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
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.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243.pdf
There. Article has a ton of citations going all the way back to the 70's. Of particular note is:
Wolff, J. A. et al. Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Science 247, 1465–1468 (1990). This study demonstrates protein production from RNA administered in vivo.
It took literally 5 seconds to find it on DuckDuckGo. I'm not writing a friggin' newspaper article or scientific paper here - and neither are you. If you want to verify something you can ask politely for a source or try to find it.
IF I was writing a paper I'd take a different stance on this - but I'm not.
What is that research supposed to demonstrate?
Is it substantial enough to satisfy the requirements of the FDA to license a vaccine?
If not, why not?
Has the Covid “mRNA vaccine” been approved by the FDA for licensure, or has it been “authorized for emergency use (EUA)?”
What is the difference?
What is the effect of being approved for licensure?
What is the effect of EUA?
Does one offer greater protections for people?
Does one offer greater benefits for manufacturers?
If all the research done to date is not sufficient to satisfy the FDA’s requirements for to licensure, and thereby provide people the protections accompanying the same, why should anyone find said research reassuring or confidence building in any way?