Vaccines Target Races

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: bastion

I think you might have stumped them there.

I'll probably be accused of being a 'big pharma shill' as usual because I read the paper.

Weird thing is the general notion does have potiential background merit as drugs/vaccines are normally developed/trialed on white, healthy people and the only reason the vaccine was developed so quickly was because white/western society was potentially at risk early on - if the same ammount of resources had been focussed on an AIDS/HIV, Malaria, Diaorhea-style vaccine it'd save 500x the ammount of lives but no one cares as there's not profit to be made/one death in a western capital city is equivalent to 1,000,000 dead in the third world.

There may potentially be increased vaccine injury in BME people but this paper isn't about that subject, nor does it claim to be.

a reply to: MykeNukem

It's not "bickering", it's a reasoned response based on common sense.

Let's just agree to disagree?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Wisenox

OK. Playing the ball and directly responding to the OP's point (1) the study cited does not mention anything of the sort about vaccines and (2) it's dated 2020 which was before any vaccines were actually rolled out.

The study doesn't have to mention that.

The data within the study can be applied to how the virus will interact with our systems.

How did they develop the vaccines without a study about vaccines? See how circular that argument is?

I'm not claiming anything, just pointing out that we can learn from studies that may not be addressing a specific hypothesis.

The title of the thread is "Vaccines Target Races" and the OP posted a study that it is claimed supports that claim.

In fact, it does not mention vaccines nor, indeed could it, as it pre dated said vaccines.

Neither does it mention "pathogens" in the then non existent vaccines.

That's my point in response to the OP in a nutshell.

This is not "bickering", it's a reasoned response, to be clear.

no, it's trolling.

you're nitpicking on one word and refuse to see the conclusion drawn. there's an obvious connection because it's the same mechanism.

did you even try to understand? or did you just pick one word and ran with it? because that's not how we investigate things around here.

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Wisenox

OK. Playing the ball and directly responding to the OP's point (1) the study cited does not mention anything of the sort about vaccines and (2) it's dated 2020 which was before any vaccines were actually rolled out.

The study doesn't have to mention that.

The data within the study can be applied to how the virus will interact with our systems.

How did they develop the vaccines without a study about vaccines? See how circular that argument is?

I'm not claiming anything, just pointing out that we can learn from studies that may not be addressing a specific hypothesis.

The title of the thread is "Vaccines Target Races" and the OP posted a study that it is claimed supports that claim.

In fact, it does not mention vaccines nor, indeed could it, as it pre dated said vaccines.

Neither does it mention "pathogens" in the then non existent vaccines.

That's my point in response to the OP in a nutshell.

This is not "bickering", it's a reasoned response, to be clear.

no, it's trolling.

you're nitpicking on one word and refuse to see the conclusion drawn. there's an obvious connection because it's the same mechanism.

did you even try to understand? or did you just pick one word and ran with it? because that's not how we investigate things around here.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Ok, to clear up some of your confusion.
The vaccines cause your body to produce the same spike protein that cov2 does:

Why do they use spike proteins?

For COVID-19 vaccines, all of the approved vaccines so far used the spike protein. The spike protein is located on the outside of a coronavirus and is how SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus) enters human cells. Its location on the outside of the virus makes it so the immune system can recognize it easily.

The spike protein is unique to SARS-CoV-2 – it doesn't look like other proteins your body makes. So antibodies created against the spike protein won't harm your body, they will only target coronavirus.

www.nebraskamed.com...

As mentioned in my post, this adversely targets certain races, i.e blacks and whites. If the vaccines cause epigenetic effects, such as sterility or cancer, than they will have a much worse effect for races with elevated ACE2; again, whites and blacks.

Although, there may be a flaw in the gameplane. Research has shown that the s-protein is capable of exploiting more than ACE2 receptors alone:

"Recent reports have shown that the S glycoprotein is capable of interacting with multiple alternate cell receptors. Researchers from the Genos Glycoscience Research Laboratory in Croatia have recently investigated the sites that the S protein is capable of binding with."

www.news-medical.net...

Maybe no one is safe?

a reply to: Wisenox

According to your latest source, it says:

"So antibodies created against the spike protein won't hurt your body, they will only target coronavirus".

Does this not tend to contradict your claim?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

The vaccines are more toxic. The antibody immunity wanes over time, but the infection doesn't. In all likelihood, especially given that the spikes induce syncitum, the changes are made to the DNA. This would happen during the anaphase portion of mitosis, which happens multiple times to the nucleus of every infected cell.
During mitosis, the nucleus splits and the DNA is exposed to the CRISPR/CAS9 packets and the changes are permanent. The waning antibody response may just be the body recognizing the spikes as endogenous.

The antibodies and the toxicity of the foreign spikes themselves are two separate issues.

