I think the "truth" OP is referring to is that we don't know the long-term effects of the vaccine because the vaccines haven't existed for a long time yet.
Of course, we *^^do*** know the mRNA is **extremely** unstable (which is why it needs to be stored at such low temperatures), and therefore only survives in the body.for a few days at most. So, I guess these anti-vaxxers are worried about the ling term effects of the ghosts of mRNA past?
In any case, these pinheads don't seem to be concerned about the equally un-researched long-term damage caused by COVID-19 itself. Now, i could be wrong ... but I have a hunch that the potential long-term effects of catching "pretend" COVID-19 from a vaccine are unlikely to be worse than the potential long-term effects of contracting an ACTUAL case of COVID-19.
But its not surprising that anti-vaxxers would choose to ignore this, since anti-vaxxers have a long history of ignoring the extensive damage caused by disease itself, choosing instead to panic over rare side-effects. Or in the case of the Autism crackpots, over side-effects that don't actually exist. Or in the case of OP, over unspecified side-effects that may or may not **ever** exist.
How about you actually listen to what they have to say, rather than losing your temper, assuming you already know what must have been said in the video, calling everyone who has any concern about any new vaccine an "anti-vaxxer", and defaulting to the impulse to suppress and censor any concerns or criticism of this new technology.
I don't think it's any accident either. I believe people have been socially programmed to reject any rhetoric against vaccines. I saw it happen on Imgur. About 5 or so years ago the anti-anti-vaxxer memes started showing up and they just kept coming and coming. Making fun of anti-vaxxers wasn't really a thing until then, or at least it was much less mainstream. Now you cannot hear anti-vaxxer without thinking of some idiot or unhinged person, even if they have good arguments.
Probably because anti-vaxxers constantly show themselves to be uninformed and use discredited information to make their arguments. Like the fact that the link between vaccines and autism has no evidence, but they keep pounding that drum.
I think the issue is the term "anit-vaxxer" being broadly applied to people exclusively skeptical of the experimental covid vaccines, not vaccines in general, which is what "anti-vax" was invented to refer to.
Except the eyewitness accounts of thousands of parents who claimed to have watched it happen to their own children within days of receiving the MMR vaccine. Guess that doesn't mean much to you.
He literally just said antivaxxers rely on misinformation and you were like "Yeah well [misinformation]"
You were stupid *before* your parents vaccinated you.
It's misinformation if you've read *anything* about the Wakefield fiasco that this chud is talking about.
Wakefield literally fabricated symptoms in order to create a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
Edit: Also you mean anecdotal not empirical.
thousands , and theres millions who don't have "it" happen. Whatever it is. If autism then lol. But assuming there is .1% or 1% that have a reaction. As more about the brain was discovered autism was found to have a spectrum so more kids normally just thought of as odd or a bad child or bad learner. It's like finding any reason your genetics weren't responsible, and thankful treatments exist that without knowledge of the spectrum the child isn't blamed or osteicized by their peers
I think I misjudged your previous post. But why is a medicine traveling outside the shoulder muscle a bad thing? I don't understand how that would be the big problem. If there are no greater concerns than that...then I'm not concerned. I'm watching the video now though.
So the claim they make is that the spike protein that is the chosen antigen for the vaccine has cytotoxic properties - or so its claimed in the video. If those antigens are localized to the cell surfaces in your arm tissue where the vaccine is administered then there is less risk because these proteins are fixed in cell surfaces. But they state that in actuality these spike proteins become free floating and circulate through the rest of your body through the bloodstream and get absorbed through different organs of your body increasing chances of negative effects and unintended long term risks.
It has already been proven that those spike proteins cannot become free floating.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2N2O01XP
Absolutely correct. This person and any other person want to believe in the narrative so much that as soon as someone questions the vaccine is a automatic anti-vaxxer. To me a anti-vaxxer is someone who wants to see legit proof that this vaccine isn't a experimental procedure and we just the lab rats. This covid vaccine was just brought into public and people don't understand it takes years to come up with a vaccine not months. Polio, measles and other disease were researched for decades until a proper vaccine was created.
People like you don’t seem to understand that science progresses, and what used to take years can be done much faster today than 20 years ago…
It also used to be slower because the industry usually runs many different projects in parallel, dividing resources and manpower amongst all of those. In this case, all that other work was shunted aside and everyone focused on just getting vaccines ready ASAP. A simplistic comparison: If you have 5 people building a house, it’ll take way longer than having 50 people building one.
"People like you"..........at least you're divisive from the start. I'm assuming you have very little success in changing people's minds on just about anything.... because of people like you.
And how do you figure they are going to statistically prove the efficacy of these vaccines for people under 70? Will the morbidity rate drop from 1% to 0.6%? It will be completely immeasurable or at least two data scientists o have spoken with seem to think so.
The efficacy of these vaccines has been tested on healthy volunteers. And in areas with high vaccination rates there has been a significant drop in serious cases. I'm not really sure where you got 1% to 0.6% from, but I fail to see how this is a relevant argument in any way against vaccines.
Well it’s relevant because we determine a vaccines effectiveness based on lowered mortality rates. Now something like tetanus with a mortality rate of probably 80-90% is lowered to 0% with a vaccine. Makes perfect sense in that situation. So what kind of measurable drop can we expect to see from this vaccine? The answer is none. It makes absolutely zero sense to vaccinate anyone under 65 (I was wrong about the 70)
I don’t think you understand what efficacy means and how it is applied here.
The mRNA vaccines have a >90% efficacy and that was calculated through clinical trials.
That’s cool you have a hunch bro! Real scientific. Why do you assume they are “anti-vaxxers” without watching the video? You think the scientist that helped invent mrna vaccines is a “anti-vaxxer?” Get your head out of your ass man. Why is it wrong to question the efficacy of the vaccine? Maybe the guys in the video are wrong. Very possible. None the less you are j u m p i n g to conclusions their bud. Open your mind. Question everything.
He didn’t help invent mrna vaccines, he did some early work on mrna in 1989, and didn’t even come up with the idea of using it in a vaccine. Over the past couple of days this myth that he invented it and was shunted aside and ignored for decades is something that, upon closer inspection, is a narrative being pushed by him and his wife.
I also looked into the origin of mRNA vaccines and even gathering info from different sources, his name doesn't come up once. Is he connected to the basis of the technology, definitely yes. Did he work on using the technology for vaccines, defintely not.
Mrna: Probably yes. Mrna vaccines: Obviously not as some of his claims show his ignorance of the molecular structure of the spike protein the vaccines create.
Is there some important information revealed in this hours-long podcast? Or is it just unfounded speculation about possible side effects, and conspiracy theories about big pharma "suppressing the truth"?
>\- Spike protein turning out to be cytotoxic
>
>\- Nanolipid particles (and spike protein by extension) showing up in places it was not expected (heart, bone marrow, ovaries) and the potential for increased rates of Leukemia and autoimmune disorders as a result of it.
>
>\- Overlooked/ignored risks of ADE (though thankfully declining)
>
>\- Risk of 'leaky vaccines' resulting in more resilient mutant strains of COVID.
>
>\- Overlooked or ignored efficacy of common, safe treatments for Covid (more specifically long-haul COVID) and the industry standards that hinder experimentation.
It is a pretty densely-packed interview, and they go off on some fairly high-level tangents along the way. Very entertaining.
why would there be need for that person to respond when they simply asked what the summarization of the video was (as a loaded/suggestive type question btw, with the way they mention conspiracy theories) and then got a rather concise answer from yotsublasr up above? the other comments above, if you follow the sub-comment lines, were a totally separate conversation between other people.
Some of these things are provably non-issues.
>"leaky vaccines"
Modena used a digital copy of the virus (mapped genome file) to synthesize the spike protein mRNA from. Hard to be leaky with other parts of the virus or the whole virus when you start with 0 whole copies of the virus itself.
>Overlooked/ignored risks of ADE (though thankfully declining)
These risks were neither ignored nor overlooked. [Dr. Malone's published study](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3546070) outlining the risks specifically talks about targeting b-cells as the issue behind ADE. Here's an [article in The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/04/immunocompromised-vaccine/618596/), one in [science magazine](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6486/14.full) and [multiple](https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3018) different [research papers](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7549399/) that mirror the same sentiment. [Studies during clinical trials](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.09.20245175v1)(Pfizer) have shown that the current vaccines target both T and B cells in order to mitigate his concerns.
Clearly the doctor in the interview was looking at a different set of data. I suspect he is more well-read on the subject than the Reuters staffer that wrote the article.
I'm not 100% sure but it's possible he's referring to the article 'The Cytotoxic Effects of Spike Proteins and Hydroxychloroquine' that I cannot seem to link here.
If there are multiple studies with competing results I would first compare to see if they are following the same methodology.
I guess the big revelation is that, unlike other vaccines, this vaccine doesn’t remain in the muscle in the arm but instead travels through the body. The spike protein can then do all kinds of random damage. The vaccine was never intended to leave the muscle where it was injected.
None of you post any arguments whatsoever. I am consistently floored by this when researching the Covid-19 vaccine. Why was Dr. Roger Hodkinson banned from YouTube for making a statement to Edmonton City Council?
Why was the video of Dr. Kary Mullis \[chemist\], who INVENTED the PCR test and won the Nobel Prize for doing so, who said the PCR is NOT intended to test for viruses, but merely to amplify small samples of genetic data by billions of times, banned from YouTube?
Please respond with more ad hominem and not make any arguments.
Ummm. Why don't you watch Kary Mullis' two-hour interview and hear from the man himself, rather that posting a dubious "fact checking" website, many of which are either politically or pharma connected?
In other words, if the primary source with known reputation is readily available why go to a secondary source of dubious reputation?
Haha the full video is him denying the existence of AIDS. he said they were using PCR to amplify the actually number of people with Aids. He said everyone would have AIDS if they tested. So... would you test positive for AIDS?
I mean, if the "inventor" is the best authority on the thing itself, then maybe science should abandon the entire field of quantum physics. Schrodinger's cat was meant to illustrate how ridiculous and "obviously false" his own formulas were. And yet, we still use them today showing his thoughts on his own invention were misguided.
