It's nearing the end of 2023, how many vaccines are you up to? Are you planning on getting more?
How Many COVID Vaccines Did You Get?
deme on 01/10/2023 - 12:00
Last edited 01/10/2023 - 12:00
Last edited 01/10/2023 - 12:00
Poll Options
- 222Zero
- 221
- 3782
- 7263
- 2974
- 2105
- 316
- 67
- 78
- 789+
Comments
you wont get covid
Where was this messaging used?
stop the spread
This was used by the Australian Government to encourage people to wash their hands, cough into their elbow, reduce face to face contact, and generally be more hygienic - this was unrelated to vaccines.
save grandma
Again, where was this used?
@ginormousgiraffe: If you really can't remember the news from only a few years ago go and look it up yourself.
We were initially told the vaccine was almost 100% effective, you would not catch covid if you were vaccinated, you could not transmit covid if you were vaccinated, young people needed to be vaccinated to protect vulnerable people etc
The messaging slowly evolved as it became obvious none of this was actually true.
@trapper: Maybe someone told you those things, but it was not the Australian Government. I have looked it up myself, in fact, every piece of advertising they used is online on health.gov.au.
Vaccines? Yeah probably.
Lockdowns, mate they were too late, you can't let in the Ruby Princess https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/17/ruby-… and then do lockdowns.
Or have an airborne virus and think putting people in hotels will keep them safe.
Vaccines come along anyway. That industry didn't need prompting but no group declines government subsidies. And most such virus weaken over time - that's just nature.
In all areas of medical treatment there are cost-benefit analyses done. The most expensive one should definitely have one undertaken. But Albo seems to want to brush it all under the carpet. Poor leadership.
I wasted a lot of time trying to convince people here not to get it 2 years ago on this platform (I showed you ALL studies, 2 years BEFORE the TGA said, "WE DIDN'T KNOW"). I'm done now. Enjoy your 10 shots, if you haven't figured it out by now, good luck to you.
Ah yes the famous immunologist rocketswitch, providing his incredible medicine knowledge to warn others of the devastating "dangers" of taking the vaccine. Well played to you sir.
Stick to playing video games instead.
To be fair to RocketSwitch, he provided sources.
What sources? And are they taken out of context or are they even credible? Of course there's going to be small cohort who will possibly have a reaction, but you're discounting the billions of others who haven't had any adverse reactions from taking the vaccines.
@Griffindinho: Old mate linked sources in his various comments https://www.ozbargain.com.au/user/40372/comments?page=16
You accused him of pretending to be an immunologist. I didn't say he was correct just that out of the two of you, he's actually sourced his info.
@deme: Don't be silly, this guy is an expert. Griffindinho the Great!
The same guy who ate the rubbish TGA threw out there about extensively testing and reviewing studies on how novel this vax was:
https://twitter.com/Jikkyleaks/status/1607609272237707264/ph…
Have to love the Freedom of Information Act!
Funny how I mentioned heart inflammation 2 years ago, and the same SHEEP said, WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE? Now there is:
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/tga…
https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/australia/atagi-di…
WHAT WAS THAT SHEEP? BAAAAAAAA, BAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
And the same old people come out of the woodwork who know more than the inventor of the technology (cited 12,500 times on mRNA technology in published papers), leading world cardiologists and new current studies (Nature Journal Vaccines AND the TGA themselves).
I'll stick to video games, you can stick to being ignorant and know more than the experts who developed the tech, well done.
Ah the same Robert Malone who spouts mininformation. He isn’t the sole person to create the technology…
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/03/technology/robert-malone-…
@Griffindinho: You guys have been using this strategy for years now, let's listen to Davey Alba a technology reporter who covers Big Tech for Bloomberg News, after previously reporting on online disinformation for The New York Times.
INSTEAD OF THE FOUNDER of mRNA technology CITED 12,500 TIMES IN PUBLISHED MRNA PAPERS!!
