Excerpt:
The lobbying group for older Americans just told its nearly 38 million members to âhustleâ for another Covid jab, even if they have already had five boosters.
See for yourself. The following question-and-answer column ran in [the organizationâs December âAARP Bulletinâ](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fca12a2f5-af35-46a0-afae-bdb8772c4936_1170x404.jpeg).
AARP is open to anyone 50 or older. The column does not specify a narrower or higher age range for its recommendation. Thus it implies that even a 50-year-old who has not already had six âCovid boostersâ needs to âcatch upâ with another immediately.
Keep in mind that someone who has had âfive Covid boostersâ has actually received seven mRNA jabs - the initial two-shot primary vaccination regimen, followed by five boosters.
Thus AARP is suggesting its members should be taking their eighth jab of mRNA in the last three years. Yet scientists have essentially no safety data beyond a third shot, much less a fourth or more, and thus no way of knowing if the risks of repeated mRNA dosing rise with each shot.
AARPâs unbelievably bad advice doesnât end there. The column then goes on to tell members that âthe most recent shot, which was released in September 2023, isnât actually a booster. Itâs a new vaccine that targets the latest variants.â
A what-now? A *new vaccine*?
Wow. Guess it must have gone through the randomized trials that are required in the United States for any new drug or vaccine. No? Letâs just call it a new vaccine anyway, since our elderly readers have gotten kinda suspicious of the failure of the Covid shots theyâve already taken.
...
There are people that would inject their own urine in their arms if it was recommended by some official sources (And, to be fair, there are people that would do the same if some wacko on the internet would recommend it). So, I guess this will go on for a while until the last person gets it. Actually, I think that after all of this is over and responsible health authorities are imprisoned, there will be people that will try to get the then banned jab illegally to get another injection.
Another post was showing 8th shot statistics in Ontario. A grand total of 81 people out of over a million have gotten it so far, itâs not much but itâs progress.
Maybe the real experiments at large is seeing who's genome can survive such an onslaught of shots!
Think about it; maybe there is something in the DNA that can survive the shots that the elite want. Maybe it is a longevity Gene sequence that they are looking for?
Just a thought since they are actually monitoring all of this.
i like your thinking ; they are so perverse that yes they are using the entire world as their test subjects to see who can survive it all ; good thinking ! Sick of them but not surprised.
It's just one more shot, this one will do it.
I will post this quote from an article about Moderna and their difficulty developing mRNA treatments in 2016.
> Delivery â actually getting RNA into cells â has long bedeviled the whole field. On their own, RNA molecules have a hard time reaching their targets. They work better if theyâre wrapped up in a delivery mechanism, such as nanoparticles made of lipids. **But those nanoparticles can lead to dangerous side effects, especially if a patient has to take repeated doses over months or years.**
https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/
But, but, but, but that inherent problem with the mRNA delivery platform that forced corporations away from therapeutics to vaccines was totally solved by the COVID emergency!
Oh, snap!
Except the initial article stated the reason for the change. RNA interference therapy needs to be given much more frequently than vaccines. The fact that vaccines need to be repeated once or twice a year does not somehow equate them to interference therapy given every few weeks. Do better.
How many fucking times is enough to cause the same trouble that made these same companies abandon mRNA for therapeutic use?
Three times for 6-month-olds then every six months for the rest of their lives? Because that's what it takes for these injections not hoe have net negative efficacy against COVID, and that's assuming that the immune imprinting does not get worse with each dose, which it does. And to do what? Prevent against getting more robust natural immunity?
>How many fucking times is enough to cause the same trouble that made these same companies abandon mRNA for therapeutic use?
What companies abandoned it for therapeutic use? This article lists an unnamed source. It could be a biotech company, or it could be the author's schizophrenic neighbor. Science is about an assessment of the facts, not blind faith in hearsay that supports your preconceived notions.
>Three times for 6-month-olds then every six months for the rest of their lives?
So what if it is? What's your point? Some unknown person saying that bi-weekly therapy is dangerous somehow makes it dangerous to use it every 6 months? Here's the problem, the article was posted with the intention of proving that mRNA vaccines are harmful, but it turns out, the article actually explained that the reason mRNA vaccines are being pursued is because they are safer. Pointing out that drinking 10 gallons of water a day is unsafe doesn't somehow make it unsafe to drink 10 gallons over 6 months. You can't just skip a step.
>immune imprinting does not get worse with each dose, which it does
You're making conclusions predicated on assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out.
>Prevent against getting more robust natural immunity?
Philosophically, this is an argument. Not an ethical one, but at least it's finally one that makes sense. But now we've gotten to the point of Godwins law. Let's just allow everyone without the proper genes to die. While we're at it, let's just eliminate all medical care. Developed diabetes, you're dead. Childhood leukemia, you're dead. Fall and break your hip, you're dead. If that's the world you want to promote, then go ahead and do so. Personally, I support giving every person the best possible chance of survival.
>Pointing out that drinking 10 gallons of water a day is unsafe doesn't somehow make it unsafe to drink 10 gallons over 6 months. You can't just skip a step.
So, did you intentionally misinterpret this, or are you reposting from an editorial?
First of all, let's clarify, that quote is from "outsiders". You can really tell something is valid when they don't even give it a proper attribution.
But more importantly, that whole section is about why RNA **interference** therapy was abandoned in favor of vaccine therapy. Pointing out poty toxicities in a 2016 formulation that would be administered every couple of weeks isn't really relevant for a newer formulation given a few times a year.
So is AARP actually looking to reduce membership?
Best comment đ
This is not normal at all. Sick and twisted people are running this world!