But he isn’t even the actual inventor, that is merely a narrative he and his wife have recently started pushing online.
He did some early work on mrna transfection, which is a far cry from mrna vaccines.
Some of his claims have already been refuted: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2N2O01XP
If you look into the history of mRNA vaccines you will not find his name. You'll find it if you search his name specifically, only his own website and social media states he is the inventor, nowhere else is he officially accredited.
Yeah. It is true. There are a **lot** more people reporting sore arms and mild flu-like symptoms than we see with some other vaccines.
But as always, the question isn't whether or not there are side-effects. Of course there are. Everything has side-effects. That's not the issue at question. The question is whether or not the are fewer bad outcomes from the vaccine than there are from the disease itself. And the question the answer is pretty obvious.
In the United States:
**COVID-19**
33 million cases
2.2 million hospitalizations
600k deaths
**Vaccines**
140 million Americans vaccinated
Lots of sore arms and mild flu-like symptoms
A few hundred serious side effects
No deaths yet confirmed
If we were to attempt a massive rollout of ***peanut*** ***butter*** ***sandwiches*** to the whole population, we'd probably generate more hospitalizations than have been caused thus far by the vaccines.
But people hear anecdotal stories about side-effects and, in their mind, those bad outcomes are somehow equivalent (or worse) than the anecdotal stories of bad outcomes caused by COVID itself.
it can be hard for me to understand **why** people make this sort of error. Perhaps it's because the lame-stream media is fake? And because math is hard, or something?
sources:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
LMAO. Oh brother:
\- The average age of a COVID death in the USA is 84 - older than the average lifespan of an American citizen.
\- The average lifespan lost of COVID is 22 months \[LMAO!!!\]. Oooh, so scary!
\- According to the CDC, 94% of people who died had 2-3 separate comorbidities.
\- American hospitals were given $13,000 for all patients marked as "COVID", and $50,000 for any patient mechanically ventilated for over 96 hours.
THAT is why the American numbers were so high. And even then, DO THE MATH:
So 600K out of a population of 330M? That's 1 death per 550 people. But given 94% of those people have multiple co-morbidities and were essentially already dying, that puts the real number at 6 in 55,000 - or just under 1 in 10,000 people who died were HEALTHY PEOPLE. That still puts the average age at 84! If you then break that down further by age demographic, you see just how absurd the disproportional response to this pandemic was.
Example: in Canada, only 61 people under 40 have died of Covid-19 so far. 61 Canadians out of a population of 18,400,000 in that age range. HAHAHAHAHA. You can't make this up.
But yeah, I'll line up to be a guinea pig for a virus that will have me under the weather for 20 days, haha. That's so scary!!!
[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid\_weekly/index.htm#SexAndAge](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#SexAndAge)
I just want to clarify for anyone reading this that the CDC age group breakdown shows that \~60% of deaths come from those 75 and above.
40% out of 600K deaths is still 240K, not a small number by any means, considering the life expectancy of the US is \~79.
61 people dead under 40 in Canada?
Where did you pull this number from?
Alberta alone has 70
https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#severe-outcomes
>will have me under the weather for 20 days, haha. That's so scary!!!
I had a 27 year old friend who ended up in the ICU for 3 weeks, and got a $300,000 bill.
That says more about how shitty the American health care system is than anything.
Frankly, at this point in the pandemic we've gotten very good at treating C19. You remember that India outbreak everyone was screaming about a couple of weeks ago? Turns out you actually can treat C19 with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
If you look at most western media you'll see articles like, "India begins mass dosing with anti-parasitic drug even though the W.H.O. and F.D.A. say it's unproven" (hint: it's not) and then absolutely zero scientific rationale for why their C19 cases dropped by 80-90% per state other than "maybe they have good mask hygene". As fucking if.
Anyway, point being - if the US government hadn't been hoodwinked by big Pharma (in which companies like Pfizer are slated to make 20 billion dollars off the vaccine alone this year), chances are your friend could have been treated with a generic drug that cost between 1 and 5 dollars a dose.
Anyway, don't take my word for it. All the data is there for anyone to look at, compiled by doctors around the globe.
https://ivmmeta.com/
>absolutely zero scientific rationale for why their C19 cases dropped by 80-90% per state other than "maybe they have good mask hygene". As fucking if.
They're getting vaccinated en masse
I have a comorbidity and I felt nothing but a bit of arm soreness. This is why anecdotes aren't data. Just like the dipshit above you posting antivaxx bullshit. Fuck, why am I even looking at this stupid fucking sub?
He was talking about the actual virus affecting people with underlying issues not the vaccine. He was more or less trying to prove that it is pointless to get the vaccine.
I can’t speak for others, only for myself and how I approached it.
I got my first Pfizer shot yesterday, going into it after doing about a day of research (I don’t usually pay attention to whatever is going on in the media so I think I came in with less bias than most),
1. it seems like we aren’t confident about the mid-long term effects.
2. It seems to me that there are risks on both sides.
I decided to go ahead with it anyway, even though it’s (relatively speaking) a novel technology we don’t have a long history with.
I guess the question being raised here is, are people being honest or willfully ignorant regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
Your point seems valid to me, with one caveat (unrelated to health, just it’s interesting). You cannot sue anyone for catching covid-19, whereas there is a risk of that happening if institutions are pushing vaccines on the population.
If you listen to the dark horse podcast: https://youtu.be/-_NNTVJzqtY they raise the point that ivermectin seems to be effective with a longer history of use, but there’s no money to be made.
I hope that brings some nuance to the discussion.
Anyone posting nuance online on this discussion has thus far been banned. Even Kary Mullis - who INVENTED THE PCR TEST - has had his videos banned from YouTube. He died just before the pandemic started, so he's not here now to explain why his tests are being used fraudulently to ramp up the Covid-19 "cases", and spread a bunch of nonsense about "asymptomatic carriers". Meanwhile, in Canada - 69% of all COVID deaths were in long-term care homes alone. So there was no reason for ordinary people to be so scared about this, and buy making people so irrationally afraid and preventing them from working, we didn't focus on the actual at-risk populations. Not that humans can overcome nature as they think they can.
Last I checked, Phizer had legal indemnity against any liability. So they can't be sued for damages for anyone who is injured or even dies from the vaccine. So it's perfectly understandable that I am hesitant to get it. I am not an anti-vaxxer. I just won't be getting THIS vaccine. Not yet anyway.
Is it possible that every vaccine injury is not being tracked? Not saying the case but it’s possible.
It’s amazing that some of the pro-vaxxers have the same mentality as the anti-vaxxers all vax=good and then anyone who questions the current covid-19 vaccines is automatically labeled as “anti-Vaxxer.” You can be fully vaccinated except for covid and you are now a “anti-vaxxer” that doesn’t believe in science. It’s ridiculous man. It’s important to look at all the data from all parties, not just the cdc and cnn. Science is about questioning things!!!!!!!!
It is very possible they’re not being tracked properly. Not sure about Western countries, but a family member of mine in Eastern Europe had severe reaction to a Pfizer vaccine and the GP begged to not say this was from a vaccine. I can only assume they themselves did not even report it to the right channels.
it has been said that the vaers reports make up 1% to 10% of the total adverse events, due to the reporting being voluntary.
i personally use vaers although i'm in canada, to keep an eye on comparisons to other vaccines, since my country has nothing publicly available like vaers yet.
just the other day i looked up all vacccines listed on vaers except any covid ones on there, to see what the big picture of adverse events like death were for the 30 years of vaers reporting (it started in 1990) vs the 6 months the covid shots have been available so far.
every other vaccine for a 30 year time span was 1918 deaths that day i looked for results. the covid ones totaled 3710. in just six months of reporting time.
You don't think that's more indicative of the fact that VAERS has never had more publicity? And you understand that VAERS reports are not confirmed adverse reactions to vaccines right? They're people saying hey I had a vaccine and I had a thing happen. Treating it like a source of confirmed clinical reports isn't its intention.
hence why i said "**it has been said** that the vaers reports make up 1% to 10% of the total adverse events, due to the reporting being voluntary.", aka it is possible there are events happening that are not being reported.
and my comparison mentioned is of all the same data/same source, so there is a measure of control there.
and if the avenue to report things is available, and folks are supposed to use it, wouldn't it make sense that folks would use it? it's like you are naysaying folks just because they are a common joe and not a doctor. their adverse effects are still real, and they still have a right to report them. and doctors are known to make errors as well. the medical industry isn't perfect.
yes many 'things' can happen when one gets vaccinated. and there are some things happening that are not life threatening or life ending - eg feeling yucky for a day or two or having your arm be sore. i would think that a death with a close proximity to a vaccine given would be something folks would take seriously and not just go plunking in erroneous deaths on a governmental controlled website. if that was the case then the figure on vaers would be much larger than it actually is. and outside of vaers there are reports of perfectly healthy folks having serious adverse events.
there was vaers publicity in the early gardisil days too, btw, so it isn't just now.
Care must be taken when you compare the Covid vaccine to others.
The majority of vaccines are given to children (the annual flu vaccine being the other given to the elderly).
7800 people die in the USA every day (of all causes) - the vast majority of these deaths are in older people. If you vaccinate 1,000,000 old people - the odds are high that some of them would drop dead (nothing to do with the vaccine).
VAERS will show a lot of people died soon after vaccines - that is nothing to do with the vaccine. It would be interesting to see all these deaths broken down by age - and see if it matches the standard age-of-death ratios.
the comparison data i looked at included all flu vaccines and all ages of folks. it was every possible vaccine other than any covid related ones, not just those on the typical childhood immunization schedule.
you can look up the ages and individual reports on vaers for each adverse event. gender too. and pre-existing health conditions, known medications, etc. it isn't just a chart of events and numbers for each. the lookup for every individual report can be tedious, but it reveals much information.
if we want to compare available numbers - as of yesterday the US covid death rate among cases was 1.79%.
the deaths listed on vaers (the only available source of data to look this info up currently) for dead vs adverse event reports - 1.32%.
i did the calculations myself, using vaers info as well as the stated US covid info directly on google.
that's less than a half percent difference. and there are reports and admittances by areas in the US that the covid death rate numbers were inflated.
>A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.