He is one of the 3 WHO MADE THE TECHNOLOGY that had 9 patents that lapsed on it.
What's so hard to understand? You RATHER listen to a tech reporter than the founder? Jesus!
@RocketSwitch: Maybe read the article before spouting nonsense.
But Dr. Malone was not the lead author on the paper and, according to Dr. Acsadi, did not make a significant contribution to the research. While the paper stated that the technology could “provide alternative approaches to vaccine development,” Dr. Acsadi said none of the other authors would claim that they invented the vaccine.
“Some of his work was important,” said Dr. Alastair McAlpine, a pediatric infectious disease doctor based in Vancouver, British Columbia, “but that’s a long way away from claiming to have invented the technology that underpins the vaccines as we use them today.”
I'll further add another source.
CLAIM “Dr. Malone is the inventor of mRNA vaccines”
Inaccurate: The development of the mRNA vaccines is due to the work of hundreds of researchers, one of which is Robert Malone. Together with his co-authors, Malone contributed early evidence that mRNA could be delivered and produce proteins in cells. However, because crucial hurdles to develop the mRNA vaccines were resolved by many researchers , Malone cannot be claimed the inventor of this vaccine technology.
Always funny that these morons ignore the 50 million people that the vaccines have saved but they will refuse to have vaccines because their coworkers son thinks that he is unwell because he had a vaccine.
At least it's now easier to spot the sociopaths.
Sociopaths now? What abt people that don’t bother with the regular flu vax, which is the same thing ….Are they sociopaths too?
Stop being so dramatic.
Where are your evidence and studies showing the vaccine saved that many people? Please go on, I want a study that shows explicitly the vaccine saving those people.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext
Based on official reported COVID-19 deaths, we estimated that vaccinations prevented 14·4 million (95% credible interval [Crl] 13·7–15·9) deaths from COVID-19 in 185 countries and territories between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8, 2021. This estimate rose to 19·8 million (95% Crl 19·1–20·4) deaths from COVID-19 averted when we used excess deaths as an estimate of the true extent of the pandemic, representing a global reduction of 63% in total deaths (19·8 million of 31·4 million) during the first year of COVID-19 vaccination.
Can't exactly prove it is 50m, but there were 19.8 million deaths in the year following the first vaccination. That was when hardly anyone had the vaccine. It has been 2.8 years since the first vaccination. You can draw your own conclusions using that data.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext
Worth noting, that modelling study came out of Imperial College London, the site of Neil Ferguson & his projection modelling death & illness estimates which led to the governments response during 2020.
What is also worth noting, is some of the money coming in to Imperial, through the BMGF for a number of years prior on a variety of study areas:
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants?q=imp…It is well known an institution does not bite the hand that feeds them. This is the current state of "Science" today.
@mrdean: Financial support can raise concerns, but it's essential to emphasise that research institutions, such as Imperial College London, are committed to upholding the highest scientific standards, regardless of their funding sources. These standards are integral to their research endeavours and research projects typically receive funding from a diverse range of sources. The practice of transparency has become increasingly important in contemporary research, with institutions being expected to disclose their funding sources and address any potential conflicts of interest.
The scientific community employs a rigorous system of peer review. This process involves other qualified scientists critically evaluating and validating research findings, ensuring the robustness and credibility of the research outcomes. Therefore, while funding may play a role, it does not unilaterally determine the course of scientific inquiry. But it's important to engage in a thorough examination of the research itself and scrutinise the methodology.
You have failed to address the core issue at hand, instead, choosing to attempt to discredit the institution without providing any evidence whatsoever to support your claims.
You have failed to address the core issue at hand, instead, choosing to attempt to discredit the institution without providing any evidence whatsoever to support your claims.
Just citing a study, and a mathematical modelling one, with multiple assumptions, does not mean it is correct. Or even close to correct.
Just like with anything, there are always two sides to the story.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361631679_Commentar…Yes, it's a commentary, by non specialists, but how do you know they aren't correct in their criticism?
