"Muggles" wrote in message ...
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.

But much harder and much more expensive to harvest
the plasma from them than to produce another dose
of vaccine and much more difficult and much more
expensive to use the plasma on someone who is
seriously sick too.

They have antibodies that can be donated and used to SAVE the most
vulnerable to this virus.

In fact plasma is only used on those who are
very seriously affected by the virus infection.
And doesn’t work anything like as well as
vaccination which prevents you getting
infected in the first place.

Why NOT do that?

Because it doesn’t work anything like as well as vaccination
and is vastly more expensive and vastly more risky and is only
used on those who are seriously sick. Much better to stop
them getting seriously sick in the first place with vaccination.

Antibodies are the goal of treating people with vaccines.

Yes, and the current vaccines do that much better
than even getting infected with the virus, unusually.

Those who are VERY SICK can (and do) benefit from infusions of antibody
plasma.

But its much better to stop them getting
VERY SICK in the first place with vaccination.