"Muggles" wrote in message ...
On 2/8/2021 12:26 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Muggles" wrote in message
...
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."

The word POTENTIALLY means that its worth looking at.
When that was studied properly with proper randomised
double blind studys, it turns out that there is no evidence
that it is effective with those that are very sick due to the virus.

There IS evidence it is effective in patients who are sick in the
hospital,

Nope. Not when that treatment is tested properly
with a proper randomised double double blind trial.

but NOT "patients with Covid-19 who were receiving mechanical
ventilation." Do any of you actually read the words?

You are too stupid to comprehend the words and too
stupid to realise that it makes a hell of a lot more sense
to vaccinate to avoid getting infected in the first place
and to avoid getting hospitalised at all than it does to
use a very expensive and risky proceeded on those who
end up in hospital after they have been infected with the
virus.