Stops or greatly lessens 99.99% of ALL lung infections from colds and flu bugs.
Toss in 25mg of Zinc and 500Mg of Vitamin C - DAILY - and you are coming close to MAXIMIZING YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM CAPABILITIES....
And don't forget - vaccine or not - Treatment or not - IT IS "YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM" that does the lion's share of ALL THE WORK in defeating the virus.... every single Virus.... every single time!!!
FDA normally recommends 800iu/day... most people have lower then normal blood levels, especially in the Winter... Sunshine on skin also produces Vit D for the body...
Toxic levels of Vitamin D are 20 times or more.... Hospitals will give a 40,000IU
Vit D shot to patients in certain situations. The effects of Vit D also go well beyond just the immune system.
If you are low on Vitamin D... take 5,000iu/day for a week...
Sadly - THE GOV KNOWS THIS VITAMIN D efficacy.... THE CDC KNOWS ALL THIS.... yet seem to be almost silent on this care protocol during the Pandemic.....
Just remember this simple trick. IU vs MG are units, but also normally indicate fat-soluble vs water-soluble. The reason you can take so much vitamin C and not worry is that water-soluble will be flushed out quickly, but fat-soluble will be stored much longer. Although vitamin-d is not normally toxic, as you pointed out, just keep an eye out for symptoms of overdosing. And yes anything can be dangerous if consumed in dangerous amounts, even water.
That being said, if you are feeling great then your probably doing the right thing. Stay safe out there.
All nutrients (vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to “prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease
I think 500-1000 should keep you out of being deficient for most of the year, but in summer time where sunlight is so common I'm intent on stopping Vitamin D all, but once or twice a week. It depends on the person and body, but D gets old as it makes you pee more often.
Please get your arrogance in check. Asking for a source is a legitimate request for more information from a presumably trusted source. That you replied with “please get yourself together” only shows that you took the request as an insult. Not everyone is out to get you.
5000IU is recommended per day.
As someone else has already pointed out in the other reply to you, vitamin D toxicity is a real thing. If you ignore it you can do so at your own peril, but you shouldn’t dish out random medical advice to others, especially without posting a corroborating source.
You can test your levels every 6 months for $30 at any lab.
Wow look at Mr. Moneybags over here with a disposable $60 a year! Not everyone enjoys getting jabbed unnecessarily and not everyone is vitamin D deficient.
Too much vitamin D can cause issues and at a minimum can cause you to have to use the bathroom much more. Vitamin D toxicity is a real thing and our bodies produce a ton of it during the sunniest 6 months making taking it probably redundant especially in high amounts.
As stated below everyone should have their levels checked. Also in the US only the very southern tip of Florida can you receive the proper rays of sunshine to make vit d all yr round. Our bodies only store one month supply. Up in ND where I live we only have May through September where we can make enough vit d from sunlight. A good rule of thumb is if your shadow is longer than you are tall you aren’t creating vit d.
I’m taking 10,000 under drs care and it is keeping my levels at the minimum and that was during the summer when I was also outside all day without sunscreen. So many people are vit d deficient and have no idea.
I had not seen that. 6000-8000 iu per day seems really high - but I have read that much of the supplement does not absorb well... not sure about the untake problems.
Maybe half in the AM and half in the PM is a better way to assist absorbing.
I would say some of my issue absorbing is gut issues. I have so many food intolerances and allergies as well.
But remember the pharmaceutical industry along with the arm of the government has no interest in keeping us healthy. So making sure we have adequate d levels is not in their interest. Plus there is no money in researching d. So even most drs do not know how much a human should be taking a day. Best way to know is check levels.
I used America's Frontline Doctor's wellness protocol of 1000 mg Vitamin D, 25 mg Zinc, and 500 mg Quercetin after testing positive for covid. I had absolutely no symptoms but have to get tested every week for work. About a week and a half later I finally lost my sense of smell so I doubled the Quercetin and Zinc, and added 1000 mg of vitamin C. Next day smell would come and go and the day after that was back to normal. That was it. Lost sense of smell for a day or so, no other symptoms and everyone I was in close contact with tested negative thankfully. Anyone know a good source of elemental Zinc? The liquid stuff I was taking was nasty.
That is my strategy.... if I get ANY initial sickness signals - I will go to 1,500 Quercetin instantly, +50 mg Zinc, +1000 Vit C - and add some apples and gin and tonics and chicken soup from bone.... :)
And that is why India isn't having issues right now. Instead of spending shit tons of money to develop a flawed vaccine, they gave people vitamin/mineral kits with HQC. They have swapped out HQC with another medicine but the overall cost for each kit is like $3.00 or less.
All my mask Nazi liberal and moderate sheep friends got Covid/Flu. I've dismissed it and continue going out and refuse to wear a mask unless forced. Sunlight and Vitamin D and being around crowds at the gym as keep my immune system healthy.
Okay ready for the scariest thought ever? Who do they want left - the compliant people who watch the news and are desperately begging for the vaccine.....or the intelligent ones who know it's not about this shot but whatever is coming next? Sooooooo..... what if this next one will target all of us who didn't get the vaccine......leaving them with just the compliant populace? FUCKING SCARY
I do have kids.... but that's not the reason it's scary. The reason it's scary is that if they wipe out all of the noncompliant people (or 90% of them even), they will be able to quickly take over, with no way of ever getting freedom back on earth... ever.
ADE occurs when the antibodies generated during an immune response recognize and bind to a pathogen, but they are unable to prevent infection. Instead, these antibodies act as a “Trojan horse,” allowing the pathogen to get into cells and exacerbate the immune response.
This is coming from someone in the UK, which has a quite (IMO) more risky form of vaccine. The DNA-based Astrazeneca one uses tech that has chance for rare, permanent, genome integration in some cells, at random. This risks death, and was the reason for halting the use of similar technologies in gene therapy -- a technology that could cure single-gene disorders, a very substantial medicine. (Good to note the comparison. We do not allow gene therapy in that method because of this risk, but the tech was unbelievably high in value -- successful in doing what all the best drugs can never hope to do.)
Still, it is a stretch. Paranoia IS justified, but of all the things that could go wrong with the vaccine, putting up a specific accusation without evidence will make something easily mocked and disproven. Firstly, it's not a "government injectable", the substance comes from private companies. So for such a thing to happen, it implies the government had someone working inside the company, or swaps out the vaccines from private pharma with their own. It'd also apply over many pharma companies, if extending outside the UK.
Secondly, it seems quite unnecessarily complicated. Why make us unable to defend by taking a vaccine? Am I terribly misunderstanding, or does that have a random jump in logic? You don't need to take a vaccine to make you "unable to defend", people can do that without such complex and risky preparation.
I think pushing this will probably look bad and be ammunition against simpler, legitimate, anti-vaccine arguments. Starting with it being untested and being an unknown risk, and the argument of freedom to choose what to do with your body, especially in such contexts.
Dr. Sarah Tenpenny is a D.O. who did an interview on the vaccine. She talks about the dangers to the body and how if you get the vac, then come into contact with covid in the future, your body could fight itself. Something like that. Look up cytokine storm. I'll see if I can find the link and post it here if I can.
No she doesn't. This is stupid. The mRNA doesn't go in the nucleus, never touches or even reads, much less writes to your DNA. Nothing is changed.
It's a temporary messenger that is read by the ribosomes to make a chain of amino acids that fold into a specific protein. The whole process of which is incredibly tightly regulated by the cell not to do anything else. Once the mRNA is read, it dissolved. The only thing left is the single protein that doesn't do anything at all, and serves as nothing more than a trainer for your immune system to recognize it again if/when it shows up on the spike of a coronavirus if you get infected, allowing your immune system to more quickly recognize it and mount an immune response before you get sick.
