Question about how mRNA vaccines work

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Did they though?

I have my doubts it was ever as effective as they said at this point. Since we know fully vaccinated people can and do get delta anyhow, and they told us the spike protein they trained our immune systems to respond to was something that exhibited very little change or was relatively stable ... at least I *thought* I recalled that ... then was it ever that effective at 95%?

None of that isn't to say there isn't some benefit to it, same as there is usually *some* benefit to the flu shot, especially as you get older, but was it ever quite as effective as they claim? Just like masks aren't what they claim either.

originally posted by: TheAMEDDDoc
a reply to: ChaoticOrder
... I don’t know why people are having so many issues with this.

Perhaps this has something to do with it:

Fraud in Science—It Makes the Headlines (Awake!—1990)

The image of scientists as invariably dedicated to truth has been tarnished, as these headlined items show.

“Ethics in Science”

“A fight is building in the U.S. House of Representatives over fraud, misconduct, and conflict of interest in science.”​—Science, July 7, 1989.

“Do Scientists Cheat?”

“After the initial inquiry by this [congressional] committee into this subject, the committee has had growing reason to believe that we are only seeing the tip of a very unfortunate, dangerous, and important iceberg.”​—NOVA broadcast on PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) on October 25, 1988.

“Two New Studies Ask Why Scientists Cheat”

“It was an innocent enough question: how do scientists behave when no one is looking? But it has produced an incendiary answer: not too well, reports a paper this month in the British journal Nature.”​—Newsweek, February 2, 1987.

“A Nation of Liars? Scientists Falsify Research”

“A study published last month accused 47 scientists at the Harvard and Emory University medical schools of producing misleading papers.”​—U.S.News & World Report, February 23, 1987.

“NIH Sees Plagiarism in Vision Paper”

“Panel says researcher took data from paper he peer-​reviewed and used it for his own work; . . . NIH [National Institutes of Health] recommends debarment proceedings.”​—Science, July 14, 1989.

“‘Permissive Behaviour’ Breeds Fraud in the Laboratory”

“Biomedical scientists in America are performing sloppy and sometimes fraudulent research in an effort to publish more papers and make more money.”​—New Scientist, February 25, 1989.

“Researchers Roll Back the Frontiers of Fraud”

“Scientific fraud and carelessness among researchers could be widespread, warns a study in last week’s issue of Nature.”​—New Scientist, January 22, 1987.

“Researcher Accused of Plagiarism Resigns”

“A biochemist accused of plagiarizing a National Academy of Sciences report for a book on nutrition and cancer resigned from his position at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.”​—Science, September 4, 1987.

“The Pill: Professor’s Safety Tests Were Faked”

“His deception puts a question mark over safety checks on pills being taken by up to 2 m[illion] women in Britain and 10 m[illion] worldwide.”​—The Sunday Times, September 28, 1986.

“Senior Drugs Researcher Resigns in Disgrace”

“He resigned last week after an independent committee of inquiry found him guilty of scientific fraud.”​—New Scientist, November 12, 1988.

“NIMH Finds a Case of ‘Serious Misconduct’”

“A surprisingly long-​running, flagrant and deliberate case of scientific fraud according to a draft report of an investigation conducted for the National Institute of Mental Health.”​—Science, March 27, 1987.

“Research ‘Fraud’ Puts Poison Into the Ivy League”

“A prominent Bostonian psychiatrist resigned as head of a mental hospital affiliated to Harvard University, following charges of plagiarism.”​—New Scientist, December 10, 1988.

“The Case of the ‘Misplaced’ Fossils”

“A prominent Australian scientist has examined two decades of work on ancient Himalayan geology and alleges it may be the greatest paleontological fraud of all time.”​—Science, April 21, 1989.

“Now It’s the Journals’ Turn on the Firing Line”

“[He was speaking] specifically about how poorly many [science] journals have handled scientific fraud. . . . The same message previously dispatched to other members of the scientific community has now been addressed to the journals: clean up your act or you may find legislators getting into it.”​—The AAAS Observer, July 7, 1989.

