Do you trust and follow the science?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Xtrozero

Bravo. It's members such as yourself that actually deny ignorance.

I remember your account since the name is long...

It is not in topic but I think it is related somehow to the arguments you make.

You are the one who implied that biological sex can change in one my other threads. So a woman can become a man and vice versa.

Now I understand why your arguments here and questions don't make much sense.

Twisting facts again? I gave you scientific studies of animals (non-human) where intersex happened. I have since provided you with neuroscience evidence-based studies on humans, which you obviously choose to ignore.

Intersex isn't an example of a case where biological sex has changed but a sex development disorder.
As it's off topic I will end it here and continue in the other thread.

In terms of the other question you asked me where a person received two vaccines at the same time and becomes sick, I don't know which conversation are you following bit there is nothing here.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

You seem to be conflating the research on mRNA and applications with having mRNA approved vaccines.

Can we agree that there has been human trials for over a decade now using mRNA? As I pointed out you have moved your goal post to say FDA approved vaccine. BTW when we look at the approval process EU is much quicker than our FDA which is a massive bureaucratic machine. This is why when new drugs come out people head off to EU for treatment as the same drugs may take years in the US to get approved. The key point in the approval process is after Phase 3 there is NO further testing, AND the FDA doesn't do testing either, but they follow and approve each Phase of the trials. So what this means is once trials are accomplished then it all gets dropped into the big bureaucratic machine. If that takes 5 years it doesn't mean more testing was done, it just means the process is slow.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Xtrozero

Bravo. It's members such as yourself that actually deny ignorance.

I remember your account since the name is long...

It is not in topic but I think it is related somehow to the arguments you make.

You are the one who implied that biological sex can change in one my other threads. So a woman can become a man and vice versa.

Now I understand why your arguments here and questions don't make much sense.

Twisting facts again? I gave you scientific studies of animals (non-human) where intersex happened. I have since provided you with neuroscience evidence-based studies on humans, which you obviously choose to ignore.

Intersex isn't an example of a case where biological sex has changed but a sex development disorder.
As it's off topic I will end it here and continue in the other thread.

In terms of the other question you asked me where a person received two vaccines at the same time and becomes sick, I don't know which conversation are you following bit there is nothing here.

Avoidance will serve you only for so long.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I will ask the question again as it seems it may not have been understood well

Which mRNA vaccines existed before the Covid ones? When they were approved for use by the FDA? And for which infectious diseases?

You seem to be conflating the research on mRNA and applications with having mRNA approved vaccines. Yes, mRNA research existed since the 60s but not mRNA vaccines for human diseases. The first to be approved and used with emergency authorisation was back in December 2020.

I trust my own logic, post-coronaplandemivacx, who can you trust?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: Xtrozero

I will ask the question again as it seems it may not have been understood well

Which mRNA vaccines existed before the Covid ones? When they were approved for use by the FDA? And for which infectious diseases?

You seem to be conflating the research on mRNA and applications with having mRNA approved vaccines. Yes, mRNA research existed since the 60s but not mRNA vaccines for human diseases. The first to be approved and used with emergency authorisation was back in December 2020.

Using a vaccine to modify mRNA is much like side loading apps on your smartphone through unlocking the protected code, huge chance of bricking your setup, leaves you open to huge security issues. Even using mRNA modification through cloning and natural breeding is very risky and will more often than not result in severe genetic malfunctions. Science needs another 100 years to catch up to this technology.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Xtrozero

Bravo. It's members such as yourself that actually deny ignorance.

I remember your account since the name is long...

It is not in topic but I think it is related somehow to the arguments you make.

You are the one who implied that biological sex can change in one my other threads. So a woman can become a man and vice versa.

Now I understand why your arguments here and questions don't make much sense.

Twisting facts again? I gave you scientific studies of animals (non-human) where intersex happened. I have since provided you with neuroscience evidence-based studies on humans, which you obviously choose to ignore.

Intersex isn't an example of a case where biological sex has changed but a sex development disorder.
As it's off topic I will end it here and continue in the other thread.