That's it.
Any of this other ignorant fear mongering about gene therapy or changing your genes or setting you up for some future attack etc are all FUCKING STUPID and wholly bereft of any foundation in factual reality.
It is a vaccine by every definition I've seen. Old, new, legal, etc.
Oh, you mean like the fear created by the MSM, reporting on a variation of a flu virus and state and local governments locking people down for months with masks on that don't work 24 hoirs a day 7 days a week, month in and month out? Oh, stupid shit like that?
What part of your brain can't differentiate between stupid people overhyping the threat posed by the virus from the actual scientific facts about the vaccine itself?
You can completely agree that the government are idiots, lying about the threat, and exploiting it for their own benefit, while still understanding that the vaccine works, doesn't alter your DNA, or any of the other ignorant fear mongering being pushed about it.
They're two different things.
It's like arguing that nuclear energy doesn't work because some bad politicians used the bombs in a way people didn't like. The science and the civil application are separate issues involving largely separate groups of people with separate standards, goals, etc.
Yes guys trust the vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies have your best interest at heart. Also keep drinking Pepsi and having mcdonald's for every meal it's very good for you. Don't learn about or take any responsibility for your own health. Leave that to trained/indoctrinated scientists and doctors. Trust the science!!!
Actual scientific facts about the vaccine? How do you know that any of those "facts" are actually true? Do you work where they make it? If not, you don't. And the facts that we do have are that mRNA vaccines have a deadly history and that this vaccine, unlike all others, is being rushed into use without any longterm testing.
That’s because WE ARE the test subjects for this mRNA vaccine.
No, Big Pharma does not have our best interests at heart, they never have.
If you look up the vaccine act that was passed by Congress in ‘86 because the companies were on the verge of going bankrupt from all the lawsuits,, it opens your eyes.
Since 1986 Almost 5,000,000,000 paid out for vaccine injuries at an average of 40,000 per injured party? So anyone that tries to tell me that vaccines are “safe”,are either ignorant or they’re lying.
Just look up the videos of Bill Gates saying, “we don’t know the long-term side effects will be beyond a year.”
Also he states, “we need indemnity.”
Why does Phizer vaccine warn of no procreating from time of first dose to a month after second dose?
No offense, but the "That's it" argument is ignorant of the thousands of examples in science and medicine of unintended consequences after widespread release over long periods of time.
I get what she says is fear mongering and not scientific, but your response while sounding very educated, is not respectful of what we really do NOT know and is whislting past the graveyard.
Amen, and awomen. The tech behind this is cool, but I want it run for 10 years before I’m gonna use it. There are far too many examples of the government of our fine nation rubber stamping some “new science” and it having disastrous impacts.
Agent Orange, the Bikini Atoll nuclear tests, the Tuskegee experiments, telling women to use thalidomide, etc. The government has very little credibility in the use of new and untested medical treatments. This new treatment could definitely be legit but I’m not gonna be the guinea pig to find out.
To be fair, the FDA actually DID NOT approve thalidomide in America. This was largely due to Frances Oldham Kelsey, a doctor who worked for the FDA at the time. She did not feel that the company had presented sufficient safety data to approve the drug and refused to approve it despite the drug company pressuring her to do so.
Source for that claim? Specifically from Pfizer. Not someone's blog or some third party opinion piece.
I'm open to valid criticism, but almost everything I've seen has been wildly false. Flat out lies about altering DNA etc. It gets irritating because people want to hate the vaccine, so they share the misinformation like wildfire, and when someone pushes back, they lash out and downvote the shit out of it because they want to reaffirm their own ignorant fears.
The problem is that the illness is far more dangerous than the vaccine, even if we did ascribe all the current claimed deaths to the vaccine directly rather than coincidental deaths that happened to occur within a window of time around when a person got the vaccine.
So I'm more open to people having questions about the pregnancy concern, or the mortality rate and whether there are causal links involved...
But I'm not sympathetic to people stupidly screaming that it alters your DNA and isn't a vaccine. You have to have done zero research to make stupid claims like that, and Katie is a fucking journalist. She should know better. And if she can't wrap her head around the science, then she should defer to those who actually do understand it and not try to contradict the numerous scientists across a slew of countries who have been working on mRNA vaccines for over 30 fucking years, have independently verified this virus multiple times, the multiple phases of very successful human testing on top of the animal testing, etc.
You want data from pfizer? Are you completely retarded? That's like trusting a thief to tell you the truth about how they are not going to steal from you. You must be trolling.
Because that person specifically claimed that PFIZER THEMSELVES MADE THE STATEMENT you DUMBFUCK.
Why does Phizer vaccine warn of no procreating from time of first dose to a month after second dose?
So I want to see the source that backs up his claim, that PFIZER said it, not someone else. So OBVIOUSLY it needs to be a Pfizer source, you FUCKING IMBECILE.
Because that's not warning you not to take it. That's standard operating procedure for clinical testing for something like this. This was documentation setting out what the guidelines would be for the clinical testing. You start out being as cautious as possible and then slowly expand the size and makeup of the pool of people you're testing. If someone becomes pregnant inadvertently during the testing, that becomes additional data, but they don't want to take the risk until they know more. This is correlated with other data from people who have the actual illness and how it affects their pregnancy etc... and all of this is built up going forward until they feel they are confident enough to say that it's safe for those women as well.
This isn't Pfizer saying pregnant women can't have the vaccine, and at this point we know more than enough to know there's no additional risk.
This is reinforcing my point that they don't KNOW - and won't know - until a good deal of time has past. These precautions are in place because they CANT know.
You ignore the last part of what I said. At this point, after several phases of human clinical trials, and plenty of evidence from women who got pregnant during those trials, women who got pregnant with actual COVID19, etc... and with the duration of actual vaccinations etc... now we actually have plenty of data to say that there isn't any additional risk.
You can lie about that if you want, but it is what it is. We're no longer in pre-market testing, nor going by guidelines written before the clinical testing even started.
"setting you up for some future attack".. The detrimental response is called pathological priming, we will find out in 3-6 months if the response this shit creates is a beneficial response, or one that kills. mRNA vaccines never made it past the animal testing stage before because the pathological response killed too many of the population tested. Don't take the jab.
Total LIE. Multiple mRNA vaccines had made it through multiple phases of human testing before the COVID19 vaccines. They just hadn't gone to market yet.
Do ANY fucking research before asserting wildly false bullshit.
Yeah, studies that showed antibodies that looked great but then caused hyper-immune responses when exposed to the actual virus in the real world. https://archive.vn/hdlys
This is the first mRNA vaccine. Research has been ongoing but if you go to the VAERS report the numbers of deaths and injuries have been exponentially climbing every week. This has not been tested nearly enough. You’re believing an agency that pushed vaccines and denied treatment. That’s not suspicious to you? The vaccine is not FDA approved-emergency use authorization only. The decision is between you and your physician.
There were earlier RNA vaccines, see above peer-reviewed link in this thread I posted. Not widespread, and in early stages. Said there is uncertainty with their safety in 2018. Media has called this the 1st RNA vaccine erroneously sometimes, or sometimes say "first RNA vaccine that is used for a pandemic" or something.
Again, I think they kind of misled people. They added some bits to saying first RNA vaccine by adding the context of a pandemic, or something similar. I actually thought they meant first RNA vaccine at first reports.