They haven't cleaned up their act one bit, and they demonstrate they have no intention to as long as it remains profitable to deceive. Note that most of those headlines concern the medical industry.

There's more here:

Fraud in Science​—Why It’s on the Increase (Awake!—1990)

...
A senior editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Drummond Rennie, commented on the lack of quality: “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-​serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”
...
“For high-​octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-​review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. “The reality,” New Scientist said, “is that few scientific scoundrels are caught, but, when they are, they frequently turn out to have been running wild for years, publishing faked data in respectable journals, with no questions asked.”

Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing. But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.” The Times report added: “Although a few years ago it was rare for the National Institutes of Health to receive one complaint a year of alleged fraud, she said, there are now at least two serious allegations a month.” Science magazine observed: “Scientists have repeatedly assured the public that fraud and misconduct in research are rare . . . And yet, significant cases seem to keep cropping up.”

The chairman of one of the congressional investigating committees, John Dingell, at one time said to scientists: “I will tell you that I find your enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly inadequate and that rascality seems to be triumphing over virtue in many incidences in a fashion that I find totally unacceptable. I hope you do too.”

The NOVA program on “Do Scientists Cheat?” concluded with this acknowledgment by one of the scientists present: “Skeletons have to come out of the closets, bureaucrats’ careers have to be impaired if that’s what it takes, and there’s no alternative. This is ethically required, this is legally required, and it’s certainly morally required.”

Again, this has not happened. It's a sad reality that this world, and especially the so-called "scientific community" is filled with materialistic (greedy) selfish people who act more out of self-interest than concerning themselves with the interests of their customers (and in the case of the medical industry, the wellfare of their patients). We're talking probably more than 99% who are more concerned for example about their career prospects and income than what happens to their customers or scamming their customers (and again, if we're talking the medical industry, the wellfare of their patients or providing the best quality care, their product).

Thinking of it any other way is rather naive. Some people also did pay attention during the movie "The Fugitive", which showed an accurate depiction of the state of the medical industry, with many more 'bad' guys chasing advancement of their careers and income (materialism and greed; falsifying their research, data and spinning numbers in accordance with that agenda), than 'good' guys.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

It’s not tricking, it’s structure. Ribosomes recognize RNA with a polyA tail and a 5’ cap with other transcritptional refugulatory sequences and binding sites. mRNA is packaged that way in the nucleus from pre-mRNA and then exported.

A positive sense RNA virus has already incorporated these structures into it so it can immediately be translated by host cell ribosomes to generate transcription proteins that use RNA as a template to generate more RNA. They do this because we don’t generate RNA from RNA in our cells. A double stranded RNA virus or a negative sense RNA virus actually packages the RdRp protein into its virions to do the same thing.

All we did was generate an mRNA transcript based on the spike protein, specific portions of it. We added some stuff to make it anchor into cell membranes and not release which should stop most issues. Then we added the 5’ cap and 3’ polyA tail to have the cell treat it as true mRNA. That’s all you need. Cells look for double stranded RNA which is a viral intermediate. They have no need to look for mRNA with specific structures except what they already use to translate proteins from the template.

a reply to: ketsuko

The data from the early studies is fairly convincing, but could certainly be manipulated. However I think it's more probable that newer strains of Covid-19 have evolved some method of getting around the vaccines. Not sure if the spike protein changed, but flu viruses require a new vaccine each year and I doubt they totally change. So even if we've seen a very similar virus before it can still cause issues.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: ketsuko

The data from the early studies is fairly convincing, but could certainly be manipulated. However I think it's more probable that newer strains of Covid-19 have evolved some method of getting around the vaccines. Not sure if the spike protein changed, but flu viruses require a new vaccine each year and I doubt they totally change. So even if we've seen a very similar virus before it can still cause issues.

