It's not a vaccine. They say so themselves. They say it's an operating system. It's mRNA. It's nanotechnology and gene-editing biotechnology. It changes your RNA to produce antibodies, and therefore is not a vaccine
- https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/vaccine
- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/vaccine
- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/vaccine
Merriam webster has edited their definition to include the mRNA therapeutic. Which definition is authoritative? Who has the authority to change definitions of things.
Also, at the time that the vaccine injury laws were made, the Merriam webster definition did not inlcude this new technology, since it hadn't ever been made yet much less conceived
It's a legal argument worth having, or at least debating with medical lawyers
There's a reason I'm holding on just a minute to make sure everything's alright with everybody else.
But I also have to say a few things in defense of this technology. Hear me out before you downvote!
Firstly it's been around for some 32-odd years, and it's been tested extensively on animals.
The traditional vaccine is to inject a very weakened form of the virus - weakened primarily through poisons or metals, and have the body respond to it naturally, therefore creating antibodies. These reagents for weakening could cause serious allergic reactions - and some claim it could cause autism, although I personally don't think so. Regardless - a way to avoid these kinds of problems would be welcome, would it not?
RNA is indeed part of how DNA is duplicated, so it's natural to be concerned that it'll enter our cell nucleus and start mutating us, but that's never been observed, and I think the medical profession knows this well. You ingest a ridiculous amount of RNA and DNA every day simply by eating, and it doesn't fly into your stomach and start altering the DNA in it to resemble that of a cow or a grain or whatever.
But RNA can bond with anything biological, thus you can create an antibody made virtually entirely of RNA.
In this way you'll get an antibody without having an immune response. That means you don't get mild COVID symptoms - perhaps you get no symptoms at all. You didn't have to make that antibody.
This is in some ways similar to a "vaccine" involving the transfer of blood plasma - antibodies get injected directly into your blood stream - you didn't have to make them.
So yes, I would characterise this as a vaccine. It may even be a superior way of making them - we shall see. I will agree that this is a rushed experiment though - I think everybody understands that.
You are dangerous. You have identified no reason anyone should give any credence to your representations.
The survival rates of Covid 19 per the CDC are
99.997% for ages 0-19 99.98% for ages 20-49 99.5% for ages 50-69 94.6% for ages 70+
These survival rates are without the use known efficacious treatments (e.g. hydroxychloroquine & Ivermectin).
Arguably, no one under 50 needs a vaccine (risks of vaccine higher than infection). Further, if people were treated properly no one would need a vaccine at all, which should make everyone ask why push it?
WE DON’T NEED TO BE VACCINATED AGAINST THIS VIRUS. WE CERTAINLY DON’T NEED TO BECOME GUINEA PIGS FOR AN EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGICAL AGENT LABELED “Vaccine.”
If there have been animal studies re: mRNA “vaccines” where are they? If there haven’t been, there should be before it is given to humans.
If it were KNOWN to be safe, why do the pharmaceutical companies need to be protected from litigation.
If they have no financial risk in administering the “vaccine.” Why shouldn’t they experiment on us. If we have no assurance or recourse if something goes wrong, why would we take it,
No 1/2 baked analysis by an ignoramus on a Q board should persuade people otherwise.