But again, looking at the peer reviewed literature showed it's wrong.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6027361/
This is a review of different studies made in 2018, and compares RNA/DNA and traditional vaccines. Those RNA vaccines had small scale use and were still being evaluated. The review states in Table 2 that more data is needed to evaluate human safety. It later gives examples of the adverse effects of RNA vaccines (and worse still for DNA, like with the AstraZeneca UK type and a Russian vaccine, possibly more). I never said the RNA vaccines were trustworthy and established. The view of them in 2018 shown there was they show promising efficacy but there is a need to get a handle on safety issues in particular. To me, the Pharma companies and News would have been better off pointing to these studies to address what they know, unless they are more afraid of the reports on lack of safety being dug up.
They list a number of studies and development stages with RNA vaccines, such as one from Moderna in Phase I trials at that time. For things like the flu, HIV, Zica, So it depends on what you mean by successful. Another note is, unlike COVID vaccines, these RNA vaccines were first tested in rodents. Example pulled from the references of the first link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388441/
As for Fauci saying it, if he did say it, please link it. This guy does so much to damage is credibility, but this is a new one, showing he does not know basic facts of his field -- if he said it that way.
In a press conference he referred to these as newer mRNA vaccines https://wwwcnbc.com2021/01/27 and said they could be adapted for the newer COVID strains but then later changed again and said people might need a third dose.Those prior mRNA studies for Zika, etc never progressed because the disease kind of stabilized.
VAERS is self reported, and when actually investigated they find no causal links.
Just because someone happens to die around the same time they got a vaccine, out of hundreds of millions of people getting them, doesn't mean that it was the vaccine that caused it.
I don't think the vaccines should be mandatory. What I do think is that all this fear mongering about them changing your DNA or killing you range from painfully ignorant to downright lies.
It is self reported and probably under reported from what I’ve read. 900 people have died worldwide which is not promising especially if you’re one of the 900. There are quite a few physicians who are advising against it.
Self reported, basically none of the 1,000 worldwide out of hundreds of millions of actual vaccinations found to be causally linked to the vaccine after investigation.
How would you find a causal link? What is the criteria? If someone gets sick out of the blue shortly after having the vaccine., but they don't know how to account for it, does it get called a non-vaccine death because of a lack of causal link? That, IMO, would be wrong.
They shouldn't throw out any data. Instead keep all deaths for any reason in a set time frame, then when the size has gotten enough for statistical purposes, see if there are more occurrences of death or other severe reactions in the vaccine group. But they're never going to be able to do such an analysis if they keep dismissing deaths.
Can anyone even provide examples of what they say counts as a "vaccine death"?
Since you're apparently too lazy to spend 5 seconds looking for yourself...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18481387/ - "Results of the first phase I/II clinical vaccination trial with direct injection of mRNA" (as anti-tumor treatment) - 2008
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28754494/ - "Safety and immunogenicity of a mRNA rabies vaccine in healthy adults: an open-label, non-randomised, prospective, first-in-human phase 1 clinical trial" - July 2017
Recent improvements in mRNA vaccines act to increase protein translation, modulate innate and adaptive immunogenicity and improve delivery.
mRNA vaccines have elicited potent immunity against infectious disease targets in animal models of influenza virus, Zika virus, rabies virus and others, especially in recent years, using lipid-encapsulated or naked forms of sequence-optimized mRNA.
Diverse approaches to mRNA cancer vaccines, including dendritic cell vaccines and various types of directly injectable mRNA, have been employed in numerous cancer clinical trials, with some promising results showing antigen-specific T cell responses and prolonged disease-free survival in some cases.
One point here is all the listed vaccines reaching clinical trial stages were in stage I or II. Honestly, that's not very far. Quite few trials from those stages go on to succeed. So while RNA vaccines have been of interest for a long time, the majority of research is early stage.
Israel is the biggest test of all. The govt said they would vax their population in exchange for providing careful reactions and responses. They are over 80% vaxed.
Normally new meds aren't directly tested on pregnant women. However, they do try and study when a woman gets pregnant during a trial. I try and do a bunch of reading and haven't found anything saying it's dangerous. When it first came out they just didn't have enough data to say it was safe for pregnant women so they said hold off. Now that its been two months with plenty of people getting it, they are able to say, yes it is safe.
Multiple mRNA vaccines had gone through multiple stages of successful human clinical trials, over the course of more than a dozen years, even before the COVID19 vaccines. (Themselves built on over 30 years of research into mRNA vaccines.)
The covid vaccines also went through human and animal trials, while at an accelerated pace.
As for pregnant women, the function of the immune system against the virus is no different than against the vaccine which creates only one part of the virus, both invoking the same immune response, if not a broader one from the virus itself as your body would be responding to more proteins than just that of the one from the spike created by the mRNA vaccine.
In short, they studied the effects of the immune response on pregnant women who were infected by the actual virus and how the immune system and antibodies responded to the specific protein people claim to be worried about in pregnancy and found no effect. No difference.
The people making these comparisons about proteins tend to do so out of ignorance from what I've seen, not understanding that sharing a few "letters" of code (a few of the same amino acids) is incredibly common and not the deciding factor of how the immune system responds to them, as it is more about the shape of a protein that matters, as the chain of amino acids (of which there are only around 20) can be hundreds or thousands of amino acids long, and then folds into a specific complex 3D shape, and that shape is very important into how other things respond to the protein, because they have to fit together like a specific lock and key, not just share some of the same amino acids.
And all the studies have shown that they are so different that they don't react the same way and there's no additional risk from your immune system for pregnant women etc.
Disagree if you're saying "successful" means safe. In another thread here I linked a 2018 review of RNA vaccines, mostly focused on influenza. They said more safety trials were needed to be sure if they are safe. Pretty sure we've not answered anything further since then. The safety warning they had there was the recognition of the foreign RNA causing a dangerous cytokine response.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6027361/
There is still a lack of understanding of other possibilities that are more subtle. It is reasonable to speculate that, as adverse immune responses are strong disease risks and defects in ordinary health, there is a risk there. But as it has not been studied, no one can say there is a risk or not, in this or other areas. I'd also note, inflammatory disorders are already a weak point in many Western populations, perhaps increasing risk.
Finally, what you're arguing here is about RNA, but the OP linked to someone from the UK, getting a DNA virus. That is delivered by adenoviral packaging, and is well-known to risk genome integration. The link mentions this as well. That doesn't rewrite your DNA, but gives small risk you permanently produce some of the factors involved. But a higher risk it just goes somewhere in the genome and messes up something important at random, just like a mutagen (except the size of the constructs makes their impact more likely to be deleterious, so greater risk per unit than mots chemical mutagens). Deaths from such events have been recorded.
Of course, Hopkins' paranoid idea may not apply, as she's imagining something of a sinister plot with the vaccines, rather than the vaccine concepts that are in the open. Which is a random thing for her to bring up, without some evidence.
Would the average layman be able to understand the nomenclature of the technical terms involved in the immune response? Of course it's somewhat simplified, but talking about things like Th1, Th2, NKs, CD4, CD16, IFNγ and the like would just leave people confused.
You misunderstand. It's easy to drown a person in specific information relating to the field (in this case immunology) but it won't make much sense to a person without the necessary background. Sure I can get into details while sounding really smart, but it won't convey the necessary information.
Read the wall of text down the thread if you want more detailed info. You'll learn that I'm not justifying the vaccine. All I'm saying is that it won't change a person's DNA, but it also raises a whole bunch of other questions.
It's bad enough that I write things like "cytoplasm (soup filling the cell outside the nucleus)" etc... and even that is probably too complicated for most people... like who even knows when you say "ribosome (enzyme)" what either is? How far do you dumb things down? That's the problem we face when having to make "lies to children" to try to make something like this understandable to people who have basically no understanding of cellular anatomy and function or the vocabulary involved.
From what I've seen you know more about it than I do, but I try to at least break it down in a simple enough way to make it clear that there's no point at which the DNA is changed or even touched during the process. It's not "gene therapy", that the vaccine doesn't create a "pathogen", but rather only a single protein (antigen) etc... and explain what the difference is. It IS a vaccine by every credible definition I've seen, as I said before.