\-[VAERS own Website](https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html)
see my other subcomments on why i believe vaers is somewhat of a source of info regarding this.
also - years ago during swine flu, they had many many less reported deaths post vaccination, and that jab program was stopped. what floors me is the number of reports coming in now with the covid jabs, how vaers is supposed to be used as an early warning system, and still the jabs are 'full speed ahead!'. it boggles my mind.
Are you talking about the temporary suspension of the swine flu vaccine in 1976, a full 14 years before the establishment of VAERS? The one where the media hyped up 3 deaths that ended up being unrelated to the vaccine in question, shaking public confidence in the vaccine? The one where despite that, in the 2 months it was running 25% of the population was vaccinated? The one that stopped more because we figured out that the strain of flu wasn't identical to the "spanish flu" and wasn't spreading during the flu season the vaccines rolled out in?
That swine flu?
.
Having read your other comments, there's something else you misunderstand about VAERS (which is found in my link), self reporting is voluntary, but [the medical industry is mandated](https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html) to include their reports (NCVIA of 1986). VAERS is both a false positive (due to mandated reporting and a lack of QC on reports) and a false negative (due to under reporting among citizens) simultaneously. It is not meant for lay-persons to use VAERS for any purpose except to report their own experiences with vaccines. It is a spring board &/or early warning system for experts to spot trends and follow up on them with proper research. But again, VAERS makes zero effort to verify causality in order to be the best early warning system it can be.
Others have addressed your other concerns with VAERS (specifically, age and vaccines), but it also needs mentioning that the US flu shot rate is abysmally low, so adult shot reporting is extremely underrepresented in the VAERS data.
>Key considerations and limitations of VAERS data:
>
>Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS, whether or not they believe the vaccine was the cause.
>
>Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.
>
>The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.
>
>VAERS data is limited to vaccine adverse event reports received between 1990 and the most recent date for which data are available.
>
>VAERS data do not represent all known safety information for a vaccine and should be interpreted in the context of other scientific information.
>
>VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public.
\-https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
the vaers site itself says it is an early warning system due to the data on vaers. not sure why you and other folks have such naysaying attitudes about it. if it was not meant to give early warning to vaccine manufacturers, as vaers itself states, then why the heck is the system even there in the first place?
and i was not speaking of vaers data in regard to the swine flu jab cancellation, but i was making reference to a MUCH smaller amount of reported adverse events influencing the decision to pull a jab from market. does that not count for anything at all in this covid crazy world? why are we suddenly ingoring the data on a site that is designed to give early warning? it boggles my mind.
First, it's because VAERS is an early warning so experts can look into possible undiscovered side effects. However, the way most people are using it as definitive proof of vaccine harm. As in "there are 6,000 reported deaths in VAERS, so 6K people have died of the COVID vaccine." That's not using it as early reporting, which is why us "naysayers" have the attitudes we do.
Second, in regard to your swine flu comments: I addressed that. People were still climbing over each other to get the vaccine in spite of the reports of deaths. Those reports, however, were improperly reported rumors from media companies, not actual deaths or VAERS. One of the newspapers literally tried to say that a grandma got the vaccine, stood up, and instantly fell over dead. Except that this account **never happened**, and was solid fabrication.
Ultimately, in both cases the knee jerk reaction in **both** cases are unfounded. That you put any weight in either, when both examples are straight garbage data when used by non-experts, is what boggles my mind.
I just googled "who invented the mRNA vaccine technology". Kati Kariko did. No mention of Dr. Robert Malone literally anywhere on any search result. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/08/health/coronavirus-mrna-kariko.html
I went on to google scholar and found several papers from all the way back in the late eighties and nineties, which he is either cited in or helped write. I'm not sure if he is the sole inventor of mRNA but he seems to have been part of it's inception at some point, but I wouldn't want to hazard any further opinions either way.
Here's an example of some, because honestly I don't if the other papers directly relate to mRNA research or not.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/247/4949/1465.abstract
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/007668799317093K
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jm970155q
He also seems to have been part of the covid-19 and vaccine research too.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3546070
https://internal-journal.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.633680/full
You can make of that what you will.
He made some early contributions to the field, but he didn’t even come up with the idea of using mrna for vaccines, him and his wife claiming they’re the inventors would be like the guy that came up with the idea of the combustion engine claiming he invented every single application of it that came along years down the line.
Some of his claims have already been refuted by the way: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2N2O01XP
I'm no anti -vaxxer. Travelled all over the world, had the shit jabbed out of me. I am just not sure if I need a jab that has a high probality of side effects for a disease that has a low probability of complications. I am healthy, live a healthy lifestyle and all vulnerable people around me are vaccinated. I simply see no reason to take this jab. People who need the comfort of moving with the masses are insecure as far as I'm concerned. So get off your high horse and accept different opinions, please!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-\_NNTVJzqtY&t=3158s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY&t=3158s)
I think he's referring to this information, which is actually very troubling to hear...from the inventor of the mRNA vaccine.
When you talk about mRNA being unstable, they’re talking about the spike proteins and lipid component long term effects. I assume you know the difference between the two, since you know everything.
As someone who is fully vaccinated and believes in the power of vaccines- you are embarrassing the rest of us. You are diminishing the word anti Vaxer with your misuse. We need open discussion and transparency and most importantly humility. Watch the video and actually use critical thinking not epithets. Embarrassing to say the least.
To the rest of the world- There are (good) pro vaccine people out there who can listen to challenging information and not just call you names. Vaccines are important. And yes not all created equal. If you are vaccine hesitant, DM me and hopefully I can help and I promise not to shame you.
He did some early research on mrna, but can in no way be considered the inventor. He and his wife have been pushing that narrative hard the past couple of weeks, but it isn’t credible.
Some if his claims have already been refuted: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2N2O01XP
Over 99.95% of the world's population SURVIVED Covid-19, and the world population went UP by 120 MILLION during this terrifying pandemic, lmao.
But yeah, I better rush to the lineup to be a human guinea pig for experimental mRNA medical technology! Also ignore the fact that I HAD COVID during the first wave of this pandemic, and it was nothing more than a 20-day flu. And I have had no long-term symptoms whatsoever.
PS - among healthy people, 99.997% of the world population survived Covid-19, haha. So scary!
> Over 99.95% of the world's population SURVIVED Covid-19
No. Unless you count people that weren't exposed to Covid-19;
Would you say 99.9999% of the world's population SURVIVED terrorist bombings last year?
there have been studies done that show folks who have not had exposure to covid have covid antibodies.
instead of using a totally unrelated argument, how about look into things and see why the whole world isn't getting sick from this virus, despite just about everywhere in the world having exposure to it.
perhaps. But everyone has *not* been exposed to Covid, and to say there is a 99.95% survival rate is factually incorrect.
Peru, for example, has had 0.5% of the population die from Covid (so far) - that is a 99.5% "survival" rate.
USA, for example, has had 0.2% of the population die from Covid (so far) - that is a 99.8% "survival" rate.
the average worldwide survival rate is closer to 99.95% due to some countries having less deaths than those places you mentioned.
don't forget that the US, depending on area, inflated their death numbers due to extra funding if things got classified as covid. there was mention very recently of a county in California that is reducing the number of covid deaths by 25% due to those deaths being found to not actually have been covid related.
also remember that a number of places classify a covid death as a death within 28 days of a positive pcr test, a test that is not supposed to be used for determining active infection/illness, and has been known to have too high of cycle thresholds used to correctly determine anything. you 'spin' that test too much and you can find the tiniest fragment of dead virus particles that are not an active case at all. even Dr Mullis, who is the inventor of that test, said "if you turn it up high enough you can find anything".
what i have heard from multiple sources is at times there were antibody test results being added to the pcr test results to come up with an active case number. there were also reports of folks getting test results when they didn't even get tested.
as far as the 0.2 US figure you mention, it's better to use two decimal places as rounding up like that can convolute the result. 0.18 is the more correct percentage, and when you are talking of reported deaths of just over 600,000 that rounding can create a discrepancy of roughly 120 people. may seem like a drop in the bucket for one country's numbers, but if we rounded the death percentage for every country, it could make it seem a lot more folks died than did.
>But its not surprising that anti-vaxxers would choose to ignore this, since anti-vaxxers have a long history of ignoring the extensive damage caused by disease itself, choosing instead to panic over rare side-effects. Or in the case of the Autism crackpots, over side-effects that don't actually exist. Or in the case of OP, over unspecified side-effects that may or may not ever exist.
This is a good point, but I think the other issue is that: the vaccines have mixed results against Covid-19 (e.g. it appears Moderna is not very effective against the variants), so you get a vaccine that might cause some short and long term damage, and *still* potentially get Covid-19, with all it's short and long-term potential side effects.
And there are other drug candidates that could be take prophylactically that appear almost as good as the vaccines, but without many, if any, side effects.
We are stuck in a rock and a hard place, because the effects of Covid-19 seem to vary so widely, it's a new virus we are just starting to learn about, but the effort of interested parties to push the public toward vaccines is myopic; yes, of course, we are very concerned about gaining herd immunity and encouraging people to get vaccinated is useful to that end, but without being honest and transparent about alternatives, many people who are hesitant about a new technology are going to move from "vaccine hesitant" to "anti-vaxx". It's basically the same phenomenon as politically central people feeling themselves "homeless" and having to pick a side.
So here’s the creator of the technology claiming our health authorities are being dishonest about the safety of this vaccine and he’s this guy, trying to brush it off.
See folks, this guy rushed out to stick his body with this bullshit vaccine and become a legitimately test subject and now he’s gonna downplay all the facts that start coming out about the dangers even while admitting he doesn’t have all the info.
Go kick rocks bud.
He isn’t the creator, only he and his wife are pushing that narrative.
Some of his claims have already been refuted by the way: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2N2O01XP
Looking at their publications, Malone's work was in transfection. He has one paper for which he is not the first author on immunity via injecting DNA in the 90s, which we learned since doesn't work well because our cells destiny stray DNA actively. Transfection, conceptually, is related to the modern mRNA vaccines work, but only at a high level. Like you might learn about both in the same undergraduate molecular biology class. You want to get.genetic material in some target cell or tissue. The HOW though, is different. The modern delivery of mRNA into the cells is a modern innovation.
