If the J&J vaccine is bad, then so are the other two. All of them focus on the spike protein.
All three vaccines deliver a single antigen to the body, arguably a safer approach than using either a killed or weakened virus because the viral particles have multiple proteins, and these vaccines encode an antigen to only one protein.
The argument that these may be LESS safe than the virus itself goes like this: these antigens are overly simple, and may result in attacks on other spike proteins present in to body. They also may produce hyperimmune responses to later challenges by the same or other viruses.
The other two are mRNA vaccines, and the way I read it, some of the problems may be caused by adjuvants in the formulation. The J&J approach is to use a stripped-down DNA vector, which is sturdier, and does not need extreme refrigeration, or the problematic adjuvants.
Some of this information is only going to come from extremely large numbers of vaccinations. Giving a medicine to extremely large numbers of people always causes some problems, because people are different, and somebody will respond badly.
I find it completely unnerving that stories in the press say that the CDC is not keeping count of deaths closely connected in time to the vaccinations. The vaccine is being given to very fragile people, and it would be no surprise if some of them died shortly thereafter, either from their existing co-morbidities or an infection that arose before immunity had time to develop, or simple incompetence of the receiving immune system.
Further, any number of people might receive the vaccines and die shortly thereafter from unappreciated frailties. A person with an aneurism or undiagnosed heart defect, for example, could die shortly after being vaccinated, although the vaccine played no role in the death.
All of these cases should be captured and investigated.
We will know in about a year whether or not the antigens being produced are causing havoc for the immune system’s natural response to disease. Even if they didn’t design this drug to be a killing machine, it is finely tuned to do a specific job which in a few words is defeat the body’s natural defense system in order to send a message that otherwise would have not been receivable.
I watched her speak on transfection and cell wall penetration, but she does take a Alex Jones sized leap to call it a killing machine. It remains to be seen, but she should have claimed the future effects of the drug may be death on a much larger scale than the disease itself. I think she somewhat watered down her professional message by adding a nefarious level of motivation behind the roll out of the “vaccine.”
Again, I wish she would have put emphasis on the animal trials and their poor results and let people make informed decisions based on data instead of her opinion in this specific respect.
If the J&J vaccine is bad, then so are the other two. All of them focus on the spike protein.
All three vaccines deliver a single antigen to the body, arguably a safer approach than using either a killed or weakened virus because the viral particles have multiple proteins, and these vaccines encode an antigen to only one protein.
The argument that these may be LESS safe than the virus itself goes like this: these antigens are overly simple, and may result in attacks on other spike proteins present in to body. They also may produce hyperimmune responses to later challenges by the same or other viruses.
The other two are mRNA vaccines, and the way I read it, some of the problems may be caused by adjuvants in the formulation. The J&J approach is to use a stripped-down DNA vector, which is sturdier, and does not need extreme refrigeration, or the problematic adjuvants.
Some of this information is only going to come from extremely large numbers of vaccinations. Giving a medicine to extremely large numbers of people always causes some problems, because people are different, and somebody will respond badly.
I find it completely unnerving that stories in the press say that the CDC is not keeping count of deaths closely connected in time to the vaccinations. The vaccine is being given to very fragile people, and it would be no surprise if some of them died shortly thereafter, either from their existing co-morbidities or an infection that arose before immunity had time to develop, or simple incompetence of the receiving immune system.
Further, any number of people might receive the vaccines and die shortly thereafter from unappreciated frailties. A person with an aneurism or undiagnosed heart defect, for example, could die shortly after being vaccinated, although the vaccine played no role in the death.
All of these cases should be captured and investigated.
We will know in about a year whether or not the antigens being produced are causing havoc for the immune system’s natural response to disease. Even if they didn’t design this drug to be a killing machine, it is finely tuned to do a specific job which in a few words is defeat the body’s natural defense system in order to send a message that otherwise would have not been receivable.
I watched her speak on transfection and cell wall penetration, but she does take a Alex Jones sized leap to call it a killing machine. It remains to be seen, but she should have claimed the future effects of the drug may be death on a much larger scale than the disease itself. I think she somewhat watered down her professional message by adding a nefarious level of motivation behind the roll out of the “vaccine.”
Again, I wish she would have put emphasis on the animal trials and their poor results and let people make informed decisions based on data instead of her opinion in this specific respect.
The big brained take. Take an upvote. I don’t know why people on the right have to add all the extra.