Additionally, we don't have all of the information regarding the vaccines. We have no idea what or how many gene modifications are being made. But, whatever modifications are being made, are adversely targeting blacks and whites.

a reply to: Wisenox

I think we should just agree to disagree?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Wisenox
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

The spike proteins (pathogens) target the ACE2 receptor. This happens from the vaccines.

Again, where does the study mention "pathogens"?

Why do you think spike proteins are pathogens?

The study does not seem to be saying what you apparently think it does.

The spike protein is a pathogen, training the immune system to attack the pathogen(spike protein) is what the vaccine is designed to do. The only real difference in this virus and the common coronavirus cold is the spike protein...that is what makes it more dangerous because of how it enters the cells. The spike protein is a defining part of this pathogenic virus.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MykeNukem
Let's just agree to disagree?

About what?

Just in general? It would save us time...

Or is there something related to the OP you'd like to clarify?

I like talking about the data in the OP...now that we've established that the pathogen is the spike protein where do we look next?

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MykeNukem
Let's just agree to disagree?

About what?

Just in general? It would save us time...

Or is there something related to the OP you'd like to clarify?

I like talking about the data in the OP...now that we've established that the pathogen is the spike protein where do we look next?

The date the paper was publised (hint: six months prior to the first vaccines being administered to the public, hence OP claim is false).

There not being a single mention of vaccination in the paper.

The paper being about Coid-19 infection.

Differences in the ammount of ACE-2 receptors exposed via intramuscular vaccination immediately adjacent to the lymph node vs the millions more ACE-2 exposed via infection (reason why claims vaccines are more toxic or target this effect are false).

Plenty more reasons why this is nonsense and none of it is claimed in the original paper in the OP.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MykeNukem
Let's just agree to disagree?

About what?

Just in general? It would save us time...

Or is there something related to the OP you'd like to clarify?

I like talking about the data in the OP...now that we've established that the pathogen is the spike protein where do we look next?

The date the paper was publised (hint: six months prior to the first vaccines being administered to the public, hence OP claim is false).

The two are not mutually exclusive. The paper's data can be used at ANY time, or should we throw away all studies that don't address a specific topic? We can sometimes apply a study to many related topics.

I don't see where the OP claimed the paper said any of that. I thought the OP said the paper “indicated” that, which means its inferred from the data.

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MykeNukem
Let's just agree to disagree?

About what?

Just in general? It would save us time...

Or is there something related to the OP you'd like to clarify?

I like talking about the data in the OP...now that we've established that the pathogen is the spike protein where do we look next?

The date the paper was publised (hint: six months prior to the first vaccines being administered to the public, hence OP claim is false).

The two are not mutually exclusive. The paper's data can be used at ANY time, or should we throw away all studies that don't address a specific topic? We can sometimes apply a study to many related topics.

You can't within the field of science. Especially when the claims have no evidence and go againt all known science.

I.e - 'here's a paper about a cat named Bob' can't be used as proof 'every animal not yet discovered is named John' - they're two completely unrelated things and would require entirely rewriting the paper, method, results, conclusions etc... to apply in a scenario that never existed when the initial paper was written and had nothing to do with vaccines.

Surely it would make more sense to cite a relevant paper than misrepresent one clearly not about vaccnations like the fake Dr did in the OP?

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MykeNukem
Let's just agree to disagree?

About what?

Just in general? It would save us time...

Or is there something related to the OP you'd like to clarify?

I like talking about the data in the OP...now that we've established that the pathogen is the spike protein where do we look next?

The date the paper was publised (hint: six months prior to the first vaccines being administered to the public, hence OP claim is false).

The two are not mutually exclusive. The paper's data can be used at ANY time, or should we throw away all studies that don't address a specific topic? We can sometimes apply a study to many related topics.

You can't within the field of science. Especially when the claims have no evidence and go againt all known science.

You can't glean information from one study to use in another? Or commission studies that may be used in the future for a related study? Everytime we need data for something we have to do a new study? I don't remember that rule...

The methodology of science is applied to many fields. Is that incorrect?

Science isn't a field of study.

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MykeNukem
Let's just agree to disagree?

About what?

Just in general? It would save us time...

Or is there something related to the OP you'd like to clarify?

I like talking about the data in the OP...now that we've established that the pathogen is the spike protein where do we look next?

The date the paper was publised (hint: six months prior to the first vaccines being administered to the public, hence OP claim is false).

The two are not mutually exclusive. The paper's data can be used at ANY time, or should we throw away all studies that don't address a specific topic? We can sometimes apply a study to many related topics.

You can't within the field of science. Especially when the claims have no evidence and go againt all known science.

You can't glean information from one study to use in another? Or commission studies that may be used in the future for a related study? Everytime we need data for something we have to do a new study? I don't remember that rule...

The methodology of science is applied to many fields. Is that incorrect? Science isn't a field of study...

You're not aware that a paper not about vaccines and never mentions them (apart from sayting they're in development) written six months prior to vaccines being available can't be extrapolted to pretend it refered to vaccines when all the scientific evidence goes against that extrapolation and ACE-2 claims?