People get really pissed about it, but I think it's important to keep trying to get the info out there.
The answers aren't hard to find with quick google searches, but people are getting their information almost exclusively from social media memes from people who have no idea what they're talking about. They haven't made any effort to inform themselves.
And whenever they find an argument on social media that sounds compelling, or "more scientific", they share that even more because it makes it less likely that someone else who is moderately informed will be able to adequately address it.
(Like "but what about reverse transcriptase!" etc. I think the pregnancy one is another one because a few articles mention either specific things like cleaving sites etc... and they think that they're similar enough that the immune system will attack women's uteruses or prevent pregnancy etc. Most people, even somewhat informed people, aren't knowledgeable enough on genetic mechanisms or terminology to really understand or answer those questions.)
We live in the age of disinformation and nowadays folks just choose to believe whichever version of events that suits their personal beliefs or biases. We have to thank media for this trend because they've been equating professionals with laymen (like inviting a doctor and some crystal energy "healer" to a talk show giving them the same stage).
What the vaccine is meant to achieve is to present a very specific antigen for the immune system, of a protein that the researchers determined is structurally conserved enough that the virus would not change it. I understand that this type of virus mutates at a slower rate, and even if it mutates that particular spike protein, it may make it less infectious to humans (but also less recognizable because the epitopes the antibodies are supposed to be targeting would change). So the reason this particular protein was chosen was not arbitrary.
However, the cut red tape and the amount of money involved in the development is a pretty big red flag. In interviews and various articles the shortcuts are being hand waved away by saying that most of the time needed to test a vaccine is actually spent of bureaucracy and not actual testing, so the corner cutting wasn't for the important stages, BUT if a clinical scientist at Pfizer raised concerns about the similarity of the spike protein to a "self" protein in the placenta (probably to cover his own ass in spite of the enormous pressure to release the vaccine because there's so much money involved) I'm thinking that not everything may be on the up and up there. I mean, it's human nature... I think the world looks the way it does because people do what they can, while some people are talented and others aren't...
I don't know if the vaccine is dangerous. It doesn't look like it is, because even though the technology is fairly new, the systems it interacts with are very well studied and there should be no surprises. What bothers me more is that I don't know how effective the vaccine is. I hope it is, but so far it is unknown how long the antibodies would last.
If it's good for 6 months, does that mean folks would need to go get it twice a year? But if I managed just fine without it for a year, so I suppose that wearing a mask properly, washing my hands and keeping them away from my face provides adequate protection as well. (Even though the masks do offer minimal protection and are meant more to make sure the wearer won't infect as many people. Better than nothing, I suppose)
The vaccine is not said to guarantee protection either, but it is said that the symptoms would be much more mild. So technically, a person may get the vaccine, thinking all this crap is behind them, get sick but mildly enough to not even require medical treatment, BUT, still be able to infect others. So what kind of a solution is that?
Anyway (and sorry for the ramblings), people get really pissed because the new information they receive contradicts the first information they had, which was false, but they don't have the background knowledge to tell them apart, and stick with the things they like to hear because it makes them feel safer and in control.
Answers aren't hard to find if you know where to look, but the answers provided also lead me to many questions. For example, the vaccine is touted to enter antigen presenting cells, which would then show the protein fragments to T cells. BUT what guarantees that the RNA won't enter regular cells in the injection area? It's not that big of a deal. Not like it's being injected somewhere crucial. If it gets inside a regular fat/fibroblast/muscle cell, and it shows the foreign protein via MHC type I to a CTL cell, it'll end up dying due to apoptosis and that's it. It should still lead to the same result at the cost of a few cells the body can replace, so no big deal.
Why is it difficult to make a vaccine by other more traditional means? There was an interview with an immunology professor in Australia last spring, and he was talking about the main difficulty being not the presence or absence of antibodies, but the accumulation of viral particles outside the body. In the sense that being in the lungs but outside the cells is technically outside the body. Now it's a mucous area, so IgA antibodies are prevalent there, whereas IgG antibodies (that are created by the vaccine) will be found in the blood, not necessarily where the virus would be.
More questions than answers... It seems to me that the vaccine isn't particularly dangerous, and probably by offering a successful path for the immune system to operate, instead of going all RED ALERT mode which results in a cytokine storm and damage to internal organs and possibly death, but it also doesn't look like that great of a panacea that it is made out to be by the media and all the interested parties.
Maybe it's more of a "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week" (- George Patton) thing, and it's better than nothing.
It's not where I got it from, nor where it originated, but it was popularized by its later connection to Discworld. :) (I've unfortunately never read those books.)
The "lie-to-children" concept was first discussed by scientist Jack Cohen and mathematician Ian Stewart in the 1994 book The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World. They further elaborated upon their views in their coauthored 1997 book Figments of Reality: The Evolution of the Curious Mind. The concept gained greater exposure when they collaborated with popular author Terry Pratchett, discussing "lies-to-children" in the book The Science of Discworld (1999).
Surprising. I knew of Cohen and Stewart through the collaboration, but assumed "lies to children" was a very Pratchett-like phrase and assumed it was him. Would be interesting to read those books. Science of Discworld series was nice too, though not perfect for subjects I know about. I believe there were some misconceptions in sections of entropy and biology. But the overall material was excellent.
You are confused. The elites have completely lost the the trust of the people. The only thing preventing people being strung up to bleed out is that things aren't too uncomfortable yet.
TAKING 2,000IU of VITAMIN D
EVERY
SINGLE
DAY
SUPERCHARGES LUNG IMMUNITY....
Stops or greatly lessens 99.99% of ALL lung infections from colds and flu bugs.
Toss in 25mg of Zinc and 500Mg of Vitamin C - DAILY - and you are coming close to MAXIMIZING YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM CAPABILITIES....
And don't forget - vaccine or not - Treatment or not - IT IS "YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM" that does the lion's share of ALL THE WORK in defeating the virus.... every single Virus.... every single time!!!
Source?
Will daily 2000IU vitamin D get you in the range of vitamin D toxicity?
"Over 100 Scientists, Doctors, & Leading Authorities Call For Increased Vitamin D Use To Combat COVID-19." https://covid.us.org/2020/12/10/over-100-scientists-doctors-leading-authorities-call-for-increased-vitamin-d-use-to-combat-covid-19/
FDA normally recommends 800iu/day... most people have lower then normal blood levels, especially in the Winter... Sunshine on skin also produces Vit D for the body...
Toxic levels of Vitamin D are 20 times or more.... Hospitals will give a 40,000IU Vit D shot to patients in certain situations. The effects of Vit D also go well beyond just the immune system.
If you are low on Vitamin D... take 5,000iu/day for a week...
Sadly - THE GOV KNOWS THIS VITAMIN D efficacy.... THE CDC KNOWS ALL THIS.... yet seem to be almost silent on this care protocol during the Pandemic.....
Clearly - Suspicious.
Just remember this simple trick. IU vs MG are units, but also normally indicate fat-soluble vs water-soluble. The reason you can take so much vitamin C and not worry is that water-soluble will be flushed out quickly, but fat-soluble will be stored much longer. Although vitamin-d is not normally toxic, as you pointed out, just keep an eye out for symptoms of overdosing. And yes anything can be dangerous if consumed in dangerous amounts, even water.
That being said, if you are feeling great then your probably doing the right thing. Stay safe out there.
And not all the Vitamin D from a supplement will be absorbed....
Sun on the skin produces a better type of Vit D... if you can get it.