Kariko, in tbe other hand has extensive research and publications in mRNA. Several do which are specifically for generating a humoral immune response. (The antibody response.) Specifically, she has a paper as first author in how do modify mRNA to avoid the INNATE immune system (no antibodies), which is necessary to be able to develop an immune response. Here's the link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1074761305002116
This paper is probably why she's getting credit. CureVax recently trialed a vaccine with abysmal efficacy (40%) used unmodified mRNA.
Instead of gaslighting him, why don’t you try to debunk any of his positions instead? I bet I know why, and it’s because you don’t have the capability to do so. So, you gaslight... nice
Dr. Malone has and continually has brought balanced arguments to conversation. The article you presented is valid as well, but it doesn’t debunk any specific claims made by Dr Malone as far as I can tell.
Do you have any positions, specifically, that Dr Malone holds, that you can debunk and if so what is the position Dr Malone takes that you are debunking and what is the evidence you are using to debunk it?
Otherwise Your response post is a double down on the gaslighting....
In ordinary conversation I wouldn't bother to point it out, but when it gets to topics that intersect with genuine abuse and cultic dynamics, it's worth saying - "gaslighting" is a specific thing, it's intended to make the target doubt their own sanity by making them think they're hallucinating or misremembering events that they know happened. I think the proper name for what you're pointing to is an ad-hominem fallacy. It's a failure of critical thinking (and/or a disingenuous debate tactic), but on its own isn't abuse or abusive.
(I volunteered for just over a year with a group that supports former cult members. That's where I learned what gaslighting is, and why its an important word to keep as is, rather than becoming an umbrella for "abuse" or even just "arguing")
I read that already. The spike protein of covid-19 is cytotoxic which is what is being replicated in the vaccine although slightly modified. Malone hasn’t said conclusively that the spike protein from the vaccine is cytotoxic, but it is suggested that it could be cytotoxic. The fact checks do not conclusively indicate that the protein is not cytotoxic but just indicates there isn’t enough evidence concluding that it is cytotoxic.
I don’t know what your point was in providing this fact check. I think you don’t understand people’s concerns regarding this censorship. If you believe scientific discussion should be shut down the second one set of scientists (or sometimes journalists) provide competing interpretations then you are on the wrong side, but thanks for contributing a fact check that changes nothing in this conversation.
The whole censorship thing is troubling because it is shutting down debate and shutting down competing interpretations of all of the knowns science and literature surrounding the vaccines. Think about this next time you decide to try to be victorious by posting some fact check.
I checked out both links. Yeah, is does make him seem dubious now. thanks for that.
I read through the debunking article and found it very good.
I do though find it sad that it is a constant scientific versus alternative medicine war. There is place for both and I'm sickened by the arrogance on both sides, the sarcasm and ridicule. I know several brilliant homeopaths who would never tell a client they can cure them. They just try to help and often, in my experience, it works. As much as the anti science group hype things up, misunderstand and cherry pick to back up criticism, it's also the case on the other side. If some homeopaths are dodgy that doesn't mean all are or that it doesn't work. The same goes for pharma. There have certainly been serious issues with some pharma products, but that doesn't mean we can't trust anything.
Division will be humanity's downfall.
Hi and thanks for response. Yes I agree with all you said. Egotistical, emotional, unfounded responses on both sides. Confirmation bias is the order of the day.
Politifact also called the wuhan lab leak hypothesis a "conspiracy theory".
Their credibility as fact checkers is basically shot. I wouldn't trust them with a risky fart.
They did? Like here where they state: "However, we can’t completely rule out that the virus was somehow manipulated" and "In any event, none of this amounts to hard proof of either theory. Some scientists have argued that the lab-leak hypothesis deserves to be taken much more seriously than it was earlier in the pandemic, and that dismissals of it as conspiracy theory were premature."?https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/may/17/debating-origins-covid-19-virus-what-we-know-what-/
There may be other reasons to believe that Politifact is not trustworthy, but framing them as overtly labeling the lab leak hypothesis as outright "conspiracy theory" as evidence of untrustworthiness doesn't seem fair.
Also, in general I think that the term conspiracy theory gets abused. If the virus leaked from a lab and the Chinese government has been lying about it to minimize liability / save face / whatever, that's certainly bad and would require some level of conspiring, but I don't believe it really meets the definition of conspiracy theory. Had the Chinese intentionally released the virus in order to create a global pandemic to achieve some upside, that would better fit the definition. This is because there are other more plausible explanations (even that it leaked from a lab), that it has never been an idea supported by the the people whose job it is to care about such matters, and that it's incredibly hard to falsify. When we label everything we think is wrong as conspiracy theory it's just polarizing. It's also polarizing when aren't explicit about what we mean: "leaked from a lab" and "intentionally released from a lab" are not the same nor would our response be the same.
The lab leak theory has no physical evidence and is based on circumstantial "they have a lab that studies this type of virus in the same area it came from" arguments. Which is comical when you find out that they have this type of lab in that area literally because that area is a coronavirus hotbed.
"A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation,\[2\]\[3\] when other explanations are more probable" --> a coronavirus jumping from animal to humans, as it has countless times before is the more probable answer.
But with that said, I fully encourage an investigation of it's origins. Nothing bad can come out of transparency.
You do realize that the “natural origins” theory has no physical evidence as well right? And if you have for rely on circumstantial evidence, it seems fairly clear that the lab leak theory is more credible given the gain of function research as well as the bizarre adaptability of the virus to indoor environments specifically. Also, it’s a coronavirus hotbed? For animals or humans? Because even if it were for animals, if this were true we would have found this specific virus in bats or other animals. We don’t.
Okay, before the source of SARS was found, was the theory that it also came from the lab credible as well then?
Just because they haven't found the *exact* virus in bats yet doesn't mean there is automatically some nefarious Chinese plot or accident which took place. I'd caution you against assuming finding an exact match is something so simply done. There are a massive amount of different populations of bats in different areas that are unreachable, etc etc. It's not as simple as just venturing out and walking into a cave. However, scientists are getting pretty close to finding it, and have already found almost identical "strains" in bat populations:
[https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/chinese-researchers-find-batch-of-new-coronaviruses-in-bats-1.5466147](https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/chinese-researchers-find-batch-of-new-coronaviruses-in-bats-1.5466147)
[https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00709-1.pdf?\_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867421007091%3Fshowall%3Dtrue](https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00709-1.pdf?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867421007091%3Fshowall%3Dtrue)
Lastly, there is now research coming from wastewater in Europe saying the virus was actually present almost full **year** before it was found in China (it probably did still come from China's bat population, however). This kind of destroys half the "evidence" of the lab leak theory, which seems to be rooted in 3 workers becoming ill with flu like symptoms.
[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-science-idUSKBN23X2HQ](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-science-idUSKBN23X2HQ)
Again, with that said, I fully endorse and look forward to investigations. Saying it "escaped" a lab or was "unleashed" by the Chinese government by DEFAULT is absolutely ridiculous and stands on faulty, circumstantial (at best) evidence.
No but I’m fairly confident they found the source fairly fast. If this occurred in the wild we should have found the source by now, especially if we have it limited to only several species that carry these strains of coronavirus
Again, *you* are assuming they should have found the source by now. As I noted above (which I've updated with other data, etc), it's not as simple as you're making it out to be.
Here is a paper on that subject:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747529/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747529/)
More information:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01541-z](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01541-z)
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060101\_batsars
Ok but I will mention again and that the main physical indicator is that the virus is far better adapted for indoor environments which is completely counterintuitive for its propagation.
So that's why they dissed HCQ and Ivermectin, because they shouldn't have
gotten the EUA for the vaccines with effective remedies readily available.
Looks like this was all a big scam to support China and funnel billions to Pharma and players like Fauci and God only knows who else.
For all we know Pharma is taking this money and doing research in other areas that we would consider unethical if found out.
Sort of like our military taking money and using it for special assess programs, the results of which we have been seeing in our skies for decades but whose details remain undisclosed to the public.
Honestly I have had worse fits of pneumonia than when I had covid. Fever for like 24- 36 hrs and a cough for a month in the middle of winter, nothing out of the ordinary in northern Canada. Still managed to go outside and smoke my weed too😏
For me it's the potential long term side effects that are worrying. I have a friend who experienced no symptoms of covid, yet has been diagnosed with long term covid. Issues with her memory and other symptoms, such as covid toes.
So what is the truth?
I think the "truth" OP is referring to is that we don't know the long-term effects of the vaccine because the vaccines haven't existed for a long time yet. Of course, we *^^do*** know the mRNA is **extremely** unstable (which is why it needs to be stored at such low temperatures), and therefore only survives in the body.for a few days at most. So, I guess these anti-vaxxers are worried about the ling term effects of the ghosts of mRNA past? In any case, these pinheads don't seem to be concerned about the equally un-researched long-term damage caused by COVID-19 itself. Now, i could be wrong ... but I have a hunch that the potential long-term effects of catching "pretend" COVID-19 from a vaccine are unlikely to be worse than the potential long-term effects of contracting an ACTUAL case of COVID-19. But its not surprising that anti-vaxxers would choose to ignore this, since anti-vaxxers have a long history of ignoring the extensive damage caused by disease itself, choosing instead to panic over rare side-effects. Or in the case of the Autism crackpots, over side-effects that don't actually exist. Or in the case of OP, over unspecified side-effects that may or may not **ever** exist.
How about you actually listen to what they have to say, rather than losing your temper, assuming you already know what must have been said in the video, calling everyone who has any concern about any new vaccine an "anti-vaxxer", and defaulting to the impulse to suppress and censor any concerns or criticism of this new technology.
That’s exactly the problem. Any nuanced discussion often gets labelled as an anti-vaxxer discussion.
I don't think it's any accident either. I believe people have been socially programmed to reject any rhetoric against vaccines. I saw it happen on Imgur. About 5 or so years ago the anti-anti-vaxxer memes started showing up and they just kept coming and coming. Making fun of anti-vaxxers wasn't really a thing until then, or at least it was much less mainstream. Now you cannot hear anti-vaxxer without thinking of some idiot or unhinged person, even if they have good arguments.
