On 2/7/2021 11:35 AM, Muggles wrote:


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?

Because it has to be tested and deemed safe. Many treatments are tried
and some have failed. I'll let the scientists check it out first.