And how do you know this CIS statement didn't influence the scope of the study, or its intended purpose.
"Declaration of interests ACG has received personal consultancy fees from HSBC, GlaxoSmithKline, and WHO related to COVID-19 epidemiology and from The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria for work unrelated to COVID-19. ACG is a non-remunerated member of scientific advisory boards for Moderna and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness. ABH and PW have received personal consultancy related to COVID-19 work from WHO. All other authors declare no competing interests."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35753318/@mrdean: Scepticism is great for scientific research, but it must be grounded in facts and evidence. Without this, everything said is verbal diarrhoea.
The commentary, while offering an alternative viewpoint, does not inherently invalidate the research from Imperial College London. The validity of the study relies on a multitude of factors, including its methodology, data sources, and peer review. The commentary is great and is part of the scientific process, but it really just boils down to the author's problems with alternative causes of excess deaths and possible overfit of the model. The author of that paper (which I doubt you have actually read through) believes that vaccines significantly limited the numbers of deaths but is just arguing that they cannot be sure of the amount.
The declarations of potential conflicts of interest do not automatically discredit the entire study. It's essential to assess whether these interests have biased the research in a meaningful way, which, once again, you have not done.
does not inherently invalidate the research from Imperial College London
Would anything invalidate it?
The vaccines saved millions of lives….because our model says so? Ok.
methodology, data sources, and peer review.
assumptions, estimates, & back slapping?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7204561_Peer_review…
@mrdean: Yeah mate, some evidence would. Even the author's writings that you linked says that it saved lives. You are clearly not well-educated on the matter, so you should stop spreading misinformation instead of typing random shit into scientific journals in the hope that it helps your position.
Yeah mate, some evidence would.
Ouch, hit a nerve. What sort of evidence would it take? Presumably, another model of sorts? How can anyone invalidate a model with 20+ assumptions underlying it, without another model with 20+ assumptions underlying it.
@mrdean: It would take scientific consensus that vaccines have not reduced the number of COVID-19 related deaths.
@mrdean: It was the same morons at the Imperial college who modeled the projected deaths in Sweden to be in excess of 80,000 over a period of 3 months after the government there did not fall in line with lockdowns and social distancing. Roughly out by a factor of 10x.
It was the same morons at the Imperial college
Yes, they did very good work for their masters (WHO, CEPI, BMGF etc)
Yes, they did very good work for their masters (WHO, CEPI, BMGF etc)
Agreed!
Most people here equate modelling with objective fact. However nothing can be further from the truth. Altering the initial conditions buy only a fraction of a percent can lead to totally different results. In other words the outcome is predetermined.
Pretty sure his conclusions were drawn long ago.
Pretty sure his conclusions were drawn long ago.
You sound a bit deflated. Bad day at the Signals Directorate?
Still here ?
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
An interesting table suggesting that North Korea is the safest place to be - or perhaps that models can only be as good as the data fed to them.
That data is exactly the reason why it is measured in excess deaths rather than raw death numbers.
Your assumption of why people refuse vaccines…. LOL. You just made a real @ss of yourself
People have valid reasons for not getting it, I'm sure 1-4% of people have valid medical conditions and another 5-10% of people with severe cognitive impairments.
Always funny that these morons ignore the 50 million people that the vaccines have saved but they will refuse to have vaccines because their coworkers son thinks that he is unwell because he had a vaccine.
The problems were not that the vaccine existed or that it was available for people who wanted it. It's good to have vaccines.
The problem is the continual lies we were told about these vaccines, and the pressure used to force people to have a vaccine that they didn't want or need.
People who were at no risk from the virus, forced to have a vaccine, unnecessarily put at risk, and in many cases actually harmed, and even killed by it. For no reason.
No one in Australia was 'forced' to have the covid-19 vaccine, or any vaccine for that matter.
Of course they were.
