You don’t understand science. You’re not 43. Then you lied in past threads. The myocarditis is a short lived and recoverable initial vaccine side effect in young males mostly. 295 out of 309 recovered quickly. It’s not a viral myocarditis. I guess that you don’t know the difference. You are wrong!!!!
The mRNA vaccines are known to cause blood clots. They also compromise the blood-brain barrier. Maybe you're delusional because you're having a stroke. If I were you, I'd go ahead and dial 911 and then stand in front of the mirror to see when the left side of your face sags. Trust me dude, it isn't just bell's palsy, the jab got you.
Changing the argument. First it effects heart muscle like viral myocarditis, so now that’s been shot down, let’s make up some bizarre blood clot argument that has no basis
You sad, weak, little man. While I'm here, enjoying the masculinity that gives me the ability to overcome simple viruses that may lead to flu-like symptoms, you are going full beta by admitting that your weak flaccid body needs a shot to make sure you can live another pathetic day of eating kale and pretending like you enjoy craft beers when we all know that it upsets your tummy.
You've been trolling this whole thread. Doesn't that mean you lost right out of the gate?
Just roll out of bed?
Because it hasn’t had enough time to get approval. Experimental is something that hasn’t even had trials. It has. Or if we can’t predict the outcome. We can. It’s over 6 months now in hundreds of millions of people and you’re still saying it’s experimental. When will that end?
They have been trialing mRNA therapeutics for cancer treatments for over a decade.
Why does that matter? So every new medication or vaccine is an experiment even going through clinical trials? When the technology has been out there for years?
It matters because the technology has always failed. Zero approval. None. Zilch. Nada.
Hundreds of millions of people would tend to disagree with you. Also, a waning pandemic.
Great, I'm happy for them. Hopefully the jab doesn't have any long term side effects.
It won’t. Only the dead ones that are refusing it. They are getting no pulses and mo respirations. I hear it’s pretty serious
Yes, they have gone through phase 1 and 2 human clinical trials for safety and dosage. They aren’t fully approved for cancer treatment yet but are ongoing in phase 3 human trials for efficacy. For treating cancer efficacy determination is more difficult since it generally involves tracking mortality over a longer period to determine benefit. Contrast with a Covid vaccine where efficacy can be easily determined via testing for the virus it is meant to combat.
Not sure what you mean by “always failed”. Can you elaborate? Cancer treatments take 10-15 years to go through all clinical trials due to the nature of the results expected (shrinking tumors, decreasing short term or long term mortality.). The efficacy of a treatment is not something as easily measured as do you or do you not have a virus.
The goal is to protect humans from being infected from viruses. How far do we go with that if this works? Viruses are the reason that mammals gained the ability to reproduce, so isn't there some level of harm this technology could cause?
Always failed as in never having been approved. They've been trying it for decades but have never gotten there.
I understand all of this, but we kind of had this pandemic thing going on and we needed to save lives and end this. We used new technology thats was deemed safe enough, effective enough and could be manufactured specifically for this virus.
Cancer treatments take that long to approve. They haven’t failed…trials are ongoing. Phase 3 trials.
I think these statements pretty much sums up the problem in its entirety, and utterly miss the whole reason we have an approval process. @Ucfmikes is literally continuing to redefine things like 'experimental' and asserting 'we can predict.'
I think these statements pretty much sums up the problem in its entirety, and utterly miss the whole reason we have an approval process. @Ucfmikes is literally continuing to redefine things like 'experimental' and asserting 'we can predict.'
That is absolutely and utter brazzen bull. I'm not asserting anything, positive or negative, other than what is known. People cannot even do basic statistics here, which is why they don't realize things about kids and children at all. I mean, according to the US Media, they are dropping like flies.
The Pro-vaxxers used this with one of the HPV vaccines that the US FDA eventually yanked too. And there have been many others. We are only continuing to compile immediate/short-term -- I stress immediate/short-term only -- complications as we add more groups to the EUA.
Every vaccine has impacts and complications. The question always is how much, how immediate, and what are the long-term complications, and how quickly can be identify and test for them?
Today, we have virtually no understanding, and definitely , not even for immediate impacts and complications, other than PEG, which has not been the majority issue at all (despite the assumptions it would be)!
But the pandemic pushed those to the side, because of evaluation of the risks. But now, we're asking kids, children, and others ... who aren't even affected. No one wants to look at those CDC statistics. But we're going to force it on them. Why? "Stop the spread!"
Even if it doesn't. I hate being right. But I've been predicting so many things that have come true. Right now the 'effective immunity' percentages people are now arguing for with SARS-CoV-2 are higher than anything ... ever. Maybe, just maybe, that means Coronaviruses -- like the 6 major classifications of Coronaviruses before it.
We're also using a new, simplistic approach that costs little money and time to 'get to market.' The US FDA refused to even allow immunity for mRNA until the pandemic. Yields, integrity, transfer and other questions have always been raised.
We could have had an effective, traditional SARS-CoV vaccine in 2020, if we started 15 years ago ... but we did not. Why is that? Why is mRNA being touted? It's about economics, not effectiveness.
FIFY -- please read and actually debate those facts.
Interesting analogy, because ...
They've tried to use mRNA technology for viruses since the origination of it. None have been approved after years of testing.
That’s because it’s super annoying to hear people say that there could be long term side effects and the reason is that “we just don’t know.” That’s talk from uneducated people who try to act like they know what they are talking about. Just because you don’t understand science doesn’t mean that there is going to be long-term side effects. When you simply cannot comprehend a subject you should just shut up instead of showing your ignorance
The vaccines for influenza using mRNA technology were not approved because they were for potential pandemic strains that didn’t actually become pandemics. Not because of any safety or efficacy concerns. Implying that as a reason is nonsense.
Huh? mRNA research was never limited to just Influenza Virus (IV) A strains that are common with regional and global pandemics. I have no idea where you got that. Care to share an article?
Only a 40-50% reduction in transmission with at least 1 mRNA shot doesn't bode well for 'effective immunity,' even if we vaccinate children who don't even get the disease - 2.1 in 100,000. Let's home 2 mRNA shots -- which were only 7% of the study, as this was conducted on data from earlier this year, but not against the new crop of variants either -- improves this or it looks like 'effective immunity' is going to be impossible.
40-50% Reduction in Transmission with at least 1 mRNA Shot
- New England Journal of Medicine (aggregate 5 references)
Finally we have our first, actual, real study of transmission reduction, using near 1M households of 'index patients' (tracked), where over 10% were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and considered 'secondary transfers' (human-to-human from those 'index patients'), over 2 months earlier this year (took this long to compile the data) ...
'approximately 40 to 50% lower in households of index patients who had been vaccinated 21 days or more before testing positive than in households of unvaccinated index patients; the findings were similar for the two vaccines.'
But there's a catch ...
'Most of the vaccinated index patients in our data set (93%) had received only the first dose of vaccine.'
So, basically transmission should be half for those vaccinated with at least one shot. It will be interesting if fully vaccinated with 2 shots after 4-6 weeks improves much or a lot. But at least this is the first case where a 'normal' was used -- how many people were 'infected' by people they lived who were vaccinated v. unvaccinated.
But it does confirm that vaccinated adults are still passing on the virus, which doesn't bode well for vaccinating children. That's been my argument all along. But we'll have to wait for comprehensive studies of fully vaccinated individuals, as only 7% were in this early, but comprehensive, set of statistics of nearly 1M households of tracked individuals.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2107717
As always, my full thread with all sorts of links to medical journals and authorities, especially since a lot of this dropped in just the past 2 weeks.
You actually going to debate the comprehensive study with a well-defined normal?