These are the core logic laws of science and maths.

No - science and maths are fields of study and philosophical/logical laws - you can't just make stuff up or completely rewrite papers - that may be used in the social sciences as they mimic the method but not in actual science as studies can't be done that way/people can't predict the future.

Tl;DR - If the fake Dr had any evidence they'd cite it, they wouldn't misrepresent a paper that has nothing to do with vaccination and goes against all known science of ACE-2 receptor locations in the human body and the human immune response.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MykeNukem
Let's just agree to disagree?

About what?

Just in general? It would save us time...

Or is there something related to the OP you'd like to clarify?

I like talking about the data in the OP...now that we've established that the pathogen is the spike protein where do we look next?

The date the paper was publised (hint: six months prior to the first vaccines being administered to the public, hence OP claim is false).

The two are not mutually exclusive. The paper's data can be used at ANY time, or should we throw away all studies that don't address a specific topic? We can sometimes apply a study to many related topics.

You can't within the field of science. Especially when the claims have no evidence and go againt all known science.

You can't glean information from one study to use in another? Or commission studies that may be used in the future for a related study? Everytime we need data for something we have to do a new study? I don't remember that rule...

The methodology of science is applied to many fields. Is that incorrect? Science isn't a field of study...

1.You're not aware that a paper not about vaccines and never mentions them (apart from sayting they're in development) written six months prior to vaccines being available can't be extrapolted to pretend it refered to vaccines when all the scientific evidence goes against that extrapolation and ACE-2 claims?

These are the core logic laws of science and maths.

2. No - science and maths are fields of study and philosophical/logical laws - you can't just make stuff up or completely rewrite papers - that may be used in the social sciences as they mimic the method but not in actual science as studies can't be done that way/people can't predict the future.

1. You may learn how a vaccine will interact with the body and how the spike protein behaves from the first study.
2. We aren't talking about math. Context is key, no?

a reply to: bastion

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MykeNukem
Let's just agree to disagree?

About what?

Just in general? It would save us time...

Or is there something related to the OP you'd like to clarify?

I like talking about the data in the OP...now that we've established that the pathogen is the spike protein where do we look next?

The date the paper was publised (hint: six months prior to the first vaccines being administered to the public, hence OP claim is false).

The two are not mutually exclusive. The paper's data can be used at ANY time, or should we throw away all studies that don't address a specific topic? We can sometimes apply a study to many related topics.

You can't within the field of science. Especially when the claims have no evidence and go againt all known science.

You can't glean information from one study to use in another? Or commission studies that may be used in the future for a related study? Everytime we need data for something we have to do a new study? I don't remember that rule...

The methodology of science is applied to many fields. Is that incorrect? Science isn't a field of study...

1.You're not aware that a paper not about vaccines and never mentions them (apart from sayting they're in development) written six months prior to vaccines being available can't be extrapolted to pretend it refered to vaccines when all the scientific evidence goes against that extrapolation and ACE-2 claims?

These are the core logic laws of science and maths.

2. No - science and maths are fields of study and philosophical/logical laws - you can't just make stuff up or completely rewrite papers - that may be used in the social sciences as they mimic the method but not in actual science as studies can't be done that way/people can't predict the future.

1. You may learn how a vaccine will interact with the body and how the spike protein behaves from the first study.
2. We aren't talking about math. Context is key, no?

No - you'd use something releant to the vaccine and the inteteractions it has with the body; not a completely unrelated study to do that - it could be used as a vague axiom at a push but never a direct application of the conclusion to completely unrelated field.

I.e If my cats whiskers are 12cm long I can't conclude how long the hair on my bollocks is - they're completely unrelated and there's no basis, evidence or proof for thinking there is any relation. The scientific approach would be to pluck out and measure one of my ball hairs if I wanted to know it's length, not pretend/rewrite science to claims there's a correlation with the length of my cats whickers.

2. Maths and Science are based on the same logic and approach; can't have one without the other - the context was the false claims they're not areas of study and the same approach is used in other subjects.

You can't make up stuff in science or in maths or break the fundamental logical laws - it's why they're such good but complicated areas of syudy that seperate what you know and what you think you know apart.



a reply to: visitedbythem

Now that I have seen your l33t memes, I retract all scientific evidence and appologise on behalf of all scientists for reading the very first line of the paper that proves the OP is false.

a reply to: bastion

We DID have math before science, they are not the same and can ALSO be mutually exclusive.

This is back to petty bickering again, lmao.

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MykeNukem
Let's just agree to disagree?

About what?

Just in general? It would save us time...

Or is there something related to the OP you'd like to clarify?

I like talking about the data in the OP...now that we've established that the pathogen is the spike protein where do we look next?

No, we haven't.

Let's just agree to disagree?

About everything, apparently.