Flu vaccines are different though. They still are made using the old method. So one strain of flu is still different from another. It has to be in order to keep coming back and infecting us year after year. We're still dealing with the descendent strains of Spanish Flu honestly. It's one of the types they tend to add to the vaccine mix.

They chose the mRNA and spike protein method to attempt to avoid the flu vaccine scenario because they expected COVID to be highly mutable.

a reply to: whereislogic

I wasn’t referring to ethics but it’s a valid point. My group despises that crap and we will pull papers even if there is a hint of confusion or data errors. We do it for fun and because we like it. I mean there is compensation which is nice in medical research. Unfortunately there are others who see it the other way and take it too far.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

We have billions of cells and don't even notice if a cell here or there dies. When a cell is infected with a pathogen, and you can't simply get at the pathogen, it is safer to kill the infected cell rather than let the pathogen spread.

Sometimes, however, our immune system can also cause problems by attacking the wrong cells. This is why Guillain-Barré is a possible adverse reaction to a vaccine.

You still might have such adverse reactions and so you need to keep an eye on such things during trial phases. Usually, you can see the wrong cells being killed on in-vitro testing, well before it goes to in-vivo testing. But I don't think you can entirely eliminate the possibility.

You also have to remember that the same thing can happen with getting natural immunity to a pathogen.

Also, in the animal testing with pathogens or potentially dangerous substances, it is usual practice to euthanize the animals after testing. Some of them may have been infected with a live virus to determine a vaccine's effect. You don't want to hand 'them' hamsters out to the kiddies.

a reply to: chr0naut

Almost everything gets sacrificed because of radioactivity, u licensed meds, vaccines, pathogens, and the requirement of ex-vivo analysis for our biochemistry results.

I have seen rats, dogs, guinea pigs, chickens, and rabbits adopted out afterwards. They’re usually extras or the experiment did not require death. Even the controls need analysis so we can compare.

It’s really strict at our institution. In vitro is easy, in vivo is where it gets crazy with unexpected signaling and other impacts. Impossible to predict them all.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I think that maybe you're a little confused. Or that you are trying to confuse other people in order to scare them into not taking the vax.

You know, statements like that just grind on my nerves. Who exactly do you think you are? Do you have some innate God-like intuition that allows you to sense the intentions of others?

Or maybe, you are part of the reason so many are refusing to take the damn vaccine. I got news for ya... even in the middle of a heart attack, on the way to emergency surgery, I was still asking questions and expecting answers. I am DAMN sure going to ask questions about what I am allowing into my body now!

If no one gets to ask questions, no one, period, should be taking this shot.

The vax doesn't lower your immune system.

Prove it. I have never met a medicine of any kind that doesn't affect immunity in some way. The question is not whether it lowers immunity; it is how much it lowers immunity.

It is designed so that certain components won't be recognized as being hostile by your body so that they won't be attacked and destroyed before the mRNA is delivered.

Yeah, it's called being embedded in a lipid. The cells absorb the lipids for food and get the mRNA as a bonus.

But why answer questions? If asking questions means someone is trying to "scare others," isn't answering them doing the opposite and trying to ram this thing down people's throats?

YOU are one of the reasons why I refuse to get the vaccine. What's in it for you, anyway? What benefit does it do you if someone else gets the vaccine or not? That's the question I want to see answered.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The question is not whether it lowers immunity; it is how much it lowers immunity.

And if it does ... for how long?

A temporary dip in immunity might be allowable provided you are forewarned and can take reasonable precautions, but those precautions become less reasonable the longer you are expected to maintain them.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I'll try to simplify some.

You're referring, it seems, to the early tests on mRNA technology. The vaccine works this way:

• Scientists analyze a specific protein that will, if neutralized by antibodies, disable the virus. In this case, that protein is the spike protein.
  
• Scientists then design an mRNA molecule to create that specific protein.
  
