On 2/8/2021 12:54 PM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 2/8/2021 12:45 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/7/2021 1:45 PM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 2/7/2021 1:44 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 2/7/2021 11:56 AM, Bod wrote:
On 07/02/2021 17:53, Muggles wrote:
On 2/7/2021 11:36 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 2/7/2021 11:35 AM, 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?


Muggles, you are mistaken again.* The goal of vaccines is to use
an extremely low risk method to induce our immune system to
develop the ability to fight an extremely dangerous high risk
pathogen.* In other words, it is a preventive treatment, given to
totally avoid or minimize the severity of disease in a patient
who may become exposed to a high risk pathogen.

geez ... you think because I used different words to describe the
SAME process that I'm "mistaken."


Our immune system, whether through exposure to an effective
vaccine or exposure to a pathogen, activates numerous mechanisms
of immune response IN ADDITION TO CIRCULATING ANTIBODIES. In
contrast, COVID immune antibody plasma doesn't induce our immune
system to develop the full



Another advantage of vaccines is that in the case of pathogens that


See my previous statement.

I also specifically mentioned that covid antibody plasma could be
good to use for people who are very ill where their bodies are
fighting multiple infections causes by covid.

The GOAL is to get antibodies to attack the virus.* I don't care
what one study said last month or even last year.* I'm aware of
one friend (with multiple physical issues) who should be dead but
is NOT dead because he was given covid antibody treatments.

Evidently, it WORKS!* Why not treat more people who need life
saving antibodies to fight covid?


Again!* the NHS trial disagrees with you.

geez Try researching.* I hear Google scholar is a great source.


"The adjusted models (as defined in Table 2) generally showed a
similar association — a lower relative risk of death among patients
who received plasma transfusions with high anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG
antibody levels..."

"In a retrospective study based on a national registry,
*convalescent* *plasma was identified as a potentially beneficial
therapy in* *hospitalized patients with Covid-19*. Our principal
finding was that among patients with Covid-19 who were not receiving
mechanical ventilation, the transfusion of plasma with high antibody
levels was associated with a lower risk of death than the
transfusion of plasma with low antibody levels. We found no such
relationship (between antibody level and the risk of death) among
patients with Covid-19 who were receiving mechanical ventilation. In
addition, patients who received plasma within 3 days after receiving
a diagnosis of Covid-19 had a lower risk of death than those who
received transfusions later in the disease course."

"These data were consistent with a mortality benefit associated with
high-titer plasma administered earlier in the course of the disease.
Our findings parallel the recent findings from a trial of the
antiviral agent remdesivir in which clinical benefit was evident
among patients who were not receiving advanced respiratory support
and absent among patients who were receiving noninvasive high-flow
oxygen or mechanical ventilation.32,36,37 Our findings are also
consistent with aggregate data from observational studies and
randomized trials of convalescent plasma,7,9,38,39 as well as with
historical evidence regarding antibody therapy for infectious
diseases.3 Our data and those from other studies provide support for
the use of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays as an indicator of the
potency of Covid-19 convalescent plasma."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2031893


Muggles, you don't even understand what you're quoting.* The
statements you quote with respect to convalescent plasma directly
contradict your position, they don't support it.* Patients who don't
require mechanical ventilation are in the mild-moderate illness
category.* Those that require mechanical ventilation are in the
severe illness category.* I'm supposing that your not a trained
health care scientist or clinician, and as such, it's not surprising
that you're having difficulty understanding an article in the New
England Journal of Medicine.* But please have the humility to accept
when you're being corrected by someone who can understand those
articles and is taking the time to try to correct your
misunderstandings.


The article/study said specifically, "convalescent plasma was
identified as a potentially beneficial therapy in hospitalized
patients with Covid-19."


And "hospitalized" is different than "require mechanical ventilation".

Hello? I never said they were the SAME thing, either. It specifically
refers to using on patients NOT requiring ventilation.




--
Maggie