Bullshit, in NSW for a time period you needed 2 vaccines or you were locked down.
Bullshit, in NSW for a time period you needed 2 vaccines or you were locked down.
Yes, but remember, the messaging was that "no one is being forced, but there are consequences for ones choice to not get jabbed". That's how the argument was repeatedly framed, & why it is repeated by people who believe it.
no one is being forced, but there are consequences for ones choice to not get jabbed
It was so cooked
You really have to be stupid to fall for this.
I'm pointing out the psychological & behavioural tactics behind the messaging, to get people to comply. I don't think most people are stupid, but they have been manipulated.
The strangest thing I find is people saying they are all for the other vaccines but routinely skip covid/flu as some sort of less serious jab.
On balance, covid and flu are way more common to circulate and kill way more people every year. But sure. Get the measles vaccine when you basically never see measles. Riiiiight.
All vaccines are ‘life or death’ priority. We need some sort of tax incentive to keep boostering high.
This isn't a smart take like you think it is.
Get the measles vaccine when you basically never see measles. Riiiiight.
The only reason we don't see measles is because people are vaccinated.
The death rate of measles is way higher than that of covid.Measles is airborne and highly contagious. Worldwide it is one of the leading vaccine-preventable disease causes of death.
One dose is about 93% effective while two doses of the vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles.Are covid vaccines that effective?
Why are the makers of covid vaccines given immunity but measles makers are not?
All vaccines are ‘life or death’ priority
This is also a bad take, there are plenty of vaccines people don't get.
Vaccines also have side effects, just like anything you need to balance the risk.
Getting covid vaccines now might still be a good idea for some people, for others not.
When the prominent strains of covid were more severe getting vaccines meant that the risks of side effects were lower than that of the risks of covid.There is always some group of nutjobs pushing for Lithium in our water supply, should we also do that?
TL;DR Getting a cold or flu for most people is way less of a problem than measles
That's why measles vaccine is publicly funded for everyone and flu vaccine is only funded for at risk groups.You’re providing interesting context but it doesn’t really change the outcome. It doesn’t matter “why” measles is uncommon.
Regardless, if I was to ask which disease is most likely to kill you - the answer will simply be Covid, not measles.
And hence if I ask which vaccine is more likely to save your life: Covid, not measles.
Regardless, if I was to ask which disease is most likely to kill you - the answer will simply be Covid, not measles.
Think about your statement for a second.
Measles is unlikely to kill me because I am immune to this virus - I received a vaccine that actually works.
@trapper: I’m talking about the risk to an unvaccinated person since the discussion is about abstaining from vaccines.
Choosing to remain unvaccinated for covid, is a much bigger gamble with your life.
Of course, goes without saying, both vaccines dramatically lower risk of death.
@haemolysis: Measles is a far more contagious and dangerous virus than covid, it's not even in the same ballpark.
Jeepers, educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles
@trapper: You are lacking basic stats skills or being facetious or something.
Deaths from measles in NSW last week: 0. Deaths from covid in NSW last week: about 17. This is “not in the same ballpark” as you say.
Covid is one of the leading causes of death in 2023. The baseline risk is much, much higher. Measles doesn’t break top 10.
Measles doesn’t break top 10.
Yes because the Measles vaccine actually works! good grief
Having gotten the government recommended 6 Covid vaccines, my iPhone's 5G reception has never been stronger.
Lame
2, but I regret it, only did it for my elderly mother who died anyway shortly after from cancer.
I've had COVID twice, once not long after the vaccines, both times I was pretty sick despite not having any relevant health issues and being roughly middle aged (40ish).
Not much of an effective vaccine really was it…
Must be climate change!! LOL!!
it's not just the jabs though. Guglielmo Marconi, the generally accepted inventor of radio, suffered a series of heart attacks during the 1930's while he was experimenting & working on microwave technology. He eventually died from a heart attack. They are deploying microwave technology globally at the moment. This will naturally contribute to heart as well as other health issues.