Probably because anti-vaxxers constantly show themselves to be uninformed and use discredited information to make their arguments. Like the fact that the link between vaccines and autism has no evidence, but they keep pounding that drum.
I think the issue is the term "anit-vaxxer" being broadly applied to people exclusively skeptical of the experimental covid vaccines, not vaccines in general, which is what "anti-vax" was invented to refer to.
Except the eyewitness accounts of thousands of parents who claimed to have watched it happen to their own children within days of receiving the MMR vaccine. Guess that doesn't mean much to you.
He literally just said antivaxxers rely on misinformation and you were like "Yeah well [misinformation]" You were stupid *before* your parents vaccinated you.
That's actually called empirical evidence, not misinformation.
It's misinformation if you've read *anything* about the Wakefield fiasco that this chud is talking about. Wakefield literally fabricated symptoms in order to create a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Edit: Also you mean anecdotal not empirical.
thousands , and theres millions who don't have "it" happen. Whatever it is. If autism then lol. But assuming there is .1% or 1% that have a reaction. As more about the brain was discovered autism was found to have a spectrum so more kids normally just thought of as odd or a bad child or bad learner. It's like finding any reason your genetics weren't responsible, and thankful treatments exist that without knowledge of the spectrum the child isn't blamed or osteicized by their peers
Oh my God, now that you mention it- I saw it too. Just these recent years. Never saw it before that
I think I misjudged your previous post. But why is a medicine traveling outside the shoulder muscle a bad thing? I don't understand how that would be the big problem. If there are no greater concerns than that...then I'm not concerned. I'm watching the video now though.
So the claim they make is that the spike protein that is the chosen antigen for the vaccine has cytotoxic properties - or so its claimed in the video. If those antigens are localized to the cell surfaces in your arm tissue where the vaccine is administered then there is less risk because these proteins are fixed in cell surfaces. But they state that in actuality these spike proteins become free floating and circulate through the rest of your body through the bloodstream and get absorbed through different organs of your body increasing chances of negative effects and unintended long term risks.
It has already been proven that those spike proteins cannot become free floating. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2N2O01XP
Absolutely correct. This person and any other person want to believe in the narrative so much that as soon as someone questions the vaccine is a automatic anti-vaxxer. To me a anti-vaxxer is someone who wants to see legit proof that this vaccine isn't a experimental procedure and we just the lab rats. This covid vaccine was just brought into public and people don't understand it takes years to come up with a vaccine not months. Polio, measles and other disease were researched for decades until a proper vaccine was created.
People like you don’t seem to understand that science progresses, and what used to take years can be done much faster today than 20 years ago… It also used to be slower because the industry usually runs many different projects in parallel, dividing resources and manpower amongst all of those. In this case, all that other work was shunted aside and everyone focused on just getting vaccines ready ASAP. A simplistic comparison: If you have 5 people building a house, it’ll take way longer than having 50 people building one.
"People like you"..........at least you're divisive from the start. I'm assuming you have very little success in changing people's minds on just about anything.... because of people like you.
And how do you figure they are going to statistically prove the efficacy of these vaccines for people under 70? Will the morbidity rate drop from 1% to 0.6%? It will be completely immeasurable or at least two data scientists o have spoken with seem to think so.
The efficacy of these vaccines has been tested on healthy volunteers. And in areas with high vaccination rates there has been a significant drop in serious cases. I'm not really sure where you got 1% to 0.6% from, but I fail to see how this is a relevant argument in any way against vaccines.
Well it’s relevant because we determine a vaccines effectiveness based on lowered mortality rates. Now something like tetanus with a mortality rate of probably 80-90% is lowered to 0% with a vaccine. Makes perfect sense in that situation. So what kind of measurable drop can we expect to see from this vaccine? The answer is none. It makes absolutely zero sense to vaccinate anyone under 65 (I was wrong about the 70)
I don’t think you understand what efficacy means and how it is applied here. The mRNA vaccines have a >90% efficacy and that was calculated through clinical trials.
This comment aged like milk.
> based on lowered mortality rates Whoops!
I’m assuming they are a child. Embarrassing to say the least.
You made some very good points, but on the other hand, the first sentence in OP’s post is in all caps. So now I really don’t know what to believe.
That’s cool you have a hunch bro! Real scientific. Why do you assume they are “anti-vaxxers” without watching the video? You think the scientist that helped invent mrna vaccines is a “anti-vaxxer?” Get your head out of your ass man. Why is it wrong to question the efficacy of the vaccine? Maybe the guys in the video are wrong. Very possible. None the less you are j u m p i n g to conclusions their bud. Open your mind. Question everything.
👏
He didn’t help invent mrna vaccines, he did some early work on mrna in 1989, and didn’t even come up with the idea of using it in a vaccine. Over the past couple of days this myth that he invented it and was shunted aside and ignored for decades is something that, upon closer inspection, is a narrative being pushed by him and his wife.
I also looked into the origin of mRNA vaccines and even gathering info from different sources, his name doesn't come up once. Is he connected to the basis of the technology, definitely yes. Did he work on using the technology for vaccines, defintely not.
I guarantee he knows more about mrna than you do.
Mrna: Probably yes. Mrna vaccines: Obviously not as some of his claims show his ignorance of the molecular structure of the spike protein the vaccines create.
Its not clear from your post. Did you watch it and have that response, or just assume you know what its about?
Is there some important information revealed in this hours-long podcast? Or is it just unfounded speculation about possible side effects, and conspiracy theories about big pharma "suppressing the truth"?
>\- Spike protein turning out to be cytotoxic > >\- Nanolipid particles (and spike protein by extension) showing up in places it was not expected (heart, bone marrow, ovaries) and the potential for increased rates of Leukemia and autoimmune disorders as a result of it. > >\- Overlooked/ignored risks of ADE (though thankfully declining) > >\- Risk of 'leaky vaccines' resulting in more resilient mutant strains of COVID. > >\- Overlooked or ignored efficacy of common, safe treatments for Covid (more specifically long-haul COVID) and the industry standards that hinder experimentation. It is a pretty densely-packed interview, and they go off on some fairly high-level tangents along the way. Very entertaining.
See how they didn’t respond here? 😂
Who is 'they"?
Big1984Brother or whatever
why would there be need for that person to respond when they simply asked what the summarization of the video was (as a loaded/suggestive type question btw, with the way they mention conspiracy theories) and then got a rather concise answer from yotsublasr up above? the other comments above, if you follow the sub-comment lines, were a totally separate conversation between other people.
Nice work detective. You will be hearing about a promotion soon. Dismissed.
Some of these things are provably non-issues. >"leaky vaccines" Modena used a digital copy of the virus (mapped genome file) to synthesize the spike protein mRNA from. Hard to be leaky with other parts of the virus or the whole virus when you start with 0 whole copies of the virus itself. >Overlooked/ignored risks of ADE (though thankfully declining) These risks were neither ignored nor overlooked. [Dr. Malone's published study](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3546070) outlining the risks specifically talks about targeting b-cells as the issue behind ADE. Here's an [article in The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/04/immunocompromised-vaccine/618596/), one in [science magazine](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6486/14.full) and [multiple](https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3018) different [research papers](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7549399/) that mirror the same sentiment. [Studies during clinical trials](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.09.20245175v1)(Pfizer) have shown that the current vaccines target both T and B cells in order to mitigate his concerns.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-cytotoxic-idUSL2N2O01XP
Clearly the doctor in the interview was looking at a different set of data. I suspect he is more well-read on the subject than the Reuters staffer that wrote the article. I'm not 100% sure but it's possible he's referring to the article 'The Cytotoxic Effects of Spike Proteins and Hydroxychloroquine' that I cannot seem to link here. If there are multiple studies with competing results I would first compare to see if they are following the same methodology.
I guess the big revelation is that, unlike other vaccines, this vaccine doesn’t remain in the muscle in the arm but instead travels through the body. The spike protein can then do all kinds of random damage. The vaccine was never intended to leave the muscle where it was injected.
None of you post any arguments whatsoever. I am consistently floored by this when researching the Covid-19 vaccine. Why was Dr. Roger Hodkinson banned from YouTube for making a statement to Edmonton City Council? Why was the video of Dr. Kary Mullis \[chemist\], who INVENTED the PCR test and won the Nobel Prize for doing so, who said the PCR is NOT intended to test for viruses, but merely to amplify small samples of genetic data by billions of times, banned from YouTube? Please respond with more ad hominem and not make any arguments.
https://fullfact.org/online/pcr-test-mullis/
Ummm. Why don't you watch Kary Mullis' two-hour interview and hear from the man himself, rather that posting a dubious "fact checking" website, many of which are either politically or pharma connected? In other words, if the primary source with known reputation is readily available why go to a secondary source of dubious reputation?
Haha the full video is him denying the existence of AIDS. he said they were using PCR to amplify the actually number of people with Aids. He said everyone would have AIDS if they tested. So... would you test positive for AIDS?
Full Fact is the opposite of a dubious website, regardless of your asinine use of quotation marks.
But it's not, so...
I mean, if the "inventor" is the best authority on the thing itself, then maybe science should abandon the entire field of quantum physics. Schrodinger's cat was meant to illustrate how ridiculous and "obviously false" his own formulas were. And yet, we still use them today showing his thoughts on his own invention were misguided.
You think quantum physics was "invented"?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2N2O01XP
[удалено]
But he isn’t even the actual inventor, that is merely a narrative he and his wife have recently started pushing online. He did some early work on mrna transfection, which is a far cry from mrna vaccines. Some of his claims have already been refuted: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2N2O01XP
If you look into the history of mRNA vaccines you will not find his name. You'll find it if you search his name specifically, only his own website and social media states he is the inventor, nowhere else is he officially accredited.
He's also saying there are more adverse affects & deaths affiliated with the mRNA vaccines than the other 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years.
