On 2/7/2021 12:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.

The science in favor of antibody plasma treatments is already available.

--
Maggie