So, it is a variety of sources. All poisons, more or less.
Oh yes, you're right. MUST BE SOMETHING THAT HAS ALWAYS HAPPENED IN AUSTRALIA, WOW WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT?
Didn't realise bushfires ONLY NOW has suddenly had people dropping dead with the highest morbidity rates for the last 100 years.
But let's ignore the novel experimental gene therapy vax with no long-term studies that has shown TIME AFTER TIME to cause heart inflammation.
But, let's just use COVID itself then.
This is a perfect vax. Best. 100% climate change.
@RocketSwitch: Ask your teacher or a responsible adult what 'cumulative' means
Your childish obtuseness at the end of your rant is embarrassing to your cause. Whatever the fk that is.
@Protractor: I need to be childish at the end because of how you bluntly ignore BASIC FACTS. Do you think bushfires that have occurred over millions of years in Australia are the cause when the article you linked has said remains largely unknown? However, we have a vax that has PROVEN STUDIES that show heart inflammation AND DEATH during a PERIOD we have the highest number of sudden deaths of our time WORLDWIDE???
You're embarrassing!
@RocketSwitch: Yeah you're right, weve had extreme bushfires heaps of times before. 1908, 1935, 1962, 1980, 1989, 1998, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023…
Can the experts who love this vaccine explain this study to me? I'm really dumb and ignorant, need some help:
https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.230743#:~:text=In%2…
Does it show significant PET-CT changes in the myocardium and lymph nodes of "mRNA" vaccinated people at 6 months?
But I thought it just stayed in the arm? And is short-lived? No?
So does it appear that the long-term presence of spike protein is being driven by DNA rather than RNA? No?
Me dumb, need help, and not an immunologist, thanks.
I'll also wait for the immunologists here to say, this is not a real study and they are not doctors LOL! Like the university fact-checkers majoring in arts that you all listened to, 3 years ago!
I can.
Conclusion
Compared to nonvaccinated patients, asymptomatic patients who received their 2nd vaccination 1-180 days prior to imaging showed increased myocardial FDG uptake on PET/CT.The study used mean age 52.9 years σ 14.9 but vaccinated 56.8 years σ 13.7.
Importantly, the study did not find, nor sought to find clinical significance.
It found for the the population set: Myocardial SUVmax was higher in vaccinated patients.There was no multivariate analysis done.
This is just a letter saying, I did this experiment here are the results. This is not someone saying, that covid vaccines cause a higher risk of myocarditis. Nor is it a risk analysis of vaccine induced myocarditis vs covid.
This is just a dataset with some interpretation. Hence why it's published by radiologists.
But I thought it just stayed in the arm? And is short-lived? No?
That would be silly, that's not how any vaccine has worked, ever. Think about this, you have blood circulating around your whole body, your white blood cells… blah blah…
So does it appear that the long-term presence of spike protein is being driven by DNA rather than RNA? No?
Year 9 science teaches us the relationship between DNA and RNA https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/gene-expressi…
messenger RNA (mRNA), as it serves as a messenger between DNA and the ribosomes, molecular machines that read mRNA sequences and use them to build proteins.
mRNA is the delivery of the vaccine
Block-quote That would be silly, that's not how any vaccine has worked, ever. Think about this, you have blood circulating around your whole body, your white blood cells… blah blah…
Silly isn't it?
https://theconversation.com/no-covid-vaccines-dont-stay-in-y…
"In this time, they don’t appear to leave the vaccination site (most often your upper arm)."
Or it's: "However, vaccines are cleared from your body in mere days or weeks. "
But they found it continues to linger:
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)00076-9#:~:text=Vaccine%20spike%20antigen%20and%20mRNA%20persist%20for%20weeks%20in%20lymph%20node%20GCs
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/a-health-public-policy-nig…
You aren't understanding the topic here and are conflating two different (but directly related) things…
When they say that the spike proteins stay near/within the injection site, what they are referring to is the actual vaccine administered to you. Said vaccine is the stimulus behind subsequent development of antibodies resulting from your body fighting off those spike proteins. It is these antibodies that we expect to stay within your bodies and last a duration long enough to tide us through a potential pandemic - and also the reason why new strains require us to get an additional shot (to refresh these antibodies).