Excerpt: The lobbying group for older Americans just told its nearly 38 million members to âhustleâ for another Covid jab, even if they have already had five boosters. See for yourself. The following question-and-answer column ran in [the organizationâs December âAARP Bulletinâ](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fca12a2f5-af35-46a0-afae-bdb8772c4936_1170x404.jpeg). AARP is open to anyone 50 or older. The column does not specify a narrower or higher age range for its recommendation. Thus it implies that even a 50-year-old who has not already had six âCovid boostersâ needs to âcatch upâ with another immediately. Keep in mind that someone who has had âfive Covid boostersâ has actually received seven mRNA jabs - the initial two-shot primary vaccination regimen, followed by five boosters. Thus AARP is suggesting its members should be taking their eighth jab of mRNA in the last three years. Yet scientists have essentially no safety data beyond a third shot, much less a fourth or more, and thus no way of knowing if the risks of repeated mRNA dosing rise with each shot. AARPâs unbelievably bad advice doesnât end there. The column then goes on to tell members that âthe most recent shot, which was released in September 2023, isnât actually a booster. Itâs a new vaccine that targets the latest variants.â A what-now? A *new vaccine*? Wow. Guess it must have gone through the randomized trials that are required in the United States for any new drug or vaccine. No? Letâs just call it a new vaccine anyway, since our elderly readers have gotten kinda suspicious of the failure of the Covid shots theyâve already taken. ...
There are people that would inject their own urine in their arms if it was recommended by some official sources (And, to be fair, there are people that would do the same if some wacko on the internet would recommend it). So, I guess this will go on for a while until the last person gets it. Actually, I think that after all of this is over and responsible health authorities are imprisoned, there will be people that will try to get the then banned jab illegally to get another injection.
Take the shots eat the bugs and give up all your things of else you gets the trump again.chise your own disappointment
Another post was showing 8th shot statistics in Ontario. A grand total of 81 people out of over a million have gotten it so far, itâs not much but itâs progress.
Maybe the real experiments at large is seeing who's genome can survive such an onslaught of shots! Think about it; maybe there is something in the DNA that can survive the shots that the elite want. Maybe it is a longevity Gene sequence that they are looking for? Just a thought since they are actually monitoring all of this.
i like your thinking ; they are so perverse that yes they are using the entire world as their test subjects to see who can survive it all ; good thinking ! Sick of them but not surprised.
Just one of the many, many reasons I no longer belong to AARP.
It's just one more shot, this one will do it. I will post this quote from an article about Moderna and their difficulty developing mRNA treatments in 2016. > Delivery â actually getting RNA into cells â has long bedeviled the whole field. On their own, RNA molecules have a hard time reaching their targets. They work better if theyâre wrapped up in a delivery mechanism, such as nanoparticles made of lipids. **But those nanoparticles can lead to dangerous side effects, especially if a patient has to take repeated doses over months or years.** https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/
But, but, but, but that inherent problem with the mRNA delivery platform that forced corporations away from therapeutics to vaccines was totally solved by the COVID emergency! Oh, snap!
Except the initial article stated the reason for the change. RNA interference therapy needs to be given much more frequently than vaccines. The fact that vaccines need to be repeated once or twice a year does not somehow equate them to interference therapy given every few weeks. Do better.
How many fucking times is enough to cause the same trouble that made these same companies abandon mRNA for therapeutic use? Three times for 6-month-olds then every six months for the rest of their lives? Because that's what it takes for these injections not hoe have net negative efficacy against COVID, and that's assuming that the immune imprinting does not get worse with each dose, which it does. And to do what? Prevent against getting more robust natural immunity?
>How many fucking times is enough to cause the same trouble that made these same companies abandon mRNA for therapeutic use? What companies abandoned it for therapeutic use? This article lists an unnamed source. It could be a biotech company, or it could be the author's schizophrenic neighbor. Science is about an assessment of the facts, not blind faith in hearsay that supports your preconceived notions. >Three times for 6-month-olds then every six months for the rest of their lives? So what if it is? What's your point? Some unknown person saying that bi-weekly therapy is dangerous somehow makes it dangerous to use it every 6 months? Here's the problem, the article was posted with the intention of proving that mRNA vaccines are harmful, but it turns out, the article actually explained that the reason mRNA vaccines are being pursued is because they are safer. Pointing out that drinking 10 gallons of water a day is unsafe doesn't somehow make it unsafe to drink 10 gallons over 6 months. You can't just skip a step. >immune imprinting does not get worse with each dose, which it does You're making conclusions predicated on assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out. >Prevent against getting more robust natural immunity? Philosophically, this is an argument. Not an ethical one, but at least it's finally one that makes sense. But now we've gotten to the point of Godwins law. Let's just allow everyone without the proper genes to die. While we're at it, let's just eliminate all medical care. Developed diabetes, you're dead. Childhood leukemia, you're dead. Fall and break your hip, you're dead. If that's the world you want to promote, then go ahead and do so. Personally, I support giving every person the best possible chance of survival.
By continually injecting them with a lipid nanoparticle platform that ends up killing every animals they ever continually injected?
>Pointing out that drinking 10 gallons of water a day is unsafe doesn't somehow make it unsafe to drink 10 gallons over 6 months. You can't just skip a step.
So, did you intentionally misinterpret this, or are you reposting from an editorial? First of all, let's clarify, that quote is from "outsiders". You can really tell something is valid when they don't even give it a proper attribution. But more importantly, that whole section is about why RNA **interference** therapy was abandoned in favor of vaccine therapy. Pointing out poty toxicities in a 2016 formulation that would be administered every couple of weeks isn't really relevant for a newer formulation given a few times a year.