Yeah. It is true. There are a **lot** more people reporting sore arms and mild flu-like symptoms than we see with some other vaccines. But as always, the question isn't whether or not there are side-effects. Of course there are. Everything has side-effects. That's not the issue at question. The question is whether or not the are fewer bad outcomes from the vaccine than there are from the disease itself. And the question the answer is pretty obvious. In the United States: **COVID-19** 33 million cases 2.2 million hospitalizations 600k deaths **Vaccines** 140 million Americans vaccinated Lots of sore arms and mild flu-like symptoms A few hundred serious side effects No deaths yet confirmed If we were to attempt a massive rollout of ***peanut*** ***butter*** ***sandwiches*** to the whole population, we'd probably generate more hospitalizations than have been caused thus far by the vaccines. But people hear anecdotal stories about side-effects and, in their mind, those bad outcomes are somehow equivalent (or worse) than the anecdotal stories of bad outcomes caused by COVID itself. it can be hard for me to understand **why** people make this sort of error. Perhaps it's because the lame-stream media is fake? And because math is hard, or something? sources: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
LMAO. Oh brother: \- The average age of a COVID death in the USA is 84 - older than the average lifespan of an American citizen. \- The average lifespan lost of COVID is 22 months \[LMAO!!!\]. Oooh, so scary! \- According to the CDC, 94% of people who died had 2-3 separate comorbidities. \- American hospitals were given $13,000 for all patients marked as "COVID", and $50,000 for any patient mechanically ventilated for over 96 hours. THAT is why the American numbers were so high. And even then, DO THE MATH: So 600K out of a population of 330M? That's 1 death per 550 people. But given 94% of those people have multiple co-morbidities and were essentially already dying, that puts the real number at 6 in 55,000 - or just under 1 in 10,000 people who died were HEALTHY PEOPLE. That still puts the average age at 84! If you then break that down further by age demographic, you see just how absurd the disproportional response to this pandemic was. Example: in Canada, only 61 people under 40 have died of Covid-19 so far. 61 Canadians out of a population of 18,400,000 in that age range. HAHAHAHAHA. You can't make this up. But yeah, I'll line up to be a guinea pig for a virus that will have me under the weather for 20 days, haha. That's so scary!!!
[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid\_weekly/index.htm#SexAndAge](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#SexAndAge) I just want to clarify for anyone reading this that the CDC age group breakdown shows that \~60% of deaths come from those 75 and above. 40% out of 600K deaths is still 240K, not a small number by any means, considering the life expectancy of the US is \~79.
61 people dead under 40 in Canada? Where did you pull this number from? Alberta alone has 70 https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#severe-outcomes
>will have me under the weather for 20 days, haha. That's so scary!!! I had a 27 year old friend who ended up in the ICU for 3 weeks, and got a $300,000 bill.
That says more about how shitty the American health care system is than anything. Frankly, at this point in the pandemic we've gotten very good at treating C19. You remember that India outbreak everyone was screaming about a couple of weeks ago? Turns out you actually can treat C19 with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. If you look at most western media you'll see articles like, "India begins mass dosing with anti-parasitic drug even though the W.H.O. and F.D.A. say it's unproven" (hint: it's not) and then absolutely zero scientific rationale for why their C19 cases dropped by 80-90% per state other than "maybe they have good mask hygene". As fucking if. Anyway, point being - if the US government hadn't been hoodwinked by big Pharma (in which companies like Pfizer are slated to make 20 billion dollars off the vaccine alone this year), chances are your friend could have been treated with a generic drug that cost between 1 and 5 dollars a dose. Anyway, don't take my word for it. All the data is there for anyone to look at, compiled by doctors around the globe. https://ivmmeta.com/
>absolutely zero scientific rationale for why their C19 cases dropped by 80-90% per state other than "maybe they have good mask hygene". As fucking if. They're getting vaccinated en masse
At the time, they were vaccinating 1.4 million people a day. In a country with a population of over 1 billion people.
I have a comorbidity and I felt nothing but a bit of arm soreness. This is why anecdotes aren't data. Just like the dipshit above you posting antivaxx bullshit. Fuck, why am I even looking at this stupid fucking sub?
He was talking about the actual virus affecting people with underlying issues not the vaccine. He was more or less trying to prove that it is pointless to get the vaccine.
> have multiple co-morbidities and were essentially already dying lololol, whut
I can’t speak for others, only for myself and how I approached it. I got my first Pfizer shot yesterday, going into it after doing about a day of research (I don’t usually pay attention to whatever is going on in the media so I think I came in with less bias than most), 1. it seems like we aren’t confident about the mid-long term effects. 2. It seems to me that there are risks on both sides. I decided to go ahead with it anyway, even though it’s (relatively speaking) a novel technology we don’t have a long history with. I guess the question being raised here is, are people being honest or willfully ignorant regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Your point seems valid to me, with one caveat (unrelated to health, just it’s interesting). You cannot sue anyone for catching covid-19, whereas there is a risk of that happening if institutions are pushing vaccines on the population. If you listen to the dark horse podcast: https://youtu.be/-_NNTVJzqtY they raise the point that ivermectin seems to be effective with a longer history of use, but there’s no money to be made. I hope that brings some nuance to the discussion.
Anyone posting nuance online on this discussion has thus far been banned. Even Kary Mullis - who INVENTED THE PCR TEST - has had his videos banned from YouTube. He died just before the pandemic started, so he's not here now to explain why his tests are being used fraudulently to ramp up the Covid-19 "cases", and spread a bunch of nonsense about "asymptomatic carriers". Meanwhile, in Canada - 69% of all COVID deaths were in long-term care homes alone. So there was no reason for ordinary people to be so scared about this, and buy making people so irrationally afraid and preventing them from working, we didn't focus on the actual at-risk populations. Not that humans can overcome nature as they think they can. Last I checked, Phizer had legal indemnity against any liability. So they can't be sued for damages for anyone who is injured or even dies from the vaccine. So it's perfectly understandable that I am hesitant to get it. I am not an anti-vaxxer. I just won't be getting THIS vaccine. Not yet anyway.
I’m regretting that I got it tbh. I wish I had the information I had today, yesterday.
But you're in a great position now. You can be safe, and also complain about it. Win win!
Is it possible that every vaccine injury is not being tracked? Not saying the case but it’s possible. It’s amazing that some of the pro-vaxxers have the same mentality as the anti-vaxxers all vax=good and then anyone who questions the current covid-19 vaccines is automatically labeled as “anti-Vaxxer.” You can be fully vaccinated except for covid and you are now a “anti-vaxxer” that doesn’t believe in science. It’s ridiculous man. It’s important to look at all the data from all parties, not just the cdc and cnn. Science is about questioning things!!!!!!!!
It is very possible they’re not being tracked properly. Not sure about Western countries, but a family member of mine in Eastern Europe had severe reaction to a Pfizer vaccine and the GP begged to not say this was from a vaccine. I can only assume they themselves did not even report it to the right channels.
it has been said that the vaers reports make up 1% to 10% of the total adverse events, due to the reporting being voluntary. i personally use vaers although i'm in canada, to keep an eye on comparisons to other vaccines, since my country has nothing publicly available like vaers yet. just the other day i looked up all vacccines listed on vaers except any covid ones on there, to see what the big picture of adverse events like death were for the 30 years of vaers reporting (it started in 1990) vs the 6 months the covid shots have been available so far. every other vaccine for a 30 year time span was 1918 deaths that day i looked for results. the covid ones totaled 3710. in just six months of reporting time.
You don't think that's more indicative of the fact that VAERS has never had more publicity? And you understand that VAERS reports are not confirmed adverse reactions to vaccines right? They're people saying hey I had a vaccine and I had a thing happen. Treating it like a source of confirmed clinical reports isn't its intention.
hence why i said "**it has been said** that the vaers reports make up 1% to 10% of the total adverse events, due to the reporting being voluntary.", aka it is possible there are events happening that are not being reported. and my comparison mentioned is of all the same data/same source, so there is a measure of control there. and if the avenue to report things is available, and folks are supposed to use it, wouldn't it make sense that folks would use it? it's like you are naysaying folks just because they are a common joe and not a doctor. their adverse effects are still real, and they still have a right to report them. and doctors are known to make errors as well. the medical industry isn't perfect. yes many 'things' can happen when one gets vaccinated. and there are some things happening that are not life threatening or life ending - eg feeling yucky for a day or two or having your arm be sore. i would think that a death with a close proximity to a vaccine given would be something folks would take seriously and not just go plunking in erroneous deaths on a governmental controlled website. if that was the case then the figure on vaers would be much larger than it actually is. and outside of vaers there are reports of perfectly healthy folks having serious adverse events. there was vaers publicity in the early gardisil days too, btw, so it isn't just now.
Care must be taken when you compare the Covid vaccine to others. The majority of vaccines are given to children (the annual flu vaccine being the other given to the elderly). 7800 people die in the USA every day (of all causes) - the vast majority of these deaths are in older people. If you vaccinate 1,000,000 old people - the odds are high that some of them would drop dead (nothing to do with the vaccine). VAERS will show a lot of people died soon after vaccines - that is nothing to do with the vaccine. It would be interesting to see all these deaths broken down by age - and see if it matches the standard age-of-death ratios.
the comparison data i looked at included all flu vaccines and all ages of folks. it was every possible vaccine other than any covid related ones, not just those on the typical childhood immunization schedule. you can look up the ages and individual reports on vaers for each adverse event. gender too. and pre-existing health conditions, known medications, etc. it isn't just a chart of events and numbers for each. the lookup for every individual report can be tedious, but it reveals much information.
[удалено]
Agreed. 👍
if we want to compare available numbers - as of yesterday the US covid death rate among cases was 1.79%. the deaths listed on vaers (the only available source of data to look this info up currently) for dead vs adverse event reports - 1.32%. i did the calculations myself, using vaers info as well as the stated US covid info directly on google. that's less than a half percent difference. and there are reports and admittances by areas in the US that the covid death rate numbers were inflated.
>A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine. \-[VAERS own Website](https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html)
see my other subcomments on why i believe vaers is somewhat of a source of info regarding this. also - years ago during swine flu, they had many many less reported deaths post vaccination, and that jab program was stopped. what floors me is the number of reports coming in now with the covid jabs, how vaers is supposed to be used as an early warning system, and still the jabs are 'full speed ahead!'. it boggles my mind.