• The mRNA molecules are then wrapped in a "cocoon" of lipids, or fat molecules.
  
• The lipids are suspended in a solution as a vaccine. It has to be kept refrigerated because the lipids will degrade rapidly at room temperature.
  
• In the body, cells see these lipids as food and absorb them, also absorbing the mRNA.
  
• The lipids are digested in the cell, leaving the mRNA molecule.
  
• The mRNA molecule then instructs the cell to produce the spike protein. The cell cannot distinguish it from internal mRNA produced by the nucleus and DNA; it simply recognizes that it is mRNA.*
  
• The mRNA is destroyed in the process.
  
• The spike proteins, since they are not native to the cell, migrate to the cellular membrane.
  
• The innate immune system then recognizes the spike protein as a foreign body and begin to create antibodies to attack it.
  
• Once sufficient antibodies are made (that's the two weeks you mention), the person has antibodies against the virus that carries the spike protein.

The process is actually pretty sound. I was skeptical at first, but the more I read up on the technology, the more assured I was that it is safe.

However, remember that all this is based on one thing: making the right protein. Make the wrong protein, and not only will the vaccine be ineffective but it could actually damage the body's internal mechanisms. Sort of like putting gasoline in a diesel motor... yeah, it's still liquid hydrocarbon fuel, but when you try to crank the motor it blows itself apart. Put diesel in a gasoline motor and it just gums everything up and the motor can't start.

That's my major concern: is the spike protein safe? The virus exhibits some clotting issues similar (but more pronounced) when it enters the bloodstream, generally through damaged lung tissue. So I see the possibility that the clotting issues are caused directly by the spike protein. Now that also means that it is far preferable to take the vaccine rather than have the virus in one's bloodstream; the protein does not replicate, but the virus does. However, preferable to that would be to not have either in one's bloodstream by (hopefully) never getting a case severe enough to cause bleeding in the lungs.

More than likely the early tests you mention had errors in the manufacture or identification of the target protein. It's pretty hard for us to actually manufacture molecules like that precisely. It is cutting edge technology today; ten years ago it was still science fiction that had some scientists trying it.

* A lot of what TheAMEDDDoc is explaining is the chemical mechanism that the cells use to identify the mRNA molecule as an mRNA molecule. The poly(A) tail is one of the identifiers and the references to "5'" and "3'" are referring to the different ends of the molecule, also important. That part of the science is quite complicated and thus hard to put into layman's terms. Even I have some difficulty with the terminology, but I was able to understand some of it without wearing out a medical dictionary.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ketsuko

A temporary dip in immunity might be allowable provided you are forewarned and can take reasonable precautions, but those precautions become less reasonable the longer you are expected to maintain them.

Agreed.

Some medicines are still beneficial, because sometimes the minor drop in immune response is less important than the advantage the medicine gives us. I take a medicine once every other week, an injectable, which is essentially antibodies for a specific virus in my liver that causes me to have higher-than-normal (higher-than-reasonable, too) cholesterol. Probably genetic. I know that shot weakens my immunity some... but that "some" is apparently so small I don't notice. The advantage is that my blood does not try to attain the consistency of jelly. So I'm good with that one shot.

That's why, in the end, medication acceptance should be a personal decision for everyone. I have yet to tell anyone to take or not take the vaccine (and I have had several people ask me locally). I just tell them the process is safe, and the spike protein is reportedly safe, but untested in long term. I'll tell them that I won't take it, at least not at this time. Then it's their decision.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I'll try to simplify some.

You're referring, it seems, to the early tests on mRNA technology. The vaccine works this way:

• Scientists analyze a specific protein that will, if neutralized by antibodies, disable the virus. In this case, that protein is the spike protein.
  
• Scientists then design an mRNA molecule to create that specific protein.
  
• The mRNA molecules are then wrapped in a "cocoon" of lipids, or fat molecules.
  