Wont somebody think of the gingers
Look into Codex Alimentarius...
https://www.theorganicprepper.com/codex-alimentarius-an-introduction-to-soft-kill-eugenics-2/
http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/codex-alimentarius.html
I think 500-1000 should keep you out of being deficient for most of the year, but in summer time where sunlight is so common I'm intent on stopping Vitamin D all, but once or twice a week. It depends on the person and body, but D gets old as it makes you pee more often.
Zinc I load up on and C is always good.
Please get yourself together. 5000IU is recommended per day. You can test your levels every 6 months for $30 at any lab.
Aim for 180 on the test.
Please get your arrogance in check. Asking for a source is a legitimate request for more information from a presumably trusted source. That you replied with “please get yourself together” only shows that you took the request as an insult. Not everyone is out to get you.
As someone else has already pointed out in the other reply to you, vitamin D toxicity is a real thing. If you ignore it you can do so at your own peril, but you shouldn’t dish out random medical advice to others, especially without posting a corroborating source.
Wow look at Mr. Moneybags over here with a disposable $60 a year! Not everyone enjoys getting jabbed unnecessarily and not everyone is vitamin D deficient.
Source?
You are unhinged brother.
Too much vitamin D can cause issues and at a minimum can cause you to have to use the bathroom much more. Vitamin D toxicity is a real thing and our bodies produce a ton of it during the sunniest 6 months making taking it probably redundant especially in high amounts.
This is correct and a mathematical error has the recommended doses way too low. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28768407/
As stated below everyone should have their levels checked. Also in the US only the very southern tip of Florida can you receive the proper rays of sunshine to make vit d all yr round. Our bodies only store one month supply. Up in ND where I live we only have May through September where we can make enough vit d from sunlight. A good rule of thumb is if your shadow is longer than you are tall you aren’t creating vit d.
I’m taking 10,000 under drs care and it is keeping my levels at the minimum and that was during the summer when I was also outside all day without sunscreen. So many people are vit d deficient and have no idea.
Wow -
I had not seen that. 6000-8000 iu per day seems really high - but I have read that much of the supplement does not absorb well... not sure about the untake problems.
Maybe half in the AM and half in the PM is a better way to assist absorbing.
Take with k2, helps with absorption
I would say some of my issue absorbing is gut issues. I have so many food intolerances and allergies as well.
But remember the pharmaceutical industry along with the arm of the government has no interest in keeping us healthy. So making sure we have adequate d levels is not in their interest. Plus there is no money in researching d. So even most drs do not know how much a human should be taking a day. Best way to know is check levels.
I used America's Frontline Doctor's wellness protocol of 1000 mg Vitamin D, 25 mg Zinc, and 500 mg Quercetin after testing positive for covid. I had absolutely no symptoms but have to get tested every week for work. About a week and a half later I finally lost my sense of smell so I doubled the Quercetin and Zinc, and added 1000 mg of vitamin C. Next day smell would come and go and the day after that was back to normal. That was it. Lost sense of smell for a day or so, no other symptoms and everyone I was in close contact with tested negative thankfully. Anyone know a good source of elemental Zinc? The liquid stuff I was taking was nasty.
That is my strategy.... if I get ANY initial sickness signals - I will go to 1,500 Quercetin instantly, +50 mg Zinc, +1000 Vit C - and add some apples and gin and tonics and chicken soup from bone.... :)
And that is why India isn't having issues right now. Instead of spending shit tons of money to develop a flawed vaccine, they gave people vitamin/mineral kits with HQC. They have swapped out HQC with another medicine but the overall cost for each kit is like $3.00 or less.
Take K2 with it, all the calcium can end up in your arteries. K2 directs calcium to your bones and teeth and away from your arteries.
All my mask Nazi liberal and moderate sheep friends got Covid/Flu. I've dismissed it and continue going out and refuse to wear a mask unless forced. Sunlight and Vitamin D and being around crowds at the gym as keep my immune system healthy.
The vaccine makes your beautifully created natural and fool-proof immune system vulnerable, toxic and diseased!
Do Not Get The Prick!
Prease Plick
Look up "binary weapon".
Google helpfully wanted to add "vaccine" to my search.
Theyre cooking up viruses and shipping them out to the human race. The CCP is a threat to humanity and must be defeated
Okay ready for the scariest thought ever? Who do they want left - the compliant people who watch the news and are desperately begging for the vaccine.....or the intelligent ones who know it's not about this shot but whatever is coming next? Sooooooo..... what if this next one will target all of us who didn't get the vaccine......leaving them with just the compliant populace? FUCKING SCARY
Yeah, we don't have be scared though. Maybe if you have kids, there's reason to be scared.
I do have kids.... but that's not the reason it's scary. The reason it's scary is that if they wipe out all of the noncompliant people (or 90% of them even), they will be able to quickly take over, with no way of ever getting freedom back on earth... ever.
I understand. I'm just trying to communicate that we have a choice to react with fear or not.
Yep - I think you're right. Fear is always a choice.
Antibody-dependent Enhancement (ADE) and Vaccines
This is coming from someone in the UK, which has a quite (IMO) more risky form of vaccine. The DNA-based Astrazeneca one uses tech that has chance for rare, permanent, genome integration in some cells, at random. This risks death, and was the reason for halting the use of similar technologies in gene therapy -- a technology that could cure single-gene disorders, a very substantial medicine. (Good to note the comparison. We do not allow gene therapy in that method because of this risk, but the tech was unbelievably high in value -- successful in doing what all the best drugs can never hope to do.)
Still, it is a stretch. Paranoia IS justified, but of all the things that could go wrong with the vaccine, putting up a specific accusation without evidence will make something easily mocked and disproven. Firstly, it's not a "government injectable", the substance comes from private companies. So for such a thing to happen, it implies the government had someone working inside the company, or swaps out the vaccines from private pharma with their own. It'd also apply over many pharma companies, if extending outside the UK.
Secondly, it seems quite unnecessarily complicated. Why make us unable to defend by taking a vaccine? Am I terribly misunderstanding, or does that have a random jump in logic? You don't need to take a vaccine to make you "unable to defend", people can do that without such complex and risky preparation.
I think pushing this will probably look bad and be ammunition against simpler, legitimate, anti-vaccine arguments. Starting with it being untested and being an unknown risk, and the argument of freedom to choose what to do with your body, especially in such contexts.
I have already had bell's palsy. Twice. I'm not fucking with this vaccine!
Sunshine does wonders to everything under the Sun.
Covid-21 is coming. Or whatever disease-21.
I don’t know if it’s the vaccine sheep who will be culled, or the rest of us.
I solve this by being a carnivore and not taking any damn vaccine.
Here is a great post. I hope it’s ok to share on pathogenic priming.
https://greatawakening.win/p/12hRLfKSLV/people-who-have-taken-the-vaccin/c/
:yikes: Is she a US citizen yet?
What does she mean? What did I miss? Why does she say the “vaccine” makes the body incapable of defending what’s next?
Dr. Sarah Tenpenny is a D.O. who did an interview on the vaccine. She talks about the dangers to the body and how if you get the vac, then come into contact with covid in the future, your body could fight itself. Something like that. Look up cytokine storm. I'll see if I can find the link and post it here if I can.
Found it: https://thebelmontrooster.com/2021/02/15/dr-sherri-tenpenny-interview-about-the-vaccine-must-watch/ It's interesting and terrifying, if she's right.
Sweet! Thx!
You're welcome!
You guys are going off the deep end.
Did you forget that TRUMP MADE THE VACCINE POSSIBLE?
They're simply pushing the vaccine because it's one more way for them to make covid look scary.
dont give a shit tbh.
Supporting the vaccine was a failure on Trump's part.
It's outside of his wheelhouse, he deferred to the 'experts'.
