What's your source on the mRNA vaccine causing cytokine storm? Not a callout, I'm genuinely interested. Any time you see research, peer-reviewed or not, that uses a cat model to prove any point, whether it be related to immunology or cancer, it usually means a) we don't know enough about the topic to draw any kind of factual conclusion or b) the research is complete bullshit and was funded by an entity with a leftist agenda. You've gotta take it with a grain of salt. For example I could give 1000 lab rats the mRNA vaccine and half would get cancer and maybe 25% of them die from the side effects. That's because research with rats does not translate to humans, on top of the fact that lab rats frequently develop cancer regardless of what they're given.
I don't care to prove my credentials, because I don't find it worth doxxing myself to win an online debate. I can tell you that I have studied immunology for many years though.
You say that you haven't looked at it that closely, then tell me I'm the one spreading misinformation. Maybe look at it closer?
The underlying problem here is that we're talking about a poorly studied vaccine for a flu-like disease. The misinformation surrounding covid and the vaccines is infinite. I think what you're referring to though is the possibility of the vaccine developing non-neutralizing antibodies, meaning when you get the actual virus those antibodies do nothing to help you. This is commonly seen in cat models in covid research. You're suggesting that the vaccine itself will cause effects that only the actual virus can produce, which is simply false.
What's your source on the mRNA vaccine causing cytokine storm? Not a callout, I'm genuinely interested. Any time you see research, peer-reviewed or not, that uses a cat model to prove any point, whether it be related to immunology or cancer, it usually means a) we don't know enough about the topic to draw any kind of factual conclusion or b) the research is complete bullshit and was funded by an entity with a leftist agenda. You've gotta take it with a grain of salt. For example I could give 1000 lab rats the mRNA vaccine and half would get cancer and maybe 25% of them die from the side effects. That's because research with rats does not translate to humans, on top of the fact that lab rats frequently develop cancer regardless of what they're given.
I don't care to prove my credentials, because I don't find it worth doxxing myself to win an online debate. I can tell you that I have studied immunology for many years though.
You say that you haven't looked at it that closely, then tell me I'm the one spreading misinformation. Maybe look at it closer?
The underlying problem here is that we're talking about a poorly studied vaccine for a flu-like disease. The misinformation surrounding covid and the vaccines is infinite. I think what you're referring to though is the possibility of the vaccine developing non-neutralizing antibodies, meaning when you get the actual virus those antibodies do nothing to help you. This is commonly seen in cat models in covid research. You're suggesting that the vaccine itself will cause effects that only the actual virus can produce, which is simply false.