On 2/7/2021 11:07 AM, Bod wrote:
On 07/02/2021 17:03, Muggles wrote:
On 2/7/2021 10:44 AM, Bod wrote:
On 07/02/2021 16:43, Muggles wrote:
On 2/7/2021 10:38 AM, Bod wrote:
On 07/02/2021 16:35, Muggles wrote:
On 2/6/2021 10:57 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 2/5/2021 9:32 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/05/2021 10:20 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 2/5/2021 11:14 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/4/2021 10:29 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2021-02-04, Muggles wrote:
Gene therapy ...

I will not be vaccinated. Period.


I ONLY consider being vaccinated after such shots have been
tested for
several years.* By then, the majority of negative reactions
have been
documented, along with why those reactions happened.* I get a
flu shot
every fall because I've seen those work with very little allergic
reactions.* The covid "vaccines" have not been tested long
enough for
me to even consider taking one of those shots.** I'm no guinea
pig.
If other people WANT to be experimented on, that's their
business.


When in the history of vaccination approval and administration
in the
U.S. was there was a vaccine that demonstrated a statistically
significant incidence of delayed side effects (serious or
otherwise)
occurring more than a few months following inoculation?* Please
provide
a reputable reference.* I don't think that you'll be able to
find one.
Yet, on the basis of fear, unsubstantiated by any facts, you
consider
the potential risk of such a situation greater than the
extremely well
documented substantial risk of becoming crippled or killed by an
infection with one of the COVID variants.* For the sake of
yourself,
your family members, friends, and possible co-workers, examine
the facts
and reconsider your decision!


When in the history of vaccination approval and administration
in the U.S. was there was a mRNA vaccine?


That's a non sequitur; completely irrelevant.* In the past, many
new vaccines when first approved and administered, were developed
by novel techniques and had never before been used to develop a
safe and effective vaccine.* You think the smallpox vaccine was
safe? How about the Sabin polio vaccine?* Not even discussing
vaccines, how many people have life-threatening allergies to the
penicillins or other families of life-saving medicines?* Should
we ban penicillin? Should we place a strict embargo on peanuts
and ban them entirely from the marketplace because a small
percentage of the population is at risk? All decisions involving
public health constitute best judgement after a risk vs. benefit
analysis.

Risk vs. benefit.* Yes, we might be able to extend experimental
vaccine protocols for many months or even years but there's no
objective endpoint that can be set.* How long is long enough?
Why choose any particular length of followup?* Usually it's a
compromise between recruiting and retaining sufficient subjects
to enable an appropriate magnitude of statistical significance
when the data is analyzed, the cost per month of keeping a
research team funded to maintain the protocol, the severity of
the disease threat, and what is known about the biology of how we
respond to the introduction of similar foreign substances into
our bodies. mRNA is not a novel molecule, recently synthesized in
the lab. It's produced by cells and viruses and needed to
maintain that specie's viability in nature.* Our cells need mRNA
to fabricate proteins.* We've known about corona viruses for
decades and none have ever even been suspected much less
documented of being either mutagenic or carcinogenic.* We know
how lethal and transmissible the COVID corona virus has been.
The risk vs benefit of administering mRNA vaccines against the
COVID virus strongly favors the use of the preapproval human
clinical trial period that was selected.


The goal of vaccines is to trick our immune systems into producing
antibodies that target a specific virus attacking our bodies.
Why not skip traditional vaccines and go straight to treating the
most sick people with covid antibody plasma?


If it actually works, don't you think they'd be using it already
instead of vaccinating?


There are many more people who have had covid and recovered on their
own.* They have antibodies that can be donated and used to SAVE the
most vulnerable to this virus.* Why NOT do that?* Antibodies are the
goal of treating people with vaccines.* Those who are VERY SICK can
(and do) benefit from infusions of antibody plasma.


Covid: 'Convalescent plasma no benefit to hospital patients'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55681051

Of course you know better than the experts.

I know the goal of vaccines: to trick the body into creating antibodies.

I also KNOW of a man who was literally close to dying with covid
caused pneumonia and a blood infection. He should have died.* BUT,
they gave him his first antibody plasma treatment and the same day he
began improving.* They continued to give him several other antibody
plasma treatments and 3 days later is tested negative, his pneumonia
and blood infection responded to treatment, and he DRAMATICALLY
IMPROVED in a relatively short period of time.

Why NOT use this approach with those who get very ill because of age
and comorbities? Antibodies literally STOP the reproduction of covid
and it dies.* This allows the individual to put all their bodies
energy into fighting the infections covid caused.


The trials disagreed with you.

Those trials are not recent, either. There wasn't a large sampling of
people who HAD antibodies, either. Now, there is.


--
Maggie