3 and I'm done. I don't want to even think about covid anymore.
How have you felt since the jabs? Any reactions you've noticed?
Each one made me sleep (Biontech Pfizer)
It's been a while and I don't know if it was stress induced by I did feel like my heart was working harder.
Covid took everything from me. It robbed me of my mental health. It claimed a family member.
Ignorance is bliss and it's occupied my life enough.
Condolences on your loss. All the best,
I just had covid since 2020 and I wish I kept up to date with the shots.
Mofo kicked my ass.
Love this link: https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/resources/covid-19-vaccine…
Synthetic mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are neither safe nor effective. Their use globally has resulted in catastrophic injuries, disabilities, and death.
Love this link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Council_for_Health
And their report that the existence of Aliens will be used for false flag attacks and attacks on freedoms.
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/news/statements/aliens-mai…Love this link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Council_for_Health
After reading this short piece:
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/larrysanger-wikipedia-usin…And then rereading the wiki page you linked to, can you see how it is blatant biased "info warfare"? Lol.
Hint: the words "pseudo-medical", "antivaccine" & "misinformation".
Larry Sanger has some pretty blatant biases against wikipedia and covid.
Larry Sanger has some pretty blatant biases
Yeah, he's just a bitter co-founder…….sheesh.
Or, the reality:
Wikipedia has been weaponised. You are reading propaganda, on any subject that threatens the status quo. And "health" information is a pretty big threat….
Spends hours on the thread attempting to convey that scientific research is biased and then brings up a newsmax link. The cognitive dissonance of some people is unreal.
scientific research is biased
Heard of Angell? Goetzsche? Or any number of other credible people with integrity (not like IC's Ferguson) who have come out to say exactly that?
Again, the same rubbish, ignorant techniques you continue to use, ATTACK the source, and don't bother reading the 50 official references it links to SHOWING the catastrophic injuries, disabilities, and death.
Remain ignorant, I know, it's hard to read.
It's a very valid to call out that maybe an anti-vaccine group is going to be bias about vaccines. Let alone their credibility when they suggest false flag attacks will be made under the mask of Aliens.
Please don't exaggerate the source. There is no more than 30 references, and not all of them are even about vaccine reactions, or covid vaccine reactions, or about suggesting causation and dismissal.
I don't think anyone here is saying there wasnt any adverse reactions at all. However their data even shows the chance of having an adverse reaction to the vaccine is far less than the chance of dying from covid, let alone if you are an at risk group.
Their use globally has resulted in catastrophic injuries, disabilities, and death.
Compared to what? Not getting vaccinated and never getting COVID.
How about you compare the risk of the vaccine to the risks incurred by getting COVID while unvaccinated. That is the decision made by healthcare providers. Any other comparison is hypothetical and does not reflect the actual situation faced by individuals during the pandemic
You can waste your time.
If you don't understand how the vaccines turn your body into a spike protein factory that lasts for months and is encoded into your DNA, then you can waste your time reading how it actually works.
Natural COVID infection doesn't turn your body into a spike protein factory.
If you haven't figured it out yet, you're better off NOT getting the vaccine than risking vaccine injury. That's what it's telling you. Millions upon millions of catastrophic injuries, disabilities, and death THAT NEVER NEEDED TO GET THE VACCINE.
Even kids! Kids that died taking this, and yet you advocate for something that hasn't EVEN HAD THE TIME or long-term studies for safety!