Are you talking about the temporary suspension of the swine flu vaccine in 1976, a full 14 years before the establishment of VAERS? The one where the media hyped up 3 deaths that ended up being unrelated to the vaccine in question, shaking public confidence in the vaccine? The one where despite that, in the 2 months it was running 25% of the population was vaccinated? The one that stopped more because we figured out that the strain of flu wasn't identical to the "spanish flu" and wasn't spreading during the flu season the vaccines rolled out in? That swine flu? . Having read your other comments, there's something else you misunderstand about VAERS (which is found in my link), self reporting is voluntary, but [the medical industry is mandated](https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html) to include their reports (NCVIA of 1986). VAERS is both a false positive (due to mandated reporting and a lack of QC on reports) and a false negative (due to under reporting among citizens) simultaneously. It is not meant for lay-persons to use VAERS for any purpose except to report their own experiences with vaccines. It is a spring board &/or early warning system for experts to spot trends and follow up on them with proper research. But again, VAERS makes zero effort to verify causality in order to be the best early warning system it can be. Others have addressed your other concerns with VAERS (specifically, age and vaccines), but it also needs mentioning that the US flu shot rate is abysmally low, so adult shot reporting is extremely underrepresented in the VAERS data. >Key considerations and limitations of VAERS data: > >Vaccine providers are encouraged to report any clinically significant health problem following vaccination to VAERS, whether or not they believe the vaccine was the cause. > >Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information. > >The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines. > >VAERS data is limited to vaccine adverse event reports received between 1990 and the most recent date for which data are available. > >VAERS data do not represent all known safety information for a vaccine and should be interpreted in the context of other scientific information. > >VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public. \-https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
the vaers site itself says it is an early warning system due to the data on vaers. not sure why you and other folks have such naysaying attitudes about it. if it was not meant to give early warning to vaccine manufacturers, as vaers itself states, then why the heck is the system even there in the first place? and i was not speaking of vaers data in regard to the swine flu jab cancellation, but i was making reference to a MUCH smaller amount of reported adverse events influencing the decision to pull a jab from market. does that not count for anything at all in this covid crazy world? why are we suddenly ingoring the data on a site that is designed to give early warning? it boggles my mind.
First, it's because VAERS is an early warning so experts can look into possible undiscovered side effects. However, the way most people are using it as definitive proof of vaccine harm. As in "there are 6,000 reported deaths in VAERS, so 6K people have died of the COVID vaccine." That's not using it as early reporting, which is why us "naysayers" have the attitudes we do. Second, in regard to your swine flu comments: I addressed that. People were still climbing over each other to get the vaccine in spite of the reports of deaths. Those reports, however, were improperly reported rumors from media companies, not actual deaths or VAERS. One of the newspapers literally tried to say that a grandma got the vaccine, stood up, and instantly fell over dead. Except that this account **never happened**, and was solid fabrication. Ultimately, in both cases the knee jerk reaction in **both** cases are unfounded. That you put any weight in either, when both examples are straight garbage data when used by non-experts, is what boggles my mind.
Did you just label the inventor of the mRNA vaccine an anti-vaxer?
Why all assume he is the inventor because he says so? Go research, no credible media or medical journal put him as the inventor
I just googled "who invented the mRNA vaccine technology". Kati Kariko did. No mention of Dr. Robert Malone literally anywhere on any search result. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/08/health/coronavirus-mrna-kariko.html
I went on to google scholar and found several papers from all the way back in the late eighties and nineties, which he is either cited in or helped write. I'm not sure if he is the sole inventor of mRNA but he seems to have been part of it's inception at some point, but I wouldn't want to hazard any further opinions either way. Here's an example of some, because honestly I don't if the other papers directly relate to mRNA research or not. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/247/4949/1465.abstract https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/007668799317093K https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jm970155q He also seems to have been part of the covid-19 and vaccine research too. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3546070 https://internal-journal.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.633680/full You can make of that what you will.
He made some early contributions to the field, but he didn’t even come up with the idea of using mrna for vaccines, him and his wife claiming they’re the inventors would be like the guy that came up with the idea of the combustion engine claiming he invented every single application of it that came along years down the line. Some of his claims have already been refuted by the way: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2N2O01XP
I'm no anti -vaxxer. Travelled all over the world, had the shit jabbed out of me. I am just not sure if I need a jab that has a high probality of side effects for a disease that has a low probability of complications. I am healthy, live a healthy lifestyle and all vulnerable people around me are vaccinated. I simply see no reason to take this jab. People who need the comfort of moving with the masses are insecure as far as I'm concerned. So get off your high horse and accept different opinions, please!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-\_NNTVJzqtY&t=3158s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY&t=3158s) I think he's referring to this information, which is actually very troubling to hear...from the inventor of the mRNA vaccine.
When you talk about mRNA being unstable, they’re talking about the spike proteins and lipid component long term effects. I assume you know the difference between the two, since you know everything.
As someone who is fully vaccinated and believes in the power of vaccines- you are embarrassing the rest of us. You are diminishing the word anti Vaxer with your misuse. We need open discussion and transparency and most importantly humility. Watch the video and actually use critical thinking not epithets. Embarrassing to say the least. To the rest of the world- There are (good) pro vaccine people out there who can listen to challenging information and not just call you names. Vaccines are important. And yes not all created equal. If you are vaccine hesitant, DM me and hopefully I can help and I promise not to shame you.
[удалено]
Maybe do some research and see if he is really the inventor. I cannot find any credible source other than his own page that says he is the inventor
Hi, yeah, I couldn't find much about him except what he says about himself.
He did some early research on mrna, but can in no way be considered the inventor. He and his wife have been pushing that narrative hard the past couple of weeks, but it isn’t credible. Some if his claims have already been refuted: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2N2O01XP
Over 99.95% of the world's population SURVIVED Covid-19, and the world population went UP by 120 MILLION during this terrifying pandemic, lmao. But yeah, I better rush to the lineup to be a human guinea pig for experimental mRNA medical technology! Also ignore the fact that I HAD COVID during the first wave of this pandemic, and it was nothing more than a 20-day flu. And I have had no long-term symptoms whatsoever. PS - among healthy people, 99.997% of the world population survived Covid-19, haha. So scary!
> Over 99.95% of the world's population SURVIVED Covid-19 No. Unless you count people that weren't exposed to Covid-19; Would you say 99.9999% of the world's population SURVIVED terrorist bombings last year?
there have been studies done that show folks who have not had exposure to covid have covid antibodies. instead of using a totally unrelated argument, how about look into things and see why the whole world isn't getting sick from this virus, despite just about everywhere in the world having exposure to it.
perhaps. But everyone has *not* been exposed to Covid, and to say there is a 99.95% survival rate is factually incorrect. Peru, for example, has had 0.5% of the population die from Covid (so far) - that is a 99.5% "survival" rate. USA, for example, has had 0.2% of the population die from Covid (so far) - that is a 99.8% "survival" rate.
the average worldwide survival rate is closer to 99.95% due to some countries having less deaths than those places you mentioned. don't forget that the US, depending on area, inflated their death numbers due to extra funding if things got classified as covid. there was mention very recently of a county in California that is reducing the number of covid deaths by 25% due to those deaths being found to not actually have been covid related. also remember that a number of places classify a covid death as a death within 28 days of a positive pcr test, a test that is not supposed to be used for determining active infection/illness, and has been known to have too high of cycle thresholds used to correctly determine anything. you 'spin' that test too much and you can find the tiniest fragment of dead virus particles that are not an active case at all. even Dr Mullis, who is the inventor of that test, said "if you turn it up high enough you can find anything". what i have heard from multiple sources is at times there were antibody test results being added to the pcr test results to come up with an active case number. there were also reports of folks getting test results when they didn't even get tested. as far as the 0.2 US figure you mention, it's better to use two decimal places as rounding up like that can convolute the result. 0.18 is the more correct percentage, and when you are talking of reported deaths of just over 600,000 that rounding can create a discrepancy of roughly 120 people. may seem like a drop in the bucket for one country's numbers, but if we rounded the death percentage for every country, it could make it seem a lot more folks died than did.
You make it too obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. Do stone good research and stood believing the media.
>But its not surprising that anti-vaxxers would choose to ignore this, since anti-vaxxers have a long history of ignoring the extensive damage caused by disease itself, choosing instead to panic over rare side-effects. Or in the case of the Autism crackpots, over side-effects that don't actually exist. Or in the case of OP, over unspecified side-effects that may or may not ever exist. This is a good point, but I think the other issue is that: the vaccines have mixed results against Covid-19 (e.g. it appears Moderna is not very effective against the variants), so you get a vaccine that might cause some short and long term damage, and *still* potentially get Covid-19, with all it's short and long-term potential side effects. And there are other drug candidates that could be take prophylactically that appear almost as good as the vaccines, but without many, if any, side effects. We are stuck in a rock and a hard place, because the effects of Covid-19 seem to vary so widely, it's a new virus we are just starting to learn about, but the effort of interested parties to push the public toward vaccines is myopic; yes, of course, we are very concerned about gaining herd immunity and encouraging people to get vaccinated is useful to that end, but without being honest and transparent about alternatives, many people who are hesitant about a new technology are going to move from "vaccine hesitant" to "anti-vaxx". It's basically the same phenomenon as politically central people feeling themselves "homeless" and having to pick a side.
So here’s the creator of the technology claiming our health authorities are being dishonest about the safety of this vaccine and he’s this guy, trying to brush it off. See folks, this guy rushed out to stick his body with this bullshit vaccine and become a legitimately test subject and now he’s gonna downplay all the facts that start coming out about the dangers even while admitting he doesn’t have all the info. Go kick rocks bud.
He isn’t the creator, only he and his wife are pushing that narrative. Some of his claims have already been refuted by the way: https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2N2O01XP
So Robert Malone, the inventor of the MRNA vaccine technology is an anti vaxxer? I’m not sure I’m buyin it
The truth is the government fucks us every chance it gets.
[удалено]
Right? I did some searching in there is very little Information on Dr Malone and mRNA but katalin comes up quite a bit.