In terms of the other question you asked me where a person received two vaccines at the same time and becomes sick, I don't know which conversation are you following bit there is nothing here.

Avoidance will serve you only for so long.

Still nobody here has discussed what you are talking about i.e receiving two vaccines at the same time. You must have confused it with another conversation in another thread.

But if you want to have a look at what can cause an injury then take a look at this.



www.medrxiv.org...



Setting: Japan

Participants Vaccinated population was 99 834 543 individuals aged 12 years and older who have been received SARS-CoV-2 vaccine once or twice by 14 February 2022. Reference population was defined persons aged 10 years and older from 2017 to 2019.

Conclusion

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was associated with higher risk of myocarditis death, not only in young adults but also in all age groups including the elderly. Considering healthy vaccinee effect, the risk may be 4 times or higher than the apparent risk of myocarditis death. Underreporting should also be considered. Based on this study, risk of myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may be more serious than that reported previously.


Further conclusions and policy implications

Despite above limitations, this study revealed that SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was associated with higher mortality rate from myocarditis, especially in young adults compared with 2017 to 2019 population. But it also revealed that myocarditis death occurs in older persons. If healthy-vaccinee effect is taken into account, the risk increases at least approximately 4 times more than the unadjusted mortality risk. In addition, underreporting deaths after receiving vaccine should be considered. Based on the results of this study, it is necessary to inform public about that the risk of serious myocarditis including death may be far more serious than the risk reported before and that it occurs not only in young persons but also in elderly.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: Xtrozero

I will ask the question again as it seems it may not have been understood well

Which mRNA vaccines existed before the Covid ones? When they were approved for use by the FDA? And for which infectious diseases?

You seem to be conflating the research on mRNA and applications with having mRNA approved vaccines. Yes, mRNA research existed since the 60s but not mRNA vaccines for human diseases. The first to be approved and used with emergency authorisation was back in December 2020.

It's gonna be crickets. The lamestream media and big pharma "science" has convinced everyone that research = fully tested drug. That's like saying a chemotherapy agent has been thoroughly tested because they've been studying them for over a decade. Too bad there's no long term safety data and pharma and the cdc fight as hard as possible not to release short term safety data.

It took over a year of lawsuits by ICANN to force the CDC to release the V Safe safety data, WHICH IS ABYSMAL. 8% OF PEOPLE VACCINATED HAD TO BE HOSPITALIZED, AND THATS OUT OF A 10 MILLION PERSON SAMPLE SIZE. Wake tf up.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: Xtrozero

I will ask the question again as it seems it may not have been understood well

Which mRNA vaccines existed before the Covid ones? When they were approved for use by the FDA? And for which infectious diseases?

You seem to be conflating the research on mRNA and applications with having mRNA approved vaccines. Yes, mRNA research existed since the 60s but not mRNA vaccines for human diseases. The first to be approved and used with emergency authorisation was back in December 2020.

It's gonna be crickets. The lamestream media and big pharma "science" has convinced everyone that research = fully tested drug. That's like saying a chemotherapy agent has been thoroughly tested because they've been studying them for over a decade. Too bad there's no long term safety data and pharma and the cdc fight as hard as possible not to release short term safety data.

It took over a year of lawsuits by ICANN to force the CDC to release the V Safe safety data, WHICH IS ABYSMAL. 8% OF PEOPLE VACCINATED HAD TO BE HOSPITALIZED, AND THATS OUT OF A 10 MILLION PERSON SAMPLE SIZE. Wake tf up.

It is indeed an absurd idea that because there is mRNA research in the past decades the mRNA products have been tested and found to be safe and effective and hence the mRNA Covid vaccines are safe and effective and ready to be used in general population.

It seems there is a confusion between mRNA research and having safe and effective mRNA vaccines for Covid-19.