The point is, that people NOT AT RISK shouldn't be taking this vaccine. Get it? And even if you're part of the 0.001% that could die, you're better off not taking it because the risk of catastrophic injuries, disabilities, and death is HIGH! Look at the bloody reports! The product is shit! Some people have got 10 shots of this thing. GREAT product!
Natural COVID infection doesn't turn your body into a spike protein factory.
Of course it does. That is why the spike protein is a vaccine target.
people NOT AT RISK shouldn't be taking this vaccine
During the pandemic, when these products were approved, everyone was at risk.
And even if you're part of the 0.001% that could die, you're better off not taking it because the risk of catastrophic injuries, disabilities, and death is HIGH!
No it isn't high, it's lower than the rates of injury from unvaccinated COVID.
These "arguments" will continue to be flatly ignored because talking about the harms of a vaccine while ignoring it's benefits is a bad faith argument
During the pandemic, when these products were approved, everyone was at risk.
Young people were never at risk, the vaccine certainly was more risky to them than the virus.
The argument was made that everyone needed to be vaccinated to stop transmission, which turned out to be totally false anyway.
The effects on transmission weren't even studied at all by the vaccine manufacturers, our health officials just invented this idea from nothing.
@trapper: How can you logic that the vaccine causes harms, due to the production of spike protein, that COVID doesn't also cause?
How can you logic that the vaccine causes harms
Well, for starters, the fact that it is synthetic biology?
@mrdean: It's a copy of the spike protein that it found on the COVID virus. It's synthetic in the fact that it causes less harms than a complete COVID virus molecule.
It's synthetic in the fact that
Pseudouridine. It's in the name: pseudo. As in biosynthesized from uridine.
@mrdean: So what? You are implying that something "synthetic" is more harmful than something "natural".
Do you consider the COVID virus natural? Or any other virus for that matter?
Do you consider the COVID virus natural?
It appears theres a little contradiction. If pseudouridine is biosynthetic, then did the alleged original pangolin, bat or other animal contain it? What's the likelihood of that? How does something bio-engineered already exist in nature? It's a conundrum isn't it? On the other hand, if the alleged lab leak theory is true…..
Not that I believe either one of those theories.
@mrdean: My point is that viruses are literally foreign RNA. Whether something was evolved in nature or was evolved in a laboratory setting is irrelevant if it isn't part of human biology. So your implication that the COVID vaccine must be more harmful than COVID itself because it's "synthetic" is illogical
My point is that viruses are literally foreign RNA
Yeah, but not synthetic. It is illogical to assume something synthetic, simply because broken down to its chemical constituents is identical, acts, performs, functions or has predictable results in comparison to something that exists in nature. It's a whole other ballgame, with it's own risks, drawbacks, dangers & potential benefits.
Don't you find it interesting that modified rna basically tricks the body into accepting instructions that then essentially translate into proteins. If it wasn't modified the body, in it's intelligence, would recognise & destroy it. Why would it do that? Because it's stupid?
No, one hundred times no, but this is where the fatal flaw lies, in all of genetic engineering, this idea that because we have the tech to deceive the body into doing things we want it to do, that it is a good thing.
It's actually anti-human. At least the way it is being currently done.
Don't you find it interesting that modified rna basically tricks the body into accepting instructions that then essentially translate into proteins. If it wasn't modified the body, in it's intelligence, would recognise & destroy it. Why would it do that? Because it's stupid?
That is also how a virus works. Viruses are anti-human. The technology is creating a synthetic virus that is less harmful than the actual virus. Why is this something that should cause concern when the alternative is COVID infection. You need to keep the alternative in mind.
@greatlamp: So, you still can't understand the difference between natural infection and how this gene therapy works? Is that what you're saying?
@ginormousgiraffe: I agree that taking the vaccine was the correct decision for people with health issues, older people, any anyone else who wanted it really.
I don't agree with the continual lies told about the vaccine, and I don't agree with the pressure tactics and other lies used for force people to take it.
'you wont get covid', 'stop the spread', 'save grandma' - it was all lies