One thing the honest have learned by Trump's presidency:
Every field of practice is corrupted, by definition, participation/practice, or by a portion of its members.
Nah, it’s definitely deeper than money. That’s only part of the equation
No she doesn't. This is stupid. The mRNA doesn't go in the nucleus, never touches or even reads, much less writes to your DNA. Nothing is changed.
It's a temporary messenger that is read by the ribosomes to make a chain of amino acids that fold into a specific protein. The whole process of which is incredibly tightly regulated by the cell not to do anything else. Once the mRNA is read, it dissolved. The only thing left is the single protein that doesn't do anything at all, and serves as nothing more than a trainer for your immune system to recognize it again if/when it shows up on the spike of a coronavirus if you get infected, allowing your immune system to more quickly recognize it and mount an immune response before you get sick.
That's it.
Any of this other ignorant fear mongering about gene therapy or changing your genes or setting you up for some future attack etc are all FUCKING STUPID and wholly bereft of any foundation in factual reality.
It is a vaccine by every definition I've seen. Old, new, legal, etc.
Don't post stupid shit.
Oh, you mean like the fear created by the MSM, reporting on a variation of a flu virus and state and local governments locking people down for months with masks on that don't work 24 hoirs a day 7 days a week, month in and month out? Oh, stupid shit like that?
What part of your brain can't differentiate between stupid people overhyping the threat posed by the virus from the actual scientific facts about the vaccine itself?
You can completely agree that the government are idiots, lying about the threat, and exploiting it for their own benefit, while still understanding that the vaccine works, doesn't alter your DNA, or any of the other ignorant fear mongering being pushed about it.
They're two different things.
It's like arguing that nuclear energy doesn't work because some bad politicians used the bombs in a way people didn't like. The science and the civil application are separate issues involving largely separate groups of people with separate standards, goals, etc.
Yes guys trust the vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies have your best interest at heart. Also keep drinking Pepsi and having mcdonald's for every meal it's very good for you. Don't learn about or take any responsibility for your own health. Leave that to trained/indoctrinated scientists and doctors. Trust the science!!!
Actual scientific facts about the vaccine? How do you know that any of those "facts" are actually true? Do you work where they make it? If not, you don't. And the facts that we do have are that mRNA vaccines have a deadly history and that this vaccine, unlike all others, is being rushed into use without any longterm testing.
That’s because WE ARE the test subjects for this mRNA vaccine.
No, Big Pharma does not have our best interests at heart, they never have. If you look up the vaccine act that was passed by Congress in ‘86 because the companies were on the verge of going bankrupt from all the lawsuits,, it opens your eyes.
Since 1986 Almost 5,000,000,000 paid out for vaccine injuries at an average of 40,000 per injured party? So anyone that tries to tell me that vaccines are “safe”,are either ignorant or they’re lying.
Just look up the videos of Bill Gates saying, “we don’t know the long-term side effects will be beyond a year.” Also he states, “we need indemnity.”
Why does Phizer vaccine warn of no procreating from time of first dose to a month after second dose?
No offense, but the "That's it" argument is ignorant of the thousands of examples in science and medicine of unintended consequences after widespread release over long periods of time.
I get what she says is fear mongering and not scientific, but your response while sounding very educated, is not respectful of what we really do NOT know and is whislting past the graveyard.
Amen, and awomen. The tech behind this is cool, but I want it run for 10 years before I’m gonna use it. There are far too many examples of the government of our fine nation rubber stamping some “new science” and it having disastrous impacts.
Agent Orange, the Bikini Atoll nuclear tests, the Tuskegee experiments, telling women to use thalidomide, etc. The government has very little credibility in the use of new and untested medical treatments. This new treatment could definitely be legit but I’m not gonna be the guinea pig to find out.
To be fair, the FDA actually DID NOT approve thalidomide in America. This was largely due to Frances Oldham Kelsey, a doctor who worked for the FDA at the time. She did not feel that the company had presented sufficient safety data to approve the drug and refused to approve it despite the drug company pressuring her to do so.
Source for that claim? Specifically from Pfizer. Not someone's blog or some third party opinion piece.
I'm open to valid criticism, but almost everything I've seen has been wildly false. Flat out lies about altering DNA etc. It gets irritating because people want to hate the vaccine, so they share the misinformation like wildfire, and when someone pushes back, they lash out and downvote the shit out of it because they want to reaffirm their own ignorant fears.
The problem is that the illness is far more dangerous than the vaccine, even if we did ascribe all the current claimed deaths to the vaccine directly rather than coincidental deaths that happened to occur within a window of time around when a person got the vaccine.
So I'm more open to people having questions about the pregnancy concern, or the mortality rate and whether there are causal links involved...
But I'm not sympathetic to people stupidly screaming that it alters your DNA and isn't a vaccine. You have to have done zero research to make stupid claims like that, and Katie is a fucking journalist. She should know better. And if she can't wrap her head around the science, then she should defer to those who actually do understand it and not try to contradict the numerous scientists across a slew of countries who have been working on mRNA vaccines for over 30 fucking years, have independently verified this virus multiple times, the multiple phases of very successful human testing on top of the animal testing, etc.
You want data from pfizer? Are you completely retarded? That's like trusting a thief to tell you the truth about how they are not going to steal from you. You must be trolling.
Because that person specifically claimed that PFIZER THEMSELVES MADE THE STATEMENT you DUMBFUCK.
So I want to see the source that backs up his claim, that PFIZER said it, not someone else. So OBVIOUSLY it needs to be a Pfizer source, you FUCKING IMBECILE.
My question for you. Why are you mimicking media matters and snopes talking points?
Phizer's own vaccine protocol. See page 123: https://pfe-pfizercom-d8-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/2020-09/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol.pdf
Because that's not warning you not to take it. That's standard operating procedure for clinical testing for something like this. This was documentation setting out what the guidelines would be for the clinical testing. You start out being as cautious as possible and then slowly expand the size and makeup of the pool of people you're testing. If someone becomes pregnant inadvertently during the testing, that becomes additional data, but they don't want to take the risk until they know more. This is correlated with other data from people who have the actual illness and how it affects their pregnancy etc... and all of this is built up going forward until they feel they are confident enough to say that it's safe for those women as well.
This isn't Pfizer saying pregnant women can't have the vaccine, and at this point we know more than enough to know there's no additional risk.
This is reinforcing my point that they don't KNOW - and won't know - until a good deal of time has past. These precautions are in place because they CANT know.
You ignore the last part of what I said. At this point, after several phases of human clinical trials, and plenty of evidence from women who got pregnant during those trials, women who got pregnant with actual COVID19, etc... and with the duration of actual vaccinations etc... now we actually have plenty of data to say that there isn't any additional risk.
You can lie about that if you want, but it is what it is. We're no longer in pre-market testing, nor going by guidelines written before the clinical testing even started.
Your definition of "plenty of data" and mine do not agree. I pray you are correct, but I will not have my daughters vaccinated by this yet.
"setting you up for some future attack".. The detrimental response is called pathological priming, we will find out in 3-6 months if the response this shit creates is a beneficial response, or one that kills. mRNA vaccines never made it past the animal testing stage before because the pathological response killed too many of the population tested. Don't take the jab.
Total LIE. Multiple mRNA vaccines had made it through multiple phases of human testing before the COVID19 vaccines. They just hadn't gone to market yet.
Do ANY fucking research before asserting wildly false bullshit.
Thanks.
Yeah, studies that showed antibodies that looked great but then caused hyper-immune responses when exposed to the actual virus in the real world.
https://archive.vn/hdlys
This is the first mRNA vaccine. Research has been ongoing but if you go to the VAERS report the numbers of deaths and injuries have been exponentially climbing every week. This has not been tested nearly enough. You’re believing an agency that pushed vaccines and denied treatment. That’s not suspicious to you? The vaccine is not FDA approved-emergency use authorization only. The decision is between you and your physician.