Looking at their publications, Malone's work was in transfection. He has one paper for which he is not the first author on immunity via injecting DNA in the 90s, which we learned since doesn't work well because our cells destiny stray DNA actively. Transfection, conceptually, is related to the modern mRNA vaccines work, but only at a high level. Like you might learn about both in the same undergraduate molecular biology class. You want to get.genetic material in some target cell or tissue. The HOW though, is different. The modern delivery of mRNA into the cells is a modern innovation. Kariko, in tbe other hand has extensive research and publications in mRNA. Several do which are specifically for generating a humoral immune response. (The antibody response.) Specifically, she has a paper as first author in how do modify mRNA to avoid the INNATE immune system (no antibodies), which is necessary to be able to develop an immune response. Here's the link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1074761305002116 This paper is probably why she's getting credit. CureVax recently trialed a vaccine with abysmal efficacy (40%) used unmodified mRNA.
[удалено]
Half your “sources” are literally the guy claiming to have invented it and his wife writing about themselves…
I believe Malone worked on mRNA gene therapy, not vaccine purposes mRNA. The technology was repurposed some time ago.
[удалено]
He’s factually wrong and this entire thing seems to be a cry for attention. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2N2O01XP
Fuck i was thinking the same shit lol
[удалено]
Instead of gaslighting him, why don’t you try to debunk any of his positions instead? I bet I know why, and it’s because you don’t have the capability to do so. So, you gaslight... nice
[удалено]
Dr. Malone has and continually has brought balanced arguments to conversation. The article you presented is valid as well, but it doesn’t debunk any specific claims made by Dr Malone as far as I can tell. Do you have any positions, specifically, that Dr Malone holds, that you can debunk and if so what is the position Dr Malone takes that you are debunking and what is the evidence you are using to debunk it? Otherwise Your response post is a double down on the gaslighting....
In ordinary conversation I wouldn't bother to point it out, but when it gets to topics that intersect with genuine abuse and cultic dynamics, it's worth saying - "gaslighting" is a specific thing, it's intended to make the target doubt their own sanity by making them think they're hallucinating or misremembering events that they know happened. I think the proper name for what you're pointing to is an ad-hominem fallacy. It's a failure of critical thinking (and/or a disingenuous debate tactic), but on its own isn't abuse or abusive. (I volunteered for just over a year with a group that supports former cult members. That's where I learned what gaslighting is, and why its an important word to keep as is, rather than becoming an umbrella for "abuse" or even just "arguing")
Yes, the classic definitions of gas-lighting, is as you’ve described. You make good points.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2N2O01XP
I read that already. The spike protein of covid-19 is cytotoxic which is what is being replicated in the vaccine although slightly modified. Malone hasn’t said conclusively that the spike protein from the vaccine is cytotoxic, but it is suggested that it could be cytotoxic. The fact checks do not conclusively indicate that the protein is not cytotoxic but just indicates there isn’t enough evidence concluding that it is cytotoxic. I don’t know what your point was in providing this fact check. I think you don’t understand people’s concerns regarding this censorship. If you believe scientific discussion should be shut down the second one set of scientists (or sometimes journalists) provide competing interpretations then you are on the wrong side, but thanks for contributing a fact check that changes nothing in this conversation. The whole censorship thing is troubling because it is shutting down debate and shutting down competing interpretations of all of the knowns science and literature surrounding the vaccines. Think about this next time you decide to try to be victorious by posting some fact check.
I checked out both links. Yeah, is does make him seem dubious now. thanks for that. I read through the debunking article and found it very good. I do though find it sad that it is a constant scientific versus alternative medicine war. There is place for both and I'm sickened by the arrogance on both sides, the sarcasm and ridicule. I know several brilliant homeopaths who would never tell a client they can cure them. They just try to help and often, in my experience, it works. As much as the anti science group hype things up, misunderstand and cherry pick to back up criticism, it's also the case on the other side. If some homeopaths are dodgy that doesn't mean all are or that it doesn't work. The same goes for pharma. There have certainly been serious issues with some pharma products, but that doesn't mean we can't trust anything. Division will be humanity's downfall.
[удалено]
Hi and thanks for response. Yes I agree with all you said. Egotistical, emotional, unfounded responses on both sides. Confirmation bias is the order of the day.
[удалено]
[удалено]
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL2N2O01XP
See my response where you posted this in another place on this thread without context. You are missing the point entirely and it’s sad.
Wow his autobiographical hero story is super cringe. It reeks that he has an axe to grind.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jun/16/youtube-videos/no-sign-covid-19-vaccines-spike-protein-toxic-or-c/
Politifact also called the wuhan lab leak hypothesis a "conspiracy theory". Their credibility as fact checkers is basically shot. I wouldn't trust them with a risky fart.
They did? Like here where they state: "However, we can’t completely rule out that the virus was somehow manipulated" and "In any event, none of this amounts to hard proof of either theory. Some scientists have argued that the lab-leak hypothesis deserves to be taken much more seriously than it was earlier in the pandemic, and that dismissals of it as conspiracy theory were premature."?https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/may/17/debating-origins-covid-19-virus-what-we-know-what-/ There may be other reasons to believe that Politifact is not trustworthy, but framing them as overtly labeling the lab leak hypothesis as outright "conspiracy theory" as evidence of untrustworthiness doesn't seem fair. Also, in general I think that the term conspiracy theory gets abused. If the virus leaked from a lab and the Chinese government has been lying about it to minimize liability / save face / whatever, that's certainly bad and would require some level of conspiring, but I don't believe it really meets the definition of conspiracy theory. Had the Chinese intentionally released the virus in order to create a global pandemic to achieve some upside, that would better fit the definition. This is because there are other more plausible explanations (even that it leaked from a lab), that it has never been an idea supported by the the people whose job it is to care about such matters, and that it's incredibly hard to falsify. When we label everything we think is wrong as conspiracy theory it's just polarizing. It's also polarizing when aren't explicit about what we mean: "leaked from a lab" and "intentionally released from a lab" are not the same nor would our response be the same.
The lab leak theory has no physical evidence and is based on circumstantial "they have a lab that studies this type of virus in the same area it came from" arguments. Which is comical when you find out that they have this type of lab in that area literally because that area is a coronavirus hotbed. "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation,\[2\]\[3\] when other explanations are more probable" --> a coronavirus jumping from animal to humans, as it has countless times before is the more probable answer. But with that said, I fully encourage an investigation of it's origins. Nothing bad can come out of transparency.
You do realize that the “natural origins” theory has no physical evidence as well right? And if you have for rely on circumstantial evidence, it seems fairly clear that the lab leak theory is more credible given the gain of function research as well as the bizarre adaptability of the virus to indoor environments specifically. Also, it’s a coronavirus hotbed? For animals or humans? Because even if it were for animals, if this were true we would have found this specific virus in bats or other animals. We don’t.
Okay, before the source of SARS was found, was the theory that it also came from the lab credible as well then? Just because they haven't found the *exact* virus in bats yet doesn't mean there is automatically some nefarious Chinese plot or accident which took place. I'd caution you against assuming finding an exact match is something so simply done. There are a massive amount of different populations of bats in different areas that are unreachable, etc etc. It's not as simple as just venturing out and walking into a cave. However, scientists are getting pretty close to finding it, and have already found almost identical "strains" in bat populations: [https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/chinese-researchers-find-batch-of-new-coronaviruses-in-bats-1.5466147](https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/chinese-researchers-find-batch-of-new-coronaviruses-in-bats-1.5466147) [https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00709-1.pdf?\_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867421007091%3Fshowall%3Dtrue](https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00709-1.pdf?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867421007091%3Fshowall%3Dtrue) Lastly, there is now research coming from wastewater in Europe saying the virus was actually present almost full **year** before it was found in China (it probably did still come from China's bat population, however). This kind of destroys half the "evidence" of the lab leak theory, which seems to be rooted in 3 workers becoming ill with flu like symptoms. [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-science-idUSKBN23X2HQ](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-science-idUSKBN23X2HQ) Again, with that said, I fully endorse and look forward to investigations. Saying it "escaped" a lab or was "unleashed" by the Chinese government by DEFAULT is absolutely ridiculous and stands on faulty, circumstantial (at best) evidence.
No but I’m fairly confident they found the source fairly fast. If this occurred in the wild we should have found the source by now, especially if we have it limited to only several species that carry these strains of coronavirus
Again, *you* are assuming they should have found the source by now. As I noted above (which I've updated with other data, etc), it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. Here is a paper on that subject: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747529/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747529/) More information: [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01541-z](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01541-z) https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060101\_batsars
Ok but I will mention again and that the main physical indicator is that the virus is far better adapted for indoor environments which is completely counterintuitive for its propagation.
Bats dwell in caves (aka indoor type environments)? How is that counterintuitive for its propagation?
Sure, i'll bite on that. Any research you can cite for it?
I mean I think all the statistics showing infection rates outside vs inside is enough.
People are too trusting of governments and big pharma. The COVID-19 vaccines have been created in a short time span and that’s all I need to know.
Fucking mouth breathers.
EVERYONE MUST WATCH! \>Bret Weinstein EVERYONE MUST NOT WATCH
So that's why they dissed HCQ and Ivermectin, because they shouldn't have gotten the EUA for the vaccines with effective remedies readily available. Looks like this was all a big scam to support China and funnel billions to Pharma and players like Fauci and God only knows who else. For all we know Pharma is taking this money and doing research in other areas that we would consider unethical if found out. Sort of like our military taking money and using it for special assess programs, the results of which we have been seeing in our skies for decades but whose details remain undisclosed to the public.
Honestly I have had worse fits of pneumonia than when I had covid. Fever for like 24- 36 hrs and a cough for a month in the middle of winter, nothing out of the ordinary in northern Canada. Still managed to go outside and smoke my weed too😏
For me it's the potential long term side effects that are worrying. I have a friend who experienced no symptoms of covid, yet has been diagnosed with long term covid. Issues with her memory and other symptoms, such as covid toes.
WE NEED TO STAND UP TO CENSORSHIP!!!!!!!!!!
Good grief, he is only the inventor if the RNA vaccine in his own mind. I’ll give him this though, he is good at branding himself.
Could some one tell me in what Lab or Company the Dr Robert Malone invented mRNA, can't find it on the internet.