It has been claimed also that mRNA vaccines existed before. Although I am not aware of any mRNA vaccines that were approved by the FDA for any other infectious disease in the past. Are you?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

You seem to be conflating the research on mRNA and applications with having mRNA approved vaccines. Yes, mRNA research existed since the 60s but not mRNA vaccines for human diseases. The first to be approved and used with emergency authorisation was back in December 2020.

All I'm saying is we have well over a decade of human trials to suggest we have that data on the effects of mRNA in general. I explain the FDA process that they do no testing, so that means whether a drug is approved or not the FDA isn't the one to test anything. I have already agreed that COVID is the first FDA approved vaccine, so not sure your point there or why that matters since it doesn't also mean that mRNA vaccines with human trials was also the first with COVID vaccine.

I have also asked that now with it well past a year fully approved by the FDA and with 13 billion shots given when will you stop using the term experimental with it? All of this goes back to my point that you and others throw around the term experimental as a slur more than accurately identifying anything.

Sworn depositions being taken by the Missouri and Louisiana Attorney Generals are revealing honest-to-goodness bombshells!

Last week, the top FBI manager from California described how the FBI met with Facebook/Twitter every week to ensure their content was helping Biden and hurting Trump!

The US GOVERNMENT (and US media) did more to interfere in our Presidential election than all the "foreign meddlers" combined...100 times more!

Source: ago.mo.gov...

These Attorney Generals deposed Dr. ANTHONY FAUCI, and learned he was assisted and protected by U.S. Media Companies...just like the Biden Crime Family.

Source: www.wafb.com...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

You seem to be conflating the research on mRNA and applications with having mRNA approved vaccines. Yes, mRNA research existed since the 60s but not mRNA vaccines for human diseases. The first to be approved and used with emergency authorisation was back in December 2020.

All I'm saying is we have well over a decade of human trials to suggest we have that data on the effects of mRNA in general. I explain the FDA process that they do no testing, so that means whether a drug is approved or not the FDA isn't the one to test anything. I have already agreed that COVID is the first FDA approved vaccine, so not sure your point there or why that matters since it doesn't also mean that mRNA vaccines with human trials was also the first with COVID vaccine.

I have also asked that now with it well past a year fully approved by the FDA and with 13 billion shots given when will you stop using the term experimental with it? All of this goes back to my point that you and others throw around the term experimental as a slur more than accurately identifying anything.

Yes I think we agree on most things in terms of how a vaccine is designed, how it is tested using the different clinical phase trials, and how it is approved. I think we know what the role of the FDA is. I don't think there is any confusion here.

Yes we have data for probably longer than a decade as there are attempts to create vaccines for pretty much everything, Ebola, Rabies, even cancers which are not communicable disease.

The first approved mRNA vaccine is indeed the Covid vaccine but I don't see why one cannot call it experimental. We know nothing about this particular vaccine other, its short, medium or long term effects, or the benefit to risk ratio in every risk group. But yet it was rolled out very quickly and in the general population. Actually it is outrageous that people accepted to get injected with these products. Just because there is was research for a decade or more on mRNA and mRNA applications doesn't mean the product has been tested and successfully passed the major checkpoints of this testing.

As the matter of fact the mRNA vaccines are no longer recommended in Florida for the 18-39 age group of males. There are calls to stop the vaccination program because of inadequate testing and major health and safety reasons.

Even Pfizer admitted they didn't even have the time to test them for transmission for which the entire campaign of saving the granny relied on.
A major scandal I would say.

These products were not tested for transmission. They didn't know whether they prevent or significantly reduce transmission and consequently infection. It seems that the testing wasn't done properly.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The first approved mRNA vaccine is indeed the Covid vaccine but I don't see why one cannot call it experimental.

But as we talked about before EVERY drug follows the same path as the COVID vaccine in after Stage 3 the testing is done and everything else is monitoring within the general public. From that monitoring we get things like "no longer recommended in Florida for the 18-39 age group of males" .

