"Muggles" wrote in message ...
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.
Which stops them getting VERY SICK in the first place.
I also KNOW of a man who was literally close to dying with covid caused
pneumonia and a blood infection.
You don’t know that those were covid caused. ALL you
know is that he tested positive for covid as well as those.
He should have died. BUT, they gave him his first antibody plasma
treatment and the same day he began improving.
You have no way of knowing what would have happened
if they had not done that. That’s why proper randomised
double blind trials are used to see what works and what doesn’t.
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.
Others have got the same result without the plasma treatment.
Why NOT use this approach with those who get very ill because of age and
comorbities?
Because it makes much more sense to vaccinate them
instead so they don’t get very sick in the first place.
Antibodies literally STOP the reproduction of covid and it dies.
And you get far more antibodys by vaccinating with these vaccines.
This allows the individual to put all their bodies energy into fighting
the infections covid caused.
In spades with vaccination.