• The lipids are suspended in a solution as a vaccine. It has to be kept refrigerated because the lipids will degrade rapidly at room temperature.
  
• In the body, cells see these lipids as food and absorb them, also absorbing the mRNA.
  
• The lipids are digested in the cell, leaving the mRNA molecule.
  
• The mRNA molecule then instructs the cell to produce the spike protein. The cell cannot distinguish it from internal mRNA produced by the nucleus and DNA; it simply recognizes that it is mRNA.*
  
• The mRNA is destroyed in the process.
  
• The spike proteins, since they are not native to the cell, migrate to the cellular membrane.
  
• The innate immune system then recognizes the spike protein as a foreign body and begin to create antibodies to attack it.
  
• Once sufficient antibodies are made (that's the two weeks you mention), the person has antibodies against the virus that carries the spike protein.

The process is actually pretty sound. I was skeptical at first, but the more I read up on the technology, the more assured I was that it is safe.

However, remember that all this is based on one thing: making the right protein. Make the wrong protein, and not only will the vaccine be ineffective but it could actually damage the body's internal mechanisms. Sort of like putting gasoline in a diesel motor... yeah, it's still liquid hydrocarbon fuel, but when you try to crank the motor it blows itself apart. Put diesel in a gasoline motor and it just gums everything up and the motor can't start.

That's my major concern: is the spike protein safe? The virus exhibits some clotting issues similar (but more pronounced) when it enters the bloodstream, generally through damaged lung tissue. So I see the possibility that the clotting issues are caused directly by the spike protein. Now that also means that it is far preferable to take the vaccine rather than have the virus in one's bloodstream; the protein does not replicate, but the virus does. However, preferable to that would be to not have either in one's bloodstream by (hopefully) never getting a case severe enough to cause bleeding in the lungs.

More than likely the early tests you mention had errors in the manufacture or identification of the target protein. It's pretty hard for us to actually manufacture molecules like that precisely. It is cutting edge technology today; ten years ago it was still science fiction that had some scientists trying it.

* A lot of what TheAMEDDDoc is explaining is the chemical mechanism that the cells use to identify the mRNA molecule as an mRNA molecule. The poly(A) tail is one of the identifiers and the references to "5'" and "3'" are referring to the different ends of the molecule, also important. That part of the science is quite complicated and thus hard to put into layman's terms. Even I have some difficulty with the terminology, but I was able to understand some of it without wearing out a medical dictionary.

TheRedneck

I don't normally agree with you, but I starred this post.

To some extent, the poly (A) tail is to set up the sequence properly, so the steps in transcription to a protein, are sequenced properly, and the sequence, which nominally starts with a 'start' codon, and ends with a 'stop' codon, doesn't get rejected as invalid.

There is a bit of genomic code before the 'start', and there is also a bit of code after the 'stop'. They don't really code for anything, though, but they do 'feed the machine' in the right direction.

a reply to: chr0naut

They do help assemble the proteins associated with the transcription or translation complex, depending on what it’s purpose is. They also serve as an mRNA timer, once it’s reduced enough after it’s translated so many times it’s removed from the cell. They don’t code for anything really except as markers for RNA dependent RNA polymerase to identify 5’ from 3’ regions or the beginning and end. Like when it generates subgenomic RNA in the reverse direction.

Coronaviruses are weird, they save space using discontinuous transcription for generation of subgenomic RNA for protein structure of the virion. This process proceeds backwards from back to front in the final 1/3 of the genome. They also have a pseudoknot in between ORF1a and ORF1b or the first 2/3 of the genome. It acts like a speed bump, stalling the ribosome and realigning it’s tRNA in the -1 direction. This is a rare occurrence yet it’s the only way to generate the non structural proteins responsible for the generation of new RNA.

They also use error checking which is rare for RNA viruses. It means attenuation is much slower and antiviral drugs are more limited if they act as mutagens.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The spike proteins, since they are not native to the cell, migrate to the cellular membrane.
The innate immune system then recognizes the spike protein as a foreign body and begin to create antibodies to attack it.

