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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.