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.
Why am I dangerous?! I'm just expressing my opinion on an internet forum. If that's dangerous, then what're everybody else here? Is the MSM right about you - that you're all dangerous because you express an opinion? I don't think so.
I'm not disputing that COVID-19 is far less dangerous than it'd made out to be.
But whether the vaccine is based on good technology or not is a completely separate matter.
Here's some papers on tests using apes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7449230/
You, did not offer an opinion. An opinion can be identified as such by stating “I think” or “I believe” “xyz” is good, or bad, safe or dangerous, you wrote...
”But I also have to say a few things in defense of this technology. Hear me out before you downvote!”
Then you go one to make statements such as;
“[f]irstly (sic), it’s been around for some 32 odd years and it’s been tested extensively on animals.”
Either those statements are true, or false, they cannot be said to be “opinions.”
It is DANGEROUS when people assert alleged “facts” with an authoritative tone (stating you have to say a few things in defense of the technology, then listing apparent “facts” related to the same), could easily leave a person with the impression you KNOW of which you speak.
Obviously you do not KNOW of which you speak! In support of your claims and as “proof” of your position you provided a link to an NIH study done in 2020, which is questionable for many obvious reasons (conflicts of interest, short period of time etc.), by a scientists who in past tweets repeated the claim that the Coronavirus was a form of genocide against black people (hardly a voice of reason).
When you start spewing unsupported facts (without citation made to credible sources), and assert them as truth your statements are reckless and dangerous. That is my opinion.
Obviously, your choice to ignore my reasonable questions related to the so called “vaccine,” and escape accountability by trying to claim your statements of fact we’re “opinions” and linking to a study that is less than a year old to support your claim “it’s been around for 32 odd years and tested extensively on animals,” is at best lame.
You offered nothing but confusion, you challenged no one to think, in fact you did the opposite, you effectively said, let me tell you what I know that you don’t.
Valuable, reliable information should be verifiable by anyone interested. That is why Q asked questions. People need to think for themselves, ask questions and seek answers.
If what you wrote was verifiable you should have provided credible citations, if it’s not, you should not say it. The fact that you chose to say it without support makes you the biggest question here at the moment.