I know how mRNA vaccines work in principle, this is the part where my question arises. According to this doctor, our immune system could view those cells as bacteria or hijacked viral cells and start to attack them. He gives a fairly detailed description of how our immune system uses lymphocytes and leukocytes to fight infections, and how it responds to the spike protein, and why it could damage the walls of our blood vessels, leading to blood clotting. His explanation of why the 2nd shot is far more deadly also makes a great deal of sense and lines up with every piece of data I've seen.

That's my major concern: is the spike protein safe? The virus exhibits some clotting issues similar (but more pronounced) when it enters the bloodstream, generally through damaged lung tissue.

Well that has been my concern for a few weeks, because it seems like the vaccines can cause issues similar to the real virus. But everything I read about the mRNA vaccines say they used a perfectly safe spike protein, and I think it would be very risky for them to make those claims unless they were certain. So now I'm wondering if the issue is actually more subtle, and has something to do with our own immune system, especially now that I'm seeing the results of blood tests from vaccinated patients and how it messes up their immune system. See this video.

originally posted by: ketsuko

Flu vaccines are different though. They still are made using the old method. So one strain of flu is still different from another. It has to be in order to keep coming back and infecting us year after year.

They are still based on the same underlying technique, which is expose us to the dead virus or just a small part of the virus, so we can develop antibodies. I would argue the traditional approach is better because it trains our immune system against more than just a single protein, and doesn't have as many ways it could go dramatically wrong. But that method would be much slower and more expensive from what I understand. SARS-CoV-2 is also continually evolving into new strains, I doubt any of those early strains which were used to create the vaccines are even out in the wild anymore.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Graphene oxide is the culprit of the mRNA vaccine from Pfizer and I am going to lay out before you the anatomy of curated propaganda. To make it easy to follow I'm including a screen shot with highlighted reading along with the source link. Take note of the specific wording in the studies and the articles. Multiple times these articles imply "future" testing and yet the mRNA "vaccine" had already been created. Without any long term human trials.

2018 - NIH Study on the effects of graphene oxide on human cells:

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



2020 - NIH 1st Propaganda Piece - Graphene oxide as a POTENTIAL vaccine carrier

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



2021 - Planted Article on how great graphene oxide MIGHT be as a vaccine carrier

www.labroots.com...



2021 - Article proving the Pfizer mRNA vaccine is 99% graphene oxide

stateofthenation.co...



And in conclusion I am linking to this article here about the toxicity of graphene oxide in the human body:

particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AaarghZombies

I think that maybe you're a little confused. Or that you are trying to confuse other people in order to scare them into not taking the vax.

You know, statements like that just grind on my nerves. Who exactly do you think you are? Do you have some innate God-like intuition that allows you to sense the intentions of others?

Or maybe, you are part of the reason so many are refusing to take the damn vaccine. I got news for ya... even in the middle of a heart attack, on the way to emergency surgery, I was still asking questions and expecting answers. I am DAMN sure going to ask questions about what I am allowing into my body now!

If no one gets to ask questions, no one, period, should be taking this shot.

The vax doesn't lower your immune system.

Prove it. I have never met a medicine of any kind that doesn't affect immunity in some way. The question is not whether it lowers immunity; it is how much it lowers immunity.

It is designed so that certain components won't be recognized as being hostile by your body so that they won't be attacked and destroyed before the mRNA is delivered.

Yeah, it's called being embedded in a lipid. The cells absorb the lipids for food and get the mRNA as a bonus.

But why answer questions? If asking questions means someone is trying to "scare others," isn't answering them doing the opposite and trying to ram this thing down people's throats?

YOU are one of the reasons why I refuse to get the vaccine. What's in it for you, anyway? What benefit does it do you if someone else gets the vaccine or not? That's the question I want to see answered.