There were earlier RNA vaccines, see above peer-reviewed link in this thread I posted. Not widespread, and in early stages. Said there is uncertainty with their safety in 2018. Media has called this the 1st RNA vaccine erroneously sometimes, or sometimes say "first RNA vaccine that is used for a pandemic" or something.
There were no successful mRNA vaccines. I believe Fauci said it himself. Name the other mRNA vaccines, please.
Again, I think they kind of misled people. They added some bits to saying first RNA vaccine by adding the context of a pandemic, or something similar. I actually thought they meant first RNA vaccine at first reports.
But again, looking at the peer reviewed literature showed it's wrong. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6027361/ This is a review of different studies made in 2018, and compares RNA/DNA and traditional vaccines. Those RNA vaccines had small scale use and were still being evaluated. The review states in Table 2 that more data is needed to evaluate human safety. It later gives examples of the adverse effects of RNA vaccines (and worse still for DNA, like with the AstraZeneca UK type and a Russian vaccine, possibly more). I never said the RNA vaccines were trustworthy and established. The view of them in 2018 shown there was they show promising efficacy but there is a need to get a handle on safety issues in particular. To me, the Pharma companies and News would have been better off pointing to these studies to address what they know, unless they are more afraid of the reports on lack of safety being dug up.
They list a number of studies and development stages with RNA vaccines, such as one from Moderna in Phase I trials at that time. For things like the flu, HIV, Zica, So it depends on what you mean by successful. Another note is, unlike COVID vaccines, these RNA vaccines were first tested in rodents. Example pulled from the references of the first link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388441/
As for Fauci saying it, if he did say it, please link it. This guy does so much to damage is credibility, but this is a new one, showing he does not know basic facts of his field -- if he said it that way.
In a press conference he referred to these as newer mRNA vaccines https://wwwcnbc.com2021/01/27 and said they could be adapted for the newer COVID strains but then later changed again and said people might need a third dose.Those prior mRNA studies for Zika, etc never progressed because the disease kind of stabilized.
VAERS is self reported, and when actually investigated they find no causal links.
Just because someone happens to die around the same time they got a vaccine, out of hundreds of millions of people getting them, doesn't mean that it was the vaccine that caused it.
I don't think the vaccines should be mandatory. What I do think is that all this fear mongering about them changing your DNA or killing you range from painfully ignorant to downright lies.
It is self reported and probably under reported from what I’ve read. 900 people have died worldwide which is not promising especially if you’re one of the 900. There are quite a few physicians who are advising against it.
Self reported, basically none of the 1,000 worldwide out of hundreds of millions of actual vaccinations found to be causally linked to the vaccine after investigation.
Keep fear mongering.
How would you find a causal link? What is the criteria? If someone gets sick out of the blue shortly after having the vaccine., but they don't know how to account for it, does it get called a non-vaccine death because of a lack of causal link? That, IMO, would be wrong.
They shouldn't throw out any data. Instead keep all deaths for any reason in a set time frame, then when the size has gotten enough for statistical purposes, see if there are more occurrences of death or other severe reactions in the vaccine group. But they're never going to be able to do such an analysis if they keep dismissing deaths.
Can anyone even provide examples of what they say counts as a "vaccine death"?
You are the one posting bullshit. Name one other vaccine besides these covid vaccines that are mRNA in process. There aren't any. Name one or STFU.
I’m invested in a pharma company that’s developing one for cancers. They’re giving it to humans.
https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/curevac-expands-lead-rna-cancer-program-phase-1-trial-in-advanced-melanoma-2021-02-04
Since you're apparently too lazy to spend 5 seconds looking for yourself...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18481387/ - "Results of the first phase I/II clinical vaccination trial with direct injection of mRNA" (as anti-tumor treatment) - 2008
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19305626 - "mRNA vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses of pandemic potential are immunogenic and well tolerated in healthy adults in phase 1 randomized clinical trials" - May 2019
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28754494/ - "Safety and immunogenicity of a mRNA rabies vaccine in healthy adults: an open-label, non-randomised, prospective, first-in-human phase 1 clinical trial" - July 2017
https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-additional-positive-phase-1-data - "Moderna Announces Additional Positive Phase 1 Data from Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Vaccine (mRNA-1647) and First Participant Dosed in Phase 2 Study" - January 2020
And from https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243 ;
Recent improvements in mRNA vaccines act to increase protein translation, modulate innate and adaptive immunogenicity and improve delivery.
mRNA vaccines have elicited potent immunity against infectious disease targets in animal models of influenza virus, Zika virus, rabies virus and others, especially in recent years, using lipid-encapsulated or naked forms of sequence-optimized mRNA.
Diverse approaches to mRNA cancer vaccines, including dendritic cell vaccines and various types of directly injectable mRNA, have been employed in numerous cancer clinical trials, with some promising results showing antigen-specific T cell responses and prolonged disease-free survival in some cases.
And so on.
You willfully ignorant fuck.
One point here is all the listed vaccines reaching clinical trial stages were in stage I or II. Honestly, that's not very far. Quite few trials from those stages go on to succeed. So while RNA vaccines have been of interest for a long time, the majority of research is early stage.
How many studies and trails did they do? Did they test this pregnant women?
Israel is the biggest test of all. The govt said they would vax their population in exchange for providing careful reactions and responses. They are over 80% vaxed.
They're testing it all right, right now.
14-week pregnant nurse gets vax. Suffers miscarriage at 14 1/2 weeks.
https://patriots.win/p/12hRCBAlgh/heartbreaking-14week-pregnant-nu/c/
Normally new meds aren't directly tested on pregnant women. However, they do try and study when a woman gets pregnant during a trial. I try and do a bunch of reading and haven't found anything saying it's dangerous. When it first came out they just didn't have enough data to say it was safe for pregnant women so they said hold off. Now that its been two months with plenty of people getting it, they are able to say, yes it is safe.
Multiple mRNA vaccines had gone through multiple stages of successful human clinical trials, over the course of more than a dozen years, even before the COVID19 vaccines. (Themselves built on over 30 years of research into mRNA vaccines.)
The covid vaccines also went through human and animal trials, while at an accelerated pace.
As for pregnant women, the function of the immune system against the virus is no different than against the vaccine which creates only one part of the virus, both invoking the same immune response, if not a broader one from the virus itself as your body would be responding to more proteins than just that of the one from the spike created by the mRNA vaccine.
https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-do-not-make-women-infertile-153550
In short, they studied the effects of the immune response on pregnant women who were infected by the actual virus and how the immune system and antibodies responded to the specific protein people claim to be worried about in pregnancy and found no effect. No difference.
The people making these comparisons about proteins tend to do so out of ignorance from what I've seen, not understanding that sharing a few "letters" of code (a few of the same amino acids) is incredibly common and not the deciding factor of how the immune system responds to them, as it is more about the shape of a protein that matters, as the chain of amino acids (of which there are only around 20) can be hundreds or thousands of amino acids long, and then folds into a specific complex 3D shape, and that shape is very important into how other things respond to the protein, because they have to fit together like a specific lock and key, not just share some of the same amino acids.
And all the studies have shown that they are so different that they don't react the same way and there's no additional risk from your immune system for pregnant women etc.