When someone says I'm not taking some experimental drug well I need to say then why did you take all those other ones that we can dump into the expermental bucket too since the paths are the same? Also, why is the COVID vaccine the only one labeled as "expermental"? We both know what "they" mean by "expermental" and that has nothing to do with the vaccine, but with mRNA, right? That is why I pointed out well over a decade of human trails with mRNA already and not only 3 or 4 months as is suggested by these same groups using "expermental". Then we have the conundrum that many of the vaccines are not mRNA based, so are they expermental too?

Did you take your expermental flu shot this year?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

These products were not tested for transmission. They didn't know whether they prevent or significantly reduce transmission and consequently infection. It seems that the testing wasn't done properly.

OK so what? Vaccines for RNA viruses do not typically stop transmission. We see it every year with the flu shot. What we don't want is someone to get it and die. The purpose of these vaccines is to lessen the severity of the illness and they do.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

These products were not tested for transmission. They didn't know whether they prevent or significantly reduce transmission and consequently infection. It seems that the testing wasn't done properly.

OK so what? Vaccines for RNA viruses do not typically stop transmission. We see it every year with the flu shot. What we don't want is someone to get it and die. The purpose of these vaccines is to lessen the severity of the illness and they do.

This is scandalous to begin with.

Moreover the narrative emanating from the Pharmaceuticals and the Government was to get vaccinated to stop transmission and protect the others, including granny. Nonsense of course and deliberate misleading the public for which there have to be legal investigations.

The purpose of these vaccines was never clear. You are now parroting the narrative which had raised the bar several times.

Answering also the reply above here.
Given the lack of testing for transmission which is very crucial, one raises questions about the entire process of the clinical phase trials 1,2,3. What kind of testing was this in a very small period of time and how these products were given the ok for release in the general population. Phase1,2.3 trails take a lot of time now just a few months. So everything was rushed.

In terms of the flu vaccine. Flu vaccines existed previously and have gone through testing within of course this to mean that all flu vaccine are of the same quality.

Covid mRNA vaccines never existed before and neither other mRNA vaccines for any other Infectious diseases that were rolled out in the general population.

a reply to: Xtrozero

No...

that is not the definition of vaccine as we understand it, and the dumbass CDC had to go on and change the definition on their website after it became apparent that whatever it is they are injecting people with now was an abject failure.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

This is scandalous to begin with.

Moreover the narrative emanating from the Pharmaceuticals and the Government was to get vaccinated to stop transmission and protect the others, including granny. Nonsense of course and deliberate misleading the public for which there have to be legal investigations.

The purpose of these vaccines was never clear. You are now parroting the narrative which had raised the bar several times.

The clear side would have been to say we have a vaccine and then give it to all the high risk and call it mission accomplished. The total BS from the left and Fauci is a totally different conversation. All that was more as a draconian control event.

My favorite was that you are endangering Granma if you do not get vacced. I scratched my head and asked if Granma is vacced then who cares if someone else is not.


So what about the COVID vaccines made the same way as the flu vaccines? I'm not sure what part you are identifying as expermental here.

originally posted by: MaxxAction
a reply to: Xtrozero

No...

that is not the definition of vaccine as we understand it, and the dumbass CDC had to go on and change the definition on their website after it became apparent that whatever it is they are injecting people with now was an abject failure.

I agree with this strongly. This isn't the definition of what a vaccine is. And they had to change the definition so these products can be called vaccines.

originally posted by: MaxxAction

No...

that is not the definition of vaccine as we understand it, and the dumbass CDC had to go on and change the definition on their website after it became apparent that whatever it is they are injecting people with now was an abject failure.

That is a very simplistic answer as it really depends on the vaccine and virus type as to whether it is fully capable of both zero transmission and 100% prevention. There are many more common vaccines that are not zero transmission and 100% prevention, than are.

a reply to: Xtrozero

to be fair if it was an ebola like outbreak and we'd be oozing our life force from every orifice people would take the risk of any treatment no matter how fringe or risky as they did with the plague.. only we went through all this for the sniffles..

this is where the ops question is both pertinent and wrong the real question is who can you trust in athis faux expert society, a society that fears everything yet needs experts to interpret the science..

our expert society is just smartly dressed fortune telling.