TheRedneck

I've read countless posts by people like you using passive aggressive comments that sound like questions but which are really statements designed to cause fear and doubt. It's an old tactic. Like answering a question with another question. You want to know who I am, well, I'm an old hand at this game, that's who I am.

People are refusing to take the vaccine because people like you are needling them every 5 minutes to put doubt into their mind.

The vax doesn't lower your immune system because that would just be stupid. It's entire purpose is to elicited an immune response. If it lowered your defenses it would be self defeating. That's like putting up a security door that required you to leave a window open for it to lock. There are no ingredients that individually or in combination lower your immune system. Prove otherwise.

It's all well and good asking questions, but you're doing it deliberately to cause fear. It's like me walking around an openhouse asking loudly how many people got raped in the neighborhood.

You want to know what's in it for me? Seriously, Not getting locked down is in it for me. Getting to go to a baseball game is in it for me. Not having to wear a mask when I visit my elderly relatives is in it for me. If one kid in my children's class gets covid they all get told to quarantine. Which means that I get told to quarantine.

When unvaxxed people get sick my freedoms get restricted.

Either get vaxxed or start campaigning for Covid passports, bring in a two tier system, you can be as unvaxxed as you want so long as the rest of us don't get locked down with you.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

This may b a bit off topic but there is a video from October 29 2019 where fascinating and others are talking about all of this.

I can't link as I'm a stupid person on a chitty phone you can get the video from oann pretty messed up how they planned this all out.

I know one of you other members will post it.
Really scary how they outline all of what has happened these last 18 months or so.

Really worth the watch

a reply to: AaarghZombies

You want to know who I am, well, I'm an old hand at this game, that's who I am.

Lmao... ok James Bond.

People are refusing to take the vaccine because people like you are needling them every 5 minutes to put doubt into their mind.

Seeing as I'm the one who made this thread you should be directing your anger at me and not TheRedneck. However, I clearly made this thread because I had a legitimate question about how the vaccine functions. If our cells are producing viral components it seems like a logical question to ask how our immune system would respond to those cells.

The vax doesn't lower your immune system because that would just be stupid. It's entire purpose is to elicited an immune response. If it lowered your defenses it would be self defeating.

Obviously it wouldn't make sense if the vaccine prevented all aspects of the immune system from working. The vaccine clearly does cause an antibody response, it does what it was designed to do. What I'm asking is, how does the vaccine get around the specific defenses which would attack our own cells long enough to achieve that response. It's a question, not a claim about the vaccine.

Also, I'm not saying the vaccine does some sort of permanent damage to the immune system. But people are clearly getting strange blood results after being vaccinated, I know that for a fact because one of my relatives had their white blood cell counts go way out of the normal ranges after the 1st and 2nd vaccine. I can't remember if it was too high or low, I'll have to ask next time we talk.

It's all well and good asking questions, but you're doing it deliberately to cause fear.

Don't talk to me about spreading needless fear. All I've seen is needless fearmongering throughout this entire pandemic. I'm not sure why you would be so adamant about trying to suppress or stifle conversations on this topic. This is ATS, not a vaccine hesitancy board meeting. Caution and questions are paramount when using experimental technology and when we have people like you obsessed with vaccinating every person on Earth.

When unvaxxed people get sick my freedoms get restricted.

The most vaccinated nations on Earth don't have herd immunity or lower case numbers, in fact they have higher case numbers on average, which you already know because you ready my analysis where I used scatter charts to look at countries with different vaccination rates. Even if 100% of people were vaccinated it wouldn't stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2, you are clinging on to false promises.

Eventually you will have to come to terms with the fact the only people taking away your freedoms are our control freak leaders. Scream and yell at the unvaccinated all you want, but it's not going to get your freedoms back, in fact it's only going to prolong and enable this state of tyranny, because they'll always have an excuse and an escape goat for why their plans and promises never work out.