Disagree if you're saying "successful" means safe. In another thread here I linked a 2018 review of RNA vaccines, mostly focused on influenza. They said more safety trials were needed to be sure if they are safe. Pretty sure we've not answered anything further since then. The safety warning they had there was the recognition of the foreign RNA causing a dangerous cytokine response. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6027361/
There is still a lack of understanding of other possibilities that are more subtle. It is reasonable to speculate that, as adverse immune responses are strong disease risks and defects in ordinary health, there is a risk there. But as it has not been studied, no one can say there is a risk or not, in this or other areas. I'd also note, inflammatory disorders are already a weak point in many Western populations, perhaps increasing risk.
Finally, what you're arguing here is about RNA, but the OP linked to someone from the UK, getting a DNA virus. That is delivered by adenoviral packaging, and is well-known to risk genome integration. The link mentions this as well. That doesn't rewrite your DNA, but gives small risk you permanently produce some of the factors involved. But a higher risk it just goes somewhere in the genome and messes up something important at random, just like a mutagen (except the size of the constructs makes their impact more likely to be deleterious, so greater risk per unit than mots chemical mutagens). Deaths from such events have been recorded.
Of course, Hopkins' paranoid idea may not apply, as she's imagining something of a sinister plot with the vaccines, rather than the vaccine concepts that are in the open. Which is a random thing for her to bring up, without some evidence.
Strange that something so simple took so many millions of man-hours from the best and brightest in the last year.
Oh wait, it's because your explanation is a gross over-simplification of the vaccination process.
Would the average layman be able to understand the nomenclature of the technical terms involved in the immune response? Of course it's somewhat simplified, but talking about things like Th1, Th2, NKs, CD4, CD16, IFNγ and the like would just leave people confused.
You're living in a low-trust society and your response is that "people are too dumb to be told the whole story".
That's exactly reason that people don't trust vaccines.
You misunderstand. It's easy to drown a person in specific information relating to the field (in this case immunology) but it won't make much sense to a person without the necessary background. Sure I can get into details while sounding really smart, but it won't convey the necessary information.
Read the wall of text down the thread if you want more detailed info. You'll learn that I'm not justifying the vaccine. All I'm saying is that it won't change a person's DNA, but it also raises a whole bunch of other questions.
It's bad enough that I write things like "cytoplasm (soup filling the cell outside the nucleus)" etc... and even that is probably too complicated for most people... like who even knows when you say "ribosome (enzyme)" what either is? How far do you dumb things down? That's the problem we face when having to make "lies to children" to try to make something like this understandable to people who have basically no understanding of cellular anatomy and function or the vocabulary involved.
From what I've seen you know more about it than I do, but I try to at least break it down in a simple enough way to make it clear that there's no point at which the DNA is changed or even touched during the process. It's not "gene therapy", that the vaccine doesn't create a "pathogen", but rather only a single protein (antigen) etc... and explain what the difference is. It IS a vaccine by every credible definition I've seen, as I said before.
People get really pissed about it, but I think it's important to keep trying to get the info out there.
The answers aren't hard to find with quick google searches, but people are getting their information almost exclusively from social media memes from people who have no idea what they're talking about. They haven't made any effort to inform themselves.
And whenever they find an argument on social media that sounds compelling, or "more scientific", they share that even more because it makes it less likely that someone else who is moderately informed will be able to adequately address it.
(Like "but what about reverse transcriptase!" etc. I think the pregnancy one is another one because a few articles mention either specific things like cleaving sites etc... and they think that they're similar enough that the immune system will attack women's uteruses or prevent pregnancy etc. Most people, even somewhat informed people, aren't knowledgeable enough on genetic mechanisms or terminology to really understand or answer those questions.)
We live in the age of disinformation and nowadays folks just choose to believe whichever version of events that suits their personal beliefs or biases. We have to thank media for this trend because they've been equating professionals with laymen (like inviting a doctor and some crystal energy "healer" to a talk show giving them the same stage).
What the vaccine is meant to achieve is to present a very specific antigen for the immune system, of a protein that the researchers determined is structurally conserved enough that the virus would not change it. I understand that this type of virus mutates at a slower rate, and even if it mutates that particular spike protein, it may make it less infectious to humans (but also less recognizable because the epitopes the antibodies are supposed to be targeting would change). So the reason this particular protein was chosen was not arbitrary.
However, the cut red tape and the amount of money involved in the development is a pretty big red flag. In interviews and various articles the shortcuts are being hand waved away by saying that most of the time needed to test a vaccine is actually spent of bureaucracy and not actual testing, so the corner cutting wasn't for the important stages, BUT if a clinical scientist at Pfizer raised concerns about the similarity of the spike protein to a "self" protein in the placenta (probably to cover his own ass in spite of the enormous pressure to release the vaccine because there's so much money involved) I'm thinking that not everything may be on the up and up there. I mean, it's human nature... I think the world looks the way it does because people do what they can, while some people are talented and others aren't...
I don't know if the vaccine is dangerous. It doesn't look like it is, because even though the technology is fairly new, the systems it interacts with are very well studied and there should be no surprises. What bothers me more is that I don't know how effective the vaccine is. I hope it is, but so far it is unknown how long the antibodies would last.
If it's good for 6 months, does that mean folks would need to go get it twice a year? But if I managed just fine without it for a year, so I suppose that wearing a mask properly, washing my hands and keeping them away from my face provides adequate protection as well. (Even though the masks do offer minimal protection and are meant more to make sure the wearer won't infect as many people. Better than nothing, I suppose)
The vaccine is not said to guarantee protection either, but it is said that the symptoms would be much more mild. So technically, a person may get the vaccine, thinking all this crap is behind them, get sick but mildly enough to not even require medical treatment, BUT, still be able to infect others. So what kind of a solution is that?
Anyway (and sorry for the ramblings), people get really pissed because the new information they receive contradicts the first information they had, which was false, but they don't have the background knowledge to tell them apart, and stick with the things they like to hear because it makes them feel safer and in control.
Answers aren't hard to find if you know where to look, but the answers provided also lead me to many questions. For example, the vaccine is touted to enter antigen presenting cells, which would then show the protein fragments to T cells. BUT what guarantees that the RNA won't enter regular cells in the injection area? It's not that big of a deal. Not like it's being injected somewhere crucial. If it gets inside a regular fat/fibroblast/muscle cell, and it shows the foreign protein via MHC type I to a CTL cell, it'll end up dying due to apoptosis and that's it. It should still lead to the same result at the cost of a few cells the body can replace, so no big deal.
Why is it difficult to make a vaccine by other more traditional means? There was an interview with an immunology professor in Australia last spring, and he was talking about the main difficulty being not the presence or absence of antibodies, but the accumulation of viral particles outside the body. In the sense that being in the lungs but outside the cells is technically outside the body. Now it's a mucous area, so IgA antibodies are prevalent there, whereas IgG antibodies (that are created by the vaccine) will be found in the blood, not necessarily where the virus would be.
More questions than answers... It seems to me that the vaccine isn't particularly dangerous, and probably by offering a successful path for the immune system to operate, instead of going all RED ALERT mode which results in a cytokine storm and damage to internal organs and possibly death, but it also doesn't look like that great of a panacea that it is made out to be by the media and all the interested parties.
Maybe it's more of a "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week" (- George Patton) thing, and it's better than nothing.
"Lies to children". Is that a Discworld reference?
It's not where I got it from, nor where it originated, but it was popularized by its later connection to Discworld. :) (I've unfortunately never read those books.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children
Very interesting concept. Worth reading.
Surprising. I knew of Cohen and Stewart through the collaboration, but assumed "lies to children" was a very Pratchett-like phrase and assumed it was him. Would be interesting to read those books. Science of Discworld series was nice too, though not perfect for subjects I know about. I believe there were some misconceptions in sections of entropy and biology. But the overall material was excellent.
You are confused. The elites have completely lost the the trust of the people. The only thing preventing people being strung up to bleed out is that things aren't too uncomfortable yet.