayer, in cell and gene therapy, which to me is one of these examples where really we're going to make a difference, hopefully, moving forward. Ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example for that — cell and gene therapy — I always like to say that if we had surveyed two years ago in the public, 'would you be willing to take a gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body' — we would have had probably a 95% refusal rate. I think this pandemic has also opened many people's eyes to innovation in a way that was maybe not possible before."
The end of the "fact check," which you citing shows that you too can "scour" the internet, states "So, the claim circulating now is just a retread of an already debunked falsehood about the vaccines, which have proven to be both safe and effective."
Now re-read to discover that indeed the quote is verbatim: "Ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example for that — cell and gene therapy — ...."
So I quoted "cell and gene therapy," and clever you manages to say "not so."
Yup, "cell and gene therapy."
Bias showing, dearie. You are embarrassing yourself.
Prayers for you and your own.
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.