posted ago by MrDonaldTrump
+100 / -0
It's no coincidence that a vaccine was approved right after the election. We all know it's a medical impossibility that a novel virus vaccine can be developed and approved in less than 9 months. The reason they've approved it so quickly is because it's nothing more than a placebo.
It's no coincidence that a vaccine was approved right after the election. We all know it's a medical impossibility that a novel virus vaccine can be developed and approved in less than 9 months. The reason they've approved it so quickly is because it's nothing more than a placebo.
Here's why I don't believe this is the case.
We have some extremely clever people in our freedom camp, and they're all over the world. There's so many ways to self publish, even non-peer reviewed research can be published easily.
If this were the case, they WOULD have said something, found something. Look at how we're uncovering all this election fraud, and that's just a fragment of the scientists and researchers that exist globally. You think weaponized autism wouldn't have uncovered this?
My personal opinion is that it isn't man made, because we have SO MUCH precedent. Even the Spanish flu likely originated in China. I have based colleagues who have looked at the virus in depth and they don't think it looks man-made. We also accept we may be wrong, and uncover more as time passes (unlike Dems who can't even fathom a differing opinion) but at the moment, this is where we stand.
I'll have a listen, sure.
So, the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 in the spike protein is optimized for binding to human ACE2, right? We know this quite well, which is why the thing is so contagious. It does its job optimally. It's also why people wonder whether it's man-made.
BUT, if genetic manipulation had been performed, it would have shown signs from previously used virus backbone. For example, if one of the reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses were used, it'd have shown that and we could have traced it to a coronavirus that we know.
But SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from ANY previously used virus backbone. What I DO think might have happened is they found a new virus, analyzed it, and did not handle it well enough so it spread out. But Occam's razor suggests the simplest explanation is the true one - a novel virus, no previously used backbone, a zoonotic infection without needing manmade interference. How many viruses have come from there before? And even Africa, the same thing happens.
As for the HIV protein, tests against viral sequence database show these insertion sequences exist in all kinds of viruses - from flu to giant eukaryotic viruses. (Table of evidence here, but it might be too convoluted if not in the medical field but it shows these insertion sequences are widely present in living organisms including viruses, but not HIV-1 specific: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7033698/table/T0001/)
I cannot speak for all of them, but the Oxford one is not a placebo. (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine not the mrna one)
Like every medication you will take, there are benefits, risks and side effects.
You have to be logical when taking any vaccine or medication.
Are you high risk of developing COVID complications? Maybe you're in your 80s/90s, or maybe you're working with such sick people in the ICU, intubating them, that the aerosolized viral load you receive daily is extremely dangerous and unlike normal viral loads?
Then the vaccine's benefits might outweight the risks for you. It makes sense to acclimatize your immune system to a small amount of incapacitated adenovirus before you get whiplashed with the viral loads of the ICU.
Are you healthy and in your prime, taking care of your immune system and not in contact with immunocompromised, frail people? Is your job low risk?
Then maybe the risks of having side effects outweight the benefit, and you skip the vaccine.
You also need to remember the chance of side effects is not 50-50. If your chance of dying from a rat wound is 60%, and the chance of having a genetic abnormality in your children is 0.16%, then the logical answer is to eliminate the immediate danger, right?
It's the same with rabies vaccines, tetanus, etc. A rabies shot saves your life and rabies is terminal in pretty much 100% of cases.
There are vaccines I felt were too risky for me, and vaccines I took (e.g. after an animal bite) that I felt were worth the risk.
There's no one clear way in or out, IMO. The important thing is to not erode people's liberty, keep them informed, and let them make their own decisions.
I've thought the same. but not to identify the sheep, but to ID the wolves!
Yep.
A lot harder to id the needles in the haystack than the hay.
Reading the description of the Pfizer vax, it's difficult for me to believe it will be particularly effective or harmful.
How much of this RNA is going to make it through to where it can make these magic spike proteins no matter how they package it. This single strand mRNA it broken down by everything.
Half the stuff will be rendered inert in transportation.
This is someone's grad project rendered into a product by marketing. It doesn't work. Take 2 doses or 3.
Sugar pills would be a waste of an opportunity. If they are going to inject crap into the bodies of "useless eaters", then I would imagine it would be harmful crap.
Not a great selling point...
Step 1, Identify the useless idiots
k